PDA

View Full Version : Did you guys see this?



BigJayOneill
01-17-2010, 10:38 AM
Big shock... the Bible is pretty old :)

http://www.livescience.com/history/earliest-hebrew-text-100115.html

The content of this inscription is quite interesting as well!

ISalzman
01-17-2010, 10:49 AM
Big shock... the Bible is pretty old :)

http://www.livescience.com/history/earliest-hebrew-text-100115.html

The content of this inscription is quite interesting as well!

Thanks for the link, Jay! We can all rest easier now! :) Of course, it would be nice if they could bring Eric Staal and company back to the Hartford Civic Center.

Adelphos
01-17-2010, 02:25 PM
Here's the finest book by light years that I've ever read on the antiquity of the Bible, especially Genesis --

http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-records-structure-Genesis-literary/dp/0840775024

If you're really interested in this subject, pay whatever price you must to get a good copy of this book.

ISalzman
01-17-2010, 02:38 PM
Here's the finest book by light years that I've ever read on the antiquity of the Bible, especially Genesis --

http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-records-structure-Genesis-literary/dp/0840775024

If you're really interested in this subject, pay whatever price you must to get a good copy of this book.

The author Wiseman has put out quite a bit of good work!

Adelphos
01-17-2010, 05:06 PM
The author Wiseman has put out quite a bit of good work!

Amen to that. Here's an excerpt from his book, Ancient Records And The Structure Of Genesis (not the original title), speaking of the opening chapters of Genesis --

"Naturally the wording is simple, but the truth conveyed is profound... this first section of Genesis is the most ancient piece of writing. It is a record of what God told Adam. It is not an impersonal general account. It is God teaching the first man the elemental things about the universe, at the very dawn of human language. Here we get back also the very inauguration of written history. For it may have been written before even the sun and the moon had been given names... We know that long before the time of the Flood men worshipped the sun and the moon and had given them names. Had this first chapter of Genesis been written even as late as Abraham's day, instead of the simple expression "greater light" we should have had the Babylonian word for the sun... Names for the sun and moon have been among the oldest words known in any language, yet this document was written before names had been given to the "greater and lesser lights"... It is written in the style of someone recording precisely what Adam heard when the narrative was told to him... All the reader needs to do is to realize its unique features and to compare it with the Babylonian versions... The first chapter [of Genesis] is so ancient that it does not contain mythical or legendary matter; these elements are entirely absent. It bears the markings of having been written before myth and legend had time to grow, and not as is often stated, at a later date when it had to be stripped of the mythical and legendary elements inherent in every other account of Creation extant. This account is so original that it does not bear a trace of any system of philosophy. Yet it is so profound that it is capable of correcting philosophical systems. It is so ancient that it contains nothing that is merely nationalistic; neither Babylonian, Egyptian, nor Jewish modes of thought find a place in it, for it was written before clans, nations, or philosophies originated. Surely, we must regard it as the original, of which the other extant accounts are merely corrupted copies. Others incorporate their national philosophies in crude polytheistic and mythological form. This is pure. Genesis 1 is as primitive as the first human. It is the threshold of written history." P. J. Wiseman, Ancient Records And The Structure Of Genesis

Joshua Luna
01-18-2010, 09:47 AM
From the article:


Until now, many scholars have held that the Hebrew Bible originated (http://www.livescience.com/history/071211-fundamental-birth.html) in the 6th century B.C., because Hebrew writing was thought to stretch back no further. But the newly deciphered Hebrew text is about four centuries older, scientists announced this month.

That is a very clunky statement.

Per Hebrew writing not existing prior to the 6th century: Hebrew is a distinctive Canaanite dialect as early as the 9th century based on the data of epigraphic instrictions from the Levant. And that is a "conservative" observation based on the "first appearance was the first product" mindset. I don't think any reasonable scholar really suggests something like the Moabite Stone jumped out of thin air in the 9th century--which, btw, mentions the Jerusalem Temple and many are convinced makes a reference to the House of David as well.

As for how this will alter the "dating" of the Hebrew Bible, most liberal scholars date J and E a bit older than the 6th century in written form so, unfortunately, I don't think this will have much impact on dating. There have been a lot of discoveries (e.g. treaty structure and distinctive markers of 1st and 2nd millenium styles) that push toward a literary composition of the Torah in the 2nd millenium but these are pretty much ignored for other theories.

