Made in Alexandria: The Origin of the Yahweh Cult

[A_Nony_Mouse]

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.

Have you yet to notice I have nothing but contempt for you and your personal attacks and supercilious posts?

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.

To REPEAT, You have given no legitimate age +/- years as ALL carbon dating is expressed. Why do you find this so hard? Why do you present ascientific and even unscientific years in your posts? You make it up. If you had attributed what you posted to someone then I would merely ask why you believed the idiot instead of pointing out you are being disingenuous.

The NEW ink would be less old but it is the dating of the parchment that is the least old in your claim. If that is not correct please restate what you meant to say.

You say tested separately for reason of different carbon levels. When the purpose is solely to obtain the ratio of carbon isotopes what do you mean different levels?

As for being "reasonable to think" upon what evidence is that a reasonable thought? Palimpsests are a dark ages phenomenon.

Why would you ignore the FACT that not a single DSS much less this one has been identified as a palimpsest?

Why is it your argumentation is for an overwriting which appears solely from your imagination and for which there is no physical evidence?

For the record I find it amusing you are claiming the DSS are being defaced by the removal of letters contaminating their contents for all future generations. That would be as in, "We know those idiots back in the 20th c. scraped off letters and words, who knows what else they changed.

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 made no claim as to the exact form. In fact I note on my website that there were other versions around as Josephus gives a markedly different version of many stories as well as being greatly abbreviated. You are aware that Moses as a Prince of Egypt is from Josephus are you not? And you should be aware that was impossible by the Septuagint version of Exodus.

You are trying to tie me down to something I have not said. Nor does anything I have said depend upon any particular version nor on the number of variations upon each story.

Josephus may know of only 22 books but from his recital of Judean history they are clearly not the Septuagint later used by one of those Christians who rejected education and learning for being sinful and pagan.

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.

The only source of claiming it is a translation is the forgery, period. There is no basis for any other claim. Obviously people were rejecting that letter in the late 1st c. AD and Josephus makes a point of citing it. However he does not appear to know it is a forgery although he was not above lying and crying "antisemite" when people refused to believe jewish lies.

But this is to the point I have been trying in vain to get you to answer. What is the physical evidence the OT stories existed in any language prior to the Septuagint? You have not presented any. Why not? If you do not have physical evidence why do you believe it? I have a dozen other questions after that but it is the fundamental question.

Are you going to refuse to address that issue for the fifth time in a row?

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, ...)?????

I have made no claim to being an authority on the OT text. In fact it is nearly impossible for a non-believer to be an expert beyond noting the inconsistencies and contradictions. Expert knowledge requires consistent subject matter.

Of course we all know the difference between books and scrolls is an accident of translation which is why the technical term for a book is a codex. But if you insist it is Ezra who says twenty FOUR books/scrolls for everyone and 70 reserved to the priests alone. Josephus says 22 but he does not consider the old writings, whatever the original language, to be authoritative.

But on the off chance you are merely trying to divert things based upon a definition of "bible" of the Hebrews it does not to when they were written and by who. 22 or 24, one or a million books, there is no evidence of the existence of any them prior to the mid 2nd c. BC. Nor is there evidence of any literate culture in or around the city-state of Judea which could have created or preserved them until after the arrival of the Greeks.

We know they existed in at least two languages, Greek and some other language most likely either secular Aramaic or liturgical Hebrew in the late 1st c. AD and that is about it. There is no point to Josephus mentioning the letter without at least two languages. In no place is the "from" language named.

I point out there is no reason for a forgery unless fraud is intended. I further point out both the letter and the contents of the Septuagint can be dated to the mid 2nd c. BC. It is immaterial how many "books" are referred to as translated. The point the intent of the fraud can only be to claim the Greek is the translation rather than vice versa. If you have another suggestion as to the object of the fraud if it merely recites fact please tell me.

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.

