@IDRIS
How can we tackle this verse in Hebrew
יב וְנִתַּן הַסֵּפֶר, עַל אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יָדַע סֵפֶר לֵאמֹר--קְרָא נָא-זֶה; וְאָמַר, לֹא יָדַעְתִּי סֵפֶר. {ס} 12
and the writing is delivered to him that is not learned, saying: 'Read this, I pray thee'; and he saith: 'I am not learned.
if we compare it to codex sinaiticus
we can clearly see word Hira, which corrector change into HEIRAS to mean hands
isaih in hebrew is older than codex sinaiticus in greek, so if someone say why do we not find word HIra or Hands/Heiras in hebrew bible isaih 29:12?
How do you respond to that?
Salam aleikum brother Dawud,
Well, if by "isaiah in hebrew is older than codex sinaiticus" you mean the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa-a) of Qumran, then I would say don't be naive, and don't let them fool you! This Isaiah scroll is not really ancient as IAA claim to the world. In fact, Solomon Zeitlin (1886-1976) has already proved that it’s a medieval copy (produced sometime after Islam, possibly in the 7th-8th century). Solomon Zeitlin wrote many important publications. He was a distinguished Jewish historian, Talmudic scholar, and in his time the world's leading authority on the Second Temple period, thus he was a scholar whose reputation could hardly be denied (See e.g.
Solomon Zeitlin: Scholar Laureate: An Annotated Bibliography, 1915–1970, With Appreciations of His Writings, ed. Sydney B. Hoenig (New York: Bitzaron; Philadelphia: Dropsie University, 1971). He was one of those few brave scholars who "dared" to question the supposed antiquity of DSS. See e.g. S. Zeitlin, "The Alleged Antiquity of the Scrolls."
Jewish Quarterly Review 40/1 (1949), pp. 57-78; Idem, "The Propaganda of the Hebrew Scrolls and the Falsification of History."
Jewish Quarterly Review 46/1 (1955), pp. 1-39; Idem, "The Fallacy of the Antiquity of the Hebrew Scrolls Once More Exposed."
Jewish Quarterly Review 52/4 (1962), pp. 346-366
Such a well-known and highly reputed scholar certainly would not claim they are medieval fabrication unless convinced it was true. Internal-paleographical evidence from the scrolls themselves indicates toward a medieval production. Some have stressed the fact that many scrolls are written on vellum (about 90% of them), further confirms that these documents are indeed a medieval production. What is even more strange, scholars noted the lack of cinnabar-based metallic deterioration on the manuscripts which normally occurs after just 200 years on ancient materials. Additionally, many of the reading variants that 1QIsa-a shares, and that are not attested by MT, can only be found in the private collections of Kennicott’s and de Rossi's Hebrew medieval manuscripts, thus again potentially betraying the medieval nature of DSS.
Besides Solomon Zeitlin, few other biblical scholars of great reputation such as Louis-Hugues Vincent (1872-1960), a French archaeologist of the École Biblique, and Johannes Petrus Maria van der Ploeg (1909-2004), a Dutch Dominican specialist in Hebrew, Dead Sea Scrolls and Syriac manuscripts, also thought that DSS are medieval, not ancient. See John C. Trever,
The Untold Story of Qumran (Chicago: F.H. Revell Company, 1965), p. 108
A couple of years ago, I had an email conversation with a Christian scholar Frederick Peter Miller (1931–2018) who confirmed to me that there are many strange editorial markings and traces of later revisions (altered shapes of letters, numerals, punctuation, etc.) observed in between different DSS publications that seems to be anachronistic since they are more consistent with the Middle Ages rather than the Macabbean or Hasmonean period to which the scrolls are said to come from. He and David Cooper told me about Neil Altman who is an independent researcher and expert on DSS, and who carefully studied the scroll of 1QIsa-a, and he was about to release his findings in a journal of El Paso. Scholars posed many questions to IAA with regard to the existence of these strange markings but they never answered them.
We can delve deeper into some of the "unspoken" controversies (and scandals) surrounding DSS but it’s not the right place to talk about it. However, I will insha'Allah write on it more in another occasion. In any case, this whole Israeli propaganda is a mere deceptive strategy to gain a pre-Islamic attestation (and attention) for the antiquity of biblical writings. They urgently needed a certificate to "back up" and/or predate their masoretic text (written in 10th century AD) by claiming to have found a much older copies, and one of the reasons is that they have realized that the Quranic accusation of corrupting the Hebrew Bible, sooner or later, will be inconvenient, unfavorable, and burdensome to their theo-political interest.
Take care,
Idris (Ahmed)
Recent Posts