I would like to be proven wrong and that this and other finds result in significant redating of the composition of the Hebrew Bible by liberal scholars but I think the issue is more a difference in presupositions and world view. Even if this can be confirmed as a Hebrew text it doesn't confirm who the king was, if it was a king of Israel [proper], or if this was a king of a city-state or confederation.

MGVH
01-18-2010, 10:21 AM
The rendering of the text on the ostracan by Galil has been questioned. It represents something of a 'sensational' choice...
For a more cautious approach, read here: http://www.rollstonepigraphy.com/?p=56

Adelphos
01-18-2010, 11:36 AM
For those who dispute the antiquity or the veracity of the Hebrew Masoretic Text, let them deal with this little inconvenient truth...

http://lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/veracity_of_the_old_testament.htm

Just one of many.

Joshua Luna
01-18-2010, 12:31 PM
The rendering of the text on the ostracan by Galil has been questioned. It represents something of a 'sensational' choice...
For a more cautious approach, read here: http://www.rollstonepigraphy.com/?p=56

Thanks for the link.

I found the link interesting because of the "clashing" world views. e.g. Along the sensational/cautious parameters the author suggests, even the outline he provides of the use of select words immediately narrows the candidates of potential languages (based on available data) is Hebrew and... Phoenician? Even then "caution" appears to be jettisoned for the form `asah. The article strikes me as being cautionary in regards to potential links with Hebrew while aggressive in potentially linking it to other languages. But that is just my impression.

What I would like to see is a comparison of the semantic range of these words in the other potential languages. Just because a language uses the same roots doesn't mean they are used with the same semantic force. I agree caution should be used (e.g. see the the Gezer Calendar where a lot of scholars have taken definitive stands on a very murky inscription) and that it doesn't appear to be "definitely Old Hebrew."

On the other hand point 7.B. on writing in the ancient world, especially among the Hebrews, appears quite contrary to the accounts in the Hebrew Bible of writing and reading being more common than just the scribal class. Likewise I found the reservations toward Cross and the late Freedman (7.C.) of an overly cautious nature; the same orthographic tendancies seen in epigraphic Hebrew that date "old" are strongly manifest in poetic texts dating to eras that would exhibit these features. While he conceeds to their point, I found the caution overly so without significant due cause. I found the reserved admission that a distinct people group such as Israel (which he earlier dated as early as the 13th century) could have a distinct dialect before the 10th century as strikingly minimalistic.

I am not a trained Semitist and haven't spent much time on the inscription for myself, but I do find the "caution" is laid more distinctly toward arguements for a Hebrew-text and less caution is applied when other suggestions in the blog. I found it very uneven, especially the suggestion of `asah potentially showing up in Phoenecian (which I wouldn't discard as impossible; again lack of evidence isn't evidence it didn't exist) and yet the reservation to a solid trend in older poetic texts (which tend to be more frozen in terms of orthography and grammar due to their musical qualities; cf. Ps 18 and 2Sa 22) that is reflected in the epigraphic evidence seems to cross the line from cautious to overly aggressive in regards to dismissing potential Hebrew links. However this inscription plays out (it may not be Hebrew) I cannot shake the feeling of "cautionary" approaches often being steeped significantly in minimalism of one fashion of another.

MGVH
01-18-2010, 02:25 PM
Here's another decipherment:
http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2009/10/misgav-maeir-yardeni-ahituv-and-schniedewind-on-the-qeiyafa-inscription.html
Still thinks it helps support at a minimum a Davidic type kingdom in that period, but the translation is less 'sensational'!

Adelphos
01-18-2010, 05:31 PM
I wonder how many who PROFESS to be Christians give more credence to such articles and discoveries than they do to Jesus Christ who explicitly credited Moses with the authorship of the Tetrateuch.

Not that such finds are not interesting, but the commentary on them is positively appalling in most cases. The skeletons of the skeptics who have assailed the Bible are legion, whereas the bones of those who have defended the Bible over the years are nowhere to be found.

It was a certain derived FACT of "modern scholarship" that the Bible had completely manufactured the Hittites... until the vast Hittite civilization was unearthed. And so on ad nauseam.

Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, stated that Moses wrote of him --

"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." John 5:46

Wait and see whose words prove true with regard to the antiquity of the Hebrew text, and whose don't. More importantly, wait and see what happens to those who take the wrong side of the issue, for the stakes are positively eternal.

Joshua Luna
01-18-2010, 06:03 PM
You will find all sorts of weasling out of that though; e.g. "law of Moses" or "Moses said..." could be understood (as it is argued) to be a reference to the compositional book known at the time and not a implicit arguement for authorship. Not that I agree with such, only that is the sort of tail chasing you end up engaged in.

Adelphos
01-18-2010, 07:02 PM
You will find all sorts of weasling out of that though; e.g. "law of Moses" or "Moses said..." could be understood (as it is argued) to be a reference to the compositional book known at the time and not a implicit arguement for authorship. Not that I agree with such, only that is the sort of tail chasing you end up engaged in.

Well, of course they try to weasel out... it's called "parsing words" nowadays, and you find them doing the same thing in the New Testament.

But it is very easy to demonstrate how feeble-minded such attempts are. The Documentary Hypothesis proponents, for example, deny any Mosaical authorship to the Pentateuch at all.

Thus, you either believe them or you believe Jesus.

And when you get down to brass tacks and into actual demonstration, you will find denying Jesus Christ is always at the bottom of it, for all of Scripture always comes back to him, and all of Scripture centers in him.

BigJayOneill
01-20-2010, 06:23 PM
Thanks for the link, Jay! We can all rest easier now! :) Of course, it would be nice if they could bring Eric Staal and company back to the Hartford Civic Center.


:)

Yes... love for the Whale!

I hope you are well.

ISalzman
01-20-2010, 06:40 PM
:)

Yes... love for the Whale!

I hope you are well.

First, thanks, yes, I am well. And second, I know you love the Whale. And I don't blame you in the slightest. They were nothing if not lovable. And it is a sad thing that Whaler fans were forced to see the relocation of their beloved hockey team. I can only sympathize. And I do! Maybe God will, one day soon, see fit to bring another team to Hartford, though I know it probably won't be the same for fans of the Whale.

Can you believe the season Brad Richards is having, by the way? He's unreal this year. The Bolts could definitely use him.

How are you doing, Jay?

Irving

BigJayOneill
01-20-2010, 06:42 PM
Thanks for the link.

I found the link interesting because of the "clashing" world views. e.g. Along the sensational/cautious parameters the author suggests, even the outline he provides of the use of select words immediately narrows the candidates of potential languages (based on available data) is Hebrew and... Phoenician? Even then "caution" appears to be jettisoned for the form `asah. The article strikes me as being cautionary in regards to potential links with Hebrew while aggressive in potentially linking it to other languages. But that is just my impression.

What I would like to see is a comparison of the semantic range of these words in the other potential languages. Just because a language uses the same roots doesn't mean they are used with the same semantic force. I agree caution should be used (e.g. see the the Gezer Calendar where a lot of scholars have taken definitive stands on a very murky inscription) and that it doesn't appear to be "definitely Old Hebrew."

On the other hand point 7.B. on writing in the ancient world, especially among the Hebrews, appears quite contrary to the accounts in the Hebrew Bible of writing and reading being more common than just the scribal class. Likewise I found the reservations toward Cross and the late Freedman (7.C.) of an overly cautious nature; the same orthographic tendancies seen in epigraphic Hebrew that date "old" are strongly manifest in poetic texts dating to eras that would exhibit these features. While he conceeds to their point, I found the caution overly so without significant due cause. I found the reserved admission that a distinct people group such as Israel (which he earlier dated as early as the 13th century) could have a distinct dialect before the 10th century as strikingly minimalistic.

I am not a trained Semitist and haven't spent much time on the inscription for myself, but I do find the "caution" is laid more distinctly toward arguements for a Hebrew-text and less caution is applied when other suggestions in the blog. I found it very uneven, especially the suggestion of `asah potentially showing up in Phoenecian (which I wouldn't discard as impossible; again lack of evidence isn't evidence it didn't exist) and yet the reservation to a solid trend in older poetic texts (which tend to be more frozen in terms of orthography and grammar due to their musical qualities; cf. Ps 18 and 2Sa 22) that is reflected in the epigraphic evidence seems to cross the line from cautious to overly aggressive in regards to dismissing potential Hebrew links. However this inscription plays out (it may not be Hebrew) I cannot shake the feeling of "cautionary" approaches often being steeped significantly in minimalism of one fashion of another.


