Pero
no todos los israelitas fueron llevado cautivos, un "resto" quedó en
Israel: 2 Reyes 25, 12; 2 Reyes 25, 22; Jeremías 40, 11; Ezequiel 33,
27. También un número de Israelitas no fueron cautivos a Babilonia sino
que fueron a Egipto: 2 Reyes 25, 26; Jeremías 42, 14; Jeremías 43, 7.
El
rey Ciro de Persia conquistó a Babilonia (2 Crónicas 36, 20; 2 Crónicas
36, 23) y dio la libertad a los israelitas de regresar a Israel,
terminando así su esclavitud. Algunos regresaron a Palestina (Esdras 1,
5; 7, 28; y Nehemías 2, 11) pero otros se fueron en vez a Egipto,
estableciéndose, en su mayoría, en la ciudad de Alejandría (fundada por
Alejandro Magno en el 322 a.C, contaba con la biblioteca mas importante
del mundo en esa época). En esta gran ciudad convivían griegos, judíos y
egipcios. Así que los judíos estaban disgregados aun después del fin
del cautiverio, unos en Palestina y otros en la diáspora, sobre todo en
Alejandría. En el tiempo de Jesús habían mas judíos en Alejandría que en
la misma Palestina (1 Macabeos 1, 1)
Mientras
la primera semejanza de un canon hebreo se empieza a formar, la lengua
hebrea comienza a morir y desapareció completamente para el año 135 a.C.
Por esta razón Jesús y sus contemporáneos en Palestina hablaban arameo,
un dialecto del hebreo.
Como
en la mayor parte del mundo civilizado, la lengua principal de
Alejandría en el siglo III a.C. era el griego. Había por eso gran
necesidad de una traducción griega de las Sagradas Escrituras. La
historia relata que Demetrio de Faleron, el bibliotecario de Plotomeo II
(285-246 a.C.), quería unas copias de la Ley Judía para la Biblioteca
de Alejandría. La traducción se realizó a inicios del siglo tercero a.C.
y se llamó la Traducción de los Setenta (por el número de traductores
que trabajaron en la obra). Comenzando con el Torá, tradujeron todas las
Sagradas Escrituras, es decir todo lo que es hoy conocido por los
cristianos como el Antiguo Testamento. Introdujeron también una nueva
organización e incluyeron Libros Sagrados que, por ser mas recientes, no
estaban en los antiguos cánones pero eran generalmente reconocidos como
sagrados por los judíos. Se trata de siete libros, escritos en griego,
que son llamados hoy deuterocanónicos. Vemos entonces que no hay un
"silencio bíblico" (una ausencia de Revelación) en los siglos
precedentes al nacimiento de Jesús.
La
Traducción de los Setenta contiene los textos originales de algunos de
los deuterocanónicos (Sabiduría y 2 Macabeos) y la base canónica de
otros, ya sea en parte (Ester, Daniel y Sirac) o completamente (Tobit,
Judit, Baruc y 1 Macabeos).
La Traducción de de los Setenta es la que se usaba en tiempo de Jesucristo y los Apóstoles
La
versión alejandrina, con los siete libros deuterocanónicos, se propagó
mucho y era la generalmente usada por los judíos en la era Apostólica.
Por esta razón no es sorprendente que esta fuera la traducción utilizada
por Cristo y los escritores del Nuevo Testamento. 300 de las 350
referencias al Antiguo Testamento que se hacen en el Nuevo Testamento
son tomadas de la versión alejandrina. Por es no hay duda de que la
Iglesia apostólica del primer siglo aceptó los libros deuterocanónicos
como parte de su canon (libros reconocidos como Palabra de Dios). Por ejemplo, Orígenes, (Padre de la Iglesia, † 254), afirmó que los cristianos usaban estos libros aunque algunos líderes judíos no los aceptaban oficialmente.
Al
final del primer siglo de la era cristiana, una escuela judía, quizás
de rabinos, hicieron un canon hebreo en la ciudad de Jamnia, en
Palestina. Cerraron el canon con los profetas Esdras (458 a. C.),
Nehemías (445 a. C.), y Malaquías (433 a. C.). Este canon comprendía de
22 a 24 libros. No rechazaron los libros deuterocanónicos
definitivamente, pero no los incluyeron entre los canónicos. El canon
reconocido por los judíos no se fijó hasta mas de cien años después. Aun
entonces, los libros "deuterocanónicos" siguieron siendo leídos y
respetados por los judíos. Mientras tanto los cristianos siguieron
reconociendo la versión alejandrina. Es así que surgieron los dos
cánones del Antíguo Testamento.
Los dos cánones del Antiguo Testamento
El
canon de Alejandría (la traducción de los Setenta al griego, hecha
antes de Cristo y aceptada por todos los cristianos y muchos judíos, que
contiene los libros deuterocanónicos).
El canon de Palestina (Jamnia, traducción hebrea hecha después de Cristo).
Los
historiadores ponen como fecha en que se fijaron los cánones de las
traducciones de Alejandría y de Palestina para el siglo segundo de
nuestra era. El Obispo Melito de Sardis registró la primera lista
conocida del canon alejandrino en el año 170 A.D. Contenía 45/46 libros
(el libro de Lamentaciones se consideraba como parte de Jeremías). El
canon Palestino contenía solo 39 libros pues no tenía los libros 7
libros Deuterocanónicos.
La Vulgata de San Jerónimo
La
primera traducción de la Biblia al latín fue hecha por San Jerónimo y
se llamó Vulgata (año 383 AD). El latín era entonces el idioma común en
el mundo Mediterráneo. San Jerónimo en un principio tradujo del texto
hebreo del canon de Palestina. Su estilo era mas elegante y en algunas
frases distinto a la Traducción de los Setenta. Además le faltaban los
libros deuterocanónicos por no estar en el texto hebreo. Esto produjo
una polémica entre los cristianos. En defensa de su traducción, San
Jerónimo escribió una carta: Ad Pachmmachium de optimo genere interpretandi,
la cual es el primer tratado acerca de la traductología. Por eso se le
considera el padre de esta disciplina. Ahí explica, entre otras cosas el
motivo por el cual considera inexacta a la septuagésima. Finalmente se
aceptó su versión, pero con la inclusión de los libros deuterocanónicos.
Por eso la Vulgata tiene todos los 46 libros.
La Iglesia establece el canon
La
controversia sobre que libros son canónicos fue larga, extendiéndose
hasta el siglo IV y aun mas tarde. Las polémicas con los herejes,
particularmente los seguidores de Marción, que rechazaban libros
generalmente reconocidos por los Padres, hizo que la Iglesia definiera
con autoridad la lista de los libros sagrados (el canon).
