Ponder This!

[Cosmowisdom]

I really don't understand where Moses is spoke of in the NT when the oldest dates for a complete text dates to 350 A.D. Codex Sinaiticus.
Moses was born in what 1527B.C? Don't you think the History would look more closely at the OT? The Dead Sea Scrolls date to around 200B.C.
How does the NT relate to the OT? Are the passages the same or are they drastically different?
45-95 A.D. the NT was written in Greek, written from what?
If you only care about witnesses to Jesus, why does the NT contain anything about Moses?
A liberal view of the New Testament, do you only read what witnesses write about Jesus and discard all other passages?
What books and passages speak only of Jesus' word or witnesses of his work?
As a person free of any religious belief, this is confusing to me. I see gaping holes in History with the OT and translation. I don't understand how anything can be taken literally from events that predated this, especially Moses and Abraham. If this is true of a liberal view, let me know.
As far as witnesses, these are the only words I find interesting, so direct me to these words and this is where I will concentrate my discussions.
As for my original post this is my knowledge of work with the OT and why I find it difficult to find any credibility in the writings....
1450-1400 B.C. The traditional date for Moses' writing of Genesis-Deuteronomy written in Hebrew.
586 B.C. Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar. The Jews were taken into captivity to Babylon. They remained in Babylon under the Medo-Persian Empire and there began to speak Aramaic.
555-545 B.C. The Book of Daniel Chapters. 2:4 to 7:28 were written in Aramaic.
425 B.C. Malachi, the last book of the Old Testament, was written in Hebrew.
400 B.C. Ezra Chapters. 4:8 to 6:18; and 7:12-26 were written in Aramaic.
The Dead Sea Scrolls: date from 200 B.C. - 70 A.D. and contain the entire book of Isaiah and portions of every other Old Testament book but Esther.
Geniza Fragments: portions the Old Testament in Hebrew and Aramaic, discovered in 1947 in an old synagogue in Cairo, Egypt, which date from about 400 A.D.
Ben Asher Manuscripts: five or six generations of this family made copies of the Old Testament using the Masoretic Hebrew text, from 700-950 A.D.
Aleppo Codex: contains the complete Old Testament and is dated around 950 A.D. Unfortunately over one quarter of this Codex was destroyed in anti-Jewish riots in 1947.
Codex Leningradensis: The complete Old Testament in Hebrew copied by the last member of the Ben Asher family in A.D. 1008.
From translations
400 B.C. The Old Testament began to be translated into Aramaic. This translation is called the Aramaic Targums. This translation helped the Jewish people, who began to speak Aramaic from the time of their captivity in Babylon, to understand the Old Testament in the language that they commonly spoke. In the first century Palestine of Jesus' day, Aramaic was still the commonly spoken language. For example maranatha: "Our Lord has come," 1 Corinthians 16:22 is an example of an Aramaic word that is used in the New Testament.
250 B.C. The Old Testament was translated into Greek. This translation is known as the Septuagint. It is sometimes designated "LXX" (which is Roman numeral for "70") because it was believed that 70 to 72 translators worked to translate the Hebrew Old Testament in Greek.
Chester Beatty Papyri: Contains nine Old Testament Books in the Greek Septuagint and dates between 100-400 A.D.
Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus each contain almost the entire Old Testament of the Greek Septuagint and they both date around 350 A.D.
Pair all of this with the History of the change in Hebrew script which is drastic during this time period. 600 B.C. - 500 B.C.
We have very little evidence to compile and produce translations, we use translations done in biblical History to translate findings that date and pre-date this period.
I find it very interesting that the Copper Scrolls were posted because these are a great mystery, they show an entirely different form of Hebrew from biblical Hebrew. In fact experts have very little knowledge of many of the words contained within these scrolls. This shows only the knowledge of biblical translations of Hebrew. We assume that the script and change in script (even the changes within Hebrew, we don't even need to address Arameic) was properly translated when History tells us of dramatic changes in Hebrew script and dramatic changes in a destroyed Jerusalem when Jews were held captive in Babylon, losing their native language.

 

[TScott]

I don't understand this 900 A.D. thing at all.

According to Talmudic tradition sometime around 900 CE a group of Jewish scholars and Rabbis known as the Masoretes(sp) took the Masoretic(sp) texts, which were ancient copies of scripture containing copious notes gathered over the ages since the time of the second temple, and collated them into the Tanakh.

