Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Debtor on Isa. 7:14 and the Hebrew Texts

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Lewis Reich" <lewreich AT javanet.com>
  • To: "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Debtor on Isa. 7:14 and the Hebrew Texts
  • Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 13:25:02 -0400



----- Original Message -----
From: shella <shella AT cswnet.com>
To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 1:12 PM
Subject: Debtor on Isa. 7:14 and the Hebrew Texts



> 1. The ancient Hebrew Text finalized by the members of the Great Assembly
> under Ezra, did in fact become translated into the Greek text known as the
> LXX. This translation began with the Pentateuch and later continued with
> the other different Hebrew books as they became validated by the Hebrews
in
> and around Jerusalem and then sent to Alexandria. The complete LXX does
> seem to have existed by about the year 135 B C.
>
> 2. The ancient Hebrew Text of the Great Assembly is the basis for this
LXX
> and then later also the Text of the Sopherim.

I am not at all sure that it is possible to talk with any certainty about
the historical details of the "Great Assembly". I'm not even sure whether
Jewish tradition links it with Ezra.

> 4. The Jewish Encyclopedia does in fact show that the Masoretes did
correct
> the Hebrew text, in their opinion, which simply shows that they altered
the
> Text for their accommodations.

It is a great step from "correcting the text" toa tendentious "altering the
Text for their accommodations".
Evidence that editing took place is not evidence about the motives of the
editors.


> 5. The DSS produce one of the oldest known texts of Isaiah. The DSS Isaiah
> is almost the same as the MT Isaiah. This is used to support against my
> contention that the M T translators did alter the original Hebrew.
However,
> does it? Please not that the DSS Isaiah must first be proven to be a
> faithful copy from The Text adopted by the Members of the Great Assembly
> under Ezra. Has this been done? I suggest it is possible that the DSS
> Isaiah is simply one of the several copies which fall under the
> classification of the Text of the Sopherim, and not from the original
> Hebrew.

There is no evidence that the Great Assembly, whatever and whenever it might
have been, produced an authoritative text. To refute your argument about
masoretes corrupting texts in accordance with their own views it is
sufficient to show that the reading "alma" in the Hebrew Isaiah 7:14 is
well-attested before it might have become a matter of controversy.

> 7. The DSS Isaiah could simply be one of the many Scribes' copy of the
> Mishnaic or Sopherim Text of Isaiah. If it were made during the first
> century, following the rise of the New Religion and the controversies over
> the personal Messiah, Jesus Christ, then it would follow that the DSS
Isaiah
> would follow the newer interpretations beginning as a reaction to the New
> Religion.

No, the question is whether or not the DSS Isaiah predated controversies
over the virgin birth, which is quite a different question.


Lewis Reich





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page