Morality of the Old Testament

[DavidSMoore]

Everyone who cites the bible picks, chooses,
interprets to the meaning that suits them.

The Catholic Church has provided the Catholic Catechism to prevent precisely that. The whole point of the Catechism is that the Pope and the Church's myriad scholars have studied and researched and interpreted every passage in the Bible-- both Old and New Testaments-- and they have laid before the Church's followers its proper and true interpretation. So all you have to do is read the Catechism to know what is true. You don't have to learn ancient Hebrew and Greek, you don't have to spend decades learning about the cultural and historical milieu in which the Bible's many documents were written. All that work has already been done for you.

Martin Luther rebelled against that hierarchical structure and insisted that all Christians have both the right and the responsibility to read and interpret the Bible in their own way. That's why he provided the first German translation of the Bible-- to enable people of his homeland to read and study the Bible in their native language.

Those are two different extremes along a spectrum of how the Bible should be understood. My objection to @Elihoenai's remark is not that he cited passages from the Bible, but that he refused to even consider the passages that I cited from the Bible that, in my opinion, counter his interpretation. I think we should feel free to openly discuss any and all passages in the Bible, not just those that are the favorites of any one individual or group.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Please provide any and mean amy text from the Pentateuch that can be dated before 600 BCE.

You try too hard. The resulting dogmatism compromises your point (when one can be discerned).

In any event, you ask for "any and mean amy text from the Pentateuch that can be dated before 600 BCE." [emphasis added - JS]:

The Song of the Sea is noted for its archaic language. It is written in a style of Hebrew much older than that of the rest of Exodus. A number of scholars consider it the oldest surviving text describing the Exodus, dating to the pre-monarchic period.[3] An alternative is that it was deliberately written in an archaic style, a known literary device.[4] As such, proposed dates for its composition range from the 13th to the 5th century BCE.[5] [source]​

​

And please be careful. I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself moving the goalposts.

 

[DavidSMoore]

As far as the view of slavery in the NT it is apparent that Torah regulation and standards of slavery of Foreigners and Indentured servatude was still accepted.

And let's not forget this passage from the story of the Passion:

Suddenly one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
(Matthew 26:51, NRSVue)

So the Jewish priest who was among those who arrested Jesus had a slave. That is, slavery was practiced among the Jews in the time of Jesus. At least according to this passage.

 

[shunyadragon]

In the Torah slavery of foreigners and indentured servitude was accepted and regulated.

A comprehensive references detailing the Biblical beliefs in th emorality and ethics of slavery:

The Bible and slavery - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Bible contains many references to slavery, which was a common practice in antiquity. Biblical texts outline sources and the legal status of slaves, economic roles of slavery, types of slavery, and debt slavery, which thoroughly explain the institution of slavery in Israel in antiquity.[1] The Bible stipulates the treatment of slaves, especially in the Old Testament.[2][3][4] There are also references to slavery in the New Testament.[5][6]

Many of the patriarchs portrayed in the Bible were from the upper echelons of society, owned slaves, enslaved those in debt to them, bought their fellow citizens' daughters as concubines, and consistently enslaved foreign men to work on their fields.[7] Masters were usually men, but the Bible portrays upper-class women from Sarah to Esther and Judith with their enslaved maids.[8][9][10], as do the Elephantine papyri in the 400s BC.[7]

It was necessary for those who owned slaves, especially in large numbers, to be wealthy because the masters had to pay taxes for Jewish and non-Jewish slaves because they were considered part of the family unit. Slaves were seen as an important part of the family's reputation, especially in Hellenistic and Roman times, and slave companions for a woman were seen as a manifestation and protection of a woman's honor.[7] As time progressed, domestic slavery became more prominent, and domestic slaves, usually working as an assistant to the wife of the patriarch, allowed larger houses to run more smoothly and efficiently.[7]

Read further. The reference is comprehensive concerning Biblical references.
.

 

[shunyadragon]

You try too hard. The resulting dogmatism compromises your point (when one can be discerned).

In any event, you ask for "any and mean amy text from the Pentateuch that can be dated before 600 BCE." [emphasis added - JS]:

The Song of the Sea is noted for its archaic language. It is written in a style of Hebrew much older than that of the rest of Exodus. A number of scholars consider it the oldest surviving text describing the Exodus, dating to the pre-monarchic period.[3] An alternative is that it was deliberately written in an archaic style, a known literary device.[4] As such, proposed dates for its composition range from the 13th to the 5th century BCE.[5] [source]​

​

And please be careful. I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself moving the goalposts.

