How old is the oldest surviving copy of the Torah?

...Dead Sea Scrolls? When were they dated?

If so...how do we know that the Torah existed before that?

I heard about one, but it died a few years back.

It was even illustrated in Living Color too.

I'm not sure about Torah scrolls, but the oldest biblical passage ever found are two tiny strips of silver which quote the Priestly Benediction (Numbers 6:24-26) and have been dated to sometime during the late seventh or early sixth century BCE -- 400 years before the Dead Sea Scrolls, and even before the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar.

They were discovered in 1979 just outside of Jerusalem by Dr. Gabriel Barkay from Tel Aviv’s Bar-Ilan University.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3062895,00.html

http://www.yahwehsnewkingdom.com/Yahweh-600BC.htm

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 2/22/2007 11:37a).]

quote:

---

The Septuagint, or simply "LXX", is the name commonly given in the West to the ancient, Koine Greek version of the Old Testament translated in stages between the 3rd to 1st century BC in Alexandria. It is the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. The name means "seventy" in Latin and derives from a tradition that seventy-two Jewish scholars (LXX being the nearest round number) translated the Pentateuch (or Torah) from Hebrew into Greek for one of the Ptolemaic kings, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, 285-247 BC. As the work of translation went on gradually, and new books were added to the collection, the compass of the Greek Bible came to be somewhat indefinite. The Pentateuch always maintained its pre-eminence as the basis of the canon; but the prophetic collection changed its aspect by having various hagiographa incorporated into it. Some of the newer works, those called anagignoskomena in Greek, are not included in the Hebrew canon. Among these books are Maccabees and the Wisdom of Ben Sira. Also, the LXX version of some works, like Daniel and Esther, are longer than the Hebrew. Several of the later books apparently were composed in Greek.

The LXX was held with great respect in ancient times; Philo and Josephus ascribed divine inspiration to its authors. It formed the basis of the Old Latin versions and is still used intact within Eastern Orthodoxy. Besides the Old Latin versions, the LXX is also the basis for Gothic, Slavonic, old Syriac (but not the Pe****ta), old Armenian, and Coptic versions of the Old Testament. Of significance for all Christians and for bible scholars, the LXX is quoted by the Christian New Testament and by the Apostolic Fathers. While Jews have not used the LXX in worship or religious study since the second century CE, recent scholarship has brought renewed interest in it in Judaic Studies. Some of the Dead Sea scrolls attest to Hebrew texts other than those on which the Masoretic Text was based; in many cases, these newly found texts accord with the LXX version. The oldest surviving codices of LXX date to the fourth century CE.

---

quote:

---

The Pentateuch is now recognized to stem from three more or less independent sources, the Yahwistic and Elohist versions which were probably not committed to writing before 750 B.C., and the Priests' Code which was composed as an amplification of Deuteronomy shortly after the return from Babylon (ca. 535-469 B.C.). The Pentateuch (plus Chronicles and Kings) was probably arranged in its present order before 300 B.C., though a standard Hebrew text (the Masoretic text) was not finally established until the second century of the Christian Era. This text, of which no copy is extant, in turn supplied the model from which the Torah and Old Testament were derived. The Hebrew text was originally written in consonants only, the vowels being supplied by the reader; then at some time between the sixth and eighth centuries of the Christian Era a system of vowel points was invented and applied to the ancient text, and such was the subsequent force of this innovation that after its widespread adoption all the manuscripts which had not been so re-edited were destroyed or allowed to perish. Consequently no copy of the Hebrew text of any part of the Old Testament is known that can be dated with any certainty earlier than the tenth century. A copy of the Prophetic Books preserved at Leningrad, bearing the date A.D. 916, has long been accepted as the oldest surviving, primary Hebrew record. (Scrolls bearing much of Isaiah and fragments of Genesis, Deuteronomy and the Apocrypha, preserved in jars and found by Arabs near the Dead Sea in 1947, are believed by Professor Sukenik of Hebrew University to antedate the Christian Era. Some scholars place their date in the sixth century B.C., but others suspect them to be forgeries and in any case do not date them earlier than the Middle Ages.)

For earlier redactions of the Old Testament scholars must rely on Greek, Latin, Syriac and other translations which differ markedly among themselves in consequence of their checkered history. Until the third century of the Christian Era writing was confined to papyrus rolls, a number of such rolls being required to contain all the books of the Old Testament, and since these rolls were circulated separately and separately translated by scribes who frequently had more zeal than skill, the various rolls probably differed on one point or another in almost every paragraph. In the third century the papyrus codex, or book of papyrus leaves, was introduced, and in the fourth century the vellum codex, and then the various texts began to be gathered into simple volumes. Editors and redactors selected from the diverse translations available to them on papyrus those texts which seemed to be most suitable, this work of selection going on in several independent centers, such as Alexandria, Greece, Constantinople and Rome, until there were produced a number of stem texts which differed considerably from each other.

The first translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek had been the Septuagint, which had been prepared from various Hebrew papyri by a number of translators (traditionally seventy) in the third century B.C.; this originally included only the Pentateuch, but other books were added by the first century B.C. and in the first century after Christ the collection was accepted by the Jews of the Dispersion as Holy Scripture and passed on as such to the Christian Church. In both Hebrew and Christian hands, however, the papyri underwent independent changes until in the fourth century Jerome collected numerous Hebrew manuscripts, edited them and translated them into Latin to produce the Vulgate text. For textual purposes this possesses but little value, since Jerome presupposed a Hebrew original practically identical with the stereotyped Masoretic text, and made his selections accordingly. It is this Vulgate which is still used by the Catholic Church, but the oldest extant fragments date from the sixth to the ninth century and these have now been shown to differ markedly from the stem texts on which Jerome's compilation was based. In view of Jerome's limited sources, his edition must itself have differed considerably from the older Hebrew manuscripts.

---

quote:

---

The Septuagint, or simply "LXX", is the name commonly given in the West to the ancient, Koine Greek version of the Old Testament translated in stages between the 3rd to 1st century BC in Alexandria.

---

Where can I find one of these Septuagint manuscripts that were translated between the 3rd and 1st century BC?

quote:

---

Where can I find one of these Septuagint manuscripts that were translated between the 3rd and 1st century BC?

---

Unless you have a DeLorean sitting in your garage you can't.

The Royal Library in Alexandria is believed to have had this in its collection.

quote:

---

Ancient and modern sources identify four possible occasions for the destruction of the Library:

* Caesar's conquest 48 BC;
* the attack of Aurelian in the 3rd century;
* the decree of Theophilus in 391;
* the Muslim conquest in 642 or thereafter.

Each of these has been viewed with suspicion by other scholars as an effort to place the blame on particular actors. Moreover, each of these events is historically problematic. In the first and second case, there is clear evidence that the Library was not in fact destroyed at those times. The third episode has had some strong supporters, including Edward Gibbon, but still many dispute this.[7] The fourth episode was not documented by any contemporary source, although some maintain that the final destruction of the Library took place at this time.

---

quote:

---

The Royal Library in Alexandria is believed to have had this in its collection

---

I'm sure the Royal Library in Alexandria believed a lot of things, but what evidence can you provide that it is true?

After 1900 years of searching, archaeology has failed to produce a single piece of papyrus written in Greek before c.150 A.D. that any writer of the New Testament used for a "quotation".

Paul Kahle, Professor Emeritus of the University of Bonn did extensive research and work relative to the Septuagint, and concluded that there was never one original old Greek version and that consequently the manuscripts of the Septuagint (so called) cannot be traced back to one archetype.

Dr. John H.P. Reumann, Ministerium of Pennsylvania Professor Emeritus of New Testament and Greek, stated:

"Professor Paul Kahle ... (1875-1964), ... argued that there never was any LXX, at least until Christian times, and that our Letter of Aristeas is propaganda for a revision of the Greek Bible which was made in Alexandria" (John H.P. Reumann, The Romance of Bible Scripts & Scholars, (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Publishers, Inc., 1965), p. 16).

He further stated:

"... The letter of Aristeas was an attempt to give this revision authority by cloaking it with antiquity. ... when Christians (who increasingly after the year A.D. 50 were Greeks who knew little or no Hebrew) employed the Old Testament, they inevitably borrowed from these varied Jewish Greek translations – the Pentateuch as it had been revised at Alexandria, the book of Daniel as it had been translated at Ephesus, and so forth – until they put together an Old Testament in Greek ... which they called the 'Septuagint' after the title from the Aristeas legend. ... the LXX is a Christian compilation, and The Letter of Aristeas is a fiction designed to further the use of a revision in Alexandria about 130 B.C." (Ibid).

The hard evidence points to Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion and Origen as producing the first "Septuagints" and that none existed before their works.

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 2/22/2007 12:41p).]

If you are visiting the British Library you can perhaps see these religious works. This exhibition runs through September.

quote:

---

Codex London: One of the oldest surviving manuscripts of the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament, which are central to Jewish worship. The traditional Jewish view is that these five books were written by the Prophet Moses at divine dictation. This rare early copy was made in the Middle East, perhaps Palestine, in the 10th century.

Codex Sinaiticus: It is the earliest complete manuscript of the New Testament and the earliest and best witness for some books of the Old Testament as well. This copy of the New Testament in Greek is absolutely key in the history of Christian textual scholarship. It was produced around 350 AD, possibly in Palestine, but its name derives from the still active Monastery of St Catherine near the foot of Mount Sinai in Egypt where it was preserved for many centuries.

