Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How the scribes copied the Sacred Scrolls

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How the scribes copied the Sacred Scrolls

    I wrote on a different thread about how the original Scriptures were copied without mistakes and without adding anything to them, even their own interpretation of God's word.

    So here is the method used that you asked for.

    THE HEBREW MASORETIC TEXT....OR THE GREEK SEPTUAGINT.....WHICH IS FROM G-D?
    "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of G-d." (Rom. 3:1-2)

    According to the Bible, the Hebrews were given charge of keeping and copying G-d's word. The word "oracle" means revelation, prophecy, canon, or edict. It was unto the Jew, that the Old Testament revelation and canon were committed. This is why twice in the Old Testament they were instructed not to add to or take from the word of G-d:

    "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your G-d which I command you." (Deut. 4:2).

    "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Prov. 30:6).

    MAKING SURE THE COMMANDMENTS WERE OBEYED WHEN COPYING THE MANUSCRIPTS
    The faithful Hebrew scribe took this task very seriously. Precise steps were taken by the scribes in preparing both the parchment upon which they wrote, and in preparing themselves in order to copy G-d's Holy word. According to the Hebrew Talmud, the rules of the scribe consisted of the following:

    1). The skins of the parchments had to be prepared in a special way and dedicated to G-d so that they would be clean in order to have G-d's words written on them.
    2). The ink which was used was black and made in accordance to a special recipe used only for writing scripture.
    3). The words written could not be duplicated by memory but must be reproduced from an authentic copy which the scribe had before him. And, the scribe had to say each word aloud when he wrote them.
    4). Each time the scribe came across the Hebrew word for G-d, he had to wipe his pen clean. And when he came across the name of G-d, Jehovah (YHWH), he had to wash his whole body before he could write it.
    5). If a sheet of parchment had one mistake on it, the sheet was condemned. If there were three mistakes found on any page, the whole manuscript was condemned. Each scroll had to be checked within thirty days of its writing, or it was considered unholy.
    6). Every word and every letter was counted. If a letter or word were omitted, the manuscript was condemned.
    7). There were explicit rules for how many letters and words allowed on any given parchment. A column must have at least 48 lines and no more than 60. Letters and words had to be spaced at a certain distance and no word could touch another.

    CONFIRMING TESTIMONY TO THE METICULOUSNESS IN THE COPYING OF THE JEWISH BIBLE
    Commenting on these rules, Dr. H.S. Miller writes, "Some of these rules may appear extreme and absurd, yet they show how sacred the Holy Word of the Old Testament was to its custodians, the Jews (Rom. 3:2), and they gave us strong encouragement to believe that we have the real Old Testament, the same on which our Lord had and which was originally given by inspiration of G-d" (General Biblical Introduction, p. 185).
    ****my words here: please note that the writer, Dr. Miller, is speaking about the Jewish Scriptures here, not the Christian Old Testament...they are different.

    WHAT THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS TAUGHT US...THAT WE HAD WRONG
    For years it had been thought that the Bible which Christ used was the Greek Septuagint (also known as the LXX). The common thought was that the Jews at the time of Christ had all but lost their use of Hebrew. Since the international language of that day was Greek, the hypothesis was that Christ did not use the Hebrew scriptures, but read from the Greek LXX. However, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls it has been established that the Jews did not lose there use of Hebrew. In fact, most of their writings (both sacred and otherwise) were written in Hebrew.


    WHICH OLD TESTAMENT DID JESUS READ...THE JEWISH ONE OR THE ONE WE HAVE TODAY AS CHRISTIANS WHICH CAME FROM THE GREEK?
    This discovery confirms what we find in the Gospels concerning the Hebrew Old Testament used by Jesus. In Matthew, Jesus proclaims; "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matt. 5:18). It is interesting that he used the words "jot" and "tittle." In the Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Dr. Homer Kent of Grace Theological Seminary writes, "Jot. Smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet (yodh). Tittle. Tiny projection on certain Hebrew letters." (p.937). The smallest part of the letters Jesus used to describe the fact that the law would not pass until all was fulfilled, were Hebrew. This would be odd if Jesus were reading from a Greek Old Testament.

    Further, Jesus says in Luke 11:51; "From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation." This statement attests that Jesus used the Hebrew canon of scripture and not the Greek translation which was available in his day. The order of books found in our Old Testament run from Genesis to Malachi. The Greek LXX has the same order but adds additional books (the Apocrypha). The Hebrew canon, while containing the same books as our Old Testament, places the order of the books differently. The Hebrew Bible runs from Genesis to 2 Chronicles with the minor prophets in the middle and not the end as in our Old Testament. We know that Abel was killed by his brother according to Genesis 4:8. Zacharias was killed in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22. Thus showing the first and last to die according to the Jewish Bible. Dr. Merrill Tenney agrees by simply stating, "Abel was the first martyr of the OT history. Zacharias was the last, according to the order of books in the Hebrew Bible, which, unlike the English Bible, ends with Chronicles." (Ibid. p.1049). With these things in mind, we can safely say the Bible of Jesus was a Hebrew Bible.

    Now...don't you want to read and use the Bible that Jesus, the Jew, would use?

  • #2
    "Now...don't you want to read and use the Bible that Jesus, the Jew, would use?"

    Not really because the death of Jesus changed everything. This is the difference between Christianity and Judaism.

    But interesting post other than the final barb.

    And so I don't make an assumption, are you Jewish? Regardless you are very knowledgable and your information on my earlier posts was extremely helpful.

    Comment


    • #3
      <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Erik The Red:
      "Now...don't you want to read and use the Bible that Jesus, the Jew, would use?"

      Not really because the death of Jesus changed everything. This is the difference between Christianity and Judaism.

      But interesting post other than the final barb.

      And so I don't make an assumption, are you Jewish? Regardless you are very knowledgable and your information on my earlier posts was extremely helpful.

      <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

      The death of Jesus changed nothing. Atonement sacrifices were still being offered for about 40 years AFTER Jesus died. Even Paul who believed Jesus to be the messiah, offered his sin offerings in the Temple after Jesus died (it would have to be after, because Paul never even met Jesus anyway!). NOTHING changed until the catholic church changed it around 342 C.E.

      Yes, Christianity and Judaism are different religions. But Christianity is based on Judaism. They have taken the way God told us to worship Him in the sacred scrolls and claimed it was wrong. Then they picked a JEWISH rabbi named Yeshua (Jesus) and claimed him to be the long awaited messiah. They added to God's words and changed them to try to prove this. Then they turned the religion that Yeshua practiced into a religion ABOUT Yeshua. Please find for me the verse where GOD explicitly says to worship the messiah...in the "old testament".

