Made in Alexandria: The Origin of the Yahweh Cult

[Aractus]

Please confirm you meant the ink was scraped off and destroyed and that this ink was preserved for two centuries before being used for just this one scroll. Desperate or not, please confirm or deny. OR at least clarify what you were intending to post.

Go away. Yes, ink is scraped off and tested apart from the writing material (in this case parchment). You HAVE to test them separately as they have different carbon levels. A parchment scroll lasts a very long time, it is quite reasonable to think that the scribe who had care of it would write over the old ink with new ink.

If you have clear physical evidence that the books/scrolls of the OT existed prior to the Septuagint PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE present it. I beg you to present it. I have asked you to present it at least twice. But you have presented nothing. Why not?

If YOU have clear physical evidence that the LXX existed - in a complete form of 46 books that is - prior to the Hexapla, then present your evidence. You can't prove it existed before then, can you?

I have pointed out that the ONLY claim the Septuagint is a translation is a forgery and that there is no other basis for this claim. You simply ignore the FACT that the only reason for your belief is this forgery. And yet you present no evidence independent of this forgery in favor of your belief.

The forgery has nothing to do with proving it is a translation. The forgery only talks about an early translation of the Pentateuch supposedly written in the 2nd century BC. The LXX as we know it contains 46 books, not 5. You can't even produce a *complete* manuscript of the LXX, might I point out to you.

If I knew what you were saying I would not raise the issue. Therefore consider the question asked again.

You claim to be the authority on the Old Testament text, and yet you don't even know the different ways in which scripture is counted (22 scrolls, 39 books, 46 books, 27 books, 66 books, ...)?????

If that is all, like Django consider the bible unchained. So do we agree on everything else?

But as to the claim of being chained the reason for being chained arose post Luther. As for chained itself it was done some places where the church could not be secured when unoccupied. It was likely the most valuable item in any church. Its ransom value certainly outweighed the cost of a chain or secure locks on the doors or whatever measures against theft. I do not see what your problem is with valuable items being protected from theft.

Do we agree on everything else? AND do you really expect me to assume your "totally incorrect" referred only to the passing remark on the chaining?

No we don't agree. You seem to have some working knowledge of church history and are being intentionally selective about it.

How does 1st c. BC (by all but those who do not understand carbon dating and then only on one book) impact the Septuagint which appears mid 2nd c. BC? The Septuagint is at least a century older than any comparable document found near Qumran.

LOL. The Septuagint as we know it appears mid 3rd century AD. By all means, produce me a copy of it older than this if you can.

[Hoping this will not derail the exchange, i.e. hoping in vain, i.e. against all hope, I point out the Masoretic is an abbreviation of the Qumran. And I point out the Qumran is an abbreviation of the Septuagint. And working from the other direction there is nothing in the Qumran that is not in the Septuagint and nothing in the Masoretic that is not in the Qumran.]

WHAT? So then the Samaritan Pentateuch doesn't count does it? I might add that the discovery of early Samaritan version mss at Qumran means that there is now overwhelming scholarly agreement among textual critics that the SP represents an authentic ancient preservation the same as the MT does.

So the translators invented the "tetra." So what? The translators would have had the SAME name as a god in the pantheon of the eastern Med. It is first mentioned in one of the Ugarit tablets. If you are assuming other than invention, what is the physical evidence for the assumption?

So then where are the "Hebrew translations" which don't contain it?

Or the transliteration from Koine Greek into Hebrew. You have exactly two letters from Qumran to suggest Hebrew might have been a real spoken language at any time prior to modern Israel. Otherwise it is exclusively liturgical.

Bullshit. How do you think the Masorites got the vowel points for the text? And just in case you've heard they intentionally used the vowel points of Adonai for the Tetragrammaton - that's wrong, the vowel points are in fact identical to Judah which is a name spelled with one additional letter (I suppose that makes it a pentragrammaton).

Furthermore the Hebrew texts were read aloud. If Hebrew really wasn't a spoken language, then it would be impossible to read the text aloud!!!