Are the Jewish and Christian Scriptures Intact?

[Mililalil XXIV]

Many have wondered about how intact these Writings are. Let us look with due care at the evidence for or against their preservation from antiquity.
The largest Bibles of the Jews and Christians is the Ethiopic. It is in various forms:
open Canon (though, even in this form, there are strict guidelines for use of a Writing);
the wider Canon (though extensive, it has a fixed limit of included Writings);
and the smaller Canon (still larger than the Canons of most Catholic Rites).
We will consider all the writings put forward for Christian or Jewish Scripture Collections. In the process, it will be necessary to discuss why different Bible Canons exist at all, and whether or not this excludes other Writings from bearing Divine Inspiration.
This will also necessitate the investigation into the different sects using and preserving all of these Writings independantly, touching on where each group got their parent manuscripts from before their distint transmission of the Texts under discussion.

[Mililalil XXIV]

The first thing to consider, it seems, would be the Torah, or, as called in the Hellenic (Greek) tongue, the Pentateuch, meaning the "Five Scrolls". The Hebrew word "Torah" means more than "Nomos", Greek for "Law", with which it is represented in Greek translation at times - and, in Biblical use, the translators assigned extra nuances to this new use of the old familiar Greek word.
"Torah" is an all-encompassing Guidance, Which possesses, as a mode of executing Its Goal, a Law. However varying, due to context of application, the concept in Buddhism that comes nearest also sounds like its name is cognate with "Torah", being called "Dharmah". The concept is epitomized in the Psalm called the 22nd Psalm by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, and the 23rd by others. (We will discuss the numbering differences in the proper place). This Psalm shows GOD interacting with HIS Follower as the GOOD SHEPHERD, HIS Staff and HIS Rod serving instrumentally for the purpose.
The 5 Books epitomized as the "Torah" are the most commonly used of all the Scriptures to be surveyed, not to mention their legacy of being the oldest Writings in the modern Jewish Canon.

[rachel]

Welcome Mililailil,(I cannot even say that)

Can you tell me where you are getting all your very absorbing information from?

[Virgil]

This is quite interesting, Mil. I'll be listening attentively.

Welcome to lit net.

[Theshizznigg]

There are also several books that have been left out of the bible, or included in some form. Book of Adam, Book of Enoch, Book of Giants, which have survived in completed or fragmented forms, and all of them have to do with Christianity.

I believe, as those who will atttest to the powers of God, that the bible has survived, countless ages of other writings, I believe that what is Important to God has been saved over the age by his own hand, whether others do or not, and only the information in the bible itself, aside from all other Christian writings is what god truly wants us to know about ourselves, and him.

A website the has these is SacredText.com, just look under Christianity.

[Mililalil XXIV]

This is quite interesting, Mil. I'll be listening attentively.

Welcome to lit net.
Thank you, Virgil.
Because there are so many different threads, I regret any delay in answering or adding comments, but admit that some days I have more time for weighty posts, and on others I have little time at one sitting. But expect more here.
Mil

[cuppajoe_9]

I have never heard of anything that remained intact for 2000 years.

[Mililalil XXIV]

I have never heard of anything that remained intact for 2000 years.
Marriage has been around even longer.

[cuppajoe_9]

Marriage has been around even longer.I would hardly call marriage 'intact'. I doubt that it involved white dresses and throwing of rice thousands of years ago. In any case, marriage is an institution, not a book.

[Mililalil XXIV]

I have never heard of anything that remained intact for 2000 years.
I have. I described proofs that the Torah has been around in the same form long before the birth of CHRIST, if you read earlier in this same post. Wheter a person wants to remember something once already having discovered it or not (for individuality's sake?), does not change a single peculiar fact.

Some have compared Greek and Hebrew legends, and concluded they show one borrowed from the other here and there. If that is so, then consider this:
that for each of the "Greek" versions of things, there is often not an alternative legend corresponding in Greek lore, even though al the Greeks were in constsnt contact with one another. On the other hand, the Northern Israelis often had a different environment than did the Southern Isarelis, yet both had identical versions of many legends, even though separated for centuries prior. In the Maccabean times, the Spartans claimed to have descended from Abraham, like the Jews. Perhaps some of whom others considered Hellenistic were Hebrews in a Greek domain, introducing stories the Greeks borrowed elements from. Nonetheless, the Hebrew Scriptures were recognized by Egyptian heathens as well preserved Books when they were translated into the first Greek translation called the Septuagint. Many second century Greek philosophers and teachers of the Akademy considered the Hebrew Scriptures the best Archives ever, so much so that nthey became not only Christians but Church Fathers in time.

