The oldest biblical character who probably existed

[Matt Giwer]

What are you claiming here? That you've been too lazy to look into the Amarna letters, or that you have looked into them and can disprove what is claimed about them? Or are you referring to the claims about the Phoenicians?

Anyway, try this one: Niels Peter Lemche, The Canaanites and their Land: the tradition of the Canaanites (link), p. 27. Oh sorry, he is a believer? Anyway, he mentions a tablet from Mari (present-day Eastern Syria) from the 18th. century BC which mentions Canaanites. It also gives reference to the original publication of the tablet.

One reasonably assumes the author looked at it and considered it in writing this book. To get an idea of his conclusions we turn to the preface.

Considering the first footnote on the first page of the preface cites "The Invention of Ancient Israel" and has the first use of Canaan and Canaanite is single quotes it starts off like a text that is more or less saying what I am saying. "as if the the biblical history is the real history of Palestine" is enough to get me to give it a read should I come across it.

pg 7 agrees that what is called Canaan was probably Phoenicia. I must have posted that four or five times by now. It goes on to say he is wrong in saying the people calling themselves Canaanites. How many times have I pointed out that is what is missing, people calling themselves that?

What did you read on that link that lead you to think it contradicts what I have said?

To quote also from pg 7, "The main thesis of this book is that the 'Canaanites' of the Old Testament are not a real nation but an imagined nation placed in opposition to the Israelites."

Given the 1991 date it is clear I have been reciting old news but in all fairness I never considered it news simply the obvious anyone should know from looking into the history of the region.

What possessed you to shoot yourself in the foot like this?

Or have I read you wrong and you are really trying to say you support what I have been saying but are having trouble expressing yourself in English? No foul. It is surprisingly easy to make a statement a negative in English when just learning.

My apologies if I have been reading you wrong. It was not deliberate.

 

[Wroclaw]

That is called begging the question. Or are you appealing to your own ignorance? It hardly matters.

Oh, Matt, Matt, Matt...

Produce the physical evidence of older material from which the Septuagint is a translation.

There is what's called textual evidence.

So how do we know that the Vulgate and the Septuagint come from different source material? That would be question number 1, since we know that the Vulgate's Old Testament was NOT translated from the Septuagint or, truly, from any other Greek source. It was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic source texts, although everyone at this point concedes that he also relied on Greek translations, such as the Septuagint, to orient himself somewhat.

To claim otherwise, by the way — just want to give you the opportunity to concede what I think is a minor point — would be akin to claiming that the works of Aristotle didn't exist before Aquinas "created" them because there were/are no extant Greek versions of same.

Are you prepared to make that particular argument?

 

[Matt Giwer]

Oh, Matt, Matt, Matt...

So were you begging the question or appealing to your ignorance? You asked questions that implied an answer instead of answering.

There is what's called textual evidence.

And this differs from argumentation in what way?

So how do we know that the Vulgate and the Septuagint come from different source material? That would be question number 1, since we know that the Vulgate's Old Testament was NOT translated from the Septuagint or, truly, from any other Greek source. It was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic source texts, although everyone at this point concedes that he also relied on Greek translations, such as the Septuagint, to orient himself somewhat.

The most that argument can show is that there was a "hebrew" version before Jerome created the fourth Latin version. Prior Latin versions were from the Greek.

It does not show there was a hebrew version before the Greek Septuagint and that is all that matters to this discussion.

That is hardly in question as the creation of the Vulgate was done Jerome at least four centuries after the appearance of the Septuagint.

For what it is worth the Orthodox Catholics keep the Septuagint Greek version without translation as they bought into the high praise for the accuracy of the translation into Greek story. Again the 'born of a virgin' part was not a problem at the time.

It appears Jerome sold the Pope on the idea of using the "hebrew" which had only recently become known instead of redoing a translation from the Greek. Maybe it was Justin Apostate's involvement with the Jews that got them interested in producing an Aramaic version of the Septuagint or at least telling people they had one.

To claim otherwise, by the way — just want to give you the opportunity to concede what I think is a minor point — would be akin to claiming that the works of Aristotle didn't exist before Aquinas "created" them because there were/are no extant Greek versions of same.

Are you prepared to make that particular argument?

What is there to concede? There appears to have been no complaints of an erroneous translation of the "hebrew" until after the Masoretic appears. It is difficult to imagine Jews of the 4th c. AD did not notice "born of a virgin" given its centrality later. But since Josephus mentions the 22 holy books and Jerome translates 39 we can consider 17 were written between the two men's times. Perhaps not written but considered "canonical" as that idea was invented around the time of Jerome.

If you are interested a cross-check with the number found among the DSS and in what form would be worthwhile. That is some place down in my to do pile but if you want to take a shot at it I will appreciate the effort.

 

[Wroclaw]

The most that argument can show is that there was a "hebrew" version before Jerome created the fourth Latin version. Prior Latin versions were from the Greek.

Correct. There was a Hebrew version before the Vulgate existed.

It does not show there was a hebrew version before the Greek Septuagint and that is all that matters to this discussion.

Except that the problem of the sources for the Septuagint remains, as well, your problem to answer.

I.e., you necessary must determine one of two things: (1) The Septuagint was an original work, i.e., it was not a translation of earlier material; or (2) The Septuagint was a translation of earlier work.

To claim (1) would be, I would hope you'd agree, a bit ridiculous. To claim (2) then requires asserting the language of the source text for the LXX. Care to do that?

That is hardly in question as the creation of the Vulgate was done Jerome at least four centuries after the appearance of the Septuagint.

And yet Jerome claimed the use of a Hebrew text, did he not?

For what it is worth the Orthodox Catholics keep the Septuagint Greek version without translation as they bought into the high praise for the accuracy of the translation into Greek story. Again the 'born of a virgin' part was not a problem at the time.

I don't see the relevance.

It appears Jerome sold the Pope on the idea of using the "hebrew" which had only recently become known instead of redoing a translation from the Greek. Maybe it was Justin Apostate's involvement with the Jews that got them interested in producing an Aramaic version of the Septuagint or at least telling people they had one.

But there's no evidence for that. Or at least you haven't cited any. Care to?

What is there to concede? There appears to have been no complaints of an erroneous translation of the "hebrew" until after the Masoretic appears.

An, in fact, there is little complaint there either. The Masoretic text is relatively close to that of Jerome.

It is difficult to imagine Jews of the 4th c. AD did not notice "born of a virgin" given its centrality later. But since Josephus mentions the 22 holy books and Jerome translates 39 we can consider 17 were written between the two men's times. Perhaps not written but considered "canonical" as that idea was invented around the time of Jerome.

That has to do with how the books are counted, Matt.

Jews count 24 books:

Torah = 5
Neviim = Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Major prophets (3), minor prophets = 8
Ketuvim = Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Eccl., Esther, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lament., Daniel, Ezra-Nechemia (one book), Chronicles = 11

Josephus counted Ruth as part of Judges and Lamentations as part of Jeremiah = 22

39 books:

Torah = 5
Neviim = Joshua + Judges + Samuel (2) + Kings (2) + Major prophets (3) + minor prophets (12) = 21
Ketuvim = 13 if you count Ezra and Nehemiah separately and two books of Chronicles

I think that's right; I didn't double-check.

If you are interested a cross-check with the number found among the DSS and in what form would be worthwhile. That is some place down in my to do pile but if you want to take a shot at it I will appreciate the effort.

I think it's irrelevant.

 

[Wroclaw]

Just to shorthand, the Minor Prophets are alternately counted as one or twelve books, depending on whose count you go by. So no "new books" btw. Josephus and Jerome. Different counts.

That's 101 level textual history.

 

[ddt]

One reasonably assumes the author looked at it and considered it in writing this book. To get an idea of his conclusions we turn to the preface.

Considering the first footnote on the first page of the preface cites "The Invention of Ancient Israel" and has the first use of Canaan and Canaanite is single quotes it starts off like a text that is more or less saying what I am saying. "as if the the biblical history is the real history of Palestine" is enough to get me to give it a read should I come across it.

pg 7 agrees that what is called Canaan was probably Phoenicia. I must have posted that four or five times by now. It goes on to say he is wrong in saying the people calling themselves Canaanites. How many times have I pointed out that is what is missing, people calling themselves that?

What did you read on that link that lead you to think it contradicts what I have said?

To quote also from pg 7, "The main thesis of this book is that the 'Canaanites' of the Old Testament are not a real nation but an imagined nation placed in opposition to the Israelites."

