OT document study often gets overlooked in the rush of some on the BB to condemn anything not AV.
Just reading Isaiah (1a) from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
We have thousands of Jewish OT scrolls in Hebrew, copies of copies of copies of Tanach.
We have hundreds of Masoretic Text OT in Hebrew, from which most of our English versions are translated. These date back to 1000 AD (think "crusades")
We have only a few Dead Sea Scroll OT in Hebrew, but these few date from the time of Christ or before.
We also have a variety of sources of the LXX (OT in Greek).
So which of these source groups has the "weight of evidence" when there is a slight variation between them - say a word added or omitted?
Weight of evidence doesn't come from how MANY documents. Obviously, the newer-dated material would be more numerous, not having suffered the rigors of time.
How do YOU judge the evidence?
Weight of Evidence
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Mar 12, 2004.
-
-
We also have the ancient translations such as the Vulgate(s) (Latin and Syriac) whose translators had access to Hebrew documents unavailable to us today.
I would include them as "evidence" or witnesses, though not in the original Hebrew tongue they tell us something about word choices, tenses, etc.
HankD -
Most of the errors in manuscripts are obvious: words, phrases, and whole lines are often omitted or added by mistake creating a text that does not make sense. Many variations in the manuscripts, however, are not so easy to evaluate. That is why the science of textual criticism has developed over the years.