Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Isaiah and the Dead Sea Scrolls
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 9 of 204 (198153)
04-10-2005 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by PaulK
04-10-2005 5:01 PM


The Isaiah scroll among the Dead Sea scrolls confirms the fact that there haven't been all the changes in the text so often claimed
i'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that faith is MOSTLY right.
if i recall, the copy of isaiah found in the dead sea scrolls is close to identical to modern masoretic text. it's been a while since my class, so i forget if it had the last few chapters (the 3rd isaiah) or not.
it does however confirm the accuracy of the masoretic text, IN THIS INSTANCE, to text at around the time christ. (300 years. wow. imagine us messing up what the consititution says... oh wait)
however, this just indicates that the second source was added to the text before it was included in the library. it's a last date for changes, not proof it's been the same all along. any child with a bible can pick up a copy of isaiah and note that sections are exactly the same as kings -- one of these two sources copied from the other, or a third source was used. so in essence, there's proof of change right there.
however, i will counter with a similar point.
TWO copies of jeremiah were found in the scrolls. and they are very, very different. which one is older?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by PaulK, posted 04-10-2005 5:01 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 04-10-2005 10:05 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 12 of 204 (198157)
04-10-2005 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
04-10-2005 10:05 PM


Found that there is a Septuagint Jeremiah that is quite a bit shorter than the Masoretic text which is the basis for our copies of Jeremiah, though it wasn't clear that a Masoretic version was actually found in the DSS.
the two versions are clearly the same text. but one is shorter, and in a completely different order. i forget offhand which is which.
Which is older? On what basis?
that was my question. nobody knows.
They'd both be copies in any case.
not neccessarily. one could be a rearranging of the other.
And if one is Septuagint and one Masoretic obviously the Hebrew (Masoretic) would be the older
vice-versa, actually. the masoretic text was compiled about 300 ad. the septuagint was compiled about 200 bc. what is amazing, as your original claim pointed out, is that the masoretic text is so close to the dss texts. it gives some validity to the faithfulness of the masoretic copies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 04-10-2005 10:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 04-10-2005 10:26 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 18 of 204 (198168)
04-10-2005 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
04-10-2005 10:26 PM


OK, so I gather that the Masoretic is a specific lineage of Hebrew texts as it were. Post-Christian. I looked this up too and found it's such a huge and somewhat controversial topic I'm not up to thinking about it for now.
actually, it's not that controversial at all. the accepted date for the masoretic text is between 300 and 600 ad.
we know the text itself as a whole unit (the tanakh) dates back to at least 200 bc. no one is contending, i think, that the masoretes just made it up. it certainly comes from a longer tradition. how long exactly we do not know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 04-10-2005 10:26 PM Faith has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 19 of 204 (198171)
04-10-2005 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Faith
04-10-2005 10:34 PM


Of course not. There is plenty of evidence that the transmission of the entire Bible has been remarkably reliable for the last 2000 years
not exactly. the old testament has been more or less solidified for the last 2200 years, and no significant changes have been made for at least 1400 years. some churches still differ here and there, and the catholics have some books that were apparenly eliminated between the greek and masoretic texts.
the new testament is a different story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 04-10-2005 10:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 04-10-2005 11:52 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 21 of 204 (198192)
04-10-2005 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Faith
04-10-2005 11:52 PM


According to whom?
uhh. anyone.
the gospels were written around the first century ad at their earliest. paul and revelation might have been earlier.
and even then the first consolidation of texts occured under the reign on constantine in about 330 ad. it has since been editted down to it's current form.
basically, the ot has at least 500 years on the nt, as whole collections.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 04-10-2005 11:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 04-11-2005 12:50 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024