Biblical Translation--Eden

bertot: I just noticed that you acknowledged "shoe-horn" does in fact exist in a dictionary.I need a little break, and you may need one too.What do you say we take a break for an hour or two ... or even more if either of us feels that it is necessary.jaywill: I will read your post in a bit, and give you a reply.All the best to both of you wonderful people,
Ger

bertot:History is not found in the Judao-Christian Bible. The Judao-Christian Bible is a Theological Text not a Historical Text. There are historical events recorded in the Judao-Christian Bible, but it is not regarded a Historical Record of Events.If you found a place English Dictionary where "Muslim history" and "Christian history", "Buddhist history" is mentioned under those initial word definitions, I am indeed quite surprised. That does not change the fact that what is regarded as "historical" events are quite different than "biblical" events. The Muslim religion is a part of history, the Christian religion is a part of history, Buddhism is a part of human history. No kidding. That is not what we are discussing here.All the best,
Ger

To AM. Thanks for the wonderful sentiments. I am sure you are a very pleasent person and you truley believe what you are saying. I agree that break is in order. I noticed the other day you said, you took your wife out to lunch. Its nice to here that people actually still do those things. The only thing that I have ever taken issue with in Pauls writings is his statement that "the husband is the head or the wife", spoken like a true bachelor, Ha Ha. If it were not for the fact he was speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit it would be highly questionable.I agree with the BREAK idea. Take as much time as you wish to reply. My tendancy is to ramble on without end. My suggestion though is take as much time as you need but respond to the whole post instead of one part. Because answers to short post get stuck between main post and we lose sight of the other arguments. Agreed. I told you in another post, this is a rigourous process if you are not accoustomed to it.AM writes I agree with most of the above post and disagree with some parts of it. I think we are not going to agree with what constitues history or historical, due to the fact that I believe you are mixing definitons and trying to show contradictions between this false presuppositons. On the other hand you do not agree with me in the respect that because the dictionary does not designate such terms as Christian or Christianity as history, it cannot be believed to be a historical document. We may be at an impass. Again, before I make this statement, donot assume I disagree with the definitions offered by the dictionary of Historical and Christian, to me they are accurate and describe each of the items correctly for the most part.However, dictionaries are written by people and can include and exclude things that are applicable. Also, that the definitons do not reflect the reality and truthfulness all the time. The can make mistakes.The very fact that the dictionary uses as an illustration of a "theologian trying to demonstrate the historical Jesus" proves my point. It ofcourse can be demonstrated, even if you dont believe the rest of the NT. It would also indicate that maybe the definiton of History or Historical, while accurate may not be complete. They are only human.As lomg as definitions and words are not in conflict, opposition and contradict eachother, it may be assumed that they can come together to form a valid concept, I think you agree with this. It is this I think, that brings us back to a common question can the NT documents be considered as reliable, regardless of word definitions in the dictionary. To me the primary and inital consideration should be can the authors and documents be demonstrted to be false. As I said before some documents cant even get out of the starting gate.Maybe we can approach it from anotherangle. Take your time today, tommorrow whatever then let me know what you think.D Bertot

AM states To AM I am sorry I did not see this earlier before I responded to the other post. You have a very unique way of presenting history. You read into the past and from the scriptures those things you want to believe and see. I assume that the Law of Moses the Levitical law and the 10 commandments were well in place before the events you described from history, correct. That would imply that contrary to assertions the majority of the Hebrew people were well aquainted with the Levitical Law and ommandments. Furthermore, as you indicated, "some survived", which would imply that there was a written record, not to mention the ones in the possesion of Gods children that no doubt, did not fall to capture. Your view of one isolated incident, assumes and asserts that they did know much about thier past, but you are not warrented in implying that they did KNOW or HAVE (mental recollection)about the things of God, not to mention the ORAL TRADITION, that was characteristic of thier people would not be warrented by any strech of the imagination.Again, you are reading to much in to the quote from Nehimiah 13:24 is simply to categorical and to much of an unwarrented conclusion is beening advanced. You need to show from history (since this seems to be your source for everything), where the people of God lost ALL written documents and lost all knowledge and understanding of his Will. This simply not bore out by anything you have said above. Nehimiah is simply pointing out that they had forgotten wher thier loyalties were. The OT is repleat with Gods people adoptimg other peoples values, but this does not imply what you are trying to say. I dont even know where the first part of this quote comes from. Are you telling me that the canon of scripture, we now know, or atleast most of it were not in place at the time of Christ? How would they not Know about Adam and Eve and the story of the garden. Not to mention the Talmud. What was the Talmud a commentary for in those days. I dont even know where that assertion comes from. What were they using in the Temple and other places or worship as scripture?D Berot

bertot, my friend. Here's another go at it. Enjoy. I do indeed enjoy your wonderful sense of humor. And yes, such a statement is spoken like a true bachelor. But then we do have, “Father, Son, & Holy Ghost”, and, unless the Holy Ghost is feminine - which I doubt - Christians believe in a very patriarchal {bachelor-like} Deity. Furthermore, Paul is reaching back into a highly questionable Alexandrian Greek translation of the Hebrew Eden Narrative in the Septuagint OT to support his divinely inspired point of view regarding women in general. The ancient Hebrews and the Jews regarded country, and city, town and village as mothers of their inhabitants. Even in Modern Hebrew grammar this perspective of the feminine aspect of life continues in a very profound way.Ancient Hebrew tribes held “women” in very high esteem, and this particular attitude towards women did not diminish until the Israelites entered Canaan and began the urbanization and agrarian process. The terms “earth” and “ground” are feminine in Hebrew because planet earth is regarded as the Mother and the ground is regarded as Her fertile womb. This ancient pre-historic view of life changes dramatically once a people become urbanized and agrarian. The Eden narrative itself can be translated so that it conveys this psychological shift in human consciousness. It is quite fascinating. Wonderful and helpful advise, bertot. I will give my best effort to reply to the “whole post” from here on. And yes, this is a very rigorous process, since I am not fully accustomed to debate or online debate.I am truly enjoying it, though. I can hardly keep myself away when I see that someone has posted an idea.
AM writes

quote:

---

you found a place English Dictionary where "Muslim history" and "Christian history", "Buddhist history" is mentioned under those initial word definitions, I am indeed quite surprised. That does not change the fact that what is regarded as "historical" events are quite different than "biblical" events. The Muslim religion is a part of history, the Christian religion is a part of history, Buddhism is a part of human history. No kidding. That is not what we are discussing here.

---

bertot writes A certain amount of “word-definition”, “grammar”, and “syntax {the formation of sentences in a language”) are sometimes needed. Let me attempt to give a relatively coherent example:
The history of Christianity; this would denote a historical text that would chronicle the real-world documented evidence describing the origin of Christianity to within a few months of its present real-world form.Christian history; this would denote a text describing historical events as perceived through the lens of Christian bias.Do you see what I am saying? Just in case, No, is your answer, I will try once more:The history of the U.S; this would be a historical text that would show the real-world, unvarnished, unflattering, as well as the truly incredible, and honorable aspects of the founding, expansion, and present form of the United States of America.U.S. history; this would be a bias, legendary account of how wonderful, free, honorable, and God-loving country the United States of America is. To simplify: Cowboys v. Indians, and we kicked their butts fair and square.Wow, what a difference. The NT of the Holy Bible is indeed comprised of document of a historical nature. They are indeed ancient documents. Not all of what is said in those documents rings of historical truth, and that is because what is said in those ancient documents of a theological nature. The NT is much more a collection of theological documents as opposed to them being a collection of historical documents. I do not trust dictionaries or other scholars or myself. Having said that, however, I tend to accept what a number of dictionaries confirm as the meanings of English words. No matter how many scholars one puts together, they all have a particular bias and/or agenda that they are trying to impart. Thus, “a grain of salt” when it comes to “scholars.” When it comes to myself, I guess the only real thing I trust is the fact that I will either misread, misinterpret, misspell, or in some other way “miss the point” when it comes particularly to this rather important subject. Because I actually “do not trust myself” in this regard, I study things that appear to be crucial to this subject over and over again, and I rarely use the notes I made previously - they could be in fact wrong - so I make new notes and find new sources to hopefully counter mistakes made by others or myself. And I always try to refrain from saying, I am right.bertot writes: In the “The real world”, there is “the study of the historical Jesus of Nazareth.” The theological Jesus Christ is not a real world historical personality. The Holy Spirit is a theological conception not a real world conception.I think that for you the terms “history or historical” are not complete, that is why someone thought up the concept and term “theological.” I think if you look up “theological” in the dictionary you may find it is precisely the word you are looking for. The NT documents are reliable theological accounts regarding the origin of the first Christian sect and the origin of the first Christian church. How is that for a compromise. Demonstrated “false” in what way? I think some specifics are needed here. Best wishes,
GerEdited by autumnman, : quotesEdited by autumnman, : No reason given.