Los
concilios de la Iglesia, el Concilio de Hipona, en el año 393 y el
Concilio de Cartago, en el año 397 y 419, ambos en el norte de África,
confirmaron el canon Alejandrino (con 46 libros para el Antiguo
Testamento) y también fijaron el canon del Nuevo Testamento con 27
libros. La carta del papa S. Inocencio I en el 405, también oficialmente
lista estos libros. Finalmente, el Concilio de Florencia (1442)
definitivamente estableció la lista oficial de 46 libros del A.T. y los
27 del N.T.
El canon del Nuevo Testamento se definió en el siglo IV tras un largo y difícil proceso de discernimiento
El
mismo nombre de "Nuevo Testamento" no se usó hasta el siglo II. Uno de
los criterios para aceptar o no los libros fue que tuviese como autor a
un apóstol; su uso, especialmente en la liturgia en las Iglesias
Apostólicas y la conformidad con la fe de la Iglesia. Fue bajo estos
criterios que algunos evangelios atribuidos a los Apóstoles (ej. Ev de
Tomás, Ev. de Pedro) fueron rechazados. El evangelio de San Juan y el
Apocalipsis se consideraron por largo tiempo como dudosos por el
atractivo que tenían con grupos sectarios y milenaristas.
Todos
los católicos aceptaron el canon de la Biblia fijado por los concilios
mencionados y, como este canon no fue causa de seria controversia hasta
el siglo XVI, no se necesitó definir el canon de la Biblia como una
verdad infalible.
A la Biblia Protestante le faltan libros
En
el 1534, Martín Lutero tradujo la Biblia al alemán y agrupó los siete
libros deuterocanónicos bajo el título de "apócrifos", señalando: "estos
son libros que no se tienen por iguales a las Sagradas Escrituras y sin
embargo son útiles y buenos para leer." Es así como los protestantes
llegaron a considera a los deuterocanónicos como libros no aceptados en
el canon, o sea como libros apócrifos.
Siempre los cristianos habían reconocido esos libros como parte de la Biblia. Los concilios del siglo IV y posteriores habían confirmado la creencia cristiana. La opinión de Lutero era mas bien la de los judíos que seguían la traducción de Jamnia. Es por eso que los protestantes, carecen de los libros deuterocanónicos de la Biblia:
- Tobías
- Judit
- Ester (protocanónico con partes deuterocanónicas)
- Daniel (protocanónico con partes deuterocanónicas)
- I Macabeos
- II Macabeos
- Sabiduría
- Eclesiástico (también llamado "Sirac")
- Baruc
Lutero no solo eliminó libros del Antiguo Testamento sino que hizo cambios en el Nuevo Testamento
"Él
[Martín Lutero] había declarado que la persona no se justifica por la
fe obrando en el amor, sino sólo por la fe. Llegó incluso a añadir la
palabra "solamente" después de la palabra "justificado" en su traducción
alemana de Romanos 3, 28, y llamó a la Carta de Santiago "epístola
falsificada" porque Santiago dice explícitamente: "Veis que por las
obras se justifica el hombre y no sólo por la fe". (Scott y Kimberly
HAHN, Roma dulce hogar, ed. Rialp, Madrid, 2000, página 57; Scott Hahn fue ministro protestante, presbiteriano antes de su conversión)
Se tomó la libertad de separar los libros del Nuevo Testamento de la siguiente manera:
- Libros sobre la obra de Dios para la salvación: Juan, Romanos, Gálatas, Efesios, I Pedro y I Juan.
- Otros libros canónicos: Mateo, Marcos, Lucas, Hechos, el resto de las cartas de Pablo, II Pedro y II de Juan.
- Los libros no canónicos: Hebreos, Santiago, Judas, Apocalipsis y libros del Antiguo Testamento.
Los protestantes tienen los mismos libros que los católicos en
el Nuevo Testamento porque no aceptaron los cambios de Lutero para esta
parte del canon.
Los protestantes y evangélicos se encuentran en una posición contradictoria
Reconocen
el canon establecido por los concilios del siglo IV para el Nuevo
Testamento (los 27 libros que ellos tienen) pero no reconocen esa misma
autoridad para el canon del AT.
Es
interesante notar que la Biblia Gutenberg, la primera Biblia impresa,
es la Biblia latina (Vulgata), por lo tanto, contenía los 46 libros del
canon alejandrino.
Posición de la Iglesia Anglicana (episcopalianos)
Según
los 39 Artículos de Religión (1563) de la Iglesia de Inglaterra, los
libros deuterocanónicos pueden ser leídos para "ejemplo de vida e
instrucción de costumbres", pero no deben ser usados para "establecer
ninguna doctrina" (Artículo VI). Consecuentemente,
la Biblia, versión del Rey Jaime (1611) imprimió estos libros entre el
N.T. y el A.T. Pero Juan Lightfoot (1643) criticó este orden alegando
que los "malditos apócrifos" pudiesen ser así vistos como un puente
entre el A.T. y el N.T. La Confesión de Westminster (1647) decidió que
estos libros, "al no ser de inspiración divina, no son parte del canon
de las Escrituras y, por lo tanto, no son de ninguna autoridad de la
Iglesia de Dios ni deben ser en ninguna forma aprobados o utilizados mas
que otros escritos humanos".
Published on May 24, 2013
In this one-on-one edition of the show, Justin Brierley speaks to New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman about his recent book "Did Jesus Exist?" which argues for the historical fact of Jesus of Nazareth.Ehrman, whose books are more usually at odds with evangelicals, was this time attacked by atheist proponents of "mythicism" - the view that Jesus never existed.
He responds to the criticisms, including mythicists Bob Price and Richard Carrier and answers questions sent in by Unbelievable? listeners.
Ehrman's reply to Carrier's critique of his book:
http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to...
Uploaded on Nov 21, 2011
Dr. Bart D. Ehrman brings his insights to Stanford University in a revealing lecture, "Misquoting Jesus: Scribes Who Altered scripture and Readers Who May Never Know," a textual criticism of Biblical manuscript tampering.
September 22, 2011, The Getty Center
Illuminated manuscripts from the Middle Ages are significant for the literary texts they preserve. But they are also important, historically and culturally, for their illustrations of the life of Christ. These artistic representations tell tales of their own, and the visual stories are not always found in the corresponding texts. A careful examination of these images shows clearly and convincingly that medieval artists were not only familiar with the stories of the canonical Gospels, but also with many noncanonical apocryphal tales of Jesus. The apocryphal stories, in some instances, were understood to be "Gospel truth" on par with accounts found in Scripture. Bart D. Ehrman, the James A. Gray Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, explores both canonical and apocryphal narratives of Jesus's life.
