I love the phrase "smoke and hot air" that Kindergarten Scholar posted.
He recently bet a BMW is anyone can find an error in Riplinger's book.
Talking about "smoke and hot air."
BTW: is Kindergarten Scholar referring to his BMW that blows smoke out its tailpipe and the air conditioner no longer works?
__________________ Simply observing the floccinoccinihilipilification of the KJVO movement.
... You have the small variants that do exist {in the Leningrad Codex}, maybe a dozen or so that clearly have an effect on the translation of words and phrases, and my understanding is that there is sloppy (inconsistent) pointing such as on the Tetragram.
Inasmuch as the Tetragram was not supposed to be spoken aloud, the pointing, such as it was, was intended to jog the reader into substituting the word Adonai (My Lord) wherever YHVH appeared. As the pointing was, for that one word, intended only to jog a substitution, I do not believe that the pointing can be called inconsistent if it was sufficient to serve that purpose (even if it was not always the same). Some recent Hebrew OTs such as the Koren edition, the ArtScroll, and possibly others, simply print the YHVH without any pointing - which is conspicuous enough to have the same effect jogging the memory as the pointing that was used in antiquity.
Inasmuch as the Tetragram was not supposed to be spoken aloud, the pointing, such as it was, was intended to jog the reader into substituting the word Adonai (My Lord) wherever YHVH appeared. As the pointing was, for that one word, intended only to jog a substitution, I do not believe that the pointing can be called inconsistent if it was sufficient to serve that purpose (even if it was not always the same).
This does not make much sense. Remember there are two distinct pointings given in the Tanach, so it is significant there is a lack of precision. (The Leningrad Codex ends up with six pointings.) More so on the Tetragram than other words. I would have to find the post where the details are discussed, however I was surprised that the Leningrad Codex would falter on something so basic. Perhaps there is some excuse or explanation worthy of consideration but not the one you give above. The scribes were supposed to be more careful with the Tetragram than with any other word, so the pointings would be expected to be consistent and accurate unto their purpose. And afaik the Ben Hayim text handles this close to perfection.
Beyond that the other question of the purpose of the pointings is discussed in scholarly circles, with Gerard Gertoux and Nehemiah Gordon taking the position that the vowels in the main usages do in fact represent the actually pronounciation. This can also go along with the question of whether the Masoretes were Karaites or from Rabbinists, and what was the Karaite view of the pronounciation of the Tetragram.
Either way, the sloppy pointing in the Leningrad Codex is a negative, quite clearly. Again, I do not say this makes the manuscript 'corrupt' (especially since I do not know how well 50 other Masoretic Text manuscripts handle the consistency) however it is not a good indication of Leningrad Codex accuracy.
===============================================
The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies (2006)
The influential German scholar Rudolf Kittel was swayed by Paul Kahle to abandon the text then traditional, and to adopt the Leningrad Codex as the base for the third edition of the Biblia Hebraica which he edited with other scholars. (p. 218) ... http://books.google.com/books?id=HMkMeaijNT4C&pg=PA218
The 1524–5 second Rabbinic Bible printed by Daniel Bomberg in Venice (Goshen-Gottstein 1972), although itself probably an eclectic text, has proved a single source for many editions of the Bible. This was prepared by Jacob ben Hayyim, and is distinguished from the First Rabbinic Bible of 1516/17 by the inclusion of the Masorah. The sources for this text are not clear, but they seem to have included one or more manuscripts in the ben Asher tradition represented by Aleppo and Leningrad. This text of Ben Hayyim is still influential today, occupying a position in Jewish tradition sometimes seen as analogous to that of the Textus Receptus in New Testament studies. This term should be used with caution in the context of the Hebrew Bible. It was used by Kittel for the first two editions of Biblia Hebraica. The edition produced by Ginsburg for the British and Foreign Bible Society (and published posthumously in 1926) is an example of persistent dependence on the second Rabbinic Bible. http://books.google.com/books?id=HMkMeaijNT4C&pg=PA219
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery; 11-05-2009 at 04:15 AM.
It makes plenty of sense to me. The Divine Name, YHVH, was not intended to be read aloud, therefore ANY sort of pointing which would guard against this would be sufficient even if not consistent throughout the bulk of the Hebrew OT. As I mentioned, some recent printed editions have been very satisfied with no pointing at all, because that is sufficiently conspicuous to the reader. The KJV errs on this because it is inconsistent, using The Lord in most occurrences but four times trying to reading it with the pointing as Jehovah.