      As to your assumption, no, I am not Jewish. I am not a messianic jew/christian either.

      I'm glad I could help you out on your earlier posts.

      One main point though...Jesus did not come to start a new religion, he came to enhance Judaism and offer conversion to the lost tribes of Israel. Christianity is not a new religion. Its practices and beliefs come from ancient Egypt. Numerous religions have crucified god-men as their saviors, who come to take away the sins of the world. Nothing new here, except that the founders of Christianity tried to get uneducated Jews and Gentiles who were unfamiliar with the Torah to believe concepts that do not appear in the Torah or any other sacred scrolls of the Hebrews. If Christians only had the New Testament and used that exclusively for their Bible and not take the Jewish Scriptures and mistranslate them and include it in their bible, I think there would be MUCH less animosity between Christians and Jews. Just look at all the trouble that gets stirred up between Christians when any new version of the bible comes out. Now you may get an inkling of how Jews feel.

      Comment


      • #4
        Patriot Mom, so if you are not Jewish or Christian what do you consider yourself?

        You have clearly done way more research than I. But please understand what you say is in direct opposition to almost everything I have been taught up to this point.

        I am looking for the truth. Not the old truth or the new truth but the actual truth.

        Comment


        • #5
          [QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik The Red:
          Patriot Mom, so if you are not Jewish or Christian what do you consider yourself?[quote]
          Is it necessary to identify oneself through their "organized religion"? For the record, I was born and raised Catholic, K-12 catholic school, etc.etc. Everytime I questioned any doctrine that didn't make sense, the nuns always gave the same answer "you must have faith, don't question it". I won't list all the things that I didn't get accurate answers about, that would take up too much space. Needless to say, I am no longer a Catholic. I tried doing the "church shopping" thing, but encountered the same problem. So I finally decided to take God's advice and investigated, studied world history, studied world religions and got to the roots of the faith I was born into.

          You have clearly done way more research than I. But please understand what you say is in direct opposition to almost everything I have been taught up to this point.

          Yeah, I was pretty much floored when I was doing my research. Erik, it took me three years of studying to get to this point, but each step brought me closer to the truth. About 8 months ago I was directed to a website that contained almost all the information that I gleaned from other sources, and this was all in one spot and well laid out. It was nice to know that I wasn't the only one thinking that certain Christian doctrine did not line up with OT teachings.

          I am looking for the truth. Not the old truth or the new truth but the actual truth.
          That's what I was looking for too. Found it. Would you like a place to start?


          [This message has been edited by Patriot Mom (edited 27 June 2002).]

          Comment


          • #6
            Sheesh, you sound exactly like me in many ways.

            But labels aside what religious doctrine most closely describes you?

            I understand the truth is often outside the doctrine, but I'm just wanting to maintain my Christianity so to speak.

            Comment


            • #7
              Thanks Patriot Mom
              It is interesting

              ------------------
              VERITAS VINCIT
              VERITAS VINCIT
              A CRUCE SALUS

              Comment


              • #8
                Very interesting. Since my brain is full of cobwebs this morning due to a three year old who decided to get up at 3am and wanted to 'play', lol...could you help clear this up for me? (Only a couple of questions...)

                Where is it written about Paul offering his sin offerings after the death of Jesus?

                Since you posted that, "Jesus did not come to start a new religion, he came to enhance Judaism and offer conversion to the lost tribes of Israel." does this mean that you see Him as actually the son of G-d and the messiah, in your opinion, or just a Jewish rabbi with an evangelical calling for reaching the 'lost tribes'?

                Thanks in advance...I'll go get some more coffee now.
                Take up our quarrel with the foe<br />To you from failing hands we throw<br />The torch; be yours to hold it high.<br />If ye break faith with us who die<br />We shall not sleep, though poppies grow<br />In Flanders fields.<br /><br />Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae (1872-1918)<br /><br />Support...<i>really</i> support...our vets!

                Comment


                • #9
                  <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mama06:
                  (Only a couple of questions...)
                  Where is it written about Paul offering his sin offerings after the death of Jesus?
                  <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                  First, you have to read what Paul said in the book of Hebrews, namely that the "sacrifice of Jesus ends all sacrifice." Then read in Acts where he completes his Nazirite vow with a blood sacrifice, it included a sin offering. Here is the link to an article about it. Pastor Lyons goes into more of an explanation than there is room for here. If you can't get it to come up, let me know, I'll post the basic parts of the article.
                  http://www.faithofyeshua.faithweb.co...sacrifices.htm

                  Hope you can get a little nap

                  Comment


                  • #10


                    Searching for the Better Text. How Errors Crept into the Bible and What Can be Done to Correct Them. By Harvey Minkoff. Bible Review August, 1999.

                    http://www.ot-studies.com/Documents/...etter_text.htm

                    Isaiah's vision of universal peace is one of the best-known passages in the Hebrew Bible: "The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the
                    kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them" (Isaiah 11:6).

                    But does this beloved image of the Peaceable Kingdom contain a mistranslation?

                    For years many scholars suspected that it did. Given the parallelism of the phrases, one would expect a verb instead of "the fatling." With the discovery of the
                    Isaiah Scroll among the Dead Sea Scrolls, those scholars were given persuasive new support. The Isaiah Scroll contains a slight change in the Hebrew letters at this
                    point in the text, yielding "will feed": "the calf and the young lion will feed together."



                    This is just one of numerous variations from the traditional text of the Hebrew Bible contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In some cases the traditional text is clearly
                    superior, but in others the version in the scrolls is better.

                    Thanks to the scrolls, more and more textual problems in the Hebrew Bible are being resolved. The notes in newer Bible translations list variant readings from the
                    scrolls, and in some cases, the translations incorporate these readings in the text as the preferred reading. No one has ever seriously suggested that the Dead Sea
                    Scrolls contain anything like an eleventh commandment; but the scrolls do help clarify numerous difficult phrases in the Hebrew Bible, and for textual scholars that is
                    more than enough.

                    Before we list other examples of how the Dead Sea Scrolls influenced--or altered--Bible translations, we need to understand how ambiguities crept into the text
                    of the Hebrew Bible in the first place. And we must also familiarize ourselves with the ancient versions of the Hebrew Bible on which modern translations rely (for
                    good reason scholars call these ancient versions "witnesses" to the biblical text).

