On the earliest manuscripts of the Bible

[Nathair/|\]

If the earliest known copy of a given Biblical passage dates from, say, 100 BC; how certain can we be that that is not the original of that passage? In other words, can we be sure it is a copy of an older manuscript. (Ignore issues of grammar, language, poetic style that would necessarily be older.) For example, if the earliest known manuscript of Ezra 1:3 dated to 100 BC and it's language and composition was consistent with those used at that time, could we be sure that that passage was older?

[Mudcat]

If the earliest known copy of a given Biblical passage dates from, say, 100 BC; how certain can we be that that is not the original of that passage?

It doesn't glow in the dark?

[Questing Beast]

The Bible Unearthed by Finklestein and Silberman, asserts that the earliest plausible date for the original OT is the 7th century BCE. The Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest extant copies of the OT books. Iirc, we have all of them except the Book of Esther in the DSS; the earliest date for them is c. 100 BCE and the latest is 100 CE. Avraham Gileadi did a new translation of Isaiah using the DSS Isaiah; it agrees almost exactly with our Isaiah in contemporary Bibles; evidence that the redactors down the centuries were very careful indeed (and putting "they have taken away many of the plain and precious parts of the Book of the Lamb" into a problematical position). It appears that our OT is the result of a fairly late redaction; largely oral traditions finally committed to writing after literacy became commonplace: before the 8th century BCE there is virtually no evidence of Jewish literacy. The world depicted for the Patriarchs fits the 7th century BCE like no other time frame, indicating that that is the date of the composition of the stories of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Law was first codified at that time. Archeological evidence best supports a view of a very small hill tribes population around Judea until quite late; making king David and his son Solomon more like hilltop chieftains than mighty conquerors; their people still semi-nomadic, with c. 5,000 souls total in Judea and c. ten times that number for the "kingdom of Israel" to the north. I find the book's thesis very convincing....

[volgadon]

(and putting "they have taken away many of the plain and precious parts of the Book of the Lamb" into a problematical position)

Only if we take the position that this is maiinly a textual, rather than interpretative issue.

I find the book's thesis very convincing....

I didn't. Finkelstein draws unwarranted conclusions from the texts and archaeological data. That David would have been a "hill-top chieftain" doesn't mean he had no court, no retinue, no army, no diplomatic and economic ties, no vassals and no spheres of influence, etc.

[maklelan]

The Bible Unearthed by Finklestein and Silberman, asserts that the earliest plausible date for the original OT is the 7th century BCE. The Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest extant copies of the OT books. Iirc, we have all of them except the Book of Esther in the DSS; the earliest date for them is c. 100 BCE and the latest is 100 CE. Avraham Gileadi did a new translation of Isaiah using the DSS Isaiah; it agrees almost exactly with our Isaiah in contemporary Bibles; evidence that the redactors down the centuries were very careful indeed (and putting "they have taken away many of the plain and precious parts of the Book of the Lamb" into a problematical position). It appears that our OT is the result of a fairly late redaction; largely oral traditions finally committed to writing after literacy became commonplace: before the 8th century BCE there is virtually no evidence of Jewish literacy. The world depicted for the Patriarchs fits the 7th century BCE like no other time frame, indicating that that is the date of the composition of the stories of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Law was first codified at that time. Archeological evidence best supports a view of a very small hill tribes population around Judea until quite late; making king David and his son Solomon more like hilltop chieftains than mighty conquerors; their people still semi-nomadic, with c. 5,000 souls total in Judea and c. ten times that number for the "kingdom of Israel" to the north. I find the book's thesis very convincing....

Finkelstein promotes himself as a centrist, but he's as much a minimalist as anyone. His chronologies are fiercely debated, and I personally think he's mistaken on a lot of things. I wrote a paper at Oxford about archaeological evidence regarding the united monarchy. You can read it here. The Qeiyafa inscription discovered a bit ago shows letter writing among Hebrew officials in the 11th-10th century. The six-chambered gates show centralized administration in the 10th century. Jerusalem was a city of respectable size in the 10th century. Arad had an Israelite fortress and temple already in the 9th century.

[Joseph Antley]

Only if we take the position that this is maiinly a textual, rather than interpretative issue.

Ditto.

