Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayhawker Soule · 05-05-2004, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Hopefully, my comments you cite have cleared up the matter. Although there are a few tiny scraps of Greek translations from Qumran, it is certain that the Hebrew texts and all those Hebrew texts from Qumran had no Greek antecedents, ie they were originally written in Hebrew. And the Qumran biblical texts were 99.5% Hebrew texts and over 80% of the Massoretic text type.

In The Bible As Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries, edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov, the latter has a paper entitled The Biblical Texts from the Judaean Desert - an Overview and Analysis of the Published Texts in which he notes:

Quote:

All the twenty-three texts found outside Qumran are almost identical to the medieval consonantal text of MT, even more so than the proto-Masoretic Qumran texts. This grouping comprises the following sites and texts: Masada (Genesis, Leviticus [2], Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, and Psalms [2]), Wadi Sdeir (Genesis), Nahal Se'elem (Numbers), Nahal Hevir (Numbers [2], Deuteronomy, Psalms) and Murabba`at (Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Minor Prophets), as well as three scrolls of unknown origin. The only differences with the medieval text pertain to orthography, a few minute details, paragraphing, and the layout of the individual Psalms, and these variations resemble the internal differences between medieval manuscripts of MT themselves. [pg. 146]

Moving then to a classification of the Biblical texts found at Qumran, Tov writes:

Quote:

The textual variety of the Qumran biblical texts is now accepted by scholars as established. It is probably eqully accepted by many scholars that these texts derive from different places in ancient Israel, not only from Qumran. ...

< ... snip ... >

In the fourty-six Torah texts that are sufficiently extensive for analysis (out of a total of fifty-two such texts included in the calculation), twenty-four texts (fifty-two percent) reflect MT (or are equally close to the MT and SP), seventeen are non-alligned (thirty-seven percent), three reflect the SP (6.5 percent), and two the LXX (4.5 percent). In the remainder of the Bible, in the seventy-five texts included in the calculations that are sufficient for analysis (out of a total of seventy-six such texts), thirty-three texts (fourty-four percent) reflect MT (or are equally close ton MT and LXX), forty are non-aligned (fifty-three percent), two reflect the LXX (three percent). The overall prepondarance of the Masoretic and non-aligned texts in the Qumran corpus is thus evident, in the Torah more the MT and in the other books more the non-aligned texts. [pg. 153]

mrmoderate · 05-05-2004, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CX

The "Catholic" (i.e. "universal") church started long before 325. The proto-orthodox starting in the mid 2nd century, especially Polycarp and his protege Irenaeus, called themselves catholic as a way to promote their ideal of all Xians viewing themselves as part of one "universal" church. The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century tried to tie itself back to the first century followers of Jesus as they imagined them to be, but that, like the catholic notion of a unified early church, is mostly fiction.

Almost accurate. The word "catholic" with a small "c" is from a Greek word meaning "general" or "relating to all". In this way it is true that there was a "catholic" church that related to all Christians prior to the development of the Roman Catholic (capitol "C") Church started by Constantine.

It is the Roman Catholic Church that bastardized the Christian faith and created the anti-Jewish sentiments. Christianity as Christ taught was a fulfillment of Jewish faith and not against Jews. The first Christians were all Jews.

spin · 05-05-2004, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConsequentAtheist

. . . The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries[/b][/url], edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. . .

Nice book to have. I am suitably jealous.

spin

spin · 05-05-2004, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmoderate

The first Christians were all Jews.

That is if the nt accounts are accurate. However, they are written in Greek, the earliest of them giving good indications of having been written within a Roman culture and not in Palestine. We know that Paul's communities were outside Palestine. The letters at the beginning of Revelation were written to non-Palestinian churches. Everything points outside Palestine, so I don't think we can be at all certain that the "first Christians were all Jews."

spin

Jayhawker Soule · 05-05-2004, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Nice book to have. I am suitably jealous.

And I, appropriately poor.

French Prometheus · 05-06-2004, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I'm not sure I understand your btw here, but the Hebrew scriptures were written, yes, in Hebrew

Parts of it were written in Aramaic e.g. the Book of Daniel.

