why do people argue over whether the septuagint or masoretic text is more correct, when the dead sea scrolls show that both (proto) textual traditions existed together at the same time, and that contemporary jews seemingly didn't find that strange?
>>18469017Ngl I'm not entirely sure we can infer people's attitudes from some scrolls. And anyway, we need the most reliable version of the OT possible to do proper literary criticism of it.
>>18469017this is something I thought about before but maybe you know the answer since you sound like you know about the dead sea scrolls but how did they not get ruined by all the water? like did they use different paper or something?
>>18469017Because there's all sorts of differences between them. The losers who live and die by the minute little details to wiggle out problematic verses *need* it to be Septuagint and not Masoretic, because the Masoretic wasn't trying to fix things/smooth over things.That said, the Dead Seas Scrolls favors the Masoretic the majority of the time.That said, if you see the scholarly compilations, it has all the alternative verses, and basically every verse has alternative verses.There isn't an actual standard OT.Or the NT for that matter.>>18469099They were in dry caves, in jars that were basically sealed. The running hypothesis is that they were storing the texts there, while they had to bail, and they were planning on coming back later(but obviously never did).
>>18469017Its not surprising. Even though the ancient Jews of that time did not have a formal documentary hypothesis, from just a casual read of the torah itis apparent that it draws from multiple traditions that were stitched together by later editors and redactors. Hence why it, for instance, has several stories repeated but with variations. The ancient Jewish sages saw this as different versions of the same truth.This idea of the Torah as a literal true document, that where it says a snake or donkey spoke, or people lived for many hundreds of years, or that there actually was an abraham who actually bargained with god to save the city of Sodom, is not one the ancient Jews had. They saw the Torah as important, certainly, and a miraculous divinely inspired document, but they often disagreed with one another about what it meant, and did not see that as problematic at all.
>>18469151>That said, the Dead Seas Scrolls favors the Masoretic the majority of the time.Not in the most important places, e.g. Isaiah's Servant Song and Deuteronomy 32:43 (as quoted in Hebrews 1:6). Masoretic is perhaps more accurate in terms of exactitude on passages that weren't controversial in relation to Christ. This is likely because the original language wasn't translated into Greek. The DSS passages that are most important to Christianity typically favor LXX, because the Masoretes "corrected" their version.
>>18469184There's no way of knowing what the ""original"" version of what any of the books are. Even the academic reconstructions that get used for translations, are still just taking an educated shot in the dark.The truth is that there's no definitive version of any of the text, and the only people who really care, are the ones who need to do apologetics for things that they don't like about what it says.There's also no reason to read your Jesus into the OT, because that's just apologetics. The only way you can find Jesus in the OT, is with Jude 5's retcon. The entire idea that the NT is honestly using the OT is laughable, because the more you learn about the OT, the less you can find how Jesus makes any sense.It's because it's all fiction, and the NT authors wanted to do their own Roman thing, and it's not a splinter group of Jews doing a reformation.
>>18469191>There's no way of knowing what the ""original"" version of what any of the books areI was using the term "original language" in a relative sense, perhaps I should've been more clear. The point is that there's no denying that the DSS are the oldest manuscripts we have and likely predate the NT, and that several key LXX passages quoted or referenced in the NT are vindicated by the DSS. I would discuss further but you seem to be convinced that you already have all the relevant information.
>>18469199>the NT are vindicated by the DSS>you seem to be convinced that you already have all the relevant informationThe irony of what you said was lost on you.I'm saying that there's no way to know what the original says, and anyone who's choosing a side, has other motives. You're saying that you need the Septuagint to be accurate.Which one of us has already decided what the relevant information is? Certainly not me.There's no way to know what the original authors said, and you wanting the Septuagint to be true, is because you have a theological reason for it.
>>18469191>It's because it's all fiction, and the NT authors wanted to do their own Roman thing, and it's not a splinter group of Jews doing a reformation.Why do you think that?
>>18469184>The DSS passages that are most important to Christianity typically favor LXX, because the Masoretes "corrected" their version.They don't lmao.
>>18469191>do apologetics for things that they don't like about what it saysAnd when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them.What I say to you, I say to everyone.Watch.The simple believe anything, but the prudent give thought to their steps
>>18469017There is zero argument. The Septuagint is superior. MT was made up 1000 years later
>>18469207>choosing a sideAll the Law and the Prophets hang on two commandments. Love your neighbor as yourself.
>>18469191>because the more you learn about the OT, the less you can find how Jesus makes any sense.But you just said two sentences earlier that there's no definitive OT so how can you know "more" about something that has no certain form
>>18469506>made upthat's not how things work.
