3 ms·
> 2. It is well known that the bible was subject to extensive editing prior to its official canonization, which makes it somewhat questionable as a historical d
by Casseres 8y ago
> 2. It is well known that the bible was subject to extensive editing prior to its official canonization, which makes it somewhat questionable as a historical document.
I've never heard this claim before.
The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that written copies made through the centuries were accurate copies.
The only editorialization of the Bible was church councils deciding which books/letters to include in the Bible, not to edit them.
- betterunix2 8y agoThe Gospels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis This all would have happened before the various councils decided what would be considered canonical, and the councils themselves probably had no idea that it had happened. As for the dead sea scrolls, all it shows is that the final forms of the books in the Hebrew bible and related extrabiblical works existed prior to the canonization. It is pretty clear that the Hebrew bible was edited in prior centuries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah#Authorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah#Authorship etc.