Re: A Few Things Which Matt and Inabon Probably Wish Did Not Exist....

On Jul 20, 6:23 am, Matt Giwer <jul...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

Earliest surviving fragments of the LXX are from 2nd century BCE. The
earliest DSS Hebrew manuscripts of Biblical books are from 3rd century
BCE.
Remember, you're the one who deals only with physical evidence. Or do
you practice double standards when it comes to your arguments?

        Simply I have not found any such documented assertion of this except by you.

Then you have not been looking for any.

Papyrus Gr. 458 Manchester from the 2nd century BCE is the oldest
known fragment of the LXX.

4Q15, 4Q17, 4Q28, 4Q46 and 5Q1 are all from 3rd century BCE.

What is more interesting is that there is no _single_ recension of the
LXX text, but several. Let me quote:

"There never was an ur-Septuagint or single original text.
Instead from the beginning there were several translations that arose
from liturgical necessity in the various synagogues, just like the
Aramaic Targums. In the face of this pluralism: from time to time
attempts were made at unification. However, a definitive and official
text came not at the beginning but at the end of a long process of
previous attempts. Translations of greatly varying quality circulated
in
the Jewish communities. At a given moment the need was felt for
approach
a recognised and official translation. The Letter of Aristeas alludes
to this
version sanctioned by the Jewish authorities, a unified version made
around 100 BCE, since in c. 132 BCE, in the prologue of Sira, the
Law,
the prophets and other writings are mentioned already as integral
parts
of the new translation. The Letter of Aristeas is thus a piece or
propaganda
writing recommending this approved version as against many others
that continued to be used for some time; in spite of the letter these
did
not completely disappear. Remnants are preserved in biblical
quotations
of the New Testament, especially in the book of Acts and in the letter
to the
Hebrews which agree surprisingly with the text of the Samaritan
Pentateuch; and the same applies to the quotations from the books
of Jubilees. Traces of these multiple versions are reflected in the
actual tradition of the LXX for some books that have been transmitted
in duplicate texts. And not only this, but along the same lines a
series of
data from the documents which at first surprised LXX critics, such as
the
variants of Papyrus Fouad 266 (1st century BCE), Papyrus Gr. 458
Manchester (2nd century BCE), which contain readings related to the
Lucian recension; the Greek fragments from Qumran Cave 4, the Greek
fragments of the Twelve prophets identified by Barthelemy, the
Lucianic
readings pre-dating the recension of the historical Lucian known
through
Justin, Philo, Josephus and Old Latin, the anonymous versions quinta,
sexta
and septima used by Origen for compiling the Hexapla; the non-
Septuagintal
quotations of Philo, the Theodotionic text of Daniel and the presence
of Theodotionic
quotations in the New Testament and the apostolic Fathers, the
Hebraisms of the Coptic
versions, etc. Both Theodotion and Lucian revised other very ancient
translations
but not the LXX. This explains the presence of Theodotionic and
Lucianic reading in
documents that are chronologically earlier than the date usually given
for Theodotion
and Lucian."
- Marcos, The Septuagint in Context


And I have asked you before but recall no answer for a reference to exactly
what is of this age and the name of the document. I also repeated the evidence
I can find says they were put there for unknown reasons at three distinct
times between the early 1st c. BC and late 1st AD. The middle time being early
1st c. AD. As the nature of these documents vary widely and are mostly in
Aramaic I also pointed out the need for any identification of a document to
describe the language in which it is written.

In case you mistook if for something else, the collection references -
such as "Bodleian Aram. Inscr. 7" or "Arad 40 (IM 67–631)" - are
identifications for the documents. Look them up yourself.

I did further note the so-called
hebrew alphabet is in fact the Aramaic alphabet so an amateur conclusion from
an image is not the same as being in "hebrew."

