The Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls

  • Thread starter Thread starter WJL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WJL

Guest
Hi there,

I recently heard a claim which tries to “prove” that the Old Testament is "entirely made-up and fictitious.

The claim is that the Old Testament was concocted, developed and entirely written in the Hellenic period by Hellenized Jewish scribes (i.e. the Septuagint). It was allegedly written as a pseudo-historical account of the Hebrew people, for the purpose of giving them a history which never existed, under the guise as a “translation from Hebrew” of their nonexistent scriptures for Ptolemy II. The Hebrew version of the Old Testament (the Masoretic Text) wasn’t written for nearly 1,000 years later by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes. And that the oldest Dead Sea scroll only dates to the tail end of the Hellenic period.

Basically, it’s claiming that the Old Testament is all recent and invented.

How can this claim be refuted?
 
I think the one making the claim has to back his claim. I don’t see anything here that provides evidence that the Septuagint wasn’t simply a Greek translation of Hebrew texts, like every scholar I’ve ever heard says. He just makes a gratuitous assertion, so a gratuitous denial on your part is sufficient until he provides you with some evidence.
 
Seems pretty ridiculous to me since every single biblical scholar that I’ve read, liberal or conservative, has admitted that at least certain portions of the Old Testament date back to before 1,000 BC. Seems like the general consensus is that some was written/compiled during the final years of the two kingdoms, some during and after the exile, and some during the hellenistic rule.

Though there are plenty of scholars who argue that the Torah really was written by someone (presumably Moses) around the time that it claims to have been written. But that’s another matter. The main point is that even liberal scholars don’t say what this person does.
 
WJL said:
Hi there,

I recently heard a claim which tries to “prove” that the Old Testament is "entirely made-up and fictitious.

The claim is that the Old Testament was concocted, developed and entirely written in the Hellenic period by Hellenized Jewish scribes (i.e. the Septuagint). It was allegedly written as a pseudo-historical account of the Hebrew people, for the purpose of giving them a history which never existed, under the guise as a “translation from Hebrew” of their nonexistent scriptures for Ptolemy II. The Hebrew version of the Old Testament (the Masoretic Text) wasn’t written for nearly 1,000 years later by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes. And that the oldest Dead Sea scroll only dates to the tail end of the Hellenic period.

Basically, it’s claiming that the Old Testament is all recent and invented.

How can this claim be refuted?
Click to expand...
listen to what the Church says. Don’t pay attention to the Dead sea scrolls.
 
tobinatorstark said:
listen to what the Church says. Don’t pay attention to the Dead sea scrolls.
Click to expand...
The Dead Sea Scrolls are the earliest manuscripts of the Old Testament found to-date, the Dead Sea Scrolls don’t contradict what the Church says.

I’m just looking for a refutation of the claim that the Old Testament was concocted, developed and entirely written in the Hellenic period by Hellenized Jewish scribes (i.e. the Septuagint). It was allegedly written as a pseudo-historical account of the Hebrew people, for the purpose of giving them a history which never existed, under the guise as a “translation from Hebrew” of their nonexistent scriptures for Ptolemy II. The Hebrew version of the Old Testament (the Masoretic Text) wasn’t written for nearly 1,000 years later by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes. And that the oldest Dead Sea scroll only dates to the tail end of the Hellenic period.
 
I don’t think it is deserving of refutation until its author presents evidence to back it up. I mean, if I declared that the American Revolution never really took place and that it was all an elaborate fictional story (like Star Wars, with many authors expanding on an original work), I would be expected to back up that statement before anyone bothered refuting it.
 
In the Church patristics, the word “Hebrew language” always refers to “Aramaic language”, that is the Syriac language and/or the Assyrian language. It is said Origen translated the Old Testament from the “original Hebrew” into Greek Koine, and I would believe by “original Hebrew” the patristics refer to Aramaic or Syriac, and not the Masoretic Text nor Dead Sea Scrolls.

Hebrew Christians still live on as Maronites, Syriacs, Chaldeans, and Assyrians as well as Jews for Jesus and Messianic Judaism.

Please go to this Aramaic Primacy web site that has a free book “Was the New Testament Really Written In Greek?”.

Papal primacy is proven clearly in the Peshitto, the Holy book of the Maronite Church, which boasts to be descendants of Lord Jesus Christ in the flesh.
 
