Apr 15, 2012 -- 9:22AM, JAstor wrote:

Apr 15, 2012 -- 2:12AM, Lilwabbit wrote:

Hi there JAstor!

And welcome back!

Apr 14, 2012 -- 10:25PM, JAstor wrote:

To the contrary, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and more importantly the Masada Scrolls, established that the masoretic text that Jews worldwide use today is the exact same text as existed 2,000 years ago.

[Reliable citation desparately needed]

Masada and Its Scrolls

In all, parts of fifteen biblical and apocryphal scrolls were found in the Masada excavations, including fragments of two scrolls of Leviticus, one each of Deuteronomy and Ezekiel, and two manuscripts of the Psalms. Because the general character of these texts is almost identical to the Masoretic text we can conclude that this text had essentially become the only recognized biblical text by the period of the revolt.

Masoretic Text

In modern times the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown the MT to be nearly identical to some texts of the Tanakh dating from 200 BCE but different from others.

 

JAstor Buddy,

How on earth do your links demonstrate that the masoretic text is the exact same text as (allegedly) was revealed to Moses over 3,000 years ago? If you can demonstrate by reliable citation that nothing changed between the time of Moses and 200 BCE, then you'd have some basis for your claim that the Torah has been redacted as little as the Qur'án. And we're not even touching on the other books in the Tanakh.

Kind regards,

LilWabbit

Apr 15, 2012 -- 10:19AM, Lilwabbit wrote:

Apr 15, 2012 -- 9:22AM, JAstor wrote:

Apr 15, 2012 -- 2:12AM, Lilwabbit wrote:

Hi there JAstor!

And welcome back!

Apr 14, 2012 -- 10:25PM, JAstor wrote:

To the contrary, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and more importantly the Masada Scrolls, established that the masoretic text that Jews worldwide use today is the exact same text as existed 2,000 years ago.

[Reliable citation desparately needed]

Masada and Its Scrolls

In all, parts of fifteen biblical and apocryphal scrolls were found in the Masada excavations, including fragments of two scrolls of Leviticus, one each of Deuteronomy and Ezekiel, and two manuscripts of the Psalms. Because the general character of these texts is almost identical to the Masoretic text we can conclude that this text had essentially become the only recognized biblical text by the period of the revolt.

Masoretic Text

In modern times the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown the MT to be nearly identical to some texts of the Tanakh dating from 200 BCE but different from others.

 

JAstor Buddy,

How on earth do your links demonstrate that the masoretic text is the exact same text as (allegedly) was revealed to Moses over 3,000 years ago? If you can demonstrate by reliable citation that nothing changed between the time of Moses and 200 BCE, then you'd have some basis for your claim that the Torah has been redacted as little as the Qur'án. And we're not even touching on the other books in the Tanakh.

Kind regards,

LilWabbit

That wasn't the claim, lilWabbit - the claim is that the text we have today is close/near identical with the texts from 2200-2300 years ago. That has been shown from the Dead Sea materials.

However, the time period between 'now' and 2200+ years ago is far, far longer than the time period between 2200 years ago and the time of the COMPILATION (and or composition) of the Torah, the prophetic books and most of the writings) - on the order of 500 to 800 years or thereabouts - so we can make a few assumptions when are probably fair, if not 'provable' - that the text of 2200 years ago was reasonably close/near identical to 'the originals'.

for SOME of the material, the 'time span' between 'original' and Dead Sea scroll period is even shorter - Daniel, for instance, is practially contemporary with the Dead Sea materials.

I am aware of that. I enjoy text study and have several books on the topic.

The thing is, exactly what do you mean by 'original material'? If by 'original material' you mean the original COMPILED TEXT of the Torah,  then you must look at the Babylonian/Return period of 600 - 400 BCE for your 'original material'.

Since the Dead Sea writings date between about 400 and 150 BCE, that is so close to the time of 'origin' as to be near-identical, and we can safely assume what we have NOW (since it is 99% identical to the Dead Sea material) is 'the same' as the originals.

If, on the other hand, you are looking for some kind of manuscript in the hand of Moses himself - well, first, I would think you were a religious fanatic and not a historian, and second, I would point out the the Torah ('the books of Moses') are mostly ABOUT Moses, not necessarily BY Moses, and third, that the Torah never claims that 'Moses wrote me', but instead mentions a FEW times that Moses 'wrote all these words' in contexts which arguably claim Moses wrote down SOME of the IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING material -

and that written material 'by Moses' was placed 'in the ark', and we see later that 'the ark' was placed in 'the temple', and that the temple (and the sanctuary preceding it) were in the care of 'the priests', and it was 'the priests' (in the person of Ezra) that 'brought the Torah to Jerusalem' and read it before 'all the people' - after the Babylonian exile, around 450 BCE.

