Question about the Dead Sea Scrolls.. Urgent!?

Question

Hello, I have a quick question on the Dead Sea Scrolls and their relation to the Septuigant and the Masoretic Text.

Do the Dead Sea Scrolls agree more the the Masoretic Text (Hebrew Text) or the Septuigant(greek translation)? I have heard that the DSS has more similarities to the Masoretic text, but am not sure if that is right.

Thanks, ahead of time!

Answer 1

OK lets start with the origin of the Masoretic text; Eseentially, in the time of the temple three copies of the Torah were always available against which scribes were required to check their work. Any deviation from the scrolls in the temple rendered the scribes work "pasul" and invalid for use- it could be repaired and corrected if the mistakes were slight, but had to be discarded if there were too many to correct. These scrolls had notes, commentaries, punctuation, cantilaton marks or anything else. So copies of these started to have these other elements added in as margin notes and sometimes as notes above and below the letters. What the masoretic text was, was a formalisation of these notes to come up with a standard puntuation and set of cantillation notes to the standard text. The only texts accepted as kosher for ritual use were still the plain texts without any elaborations to them- but the masoretic texts provided a standadisation of other elements. (it also has some features related to the economy of the day- scribes were generally paid by the word- so the masoretic text contians word counts at various places in the text. Thus the scribes work could be compared to the standardised text and his wages easily computed )

the Dead Scrolls belonged to a number of fringe cults- not all of these recognised the authority of the temple and some were openly in rebellion to the Pharisees and had been declared apikorsim (heretics is a pure translation but that kind of idea). As such- their texts did not necessarily conform to the standardised one held by the temple. Thus, the fact that there are variations in them compared to the standardised text is far from surprising. What is amazing is that even these texts, though some belong to cometing sects with widely differing views on the interpretation of the text, tend to follow the Masoretic text very closely- in some cases identically. (The largest intact text found was a complete Book of Isaiah, Housed in the Shrine of the Book in Israel, which is 100% the same as our modern texts)

Answer 2

Although the scrolls demonstrate that the Bible has not undergone fundamental changes, they also reveal that to some extent there were different versions of Hebrew Bible texts used by Jews in the Second Temple period, each with its own variations. Not all the scrolls are identical to the Masoretic text in spelling or wording. Some are closer to the Greek Septuagint. Previously, scholars thought that the Septuagint’s differences might be the result of mistakes or even deliberate inventions by the translator. Now the scrolls reveal that many of these differences were actually due to variations in the Hebrew text. This may explain some cases in which early Christians quoted Hebrew Scripture texts using wording different from the Masoretic text

Answer 3

Most of the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran belong to the MT tradition or family. This is especially true of the Pentateuch and some of the Prophets. The well-preserved Isaiah scroll from Cave 1 illustrates the tender care with which these sacred texts were copied. Since about 1700 years separated Isaiah in the MT from its original source, textual critics assumed that centuries of copying and recopying this book must have introduced scribal errors into the document that obscured the original message of the author.

The Isaiah scrolls found at Qumran closed that gap to within 500 years of the original manuscript. Interestingly, when scholars compared the MT of Isaiah to the Isaiah scroll of Qumran, the correspondence was astounding. The texts from Qumran proved to be word-for-word identical to our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted primarily of obvious slips of the pen and spelling alterations (Archer, 1974, p. 25). Further, there were no major doctrinal differences between the accepted and Qumran texts (see Table 1 below). This forcibly demonstrated the accuracy with which scribes copied sacred texts, and bolstered our confidence in the Bible’s textual integrity (see Yamauchi, 1972, p. 130). The Dead Sea Scrolls have increased our confidence that faithful scribal transcription substantially has preserved the original content of Isaiah.

Answer 4

The lifeless sea scrolls have been revealed for pupils. the situation improve into one among maintenance & no longer letting too a lot of human beings get close consistently which might wreck them. it is not comparable to their a e book which would be set to variety -- that's a gaggle of bits of scratched up parchment. i do no longer understand why human beings think of that is Issiah? that is maximum or all the Tanach plus the later e book of Maccabees, & slightly tidbit extra in Greek. maximum improve into interior the Tanach, plus some day after day writings approximately existence events. None of that's the OT through fact the writings adventure the Hebrew Tanach regularly letter by employing letter, no longer the later written OT (which had changes & wasn't in Hebrew). i could choose to make sure the unique & learn the translation. As Sheyanin factors out, moshaich is a in many circumstances used be conscious & does not advise Christ in any respect. there is not any Hebrew or Aramaic be conscious for Christ. There has additionally been discovered those days a stone exhibiting that the entire Christ tale improve right into a in many circumstances used myth on the time & no longer particular to Jesus in any respect. As a sparkling discovery the meaning of it continues to be being evaluated. So this could be an extension of that... without context, archaeological findings are not sensible. it often takes assorted scholarly awareness to place something in context. So, i could choose to make sure the reference & examine their writings approximately it.

Answer 5

Masaoretic seem to be more authentic, although the Seuptuigant does correct things here and there.

We know that the Masaeretic was not just made up in 1,000 CE, as some Orthodox Christians want you to think. If that was the case, the Hebrew style would be a lot more modern, and not in a more ancient way.

All in all though, there are a lot less differences then you think, which I find to be absolutely phenomenal that a book could be such greatly preserved.

Answer 6

Yes. They agree with the OT

Answer 7

Sounds right to me..