Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: Did you guys see this?

  1. #1

    Default Did you guys see this?

    Big shock... the Bible is pretty old

    http://www.livescience.com/history/e...xt-100115.html

    The content of this inscription is quite interesting as well!
    a;koue( VIsrah,l( ku,rioj o` qeo.j h`mw/n ku,rioj ei-j evstin( kai. avgaph,seij ku,rion to.n qeo,n sou evx o[lhj th/j kardi,aj sou kai. evx o[lhj th/j yuch/j sou kai. evx o[lhj th/j dianoi,aj sou kai. evx o[lhj th/j ivscu,oj souĊ

    עשׁה שׁלום במרומיו הוא יעשׂה שׁלום עלינו ועל כל ישׂראל ואמרו אמן׃

    "Will you rise like a lion in the morning sun or will you just lay there bleeding? When the time has come, return to the Kingdom, close my eyes and be screaming freedom!" - Matisyahu

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJayOneill View Post
    Big shock... the Bible is pretty old

    http://www.livescience.com/history/e...xt-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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    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-record.../dp/0840775024

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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    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-record.../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!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ISalzman View Post
    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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    120

    Default

    From the article:

    Until now, many scholars have held that the Hebrew Bible originated 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.

  7. #7

    Default

    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
    Mark G. Vitalis Hoffman
    Professor of Biblical Studies
    Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg
    ltsg.edu - CrossMarks.com
    Biblical Studies and Technological Tools

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    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/ScottJo..._testament.htm

    Just one of many.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MGVH View Post
    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.

  10. #10

    Default

    Here's another decipherment:
    http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.c...scription.html
    Still thinks it helps support at a minimum a Davidic type kingdom in that period, but the translation is less 'sensational'!
    Mark G. Vitalis Hoffman
    Professor of Biblical Studies
    Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg
    ltsg.edu - CrossMarks.com
    Biblical Studies and Technological Tools

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •