The oldest biblical character who probably existed

[Matt Giwer]

All of that is true.

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.

He used a source of unknown origin claiming to be Hebrew which was of unknown origin and which existence was attested to only by a forgery. That is not what we call solid grounds.

The sole basis for claiming the Septuagint is a translation is a 1st c. AD forgery. If you know of something else please present it. If you do not present other evidence why do you insist upon believing it?

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

Argumentation is NOT a logical fallacy. A particular argument may be a fallacy. Do you understand the difference? Argumentation is no substitute for physical evidence. One may argue the evidence but argumentation does not create evidence. One may only argue the evidence. Argumentation without evidence is mental masturbation. Pissing up a rope if that bothers you.

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.

Assertions of legion are what are legion not the evidence. There has not been a single archaeological mention of any inscription containing anything in the Septuagint presented here. There is exactly one such inscription and that is a known forgery and is still in Israeli criminal court last I heard of it.

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.

I know the dates associated with the different scrolls. None are older. But if you have found a dating I have not which does in fact pre-date roughly the 2nd c. BC please feel free to post it.

For the record as you seem to be so far behind the times. There are three distinctly different times that scrolls were hidden there. There is no evidence the times were connected nor that the later ones knew of the earlier ones. And only the three deposit in the late 1st c. AD appears associated with the Essenes. The earliest deposits are from roughly the same time as Pompey arrives in the region so there is no basis for claiming any pre-date the Septuagint. If you have physical evidence to the contrary please post it.

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

Without physical evidence it is only preponderance of argumentation which gets us back to mental masturbation.

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.[/proof]

If they are really different to your personal knowledge then you can quickly give a couple examples to show they are different. As you cannot do that you are simply repeating what you were told. Who told you and why did you believe them? Before you start playing the game I stipulate the Phoenician which is called Hebrew is different from Aramaic. One does have to ask why the later "hebrew" is written in Aramaic script.

Speaking of perfect copies what does Aramaic script mean to that tradition?

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?

Cultural continuity forces languages to be different. What a strange imagining. While reading up on the DSS I came across an amusing bit of trivia. Until they were discovered almost everyone, believers and skeptics, were ready to conclude Masoretic Hebrew was an invented liturgical language for the absence of other examples of it. But two letters were found in this "language" among the DSS and the believers insisted that proved it was a real language. Run with the believers and two letters if you wish. Just don't expect me to take it seriously.

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

Graffiti in the baths and brothels for a start. Ever notice there is no bibleland graffiti?

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?

Graffiti shows the people used it. It shows it was not limited to priests. This would be in sharp opposition to all the potsherds found with only Phoenician and Aramaic writing. In fact potsherds raise an entirely different issue.

In every other ancient culture the majority of finds are of contracts. The next most common are government decrees. The least common is religious material. Bibleland produces only potsherds for legal contracts despite the common availability of mud for tablets. It produces no government decrees which of course would name the "biblical kings" as their authority one way or another. But we are to believe in this unique mix that texts which result in a half million words in English translation were preserved at great expense for centuries. AND were originally in Phoenician of which no examples exist. And were translated into "hebrew" using the Aramaic script but still not a single government decree.

We know for a fact that writing is forced to develop by the needs of government, the larger the government the more writing is required. Yet not a single government decree. [Respond here with a special pleading as to why bibleland was different from all the rest.]

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

None of which applies to a created language.

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

The book is on the web. It was written by a Jew and commendatory foreword is by a jewish linguistic expert. After you have read it please feel free to give me your opinion of it.

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.

They were in Rome in the 1st c. BC and were fighting among themselves enough to be expelled from the city walls. Their catacombs give the lie to the prohibition against images as there is one of Moses striking a rock for water. There were so many in Alexandria that they had a designated part of the city for them in the 2nd c. BC. There is a mention of Jews studying in the Platonic schools in Athens in the 2nd c. BC. Those were the three major centers of the empire. Are you going to invoke the "cosmopolitan, cities only" stereotype? I have come across crazed judeophiles who have claimed as much at 20% of the empire were converts to judaism. You are aware Jews did not admit failure in conversion until the 6th c. AD are you not?

