spin

As you can imagine, Andrew, I don't see it that way. The text is precise to use the term NXL twice. The word is a verb "give an inheritance" and a noun, "something given (with possession transference), an inheritance". The idea of sons reinforces the notion of inheritance, but nevertheless, the change of possession indicates that Elyon and Yahweh are not the same entity.


spin

Sheshbazzar

Perhaps you didn't take time to think the above statement through before replying? We have the ruins left behind by these vanished peoples dotting the landscape in various places all over the globe, in some instances the evidence indicates that these sites were inhabited for thousands of years, but no written record has been found to document the reasons for their inhabitants disappearance, and no archaeological remnants that serve to clearly show their fate. All we are left with is the evidence that they were actually here, and now are gone.
During their time they had trade and interaction with other peoples and cultures. It would be extremely naive to discount the contributions of these 'lost' peoples upon the fabric of human social development and progress simply because of a self-imposed rule that demands written documents.
Did Sodom exist? If it did, did it have any impact on human social developments? if it existed, what became of Sodom?
Yes, professional historians and archaeologist, to fill in all of the large the gaps in the record also have to do a considerable amount of "shooting air".
But honest historians do not need to erect arbitrary barriers that prohibit speculation about the possibilities, and the impact of events that were not recorded.
Virtually any history book or historian you care to consult with is going to speak in terms of possibilities, and of theories, or employ the catch all phrase of "perhaps", Are you implying that you "do" history in a manner different and superior to all other professional historians?
You have written a lot, are you willing to state that you have never employed any speculation, or possible scenarios in the furthering of your pet theories?
"What can you do about it"?, You KNOW that most of what happened in the past was unrecorded, and make reasonable allowances for any reasonable possibilities, its not rocket science, its what all reasonable historians and archaeologist do everyday.
Ah, "not transparent", sounds like a newspeak for speculation, you wouldn't be doing any "speculating", or entertaining a "possibility" that documents were revised to insert monotheistic ideas to fit in with your own theories would you?
That aside, the mss. as found at Qumran are virtually permeated with, and constructed around monotheistic ideology, it would be interesting to see how much text you would be left with if you were able to excise all of the monotheistic phrasing, themes and narrative story structures.
Funny, spin, as it seems that throughout this thread you have been the one who appears unwilling to consider any "possibilities", or "speculations", having your own theories written in stone, immutable, and constraining.
Having read one of your 'debates' on EoC, I think perhaps this is an appropriate time to allow you to put forward your theory or estimate as to the time of the composition of the book of Genesis, so everyone can see how the cart pulls the horse up the hill. Look under your pillow.
I most certainly am not avoiding the polytheism within the religion, and I acknowledge that there were/are other gods understood by the religion, and I do look at the indications of the range of gods,.....
However, acknowledging all of this does not mean that I'll accept YOUR creative explanations for either the origins of, or your interpretations of the Scriptures that are under consideration, You think your theories are right, I believe your theories are dead wrong.
I will address the remainder of your post latter.

spin

Perhaps you didn't take time to understand what "human artefacts" means, as in

Don't accuse others of what you may be guilty of.

Professional historians and archaeologists don't fill in what they don't know about. You need to upgrade your historical and archaeological intake.

Speculation is speculaton, not history and historians are allowed to speculate, but they don't usually call it history.

The task of the historian is to uncover what can be uncovered about the past. That is nice, simple and necessary. All else is not the job, but may be interesting.

You misunderstand, as usual. When I'm doing history, I make it clear. I stick to my sources. When I'm speculating I usually make that clear as well. You simply should be able to make a nett separation.

Read what I wrote again please: "What can you do about it, if you don't know about it somehow?"

No. You are being simplistic when you say "the monotheistic viewpoint would need have predated that documentation."

It could be five minutes before for all you know.

This is mainly your speculating again. The biblical DSS don't vary too much from the MT. When I point out the variation, such as Dt 32:8, you bleed like a stuck pig.

I spend my time pointing out the extremes of speculation you have to go through to adhere to the rigid belief structures you're stuck with. You on your part jump when I couch things with caution. The difference is that you don't care about evidence and I will only claim what I can based on the evidence then indicate where the evidence can lead when it is insufficient. I will stand at the edge of the lake and describe what I see. You'll just fall in.

