Thread removed. issue solved.
Needing something doesn't need an apology.
But (I'll apologize), I can't imagine what DSS Bible will do for you. Basically, it's 3 men's guesswork, first on applicability of fragments, then on translation, then on MT insertion. Curious but ???
The 2 75-cent resources below would far better fit? If not, the DSS Interlinear?
https://www.logos.com/search?query=dead%20sea%20scrolls&limit=30&page=1&ownership=all&filters=publisher-3914_Publisher
Oh wait I didn't know about that. I need to check it.
Well it looks you mauy have solved my problem.
I have Septuagint comparison in mind especially.
i may have just bought them for no reason. There is no english translation accompanying it and it doesn't have vowels either.
Don't say 'no reason'. I think I paid 100 times that for mine. Very useful.
And the popup includes morphs and english glosses. Searchable.
I guess the best question is what do you have? Normally, comparing english is fine (DSS Bible), but you can't tell what you're looking at. You need the OL. That's why the DSS interlinear is closer to what you want?
ive got the dss interlinear. I wanted flowing text but nevermind about it. Isaiah 9:6 right this moment but now I'm preoccupied elsewhere. I didn't realize the DSS bible is as patchworked as you said.
one of them only has a tiny portion of Joshua.....
Yes, they're fragments ... from the caves. Each 'resource' is a fragment. That's why you got the index also, so you can compare the fragments.
Again, I'll apologize, but DSS is little pieces (mainly; some large like Isa). When you're working your LXX, you link the DSS index to your LXX. Then quickly scan if there's any fragments, how they compare etc. Included are Sirach, etc
xSWelp. I'll just use the interlinear.
Well, you're cruising for a bruising.
In your DSS interlinear, read the About section, specifically 'Conventions'. Then take a look at Deu 1:8. Three fragments speak to portions of the verse. As you scan across, you'll see the variation, and you'll wonder which got the display, and which got footnoted. And why. You'll pull the fragment; it's unavoidable.
This doesn't question their decisioning; only how fast you can find the issue.
Another area you'll be blind to, is which fragments tend to follow the LXX or Samaritan.
as it happens the lxx just has a butchered rendering of 9:5-6. the worst part isn't "Angel of great counsel" it's the lack of "everlasting Father". "Angel of great counsel" is acceptable, if weird, as a rendering of the angel of Yahweh. I'm annoyed substantially but this variation. What makes it even more complicated, is that the MT's rendering is clearly the original one. It's rather shocking that the MT is MORE CHRISTOLOGICAL than the LXX. I'm going to make a seperate thread about this.
Well, since the 'verse' has altered rhythm, and a series of old titles, any certainty is misplaced. Each translator, including more modern ones, has made a run at it. I think you'd have trouble with the 'MT' being more Christological. The early Christians used the LXX for most of their proof-texts, and the MT followed jewish adoption of a messiah centuries later (however defined).
Don't say 'no reason'. I think I paid 100 times that for mine.
That's because the collection has been split up into countless small fragments, and you pointed to only two individual resources instead of the whole set.
That's because the collection has been split up into countless small fragments,
You're kidding. I suspected but didn't think so. Ergo Chrisser's single fragment. Apologies to Chrisser. But point remains (fragments).
EDIT: Although, re-searching, I only see 2 Biblical DSS's. You are kidding?
EDIT2: Ok, best I can see, you can get 1 fragment. Smiling.
Available Now
Build your biblical library with a new trusted commentary or resource every month. Yours to keep forever.