[jadams_4242]

The Bible Unearthed by Finklestein and Silberman, asserts that the earliest plausible date for the original OT is the 7th century BCE. The Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest extant copies of the OT books. Iirc, we have all of them except the Book of Esther in the DSS; the earliest date for them is c. 100 BCE and the latest is 100 CE. Avraham Gileadi did a new translation of Isaiah using the DSS Isaiah; it agrees almost exactly with our Isaiah in contemporary Bibles; evidence that the redactors down the centuries were very careful indeed (and putting "they have taken away many of the plain and precious parts of the Book of the Lamb" into a problematical position). It appears that our OT is the result of a fairly late redaction; largely oral traditions finally committed to writing after literacy became commonplace: before the 8th century BCE there is virtually no evidence of Jewish literacy. The world depicted for the Patriarchs fits the 7th century BCE like no other time frame, indicating that that is the date of the composition of the stories of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Law was first codified at that time. Archeological evidence best supports a view of a very small hill tribes population around Judea until quite late; making king David and his son Solomon more like hilltop chieftains than mighty conquerors; their people still semi-nomadic, with c. 5,000 souls total in Judea and c. ten times that number for the "kingdom of Israel" to the north. I find the book's thesis very convincing....

In the DSS the book of isaiah is very reliable ,not perfect but "mostly" correct with no "big" issues.. but isaiah does not represent it all of course; as in samuel we allready know of one entire passage missing in todays cannon from the DSS..and so on and so on....

[Nathair/|\]

Thanks, guys. I should have been more clear. I'm trying to make sense of this and similar posts, I think he is trying to argue that because we have very old manuscripts in the original Hebrew and Greek, that we therefore know that they were transmitted correctly from the claimed authors who lived hundreds of years earlier than the earliest copies of their words.

Yours under the confused oaks,

Nathair /|\

ps. I certainly am very interested in the topic of QB's post, so feel free to comment on it as well. Thanks for bringing it up, QB.

[Questing Beast]

Ditto.

Quote

(and putting "they have taken away many of the plain and precious parts of the Book of the Lamb" into a problematical position)

Only if we take the position that this is maiinly a textual, rather than interpretative issue.

Can you show some examples of interpretive issues with, say Isaiah, perpetrated by the RCC (i.e. "the church of the devil")? Because I am not aware of any significant differences between Joseph Smith's interpretations of the Bible meaning and the rest of Christianity's understanding of the same. Other than "God is a glorified man" and we can become "gods", and masonic temple work, and restored polygamy, and an asserted "great apostasy", what other "plain and precious truths" have been removed from the Bible by way of interpretation?...

[volgadon]

Can you show some examples of interpretive issues with, say Isaiah, perpetrated by the RCC (i.e. "the church of the devil")? Because I am not aware of any significant differences between Joseph Smith's interpretations of the Bible meaning and the rest of Christianity's understanding of the same. Other than "God is a glorified man" and we can become "gods", and masonic temple work, and restored polygamy, and an asserted "great apostasy", what other "plain and precious truths" have been removed from the Bible by way of interpretation?...

First of all, the RCC is neither here nor there, Elder McConkie nowithstanding.

Let me quote something Joseph Antley wrote.

If that

[Kevin Christensen]

Other than "God is a glorified man" and we can become "gods", and masonic temple work, and restored polygamy, and an asserted "great apostasy", what other "plain and precious truths" have been removed from the Bible by way of interpretation?...

This essay is a good place to start:

Once a community has defined itself by means of a canon of Scripture, there is a new beginning. All the

texts in the chosen canon would have had an original context, which presupposed a certain pattern of shared

beliefs within which the text was set. The context was as much a part of the meaning as the words

themselves. Set in a new context, the same text would soon acquire a new meaning. This, together with the

complex history of how the familiar Old Testament was formed, has important implications for any

reconstruction of Christian origins. We have to ask: Which Scriptures did the first Christians know and use,

and how did they understand what they were reading? The evidence suggests that the texts which became

the Old Testament of the Western Church were not identical to those used by the earliest Church, and that

removing even the texts we have from their cultural context in the so-called Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

has hindered any attempt to reconstruct Christian origins.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TextAndContext.pdf

After reading "Text and Context" read 1 Nephi 13 again.

