Replies

There's more on this. One of the most interesting chaps is Lawrence Schiffman, Professor of Judaic Studies, Yeshiva University, and expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls. One of his lectures is at this link:

http://www.uctv.tv/shows/Lawrence-H-Schiffman-Scholars-Scrolls-and-Scandals-Judaism-Christianity-and-the-Dead-Sea-Scrolls-7032

In this lecture he deals with the questionable issues of the DSS, the Apocrypha, and the manuals of the community of the Qumran site near Jesus' time. You may find it very interesting.

A few years ago I had a chat with him when he came to Philadelphia School of The Bible, where he gave a little insight on the question of the relative value of surviving manuscripts. He gave the illustration that the least-worn books in any library are usually the ones of little interest in their time. Equating that with such scrolls as the Dead Sea Scrolls not worn out through use, and others such as the Codex Sinaticus, may actually mean that they are not the ones from which reliable translation should be made.

The point is (which most 'scholars' seem to miss) is that older surviving ones do not at all necessarily mean they are better or more reliable. Such manuscripts may survive trough non-use because they are of little value to its original audience. That has a clear ring of truth to those looking for the best manuscripts, which may be those which are in great number and have needed to be saved and made available through much recopying--like the Masoretic text of the Old Testament.

Think about it when you read in the margin or footnote to a modern version that a passage is said to be more reliable when an older manuscript is its source.