Hebrew Bible older than Aleppo Codex

Another article and video:
https://religionunplugged.com/news/...rew-bible-estimated-to-fetch-up-to-50-million

The Codex Sassoon is scheduled to go on auction on May 16th, and before that date is one tour in major cities. The Codex is missing 15 chapters, including the beginning 10 chapters of Genesis -- which suggests to me that perhaps among the missing pages was an introductory page that identified the scribe and the date and maybe commented on his source material.
 
Another article and video:
https://religionunplugged.com/news/...rew-bible-estimated-to-fetch-up-to-50-million

The Codex Sassoon is scheduled to go on auction on May 16th, and before that date is one tour in major cities. The Codex is missing 15 chapters, including the beginning 10 chapters of Genesis -- which suggests to me that perhaps among the missing pages was an introductory page that identified the scribe and the date and maybe commented on his source material.

Can you explain how the missing 10 chapters indicate an introductory page?
 
The missing pages include the beginning pages of the book, so I would assume that, among the missing pages, was a title page or introductory page.
 
The missing pages include the beginning pages of the book, so I would assume that, among the missing pages, was a title page or introductory page.
Is this common practice among ancient Hebrew Scriptures?

If it did, then it an induction of a late reproduction.

When you have things missing, I don't understand the desire to speculate.
 
Books generally have a leading page to identify them. The Codex Sassoon is not "among ancient Hebrew Scriptures" but seems to be early Medieval.

If it did, then it an induction of a late reproduction.
I have no idea what this sentence means.
 
Books generally have a leading page to identify them. The Codex Sassoon is not "among ancient Hebrew Scriptures" but seems to be early Medieval.

If it did, then it an induction of a late reproduction.
I have no idea what this sentence means.

My mistake "indication"....
 
The Codex Sassoon was almost certainly a reproduction of an earlier exemplar, as it dates from (approx.) 10th century CE/AD. I had presumed there had once been a leading page that identified the scribe, and possibly also the date and the source manuscript; this is a reasonable presumption. Absent further details about the Codex (such as an appendix page at the end - as is found in the Leningrad Codex from a century later), these important details may be lost forever.
 
The Codex Sassoon was almost certainly a reproduction of an earlier exemplar, as it dates from (approx.) 10th century CE/AD. I had presumed there had once been a leading page that identified the scribe, and possibly also the date and the source manuscript; this is a reasonable presumption. Absent further details about the Codex (such as an appendix page at the end - as is found in the Leningrad Codex from a century later), these important details may be lost forever.

Why is it a reasonable assumption? You're making statement not based upon facts of any sort. This is becoming worse that the silliness Avery uses when he appeals to "exemplars" for his KJVO position.

Is it far to say that you're a Hebrew Onlyist?

It amazes me how people make 95 percent arguments for the NT as a whole and then fall back to 20 to 30 percent matches in "earlier exemplars" for "Hebrew" pedigrees.....

Can you please give something that would even come close to resembling evidence?

I realized this nonsense decades ago. It is one of the reasons I abandoned the KJVO position as a young Christian myself. The extant evidence for the Greek OT is overwhelming and yet..... HERE WE ARE..... Marveling at a 10 century manuscript.....

I must admit. This type of mentality offends my sensibilities. I don't expect you really to provide any evidence. There is none. All you're going to do is speculate and pretend there value in pretending this is anything other that what it actually is. A huge "nothing burger".
 
The Old Testament, or Covenant was originally written in Hebrew. The Septuagints, plural, were translated from Hebrew Manuscripts no longer existing. Sometimes there was a wrong reading, or interpretation of not written vowels making for an error. Sometimes the Hebrew has the right reading. Sometimes the LXX.

Sometimes some LXX manuscripts agree with some Hebrew manuscripts against other LXX manuscripts and a few Hebrew ones. We need all witnesses for Old Testament Textual Criticism.
 
