This is confusing: are you talking about using the Masoretic text to infer stuff about how Biblical Hebrew was pronounced, or about whether the Masoretic text is a reliable record of what Torah actually says? Or both? Not the same question.
Also the thing about the earliest Bible being a thousand years old - I think it's closer 1200 - but anyway, the way you say that implies that that is the earliest evidence altogether. Obviously there are manuscripts of individual books of the Bible, plus other sources eg Midrash, Talmud etc quoting Torah. I believe there's a very early manuscript of Isaiah on its own. And a few more of the equivalent of a modern Chumash, plus several books of Neviim bound together as one volume or Ketuvim ditto.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-01-04 02:19 pm (UTC)Also the thing about the earliest Bible being a thousand years old - I think it's closer 1200 - but anyway, the way you say that implies that that is the earliest evidence altogether. Obviously there are manuscripts of individual books of the Bible, plus other sources eg Midrash, Talmud etc quoting Torah. I believe there's a very early manuscript of Isaiah on its own. And a few more of the equivalent of a modern Chumash, plus several books of Neviim bound together as one volume or Ketuvim ditto.
In haste, will expand on this at some point.