I wrote in three threads on the EoC forum. One was a brief comment, another was more triviality and the third was relatively straight biblical analysis, which could have been used here. What's your beef?

That should mean that you'll accept that Judaism was at least henotheistic, though clearly the division of nations between the sons of El, one of whom being Yahweh, should make polytheism the appropriate word.

Either you do the analysis and put it forward or you continue shooting air.


spin

Sheshbazzar

"The Qumran texts are 1000 years earlier" than what spin? closer to what source spin? Are you suggesting that the LXX wasn't translated until 800 AD? or that the Heb. and Aramaic mss. found at Qumran are a 1000 years older than the Greek mss.(reading identical to the LXX) that were also found in the caves? either way, you don't seem to be doing much for your case.
And this ONLY proves that these two fragments support the reading;
NOTHING more, it could well be that every other text in existence up until, and in that time read entirely differently than any known reading.
Its funny how you claim the text to be tampered with and to contain many revisions and errors when it interferes with your theories, but it must be accepted as the whole cloth when it suits your purpose.
You might profit here from heeding your own advice.

spin

Than the MT of course. Couldn't you think first? Which text says "sons of Israel"? Hmmm?

No. The LXX is supported by Qumran.

Doh!

Being the earliest reading, it has more probability of being the way the text was written than the MT which comes to us only 1000 years later.

Time is magic that way. The closer something is to the original point of writing the less time for it to have, and the less likely that it has, been tampered with.

I have.


spin

Sheshbazzar

Oh come now spin, tens of thousands of books have been written by "historians" and are purported to be "histories", with the word History being prominently displayed in their titles and upon their covers, and the text are filled with the "speculations" and "possible" explanations for the motivations for the acts and the actions of individuals and of nations, and these professional historians do most certainly call their productions "History".
Which is interesting, giving the various nationalities "takes" on historical events, The American Indian take on US "History" is considerably different from that Government approved version which we have always been spoon fed in our school systems. Or Japanese historians versions of the events leading up to and surrounding WW2. And I expect that Iraq will come up with a "history" of our presence in their country considerably different than the one that will be provided by our US institutions of higher learning for our HS students to memorize.
- It has often been observed that "History is written by the victors" an adjunct to that is that such "history" is also often biased and untrustworthy.-
Or, in deference to your oft exposed contempt for our present President, no doubt you would write a different version of his history and accomplishments than that being put out by his supporters.
Yep, could be, but unlikely as the nations of Israel and Judah seem to have had some actual history that took place well before these documents were written down and deposited into the caves.
No beef, when do you think the book of Genesis was written?
Of course the religion of Judaism was hennotheistic, and still is to a degree (as Scripture records, they were a stiff-necked and gainsaying people)
Polytheistic? amen, they were, qualified of course by of what particular individual we are discussing.
Is United States of America monotheistic? are you monotheistic? Am I monotheistic? (in my own paradigm, I am not "monotheistic", the word being entirely foreign to my belief system and only employed as a convenient communication device that is recognized and respected by others, but to me is an abomination being khrem.)
Yep, you really caught this old guy on that one As the introductory line in your post it would have been polite to provide the term to which you were referring, but rejoice in your small triumph.

spin

Read a little scholarly history written recently and stop the folksy ignorance, huh?

You deserve what you choose.

We are talking about the documents as they have come down to us, at least in the form found at Qumran, not possible earlier versions of the collection.

As I have tried to make clear, there was no one time these texts were written. They were written, added to, revised, scribal errors changed, bits left out, so it's not a when indicating one time. Just a few indications:

• At some stage in the literary history, a structure was imposed on the text which united sections headed with toledoths.
• At some later point the first creation account was added before the first toledoth.
• At an unrelated time one writer wrote that there were 150 days of rain in the flood and equated it with five months, ie a 360-day calendar.
• At a later time and reflected in Jubilees the flood was seen to be based on a year structure and of course that year was 364 days.
• The final redaction of the flood has it last one year and ten days, suggesting that someone who knew the 364-day tradition changed it for the 354-day calendar.