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.

I presume he did. I simply point out there were at least four centuries between the appearance of the Septuagint and Jerome to create a "hebrew" version. Four centuries is more than sufficient time to create almost anything.

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.

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.

I have no idea what to doubt. I do know people change. What was Jewish tradition in the opinion of Jews today has no more bearing upon what it really was than any other religion. Blind faith in unchanging tradition does not appear until maybe the 8th c. AD and perhaps later.

I would SPECULATE the real reason Jews did not object to the "born of a virgin" is that was an expected norm in those days as Jesus was one of many sons of gods born of virgins. They would not have objected to that happening. There only interest was the message which took away power and money from the Judean priests and by a Galilean forced to become a jew by right of conquest. They knew there were other gods who had children by human women. What were they to object to until after everyone claims they are monotheists?

Please cite this forgery you speak of.

If you are not aware of the Letter of Aristeas you should not be pretending you are a participant in this conversion.

{Yawn} Irrelevant.

And the teenage yawn is not cute.

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

Or he was dealing with a different version of the Septuagint story as he was using a different version to recount the life of Moses in Antiquities.

 

[ddt]

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.

Page 27. I already mentioned that the first time I referred you to Lemche's book.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

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.

Matt, sorry to break it to you, hon, but just repeating a BS postulate dosn't negate the fact that the nam,e does appear in the Amarna letters, a whole flipping millennium before the Septuagint.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

In fact no one knows when the individual stories appeared. No one knows when they were first collected as a book. The oldest known collection into a book is the Vatican Codex and the second oldest the Sinai Codex. The version in Hebrew (aka Aramaic) does not appear until the 11th c.

But again, that's a big fat case of broken logic. You go on and on about when was the first collection into one book, as if it somehow has any relevance for when they appeared. E.g., earlier you claim that DWD can't be the same guy from the story that was later collected into the Septuagint, because he's older than the collection. Which is as retarded and in as many ways as claiming that the historical Macbeth can't be the same as in the Klingon Language Institute's translated collection of Shakespeare's works, because that translated collection didn't exist until the 20'th century.

If you want to pick on the dates of the individual stories, pick on just that. The date when they're collected in one particular anthology, is fully irrelevant.

I thought I explained this but if not let me do so now. The only reason to say the stories or scrolls or books if you wish are older than the earlier 1st c. AD is the appearance of the Letter of Aristeas which Josephus attributes to that time. So if Josephus is wrong then all bets are off. But as there is mention of a collection being translated we can say that at least in the time of Josephus several scrolls existed. In another place Josephus says the Judeans have only 22 holy books so if he means they are the ones translated then some were created after his time. (Please do not try to mix and match the ones we have into 22 unless you can show what you imagine did in fact at one time exist as the accepted configuration. I can mix and match. So what?)

There is no mixing and matching. Their tradition counts the books differently than they were counted for the Vulgate. There is no reasonable reason to assume that anyone had to divide for example Kings in 1 Kings and 2 Kings, instead of just having one book called Kings. And we know from Jerome who translated the Vulgate, that at his time Ruth was considered part of Judges and Lamentations part of Jeremiah.

So essentially I have the word of the very guy who divided them into more books that that wasn't originally the case, vs your own ignorance and incredulity. Gee, I think I'll go with trusting Jerome

Being generous when Pompey arrives in the region the Judeans first appear in history. That is 67 BC. Reports around that time are of priest-kings and sort of a society for Judea that is congruent with the Septuagint including Maccabes 1 and 2. Rough congruence is all there is so there is no real evidence any of the Septuagint stories are that old.

Yet you believe that a theocracy could just invent a new holy book and turn on a dime.

I'll skip the rest of the surrealistic postulates based on just personal guesses, appeals to motive and the kind of gross ignorance metioned above. Anything based on rationales revolving around the existence of "only 22 of the OT books" when we know from Jerome that, yes, the whole OT was counted as 22 books, is based on a false premise.