Given the 1991 date it is clear I have been reciting old news but in all fairness I never considered it news simply the obvious anyone should know from looking into the history of the region.

What possessed you to shoot yourself in the foot like this?

Or have I read you wrong and you are really trying to say you support what I have been saying but are having trouble expressing yourself in English? No foul. It is surprisingly easy to make a statement a negative in English when just learning.

My apologies if I have been reading you wrong. It was not deliberate.

You have a funny, enigmatic and quite roundabout way to formulate your theses yourself. I interpreted your postings as denying that the term Canaan was historical at all outside the Bible. Moreover, you claimed before:

I only note I have not been able to come up with an arkie discovery of the use of the word, that it first appears in the Septuagint and is thus an Septuagint invention.

Well, there are.

Do you agree there is considerable evidence that the region of Palestine and/or Phoenicia was referred to by some contemporaries as "Canaan" and its inhabitants as "Canaanites"? See the Mari tablet, the Amarna letters etc.

I don't think the question whether the Canaanites referred to themselves as Canaanites is relevant. To take a present-day example: Germans call themselves "Deutschen". English call them "Germans" after the collective name for Germanic tribes; French call them "Allemands" after the ancient tribe of the Alemani in Southwest Germany; Russians call them "немцы" ("Nemtsy"), after the Njemen river on the old border of East Prussia. Wouldn't Merkel draw as funny a face when Putin used the latter word in a letter to her as the King of Tyre allegedly did on reading that Amarna letter?

Neither is relevant whether the real Canaanites were as depicted in the Bible. The Bible is a mixture of myth, history, embellished history, theology and law. We're all aware of that here. We don't confuse the Biblical narrative with real history.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Correct. There was a Hebrew version before the Vulgate existed.

Jerome created the fourth translation into Latin. This fourth translation came to be called the Vulgate. The previous Latin translation were from the Septuagint. What is the point here? The Vulgate was not the first Latin translation. There was something not in Greek before the late 4th c. AD.

Except that the problem of the sources for the Septuagint remains, as well, your problem to answer.

I.e., you necessary must determine one of two things: (1) The Septuagint was an original work, i.e., it was not a translation of earlier material; or (2) The Septuagint was a translation of earlier work.

To claim (1) would be, I would hope you'd agree, a bit ridiculous. To claim (2) then requires asserting the language of the source text for the LXX. Care to do that?

That would be descending to argumentation. There is NO evidence the Septuagint is not an original work which is all that is necessary to observe. The way your phrase (1) would be proving a negative which is not possible.

As to the prior language, the known languages of bibleland are Phoenician and Aramaic. They are also called "proto-Hebrew" and Hebrew if associated with Judea. The supposed "hebrew" cannot be distinguished from a liturgical language as there is no evidence it was ever a spoken language. Of course you are free to present evidence it was at one time a spoken language should it interest you to do so.

Myself I think it looks most like a pidgin Greek for Aramaic speakers. I think Joseph Yehuda goes to far declaring Hebrew to be completely Greek but the congruences are too extensive to ignore. On the other hand Greek has been spoken in bibleland since before Alexander in the city of Joppa/Joffa so some Greek content is understandable and even expected. Your mileage will certainly vary.

And yet Jerome claimed the use of a Hebrew text, did he not?

Also that it had only recently become known to him. Odd if it was something Jews had all over the empire and should have been common knowledge while Christians were still a jewish sect. Good question though. But as he had nothing to compare it to and its existence had no history known to him perhaps beyond Josephus claiming it was a translation it is not clear what to do with the idea.

I don't see the relevance.

The Orthodox are Catholicism. Rome is the break-away group although by chance of history the most numerous it is only by chance of history allowing Rome to count Latin America. The Vulgate was created for their poor cousins in the western empire.

This means sticking with the Greek is the norm and Latin the deviation. The Greek was that known and accepted by the majority of Jews in the world which includes those involved with the Galilean messiah sect. The people rule. If the priests do not keep up with the people then the people pick new priests. As the text is arbitrary there is none which is more true or valid than any other. There is only what can be traced to previous versions.

And that is where everything traces back no further than the Septuagint. That is where the evidence leads as where the trail goes cold. A century later there was no evidence of an older version than the Septuagint so a forgery was created to claim an earlier version. If it was true an older version in another language existed there was no need for a forgery to assert it.

But there's no evidence for that. Or at least you haven't cited any. Care to?

When I use words like "appears" and "maybe" there is no reasonable expectation of evidence. If you mean Justin's involvement that is well known. He treatise (for lack of a better word) calls Christians Galileans as did the Judeans and he did lift the prohibition on Judeans entering Jerusalem. One would expect in his treatise against the Galileans he would have referred to their erroneous Septuagint had he known of it. Perhaps not.

[quote\An, in fact, there is little complaint there either. The Masoretic text is relatively close to that of Jerome.

That has to do with how the books are counted, Matt.

Jews count 24 books:

Torah = 5
Neviim = Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Major prophets (3), minor prophets = 8
Ketuvim = Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Eccl., Esther, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lament., Daniel, Ezra-Nechemia (one book), Chronicles = 11

Josephus counted Ruth as part of Judges and Lamentations as part of Jeremiah = 22

39 books:

Torah = 5
Neviim = Joshua + Judges + Samuel (2) + Kings (2) + Major prophets (3) + minor prophets (12) = 21
Ketuvim = 13 if you count Ezra and Nehemiah separately and two books of Chronicles

I think that's right; I didn't double-check.[/quote]

Josephus says only 22. A priest should know. But simply being able to group them is as productive as a sudoku. I had in mind an actual set of scrolls which are organized as counted. Anyone can mix and match.

I think it's irrelevant.

They are the oldest known versions in liturgical Aramaic or pidgin Greek or whatever it is to be called.

 

[Matt Giwer]

You have a funny, enigmatic and quite roundabout way to formulate your theses yourself. I interpreted your postings as denying that the term Canaan was historical at all outside the Bible. Moreover, you claimed before:

Well, there are.

Do you agree there is considerable evidence that the region of Palestine and/or Phoenicia was referred to by some contemporaries as "Canaan" and its inhabitants as "Canaanites"? See the Mari tablet, the Amarna letters etc.

I don't think the question whether the Canaanites referred to themselves as Canaanites is relevant. To take a present-day example: Germans call themselves "Deutschen". English call them "Germans" after the collective name for Germanic tribes; French call them "Allemands" after the ancient tribe of the Alemani in Southwest Germany; Russians call them "немцы" ("Nemtsy"), after the Njemen river on the old border of East Prussia. Wouldn't Merkel draw as funny a face when Putin used the latter word in a letter to her as the King of Tyre allegedly did on reading that Amarna letter?

Neither is relevant whether the real Canaanites were as depicted in the Bible. The Bible is a mixture of myth, history, embellished history, theology and law. We're all aware of that here. We don't confuse the Biblical narrative with real history.

RTFL! Read The Fine Link. The text says the Canaanites and Canaan are an invented antagonist. It say they were not a real people. It says the people did not call themselves by that name.

It also says Israel was an invented protagonist if you care to read it.

It also says the Phoenicians are the closest to a single culture in the geographic area. We know quite a bit about them as did the peoples of the ancient world -- who likely knew a lot more about them than we do. If they had meant to tell a true story they would have used their real name not a fictional name. If they had wished to tell a true story they would have described the Phoenicians as they were instead of describing them as entirely different from what they were like.

So you are left with an invented name for a people described in a manner that did not fit the Phoenicians and yet you want to claim there was a "canaanite" civilization in the region. If you want to claim that a people who had a different name who did entirely different things were really the same people then your faith in religious tradition is your problem.

The land was populated. No one called them Canaanites. They did not call themselves Canaanites. No one used the name Canaan. The Septuagint invents that name and describes them as different from the Phoenicians.

What more do you need for invented as I said and AS THE AUTHOR of the link recommended says? You could at least find a source that does not agree with what I have said and disagree with what you have said.

I am not sure what your problem is beyond you did not read the material at the url before you posted it. Like the HumancentiPod, no one can make it read.

 

[ddt]

Except for the world wars excavation at the site has been essentially continuous. As I said, only in the last few months have the answers to the remaining objections been published. And, as I noted, there is still nothing more than the perimeter of the lower wall is close enough to one event in the Iliad. It says nothing about the main characters including if they were real, the cause of the war, or the real events of the war nor its duration.

The link you give is not even in the same ball park. Why? Need I first educate you on over a century of digging at Ilium?

