Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

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

>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.
>
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: mc2499 AT mclink.it
>To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
>
>
>