Dear Mark 13:13 & Catholics

[Lion IRC]

Truly, if you didn't grow up in that faith, what in the world would convince you that its particular book had all the answers for all of life's big questions? Why should any book be treated in this way? If you don't assume the bible (for example) is the inspired word of god, you wouldn't have any substantive knowledge of what your god wants of you. But maybe it would be best -more intellectually honest- to just acknowledge that epistemically you are not in any privileged position. You choose to believe in your god because that is your tradition, and leave it at that. The book just tells you what your traditions are and may or may not represent god's marching orders. Why aren't there more agnostic theists anyway? Most of us are agnostic atheists. It isn't as hard as you might think.

A lot of good questions but I dont want to derail Aractus' interesting thread.
Yet...

---

Can I just say (unless you want to start a new thread) that the contents of the bible didnt come from the bible. Moses/Abraham/Noah/Job/etc. didnt have a bible to read.

---

[Aractus]

The earliest extant "Hebrew" bible dates only to the early 11th century AD.

That's not entirely correct. The Masoretic Text is the authoritative preservation of the OT text (despite the fact that God commanded the Levites to do it), and the tradition was to bury the old scrolls and retire them, which is basically what the Masorites did. The DSS contain well in excess of enough material to prove the diligent nature with which the MT was preserved, for instance a complete Isiah scroll.

If the Dead Sea Scrolls tell us anything it is that these various writings existed as separate documents and had not been "canonized" into a single book as late as 70 AD.

"If they tell us anything" hey?

They are a great assist and tell us a great number of things. You clearly don't have much idea about what you're talking about here!

PS: They were never a "single book" the Palestinian scripture (aka temple scrolls) was always 22 scrolls, I already said that. When did bounded codices begin to appear anyway? You wouldn't expect codices for the OT until 2nd century or later. And you've already established that the Jews continued to use scrolls and not codices until the 11th century! So why on earth would you expect to find a bound Palestinian OT scriptures at the time of Christ???

The "Eastern Orthodox" theory that the OT scripture was changed in 70AD has been throughly disproved, give that tired argument a rest already would you!

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

And how about the whole bible while you're at it?

This reply got 10 kudos Aractus.
You have dug something of a hole for yourself.
...

Up to 16 now.

[Minimalist]

The earliest extant "Hebrew" bible dates only to the early 11th century AD.

That's not entirely correct. The Masoretic Text is the authoritative preservation of the OT text (despite the fact that God commanded the Levites to do it), and the tradition was to bury the old scrolls and retire them, which is basically what the Masorites did. The DSS contain well in excess of enough material to prove the diligent nature with which the MT was preserved, for instance a complete Isiah scroll.

If the Dead Sea Scrolls tell us anything it is that these various writings existed as separate documents and had not been "canonized" into a single book as late as 70 AD.

"If they tell us anything" hey?

They are a great assist and tell us a great number of things. You clearly don't have much idea about what you're talking about here!

PS: They were never a "single book" the Palestinian scripture (aka temple scrolls) was always 22 scrolls, I already said that. When did bounded codices begin to appear anyway? You wouldn't expect codices for the OT until 2nd century or later. And you've already established that the Jews continued to use scrolls and not codices until the 11th century! So why on earth would you expect to find a bound Palestinian OT scriptures at the time of Christ???

The "Eastern Orthodox" theory that the OT scripture was changed in 70AD has been throughly disproved, give that tired argument a rest already would you!

You'd best learn what "canon" means before you go running your mouth off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testement

The process by which scriptures became canons and Bibles was a long one, and its complexities account for the many different Old Testaments which exist today. By about the 5th century BC Jews saw the five books of the Torah (the Old Testament Pentateuch) as having authoritative status; by the 2nd century BC the Prophets had a similar status, although without quite the same level of respect as the Torah; beyond that, the Jewish scriptures were fluid, with different groups seeing authority in different books.[15]

The scriptures were translated into Greek between about 280-130 BC.[16] Around the time of Christ, there was no collection of these scriptures—the various texts were read as separate scrolls. It was only in the early centuries of the Christian era that the scriptures began to be bound together into books and that Bibles as we know them today came to be invented.

Key word there "invented."

That's not entirely correct.

Well, then you find an earlier extant version. The ball is in your court.

[Aractus]

Well, then you find an earlier extant version. The ball is in your court.

This is your original claim: "The earliest extant "Hebrew" bible dates only to the early 11th century AD."

Codex Vaticanus contains an extant copy of the Hebrew Bible (c. 350AD) in Greek (a combination of what we call LXX and Theodotion). The Vulgate contains an extant copy of the Hebrew Bible in Latin and is also complete (completed before 405 AD).