You still haven't made clear what you mean with the "Troy standard".

Yes, Troy has been conclusively identified as the scene of the Iliad and the mythical Trojan War. However, the historicity of that war is far from conclusively proven.

1) Which layer of Troy was destroyed in the war?

2) There is no independent external mention whatsoever of its protagonists: Priamos, Hektor, Paris, Agamemnon, Menelaos, Odysseus, Achilleus, etc.

3) Thousand ships - that's the ancient equivalent of D-Day. Or rather more. Someone surely must have recorded that.

4) The Iliad is internally inconsistent. It mixes bronze age technology with iron age technology, which was not yet known at the traditional dating of the war.

Care to comment?

At least, this is the level of evidence you seem to require of the Bible stories. I note that external evidence of various Israelite and Judean kings (Omri, Hezekiah, and others) has been provided which corresponds in time and place with the Biblical account. We know those existed because the Assyrians and the Babylonians fought with them and recorded that. No such thing for Priamos or Agamemnon.

 

[Matt Giwer]

I don't think the question whether the Canaanites referred to themselves as Canaanites is relevant.

Neither is relevant whether the real Canaanites were as depicted in the Bible.

This is the sort of thing those who try to address believers find so frustrating.

It would not matter to believers if they were called New Yorkers and described as Hindus.

They would still believe in their holy book.

It does not matter to them that the contents cannot be distinguished from total fiction. It is as though they imagine all ancient peoples are a fungible blur but only where their holy book is involved. It like not caring if the people of Rome are called Chinese and described as having a space program because everything can be rationalized away when their holy book is involved.

But let them be first to deny they believe in the religion part. Then why, pray tell, do they give it any attention at all? Would they read and excuse away the errors in a history book that talked about the Great Pyramid of Antioch built by the Romans? Would they say it is close enough?

One hopes they would reject such an obviously wrong history text. Why do they accept such gross errors from a text they deny holding special for any religious reason?

Maybe they are having a private joke pretending to take it seriously when really they are just having a perverse laugh at the expense of those who expose the nonsense.

 

[Matt Giwer]

You still haven't made clear what you mean with the "Troy standard".

You do appear to have a knack for agreeing with me while claiming you do not.

Yes, Troy has been conclusively identified as the scene of the Iliad and the mythical Trojan War.

And no dig in bibleland has found anything which comes anywhere close to the identification of Troy. If you have in fact read up on it you know that.

But your first question indicates you have not as identifying both the level and the features at that level is what constitutes the most recent publication.

So which is it?

However, the historicity of that war is far from conclusively proven.

That is what I said.

1) Which layer of Troy was destroyed in the war?

2) There is no independent external mention whatsoever of its protagonists: Priamos, Hektor, Paris, Agamemnon, Menelaos, Odysseus, Achilleus, etc.

3) Thousand ships - that's the ancient equivalent of D-Day. Or rather more. Someone surely must have recorded that.

4) The Iliad is internally inconsistent. It mixes bronze age technology with iron age technology, which was not yet known at the traditional dating of the war.

Care to comment?

That is a longer version of what I said. You would know that if you had read what I said.

At least, this is the level of evidence you seem to require of the Bible stories. I note that external evidence of various Israelite and Judean kings (Omri, Hezekiah, and others) has been provided which corresponds in time and place with the Biblical account. We know those existed because the Assyrians and the Babylonians fought with them and recorded that. No such thing for Priamos or Agamemnon.

There is yet a single arkie find in bibleland that rises to the present level of Troy.

Why not wait until there is before trying to force fit people into a land that does not match the description of the land in the stories?

How about Troy is a land without people and the names you give are people without a land?

Were it not for the western religious traditions regarding these books they would at best be known to academics and some interested amateurs. There would be an unbiased discussion of the material. The finds in bibleland would be told in terms of the hinterland of Phoenicia. Nothing found so far warrants any description greater than that. It would also result in a more productive use of archaeologists as there would be no efforts wasted confirming that nothing warrants a greater description than the hinterland of Phoenicia.

 

[TimCallahan]

What else would they be but polytheists? Even your favorite book of faith, excuse -- book in which you have faith, says the people were polytheists. No one mentions they have only one god not even their detractors. What is your point?