C.D. Ginsburg's Critical Hebrew Bible (TBS 1894, and then expanded for B&FBS ca. 1915) has an apparatus that, among other things, casts the significant variants from the LXX, the Peshetta, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Vulgate into Hebrew. This makes it obvious that in many instances the variant arises from one letter change from the corresponding word in the Hebrew text (Ginsburg used the Second Rabbinic Bible, 1525, as his main Hebrew text); sometimes the variant seems more appropriate than what has come down in the Massoretic text (and sometimes not).

Ginsburg's edition is still on the market; I bought mine at the HQ of the American Bible Society.
 
Last edited:
The Old Testament, or Covenant was originally written in Hebrew. The Septuagints, plural, were translated from Hebrew Manuscripts no longer existing. Sometimes there was a wrong reading, or interpretation of not written vowels making for an error. Sometimes the Hebrew has the right reading. Sometimes the LXX.

Sometimes some LXX manuscripts agree with some Hebrew manuscripts against other LXX manuscripts and a few Hebrew ones. We need all witnesses for Old Testament Textual Criticism.
1. What version of Hebrew?

2. Vowels? Give an example of superior text from any extant Hebrew text and please restrict your response to the block Hebrew script. After all, that is what we are talking here with those fabricated "vowels". Tell me, do you believe those Hebrew that translated the LXX didn't know Hebrew and made such mistakes?

3. There are only a handful of block script Hebrew sources that are superior to our extant LXX references?

4. Have you stopped using the name of Jesus because of Greek and Latin influence?

5. The early church didn't need the MT. In fact, it wasn't till over a century later that the MT began to displace the LXX. I wonder why?
 
Last edited:
C.D. Ginsburg's Critical Hebrew Bible (TBS 1894, and then expanded for B&FBS ca. 1915) has an apparatus that, among other things, casts the significant variants from the LXX, the Peshetta, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Vulgate into Hebrew. This makes it obvious that in many instances the variant arises from one letter change from the corresponding word in the Hebrew text (Ginsburg used the Second Rabbinic Bible, 1525, as his main Hebrew text); sometimes the variant seems more appropriate than what has come down in the Massoretic text (and sometimes not).

Ginsburg's edition is still on the market; I bought mine at the HQ of the American Bible Society.
1. Still no evidence. Since you named your reference, prove the superiority of the MT. I've already given you references you've ignored.

2. Can you answer my question. Are you a Hebrew Onlyist?

3. Are you a Christian?
 
Last edited:
1. What version of Hebrew?

2. Vowels? Give an example of superior text from any extant Hebrew text and please restrict your response to the block Hebrew script. After all, that is what we are talking here with those fabricated "vowels". Tell me, do you believe those Hebrew that translated the LXX didn't know Hebrew and made such mistakes?

Perhaps you should read a book on Old Testament Textual Criticism. They will explain it well. It's happened again and again and again.

3. There are only a handful of block script Hebrew sources that are superior to our extant LXX references?

4. Have you stopped using the name of Jesus because of Greek and Latin influence?

5. The early church didn't need the MT. In fact, it wasn't till over a century later that the MT began to displace the LXX. I wonder why?
 
Perhaps you should read a book on Old Testament Textual Criticism. They will explain it well.

A very thorough introduction on OT TC is the classic: Christian D[avid] Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (London, TBS, 1897). The edition being introduced was also published by the TBS in 1894. Both books are still available (check Amazon), and, despite now being dated, are virtual necessities for anyone serious about studying the history of the text of the OT.

Also: Ernst Wurthwein, The Text of the Old Testament, 3rd edition, rev. and expanded by Alexander A. Fischer (Eerdmans, 2014). This is the newest edition of a very necessary book which discusses both the Hebrew and the other language versions of the OT, and their various manuscripts.

Also: Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed, rev and expanded (Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 2012). This is the current textbook and very detailed and thoroughj, perhaps a bit too challenging for some.
 
Perhaps you should read a book on Old Testament Textual Criticism. They will explain it well. It's happened again and again and again.

So you've taken to insulting me instead of providing answers?

Do you want me to read a book in particular or are you recommending "ANY BOOK" because you're too informed to actually waste your time answering me?

I've spent many years studying this issue. I don't need you to recommend books to me. I expect people that have position to present them instead of letting others speak for them....
 
Last edited:
A very thorough introduction on OT TC is the classic: Christian D[avid] Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (London, TBS, 1897). The edition being introduced was also published by the TBS in 1894. Both books are still available (check Amazon), and, despite now being dated, are virtual necessities for anyone serious about studying the history of the text of the OT.

Also: Ernst Wurthwein, The Text of the Old Testament, 3rd edition, rev. and expanded by Alexander A. Fischer (Eerdmans, 2014). This is the newest edition of a very necessary book which discusses both the Hebrew and the other language versions of the OT, and their various manuscripts.

Also: Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed, rev and expanded (Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 2012). This is the current textbook and very detailed and thoroughj, perhaps a bit too challenging for some.

"Too challenging"?

Do you really know Emanuel Tov? The same person that wrote.....

"The dislike of the LXX by the Jews became stronger when the Greek writings of early Christianity (the "New Testament") based themselves, quite naturally, on the LXX"

"http://www.emanueltov.info/docs/varia/202.lxx.intro.short.varia.pdf?v=1.0".....

I asked if you were a Christian because I am almost certain we've debated before on the topic of Judaism. I seem to remember your arrogance when challenged on your affinity for rejecting Jesus Christ.

Do you still hate Jesus Christ?

If you don't, then I don't understand your reluctance to answer simple questions concerning your Master.

There is a reason Tov holds the position he holds. Make Tov's position your own and join this discussion instead of "dropping insults"....
 
Emanuel Tov....

To be clear so the reader understands just what they're doing when they use Emanuel Tov as a source of information. Emanuel Tov is not a textual critic. He is a "Higher Critic". He uses "Textual Criticism" as a means to an end. His goal is to present a position favorable to his world view.

Throughout his writing you will find appeals such as I've referenced above to a fabricated NT based upon the writings from the LXX. That is his position. He doesn't believe the that NT writers actually recorded, under Inspiration, the very words of what Jesus Christ spoke. No......

He actually believes that the NT was a late collections of writings by Christians that quoted the LXX. That is his excuse as to why the NT so closely resembles the extant LXX witness........

So when you promote such people as this, be sure to make it clear that you're "championing" that same position.
 
AHHHH; as Paul said
"Faith commeth by hearing
and hearing by the word of God
"

No word of God === No Faith

Romans 3:1​
What advantage then hath the Jew?
or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly,
because that unto them were committed
the oracles of God.​

The sower soweth the word.

15 And these are they by
the way side,

where the word is sown;
but when they have heard,
Satan cometh immediately,
and taketh away the word

that was sown in their hearts.

And he said unto them,
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
-------------But-----------
Take heed what ye hear:
with what measure ye mete,
it shall be measured to you:

and unto you that hear shall more be given.

25 For he that hath, to him shall be given:
---------But-----
and he that hath not
,

Satan cometh immediately,
and taketh away the word
that was sown in their hearts.​

from him shall be taken
even that which he hath
.
 
So you've taken to insulting me instead of providing answers?

Do you want me to read a book in particular or are you recommending "ANY BOOK" because you're too informed to actually waste your time answering me?

I've spent many years studying this issue. I don't need you to recommend books to me. I expect people that have position to present them instead of letting others speak for them....
Textual Criticism of the Old Testament is important. You seem to lack any real knowledge of the subject. I wasn't trying to insult you at all. That being said I have only read two books on the subject, I study Textual Criticism of the New Testament much more than the Old. So while I am behind, even Neglecting Old Testament Textual Criticism, I have read enough to know that it is needed there as well.
 
Back
Top