Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Isaiah and the Dead Sea Scrolls
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 136 of 204 (199570)
04-15-2005 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by PaulK
04-15-2005 11:20 AM


Re: Message #1 revisited
So where is the evidence that Mormons claim that Isaiah has changed since the DSS were written ? And if the Mormons do not make that "charge" what basis do you have for claiming that liberal Christians or Muslims do ?
I quoted a website on this, not myself.
I myself have encountered Mormon complaints that the Bible has been altered over the years, and mostly they refer to the New Testament although it's possible they mean in general that since Nephi and company moved to South America the Bible just took a dive in trustworthiness. In any case there's plenty of evidence that no such changes ever occurred and the DSS prove it for the OT books they have, but since that reflects on the abilities of the copyists over the centuries, hundreds of them over 20 hundreds of years, in which they copied BOTH OT AND NT for the Christian churches, the integirty of the NT is also confirmed by the DSS' virtual identity with ours.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-15-2005 10:56 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2005 11:20 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2005 12:48 PM Faith has replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 137 of 204 (199578)
04-15-2005 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Monk
04-14-2005 10:59 PM


Too black and white for scientists
I have to agree with your line of thinking.
While Tagless is trying to pin Faith to a wall with his nitpicking of what she said, he is giving the impression that the DSS offers no support for her position.
She says that the similarity between the DSS manuscripts and the modern versions of the Bible give a strong indication that the majority of scribes, through the centries, maintained high quality control standards in their copying of these texts. This care in maintaining the text, gives some credence to the supposition that the scribes, or their supervisors, held these documents in high regard...even as sacred. This high level of belief by those in charge of the records speaks highly of the veracity of the content of those documents.
Tagless cannot say that the Isaiah scroll is not evidence in that regard. Even if it is not the exact document that was copied, it is still evidence that the document that was copied was the same as it or very similar. If the original document from that time, copied down through the centries was changed, purposefully or not, the chances are small that it would have turned out so similar to the DSS Isaiah, if it was not already very similar in the first place.
Questions that might be asked are:
Was the quality control more stringently adhered to for Biblical texts than for non-Biblical texts?
Does the strictness of adherence to quality control relate in any way to the actual truth of the documents copied or is that strictness a product of the belief that they are true?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Monk, posted 04-14-2005 10:59 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Monk, posted 04-15-2005 12:50 PM LinearAq has not replied
 Message 149 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 6:38 PM LinearAq has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 138 of 204 (199581)
04-15-2005 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Faith
04-15-2005 11:45 AM


Re: Another attempt at clarification
1) Stating something after the fact is not the smae as stating it at the beginning. Moreover you misunderstand my point about the Septuagint. The Septuagint in itself is evidence against many large changes in the Biblical text other than variations between the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts. And the DSS cannot resolve that as they themselves include Septuagint-type texts.
2) I can only repeat that I have no reason to bleieve that the average person specifically limits any claims about changes to Isaiah to the period after the DSS was written. If they claim that the Isauh we have is significantly different form the original then you cannot refute that except by arguing against changes before the DSS were written.
3) Thank you
4) The copying errors in the Isaiah scroll show that copying errors were being made even at that time. Copying errors by their nature are likely to be minor. And the text is not "the same" in the sense of being identical - there are many variations.
5) I very much doubt that the average person believes that the Hebrew text of Isaiah is likely to change translation errors. If you have any evidence to the contrary then please produce it.
6) The point of the question is not whehter there HAVE been changes in the Hebrew text of Idsaiah between the DSS and now. The point of the question is whether anyone CLAIMS that there have been such changes.
7) TO clarify my point. I do not claim to know whether your oriignal claim was meant to include changes prior to the writing of the DSS.
Thus I have not apologised (since I am not convinced I was wrong - and I have pointed out evidence which suggests that I was correct)
However I have also NOT directly challenged the claim that you meant changes since the DSS were written and I have argued on that basis. Why do you think I keep asking you to produce people claiming that the Book of Isaiah has changed SINCE THE DSS WAS WRITTEN ? How can you not understand that ????