                    Hebrew is remarkably compact: Almost all words consist of consonantal roots that convey their basic meaning. L-M-D, for example, means "learning," B-Q-R
                    means "examining," and K-T-B, "writing." Particular patterns of vowels and consonants narrow the meaning; me-a-e added to a root means "one who," while a-a
                    means "he did." Thus, meLaMeD is "one who teaches," meBaQeR is "one who examines," LaMaD is "he learned," and KaTaB is "he wrote."

                    These vowels are crucial for the meaning. However, ancient Hebrew writing recorded no vowels, only consonants. (Vowel marks were not added to Hebrew
                    writing until the sixth or seventh century C.E.) Consonants alone were usually enough to distinguish between possible meanings. LMDT means "you (singular)
                    learned," while LMDTM means "you (plural) learned." Often, however, the absence of vowels in written Hebrew leads to ambiguity. The word NSTM, which
                    appears in Zechariah 14:5, could be parsed as the root STM with the prefix N, in which case it would mean "(it) was filled up." But it could just as plausibly be read
                    as NS with the suffix TM, which means "you (plural) fled." The Jerusalem Bible translation opts for the former reading and translates the passage in Zechariah as
                    "And the Vale of Hinnom will be filled up ... it will be blocked as it was by the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah." The King James Version, however,
                    reads "And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains ... like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah." Fleeing citizens in one text, a
                    filled up valley in another. How much difference one word makes!

                    To eliminate, or at least reduce, such ambiguities, a convention arose among Hebrew scribes. They began to insert certain consonants, to be used as vowels, as
                    aids to reading; these are called matres lectionis, literally, "mothers of reading." LMD (lamad, "he learned") became visually distinct from LMDH (lamda, "she
                    learned") and LMDW (lamdu, "they learned"). Such expanded spellings are called plene, or "full," orthography (spelling); the more rudimentary spellings are called
                    defectivus, or "defective," orthography.

                    Plene orthography did not catch on all at once; some scribes were using full spellings as early the first century B.C.E., while even today in Israel their usage has
                    not been standardized. One Dead Sea Scroll that testifies to the older scribal tradition contains Deuteronomy 24:14. The traditional Hebrew text contains the full
                    spelling SKYR (sakir), meaning "workman"; most translations give "You should not oppress a workman." But this manuscript, called 1QDeutb, contains the
                    "defective" form SKR (sakar), which can also mean "wages"; following this scroll, the New English Bible renders the passage as "You shall not keep back the wages
                    of a man."

                    So far we have discussed "micro" issues--variations in spelling and the like. But there is a much larger factor that contributes to the differences we find in modern
                    Bible translations: the variations in the textual traditions behind the text of the Hebrew Bible.

                    We have three major traditions, or "witnesses," to the Hebrew Bible: the Masoretic text, the traditional Jewish text; the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the
                    Hebrew Bible that became authoritative for Christianity; and the Samaritan Pentateuch, the text holy to the small offshoot of Judaism that still survives in two small
                    communities in Israel and the West Bank. How did these differing versions arise?

                    The Samaritan Bible is limited to the Pentateuch, the Five Books of Moses. The most striking difference between the Samaritan Bible and the Jewish Bible is that
                    the Samaritan Bible considers Mt. Gerizim, not Jerusalem, as God's holy place on earth.

                    Samaritan origins can be traced to events following the conquest of the northern kingdom of Israel by Assyria in 722 B.C.E. Many of the inhabitants were exiled,
                    and other conquered peoples were resettled in the lands of the northern kingdom, including Samaria. To the people of the ancient Near East, every land was thought
                    to be protected by its local god, and the people who had been forcibly resettled in Samaria naturally added worship of the Jewish God to their religious practices.
                    The southern kingdom of Judah, too, was to suffer dispersal, at the hands of the Babylonians in 587 B.C.E., and when those exiles returned, the people of Samaria
                    asked to assist in rebuilding the Jerusalem Temple. But the leaders of the returning exiles, Ezra and Nehemiah, rebuffed them for having watered down their religious
                    practices and for having intermarried with the neighboring, resettled peoples. That, at least, is the story as found in the Jewish Bible.

                    The Samaritans, not surprisingly, tell a different tale. They explain their name as deriving from the word shomerim (guardians) because they were the guardians of
                    the true religion of Israel. According to their Chronicles, they are the descendants of Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, and have continuously inhabited their
                    ancestral land. Though the Samaritans had offered to help their coreligionists who were returning from the Exile, they were rejected, mistreated and finally attacked
                    by the Hasmonean king John Hyrcanus in 128 B.C.E. Their temple, located on Mt. Gerizim, rather than in Jerusalem, was destroyed.

                    Though the two versions outlined here assign the roles of hero and villain differently, both agree that by the second century B.C.E. the Samaritans had separated
                    from normative--or, to use the more modern, scholarly term, common--Judaism.

                    The development of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible took a different path. It began in the wake of the Babylonian attack on Judah in the sixth century
                    B.C.E., when some Jews fled to Egypt. Then, two and a half centuries later, Egypt, too, was conquered, by Alexander the Great. Alexander established cities
                    organized on the Greek model in an attempt to unify his empire through a shared culture. The great metropolis of Alexandria attracted many Jews who adopted
                    Greek as their language but who retained the religion of their forebears. By the third century B.C.E., their grasp of Hebrew was so tenuous that they needed a Greek
                    translation of their sacred scriptures.

                    According to legend, in 270 B.C.E. Ptolemy II Philadelphus invited 72 scholars from Jerusalem to translate the Bible into Greek--hence the name Septuagint,
                    from

                    Interpretatio Septuaginta Seniorum (The Translation of the Seventy Elders).* When Christianity spread to the Hellenized world, the Septuagint became
                    incorporated into Christian Bibles as the Old Testament.

                    One would expect that over many generations of copying, variations would creep into the three textual traditions. And that is what happened. The variations
                    arose in several ways, including scribal errors, editing and polemical tampering.

                    One common error, called a homoeoteleuton, occurs when a scribe omits a phrase when his eye jumps from one word in the text he is copying to another
                    appearance of the same word (or a similar one) a little farther in the text. That's what seems to have happened in the Masoretic version of 1 Samuel 14:41: "Saul then
                    said to the Lord, the God of Israel, 'Show Thummim.'" Apparently the Masoretic scribe's eye skipped from one occurrence of the word "Israel" to the next and he
                    missed all the words in between, as shown by the fuller text preserved in the Septuagint: "Saul said to the Lord, the God of Israel, 'Why have you not answered your
                    servant today? Lord God of Israel, if this guilt lies in me or in my son Jonathan, let the lot be Urim; if it lies in your people Israel, let it be Thummim.'"

