LOL! You know, I think I'm going to use this the next time someone disputes biblical cosmology.
1,504 karma · joined June 1, 2009
Despite being an introverted type, I love learning about people. Talk to me.
This is a really good point. The ANE had its own idea of cosmology, Europe its, Asia its, etc. Even then, much of the biblical text contains polemics against Babylonian ideas (recall that cosmology, deity, and "function" are all tied together in their worldview).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_Map_of_the_World
This idea probably wasn't unique to the Babylonians, but this approximation of a disc-shaped Earth was fairly commonplace up to and including the Exhilic Period (biblical texts likely being influenced, at least in part, by the Babylonian views though much of the text is certainly constructed of polemic narratives).
Semitic cultures very much believed the Earth was more or less a disc-like shape that consisted of the known world (mostly in their sphere of influence, if you pardon the expression). But they also had some other ideas, like that of chaotic universal waters above and below the Earth, separated by the firmament, and supported by pillars (though you can see this idea changing somewhat by the time the book of Job was written). This is a theme that is repeated in Genesis, Isaiah, Job, and one or more of the Psalms.
Not coincidentally, it's fairly well established in the scholarly literature that this was the view of ancient Near Eastern writers, and it wasn't until Young Earth Creationists decided to apply a degree of scientific concordism to the text where we get a more distorted view of Hebrew words like hûg inferring something other than a disc or circular inscription. It's true that they probably didn't care so much about the shape (unlike us), but their cosmology is definitely inferred rather strongly in the biblical texts (and in some cases from their neighbors). John Walton's "Lost World" series on Genesis are a good pointer in this direction, but I'd also suggest the IVP Bible Background Commentary (Walton is a contributor) which certainly touches on this motif and draws upon other creation accounts such as those in the Ugaritic tablets, Baal Cycle, etc. The late Dr. Michael Heiser has a great lecture series you can find on YT talking about biblical cosmology that might help if you're into that format.
The link with Columbus was indeed perpetrating a myth. You get this as recently as Ray Comfort's "Evidence Bible" which is filled with complete buffoonery in that it attempts to explain Columbus' motives based on his mention of Isaiah; YECs like Comfort link this to Isaiah 40:22 (again, with an incorrect reading of hûg). Columbus was motivated by his eschatology and the only reason he ever cited Isaiah was because of its dual function as prophetic-apocalyptic literature.
The human condition is broadly uniform post-Fall, subject to the natural and elementary forces satisfied only by destruction.
Thank you for being a blessing and inspiration to do better!
The problem I have with that claim is that the phrasing "eye of a needle" appears in Talmudic writings that predate the NT, so the idea itself likely predates that, and other creatures (elephants) have been used instead of camels.
Granted, this is just hair-splitting, but I would strongly suspect its use dates much earlier.
Either way, the analogy is anachronistic to the text, which is probably the better way to render it.
I've been tossing around the idea of doing a topical Bible study night/meal once a month with some neighbors who are interested (or at least tangentially so) along with some folks from Sunday school. A friend of mine who has been struggling with sin and faith suggested it. I feel a sense that your comment is being used to prod me a bit further.
One of the fears I've had (just tossing this out there for advice I probably already know but need to hear/read from someone else) is stepping on toes. I KNOW that if I just teach from the word it isn't a problem—or rather it isn't a problem unrelated to conviction, but going back to your earlier recommendation we all have difficulty with the idol of self-perception. I probably need to re-read 1 and 2 Timothy, because I've sometimes had issues with timidity in the face of those who are older and dealing with scripture.
An example: Explaining the nature of the word "elohim" as an ontological term (I'm a Southern Baptist) to a church elder who was convinced it's strictly another name for God was a good exercise but somewhat difficult, even with a Hebrew-English interlinear in hand to show him precisely how it is used in situ throughout the text. I managed, but my comparative youth against an elder and his obstinate refusal to see the word for what it was set me back somewhat in deciding whether to go forward with, shall we say, giving bread to the spiritually hungry.
I guess the only way to feed anyone is to start by making a meal. Thank you for the encouragement!
I'm never going to get through my ever-growing backlog. And I still have yet to start on John Walton's Lost World series. Thanks! Haha!
We're not all that dissimilar from the Israelites who were repeatedly condemned to the status of remnant, to be ruled by unjust kings, conquered and displaced by other nations, yet forever snubbing the will of the Most High. We've just swapped more obvious idols (on occasion) for ones less so (except money).
