Dead Sea Scroll translation

[Evang.Benincasa]

[Evang.Benincasa]

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Fascinating video.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Agree, pretty good video. Thanks for sharing.

Another video from the same guy:

[coksiw]

This is very interesting:
https://www.academia.edu/822497/The_...tical_Approach

Page 124.

According to the statistical research done in that paper, apparently, the older the manuscripts in the DSS, the less similar to the MT is. The closer to 70 AD, the more proto-MT it is. So, there was some Textual Criticism done to standardize the Hebrew text into the today's known MT around 70 AD.

The original publication that DSS was 60% proto-MT was corrected by the same author later as 35% proto-MT, but the author doesn't really published his methodology.

However, the exact size of the proto-MT group is hard to establish.
Thus, in the first edition of Tov's boo k, the proto-MT scrolls were said to
comprise 60% of the Qumran scrolls. However, in the second edition,
this figure has shrunk to just 35%. Tov's book does not discuss how
these figures we re reached . However. elsewhere Tov details his criteria and
admits that the figure 35% is based on the assumption that texts standing
equally close to both the MT and the SP, or both the MT and the LXX,
should be reckoned as '' proto-MT''. Thus, the figure 35% represents the
highest figure available, including scrolls no more affiIiated with the MT
than any other version.

So those statistics are by definition dominant of MT. Tov said that Septuagint unique readings are like 5%. However, looking at those statistics, 35% includes unique MT readings plus readings that are in both: Septuagint and MT, in both PS and MT. I wish Tov did the same with the Septuagint, because those results are misleading.

[coksiw]

This guy did a PhD on DSS plurality.
He reviewed like 600 pages of the DSS that are considered un-aligned.

Very interesting video:

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by coksiw

This guy did a PhD on DSS plurality.
He reviewed like 600 pages of the DSS that are considered un-aligned.

Very interesting video:

And more from these group: https://textandcanon.org/bible-jesus-read/

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by coksiw

This is very interesting:
https://www.academia.edu/822497/The_...tical_Approach

Page 124.

According to the statistical research done in that paper, apparently, the older the manuscripts in the DSS, the less similar to the MT is. The closer to 70 AD, the more proto-MT it is. So, there was some Textual Criticism done to standardize the Hebrew text into the today's known MT around 70 AD.

The original publication that DSS was 60% proto-MT was corrected by the same author later as 35% proto-MT, but the author doesn't really published his methodology.

However, the exact size of the proto-MT group is hard to establish.
Thus, in the first edition of Tov's boo k, the proto-MT scrolls were said to
comprise 60% of the Qumran scrolls. However, in the second edition,
this figure has shrunk to just 35%. Tov's book does not discuss how
these figures we re reached . However. elsewhere Tov details his criteria and
admits that the figure 35% is based on the assumption that texts standing
equally close to both the MT and the SP, or both the MT and the LXX,
should be reckoned as '' proto-MT''. Thus, the figure 35% represents the
highest figure available, including scrolls no more affiIiated with the MT
than any other version.

So those statistics are by definition dominant of MT. Tov said that Septuagint unique readings are like 5%. However, looking at those statistics, 35% includes unique MT readings plus readings that are in both: Septuagint and MT, in both PS and MT. I wish Tov did the same with the Septuagint, because those results are misleading.

Brother, do you have this volume:

https://global.oup.com/academic/prod...cc=us&lang=en&

If not, I recommend it highly. Each book has a substantial introduction regarding the translational profile of the Hebrew into Greek, and the challenges that were likely faced by the translators, with some key examples.

I hope to purchase this version of the LXX some day:

https://lexhampress.com/product/1880...tuagint-2nd-ed

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Brother, do you have this volume:

https://global.oup.com/academic/prod...cc=us&lang=en&

If not, I recommend it highly. Each book has a substantial introduction regarding the translational profile of the Hebrew into Greek, and the challenges that were likely faced by the translators, with some key examples.

I hope to purchase this version of the LXX some day:

https://lexhampress.com/product/1880...tuagint-2nd-ed

Actually, I just ordered the lexhampress.com LXX. It's 60% off for Black Friday, with free shipping, totaling with tax, $25.31 for hardcover. If anyone sees this tonight, now's the time if you really want the book.

[votivesoul]

An article you might like:

https://www.academia.edu/33027724/B1...ard=view-paper