Not to mention that, since you're so obsessed about the Septuagint, all those "extra books" (except not really "extra") do appear in it too. There isn't a single book in the current Tanakh that wasn't included in the Septuagint. (See, for example, here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon2.html ) Since the Septuagint was finished in the 2'nd century BC, exactly how stupid does one need to be to conclude that most of the books in it were invented in the 1'st century AD?

 

[TimCallahan]

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 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?



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?



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.



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.



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.

Concerning the hilited areas:

1) Again, we have Sennacherib's chronicle, referring to Jerusalem as Hezekiah's royal city.

2) You have the annoying habit of referring to the Bible as, "your holy book." It isn't. I'm an atheist. But then, you don't listen to what anyone says anyway. So, why should I be surprised?

Also, I'm still waiting for your evidence that there was a temple to Astarte in first century CE Jerusalem.

 

[Wroclaw]

He used a source of unknown origin claiming to be Hebrew which was of unknown origin and which existence was attested to only by a forgery. That is not what we call solid grounds.

No it's not, but there is even less evidence that he created the Septuagint out of whole cloth. I.e., he used something. Then we have the Masoretic text of around 1000 AD, and the textual analysis reveals that the source text of both the LXX and Masoretic text were likely very close.

The sole basis for claiming the Septuagint is a translation is a 1st c. AD forgery. If you know of something else please present it. If you do not present other evidence why do you insist upon believing it?

There is also Jerome's own version of events.

Argumentation is NOT a logical fallacy. A particular argument may be a fallacy. Do you understand the difference?

Yes, which is why I said the same freaking thing.

Argumentation is no substitute for physical evidence. One may argue the evidence but argumentation does not create evidence. One may only argue the evidence. Argumentation without evidence is mental masturbation. Pissing up a rope if that bothers you.

I would mostly agree, with the exception that not all evidence is physical. Textual evidence and textual analysis in particular are nonphysical forms or evidence.

Assertions of legion are what are legion not the evidence. There has not been a single archaeological mention of any inscription containing anything in the Septuagint presented here. There is exactly one such inscription and that is a known forgery and is still in Israeli criminal court last I heard of it.

Please cite this forgery.

I know the dates associated with the different scrolls. None are older. But if you have found a dating I have not which does in fact pre-date roughly the 2nd c. BC please feel free to post it.

I misspoke. The DSS are not older than the LXX. Rather, they indicate the existence of their own source texts being contemporaneous with or perhaps older than the LXX.

If they are really different to your personal knowledge then you can quickly give a couple examples to show they are different. As you cannot do that you are simply repeating what you were told. Who told you and why did you believe them? Before you start playing the game I stipulate the Phoenician which is called Hebrew is different from Aramaic. One does have to ask why the later "hebrew" is written in Aramaic script.

Really want me to do this? Before I begin, bear in mind that, whether they know it or not, most Jews have been exposed to Aramaic because it's used extensive in Jewish liturgy.

So rather than using beth as the all-purpose preposition, Aramaic uses daleth. Aramaic also tends toward greater uses of terminal inflection, usually with an added aleph at the ends of nouns.

Want me to go into a detailed analysis of Passover songs in Aramaic and how they would be sung in Hebrew instead? I can, or you can concede that they're different languages.

Speaking of perfect copies what does Aramaic script mean to that tradition?

I don't understand the question; please re-phrase.

Cultural continuity forces languages to be different. What a strange imagining.

No, cultural continuity attests to the continuing use of Hebrew as a liturgical language from the Greek period to the present.

While reading up on the DSS I came across an amusing bit of trivia. Until they were discovered almost everyone, believers and skeptics, were ready to conclude Masoretic Hebrew was an invented liturgical language for the absence of other examples of it. But two letters were found in this "language" among the DSS and the believers insisted that proved it was a real language.

You should cite this. In fact, I have read extensively in historical and structural linguistics and have never ever seen such a suggestion.

Graffiti in the baths and brothels for a start. Ever notice there is no bibleland graffiti?

Really? You can go to the British Museum and see it in Hebrew also.

