Anat

I sort of remember an Aggadic story about rabbis who were having trouble understanding a Hebrew term in an item of law they were studying, and they got the answer from a servant. That was supposed to be an indication that in Mishnaic times Hebrew was better preserved among the lower social classes. I have no idea how to search for the source though.

Athanatius

Concerning the NT, it is claimed that the text was changed in varying degrees as it was copied. The evidence for this seems clear. Concerning the OT, now I am hearing apologists claim that the Dead Sea Scrolls turned out to be faithful to much later manuscripts. The claim is that the DSC are (allegedly) so similar to later copies, that the idea of "scribes changing the text" holds no water.

Is there merit to this claim? Are later copies of the OT faithful copies of the DSC?

Textcritic

This is only partially true, as there are some very good examples among the so-called "biblical scrolls" in the Qumran collection that are very, very close to the Masoretic Text; good examples are 1QIsa-b, 4QJer-a, c and 4QEzra. It should be noted that there is no such "perfectly aligned" manuscript in the corpus, so a modicum of caution is necessary on the part of apologists.

But the question is in itself problematic, in that it presupposes that the Jewish sect who wrote, copied and collected the scrolls had as developed an understanding of textual traditions, and of a "biblical canon" as later generations. This is simply not the case. By way of example, there are 21 copies of the Book of Isaiah in the collection, and they are pretty well all distinct. Furthermore, the best preserved and apparantly most highly cherished copy of Isaiah's book is 1QIsa-a, which is a very fluid version of the text, which exhibits a propensity on the part of the authors/editors for adapting the text as they saw fit.

Secondly, it is impossible to know really one way or another what the impression of the Qumranites was of all the texts in their collections. What was authoritative, and what was not? When the scrolls were originally catalogued, they were distinguished as either "sectarian", "non-sectarian", or "biblical" based on some unfounded presuppositions of the group, and on the shape of the mach later established Rabbinic canon of Hebrew scriptures. I am presently working on literary traditions of Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and while there is relatively good representation of the Book of Jeremiah, this does not help us in our evaluation of their importance. There are copies close to the MT version of Jeremiah, while simultaneously there is also a copy of a Jeremiah much more similar to the LXX version. Furthermore, there are multiple copies of a previously unknown text which features the Prophet Jeremiah, and this so-called "Apocryphon of Jeremiah" is apparantly at least as highly regarded as other anchronistically defined "biblial" versions. What does this say about the group's concept of authority? "Bible"? canon? tradition? scripture?

In the end, while biblicists are right to point to the veracity of a number of the Dead Sea Scrolls for establishing the stability of the Masoretic Text, there is much more to the issue than they presume. The Dead Sea Scrolls could otherwise be interpretted more acurately as a collection of texts which substantially damage the notion of a "fixed" Masoretic tradition in the time of Jesus.

Apikorus

DSC = Distinguished Service Cross or Differential Scanning Calorimetry

Magdlyn

Oops! Meant to say covet. aka uncover! LOL

Clouseau

Noah knew as much as Huckleberry Finn knew. The story is a fiction, an allegory, probably written contemporaneously with Moses, possibly by him.

This is poetic licence.

The ark was/is a prefigurement of Christ.

Textcritic

I don't see how this is even possible, considering that at the time of Moses (c.1500–1200 B.C.E.) there was no writing in Palestine. In Egypt, writing and literacy were still the property of a very select cultic elite, and was akin to ancient magic. If Moses even existed, he almost certainly never wrote anything.

Clouseau

If the Biblical record is accurate, Moses was educated in Egypt. But writing is not very important, because oral transmission was the rule.

Fortuna

Peter,

Some questions like ;

In what language(s) was it written ?

What is archeologically, the earliest thing found that is written in hebrew (Gezer Calendar ?)

Are there any bi-lingual ( dual language) books in the collection (Daniel) . Why a 2 language book ?

The divisions, Torah, Prophets, Wisdom lit. When were they believed to have been codified as collections.

What is the first ever historical mention of the Torah existing as a collection ? (Ezra?) Prophets ? Wisdom literature ?

The variation of names/titles used for the god character in the various books.(Torah variations by chapter)

Where/When did the chapter/verse designations originate ?

Some books of Torah do not appear to be monotheistic, i.e. the Decalogue , first commandment.( "there are other gods, but you only worship me"). At what point do things get monotheistic.

Meter and verse in some of the texts, i.e. psalms, lamentations...

Wisdom, Koloheth/Ecclesiastes as a text of the Saducees

Other books/works referenced (i.e. Book of Jasher, etc)


Torah specific.

What are the doublets ? (Gen 1 and 2, Noah flood story).... How do we really know where Gen 1 ends and Gen 2 begins ?

What are what some call the "Toledoths" in the Torah ? Genesis 1.1 as a "toledoth", or title to the chapter.

Specific to Torah / Gen 1

Is Genesis 1 really an account of a creation-ex-nihilo ? What about the primal water (the Tehom) and air (wind, spirit) ?

Why is it that Gen 1 seems to see certain "elements" as primal...In order, water (tehom), air (wind), fire (light), earth(create later).

Is use of "the heavens" in the english translation of Gen 1 really an idiom from olde English. Would not a better word be "the sky" using modern english ? (As we think of "heaven" as something different, whereas the author of Gen 1 used it to literally refer to the sky, sun,stars...and how the author considered our modern idea of "heaven" and "sky" as the place where the gods lived.

Who originally were the plural "we","us" who make men in our image and likeness? ( to the author)

Explaining the cosmology of Gen 1, the firmament.

Why the "yom"s in Gen 1 do seem to refer to literal days. While "yom" (plural) can be used to refer to some indefinite time, why not here (in Gen 1)

Gen 2 - first introduction of "YHVH El". Why is this compunded name used here, while "El" "Elohim" is used exclusively in Gen 1.

etc.........

Peter Kirby

Fortuna,

Thank you. A lot of this we can use.