The Leningrad Codex is extant in Hebrew and dates to 1008 AD (ie, the early 11th century you're talking about). However, prior to 1947 the oldest complete manuscript containing all 22 scrolls was the Aleppo Codex (10th century). The Jews regarded it as the most valuable, most authentic, and most sacred copy of the scriptures they had. So much so they kept it under lock and key and closely guarded. Even today it is regarded as being more authoritative than the Leningrad Codex. Rudolf Kittel was a German scholar, his most important works were critical texts of the Hebrew Bible "Biblia Hebraica". For BH1 and BH2 (first and second edition) he used the Mikraot Gedolot as the primary reference for the Hebrew text, and noted variances in the other texts. Mikraot Gedolot is the same text used for the KJV translation of 1611. He decided for the third edition to go directly to the Masoretic Text, and attempted to obtain photographs of the Aleppo Codex - the most authentic text. This was refused, and he was forced to instead use the Leningrad Codex. Thus BH3 reproduces the Leningrad Codex, with its notes, including the book order, without editing. Had he been allowed to use the Aleppo Codex, BH3 would have been a reproduction of that codex instead. In December 1947 the Central Synagogue of Aleppo, where the Aleppo Codex was kept, was burned to the ground. It was not seen again until 1958, when it was smuggled back into Israel, only 294 leaves survived out of 487. This has been a point of controversy, since the fire never damaged the codex (yet it was supposedly "gathered from the ashes" of the Synagogue by Asher Baghdadi). It appears it was hidden for a decade from the authorities so that it could be smuggled out of Syria and into Israel. It was supposed to be smuggled to Aleppo Jews living in Israel, but Mossad got involved and successfully had it delivered instead to the State of Israel. The Aleppo Jews were outraged and demanded that the President return it to them (of course this didn't happen). As recently as 2007 one of the missing leaves turned up. The status of the remaining leaves is unknown, although Mossad and Jewish Scholars continue to search for them. Thus around 40% of the codex remains missing in action. With that said, many people believe that the codex was in fact delivered complete in 1958, and that the State of Israel and/or Mossad decided to hide nearly 200 of the pages in order to have the document stored and locked securely away from sight instead of being carefully restored, photographed or copied.

Okay, so now we know we have a 10th century extant source that is in Hebrew. Now you might ask "well what important differences is there between it and L?" I'm not aware of any important differences - L simply doesn't contain the notes that are present in the Aleppo Codex. I wouldn't expect that there are any significant differences in the Biblical text itself. Leaves of the Aleppo Codex are extant, thus it passes the definition for "extant" even if 40% of it really is missing. Even if 40% is missing, there are only two possible places that 40% can be - either in the hands of the Aleppo Jews, or in the hands of the State of Israel. They didn't burn in the fire, they can't be anywhere else, so the source is in fact complete, just not publically accessible.

Another extant source is the Samaritan Pentateuch (14th century AD). This version is completely untouched by the MT, and even the Palestinian temple scrolls (c. AD 70). Samaritans claimed their version was more ancient and thus more authentic than the temple scroll. Remember this is what you think ( ):

If the Dead Sea Scrolls tell us anything it is that these various writings existed as separate documents and had not been "canonized" into a single book as late as 70 AD.

The DSS that you clearly think are useless, tell us so much more than this. They've shed great light on the Samaritan Pentateuch's past. 4Q22 is an extant, and nearly complete copy of Samaritan Pentateuch version Exodus. It dates 100-25 BC and scholars believe it proves that the Samaritan Pentateuch wasn't written as early as claimed by Samaritans. Scholars generally agree the version can be dated to around the 5th to 3rd century BC. This view is in light of the DSS.

"If they tell us anything" indeed! Try this on for size:

• Of the more than eight hundred scrolls and fragmented texts of the DSS discovered in caves near the Dead Sea region, approximately two hundred represent books from the Old Testament, such as Genesis, Isaiah, and Jeremiah.5 The biblical scrolls' state of preservation varies considerably.6 The great Isaiah Scroll of Cave 1 (1QIsaa) comprises all sixty-six chapters of Isaiah, is twenty-four feet long, and averages ten inches in height. Similarly, the Psalms Scroll from Cave 11 is in a fair state of preservation. For the most part, however, the biblical books that have survived two millennia in the caves are extremely fragmented; many are no larger than the size of a postcard, and some fragments are as small as a postage stamp. Even the smallest fragment, however, can add to our knowledge of the Bible.

  

4Q17 is extant from Exodus 38 to Leviticus 2. Believed to have been written c. 250 BC. Believed to be the earliest extant copy of Exodus-Leviticus. The text is near-identical to the Leningrad Codex. You're going to complain that by "Extant" you want something that's "complete" from start to finish - I'm afraid that's not the definition scholars go by. After all your claim is that the earliest extant copy is 11th century - not the "earliest complete".