[Gallantry]

This is quite interesting, Mil. I'll be listening attentively.

Welcome to lit net.

Same here, this is a thread worth keeping tabs on.

[Chris Weimer]

I have. I described proofs that the Torah has been around in the same form long before the birth of CHRIST, if you read earlier in this same post. Wheter a person wants to remember something once already having discovered it or not (for individuality's sake?), does not change a single peculiar fact.
Let's first clarify certain ideas thrown here. To begin, there are no proofs in historical studies. In fact, only in logic (and its extension mathematics) are proofs possible. What we have instead is evidence for a certain theory or not. Although certain things can be shown to be a fact, its a butchering of the word proof/prove to use it in this case, regardless of how its commonly used.


Some have compared Greek and Hebrew legends, and concluded they show one borrowed from the other here and there.
You need to be specific on this. "Here and there" says nothing at all.


If that is so, then consider this:
that for each of the "Greek" versions of things, there is often not an alternative legend corresponding in Greek lore, even though al the Greeks were in constsnt contact with one another.
Do you mean that the Greeks had a fairly unified mythology? I agree, for the most part, the major stories were the same, most likely because those stories were spread from one tribe to another. Many inconsistencies were introduced by playwrights, or possibly the playwrights used a different versions. However, we lack much serious literature from the time to make an affirmative answer one way or another, and what we do have is often very late (e.g. Ovid).


On the other hand, the Northern Israelis often had a different environment than did the Southern Isarelis, yet both had identical versions of many legends, even though separated for centuries prior.
You're going to have to specify some examples, because what you're talking about is not clear at all.


In the Maccabean times, the Spartans claimed to have descended from Abraham, like the Jews.
Which Spartans claimed this?


Perhaps some of whom others considered Hellenistic were Hebrews in a Greek domain, introducing stories the Greeks borrowed elements from.
Who? I need names. Just throwing this out means absolutely nothing.


Nonetheless, the Hebrew Scriptures were recognized by Egyptian heathens as well preserved Books when they were translated into the first Greek translation called the Septuagint.
"Heathens"? Are we dropping all pretensions of bias now? I would hope not. It is true that the Egyptians, though actually the Greek rulers in Egypt, made copies of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek for preservation - but they did this not just for the Hebrew scriptures, but many different scriptures far and wide. Moreover, they did it for many different Hebrew writings that weren't included in the canon.


Many second century Greek philosophers and teachers of the Akademy considered the Hebrew Scriptures the best Archives ever, so much so that nthey became not only Christians but Church Fathers in time.
You must be referring to the Greek fathers in the second century common era. Which of the Church Fathers were teachers in the Academy? I presume, since you said "many" that you can name at least five. Good luck.

[cuppajoe_9]

The problem with arguing with Mil is that it takes about an hour to unravel what in the blue blazes he is saying.

[Gawaine]

Mililalil XXIV,

Very interesting subject, I will be watching this one.

One important point to remember, however, is that legends are not necessarily a product of a culture, but can be a product of human existance in general. Two civilizations that did not have any form of contact with one another for many, many thousands of years, seem to have very similar myths. Not all legend is transmitted by diffusion.

The fact that the myths or legends are the same does not necessarily make any difference as to whether these legends survived. Which of course answers the question of the thread itself.

Jung put it best in his works where he mentioned how the legends of cultures seem to be fairly universal; despite some small, technical or cultural adjustments, the stories seemed to be similar across the board. They came from the 'Collective Unconciousness', Jung stated. This seems to make the most sense to me.

[Mililalil XXIV]

Let's first clarify certain ideas thrown here. To begin, there are no proofs in historical studies. In fact, only in logic (and its extension mathematics) are proofs possible. What we have instead is evidence for a certain theory or not. Although certain things can be shown to be a fact, its a butchering of the word proof/prove to use it in this case, regardless of how its commonly used.


