Biblical Hebrew Forum

["James Bowick" <bowick AT idirect.com>]

I don't understand, Ken.  If 1QIsa'a is descendent from a text identical to
the proto-Masoretic, how can it be that the reverse - that the
proto-Masoretic is identical to the source text of 1QIsa'a not be true?
What am I missing?

James Bowick

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org]On Behalf Of Ken Penner
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:14 PM
To: 'Karl Randolph'; 'Hebrew'
Subject: [b-hebrew] DSS Orthography


> Which brings up the question: with the intermediate freer
> spellings evidenced during the Second Temple period, why was
> the stricter spelling preserved in the MT? Does the MT
> preserve what was the scholarly edition, as opposed to the
> quick and dirty popular editions that happened to be
> preserved at Qumran?

Kutscher makes an impressive case that the MT represents an older textual
tradition than does 1QIsa^a. He postulates that "1 Isa^a (or its
predecessors) is descended from a text identical (or at least very similar)
to that of the Masoretic Text, but by no means can we assume the
converse--i.e., that the Masoretic Text is descended from a text of the type
of 1 Isa^a" (The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll,
3).

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew