Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

MrMacSon wrote:

rakovsky wrote: One pagan writer from the era said that the Jews had heightened expectations of a Messiah because of the chronology for his arrival that the prophecies set down. Evidently this was in Daniel 9.

Who was that pagan writer?

I imagine Suetonius is the writer being referenced. Life of Vespasian 4.5:


Josephus says something very similar, but he would not be considered pagan.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

MrMacSon wrote:

rakovsky wrote: One pagan writer from the era said that the Jews had heightened expectations of a Messiah because of the chronology for his arrival that the prophecies set down. Evidently this was in Daniel 9.

I imagine Suetonius is the writer being referenced. Life of Vespasian 4.5:

Percrebuerat Oriente toto vetus et constans opinio esse in fatis ut eo tempore Iudaea profecti rerum potirentur. Id de imperatore Romano, quantum postea eventu paruit, praedictum Iudaei ad se trahentes rebellarunt caesoque praeposito legatum insuper Syriae consularem suppetias ferentem rapta aquila fugaverunt.

There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief that it was fated at that time for men coming from Judea to rule the world. This prediction, referring to the emperor of Rome, as afterwards appeared from the event, the people of Judea took to themselves; accordingly they revolted and, after killing their governor, they routed the consular ruler of Syria as well, when he came to the rescue, and took one of his eagles.

Josephus says something very similar, but he would not be considered pagan.

Yes, I think it was Suetonius
I don't clearly remember which, but the part in red looks familiar from what I remember.

So the plain reading is:
1. Moses asks to "make atonement for their sin"
2. Moses gave God an option: EITHER A) forgive their sin OR B) God still holds the sins against them and blots Moses out. If Moses gets blotted out, it means he undergoes punishment. And what is the punishment for in this context? The sins of the people.
3. God decides: Whoever sins gets blotted out, the angel will PROTECT Moses (not blot him out), and "NEVERTHELESS", God will still punish the Israelites for their own sins.
That means that God did not choose option A OR choose option B. It means that God REJECTED Moses' offer to make "atonement for their sin."

So here I have just sincerely given for you as straightforward, plain, direct, and neutral a reading for you as I can. Moses asked to make atonement for their sins.
Not only that, but to me, it's quite obvious that my reading is the correct one

Benson Commentary:
Exodus 32:32. If thou wilt forgive their sin — if not — If the decree be gone forth, and there is no remedy but they must be ruined; blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written — Termed the book of the living, Psalm 69:28; and alluded to Isaiah 4:3, where the prophet speaks of being written among the living in Jerusalem. He evidently means, “Let me die rather than live to see the evils that are coming upon them, if thou shalt think fit to punish them as they deserve: if they must perish, let me perish with them.” God, it must be observed, is here represented after the manner of men, as having all the names of the living enrolled in a book, to signify his particular care and inspection of the sons of men, see Psalm 56:8. So, to blot out of the book of life, or of the living, is to cut one off from the land of the living, equivalent to Moses’s expression, (Numbers 11:15,) If thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray thee, out of hand. And thus it is understood by the Hebrew doctors. Compare Deuteronomy 25:6; Psalm 87:6; and Ezekiel 13:9. In pursuance of the same allusion, God is represented as enrolling the citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, or the members of his true church, in a book by themselves.


now let me see. in an animal sacrifice , the persons lives and the sacrificed item dies.
on the other hand, as we can see, the commentator says that moses wants to perish with the sinners.
this cannot be viewed as an asham, you made that up.

rakovsky wrote:

• One pagan writer from the era said that the Jews had heightened expectations of a Messiah because of the chronology for his arrival that the prophecies set down. Evidently this was in Daniel 9.

MrMacSon wrote:

• Who was that pagan writer?

rakovsky wrote: Mr Macson.

I think it was non-pagan Josephus, like where he talks about Vespasian as being the Messiah. The writer mentioned the timing of the prophecies in explaining why the Jewish people were earnestly expecting a Messiah in that period, and were causing troubles for Rome. See page 162 here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=_ugjt ... el&f=false

The other date-calculated Jewish End Times prophecy that comes to mind is the theory that the history of the world was to be divided into millenial periods. It's not in the Bible but one of the Jewish traditions outside of the Bible written down after the 1st century AD ....

