Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 08-01-2013, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zwaarddijk

Is there any good book or other source that clarifies how the order of the biblical books has developed over time and what various branches of different orders have existed in different places and times?

I realize there may very well be times and places where the order was not even considered - if you have each book occupying a scroll of its own, you may not consider there to be much of a reason to have an actual order to them.

The NT gospels were done in order of popularity.

Pauline epistles length

Toto · 08-01-2013, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zwaarddijk

Toto, nope, my aim is at D.M. Murdock, viz. these two samples from Who Was Jesus - Fingerprints of the Christ:

"Moreover, even though it also appears to have been built upon Matthew in order to answer questions raised by that gospel, the beginning of Mark seems to have been written to follow directly the last Old Testament book of Malachi, since instead of the birth narrative, Mark begins his gospel with an account of John the Baptist, the "voice crying in the wilderness" and "the messenger" as prophesied "in the prophets," e.g., Malachi. (c.f. p. 69, p. 115)"

. . .

How much of this argument depends on Malachi being the absolute last book in the OT? I think Murdock only needs to argue that the authors of the gospels had a version of the LXX in which Malachi was the end, or near the end.

Zwaarddijk · 08-02-2013, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zwaarddijk

Toto, nope, my aim is at D.M. Murdock, viz. these two samples from Who Was Jesus - Fingerprints of the Christ:

"Moreover, even though it also appears to have been built upon Matthew in order to answer questions raised by that gospel, the beginning of Mark seems to have been written to follow directly the last Old Testament book of Malachi, since instead of the birth narrative, Mark begins his gospel with an account of John the Baptist, the "voice crying in the wilderness" and "the messenger" as prophesied "in the prophets," e.g., Malachi. (c.f. p. 69, p. 115)"

. . .

How much of this argument depends on Malachi being the absolute last book in the OT? I think Murdock only needs to argue that the authors of the gospels had a version of the LXX in which Malachi was the end, or near the end.

I do acknowledge that basically she is right - the NT is obviously written to tie back to OT books. However, her way of repeating that particular point is disingenuous and misleading and if she's going to make such a claim, it's up to her to provide evidence in favor of it. An exaggerated point is an exaggerated point, and she is to be held accountable for that kind of deceptive writing.

spin · 08-02-2013, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Spin,

Are you all right?

That's debatable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Papyri refers to manuscripts written on papyrus, not to rolls specifically. I think all but one of the early Christian papyri were from codices.

Papyrus was not well-adapted for the making of codices. A papyrus sheet usually wasn't wide enough to be folded more than once, such that when used for codices, they couldn't hold much text. Just think of the Nag Hammadi texts. The papyrus codex is not relevant to the discussion on the order of the whole LXX collection.

Toto · 08-02-2013, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zwaarddijk

...
I do acknowledge that basically she is right - the NT is obviously written to tie back to OT books. However, her way of repeating that particular point is disingenuous and misleading and if she's going to make such a claim, it's up to her to provide evidence in favor of it. An exaggerated point is an exaggerated point, and she is to be held accountable for that kind of deceptive writing.

I think she is just repeating what seems to be a common claim - that Malachi is the last book of the OT, or the last book of the prophets. At least some of the lists provided do have Malachi as the last of the prophets.

It seems like too minor a point to warrant the charges of "disingenuous and misleading," especially when you say that her basic point is right.

Clivedurdle · 08-02-2013, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Jews kept their sacred scripture on scrolls (rolls). Christians preferred the codex (book form)

And various comments throughout this thread.

Has anyone asked about possible relationships between changes of technologies and changes of theologies?

Cheerful Charlie · 08-02-2013, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie

The very earliest manuscrripts such as the Chester Beatty OT papyruses are damaged and unclear on any of this so we cannot say anything for sure here. Which then relegates any claims as opinion only.

Why are you talking about the Chester Beatty manuscripts, when the subject involved complete collections of canonical Jewish writings in Greek? Papyri are of a technology that doesn't permit the collection of large texts. You need codices.

Facts need to be relevant to the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie

Cocksure opinions are no substitute for facts.

I'm glad you agree.

The relevant facts are that early Christian papyruses relevant to the issue tell us nothing about the issue at hand.

Actually, this isn't true. Papyri were scrolls and by their nature not capable of holding a collection of works. You need the development of the large codex, a couple of centuries after the first codices were made, before you could have a collection of the entire Hebrew bible and deutero-canonical works. This is after the time the gospel of Matthew reached its final form. The argument regarding Matthew based on the last book of the old testament is unwarranted. If you are saying anything that is different, perhaps you could clarify.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie

Coupled with the fact that no later codexes seem to agree as to what the last book of the OT was, means we have no evidence that can settle the issue. This seems rather obvious, to me. So we have about 6 centuries here that lack evidence to support any claims of what the original order was, or whether if we knew that if it was meaningful in any way. And we will probably never know.