bertot:I think you somehow lost the point I was trying to make.This is as simple as I can make it.Around 1 BC jewish people -- regular jewish people -- were more familiar with Western-Aramaic than they were Aramaic-Hebrew. Only the Temple priests employed Aramaic-Hebrew during Jewish rituals. The everyday people living in Palestine spoke Aramaic NOT Hebrew, and even fewer of those people were able to use Aramaic as a literary means of communication let alone Hebrew. Around 1 BC Canaanite Hebrew and Aramaic Hebrew were "dead languages." The people of Judea at the time of Jesus spoke Aramaic in the market. Ignorance of much of their history and the Old Laws was rampent. They were a conqured people who had been conqured by Babylon/Persia, Greece, and then Rome. The Adam and Eve story--found only in the Greek Septuagint, by the way--was not a big concern to the Jewish people at that time. In fact, the "Adam & Eve" narrative found in the Torah today is not a big concern to the Jews.I'm going to bed, and I look forward to discussing this and other subjects with you tomorrow.All the best,
GerEdited by autumnman, : No reason given.

And I do enjoy your knowledge you have accumulated over the years. If this straight off the cuff and drawn straignt from your memory banks, that pretty impressive. A regular egghead. Wow whht a difference indeed. Question. Did you contrive and make these definitions or are quoting it from somewhere. Is there some source that makes these clear distinctions, Or is this your work and classifications. Further not be disagreeable or obtuse (see I know a few big words as well, not many but a few) but I see no reason and you have not provided any reasons to believe the Gospels and Acts, etc are not as described in YOUR definition one. Further, the word
bias is to strong a word, considering the textual, historical and arecheological evidence. Again it must be demonstated that they are not a reliable source when relaying there historical information.Lokk at it this way, if they are unreliable then you could call them biased. If they are biased then you could call them unreliable. One more point on this topic. Your definition for The history of Chritianity and The history of the US are considerably different. Further where do you get a "historical text that would chronicle the real world describing", the origin of anything. Inother words you want your history to be believable from any time and any plac, but when it comes to Christianity, you say, Oh no this is not possible. I say that it not possible to have that kind of a historical perspective unless 'providence was involved. In other words the sandards you se are much to ridged and would exclude everything as history. What in the documents does not ring of a historical nature. Of course this will be you opinion. Why does thier theological content invalidate them. Again, do Josephus' and Philo's theo content invalidate them as historians? Like i said before a regular, scholarly egghead, keep up the good work. This is ofcourse the whole issue at hand, can those documents be trusted enough to make that theological Jesus a reality. I dont see the line of distinction you do here. Im pretty sure that is not what the dictionary was making, any who. Maybe, but I think it is your definition of what constitues history and how it is to be interpreted that shapes many peoples views and this is what is at fault. here is a example, last year I argued with several Athiest and agnostics the meaning of the word science. It is clear that the word has changed, not in meaning but toa biased influence, by evolutionary scientist. The same could be said of the word history Understand. Theological and history have two different meanings and could not be equivocated. Good. Replace the word theologicl with historical andI agree. Unreliable.Ill do the other one in the morning.D Bertot

