Variations of Q from M, line 24 of the Qa 8:8 to 9:11

Q:

Dear Mr. Miller,

In the section "Variations of Q from Masoretic" of your comments to your translation of Column VIII of The Great Isaiah Scroll 8:8 to 9:11, you indicate the following: (Line 20: 3rd word: Q adds final "he" to the word "higaltah" (you increased) and in the 4th word "simcha" (joy) for the same reason described in ther last note. Line 21: 3rd word begins vs 3 Heb, Eng vs 4. The word "kiy" has a superfluous yod in Q. Line 22: 2nd word is Midian spelled "midiym" in Q and "midiyn" in the masoretic. Line 25, 1st word: "ha-misrah" has a yod over it which would make it to be pronounced "ha mi siy rah").

I wonder why you do not include the line 24 in the variations list.

Your translation of the line 24 reads:

"24. his shoulders and he shall be called wonderful, counsellor, mighty God, everlasting father the prince of peace." The Tanach translation of this line reads: "For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

I am sure you can agree that there is a great difference between "he shall be called mighty God, prince of peace" and "the mighty God called his name 'the prince of peace'".

How can you explain this discrepancy, please?

Yours sincerely,

(Name removed)

A:

Dear ------,

In English it is Isa 9:6, in Hebrew it is Isa 9:5.

The Hebrew masoretic text is plain. וַיִּקְרָ֨א He shall be called. Not He shall call. The dagesh (dot) in the yod indicates an elided nun making the verb a niphal 2nd stem meaning "he shall be called." The qal or 1st stem would be he shall call. The masoretic (Jewish) text reads "He shall be called." However even if it were a first stem the subject could not be el gibor (mighty God). The placement of el gibor in the sentence makes it one of the titles given to the son who is given to us. It is impossible for it to be the subject of וַיִּקְרָ֨א.

It is obvious why Jews, who do not believe in the messianic Mission of the Nazarene, would want to alter this verse from the masoretic meaning of its text. They also change the tense of the verb from an imperfect implying future to past (called) implying a perfect tense verb which it is not. I believe that Majorettes were correct and that the current modern Jewish translation of this verse is unscholarly to say the least.

all the best,

Fred P Miller

Dead Sea Scrolls and Authenticity

Eiseman

Q:

Hey Uncle Fred. What part of the Dead Sea Scrolls is this punk rock lady,

Exene, talking about? She's into ultra-feminist, goddess worship stuff, though apparently she maintains a certain authentic loathing for the corruption of our corporate, materialistic, homogenized culture. The following was an Internet interview with her conducted by Spin magazine.

Last question comes from Palamas: I am a grad student writing my thesis on allusions to Jesus in punk/alternative music and videos. Could you tell me a little bit about who you think Jesus is.

SPINspy: Wow...if that's not a closer, I don't know what is...

SPINsoul:Golly!

Exene: I recommend you read a book called The Nag Hamadi version of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Especially the Book of Thunder. I think Jesus was a person who believed in the Goddess, he talked about Her, and he believed all life was sacred like a pagan does and he wanted to help liberate people. Then his followers were pushed out of the way and that he was taken over by people who wanted to use his words not to liberate people to enslave them...It's called Christianity. I would suggest to read all the great Goddess books in the last 20 years...like Great Cosmic Mother, White Goddess, Language of the Goddess and The Civilization of the Goddess and the Dead Sea Scrolls...The Bible is like the Reader's Digest version of reality, written by a king.

A:

Dear Jonathan,

I am an "expert" only on the Isaiah Scroll (1Qisa or sometimes just Q, and the Pesher to Habakkuk, 1Qhab). I do not know of the lady you mention nor the books that she cites which contain citings of alledged references to Christianity and Jesus of Nazareth in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS).

But here are some general comments:

1. First there was and still is a lot of secrecy about the DSS and for a long time they were held back from public scrutiny because the translators wanted to protect their research so they could be first to publish and make money on their work before the general public got a chance to see the materials. In such a climate it was and still is possible to invent any number of "secret" scrolls and form all kinds of conspiracy theories, all of which have been associated with the developing information on the DSS. All the DSS fragments are now available on CD but the cost is prohibitive,-- in the range of several thousand dollars. So I do not own one. Accessing all the scroll fragments is possible but remains very difficult even for scholars.

2. The DSS are greatly over rated as sources of scriptures. The only books of the Bible that are present in a complete or almost complete form are Isaiah and Habakkuk. It is said that all of the books of the Hebrew Scriptures except Esther are represented in the scrolls. That is very misleading since many of the manuscripts ("MSS") are fragments no bigger than a postage stamp and most often are just a page or two of surviving text. If you wanted to find how a particular Hebrew scripture was written in the DSS, the odds are very poor that you would find it. There are no DSS MSS referencing New Testament scripture. The one attempt to claim that a portion of Mark on a small postage stamp size mss (7Q5) proposed by Carsten Thiede (noted and esteemed papyrologist) has been rejected by almost all DSS scholars, me included.

3. There was some attempt early on by those who had sole possession of the scrolls for academic purposes to show links in the Qumran community with the forerunners of Christianity. Disciples of John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth have been proposed.

One of the "in" scholars, Robert Eisenman, had very early in DSS history, written a book attempting to show that the Pesher to Habakkuk is a "coded" description of a struggle with the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth (The Righteous Teacher [moreh tsedek] and the wicked (high) priest [hacohe:n harashah]) There are also individual fragments with a "pierced messiah" text and a "Son of God" text. Those phrases are not a direct quote from a scroll. This is as close as you can come to an oblique reference to something that sounds "prechristian" in the scrolls. You can be certain that there is no direct reference to the disciples of John the Baptist or Jesus of Nazareth or Christianity in the DSS. If there were, the references would be main line book store material and would rock the religious and academic world. The thunder would reverberate world wide and be heard for years. It would not be exposed by some obscure cult or weird lady. There is absolutely no direct reference to anything Christian in the scrolls. Thiede is the only exception to anyone with credibility with his study of the fragment 7Q5. I will forward a short note of my opinion on Thiede's book, "Eye Witness to Jesus."

4. I will repeat it again: There is no direct reference to Christianity in any DSS. The indirect references are cited above. I have written a refutation of conspiracy theories relating to the DSS.

It is also on my CD.

But a more excellent answer to all the hubbub about the "moreh tsedek" etc and writings of alarmists looking for notoriety by making the Scrolls seem to be full of prechristian sources,-- many authors and especially Robert Eisenman -- can be found on my CD if you have access to it. Your mom has a copy. This document is really must reading for you if you are to get an outline grasp of the DSS controversies. it is found on my cd by accessing the Isaiah Commentary Directory, do that from the Index page,-- first link; and find the link at the bottom of the directory named "A More Complete Refutation of Qumran Conspiracy Theory". I also have that online. The author of this essay is missing but it is must reading.

5. I would cast great doubt on any DSS existing that suggested any form of idolatry as a recommended activity. The Qumran Essenes were a bit weird but not idolaters

6 I decided to add the letter I wrote to a questioner about Thiede's work on 7Q5. Here it is:

Dean

I have both the English and the USA editions of Thiede's "Eyewitness to Jesus." It has been some time since I read them and carried on a correspondence with several others going over the evidence. but as I recall there were other Magdelan College papyri documents (not DSS, that were more compelling. I am afraid that after I had gone over all the objections and all the -- what I felt was -- Thiede's really "contrived" reconstructions I came away with more doubts than assurances. The theme is "right down my alley" A fragment of the Gospel of Mark from the apostolic period! What a find that would be! But alas the evidence is very flimsy. I hate to side with the "liberals" especially since some of them (Canadian West for instance) are so arrogant but a thorough reading of all the controversy exposes too many weaknesses in Thiede's claim for 7Q5.

I would be overjoyed by credible evidence but there are too many credulous Christians who diminish rather than support the power of the truth. I am a believer trusting in the power of His crucifixion and resurrection but I try not to be credulous.

Sorry to disappoint you. (end)

Jonathan; let me repeat one more time: You can be certain that there is no direct reference to the disciples of John the Baptist or Jesus of Nazareth or Christianity in any of the DSS.

All the best

Fred P Miller