Your little quote from the Oxford Handbook is misleading. The Companion Volume to the Crown of Jerusalem makes clear that Kittel wanted to use the Aleppo Codex, and after his death Kahl (possibly following a compromise that Kittel had approved) opted for the Leningrad Codex as the next best manuscript. The point, after all, was to reproduce a Massoretic text, which encouraged basing it on an authoritative copy produced (as directly as possible) by Masoretes - a school and tradition that had become extinct some five centuries before Ben-Hayyim.
It makes plenty of sense to me. The Divine Name, YHVH, was not intended to be read aloud, therefore ANY sort of pointing which would guard against this would be sufficient even if not consistent throughout the bulk of the Hebrew OT. As I mentioned, some recent printed editions have been very satisfied with no pointing at all
That is a different, yet consistent, methodology. The problem in the Leningrad pointing is inconstency and errors, not approach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamar
Your little quote from the Oxford Handbook is misleading. The Companion Volume to the Crown of Jerusalem makes clear that Kittel wanted to use the Aleppo Codex, and after his death Kahl (possibly following a compromise that Kittel had approved) opted for the Leningrad Codex as the next best manuscript. The point, after all, was to reproduce a Massoretic text, which encouraged basing it on an authoritative copy produced (as directly as possible) by Masoretes - a school and tradition that had become extinct some five centuries before Ben-Hayyim.
Which makes the above Oxford quote "misleading" only because you say that Kittel would have gone awry, away from the Received Text, on his own. More a minor issue, or a quibble, than anything else, so I have no unction to dig deeper to compare Oxford and you on the history. I was not emphasizing either Kittel or Kahle, the main emphasis was on the "Received Text" aspect of the quote.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery; 11-05-2009 at 05:02 PM.
I know of no particular authority as to the pointing that must be used to disguise or distinguish the Divine Name, so I am unwilling to see any error in any of the relatively few variations in the pointing used in the Leningrad Codex. Certainly Mandelkern, when compiling his concordance, did not regard minute differences in the pointing of this one word as having a significance since he bundled all the appearances together in one big list.
This applies, of course, only to the pointing of the Divine Name and not to any other words in the Hebrew OT.
In her new book Riplinger claims that C.D. Ginsberg, the editor of the TBS/B&FBS Hebrew OT, was (1) on the Westcott & Hort Committee of the English Revised Version -- he was not, Ginsburg was on the OT Committee while W&H were on the NT Committee; (2) was a Kabbalist - simply because he delivered a lecture, subsequently turned into a small book, on the Kabbalah -- without expressing any adherence or credence in its teachings; (3) was an adherent of Blavatsky -- purporting that he ONCE attended one of her lectures, although providing no evidence or details of that event, and although it is obvious that Blavatsky knew him only by reading his small book on the Kabbalah. Ginsburg was one of the greatest English-speaking authorities on Hebrew and the Hebrew Bible in the 19th century and it's no surprise that he was recruited by the English Revised Version's OT Committee, where I have no doubt he was listened to attentively.
I am unwilling to see any error in any of the relatively few variations in the pointing used in the Leningrad Codex. Certainly Mandelkern, when compiling his concordance, did not regard minute differences in the pointing of this one word as having a significance since he bundled all the appearances together in one big list.
The point is not that the Leningrad Codex actually thinks of this as six separate variants, which would show up in a concordance, but that by sloppiness the scribe multiplies 2 variants to 6. You might think this is unimportant, others might consider it significant, especially since the Tetragram receives the utmost scribal attention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamar
Riplinger claims that C.D. Ginsberg, the editor of the TBS/B&FBS Hebrew OT, was (1) on the Westcott & Hort Committee of the English Revised Version, Ginsburg was on the OT Committee while W&H were on the NT Committee
So it was meant that the Revision was a Westcott and Hort endeavor and Ginsburg was actively involved with the decrepit Revision .. if Riplinger did not say or imply that he was on the NT Committee, or was active in Greek scholarship, you are quibbling on a minor point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamar
(2) was a Kabbalist - simply because he delivered a lecture, subsequently turned into a small book...
Quite a significant book, actually, but there is a lot more evidence than this for Ginsburg having an active kabbalistic interest that was kept quiet.