                    Some changes were made deliberately. Jewish tradition speaks of tikkun sopherim, scribal emendation, of disrespectful or misleading phrases. In 1 Kings
                    21:10,13, for example, the euphemism "bless God" has replaced the unacceptable "curse God."

                    Sometimes variations in the Septuagint indicate a misunderstanding of Hebrew poetic technique. The Masoretic version of Zechariah 9:9 reads "Rejoice greatly,
                    daughter of Zion; shout, daughter of Jerusalem. Behold, your king is coming to you; he is just and triumphant, humble and riding on an ass, upon the foal of an ass."
                    In this passage, each key word is reinforced by a synonym or a parallel: rejoice//shout, Zion//Jerusalem, just and triumphant//humble and riding. But the translators of
                    the Septuagint apparently missed the parallelism between ass//foal of an ass and instead pictured two animals--an ass and a foal. This misunderstanding becomes
                    significant because the verse is used as a prooftext in Matthew 21:2-7, which describes Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. Jesus sends two disciples to fetch an ass and a
                    foal "to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet"; Matthew then quotes the passage in Zechariah and adds that the disciples did indeed bring Jesus an ass and a foal.
                    The textual misunderstanding carried over into Christian art; some scenes of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem show him straddling two animals!

                    Some variations in translations are really disagreements over how a verse should be punctuated. A good example is Isaiah 40:3. Most modern Bible scholars
                    recognize that here, too, there is a parallelism at work: "A voice cries out, 'In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord, in the desert make straight a highway for
                    our God.'" The Septuagint, however, reads, "A voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way of the Lord.'" Is it a crying voice that is in the wilderness or a
                    path? Matthew, Mark and Luke all quote this passage as the Septuagint has it; of course, for them John the Baptist was the voice crying in the wilderness and
                    declaring the arrival of Jesus.

                    What do the Dead Sea Scrolls tell us about the three major textual traditions? In the majority of cases (about 60 percent of the biblical scroll manuscripts), the
                    scrolls follow the Masoretic text. About 5 percent of the biblical scrolls follow the Septuagint version; another 5 percent match the Samaritan text; 20 percent belong
                    to a tradition unique to the Dead Sea Scrolls; and 10 percent are "nonaligned." The key point is that the readings in the scrolls show that many variations in the
                    biblical text are of long standing, and are not simply errors in later transmission.

                    Just because a text is old, however, does not mean it is better. Ancient editors may have tried to correct difficult texts. Psalm 145 is an alphabetical acrostic: The
                    first line begins with aleph, the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and so on through the alphabet--except that in the Masoretic text there is no line for nun (N). But
                    the Septuagint version does have a line beginning with nun--and a Dead Sea Scroll of the Psalms has the line as well. That would seem to clinch the case for the
                    line's originality. But scholars point out that the line uses one name for God--Elohim--while the rest of the psalm employs the personal name Yahweh. So the line may
                    be a later addition after all, despite being found in both the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

                    The Dead Sea Scrolls have filled one large gap in the Bible. First Samuel 11:1 begins jarringly with the notice that "Nahash the Ammonite came and besieged
                    Jabesh-gilead." The announcement is abrupt--Nahash has not been previously mentioned, and we would expect him to be identified as Nahash, king of the
                    Ammonites. Even worse, the text gives no reason for the attack. But a Dead Sea Scroll text of Samuel contains two preceding sentences, which contain the
                    expected "Nahash, king of the Ammonites" and a description of how seven thousand of his enemies had found refuge in Jabesh-gilead, making his attack
                    understandable. Most Bible scholars accept these verses as authentic. The New Revised Standard Version includes them in its text of 1 Samuel, and other
                    translations cite them in a note.

                    The Dead Sea Scroll version of 1 Samuel contains many other readings that have been adopted by modern translations. By one count, the New Revised
                    Standard Version of 1 Samuel incorporates 110 alternatives to the Masoretic text; the New English Bible uses 160; and the New American Bible, 230.

                    The evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls must be used carefully, however. Large portions of Samuel, Isaiah and Jeremiah are represented in the scrolls, but other
                    biblical books appear only in small fragments. They may not be biblical texts at all, but rather paraphrases from commentaries or prayers.

                    Even large chunks of text present problems. The Psalms Scroll contains a selection of psalms, mostly from the last third of the Psalter. James A. Sanders, who
                    edited the Psalms Scroll for publication, maintains that differences in content and order between the Psalms Scroll and the traditional text prove that alternative
                    psalters existed as late as the first century C.E. But other scholars counter that the differences prove that the Psalms Scroll was a prayer book, not a biblical text.

                    The Dead Sea Scrolls have already made their mark on modern Bible translations. Even when they do not settle textual questions once and for all, the scrolls
                    prove that the Septuagint and the Samaritan Bible have ancient pedigrees and may preserve accurate readings. Bible translators now have an important new body of
                    evidence to help them decide how best to settle problems in the text--evidence not available to earlier generations of scholars. William Foxwell Albright's
                    exclamation when the scrolls were discovered--he called the Isaiah Scroll "the greatest manuscript discovery of modern times!"--has been proved true many times
                    over.(1)

                    1 This article was adapted from Harvey Minkoff, Mysteries of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Owing Mills, MD: Ottenheimer Publishers, 1998). It draws on information
                    from the following sources: Edward M. Cook, Solving the Mysteries of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), appendix; Moshe
                    Greenberg, "The Stabilization of the Text of the Hebrew Bible, Reviewed in the Light of the Biblical Materials from the Judean Desert" and "The Use of the Ancient
                    Versions for Interpreting the Hebrew Text," in Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995); Minkoff, ed.,
                    Approaches to the Bible, 2 vols. (Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1994-1995), vol. 1, parts 1-2; James A. Sanders, "Understanding the
                    Development of the Biblical Text," in Hershel Shanks, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls After Forty Years (Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1991);
                    Harold Scanlin, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Modern Translations of the Old Testament (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1993); Lawrence H. Schiffman,
                    Reclaiming the Scrolls (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1994), chap. 10; Adam S. van der Woude, "Tracing the Evolution of the Hebrew Bible," BR,
                    February 1995; James C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), chap. 5.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Patriot Mom:





                      WHAT THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS TAUGHT US...THAT WE HAD WRONG
                      For years it had been thought that the Bible which Christ used was the Greek Septuagint (also known as the LXX). The common thought was that the Jews at the time of Christ had all but lost their use of Hebrew. Since the international language of that day was Greek, the hypothesis was that Christ did not use the Hebrew scriptures, but read from the Greek LXX. However, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls it has been established that the Jews did not lose there use of Hebrew. In fact, most of their writings (both sacred and otherwise) were written in Hebrew.


                      that he used the words "jot" and "tittle." In the Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Dr. Homer Kent of Grace Theological Seminary writes, "Jot. Smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet (yodh). Tittle. Tiny projection on certain Hebrew letters." (p.937). The smallest part of the letters Jesus used to describe the fact that the law would not pass until all was fulfilled, were Hebrew. This would be odd if Jesus were reading from a Greek Old Testament.