WJL said:
The Dead Sea Scrolls are the earliest manuscripts of the Old Testament found to-date, the Dead Sea Scrolls don’t contradict what the Church says.

I’m just looking for a refutation of the claim that the Old Testament was concocted, developed and entirely written in the Hellenic period by Hellenized Jewish scribes (i.e. the Septuagint). It was allegedly written as a pseudo-historical account of the Hebrew people, for the purpose of giving them a history which never existed, under the guise as a “translation from Hebrew” of their nonexistent scriptures for Ptolemy II. The Hebrew version of the Old Testament (the Masoretic Text) wasn’t written for nearly 1,000 years later by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes. And that the oldest Dead Sea scroll only dates to the tail end of the Hellenic period.
Click to expand...
I know some of the Deuteros were found there in Hebrew. Search the word “Hebrew” on this page. Gary Michuta has researched this subject quite a bit.
 
WJL said:
Hi there,

I recently heard a claim which tries to “prove” that the Old Testament is "entirely made-up and fictitious.

The claim is that the Old Testament was concocted, developed and entirely written in the Hellenic period by Hellenized Jewish scribes (i.e. the Septuagint). It was allegedly written as a pseudo-historical account of the Hebrew people, for the purpose of giving them a history which never existed, under the guise as a “translation from Hebrew” of their nonexistent scriptures for Ptolemy II. The Hebrew version of the Old Testament (the Masoretic Text) wasn’t written for nearly 1,000 years later by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes. And that the oldest Dead Sea scroll only dates to the tail end of the Hellenic period.

Basically, it’s claiming that the Old Testament is all recent and invented.

How can this claim be refuted?
Click to expand...
Really, it’s not worth the time to debunk because it is so foolish. If a person is that far out there in their beliefs then they are not going to listen to any arguement you make. I have learned over time to pick the battles that will actually be heard.
 
COPLAND_3 said:
Really, it’s not worth the time to debunk because it is so foolish. If a person is that far out there in their beliefs then they are not going to listen to any arguement you make. I have learned over time to pick the battles that will actually be heard.
Click to expand...
I both agree and disagree.

You will not convince the person who has come up with the crazy theory, or those who believe it. You may, however, convince the one who is considering believing the crazy theory.

Furthermore, it may help with rational skeptics. Skeptics love to disprove things, and if you can show them a fun thing to disprove and that you can enjoy disproving it through very rational means, it proves that you share something with the skeptics, that you’re not too credulous, and that you’re not appealing to emotion or anything like that.

All the while, you’re feeding them information that may come in handy for later, less-crazy apologetics.

e.g.

crazy guy: Hey! Constantine wrote the Bible in the 4th Century! John is especially bad!
skeptic: Should I believe this?
You: No, the earliest NT ms comes from 100-150AD. Heck, we’ve got John 21 from the early 3rd century, and no manuscripts omit John 21 unless they omit John 20.
not-so-crazy-guy: Hey! John 21 was a later addition!
skeptic: Unlikely. John 21 exists in all manuscripts where we have John 20.
 
andrewagill said:
I both agree and disagree.

You will not convince the person who has come up with the crazy theory, or those who believe it. You may, however, convince the one who is considering believing the crazy theory.

Furthermore, it may help with rational skeptics. Skeptics love to disprove things, and if you can show them a fun thing to disprove and that you can enjoy disproving it through very rational means, it proves that you share something with the skeptics, that you’re not too credulous, and that you’re not appealing to emotion or anything like that.

All the while, you’re feeding them information that may come in handy for later, less-crazy apologetics.

e.g.

crazy guy: Hey! Constantine wrote the Bible in the 4th Century! John is especially bad!
skeptic: Should I believe this?
You: No, the earliest NT ms comes from 100-150AD. Heck, we’ve got John 21 from the early 3rd century, and no manuscripts omit John 21 unless they omit John 20.
not-so-crazy-guy: Hey! John 21 was a later addition!
skeptic: Unlikely. John 21 exists in all manuscripts where we have John 20.
Click to expand...
I get your point. I just hate to spend time dealing with people who come from crazy town.
 
COPLAND_3 said:
I get your point. I just hate to spend time dealing with people who come from crazy town.
Click to expand...
Apologetics is not for everyone.