Published on Mar 28, 2013
Dr. Richard Carrier flew in from California to lecture the UNCG Atheists, Agnostics, and Skeptics on the historicity of Christ. The historicity of Christ has appeared in the public consciousness over the last few years because of such individuals such as Robert Price and Dr. Carrier. This topic deals with the analysis of historical data to determine if Jesus existed as an actual person.A library of articles by Dr. Carrier:
http://www.infidels.org/library/moder...
Wiki for Dr. Carrier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_...
Did Christianity begin with a mythical Christ? Was the original Jesus a man or a mythical savior god? Solving the Jesus Puzzle through the Christian and ancient-world record, from the Pauline epistles to the Gospels to the second century Christian apologists, from Philo to Josephus to Jewish and Hellenistic philosophy.
Christian faith evolved from a Jesus myth to an historical Jesus.
Published on Sep 13, 2013
Uploaded on Nov 9, 2010
What Future for the “History of Israel”?
The Rev Richard CogginsSenior Lecturer in Old Testament Studies
at King’s College London
The Ethel M Wood Lecture
5 May 1994
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/israel_coggins.pdf
... Much of the underlying assumption of the ‘History of Israel’ exercise has centred around the assumption, sometimes spelt out, often unwritten, that increased knowledge of archaeology and of sociology would confirm the historical outline conveyed in the biblical text. Well, sometimes it does; but in a very large number of cases it simply serves to show that the biblical account is impossible historically. Attempts, very popular in the 1960s, to make Abraham a kind of Honorary Hurrian, whose marital and legal habits conformed to the texts discovered at Nuzi, are now generally abandoned. The very existence of a presettlement period of nomadic existence for Israel is now widely doubted. If we turn to detail it is the same story; how could the walls of Jericho have fallen if there was no settled city at any credible time for a supposed siege? And so on: I will not bore you with details, but the traditional story and the reconstruction from modern scholarly methods simply do not match. Some will of course say: So much the worse for modern methods, but I cannot suppose that that kind of conclusion was what this lecture foundation had in mind.
We have rather to recognise that the search for ancient Israel may have a long way to go before anything approaching a coherent history, or the confidently structured kind which has characterised the genre, can legitimately be written. At least down to the Babylonian period there are too many imponderables for any kind of confident reconstruction. More attention has begun to be paid to the Judaism of the Second Temple, or Second Commonwealth; and fascinating and important though such study is, it is notoriously difficult for lack of evidence to put together anything like a coherent and structured history. Finally the question arises as to the value of the material from Genesis to 2 Kings which has been the main subject of our attention this evening. Here there will surely be sharp differences of opinion. For some to deny them the status of accurate history will deny them all value. For others much will depend on the power to be granted in religious terms to the concept of story. If a text tells a story of a people’s belief in God and the way it has been manifested over the ages how much will hang on historical reliability, how much can be accepted through the power of the story and its correspondence with human experience, so that listeners can say ‘Yes, that could be my story too’?
Where the Genesis stories really came from: Not surprisingly, it seems the Genesis stories really came from the same place that the Jewish people said they really came from– the much, much more ancient civilization of Sumer (in the region later known as Babylon). The Jews believed themselves to be descended from Abraham, who after a series of wanderings eventually moved to the future home of Israel. His homeland, or where he originally moved from was Ur (Genesis 11:31) and Ur was one of the many city states which made up the country of Sumer, called by many scholars the world’s first advanced civilization.
A model of the ziggurat of Ur
Whether the Jewish people were descended from a Sumerian man, as Genesis asserts, or whether they simply stole Babylon’s ancient tales (which included Sumer’s) while they were exiled in that country much later, there is a clear connection between Israel and Sumer. This no doubt explains the reason why all the major stories of “Jewish” history prior to the beginning of Abraham’s story in Genesis 11 are nearly identical to tales written first in Sumer. There is, however, one very important difference between the Jewish (later to become Christian) version of these stories and those of the the far more ancient Sumerian culture: In the Biblical creation narrative the gender of the Creator of Heaven and Earth has been switched from female to male and the Goddess erased from the tale. Unless, that is, you know where to look.
Enki
“Mix the heart of the clay that is over the abyss,
The good and princely fashioners will thicken the clay,
You, [Nammu] do you bring the limbs into existence;
Ninmah [earth-mother or birth goddess] will work above you,
The goddesses [of birth] . . . will stand by you at your fashioning;
O my mother, decree its [the newborn's] fate,
Ninmah will bind upon it the image (?) of the gods,
It is man . . . . “
Notice that, just like in the later Bible, humans are made in the image of the Gods. The Sumerians also first wrote about Eden, which they called Dilmun, describing it like this:
“In Dilmun the raven uttered no cries,
The kite uttered not the cry of the kite,
The lion killed not,
The wolf snatched not the lamb,
Unknown was the kid-killing dog…”
The story in which Eve (which means “mother of the living”) is taken from Adam’s rib is probably a garbled rewrite of Ninti, a Sumerian Goddess whose name is a pun, meaning both “lady life” and “rib,” and who assists Enki and Nammu in bringing forth humans.
Later, when Enlil, the king of the gods, decides to wipe the troublesome humans off the face of the earth with a great flood, Enki saves us all by convincing one man (called in different accounts Atrahasis, Utnapishtim, or Ziusudra) to build an ark.
Also here is the equivalent of the Biblical tale of the invention of multiple languages. Just as in the Tower of Babel story of Genesis, the people once spoke the same language, but when their languages were altered in the Sumerian version, Enki did it:
“In those days, the lands of Suberi (and) Hamazi,
Harmony-tongued Sumer, the great land of the decrees of princeship,
Uri, the land having all that is appropriate,
The land Martu, resting in security,
The whole universe, the people in unison
To Enlil in one tongue [spoke].
(Then) Enki, the lord of abundance (whose) commands are trustworthy,
The lord of wisdom, who understands the land,
The leader of the gods,
Endowed with wisdom, the lord of Eridu
Changed the speech in their mouths, [brought] contention into it,
Into the speech of man that (until then) had been one.”
The disappearance of Nammu: Yahweh of the Israelites was not the first Sky God to usurp Nammu’s position. Around the same century that Abraham allegedly skipped town (whether before, during, or after depends on which scholar’s estimate of his century is correct), the city-state of Babylon took over Ur and the rest of the country of Sumer. Under the much more patriarchal influence of the Babylonian Empire the Creator Goddess lost her position to the Sky God Marduk.
Marduk
Eventually, when the priests of Judah rewrote the tale, the Goddess would disappear altogether from the narrative . Well, almost disappear. She is traceable still by linguistics, for when God hovers over “the deep” in the opening scene of Genesis (Chapter 1, Verse 2), the word translated here is tehom, meaning the deeps, the abyss, and linguistically the Semitic form of Tiamat, the name of the Babylonian Goddess. In time, Nammu would be forgotten, but now, thanks to archaeologists, we can remember the Goddess who came before Heaven and Earth, before the sky gods ascended the throne of history, before even the Bible, before ever the priest put pen to scroll to write the words “In the Beginning….”
According to the Hebrew Bible, Solomon's Temple, also known as the First Temple, was the Holy Temple (Hebrew: בֵּית־הַמִּקְדָּשׁ: Bet HaMikdash) in ancient Jerusalem, on the Temple Mount (also known as Mount Zion), before its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar II after the Siege of Jerusalem of 587 BCE. There is no direct archaeological evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple,[1] and no mention of it in the surviving contemporary extra-biblical literature.[2]
The Hebrew Bible states that the temple was constructed under Solomon, king of the Israelites. This would date its construction to the 10th century BCE, although it is possible that an earlier Jebusite sanctuary had stood on the site. During the kingdom of Judah, the temple was dedicated to Yahweh, the god of Israel, and is said to have housed the Ark of the Covenant. Rabbinic sources state that the First Temple stood for 410 years and, based on the 2nd-century work Seder Olam Rabbah, place construction in 832 BCE and destruction in 422 BCE (3338 AM), 165 years later than secular estimates.
Because of the religious sensitivities involved, and the politically volatile situation in Jerusalem, only limited archaeological surveys of the Temple Mount have been conducted. No excavations have been allowed on the Temple Mount during modern times. An Ivory pomegranate mentions priests in the house of YHWH, and an inscription recording the Temple's restoration under Jehoash have appeared on the antiquities market, but the authenticity of both has been challenged and they remain the subject of controversy. No conclusive archeological evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple has been found
On Passover last Sunday, Rabbi David Wolpe raised that provocative question before 2,200 faithful at Sinai Temple in Westwood. He minced no words.
"The truth is that virtually every modern archeologist who has investigated the story of the Exodus, with very few exceptions, agrees that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all," Wolpe told his congregants.
Wolpe's startling sermon may have seemed blasphemy to some. In fact, however, the rabbi was merely telling his flock what scholars have known for more than a decade. Slowly and often outside wide public purview, archeologists are radically reshaping modern understanding of the Bible. It was time for his people to know about it, Wolpe decided.
After a century of excavations trying to prove the ancient accounts true, archeologists say there is no conclusive evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt, were ever enslaved, ever wandered in the Sinai wilderness for 40 years or ever conquered the land of Canaan under Joshua's leadership. To the contrary, the prevailing view is that most of Joshua's fabled military campaigns never occurred--archeologists have uncovered ash layers and other signs of destruction at the relevant time at only one of the many battlegrounds mentioned in the Bible.
Today, the prevailing theory is that Israel probably emerged peacefully out of Canaan--modern-day Lebanon, southern Syria, Jordan and the West Bank of Israel--whose people are portrayed in the Bible as wicked idolators. Under this theory, the Canaanites who took on a new identity as Israelites were perhaps joined or led by a small group of Semites from Egypt--explaining a possible source of the Exodus story, scholars say. As they expanded their settlement, they may have begun to clash with neighbors, perhaps providing the historical nuggets for the conflicts recorded in Joshua and Judges.
"Scholars have known these things for a long time, but we've broken the news very gently," said William Dever, a professor of Near Eastern archeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona and one of America's preeminent archeologists.
Khirbet Qeiyafa (Elah Fortress) is the site of an ancient city overlooking the Elah Valley.[1] The ruins of the fortress were uncovered in 2007,[2] near the Israeli city of Beit Shemesh, 20 miles (32 km) from Jerusalem.[3] It covers nearly 6 acres (2.4 ha) and is encircled by a 700-meter-long (2,300 ft) city wall constructed of stones weighing up to eight tons each.[4] A number of archaeologists have claimed that it might be the biblical city of Sha'arayim or Neta'im[5] and that it might contain the ruins of King David's palace.[6][7] Others are sceptical, and suggest it might represent either a Judahite or Canaanite fortress.[8]
The meaning of the Arabic name of the site, Khirbet Qeiyafa, is uncertain. Scholars suggest it may mean "the place with a wide view."[9] The modern Hebrew name, Elah Fortress, derives from the location of the site on the northern bank of Nahal Elah, one of six brooks that flow from the Judean mountains to the coastal plain.
The Elah Fortress lies just inside a north-south ridge of hills separating Philistia and Gath to the west from Judea to the east. The ridge also includes the site currently identified as Tel Azekah.[10] Past this ridge is a series of connecting valleys between two parallel groups of hills. Tel Sokho lies on the southern ridge with Tel Adullam behind it. The Elah Fortress is situated on the northern ridge, overlooking several valleys with a clear view of the Judean Mountains. Behind it to the northeast is Tel Yarmut. From the topography, archaeologists believe this was the location of the cities of Adullam, Sokho, Azekah and Yarmut cited in Joshua 15:35.[10] These valleys formed the border between Philistia and Judea.
