spin

I don't think there is any historical pointers to allow us to get any clear indication of the Greek of Isaiah, unless, say, Philo cites from it, though he writes mostly on Pentateuch matters.

As I said earlier the Hebrew indicates that the young woman was already with child -- there is no verb, merely an adverb HRH indicating "with child". The notion of a virgin would not come to a Hebrew reader.

Now while xians used Hebrew materials, I cannot see that the Hebrews would use specifically xian texts. Yet the Jews of the diaspora used LXX translations, until they were abused by xians so they retranslated them.


spin

redzrx

To add what your sayin spin(and again you may not agree) but since the jews were dipersed so often they did use the LXX as their writings but in the first or second century (josephus era) collected the hebrew writings to create the mas text and used it over the sep.

agree or not?


Mario

spin

No. The Qumran texts were predominantly (pre-)Massoretic. The Masada texts were all that way, as were the Hebrew from the Bar Kochba period. And Qumran featured nearly all of the Hebrew bible.


spin

redzrx

Is not the massoretic text the greek translation of the Hebrew text.. And I agree that the Qumran site did contain most of HB in Hebrew.. This is we agree on.
When do you think the massoretic text was done? and by Whom?

Mario

spin

No.


spin

redzrx

No what?

Spin this site says Sep was the torah only!! 5 books

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/...tml#septuagint

Also read what it says about the mas text..

by the way don't yell.

I have confirmed this site with jewish ones as well.


Mario

spin

Did you read what I cited that you said?? Why ask the question "No what?" When I show you what I was referring to?

But I guess I have to say it, the "no" was a "No, this is idea is crass ignorance":

The Massoretic text is not the greek translation of the Hebrew text.

Internet is no place to gain your degree in religious studies.

Who gives a *uck?

I have already told you what the letter of Aristeas said.

How would Tobin know what Aristeas meant when he said the books of the law? Was he around to ask?

THE MASSORETIC TEXT IS BASICALLY FOUND AT QUMRAN.

You show yourself to be hard of hearing. Or just plain, well, ummm, . . .

Have you ever heard of books?

If you look at the Dead Sea Scrolls, nearly 90% of them were written in Hebrew. It was a living language then, evincing at least three dialects as found in the scrolls, plus another considering the Bar Kochba letters. Most of what was compiled by the Massorah was in existence at Qumran. People relying on old knowledge take no notice of the plain evidence from Qumran. Why insist on showing what you don't know anything about??


spin

judge

Hi.
The massoretic text is a version of the hebrew bible or what is commonly called the old testament. This text was received from european jews from the middle ages.
It seems likely that at some at stage, probably post 100 a.d or so this text was standardised. In other words some copies were slightly different from others at one time but an effort was made to "standardise" all copies.

We know from the DSS that there did exist slightly different versions of the hebrew text.
What has not been made clear here is that the DSS can be divided into two categories.
1.The texts found at the eleven qumran caves and some fragments from masada (these texts agree with the LXX) ref. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 132, pp.15-26,
2.Those texts found at desert caves in the Wadi Murabba'at, the Nahal Hever, and the Nahal Se'elim. this group appear to reflect the hebrew text we use today.

Of the first group Professor Siegfried H.Horn Professor Emeritus of Archaeology at Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan states that 'Paleographical studies show that the earliest Qumran scrolls were produced in the third century BC, and that the latest was in the first half of the first century AD The biblical text material from Masada predates the capture of that mountain fortress in AD 73, so all of the Qumran and Masada manuscripts were produced before the end of the first century AD''

The second group apparently were placed in these caves after 100 A.D.

spin

This is not quite correct. That which is dysphemistically called the old testament is a series of modern translations into various languages originally based on the old Greek version (coming collectively to be known as the LXX), and in more recent times scholars have tended to take much more consideration of the Massoretic text.

The majority of Qumran biblical texts are massoretic-like texts.

Discussions on Qumran Hebrew can be found in Qimron Elisha, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Harvard...

Discussion on the biblical texts from Qumran can be found in many of the latest books (eg The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible) and articles by Eugene Ulrich. Ulrich was one of the editors of the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible.

As I've indicated elsewhere the Masada biblical texts were all massoretic-like texts, so the standardisation was even earlier. (Emanuel Tov did an article some years ago on the Hebrew of the Masada texts.)

While there were quite a few variants, enough to establish both LXX- and Samaritan-style Hebrew texts(and others), the majority were massoretic.

Definitely not, the Masada texts do not agree with the LXX. There are a few LXX-type Hebrew documents among the DSS (and a few Greek Torah fragments).

Correct.

It's not particularly useful to put the Masada texts in with the Qumran texts. They are from different situations and probably from different times.

These are the Bar Kochba texts from around 130 CE. They were deposited partly by those who fought with Bar Kochba. So in total we have three distinct periods represented,

1) the Qumran period which stretched from 3rd c. BCE to 1st c. BCE, with the bulk in the 1st c. BCE;

2) a small group of mainly Torah fragments (plus Ben Sira and Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifices) from Masada specifically dated to 70 - 73 CE; and

3) the Bar Kochba texts.

#2 and #3 are fundamentally all massoretic texts, while $1 is mainly massoretic.


spin

(dysphemistic is the opposite of euphemistic)