 

[CaDan]

I guess I'm looking for support for the proposition that Hebrews in Babylonian captivity "lost their native language". It is certainly the case that everyday speech gradually moved into Aramaic, but where is the support for the claim that scholars and rabbis and scribes lost the ability to read and speak Hebrew?

 

[TScott]

I really don't understand where Moses is spoke of in the NT when the oldest dates for a complete text dates to 350 A.D. Codex Sinaiticus.
Moses was born in what 1527B.C? Don't you think the History would look more closely at the OT? The Dead Sea Scrolls date to around 200B.C.

Moses is referred to many times in the NT. Why shouldn't he be mentioned there?

It would be helpful in discussing these things with you if you would just hold one cohesive thought through your post. When you bounce around as you do it is extremely hard to follow. Having a discussion on a bulletin board is difficult enough, but it is imperitive that you keep only one train of discussion going at a time. That is why we call these discussions threads. If you try to discuss too much, it becomes impossible.

 

[Cosmowisdom]

I guess I'm looking for support for the proposition that Hebrews in Babylonian captivity "lost their native language". It is certainly the case that everyday speech gradually moved into Aramaic, but where is the support for the claim that scholars and rabbis and scribes lost the ability to read and speak Hebrew?

I don't see how history shows us that Jerusalem was destroyed in 586B.C. and 555-545B.C. book of Daniel was written in Arameic, nothing gradual there. Even the Hebrew written in this time period was different and is referred to as Babylonian Hebrew. This is the Hebrew used by the Masoretic scholars to continue translations done around 900A.D.
I will compile info and post the script changes in this period, maybe it will allow you to see how drastic the change in script was.
It is difficult to understand with todays solid languages that a primitive tongue might change drastically with new words and new meanings, we take for granted even if the words and their definitions were translated correctly they will take on the same contextual meaning as the original passage. This is where you rely on the scholars, "rabbis" and scribes to correctly interpret the writings before they are even translated. The only biblical writings we show in history from this time are Daniel and Esdras, everything else is Aramaic. Seeing the destruction of Jerusalem, I think it would be safe to say they didn't have an organization of scholars to help.
Look at how many different interpretations we have today, it would be absurd in the highest degree to say it was done correctly.
My point is, we have no way of proving it was done correctly, we rely upon their work.
Look specifically at this time period and realize how primitive these men were and how their views differ from today. You speak of a liberal view of Christianity yet it is ultimately limited by the view and interpretation of primitive man. Somehow, I miss the point in which it is at all liberal, only comparatively speaking.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

I really don't understand where Moses is spoke of in the NT when the oldest dates for a complete text dates to 350 A.D. Codex Sinaiticus.
Moses was born in what 1527B.C? Don't you think the History would look more closely at the OT? The Dead Sea Scrolls date to around 200B.C.
How does the NT relate to the OT?

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Are the passages the same or are they drastically different?

The NT quotes of the the OT vary from following the LXX to following the MT to being in between. I am not aware of any drastic differences.

45-95 A.D. the NT was written in Greek, written from what?

What do you mean "written from what?"?

 

[TScott]

I guess I'm looking for support for the proposition that Hebrews in Babylonian captivity "lost their native language". It is certainly the case that everyday speech gradually moved into Aramaic, but where is the support for the claim that scholars and rabbis and scribes lost the ability to read and speak Hebrew?

I don't know. The Masoretic texts are in both languages. I've never heard they lost their language. Is this a claim of Cosmo? I have a hard time following his posts.

sounds like the Genesis story of the Tower of Babel

 

[tulc]

Look specifically at this time period and realize how primitive these men were and how their views differ from today

Yeah they sound alot different from today...for one thing they took their job alot more serious then most people:

They were so careful in their copying that they counted every letter, and then compared the total number of the document with that which they were copying from. If the numbers did not match the copy was burned. They were meticulous in making sure that no words were left out that belonged to the text, nor any words admitted improperly

tulc(primitive doesn't mean lacking)

 

[Cosmowisdom]

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

The NT quotes of the the OT vary from following the LXX to following the MT to being in between. I am not aware of any drastic differences.

What do you mean written from what?

