Thursday 24 August 2017

Thoughts on Dead Sea Scrolls

From what I can ascertain, there were manuscripts found at the Dead Sea which align with both the LXX and MT, but mostly with the MT it seems. And there were also texts found which align with neither. There were also different versions of the same books. And there were versions which harmonised different versions. So it was like a library of all different sorts! Some of it was all remarkably similar though to the oldest heretofore manuscripts of the MT (circa AD1000) and LXX (circa AD500s). So that denies the theory of Jewish critics (who wanted to say the surviving LXX was a later corruption by Christians) and denies the theory of secular critics (who wanted to say that the MT didn't reflect first-century and earlier texts). There is a high degree of congruity! So what it seems to show is that in the first century AD and earlier, there was an acceptance of both types of manuscripts (both proto-MT texts and proto-LXX texts). It seems there was some fluidity in manuscript acceptance. And not only the non-Christian Jews, but also the NT reflects this - because it quoted from both the LXX and from proto-MT. There are at least four good explanations for the differences between the LXX and proto-MT. One of the explanations is that where the proto-LXX text contained Hebrew idioms, if the idiom couldn't be translated by a single Greek word, rather than pick a single Greek word and thereby lose the meaning that was inherent within the Hebrew idiom, they expanded it so as to convey into Greek the meaning which Hebrew-speakers would have understood. But what seems clear is that there was acceptance and reliance on both proto-MT and proto-LXX manuscripts by both Jews and Jewish-Christians in the first century AD. But I've still got a lot more reading to do.
John
Something else the Dead Sea scrolls show is that there wasn't a common form of Judaism in the first century. There were different groups among the Jews, which were defining Israel differently, had different Messianic concepts, different baptisms even, and there didn't seem to be a standardised version or even canon common to all groups. And there had been a Zadok-family dynasty of high priests - which lends weight to the view that Ezekiel's vision of future temple had been fulfilled (because Ezekiel's prophecy had specified the Zadok family). It's interesting learning what first century Judaisms, manuscript versions, and canon versions (plural) were like in the first century. It gives context to John the Baptist's ministry, and Jesus, and the Apostles and early Christianity. It lends weight in certain directions with regards to certain questions today I think (like the law, Christology, eschatology etc.)

No comments:

Post a Comment