Jewish Revisionism and Attempted Corruptions

peter_kirk at sil.org peter_kirk at sil.org
Mon Nov 1 20:44:34 EST 1999


Dear Ian,

I wasn't saying that you entered into such a debate, but you did 
contribute a thread started by "Debtor"'s assertion which I summarised 
as "the MT is a deliberate corruption from the Christian era". My 
point is simple: that the differences between the pre-Christian DSS 
and the MT are very small, dialect related and/or scribal errors, and 
do not correspond to the theological issues in which "Debtor" has an 
interest. I think you are agreeing with me on this. If not, please 
clarify.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re[5]: Jewish Revisionism and Attempted Corruptions
Author:  <mc2499 at mclink.it> at Internet
Date:    29/10/99 02:51


Dear Peter,
     
I don't really understand the point of your post. I did not enter into the 
debate based on the conclusion-driven notion that "the MT is a deliberate 
corruption from the Christian era". The notion that there was a totally 
delineated MT version at the time of the DSS is as erroneous as that there 
was a totally delineated LXX version. The tendency in the DSS seems to 
support a stronger movement toward the MT.
     
At 09.16 28/10/99 -0400, peter_kirk at sil.org wrote:
>It seems very odd that some people can say that two texts (MT Is and 
>1QIsA) are almost identical and another that they are in different 
>languages!
     
Dialects. Consider: some verb suffixes, some person pronouns... Qimron 
mentions nouns that are found in the Tiberian tradition as qi+l or qa+l are 
qu+l in QH. More frequent use of a feminine plural -wt on masculine nouns. 
I've just skimmed a few examples.
     
     
Cheers,
     
     
Ian

<snip>




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list