Also:

What was assumed by the New testament writers was a traditional

understanding of the temple rituals and myths of atonement. When the rituals had ceased and

the myths were no longer recognised for what they really were, the key to understanding the

imagery of atonement was lost. It is recognised that certain concepts in the New testament

such as covenant, righteousness, justification and grace must have been related to the central

theme of atonement, but the overall pattern, it seems, has been lost.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/Atonement.pdf

And this:

There was far more to the teaching of Jesus than is recorded in the canonical gospels. For several

centuries a belief persisted among Christian writers that there had been a secret tradition entrusted to

only a few of his followers. Eusebius quotes from a now lost work of Clement of Alexandria,

Hypotyposes:

[LeSellers]

the RCC (i.e. "the church of the devil")?

Just where did this come from?

There is no LDS doctrine that says the Roman Church is the church of the devil. So, I'll lay a formal CFR on you.

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Nathair,

You wrote:

If the earliest known copy of a given Biblical passage dates from, say, 100 BC; how certain can we be that that is not the original of that passage? In other words, can we be sure it is a copy of an older manuscript. (Ignore issues of grammar, language, poetic style that would necessarily be older.) For example, if the earliest known manuscript of Ezra 1:3 dated to 100 BC and it's language and composition was consistent with those used at that time, could we be sure that that passage was older?

There are several points of relevance to your question. I may not even cover them all here, but I

[Questing Beast]

First of all, the RCC is neither here nor there, Elder McConkie nowithstanding.

Quibbling. The ONLY possible ID of "the great and abominable church" IS the RCC; since it was the only one that existed in the time frame alluded to in Nephi's vision.

If that

[Questing Beast]

This essay is a good place to start:

http://www.margaretb...tAndContext.pdf

After reading "Text and Context" read 1 Nephi 13 again.

Also:

http://www.margaretb...s/Atonement.pdf

And this:

http://www.margaretb...etTradition.pdf

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Kevin, I haven't read through any of that specifically. But I have read ALL of the Collected Hugh Nibley and various other works on the subject of Primitive Christianity; of the challenge of identifying exactly what it was, including the asserted "higher knowledge" given by Christ to the spiritual "elite". This has always impressed me as a continuous weakness in human beings to gratify their pride. Joseph Smith's "School of the Prophets" could be held as an embryonic form of the same pride of eliteness.

I don't concern myself with the myriad different applications of the Word. What matters to me is the functional "fruit" of those varying dogmas. Do they in fact produce devotees whose lives mirror what any reasonable critic would allow as a "Christlike" life? If so, then where is the beef? I have never seen RCC tradition and history as anything more or less than human tradition and history. The brief mirror of Mormonism is holding to the exact pathway of religious history that the RCC did in its infancy. I see no distinguishing differences worthy of mention. If anything, in its brief infancy, the Mormon religion has MORE juicy tidbits of scandal and horror than ever attached to the first c. 2 centuries of Primitive Christianity! In 1800 years of history, the RCC and Protestantism never lost the ethic of core Christianity: leaving us to only worry about whether or not "God" is dissatisfied with the FORM that personal religion adheres to. Is the form of Mormonism what we are talking about? Because I can't see the doctrines in total adding anything new or "lost" to the canon of Judeo-Christian faith. So the "revealed" doctrines (lost plain and precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb) seem redundant to my mind....

[Kevin Christensen]

Quibbling. The ONLY possible ID of "the great and abominable church" IS the RCC; since it was the only one that existed in the time frame alluded to in Nephi's vision.

Actually, no. See Stephen Robinson's essay on the Great and Abominable Church.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=7&num=1&id=168

Joseph Smith is on record as saying "the old Catholic traditions are worth more than all you have said," starting his remarks after an anti-Catholic discourse by another speaker.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Questing Beast]

Questing Beast, on 02 February 2011 - 09:08 AM,

said:the RCC (i.e. "the church of the devil")?

Just where did this come from?

There is no LDS doctrine that says the Roman Church is the church of the devil. So, I'll lay a formal CFR on you.