Ben C. Smith wrote:
I imagine Suetonius is the writer being referenced. Life of Vespasian 4.5:

Percrebuerat Oriente toto vetus et constans opinio esse in fatis ut eo tempore Iudaea profecti rerum potirentur. Id de imperatore Romano, quantum postea eventu paruit, praedictum Iudaei ad se trahentes rebellarunt caesoque praeposito legatum insuper Syriae consularem suppetias ferentem rapta aquila fugaverunt.

There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief that it was fated at that time for men coming from Judea to rule the world. This prediction, referring to the emperor of Rome, as afterwards appeared from the event, the people of Judea took to themselves; accordingly they revolted and, after killing their governor, they routed the consular ruler of Syria as well, when he came to the rescue, and took one of his eagles.

Josephus says something very similar, but he would not be considered pagan.

Thank you, gentlemen.

theterminator wrote:Benson Commentary:
Exodus 32:32. If thou wilt forgive their sin — if not — If the decree be gone forth, and there is no remedy but they must be ruined; blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written — Termed the book of the living, Psalm 69:28; and alluded to Isaiah 4:3, where the prophet speaks of being written among the living in Jerusalem. He evidently means, “Let me die rather than live to see the evils that are coming upon them, if thou shalt think fit to punish them as they deserve: if they must perish, let me perish with them.” God, it must be observed, is here represented after the manner of men, as having all the names of the living enrolled in a book, to signify his particular care and inspection of the sons of men, see Psalm 56:8. So, to blot out of the book of life, or of the living, is to cut one off from the land of the living, equivalent to Moses’s expression, (Numbers 11:15,) If thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray thee, out of hand. And thus it is understood by the Hebrew doctors. Compare Deuteronomy 25:6; Psalm 87:6; and Ezekiel 13:9. In pursuance of the same allusion, God is represented as enrolling the citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, or the members of his true church, in a book by themselves.


now let me see. in an animal sacrifice , the persons lives and the sacrificed item dies.
on the other hand, as we can see, the commentator says that moses wants to perish with the sinners.
this cannot be viewed as an asham, you made that up.

Joseph Benson - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Benson
Joseph Benson (1749–1821) was an early English Methodist minister,

Benson was a Methodist non-Jewish non-Catholic non-Lutheran minister writing his own ideas c.3000+ years after the text was written.
Do you consider him a trustworthy commentator on the scriptures?
I don't consider him a strong authority.

Nowhere does it say "if they must perish, let me perish with them". That is just what Benson is thinking up.
That is not how an "atonement for another" works. Since Moses says in verse 30 he wants to be an atonement for another, I don't agree with Benson.

Islam teaches that Jesus is al Masih, had a virgin birth, and it was interesting for me to read the Muslim writer say that Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah.
In case you are still relying on Redit and Word Reference Forums, would you rely on those resources to decide if Jesus is the Messiah or had a virgin birth or is the Servant of Isaiah 53?

Question for you:
What does it mean for Jesus to be "al-Masih"?

theterminator wrote:

So the plain reading is:
1. Moses asks to "make atonement for their sin"
2. Moses gave God an option: EITHER A) forgive their sin OR B) God still holds the sins against them and blots Moses out. If Moses gets blotted out, it means he undergoes punishment. And what is the punishment for in this context? The sins of the people.
3. God decides: Whoever sins gets blotted out, the angel will PROTECT Moses (not blot him out), and "NEVERTHELESS", God will still punish the Israelites for their own sins.
That means that God did not choose option A OR choose option B. It means that God REJECTED Moses' offer to make "atonement for their sin."