This was discussed on this thread less than two months ago, especially the translation of the Zohar that was in process in a Theosophical Publishing Company journal that ended the year when Ginsburg died.
non-literal” translation rendered in the light of Mme. Blavatsky's teachings, and throughout there are explanatory notes drawn from her works ... written by a pseudonymous Theosophist, probably British, it is laced with out-of-place terminology such as 'Karma' and 'Planes.
The evidence that Ginsburg was doing that translation on the QT, under a pseudonym, is close to overwhelming.
As for how well he actually knew Blavatsky, what is your basis for your "it is obvious" assertion ?
It is a reasonable supposition that whoever was doing that translation, if they lived in London at that time (likely based on the authorship given) would know Blavatsky from theosophical circles if they had been involved in kabbalah before 1891. The writer would live in the same area and used her material for the ongoing writing, quite a strong connection for a 'zohar' translation. As for the lecture mentioned by Riplinger, that fits (see below about Manhar), the real question would be if that was a one-time lecture or an iceberg tip. It would be helpful to know the Gail Riplinger source on the lecture.
And the 'whoever' being C. D. Ginsburg is demonstrated quite conclusively.
Thus Ginsburg would have started this dual identity rather young, being actively involved at 57 (Blavatsky was born the same year as Ginsburg and died 3 years later in 1891) and he lived to 82. Unless Ginsburg started a bit later with the journal articles in 1901 with William Williams being Manhar and Ginsburg passing the material to Williams. Williams as Manhar is a cumbersome theory, compared to Ginsburg being Manhar (clearly a kabbalist) unless there is some compelling evidence. Incidentally an 1887 or 1888 date is given as the beginning year of the Golden Dawn, so folks starting that year were likely involved in those circles for awhile.
Since we have virtually no biographical information about Williams (and very little on Ginsburg) I will float the possibility that William Williams was Ginsburg, his kab/theosophical name, with Manhar as the nom de plume. However, the key point is simple, the writing identity of Manhar == Ginsburg.
If Williams was not a separate person, bio unknown, fronting the manuscripts for Ginsburg, then Ginsburg was actively involved in 1888 and likely earlier. His original book on kabbalah, 160 pages, far more than lecture notes , was when he was young, 1865, so we have lots of years until the 1888 period. Bios of Ginsburg are rather conspicuous in their absence, or thinness of info.
The Nurho de Manhar translation was originally issued in serial form in the Theosophically oriented periodical THE WORD, published in New York during the period 1900-1914. It is my opinion that de Manhar's translation is far superior to the Simon and Sperling - Socino Press translation, which was rather pedantic and dreary, and showed the lack of empathy of these two with the esoteric content of the Zohar. De Manhar, on the other hand, was a committed esotericist and his love and joy in the ideas presented in the Zohar text, shine through his translation. The work therefore is made very approachable and readable.... Nurho de Manhar works within the Theosophical tradition
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery; 11-06-2009 at 01:06 AM.
Could David Ginsburg study or practice kabbalah and have a delusion that this was compatible with Christianity ? Was Ginsburg simply a disinterested scholar ?
John Pico della Mirandola was a "Christian Kabbalist" of the late 1400s.
... John Pico della Mirandola. Ginsburg and others have stated the following facts, namely, that after having studied the Kabalah Mirandola “found that there is more Christianity in the Kabalah than Judaism; he discovered in it proof for the doctrine of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the divinity of Christ, original sin, the expiation thereof by Christ, the heavenly Jerusalem, the fall of the angels, the order of the angels, purgatory and hell-fire . . . . ,” and so on
And where did Blavatsky get his idea ? From Ginsburg's "The Kabbalah, its doctrines, developement and literature"
1403-1494. The Kabbalah ... was now accessible to Christian scholars through the exertions and influence of the famous Count John Pico di Mirandola (born in 1463). This celebrated philosopher determined to fathom the mysteries of the Kabbalah, and for this purpose put himself under the tuition of a Jew, K. Jochanan Aleman, who came to Italy from Constantinople. His extraordinary intellectual powers soon enabled Mirandola to overcome the difficulties and to unravel the secrets of this theosophy. His labours were greatly rewarded; for, according to his shewing, he found that there is more Christianity in the Kabbalah than Judaism; he discovered in it proof for the doctrine of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the divinity of Christ, original sin, the expiation thereof by Christ, the heavenly Jerusalem, the fall of the angels, the order of the angels, purgatory and hell-fire; in fact the same Gospel which we find in St. Paul, Dionysius, St. Jerome and St. Augustine. ... Mirandola published ... nine hundred Theses ... " No science yields greater proof of the divinity of Christ than magic and the Kabbalah.' Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484) was so delighted with it that he greatly exerted himself to have Kabbalistic writings translated into Latin for the use of divinity students (The Kabbalah, its doctrines, developement and literature p. 123-124)
You seem to insist on having the last word, even when it follows your own words.