Even if you want complete copies, as I’ve mentioned we have earlier copies in Hebrew than L. Consider Codex Cairensis. It is extant AND complete and dates to the late 9th century - about 30 years before the Aleppo Codex was completed. It contains the Nevi'im (The Books of the Prophets). 19 out of the 39 books as we Xians count them.

Let's keep going - pap7QLXXExod (or 4Q127). Yep, I bet even you can gander a guess at what that manuscript contains by viture of its abbreviated form "LXX" Greek "Pap" Papyrus "Exod" Exodus. Yet it contains not the so-called LXX version, but is closer to the MT than the LXX version of Exodus.

1Qlsa the "Great Isaiah Scroll" is extant and complete also. It is the earliest complete copy of a Biblical book. Carbon dated to 335-324 BC or 202-107 BC. Of course, carbon dating is limited and imperfect, and no serious scholar forms an opinion on its authorship date based on that instead of the careful and diligent and highly-academic field of textual criticism. Textual criticism (that is, careful analysis of the Hebrew script type) dates it firmly to the 2nd century BC (150-100 BC).

Now to get back to the original point of this thread.

Even if we found 22 extant complete scrolls at Qumran, containing the whole OT from start to finish, we wouldn't use them instead of the MT. Why? Well just look at the ones we do have, and the clear instances of deliberate sectarian alterations made to them. For instance, the Samaritan Pentateuch has a deliberately altered ten commandments, removing the first commandment (making it a part of the introduction to commandments) and adding a tenth that commands an altar be built on Mt. Gerizim. The LXX agrees more with the Samaritan Pentateuch than it does with the MT, to me that's clear evidence of sectarian influence and textual corruption.

Also consider Wikipedia that you've quoted:

The scriptures were translated into Greek between about 280-130 BC.

That is simply not true. I can't begin to explain the problems with this argument, except to point out "where's the evidence"? PARTS of the scriptures were translated as early as the 1st and 2nd centuries BC. I've never seen anything that makes me believe a single letter of the Hebrew scriptures was translated in the 3rd century BC. Also what "scriptures"? Temple scrolls represent scriptures, sectarian scrolls do not. There is no way that any of the scriptures were translated from temple scrolls or for that matter by Palestinian Jews at all. They are clearly sectarian, and produced from various sectarian copies of scriptures, incorporating sectarian (oral) traditions into the translations, and varying from book-to-book in terms of literal to paraphrase. And most importantly, every Greek translation that we know anything about (Theodotion, etc) all come from the second century AD. ALL of them. Just because some of the scriptures were translated into Greek BC, certainly does not mean they all were and there's no firm evidence that they were. Just because you read it on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's true.

[Zen Badger]

A lot of good questions but I dont want to derail Aractus' interesting thread.
Yet...Can I just say (unless you want to start a new thread) that the contents of the bible didnt come from the bible. Moses/Abraham/Noah/Job/etc. didnt have a bible to read.

That would be because they are fictional characters.

[ronedee]

My question is a simple one.

How can you justify using "the" LXX and the Latin Vulgate as "inspired scripture"???? (PS in this context the LXX means Codex Vaticanus minus the NT).

Good luck in your quest for justification.

As a Protestant, you should be the one worried about “sola scriptura”.

You have omitted, or are ignorant to the MANY NEWER TRANSLATIONS that are NOT from the LV at all!

Catholics don't concern themseleves about translations of the "old testament"? It's an important historical reference to...

...a New Covenant with God. The Gospel!

Why are you (as a christian) trying to force more divisions between us? Aren't there enough here already? There is more to find in union with us.

JESUS!

[Minimalist]

Codex Vaticanus contains an extant copy of the Hebrew Bible

In GREEK. Not in Hebrew.

Read carefully next time.

[Aractus]

As a Protestant, you should be the one worried about “sola scriptura”.

You have omitted, or are ignorant to the MANY NEWER TRANSLATIONS that are NOT from the LV at all!

Catholics don't concern themseleves about translations of the "old testament"? It's an important historical reference to...

...a New Covenant with God. The Gospel!

Why are you (as a christian) trying to force more divisions between us? Aren't there enough here already? There is more to find in union with us.

JESUS!

Have the RCC decreed that one of these "many newer translations" is the holy infallible word of God? No they haven't. But the VULGATE has this status.

Why not try answering my question, it's a simple question. If you answer my question, I'll answer your questions.

[KichigaiNeko]

I just love it when xtians start a biatch fight ...don't you Min?