The questionability of the Masoritic text.
DSS great scroll of Isaiah is dated about 200 BC and is virtually identical to the oldest masoritic text a 1000 years younger.
Since the discussion is the prophetic verse from Isaiah, and your comments regarding the questionable later ‘altering’ of the masoritic, my point is that at least in the case of Isaiah, that hasn’t happened.
Would such a masoretic text of Isaiah contain vowel markings? The masoretic text of the Pentateuch should, as it was recited aloud in a formal setting. But why would Isaiah contain vowel markings?
Would such a masoretic text of Isaiah contain vowel markings? The masoretic text of the Pentateuch should, as it was recited aloud in a formal setting. But why would Isaiah contain vowel markings?
I do find it interesting and noteworthy that the Dead Sea Scrolls’ Isaiah uses Almah; My point was that the Septuagint predates the birth of Christ, and it was the scripture that had been fulfilled. Looking to the Jews for the proper scripture wording is senseless.
I had read at length how the Septuagint is 85% closer to the DSS than the Masoretic Text, but it appears that Q1 is closer to the MT. However, did not “Almah” also have the connotation of being unmarried? Is the connotation not strong enough that the notion of a pregnant “Almah” would be scandalous?