Thanks for the contributions guys... good stuff. Also, an additional thanks for the other translations!

BigJayOneill
01-20-2010, 06:51 PM
First, thanks, yes, I am well. And second, I know you love the Whale. And I don't blame you in the slightest. They were nothing if not lovable. And it is a sad thing that Whaler fans were forced to see the relocation of their beloved hockey team. I can only sympathize. And I do! Maybe God will, one day soon, see fit to bring another team to Hartford, though I know it probably won't be the same for fans of the Whale.

Can you believe the season Brad Richards is having, by the way? He's unreal this year. The Bolts could definitely use him.

How are you doing, Jay?

Irving


I'm well, thank you. I am happy for Richards... Tampa should have traded Vinny!

I would love it if the Whalers returned... but It is not looking good.

How is the Torah study going? ;)

ISalzman
01-20-2010, 08:49 PM
I'm well, thank you. I am happy for Richards... Tampa should have traded Vinny!

I would love it if the Whalers returned... but It is not looking good.

How is the Torah study going? ;)

Torah study is going well, thanks. Most people might not believe this but the author of the Pentateuch (Torah) had a view of the Law not dissimilar from that of Paul in Galatians!

Re Vinny, it's a hard thing to comprehend. He is an all-world type player in terms of his skill. When Vinny's on his game, he is an unbelievable talent. I can't comprehend the year he is having. I just don't know. It's hard to know what's wrong with his game at this point. Is he nursing some sort of injury that we just don't know about? Is it mental? I don't know. But in terms of talent, there are few people that can rival his skill level when he's on his game. I love the guy. But I'm sad to see the year he's having. I hope he'll pull himself out of this funk. When the Bolts had Vinny, St Louis, and Richards, there's no denying they had three of the game's best players. Admittedly, they no longer have Richards. But, they've subsequently added Stamkos, Hedman, and Malone. I don't understand why they aren't better than they are. :confused:

Blessings Jay.

Irving

David Kummerow
01-21-2010, 12:20 AM
Torah study is going well, thanks. Most people might not believe this but the author of the Pentateuch (Torah) had a view of the Law not dissimilar from that of Paul in Galatians!
Yes, I think you're right. Have a read of the following book which looks at this in detail:

Barker, Paul A. 2004. The Triumph of Grace in Deuteronomy: Faithless Israel, Faithful Yahweh in Deuteronomy. Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Carlisle: Paternoster.

Regards,
David.

ISalzman
01-21-2010, 09:32 AM
Yes, I think you're right. Have a read of the following book which looks at this in detail:

Barker, Paul A. 2004. The Triumph of Grace in Deuteronomy: Faithless Israel, Faithful Yahweh in Deuteronomy. Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Carlisle: Paternoster.

Regards,
David.

Hey David, thanks for the recommendation. Would you know where one could come by this work? I can't seem to locate a place that sells it. Amazon.com doesn't. I also Googled it and came up empty; there are sites that refer to it, but none which seem to sell it. Your post comes up number three in the Google search.

Sansom48
01-21-2010, 10:32 AM
Hey David, thanks for the recommendation. Would you know where one could come by this work? I can't seem to locate a place that sells it. Amazon.com doesn't. I also Googled it and came up empty; there are sites that refer to it, but none which seem to sell it. Your post comes up number three in the Google search.

The date mentioned is wrong (at least according to Amazon). I found it here (http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Grace-Deuteronomy-Paternoster-Monographs/dp/1597527874/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264087840&sr=8-1)

Sansom48
01-21-2010, 10:35 AM
I found this by doing a search in Amazon for: The Triumph of Grace in Deuteronomy Paternoster Biblical Monographs

ISalzman
01-21-2010, 10:41 AM
I found this by doing a search in Amazon for: The Triumph of Grace in Deuteronomy Paternoster Biblical Monographs



Thanks Chris. I had copied and pasted David's full reference into the Amazon.com search and it turned up no hits. But thanks to you, the book has been located. Blessings in your studies.

