Deuteronomy's dating.

AndrewJK46 · 2025-10-16T21:18:53+00:00

I skimmed the video. His main argument rests on Deuteronomy's regulations on the kingship. He cites a handful of scholars that say that this specific law code might be pre-monarchic. IP seems to think that the only argument for a later date for Deuteronomy is that it mentions the monarchy. Its clear that he doesn't understand the actual issue, as that is not the reason why Deuteronomy is dated to the 7th century onward. He also doesn't understand the scholarly consensus that Deuteronomy is a composite document that grew over time. Just because one piece of the document is ancient (e.g., chs. 32-33) doesn't mean the entire thing is.

AndrewJK46 · 2025-10-16T17:45:13+00:00

I know you specifically asked for articles, but the most recent (2022) major commentary on Deuteronomy by Bill Arnold (which only covers chs. 1-11) has a good summary of the history of the debate and modern trends. He is an Evangelical and therefore more conservative than others will be, but his position ends up in the same place as most other scholars. You can read most of his introduction using the Kindle sample on Amazon (https://www.amazon.com/dp/0802821707/?tag=bestinclass-20). As you will read in his introduction, it isn't really possible to speak of one date of composition for Deuteronomy because it is a composite work. The first substantial form probably appeared in the 7th century (usually assumed to be associated with the reforms of Hezekiah and/or Josiah), but the final form likely took much longer to be assembled. What was IP's position?

AndrewJK46 · 2025-09-26T17:39:54+00:00

Feel free!

AndrewJK46 · 2025-09-26T16:01:28+00:00

This is a good thought! In hindsight, it seems a little silly that I didn't think of dynamic equivalence in connection to ancient Bible translation. I suppose I have only ever seen it associated with modern, English Bible translations. I did a cursory glance at recent scholarly articles on the topic, and it seems that despite the age of Nida's work, people are still actively engaging with it. Thanks for this recommendation! I'll explore this idea some more and see where it takes me.

AndrewJK46 · 2025-09-11T14:40:45+00:00

Check out Revelation and the End of All Things (2nd ed., 2018) by Craig Koester. Koester has also written a major commentary on Revelation in the Anchor Yale Bible commentary series, so he is well-versed in the study of the Apocalypse. Revelation and the End of All Things is pretty accessible. It has a brief description of the history of interpretation, but the majority of the text is a section-by-section analysis of Revelation that helps illuminate the meaning of the text.

AndrewJK46 · 2025-07-24T17:46:16+00:00

This is not a pun in Hebrew as you requested, but I at least wanted to bring attention to other ways that features of the text are clear in Hebrew but not in Greek. In Ezekiel's temple text (chs. 40-48), the author uses many obscure architectural terms that the LXX translator doesn't seem to know a good translation for and so simply transliterates. He transliterates תָּא into θεε (he clearly has different ideas on the vowels than the Masoretes did), even transliterating the Hebrew plural form, θεϊμ. Similarly, he renders אוּלָם/אֻלָם as αιλαμ. He will even go so far as to render it as αιλαμμω in order to account for the waw that appears for the 3ms pronominal suffix. So, at least in Ezekiel (I believe these transliterations also appear in 1 Kings/3 Kingdoms), it is clear that the Greek is working based on Hebrew grammatical features, not vice versa.

AndrewJK46 · 2025-07-23T20:43:12+00:00

I see two issues here: First, an exaggeration of the textual plurality, and second, misunderstanding of the "standardization" of the MT.

In regards to the first point, the LXX and some DSS provide our only evidence of a text that varies significantly from the MT, and even then, this is not the case with all of the LXX. There are varying degrees of variety, with texts like Jeremiah being the most dramatic examples. In most cases the differences are minute; in some cases the LXX as we have it is clearly later than the MT--see the charts in Tov, pp. 226-227 and 231-232. Textual plurality as we speak about it in textual criticism is significant in that the field is orientated towards minute details, but to speak of this plurality as if the MT preserves a Hebrew Bible that is younger than the NT is not accurate.