In every other ancient culture the majority of finds are of contracts. The next most common are government decrees. The least common is religious material. Bibleland produces only potsherds for legal contracts despite the common availability of mud for tablets. It produces no government decrees which of course would name the "biblical kings" as their authority one way or another. But we are to believe in this unique mix that texts which result in a half million words in English translation were preserved at great expense for centuries. AND were originally in Phoenician of which no examples exist. And were translated into "hebrew" using the Aramaic script but still not a single government decree.

In part, you presuppose that the Aramaic script was in use the entire time, whereas we don't actually have that indication until, at the earliest, around the 6th century BC or so.

Beyond that, you're going to need to start citing your sources. I have no reason to believe that you are reading the material correctly.

We know for a fact that writing is forced to develop by the needs of government, the larger the government the more writing is required. Yet not a single government decree. [Respond here with a special pleading as to why bibleland was different from all the rest.]

Actually, the consensus is that writing arises from economic necessity for reasons of credit and probably pre-dates society as such.

Must be nice to be so pompous and so ignorant, eh?

None of which applies to a created language.

The book is on the web. It was written by a Jew and commendatory foreword is by a jewish linguistic expert. After you have read it please feel free to give me your opinion of it.

I have no interest in writing the rantings of a man whose book, apparently published 30 years ago (?), never received any attention from authorities on the topic.

Tell us, Matt: What are the three letters that coming after Yahuda's last name, indicating his terminal degree?

Ergo, he is not an "expert." Likely, you evoked his name because he's Jewish and agrees with you.

They were in Rome in the 1st c. BC and were fighting among themselves enough to be expelled from the city walls.

Which is among my points.

Their catacombs give the lie to the prohibition against images as there is one of Moses striking a rock for water. There were so many in Alexandria that they had a designated part of the city for them in the 2nd c. BC.

Another of my same points. Alexandria was a major center of population.

There is a mention of Jews studying in the Platonic schools in Athens in the 2nd c. BC. Those were the three major centers of the empire. Are you going to invoke the "cosmopolitan, cities only" stereotype? I have come across crazed judeophiles who have claimed as much at 20% of the empire were converts to judaism. You are aware Jews did not admit failure in conversion until the 6th c. AD are you not?

Irrelevant. You have a knack for trying to muddy the waters.

Most of the Jewish population in Europe was concentrated in Spain and the Rhine Valley before the fall of Rome. That there were other locations does not disprove that fact.

I presume he did. I simply point out there were at least four centuries between the appearance of the Septuagint and Jerome to create a "hebrew" version. Four centuries is more than sufficient time to create almost anything.

But you show no proof that this is what happened.

I have no idea what to doubt. I do know people change. What was Jewish tradition in the opinion of Jews today has no more bearing upon what it really was than any other religion. Blind faith in unchanging tradition does not appear until maybe the 8th c. AD and perhaps later

But current practice at least provides some evidence of a trend having begun at an earlier date. What you suggest has no proof.

I would SPECULATE the real reason Jews did not object to the "born of a virgin" is that was an expected norm in those days as Jesus was one of many sons of gods born of virgins. They would not have objected to that happening. There only interest was the message which took away power and money from the Judean priests and by a Galilean forced to become a jew by right of conquest. They knew there were other gods who had children by human women. What were they to object to until after everyone claims they are monotheists?

Irrelevant.

If you are not aware of the Letter of Aristeas you should not be pretending you are a participant in this conversion.

Here's an idea: Name your sources when you evoke them. I'm not going to play games with you.

And the teenage yawn is not cute.

Stop introducing irrelevant side issues and I'll stop yawning.

Or he was dealing with a different version of the Septuagint story as he was using a different version to recount the life of Moses in Antiquities.

Your inability to concede a minor point is unbecoming.

 

[TimCallahan]

(snippet)

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.

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.

Okay, as to evidence of an exile, we have a preserved cuneiform tablet recording Nebuchadrezzar's conquest of Jerusalem, in which he says he captured the king and appointed a king of his own choosing (ANET 304 - 305). This supports 2 Kgs. 24:14 - 17 ending with the appointment of Zedekiah as king by Nebuchadrezzar.