Apologetics may even be for you, but just not Crazy Town apologetics.

That’s fine. I, for example, refuse to engage in apologetics with a certain infamous artist who writes religious tracts, knowing that others better equipped will take my place.
 
andrewagill said:
You will not convince the person who has come up with the crazy theory, or those who believe it. You may, however, convince the one who is considering believing the crazy theory.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

I don’t plan on arguing with the person whom I heard this from, rather I’m just looking for an answer to the claim.

Mainly, I was wondering if anyone could provide evidences which prove the claims false.
 
WJL said:
Mainly, I was wondering if anyone could provide evidences which prove the claims false.
Click to expand...
I’m no expert on OT manuscripts, but there is some internal evidence that suggests otherwise.

First, I’d note the reform of Josiah, which happens after some rather nasty things befall the kingdom of Judah. Josiah cleans the Temple, after which they find a lost book of Moses which seems to be referring to the exact nasty things that were happening to Judah and suggests that Josiah’s reforms will resolve the issue. From what is stated explicitly and what can be inferred from context, it is very clear that the book they found is the book of Deuteronomy, or perhaps a portion of it, such as the Song of Moses, which doesn’t mesh well with the rest of Deuteronomy.

Now, if you’re thinking that it’s awfully convenient that, just as Josiah is implementing controversial reforms, he finds a book written by the greatest prophet ever predicting the current times and suggesting that his ideas are right, you’re not alone.

Many people take this as evidence that Deuteronomy was a forgery from the time of Josiah, though I maintain that at least certain portions of the book had to exist before that(*).

What does this have to do with dating the OT?

If you were creating a fictional backstory for your forged book, you would not include a story which implies that portions of the story are forgeries.

Another thing to note is that there is decent evidence that after the Babylonian exile, scribes (Ezra, Nehemiah or those working for them) compiled the sources of the current Hebrew Scriptures into what we would call a harmonization today. This is well before Hellenization.

Finally, there are peculiarities to all languages and literary styles. Certain literary constructions like the waw-consecutive are translated in easily identifiable ways, and when you see something that looks like that in the translated work, it provides a clue that the original text was in that other language, or when a text lacks certain hallmarks of Hellenistic rhetoric, that suggests that the text was not generated by that literary school.

(*) One example: Everyone in the OT gets a statement like (NAME) lived until he was (AGE), and all the years of his life he (DID/DID NOT) walk with God. He had (NUMBER) children, and then he died. This formula for Moses is found in Deuteronomy.
 
Hmm, where to start?

First of all, it’s meaningless to talk about ‘proof’ in history. Proof really only has meaning in mathematics. In history, as with all social sciences, all we have is evidence: excellent, good, bad, weak, flimsy or negligible.

Secondly, it is not the job of the skeptics to ‘disprove’ or dispel anything. It’s always the job of believers to present solid evidence for their belief. Otherwise you get Mormons asking you to disprove that Jesus was in America, or that there’s something called an invisible pink unicorn, or that the pope is the antichrist.

I believe what the OP is referring to here is the belief by many archaeologists, historians, and even rabbis that the Deuteronomic history is mostly fiction. That is, there never was a large group of Hebrews enslaved in Egypt, or that they escaped in the exodus, or that they militarily conquered Canaan, or that there was a great united monarchy under David --a character who may not have even existed.

The popular book that outlines this view is The Bible Unearthed, by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. Here is a link:

librarything.com/work/107954
This is a fascinating non-scholarly overview of the current state of biblical archaeology. The author’s main issue revolves around when the Deuteronomistic books (Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings 1 and 2) were written. They show these narratives, describing the early history of the Hebrews, were written centuries later than traditional beliefs, during the reign of Judahian King Josiah, who initiated a reform movement just before the Babylonian invasion.
Click to expand...
Because of this, the reliability of the Hebrew Bible (as a historical document) is brought into question especially in light of current archeological evidence. Finkelstein and Silberman pick apart some key portions of the Hebrew narrative including the Patriarchs, the Exodus story, the conquest of Canaan, the unified kingdom of David and Solomon and more.
Click to expand...
 
I’m with Copland on this. One has to perceive at least some sliver of openmindedness to present the truth or else you are “throwing pearls before swine.”

PeterK
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top