No goal posts moved. The goal post stands at 600 BCE with the development of the Hebrew language and texts with the only documented Hebrew texts, There ar eno known texts dated before 600 BCE. Note bold.

The reference describes a far to wide of a date of the origin of the text to document an early origin compounded by the fact of the lack of a Hebrew language before 600 BCE. We have absolutely no documents that could be of Hebrew origin before 600 BCE.

There is the possibility that the Song of the Sea was known verbally by tradition before 600 BCE and later written in the archaic foem that the oral version was memorized as all ancient oral traditions, I have no problem that much of the stories and mythology of the Pentateuch were handed down orally by the Hebrews before 600 BCE, but like the stories and myths of many ancient cultures this not evidence of their factual basis.

 

[shunyadragon]

And let's not forget this passage from the story of the Passion:



So the Jewish priest who was among those who arrested Jesus had a slave. That is, slavery was practiced among the Jews in the time of Jesus. At least according to this passage.

The text evidence is clear and specific that the authors of the gospels and Peter and Paul acknowledged the legitimacy and regulation of slavery at the time of the life of Jesus and after,

 

[shunyadragon]

You try too hard. The resulting dogmatism compromises your point (when one can be discerned).

In any event, you ask for "any and mean amy text from the Pentateuch that can be dated before 600 BCE." [emphasis added - JS]:

The Song of the Sea is noted for its archaic language. It is written in a style of Hebrew much older than that of the rest of Exodus. A number of scholars consider it the oldest surviving text describing the Exodus, dating to the pre-monarchic period.[3] An alternative is that it was deliberately written in an archaic style, a known literary device.[4] As such, proposed dates for its composition range from the 13th to the 5th century BCE.[5] [source]​

​

And please be careful. I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself moving the goalposts.

The only time I would move the goal posts is a when North Carolina State University wins the National Championship in football.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Catholic Church has provided the Catholic Catechism to prevent precisely that. The whole point of the Catechism is that the Pope and the Church's myriad scholars have studied and researched and interpreted every passage in the Bible-- both Old and New Testaments-- and they have laid before the Church's followers its proper and true interpretation. So all you have to do is read the Catechism to know what is true. You don't have to learn ancient Hebrew and Greek, you don't have to spend decades learning about the cultural and historical milieu in which the Bible's many documents were written. All that work has already been done for you.

I do not believe that the Catholic Catechism can be accepted as authority of the understanding and interpretation of the Bible, because their is a chain of justification of the Roman Hellenist compilation of the NT and the understanding of the Torah.

All the text of the Bible shows, editing, redacting, and compilation after the facts of the claimed events and beleifs.

Right off, the Jews can easily reject the Roma Church's interpretation of the Torah based on th eplain reading of the text in Hebrew.

The problem is compounded by the lack of provenance of authorship, time and text of both the NT and the Pentateuch, which is the basis for the Roman Church's argument for the justification described in the Catechism.

Martin Luther rebelled against that hierarchical structure and insisted that all Christians have both the right and the responsibility to read and interpret the Bible in their own way. That's why he provided the first German translation of the Bible-- to enable people of his homeland to read and study the Bible in their native language.

Yes he did and he wrote his diatribe against the Jews which was the blueprint for Hitler's solution for the problem of the Jews,

Those are two different extremes along a spectrum of how the Bible should be understood. My objection to @Elihoenai's remark is not that he cited passages from the Bible, but that he refused to even consider the passages that I cited from the Bible that, in my opinion, counter his interpretation. I think we should feel free to openly discuss any and all passages in the Bible, not just those that are the favorites of any one individual or group.

Yes I object to @Elihoenai extreme view of his interpretation of the Bible, but again the Roman Church, and other churches make divergent contradictory claims that their version is the true interpretation and understanding. The common line of reasoning is one does not understand the Bible unless one accepts their interpretation and understanding.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You try too hard. The resulting dogmatism compromises your point (when one can be discerned).

In any event, you ask for "any and mean amy text from the Pentateuch that can be dated before 600 BCE." [emphasis added - JS]:

The Song of the Sea is noted for its archaic language. It is written in a style of Hebrew much older than that of the rest of Exodus. A number of scholars consider it the oldest surviving text describing the Exodus, dating to the pre-monarchic period.[3] An alternative is that it was deliberately written in an archaic style, a known literary device.[4] As such, proposed dates for its composition range from the 13th to the 5th century BCE.[5] [source]​

​

And please be careful. I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself moving the goalposts.