So we have a reasonable - REASONABLE - chain of transmission for a 'Moses wrote it' component - a PART - of Torah.

AND, in addition, that is borne out somewhat at least by text studies which tell us that the Torah is compiled from several sources, and that some of those sources are quite old, in comparison to other parts.

Specifically, Miriam's Song of the Sea, and Deborah's Song of Triumph after the defeat of Sisera.

What more reasonable, then, to propose that the priests had a collection of material which included both 'very old' and 'not so old' material, and decided it would be a good idea to get it all into an organized unified whole for preservation...Or they had a compilation available which was relatively recent, and continued to preserve it. I say 'relatively recent' because the Torah contains a remarkable number of 'doublet' stories - the same story told twice, either separately or entwined together (Noah is an entwined doublet), which, when divided into two 'strands', show some interesting consistent variances, which lead scholars to postulate that one set of stories is from 'Judah' (and the south generally) while the other is from 'Israel' (and the north, generally) - and that those two strands of stories were presumably 'reunited' (so to speak) in Jerusalem sometime AFTER the ASSYRIAN conquest of the north in 702 BCE (I think that's right, haven't looked it up) when refugees fled the Assyrians and entered the Southern Kingdom of Judah, bringing their own texts and traditions with them to their not-so-distant relatives for refuge.

BTW, Friedman thinks the redactor could have been Jeremiah, which would place the compilation in pre-Babylonian Jerusalem, around perhaps 600 BCE. That is a tentative hypothesis, of course. But the period between 700 and 600 seems reasonable to me as the time of compilation of related but not identical material into a single whole: Torah.

The various Prophets/historical writings, and the originals of the (VERY) various Writings, date from many different periods and were never compiled into a single text until much much later - around 300 CE, when 'the canon' was established. ALL of those, with the sole exception of Esther (I believe), exist in the Dead Sea material, along with many other writings which did not 'make the canon', like the War of the Sons of Darkness and the Sons of Light, and the Rule of the Community, and other stuff.

This is all off the top of my head this morning, because my books are all down in the basement and my knees hurt.

Oral transmission in non-literate societies can be remarkably accurate (and also can contain remarkable omissions). So what do you mean, exactly, by 'the original'?

References:

Richard Friedman's books (primarily) - such as The Bible with Sources Revealed, Who Wrote the Bible, the Hidden Book in the Bible, (in all cases, Friedman uses 'the Bible' to refer primarily to Torah), also the Hidden Face of God, and Commentary on the Torah.

h**p://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_scat_22_ln?rh=n%3A22%2Ck%3ARichard+Friedman&keywords=Richard+Friedman&ie=UTF8&qid=1334506313&scn=22&h=54e889a6413c05d2e76f052bfc61b2f23c2bea97

Apr 15, 2012 -- 12:05PM, Pam34 wrote:

I am aware of that. I enjoy text study and have several books on the topic.

The thing is, exactly what do you mean by 'original material'? If by 'original material' you mean the original COMPILED TEXT of the Torah,  then you must look at the Babylonian/Return period of 600 - 400 BCE for your 'original material'.

Since the Dead Sea writings date between about 400 and 150 BCE, that is so close to the time of 'origin' as to be near-identical, and we can safely assume what we have NOW (since it is 99% identical to the Dead Sea material) is 'the same' as the originals.

If, on the other hand, you are looking for some kind of manuscript in the hand of Moses himself - well, first, I would think you were a religious fanatic and not a historian, and second, I would point out the the Torah ('the books of Moses') are mostly ABOUT Moses, not necessarily BY Moses, and third, that the Torah never claims that 'Moses wrote me', but instead mentions a FEW times that Moses 'wrote all these words' in contexts which arguably claim Moses wrote down SOME of the IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING material -

and that written material 'by Moses' was placed 'in the ark', and we see later that 'the ark' was placed in 'the temple', and that the temple (and the sanctuary preceding it) were in the care of 'the priests', and it was 'the priests' (in the person of Ezra) that 'brought the Torah to Jerusalem' and read it before 'all the people' - after the Babylonian exile, around 450 BCE.