                      <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


                      No one said that Jesus was reading from a Septuagint scroll. However, Jesus used Hebrew scrolls that were sometimes like the Hebrew scrolls that the Septuagint translators used for there translation.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        http://www.webcom.com/~ctt/baduseot.html


                        The TEXTUAL issue--------------------------------------------------------------

                        What we are looking for here are samples of usage of "non-MT" (even though there really wasn't an "MT" at that point in history) by writers in those various
                        segments of Judaism. Fortunately, these are quite easy to find, especially from standard Textbooks on textual criticism.

                        Let's go through these:

                        1. Qumran. This community considered itself to be the true remnant of Israel, and was thusly even more 'pure' than the Pharisees of the day. This community is
                        associated with those documents known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. These are dated in three periods: Archaic (250-150 bc), Hasmonean (150-30 BC), and Herodian
                        (30 bc-70 ad).

                        These Dead Sea Scrolls show usage of LXX, Samaritan, and various proto-MT textual traditions. One of the standard TC works today is Emmanual Tov of
                        Hebrew University [OT:TCHB]. Only 60% of the texts found there agree with the MT (OT:TCHB:115). That's leaves 40% that vary. Let me show this from some
                        of his material.

                        "Before the Qumran discoveries S [symbol for Samaritan text] was thought to be an ancient text, whose nature could not be determined more precisely
                        beyond its popular character. However, since the discovery in Qumran of texts which are exceedingly close to S, this situation has
                        changed...The best preserved pre-Samaritan text is 4QpaleoExod(m) of which large sections of 44 columns from Exodus 6 to 37 have been
                        preserved...The main feature characterizing these texts is the appearance of harmonizing additions within Exodus and Numbers taken from
                        Deuteronomy...This feature links these texts exclusively with S." [OT:TCHB:97-99. He also lists 4Q158 and 4Qtest (=4Q175) as following S.]

                        The LXX is a Greek translation, of course, so we would not expect to see it among the DSS. However, it DOES show up in fragments there(!), and since it was
                        translated from a Palestinian Hebrew original, we also find some documents that are related to that original.

                        Also, it must be remembered that the LXX and MT are not as widely divergent as is commonly supposed:

                        "The Hebrew text presupposed by the LXX basically represents a tradition which is either close to that of MT or can easily be explained as a
                        descendant or a source of it. In several individual instances, however, the LXX represents a text that comes close to other sources, viz., certain
                        Hebrew scrolls from Qumran and the Sam. Pent." [Tov, in HI:TCULXX:188]

                        He points out that "Several scrolls often coincide with details in the LXX, either with the central manuscript group or with a specific group of its manuscripts"
                        [HI:TCULLXX:188] and he gives examples of 4QJer(b), 4QJer(d,17), 4Qdeut(q), 4Qsam(a), 4QLev(d), 4Qexod(b) [pp.191-195].

                        Let me be clear about one thing, though. I am NOT suggesting that the Hebrew Text underlying the LXX was itself a major substrate in the DSS; merely, that the
                        various textual traditions at Qumran had knowledge of this strain of text. It is at best a minor aspect of the DSS, as it is a minority piece of the NT quotations (as
                        seen in the previous discussion).



                        2. Philo. As an Alexandrian Jew, he even ascribed the highest level of divine inspiration to the LXX (the Pentateuch only), and called the translators prophets!
                        (Life of Moses, II.38-40):

                        "But this, they say, did not happen at all in the case of this translation of the law, but that, in every case, exactly corresponding Greek words were
                        employed to translate literally the appropriate Chaldaic words, being adapted with exceeding propriety to the matters which were to be
                        explained; (39) for just as I suppose the things which are proved in geometry and logic do not admit any variety of explanation, but the proposition
                        which was set forth from the beginning remains unaltered, in like manner I conceive did these men find words precisely and literally corresponding
                        to the things, which words were alone, or in the greatest possible degree, destined to explain with clearness and force the matters which it was
                        desired to reveal. (40) And there is a very evident proof of this; for if Chaldaeans were to learn the Greek language, and if Greeks were to learn
                        Chaldaean, and if each were to meet with those scriptures in both languages, namely, the Chaldaic and the translated version, they would admire and
                        reverence them both as sisters, or rather as one and the same both in their facts and in their language; considering these translators not mere interpreters
                        but hierophants and prophets to whom it had been granted it their honest and guileless minds to go along with the most pure spirit of
                        Moses.

                        "Philo (ca. 25 bc-ad 40) makes the translation an act of divine inspiration, and the translators prophets: although they worked separately they produced
                        a single text that was literally identical throughout." [WTOT:51]

                        3. Josephus. Josephus, like Philo, writes in Greek, but is a Palestinian Jew and not Alexandrian. He uses the LXX at places as well.

                        "Josephus claims to have based his account on the Hebrew text of the sacred writings (Ant. I, 5). This claim appears to hold good for the Hexateuch.
                        In the later books of the bible, however, he has clearly consulted the Septuagint." [HI:IIW:112-113].

                        Josephus also used other Greek translations than the LXX, most notably the proto-Lucian texts [WTOT:60,n.38].

                        He also praises the pagan king, who received the Greek translation of the Pentateuch (Ant 1.10-13):

                        "I found, therefore, that the second of the Ptolemies was a king who was extraordinarily diligent in what concerned learning and the collection of books;
                        that he was also peculiarly ambitious to procure a translation of our law, and of the constitution of our government therein contained, into the Greek
                        tongue. (11) Now Eleazar, the high priest, one not inferior to any other of that dignity among us, did not envy the forenamed king the participation of
                        that advantage, which otherwise he would for certain have denied him, but that he knew the custom of our nation was, to hinder nothing of what we
                        esteemed ourselves from being communicated to others. (12) Accordingly, I thought it became me both to imitate the generosity of our high priest, and
                        to suppose there might even now be many lovers of learning like the king; for he did not obtain all our writings at that time; but those who were sent to
                        Alexandria as interpreters, gave him only the books of the law, (13) while there were a vast number of other matters in our sacred books.