Examples off the top of my head, but they should indicate that there was no one time.

When the central characters in the tradition were polytheistic, how can you claim that there was a small group who maintained montheism from the time of Adam?? What evidence do you have for such a statement?

All you needed to do was to think about what we were talking about. And, if necessary, look back over the thread as I often have to do.


spin

Sheshbazzar

(spin referring here to the DSS mss.)
Originally posted by Sheshbazzar;
Yep, could be, but unlikely as the nations of Israel and Judah seem to have had some actual history that took place well before these documents were written down and deposited into the caves.
Rather obviously above I was also talking about the Qumran, - "documents that were written down and deposited into the caves".
When I wrote; "the monotheistic viewpoint would need have predated that documentation." you come back with this flippant reply;
At the very least this is not a very polite way to conduct a serious discussion, but still humoring you I replied, "Yep, could be, but...."
Of course, if you really want to believe that all of the monotheistic contents found within the DSS were quickly inserted into the text "five minutes before" they were deposited into the caves, that is certainly your prerogative, as you can get away with saying almost anything when preaching to your choir, however anyone giving any real thought to such a scenario would be inclined to question your conclusion.
Reply For what its worth, I agree with most of the above. (and also keep a 360 day calendar.....)
Which "central characters" are you referring to? Name their names, and provide the specific instances of these individual characters engaging in speech or in actions that were unmistakably polytheistic.
How can I even claim that monotheism exists today? there are no lack of pundits to argue the point.
All of my claims are held by faith; believing the Scriptures, I hold fast unto my hope, and for innumerable other reasons that will always remain incomprehensible to every unbeliever, (also to those professing to believe, but whom do not in truth, believe) and things that though placed directly before unbelieving eyes, cannot be seen nor comprehended, being alien to, and outside of the unbelievers paradigms.
Unto those persons who actually believe, there are absolute and unmistakable evidences that cannot be ignored, and that no doubts can ever shake.
Because of your unbelief, it is impossible for you to understand my reasons, and no amount of explanations will ever suffice to remove that barrier.
Thus it is well enough that you should account me as one foolish and doomed to disappointment, and it is well enough that all my days should be filled with my joy and my confidence in Whom I have placed my trust.

Sheshbazzar

Another 'little problem' with our dialog here has came to my attention upon a re-reading the entire contents of this thread.

from the list by spin IN REPLY TO THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH led to this; and to this reply I'm thinking now spin, I'm thinking that my post above asked you a specific question about the Qumran mss. in relation to THE LXX, and that your reply list was based on your dating of the MT text? Everything in my paragraph was pertinate to THE LXX,- NO mention, NOR question was tendered pertaining to the MT or the age of the MT (and as I do not accept the MTs substitution of "sons of Israel" anyway, you proved nothing to me)
Your reply was entirely inappropriate to the actual question posed; which was;
"IS THE QUMRAN MSS. OLDER THAN THE LXX ?"
This still remains the question. I am aware of the dating of THE LXX which is given in most reference materials;
Do you dispute that dating?
And as for the DSS (and make no mistake, I am here referring to those actual documents that were found in the vicinity of Qumran and are commonly known as The Dead Sea Scrolls, not any earlier or latter documents) do you place the actual production of these documents prior to or after the general distribution and acceptance of THE LXX ?

spin

Perhaps you should have simply gone back to the subtopic which I started about Dt 32:8 (see middle of post #16 of this thread). That would have clarified the problem, as it was after all about the difference between the Qumran text and the MT which we have of a thousand years later. Still, the thousand years should have made it clear to you.

The LXX was a composite effort which lasted several centuries, starting at least back around the beginning of the 1st c. BCE and not finished at least until the era of Josephus who claims to have translated the "historical" works himself, but then shows knowledge of 1 Esdras (and not Ezra) and knowledge of the Nehemiah memoir (but not the book of Nehemiah), so if Ezra and Nehemiah as we know them were not compiled until after Josephus then the LXX must post date that period, by perhaps as little as five minutes, but post-date Josephus.

HTH


spin