I have read Ginsburg's essay on The Kabbalah directly, not via quotations in Blavatsky. The essay was originally a lecture at the Literary & Philosophical Society of Liverpool, Oct. 19, 1863, and printed in book form in 1865. Which is to say that Ginsburg wrote it when in his early 30s, some 20 years or so before Blavatsky quotes from it. That Blavatsky could not obtain any more recent comments from Ginsburg about the Kabbalah indicates that she did not have any personal contact with him.
In his essay Ginsburg clearly is not a Kabbalist himself. He speaks of Kabbalists in the third person, finds fault with some of their basic beliefs, and debunks many of their major claims.
I have no reason whatever to believe that he was working up a translation of the Zohar for Blavatsky (or anyone else) when he died. He had entirely devoted the last quarter century of his life to compiling the ultimate critical edition of the Hebrew OT and was in the midst of supervising the B&FBS edition when he died. The Zohar is such a very bulky work (a literal - and unspeakably opaque - English version published by Soncino runs to five volumes) that he could not have managed it while also editing his Bible.
---
Now, as for the pointing of the Divine Name in the Leningrad Codex, I disagree with your use of the word "sloppy" to describe the work of Simon ben Jacob, the copyist. A study of such works as Gesenius shows no hard and fast rule for the pointing of the Divine Name; in printed editions a number of styles have been employed. It is sufficient that the markings warn the reader not to attempt to read the Name aloud; whatever markings accomplish that warning are sufficient even if not always the same markings throughout the OT. For example, among the Dead Sea Scrolls is one scroll (perhaps more than one) that put YHVH in the already obsolete Phoenician lettering in the midst of recognizable Hebrew script - it would be as conspicuous as Black Forest typeface in the midst of Times Roman, and that certainly achieved the purpose.
You seem to insist on having the last word, even when it follows your own words.
Actually I added new material above, such as the section on Mirandola and my conjecture that William Williams might be David Ginsburg, Also the DeManhar links, the Hermetic Journal review and more emphasis on the timeline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamar
I have read Ginsburg's essay on The Kabbalah directly, not via quotations in Blavatsky. The essay was originally a lecture at the Literary & Philosophical Society of Liverpool, Oct. 19, 1863, and printed in book form in 1865. Which is to say that Ginsburg wrote it when in his early 30s, some 20 years or so before Blavatsky quotes from it. That Blavatsky could not obtain any more recent comments from Ginsburg about the Kabbalah indicates that she did not have any personal contact with him.
Or that she simply quoted from his public sources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamar
In his essay Ginsburg clearly is not a Kabbalist himself.
Likely not, but many years went by before the DeManhar Golden Dawn days (very possibly Ginsburg) and the Zohar De Manhar translation (close to 100% Ginsburg).
As for your Zohar translation denial .. you ignore the simple facts about the Word publication over 14 years. There are multiple very compelling evidences that make this almost surely Ginsburg. They are given in the posts above. Unless you think there was some unknown great Zohar scholar named "William Williams" who actually did the translation and who died in synchronicity with Ginsburg.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamar
A study of such works as Gesenius shows no hard and fast rule for the pointing of the Divine Name; in printed editions a number of styles have been employed.
Mixing apples and oranges talking about later editions using different methodologies like no points. This has been pointed out to you before.
Simple question - how consistent is Ben Hayim ? Why would he be consistent if it does not matter ?
The views and opinions expressed on this web site are not necessarily those of the Fighting Fundamental Forums management. This is an open and unmoderated forum. The content of each post is the sole responsibility of the poster. Participants are expected to follow the simple rules of the forum. Within these wide parameters various views are welcome to be expressed freely.
The college names used on the FundamentalForums.com web site are trademarks of their respective schools. The forums are not officially sanctioned by any of the institutions represented.
, was when he was young, 1865, so we have lots of years until the 1888 period. Bios of Ginsburg are rather conspicuous in their absence, or thinness of info.
Linear Mode
