Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ken Penner" <pennerkm AT mcmaster.ca>]

> 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?

You changed Kutscher's "a text of the type of" to "the source text of".
There are changes between 1QIsa^a and its ancestor, changes that are not
present in the MT.
1QIsa^a is a bachelor (great-)uncle to the MT. They share a common ancestor,
but the MT is not descended from its uncle.

Ken Penner, M.C.S. (Biblical Languages, Greek Focus), M.A. (Hebrew Poetry)
Ph.D. (cand.), McMaster University
pennerkm AT mcmaster.ca
Flash! Pro vocabulary software: http://s91279732.onlinehome.us/flash or
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flash_pro/join


> 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).