So here I have just sincerely given for you as straightforward, plain, direct, and neutral a reading for you as I can. Moses asked to make atonement for their sins.
Not only that, but to me, it's quite obvious that my reading is the correct one

Benson Commentary:
Exodus 32:32. If thou wilt forgive their sin — if not — If the decree be gone forth, and there is no remedy but they must be ruined; blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written — Termed the book of the living, Psalm 69:28; and alluded to Isaiah 4:3, where the prophet speaks of being written among the living in Jerusalem. He evidently means, “Let me die rather than live to see the evils that are coming upon them, if thou shalt think fit to punish them as they deserve: if they must perish, let me perish with them.” God, it must be observed, is here represented after the manner of men, as having all the names of the living enrolled in a book, to signify his particular care and inspection of the sons of men, see Psalm 56:8. So, to blot out of the book of life, or of the living, is to cut one off from the land of the living, equivalent to Moses’s expression, (Numbers 11:15,) If thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray thee, out of hand. And thus it is understood by the Hebrew doctors. Compare Deuteronomy 25:6; Psalm 87:6; and Ezekiel 13:9. In pursuance of the same allusion, God is represented as enrolling the citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, or the members of his true church, in a book by themselves.


now let me see. in an animal sacrifice , the persons lives and the sacrificed item dies.
on the other hand, as we can see, the commentator says that moses wants to perish with the sinners.
this cannot be viewed as an asham, you made that up.

Where did you find that citation?

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/exodus/32.htm
Benson Commentary
Exodus 32:32

In short, Moses here expresses his vehement zeal for God’s glory, and love to his people, signifying that the very thought of their destruction, and the dishonour that would thereby come upon God, was so intolerable to him, that he rather wished, if it were possible, that God would accept of him as a sacrifice in their stead, and by his destruction prevent so great a mischief

iskander wrote:

theterminator wrote:

So the plain reading is:
1. Moses asks to "make atonement for their sin"
2. Moses gave God an option: EITHER A) forgive their sin OR B) God still holds the sins against them and blots Moses out. If Moses gets blotted out, it means he undergoes punishment. And what is the punishment for in this context? The sins of the people.
3. God decides: Whoever sins gets blotted out, the angel will PROTECT Moses (not blot him out), and "NEVERTHELESS", God will still punish the Israelites for their own sins.
That means that God did not choose option A OR choose option B. It means that God REJECTED Moses' offer to make "atonement for their sin."

So here I have just sincerely given for you as straightforward, plain, direct, and neutral a reading for you as I can. Moses asked to make atonement for their sins.
Not only that, but to me, it's quite obvious that my reading is the correct one

Benson Commentary:
Exodus 32:32. If thou wilt forgive their sin — if not — If the decree be gone forth, and there is no remedy but they must be ruined; blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written — Termed the book of the living, Psalm 69:28; and alluded to Isaiah 4:3, where the prophet speaks of being written among the living in Jerusalem. He evidently means, “Let me die rather than live to see the evils that are coming upon them, if thou shalt think fit to punish them as they deserve: if they must perish, let me perish with them.” God, it must be observed, is here represented after the manner of men, as having all the names of the living enrolled in a book, to signify his particular care and inspection of the sons of men, see Psalm 56:8. So, to blot out of the book of life, or of the living, is to cut one off from the land of the living, equivalent to Moses’s expression, (Numbers 11:15,) If thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray thee, out of hand. And thus it is understood by the Hebrew doctors. Compare Deuteronomy 25:6; Psalm 87:6; and Ezekiel 13:9. In pursuance of the same allusion, God is represented as enrolling the citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, or the members of his true church, in a book by themselves.


now let me see. in an animal sacrifice , the persons lives and the sacrificed item dies.
on the other hand, as we can see, the commentator says that moses wants to perish with the sinners.
this cannot be viewed as an asham, you made that up.

Where did you find that citation?

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/exodus/32.htm
Benson Commentary
Exodus 32:32

In short, Moses here expresses his vehement zeal for God’s glory, and love to his people, signifying that the very thought of their destruction, and the dishonour that would thereby come upon God, was so intolerable to him, that he rather wished, if it were possible, that God would accept of him as a sacrifice in their stead, and by his destruction prevent so great a mischief

So Benson is saying there in red that Moses wants to be an atoning sacrifice.