                        This mixture of textual elements in Josephus is noted in the ABD (s.v. "Josephus"):

                        "An important question centers around the issue of the biblical text that Josephus had at his disposal. It is important because the answer would help
                        shed significant light on the state of the text in 1st-century Palestine, almost a millennium before our first extant complete Hebrew manuscript. Josephus
                        seems to have had in his possession texts in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek; and he varied in his use of them from biblical book to book. In view of
                        the fact that in Josephus' time there were a number of divergent Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible, we cannot be sure which version he used at
                        any given time, especially since he usually paraphrased and elaborated rather than translated. Nor must we discount the possibility that Josephus
                        followed a tradition independent of both the MT and the LXX, as may be seen from the fact that he agrees with Pseudo-Philo in some places that
                        diverge from both the MT and the LXX.

                        "The fact that Josephus was himself writing in Greek would make it seem likely that his chief textual source was the LXX, especially since he cited it as
                        a precedent for presenting the history of the Jews to a non-Jewish audience (Ant 1. Proem 3 10-12) and since he devoted so much space
                        paraphrasing the account of the translation given in Let. Aris. (Ant 12.2.1-15 11-118), hardly what one would expect in a work which is essentially a
                        political and military rather than a cultural and religious history of the Jews. And yet, the very fact that he paraphrased the Bible in Greek would
                        seem to indicate that he hoped to improve on that rendering, since there would hardly be much point otherwise in a new version. Hence it is not
                        surprising that where the style of the LXX is more polished, as in the Additions to Esther or in 1 Esdras, he adheres more closely to its text. And yet, to
                        have ignored the LXX, in view of the tremendous regard in which that version was held, would have been looked upon as an attempt to hide
                        something. Nevertheless, even when Josephus agrees with the LXX, this is not necessarily an indication that he had the LXX text before him, since he
                        may have incorporated an exegetical tradition which had been known earlier to the translators of the LXX. Finally, the biblical texts found at
                        Qumran indicate that the differences between the Hebrew and the Greek texts were not so great as had been previously thought.

                        4. Writers of the Pseudepigraphical and Apocryphal works. Here we have a vast amount of literature, from 300 bc to 300 ad, from Palestine and beyond,
                        written in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic (or 'other'!), by all types and stripes of theological persuasion. We can scarcely even sample this, but let's look at some of it.

                        As would be expected, the Greek-language and/or Egpytian-provenanced pieces demonstrate high LXX usage, but such usage is NOT confined to these texts.
                        Below is a list of partial citations/allusions in the Pseudepigrapha to passages in the LXX. (The Apocrypha, of course, is PART of the LXX.)

                        1.1 Chron 29.2 in Joseph and Asenath 2c
                        2.1 Sam 13.17 in Joseph and Asenath 24z
                        3.2 Sam 4.6 in Joseph and Asenath 10g
                        4.Dan 4.13 in Joseph and Asenath 10e
                        5.Dan 4.33a-34 in Joseph and Asenath 10b
                        6.Dan 4.33a-b in Joseph and Asenath 10h2
                        7.Dan 4.34 in Joseph and Asenath 12a
                        8.Dan 7.15 in Joseph and Asenath 12y
                        9.Deut 32.21 in 3 (Greek Apoc) of Baruch (Gk) 16.3
                        10.Deut 32.30 in Apocalypse of Daniel 4.14
                        11.Esther 3.17 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 2.2
                        12.Ex 12.40 in Demetrius Frag 2.16,18
                        13.Ex 13.9 in Aristobulus Frag 2.8
                        14.Ex 17.16 in Joseph and Asenath 8d2
                        15.Ex 2.15-18 in Artapanus Frag 3.27.19
                        16.Ex 20.11 in Aristobulus Frag 5.12
                        17.Ex 22.27 in Joseph and Asenath 10v
                        18.Ex 3.20 in Aristobulus Frag 2.8
                        19.Ex 9.3 in Aristobulus Frag 2.8
                        20.Gen 1.2 in Joseph and Asenath 12d, 12e
                        21.Gen 1.3-24 in Aristobulus Frag 4.3
                        22.Gen 1.6 in Joseph and Asenath 12h
                        23.Gen 10.1 in Apocalypse of Adam 4.9
                        24.Gen 10.1f in Joseph and Asenath 2q
                        25.Gen 14.19 in Joseph and Asenath 8f
                        26.Gen 2.8 in Testament of Abraham A 11.1
                        27.Gen 22.17 in Greek Apoc. of Ezra 3.10
                        28.Gen 25.1-4 in Demetrius Frag 3.1
                        29.Gen 3.23 in Joseph and Asenath 16.n
                        30.Gen 30.37 in Greek Apoc. of Ezra 1.3
                        31.Gen 39.19 in Joseph and Asenath 23r
                        32.Gen 42.19 in Joseph and Asenath 26e
                        33.Gen 42.33 in Joseph and Asenath 26e
                        34.Gen 44.7 in Joseph and Asenath 23u
                        35.Gen 46.27 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 12.64
                        36.Gen 49.24 in Joseph and Asenath 8w
                        37.Gen 5.4 in Apocalypse of Adam 1.1
                        38.Gen 50.22b-26 in Joseph and Asenath 29i
                        39.I Kings 4.29-34 in Testament of Solomon 3.5
                        40.Is 1.13 in Joseph and Asenath 14c
                        41.Is 14.12 in Greek Apoc. of Ezra 4.28
                        42.Is 26.19 in Apocryphon of Ezekiel Frag 1
                        43.Is 40.12 in Greek Apoc. of Ezra 7.5
                        44.Is 47.8 in Joseph and Asenath 11k2
                        45.Is 52.13 in Ascension of Isaiah 4.21
                        46.Is 58.11 in Joseph and Asenath 24x
                        47.Is 66.1 in Joseph and Asenath 22r
                        48.Is 8.20 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 12.69
                        49.Is 9.5 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 12.10
                        50.Jer 38 in Joseph and Asenath 12f
                        51.Job 38.38 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 4.16
                        52.Job 9.18 in Joseph and Asenath 12x
                        53.Jonah 1.17 in Testament of Zebulun 4.4
                        54.Judges 7.16 in Joseph and Asenath 24z
                        55.Mal 1.1 in Lives of the Prophets 16.2
                        56.Micah 1.8 in 2 (Syriac) Apocalypse of Baruch 10.8
                        57.Numbers 12.8 in Greek Apoc. of Ezra 6.6
                        58.Numbers 16.48 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 6.6
                        59.Prov 11.31 in Apocalypse of Daniel 11.11
                        60.Prov 24.21 in Syriac Menander 9
                        61.Prov 8.27 in 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse) of Enoch 25.4
                        62.Ps 100.3 in Odes of Solomon 7.12
                        63.Ps 102.1 in i 12y
                        64.Ps 103.2 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 3.3; 12.16
                        65.Ps 103.24 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 4.7
                        66.Ps 103.25 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 12.24
                        67.Ps 103.25-26 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 3.11
                        68.Ps 104.21 in 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse) of Enoch 104.21
                        69.Ps 106.34 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 12.61
                        70.Ps 113.12 in Joseph and Asenath 2f
                        71.Ps 120.8 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 13.12
                        72.Ps 129.3f in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 11.11
                        73.Ps 143.4 in i 12y
                        74.Ps 144.18 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 6.3
                        75.Ps 144.3 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 4.25
                        76.Ps 146.4 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 4.19
                        77.Ps 146.5 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 4.1
                        78.Ps 151 in LIBER ANTIQUITATUM BIBLICARUM 62.5
                        79.Ps 18.2 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 4.5
                        80.Ps 20.4 in Odes of Solomon 9.8
                        81.Ps 36.4 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 13.9
                        82.Ps 41.2 in History of Joseph C Verso 6
                        83.Ps 50.21 in Apocalypse of Daniel 14.12
                        84.Ps 50.3 in Odes of Solomon 7.10
                        85.Ps 61.3 in Joseph and Asenath 12y
                        86.Ps 67.18 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 4.15
                        87.Ps 73.15 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 12.78
                        88.Ps 77.24 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 12.75
                        89.Ps 88.10 in Joseph and Asenath 12x
                        90.Ps 9.37 in Joseph and Asenath 19d
                        91.Ps 95.11 in Joseph and Asenath 8f2
                        92.Zech 5.1-3 in Lives of the Prophets 3.5
                        93.Zech 13.6 in Ladder of Jacob 7.30
                        94.Zech 2.15 in Joseph and Asenath 15l