Only an amateur who cannot read the text itself can make that mistake.
Hebrew and Aramaic - even though modern convention uses the K'tav
Ashuri form of the alphabet for both languages in publications - are
quite unmistakably different _once you can read the writing!_

        It has also been pointed out that some of them are palimpsest reuses to C14
is not conclusive.

I'm unable to find any references to palimpsests from Qumran. Are you
sure you don't mean the Murabbat find instead?

        Can you find it in yourself to address the issue this time?

        Why is it necessary to be able to read Hebrew to know that is fact?

As shown, it is anything but a fact.

        I await your proper citation of your claim.

See above.


        As to something not appearing in Aramaic, there is no evidence these Judeans
ever spoke anything but Aramaic. There is no evidence this late appearing
Hebrew was ever a spoken language. Those are also facts regardless of what
someone's opinion of Aramaic might be.

And I repeat, evidence has been posted. Why do you keep denying it?

        You did not answer with proper citation last time. Should you have in fact
found something I have overlooked I am interested.

Proper citation _was_ included, go see above.

        Note this will not establish this "hebrew" was a spoken language.

By your rules then no ancient language then can be established as a
spoken language. Bit of a dilemma for you then.

You're confusing the Elephantine Letters with the Lachish/Arad ones -
in spite of my clearly marking which were which. Typical sloppiness on
your part.

        Whichever they are, what you posted clearly shows they were not followers of
the religion we call Judaism

How many times I have to point out that modern Judaism - pick a sect,
there are several - does not equal early Judaism? The evidence is
there for everyone to see, go read Jeremiah and note what he condemns.

and which ostensibly existed in the 1st c. AD
although that ignores the worship of Astarte at the same time in several
temples in the region including in Jerusalem.

I'm still awaiting evidence - complete with proper citation - for that
claim.

I can find descriptions of the language used as
proto-Hebrew but not one single source nor claim of any existing evidence that
a proto-Hebrew can be distinguished from a proto-Aramaic which must also have
existed.
Read a bit on the history of the languages.
"Hebrew, the language of ancient Israel and Judah

        There is no evidence it was a spoken language. No language has ever been
spoken in any mythical kingdoms including the two you mention. Why do you keep
inserting things which you know there is in fact contrary evidence an none in
favor of existence? Can't help yourself?

Are you looking into a mirror when you type that? The only one with no
evidence for their claims here is you. I have backed my claims with
documented evidence.

and their descendant Jewish communities,
is a Northwest Semitic language.

        As we know they spoke Aramaic when they first appear in history, choosing to
call this "hebrew" Northwestern Semitic means Aramaic was also. You are making
a distinction without a difference.

Go read the Arad/Lachish ostraca again - only this time try reading
them in the original.

Northwest Semitic and Arabic
constitute Central Semitic,
which is a subgroup of West Semitic, one of the two primary divisions
of the Semitic branch
of the larger Afro-Asiatic family.Within Northwest Semitic, Hebrew is
classified as Canaanite
as distinct from Aramaic.

        The only group known to history which could possibly be considered
"caananite" are the Syria-Palestinian group identified by Herodotus. We know
of them. No one else is mentioned as being in the region. As the region was
ruled by Persia and all places ruled paid tribute to Persia and as Herodotus
lists the three groups paying tribute to Persia in the region and none of the
three are Judeans or anyone who could possibly be them there was no one in the
region to speak this mythical language.

You rather conveniently forget the quote from Cletarchus of Solis I
posted...

Not to mention all the quotes from Amarna etc that mention Canaan I've
also posted.

        So you are going through many gyrations to demonstrate the existence of this
language but if you should succeed, you will have to assign it to some group
of the Palestinians because there is no evidence of any group related to the
good guys of the OT. It is hardly surprising that a book of magic tales is a
work of fiction.

The only fiction I can see is your fantasy.