The site of Khirbet Qeiyafa was surveyed in the 1860s by Victor Guérin who reported the presence of a village on the hilltop. In 1875, British surveyors noted only stone heaps. In 1932, Dimitri Baramki, reported the site to hold a 35 square metres (380 sq ft) watchtower associated with Khirbet Quleidiya (Horvat Qolad), 200 metres (660 ft) east.[9] The site was mostly neglected in the 20th century and not mentioned by leading scholars.[2] Yehuda Dagan conducted more intense surveys in the 1990s and documented the visible remains.[9] The site raised curiosity in 2005 when Saar Ganor discovered impressive Iron Age structures under the remnants.[2]
Excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa began in 2007, directed by Yosef Garfinkel of the Hebrew University and Saar Ganor of the Israel Antiquities Authority, and continued in 2008.[11] Nearly 600 square metres (6,500 sq ft) of an Iron Age IIA city were unearthed. Based on pottery styles and two burned olive pits tested for carbon-14 at Oxford University, Garfinkel and Ganor have dated the site to 1050–970 BC,[2] although Israel Finkelstein contends evidence points to habitation between 1050 and 915 BC.[12]
The initial excavation by Ganor and Garfinklel took place from August 12 to 26, 2007 on behalf of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Institute of Archaeology. In their preliminary report at the annual ASOR conference on November 15, they presented a theory that the site was the Biblical Azekah, which until then had been exclusively associated with Tell Zakariya.[13] In 2008, after the discovery of a second gate, they identified the site as the biblical Sha'arayim ("two gates" in Hebrew).[2]
Releasing the preliminary dig reports for the 2010 and 2011 digging seasons at Khirbet Qeiyafa, the Israel Antiquities Authority stated: "The excavations at Khirbat Qeiyafa clearly reveal an urban society that existed in Judah already in the late eleventh century BCE. It can no longer be argued that the Kingdom of Judah developed only in the late eighth century BCE or at some other later date."[14]
Discoveries at Khirbet Qeiyafa are significant to the debate about the veracity of the biblical account of the United Monarchy at the beginning of Iron Age II. As no archaeological finds were found that could corroborate claims of the existence of a magnificent biblical kingdom, various scholars have advanced the opinion that the kingdom was no more than a small tribal entity. Garfinkel, who said in 2010 that the debate could not "be answered by the Qeiyafa excavations", is of the opinion that "what is clear, however, is that the kingdom of Judah existed already as a centrally organized state in the tenth century B.C.E" [15][16][17] In addition to Garfinkel's theory there are two other hypotheses: one, supported by Nadav Na’aman and Ido Koch holds the ruins to be Canaanite, based on strong similarities with the nearby Canaanite excavations at Beit Shemesh. The third hypothesis, advanced by Israel Finkelstein and Alexander Fantalkin, maintains that the site shows affiliations with a North Israelite entity.[8]
In 2010, Gershon Galil of the University of Haifa identified Khirbet Qeiyafa as the “Neta’im” of 1 Chronicles 4:23, due to its proximity to Khirbet Ğudrayathe (biblical Gederah). The inhabitants of both cities were said to be "potters" and "in the King’s service", a description that is consistent with the archeological discoveries at that site.[18]
Yehuda Dagan of the Israel Antiquities Authority also disagrees with the identification as Sha'arayim. Dagan believes the ancient Philistine retreat route after their defeat in the battle at the Valley of Elah (1 Samuel 17:52), more likely identifies Sha'arayim with the remains of Khirbet esh-Shari'a. Dagan proposes that Khirbet Qeiyafa be identified with biblical Adithaim (Joshua 15:36).[9]
The fortifications at Khirbet Qeiyafa predate those of contemporary Lachish, Beersheba, Arad, and Timnah. All these sites have yielded pottery dated to early Iron Age II. The parallel valley to the north, mentioned in Samuel I, runs from the Philistine city of Ekron to Tel Beit Shemesh. The city gate of the Elah Fortress faces west with a path down to the road leading to the sea, and was thus named "Gath Gate" or "Sea Gate." The 23-dunam (5.7-acre) site is surrounded by a casement wall and fortifications.[16] The top layer of the fortress shows that the fortifications were renewed in the Hellenistic period.[10]
Garfinkel suggests that it was a Judean city with 500–600 inhabitants during the reign of David and Solomon.[19][20][16] Based on pottery finds at Qeiyafa and Gath, archaeologists believe the sites belonged to two distinct ethnic groups. "The finds have not yet established who the residents were," says Aren Maeir, a Bar Ilan University archaeologist digging at Gath. "It will become more clear if, for example, evidence of the local diet is found. Excavations have shown that Philistines ate dogs and pigs, while Israelites did not. The nature of the ceramic shards found at the site suggest residents might have been neither Israelites nor Philistines but members of a third, forgotten people."[21] Evidence that the city was not Philistine comes from the private houses that abut the city wall, an arrangement that was not used in Philistine cities.[22] There is also evidence of equipment for baking flat bread and hundreds of bones from goats, cattle, sheep, and fish. Significantly, no pig bones have been uncovered, suggesting that the city was not Philistine.[22][23] Nadav Na'aman of Tel Aviv University nevertheless associates it with Philistine Gath, citing the necessity for further excavations as well as evidence from Bet Shemesh whose inhabitants also avoided eating pork, yet were associated with Ekron.[24] Na'aman proposed identification with the Philistine city of Gob.[24]
Yigal Levin has proposed that the ma’gal (מעגל) or "circular camp" of the Israelites which is mentioned in the story of David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17:20) was described this way because it fitted the circular shape of the nearby Khirbet Qeiyafa.[25] Levin argues that the story of David and Goliath is set decades before Khirbet Qeiyafa was built and so the reference to Israel's encampment at the ma’gal probably does "not represent any particular historical event at all". But when the story was composed centuries later, the round structure of Khirbet Qeiyafa "would still have been visible and known to the author of 1 Samuel 17", who "guessed its function, and worked it into his story".[25]
On July 18, 2013, the Israel Antiquities Authority issued the press release “King David’s Palace was Uncovered in the Judean Shephelah” on behalf of Khirbet Qeiyafa archaeologists Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor.[7] The report discusses two large buildings dated to the tenth century B.C.E. by the Qeiyafa team. One of the buildings is a large palatial structure, the other is a pillared store room with hundreds of stamped storage vessels. The suggestion that the larger structure can be associated with one of King David's palaces led to significant media coverage as well as claims of sensationalism.[39] Professor Aren Maeir, an archaeologist at Bar Ilan University, pointed out that there are still doubts about the existence of King David’s monarchy and among others Israel Finkelstein suggested that it could have been built by other people such as Philistines and Canaanites.[40][41]
(AP)—A team of Israeli archaeologists believes it has discovered the ruins of a palace belonging to the biblical King David, but other Israeli experts dispute the claim.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-07-king-david-palace-israeli-team.html#jCp
Archaeologists from Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Israel's Antiquities Authority said their find, a large fortified complex west of Jerusalem at a site called Khirbet Qeiyafa , is the first palace of the biblical king ever to be discovered.
"Khirbet Qeiyafa is the best example exposed to date of a fortified city from the time of King David," said Yossi Garfinkel, a Hebrew University archaeologist, suggesting that David himself would have used the site. Garfinkel led the seven-year dig with Saar Ganor of Israel's Antiquities Authority.
Garfinkel said his team found cultic objects typically used by Judeans, the subjects of King David, and saw no trace of pig remains. Pork is forbidden under Jewish dietary laws. Clues like these, he said, were "unequivocal evidence" that David and his descendants had ruled at the site.
Critics said the site could have belonged to other kingdoms of the area. The consensus among most scholars is that no definitive physical proof of the existence of King David has been found.
Biblical archaeology itself is contentious. Israelis often use archaeological findings to back up their historic claims to sites that are also claimed by the Palestinians, like the Old City of Jerusalem. Despite extensive archaeological evidence, for example, Palestinians deny that the biblical Jewish Temples dominated the hilltop where the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, Islam's third-holiest site, stands today.
In general, researchers are divided over whether biblical stories can be validated by physical remains.
The current excavators are not the first to claim they found a King David palace. In 2005, Israeli archaeologist Eilat Mazar said she found the remains of King David's palace in Jerusalem dating to the 10th century B.C., when King David would have ruled. Her claim also attracted skepticism, including from Garfinkel himself.
Using carbon dating, the archaeologists traced the site's construction to that same period. Garfinkel said the team also found a storeroom almost 15 meters (50 feet) long, suggesting it was a royal site used to collect taxes from the rest of the kingdom.
Garfinkel believes King David lived permanently in Jerusalem in a yet-undiscovered site, only visiting Khirbet Qeiyafa or other palaces for short periods. He said the site's placement on a hill indicates that the ruler sought a secure site on high ground during a violent era of frequent conflicts between city-states.
"The time of David was the first time that a large portion of this area was united by one monarch," Garfinkel said. "It was not a peaceful era."
Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University agreed that Khirbet Qeiyafa is an "elaborate" and "well-fortified" 10th century B.C. site, but said it could have been built by Philistines, Canaanites or other peoples in the area.
He said there was no way to verify who built the site without finding a monument detailing the accomplishments of the king who built it. Last week, for instance, archaeologists in Israel found pieces of a sphinx bearing the name of the Egyptian pharaoh who reigned when the statue was carved.
Garfinkel insisted that critics like Finkelstein are relying on outdated theories.
"I think other people have a collapsed theory and we have fresh data," he said.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-07-king-david-palace-israeli-team.html#jCp
Three decades of dialogue, discussion, and debate within the interrelated disciplines of Syro-Palestinian archaeology, ancient Israelite history, and Hebrew Bible over the question of the relevance of the biblical account for reconstructing early Israels history have created the need for a balanced articulation of the issues and their prospective resolutions. This book brings together for the first time and under one cover, a currently emerging centrist paradigm as articulated by two leading figures in the fields of early Israelite archaeology and history. Although Finkelstein and Mazar advocate distinct views of early Israels history, they nevertheless share the position that the material cultural data, the biblical traditions, and the ancient Near Eastern written sources are all significantly relevant to the historical quest for Iron Age Israel. The results of their research are featured in accessible, parallel syntheses of the historical reconstruction of early Israel that facilitate comparison and contrast of their respective interpretations. The historical essays presented here are based on invited lectures delivered in October of 2005 at the Sixth Biennial Colloquium of the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism in Detroit, Michigan.
This review is from: The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel (Archaeology and Biblical Studies) (Paperback)
This is an excellent introduction to the latest research in Biblical Archaeology, presenting a middle ground between the Minimalist and Maximalist debate which has sought to polarise the issue over the last 15 years. Both Finkelstein and Mazar are leading exponents in the field of Post-processual Archaeology, but neither are afraid of examining where the Biblical record is confirmed or challenged by the findings of modern archaeology. For a balanced view, with good editorial summaries, this book looks at the various periods and brings the reader up-to-date with the findings of the latest ecavations.
Finkelstein before he reccanted,
By
This review is from: The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel (Archaeology and Biblical Studies) (Paperback)
It is important for non-archaeologists to be aware that in November of 2010, Israel Finkelstein publicly admitted that his "minimalist" or "low" chronology--the basis for this work--does not accord with the archaeological data we now have. This is true in the light of the excavations of Khirbet Qayafah, all of which is 10th or 11th century BCE, and is a united monarchy border outpost, and the Jerusalem excavations of Eilat Mazar, 10th and 9th century, substantiating the united monarchy again. He publicly stated that the views propounded in this book are INCORRECT.Any non-professional reader must be aware of this in evaluating this now-outdated publication.
Comments
Jason says:
Would you care to back that claim up, "that Finkelstein publicly admitted...his views are incorrect," with legitimate references? By legitimate I mean don't cite links to religious websites with an agenda to flog by using spurious logic, fallacious arguments and highly edited quotes to suit their needs.
I would suspect you yourself are squarely in the camp with a bias to prove the Bible as history with your definitive statement, "...substantiating the united monarchy again." Especially since your categorical affirmation of the "true in the light of the excavations" contradicts the article that surely you can't be referring to from the National Geographic issue of December 2010, David and Solomon - Kings of Controversy, where Finkelstein's main opponents entire arguments are based on the entirely circular argument of trying to use the Bible to prove biblical history, albeit using archaeology to force fit discoveries into their narrow interpretations.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/12
To quote from the article, shattering your own claims about the "true light" of Khirbet Qeiyafa: "Here would be a second reason to be skeptical of Yossi Garfinkel's conclusions: He announced them, swiftly and dramatically, despite the fact that he had only four olive pits on which to base his dating, a single inscription of a highly ambiguous nature, and a mere 5 percent of his site excavated. In other words, says archaeologist David Ilan, "Yossi has an agenda-partly ideological, but also personal." This is hardly a firm and valid premise from which to dispense with all the evidence of "low chronology" and revert post haste to the Bible as the alpha and omega authority of its own self-interested history.
His critics, themselves with a religiously-fueled biased agenda to prove the historicity of the Bible, "claim" they have undermined Finkelstein's theories, but I don't see where he publicly admitted that he has to rethink his earlier positions. Indeed the article states quite clearly: With greater venom, Finkelstein mocks Garfinkel's discoveries at Khirbet Qeiyafa: "Look, you'll never catch me saying, 'I've found one olive pit at a stratum in Megiddo, and this olive pit-which goes against hundreds of carbon-14 determinations-is going to decide the fate of Western civilization.' " Though in fairness and my desire not to use the selective reporting techniques of the inherently biased, the article does go on to say in the next paragraph that the discoveries do indeed put Finkelstein's theories on the defensive. On the defensive, that is not the same as an admission of being incorrect, or that he is even wrong at all; he could still be proven right in the end and the new discoveries debunked. Frankly, the shamefully adamant statements you make in your review above strike me as being wholly disingenuous and deliberately phrased to confuse and mislead the uninformed with unsubstantiated and incorrect claims. I wait for you to prove me wrong by providing the requested reference above to the November 2010 statement where Finkelstein states this book is now incorrect.