I have multiple posts that say I don't follow the OT, I follow the NT. My point is that the NT earliest text dates to 125A.D. so where did this text come from if it speaks of Moses? It must have come from the same writings used in the OT, from the same translations done from the Paleo-Hebrew script.
I hear the NT like it is superior to and exempt from the same criticism you could bring to the OT, this would be absurd to suggest.
Like I said before no single reader is ever aware of any drastic differences because it has always been subject to the reader.
If you speak of pure statistics there are 20,000 variants in the NT alone. In all fairness this includes misspelled words and simple scribe slips and mistakes. Even if you cut this number down to a third it is still fairly significant. Significant enough to have modern scholars address these passages and choose what they BELIEVE is being said.
These are new waters to me and I am learning, despite the variants I spoke of the Bible has been fairly consistent from the MT.
I never really cared to investigate any further after learning of the history of biblical times and the change in script.
If you read my OP you will see that this is the time period I concentrate on 600 B.C. - 500 B.C.
It is very easy to post something for me to read, I was very interested to discover statistics for consistency in the OT and NT.
Although questions prompted me to find the answers, it still does not impact the ultimate point to my original post.
If all you can do is ask question after question, even if it is a question I ask, this post goes nowhere. You have someone without any beliefs, share your wisdom. Why ask a person questions of a belief that he doesn't share, doesn't that make you a fool's fool.

 

[Cosmowisdom]

I don't know. The Masoretic texts are in both languages. I've never heard they lost their language. Is this a claim of Cosmo? I have a hard time following his posts.

sounds like the Genesis story of the Tower of Babel

This is incorrect, the Hebrew used in the MT was very different to the Hebrew before the destruction of Jerusalem.

 

[tulc]

If all you can do is ask question after question, even if it is a question I ask, this post goes nowhere. You have someone without any beliefs, share your wisdom. Why ask a person questions of a belief that he doesn't share, doesn't that make you a fool's fool.

Cosmowisdom, what are you looking for from this thread? You post something, we respond to what you say with questions, and you seem to take umbrage at it. Maybe if you just explained what you're hoping to accomplish here we can help make it happen.
tulc(just trying to help!)

 

[TScott]

MAybe he just wants to lecture and have us all take notes.

Will there be a quiz l8er?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

I will try to get back to some other stuff but I want to address perceptions

If you read my OP you will see that this is the time period I concentrate on 600 B.C. - 500 B.C.

You started the OP with:

All bible versions were derived from translations done in 900 A.D​

A claim that you repeated in other posts.

As far as I know there were no translations of interest done in 900 A.D., which is why I have been trying to get you to explain what you think occured in 900 A.D..

What I think happened is that you were confused by the fact that the earliest extant copy of the Hebrew Scriptures we have* is from about 900 AD.

*Though your more recent most indicates there is a copy dating from a few centuries earlier.

AFAIK while the MT is the "base" source from which OT translations are made, every major translation makes good use of the LXX and other sources, generally providing footnotes explaining what was changed and, briefly, why.

It wasn't until a later post that I was aware that the 600-500 BCE time period was your focus.

In dealing with this time period you made a number of claims, in particular that a single person did all the translation with little or no checks on the accuracy of his work.

I asked for sources for those claims. You have since provided evidence that demonstrated that language use changed but it hardly proves that the older language disappeared.

to be continued...

 

[Cosmowisdom]

Yeah they sound alot different from today...for one thing they took their job alot more serious then most people:


tulc(primitive doesn't mean lacking)

They were so careful in their copying that they counted every letter, and then compared the total number of the document with that which they were copying from. If the numbers did not match the copy was burned. They were meticulous in making sure that no words were left out that belonged to the text, nor any words admitted improperly

This statement is interesting to the point that each character used in Paleo and Masoretic Hebrew also held a numeric value that was used in translations. This held true to Aramaic, Latin and Greek.
You may be mistaking their care for the methodology used in copying and translating.
This brings an interesting find to Revelations. Revelations was written anywhere from 67-95AD. Nero ruled Rome 54-68AD
You may be familiar with the Great Fire of Rome in 64AD, when half of Rome was burnt to the ground while Nero gave himself up to the emotional joys of the thrilling dramatic moment, and then sought to recover his popularity with the mob by illuminating his gardens with a public display of burning Christians, on the pretence that they had set fire to Rome.
In AD 67 the Jewish revolt broke out, which saw Nero dispatch Vespasian to put down the rebellion.
Servius Sulpicus Galba raised his standard in revolt against a despised emperor and marched on Rome. Nero found himself deserted on all sides and killed himself.
A Hebrew spelling of Nero Caesar's name was Nrwn Qsr ÄÄ n, e,r, o, n; q, s, r. It has been documented by archaeological finds that a first century Hebrew spelling of Nero's name provides us with precisely the value of 666.
Second, the textual variant. If you consult a Bible with marginal references you may notice something of interest regarding Revelation 13:18. Your reference may say something to the effect: "Some manuscripts read 616." The fact is that the number 666 in some ancient manuscripts of Scripture is actually changed to 616.
The difference surely is no accident of sight made by an early copiest. The numbers 666 and 616 are not even similar in appearance in the original Greek--whether spelled out in words or written out as numerals.
A strong and most reasonable case may be made for the following probability. John, a Jew, used a Hebrew spelling of Nero's name in order to arrive at the figure 666. But when Revelation began circulating among those less acquainted with Hebrew, a well-meaning copiest who knew the meaning of 666 might have intended to make its deciphering easier by altering it to 616. It surely is no mere coincidence that 616 is the numerical value of "Nero Caesar," when spelled in Hebrew by transliterating it from its more widely familiar Latin spelling.
I don't know how liberal views are, if I am reiterating something that is held as a view by liberal Christians let me know.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

If you only care about witnesses to Jesus, why does the NT contain anything about Moses?

Christ is our focus, and many Christians through faith and/or religious experiences accept the divinity of Christ without requiring the witness of the Old Testament.

Jesus, and then the Apostles first preached primarily to the Jews for whom the witness of the O.T. was very important. And even Paul did a lot of work among non-Jews who were familiar with Judaism and thus the witness of the Jewish Scriptures.

The following has been trimmed for space, leaving enough to maintain ample context...

A liberal view of the New Testament, do you only read what witnesses write about Jesus and discard all other passages?
What books and passages speak only of Jesus' word or witnesses of his work?
As a person free of any religious belief, this is confusing to me. I see gaping holes in History with the OT and translation. I don't understand how anything can be taken literally from events that predated this, especially Moses and Abraham. If this is true of a liberal view, let me know.
As far as witnesses, these are the only words I find interesting, so direct me to these words and this is where I will concentrate my discussions.
As for my original post this is my knowledge of work with the OT and why I find it difficult to find any credibility in the writings....
[]
586 B.C. Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar. The Jews were taken into captivity to Babylon. They remained in Babylon under the Medo-Persian Empire and there began to speak Aramaic.
555-545 B.C. The Book of Daniel Chapters. 2:4 to 7:28 were written in Aramaic.
425 B.C. Malachi, the last book of the Old Testament, was written in Hebrew.
400 B.C. Ezra Chapters. 4:8 to 6:18; and 7:12-26 were written in Aramaic.

From translations
400 B.C. The Old Testament began to be translated into Aramaic. This translation is called the Aramaic Targums. This translation helped the Jewish people, who began to speak Aramaic from the time of their captivity in Babylon, to understand the Old Testament in the language that they commonly spoke.
[]
250 B.C. The Old Testament was translated into Greek. This translation is known as the Septuagint. (LXX)
[]
We have very little evidence to compile and produce translations, we use translations done in biblical History to translate findings that date and pre-date this period.

I'm not sure I understand this...

We assume that the script and change in script (even the changes within Hebrew, we don't even need to address Arameic) was properly translated when History tells us of dramatic changes in Hebrew script and dramatic changes in a destroyed Jerusalem when Jews were held captive in Babylon, losing their native language.

This post was, by-and-large, pretty good, mostly coherent (the point of some of the dates and manuscripts was lost on me, but I'm not always the quickest).

But your position, that there are serious problems with transmission and thus we can't take the O.T. seriously, is not, IMHO, out in loony land. It's wrong mind you, but not out in loony land

While it seems likely that many, perhaps even the overwhelming majority (I simply don't know enough to say) Jews lost the use of Hebrew, to project that to a total loss of language is a stretch.

Even with imperfect transmission of written text do remember that oral tradition is, and (by the evidence) always was, of great importance. That oral tradition would be of great utility in accurate maintenance of the written scriptures.

One of the problems I think you may be "suffering" from is a lack of background in history and ancient literature. Language changes and script changes happen, stories, written and oral get handed down through the centuries, and somehow accurate information manages to make it through.

But the major difference between us is that I have faith.
I believe that God, through the Holy Spirit, ensured that the Scriptures have been accurately transmitted.

What does that mean, in particular as a "Liberal Christian"?

It is clear to me from the variations in manuscripts of the original languages, not to mention translations, that word-for-word perfection doesn't exist.

I believe that God intervenes strongly and/or physically only rarely, only where there is an important need. Making sure that the central message necessary for salvation remains intact strikes me as quite important.

Jesus's emphasis with respect to scripture was on the spirit of the Law, not the letter.

