I would also like to express my appreciation for Kedem allowing their knowledgeable guests do the overwhelming majority of the talking I have seen Dr Davis on other channels, where he gets constantly interrupted by the channel hosts......really annoying
@@JacquesMare Yup, "virtually unchanged". They mention here one text where the current version conforms 94% with the earliest example available, which is itself many centuries after its original composition. What is your point?
The concept of the 'infallibility' of scripture is relatively recent and rooted in certain USA sects. It descends into a sort of Biblioatry whereby the text becomes more important than a relationship of trust in Christ
Inerrancy has a basis in some passages that are as much as 2,600 years old Deuteronomy 4:2 (Israel,) Do not add to what I (Moses) command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands that Yahweh Elohim of your fathers is giving you. [That would make blasphemy of all Bible books after Deuteronomy that contain commands.] (The statue of Idrimi from Aleppo from 900 years earlier contains a curse for anyone who changes the text on the statue. ruclips.net/video/SQtwqSahQxM/видео.html ) Deuteronomy 12:32 Whatever I (Moses) command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it. According to the verses below, every change, including every translation, of the Bible is blasphemy and every biblical author after Proverbs could be considered a liar, according to Proverbs 30:5-6. Changes also prove Psalms 12:6-7 wrong, so the Bible is not inerrant. So at least 2 doctrines are affected by even small changes. Proverbs 30:5-6 Every word of Elowah is tested; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar. Psalms 12:6-7 The words of Yahweh are pure words as silver tried in a furnace of land, purified sevenfold. *You, Yahweh, will keep them. You will preserve them (starting) from this generation forever/indefinitely.* {lə·‘ō·lām} Matthew 5:17-18 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Truly I tell you, until the sky and the land pass away, not one iota or keraia will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Thanks for another interesting conversation. This area of biblical research is so interesting. It does raise so many questions about contemporary rigidity around texts compared to the fluidity in the past. Was Scripture a more living tradition in the past than it is now? What have we lost or gained in fixing the text? Did the Temple officials feel the need to preserve some older/other textual traditions even though they were not part of the "accepted" text at the time? Dr. Davis also mentioned that the text chosen sometimes depended on how it was used or its function. I hope you can have him back to speak more about the contexts in which the texts may have functioned. Maybe some other text traditions were not part of the Tanak, but were acceptable in other faith contexts, like ritual or teaching.
We still get some of that. With so many translations and paraphrases into English, we get discussion groups preferring on version's reading of a verse than another with no clue about the scholarship or lack of it behind the version they prefer. And they might prefer the way one version reads a verse but prefer another version's flavour for a few verses later. Of course, Christians east of the Mediterranean managed without Paul for centuries.
I can imagine a party from the temple coming down to the Essenes and saying, "Hey, we don't get along, but we're all Jewish and worried about the same Romans just over the hill there. Could you find a place to stash these scrolls for us, as we've heard you are doign the same thing."
I could be wrong, but isn't Isaiah a book out of the Hebrew Bible? The Tanakh? So, if this is an "issue" for Christians, that issue is dependent on the veracity of the Tanakh itself. So, the question is: What does this mean for Judaism? This is the question that was not asked, nor answered. Or, is the mission is to put the kibosh to Christian apologists? I do expect a high degree of scholarly research, and what it means first, to Judaism.
The Septuagint was translated in the 3rd century BCE. Wouldn't that mean that the Rabbis were closer to the original text, (which had soon turned to dust). Don't you think that they would know, from their own Rabbis, who instructed them verbally, what the word or words, actually were? Just a thought.
The problem is that we don't have the original Septuagint, what we have now is what was preserved by the church, and fragments from around the turn of the first century. Is this text the actual Septuagint or a later translation wrongly assumed Septuagint? Church clerics have been found to change the text to fit their doctrines. There is no good enough answer. There it's only a source to play comparisons with.
Is the rate of variance in text as one goes back linear or more exponential? If more exponential, then there may be scope for much more variance before the Deas Sea scrolls were written than afterwards.
*”94%” claim is false?* If the texts were separated by how close they match current versions of the texts, and only the close ones compared, then it sounds as though the claim of 94% similarity is meaningless, since they had already filtered out anything that is less than (for example) 50% similar.
This is the only scroll that was preserved almost in its entirety, so there were no really much to filter. Other Isaiah scrolls from Qumran are either closer to the language in today’s Hebrew Bible (MT) or closer to the Greek translation, AKA The Septuagint.
Alex, apart of admiring your efforts and talent, I am puzzled with your hat wearing rules. Would be grateful to understand it, as I want to get one just like yours. Eli
Pre-Masoretic texts suffer from the same ambiguity as early Quran manuscripts ... the vowels are interpolated, there isn't any punctuation and the interpolation of the vowels is a significant part of the meaning.
You make the mistake of projecting the problem of the masoretic text on to the Qur'an. The Qur'an the book, is preceded by the Qur'an the recitation. More specifically, there has been thousands upon thousands, millions even since the the 7th century until today who have memorized recited and continue to recite and the whole of the Qur'an. To the extent if someone mis-recites so much as a vowel, he is corrected during the prayer. Whereas, there is a debate as to how Yahweh is pronounced, such problems don't exist with the Qur'an. This is so much so, there recitation competition around the Qur'anic literate world.
It doesn't matter what the reading is whether it be a "lion" or "pierced" if you do or do not believe if Yeshua was the begotten son or, a deluded rabbi wandering around ancient Roman Palestine. That reading will be debated till the end of time. Or, you go about your business, and do what Hashem's Will is. That's my focus, and I believe, the only way to plow through the muck the differences create in our minds. The Essenes broke with the Pharisees, and Sadducees of Jerusalem. They practiced differently - according to their belief of what Hashem desired of us. So, the differences are written according to that "light" of understanding. The Tanakh we have today, may be correct according to what was practiced by the Jews who remained? So, it is up to you and Hashem what is right and true. We will never know on paper. We will only know if we, in silence, connect with Hashem in our hearts - and in peace, go from there.
Hindu's do this with Krishna and Mormons with the Holy spirit. If that works for you great. Some want to understand evidence beyond just personal feelings. The people who connect in silence to Brahman say they are correct, the people who connect with Allah say they are correct. That method seems to have flaws and be based on assumptions.
There is no fulfilled predictive prophecy in Isaiah, so it doesn't matter when it was written. It also wasn't "the school of Isaiah." People felt free to add to these texts over time and felt free to contradict them. Usually they would add things rather than subtract things, but they were always adding things and there was no concept of canonized or unchangable scripture. They were always open, never closed or finished. Isaiah was written in at least three different stages over several hundred years. It wasn't a school, it was just an open file that anyone had the authority to add to.
I kept waiting for a "mistake in the Isaiah Scroll" or a smoking gun on why we should rethink the authenticity of the bible. The title of the video suggests something like that!! I appreciate the work of textual scholars, but they never show us actual "mistakes" or give us evidence that discredit the bible in use today!!
You can read Ehrman's Jesus Interrupted, Kipp has videos where he shows some of the differences in the Isaiah scroll, there is a book showing all of the differences. James Tabor shows the Qumran community scrolls from 150 BCE who all followed a teacher of rightneousness who also wrote a hymn about his life and predicted the coming end. There is stuff everywhere.
You can debate or questioning is bible the word of God? But nobody can explained that in the book of isiah had prophecied the return of modern israel/jews. Remember isiah was written when the jew was still in the form of kingdom in BC.
Sure it does, when you ask "compared to what". It tells you something. Or take the NT, where every Tom, Dick and Harry copied it, also b/c they intended to preserve a Divine Text.
Why is he talking about psalms....I thought he was going to come out swinging with examples of errors in the ISAIAH SCROLL.... sighs. 25 min in....I guess I'll just be patient.
I listened to this video expecting to hear multiple problems with the dead sea Isaiah scrolls in comparison to the leningrad codex.....and all I get is 2 examples from a guy the speaker disagrees with, named Peter Flint, who died in 2016 and can no longer defend his posistion on the text. ARE.YOU.KIDDING.ME.... I'm starting to question the content on this channel. This was over an hour of my time man. Come on....
Kip Davis is a perfect fit for Kedem’s mission to make top notch scholarship available to the general public.
Thank you!
Thank you 🙏
I would also like to express my appreciation for Kedem allowing their knowledgeable guests do the overwhelming majority of the talking
I have seen Dr Davis on other channels, where he gets constantly interrupted by the channel hosts......really annoying
The fact that the transmission of a piece of writing is virtually unchanging for a long period of time does nothing to validate the original text.
Virtually unchanged.........................
@@JacquesMare Yup, "virtually unchanged". They mention here one text where the current version conforms 94% with the earliest example available, which is itself many centuries after its original composition. What is your point?
Still myth
We can not even know what the original texts said; ergo, we can not validate them if we tried.
It was constantly changing anyway, but yes, conceptually you are right. We have millions of perfect copies of Harry Potter.
The concept of the 'infallibility' of scripture is relatively recent and rooted in certain USA sects. It descends into a sort of Biblioatry whereby the text becomes more important than a relationship of trust in Christ
Inerrancy has a basis in some passages that are as much as 2,600 years old
Deuteronomy 4:2 (Israel,) Do not add to what I (Moses) command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands that Yahweh Elohim of your fathers is giving you. [That would make blasphemy of all Bible books after Deuteronomy that contain commands.]
(The statue of Idrimi from Aleppo from 900 years earlier contains a curse for anyone who changes the text on the statue. ruclips.net/video/SQtwqSahQxM/видео.html )
Deuteronomy 12:32 Whatever I (Moses) command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.
According to the verses below, every change, including every translation, of the Bible is blasphemy and every biblical author after Proverbs could be considered a liar, according to Proverbs 30:5-6. Changes also prove Psalms 12:6-7 wrong, so the Bible is not inerrant.
So at least 2 doctrines are affected by even small changes.
Proverbs 30:5-6 Every word of Elowah is tested; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.
Psalms 12:6-7 The words of Yahweh are pure words as silver tried in a furnace of land, purified sevenfold. *You, Yahweh, will keep them. You will preserve them (starting) from this generation forever/indefinitely.* {lə·‘ō·lām}
Matthew 5:17-18 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Truly I tell you, until the sky and the land pass away, not one iota or keraia will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Thanks for another interesting conversation. This area of biblical research is so interesting. It does raise so many questions about contemporary rigidity around texts compared to the fluidity in the past. Was Scripture a more living tradition in the past than it is now? What have we lost or gained in fixing the text? Did the Temple officials feel the need to preserve some older/other textual traditions even though they were not part of the "accepted" text at the time? Dr. Davis also mentioned that the text chosen sometimes depended on how it was used or its function. I hope you can have him back to speak more about the contexts in which the texts may have functioned. Maybe some other text traditions were not part of the Tanak, but were acceptable in other faith contexts, like ritual or teaching.
We still get some of that. With so many translations and paraphrases into English, we get discussion groups preferring on version's reading of a verse than another with no clue about the scholarship or lack of it behind the version they prefer. And they might prefer the way one version reads a verse but prefer another version's flavour for a few verses later. Of course, Christians east of the Mediterranean managed without Paul for centuries.
I can imagine a party from the temple coming down to the Essenes and saying, "Hey, we don't get along, but we're all Jewish and worried about the same Romans just over the hill there. Could you find a place to stash these scrolls for us, as we've heard you are doign the same thing."
I could be wrong, but isn't Isaiah a book out of the Hebrew Bible? The Tanakh? So, if this is an "issue" for Christians, that issue is dependent on the veracity of the Tanakh itself. So, the question is: What does this mean for Judaism? This is the question that was not asked, nor answered. Or, is the mission is to put the kibosh to Christian apologists? I do expect a high degree of scholarly research, and what it means first, to Judaism.
The Septuagint was translated in the 3rd century BCE. Wouldn't that mean that the Rabbis were closer to the original text, (which had soon turned to dust). Don't you think that they would know, from their own Rabbis, who instructed them verbally, what the word or words, actually were? Just a thought.
The problem is that we don't have the original Septuagint, what we have now is what was preserved by the church, and fragments from around the turn of the first century.
Is this text the actual Septuagint or a later translation wrongly assumed Septuagint?
Church clerics have been found to change the text to fit their doctrines.
There is no good enough answer.
There it's only a source to play comparisons with.
History is always more "incomplete" as it goes on. Disciplines raise more questions over time.
This is a high quality video. Thanks
How wonderful. Thank you
Our pleasure!
Thank you for this interview, I enjoyed it a lot!
Is the rate of variance in text as one goes back linear or more exponential? If more exponential, then there may be scope for much more variance before the Deas Sea scrolls were written than afterwards.
Think I missed you in chat but here is wishing you and yours happy and safe Christmas. Not a specific Jewish holiday but I think you get the meaning.
Thank you, dear Ian. Happy Christmas to you too!
Well a merry Elagabalus celebration day to you too.
@@Darisiabgal7573 Well that name opened a whole ball of historical wax!
I love Kip's honest scholarship - few are as transparent.
*”94%” claim is false?*
If the texts were separated by how close they match current versions of the texts, and only the close ones compared, then it sounds as though the claim of 94% similarity is meaningless, since they had already filtered out anything that is less than (for example) 50% similar.
This is the only scroll that was preserved almost in its entirety, so there were no really much to filter. Other Isaiah scrolls from Qumran are either closer to the language in today’s Hebrew Bible (MT) or closer to the Greek translation, AKA The Septuagint.
@@KEDEMChannel Selecting only the one that is complete, in case that is what happened, is also a selection bias.
I would like Kipp to meet Mauro Biglino.
Alex, apart of admiring your efforts and talent, I am puzzled with your hat wearing rules. Would be grateful to understand it, as I want to get one just like yours. Eli
Pre-Masoretic texts suffer from the same ambiguity as early Quran manuscripts ... the vowels are interpolated, there isn't any punctuation and the interpolation of the vowels is a significant part of the meaning.
You make the mistake of projecting the problem of the masoretic text on to the Qur'an. The Qur'an the book, is preceded by the Qur'an the recitation. More specifically, there has been thousands upon thousands, millions even since the the 7th century until today who have memorized recited and continue to recite and the whole of the Qur'an. To the extent if someone mis-recites so much as a vowel, he is corrected during the prayer. Whereas, there is a debate as to how Yahweh is pronounced, such problems don't exist with the Qur'an. This is so much so, there recitation competition around the Qur'anic literate world.
It doesn't matter what the reading is whether it be a "lion" or "pierced" if you do or do not believe if Yeshua was the begotten son or, a deluded rabbi wandering around ancient Roman Palestine. That reading will be debated till the end of time. Or, you go about your business, and do what Hashem's Will is. That's my focus, and I believe, the only way to plow through the muck the differences create in our minds.
The Essenes broke with the Pharisees, and Sadducees of Jerusalem. They practiced differently - according to their belief of what Hashem desired of us. So, the differences are written according to that "light" of understanding. The Tanakh we have today, may be correct according to what was practiced by the Jews who remained? So, it is up to you and Hashem what is right and true. We will never know on paper. We will only know if we, in silence, connect with Hashem in our hearts - and in peace, go from there.
Hindu's do this with Krishna and Mormons with the Holy spirit. If that works for you great. Some want to understand evidence beyond just personal feelings. The people who connect in silence to Brahman say they are correct, the people who connect with Allah say they are correct. That method seems to have flaws and be based on assumptions.
Isaiah being more the "school of Isaiah" is not very challenging.
It is all several hundred years BCE.
Isaiahs colleagues were prophets too😮
There is no fulfilled predictive prophecy in Isaiah, so it doesn't matter when it was written. It also wasn't "the school of Isaiah." People felt free to add to these texts over time and felt free to contradict them. Usually they would add things rather than subtract things, but they were always adding things and there was no concept of canonized or unchangable scripture. They were always open, never closed or finished. Isaiah was written in at least three different stages over several hundred years. It wasn't a school, it was just an open file that anyone had the authority to add to.
I kept waiting for a "mistake in the Isaiah Scroll" or a smoking gun on why we should rethink the authenticity of the bible. The title of the video suggests something like that!! I appreciate the work of textual scholars, but they never show us actual "mistakes" or give us evidence that discredit the bible in use today!!
Thanks 🙏🏽
You can read Ehrman's Jesus Interrupted, Kipp has videos where he shows some of the differences in the Isaiah scroll, there is a book showing all of the differences. James Tabor shows the Qumran community scrolls from 150 BCE who all followed a teacher of rightneousness who also wrote a hymn about his life and predicted the coming end.
There is stuff everywhere.
How convenient to ask people who don’t have access to the scrolls itself 😂😂📜
You can debate or questioning is bible the word of God? But nobody can explained that in the book of isiah had prophecied the return of modern israel/jews. Remember isiah was written when the jew was still in the form of kingdom in BC.
So what does this means ?
😮😮😮
So same issues is for validity for Jewish Tanak as well as Christians Bible .
Sure it does, when you ask "compared to what".
It tells you something. Or take the NT, where every Tom, Dick and Harry copied it, also b/c they intended to preserve a Divine Text.
אלכס יקר למה לא תשים כתוביות בעברית?
תדליק את הכתוביות האוטומטיות בהגדרות, זה אמור לתת גם כתוביות בעברית
"Incomplete" history is the only history.
Dr Davies historiography does not match his detail.
#merryChristmas
Why are you so sure they are not forgeries...?
Why is he talking about psalms....I thought he was going to come out swinging with examples of errors in the ISAIAH SCROLL.... sighs.
25 min in....I guess I'll just be patient.
👍👍👍👍
I listened to this video expecting to hear multiple problems with the dead sea Isaiah scrolls in comparison to the leningrad codex.....and all I get is 2 examples from a guy the speaker disagrees with, named Peter Flint, who died in 2016 and can no longer defend his posistion on the text. ARE.YOU.KIDDING.ME.... I'm starting to question the content on this channel.
This was over an hour of my time man. Come on....
This guy is a huge waste of time
Aboot!
Great subject, but Dr Davis is so faltering in his delivery, And he looks like a college dropout. Not really cool.
This guy is a major hack. Uses etymology as basis for dating. Insane.
The Romans didn't use crucifixion. See Calpurnpiso: 'Christianity Built on Lies'.