So we have a reasonable - REASONABLE - chain of transmission for a 'Moses wrote it' component - a PART - of Torah.

AND, in addition, that is borne out somewhat at least by text studies which tell us that the Torah is compiled from several sources, and that some of those sources are quite old, in comparison to other parts.

Specifically, Miriam's Song of the Sea, and Deborah's Song of Triumph after the defeat of Sisera.

What more reasonable, then, to propose that the priests had a collection of material which included both 'very old' and 'not so old' material, and decided it would be a good idea to get it all into an organized unified whole for preservation...Or they had a compilation available which was relatively recent, and continued to preserve it. I say 'relatively recent' because the Torah contains a remarkable number of 'doublet' stories - the same story told twice, either separately or entwined together (Noah is an entwined doublet), which, when divided into two 'strands', show some interesting consistent variances, which lead scholars to postulate that one set of stories is from 'Judah' (and the south generally) while the other is from 'Israel' (and the north, generally) - and that those two strands of stories were presumably 'reunited' (so to speak) in Jerusalem sometime AFTER the ASSYRIAN conquest of the north in 702 BCE (I think that's right, haven't looked it up) when refugees fled the Assyrians and entered the Southern Kingdom of Judah, bringing their own texts and traditions with them to their not-so-distant relatives for refuge.

BTW, Friedman thinks the redactor could have been Jeremiah, which would place the compilation in pre-Babylonian Jerusalem, around perhaps 600 BCE. That is a tentative hypothesis, of course. But the period between 700 and 600 seems reasonable to me as the time of compilation of related but not identical material into a single whole: Torah.

The various Prophets/historical writings, and the originals of the (VERY) various Writings, date from many different periods and were never compiled into a single text until much much later - around 300 CE, when 'the canon' was established. ALL of those, with the sole exception of Esther (I believe), exist in the Dead Sea material, along with many other writings which did not 'make the canon', like the War of the Sons of Darkness and the Sons of Light, and the Rule of the Community, and other stuff.

This is all off the top of my head this morning, because my books are all down in the basement and my knees hurt.

Thanks for your lengthy and thorough answer, Pam.

Oral transmission in non-literate societies can be remarkably accurate (and also can contain remarkable omissions). So what do you mean, exactly, by 'the original'?

I've stated it earlier. If we are to indulge in redaction-critical comparisons between the Tanakh, the NT and the Qur'án, by original is meant the original words and deeds of the prophet being mentioned. In the case of Torah scholars question in varying degrees how accurately it corresponds to the words and deeds of Moses. Some scholars even question the very historicity of Moses. The basic principle remains the same. The longer the oral transmission, the greater the risk of error. I have no doubt that you believe that the oral transmission of the Torah was based on accurate memorizations and that it was transmitted by means of rigorous oral transmission methodologies. The Buddhist say the exact same thing about the oral transmission of the Sutta Pitaka, the Christians concerning the Gospels, and the Muslims concerning the ahadith.

Kind regards,

LilWabbit

nieciedo:

One could argue that maybe there is a difference of opinion as to whether picking a head of grain because you're hungry is different from "reaping" and isn't technically a violation of the Sabbath, but from the standpoint of Jewish law it's a no-no. So, to the best that can be discerned, Jesus abrogated some Sabbath labor restrictions.

Might not the picking come under pikuah nefesh, seeing as how people then were living close to the edge. If you didn't work one day, you didn't eat the next. After all, they weren't harvesting for commercial gain.

While Mark and Luke were primarily written for non-Jewish or international audiences, Matthew is the product of a Jewish-Christian community.

It might have been a Jewish Christian community that was in the midst of a very contentious period with their erstwhile fellow Jews who were in the process of kicking them out.  I could see how a Jewish Christian community that was a couple of generations distant from their Jewish roots might misunderstand the picking and Jesus' healing as Sabbath violations.

But the point is that the evidence corroborating the New Testament texts and the Jewish Scriptures is just about the same (actually, there's more evidence for the NT stuff than for the stuff about Moses but that's understandable given the setting in time).

If one is going to claim that the Gospel accounts aren't true, but were altered after the fact by other parties, then it's perfectly reasonable that the same could have and probably did happen with the Hebrew scriptures.

I agree.When one lives in the glass house of faith in scripture, we have to be careful about the stones we choose to throw.