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 11:45 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 1:43 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 139 of 204 (199586)
04-15-2005 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Faith
04-15-2005 11:54 AM


Re: Message #1 revisited
So lets get this straight. A website your referred to made an assertion that various other groups claimed that the Bible had been changed in various ways and you interpreted that as meaning that those groups believed that Isaiah had been changed after the DSS was written. Even though the web page does not say any such thing. And you accuse other people of not understanding logic ?
As for your claim that the Isaiah scroll has direct relevance to NT documents the transmission history is entirely different. The Masoretic text is - like the DSS - purely Jewish. The NT documents were transmitted by Christians. The DSS documents are a testimony to the Jewish copiers and the Masoretes - not Christian scribes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 11:54 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 1:10 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 144 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 1:51 PM PaulK has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 140 of 204 (199587)
04-15-2005 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by LinearAq
04-15-2005 12:25 PM


Re: Too black and white for scientists
LinearAq writes:
Was the quality control more stringently adhered to for Biblical texts than for non-Biblical texts?
Does the strictness of adherence to quality control relate in any way to the actual truth of the documents copied or is that strictness a product of the belief that they are true?
I don't know that anyone can truely speak for the quality control done so many years ago. But I would say that the Bible was held to be sacred texts by the copyist.
There is evidence that it was regarded as a sacred duty accompanyed by strict discipline. I don't know much about the belief system of those performing the task of copying. But since the texts themselves have always been rare, then only the most devout believers would be allowed access to them. So yes, I would say the copyist were strong believers.
As such I would assume that since there was more reverence for the Bible texts compared to non-biblical texts, one could reasonably conclude that more care was taken during copying. Holding the texts as sacred or extremely valuable would generally tend to ensure accurate reproduction. That's merely speculation on my part.
This of course says nothing about the truth of the material contained in the texts.

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. ---Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by LinearAq, posted 04-15-2005 12:25 PM LinearAq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2005 12:59 PM Monk has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 141 of 204 (199588)
04-15-2005 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Monk
04-15-2005 12:50 PM


Re: Too black and white for scientists
I think we have to be cautious about generalising. There is a lot of history here and the status of books and the regard they were held in has often changed over time. For instance however you resolve the Synoptic Problem it is likely that two out of the three authors took it upon themselves to revise and add to (or condense if Markan priority is denied) the work of at least one of the others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Monk, posted 04-15-2005 12:50 PM Monk has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 142 of 204 (199591)
04-15-2005 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by PaulK
04-15-2005 12:48 PM


More DSS authentication of our Bible
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I wrote an email to some friends asking for their view of my original statement on this thread. I've received two answers at this point. The information sent by the second respondent which I reproduce below discusses many facets of the DSS' relevance to answering many of the issues raised by Bible critics.
Here's the email I sent, followed by the responses to it:
quote:
Hello all,
I just want to ask [you] if you would tell me if there's something confusing or false about this statement I made [on an internet forum]:
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, as it is just about identical to the Isaiah text we have today.
It looks to me like a simple straightforward statement that at the most might need a clarification or two. It was something I just said in passing but I can't see how on earth it could cause all this uproar.
Got this answer from one friend:
quote:
Nothing confusing or false I can see... I distinctly remember, btw, standing in the Shrine of the Scroll, a pupular tourist site that highlights the finds at Qumran, and reading my Bar-Mitzvah portion and it was identical, word-for-word.
Just challenge them to list the differences...
Well we've already been through the listing-the-differences bit, and I could do without a repeat myself. Here's another friend's reply. She sent a very detailed commentary on the DSS showing its relevance for authenticating our current Bible in more ways than one:
quote:
The Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest and most complete of the book of Isaiah. It is amazing how accurate they are to today's copies. When in Jerusalem, I visited the DSS's beautiful, modern museum, and it is there stressed concerning their accuracy.
Rachel
Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation
April 1995 - 15[4]:25-30
The Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Integrity
by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.
Bible believers often are confronted with the charge that the Bible is filled with mistakes. These alleged mistakes can be placed into two major categories: (1) apparent internal inconsistencies among revealed
data; and (2) scribal mistakes in the underlying manuscripts
themselves. The former category involves those situations in which
there are apparent discrepancies between biblical texts regarding a
specific event, person, place, etc. [For a treatment of such
difficulties see Archer, 1982; Geisler and Brooks, 1989, pp. 163-178].
The latter category involves a much more fundamental concernthe
integrity of the underlying documents of our English translations. Some
charge that the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts, having been
copied and recopied by hand over many years, contain a plethora of
scribal errors that have altered significantly the information
presented in the original documents. As such, we cannot be confident
that our English translations reflect the information initially penned
by biblical writers. However, the materials discovered at Qumran,
commonly called the Dead Sea Scrolls, have provided impressive evidence
for both the integrity of the Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts of the Old
Testament and the authenticity of the books themselves.
DATE OF THE MATERIALS
When the scrolls first were discovered in 1947, scholars disputed their
dates of composition. Scholars now generally agree that although some
materials are earlier, the Qumran materials date primarily to the
Hasmonean (152-63 B.C.) and early Roman periods (63 B.C.-A.D. 68).
Several strands of evidence corroborate these conclusions. First,
archaeological evidence from the ruins of the Qumran community supports
these dates. After six major seasons of excavations, archaeologists
have identified three specific phases of occupation at the ancient
center of Qumran. Coinage discovered in the first stratum dates from
the reign of Antiochus VII Sidetes (138-129 B.C.). Such artifacts also
indicate that the architecture associated with the second occupational
phase dates no later than the time of Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 B.C.).
Also reflected in the material remains of the site is the destruction
of its buildings in the earthquake reported by the first-century Jewish
historian, Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, 15.5.2). Apparently, this
natural disaster occurred around 31 B.C. a position that prompted the
occupants to abandon the site for an indeterminate time. Upon
reoccupation of the areathe third phasethe buildings were repaired
and rebuilt precisely on the previous plan of the old communal complex.
The community flourished until the Romans, under the military direction
of Vespasian, occupied the site by force (see Cross, 1992, pp. 21-22).
Such evidence is consistent with the second century B.C. to
first-century A.D. dates for the scrolls.
The second strand of evidence is that the generally accepted dates for
the scrolls are corroborated by palaeographical considerations.
Palaeography is the study of ancient writing and, more specifically,
the shape and style of letters. Characteristic of ancient languages,
the manner in which Hebrew and Aramaic letters were written changed
over a period of time. The trained eye can determine, within certain
boundaries, the time frame of a document based upon the shape of its
letters. This is the method by which scholars determine the date of a
text on palaeographical grounds. According to this technique, the
scripts at Qumran belong to three periods of palaeographical
development: (1) a small group of biblical texts whose archaic style
reflects the period between about 250-150 B.C.; (2) a large cache of
manuscripts, both biblical and non-biblical, that is consistent with a
writing style common to the Hasmonean period (c. 150-30 B.C.); and (3)
a similarly large number of texts that evinces a writing style
characteristic of the Herodian period (30 B.C.-A.D. 70). This
linguistic information also is consistent with the commonly accepted
dates of the Qumran materials.
Finally, as an aside, the carbon-14 tests done on both the cloth in
which certain scrolls were wrapped, and the scrolls themselves,
generally correspond to the palaeographic dates. There are, however,
some considerable differences. Due to the inexact nature of carbon-14
dating techniques (see Major, 1993), and the possibility of chemical
contamination, scholars place greater confidence in the historically
corroborated palaeographic dates (see Shanks, 1991, 17[6]:72). At any
rate, the archaeological and linguistic data provide scholars with
reasonable confidence that the scrolls date from 250 B.C. to A.D. 70.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SCROLLS
While the importance of these documents is multifaceted, one of their
principle contributions to biblical studies is in the area of textual
criticism. This is the field of study in which scholars attempt to
recreate the original content of a biblical text as closely as
possible. Such work is legitimate and necessary since we possess only
copies (apographs), not the original manuscripts (autographs) of
Scripture. The Dead Sea Scrolls are of particular value in this regard
for at least two reasons: (1) every book of the traditional Hebrew
canon, except Esther, is represented (to some degree) among the
materials at Qumran (Collins, 1992, 2:89); and (2) they have provided
textual critics with ancient manuscripts against which they can compare
the accepted text for accuracy of content.
THE SCROLLS AND THE MASORETIC TEXT
This second point is of particular importance since, prior to the
discovery of the Qumran manuscripts, the earliest extant Old Testament
texts were those known as the Masoretic Text (MT), which dated from
about A.D. 980. The MT is the result of editorial work performed by
Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes. The scribes’ designation was
derived from the Hebrew word masora, which refers collectively to the
notes entered on the top, bottom, and side margins of the MT
manuscripts to safeguard traditional transmission. Hence, the
Masoretes, as their name suggests, were the scribal preservers of the
masora (Roberts, 1962, 3:295). From the fifth to the ninth century
A.D., the Masoretes labored to introduce both these marginal notes and
vowel points to the consonantal textprimarily to conserve correct
pronunciation and spelling (see Seow, 1987, pp. 8-9).
Critical scholars questioned the accuracy of the MT, which formed the
basis of our English versions of the Old Testament, since there was
such a large chronological gap between it and the autographs. Because
of this uncertainty, scholars often corrected the text with
considerable freedom. Qumran, however, has provided remains of an early
Masoretic edition predating the Christian era on which the traditional
MT is based. A comparison of the MT to this earlier text revealed the
remarkable accuracy with which scribes copied the sacred texts.
Accordingly, the integrity of the Hebrew Bible was confirmed, which
generally has heightened its respect among scholars and drastically
reduced textual alteration.
Most of the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran belong to the MT
tradition or family. This is especially true of the Pentateuch and some
of the Prophets. The well-preserved Isaiah scroll from Cave 1
illustrates the tender care with which these sacred texts were copied.
Since about 1700 years separated Isaiah in the MT from its original
source, textual critics assumed that centuries of copying and recopying
this book must have introduced scribal errors into the document that
obscured the original message of the author.
The Isaiah scrolls found at Qumran closed that gap to within 500 years
of the original manuscript. Interestingly, when scholars compared the
MT of Isaiah to the Isaiah scroll of Qumran, the correspondence was
astounding. The texts from Qumran proved to be word-for-word identical
to our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5
percent of variation consisted primarily of obvious slips of the pen
and spelling alterations (Archer, 1974, p. 25). Further, there were no
major doctrinal differences between the accepted and Qumran texts (see
Table 1 below). This forcibly demonstrated the accuracy with which
scribes copied sacred texts, and bolstered our confidence in the
Bible’s textual integrity (see Yamauchi, 1972, p. 130). The Dead Sea
Scrolls have increased our confidence that faithful scribal
transcription substantially has preserved the original content of
Isaiah.
TABLE 1. QUMRAN VS. THE MASORETES
______________________________________
Of the 166 Hebrew words in Isaiah 53, only
seventeen letters in Dead Sea Scroll 1QIsb
differ from the Masoretic Text (Geisler and
Nix, 1986, p. 382).
10 letters = spelling differences
4 letters = stylistic changes
3 letters = added word for light (vs. 11)
______________________________________
17 letters = no affect on biblical teaching
CRITICAL SCHOLARSHIP, DANIEL, AND THE SCROLLS
The Qumran materials similarly have substantiated the textual integrity
and authenticity of Daniel. Critical scholarship, as in the case of
most all books of the Old Testament, has attempted to dismantle the
authenticity of the book of Daniel. The message of the book claims to
have originated during the Babylonian exile, from the first deportation
of the Jews into captivity (606 B.C.; Daniel 1:1-2) to the ascension of
the Persian Empire to world dominance (c. 536 B.C.; Daniel 10:1). This
date, however, has been questioned and generally dismissed by critical
scholars who date the final composition of the book to the second
century B.C. Specifically, it is argued that the tales in chapters 1-6
as they appear in their present form can be no earlier than the
Hellenistic age (c. 332 B.C.). Also, the four-kingdom outline,
explicitly stated in chapter 2, allegedly requires a date after the
rise of the Grecian Empire. Further, these scholars argue that since
there is no explicit reference to Antiochus Epiphanes IV (175-164
B.C.), a Seleucid king clearly under prophetic consideration in chapter
11, a date in the late third or early second century B.C. is most
likely (see Collins, 1992a, 2:31; Whitehorne, 1992, 1:270).
The apparent reason for this conclusion among critical scholars is the
predictive nature of the book of Daniel. It speaks precisely of events
that transpired several hundred years removed from the period in which
it claims to have been composed. Since the guiding principles of the
historical-critical method preclude a transcendent God’s intervening in
human affairs (see Brantley, 1994), the idea of inspired predictive
prophecy is dismissed a priori from the realm of possibility.
Accordingly, Daniel could not have spoken with such precision about
events so remote from his day. Therefore, critical scholars conclude
that the book was written actually as a historical record of events
during the Maccabean period, but couched in apocalyptic or prophetic
language. Such conclusions clearly deny that this book was the
authentic composition of a Daniel who lived in the sixth century B.C.,
that the Bible affirms.
The Dead Sea Scrolls have lifted their voice in this controversy. Due
to the amount of Daniel fragments found in various caves near Qumran,
it appears that this prophetic book was one of the most treasured by
that community. Perhaps the popularity of Daniel was due to the fact
that the people of Qumran lived during the anxious period in which many
of these prophecies actually were being fulfilled. For whatever reason,
Daniel was peculiarly safeguarded to the extent that we have at our
disposal parts of all chapters of Daniel, except chapters 9 and 12.
However, one manuscript (4QDanc; 4 = Cave 4; Q = Qumran; Danc = one of
the Daniel fragments arbitrarily designated c for clarification),
published in November 1989, has been dated to the late second century
B.C. (see Hasel, 1992, 5[2]:47). Two other major documents (4QDanb,
4QDana) have been published since 1987, and contribute to scholarly
analysis of Daniel. These recently released fragments have direct
bearing on the integrity and authenticity of the book of Daniel.
INTEGRITY OF THE TEXT
As in the case of Isaiah, before Qumran there were no extant
manuscripts of Daniel that dated earlier than the late tenth century
A.D. Accordingly, scholars cast suspicion on the integrity of Daniel’s
text. Also, as with Isaiah, this skepticism about the credibility of
Daniel’s contents prompted scholars to take great freedom in adjusting
the Hebrew text. One reason for this suspicion is the seemingly
arbitrary appearance of Aramaic sections within the book. Some scholars
had assumed from this linguistic shift that Daniel was written
initially in Aramaic, and then some portions were translated into
Hebrew. Further, a comparison of the Septuagint translation (Greek
translation of the Hebrew Bible) with the MT revealed tremendous
disparity in length and content between the two texts. Due to these and
other considerations, critical scholars assigned little value to the MT
rendition of Daniel.
Once again, however, the findings at Qumran have confirmed the
integrity of Daniel’s text. Gerhard Hasel listed several strands of
evidence from the Daniel fragments found at Qumran that support the
integrity of the MT (see 1992, 5[2]:50). First, for the most part, the
Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts of Daniel are very consistent in content
among themselves, containing very few variants. Second, the Qumran
fragments conform very closely to the MT overall, with only a few rare
variants in the former that side with the Septuagint version. Third,
the transitions from Hebrew to Aramaic are preserved in the Qumran
fragments. Based on such overwhelming data, it is evident that the MT
is a well-preserved rendition of Daniel. In short, Qumran assures us