Syriac Pentateuch: The earliest known dated Biblical manuscript. This copy of the Books of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy in Syriac is the earliest known dated Biblical manuscript. It was written by deacon John at Amida (modern Diyarbakir in south eastern Turkey) in 463. Syriac was the language of the Syrian Church which extended across modern Turkey, Syria and Iraq. This version of the Bible (known as the Pe****ta or 'simple' version) became important as the origin of most of the translations made into other languages of the Eastern churches, including Armenian.

Ma'il Qur'an: One of the earliest Qur’ans in the world to have survived, this dates from the beginning of the 8th century AD. That equates to the 1st century in the Muslim Hijri calendar, which means that this manuscript was penned within 100 years of a key event in the founding of Islam i.e. the hejira or flight of the Prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Medina in 622 AD to escape his enemies. It was produced on the Arabian peninsula, probably in or near the holy cities of Islam.

Old English Hexateuch: The earliest copy in English of the first six books of the Old Testament. From the first half of 11th Century. And featuring striking images.

Qu’ran printed by the Officina Schutltzio-Schilleriana in Hamburg – the earliest extant European printed edition of the Qur’an, dating from 1694. Its Christian publication is demonstrated by the reference to Mohammed here as the “Pseudo-Prophet”.

The Lisbon Hebrew Bible: One of the last great examples of Jewish art from Iberia, this exquisitely illuminated Bible was completed in three volumes in 1482, just fifteen years before the Jews were expelled from Portugal. Lisbon was the last centre of Jewish manuscript art to flourish on the Iberian Peninsula. The Lisbon Bible contains many intricate floral and arabesque designs which clearly show the influence of contemporary Islamic art.

Sussex Spanish Bible: One of the finest illustrated Hebrew Bibles, dating from the middle of the 14th century, produced in Catalonia, Spain, under Muslim rule. It must have been prepared for a very wealthy patron, given the sheer 'weight' of burnished gold expended in its production. The illustrations in this manuscript powerfully express the theme of messianic hope, the longing to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem.

“Golden” Haggadah: One of the most lavish and luxurious of all manuscripts ever created of the Passover Ritual. All the miniature paintings have backgrounds of tooled gold leaf, requiring a very wealthy patron. This manuscript was copied in southern Spain, probably Barcelona, about 1320 when the Iberian peninsula was under Islamic rule.

Commentary on Diatessaron: Part of a 6th Century commentary containing quotations from the ‘Gospel Harmony’ which was ruthlessly suppressed by the early Church. Less than 100 years after their composition, the Four Gospels familiar to us today had been distilled into one. No complete copy of the original text has survived – it is known only in later translations and from commentaries such as this.

Silos Apocalypse: A vividly illustrated copy of the Book of Revelations named after the place in Spain (Silos) where it was made in the late 11th / early 12th century. The dramatic illustration of the great dragon let loose upon the world with seven heads and ten horns being fought by St Michael and other angels has been taken to be a contemporary reference to the spread of Islam which would have had special resonance in Spain.

Uljaytu Qur’an: This royal deluxe manuscript of the Qur’an, made for the early 14th Century Mongol ruler of Iran, Uljaytu, a direct descendant of Ghenghis Khan, was copied in 30 separate parts. This is part 25, one of very few complete ‘one-thirtieths’ of this particular manuscript to have survived.

Sultan Baybars Qur'an: One of the finest of all Qur'an manuscripts, written in large letters of gold in seven magnificent folio volumes. It is little wonder that it took three years (1304-06) to produce. Apart from the wonderfully bold calligraphy, each volume is provided with a magnificent double frontispiece, showing the intricacy of Islamic geometric patterns at its finest.

Gospels in Arabic: A beautifully illuminated manuscript of the Book of Psalms prepared for the Coptic Christian community in Egypt and dating from the early 16th century. At first glance the traditional "carpet-page" with purely Islamic geometric designs leads one to imagine it to be another Mamluk-period Qur'an. But turn the page and the portrait of King David comes as a surprise. This is a Christian manuscript but heavily influenced in its decoration, script, and layout buy the manuscripts of the dominant religion of the area, Islam.

---

quote:

---

The Codex Vaticanus is one of the oldest extant manuscripts of the Bible. It is slightly older than Codex Sinaiticus, both of which were probably transcribed in the 4th century. It is written in Greek, on vellum, with uncial letters.

Vaticanus originally contained a complete copy of the Septuagint ("LXX" except for 1-4 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasseh. Genesis 1:1 - 46:28a (31 leaves) and Psalm 105:27 - 137:6b (10 leaves) are lost and have been filled by a recent hand. 2 Kings 2:5-7, 10-13 are also lost due to a tear in one of the pages. The order of the Old Testament books is as follows: Genesis to 2 Chronicles as normal, 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras (which includes Nehemias), the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the minor prophets from Hosea to Malachi, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel.

