ApostateAbe

Toto, I saw this article in Slate, The rise of the new agnostics, and I saw a lot of you in it.

avi

Thank you Steven Carr, for this link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS37yrBwx2Q

In this presentation, Bart Ehrman explains that suitable evidence for any research endeavor embraces the following parameters:

-- contemporary accounts of events;
-- many, independent sources;
-- consistency of the sources;
-- accounts which are unbiased towards the subject matter;

Then, Ehrman claims, WITHOUT evidence, and without explanation, that:

-- Mark was written 65-70 CE;
-- Mathew and Luke were composed 80-85 CE;
-- John composed 90-95 CE;

Ehrman then offers a disclaimer: "It's a complicated argument", as to how he arrives at those particular dates. He then reiterates the same tired cliche:

"Yes, Paul was writing before that."

Here on the forum, we have often encountered discussions regarding the date of composition of Paul's epistles. Here is a summary of the most recent thread on the subject, which I refer to, today, not simply to repudiate Ehrman, but also to introduce my notion of evidence that 100% of the documents we use to analyze these quesions are corrupt, ahistorical sources of information.
You know this, of that I am certain. However, I do not know this, and moreover, I fail to comprehend how you know this.... Where is your evidence?


Can you point to the text which explains this "linguistic context"? Can you offer some other example where linguistic data served to satisfy a requirement to establish a date of publication, in lieu of the more traditional methods used to establish dates of publication? It looks to me as though you and Ehrman both write (with confidence) as though these dates are universally accepted as valid, and ask us to accept the conclusion, that Paul's writings preceded Mark's, without presentation of the evidence supporting such a theorem.

In this same discussion on the earlier thread, I had presented the text of Codex Sinaiticus, one of the two oldest extant copies of the Septuagint, as I understand it (Codex Vaticanus being the second of these two precious, papyrus manuscripts) for Psalm 110:1 (aka 109:1), which demonstrates Christian interpolation (that's my impression, not a fact), writing kc and ko instead of kurios and kuriou, as is claimed to be the original text of the septuagint.

Codex Sinaiticus:
109:1 ειπεν ο κϲ τω κω μου καθου εκ δεξιων μου εωϲ αν θω τουϲ εχθρουϲ ϲου ϋποπο {my emphasis}

I disagree with the notion that this text represents a faithful copy of the original Greek translation of the Hebrew original.

I think that the original text of the septuagint used theos and kuriou, not kurios and kuriou. I suspect that the reason for the change in text was based on theological debates, involving Arius, debates which were at the heart of trinitarianism. At the time of Constantine, many, many people believed Arius' version was the more accurate, including Constantine himself, initially, as well as Eusebius (a close friend of Arius), and more importantly, Constantine's son, who succeeded him as emperor, upon his father's death. I suppose that it was the ascension of Athanasius as leader of the Christian church, which cemented trinitarianism, and caused the scribes to change the text of Psalms 110:1, to ensure that no one could claim that Jesus was not extant from the beginning of time, obviously including, as well, the time of Moses and his descendants. Since Jesus was functioning throughout the whole of the earth's history, there would be no need to employ the word "theos" to differentiate Jesus from God, since, Jesus, "kyrios", WAS god, according to trinitarian doctrine.

But, confronted with this evidence of Christian tampering EVEN OF THE most ancient texts of Hebrew origin, how can one honestly approach the question of the date of Paul's epistles, arguing as both spin and Bart Ehrman do, that Paul's writing precedes Mark?

Where's their evidence for this bold assertion? Since none of Mark's text cites evidence of knowledge of Paul's epistles, should we conclude that Mark, writing, according to Ehrman, twenty years AFTER Paul, had no knowledge of Paul's letters, or is it more reasonable to assume, absent any sort of evidence, that the two authors were both writing about the same time frame?

Since there is no valid historical data, is there some useful Linguistic analysis of the Greek, that leads spin and Ehrman to conclude that Mark was written AFTER Paul?

avi

show_no_mercy

What's the term for people who refuse to form conclusions about the existence of god based on insufficient evidence?

ApostateAbe

Agnostic.

show_no_mercy

Why would it say that when it doesn't even say the equivalent of that in Hebrew?

Hebrew: לְדָוִד, מִזְמוֹר: נְאֻם יְהוָה, לַאדֹנִי--שֵׁב לִימִינִי; עַד-אָשִׁית אֹיְבֶיךָ, הֲדֹם לְרַגְלֶיךָ.

Greek: τω δαυιδ ψαλμος ειπεν ο κυριος τω κυριω μου καθου εκ δεξιων μου εως αν θω τους εχθρους σου υποποδιον των ποδων σου

The Hebrew word for "lord" is adoni (אדני), the name of the god of the Jews is YHWH (יהוה). The vowel points underneath the Hebrew abjad tell the reader how to pronounce the words. In this case, the vowel points underneath YHWH tell the reader to pronounce it as "adonai" - lord. In other instances it might have the vowel points that instruct the reader to pronounce YHWH as "elohim" - god.

