Page 1 of 1
Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa)
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2015 8:46 am
by Galena
From here:
http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah#40:1
"....Unlike most of the biblical scrolls from Qumran, it exhibits a very full orthography (spelling), revealing how Hebrew was pronounced in the Second Temple Period..."
So a comparison can be made???
Are there any books or online documents that compare the pronounciations alluded to here with the MSS that we have today?
Re: Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa)
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2015 9:07 am
by S_Walch
As far as I know, there is no comprehensive study done yet on the entire orthography of the Dead Sea Scrolls and compares it to the Masoretic Texts.
There are a few books with chapters on certain aspects of it though, with the following one specialising on the qotel:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-fm ... &q&f=false
Saying that, I did just find this on Google Books:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bmo ... &q&f=false
Looks like a good read
Re: Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa)
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2015 1:08 pm
by Jemoh66
Somebody explain this to me
For example, the second half of Verse 9 and all of Verse 10 in the present Masoretic version of Chapter 2 are absent from the Great Isaiah Scroll in the Israel Museum's full manuscript that you see here online. The same verses, however, have been included in other versions of the Book of Isaiah in the scrolls found near the Dead Sea (4QIsaa, 4QIsab), and the Hebrew text from which the ancient Greek version or Septuagint (3rd-1st century BCE) was translated. This confirms that these verses, although early enough, were a late addition to the ancient and more original version reflected in the Great Isaiah Scroll.
How does this argue for the the Great Isaiah scroll reflecting the original? They date it around 125BCE, while the LXX is date earlier. Wouldn't that support the verses actually "missing" from the Isaiah Scroll, since the LXX is an older work?
Re: Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa)
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2015 1:24 pm
by S_Walch
One would have to see the full argument for the above as to the possibilities as to why 2:9b-10 aren't included in 1QIsaa.
Is it a scribal mistake? Well the usual homoeoteleuton explanation wouldn't quite work here:
MS: b9 ואל תשא להם׃ 10 בוא בצור והטמן בעפר מפני פחד יהוה ומהדר גאנו׃
1QIsaa: 9 וישח אדם וישפל איש׃ 11 ועיני גבהות אדם תשפלנה וישח רום אנשים ונשגב יהוה לבדו ביום ההוא
Plus the LXX also adds ὅταν ἀναστῇ θραῦσαι τὴν γῆν ('when he rises to terrify the earth').
This shows that there is quite a bit of textual divergence in Isaiah 2:9-10; so the usual textual critical question boils down to: what is the simplest explanation to account for the different readings? The simplest explanation is that Isaiah 2:9b-10 isn't originally part of Isaiah.
Re: Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa)
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2015 9:03 am
by Galena
Thankyou for those references S_Walch.