You need to be specific on this. "Here and there" says nothing at all.


Do you mean that the Greeks had a fairly unified mythology? I agree, for the most part, the major stories were the same, most likely because those stories were spread from one tribe to another. Many inconsistencies were introduced by playwrights, or possibly the playwrights used a different versions. However, we lack much serious literature from the time to make an affirmative answer one way or another, and what we do have is often very late (e.g. Ovid).


You're going to have to specify some examples, because what you're talking about is not clear at all.


Which Spartans claimed this?


Who? I need names. Just throwing this out means absolutely nothing.


"Heathens"? Are we dropping all pretensions of bias now? I would hope not. It is true that the Egyptians, though actually the Greek rulers in Egypt, made copies of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek for preservation - but they did this not just for the Hebrew scriptures, but many different scriptures far and wide. Moreover, they did it for many different Hebrew writings that weren't included in the canon.


You must be referring to the Greek fathers in the second century common era. Which of the Church Fathers were teachers in the Academy? I presume, since you said "many" that you can name at least five. Good luck.
Before entering into each point, I merely covered those I had in mind in a given order, intending to answer more fully each querry where it arose. The string of points made a particular line of reason. In individual posts I must answer your particulr divisions of that train of thought into lines with each its own commentary. Some I may have to answer in a different thread, possibly in other than the religious section (myths, etc.). I think I'll post links to those places from here.

[Gallantry]

*rubs hands together*....this thread actually has me waiting on it...this is a first.

[Mililalil XXIV]

Let's first clarify certain ideas thrown here. To begin, there are no proofs in historical studies. In fact, only in logic (and its extension mathematics) are proofs possible. What we have instead is evidence for a certain theory or not. Although certain things can be shown to be a fact, its a butchering of the word proof/prove to use it in this case, regardless of how its commonly used.
I shall substantiate my points, Chris, but so, too, must you - for if you lay a charge that alone must suffice to cast a doubt on my words, then, unless your criticism is itself substantiated, it bears no weight.

Let me ask you how many things you can think of proofs for - you do not yet have to describe the proofs, but may simply list the things for which you believe there to be corresponding proofs. Let a standard be set up, if you really have one you expect me to live up to.


You need to be specific on this. "Here and there" says nothing at all.
I have already stated that I displayed a string of related thoughts as preliminary to my detailed treatment of the points in successive order. I will come back to take you right to each thing in the progression of my case.


Do you mean that the Greeks had a fairly unified mythology? I agree, for the most part, the major stories were the same, most likely because those stories were spread from one tribe to another. Many inconsistencies were introduced by playwrights, or possibly the playwrights used a different versions. However, we lack much serious literature from the time to make an affirmative answer one way or another, and what we do have is often very late (e.g. Ovid).
While I love that you aptly said what I also say concerning the lateness of records of Greek and Roman myths, I certainly do not see the Greeks as having that well unified a base of myths, but merely a well shared conglomeration of disparate lores. The "many inconsistencies" you keenly see and mention, in regard to the whole of Greek mythology, were noted in my own observation in this:
that, despite their variety and number, they are often variations of single tales, and, even if the variations themselves are traces of yet other traditions brought into the tradition being discussed, the main bulk of the cycles of these tales has a somewhat static preservation - this said, though, it doesn't diminish the fact that in comparing the fixed forms of Hebrew writings to the Greek mythical cycles, there is much to commend the Hebrew Writings as far more universally attested in static form among Torah possesseing peoples scattered far and wide there there could ever be found for the fixed forms of Greek myths among unified Greek tribes living long in one place together.

Anyways, this best awaits its own thread.



You must be referring to the Greek fathers in the second century common era. Which of the Church Fathers were teachers in the Academy? I presume, since you said "many" that you can name at least five. Good luck.
You're simply not dividing up the terms as I had intended them to be understood:
I in fact listed philosophers first, directly after the adjective "many". I listed "teachers of the Akademy" second as an afterthought about individuals who were more likely thought of as teachers than as philosophers carrying their own school with them.