Whether or not Job existed, whether 400,000 Hebrews or 1,000 escaped from Egypt, whether the story of Noah was based on historical events or not, the exact value of a cubit ...

These are not terribly important to me.

That God has tried to provide for us and we have turned toward hedonism, greed, and other gods.

That we are to be fair in our judgements, to the poor and the rich, to the native and the sojourner.

That we are to take care of the poor ...

That we are to act justly, love mercy, walk humbly with our God...

Those are the important messages for me in the Jewish Scriptures and they are messages that are repeated over and over.

The translation snafus that you are worried about don't strike me as likely to have "corrupted" those messages, and again, I have faith that the transmission involved the Holy Spirit's guiding hand.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Two brief notes:

1) Unless you are a linquist I suggest you be very careful about calling a language primative, else you may find your head handed to you on a plate by a passing linguist.

2) In the Christians-Only forums I use A.D. and B.C., here I have a tendency to use C.E. and B.C.E., in particular as we are talking about issues of Judaism. What can I say, that is what I feel comfortable with.

 

[Cosmowisdom]

I will try to get back to some other stuff but I want to address perceptions

You started the OP with:

All bible versions were derived from translations done in 900 A.D​

A claim that you repeated in other posts.

As far as I know there were no translations of interest done in 900 A.D., which is why I have been trying to get you to explain what you think occured in 900 A.D..

What I think happened is that you were confused by the fact that the earliest extant copy of the Hebrew Scriptures we have* is from about 900 AD.

*Though your more recent most indicates there is a copy dating from a few centuries earlier.

AFAIK while the MT is the "base" source from which OT translations are made, every major translation makes good use of the LXX and other sources, generally providing footnotes explaining what was changed and, briefly, why.

It wasn't until a later post that I was aware that the 600-500 BCE time period was your focus.

In dealing with this time period you made a number of claims, in particular that a single person did all the translation with little or no checks on the accuracy of his work.

I asked for sources for those claims. You have since provided evidence that demonstrated that language use changed but it hardly proves that the older language disappeared.

to be continued...

You must look at what history shows of the Jews in Babylon, and the drastic changes in Hebrew and all translations done beyond this time.
You must look at the multiple interpretations of all these writings whether they take an inerrant literal view or a more liberal view.
What defines liberal and how far does that liberal view go?
I look at any and all interpretation and I ask why?
So much confusion and static occurs and I see no need for any of it.
I envision a unity in man free from any view, especially when more and more the bible can be seen as explanations for events in biblical history.
I see arrogance in interpretation as well as arrogance of men who prophesied who we now attempt to interpret.
I envision a world in which God becomes pure in the pursuit of truth and discovery.
I see the confusion and static in interpretation that produces a passivity as well as aggression that prevents us from progressing into "one love."
I dream of a day when we are released from what the past has told men of God; and embrace what the present and future discovers in God.
I envision a beauty in unity and a celebration through our brilliance to CREATE a paradise where advancement in education and technologies brings a wealth to mankind that can only be dreamt of.
If I free my mind of the arrogance of belief I see a truth that enables us to cure every problem on this paradise forgotten.
If we addressed every problem we face with the collective of minds, each nurtured and educated to it's fullest potential; we would discover answers so pure they could write a new bible that would make all the words in the old one seem utterly foolish.

 

[tulc]

I dream of a day when we are released from what the past has told men of God; and embrace what the present and future discovers in God.

What happens if they are the same thing? Aren't we then having to reinvent the wheel all over again?
tulc(so we're discussing things, not just writing things?)

 

[Cosmowisdom]

What happens if they are the same thing? Aren't we then having to reinvent the wheel all over again?
tulc(so we're discussing things, not just writing things?)

Not at all.......
It would be witnessed by all FREE of the interpretation that plagues this world and the wars that dirties the hands of all religions.
That old wheel is missing spokes and is about to fall apart sending all that it carries crashing to the ground. I tend to like the alternative.
This is the passivity I speak of

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

I dream of a day when we are released from what the past has told men of God;

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

If we addressed every problem we face with the collective of minds, each nurtured and educated to it's fullest potential; we would discover answers so pure they could write a new bible that would make all the words in the old one seem utterly foolish.

Micah 6:8
"And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."

Matt 22:37-40,
And [Jesus] said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it,
You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets."
(see also: Mark 12:30 and Luke 10:27)

Zechariah 7:9-10
"This is what the LORD Almighty says: `Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. and do not oppress the widow or the orphan, the stranger or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another."

"all the words in the old one seem utterly foolish"

Well, you are entitled to your opinion.