No goal posts moved. The goal post stands at 600 BCE with the development of the Hebrew language and texts with the only documented Hebrew texts, There ar eno known texts dated before 600 BCE. Note bold.

First, regarding "text," please note ...

1 a (1) : the original words and form of a written or printed work [source]​

Second, regarding "There ar eno known texts dated before 600 BCE." please note ...

It has sometimes been said that the synchronic variation and diachronic development of the Old Hebrew cursive script is poorly attested and poorly understood. For this reason, palaeographic analyses of Old Hebrew are said to be very tenuous. However, the number (and quality) of Old Hebrew inscriptions (of the eighth through early sixth centuries) that are datable on the basis of non-palaeographic criteria is quite substantial. For example, the Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions can be dated to the (very) early eighth century.Moreover, there are scores of legible cursives from Samaria that can be dated reliably (based on a constellation of data) to the early eighth century. Also from the eighth century are the Khirbet el-Qom cursives (primarily carved in stone) and the Beth She^an Ostraca. From the late eighth century are the Samaria Joint Expedition (cursive) inscriptions, and from the same basic horizon is the Royal Steward Inscription. Note that, cumulatively, these epigraphs come from various regions, north and south, on various media. Moreover, there is also a substantial amount of data for the Old Hebrew script series of the terminal period of the seventh century and the early sixth century. For example, scores of the Lachish Ostraca and Arad Ostraca can be dated to this period, and the Horvat Uza Ostraca also hail from this horizon. Cursive inscriptions from the (very) late eighth century to the mid-seventh century are also attested (e.g., Arad IX-VIII; Gibeon), as are some from the second half of the seventh century (e.g., Mesad Hashavyahu). Finally, iy should also be noted that some Old Hebrew inscriptions can be dated to the ninth century, but these are often very fragmentary. Comparative analysis of these Old Hebrew inscriptions (normally using non-epigraphic data as a control for the dating) demonstrates that there are diagnostic features that distinguish the major horizons (e.g., early eighth, mid to late eighth, very late eighth to mid seventh, very late seventh to early sixth), regardless of the site at which they were found (and the distance between them), or the media. Naturally, new discoveries of provenanced inscriptions from this script series will augment, refine, and nuance script typologies, but the data for the Old Hebrew script series of the eighth through early sixth centuries are not negligible. ... [source]​

So your argument -- if one can deem it an argument -- seems to be that we have no samples of text found in the Torah predating 600 B.C.E. And from this you deduce what?

 

[shunyadragon]

The question which was quoted to you twice. This will be the 3rd time that I have asked.

Here is what you wrote:

When it is compiled is irrelevant to when the law was conceived and its original source.

Time the Pentateuch is relevant as well as the origin of the contents. It is a given that oral traditions, songs, stories, myths and beliefs are included in the Pentateuch when it was compiled along with Sumerian, Babylonian, Canaanite/ Ugarit. Phoenician sources found in their ancient known libraries. The Jews in exile and in the Levant had access to these libraries.

Dating Deborah - TheTorah.com

The Song of Deborah (Judges 5) is often seen as an ancient text, perhaps one of the oldest in the Tanach, but analysis of its language and contents suggests that it is a later Deuteronomistic composition | Dr. Serge Frolov

www.thetorah.com

Dating Deborah​

The Song of Deborah (Judges 5) is often seen as an ancient text, perhaps one of the oldest in the Tanach, but analysis of its language and contents suggests that it is a later Deuteronomistic composition.

Dr. Ser0ge Frolov

Deborah, Gustave Dore, 1885. 123rf

Biblical Literature: Late or Early?​

Modern scholarly study of the Tanach began in the seventeenth century when several critically inclined thinkers, including the famous Jewish philosopher Baruch Spinoza, argued that contrary to the tradition shared by Jews and Christians, Moses could not possibly have written the Torah. Instead, they tentatively suggested that not only the Torah but also its sequel, the Former Prophets, was compiled almost a thousand years later, in the fifth century B.C.E., by Ezra (who probably used earlier sources).