On page 296 of their book The Bible Unearthed, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman state:

Clear archaeological evidence of the last years of the southern kingdom come from almost every late-monarchial site excavated in Judah . . . .

The authors elaborate on this with translations of various ostraca from a number of Judahite military outposts. This is notable, since Finkelstein and Silberman are Biblical minimalists. So, the conquest of Judah and Jerusalem isn't in doubt.

While we don't have direct evidence of the captivity, it would certainly fit the pattern of conquest, as in the case of the destruction of Samaria, capitol of the northern kingdom of Israel, by the Assyrian king Sargon II (721 - 705). In his chronicle (ANET 284 - 287) Sargon II says he drove 27,290 people out of Samaria and replaced them with people from other countries he had conquered. 2 Kings 24 says the Chaldeans took 10,000 people into captivity when he installed Zedekiah as king. 2 Kings 25 doesn't specify how many more were taken in the final siege and destruction of Jerusalem. However, if we assume the populations of Jerusalem was no larger than that of Samaria, then perhaps the total of those taken in captivity, being inhabitants of the city of Jerusalem, would have been about 20,000.

There's nothing particularly phenomenal or outrages in accepting the account at the end of 2 Kings as basically true. We're talking about a comparatively small group of people from one city taken captive and transplanted elsewhere - a fairly standard practice in ancient times aimed at disrupting the potential center of revolt in a conquered land.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Page 27. I already mentioned that the first time I referred you to Lemche's book.

And you assume the author did not read that why?

If it convinces you, why did it not convince the author you recommended?

Perhaps that is because on pg 27 he points to an alternate meaning as brigands? Brigands does not match the Septuagint description -- neither does hapiru which is why that connection is nonsense.

Perhaps because the next page starts with, "Thus there is some reason to question ..."

I have noticed a practice among believers to never read any deeper than skimming and to stop when they think they have found something, refusing to look into the complexity of the matter.

Here you have found an author who has considered what convinces you and everything else in the book and who came to the same conclusion I have presented.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Matt, sorry to break it to you, hon, but just repeating a BS postulate dosn't negate the fact that the nam,e does appear in the Amarna letters, a whole flipping millennium before the Septuagint.

Got a URL to the actual letter and the believers's translation? Or are you merely repeating what someone claimed about them? I know it is only the latter. Do you even have a url to the mental masturbation the believer went through to convince himself it has to say Canaan? I know you have not examined it yourself. But show I am wrong in that knowledge.

 

[Matt Giwer]

But again, that's a big fat case of broken logic. You go on and on about when was the first collection into one book, as if it somehow has any relevance for when they appeared. E.g., earlier you claim that DWD can't be the same guy from the story that was later collected into the Septuagint, because he's older than the collection.

I said it does not refer to a person at all in no uncertain terms. I have no idea who you are responding to but that is not a response to what I said.

Which is as retarded and in as many ways as claiming that the historical Macbeth can't be the same as in the Klingon Language Institute's translated collection of Shakespeare's works, because that translated collection didn't exist until the 20'th century.

Of course it is retarded because you invented it and attributed it to me.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Concerning the hilited areas:

1) Again, we have Sennacherib's chronicle, referring to Jerusalem as Hezekiah's royal city.

The fanciful translation starts with this.

"As for Hezekiah the Judahite, who did not submit to my yoke: forty-six of his strong, walled cities, as well as the small towns in their area,"

By the Troy standard there is a problem. The Septuagint creator may have lifted the names IF in fact the names are not found only in the imagination of the believing translators. The Troy standard merely requires establishing there were 46 walled cities before going further. In this time period number is closer to 4 than 46.

If the land does not match, and it does not, then some other explanation must be found for the apparent similarity in names. I lean towards the Septuagint using old names as did the script writers for Xena regardless of the inscription. However my experience in examining inscriptions is that the believer has produced a completely fraudulent translation as in the Tel Dan inscription where the other two names are clearly purely imaginary.

2) You have the annoying habit of referring to the Bible as, "your holy book." It isn't. I'm an atheist. But then, you don't listen to what anyone says anyway. So, why should I be surprised?

Your claim to atheist status is belied by your acceptance of religious tradition as to the nature and origin of the Septuagint stories. The only non-religious information on their nature and origin is a forgery. That leaves only your acceptance of the religious tradition which is of unknown origin, created by unknown people for unknown reasons.

Also, I'm still waiting for your evidence that there was a temple to Astarte in first century CE Jerusalem.

Patience. I do have a life and do not produce on demand as I do not care what you believe. I am not posting to change your mind as that is clearly impossible. You are too dedicated to belief in a religious tradition despite the exposition of the only sourced claim of it nature being a forgery.

 

[Matt Giwer]

No it's not, but there is even less evidence that he created the Septuagint out of whole cloth. I.e., he used something. Then we have the Masoretic text of around 1000 AD, and the textual analysis reveals that the source text of both the LXX and Masoretic text were likely very close.

There comes a point where further exchange is fruitless. The only traceable claim regarding the origin of the Septuagint is a forgery. Any and all other claims were created by unknown people for unknown reasons. That is the way it is.

The Septuagint does appear in history without known antecedent as does the Iliad as a parallel related to this discussion.

The Masoretic appears in history a thousand years after the Septuagint. It has a known antecedent which is the Septuagint which fully explains its existence. There is no credible basis to even search for a common ancestor much less to assume there was such a thing.

There is really nothing in contention here. Trying to argue in favor of an unprovenanced religious tradition regarding the Masoretic is truly a waste of time.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Okay, as to evidence of an exile, we have a preserved cuneiform tablet recording Nebuchadrezzar's conquest of Jerusalem, in which he says he captured the king and appointed a king of his own choosing (ANET 304 - 305). This supports 2 Kgs. 24:14 - 17 ending with the appointment of Zedekiah as king by Nebuchadrezzar.

The last time you brought this up it was clear there were no king names in the inscription so to repeat a bible king name where you know there is none is deceptive.

You know it does not say Jerusalem so to use that name is also wilfully deceptive.

It was also observed the plural could only refer to the tribute being sent to Babylon.

Been there. Done that.

There is no need to keep repeating the obvious.

 

[TimCallahan]

The fanciful translation starts with this. "As for Hezekiah the Judahite, who did not submit to my yoke: forty-six of his strong, walled cities, as well as the small towns in their area," By the Troy standard there is a problem. The Septuagint creator may have lifted the names IF in fact the names are not found only in the imagination of the believing translators. The Troy standard merely requires establishing there were 46 walled cities before going further. In this time period number is closer to 4 than 46.

If the land does not match, and it does not, then some other explanation must be found for the apparent similarity in names. I lean towards the Septuagint using old names as did the script writers for Xena regardless of the inscription. However my experience in examining inscriptions is that the believer has produced a completely fraudulent translation as in the Tel Dan inscription where the other two names are clearly purely imaginary.



Your claim to atheist status is belied by your acceptance of religious tradition as to the nature and origin of the Septuagint stories. The only non-religious information on their nature and origin is a forgery. That leaves only your acceptance of the religious tradition which is of unknown origin, created by unknown people for unknown reasons.



Patience. I do have a life and do not produce on demand as I do not care what you believe. I am not posting to change your mind as that is clearly impossible. You are too dedicated to belief in a religious tradition despite the exposition of the only sourced claim of it nature being a forgery.

What "fanciful" translation are youi talking about? Is it fanciful because it doesn't match Matt Giwer's beliefs? And what the hell is this "Troy standard," other than something you have made up? The only thing fanciful is your assertion that there was a temple to Astarte in first century CE Jerusalem. You may or may not have a life, but you have plenty of time to do several post per day on this thread - just no time to post the evidence you claim exists of a first century CE temple of Astarte in Jerusalem. My mind can be changed by evidence. So far, you haven't given any.

 

[TimCallahan]

The last time you brought this up it was clear there were no king names in the inscription so to repeat a bible king name where you know there is none is deceptive.

You know it does not say Jerusalem so to use that name is also wilfully deceptive.
It was also observed the plural could only refer to the tribute being sent to Babylon.