        And I am hardly alone in my observation because until the DSS discovery it
was considered by even jewish scholars that Hebrew was an invented, liturgical
language for the obvious facts. They spoke Aramaic when they appear in history
and documents after that such as the Mishna and the Talmud are Aramaic. My
position is hardly new. The only issue here is not that it was ever a spoken
language but if the stories existed prior to the Septuagint.

Which LXX are we talking about? Besides, real science corrects its
theories once new evidence becomes available - unlike you.

Othermembers of the Canaanite subgroup
include the dialect of the
city-state of Ugarit in the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550 - 1200 BCE), and
the languages of Israel’s
immediate neighbors in the Iron Age (c. 1200–586 BCE), namely,
Phoenician and the Transjordanian
languages of Ammonite, Moabite, and Edomite.

        In fact what we have are so few samples of any of those supposedly different
languages that they cannot be distinguished from (for example) English before
it was standardized. We also know that names were parceled out by bible
believers without any internal evidence for the names.

Says the rank amateur who cannot argue anything based on the languages
he cannot understand. First learn, then debate. That's a pretty basic
rule.

Although linguistic features found in the limited surviving evidence
for the Canaanite
dialects of the Late Bronze Age anticipate some of the distinctive
characteristics of Iron Age
Hebrew, it is unlikely that Hebrew emerged as a discrete language

        It is not a matter of likely. It is a matter of physical evidence that it was
ever a spoken language at all. You can look at this in several ways. For
example while Latin was at one time a spoken language it survived for
centuries as an academic language that no one spoke. It survives today as a
language no one speaks.

So does Hebrew. Or what do you think has been the liturgical language
used in the synagogues?

For several centuries after the Norman conquests the
written language was not the spoken language of the islands, only of its rulers.

Hmm... and here I thought English was spoken by quite a few Normans
soon after the conquest. For one, Orderic Vitalis, a historian born in
1075 and the son of a Norman knight, said that he learned Norman only
as a second language. Also, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle continued until
1154, and that was in English.

        You are much to interested in weaving a narrative supporting the OT for which
there is no evidence.

You are much to interested in weaving a narrative supporting your
fantasy for which
there is no evidence - at least you've never offered any apart from
"ain't so!".

        To make that clearer, without a version of the OT in "hebrew" no one would go
through all of your gyrations to make a claim for the existence of this
language. What you are saying would be dismissed as regional dialects of the
same language.

Only by those _who cannot read the languages themselves_.

Only because of your belief stemming from a forgery do you
bother to cut and paste all of this from an unidentified source.

Learn. To. Read. What might "- Woodard (ed.), The Ancient Languages of
Syria-Palestine and Arabia" mean if not my source?

before the end of the Late
Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age. Prosodic and linguistic
studies suggest that
the earliest poetry preserved in the Hebrew Bible may have been
composed before the end
of the second millennium BC,

        Which, in bibleland, would mean it was an Egyptian inspiration as Egypt ruled
the land at that time. If there were any evidence the locals had a
civilization which was advanced enough to be literate the observation might be
different.

Ever heard of Ugarit? Sheesh....

and this poetry represents the first
identifiable phase of the
language, which is called Archaic or Archaic Biblical Hebrew (before c.
1000 BCE).
No extant inscription that can be identified specifically as Hebrew
antedates the tenth
century BCE, and Hebrew inscriptions in significant numbers do not
begin to appear before
the early eighth century BCE. Nevertheless, the Hebrew of the Iron Age
inscriptions that do
survive, especially those from Judah, is essentially the same as the
Hebrew found in the biblical
Primary History (Genesis - 2 Kings) and the original portions of the
books of the pre-Exilic prophets.

        The exile is a myth. There are also no prophets only con artists. You might
as well be talking about the time of middle earth for all the sense you are
making.

Interestingly enough, I've never - and I've read a lot on the subject,
unlike you - run into your fantasy before. So mind telling me why I
should accept speculations based on nothing by a rank amateur who does
not understand the languages, does not know anything about the
archaeology or history of the area and is unwilling to look into any
available evidence?

