Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

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! Does anyone know of a study of the differences between 
these two texts? How can the differences be classified into:

1) Orthographical differences e.g. plene spellings of vowels.

2) Differences between "biblical" and "Qumran" Hebrew (and which 
version seems more original?)

3) Theologically motivated differences.

4) Differences related to different text types e.g. cases of 1QIsA 
being closer to LXX.

5) Difference which just look like copying errors.

For this thread, the relevant differences are 3 and 4, not the 
(alleged) dialect differences which would be classified as 1 and 2. I 
think it should not be hard to distinguish these classes of 
difference, though a few differences could be debatable.

Anyway, I have not claimed that the MT was found at Qumran, but rather 
some kind of "proto-MT". But I understand, and you seem to agree, that 
1QIsA is much closer to MT than to LXX, and I consider that a helpful 
statement to make. Indeed, it is a decisive one in refuting the 
arguments that the MT is a deliberate corruption from the Christian 
era.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: Jewish Revisionism and Attempted Corruptions
Author:  <mc2499 AT mclink.it> at Internet
Date:    26/10/1999 17:09


At 14.41 26/10/99 -0400, peter_kirk AT sil.org wrote:

<snip>

>The MT tradition
>is represented in the DSS, very accurately in such cases as the great 
>Isaiah scroll which is very close to the consonantal MT.

This surprises me because 1QIs is in Qumran Hebrew. From a quick perusal of 
the morphology section of "The Hebrew of the DSS", in a number of places 
Qimron cites Kutscher on Isaiah, relating the Isaiah scroll to the late 
biblical books and Samaritan pentateuch. It seems therefore unhelpful to 
make statements about MT based on 1QIs.

>Therefore the
>consonantal MT cannot be an adaptation or "corruption" made during the 
>Christian era in response to Christian interpretation of the LXX 
>and/or its Vorlage. It is clear that both the proto-MT and the LXX 
>text type were both in existence during and before the first century. 
>
>The strongest argument which our friend can make is that later Jews 
>preferred the MT tradition because of the Christian use of the LXX.

I don't know what evidence one might produce to make any statements here. 
There was no MT at Qumran nor was there anything like a Hebrew text that 
would underlie LXX, though I must add there were many more indications 
towards what would become MT. There were no standard versions delineated 
from my reading.


Cheers,


Ian

>But in practice, as I understand it, there are very few (if any) 
>differences between the two Hebrew traditions which reflect doctrinal 
>differences between Jews and Christians. Can anyone point me to any 
>such examples? Proof texts like Isaiah 7:14 relate only to the Greek 
>translations, where Christians preferred the LXX "virgin" (parthenos) 
>but Jews preferred "young woman" (neanis) as in other Greek 
>translations, but the only attested Hebrew (at least according to BHS) 
>is `alma.


---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org 
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.