Semlang Udon@SemlangU
Apr 24, 2024
9 tweets
10/17 only be conjectured, but not shown as a fact, how is it that the authors present it as such, viz. that “Isaac and Jacob” is a later addition not found in the DSS? The answer appears to be that the authors didn’t look at actual manuscripts or even the original text itself.
11/17 It appears to me that the authors looked at a website that tries to communicate various aspects of DSS manuscripts in English. This is obviously not the way to do textual criticism or even a sound foundation to base any a claim on.
12/17 From the image it appears that the website correctly indicates in italics that “Abraham” can’t be read, though this is for some reason *not* indicated by the authors. However, as we have seen, the words markedas missing by strike-through, is an error.
13/17 This error, it seems to me, was unwittingly perpetuated by the authors of “Abraham Fulfilled”, because they didn’t look at the manuscript itself, but solely at the site dssenglishbible.com/scroll4Q1e.htm
14/17 As you can see from the image, the translation provided in “Abraham Fulfilled” perfectly matches that of the website, except for the indication of “Abraham” in italic and of course leaving out the words, “Isaac and Jacob”in strike-through.
15/17 Ironically, there is an early scroll fragment from the Judean Desert that does include a section of Ex. 6:8. The scroll, the so-called Murba’at Exodus, is not from Qumran, but, as the name indicates, from Wadi Murba’at and dates to the second century CE.
16/17 This fragment contains the words “to Abraham, to Isaac” at the end of line 4 from the top. When the verse resumes, “and” can’t be seen, the top of a lamed’s (“to”) ascender is visible, a speck, presumably from the /ʕ/ and the top part of the /q/ of “Jacob” are visible.
17/17 The /b/ is completely visible. Thus, IMHO there can be little doubt that the manuscript here has all three patriarchs, as we have today and all early manuscripts where this specific part of the verse is substantially preserved, disagree with the authors’ thesis.
* I’ll add that the /y/ of what I would reconstruct as “and to Jacob” is also not visible in the fragment.
Missing some tweets in this thread? Or failed to load images or videos? You can try to .