The extant New Testament of Vaticanus contains the Gospels, Acts, the General Epistles, the Pauline Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews (up to Heb 9:14, êáèá[ñéåé); thus it lacks 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon and Revelation. These missing pages were replaced by a 15th century minuscule supplement (no. 1957).

The Greek is written continuously with small neat writing, later retraced by an 11th century scribe. Punctuation is rare (accents and breathings have been added by a later hand) except for some blank spaces, diaeresis on initial iotas and upsilons, abbreviations of the nomina sacra and markings of OT citations.

The manuscript contains mysterious double dots (so called "umlauts" in the margin of the New Testament, which seem to mark places of textual uncertainty. There are 795 of these in the text and around another 40 that are uncertain. The date of these markings are disputed among scholars.

---

quote:

---

Where can I find one of these Septuagint manuscripts that were translated between the 3rd and 1st century BC?

---

quote:

---

The oldest manuscripts of the LXX include 2nd century BC fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957), and 1st century BC fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets (Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943)

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Textual_history


Is this going to be your argument that the Septuagint is some sort of Catholic hoax? Find this strange coming from someone that claims the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew rather than Koine Greek even there are no surviving copies.

[This message has been edited by jkag89 (edited 2/22/2007 12:55p).]

quote:

---

There are about 250 extant uncial manuscripts. They contain mainly small portions of the O.T. The most important uncial manuscripts containing large portions of the Greek O.T. are:

(1) Codex Vaticanus (B), c.350 A.D., the Vatican Library.

(2) Codex Alexandrinus (A), c.450 A.D., British Museum, (Dr. Price says it follows Origen's Hexapla, Ancestry, p. 59).

(3) Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), c.350 A.D., British Museum.

Regarding these three famous manuscripts, D.W. Gooding summarizes: "Even the great uncials B, A, and Aleph are not immune from pre-Origen revision [Aleph = a - the first letter in the Hebrew alphabet, FNJ]. Vaticanus follows the Hexapla in Isaiah while in Judges it represents a 4th century A.D. revision Generally, however, it is a copy (a poor one, as its numerous omissions show) of a text critically revised according to the best evidence available early in the Christian era.. Hence it sometimes presents a text purer than that of still earlier papyri ... Alexandrinus has suffered far more from revision. Sinaiticus, ... holds a position mid-way between B and A."

(4) Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C), 5th century, located at Biblioteque Nationale Paris. Consisting of but sixty-four O.T. leaves, the text has been erased to make room for a treatise for St. Ephriam of Syria in the 12th century. It is thus a "palimpsest" and the underlying Biblical text can be deciphered only with great difficulty (Floyd Nolen Jones, Th.D., Ph.D., The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis, Collingswood, NJ, Bible For Today Press, 1996, pp 9-10).

---

The New Testament quotes the Septuagint more often than it does the Hebrew OT.

quote:

---

The New Testament quotes the Septuagint more often than it does the Hebrew OT.

---

What makes you think that?

Origen had a copy of the "New Testament" when he created his "Hexapla." How do you know that the "Septuagint" wasn't edited to match the quotes from the "New Testament?"

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 2/22/2007 1:21p).]

jkag89:

The manuscripts you listed above are still dated 150 years later than the writing of the so-called original "Septuagint."

I'm open to the possibility that there were some Greek translations of various OT books floating around before the time of the apostles. According to Kahle, the LXX had its origin in numerous oral, and subsequently written, translations for use in the services after the reading of the Hebrew original. Later an official standardized version of the Law was made, but it did not entirely replace the older versions while there never was a standard Jewish translation for the rest of the books, but only a variety of versions.

My objection is in the claim that there was an official, standardized compilation of the Tanakah (the "Septuagint" which existed and was widely circulated before the time of the apostles, and from which the apostles quoted. I don't believe that apostles quoted from the "Septuagint," I believe that "Septuagint" quotes from the apostles. I also don't believe that the Septuagint is more accurate than the Hebrew text. If anything, the Septuagint needs to be "corrected" according to the Hebrew, not the Hebrew according to the "Septuagint."

As for what arguments I will make, I don't know until I see the evidence you provide.

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 2/22/2007 1:51p).]

What argument do I need besides that fact that most modern scholarship holds that the Septuagint, beginning with the Pentateuch, was written during the 3rd through 1st centuries BC? Of course it could be wrong but since you are the one swimming against the stream shouldn't you be the one presenting your arguments?

does the same hold true for Paul? didn't many of the apostles speak hebrew (ie. they were ministers to the Jewish people in the early Apostolic era).

quote:

---

What argument do I need besides that fact that most modern scholarship holds that the Septuagint, beginning with the Pentateuch, was written during the 3rd through 1st centuries BC? Of course it could be wrong but since you are the one swimming against the stream shouldn't you be the one presenting your arguments?