Lehi

I did put it in quotes. But here: "Can you show some examples of interpretive issues with, say Isaiah, perpetrated by the RCC (i.e. "the church of the devil")?" That's the full context. IF the RCC is the "great and abominable church", as no other can possibly be in the time frame of Nephi's vision, then Bruce R. McConkie's original assertion that the RCC is THE "church of the devil" was correct (no matter how politically incorrect, i.e. hving been censured for it he had Mormon Doctrine edited to remove the specific reference). I made specific reference to the RCC as "the church of the devil" in the context of Joseph Smith's teaching that it was the org specifically to blame for removing "the plain and precious truths of the gospel of the Lamb".

But all my life, I have interpreted "there two churches only" to mean that all who follow Christ belong to the Church of the Lamb, and all others belong to the "church of the devil". And furthermore, all who "follow Christ" are those who follow their inner light, i.e. try and make the world a better place than they find it. This, imho, includes 99%+ of the human race; making "the church of the devil" a puny org by any measurement (cf the thread on "is the world improving"....)

[thesometimesaint]

Questing Beast:

Actually the Apostasy was well underway by the time the RCC came into existence.

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin, I haven't read through any of that specifically.

Then you aren't likely to appreciate the significance of what Margaret Barker's research and perspectives are, relative to the question of "plain and precious things." Indeed, writing from the perspective of a Methodist Old Testament scholar, she is very impressed that early Christianity lost specific plain and precious things, and that Joseph Smith's revelations contain that which was lost.

But I have read ALL of the Collected Hugh Nibley and various other works on the subject of Primitive Christianity;

Good. So have I.

I'd also recommend the recent volume "Early Christians in Disarray", the important findings of which are introduced here:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=42&chapid=201

especially the essay on the loss of covenant understandings, and their replacement by sacraments performed by an intermediary.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=42&chapid=209

of the challenge of identifying exactly what it was, including the asserted "higher knowledge" given by Christ to the spiritual "elite". This has always impressed me as a continuous weakness in human beings to gratify their pride. Joseph Smith's "School of the Prophets" could be held as an embryonic form of the same pride of eliteness.

I don't concern myself with the myriad different applications of the Word. What matters to me is the functional "fruit" of those varying dogmas. Do they in fact produce devotees whose lives mirror what any reasonable critic would allow as a "Christlike" life? If so, then where is the beef?

And how do you go about selecting which devotees to generalize about regarding the fruit? In an approach like yours, a lot depends on how you do that.

Have you read this by John Gee in the latest Review?

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=22&num=2&id=811

I have never seen RCC tradition and history as anything more or less than human tradition and history. The brief mirror of Mormonism is holding to the exact pathway of religious history that the RCC did in its infancy. I see no distinguishing differences worthy of mention. If anything, in its brief infancy, the Mormon religion has MORE juicy tidbits of scandal and horror than ever attached to the first c. 2 centuries of Primitive Christianity! In 1800 years of history, the RCC and Protestantism never lost the ethic of core Christianity: leaving us to only worry about whether or not "God" is dissatisfied with the FORM that personal religion adheres to. Is the form of Mormonism what we are talking about? Because I can't see the doctrines in total adding anything new or "lost" to the canon of Judeo-Christian faith. So the "revealed" doctrines (lost plain and precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb) seem redundant to my mind....

Regarding the scandalous tidbits of early Mormonism, compared to Early Christianity, try this:

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Celsus.pdf

Regarding the plain and precious things, I am of the opinion that the scholarship of Margaret Barker fulfills the specific prophecies in the 1 Nephi 13:39-41 about restoration of specific plain and precious things. That is one reason that I cited those particular papers. Of course, if you don't find the specifics of the plain and precious things, they will remain lost to you.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[volgadon]

Quibbling. The ONLY possible ID of "the great and abominable church" IS the RCC; since it was the only one that existed in the time frame alluded to in Nephi's vision.

How is it the "ONLY" possible ID, especially considering that the RCC did not exist before 1054? Why the RCC and not Alexandria, or Carthage, or Hippos, or Antioch or Constantinople?

Simply apologetics.

Whereas your response is simply dismissive.

The view on afterlife isn't that different; in fact, Catholics (at least Italian ones) believe in the continuation of the family in the hereafter; and so much so that the RCC doesn't even address it as a doctrine needful of statement! I guess its just a no-brainer; but to Mormons it is only "granted" through temple ordinances to the faithful who pass through the temple; all others will be "ministering angels" only, i.e. single, bereft of their families in the hereafter. Which is the more charitable doctrine: and why would "God" be less charitable than "fallen" human beings?