If you've been paying attention all along, you would know that the earlier "Bible in one hand and spade in the other" approach by devout Judeo-Christian pioneers to biblical archaeology has been wholly discredited by the numerous examples of later unbiased, scientifically-minded archaeologists proving the original Bible-inspired categorizations of dig sites were clearly wrong and that you can't classify a site as being such and such, because a passage in the Bible says it must be so. Archaeologists must look at the evidence without any preconceived notions shaped by their religious ideology, as they do on other sites without the baggage of religious dogma.
In short, Finkelstein gets attacked by traditionalists, indoctrinated as they have been since Sunday School on tales of David and Goliath, for daring to challenge their "faith" with evidence. Undermining strict literal interpretations of the Bible does not detract from the spiritual messages inherent in many of the biblical stories - to have hope in times of suffering - as cited by Rabbi David Wolpe during his Passover sermon in 2001 when he challenged the historicity of the Exodus.
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/apr/13/n
I would suspect you yourself are squarely in the camp with a bias to prove the Bible as history with your definitive statement, "...substantiating the united monarchy again." Especially since your categorical affirmation of the "true in the light of the excavations" contradicts the article that surely you can't be referring to from the National Geographic issue of December 2010, David and Solomon - Kings of Controversy, where Finkelstein's main opponents entire arguments are based on the entirely circular argument of trying to use the Bible to prove biblical history, albeit using archaeology to force fit discoveries into their narrow interpretations.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/12
To quote from the article, shattering your own claims about the "true light" of Khirbet Qeiyafa: "Here would be a second reason to be skeptical of Yossi Garfinkel's conclusions: He announced them, swiftly and dramatically, despite the fact that he had only four olive pits on which to base his dating, a single inscription of a highly ambiguous nature, and a mere 5 percent of his site excavated. In other words, says archaeologist David Ilan, "Yossi has an agenda-partly ideological, but also personal." This is hardly a firm and valid premise from which to dispense with all the evidence of "low chronology" and revert post haste to the Bible as the alpha and omega authority of its own self-interested history.
His critics, themselves with a religiously-fueled biased agenda to prove the historicity of the Bible, "claim" they have undermined Finkelstein's theories, but I don't see where he publicly admitted that he has to rethink his earlier positions. Indeed the article states quite clearly: With greater venom, Finkelstein mocks Garfinkel's discoveries at Khirbet Qeiyafa: "Look, you'll never catch me saying, 'I've found one olive pit at a stratum in Megiddo, and this olive pit-which goes against hundreds of carbon-14 determinations-is going to decide the fate of Western civilization.' " Though in fairness and my desire not to use the selective reporting techniques of the inherently biased, the article does go on to say in the next paragraph that the discoveries do indeed put Finkelstein's theories on the defensive. On the defensive, that is not the same as an admission of being incorrect, or that he is even wrong at all; he could still be proven right in the end and the new discoveries debunked. Frankly, the shamefully adamant statements you make in your review above strike me as being wholly disingenuous and deliberately phrased to confuse and mislead the uninformed with unsubstantiated and incorrect claims. I wait for you to prove me wrong by providing the requested reference above to the November 2010 statement where Finkelstein states this book is now incorrect.
If you've been paying attention all along, you would know that the earlier "Bible in one hand and spade in the other" approach by devout Judeo-Christian pioneers to biblical archaeology has been wholly discredited by the numerous examples of later unbiased, scientifically-minded archaeologists proving the original Bible-inspired categorizations of dig sites were clearly wrong and that you can't classify a site as being such and such, because a passage in the Bible says it must be so. Archaeologists must look at the evidence without any preconceived notions shaped by their religious ideology, as they do on other sites without the baggage of religious dogma.
In short, Finkelstein gets attacked by traditionalists, indoctrinated as they have been since Sunday School on tales of David and Goliath, for daring to challenge their "faith" with evidence. Undermining strict literal interpretations of the Bible does not detract from the spiritual messages inherent in many of the biblical stories - to have hope in times of suffering - as cited by Rabbi David Wolpe during his Passover sermon in 2001 when he challenged the historicity of the Exodus.
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/apr/13/n
I've love to see a legitimate reference for Finkelstein "recanting". I'm currently doing a university course on archeology and the history of Israel, and I've been looking for recent - citable! - sources for a major essay project.
In polite terminology, "Please elaborate on your claim, so that I can investigate it, myself, and possibly include it in a scholarly essay." In vulgar terms, "Put up or shut up."
In polite terminology, "Please elaborate on your claim, so that I can investigate it, myself, and possibly include it in a scholarly essay." In vulgar terms, "Put up or shut up."
P.Gaber's assertions above are not only NOT backed up by any cited reference to this supposed "recantation" by Finkelstein, but are refuted by what Finkelstein, himself, has said about both the Khirbet Qeiyafa site as well as the work of Israeli "archaeologist" Eilat Mazar. Simply put, P.Gaber is contriving a lie to throw potential readers of this book off the trail.
In the case of the Khirbet Qeiyafa site, which was initially dated between 1050-970 BCE, Finkelstein is specifically on record as having stated that he is skeptical of the date range and the methodology employed by the authors (Finkelstein, Israel; Eli Piasetzky (June 2010). "Khirbet Qeiyafa: Absolute Chronology". Tel Aviv: Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 37 (1)). Furthermore, it was merely on the assumption that the site could be dated between 1050-970 BCE that the authors assumed it proved the existence of a United Monarchy under the successive reigns of kings Saul, David, and Solomon, despite the fact that no inscriptions discovered at the site mentioned anything about any of these monarchs, nor any monarchy, in general. In fact, the only inscription discovered at the site was that on a 6 inch by 6 inch ostracon, which failed to mention anything that could be uniquely identified with any Biblical text or tradition. Making matters worse, the ostracon appears to have been written in Proto Phoenician, not Hebrew (the written form of which had already been in existence for at least three centuries prior to the 10th century BCE), which throws doubt on the supposed "Biblical" character of the site.
