-Caveat Lector-

http://www.msnbc.com/news/480683.asp


Were there two Old Testaments?

New  interpretation of Dead Sea Scrolls poses a puzzler

ASSOCIATED  PRESS


SOUTH BEND, Ind., Dec. 17 - The Dead Sea Scrolls, hidden away in
Holy Land caves 2,000 years ago and unearthed after World War II,
are often rated the 20th century's greatest archaeological find.
The chief reason for most people: the rediscovery of 230 texts of
biblical books, which have begun to change details in the
Scriptures read by millions.

'If it could be demonstrated we have two biblical traditions
arising independently of one another, then which one are you
going to call God's Word?' - JOHN WALTON Moody Bible Institute

FOR INSTANCE? The height of Goliath. "He's barely tall enough to
make the All-Star Game," said Frank Cross, a Harvard University
expert on the official team working on the scrolls.

       That is, in 1 Samuel 17:4 most English translations say
Goliath stood "six cubits and a span," meaning a towering nine
feet plus. But a damaged Dead Sea scroll can be read as saying
"four cubits and a span," a mere six and a half feet.  That's why
the official U.S. Catholic Bible gives Goliath the shorter
stature.

       Or consider Psalm 145, an acrostic in which each verse
begins with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. This
chapter was always a head-scratcher because the verse for one
letter is missing in the standard Hebrew text. But a phrase with
that letter turned up in a Dead Sea scroll and is tacked onto
145:13 in most recent translations: "God is faithful in his words
and gracious in all his deeds ..."

       Further rewordings are expected, and some of them could
shift meaning. In all Bibles, Deuteronomy 8:6 speaks of "fearing"
or "revering" God, but a Dead Sea scroll says "loving," instead.
Should scholars consider this change?

        To those for whom each word of the Bible was inspired by
God, even such small alterations are significant.

       Still, as Cross puts it, "There is no 11th Commandment."
The rewording prompted by the scrolls does not challenge basic
beliefs.


SWEEPING IMPLICATIONS


But a fellow researcher, Eugene Ulrich, professor of Hebrew at
the University of Notre Dame and chief editor of the Dead Sea
biblical materials, sees far more sweeping implications for the
Old Testament (the Christian term for what Jews call the Tanakh).

       "I feel like the person who put the last stone atop the
pyramids," Ulrich said. "I'm as weary as can be, but I'm glad I
did it."

       Ulrich was polishing the last volume on biblical texts for
the official scholarly series from Oxford University Press, which
will be a landmark in this painstaking and highly technical
project. The overall effort hit the headlines in 1991 when two
independent groups, frustrated with the slow pace of the official
scholarly team, rushed unauthorized editions of the texts into
print so all scholars could begin assessing them.


Dead Sea Scrolls

 Sample differences between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the standard
Old Testament:

 . JEREMIAH: Although manuscripts are fragmentary, it appears a
Dead Sea version of the book was 13 percent shorter than the
Masoretic one. For example, verses 10:6-8 are missing ("O Lord,
there is none like you ...").

 . 1 SAMUEL:  Before verse 11:1, the scrolls include a paragraph
on an Ammonite eye-gouging rampage that standard Bibles omit.

 .  DEUTERONOMY: In verse 8:6, one Dead Sea manuscript has
conventional wording and tells us to "fear" God, but another text
says to "love" God.

 . ISAIAH: In a poetic passage on the fall of Moab, a Dead Sea
manuscript omits half the wording of verses 16:8-9.

Ulrich's assessment? He repeatedly encountered scrolls that "did,
and didn't, look like what we call the Bible."

       His conclusion: In ancient times, two or more contrasting
editions of many biblical books existed side by side and were all
regarded as Scripture. In other words, back then, the Old
Testament was far different from what we think of today.

       He concludes that there were multiple editions for at
least these books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, 1
and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Samuel, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Psalms
and Song of Solomon. Ulrich spelled out his theory in "The Dead
Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible."

       An example of the problems he and others ponder: In two of
the Dead Sea Scrolls, Psalm 33 directly follows Psalm 31,
skipping number 32. Did the scribes who wrote those manuscripts
believe 32 was not God's Word?

       And the opposite situation: Various scrolls include 15
psalms that are not found in standard Bibles. Sample: "Blessed be
he who has made the earth by his power, who has established the
world in his wisdom ... ." Was this Scripture that was later
lost, or did Dead Sea scribes merely collect devotional poetry
and mix it with biblical psalms?

       "If Ulrich is on the right track, we've got some major
thinking to do," said John Walton, a conservative professor at
Chicago's Moody Bible Institute. The problem as he sees it: "If
it could be demonstrated we have two biblical traditions arising
independently of one another, instead of one being a revision or
corruption of the other, then which one are you going to call
God's Word?"

       Walton said Ulrich's conclusions are premature and
professed himself untroubled by any findings to date.

       The scrolls, which include parts of all books except
Esther and Nememiah, were written between 200 B.C. and 70 A.D. In
that same period, rabbis began establishing the standard
Masoretic Text, the basis for all Old Testaments since the early
Middle Ages.


DON'T CHANGE ALL THE  BIBLES

       Should the Bibles used in churches, synagogues and homes
be thoroughly revised to reflect all the variations? Not
necessarily, said Ulrich, a lay Roman Catholic. But at least
serious students should be reading a Bible with multiple options.
And he insisted that future Bible translations should be less
wedded to the Masoretic Text and rely more on the alternate
renditions.