Oh yes, remarkably similar. "Christ not only restored the family to its original type as something holy, permanent, and monogamous, but raised the contract from which it springs to the dignity of a sacrament, and thus placed the family itself upon the plane of the supernatural. The family is holy inasmuch as it is to co-operate with God by procreating children who are destined to be the adopted children of God, and by instructing them for His kingdom. The union between husband and wife is to last until death (Matthew 19:6 sq.; Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11; 1 Corinthians 7:10; see MARRIAGE, DIVORCE). That this is the highest form of the conjugal union, and the best arrangement for the welfare both of the family and of society, will appear to anyone who compares dispassionately the moral and material effects with those flowing from the practice of divorce." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05782a.htm)

The BofM does not "restore" anything. It is a targum of the Bible, plain and simple:

How is it a targum of the Bible? There are a few proto-targumim in the BoM, such as 2 Nephi 27, and some proto-midrashim like the exchange between Abinadi and Noah's priests, yet there is very little that could be called targumic. A targum is a translation of a biblical text, often rewritten. The JST is, the BoM isn't.

[Questing Beast]

Questing Beast, on 03 February 2011 - 11:12 AM, said: Quibbling. The ONLY possible ID of "the great and abominable church" IS the RCC; since it was the only one that existed in the time frame alluded to in Nephi's vision.

Actually, no. See Stephen Robinson's essay on the Great and Abominable Church.

http://maxwellinstit...=7&num=1&id=168

Joseph Smith is on record as saying "the old Catholic traditions are worth more than all you have said," starting his remarks after an anti-Catholic discourse by another speaker.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

The major characteristics of the great and abominable church described in 1 Nephi may be listed as follows:

1. It persecutes, tortures, and slays the Saints of God (see 1 Nephi 13:5).
2. It seeks wealth and luxury (see 1 Nephi 13:7

[Kevin Christensen]

It seems plain enough to me: "John the Revelator" had his "Revelation" tampered with by the self-same GaAC. The RCC was the only "church" in existence that fit the same criteria of dominion, wealth, immorality, etc. - or so perceived as such at any rate by Joseph Smith. And Nephi's vision is very time frame specific; which is why I know that Joseph Smith was IDing the RCC with the GaAC specifically; and why Bruce R. McConkie was so sure to point this out in the first edition of Mormon Doctrine....

What is plain is that you didn't read Robinson's article through, nor consider all of the evidence at hand. Selectivity like that always has consequences for understanding. I'd recommend that you keep reading, and if you want to argue against Robinson's conclusions, then account for all of his evidence and argument.

I'm trying to help you here. Really.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Questing Beast]

Questing Beast:

Actually the Apostasy was well underway by the time the RCC came into existence.

You're being pedantic which might not be helpful. The RCC is the ONLY Christian church that officially traces itself back to the apostles, specifically to Peter, Christs' chosen "rock" upon which he would build. (the RCC interpretation, which is just as valid and a whole lot more venerable than the Joseph-come-lately interpretation). I don't want to get into further hair-splitting about the various schisms, or who split off from who. To Joseph Smith none of that history was known in the late 1820s; only the American presence of the hated and feared RCC was the possible ID for the GaAC....

[volgadon]

You're being pedantic which might not be helpful. The RCC is the ONLY Christian church that officially traces itself back to the apostles, specifically to Peter, Christs' chosen "rock" upon which he would build. (the RCC interpretation, which is just as valid and a whole lot more venerable than the Joseph-come-lately interpretation). I don't want to get into further hair-splitting about the various schisms, or who split off from who. To Joseph Smith none of that history was known in the late 1820s; only the American presence of the hated and feared RCC was the possible ID for the GaAC....

The "ONLY" one tracing itself back to the apostles? The Oriental and Eastern Orthodox must not have gotten the memo.

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

You wrote:

Joseph Smith is on record as saying "the old Catholic traditions are worth more than all you have said," starting his remarks after an anti-Catholic discourse by another speaker.

Aren't we being told these days that Joseph Smith's extracanonical observations are an unreliable guide to the meaning of the Book of Mormon, because he was just a theologically naive country boy taking dictation?