Secondly, the work of "archaeologist" Eliat Mazar has been widely considered highly dubious by mainstream scholars including Finkelstein. For example, Mazar claimed that the "Large Stone Structure," which she discovered in 2005, was datable to the 10th century BCE and likely the palace of King David. Other scholars, however, have noted their skepticism of both her dating technique and her methodology, which she admits is Biblically-inspired. As Finkelstein put it: "The biblical text dominates this field operation, not archaeology. Had it not been for Mazar's literal reading of the biblical text, she never would have dated the remains to the 10th century BCE with such confidence." (Israel Finkelstein, Ze'ev Herzog, Lily Singer-Avitz and David Ussishkin (2007), Has King David's Palace in Jerusalem Been Found?, Tel Aviv: Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, 34(2), 142-164.) Clearly, Finkelstein and others consider her scholarship to be of questionable merit. It should also be pointed out that Mazar's funding for this excavation was provided by a private banker, and not any academic or professional scientific organization. In the field of archaeological (and other scientific) research, privately funded operations are usually an indication that the research was not taken seriously by the scientific community and could not secure funding through a reputable scientific organization (e.g., the National Science Foundation).
These kinds of bogus book reviews are commonly found on Amazon, and particularly in association with scholarly works having to do with archeology, history, or literature that touch on the Bible. It seems that many Christians, Jews, and Muslims are not comfortable with the idea that the truth may not comport with their self-deluding theological tendencies, which makes one wonder why they would bother reading books at all.
In the case of the Khirbet Qeiyafa site, which was initially dated between 1050-970 BCE, Finkelstein is specifically on record as having stated that he is skeptical of the date range and the methodology employed by the authors (Finkelstein, Israel; Eli Piasetzky (June 2010). "Khirbet Qeiyafa: Absolute Chronology". Tel Aviv: Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 37 (1)). Furthermore, it was merely on the assumption that the site could be dated between 1050-970 BCE that the authors assumed it proved the existence of a United Monarchy under the successive reigns of kings Saul, David, and Solomon, despite the fact that no inscriptions discovered at the site mentioned anything about any of these monarchs, nor any monarchy, in general. In fact, the only inscription discovered at the site was that on a 6 inch by 6 inch ostracon, which failed to mention anything that could be uniquely identified with any Biblical text or tradition. Making matters worse, the ostracon appears to have been written in Proto Phoenician, not Hebrew (the written form of which had already been in existence for at least three centuries prior to the 10th century BCE), which throws doubt on the supposed "Biblical" character of the site.
Secondly, the work of "archaeologist" Eliat Mazar has been widely considered highly dubious by mainstream scholars including Finkelstein. For example, Mazar claimed that the "Large Stone Structure," which she discovered in 2005, was datable to the 10th century BCE and likely the palace of King David. Other scholars, however, have noted their skepticism of both her dating technique and her methodology, which she admits is Biblically-inspired. As Finkelstein put it: "The biblical text dominates this field operation, not archaeology. Had it not been for Mazar's literal reading of the biblical text, she never would have dated the remains to the 10th century BCE with such confidence." (Israel Finkelstein, Ze'ev Herzog, Lily Singer-Avitz and David Ussishkin (2007), Has King David's Palace in Jerusalem Been Found?, Tel Aviv: Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, 34(2), 142-164.) Clearly, Finkelstein and others consider her scholarship to be of questionable merit. It should also be pointed out that Mazar's funding for this excavation was provided by a private banker, and not any academic or professional scientific organization. In the field of archaeological (and other scientific) research, privately funded operations are usually an indication that the research was not taken seriously by the scientific community and could not secure funding through a reputable scientific organization (e.g., the National Science Foundation).
These kinds of bogus book reviews are commonly found on Amazon, and particularly in association with scholarly works having to do with archeology, history, or literature that touch on the Bible. It seems that many Christians, Jews, and Muslims are not comfortable with the idea that the truth may not comport with their self-deluding theological tendencies, which makes one wonder why they would bother reading books at all.
Los Libros de la Biblia fueron escritos por diversos personajes de la historia, tanto hebrea en el Antiguo Testamento como griega cristiana en el Nuevo Testamento.
El Antiguo Testamento ( o Escrituras Hebreoarameas) se compone, según el canon, de 39 libros para los protestantes, de 46 libros para la iglesia católica (49 si se cuentan de forma separada el Capítulo 6 del Libro de Baruc, y los Capítulos 13 y 14 del Libro de Daniel), y hasta 53 para las diferentes iglesias cristianas ortodoxas.
El Nuevo Testamento (o Escrituras Griegas Cristianas), que no se encuentra en los escritos judíos, se compone de 27 libros para todos los grupos de confesión cristiana.
Así, el total de libros de la Biblia varía según el canon. Los primeros cristianos utilizaron el canon alejandrino, 1 una traducción del hebreo al griego que incluía una serie de libros que fueron rechazados del canón del Tanaj judío, y fueron recibidos por la iglesia cristiana de los primeros siglos. En la iglesia católica se llama a estos libros deuterocanónicos. Los protestantes los han llamado apócrifos. Las iglesias cristianas orientales y ortodoxas incluyen en sus Biblias de cuatro a ocho textos en adición a éstos, y rechazan el uso occidental de distinguirlos de los protocanónicos.
El texto hebreo original consistía solamente de consonantes. Los libros de la Torá (como los judíos conocen a los primeros cinco libros de la Biblia, o Pentateuco) generalmente tienen nombres basados en la primera palabra prominente de cada libro. Sin embargo, los nombres en español no son traducciones del hebreo, sino están basados en los nombres en griego creados por la traducción llamada Septuaginta, basándose en los nombres rabínicos que describen el contenido temático de cada libro.
Estos son los libros del Antiguo Testamento, ordenados según la costumbre occidental:
Libros del Nuevo Testamento
| Libro | Atribuido a |
|---|---|
| Mateo | Mateo |
| Marcos | Marcos |
| Lucas | Lucas |
| Juan | Juan |
| Hechos de los Apóstoles | Lucas |
| Romanos | Pablo |
| I Corintios | Pablo |
| II Corintios | Pablo |
| Gálatas | Pablo |
| Efesios | Pablo |
| Filipenses | Pablo |
| Colosenses | Pablo |
| I Tesalonicenses | Pablo |
| II Tesalonicenses | Pablo |
| I Timoteo | Pablo |
| II Timoteo | Pablo |
| Tito | Pablo |
| Filemón | Pablo |
| Hebreos | Pablo |
| Santiago | Santiago |
| I Pedro | Pedro |
| II Pedro | Pedro |
| I Juan | Juan |
| II Juan | Juan (?) |
| III Juan | Juan (?) |
| Judas | Judas |
| Apocalipsis o Revelación de Juan | Apóstol Juan |
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario