mlinssen wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:50 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:24 am
mlinssen wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 11:38 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 1:19 pm
mlinssen wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 11:58 am
I think the MT has precedence....
Why would the MT have precedence over the Dead Sea scrolls? Same language, and the scrolls predate the Masoretic scribes by centuries
The date can't be contested - the question is which is the more authorative version.
Should we toss all versions of the Tanakh and replace them by the DSS? That would be the day
Toss them out? Of course not. Correct their text by what we have in the Dead Sea scrolls (which are not complete for us)? Of course.
In our current case, "heavens" enjoys the support both of the LXX and the Dead Sea scrolls, with the Masoretic and the Samaritan supporting "nations" instead. What argument would you make for going with the latter rather than with the former in this case?
There must be a reason for the MT having nations.
I agree with that. There is probably a reason.
I mentioned the word authorative, and I'm really not interested in any of all this mumbo jumbo.
Apparently you see a need to "correct" the MT by letting the DSS prevail in this case, which implies that you think that the MT is wrong in this case.
No, I am not sure which reading should be considered more original. I am questioning your assertion that the Masoretic should take precedence.
You mentioned earlier that the DSS are earlier, and hence you would likely argue that it is "better"
That is far from always being the case, that earlier is better. I do not subscribe to that view. What I am asking you is why you think the Masoretic ought to be given precedence here. (Because I certainly do not subscribe to the opposite
view, that later is better, either.)
My entire line of argument was directed at Matthew using the plural heavens in combination with kingdom, whereas the LXX has the singular. Needless to say, that combination isn't present in the LXX, it just speaks of heaven in general when referring to the "theological one", it seems.
That there are occurrences of plural heavens in the LXX is fine, but a first glance leads me to believe that those are within a different context
The Hebrew is a funny word anyway, and thanks again to Ken for that. The whole issue is this one and only question:
Where the hell (pun!) did Matthew get his kingdom of the heavens from? He is the only one in the entire NT who speaks of a kingdom of heaven(s), and it's not in the LXX either (or the MT)
Is it in the DSS, perhaps? That would be very, very interesting.
It is in Thomas of course, in the exact same form - you know where I'm going with this, don't you?
Yes, I see perfectly, but that is not what I am talking about here and now. I am asking you why the Masoretic should be given precedence over the Dead Sea scrolls.
I mean, maybe it should! The reading we are discussing, "nations," is far older than the Masoretic. I cannot prove it is older than the Qumran scrolls, but it is at least ancient. But why
should it? You made the assertion, and I am asking you to back it up.