Thanks!
This is a particularly interesting period in Christianity, because you had numerous influences (including what would later become gnosticism around the same time), the term "trinity" wouldn't appear in extant works until sometime in the Second Century, then the Council of Nicaea in or around the latter half of the Fourth Century establishing it as doctrine.
So, I think the evidence of a decidedly Jewish influence is quite strong and would date at least to the Babylonian captivity.
I believe Dr. Robert Alter leans toward an evolution from polytheism -> monotheism in Jewish thinking (I highly recommend his The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary); but I think the evidence for a sort of henotheism is a bit stronger and more sensible, which would better fit the sources you shared here, alongside the biblical texts.
Alan Segal's Two Powers in Heaven delves into this in great detail.
Where this argument pops up is through the modern myth that "eye of a needle" was a reference to a particular gate in Jerusalem (or something similar; there are different variants of this claim). If this were true, then THAT would turn the passage from an impossibility to something that's rather exceedingly difficult, thus pleasing rich people. Rope versus camel doesn't dramatically change the outcome as much as changing the idiom from a literal needle to a gate.
Here's what the IVP commentary says:
19:23–26. Here Jesus clearly uses *hyperbole. His words reflect an ancient Jewish figure of speech for the impossible: a very large animal passing through a needle’s eye. On regular journeys at twenty-eight miles per day, a fully loaded camel could carry four hundred pounds in addition to its rider; such a camel would require a gate at least ten feet high and twelve feet wide. (A needle’s eye in Jesus’ day meant what it means today; the idea that it was simply a name for a small gate in Jerusalem is based on a gate from the medieval period and sheds no light on Jesus’ teaching in the first century.)
Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, Second Edition. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2014), 94.
However...
(Sorry, I'm about to rant, and I apologize to anyone who's about to suffer reading through this.)
Having fairly recently watched my father pass (1.5 years ago) from the effects of COPD acquired as a direct result of cigarette smoking, the 8 months in hospice care, his struggle for every single breath, and the personal tribulations this placed upon my mother and I as his caretakers, I can say for certain there is nothing good to be had for anyone from this (and that's before the effects of second-hand smoke). During his life, smoking ruled every habit, every trip, every moment of his life. You literally couldn't go anywhere without having to break somewhere along the line for him to smoke. And it wasn't just COPD: Atherosclerosis, aortic aneurysm, high blood pressure (and the litany of medication to treat it), poor health, poor quality of life, etc.; some from smoking, some from the greatly reduced exercise tolerance resulting from smoking and subsequent sedentary life. But, I also know that banning it will never happen because our governments, too, are addicted—the revenue prospect is too great and too appealing.
I admit I should have no part in this debate because of my personal experiences, and I certainly recognize the influence emotions play as a consequence, but of all things that "should" be banned, tobacco is probably one of them.
I have a friend who's smoked off and on most of his life. He's about my age (early 40s) and is already seeing some of these effects. Addictions are powerful, and there's very little you can do until they decide they're ready to quit. He knows what happened to my dad. He knows it'll happen to him.
I'm at a point in my life where I've just given up and figure that I'm only going to get it right 1/3rd of the time anyway: Nope, turn; nope, turn; yup.
Where I live (southern NM) we've had a steady influx of people from out of state, and the first thing they tend to do is install outdoor security lighting that is in clear violation of the NSPA. All that to say that I have noticed that some of the newcomers who were in violation may have been reported since their fixtures are now turned off after 11pm. So, enforcement does happen; it just takes time. Thankfully, we have a few astronomers in the community!
(The one deficiency in the NSPA is that it defines fixtures based on wattage rather than lumens. There have been efforts to change this language, but they've stalled.)
Thinking on this, I wonder if the LSB would be of interest to you? I believe its heritage traces back to the NASB95 but with some differences (Yahweh instead of LORD).
It's something of a shame that Bibliotheca doesn't have their American Literary Version available outside their printing (which is expensive), because it's an update to the ASV—though some reviewers suggest it's a bit more literal. The absent chapter/verse numbering would also be a problem for some people (me especially!).
Here's a comparison of some common translations for Pss 74:8 (for example); I'd be happy to share other verses/comparisons if you were interested, but this may give you a starting point for other translations that fit your interests (or more to avoid haha):
Psalm 74:8 -
ESV: They said to themselves, “We will utterly subdue them”; they burned all the meeting places of God in the land.
