Scientists finally read the oldest Biblical text ever found

[mossrose]

Just posting this for interest's sake.



https://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-a7323296.html

The grammar in the article is appalling. I've copied it as it is.

[TheWall]

Cool.

[Sparko]

Yeah I read about that. Kinda neat how they can read something that is still rolled up. And burnt!

[One Bad Pig]

Source: article

In ancient times, many versions of the Hebrew Bible circulated. The Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to as early as the 3rd century B.C., featured versions of the text that are radically different than today's Hebrew Bible.

Scholars have believed the Hebrew Bible in its standard form first came about some 2,000 years ago, but never had physical proof, until now, according to the study. Previously the oldest known fragments of the modern biblical text dated back to the 8th century.

The text discovered in the charred Ein Gedi scroll is "100 percent identical" to the version of the Book of Leviticus that has been in use for centuries, said Dead Sea Scroll scholar Emmanuel Tov from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who participated in the study.

© Copyright Original Source

This appears to be partly gross exaggeration. I have a copy of "The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible" and the differences from the Masoretic Text tend to be pretty minor.

[Adrift]

This is a really interesting article, and an awesome discovery, but I'm confused about some of the language they're using. For instance, the article headline is "SCIENTISTS FINALLY READ THE OLDEST BIBLICAL TEXT EVER FOUND," which they then date to 2,000 years old. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but the article then also correctly points out that there are even older texts ("The Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to as early as the 3rd century B.C."). There's also the Silver Scrolls from Ketef Hinnom (not mentioned in the article) which dates to as early as the 7th century BC.

As far as I can determine, from the context of the article, it appears that they're claiming that this is the oldest copy of the Masoretic text specifically, and not the "Oldest Biblical Text Ever". The Masoretic text was largely developed in the Middle Ages, likely as a reaction to Christians using the Septuagint (which was pretty much the only thing most Jews were using up until that time as well), and the desire of Jews wanting to go back to the Hebrew source. Though developed in the Middle Ages, scholars have long suspected that the Masoretes (which the text is named after) were pulling from older copies available to them, and this find seems to confirm that. Most modern Bible translations use a combination of sources which include both the Septuagint, and the Masoretic text.

So, either I'm missing something completely obvious, or the Independent went with a sensationalized headline (which wouldn't be the first time for them).

Also, it should be noted that this article is from 2016, so while important, it's not really new news.

Edit: On further Googling, it looks like the Independant might have gotten the age of the text wrong as well,

http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/...red-04216.html

[tabibito]

Oldest copy of the (particular texts of the) Bible in its standard form. The article might be alluding to a complete set of scrolls (or maybe just the scrolls of the pentateuch - they were recovered from a synagogue's ark) - but there's not enough detail in the article to be sure.

[mossrose]

This is a really interesting article, and an awesome discovery, but I'm confused about some of the language they're using. For instance, the article headline is "SCIENTISTS FINALLY READ THE OLDEST BIBLICAL TEXT EVER FOUND," which they then date to 2,000 years old. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but the article then also correctly points out that there are even older texts ("The Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to as early as the 3rd century B.C."). There's also the Silver Scrolls from Ketef Hinnom (not mentioned in the article) which dates to as early as the 7th century BC.

As far as I can determine, from the context of the article, it appears that they're claiming that this is the oldest copy of the Masoretic text specifically, and not the "Oldest Biblical Text Ever". The Masoretic text was largely developed in the Middle Ages, likely as a reaction to Christians using the Septuagint (which was pretty much the only thing most Jews were using up until that time as well), and the desire of Jews wanting to go back to the Hebrew source. Though developed in the Middle Ages, scholars have long suspected that the Masoretes (which the text is named after) were pulling from older copies available to them, and this find seems to confirm that. Most modern Bible translations use a combination of sources which include both the Septuagint, and the Masoretic text.

So, either I'm missing something completely obvious, or the Independent went with a sensationalized headline (which wouldn't be the first time for them).

Also, it should be noted that this article is from 2016, so while important, it's not really new news.

Edit: On further Googling, it looks like the Independant might have gotten the age of the text wrong as well,

http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/...red-04216.html

I wondered about some of that as well. But the technology is interesting.

[Sparko]

Source: article

In ancient times, many versions of the Hebrew Bible circulated. The Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to as early as the 3rd century B.C., featured versions of the text that are radically different than today's Hebrew Bible.

Scholars have believed the Hebrew Bible in its standard form first came about some 2,000 years ago, but never had physical proof, until now, according to the study. Previously the oldest known fragments of the modern biblical text dated back to the 8th century.

The text discovered in the charred Ein Gedi scroll is "100 percent identical" to the version of the Book of Leviticus that has been in use for centuries, said Dead Sea Scroll scholar Emmanuel Tov from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who participated in the study.

© Copyright Original Source

This appears to be partly gross exaggeration. I have a copy of "The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible" and the differences from the Masoretic Text tend to be pretty minor.

https://probe.org/the-dead-sea-scrolls/