This form of Hebrew constitutes the classical phase of the
language, which is known
as Classical or Biblical Hebrew and corresponds to the speech of the
kingdom of Judah
from its formation to the Babylonian Exile (c. tenth–sixth centuries
BC).

        A time in which there is no sign of any civilization greater than dirt
farmers and goatherds. You ascribe wondrous talents to illiterates.

"Ain't so!" is not a valid argument. Moreover, as I have posted texts
from the area found in archaeological context and dated to 6th century
BCE, your claim of people being illiterate is very clearly false. Go
see the Lachish/Arad texts again.

        The point being, assuming the validity of this fanciful description, it has
to address the known fact there were no indigenous people nor culture to which
writing could have been attributed. You really should try discussing these
things in your own words some day. It would help you think things through
before posting.

See above.

The Hebrew of post-Exilic Judah,

        Judah first appears in history in the early 1st c. BC. There is no
archaeological evidence of the existence of any biblical Judah.

Reposting:
That it was there - as were the Jews - in Alexander's time. Clearchus
of Solis, who wrote around 320 BCE on eastern cultures, reports a
dialogue with Aristotle (Clearchus was a pupil of Aristotle) that the
homeland of the Jews was called Ioudaia and their city Hierusaleme.

Archaeology will be dealt with in a later, separate post.

        You are not getting past square one.

You never made it to square one.

which is represented by inscriptions of the Persian
and Hellenistic periods
and especially by the later Biblical literature (c. sixth - second
centuries BCE), is called Late
Classical or Late Biblical Hebrew. The Samaritan Pentateuch, which
seems to have
been independent of Jewish tradition by the late second century BCE,
is also an important witness to the Hebrew of this period.

        The Samaritan tradition is likely the closest to the original religion of the
region before some demented, savage Ayatollahs reinvented YW as a demonic
savage.

Your personal opinions are of no interest. But do I see a glimpse of
you beginning to understand that the religion has evolved, as all
religions do?

Compare to the original liberal Islam (A loaf of Bread, a Jug of Wine
and Thou kind of Islam) to the burkah enforcing Wahabis. Of course they both
dropped Astarte some time after the 1st AD.

Mind telling me roughly when _do_ you think the Qur'an was written?

Old Aramaic (950–600 BCE)
The first extant texts appear at the beginning of the first
millennium. These texts are nearly
all inscriptions on stone, usually royal inscriptions connected with
various Aramean city-states.
The corpus of texts is quite small, but minor dialect differences can
be detected, corresponding
roughly to geographic regions. So, one dialect is attested in the core
Aramean territory of Aleppo
and Damascus, another in the northwestern border region around the
Aramean city-state
of Sam'al and a third in the northeastern region around Tel Fekheriye.
There are a few
other Aramaic texts, found outside these regions, most of which attest
Aramaic dialects
mixed with features from other Semitic languages, for example, the
texts found at Deir
'Alla."
- Woodard (ed.), The Ancient Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia

        Such a hugely fanciful creation which you had no idea of and could never have
expressed only your own. BTW: A proper citation includes much more than you
have chosen to give. A date and the affiliation and credentials of the author
are certainly essential minimum additions. From the language it looks like he

I'm not a specialist in Aramaic, and I have said that quite a few
times. However, what he says about Hebrew I could have written. C/
p'ing saves time, and my time is limited, since I'm not on welfare but
have to work for a living.

        In any event, that you can cut and paste material you clearly cannot
understand is not helping your fanciful assertions.

Just because _you_ cannot understand it, does not mean I cannot
understand it. Arguments from personal ignorance are always invalid.

Appeals to essentially
anonymous material has even less value than an appeal to authority if a thing
can be worth less than nothing.

And Matt proves once again he _does not_ understand what references
are for.

        Assertions are always fun for those who have no interest beyond believing. As
there is not one single reference to any physical evidence there is no reason
to assume there is any physical evidence supporting this crap.