But to answer your question, see and type in the words in a word search in the page
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/exodus/32-32.htm

For these words:

Termed the book of the living, Psalm 69:28; and alluded to Isaiah 4:3, where the prophet speaks of being written among the living in Jerusalem. He evidently means, “Let me die rather than live to see the evils that are coming upon them, if thou shalt think fit to punish them as they deserve: if they must perish, let me perish with them.”

Yes , I found these words , but the conclusion of Benson is that Moses is bargaining with God . It must have been a confusing time for both Moses and God!

semiopen wrote:Anyway the plain meaning of the text seems to say the whole world, but I have an older man's caution.

I wonder if a younger man's caution is up to the job

Isaiah 54:9-10
For this is the waters of Noah to Me

And all flesh will not be exterminated again by the waters of the flood. For this is as the waters of Noah to Me... is understood by some to indicate that Noah could have spared the sinful generation.

The attitude of Noah is contrasted with the response of Moses who was prepared to give up his life rather than allow the nation of Israel to be destroyed as a result of the sin of the golden calf.

The interpretation of the flood waters seems to require a 'global' destruction of life, but I will accept an older man's caution

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=431&start=30#p11408

JW:
The official book that covers the Nahal-Hever fragments is Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XXXVIII by James Charlesworth, Hannah Cotton, and Peter Flint. In my opinion Flint is primarily an advocate for Christian readings and secondarily a Paleographer so Skeptics should keep that in mind. Starting on page 143 there are relevant comments for the physically located related fragments that include the offending one:

As is characteristic of the late Herodian period, waw and yod are usually distinguished, with waw generally longer than yod.

It's generally agreed that waws and yods were not distinguishable in the previous orthographic period and that in the late Herodian period generally waws were slightly longer.

5/6HevPsalms contains very few variant readings against ML [Leningrad Codex]

The Leningrad Codex of course has "like a lion". More evidence for "like a lion".

Although the photograph of frg. 9 in PAM 42.190 of frg. 9 (containing Ps. 22:15-21) is very faded, most of the letters are clearly identifiable under magnification.

Apologetics. The photograph is very faded but the fragment is not.

L. 12 (22:17) כָּאֲרִוּ With waw and yod clearly distinguishable in this hand (see introductory notes, above), this important variant reading is assured.

spin and I have done this before but we will see from looking at the offending fragment that Vavs and Yods are not clearly distinguishable, especially when they are the final letter which is the issue at hand.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

JoeWallack wrote:JW:
The official book that covers the Nahal-Hever fragments is Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XXXVIII by James Charlesworth, Hannah Cotton, and Peter Flint. In my opinion Flint is primarily an advocate for Christian readings and secondarily a Paleographer so Skeptics should keep that in mind. Starting on page 143 there are relevant comments for the physically located related fragments that include the offending one:

As is characteristic of the late Herodian period, waw and yod are usually distinguished, with waw generally longer than yod.

It's generally agreed that waws and yods were not distinguishable in the previous orthographic period and that in the late Herodian period generally waws were slightly longer.

Isn't NH considered late Herodian?

5/6HevPsalms contains very few variant readings against ML [Leningrad Codex]

The Leningrad Codex of course has "like a lion". More evidence for "like a lion".

Some Masoretic texts have Kaaru and Kru as variants from the ML. We need to consider how those Masoretic texts differ from the NH Psalms as variant readings. I can guess that they don't differ more than ML does.

Although the photograph of frg. 9 ... is very faded, most of the letters are clearly identifiable under magnification.

The photograph is very faded but the fragment is not.

Second yod in the word after Kaaru, yod delta yod, is not clear to me, only my guess would be that it's long. But it's still not as long as the waw in Kaaru. I want to see what percent of the time ending yods are drawn long in NH.

L. 12 (22:17) כָּאֲרִוּ With waw and yod clearly distinguishable in this hand, this important variant reading is assured.

we will see from looking at the offending fragment that Vavs and Yods are not clearly distinguishable, especially when they are the final letter which is the issue at hand.

I very much want to see if you can show what percent of the ending yods are drawn as long as the ending waws.

If "waw and yod are usually distinguished, with waw generally longer than yod" in the endings, it looks like it probably has Kaaru, due to the extra long waw at the end.

Regards.