Jonathan D. Safren
yonsaf at beitberl.beitberl.ac.il
Thu Dec 30 08:17:51 EST 1999
I think he's got you there. You are evading the point.
As for Cicero, we ARE talking about Cicero and any other ancient writer/ing for
whom/which the earliest manuscript is hundreds of years after the autograph.
You MUST apply the same standards of judgment to Cicero, or the Rig-Veda, or to ANY
written document that you apply to the Bible. And vice versa.
Jonathan D. Safren
Dept. of Biblical Studies
Beit Berl College
Beit Berl Post Office 44905
Jim West wrote:
> At 12:02 AM 12/30/99 -0800, you wrote:
> >So you would say, based on this, that the LXX was first produced in the
> >4th-5th cent. AD
> This is simply incorrect. We have LXX mss from as early as 100 BCE.
> > and the burden of proof is on those who say it was from
> >an earlier time. You would be required to say, by what you say here,
> >that Aristotle, Cicero, Thucydides, Herodotus, Homer, etc., were first
> >created after the 7th cent. AD. Do you wish to defend these positions?
> We are not talking about cicero. We are talking about evidence.
> >No one in classics of LXX studies would take you seriously. Why is the
> >Hebrew Bible any different? The problem is that some posters are
> >conflating two issues that are separate issues: the date of the
> >autograph of a text; and the historical reliability of that text based
> >on some definition of external evidence (a useful but problematic
> Im not making any such mistake. In fact, i am simply asking, over and over
> again because folk evidently dont get it, that people realize that evidence
> is one thing and supposition is another. Ms evidence is hard proof.
> Suppositions about other things are just that, suppositions.
> > I'm treating only one of those two questions right now: what does
> >the date of MS tell us about the autograph's date? According to you,
> >the burden of proof is on me to show that the LXX was written prior to
> >its appearance in Vaticanus. Now, please deal with this issue alone.
> I already have. There are ample mss predating the 1st c. BCE for LXX. I
> dont see why you are stuck on Vaticanus- it ISNT the earliest ms.
> >Do not conflate it with validating the events recounted in that
> >document. In fact, how about choosing a book like Qoheleth, which isn't
> >really about any specific events, or Proverbs.
> Choose any book you like if you wish. FInd the earliest manuscript of that
> text, and I will gladly admit that it existed at that time. But if you
> start blabbering that it must have existed in the time of Moses I will ask
> that you provide proof and not supposition.
> Jim West, ThD
> jwest at highland.net
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: yonsaf at beitberl.beitberl.ac.il
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu.
More information about the b-hebrew