Seems rather reasonable and a strong answer for the OP. There is no evidence to support any claims based on what the last book of the OT was. That simply cannot be established with current known papyruses or later codexes. And that gives the OP the answer he wants. What was the original order, we can't know based on what remains we have of early manuscripts.

CheerfuL Charlie

CheerfuL Charlie

Wikipedia Chester Bearry Papyruses

Character of the collection[edit source | editbeta]

All of the manuscripts are codices, which was surprising to the first scholars who examined the texts because it was believed that the papyrus codex was not extensively used by Christians until the 4th century. Most of the manuscripts dated to the 3rd century, with some as early as the 2nd.

No need to thank me.

Cheerful Charlie

mountainman · 08-02-2013, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

Jews kept their sacred scripture on scrolls (rolls). Christians preferred the codex (book form)

And various comments throughout this thread.

Has anyone asked about possible relationships between changes of technologies and changes of theologies?

Well yes. People have commented upon this anachronism. Either all these codex related papyri fragments are actually from the 4th century when the codex began to be mass produced as the preferred method of writing technology or the world owes great tribute to these early Christians as outstanding technological innovators.

It turns out that the Biblical scholars must see the early Christians as technological innovators.

How cute is that logos?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

spin · 08-02-2013, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie

The very earliest manuscrripts such as the Chester Beatty OT papyruses are damaged and unclear on any of this so we cannot say anything for sure here. Which then relegates any claims as opinion only.

Why are you talking about the Chester Beatty manuscripts, when the subject involved complete collections of canonical Jewish writings in Greek? Papyri are of a technology that doesn't permit the collection of large texts. You need codices.

Facts need to be relevant to the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie

Cocksure opinions are no substitute for facts.

I'm glad you agree.

The relevant facts are that early Christian papyruses relevant to the issue tell us nothing about the issue at hand.

Actually, this isn't true. Papyri were scrolls and by their nature not capable of holding a collection of works. You need the development of the large codex, a couple of centuries after the first codices were made, before you could have a collection of the entire Hebrew bible and deutero-canonical works. This is after the time the gospel of Matthew reached its final form. The argument regarding Matthew based on the last book of the old testament is unwarranted. If you are saying anything that is different, perhaps you could clarify.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie

Coupled with the fact that no later codexes seem to agree as to what the last book of the OT was, means we have no evidence that can settle the issue. This seems rather obvious, to me. So we have about 6 centuries here that lack evidence to support any claims of what the original order was, or whether if we knew that if it was meaningful in any way. And we will probably never know.

Seems rather reasonable and a strong answer for the OP. There is no evidence to support any claims based on what the last book of the OT was. That simply cannot be established with current known papyruses or later codexes. And that gives the OP the answer he wants. What was the original order, we can't know based on what remains we have of early manuscripts.

CheerfuL Charlie

CheerfuL Charlie

Wikipedia Chester Bearry Papyruses

Character of the collection[edit source | editbeta]

All of the manuscripts are codices, which was surprising to the first scholars who examined the texts because it was believed that the papyrus codex was not extensively used by Christians until the 4th century. Most of the manuscripts dated to the 3rd century, with some as early as the 2nd.

No need to thank me.

You're right, there's no need.

aa5874 · 08-03-2013, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Papyri refers to manuscripts written on papyrus, not to rolls specifically. I think all but one of the early Christian papyri were from codices.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Papyrus was not well-adapted for the making of codices. A papyrus sheet usually wasn't wide enough to be folded more than once, such that when used for codices, they couldn't hold much text. Just think of the Nag Hammadi texts. The papyrus codex is not relevant to the discussion on the order of the whole LXX collection.

Spin's claim about papyrus is a fallacy. A papyrus codex can be made as large as possible simply by adding more sheets or by making more that one codex of a manuscript.

See http://www.lib.umich.edu/reading/Paul/codex.html

Quote:

A codex is essentially an ancient book, consisting of one or more quires of sheets of papyrus or parchment folded together to form a group of leaves, or pages. This form of the book was not widely used in the ancient world until around the second century AD, when it slowly but steadily began to replace the traditional book form, the papyrus roll.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus

Quote:

..As far back as the early 2nd century, there is evidence that the codex—usually of papyrus—was the preferred format among Christians....

In addition, it is extremely important to know if the books of the MINOR Prophets were in the form of a Codex and whether or not Malachi was LISTED Last or was always established as the Last Minor prophet at the time the story of Jesus was first fabricated around the 2nd century.

Virtually all recovered and dated manuscripts of the Jesus story are in the form of Codices which indicate that they are most likely from the 2nd century or later.

It must also be noted that Malachi is LAST in the order of the 12 MINOR Prophets in virtually all Codices that mention them.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.