tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post1768164702246750272..comments2024-03-29T15:51:16.932+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: “He will see light” in Isaiah 53:11P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-55450444716274984172023-12-15T16:41:47.817+00:002023-12-15T16:41:47.817+00:00Good observation from Job about "see the ligh...Good observation from Job about "see the light" (related to birth). This has good literal application ("first born from the dead") as well as reference to the promise of redemption. Those "raised to life" do "see the light". Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-11944131562243670552022-09-25T03:40:26.182+01:002022-09-25T03:40:26.182+01:00If I may some two years late seeing this post ask ...If I may some two years late seeing this post ask what about the Bomberg/Chayim Masoretic text reading here?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-11657542216559485572020-09-16T06:11:58.064+01:002020-09-16T06:11:58.064+01:00Haplography (due to parablepsis)...but not hom.tel...Haplography (due to parablepsis)...but not hom.tel. as you rightly suspected.<br /><br />Very often more common language like scribal error, slip or blunder might be used in an instance like you mentioned above. Personally, I don't think scribal habits--or it's corresponding terminology has been given enough attention...for what it's worth.M.M.R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-28980070652982050162020-09-15T21:25:06.397+01:002020-09-15T21:25:06.397+01:00Hello,
I have a quick question is someone can help...Hello,<br />I have a quick question is someone can help me, please.<br /><br />Sometimes changes take place to correct errors that are caused when a scribe merge two words that the end of the first one and the beginning of the second one are identical. For example, the last two letters in "were" are similar to the first two letters in "recalling," which might cause the scribe to write it "werecalling." What is the technical term we use to describe this? This is not considered "homoioteleuton," correct?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-58399923858371229212020-07-21T17:49:00.188+01:002020-07-21T17:49:00.188+01:00Thanks, John. Good conclusion. The French Bible de...Thanks, John. Good conclusion. The French Bible des Semeurs has also added "light". Mamy Raharimanantsoahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15012492499380693834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-24967558547046126752020-04-25T17:35:41.075+01:002020-04-25T17:35:41.075+01:00Good question. My assumption is that this error pr...Good question. My assumption is that this error probably happened in the scripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls. For some reason, my image of 1QIsaa is no longer visible in the post, but the error I have in mind is more probable in that script than the later script. Maybe that makes more sense now?John Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09258579581521365645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-27108475303890231902020-04-25T02:29:47.816+01:002020-04-25T02:29:47.816+01:00"Second, it’s probable that אור was omitted b..."Second, it’s probable that אור was omitted because אור looks similar to the אה, and thus homoioteleuton accounts for an accidental omission of אור just before the time of the Jewish revisers."<br /><br />At the risk of sounding like Maxwell Smart, the vav and resh would have to be switched to look anything like a heh. I find that hard to believe let alone probable. JoeWallackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10666074795187377455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-5078650982038732732020-04-17T23:56:40.418+01:002020-04-17T23:56:40.418+01:00Thanks, Alistair. I'm glad you found it helpfu...Thanks, Alistair. I'm glad you found it helpful and interesting.John Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09258579581521365645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-78913823038116578402020-04-17T17:35:06.695+01:002020-04-17T17:35:06.695+01:00John, I very much appreciated following the discov...John, I very much appreciated following the discovery trail--and highlighting such demonstrates the importance of good textual work. It made for a good study on the morning it was posted. Many thanks!<br />-AMAlistair McPhersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10091547167755241417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-39318737950586774052020-04-13T15:38:41.804+01:002020-04-13T15:38:41.804+01:00Good question, Conrad. Most text critics use G or ...Good question, Conrad. Most text critics use G or its gothic equivalent for the Greek translation. LXX is traditional for “the Seventy.” Historically, the Seventy are only responsible for the translation of the Seventy and later their work was understood to apply to the whole Old Testament. Scholars today recognize this point of confusion and often adopt OG “Old Greek.” So G works just fine here. John Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09258579581521365645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-12072489098688494342020-04-13T15:35:14.057+01:002020-04-13T15:35:14.057+01:00Thanks, Chuck. Glad you liked it. Thanks, Chuck. Glad you liked it. John Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09258579581521365645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-6086149953183842882020-04-13T15:29:32.153+01:002020-04-13T15:29:32.153+01:00Excellent post, John! Thanks. Excellent post, John! Thanks. chillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03113694982790110597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-51710544528703370712020-04-13T10:28:01.497+01:002020-04-13T10:28:01.497+01:00Thanks!
I am curious - do you prefer "G"...Thanks!<br />I am curious - do you prefer "G" over "LXX"?<br />Since the Three are Greek too is it not more disambiguate to use "LXX"?Conrad Thorup Elmelundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13418174969818589253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-55403056357137358572020-04-12T14:55:22.789+01:002020-04-12T14:55:22.789+01:00G refers to “Greek translation” commonly called Se...G refers to “Greek translation” commonly called Septuagint (LXX). It’s translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Thanks.John Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09258579581521365645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-49967293498773964292020-04-12T10:44:26.903+01:002020-04-12T10:44:26.903+01:00Thank you, John, for an interesting post!
Which wi...Thank you, John, for an interesting post!<br />Which witness does G refer to?<br />Kind regards,<br />Conrad ElmelundConrad Thorup Elmelundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13418174969818589253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-63955983547049268142020-04-11T22:14:52.280+01:002020-04-11T22:14:52.280+01:00Thank you very much, John. Without evidence to the...Thank you very much, John. Without evidence to the contrary, I concur.Richard Putmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-59275511832672803502020-04-11T21:14:07.704+01:002020-04-11T21:14:07.704+01:00Richard, in addition to the sources mentioned abov...Richard, in addition to the sources mentioned above, I’ve searched the catalogues of variants in Kennicott and de Rossi. None of these have “of life,” or “light” for that matter. The NIV is interpretive. See the CSB or NRSV for the simple reading I would adopt, “he will see light.” Does this help?John Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09258579581521365645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-81094729758910836162020-04-11T21:05:14.675+01:002020-04-11T21:05:14.675+01:00Thank you, John. I still wonder whether there isn&...Thank you, John. I still wonder whether there isn't some variant because of the footnote stating "Masoretic text does not have the light of life". That certainly suggests the full expression "light of life" exists somewhere else.Richard Putmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-84689544368976741192020-04-11T17:46:21.744+01:002020-04-11T17:46:21.744+01:00Richard, good question. The "of life" is...Richard, good question. The "of life" is the NIV's interpretation of the metaphor "to see light." See Job 3:16 where Job laments that he was not "...as infants who never see the light?" Not to see light is to die in delivery like a miscarried newborn.John Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09258579581521365645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-15498222315825152202020-04-11T17:40:41.836+01:002020-04-11T17:40:41.836+01:00I see that NIV have adopted the reading "...h...I see that NIV have adopted the reading "...he will see the light of life..." with the footnote "Dead Sea Scrolls (see also Septuagint); Masoretic Text does not have the light of life". However, I know of no DSS or LXX text that shows "light of life". Is there anyone any the wiser?Richard Putmannoreply@blogger.com