|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Was Accuracy the Goal of Biblical Scribes? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I notice that you don't mention when the Masoretic tradition started (the 7th Century AD if I remember correctly). And if I remember correctly the Talmud is also relatively late and so cannot be assumed to be a reliable account (especially when historians date the Torah to well after Moses' death).
The whole Masoretic tradition was started to produce an authoritative text, not to prserve one that existed at that time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6238 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
For these reasons you will find that Torah scrolls worldwide are almost identical [i think there are maybe 6 variant letters] in Torah scrolls found anywhere in the world, from the west to the far east. I suggest that this can be extrapolated backwards to biblical times and that the accuracy of the hebrew scrolls is very high.
Given a choice between textual evidence and doctrinal extrapolation, I'll choose the former. The "plurality" addressed by Tov was not a statement of faith, but an obsevation of fact. Live with it! Better yet, consider reading Fixing God's Torah: The Accuracy of the Hebrew Bible Text in Jewish Law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6238 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
The whole Masoretic tradition was started to produce an authoritative text, not to prserve one that existed at that time.
Bingo!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mendy Inactive Member |
i think that it is fair to say that they had at least a double purpose: One to fix with certainty the text, as youve said due to some differences floating around. But, i think the primary goal, was to nail down the correct version of those texts already floating around from previous eras. So, while its true they tried to produce an authoritative text -but they werent living in a vacuum -as religious jews, they used an existing text day in and day out - their attempt was simply to preserve the majority of the transmission of the text they already had and to make clear the minority of text for which there was confusion. Think about it? where di they get their texts from? Previous editions they had didnt just disappear....everything they did was ultimatly based on previous works. So, i am disagreeing with what you all have said. I didnt see any proof from anyone, just assertions
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Here are some references from Encyclopedia Britannica:
On the Talmud "Each of two groups of Jewish scholars (amoraim), one in Palestine and the other in Babylonia, independently produced a Talmud. Although the two groups addressed the same Mishna and consulted with one another, their work resulted in two separate collections of law, lore, and commentary. The amoraim of Palestine laboured for about two centuries, completing their work c.400 CE, approximately one century earlier than their counterparts in Babylonia. The Babylonian Talmud (Talmud Bavli) is consequently more extensive than the Palestinian Talmud (Talmud Yerushalmi) and, for that reason, more highly esteemed. Neither of the Talmuds covers every section of the Mishna; some commentaries were never written, and, presumably, others have been lost." So whichever Talmud you were talking about it dates to many centuries after when Moses would have lived (which we do not even have a reliable date for). On The Dead Sea Scrolls ("Biblical Literature and Its Critisal Interpretation")"The importance of the Qumran scrolls cannot be exaggerated. Their great antiquity brings them close to the Old Testament period itself--from as early as 250-200 BCE. For the first time, Hebrew variant texts are extant and all known major text types are present.Some are close to the Septuagint, others to the Samaritan. On the other hand, many of the scrolls are practically identical with the Masoretic text, which thus takes this recension back in history to pre-Christian times. " So Qumran shows a mix of texts. Of the actual Masoretic texts"No biblical manuscripts have survived from the six centuries that separate the latest of the Judaean Desert scrolls from the earliest of the Masoretic period. A "Codex Mugah," frequently referred to as an authority in the early 10th century, and the "Codex Hilleli," said to have been written c. 600 by Rabbi Hillel ben Moses ben Hillel, have both vanished. The earliest extant Hebrew Bible codex is the Cairo Prophets written and punctuated by Moses ben Asher in Tiberias (in Palestine) in 895. Next in age is the Leningrad Codex of the Latter Prophets dated to 916, which was not originally the work of Ben Asher, but its Babylonian pointing--i.e., vowel signs used for pronunciation purposes--was brought into line with the Tiberian Masoretic system."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6238 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
So, i am disagreeing with what you all have said. I didnt see any proof from anyone, just assertions
Good grief! Have you ever read anything pertaining to the history and textuual transmission the Torah?
quote: quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Zealot Inactive Member |
Matthew and Luke both used Mark when they were writing, so some degree of harmony is expected.
Could you provide evidence for this statement ? Just want to know why you believe this. thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6238 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi Zealot,
The reason I didn't expand on this is because I took it for granted that this is common knowledge to everyone involved in Christian theology. CA has provided a link (thanks CA) for you. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Zealot Inactive Member |
The reason I didn't expand on this is because I took it for granted that this is common knowledge to everyone involved in Christian theology.
Hi Brian. I'm aware of that belief, however there are also some noted scholars that would argue otherwise. Appologies for being unclear, but I was more interested in your personal opinion. Either way, I'm sure you have read those that claim to refute that belief, so if you don't want to discuss this in more detail I understand. cheers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Hi, Zealot!
Brian's mention of the theory that Mark is the original source of much of the nearly identical material that is in Matthew and Luke was intended as just one aspect of the reasons for the apparent harmony in some Biblical material. You replied by saying:
I'm aware of that belief, however there are also some noted scholars that would argue otherwise. Well, yes, some scholars believe Matthew is the original source, and there are even a few who argue for Luke, but in any case somebody must have copied from somebody, and Brian's offering of copying as one reason for gospel harmony isn't affected by which source is the original. So when you say this:
I was more interested in your personal opinion. Either way, I'm sure you have read those that claim to refute that belief.. I'm not sure where you're going with this. Do you want to know if Brian is aware of the other theories, which don't affect his point anyway? Or are you hinting at some other possibility, such as that all the sources are original and no copying was done? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi Zealot,
however there are also some noted scholars that would argue otherwise. Maybe once upon a time, but I think it is universally accepted nowadays that whoever wrote Matthew and Luke copied material from Mark, or from 'Q'. Can you name any of these noted scholars so I could investigate a little more?
but I was more interested in your personal opinion. My own opinion is that whoever wrote Matthew and Luke copied material from Mark. The appearance of passages, almost verbatim, points toward a use of a common text, perhpas Mark or the hypothesised Q.
Either way, I'm sure you have read those that claim to refute that belief, so if you don't want to discuss this in more detail I understand. I havent read any modern day scholar who thinks that the four gospels arose independently of one another, could you highlight a few? Cheers. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6238 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
I havent read any modern day scholar who thinks that the four gospels arose independently of one another, could you highlight a few?
I think that The Present State Of The Synoptic Problem is worth reading. Also of interest, this time from the perspective of Lukan priority, is Who Questioned Jesus
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024