MEV: They said in their hearts, “Let us destroy them together.” They have burned up all the meeting places of God in the land.
NASB95: They said in their heart, “Let us completely subdue them.” They have burned all the meeting places of God in the land.
LSB: They said in their heart, “Let us completely subdue them.” They have burned all the meeting places of God in the land.
ASV: They said in their heart, Let us make havoc of them altogether: They have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land.
CSB: They said in their hearts, “Let’s oppress them relentlessly.” They burned every place throughout the land where God met with us.
HCSB: They said in their hearts, “Let us oppress them relentlessly.” They burned down every place throughout the land where God met with us.
NET 2nd ed.: They say to themselves, “We will oppress all of them.” They burn down all the places in the land where people worship God.
BSB: They said in their hearts, “We will crush them completely.” They burned down every place where God met us in the land.
LES2 (Pss 73:8): They said in their heart, their kindred altogether, “Come and cease the feasts of the Lord from the land!”
(I included the Lexham English Septuagint 2nd Ed for fun... because why not!)
The project itself is funded by Bible Hub. I don't know if that will affect your view of the text or not, but their objective was to have a fully transparent translation accepting feedback from academics, pastors, and lay-readers for each revision. As such, I've found it quite readable and it seems to fall somewhere between ESV and NET in terms of readability (not as terse as ESV, not as verbose as NET).
Have you considered Logos? It's not exactly cheap, but the search tools are extremely powerful. They have a Hebrew-English interlinear for both the MT and the DSS and you can quite easily search on the MSS words, the lemma, or roots throughout the entire text. The mobile version isn't quite as feature-full, however, but I use it with some regularity in church and during Wednesday night classes (currently covering Revelation).
Not sure if this is something that might be of interest to you, but I've been using this occasionally in Logos and rather enjoy it.
I can understand that. I went through a similar period in my late teens/early 20s that caused me to reject my faith (among other things, but this was a contributing part of it). Ironically, I came back to Christianity and accepted Christ when I was ~22 because of a book written by a Jewish biblical scholar. For me, encountering Young Earth Creationism was the proverbial back-breaking straw more so than source trust, but both were certainly present in my mind and caused sufficient doubt to turn aside from the faith.
As I've gotten older, I've found that certain arguments feel less interesting. Some things, like this, have to be taken on faith. I mean, I don't even debate YECs anymore! The problem I have as of this writing is that I cannot decide if it's more a matter of my mental energies feel better invested elsewhere or if it's a lack of interest beyond a certain threshold. Manuscript sourcing is interesting to me, but I don't find it to be a make-or-break situation.
> do you remember weapons of mass distraction, Hans Blix, etc? Or Snowden? Did you know Zelensky is referenced in the Panama papers? Etc.
All of the above, in fact. I've gotten into trouble, ironically, from some people at church for having zero trust for Zelensky.
"But we need to support him because RUSSIA!"
Right. And where is the money going? I have very limited trust also, most especially for ANYONE in positions of power where it can be abused. I feel like just saying this makes me sound like a conspiracy nut, but the reality is that humans are intrinsically untrustworthy.
Admittedly, I feel much more charitable toward biblical manuscripts, but perhaps that's because I'm approaching the question from a different angle. That is, I'm inclined to read providential preservation into the text, which is how I parse things like a) the discovery of the DSS (and LXX fragments) in Qumran and b) the rather fortuitous discovery of large bodies of previously unknown Koine Greek in the 1900s giving us insight into the NT.
That isn't to say I don't have problems with parts of our translations. I do. But most of the problems I have fall into the category of stylistic choices by the translators. Maybe even a few unknowns that have crept into the text ("Lilith" in Isa 34:14 being a recent one I encountered while reading through the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible). The problem here is that I've become so fascinated by the ANE context that I honestly haven't spent quite as much time in the NT as of late as perhaps I should...
Anyway, thank you for the cordial conversation, friend. Much appreciated!
It hit too close to home.
I pictured driving down the road through town, the "turn only" lane indicators painted on the asphalt, the wash of signage, lights, traffic cones—the background noise of our civilization that provides passive information we've grown so familiar with it fades out of our vision.
Thank you both for this! Love it!
I do think you're at risk of reading into some of this "evidence" for foul play. Ken Thompson's lecture "Reflections on Trusting Trust" comes to mind for reasons that escape me.