Autumnman,Excuse me if I misunderstand the purpose of these paragraphs.But if by this you are implying that there is a suspicious absence of unflattering and potentially embarressing material in the Gospels which would show an unsavory or detrimental side of Jesus or the disciples, then you have not read the New Testament well at all.It this is your attititude that bias is detected in the Gospels such that no potentially emabarressing accounts, conversations, events, happens are recorded, that would be amazingly naive of you.I know you said that bertot and I were wonderful people. And I don't like to say something like this after a nice compliment. However, I have to call you on this.Would you like for me to list for you about 35 or 45 things in the New Testament that we could well expect a false propogandist to have LEFT OUT of the New Testament?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

AM writes Good morning AM (get that pun), you just got up and I said AM. Ok Ill stop now. You eggheadessness, forced me to get my books out again. And it seems that your iplication from your above statement, are not quite exacally correct. Now I am not a Hebraist or a scholar of the OT texts, But F.F Bruce says that the Hebrew Bible was used in the synagoge along side the Septuagint. When Jesus was handed the scroll of Isa, he says it was probably the Hebrew version. And that the synagoges used the Law and the Prophets in hebrew along side the Greek translation. Then makes reference to Philo and others using the Hebrew texts. Which would indicate they were familiar with atleast later versions the Hebrew Bible, atleast toinclude the Law and prophets. He also states that the Essenes, Qumran community, Pharisees were all in agreement as to what constituted the canon of scripture. The dead sea scrolls also push the text and reliability of the OT manuscripts back another 1000 years as found in qumran. Coreect. That here was much ignorance rampent, I have no doubt. The conclusion you are trying to drawn from this is I believe unwarrented. Ill do some more research while I wait for eggheaded reply. Just kidding there homie. See you in a while.D Bertot

Good morning to both of you.I'll reply to both of you in just a little while.All the best,
Ger

To Am. I will need to beg off for work in a while, so it will be sometime before I canrespond. Hopefully you can keep up the dialouge with JaywillI. Also Jaywill feel free to interject any thing on the Text question. This certainly not just a discussion between menand him. Also, AM could you respond to post 208, that would be of great interest.A Few other notes I forgot in my last post. While these were certainly dead languages in one sense. This would not imply that they did not have source documents to draw from. F.F Bruce says the Septuagint was first translated from Hebrew in the 3rd or 2nd century bc. Which imply that the Hebrew writings were not olny there at the time of Jesus, but well before the 3rd century. this coupled with the fact that the masorites, were very maticulous in transcribing, with nearly no mistakes, as the dead sea scrolls would indicate, correct.The scholarship of the world seems to believe we have he oldtestament documents pretty much the same, as from the earliest times. Agreed.Here is one other interesting point. Notice now what we are doing here to try and establish there reliability. We are going for direct, historical, archeological and factualevidence to support the accuracy. What I have been trying to demonstrate all along.D Bertot

bertot:I am currently responding to post #262, the post you entered last night. It is taking me a little longer that I thought it would, but I am reaching the end.You ask, I am pretty certain that it was my responce to post #208 that brought jaywill back into the discussion regarding the "historical nature" of the NT. When I complete my reply to your post #262 I will go back through the various posts and see if that is in fact the case.jaywill and I will keep up the "good work" while you are gone.All the best,
Ger