that we can be reasonably confident that the Daniel text on which our
English translations are based is one of integrity. Practically
speaking, this means that we have at our disposal, through faithful
translations of the original, the truth God revealed to Daniel
centuries ago.
DATE OF THE BOOK
The Daniel fragments found at Qumran also speak to the issue of
Daniel’s authenticity. As mentioned earlier, conventional scholarship
generally places the final composition of Daniel during the second
century B.C. Yet, the book claims to have been written by a Daniel who
lived in the sixth century B.C. However, the Dead Sea fragments of
Daniel present compelling evidence for the earlier, biblical date of
this book.
The relatively copious remains of Daniel indicate the importance of
this book to the Qumran community. Further, there are clear indications
that this book was considered canonical for the community, which
meant it was recognized as an authoritative book on a par with other
biblical books (e.g., Deuteronomy, Kings, Isaiah, Psalms). The
canonicity of Daniel at Qumran is indicated, not only by the prolific
fragments, but by the manner in which it is referenced in other
materials. One fragment employs the quotation, which was written in
the book of Daniel the prophet. This phrase, similar to Jesus’
reference to Daniel the prophet (Matthew 24:15), was a formula
typically applied to quotations from canonical Scripture at Qumran (see
Hasel, 1992, 5[2]:51).
The canonical status of Daniel at Qumran is important to the date and
authenticity of the book. If, as critical scholars allege, Daniel
reached its final form around 160 B.C., how could it have attained
canonical status at Qumran in a mere five or six decades? While we do
not know exactly how long it took for a book to reach such
authoritative status, it appears that more time is needed for this
development (see Bruce, 1988, pp. 27-42). Interestingly, even before
the most recent publication of Daniel fragments, R.K. Harrison
recognized that the canonical status of Daniel at Qumran militated
against its being a composition of the Maccabean era, and served as
confirmation of its authenticity (1969, p. 1126-1127).
Although Harrison made this observation in 1969, over three decades
before the large cache of Cave 4 documents was made available to the
general and scholarly public, no new evidence has refuted it. On the
contrary, the newly released texts from Qumran have confirmed this
conclusion. The canonical acceptance of Daniel at Qumran indicates the
antiquity of the book’s compositioncertainly much earlier than the
Maccabean period. Hence, the most recent publications of Daniel
manuscripts offer confirmation of Daniel’s authenticity; it was written
when the Bible says it was written.
A final contribution from Qumran to the biblically claimed date for
Daniel’s composition comes from linguistic considerations. Though, as
we mentioned earlier, critical scholars argue that the Aramaic sections
in Daniel indicate a second-century B.C. date of composition, the
Qumran materials suggest otherwise. In fact, a comparison of the
documents at Qumran with Daniel demonstrates that the Aramaic in Daniel
is a much earlier composition than the second-century B.C. Such a
comparison further demonstrates that Daniel was written in a region
different from that of Judea. For example, the Genesis Apocryphon found
in Cave 1 is a second-century B.C. document written in Aramaicthe same
period during which critical scholars argue that Daniel was composed.
If the critical date for Daniel’s composition were correct, it should
reflect the same linguistic characteristics of the Genesis Apocryphon.
Yet, the Aramaic of these two books is markedly dissimilar.
The Genesis Apocryphon, for example, tends to place the verb toward the
beginning of the clause, whereas Daniel tends to defer the verb to a
later position in the clause. Due to such considerations, linguists
suggest that Daniel reflects an Eastern type Aramaic, which is more
flexible with word order, and exhibits scarcely any Western
characteristics at all. In each significant category of linguistic
comparison (i.e., morphology, grammar, syntax, vocabulary), the Genesis
Apocryphon (admittedly written in the second century B.C.) reflects a
much later style than the language of Daniel (Archer, 1980, 136:143;
cf. Yamauchi, 1980). Interestingly, the same is true when the Hebrew of
Daniel is compared with the Hebrew preserved in the Qumran sectarian
documents (i.e., those texts composed by the Qumran community
reflecting their peculiar societal laws and religious customs). From
such linguistic considerations provided by Qumran, Daniel hardly could
have been written by a Jewish patriot in Judea during the early
second-century B.C., as the critics charge.
CONCLUSION
There are, of course, critical scholars who, despite the evidence,
continue to argue against the authenticity of Daniel and other biblical
books. Yet, the Qumran texts have provided compelling evidence that
buttresses our faith in the integrity of the manuscripts on which our
translations are based. It is now up to Bible believers to allow these
texts to direct our attention to divine concerns and become the people
God intends us to be.
REFERENCES
Archer, Gleason, Jr. (1974), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction
(Chicago, IL: Moody).
Archer, Gleason, Jr. (1980), Modern Rationalism and the Book of
Daniel, Bibliotheca Sacra, 136:129-147, April-June.
Archer, Gleason, Jr. (1982), Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker).
Brantley, Garry K. (1994), Biblical Miracles: Fact or Fiction?,
Reason and Revelation, 14:33-38, May.
Bruce, F.F. (1988), The Canon of Scriptures (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press).
Collins, John J. (1992a), Daniel, Book of, The Anchor Bible
Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday), 2:29-37.
Collins, John J. (1992b), Dead Sea Scrolls, The Anchor Bible
Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday), 2:85-101.
Cross, Frank Moore (1992), The Historical Context of the Scrolls,
Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Hershel Shanks (New York:
Random House).
Geisler, Norman and Ronald Brooks (1989), When Skeptics Ask (Wheaton,
IL: Victor).
Geisler, Norman and William Nix (1986), A General Intorduction to the
Bible (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Harrison, R.K. (1969), Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans).
Hasel, Gerhard (1992), New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead
Sea Scrolls, Archaeology and Biblical Research, 5[2]:45-53, Spring.
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, The Life and Works of Flavius
Josephus, (Chicago, IL: John C. Winston; translated by William Whiston).
Major, Trevor (1993), Dating in Archaeology: Radiocarbon and Tree-Ring
Dating, Reason and Revelation, 13:73-77, October.
Roberts, B.J. (1962), Masora, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the
Bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon), 3:295.
Seow, C.L. (1987), A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew (Nashville, TN:
Abingdon).
Shanks, Hershel (1991), Carbon-14 Tests Substantiate Scroll Dates,
Biblical Archaeology Review, 17[6]:72, November/December.
Whitehorne, John (1992), Antiochus, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed.
David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday), 1:269-272.
Yamauchi, Edwin (1972), The Stones and the Scriptures: An Evangelical
Perspective (New York: Lippincott).
Yamauchi, Edwin (1980), The Archaeological Background of Daniel,
Bibliotheca Sacra, 137:3-16, January-March.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-16-2005 08:50 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2005 12:48 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 143 of 204 (199593)
04-15-2005 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by PaulK
04-15-2005 12:33 PM