Been there. Done that.

There is no need to keep repeating the obvious.

Okay, it says "the city of Judah," which, considering that Sennacherib had destroyed most of the other cities in Judah would have to be Jerusalem. Oh, but I forgot, none of these expert translations count, because the translators haven't been previously approved by Matt Giwer.

 

[Wroclaw]

There comes a point where further exchange is fruitless. The only traceable claim regarding the origin of the Septuagint is a forgery. Any and all other claims were created by unknown people for unknown reasons. That is the way it is.

The Septuagint does appear in history without known antecedent as does the Iliad as a parallel related to this discussion.

The Masoretic appears in history a thousand years after the Septuagint. It has a known antecedent which is the Septuagint which fully explains its existence. There is no credible basis to even search for a common ancestor much less to assume there was such a thing.

There is really nothing in contention here. Trying to argue in favor of an unprovenanced religious tradition regarding the Masoretic is truly a waste of time.

Yes, I do think it best that you surrender now and embarrass yourself no further.

 

[ddt]

And you assume the author did not read that why?

Are you sure you're writing English? I must assume the author even wrote it - it's part of his book.

If it convinces you, why did it not convince the author you recommended?

Perhaps that is because on pg 27 he points to an alternate meaning as brigands? Brigands does not match the Septuagint description -- neither does hapiru which is why that connection is nonsense.

Perhaps because the next page starts with, "Thus there is some reason to question ..."

I have noticed a practice among believers to never read any deeper than skimming and to stop when they think they have found something, refusing to look into the complexity of the matter.

Here you have found an author who has considered what convinces you and everything else in the book and who came to the same conclusion I have presented.

And now that you've read the relevant portion of that book, you may have noticed that the author only has that reservation for the Mari tablet quote from 1750 BC; not for the other 2th Mill. BC mentions of Canaan or Canaanites, such as those in the Amarna letters.

 

[TimCallahan]

. . . (snippet)

Your claim to atheist status is belied by your acceptance of religious tradition as to the nature and origin of the Septuagint stories. The only non-religious information on their nature and origin is a forgery. That leaves only your acceptance of the religious tradition which is of unknown origin, created by unknown people for unknown reasons.

. . . You are too dedicated to belief in a religious tradition despite the exposition of the only sourced claim of it nature being a forgery.

One last response to this post: Concerning the hilited areas, I haven't even mentioned the Septuagint, so I have no idea what you're going on about. What I've referred back to have been preserved Assyrian, and, in one case, Chaldean, inscriptions. I know of no expert in the fields concerned with these inscriptions who sees them as forgeries. That appears to be your opinion alone.

Aslo, an acceptance of religious tradition would mean that I was basing Sennacherib's invasion of Judah and siege of Jerusalem on the Biblical account in 2 Kings 18 and 19, concluding with the total destruction of the 185,000 man Assyrian army in 2 Kgs. 19:35. I have, of course asserted nothing of the kind. Such an idea is nonsense, since such a loss would have been devastating to the Assyrian empire.Yet the empire kept expanding, not missing a beat, for generations after Sennacherib.

What I accept - from Sennacherib's chronicle, not from 2 Kings - is that there was at the time a small kingdom called Judah, ruled by a king called Hezekiah, that it was devastated by the Assyrians under Sennacherib, and that most of its cities were destroyed, including Lachish. This is in accordance with history and archaeology. It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the Bible.

 

[TimCallahan]

Since I couldn't get Matt Giwer to answer me concerning this temple of Astarte in first century CE jerusalem, I decided to Google it. What I found was that, after the Jewish revolt of CE 70, followed by the CE 135 bar Kochba revolt, the Romans flattened the city once more and built on its site a classical city complete with a temple to Zeus. The city was called Aelia Colonia Capitolina. It was in this city, not the Jerusalem of the Jews, that the temple to Astarte was built. Emperor Constantine had this temple torn down ca. CE 326. It is, apparently, the current site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Yes, I do think it best that you surrender now and embarrass yourself no further.

Please produce physical evidence to embarrass me.