Over the last few decades, the tendency to place biblical texts, including the Torah and the Former Prophets, closer (often much closer) to our own time than suggested by traditional authorities has been stronger than ever. Today, few scholars would argue that much of the grand historical narrative stretching from Genesis through Kings came into being more than a century or two before the Babylonian exile (sixth century BCE), and not a few would contend, returning to Spinoza and even going beyond him, that the entire corpus was created after the exile if not in the Hellenistic period that started with Alexander’s conquests in the late-fourth century B.C.E.
Nevertheless, one relatively small but well-known and liturgically important piece of the Former Prophets seems to have largely escaped the overall trend – Deborah’s Song in Judges 5.[1] Serving as the haftarah for Parashat Beshalach (as a twin of the Song of Moses/Miriam in Exodus 15), it recapitulates, in poetic form, the events covered by the previous chapter – Israel’s oppression by King Jabin of Hazor and especially by his general Sisera, the uprising against them led by Deborah and Barak, Sisera’s defeat, and his subsequent assassination by Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite. Although there are, as usual, some dissenters (biblical scholars are famous for never agreeing 100% on anything), the prevailing consensus is that this text dates as far back as the 11th or even 12th century BCE.

That would not only make Deborah’s Song one of the most ancient fragments of the Tanach (in fact, this is precisely how it is routinely described in popular literature and textbooks), but also place it, in an unparalleled way, earlier than the traditional date or at least close to it: according to the Talmud, Judges was written by Samuel who purportedly lived in the latter part of the 11th century.

Such an ancient text would offer us an important glimpse into the Tanach’s historical background and its composition. But is the Song really that old?

“Deborahspeak”: Linguistic Considerations​

All languages change over time. Today’s English is very different from that of Dickens and Milton, to say nothing of Shakespeare and Chaucer. And as any secular Israeli would readily confirm, being a native speaker of Modern Hebrew is no guarantee that you will understand the Hebrew of the Tanach in all its nuances. For that reason, vocabulary, grammar, and syntax of a text often come handy in determining its date, especially if other texts in the same language, belonging to different periods, are available for comparison. Where does Deborah’s Song stand in this respect?
The Hebrew text of Judges 5 is very different from that of the surrounding chapters, indeed, from almost everything in the Torah and the Former Prophets. Even to an experienced Biblical Hebrew reader, some of its diction may be barely recognizable or even completely unrecognizable, and some of its grammatical forms are very difficult. When we encounter such difficulties in English, our first instinct is to brand the text archaic. Yet, the case is not so simple with the Song of Deborah.

Vocabulary​

‍Several words in the Song are demonstrably late:
‍רֹמַח (romah) Judg 5:8. Out of 14 other occurrences of this term for “spear,” nine are in Chronicles (e.g., 2 Chr 11:12) and Nehemiah (e.g., 4:10), clearly post-exilic books, and another two are in Jeremiah (46:4) and Ezekiel (39:9) whose content makes it impossible to date them before the exile. Works that may be earlier, such as Joshua (8:18, 26) and 1 Samuel (17:6, 45), usually refer to the same weapon using the word כּידון (kidon) – as in Modern Hebrew.

Read on for more research dating th esong of Deborah. Based on the evidence it is a later compilation of an erly oral tradition.

 

[shunyadragon]

So your argument -- if one can deem it an argument -- seems to be that we have no samples of text found in the Torah predating 600 B.C.E. And from this you deduce what?

The compilation of the Pentateuch included many sources available to the authors such as the libraries of Sumerian, Babylonian, Phoenician/ Canaanite;/Ugarit sources. Also oral traditions, songs, myths and beliefs memorized over time such as the 'Song of the Sea.'

It is obvious that the authors were priests with a knowledge of foreign languages, and from Canaanite/Phoenician developed the unique Hebrew written language.

This compilation from various sources including oral traditions when writing became available is common to many ancient cultures both East and West.

 

[jimb]

The text evidence is clear and specific that the authors of the gospels and Peter and Paul acknowledged the legitimacy and regulation of slavery at the time of the life of Jesus and after,

Many people interpret biblical "slavery" as similar to what what practiced in the US Confederacy, which is an error. Biblical slavery was the standard method of "employment" and many slaves were well-treated. They were provided for and many lived relatively comfortable lives.

Two examples of a positive description of slavery: "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." Romans 6:22 and "Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves." 1 Timothy 6:2

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The compilation of the Pentateuch included many sources available to the authors such as the libraries of Sumerian, Babylonian, Phoenician/ Canaanite;/Ugarit sources. Also oral traditions, songs, myths and beliefs memorized over time such as the 'Song of the Sea.'

Therefore? Much of the available Torah commentary is laced with references to such matters.

You learn a factoid, coax it into a trope, and seem to believe that the resulting pedantry enhances your polemic. In my opinion, it does just the opposite.

Parenthetically, to when would you date Psalm 34?

 

[jimb]

Without a response to the documentation provided. Can you provide any reference that dates the Pentateuch before 600 BCE?

