RE: Made in Alexandria: The Origin of the Yahweh Cult
January 12, 2013 at 10:26 pm
(This post was last modified: January 12, 2013 at 10:34 pm by Aractus.)
You are sounding more and more and more like a troll. 
Let me pick apart your argument for you.
2. You're theories are way outside of general scholarly consensus. Not only that, but most secular historians would rightly disagree with you too.
The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) have been called the greatest archaeological find of the 20th century, and the greatest manuscript discovery of modern times. Fragments of 21 out of the 22 Jewish scripture scrolls were discovered, which contained part of almost all 39 books as we Xians count them. The fact that not all were discovered isn't significant in itself because for some of the 21 scrolls there was only fragments found from one manuscript.
The Great Isaiah Scroll has been palaeographically dated to the 2nd century BC. However, you don't think this is evidence, thus the only conclusion you can draw from the scientific evidence is that it was written in the 4th century BC - as I will demonstrate.
The Great Isaiah Scroll has been carbon-14 dated at least 4 times. Two of the tests, provided in two separate labs, yielded nearly identical results. The calibrated data gives you the range of 335-324 BC and 202-107 BC.
Now think about that for a moment, why is there a gap from 323 BC to 203 BC? That's it keep thinking.
Did you work it out?
Manuscripts like this one were used for hundreds of years before being "retired". To carbon date manuscripts like this, you take a sample of the ink, and usually a sample of the paper as well. Scribes had the job of maintaining them, as well as making copies. You put new ink on top of old ink and BOOM you've thrown off the carbon-dating. Thus, since you want to ignore palaeographic opinion and rely solely on hard science, the only date that you can accept for this manuscript is 4th century BC.
I'd love to know how you think you can ignore the world's best palaeographers AND the science of Carbon-14 dating as well.
What gives you more credibility than the contemporary scholars and historians you seem to hate so much?
I.have.given.you.facts.
No ifs, no buts, no maybes. The LXX as you and I know it dates to mid 3rd century AD. 245 AD to be exact. You have plenty of Hebrew found in the DSS that predate it by 3 centuries and more. Where's your evidence that Origen had a "complete Septuagint" before he started??
Show me your facts. What's that you say? You don't have any, you think that Origen created the LXX himself from scratch? Perfect. The book of Daniel has necessitated the need for the theory since it is unusually dual-language, and many critics going all the way back to before the time of Christ claimed that it wasn't originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic.
In short, the palaeographic dating disagrees with the C14 dating by about 200 years. The later C14 dating is not significant because it probably is the "fresh ink" on top of the old ink. Conversely, you can't put old ink on top of new (well you can, if you burn paper and mix it in with the ink to intentionally throw off carbon dating, this is how forgeries are done). So it depends on which you think is more reliable. If you're going to claim that palaeographers are lunatics who are not to be trusted, then you have no choice but to accept the 4th century date.
Let me pick apart your argument for you.
- I have no interest in unprovenanced religious traditions or beliefs or the opinion of so called scholars.
2. You're theories are way outside of general scholarly consensus. Not only that, but most secular historians would rightly disagree with you too.
- I am only interested in physical evidence. If there is none then there is none.
The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) have been called the greatest archaeological find of the 20th century, and the greatest manuscript discovery of modern times. Fragments of 21 out of the 22 Jewish scripture scrolls were discovered, which contained part of almost all 39 books as we Xians count them. The fact that not all were discovered isn't significant in itself because for some of the 21 scrolls there was only fragments found from one manuscript.
The Great Isaiah Scroll has been palaeographically dated to the 2nd century BC. However, you don't think this is evidence, thus the only conclusion you can draw from the scientific evidence is that it was written in the 4th century BC - as I will demonstrate.
The Great Isaiah Scroll has been carbon-14 dated at least 4 times. Two of the tests, provided in two separate labs, yielded nearly identical results. The calibrated data gives you the range of 335-324 BC and 202-107 BC.
Now think about that for a moment, why is there a gap from 323 BC to 203 BC? That's it keep thinking.
Did you work it out?
Manuscripts like this one were used for hundreds of years before being "retired". To carbon date manuscripts like this, you take a sample of the ink, and usually a sample of the paper as well. Scribes had the job of maintaining them, as well as making copies. You put new ink on top of old ink and BOOM you've thrown off the carbon-dating. Thus, since you want to ignore palaeographic opinion and rely solely on hard science, the only date that you can accept for this manuscript is 4th century BC.
I'd love to know how you think you can ignore the world's best palaeographers AND the science of Carbon-14 dating as well.
- Believers cannot slip their traditions into the vacuum.
- Without physical evidence they have no merit or standing at all despite what self-declared scholars say about each other and their traditions.
What gives you more credibility than the contemporary scholars and historians you seem to hate so much?
- Whether or not a person chooses to call himself a scholar, a word which by itself qualifies you and I as scholars, is a meaningless and superfluous description. It is a matter of historical record that beliefs have always been considered greater than facts.
I.have.given.you.facts.
- I could suggest the old but irrefutable evidence that Moses wrote the Torah because of the words and language style of it are so much older than the later books. WToday "scholars" have mostly retreated to saying it was written after the (mythical) return from Babylon. Were "scholars" lying when claimed to find word differences or are they lying now in not seeing the differences?
- Non-specific reference to loan words is not evidence.
- Way back when there was a claim based upon words and phrases that the Septuagint had to be the copy because of the "Hebraisms" in the Greek.
No ifs, no buts, no maybes. The LXX as you and I know it dates to mid 3rd century AD. 245 AD to be exact. You have plenty of Hebrew found in the DSS that predate it by 3 centuries and more. Where's your evidence that Origen had a "complete Septuagint" before he started??
Show me your facts. What's that you say? You don't have any, you think that Origen created the LXX himself from scratch? Perfect.
- As to the meaning of theory, it is an explanation of the facts. The more facts explained the better the theory. There is no "theory" of Hebrew being the original as it has never been more than a religious tradition.
The book of Daniel has necessitated the need for the theory since it is unusually dual-language, and many critics going all the way back to before the time of Christ claimed that it wasn't originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic.- As to the C14 dating of the one scroll, let me repeat. I cannot find that dating claim in any credible source which would include the laboratory and citation of the publication of the results. Further I said I cannot find any proper citation of dating of any scroll older than the 1st c. BC.
(January 12, 2013 at 11:44 am)popeyespappy Wrote: Why should we have to accept a 4th century radio carbon date when it conflicts with both the scriptural analysis and with other radio carbon dating that places it in the 2nd?Good question, and I've answered it above.
In short, the palaeographic dating disagrees with the C14 dating by about 200 years. The later C14 dating is not significant because it probably is the "fresh ink" on top of the old ink. Conversely, you can't put old ink on top of new (well you can, if you burn paper and mix it in with the ink to intentionally throw off carbon dating, this is how forgeries are done). So it depends on which you think is more reliable. If you're going to claim that palaeographers are lunatics who are not to be trusted, then you have no choice but to accept the 4th century date.
