Ancient Jewish manuscripts reveal a forgotten history

Past Horizons ^ | Saturday, January 1, 2011 | unattributed

[SunkenCiv]

The study by Cambridge University researchers suggests that, contrary to long-accepted views, Jews continued to use a Greek version of the Bible in synagogues for centuries longer than previously thought. In some places, the practice continued almost until living memory.

The Cairo Genizah was not an archive designed to preserve documents. It was a "receptacle," a final resting place or cache of "trashed" documents written in Hebrew or transliterated into Hebrew text, Arabic and other languages during the Middle Ages. The Ben-Ezra Synagogue in Cairo systematically disposed of deceased persons' documents in a special vaulted room in the attic of the synagogue, accessible through a hole in the wall. Some of the Geniza's contents had already gone to private collections or libraries -- mostly via scholarly visitors or Middle Eastern antiquity markets. Luckily, Cairo's dry climate prevented complete deterioration of the remaining writings even though they were damaged due to the ageing process.

In 1896, the importance of the Cairo Genizah came to the attention of Cambridge University scholar Prof. Solomon Schechter who transferred the remains -- some 130,000 fragments -- to Cambridge.

[SunkenCiv]

Ben Ezra synagogue and manuscript. Photo: Christopher Rose, Flickr

[SunkenCiv]

· GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach · · join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·
	Antiquity Journal  & archive  Archaeologica  Archaeology  Archaeology Channel  BAR  Bronze Age Forum  Discover  Dogpile  Eurekalert  Google  LiveScience  Mirabilis.ca  Nat Geographic  PhysOrg  Science Daily  Science News  Texas AM  Yahoo  Excerpt, or Link only?	Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
· History topic · history keyword · archaeology keyword · paleontology keyword · · Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword ·

[aruanan]

There was someone here at FR just a few days ago claiming that the LXX was written AD and the reason that some of the quotes in the NT appear to have been taken from the LXX is because the NT came first and the LXX was influenced by it. I doubt this guy would be swayed by this latest find. Poor guy.

[sayuncledave]

Nicely put. I was thinking of that when reading the article. Very cool article, at that. I love history.

[ROTB]

The LXX was quoted by ancient historians pre the 1st century AD.

He is confused.

http://www.christianthinktank.com/baduseot.html

[Beowulf9]

I wish they would find something actually written down in the days Jesus was living.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Ping to an interesting article

Ampu

[muawiyah]

There were things written down then. However, due to the nature of the recording material those things had to be recopied at irregular intervals.

That's why folks will refer to the "oldest copy" and from that try to infer what the original date of of the original copy might have been. Sometimes the "original" was an oral tradition. The Bible itself gives several clues about "oral traditions". First, all of them made use of the Memory Palace method of memorization. Secondly, they all recommended using an Ark or a Garden as a structural reference. History can be structured in the mind using a genealogy ~ e.g. the generations of the Patriarchs, or the reigns of French Kings.

Fewer errors than are popularly imagined entered into the ancient texts. The Jews, as just one example, had groups dedicated to transcribing and reviewing transcriptions so that no mistakes were made.

[Verginius Rufus]

I missed that thread. Some theories are just nonsensical. Did the Greek-speaking Jews have no translation of the Bible until after the time of Christ?

The legend that the Torah was translated by 72 translators in the reign of King Ptolemy II apparently is already mentioned by the so-called letter of Aristeas which is thought to date between 130 and 100 B.C.

The quote from Hosea 10.8 in Luke 23.30 uses almost exactly the same Greek words as the LXX does (a different word is used for "to say"), but Luke reverses the two elements ("hide us" and "fall on us"), so the LXX version is not following St. Luke.

[SunkenCiv]

IOW, a total nutjob.

[Tzfat]

The Talmud has some Greek in it as well. Circa 500 CE.

[Beowulf9]

Oh, I have no doubt they were literally copied, just would like to see one from that time, that exact time. May be there are none.

[Carry_Okie]

The study by Cambridge University researchers suggests that, contrary to long-accepted views, Jews continued to use a Greek version of the Bible in synagogues for centuries longer than previously thought. In some places, the practice continued almost until living memory.

Modern Hebrew is effectively largely due to the work of one man, Eliezer ben Yehuda, with its interpretation of roots built upon the existing exegesis of the Talmud. Unfortunately, there are errors in that ancient understanding as is confirmed by discrepancies between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text. The former even transliterates Hebrew names in the genealogies, conveying no meaning to them at all. I beg to differ there, as I regard many of those names to be both important mnemonics as well as keys to interpretation.

Frankly, I think there was more that was lost in the period before the Babylonian exile than is commonly understood. Hence the recovery of original meaning is a wide open field for study. My second book, Shemitta: For the Land Is Mine, reveals an enormously important understanding of the role of the principles laid out in Exodus and Leviticus in the survival of nations, including a prophecy in the Torah that reveals the pattern of Biblical history from Sinai to Revelation. I have also recently completed a reinterpretation of Genesis 4 that reveals a powerfully edifying and complex story at the root of that book. The tale of Cain and Abel is certainly NOT about "don't kill your brother," but is an ancient story of the struggle between agro-urban and pastoral cultures led to the creation and behavioral properties of civilization itself. Amazingly, this set of interpretations correlates almost exactly with the archaeological record.

What is even more mind-blowing is Genesis 1. It is not a creation story at all, but a teaching on a pattern of roots by which to understand the story of the antediluvian period.

[Carry_Okie]

Fewer errors than are popularly imagined entered into the ancient texts.

I have been told of recently discovered pottery fragments containing fragments of scriptures demonstrating examples of of ancient texts dating to perhaps 1,000 BC.

Ezra indeed. /s In Shemitta, I have a very thorough argument for why the scriptures could not have been written later than stated therein, as is commonly asserted in the scholarly community.

[Quix]

THX THX.

[aruanan]

Well, he called Philo, Josephus, the Talmud, and Origen “all corrupt and questionable sources” and said there was “no proof” of a BC Septuagint.

[Pollster1]

Please put me on your list if you have a ping list for gods, graves, and glyphs.

[PIF]

I wish they would find something actually written down in the days Jesus was living.

—

If some did find something written from Jesus’ day about Him or quotes from Him, you can be sure that find would be in the Vatican Archives quick-like, never to see the light of day again. Especially if what was written in anyway contradicted Christian cannon.

While everyone insists that “The Gospel of Thomas” is later, it is the most middle eastern sounding piece I've ever read. In case you haven't read it, the writing consists solely of dialogues between Jesus and His Disciples.

[ROTB]

http://www.messianicart.com/chazak/Handbook.pdf

The above PDF spends it’s 1st 20 pages establishing the LXX as a piece of reliable scripture. One of the points I remember off the top of my head is that the authenticity of the LXX was not even questioned until the 15th century.

I don’t agree with every claim he makes, but the LXX defense is very informative.

What angle was he/she coming from? Christian, Atheist, Jew?

[aruanan]

What angle was he/she coming from? Christian, Atheist, Jew?

I really don't know, but if I found out that he was a KJV-only kind of guy, I wouldn't be surprised. Thanks for the link.