---

I'll present my arguments when it's my turn to do so, but for now, I'm not one of the modern scholars claiming that there is version of a 3rd-century BCE "Septuagint" which is extant. If it is extant, then where is it? Sure, there may be some various Greek fragments of some books from the Pentateuch, but this doesn't prove there was a standardized compilation of the entire Tanakh for the apostles to quote from. There could have been 3000 different Greek translations of the same book which may or may not have agreed with each other.

My point is that there was no Greek compilation of the Tanakh in existence during the time of the apostles, so there's no way that the apostles could have quoted from it. The "Septuagint" that we have today is nothing more than Origen's fifth column from his Hexapla.

In other words, if you claim that there was a widely-circulated compilation of the Tanakh in Greek which the apostles quoted from, then the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of the existence of this compilation.

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 2/22/2007 2:04p).]

I'm not claiming it. Others far more knowledgeable on the subject than I am are claiming it.

jkag89:

quote:

---

I'm not claiming it. Others far more knowledgeable on the subject than I am are claiming it

---

Well, what *I* am claiming is that Origen sat down with a Hebrew Tanakh, some various Greek "Old Testament" translations from people such as Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and a Greek "New Testament," and then created a "Septagint" from these sources, and that it is this "Septuagint" compilation which is being passed off as a 3rd or 4th Century BCE Greek Tanakh that the apostles quoted from, and which was allegedly translated by "72 Jewish translators" for King Ptolemy Philadelphus.

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 2/22/2007 2:21p).]

I understand what you are claiming. I want to know why? I also want to understand your reasoning behind your switch from accepting LXX to your current view and why you believe that Origen and the Catholic Church would want to create such a fraud. Why should I accept your version of events when most scholars accept the the 3 B.C. through 1 B.C. for the LXX even if they dismiss the story surrounding the translation as a fable?

I have no desire to argue with conspiracy theorists because you can't reason with them. Any piece of evidence you present is just part of the conspiracy.

jkag89:

quote:

---

I understand what you are claiming. I want to know why? I also want to understand your reasoning behind your switch from accepting LXX to your current view and why you believe that Origen and the Catholic Church would want to create such a fraud. Why should I accept your version of events when most scholars accept the the 3 B.C. through 1 B.C. for the LXX even if they dismiss the story surrounding the translation as a fable?

---

The reason for my switch is because: once I started researching it, it became readily obvious that the only basis (the "star witness" ) for the claim of their being a "Septuagint" compilation at the time of Yeshua and His disciples is the Letter of Aristea which is an obvious fraud. The 3 B.C. through 1 B.C dating of the Septuagint is entirely dependant upon the Letter of Aristeas.

I'll discuss the reasons why Origen and the Catholic church would create such a fraud later, but for now, let's focus on the subject of the Septuagint's existence prior to the time of Yeshua and his disciples.

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 2/22/2007 3:35p).]

Septuagint Quotes in the NT vs. Hebrew Canon Quotes:

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm

Homsar:

quote:

---

I have no desire to argue with conspiracy theorists because you can't reason with them. Any piece of evidence you present is just part of the conspiracy.

---

Conspiracy theory?

Let's take a close look at the "star witness" for the "Septuagint:" the Letter of Aristeas.

(1) According to the Letter of Aristeas, the Egyptian king banqueted the seventy two for seven days. During this interval, he put questions to each of them to supposedly test their proficiency and skill for the task at hand. Extraordinarily, not one question or answer in the entire lengthy dialogue was related to the differences in Greek and Hebrew idioms, verb tenses, writing styles of the various Hebrew authors, or to the divine nature of the Hebrew writings, Scriptural preservation, Biblical translating or Biblical languages. The questions related to such things as politics, military affairs, and kings' reigns – with emphasis on Athenian Greek Philosophy. Yet strangely we read that three days later, Ptolemy II Philadelphus granted them permission to translate the Old Testament into Greek for his library, being somehow assured of their competency in Biblical scholarship. Does this ring likely or logical?

(2) Aristeas' letter belongs to the 2nd century B.C. That is, it is not authentic (in fact, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia suggests a date around 100-80 B.C) – it was written about 150 or more years after the supposed time that the LXX was translated. The author was deeply enmeshed in pagan Greek philosophy and was certainly not a courtier in the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Thus, Aristeas is not who he claims. He is not a first hand witness as we were led to believe by the narrative. The writer has lied to us, and often at that.

(3) Aristeas further blunders in naming Demetrius of Phalerum (c.345 - c.283 B.C.) as a member of the court and keeper of Ptolemy Philadelphus’ (285-247 B.C.) library. The latter part of Demetrius’ life was spent in the court of Ptolemy Soter, not Philadelphus. Moreover, having lost favor with Philadelphus, Demetrius was banished by that monarch. Indeed, he was never the royal librarian. The author further indicts himself when just prior to the banquet given in honor of the translators he states: "it happens to be the anniversary of our naval victory over Antigonus." This is a major blunder. The writer has either transformed a decisive defeat of the Egyptian navy at the battle of Cos (c.260 B.C.) into a victory or this is a reference to an actual victory at Andros around B.C. 245. Regardless, both of these battles occurred long after the c.283 decease of Demetrius.

(4) Further analysis of the narrative reveals obvious confrontation and contradiction with the basic teachings of Scripture. The story relates that six scholars were selected from each of the twelve tribes, and that these 72 men came down to Alexandria, Egypt and produced the translation. This cannot be true. Why?

(a) First off, because the Covenant of Levi which was a contract in which God charged the Levites with the sole responsibility of writing and preserving the Scriptures. Deuteronomy 31:24-25 records:

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 31:24-25: "And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished that Moses commanded the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee."

---

In Israel, only the males of the Tribe of Levi could copy Scripture (the only exception to this being the King from the tribe of Judah who was commanded to write out a copy for himself and keep it with him at all times so that he could govern God's people according to God's laws, justice, and wisdom). They and they alone were entrusted as custodians over the Holy Writ. They were selected over all other tribes on the basis of their having chosen to follow Moses and God when the people of Israel broke the covenant of the LORD in the matter of the golden calf idol and the orgy that accompanied its dedication (Exo. 32, esp. vs. 25-29; cp. Num. 3 and 8:5-22).

Actually, in all of Scripture no record exists whereby the Hebrews ever translated their sacred writings into any other language. Nevertheless, we have seen that the Levites were the sole custodians over all the affairs concerning the Writings such that if a translation were indeed required, it would undeniably have been executed by these selfsame men. Thus, there could not have been six men from each of the twelve tribes engaged in such an undertaking as translating the Hebrew sacred writings under the holy sanction of God appointed authorities. The Levites would never have allowed men from the other eleven tribes to go down to Egypt for such a purpose. The high priest, himself a member of the tribe of Levi, would hardly authorize so blasphemous an act.

Obviously then, God would never inspire such a work as described by Aristeas, Philo, Josephus, etc. for it violates His very instructions as heretofore disclosed. Nor would the priests and Levites select or approve men from the other eleven tribes to translate Scripture. Thus this spurious tale stands exposed as unscriptural and, as such, falls on its face before the fire of God's Word as surely as did the statue of Dagon (I Sam. 5:1-7).

(b) How could the scriptures have been translated by 6 members from all twelve tribes of Israel when 10 of those tribes are still lost to this very day? Only the descendants of the Southern Kingdom of Judah returned to the Promised Land, while the Northern Kingdom is still lost in exile.

(5) The LXX version itself bears manifest proof that it was not administered by Jews from Israel. It was generated by Jews, or those acquainted with the Hebrew tongue, who were of Egypt. This is demonstrated beyond all doubt by the presence of many words and conspicuous expressions that are unmistakably Alexandrian. This fact alone is sufficient proof that the narrative of Aristeas is mere fiction. Moreover, Melvin K. H. Peters apprises us that the story of the origin of the Septuagint was "exposed as a legend as early as 1705."

If you want to talk about "conspiracy theories," then let's discuss your own.

quote:

---

Septuagint Quotes in the NT vs. Hebrew Canon Quotes:

---

What do you claim to be proving here? As I've said already, the Septuagint was edited to match the quotes from the apostles, rather than the apostles quoting from the Septuagint. There was no Septuagint in existence for them to quote from.

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 2/22/2007 3:43p).]

I guess there are two ways to retreat if you are consistently proven wrong: to truth, or to further absurdity to validate yourself.

Homsar:

quote:

---

I guess there are two ways to retreat if you are consistently proven wrong: to truth, or to further absurdity to validate yourself.

---

What have you proven? All you've done is spout "conspiracy theory" and offered no evidence to back it up.

I listed 5 major issues with the Letter of Aristeas above. If you believe my points are in error, then point out the errors. Even a child can spout "conspiracy theory." What does it prove? It's certainly no way to engage in a scholarly debate, and if that's the best argument you can come up with, then your position must be weak indeed.

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 2/22/2007 4:01p).]

My whole point in asking the question was because:

The oldest copy we have is not the original copy. Therefore...we can't "prove" that there was an original and that the oldest one we have isn't a "concoction or lie." I believe that the Torah is real as delivered by God to Moses on FAITH.

Bracy will attack the Septuagint though, for the very same reasons, although I am sure that he too accepts the Torah on faith even though we don't have the "original."

He'll then say that our reasons for accepting the Septuagint are "circular" and at the same time deny that his reasons for accepting the Torah aren't circular.

quote:

---

Bracy will attack the Septuagint though, for the very same reasons, although I am sure that he too accepts the Torah on faith even though we don't have the "original."