A agree he was a member of the Yahweh cult. But he makes no explicit statement of the people having only one god save for four words which stand out like a very sore thumb as interpolation. One would think he would wax eloquent on having only one god yet his great praise is solely for the law. Of course the law is the source of the power and wealth of the priests so we can understand that. He goes into many reason why his people are unique and wondrous but none of the reasons are even worshipping only one god much less that there is only one god.

I do not see what the DSS have to do with the subject. Perhaps you could explain. The current OT says the people were polytheists many places. The priests only claim to be priests of one of many gods. What else would one expect of people who chose to be priests of a particular god? That they would advocate worship and temples taxes to other gods?

We can be reasonably certain that, up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE, the people of Israel and Judah worshipped a henotheistic deity, Yahweh, and that he had a wife named Asherah. He probably also headed a small pantheon, which included Ashtart, the Queen of Heaven. Those inhabitants of Jerusalem taken into captivity by the Chaldeans had to reinvent their god as a universal deity. It's notable that Asherah pillar figurines, quite common in archaeological strata before the exile, drop off afterward.

I can't say that the worship of Yahweh became monotheistic immediately after the return of the those exiled or that sub rosa goddess worship didn't continue. It apparently goes on today among Bedouin women who are officially Muslim. However, I think we can be reasonably sure that the official religion of the Jews in the first century CE was already monotheistic. You have asserted that there was a temple to Astarte in Jerusalem in the first century. Your evidence?

 

[Matt Giwer]

correction

Where I have written Justin the Apostate insert Julian as the successor of Constantine.

Sorry about any confusion.

 

[ddt]

So you are left with an invented name for a people described in a manner that did not fit the Phoenicians and yet you want to claim there was a "canaanite" civilization in the region. If you want to claim that a people who had a different name who did entirely different things were really the same people then your faith in religious tradition is your problem.

The land was populated. No one called them Canaanites. They did not call themselves Canaanites. No one used the name Canaan. The Septuagint invents that name and describes them as different from the Phoenicians.

That claim has been soundly refuted; the author, Lemche, also gives several instances of the use of the name Canaan and Canaanites. You continue to fail to address that point. What Lemche meant in the preface you love to cite is that the Canaanites as depicted in the OT are fictionalized.

This is the sort of thing those who try to address believers find so frustrating.

It would not matter to believers if they were called New Yorkers and described as Hindus.

They would still believe in their holy book.

Why do you keep repeating about "believers"? There are very few believers in this thread, and those that are, are definitely no biblical literalists.

But let them be first to deny they believe in the religion part. Then why, pray tell, do they give it any attention at all? Would they read and excuse away the errors in a history book that talked about the Great Pyramid of Antioch built by the Romans? Would they say it is close enough?

Your comparisons are ludicrous. The name "Canaan" is attested.

And what do you want to replace it with? "Phoenicia" is a word dubbed by the Greek, not by the Phoenicians themselves, and only is attested from the middle of the 1st Millennium BC. The Philistines come onto the scene during the Sea Peoples episode - are likely one of them. The name Palestine is derived from the Philistines, and only with Herodotus gets the wider meaning of - in your words - "bibleland".

 

[Wroclaw]

Jerome created the fourth translation into Latin. This fourth translation came to be called the Vulgate. The previous Latin translation were from the Septuagint.

All of that is true.

What is the point here? The Vulgate was not the first Latin translation. There was something not in Greek before the late 4th c. AD.

And all those first three Latin translations used the LXX. The Vulgate did not, nor did it use as its primary source any other Greek source. Rather, it used a Hebrew source.

We have only Jerome's word for that, by the way, but that's one source more than we have for the idea that he used anything else. Oh, and there's the textual evidence.

That would be descending to argumentation.

Argumentation is only a logical fallacy when it makes an illogical appeal.

There is NO evidence the Septuagint is not an original work which is all that is necessary to observe. The way your phrase (1) would be proving a negative which is not possible.

Two points here:

(1) The evidence for the LXX not being an original work is legion, including much of the archaeological evidence that's already been cited for you. Beyond that, we have the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are older than the LXX, not to mention sections of the Book of Numbers which are perhaps as much as eight hundred years older.

(2) It isn't proving a negative, as all you need to know is provide a preponderance of evidence.

As to the prior language, the known languages of bibleland are Phoenician and Aramaic. They are also called "proto-Hebrew" and Hebrew if associated with Judea.

False. Aramaic and Hebrew are demonstrably different languages. If you knew anything about ancient languages, you'd know that. You're making an argument that there was no ancient Judah or Israel, but you don't have any fluency in the languages to be able to judge.

One proof, by the way, of the difference between the two has to do with cultural continuity. Another is that the Targum is a translation of the Torah into Aramaic. Wouldn't make a lot of sense to do that based on the above, would it?

The supposed "hebrew" cannot be distinguished from a liturgical language as there is no evidence it was ever a spoken language.

There's also no evidence of Latin as a spoken language, unless you'd like to offer some now...

Of course you are free to present evidence it was at one time a spoken language should it interest you to do so.

Please specify what constitutes evidence of spoken language. Furthermore, I'd be interested in knowing how liturgical languages differ from written languages in their genesis, i.e., how could you possibly make a language liturgical that was not already spoken?

The mere allegation flies in the face of everything we know about structural and evolutionary linguistics.

Myself I think it looks most like a pidgin Greek for Aramaic speakers. I think Joseph Yehuda goes to far declaring Hebrew to be completely Greek but the congruences are too extensive to ignore. On the other hand Greek has been spoken in bibleland since before Alexander in the city of Joppa/Joffa so some Greek content is understandable and even expected. Your mileage will certainly vary.

The allegation that Greek and Hebrew are the same language, or even remotely related, is absurd.

Also that it had only recently become known to him. Odd if it was something Jews had all over the empire and should have been common knowledge while Christians were still a jewish sect.

Except Jews were not all over the empire at that point, nor were the Christians still a Jewish sect nor was the textual center of Jewish culture really much located outside even fewer places.

Good question though. But as he had nothing to compare it to and its existence had no history known to him perhaps beyond Josephus claiming it was a translation it is not clear what to do with the idea.

You're obfuscating. The bottom line is that Jerome claimed a Hebrew source and we have no proof that he didn't use such a source. In fact, the textual evidence indicates that that's in fact what he did.

The Orthodox are Catholicism. Rome is the break-away group although by chance of history the most numerous it is only by chance of history allowing Rome to count Latin America. The Vulgate was created for their poor cousins in the western empire.

It's still irrelevant.

This means sticking with the Greek is the norm and Latin the deviation. The Greek was that known and accepted by the majority of Jews in the world which includes those involved with the Galilean messiah sect. The people rule. If the priests do not keep up with the people then the people pick new priests. As the text is arbitrary there is none which is more true or valid than any other. There is only what can be traced to previous versions.[/quote

OK, I see your point now. Problem is that Jewish tradition would have resisted the use of Greek in liturgy. In fact, it was only because the Greek authorities demanded the translation of Jewish scripture that the various Greek translations, including the LXX, were created in the first place.

If you doubt this, consider the much more recent history of Qur'anic translation.

And that is where everything traces back no further than the Septuagint. That is where the evidence leads as where the trail goes cold. A century later there was no evidence of an older version than the Septuagint so a forgery was created to claim an earlier version. If it was true an older version in another language existed there was no need for a forgery to assert it.

Please cite this forgery you speak of.

When I use words like "appears" and "maybe" there is no reasonable expectation of evidence. If you mean Justin's involvement that is well known. He treatise (for lack of a better word) calls Christians Galileans as did the Judeans and he did lift the prohibition on Judeans entering Jerusalem. One would expect in his treatise against the Galileans he would have referred to their erroneous Septuagint had he known of it. Perhaps not.

{Yawn} Irrelevant.

Josephus says only 22. A priest should know.

Josephus counted Ruth as part of Judges and Lamentations are part of Jeremiah. That he was a preiest doesn't make him correct.

But simply being able to group them is as productive as a sudoku. I had in mind an actual set of scrolls which are organized as counted. Anyone can mix and match.

And yet you produce two numbers and I'm able to demonstrate rather quickly how they apply.

You should concede this point, Matt.

They are the oldest known versions in liturgical Aramaic or pidgin Greek or whatever it is to be called.

Again, irrelevant.

 

[ddt]

You do appear to have a knack for agreeing with me while claiming you do not.



And no dig in bibleland has found anything which comes anywhere close to the identification of Troy. If you have in fact read up on it you know that.

But your first question indicates you have not as identifying both the level and the features at that level is what constitutes the most recent publication.

