Exodus 10:3 until when

Classical Hebrew morphology and syntax, aspect, linguistics, discourse analysis, and related topics
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Post Reply
Chris Watts
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu May 13, 2021 8:00 am

Re: Exodus 10:3 until when

Post by Chris Watts »

Kenneth Greifer wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 6:19 am
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 7:15 am
Kenneth Greifer wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 12:51 pm Here is a site that lists the differences between the MT and the Dead Sea scrolls for just Isaiah 53.
https://drmsh.com/michaelsheiser/Letter ... sIsa53.pdf

Look at it and tell me if these are minor differences or not.
Spelling differences. Minor indeed.
If the Dead Sea scrolls' version of Isaiah and the Masoretic version of Isaiah have 2,600 minor spelling differences, then it kind of proves that the people of the past were very willing to either add or take away letters from some parts of the Hebrew Bible. That is not a minor thing to do if you want to know what the Hebrew Bible said originally.
Hallo Kenneth,

I do take issue with this statement. Think of the ways that the certsin 'christian' sects have published their own versions of Bibles, think of the Jehovahs witnesses for example and their subtle Greek renderings. Now then, consider this, there is orthodox and then there is everything else. There were sects of Jewish off-shoots, and subtle changes in what one believes are reflected in various translations of scripture. Those dead sea scrolls were not written by orthodox scribes. You either accept what has remained consistently produced of hundreds of years, or you question it based on scraps of paper discovered 70 years ago written by probably a few uneducated wine babbling disaffected Jews whose beliefs differed from the orthodox of the day.and so broke away Just like we have too many christian sects.

One also has to consider the incredible lengths the masoretes went to with their commentaries on the scripture and the Keri and Quetiv renderings. So adamant about NOT changing what was handed down. Is God the author of confusion or is man?
Chris watts
Kenneth Greifer
Posts: 661
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:05 pm

Re: Exodus 10:3 until when

Post by Kenneth Greifer »

Chris,
I didn't say which version of Isaiah was correct. I just said that obviously some people in the past were willing to change the words of parts of the Hebrew Bible because the MT and the Dead Sea scrolls' versions are different in a lot of ways. I think you agree with that. They are different.

Some people, usually religious people, have said that the keri and kativ or whatever people call them were actually given as part of the Bible originally and that they were not notes added later to the text. It seems strange to add notes to a text that was passed down perfectly. I am not going to argue with you if God or man causes confusion because that is not part of the discussion here. You seem to be using religious arguments that might be true, but are not really used on this forum.
Kenneth Greifer
Chris Watts
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu May 13, 2021 8:00 am

Re: Exodus 10:3 until when

Post by Chris Watts »

Kenneth Greifer wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 7:41 am Chris,
I didn't say which version of Isaiah was correct. I just said that obviously some people in the past were willing to change the words of parts of the Hebrew Bible because the MT and the Dead Sea scrolls' versions are different in a lot of ways. I think you agree with that. They are different.

Some people, usually religious people, have said that the keri and kativ or whatever people call them were actually given as part of the Bible originally and that they were not notes added later to the text. It seems strange to add notes to a text that was passed down perfectly. I am not going to argue with you if God or man causes confusion because that is not part of the discussion here. You seem to be using religious arguments that might be true, but are not really used on this forum.
Ok Kenneth, I understand, but to be able to answer the issue as to the fact that some people were willig to change parts of the hebrew text I would have thought is a natural tendency within human nature and should come as no surprise. I hope that I am not stepping over any boundaries here by making the analogy of the above with say in 500 years time scholars having had a 200 years old version of the KJV for that amount of time then finding scraps of say Jehovas witness versions dated from 1910 buried in the Texas dessert inside old car tyres. It is surely is not about the textual differences, what I would find far more interesting is to know WHY and what motivations lay behind the scribes composing and hiding the dead sea scrolls. This would explain so much more and shed light upon all those textual differences more than any analysis of the differences themselves. And I have no idea if there are any theories upon that, I would be interested.

Kind regards
Chris watts
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Exodus 10:3 until when

Post by Jason Hare »

Kenneth Greifer wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 6:19 am If the Dead Sea scrolls' version of Isaiah and the Masoretic version of Isaiah have 2,600 minor spelling differences, then it kind of proves that the people of the past were very willing to either add or take away letters from some parts of the Hebrew Bible. That is not a minor thing to do if you want to know what the Hebrew Bible said originally.
There were some people who were entirely willing to rewrite the texts. I'm not sure what the orthography of the DSS has to do with that fact, though. What difference does it make if you write יִשְׁפֹּט (as is normal in the MT) or יִשְׁפּוֹט (as is normal in the DSS and in later Hebrew)? It means the same thing.

For this discussion, it would be better to look at the book of Jeremiah as it exists in the DSS, 𝔊 (the LXX), and (the Masoretic Text).
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
ducky
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Exodus 10:3 until when

Post by ducky »

spelling is not a factor at all for that matter.
The DSS used to write the words with a lot of vowel letters.
Also, they also change the words into the "style" of that era.
And also, they allowed themselves to even change the vocabulary to modernize the text.

Basically, the relationship between the DSS and the MT Bible, is like the relationship between Chronicles and Kings (for example).

So just like Chronicles can copy the exact text from Kings, it still would write דויד for דוד.
it would write דרמשק for דמשק (the style of that late-era)
And it can also change the word or the style of "talk" to the modern one.

These things are found also in the DSS.
And so, whenever there is a change between the DSS and the MT, there is a need to first check if the change is a made-up thing for the reason of the era or if that change is a real change.
As for the spelling, it really says nothing, unless the word is read in another form than what the MT writes (and also in this case, there is a need to check if that form is a late one or not).
David Hunter
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Exodus 10:3 until when

Post by kwrandolph »

Kenneth Greifer wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 6:19 am If the Dead Sea scrolls' version of Isaiah and the Masoretic version of Isaiah have 2,600 minor spelling differences, then it kind of proves that the people of the past were very willing to either add or take away letters from some parts of the Hebrew Bible. That is not a minor thing to do if you want to know what the Hebrew Bible said originally.
This is not a theological question, rather a linguistic one. The theology comes only after an accurate understanding of the text.

I agree with Kenneth Greifer here. These “minor spelling differences” often signify significant differences in meaning.

Now, when looking at the Great Isaiah Scroll, one of the first things I noticed is the sloppy handwriting. Secondly the many matres lectionis which indicate a change in how the written text was read. The conclusion I come to is that the Great Isaiah Scroll was a substandard copy.

On the whole, it appears that the consonantal text preserved by the Masoretes is superior to what was found among the DSS. I can’t say the same for the Masoretic points. Also the majority of the times where the Qere and Ketib are found, it appears that the Ketib makes a superior reading.

Karl W. Randolph.
Jonathan Beck
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon May 11, 2020 5:16 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Contact:

Re: Exodus 10:3 until when

Post by Jonathan Beck »

I only take issue with your first paragraph. Spelling differences do sometimes distinguish between forms, but as ducky pointed out, most of these difference are nothing more than the difference between full and defective spellings. They’re pronounced the same. Meaning is not affected.

If you can find examples of difference in spelling between the two that affect meaning, I’d like to see them.

Jonathan
Jonathan Beck
Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati
Interim Pastor, Norwood Grace UMC, Cincinnati, OH.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Exodus 10:3 until when

Post by kwrandolph »

Jonathan Beck wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 7:36 pm I only take issue with your first paragraph. Spelling differences do sometimes distinguish between forms, but as ducky pointed out, most of these difference are nothing more than the difference between full and defective spellings. They’re pronounced the same. Meaning is not affected.

If you can find examples of difference in spelling between the two that affect meaning, I’d like to see them.

Jonathan
I see I should have written more clearly.

In the consonantal Masoretic text, spelling differences often do make for differences in meaning. So when we see a sloppily written book as the Great Isaiah Scroll, that tends to hide those differences in spelling.

From what I can tell, the consonantal text preserved by the Masoretes is an older version of the text, with older spellings. Many of the DSS were inferior texts that were dashed off.

As far as comparing the DSS with the consonantal Masoretic text, that I have not done, so I’m not prepared to give examples of where the differences in spelling between the DSS and Masoretic consonantal text make a difference in meaning. But I do see where what appear to be “alternate spellings” within the Masoretic consonantal text make a difference in meaning, hence the importance in having an accurate consonantal text. It is to that importance of having an accurate text that I refer.

Karl W. Randolph.
ducky
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Exodus 10:3 until when

Post by ducky »

Kenneth Greifer wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 12:51 pm Here is a site that lists the differences between the MT and the Dead Sea scrolls for just Isaiah 53.
https://drmsh.com/michaelsheiser/Letter ... sIsa53.pdf

Look at it and tell me if these are minor differences or not.
I wrote some stuff about Some of the changes here.

52:13 - מאד-מואדה
The form of מואדה is common in the DSS, and it comes with accusative (as an adverb). This accusative for this word is, according to what is known to me, appears only in the DSS texts.

Another thing about this word, that it seems that the Aleph was written but was not pronounced. This is seen in other texts as well - also in the Bible (in other words).

53:2 תאר-תאור
I think that also in this case the Aleph was not pronounced. and the word was pronounced "tor".

*****
52:14 - משחת-משחתי
This is a strange change. In my opinion, this is an error by the copier that was made associatively. The copier read this passage with a messianic association, and because of that, the משחת was written as משחתי = "I anointed".
It isn't read well. There are other cases like that in the DSS that I saw, that the association caused for a change of a word, and make the sentence and context strange.

52:15 - גוים - גואים
This is a matter of writing the real pronunciation. the גוים=goyyim was pronounced as "go'im", and so it was written in the same way that it was pronounced. It can be seen also in the Bible (but not for that word).

53:2 - ציה - ציאה
Same priciple as גוים-גואים.

53:7 - לטבח - לטבוח
This version fits the verse that is seen in (also MT) Jer. which writes יובל לטבוח.
So I guess that this version in Isa. is good as well. The other DSS scroll of Isa. writes לטבח like in the MT. Basically, the form of לטבח can be read לטבוח as well, but for some reason, every time this infinitive comes in the MT, it comes with the letter W (לטבוח).

(Another general thing to say about the infinitive form לטבוח... Notice that the letter B comes without Dagesh.)

53:7 יפתח - פתח
I think this perfect form was influenced by the נאלמה before it.
Anyway, DSS "plays" a lot with imperfect-->perfect - I guess for "poetic and style" reasons.

53:9 במתיו-בומתו
Here, the DSS understands the word as במה - which fit the context as parallel to קברו.
The MT and the other translations (as far as I know) reads this word from the meaning of מות.
It could be that also the MT understood it as במה but voweled it differently to differ it from the במה that is a place of worship.

53:10 החלי-ויחללהו
Maybe ויחללהו next to דכאו was influenced by verse 5 which writes מחולל next to מדוכא.

53:11 יראה-יראה אור
The Sept. and the two DSS scrolls write יראה אור, while the MT and the Syrian and the Aramaic translation writes just יראה.
Even though both of the DSS scrolls (and the Sept.) adds the word אור, It seems to me (after reading a little bit) that the MT version fits better, and the אור is an artificial addon.
There is that the ראה is actually רוה.
רוה and שבע come together.
Also, ראה and שבע comes together.
So it seems that there is no real need for the אור as an object to יראה. But it just an associative word that fitted the verb.
David Hunter
S_Walch
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Exodus 10:3 until when

Post by S_Walch »

ducky wrote: Fri Jul 09, 2021 7:43 pm53:11 יראה-יראה אור
The Sept. and the two DSS scrolls write יראה אור, while the MT and the Syrian and the Aramaic translation writes just יראה.
Even though both of the DSS scrolls (and the Sept.) adds the word אור, It seems to me (after reading a little bit) that the MT version fits better, and the אור is an artificial addon.
There is that the ראה is actually רוה.
רוה and שבע come together.
Also, ראה and שבע comes together.
So it seems that there is no real need for the אור as an object to יראה. But it just an associative word that fitted the verb.
Actually, all three of the DSS which preserve Isaiah 53:11 here read יראה אור: 1QIsaa, 1QIsab, and 4QIsad. It's interesting that 1QIsab also reads יראה אור, as this is the DSS manuscript closer to the Masoretic than the others.

With the combination of three DSS and the Septuagint, one has to conclude that at least in the 1st century BCE, the common text of Hebrew Isaiah read יראה אור, and אור has unfortunately dropped out in subsequent centuries to have affected the Aramaic and Syriac translations.
Ste Walch
Post Reply