       Scholars have just begun work on an "eclectic Bible" to
show these textual variations, which will take years to complete.

       But Ulrich, with co-editors Martin Abegg Jr. and Peter
Flint, has taken the first step with "The Dead Sea Scrolls
Bible." The book presents new English translations of the Dead
Sea biblical manuscripts (the scholarly Oxford volumes have the
original Hebrew) with user-friendly explanations of how they
differ from standard Bibles.

       The book is billed as "the oldest known Bible." The
reason: The scrolls are a millennium older than the surviving
Masoretic Hebrew manuscripts that provide the basis for all
modern Old Testaments, which date from about A.D.  1000.

       Specialists know that this puzzle of different Old
Testaments, raised anew by the scrolls, is not really new.
Before the scrolls were discovered, scholars were aware of three
main editions: the Samaritan, which included only the first five
books; the early form of the Masoretic Hebrew; and the
Septuagint, a Greek translation from a different Hebrew version.

###


'There's nothing in the  scrolls that could possibly have any interest.'

LAWRENCE SCHIFFMAN, New  York University

Catholic and Orthodox Bibles follow the Septuagint in including
seven extra books that Jews and Protestants do not recognize as
part of the Bible.

       Various scrolls provide evidence of all three traditions,
as well as a fourth group of texts unique to the Dead Sea
community.

       In understanding the complex situation, it's important to
remember that in ancient times there was no single bound "Bible,"
but separate scrolls for each biblical book, and that Judaism did
not fix the final list of biblical books until the period after
the Dead Sea Scrolls were written.

       Lawrence Schiffman of New York University, co-editor of
Oxford's "Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls,"  said that for
Judaism, Ulrich's theorizing is "irrelevant. No other Bible
besides the Masoretic Text has any authority."

       He says flatly: "There's nothing in the scrolls that could
possibly have any interest" in terms of revising the biblical
canon.

       Schiffman is an Orthodox layman, but he said his attitude
is shared by more liberal Jews. He said the variant editions are
an issue only in Christianity, in which scholars try to
reconstruct the best text from whatever source.

       If the Masoretic version is the one and only true Old
Testament, then the Dead Sea Scrolls are good news for Bible
believers, Jewish or Christian. The Masoretic manuscripts among
the Dead Sea Scrolls are astonishingly similar to the standard
Hebrew texts 1,000 years later, proving that Jewish scribes were
accurate in preserving and transmitting the Masoretic Scriptures.


SEEKING THE AUTHOR

       Who originally wrote the scrolls, and who preserved them?
Those issues are raised by a leading conservative Protestant
scholar, Walter Kaiser, president of Gordon-Conwell Theological
Seminary in South Hamilton, Mass.

 'Truth should never upset anyone. If we think God is a God of
truth, real evidence ought never be shunned.' - WALTER KAISER
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary

Although experts are unable to agree, it appears that the Dead
Sea community was a marginal group, he said.

       "So we can't figure out from what perspective they were
writing. That has to be factored in," Kaiser said. "Should cultic
groups set the norm?"

       He warned relying on non-Masoretic manuscripts could be
"like going to the Branch Davidians" of Waco, Texas.

       A related issue is "who decides what is authoritative."
The ancient rabbis, "those closer to the scene, obviously had a
better shot" in determining the best text, said Kaiser, who
contends that many of the Dead Sea Scrolls are simply too
fragmentary to support Ulrich's sweeping conclusions about
conflicting Old Testaments.

       Kaiser recalled the late Harry Orlinsky, the only Jewish
translator on the Revised Standard Version, who used the scrolls
to make 13 last-minute changes before that translation was issued
in 1952. But he later told Kaiser and other students that 10 of
those changes were too hasty and that the Masoretic wording would
have been preferable.

       Similar caution comes from Ulrich's Notre Dame colleague
James VanderKam, co-editor of the scrolls encyclopedia. "To say
that one or another version is more original is very difficult,"
he said. "We have very early evidence for all of them."

       VanderKam said the Masoretic Bible "is the one we've
always had, and that's unlikely to change."

       In analyzing the various editions, "at the meaning level,
most of the variants are not important,"  VanderKam said. "I
don't know that any issues of faith are involved."

       The implications of Ulrich's view fall most heavily upon
evangelicals and fundamentalists who believe, as the creed at
Kaiser's seminary defines it, that the biblical books "as
originally written were inspired of God, hence free from error."

       If so, which version of Jeremiah or Psalms was original?
The technique of deciding that, known as textual criticism, has
long been recognized and practiced by conservatives, said Walton
of the Moody Institute, although until now most energy has been
applied to manuscript variations in the New Testament.

       Kaiser said some implications of the scrolls' variations
could become unsettling, but he insisted: "Truth should never
upset anyone. If we think God is a God of truth, real evidence
ought never be shunned."

       Will all of this ever be settled? Assessments of the
ancient texts develop slowly. But now that the Dead Sea
manuscripts are becoming fully available, specialists expect that
within a decade there could be broader consensus on what they
mean and how they should be applied.


View some of the Scrolls at the  Library of Congress

http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/intro.html


=================================================================
             Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT

  FROM THE DESK OF:
                     *Michael Spitzer*  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
=================================================================

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to