• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Dead Sea Scrolls - Question of importance!

Status
Not open for further replies.

français

Atheist/CA-Bloc Québécois/US-Democrat
Oct 2, 2006
5,400
231
39
Montréal, Québec
✟29,264.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Bloc
Hello,

I was wondering.. Do the Dead Sea Scrolls affirm the Mesoretic Text more, or the Septuagint?

I have heard that whenever The Mesoretic is in conflict with the Septuagint, that 95% of the time the Septuagint is in conflict with the DSS (meaning that the Mesoretic and DSS are more similar then the Septuagint.) But, then there are Orthodox sites that say the opposite, that the Septuigant is closer to the DSS then the DSS is to the Mesoretic. So I am confused..

Any good Biblical fundie know the answer?!

Also, one more question.. Why was the Tanakh not preserved, as god promised in the Torah? If it was, then there would not be 6,000 differences between the Septuagint and the MT!!
 

disasm

Senior Member
Jun 19, 2007
689
58
41
Howard, PA
Visit site
✟23,589.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
français;39772908 said:
Hello,

I was wondering.. Do the Dead Sea Scrolls affirm the Mesoretic Text more, or the Septuagint?

I have heard that whenever The Mesoretic is in conflict with the Septuagint, that 95% of the time the Septuagint is in conflict with the DSS (meaning that the Mesoretic and DSS are more similar then the Septuagint.) But, then there are Orthodox sites that say the opposite, that the Septuigant is closer to the DSS then the DSS is to the Mesoretic. So I am confused..

Any good Biblical fundie know the answer?!

Also, one more question.. Why was the Tanakh not preserved, as god promised in the Torah? If it was, then there would not be 6,000 differences between the Septuagint and the MT!!
Fr. John Whiteford wrote this on his blog:

A. The Old Testament Text

For the Old Testament, the two textual traditions that the Church has preserved are that of the Greek Septuagint and the Syriac Peshitta. The Latin Vulgate played an important role in the pre-schism western Church, and so it too is a translation is worthy of consultation. The Orthodox Church is of course well aware of the fact that most of the canonical Old Testament books were written in Hebrew and Aramaic (the Deuterocanonical books having mostly been written in Greek), however, the Hebrew text that we have today is not the same text that existed during the Old Testament period or at the time of Christ. This is seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as in the Septuagint, Peshitta, and Latin Vulgate -- which were all translated from the Hebrew, and yet reflect a Hebrew original that often differs from that which we have today.

The Hebrew Text that has served as the basis for most translations of the Old Testament into English is based almost entirely on the Leningrad Codex, which dates from 1008 A.D. In comparison to the textual evidence that we have for the New Testament Greek text, this is a very late manuscript. It is an example of the Masoretic recension, which is usually dated to have been shaped between the 6th and 10th centuries A.D. This is well after the Septuagint was translated (3rd century before Christ), the Peshitta (1st and 2nd Centuries A.D.), or the Vulgate (4th Century A.D.). According to Christian tradition, the non-Christian Jews began making changes in the Old Testament text to undercut the Christian use of Old Testament prophecies concerning the coming of Christ. In any case, the Hebrew Text that we now have was preserved outside the Church. The Septuagint and Peshitta texts were preserved within the Church, and so the Church believes that the text of the Old Testament was been authoritatively preserved in these textual traditions.

Furthermore, it is clear that the text that Christ and the Apostles used matches the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic text. For example, in Acts 7:43, the Protomartyr Stephen quotes from the book of Amos as follows:

“Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them” (KJV).

But when you look this quote up in Amos 5:26 in most translations, you will find that the quotation doesn’t match:

“You also carried Sikkuth your king and Chiun, your idols, the star of your gods, which you made for yourselves.” (NKJV).

Compare the above with the Latin Vulgate:

“But you carried a tabernacle for your Moloch, and the image of your idols, the star of your god, which you made to yourselves” (Douay-Rheims translation of the Vulgate).

And then with the Septuagint:

“Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Raephan, the images of them which y made for yourselves” (Sir Lancelot Brenton translation of the Septuagint).

Also, there are several sections of the Hebrew text that are simply unreadable without keeping one eye on the Hebrew text and one eye on the Septuagint. For example, if you look at the footnotes for the book of Habakkuk in the NRSV there are 5 places in which it states that the Hebrew text is uncertain, and 3 times in which they state that they are simply translating from the Septuagint, Peshitta, and/or the Vulgate, because the Hebrew text is so unclear.

Another example of a clearly corrupt reading in the Masoretic text is 1st Samuel 14:41, which reads as follows:

“Therefore Saul said unto the LORD God of Israel, "Give Thummim". And Saul and Jonathan were taken: but the people escaped.”

Several modern translations correct this clearly erroneous text based on the Septuagint and Vulgate to read:

“Therefore Saul said, "O LORD God of Israel, why have you not answered your servant this day? If this guilt is in me or in Jonathan my son, O LORD, God of Israel, give Urim. But if this guilt is in your people Israel, give Thummim." And Jonathan and Saul were taken, but the people escaped.”

The Masoretic text simply makes no sense, and obviously at some point a scribe skipped and entire line or two of the text. This is obvious because of the reference to the Urim and Thummim, which were two objects used by the priest of the Old Testament for discerning the will of God on matters such as that described in 1st Samuel 14.

Another example is the text quoted in Hebrews 1:6 (“And let all the angels of God worship him”) which is nowhere to be found in the Masoretic text, but is found in both the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew text in Deuteronomy 32:43.

It should be pointed out that the Hebrew text should not be ignored entirely. Particularly when the Septuagint and the Hebrew text are in agreement, we will better understand the Septuagint as a translation if we compare it with the Hebrew text that it is clearly a translation of. It is extremely helpful to understand the range of meaning of the original Hebrew text (when we clearly have it). For example, it is helpful to know that Hebrew does not have a past or future tense, but only a perfect and imperfect tense… and so just because an English translation is clearly in either past, present, or future tense, it does not necessarily mean that this is what is implied by the Hebrew original. One often encounters the use of the “prophetic perfect”, where a prophecy of something that has not yet come to pass is in the perfect tense, and so is often translated with the English past tense, e.g. “…with His stripes, we were healed” (Isaiah 53:5), when from the perspective of the prophet, he was speaking of something in the future.

There are at present only limited options available in terms of English translations of the Septuagint. There is the translation of Sir Lancelot Brenton, which is often awkward and wooden. For the Psalms there is the Psalter According to the Seventy, published by Holy Transfiguration Monastery. There are also various editions of the Old Testament readings that are used liturgically. The complete Orthodox Study Bible is due to be published around Pascha of 2007, and it will be a translation of the complete Septuagint in the style of the New King James Version.

There are also some translations based on the Latin Vulgate that are closer to the Septuagint text than are text based on the Masoretic Hebrew Text. The Douay-Rheims version is a translation of the complete text of the Vulgate, and the Coverdale Psalter, which is found in the older editions of the Book of Common Prayer is also translated from the Vulgate.

site: http://fatherjohn.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,549
28,532
75
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,330.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Another example of a clearly corrupt reading in the Masoretic text is 1st Samuel 14:41, which reads as follows:

“Therefore Saul said unto the LORD God of Israel, "Give Thummim". And Saul and Jonathan were taken: but the people escaped.”

Several modern translations correct this clearly erroneous text based on the Septuagint and Vulgate to read:

“Therefore Saul said, "O LORD God of Israel, why have you not answered your servant this day? If this guilt is in me or in Jonathan my son, O LORD, God of Israel, give Urim. But if this guilt is in your people Israel, give Thummim." And Jonathan and Saul were taken, but the people escaped.”
Interesting. I used this fairly good Hebrew/English interlinear word for word and here is how it appears:

http://www.scripture4all.org/

1 Samuel 14:41 And Sha'uwl is saying to YHWH, Elohiym of Yisra'el, "grant perfect/whole/tamiym 08549", and is being seized Yownathan and-Sha'uwl and the people are going forth.

08549 tamiym {taw-meem'} from 08552; TWOT - 2522d; adj
AV - without blemish 44, perfect 18, upright 8, without spot 6,
 
  • Like
Reactions: joyshirley
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,549
28,532
75
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,330.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Furthermore, it is clear that the text that Christ and the Apostles used matches the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic text. For example, in Acts 7:43, the Protomartyr Stephen quotes from the book of Amos as follows:

“Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them” (KJV).