Presently, I don't have the mental energy (or time) to parse through everything you have copied here (sorry, I just don't), but I can assure you that it likely has been considered by the translation boards of modern translations (I'm sure you could contact them for further inquiries, however).
Specifically the NET translators did, IMO, a fantastic job with the NT and are quite transparent about it:
https://bible.org/article/abbreviations-and-introduction-pri...
I want to suggest that the idea is entirely preposterous and ridiculous, which it probably is, but where I would agree with your caution lies mostly in the time frame from which this manuscript originates. It's possible (although unlikely) it's been faked in some capacity since human history (and literacy) somewhat undulate over time and the period this originates was a bit more hostile to free interchange of information (even the article mentions that many of the source texts could have been destroyed as heretical). In such a case, the Hebrew texts have a substantially more solid provenance simply by virtue of their volume and because we have significantly older witnesses at our disposal from the discoveries in Qumran. For something that dates from the 12th or 13th centuries this becomes a little more difficult as, perhaps ironically, fewer witnesses to the material actually exist.
But, again, my argument against it being a significantly later fabrication is in the volume of physical materials used in construction: The binding, the number of leaves, etc., conspire toward the earlier dating since it would be virtually impossible to source that many original pieces of parchment or vellum that hadn't seen prior use (I'm saying this without any knowledge of this manuscript, but I'd imagine if the individual leaves showed signs of prior use they'd have mentioned it). These were expensive to produce when new.
The other piece of evidence in this case is that this appears to be a compilation of other works, specifically commentaries, on the text of the LXX. The article mentions that the Koine Greek used in the LXX was somewhat difficult for later audiences to read due to its grammatical peculiarities, derived from its nature as a word-for-word translation of (now lost) earlier Hebrew texts. Hence why in my lay-estimation the earlier dating is most probably correct. The probable destruction of source texts support this claim, but also raises the question as to how (or why) this text managed to survive.
You do raise a great point: Virtually every manuscript we have available is a copy of an earlier manuscript. No originals, to our knowledge, have survived into the present.
Where we get the date of many of these manuscripts from is some combination of how and where they were found, in this tome's case the custodial history helps, but also the writing style, use of particular idiomatic language, or word/grammar utilization. Mentions of specific events or pieces of information that may have a known point in history also help, because obviously a material cannot predate an event that hasn't yet occurred. Often works cite others that have more well-established provenance or are themselves cited elsewhere.
Carbon dating helps, but because of material reuse it's sometimes unreliable (and obviously can be faked with enough money to purchase/reuse ancient materials, as you pointed out in your earlier comment). In the case of this manuscript, I would find this possibility to be rather unlikely due simply to the volume (ahem) of materials used. Given also that it is mostly a commentary on what appears to be based on the LXX the motivation for faking it is much less.
Here are a couple of sources that might help:
https://textandcanon.org/four-ways-scholars-date-early-hebre...
https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/words-b...
One example of the use of idiomatic language as a dating tool that comes to mind: It is one of reasons why the precise dating of the book of Daniel is a somewhat problematic topic. Its use of specific vocabulary wasn't known in any extant works at the time of the earlier date, suggesting it was either authored later or saw edits/redactions by the time of the Babylonian exile. Exhilic and post-exhilic edits aren't entirely unknown in much of the OT, so that's always a possibility. My personal opinion reading the body of literature surrounding Daniel is that it is likely an edited work around a much more ancient core (6th century BC), but I'm always open to other arguments.
I suspect the age of this manuscript is accurate and isn't a later contrivance.
Welcome to the world of textual criticism!
"Christian commentators adopted a similar system. They placed the Biblical text in the centre of each page, written in larger, more prominent characters, adding the commentary around it in smaller letters, so that as much as possible could fit on the page."
We still do this with modern study Bibles! NET and ESV as very recent printings, for example, both have fairly similar layouts, though NET is probably closest to this since it doesn't contain introductory text typeset differently from the rest of the commentary. If it works...
Even more amusing: The red ink connections bring to mind how Logos (the Bible software) works where each commentary or other text that references another text are all interlinked within your library and can be clicked or moused-over. And we think our modern era is so novel! Hah!
In all seriousness, it'd be interesting to see how the sample of OT texts in this compare to the LXX since the article (to me) seems to suggest this contained comments specifically to help with the Septuagint's peculiar grammar (and I didn't get from their remarks that the verse text is changed or updated?). Absolutely fascinating!
Thank you for finding this!