A list of NT papyri can be found here whith their dates, origin, current location and contents.

Javaman · 05-06-2004, 03:43 AM

For the poor among us, there's a bargain going at Barnes and Noble right now. It loosely ties into this thread but Hyam MaCcoby's The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity is on sale for under $7. Even though it's been out awhile and discussed in this forum quite a bit, I think it's worth picking up... especially at that price. I happened to see a big ol' stack of 'em last time I was book shopping.

gregor · 05-06-2004, 05:40 AM

In answer to the original question about formation of the canon, please review Richard Carrier's summary on infidels.org. He summarizes Metzger's tome into about ten pages.

I think it reasonable to say that the first person to put the 27 books into a single source was Athanasius of Alexandria.

And I'm surprised at the number of people that believe that the Council of Nicea had something to do with establishing the Bible. As CX indicated, it did not.

spin · 05-06-2004, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus_fr

Parts of it were written in Aramaic e.g. the Book of Daniel.

Along with part of Ezra. The comment was about the Hebrew bible being a translation from Greek, or similar idea.

Daniel's Aramaic may well be later translation. There are numerous language errors in the supposedly Persian Chancelry Aramaic, which is why Daniel and even more confused Ezra are a "special" type of Aramaic euphemistically called "biblical Aramaic".

spin

CX · 05-06-2004, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmoderate

Almost accurate. The word "catholic" with a small "c" is from a Greek word meaning "general" or "relating to all". In this way it is true that there was a "catholic" church that related to all Christians prior to the development of the Roman Catholic (capitol "C") Church started by Constantine.

It is the Roman Catholic Church that bastardized the Christian faith and created the anti-Jewish sentiments. Christianity as Christ taught was a fulfillment of Jewish faith and not against Jews. The first Christians were all Jews.

Well, if we're niggling, KAQOLIKOS is derived from KAQOLOU which does mean "general", but as used by 1st and 2nd century writers and especially as used by Polycarp, Irenaeus and other ante-nicene Church Fathers, KAQOLIKOS means "universal". They envisioned a universal church for all with proto-orthodox theology and an episcopal hierarchy. This WAS the Catholic church (big "C") for all intents and purposes. It should be pointed out, however, that this was more the ideal of the proto-orthodox than a reality in early Xianity. Even so, modern Catholicism and Protestantism both owe their heritage to the proto-orthodox. Furthermore, Constantine did not invent the Roman Catholic Church except insofar as he made it the state religion (hence the "Roman"). The strong anti-jewish sentiment in the Xian faith is evident in some of the very earliest Xian texts. I'd like to see you support that claim that anti-semitism was a later addition. Additionally, it is extraordinarily difficult to say with any certain what Jesus taught. The greatest period of development and accretion in a text legacy occurs in the first few centuries and we have very little evidence from the 2nd century a bit more from the 3rd and no mostly complete evidence until the 4th century for the texts of the Xian canon. Thus, it is extremely tenuous to assert what Jesus did or did not teach. Lastly, if you really study Judaism (and not the Xian version of it) and talk to modern Jews it is evident that Jesus did not fulfill Jewish expectations which is why very few Jews converted. Had Paul not taken the message to the gentiles, basically eliminated the strict dietary and other laws etc. Xianity would not have made it out of the first century I don't think.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-06-2004, 03:43 AM	#27
Javaman Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Nebraska Posts: 1,708	For the poor among us, there's a bargain going at Barnes and Noble right now. It loosely ties into this thread but Hyam MaCcoby's The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity is on sale for under $7. Even though it's been out awhile and discussed in this forum quite a bit, I think it's worth picking up... especially at that price. I happened to see a big ol' stack of 'em last time I was book shopping.

05-06-2004, 05:40 AM	#28
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	In answer to the original question about formation of the canon, please review Richard Carrier's summary on infidels.org. He summarizes Metzger's tome into about ten pages. I think it reasonable to say that the first person to put the 27 books into a single source was Athanasius of Alexandria. And I'm surprised at the number of people that believe that the Council of Nicea had something to do with establishing the Bible. As CX indicated, it did not.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.