neologist wrote:I hate to be in the position of defending Frodo, considering that he has failed to realize that the hope for the majority of mankind is not heaven, but life on earth, and the consequence of disobedience is not eternal torture but death. Nevertheless, Set has provided more than a few sweeping and unsupported statements from authority, not the least of which is this asseveration:
Setanta wrote:Jews did not decide upon a canonical text until more than two centuries later, when the texts were revised in the late 5th and early 6th centuries CE.
How could decisions made by the Jews in the 5th century affect the OT texts accepted by Christians in the 2nd century?
How could Christians have derived an "old testament" from sources which no longer existed, having been revised after the Babylonian captivity? The original sources texts, for as much as we know (they do not survive, and all that we know of them comes from Talmudic commentaries) were in Israeli script--but the new revised Torah which had been edited after the Captivity was written in Hebraic script. There was a "renaissance" of Israeli script after the successful uprising against the Greco-Macedonian "Persians" who controlled Palestine in the era of Judas Maccabeus, but that did not involve any "resurrection" of the ancient texts, and occurred more than 300 years after the return from the Captivity.
We have no complete source documents for the Torah in the original, pre-Captivity Israeli script form, and what does survive is a scattering of small fragments. We know that the Pentateuch was revised after the Captivity because Talmudic sources tell us as much, there is so little surviving, original Israeli script text to make comparisons impossible. We also know that the greatest christian scholar of what became the authorized scriptural canon, Origen of Alexandria, used a badly flawed copy of the Septuagint, both because it was commented upon by later christian scholars and Talmudic scholars, and because of serious citation errors in his own writings.
If you want sources for this, i have no doubt that i can find them online. However, my basic argument is logical. How could christians in the 2nd century have based their version of the "old testament" on sources which Talmudic scholars tell us no longer then existed?