---

This isn't true. My argument is simply this: that the Hebrew Masoretic text is far more reliable than the Greek "Septuagint," and I strongly disagree with Christian "scholars" who do not consider the Hebrew Tanakh and the Old Testament portion of our "Holy Bible" to be one and the same entity. In other words, I disagree with the claim that the original text of God’s Word has been "lost" and is in need of "recovery".

The late Dr. Ira M. Price once stated:

quote:

---

"Study of the Septuagint and the use of it as a tool for recovery of the original text of the Hebrew Bible have thus taken a great step forward. ... advances in our knowledge of the Septuagint are to be welcomed as important contributions to a better understanding of the Bible" (Price, Ancestry of Our English Bible, op. cit., p. 82).

---

I strongly disagree with this view. I don't believe there is an "original Hebrew text" in need of "recovery," nor do I believe that the Septuagint adds anything to our understanding of the Hebrew scriptures. The Masoretic text is the best we have, and we don't need a "Septuagint."

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 2/22/2007 5:15p).]

Following is an article concerning the difference in attitudes between Judaism and Christianity regarding the copying of biblical texts:

quote:

---

How do we know that the Torah we have today is the same text given on Mount Sinai?

The Torah was originally dictated from God to Moses, letter for letter. From there, the Midrash (Devarim Rabba 9:4) tells us:

Before his death, Moses wrote 13 Torah Scrolls. Twelve of these were distributed to each of the 12 Tribes. The 13th was placed in the Ark of the Covenant (with the Tablets). If anyone would come and attempt to rewrite or falsify the Torah, the one in the Ark would "testify" against him. (Likewise, if he had access to the scroll in the Ark and tried to falsify it, the distributed copies would "testify" against him.)

How were the new scrolls verified? An authentic "proof text" was always kept in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, against which all other scrolls would be checked. Following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, the Sages would periodically perform global checks to weed out any scribal errors.

WRITING A TORAH SCROLL

To eliminate any chance of human error, the Talmud enumerates more than 20 factors mandatory for a Torah scroll to be considered "kosher." This is the Torah's built-in security system. Should any one of these factors be lacking, it does not possess the sanctity of a Torah scroll, and is not to be used for a public Torah reading.

The meticulous process of hand-copying a scroll takes about 2,000 hours (a full-time job for one year). Throughout the centuries, Jewish scribes have adhered to the following guidelines:


A Torah Scroll is disqualified if even a single letter is added.


A Torah Scroll is disqualified if even a single letter is deleted.


The scribe must be a learned, pious Jew, who has undergone special training and certification.


All materials (parchment, ink, quill) must conform to strict specifications, and be prepared specifically for the purpose of writing a Torah Scroll.


The scribe may not write even one letter into a Torah Scroll by heart. Rather, he must have a second, kosher scroll opened before him at all times.


The scribe must pronounce every word out loud before copying it from the correct text.


Every letter must have sufficient white space surrounding it. If one letter touched another in any spot, it invalidates the entire scroll.


If a single letter was so marred that it cannot be read at all, or resembles another letter (whether the defect is in the writing, or is due to a hole, tear or smudge), this invalidates the entire scroll. Each letter must be sufficiently legible so that even an ordinary schoolchild could distinguish it from other, similar letters.


The scribe must put precise space between words, so that one word will not look like two words, or two words look like one word.


The scribe must not alter the design of the sections, and must conform to particular line-lengths and paragraph configurations.


A Torah Scroll in which any mistake has been found, cannot be used, and must be fixed within 30 days, or buried.

SUCCESS OF THE SYSTEM

Maintaining the accuracy of any document as ancient and as large as the Torah is very challenging even under the best of circumstances.

But consider that throughout history, Jewish communities were subject to widespread persecutions and exile. Over the last 2,000 years, Jews have been spread to the four corners of the world, from Yemen to Poland, from Australia to Alaska.

Other historical factors make the accurate transmission of the Torah all the more difficult. For example, the destruction of the Temple 1,900 years ago saw the dissolution of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish central authority which traditionally would unify the Jewish people in case of any disagreements.

Let's investigate the facts as we have them today. If we collect the oldest Torah scrolls and compare them, we can see if any garbling exists, and if so, how much.

How many letters are there in the Torah? 304,805 letters (or approximately 79,000 words).

If you were to guess, how many letters of these 304,805 do you think are in question? (Most people guess anywhere from 25 to 1,000 letters.)

The fact is, that after all the trials and tribulations, communal dislocations and persecutions, only the Yemenite Torah scrolls contain any difference from the rest of world Jewry. For hundreds of years, the Yemenite community was not part of the global checking system, and a total of nine letter-differences are found in their scrolls.

These are all spelling differences. In no case do they change the meaning of the word. For example, how would you spell the word "color?" In America, it's spelled C-O-L-O-R. But in England, it's spelled with a "u," C-O-L-O-U-R.