Irving

David Kummerow
01-21-2010, 04:48 PM
Eisenbrauns currently have it in stock. I would have either bought my copy from them or from Dovebooks, I can't remember which. Dove doesn't list whether they have it in stock or not.

http://www.eisenbrauns.com/item/BARTRIUMP
http://www.dovebook.com/bookdesc.asp?bookid=40660

Regards,
David.

ISalzman
01-21-2010, 04:51 PM
Thanks for the additional vendor information, David.

Dale A. Brueggemann
01-25-2010, 11:21 AM
Made me think of this too:

McConville, J. Gordon. Grace in the End: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1993.

Adelphos
01-25-2010, 05:09 PM
While the Hebrew language is not his main topic, per se, yet Robert Dick Wilson, who was fluent in 45 languages and dialects, including all the biblical and cognate languages, in the three following works dives into numerous examples from the Hebrew and cognate languages and deals very effectively with the mass of assumptions that pervaded his times, circa 1925, and which still pervade ours...

http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Investigation-Old-Testament/dp/144373103X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264457286&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Studies-Book-Daniel-Vol-set/dp/157910973X/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264457104&sr=1-12

http://www.amazon.com/Higher-Criticism-Scholarly-Robert-Wilson/dp/1117317455/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264457286&sr=1-2

And you can see a little bit about Wilson from my Quotations page --

http://lamblion.net/Quotations/rd_wilson.htm

David Kummerow
01-26-2010, 06:59 PM
Made me think of this too:

McConville, J. Gordon. Grace in the End: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1993.

Yes, that's a good book to read as well, and I was toying with the idea of mentioning it as well. McConville's book is mentioned often in Barker's book. Actually, from what I've heard, McConville is the one who enabled Barker's book to be published. Paternoster generally don't publish dissertations unless they have received quite favourable reviews from the dissertation markers. Barker's dissertation did not receive favourable comments by the critical scholars, which is not surprising given the topic and Barker's thoroughly evangelical stance towards the text. From what I heard, McConville convinced Paternoster to publish the work because, despite the negativity of the critical scholars, it is very valuable research which treats Deuteronomy as a coherent work and helps to make sense of paradoxical themes (which the critical scholars write off as evidence of conflicting sources).

Regards,
David.

Adelphos
01-27-2010, 07:49 PM
As one who has read Wilson's Scientific Investigation Of The Old Testament several times, the following is, in my opinion, a very accurate but succint description of it. I retrieved this from one of the commentators at Amazon, as given in the first link in my previous post. The bold emphasis is my own...

"First, some words about the author. Robert Dick Wilson (February 4, 1856 - October 11, 1930) was an American linguist and Presbyterian scholar who made major contributions in verifying the reliability of the Hebrew Bible. In his quest to determine the accuracy of the original manuscripts, Wilson eventually learned 45 languages, including Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, as well as all the languages into which the Scriptures had been translated up to 600 AD.

"About the book: Whoever wants to know what a true scientific approach to the Old Testament study reveals, should read this book. It examines the arguments of the "Higher Criticism" about the authorship and the dating of these documents (especially the Pentateuch) in the light of the text itself, the Hebrew grammar, the vocabulary, the analogy in the documents of the nations that surrounded the Hebrews, and other factors. The book contains some irrefutable arguments, which establish the trustworthiness and the historicity of the Old Testament documents, beyond any doubt. I believe it is a must read for everybody who is looking to find the truth about the book that describes itself as "The Word of God". (Bear in mind that it is a difficult book to read, since it is not a popularized scientific work). (E-mail:drz4007@gmail.com) "

And of course, one of the arguments from that book has been summarized by me in the following article...

http://lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/veracity_of_the_old_testament.htm

I might also add that anyone who understands even the very basics of what constitutes real evidence understands just how significant Wilson's data is with respect to the foregoing article.

acluett89
02-16-2010, 02:40 AM
Nice informative post and Thanks a million. Very useful indeed. I've taken a quick look at the links and I think this could be quite an interesting path to follow. Once again thankyou very much.

ISalzman
02-16-2010, 09:55 AM
Nice informative post and Thanks a million. Very useful indeed. I've taken a quick look at the links and I think this could be quite an interesting path to follow. Once again thankyou very much.

I believe it is an interesting path to follow. Have fun following it.