That was certainly unproductive. You clearly cannot honestly declare me both "totally incorrect" and selectively honest at the same time. Again, you have nothing but insult and pejorative without substance. And you really expect the website owners to tell me to stop picking on you?

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.

Yes you are trying to get out of the forgery by invoking the copy meme. As you know, there are only two related things, the oldest copy of a document and the oldest mention of a document. As you know NEITHER has any relation to the original contents. Changes in copying and even total fabrication was such a common problem that the closer a copy was to the original the more valuable.

So it was different, so what? Canonical texts did not exist in the time of Josephus and likely did not exist until the Christian sect of Judaism invented it in the 5th c. AD. No question the Book of Enoch disappeared for many centuries. For the Christian sect the Sybillenes fell out of favor. Many of the quotes from "scripture" on the NT are not only from the Greek but also from either invented or non-existent or lost Judean texts.

Although I agree my web pages are not well organized I do make it clear the exact form and contents of the Septuagint is unimportant. The only important point is that there could not have been anything significant to translate into Greek. In fact I go so far as to say nothing at all existed to be translated in most cases. There is a problem with the imprecision of English which we all face.

[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.

Overwhelming agreement among believing scholars that their theology is correct is not what I would put in the surprising category. No more than I would expect you, a declared Lutheran, to speak anything against your religious beliefs.

Believers refuse to recognize that their position was never originally established. All of their positions are working backwards to confirm things that were never more than the religious beliefs of uneducated dolts.

And as to uneducated dolts not a one of them appears to have the least idea of the rules of logic and what a logical fallacy is. These were formalized in the 6th c. BC and were an essential element of education in those days including all the Platonic schools. As an example, so many of them appeal to authority, just as you do, without knowing an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy and is NEVER acceptable in rational discourse.

In discussions like this one NEVER appeals to authority but rather one presents and defends the evidence and reasoning independent of any and all authority. I have invited you to do that and watched your refusal so many times I can only conclude it is beyond your capabilities and as such have nothing you could possibly contribute to this discussion.

As to the Samaritan texts how they are supposed to be different from the "Hebrew" translation you have not explained. Please show me how they make a difference? All we know is the Romans ended the dictatorial rule of the Judeans over the Samaritans after the Samaritans were forced to adopt Judean Yahweh cult practices in the late 2nd c. BC.

The Samaritans should have been pissed for being forced to mutilate their genitals or die as the Judeans demanded. That the Judeans lost temple taxes and earnings from forced annual visits to Jerusalem certainly explains the reciprocated animosity. Similarly the Judeans hated Herod as a king of a people conquered by Judeans in the late 2nd c. BC ruled as a king.

In light of your fallacious appeal to authority you could have given the reason why a Samaritan version makes a difference but you are obviously incapable of that. You obviously know next to nothing about the subject.

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?

Of course they do. It simply means nothing relevant to this exchange. PLEASE present the relevance, if any, if you are able to do so. I doubt you are. I find it more relevant that the "hebrew" uses Donai as a personal name instead of being just the Greek word for lord as a social title. How could that be without inventing later revisions of things for which there is no evidence of existence to revise?

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!!!

You please tell me how the Masoretic got vowel points without audio recordings to work from? Vowels change most quickly in every language. Consonants change within groups such as frictives and plosives and only very slowly (relative to vowels) switch groups. And you will note "modern Hebrew" supposedly derived from the Masoretic includes throat-clearing glottals.

As to spoken aloud no one knows when that tradition began. Certainly there is no peasant participation in old or new bible times unless you invent it as none is recorded. Believers of course invent it. Believers also pretend rabbis are other than out of work priests who reinvented themselves after the Romans kicked the shit out of them in 76.

As for inventing a pronunciation that is what the Masoretic is all about. I have to ask how you came to believe eastern European and Spanish Jews came to have exactly the same vowel pronunciation until modern times when we learned they did not. So which is the correct vowel pronunciation? Slavic or Romance? And which Slavic and which Romance language pronunciation IS the correct Masoretic?