Such is the nature of the few spelling differences between Torah scrolls today. The results over thousands of years are remarkable!

TORAH COMPARED TO OTHER TEXTS

But how impressive is this compared to other similar documents, such as the Christian Bible? (Both books contain approximately the same number of words.)

First of all, which would you expect to be more successful in preserving the accuracy of a text?

The Christian Bible. For several reasons.

First, the Christian Bible is about 1,700 years younger than the Torah. Second, the Christians haven't gone through nearly as much exile and dislocation as the Jews. Third, Christianity has always had a central authority (the Vatican) to ensure the accuracy of their text.

What are the results? The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, a book written to prove the validity of the New Testament, says: " A study of 150 Greek [manuscripts] of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings... It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the [manuscript] is wholly uniform."

Other scholars report there are some 200,000 variants in the existing manuscripts of the New Testament, representing about 400 variant readings which cause doubt about textual meaning; 50 of these are of great significance.

The Torah has nine spelling variants -- with absolutely no effect on the meaning of the words. The Christian Bible has over 200,000 variants and in 400 instances the variants change the meaning of the text.

The point of course is not to denigrate Christianity. Rather, this comparison demonstrates the remarkable accuracy of the Jewish transmission of Torah.

THE TORAH AND THE UNIVERSE

There is a famous story in the Talmud (Eruvin 13a):

When Rabbi Meir came to Rabbi Yishmael to learn Torah, he was asked:

"What is your profession, my son?"

"I am a scribe," was the reply.

He said to me: "My son, be careful with your work, for it is the work of Heaven. Should you perhaps omit one letter or add one letter -- it could result that you destroy the entire world

Rebbe Meir remarked: "Needless to say, I do not err by omitting or adding (letters)... but I am even concerned for a fly -- lest it come and alight upon the right-hand corner of a dalet and erase it, thereby rendering it a reish

The famed commentator Rashi (11th century France) offers examples of how the addition or deletion of a single letter can lead to a blasphemous or heretical reading of the Torah -- i.e. a mistake that could destroy the entire world.

Maharsha (16th century Poland) explains there is a danger even if the error does not affect the meaning of the word. This is because of a Kabbalistic tradition that the letters of the Torah form the sacred Names of God written as "black fire upon white fire." These letters were employed by God in creating the world, and it is through them that He sustains it. The deletion of even one letter of this sustaining force therefore threatens the existence of the world.

Carefully guarding the words of the Torah has been a Jewish priority throughout the centuries.

---

http://www.aish.com/shavuottorah/shavuottorahdefault/Accuracy_of_Torah_Text.asp

In re: The Dead Sea Scrolls

quote:

---

“Carbon 14 dating is used to determine the age of the scrolls,” Segebrecht said. “These are considered the oldest books of the Bible that we have. They are 1,000 years older than the Masoretic text on which the translation of today’s Hebrew Scriptures, or Old Testament, had been based and date to the Second Temple period.”

The scrolls date to 150 B.C. to A.D. 68.

“Through DNA analysis, it is possible to match fragments back to the same animal skin,” Segebrecht said. “The parchment comes from either goats or gazelles. This truly is a situation where science meets archaeology and religion.”

---

http://www.kccommunitynews.com/articles/2007/02/22/blue_valley_sun/community/all_com022207a.txt

Regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls, it should be noted that Emmanuel Tov’s research indicates that:

(1) 47% of biblical DSS texts reflect the Masoretic Text
(2) 47% of biblical DSS texts are “non-aligned”
(3) 3.5 % of biblical DSS texts reflect the Septuagint
(4) 2.5 % of biblical DSS texts reflect the Samaritan Pentateuch.

Futhermore, Norman Geisler and William Nix state that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls have dismissed any remaining doubts about the fidelity of the Masoretic Text by providing scholars with hundreds of manuscripts including almost every book of the Old Testament, which antedate the extant Masoretic manuscripts by a thousand years. The results of scholarly comparison reveal that the Masoretic Text and the various text types of the Dead Sea manuscripts are substantially identical. Geisler and Nix attest to most of the DSS reflecting the Masoretic Text saying that, “The Dead Sea Scrolls give an overwhelming confirmation of the fidelity of the Masoretic text”. They cite Millar Burrows’s work, The Dead Sea Scrolls, where he says that, “It is a matter of wonder that through something like a thousand years, the text underwent so little alteration. Herein lies its chief importance, supporting the fidelity of the Masoretic tradition” (Millar Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Viking Press, 1955), 304, quoted in Norman Geisler and William Nix, General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 367).

One of the most respected Old Testament scholars, the late Gleason Archer, examined the two Isaiah scrolls found in Cave 1 and wrote, “Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The five percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling” (Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL.: Moody Press, 1985), pg. 25).