Your going on and on about this issue is getting really boring. It is obvious that you don't understand the difference between the compilation of the "books" of the Pentateuch and their original authorship. Your argument makes as much sense as saying that the Bible was created in 1611 without considering that there were source documents written in different ancient languages that preceded the King James Bible (and other English translations). You go on and on about this issue to prove yourself right, but nobody cares.

 

[shunyadragon]

Your going on and on about this issue is getting really boring. It is obvious that you don't understand the difference between the compilation of the "books" of the Pentateuch and their original authorship.

Ther is absolutely not evidence of original authorship.

Your argument makes as much sense as saying that the Bible was created in 1611 without considering that there were source documents written in different ancient languages that preceded the King James Bible (and other English translations). You go on and on about this issue to prove yourself right, but nobody cares.

No, you are babbling on and on and not responding to the academic sources cited with documentation.

You need to actually respond to the references or provide your own to support your case instead of babbling on and on.

 

[shunyadragon]

Therefore? Much of the available Torah commentary is laced with references to such matters.

You learn a factoid, coax it into a trope, and seem to believe that the resulting pedantry enhances your polemic. In my opinion, it does just the opposite.

Parenthetically, to when would you date Psalm 34?

I would date specifically by the evidence including all the Psalms as written after 600 BCE as a compilation of possibly different sources. . There is evidence of the style and source of some of the Psalms is to a degree are from Canaanite/Ugarit writings particularly the example of Psalm 29.. There are numerous references that cover this"

https://kb.osu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/de47382a-9530-58d8-9adb-8cac64b4f8f2/content

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I would date specifically by the evidence including all the Psalms as written after 600 BCE as a compilation of possibly different sources.

Goodbye ...

 

[shunyadragon]

Many people interpret biblical "slavery" as similar to what what practiced in the US Confederacy, which is an error. Biblical slavery was the standard method of "employment" and many slaves were well-treated. They were provided for and many lived relatively comfortable lives.

False, Biblical slavery involved both slavery of foreign slaves bought and sold as Chattal slavery in the Confederacy, and by the way in the North.
It the Bible there is also indentured Hebrew slaves under different Hebrew laws that are not bought and sold.

References please for your idealistic assertions above

Two examples of a positive description of slavery: "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." Romans 6:22 and "Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves." 1 Timothy 6:2

Incomplete as far as NT references already provided you have not responded to.

Please respond completely to post #144.

Citations on chattel slavery in the OT. Chattel slavery is slavery bought and sold as in foreign slaves, The following differentiates foreign slaves from Hebrew indentured servitude.

Leviticus 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Yes there are laws that regulate and protect slaves, and defining the difference between foreign chatel slaves and Hebrew slaves, Foreign slaves can be owned for life and the children may be kept as slaves,

Laws About Slaves​

21 “Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. 2 When you buy a Hebrew slave,[a] he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.

7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her[b] for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

12 “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death. 13 But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place to which he may flee. 14 But if a man willfully attacks another to kill him by cunning, you shall take him from my altar, that he may die.

15 “Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.

16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

17 “Whoever curses[c] his father or his mother shall be put to death.

18 “When men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist and the man does not die but takes to his bed, 19 then if the man rises again and walks outdoors with his staff, he who struck him shall be clear; only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall have him thoroughly healed.

20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm,[d] then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

26 “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. 27 If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.

28 “When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall not be liable. 29 But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. 30 If a ransom is imposed on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is imposed on him. 31 If it gores a man's son or daughter, he shall be dealt with according to this same rule. 32 If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master thirty shekels[e] of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.

Laws About Restitution​

33 “When a man opens a pit, or when a man digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or a donkey falls into it, 34 the owner of the pit shall make restoration. He shall give money to its owner, and the dead beast shall be his.

35 “When one man's ox butts another's, so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and share its price, and the dead beast also they shall share. 36 Or if it is known that the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has not kept it in, he shall repay ox for ox, and the dead beast shall be his.

 

[shunyadragon]

Goodbye ...

Duck, Bob and Wessel and failure to respond.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I would date specifically by the evidence including all the Psalms as written after 600 BCE as a compilation of possibly different sources. . There is evidence of the style and source of some of the Psalms is to a degree are from Canaanite/Ugarit writings particularly the example of Psalm 29.. There are numerous references that cover this"

https://kb.osu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/de47382a-9530-58d8-9adb-8cac64b4f8f2/content

2600 years ago number theorists were still tossing analysts overboard into the drink and drowning them in the name of rationality and a fear of irrationality. (Or not. Who knows?)

That was a long, long time ago.

What was up with Pythagoras?