                        Many of these pieces are anonymous (or pseudonymous), but some of these are individual writers from Diaspora Jewry. There are also other Diaspora Jewish
                        writers NOT listed above that bear on this question. Consider some specific writers:

                        1. Artapanus (between 250-100bc). "His narrative is in many cases dependent on the LXX, even in vocabulary, indicating clearly the author's respect
                        for these Jewish scriptures." [NT:JMD:128]

                        2. Egyptian Ezekiel (2nd century BC). "Reading the narrative of the Exodus in the LXX, Ezekiel saw the potential to present its dramatic storyline in the
                        form of a Greek tragedy...In most of the fragments the influence of the LXX is easily observed...Ezekiel's was a Judaism fully committed to the Jews'
                        communal text (the Septuagint), their communal story, their national hero and their ancestral customs." [NT:JMD:133-134, 138]

                        3. The Letter of Aristeas (of course) is the source of the story of the miraculous translation of the LXX to begin with!

                        4. Aristobulus, arguing that the famous philosophers were actually dependent on Moses(!), advances a rather strange story: "how were Homer and
                        Plato able to gain enlightenment from Moses' Hebrew text? He counters (12.1) with the thesis of an early Greek translation--before the version
                        sponsored by Demetrius of Phalerum, before even 'the Persian conquest' (341 or 525 bce)" [NT:JMD:151] Aristobulus (c. 170bc) actually refers to
                        Prov 8.22f, probably in translation [so Hengel, NT:JH01:163].

                        5. Pseudo-Phocylides, writes around 1st century bc., and attributes his work to the 6th century Greek poet. He writes a poem, in which "Some verses
                        in the poem are derived directly from the LXX, either in concept or in vocabulary" [NT:JMD:338].

                        6. There are two writers in Palestine in our period, who write in Greek: The Anonymous Samaritan, often called pseudo-Eupolemus (ca 200-100 bc),
                        and the Jewish historian Eupolemus (1 century bc). Hengel discusses their usage of the LXX [NT:JH01:88-95], and summaries on p.102: "The use of
                        the LXX in the anonymous Samaritan and in Eupolemus, together with the discovery of LXX fragments in Qumran and in the caves used in the Bar
                        Kochba revolt, shows that the Greek translation of the Old Testament also came to be highly prized in Palestine from the second century BC to the
                        second century AD--in contrast to the sharp criticism of later Rabbis."

                        5. Any early "rabbinical" literature. Here we have a basic problem: this literature is not written down until AFTER the period in question. This creates some
                        difficulty, but at the same time affords an interesting situation. If we are able to find SOME indication of usage of pre-MT text types prior to the formalization of the
                        MT at the end of the 1st century AD, then this data will count very heavily for the acceptance of LXX-type usage.

                        The problem here is instantly obvious: this material is all in Hebrew or Aramaic, so how are we to detect LXX usage?

                        First, we have to note that ALL we are trying to show that the text type was NOT fixed at this point, not just that the LXX was in usage by Jews. We have already
                        seen how the Samaritan Pentateuch & LXX showed up in Qumran, so all we have to try to do is find places in the Rabbinics and/or Aramaic Targumim that manifest
                        textual variants.

                        In this case, any data about the early pre-Rabbinical scribes relative to a 'fixed MT' text-type would be useful.

                        Fortunately, we DO have indication of a plurality (and therefore, non-fixity) of text types in use in Palestine at the time. So Waltke (EBC, vol 1, "Textual Criticism of
                        the Old Testament", pp. 214-215):

                        "On the other hand, the Sopherim, called by Ginsburg "the authorized revisers of the text," some time after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian
                        captivity altered the script from its angular paleo-Hebrew form to the square Aramaic form, aided the division of words--a practice carefully observed
                        in the Hebrew inscriptions from the first half of the first millennium--by distinguishing five final letter forms and aided the reading of a text by continually
                        inserting consonantal vowels called mattes lectionis.

                        "More significantly, some liberal-minded scribes altered the text for both philological and theological reasons. Thus, they modernized the text by
                        replacing archaic Hebrew forms and constructions with forms and constructions of a later Hebrew linguistic tradition. They also smoothed out the text
                        by replacing rare constructions with more frequently occurring constructions and they supplemented and clarified the text by the insertion of additions
                        and the interpolation of glosses from parallel passages. In addition, they substituted euphemisms for vulgarities, altered the names of false gods,
                        removed the harsh phrase "curse God," and safe-guarded the sacred divine name by failing to pronounce the tetragrammaton (YHWH [Yahweh]) and
                        occasionally by substituting other forms in the consonantal text.

