Biblical Hebrew Forum

[shella <shella AT cswnet.com>]

Dear Brothers and Sisters and both newer and older friends, thank you for
all your help in the Textual issues I have been discussing. Let me try to
sum up some points so far:

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.

3. However, when the M T began its development in the second cebtury A D,
the Historic older Hebrew Canon no longer existed, and the Masoretes used
some Hebrew Texts from the ancient Hebrew, and the LXX and also the Text of
the Sopherim.  The M T is therefore an eclectic Text rather than a copy of
the ancient Hebrew finalized by the Great Assembly under 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.  While the Masoretes did deny doing this, the
Jewish Encyclopedia offers evidence to show that the Masoretes claim is
false and misleading.  They did alter and change the Hebrew Texts in certain
places.

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.

6. During the growth of Mishnaic Hebrew, following the canonization of the
Text of the Great Assembly, the Scribes were involved in making many, many
different copies of the several Old Testament books.  There are bits and
fragments of the different copies known today. I have no problem with the
dating of the DSS Isaiah, being during the first century.  However, was it
during the early, mid or later part of that century.  I really don't know?
In addition was it a Scribe's copy concealed to be preserved from the Romans
and their destruction of the Jewish state in and around AD 70?

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.

8. The reaction to the New Religion and the need for a New Hebrew Text later
known as the M T and the changes which have been made are well documented by
both the Jewish Encyclopedia and in addition the early Christian writers
during their debates with the Jewish writers over the claims of Jesus Christ
being the Messiah.  One of the many points the Christian writers constantly
made during the first two centuries was that the Jews were rewriting and
rewording the Old Testament in order to give the Hebrew people another Old
Testament.
9. In order to disprove my concept or theory,  the Jewish Encyclopedia will
have to be proven wrong.  In addition, the early Christian writers will have
to be proven wrong.  These are the writers who lived then and disputed with
the Masoretes and others involved in building the M T.

10. What I seem to see developing is there is no known Hebrew text of Isaiah
which does support the virgin birth of the Messiah founded upon Isaiah
7:14.   The M T Isaiah 7:14 supports the YOUNG WOMAN concept, but not the
Virgin only concept as the LXX and later the Greek New Testament does.

11. Matthew, the New Testament witness, does not quote from the old LXX nor
from the Hebrew which we now have followed by the MT, but seems to quote an
unknown Hebrew Text.  Yet he does agree with the older LXX in that he uses
the term for Virgin, not young woman.

12. I do not deny that the DSS Isaiah and the M T Isaiah are nearly one in
general and on this point in Isaiah 7:14 they would agree.  Yet what I ask
is this, has it been proven that the DSS Isaiah is anything more than a
Scribe's Copy of the Sopherim Text of Isaiah?  It must also be established,
I would think, that the Sopherim Isaiah, which may be one with the DSS
Isaiah, is a faithful copy of the Great Assembly Isaiah.  Has this been
done?

In next next day or two I hope to continue with my posts on the Jewish
Corruptions of the LXX during the post Christ era.  Then I hope to follow
with the development of the MT and the changes in the Text from the older
Hebrew Texts.  In addition I hope to show that the M T is only an eclectic
text and show the different Texts which the Masoretes did use to develop it
in their theological wars against the Christians and others under the
Hellenistic influence of the Old Testament.

Thank you, all of you, for your many kind and valuable inputs, both pro and
con.

Debtor.