The Greek follows this convention. In places where YHWH has the vowel points of "lord", the Greek LXX has κυριος. In places where YHWH has the vowel points of "god", the Greek LXX has θεος.

In the Hebrew of Psalm 110, we have a YHWH with the vowel points intending "lord" and then the regular Hebrew word for "lord" immediately following it. So the Greek is faithful to how it would be read out loud.

If you want to blame anyone for some sort of theological conspiracy, blame Jews who refused to pronounce The Name out loud and substituted it with "lord"

avi

Thank you snm, I appreciate your input.

Here's the text, upon which I had relied, in submitting my message earlier today:

http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B19C110.htm

transliterated:

English (Young's Literal translation):

Is it possible that we are working with two distinct versions of the Hebrew text?

As far as I can determine, the text which I quoted, employs both yahweh and adonai, and, I assume, perhaps in error, that the Hebrew text available in Alexandria, approximately 200 BCE, would also have had those same two words, not as you have written:

I do not observe these "vowel points".
This is what I see:
Am I wrong here, snm, because it looks to my UNTRAINED eye, as though I am looking at "adonai yahweh" here. I guess, I don't know for sure, but are not the Hebrew writers going from right to left? Are not these two words composed of entirely different symbols, representing two very unique groups of phonemes, i.e. rather than two methods of writing the same single word with vowel markings used to change the pronunciation (and meaning)?

avi

show_no_mercy

The vowel points are the little dots and symbols underneath the letters. Look at the difference between יהוה and יְהוָה

One has no vowel points, the other has the vowel points that instruct the reader to pronounce it as "adonai".

aa5874

I too was completely taken by surprise when Ehrman claimed the Pauline writings were early when they completely FAILED his own parameters.

1. There are no contemporary accounts to corroborate any Pauline writings.

2. There are no known independent sources for the Pauline writings.

3. There are no consistence source for the Pauline writings.

4. There are no known unbiased accounts of the Pauline writings.

It must be that the dating of the Pauline writings as early is COMPLETELY unreliable based on the parameters that Ehrman himself has laid down.

avi

Thank you very much, snm. Your patience is much appreciated. I am grateful to you, for printing that colorful summary. Very nice.

Forgive my utter stupidity, in continuing to belabor this question, for I do not seek to challenge you, nor to contest your presentation, in any way. I sincerely inquire, here, out of total ignorance.

I do not observe ANY markings under the text, which I had cited, previously, as my source.

Is my source in error? Alternatively, have these vowel markings evolved in more recent times, i.e. AFTER the creation of Septuagint. The key point here, then, is this: you have properly corrected my assertion that the deformation of the masoretic text from Yahweh/Adonai to Adonai/Adonai was accomplished NOT, as I had maintained, by the Christians, but by the Jews themselves, in Alexandria.

And you may be absolutely correct. I am obviously incompetent to argue this issue. I am simply noting the absence of any of these vowel markings underneath the Hebrew text at the web site that I am accustomed to using, in trying to comprehend the original masoretic text.

So, again, I inquire: Is there a defect in this text at
http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B19C110.htm

Are these vowel markings found, for example, on the texts unearthed at Qumran, the dead sea scrolls?

Is there some sort of important distinction between Yahweh and Elohim? I had thought that both words were translated into English as Jehovah or "God", i.e. synonyms, and both VERY different from "kurios" or "lord" or "adonai" or "Jesus".

If there were no vowel markings on the Qumran texts, then I would be inclined to imagine that these vowel indicators represent some sort of modern innovation, where modern would be defined as post-Constantine.

Is there an online copy of Psalm 110.1 from the DSS?

Thanks again, for your patience, answering such amateurish questions....

avi

show_no_mercy

You are right, in the DSS for example, there don't appear to be any vowel points.

(Here is a small image sample of a DSS scroll from the NYT).

IIRC, the vowel points developed later in Hebrew tradition than the original abjad. I purposefully say "abjad" instead of "alphabet" because Hebrew doesn't have a strict vowel system like say Greek.

The Masoretic text has its beginnings IIRC in the 4th century, 5 or 6 centuries before the Qumran texts were penned.

YHWH is the proper name of one of the gods of the Canaanite pantheon. Elohim is simply a generic term for "god" or "gods".

No, Jehovah started being used in translations I think around the 1600s (this and other things in this post might be wrong, but I'm kinda pressed for time at the moment so that prevents me from looking things up).

The etymology of YHWH might stem from the Hebrew verb "to be". Thus the significance of Exodus 3:14. But pronunciation of "the name" has been lost to history; pious Jews used the circumlocutions of "god" and "lord" instead of sounding out the letters YHWH with appropriate vowels. Jehovah and Yahweh are basically modern inventions.

Yep.

No, strangely enough, Psalm 110 is not in the DSS (which might be a clue as to when it was written, since it seems to implicitly support the Hasmoneans as dual priest-kings).