                        "As a result of this liberal tendency, three distinct recensions and one mixed text type emerged during this period (c. 400 B.C. to c. A.D. 70).
                        The three text types already known from the LXX, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the text preserved by the Masoretes--the textus receptus--were
                        corroborated by the finds at Qumran. Here the Hebrew text lying behind the Greek translation, the Jewish text type adopted and adapted by the
                        Samaritans for their sectarian purposes, and the textus receptus are all represented.

                        "The confusion of text types in Palestine at this time is reflected in the citations from the OT in the NT, the Apocrypha, and the rabbinic traditions. The
                        NT shares readings with the received text, Samar., LXX, Targ. Onkelos, Sirach, Testimonia, Florilegium, and Theod.

                        "In addition to rabbinic traditions about the textual emendations of the scribes cited above, other rabbinic tradition tells of the need for "book
                        correctors" in Jerusalem attached to the temple and even of divergent readings in Pentateuchal scrolls kept in the temple archives. Moreover,
                        collations made from the Codex Severus and preserved by medieval rabbis show variants from the textus receptus in the scroll taken to Rome
                        by Titus in A.D. 70.

                        As mentioned above, the rabbinical literature is after our period, and should therefore show the greatest resistance to variance. Therefore, if we find rabbinical
                        citations of the OT that depart from MT, they are therefore that much weightier. We indeed find this in both the primary rabbinics (e.g. Talmud) as well as the
                        'popular' rabbinics (i.e., the Targums).


                        As regards the primary rabbinics, Tov notes [OT:TCHB:34, p.10]:

                        "At the same time, the biblical quotations in the rabbinic literature also differ from time to time from MT, both in direct quotations and in
                        variants underlying the derashah, 'sermon.'"

                        Although the number of these variants are small (less than a hundred), Tov gives a couple of particularly odd examples (p.34-35) where the MT differs from the
                        rabbinic citation:

                        Is 1.1 with Gen. Rab 13.1
                        Is 1.3 with Sifre Deut 309 MS daleth
                        Is 1.18 with Sifre Deut 6 MS Daleth
                        Jer 30.4 with Sifre Deut 1 MSS Daleth, Lamedh, and Tov
                        Hab 1.13 with Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4.10; 25.1

                        The Aramaic Targumim (e.g., "interpretive translations") manifest an even greater range of variance.

                        Some are very close to the MT (e.g., Targum Onkelos), but others are quite different, and may reflect an earlier cycle of their development, prior to the suppression
                        of variants by the Rabbis. So Waltke (EBC, vol 1, p.224):

                        "Both it [Targum of Job] and the Psalms aim at giving a fairly faithful rendering of the Hebrew text and their brief aggadic additions can easily be
                        separated. Moreover, each contains an unusually high number of variants in vowels and consonants from MT, and numbers of these also
                        occur in the Pesh. and LXX.

                        And Tov notes [OT:TCHB:151]:

                        "According to the story in t. Shabb. 13.2; b. Shabb. 115b; y. Shabb. 16.15c, the Job Targum already existed at the time of Gameliel the Elder (first
                        half of the first century CE), and an early source of this targum has indeed been found in Qumran. The Job Targum from Qumran contains a literal
                        translation, sometimes reflecting a Vorlage different from MT."

                        It is also interesting to note that Jesus, when quoting from the OT, also varies His textual-type. We noted earlier that the vast majority of His quotes agreed with
                        BOTH the LXX and the MT, but there are cases where He uses something different than EITHER. And, in several of these twelve cases, His word choice seems to
                        reflect the same underlying text as the targums. For example, His word choices are more in line with the Targum than with the MT or LXX in Mark 4.12; 4.24; Matt
                        7.2 [Chilton, JSOTGP1:25-26; he notes that he has identified elsewhere 15 such passages], and Matt 4.10 [France, JOT:240ff].

                        The same is true for Rabbi/Apostle Paul and other speakers in the NT. So Wilcox [HI:IIW:198]:

                        "It has long been known that Eph. 4:8 cites Ps. 67(68):19 in a form which diverges from both the MT and the LXX but in that deviation agrees with the
                        targum."

                        In fact, the NT overall makes the same types of textual 'decisions' as do the Targums. So Wilcox [HI:IIW:194-195]:

                        "In investigating the text form of the OT in the NT we need to keep several principles of method in mind. (1) We have no right to assume that the one
                        NT writer will have always used the same OT textual tradition in his work(s). In the case of Matthew and Luke this is clearly not so...(2) Apparently
                        minor deviations, such as the 'replacement' of one word or phrase by another in a text which otherwise looks verbally identical with a known OT textual
                        tradition (e.g., the LXX), also occur (a) between extant Greek OT versions, and (b) between the targumim, and in fact from one targum MS to
                        another...it is characteristic of targum to replace a word or phrase which more or less literally renders the Hebrew by another (or even a longer
                        passage) which gives the traditional interpretation of it...(3) The present 'deviant' form of an OT quotation may be a result of an earlier piece of
                        exegesis..."

                        So, what do we have so far?

                        SUMMARY: On the textual issue, relative to NT times, ALL major groups within the Judaism of the day could, and did, use various text types. The early
                        Christians were accordingly NO DIFFERENT than their non-Christian counterparts; they reflected the prevailing 'methods' and understandings of 1st century "good
                        Jewry."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Mama06 said:

                          <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Very interesting. Since my brain is full of cobwebs this morning due to a three year old who decided to get up at 3am and wanted to 'play', lol...could you help clear this up for me? (Only a couple of questions...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                          Pithy reading. I had my 2-y.o. daughter continually get up and want to "play" at 11:15 p.m.... so after some sleep I'll look it over!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            PM:

                            Well, it will take me days to really study all that is here, but I'm still wondering about the other question as well...

                            Since you posted that, "Jesus did not come to start a new religion, he came to enhance Judaism and offer conversion to the lost tribes of Israel." does this mean that you see Him as actually the son of G-d and the messiah, in your opinion, or just a Jewish rabbi with an evangelical calling for reaching the 'lost tribes'?
                            Take up our quarrel with the foe<br />To you from failing hands we throw<br />The torch; be yours to hold it high.<br />If ye break faith with us who die<br />We shall not sleep, though poppies grow<br />In Flanders fields.<br /><br />Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae (1872-1918)<br /><br />Support...<i>really</i> support...our vets!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              btt
                              Take up our quarrel with the foe<br />To you from failing hands we throw<br />The torch; be yours to hold it high.<br />If ye break faith with us who die<br />We shall not sleep, though poppies grow<br />In Flanders fields.<br /><br />Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae (1872-1918)<br /><br />Support...<i>really</i> support...our vets!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X