The Dead Sea Scrolls Bibleby Martin G., Jr. Abegg Jr., Peter Flint, Eugene Ulrich
From the dramatic find in the caves of Qumran, the world's most ancient version of the Bible allows us to read the scriptures as they were in the time of Jesus.See more details below
From the dramatic find in the caves of Qumran, the world's most ancient version of the Bible allows us to read the scriptures as they were in the time of Jesus.
- HarperCollins Publishers
- Publication date:
- Sold by:
- NOOK Book
- Sales rank:
- File size:
- 2 MB
and post it to your social network
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
See all customer reviews >
For the 1st time, the biblical portion of the Dead Sea Scrolls has been translated into English. It's a 649 page book entitled 'The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible', translation by Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich who are highly respected scholars in this field. Extensive notes and ingenious, but easy to understand punctuation are used which are a tremendous help in understanding just what the DSS includes. Thank you Martin, Peter and Eugene!!! I just cannot thank you enough! Now, at last, one can, in English, compare, using this new translation, what was written in approx 125 BCE (the date of the Isaiah scroll) with the Masoretic text (the basic text used in the translation of the Old Testament of most modern Bibles) which was written in 1008 CE, and we can personally check to see whether any significant changes have occurred in the Bible over a period of about 1,132 years. Also, be sure to read the enlightening introduction. I listen to the a tape of the Bible, but follow along in this new translation and note the differences. It's quite a confidence builder and a fun way to do Bible reading. Two unfortunate notes: the translators of the DSS Bible opted to use LORD instead of the Divine Name, deferring to the method used by the RSV (why, oh why do they do this when the name is actually there in the text?), and they seem to be succumbing to political correctness by, as they said, using 'inclusive language...with respect to humans', though not for God, and promising to do more in that area in future editions. (How reputable translators can surrender to what is currently in vogue or politically proper and allow it to color their translation is just beyond me.) Still, to be able to compare the DSS to the Masoretic text makes it a most welcome translation, and except for the 2 quibbles mentioned above, it is a job very well, make that, exceptionally well done!
If the Mona Lisa had been painted by a committee, instead of an artist, would anybody want to see it today? Would it be in a museum? How would people view it if they even knew of it? I purchased this book in the hope that I would get the latest translation available on some ancient text believed to be "sacred writing" and discover on pagee xix and xx that the writing really isn't "sacred" after all because we "in the interest of accuracy" change the writing of the principal character from the ancient anagram YHWH and YHWH elohim" to what is approved in the Revised Standard Version" or the "New Revised Standard." We aren't even into the book yet and already changing the "sacred" text to read what we want it to read. I suppose my definition of "sacred" might differ from that of the author's because...to me when one says that such and such is sacred, then it should be expressed as it was written. Period. Enf of debate. Based on the looseness with which we play with the identifiers, I give it just a few more years and you will completely write God's name out of the equation. If the text is truly sacred, keep your grubby paws of it. Secondly, this is not the place to interject your petty little political belief that the Book of Genesis argues for Monogamy. How many wives did you say Joseph had? Esau? Isaac? and that venerable old warhorse and paragon of marital fidelity and wisdom, King Solomon? What!!! Only 700 wives and 300 concubines!!! and I thought it was worse. Besides, "God said do not add to or subtract from." Are you trying to promote the idea that God got it wrong? That he should have mentioned it because you wanted it. When God admonished David for his affair with good old Bethsheba, didn't God admonish him for not settling on all King Dau's wives and Concubines which he, God, had given him. Thirdly, writers, in general need, need, need to start putting the Spirit back into the Bible or the future is not going to be a good one. Somebody needs to wake up to the fact that believing is an intense personal experience subject which you should be able to share. If you want to turn religion into a science, continue on the path you are on and you will get there. You will not be better off for having done so. There is nothing mechanistic about religion yet every new text I read points in that direction. Everyone needs to get back to God's basics and follow the laws, ordinances, statutes, and decrees without adding to or subtracting from. I could have liked the book but I do not. I wanted a translation of sacred works and got a revised and approved copy of what you thought I could read and handle. I'll know better the next time
I was very dissappointed that this complete english work did not include the hebrew. I should have liked to compare the author's translation to the original text. I was also hoping to compare the DSC bible text to existing bible texts. I'm not at all satisfied having to take the authors word on the translation without seeing the hebrew source. If the author reads this message, I hope he will consider comming out with an edition which includes the hebrew text. I would be will to pay twice as much for the included hebrew texts.
My friend loved it