So which is it?



That is what I said.



That is a longer version of what I said. You would know that if you had read what I said.



There is yet a single arkie find in bibleland that rises to the present level of Troy.

Why not wait until there is before trying to force fit people into a land that does not match the description of the land in the stories?

How about Troy is a land without people and the names you give are people without a land?

Were it not for the western religious traditions regarding these books they would at best be known to academics and some interested amateurs. There would be an unbiased discussion of the material. The finds in bibleland would be told in terms of the hinterland of Phoenicia. Nothing found so far warrants any description greater than that. It would also result in a more productive use of archaeologists as there would be no efforts wasted confirming that nothing warrants a greater description than the hinterland of Phoenicia.

Could you retry that in English? I can't make heads nor tails from your arguments.

 

[Matt Giwer]

false assumption of superiority

Running through much of this is an baseless assumption of the superiority of monotheism.

In someone can explain the inherit inferiority of the belief in many specialized gods as opposed to one Swiss army knife god please be the first to tell me what it is.

I stipulate the organizational, power and financial benefits of the Swiss god but that is not what I am looking for.

 

[Matt Giwer]

We can be reasonably certain that, up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE,

I have no idea who "we" is but believers. Skeptics question that it even existed at that time as other than a military garrison and many will not go even that far.

the people of Israel and Judah worshipped a henotheistic deity, Yahweh,

The only physical evidence from that time is of both Yahweh and Ashara in the for of inscriptions containing both names. This is old news. Other than your holy book why would you make a claim contrary to the physical evidence?

and that he had a wife named Asherah.

Who was also worshipped. Carvings containing both gods of the kind found as household gods have been found. Statues of Ashara alone which were cast in molds meaning a form of mass production are well known. On what basis other than your holy book do you make a claim contrary to the physical evidence?

At every archaeological site where multiple gods are found it is assumed all were worshipped. Why do you want a different assumption to be made for bibleland?

He probably also headed a small pantheon, which included Ashtart, the Queen of Heaven. Those inhabitants of Jerusalem taken into captivity by the Chaldeans had to reinvent their god as a universal deity. It's notable that Asherah pillar figurines, quite common in archaeological strata before the exile, drop off afterward.

Save there is no evidence of any such captivity. The statues of Ashara AND Yahweh as a pair are quite well known as is that of Ashara alone. Based upon the physical evidence Ashara was the primary deity and Yahweh the minor one.

I can't say that the worship of Yahweh became monotheistic immediately after the return of the those exiled

It is clear you cannot say that because there is no evidence of either exile or monotheism. One does not say things for which there is no evidence.

or that sub rosa goddess worship didn't continue. It apparently goes on today among Bedouin women who are officially Muslim. However, I think we can be reasonably sure that the official religion of the Jews in the first century CE was already monotheistic. You have asserted that there was a temple to Astarte in Jerusalem in the first century. Your evidence?

Excuse but rabid recitation of long discredited ideas of monotheism based solely upon post 7th c. theology do not establish monotheism or even the theological save of henotheism ever existed.

I do not find your declaration of faith in the post 7th c. theological interpretation of what the stories really mean to be the least interesting as you present no evidence for your profession of faith.

 

[Matt Giwer]

If you could reason with believers there wouldn't be any. -- House MD

...

Why do you keep repeating about "believers"? There are very few believers in this thread, and those that are, are definitely no biblical literalists.

I will repeat my answer. Please pay attention this time.

Belief in the nature of the Septuagint in any regard based solely upon religious tradition and has no other foundation makes a person a believer.

A believer is one who believes in religious traditions without physical evidence.

There is no source claiming the Septuagint has a relation to real history but religious tradition.

Therefore you believe in religious tradition.

 

[Matt Giwer]

That claim has been soundly refuted; the author, Lemche, also gives several instances of the use of the name Canaan and Canaanites. You continue to fail to address that point. What Lemche meant in the preface you love to cite is that the Canaanites as depicted in the OT are fictionalized.

I quoted his own words which were to the contrary. If you wish to claim he really meant something else please give a quote and a page number. Pardon if I do not go through the entire work in hopes of finding something you obviously did not find else you would have quoted it.

You found what he really meant. You tell me exactly what you found and the page on which I can verify it. That is what I did. I expect the same from you.