bertot and jaywill: Here is a long-winded reply, but I hope it will help clear up some of the semantics in our debate. You guys will be the judge.bertot wrote All of it is in “my memory banks”, but some of it is “off the cuff”, that is to say, what is too cluttered to be a clear memory I generally know where to find the information I need to clear things up. I think I have always agreed that the corroborated historical information found in the Gospels, Acts, etc. can and should be accepted as corroborated historical information. That does not make the Gospels, Acts, etc. {the NT} a “historical document” because it is a “theological document.” I think we agree that the principal reason for the NT Scriptures is to guide people to the “only begotten Son of God {GK. Theos}” so they can be saved from “sin/death.” The NT Scriptures were NOT written to impart a historical perspective of Palestine two thousand years ago. We get a glimpse of ancient Palestine two thousand years ago in the NT Scriptures, but the NT Scriptures were scribed and compiled so that all humanity would eventually be able to read the NT Scriptures, believe, and therefore be saved from “sin/death.” Am I wrong in surmising that the primary reason for the NT Scriptures is to impart the “words of Theos”? If I am correct in my conjecture would not Scriptures or Documents scribed for the primary purpose of imparting extremely important information from Theos Himself have to be regarded as Theos oriented in content? And, therefore, would not those Theos oriented Scriptures or Documents be in fact “theological” in content? Either I continue to NOT make myself clear, or you and jaywill keep misunderstanding what I am trying to convey. I will give it a go once more. And, note, that I am now employing the Greek term Theos when referring to “God”.Human beings have as yet be unable to either prove or disprove in a scientifically documented fashion the eternal existence of a supreme Theos. I do not believe that such a statement is “my opinion.” Or, if such a statement is to be considered “my opinion”, then such an “opinion” is based on all of the documented, scientific and/or natural & real facts that I have been able to comprehend in my life up to this point. Because the eternal existence of a supreme Theos has as yet not become regarded as a natural & real scientifically proven or unproven fact of human reality on planet earth, the human idea of a supreme Theos remains an open question. Therefore, the human idea of a supreme Theos can either be believed or disbelieved by any individual who lives in a culture and society that regards such individual thoughts as an individual’s right. There are to this day cultures and societies that do not teach or allow an individual’s right to believe or disbelieve in the human idea of a supreme Theos.I guess we could say, “Anything is possible.” Perhaps, “Anything is possible.” However, “Not Everything is probable.” From my experience, historians-in-general tend to document the probable historical aspect of the reality that they share with the human race on planet earth. Historians-in-general most certainly document the historical effects that a certain belief or lack of belief in the human idea of a supreme Theos may have had on certain cultures and societies of the past, but they leave the actual question of a supreme Theos as being either fact or fiction to theologians and theological-skeptics. The historian, if he is to be believed, focuses on natural {human & otherwise} real world activities that occurred in the past. The supernatural activities and influences of the supreme Theos are documented in Sacred Religious Scriptures like the Old and New Testaments. That is why these Sacred Religious Scriptures are not regarded as mere history books. That is why mere history books are not regarded as Sacred. Whether or not a historian happens to hold certain theological beliefs is not a factor insofar as regarding their historical record as being accurate. But, if the historian should make the claim that his historical record was dictated to him by the supreme Theos or was directly influenced by the supreme Theos then that particular historian’s historical record would have to be regarded as a Sacred Religious Scripture. The claim that The Holy Spirit of the supreme Theos inspired this or that historical record of events is what in fact makes the OT and the NT Sacred Religious Scriptures and not mere historical documents. The supreme Theos does not inspire mere historical documents. Sacred Religious Scriptures are regarded as such because they are said to be inspired by the supreme Theos. No. Please read what I wrote above carefully. Until the time in human events that the supreme Theos can be either proved or disproved beyond the shadow of a doubt, the theological Jesus - the only begotten Son of the supreme Theos - cannot be regarded as “a reality” or a “fact”. There is a certain amount of historical evidence that suggests there may well have been a mortal man whose name was Jesus and who lived in Nazareth, but that does not make the claim the that particular Jesus was in fact the only begotten Son of the supreme Theos, if for no other reason than humanity has not yet proved or disproved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the supreme Theos actually, really, factually exists. You and I “believe” that the supreme Theos exists, but not only do our conceptions of the supreme Theos differ, but neither of us actually have real, factual, indisputable evidence that conclusively substantiates the existence of the supreme Theos. It is because of this lack of conclusively substantiated evidence that you and I claim that we “believe” in the supreme Theos. Let’s ask ourselves this question: Did we learn of the possible existence of the supreme Theos from a mere history book? Or did we learn of the possible existence of the supreme Theos from the Sacred Scriptures of the English Holy Bible - which came from the ancient Greek, ancient Aramaic, and the ancient Hebrew Sacred Scriptures? I, personally, first became acquainted with the idea of the supreme Theos {God} from the Sacred Scriptures of the English Holy Bible. Please read what I have written above carefully. Mere history books are not said to be inspired by The Holy Spirit of the supreme Theos. Mere history books are composed by mere human beings and are subject to the flaws and frailties of the human beings that document the historical record of mankind on planet earth. The most honest historical record of human and natural events is not compiled by those flawed human beings who are caught up in the events as they occur, for those flawed human beings have not only a very limited perspective but are also subject to and influenced by the ruling human powers of that time. That is not to say that those flawed human beings who are recording the actual events as they occur do not contribute to the historical record, they most certainly do, but each account of a specific event must be corroborated by more than one or two or three independent sources. All of the different perspectives of the same historical event not only expands the historical knowledge of that given event, but also adds credibility to all of the different perspectives describing it. When archaeological evidence is added to the compiled historical record the actual historical event becomes even more reliable. But, regardless of all the historical data compiled regarding any given historical event, the human factor is always in play. The very act of interpreting the evidence supporting a given historical event may well be what influenced a particular historical event to begin with, or the act of interpreting the evidence today may well influence what will become history tomorrow. But, regardless, as human beings we can only be human beings, and a historical event that tends to support the fact that our ancient ancestors were in fact human beings can lend a certain amount of credibility to a historical event that has been recorded and compiled. I am not certain why you would want me to replace the word theological which directly refers to the supreme Theos with the word “historical” which refers only to the branch of human knowledge dealing with past events?AM wrote

quote:

---

Demonstrated “false” in what way? I think some specifics are needed here.

---

bertot replied The historical event described in Matthew 2:16 regarding Herod the Great ordering the killing of all the children of Bethlehem and the coasts thereof is in fact an uncorroborated record of a possible historical event. Because the event described in Matthew 2:16 is uncorroborated by any other sources of that time tends to make that particular record of that particular event unsubstantiated and unreliable. As for the rest of the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospels of Mark & Luke, the Gospel of John, Acts, etc. please read what I have written above carefully.All the best,
Ger

jaywill: You wrote, Sure, list for me the 35 or 45 things in the NT that you think a "fale propagandist" would have left out. I am very interested to see what your point of view will focus on.Furthermore, just because I compliment you or bertot on the kind of person I perceive you to be, such a compliment should not interfere with all of us sharing our different or even conflicting views. If anything it should allow all of us to be more blunt and honest with each other.I look forward to your reply,
Ger

bertot: I have tried to give you a more complete view of what I was saying.AM writes

quote:

---

This is as simple as I can make it.Around 1 BC jewish people -- regular jewish people -- were more familiar with Western-Aramaic than they were Aramaic-Hebrew. Only the Temple priests employed Aramaic-Hebrew during Jewish rituals. The everyday people living in Palestine spoke Aramaic NOT Hebrew, and even fewer of those people were able to use Aramaic as a literary means of communication let alone Hebrew. Around 1 BC Canaanite Hebrew and Aramaic Hebrew were "dead languages." The people of Judea at the time of Jesus spoke Aramaic in the market. Ignorance of much of their history and the Old Laws was rampent. They were a conqured people who had been conqured by Babylon/Persia, Greece, and then Rome. The Adam and Eve story--found only in the Greek Septuagint, by the way--was not a big concern to the Jewish people at that time. In fact, the "Adam & Eve" narrative found in the Torah today is not a big concern to the Jews.

---

That my statements above may not be “exactly correct” is of no surprise to me. That is an awful lot of ancient history to summarize and at the same time convey in a fashion that would be regarded by others as being “exactly correct.” I do my best to not be misleading in an intentional way, but I have been known to be “incorrect” from time to time. However, each time my error(s) are brought to my attention, I become more proficient in the subject under discussion and quite often that means I learn what I did not know previously and am consequently more capable of correctly conveying the given idea in the future. According to what I have been able to ascertain, New Hebrew {i.e. Aramaic Hebrew} TORAH was canonized around 400 BCE. The New Hebrew TORAH was copied from the Old Hebrew {i.e. Canaanite Hebrew} documents that were the remnants of the 1st Temple Scriptures that were saved during and shortly after the destruction of the 1st Temple in 586 BCE. When the Jews were forced from their homeland and Exiled in Babylon, those remnants of the Old Hebrew Temple Scriptures were taken away from the Jews so that those Scriptures could not be used to incite unrest and rebellion among the Exiled Jews. Fortunately for all of us, what remained of the Temple Scriptures was not destroyed. Who knows why? Unfortunately, however, the Priests and Scribes, and perhaps a few other people who could actually read the Old Hebrew consonantal text in which the Temple Scrolls were written were either killed during the conquest of Judea, or died during the 50+ years of the Exile. The ability to even speak the ancient Canaanite dialect slowly diminished as the years passed, for to survive in the land of Babylon/Persia the Western Aramaic tongue had to become the spoken medium of the day.It is from the merger of the Old Hebrew consonantal written script and the Western Aramaic tongue that the Jews eventually designed an entirely different writing system. This new writing system was based on the twenty-consonants of the Canaanite/Hebrew writing system, but added to it “final letters {letter characters used at the end of certain words), and added a second consonant letter by applying dots above the twenty-first letter. These changes were apparently necessary to incorporate the New Hebrew writing system with the Aramaic spoken language. Eventually, even a New Hebrew spoken dialect emerged. This intellectual transition from one spoken and literary medium to a reinvented literary and spoken medium spanned more than one hundred years. And during those years the Babylon and Persian influences became very much a part of Jewish thought and literature.When Cyrus the Great, emperor of Persia gave the decree, sanctioning the return of the exiles and the eventual rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem, in 538 BCE, eventually the remnants of the Old Hebrew Scriptures were returned to the Jewish people. Once back in Palestine Ezra the scribe began the arduous task of rendering what was left of the Old Hebrew Scriptures into the New Aramaic-Hebrew script. While performing this task, Ezra also incorporated what remained of the Oral Tradition that had managed to survive into the New Hebrew Scriptures. In the same way that Canaanite/Old Hebrew was written without vowels or vocalization marks, New Hebrew too was written without vowels or vocalization marks; {vowel points and vocalization marks were not added to the New Hebrew OT Scriptures until the 6th to the 9th centuries AD by the Masoretes).The canon of the New Hebrew Tanakh {Old Testament} was in the final stages of completion by the middle of the 3rd century BCE. By that time Alexander the Great of Greece had conquered the Persian Empire. The work of translating the New Hebrew Tanakh (OT) into the Alexandrian Greek koine {an amalgamation of Greek dialects} in Alexandria Egypt began under Ptolemy Soter around 284 BCE and was concluded around 247 BCE. The fact is, however, there was no set translation or interpretation of the New Hebrew Tanakh at that time. In fact, insofar as the Jews are concerned, to this day there is not set translation or interpretation of the New Hebrew Tanakh. Speaking for the Jewish Publication Society (JPS), in his commentary on the OT Book bere>shiyth = Genesis, Professor Nahum M. Sarna states:

quote:

---

For nearly two millennia and a half, the exposition of Scripture has been the subject of intense preoccupation on the part of Jewish scholars. In fact, Jewish intellectual and spiritual history may be said to be essentially the record of the variegated attempts to unfold the sense, meanings, purposes, intents, and applications of the biblical texts” (pg. xvii)

---

By the 1st century BCE there were at least five different Jewish sects throughout Palestine. (1) The Sadducees were the Priestly cast, and their interpretation of the New Hebrew Law, Prophesies, and Scriptures was that there was no such thing as resurrection, immortality, and no world to come. (2) The Pharisees believed and preached resurrection, immortality, and a new world to come. (3) The Scribes were those who transcribed, edited, and interpreted the New Hebrew Tanakh. At times the Scribes expositions of Scripture would be aligned with the Sadducees, and sometime their expositions of Scripture would be in line with the Pharisees. (4) The Zealots were more a religious fanatic organization than a religious sect. The Zealots advocated the overthrow of the Roman government by violence and the re-establishment of the independent Jewish State. (5) The Essenes disagreed with all the Jewish sects in Jerusalem and took their practice out into the wilderness. The Essenes were expecting at least two anointed ones of God; A Davidic Messianic King who would drive the invaders from Palestine, and a Messianic Priest who would correctly expound upon the law.
From the middle of the 2nd century BC to the end of the First Jewish Revolt against Rome and the destruction of the 2nd Temple, there was no established Jewish exposition of the New Hebrew Tanakh {OT). It is very much the same case to this very day, as Professor Sarna explained above.I do indeed hope all this information will help you perform your own research regarding this critical biblical time, and where you may find me in error, please let me know.All the best,
Ger