Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Hello Karl:

Thanks for your comments.

Far be it from me to know the boundaries of discussion here. The second post
in this thread indicated the dead sea scrolls do not become discussed here
because of their mishnaic hebrew content. Apparently, a change in this
position has occurred since that post.

I would also think that the septuagint, widely accepted in academic circles,
would commonly become invoked here as a "rubbing stone" to test or try ( נסה
) the masoretic text (its words, phrases, paragraphs, etc.). But apparently,
that is not the case.

I am, in any event, happy to follow the guidelines of the forum moderators.

Regards,

fred burlingame

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:26 PM, K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:

> Fred:
>
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:28 AM, fred burlingame 
> <tensorpath AT gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Dear Yigal:
>>
>>
>> I also find of interest the irrelevancy of the dead sea scrolls ("dss") to
>> this forum; and yet, the corresponding relevancy of a 1,000 year later
>> text,
>> the masoretic text. Are for example, the Isaiah scrolls of qumran, copied
>> (translated?) in the mishnaic hebrew; or do such dss scrolls contain
>> earlier "biblical" hebrew language? I had thought the latter.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> fred burlingame
>>
>> The DSS Bible texts are relevant on this list and have been discussed,
> however it has been found that on the whole, they deviate very little from
> the consonantal text from a millennium later.
>
> The non-Biblical texts are not relevant.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>