Re: Another attempt at clarification
quote:
1) Stating something after the fact is not the smae as stating it at the beginning. Moreover you misunderstand my point about the Septuagint. The Septuagint in itself is evidence against many large changes in the Biblical text other than variations between the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts. And the DSS cannot resolve that as they themselves include Septuagint-type texts.
Fine, since I'm saying there have been no changes. What is your point? Resolve what? Our Bible is the same as theirs. There are no changes between then and now.
quote:
2) I can only repeat that I have no reason to bleieve that the average person specifically limits any claims about changes to Isaiah to the period after the DSS was written. If they claim that the Isauh we have is significantly different form the original then you cannot refute that except by arguing against changes before the DSS were written.
"From the original" Old Testament, of course, but their charges are NOT specific at all, they are general charges against the integrity of the entire Bible, and usually the target is the New Testament, but the DSS answer that too by showing the general high quality work of the copyists over the centuries. The context is the period from the DSS to now, and this is the period "most people" DO have in mind, people who are not Bible scholars or even people who have read the "higher critics," just people who have picked up this piece of Bible debunkery and show up on message boards and the like to "prove" how it's all completely untrustworthy.
quote:
3) Thank you
You're welcome no doubt but since you don't quote me I'll have to wait to reread my post to find out what you are thanking me for.
quote:
4) The copying errors in the Isaiah scroll show that copying errors were being made even at that time. Copying errors by their nature are likely to be minor. And the text is not "the same" in the sense of being identical - there are many variations.
According to all the material I have posted, and my recent post of friends' contributions, and Monk's posts, the DSS and our current Old Testament are identical in meaning and message. The copying errors are irrelevant and there are NO "variations" between the DSS and now, if by that you mean passages with different meanings. We've been over this thoroughly. The evidence is well documented on this thread.
quote:
5) I very much doubt that the average person believes that the Hebrew text of Isaiah is likely to change translation errors. If you have any evidence to the contrary then please produce it.
The fact that the Hebrew text of Isaiah is identical to all our current Hebrew texts of Isaiah and is translated into English with exactly the same meanings as our English Bibles have -- which is testified to by Monk for one, and both the friends I just quoted, not to mention all the official links so far -- certainly puts to rest accusations of ALL errors down the centuries since the DSS, including translation errors.
quote:
6) The point of the question is not whehter there HAVE been changes in the Hebrew text of Idsaiah between the DSS and now. The point of the question is whether anyone CLAIMS that there have been such changes.
Again, my original statement only referred to GENERAL CLAIMS ABOUT THE BIBLE TEXT AS A WHOLE. ALL the scrolls found at Qumran put these claims to rest as they demonstrate the overall astounding accuracy of the copyists throughout the centuries since then.
quote:
7) TO clarify my point. I do not claim to know whether your oriignal claim was meant to include changes prior to the writing of the DSS. Thus I have not apologised (since I am not convinced I was wrong - and I have pointed out evidence which suggests that I was correct)
I couldn't possibly have included changes prior to the writing of the DSS in a statement about their implications for texts 2000 years later, and you certainly don't have any evidence otherwise.
quote:
However I have also NOT directly challenged the claim that you meant changes since the DSS were written and I have argued on that basis. Why do you think I keep asking you to produce people claiming that the Book of Isaiah has changed SINCE THE DSS WAS WRITTEN ? How can you not understand that ????
OK, sorry if I have not acknowledged your dropping the pre-DSS complaint, but just as you are not sure about my not including it I have not been sure you dropped it.
There are no specific claims about the book of Isaiah involved, the claims I referred to from the beginning were general, about the entire Bible. The finding of the Isaiah scroll was just a great opportunity to put them to rest. And it puts them soundly to rest although you seem so far to be unable to process this fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2005 12:33 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2005 2:25 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 144 of 204 (199596)
04-15-2005 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by PaulK
04-15-2005 12:48 PM


Re: Message #1 revisited
quote:
As for your claim that the Isaiah scroll has direct relevance to NT documents the transmission history is entirely different. The Masoretic text is - like the DSS - purely Jewish. The NT documents were transmitted by Christians. The DSS documents are a testimony to the Jewish copiers and the Masoretes - not Christian scribes.
Those possessed by the churches and copied for the churches and passed down since the days of Christ HAVE been copied by Christian scribes. They copied ALL the books used by Christians and that means both Old and New Testaments -- in translation of course, in Latin for a long time, and then in the various languages, not the Hebrew I must assume. The point is the message of them all has not been altered over all those centuries. They have done as good a job as the Masoretes, to judge by the results.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2005 12:48 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2005 2:18 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 145 of 204 (199599)
04-15-2005 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Faith
04-15-2005 1:51 PM


Re: Message #1 revisited
I'm sorry but you still don't understand the history.
The OT in most English-language Bibles is translated directly from the Masoretic text. That, therefore, has nothing to do with Christian copyists at all. Christians used to use the Spetugaint translation of the OT, then a Latin translation of that (Jerome's Vulgate).
And I agree that we should judge Christian copyists by THEIR results. But the Isaiah of the DSS and the modern Masoretic texts - and even of modern English translations is not the work of Christian copyists. Why, then, should we judge Christian copyists by the achivevments of others ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 1:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 6:16 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 146 of 204 (199602)
04-15-2005 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Faith
04-15-2005 1:43 PM


Re: Another attempt at clarification
Let's make it very clear.
You claim that the Isaiah scroll proves that there have not been significant changes to the Hebrew test of Isaiah since the DSS. Fine.
You claim that this refutes common "charges" that the Bible has changed. So you need to produce examples that really are refuted.
Instead you produce claims that the Bible HAS changed - which would be true IF Biblical texts had changed PRIOR to the DSS.
You can't have it both ways.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 1:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 6:30 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 147 of 204 (199640)
04-15-2005 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by PaulK
04-15-2005 2:18 PM


Re: Message #1 revisited
I'm sorry but you still don't understand the history.
The OT in most English-language Bibles is translated directly from the Masoretic text. That, therefore, has nothing to do with Christian copyists at all. Christians used to use the Spetugaint translation of the OT, then a Latin translation of that (Jerome's Vulgate).
That's right, I lost track. Since they've had the Hebrew texts they've translated directly from that. But they've also compared their translations, at least the King James translators did, with ALL the previous translations in ALL the languages, including the Latin, the German, the French, the Syrian etc. It was part of the process of translating to make all those comparisons, so you could say the KJV was "based" on all of them in some sense.
And I agree that we should judge Christian copyists by THEIR results. But the Isaiah of the DSS and the modern Masoretic texts - and even of modern English translations is not the work of Christian copyists. Why, then, should we judge Christian copyists by the achivevments of others ?
OK, let's leave it at the Old Testament then. I'm happy with that for now.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-15-2005 05:17 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2005 2:18 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by ramoss, posted 04-23-2005 12:38 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 148 of 204 (199645)
04-15-2005 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by PaulK
04-15-2005 2:25 PM


Re: Another attempt at clarification
quote:
Let's make it very clear.
You claim that the Isaiah scroll proves that there have not been significant changes to the Hebrew test of Isaiah since the DSS. Fine.
If you concede that has been shown, terrific, thanks. Big step here.
quote:
You claim that this refutes common "charges" that the Bible has changed. So you need to produce examples that really are refuted.
That's the same vague accusations I started out with, that the Bible has changed over the years, but at least now those are refuted for the Old Testament.
The New Testament can be shown not to have been significantly changed over the years with the thousands of extant ancient texts as mentioned in earlier posts. Mark 16:9-20 has already been discussed and shown to be legitimate by the vast majority of the manuscripts. The New Testament as a whole can be the next subject.
quote:
Instead you produce claims that the Bible HAS changed - which would be true IF Biblical texts had changed PRIOR to the DSS.
You can't have it both ways.
????? Can't possibly have said both things. The "charges" are that it has changed; the answer always is that it has not, that it is remarkably accurate over the centuries.
But to this point then, we agree that the DSS confirm the accuracy of the translation {EDIT: Correction, should be "transmission"} of the HEBREW TEXT down to us. OK?
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-15-2005 05:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2005 2:25 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by PaulK, posted 04-16-2005 6:06 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 149 of 204 (199647)
04-15-2005 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by LinearAq
04-15-2005 12:25 PM


Re: Too black and white for scientists
Just to agree with Monk:
Was the quality control more stringently adhered to for Biblical texts than for non-Biblical texts?
All I know is that the Jewish scribes, or Masoretes, had a particularly strict system for keeping the text pure, including methods of counting individual letters.
Does the strictness of adherence to quality control relate in any way to the actual truth of the documents copied or is that strictness a product of the belief that they are true?
Of course it doesn't prove the truth of the documents, but it certainly reflects the reverence of the copyists and the Jewish leaders for the divine source of the scripture.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-15-2005 05:40 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by LinearAq, posted 04-15-2005 12:25 PM LinearAq has not replied

  
Taqless
Member (Idle past 5913 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 150 of 204 (199651)
04-15-2005 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Faith
04-14-2005 8:00 PM


Re: Bible inerrancy in what sense?
"throughout history" ONLY SINCE THE DSS.
Originally you made the statement in the context of having written "over the centuries" and you were taking exception to the "common accusation that the Bible has supposedly been altered over the centuries" and THEN, without qualifying YOUR statement you said the following "The existence of any scroll from that time that has the same text as our text is proof that such accusations are unfounded.".
But since the "accusation" was "over the centuries" your statement in no way refutes the claim you mention (in light that YOU MEANT to say "unfounded post-DSS"). So, for you to state that the "accusations are unfounded" in the original is a bit superfluous. This certainly explains the misundertsanding that PaulK and myself had initially about what you were trying to claim was support for what.
In addition, when I asked you about changes prior to the DSS you extrapolated to me as follows in post #49:
Faith writes:
You claim all that is meaningless if there were changes made to Isaiah prior to the DSS, but that is another subject.
Since your original post was to refute "over the centuries" not it is not.
Faith(cont'd) writes:
I repeat, my topic was the RELIABILITY OF THE SCRIBES since the Isaiah scroll, period.
HUH? No, it was not! You said nothing about the reliability of the scribes when you brought up the Isaiah scrolls to refute "over the centuries" changes. THEN the extrapolation part:
Faith(cont'd) writes:
This DOES have implications for the reliability of the scribes prior to that too, especially since the Jewish scribes were known for their obsessional-to-superstitious methods of accuracy.
Faith from this post writes:
NO HE WAS IN ERROR AS I *WAS* DISCUSSING ONLY THE POST-DSS PERIOD AND HE KEPT INSISTING ON HIS PRE-DSS IRRELEVANCY.
As I've pointed out that certainly was not clear when you you went from an "over the centuries" claim to support from a post-DSS time frame....try to remember that it is not immediately clear what a poster's focus is when one is reading plain text.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Faith, posted 04-14-2005 8:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 8:27 PM Taqless 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