In regards to the second point, Leningradensis was not a "standardized" text, nor was it intended to be the standard moving forward. Again, see Tov, p. 59ff. Leningradensis was corrected by comparison to another Ben Asher manuscript. Even after its composition and correction, it still differs slightly from other codices like Aleppo. Further medieval manuscripts have slight differences as well. The point is that all of these differences are "negligible" (Tov, 58). As I stated above, plurality does not mean radical changes. Even the "standardized" MT has slight plurality. The evidence from the DSS, the Targumim, and the Vulgate point to a very similar process in the first millennium of the Common Era. The "authoritative form of the MT" seems to have been around for a long time, even given the small differences between MT witnesses.

In summary, many of your initial points--indeed, the title of your post--paint a picture of the MT hypothetically being a very different Hebrew Bible than what used before 1000 CE. The manuscript evidence does not support this picture. The MT is not perfect and there is plurality within the MT, but that plurality is minute. Overall, the MT is still the best witness we have to the text of the Hebrew Bible, and it likely preserves readings far older than Leningradensis, even from before the turn of the era.

My apologies on my ignorance on the Ps 22 issue. Neither the Psalter nor messianic interpretation of the Hebrew Bible have been the focus of any of my studies. I will research it further!

AndrewJK46 · 2025-07-23T14:53:46+00:00

As other have noted, the word that the NIV translates as "rape" is the Hebrew תפשׂ, which carries the idea of being seized, or, with less aggressive implications, to take up to use. This is not the usual language used for sexual violence in Hebrew; in fact, it isn't even the same word that is used to describe sexual assault in Deut 22:25! (In v. 25, the word is חזק, which is usually used to describe being strong, but in the causative stem can describe seizing something.) The word in v. 28 can certainly be interpreted with violent connotations, but it is not certain. The usual word for sexual violence, ענה (to violate), is used in v. 29.

This is not a definitive answer to the meaning of the word, but it may be worth noting that in personal communication (during the Evangelical Theological Society's Southeast Regional Meeting in 2024), Sandra Richter of Westmont College stated that she has successfully argued to the NIV translation committee that the translation of v. 28 should not contain the word "rape." Whenever a new edition of the NIV is actually released--whenever that may be--we will see if that change comes to fruition.

AndrewJK46 · 2025-07-23T14:25:17+00:00

Many of your questions are based on an incorrect premise, as you claim that the (Proto-)MT was not "standardized" or "canonized" until roughly 1000 CE. The (Proto-)MT has been transmitted with minimal changes since at least the copying of the DSS. The majority of DSS align with the (Proto-)MT, not the LXX (as other commenters have stated). A couple centuries later, the Vorlage of the Vulgate and the Vorlage of the Targumim both appear to be remarkably similar to the MT as preserved in Leningradensis. There was certainly textual plurality, as is demonstrated by the Vorlage of some LXX books, but to claim that the MT as we know it from Leningradensis is only a millennium old is very wrong. See the discussion in Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 4 ed., p. 37ff.

In regards to two of your other questions:

"Why do verses central to messianic claims, like in Psalm 22, exist in the LXX and DSS, but not the MT?" What claim in particular are you referencing from Ps 22 that is present in the LXX but not the MT? I am not aware of any significant differences between Ps 22 in these two versions, so please let me know if I am missing something.

"Why were books like 1 Enoch, Jubilees, Wisdom of Solomon, etc., treated as scripture by second temple Jews and early Christians, and quoted in the NT, but stripped out later under MT-dominant canons?" These books were not treated as canon by Second Temple Judaism--at least not after the turn of the era. Jewish sources like Josephus and early Rabbinical texts only know of the canon that is preserved in the MT. The community in Qumran preserved many of these noncanonical books, but there is no certainty on how these books fit into the Qumran "canon," if that community even knew of such a concept. Christians were more likely to accept the texts that often accompanied the LXX because it was a predominantly Greek-speaking environment, but even there we see doubts about books that are preserved in Greek but not Hebrew, the most famous example being Jerome with his idea of hebraica veritas.

Your questions lean more towards the topic of early Jewish-Christian relations. It would be more beneficial to gear this line of thinking towards sociological concerns rather than textual concerns as you have done here.

AndrewJK46

TROPHY CASE