I've posted some of the evidence here, mind telling me why you deny
it?

        Why must you waste so much bandwidth posting nothing of value?

You're looking into a mirror again, I see.

        The fact is there is no evidence of anything but an older form of the
language the people spoke when they first appear in history with the arrival
of Pompey in Palestine. That language is Aramaic.

The fact is you're wrong. But that is nothing unusual.

        Based upon what physical evidence? Please be specific. You might as well have
quoted from Jerry Falwell for all the legitimacy it has.

Read my first post in this thread. Try comprehend it as well this
time.

Surmises, surmises...
        As opposed to the fabrication in a forgery. As we know the forgery is a
forgery there is technically nothing to be opposed to. Forgeries have no
standing at all.

Such as the letter of Aristeas?

        That is the origin for the myth. It stood for centuries as the only basis.
You do know that.

See above....

        I await your presentation of physical evidence. Please do so. A non-specific
reference to the DSS is not physical evidence. A poorly cited recitation which
contains no hint of evidence is obviously not evidence.

I have done so, but you don't seem to grasp what is being posted. Not
surprising. Remember, I'm not trying to convince you - irrational
fantasists such as yourself can never be convinced - but to educate
the onlookers.

        What study when I have you and your ilk to do all the legwork and present the
best case possible?

Your case? So you're deluded in addition to being woefully ignorant.

        I await your proper citations and have no interest in essentially uncited
quotations which present no evidence at all.

Cited quotations. Finding the works I'm citing from is very easy for
anyone with a library card.

Arguing on a false premise. I have posted a fraction of the available
evidence, and it all points to a sole conclusion: we're not dealing
with a forgery.

        Please post all the PHYSICAL evidence from bibleland you can find. I have
been looking for it for years. I did research the DSS and did not find what
you claim.

The ostraca I have posted - and referenced - ARE physical evidence. If
you cannot read the languages to know the difference between Hebrew
and Aramaic, that is only your limitation, but no basis for an
argument. It's only personal ignorance.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A Few Things Which Matt and Inabon Probably Wish Did Not Exist....
    ... I also repeated the evidence I can find says they were put there for unknown reasons at three distinct times between the early 1st c. BC and late 1st AD. ... As the nature of these documents vary widely and are mostly in Aramaic I also pointed out the need for any identification of a document to describe the language in which it is written. ... I did further note the so-called hebrew alphabet is in fact the Aramaic alphabet so an amateur conclusion from an image is not the same as being in "hebrew." ... immediate neighbors in the Iron Age (c. 1200–586 BCE), namely, ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: Semiticisms anyone? More fun than tennis.
    ... Of course, I haven't yet mentioned 4Q365, the Pentateuchal Paraphrase, radiocarbon dated to the 3rd century BCE. ... While there may not exist conclusive evidence that Jerusalem was a Jewish or Hebrew or Judaic city earlier than the 4th century BCE, there is certainly conclusive evidence of a city on that location going back to at least 1000 BCE. ... phase moving from a primarily Middle Eastern culture with roots in and dominated alternatively by Egypt and various Mesopotamian powers to becoming part of a larger Mediterranean culture dominated by Greece and subsequently Rome. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: New line of thinking about the OT!
    ... another language they only moderately understand. ... no evidence the Judeans or anyone else ever spoke this "hebrew" there is no ... There is no evidence Hebrew was ever a spoken language. ... We have seen that the OT contains some true statements. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: A Few Things Which Matt and Inabon Probably Wish Did Not Exist....
    ... Earliest surviving fragments of the LXX are from 2nd century BCE. ... you're the one who deals only with physical evidence. ... The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period did not have this ... Hebrew was ever a spoken language. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: New line of thinking about the OT!
    ... another language they only moderately understand. ... no evidence the Judeans or anyone else ever spoke this "hebrew" there is no ... The evidence is there in form of the Semiticisms in the Septuagint. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)