But when you look this quote up in Amos 5:26 in most translations, you will find that the quotation doesn’t match:

“You also carried Sikkuth your king and Chiun, your idols, the star of your gods, which you made for yourselves.” (NKJV).

Compare the above with the Latin Vulgate:

“But you carried a tabernacle for your Moloch, and the image of your idols, the star of your god, which you made to yourselves” (Douay-Rheims translation of the Vulgate).
Hi. I do not really trust the Septuagint if it tries to "shoehorn" a translation to harmonizie the Greek NT to the Hebrew OT.

I gererally go by the Tex-Rec or Byzantine Majority Greek texts, as I feel those are fairly accurate Greek MSS. Just my most humble view. :wave:

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

Acts 7:43 And ye took up the booth/tabernacle of the Moloch, and the star of the god of ye Rephan, of the figures ye made to worship them: And I shall be exiling ye beyond of-Babylon.

[Tex-Rec] Acts 7:43 kai <2532> {AND} anelabete <353> (5627) {YET TOOK UP} thn <3588> {THE} skhnhn <4633> {BOOTH/TABERNACLE} tou <3588> {OF THE} moloc <3434> {MOLOCH,} kai <2532> {AND} to <3588> {THE} astron <798> {STAR} tou <3588> {OF THE} qeou <2316> {GOD} umwn <5216> {OF YE} remfan <4481> {REMPHAN,} touV <3588> {OF THE} tupouV <5179> {MODELS} ouV <3739> {WHICH} epoihsate <4160> (5656) {YE MAKE} proskunein <4352> (5721) {TO WORSHIP} autoiV <846> {THEM;} kai <2532> {AND} metoikiw <3351> (5692) {I WILL REMOVE} umaV <5209> {YOU} epekeina <1900> {BEYOND} babulwnoV <897> {BABYLON.}

Amos 5:26 And you bore booth of king of you and pedastal/03594 Kiyuwn of images of you, star of Elohiym of you, which you made to you,
27 and I deport you from beyond to Dammeseq He says, YHWH, Elohiym of hosts, name of Him.

04428 melek {meh'-lek}
from 04427; TWOT - 1199a; n m
AV - king 2518, royal 2, Hammelech 1, Malcham 1, Moloch 1; 2523
1) king
03594 Kiyuwn {kee-yoon'} from 03559;; n pr dei
Chiun = "an image" or "pillar"
1) probably a statue of the Assyrian-Babylonian god of the planet
Saturn and used to symbolise Israelite apostasy
 
  • Like
Reactions: joyshirley
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,549
28,532
75
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,330.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
français;39772908 said:
Hello,

I was wondering.. Do the Dead Sea Scrolls affirm the Mesoretic Text more, or the Septuagint? ...........

......Any good Biblical fundie know the answer?!
:D Hey francais. Weren't you one of those before you became an atheist? I still remember you giving the Muslims a run for their money awhile back. :)

http://foru.ms/t6186100-why-arent-you-a-christian.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: joyshirley
Upvote 0

français

Atheist/CA-Bloc Québécois/US-Democrat
Oct 2, 2006
5,400
231
39
Montréal, Québec
✟29,264.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Bloc
Hey littlelamb - Yes, I am an atheist! But, I still am fascinated by Biblical history and all. And I am trying to see is the Maseretic Text is more hand in hand with the DSS then the Septuigant.

From the one article by the Priest, they lean towards the Septuagint. But, I have seen many sites that say that the Maseretic and the DSS are a lot closer then the Septuigant(LXX) and the DSS. So, I see some contradicting answers here and there. It is interesting.

I think all can agree that the hebrew Maseretic Text is definetely ancient, because the style is written in ancient styles (and in different time periods, as the Documentary Hypothesis holds.) So I think there is a lot of authenticity in that, but who knows!
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,549
28,532
75
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,330.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Thanks for that respectful response. I am really ignorant on the different MSS of the Greek and Hebrew. I just love reading the Bible, though I now prefer more literal word-for-word reading of it.

Anyway, glad to see ya again and hope to see more of ya on the NCR board with those pesky Muslims!! ^_^

Here is good Hebrew study site along with links to many others if you are interested.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/
 
  • Like
Reactions: joyshirley
Upvote 0

disasm

Senior Member
Jun 19, 2007
689
58
41
Howard, PA
Visit site
✟23,589.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
français;39798074 said:
Hey littlelamb - Yes, I am an atheist! But, I still am fascinated by Biblical history and all. And I am trying to see is the Maseretic Text is more hand in hand with the DSS then the Septuigant.

From the one article by the Priest, they lean towards the Septuagint. But, I have seen many sites that say that the Maseretic and the DSS are a lot closer then the Septuigant(LXX) and the DSS. So, I see some contradicting answers here and there. It is interesting.

I think all can agree that the hebrew Maseretic Text is definetely ancient, because the style is written in ancient styles (and in different time periods, as the Documentary Hypothesis holds.) So I think there is a lot of authenticity in that, but who knows!
Ancient as in when? The most recent copy we have is from the 11th century AD, isn't it? The Septuagint was translated in the BC era. Which one is more ancient? In addition, as it notes in the article, all the quotes from the OT in the Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text are quoted from the Septuagint. They don't always line up with the Masoretic Text.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner.
 
Upvote 0

français

Atheist/CA-Bloc Québécois/US-Democrat
Oct 2, 2006
5,400
231
39
Montréal, Québec
✟29,264.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Bloc
Thanks for that respectful response. I am really ignorant on the different MSS of the Greek and Hebrew. I just love reading the Bible, though I now prefer more literal word-for-word reading of it.

Anyway, glad to see ya again and hope to see more of ya on the NCR board with those pesky Muslims!! ^_^

Here is good Hebrew study site along with links to many others if you are interested.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/
Thanks for the link! I will check it out!

For the most part, the Maseretic Text(Hebrew) is the same as the LXX(Greek version.) There are however some changes here and there. However, very few are significant to classify as a "corruption" or such. :wave:

Ancient as in when? The most recent copy we have is from the 11th century AD, isn't it? The Septuagint was translated in the BC era. Which one is more ancient? In addition, as it notes in the article, all the quotes from the OT in the Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text are quoted from the Septuagint. They don't always line up with the Masoretic Text.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner.
The oldest copy of the Maseretic Text that we have is from a late date, yes. However, that does not mean that it did not exist before.

Looking at the style of the Hebrew in the Torah, it was significantly different then that of the 11th Century. This proves that the Meseretic was not just made up in the 11th century. It had always existed. We know that people like the RamBam, who was born in 1135, wrote an entire commentary on the Torah. The Torah he quotes is word for word the same as that today. Same with the excellent scholar Rashi.

Now it is true that Jesus quoted from the LXX, and we can tell by how some of what he quotes is different from the Maseretic, but consistent with the LXX. However, there are other times when the author quoted the verse, but it lines up with the Maseretic and not the LXX. I saw a list yesterday, and if you want I can fetch it up for you. :)
 
Upvote 0

français

Atheist/CA-Bloc Québécois/US-Democrat
Oct 2, 2006
5,400
231
39
Montréal, Québec
✟29,264.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Bloc
After doing a bit of research, I found this..

The Proto-Septuagint Text
Only five percent of the Dead Sea Scrolls are Proto-Septuagint. These are texts written in Hebrew that reflect a reading closer to the Greek Septuagint than the Traditional Text. For example, the Greek Septuagint and the text of Jeremiah found at Qumran (4QJer.b) agree in omitting a healthy portion of the text. The Septuagint and Qumran text (4QExod.a) agree in stating the number of descendants from Jacob are seventy-five, instead of the seventy listed in the Masoretic Text. Some have assumed that Stephen was citing either the Septuagint or the Proto-Septuagint text of Qumran in giving the number as seventy-five (Acts 7:14 and Exodus 1:5). Yet, this can also be explained by the way the family was numbered and not the text Stephen was citing.
What that basically means is this.. Where there are differences between the Masaoretic and the Septuigant, there are also differences between the Septuigant and the DSS.. Hence, it is saying that the Masaeretic is more authentic then the Septuigant!!

The Proto-Masoretic Text
These manuscripts are called Proto-Masoretic because they agree with the Masoretic Text, yet date before the Masoretic Text became the official Hebrew Bible. It should be noted that the Dead Sea Scrolls have greatly enhanced the evidence supporting the authority of the Masoretic Text. Until the findings at Qumran (as well as findings at Wadi Murabbaat), the oldest Masoretic Texts dated to the Middle Ages. With Qumran, we now have manuscripts almost a thousand years older that are Masoretic. Most of the scrolls from Cave 4 are of this text-type and represent biblical books such as Isaiah, Ezekiel, the Minor Prophets, and some fragments of the Law and Historical books.
The most noted group is perhaps the Isaiah Scrolls. Two scrolls containing the book of Isaiah were found in Cave 1. The first is sometimes called the St. Mark’s Manuscript (1QIsa.a) because it was initially owned by St. Mark’s Monastery. The second is sometimes called the Hebrew University manuscript of Isaiah (1QIsa.b) because it is owned by that university. Both represent the Masoretic Hebrew Text and are major victories for the Masoretic Text and the Authorized Version.
Textual scholar Dr. James C. VanderKam has pointed out that 1QIsa.a is almost identical to the copies of Isaiah dating to the Middle Ages. Any differences are minor and hardly ever affect the meaning of the text. [Ibid., 126.] Dr. Menahem Mansoor, another textual scholar, has likewise stated that most of the differences are spelling or grammatical changes. Those that do not fall into this type are minor, such as an omission or addition of a word or two, or the mixing of Hebrew letters. [Menahem Mansoor, The Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 74-75.] One such minor variant is found in Isaiah 6:3. The Masoretic Text and the King James Bible read, "Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts." The St. Mark’s Isaiah text reads, "Holy, holy is the LORD of hosts." Therefore, while 1QIsa.a may be in error in its omission of the third holy, the contents of this scroll overwhelmingly support the Masoretic Text.
As close as this scroll is to the Masoretic tradition, the Hebrew University’s Isaiah scroll is closer. [Ibid., 79.] Textual scholar Dr. Ernst Wurthwein concurred, calling the agreement between 1QIsa.b and the Masoretic Text "striking." [Ernst Wurthwein, The Text of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 144.] Considering that a thousand years separate the Isaiah Scrolls from their Masoretic counterparts, the term striking may be an understatement. In either case, the evidence from Qumran demonstrates the Traditional Hebrew Text existed long before the Middle Ages, once again establishing the biblical principle of preservation.
About forty percent of the biblical texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls are Masoretic. Further, the group of manuscripts listed by Dr. Tov as unique to Qumran also resembles the later Masoretic Text. [VanderKam, 143.] These texts account for twenty-five percent of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Therefore, among the biblical books of Dead Sea Scrolls, sixty-five percent reflect the Traditional Text of the Old Testament.
Providing additional support to the Masoretic readings among the Dead Sea Scrolls are findings at Wadi Murabbaat and Masada. In 1951, caves at Wadi Murabbaat, which is south of Qumran near the Dead Sea, were discovered which contained biblical manuscripts. The major difference here is that these biblical texts exclusively reflect the Masoretic Text. [Mansoor, 28.] These manuscripts, however, are slightly younger and are believed to have been written between 132 and 135 AD. Still, their relationship to the Masoretic Text of the Middle Ages is virtually identical to that of the Proto-Masoretic Qumran group. [Ibid., 31.] The findings at Murabbaat include the Pentateuch, Isaiah, the Minor Prophets, and the book of Psalms.
Between 1963 and 1965 manuscripts were discovered while excavating Masada, the famous rock fortress where Jewish nationalists withheld the advances of the Roman army in 73 or 74 AD. Masada is farther south of Qumran than Wadi Murabbaat, along the western coast of the Dead Sea. These manuscripts must date before the fall of the fortress, which place them before 74 AD. Fourteen scrolls containing biblical texts were found that agree extensively with the Masoretic Text. The only possible exception to this amazing agreement is the book of Ezekiel, and even there the textual variants are extremely minor. [Wurthwein, 31.]

Conclusion: The vast majority of texts agree with the Masoretic over the Septuigant. :)
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.