Until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, the MT was the oldest complete
copy of the Hebrew OT that was known. So it was quite natural to use it as
a basis for translation rather than to translate a translation. As for the
Scrolls' support of the MT, this is not always true. Sometimes they do
support the LXX, and they don't necessarily always support either one. The
Scrolls are also very fragmentary and so give no information in most cases
of differences between the MT and LXX.
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395
On Mon, 27 May 2002, Jim Eisele wrote:
> Well, I have mentioned that I feel our Gen 1 discussion has been thorough.
> I'll dare to go a 1/2 step further.
> These seem to be the three options that a Christian has.
> 1.Day-age (we've talked this through pretty well).
> Now is the difficult part. What deserves to be #2? YEC or theologism?
> Oh wait :-). This is a post about Masoretic accuracy :-).
> Dick Fischer's book says that Abraham's place in history is pretty
> secure at about 2055 BC.
> I feel that there is information that I don't have about the chronology
> between the flood and Abraham. I've seen here and elsewhere (an
> "accidental" stumbling on a link to Answers in Genesis - that was scary!)
> that the second Cainan was not part of Luke's original writing.
> So, if we follow the Septuagint, there is 942 years between the flood
> and Abraham. Thus, the flood is at ca 3000 BC. Dick's archaeologists
> put the flood at ca 2900 BC.
> BUT, Mike says the flood was at ca 2349BC. This is extremely close to
> the MT (Masoretic text) which puts 292 years between the flood and
> Sez me, it's got to be one or the other. Mike also has his tree rings
> and his Iraq crater and info about the "mysterious decline" of
> civilizations ca 2300BC. And oh, the idea that if the flood was in
> 2349 then there were exactly 4000 years between Christ and Adam. And
> oh, the fact that all modern Bibles use the MT.
> So, I studied the MT a bit (boy, was that a pain!). It seems that a
> Dead Sea Scroll points to the MT. And, it seems that the Septuagint
> is less reliable.
> And, Dick Fischer has been very quiet. It feels like I am starting to
> answer my own question.
> But does anyone know more about why Bibles use the MT?
> Jim Eisele
> Genesis in Question
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 27 2002 - 13:58:48 EDT