To some extent, but we could say similar things about pretty many (most?) ancient works we still have, and Judaism had adapted a posture of reverence for scripture while the Bible was still being written.
"we could say similar things about pretty many (most?) ancient works we still have"
One would not say that the historicity for the old and new testament documents is comparable to "many" ancient works. On the contrary, the number of MSS for old and new testament documents is like a nuclear explosion in the timeline of ancient history. There are no ancient works which even come close.
"Judaism had adapted a posture of reverence for scripture"
That's a strange statement to make? It sounds more like modern-day form criticism creeping through than an objective understanding of events.
> One would not say that the historicity for the old and new testament documents is comparable to "many" ancient works. On the contrary, the number of MSS for old and new testament documents is like a nuclear explosion in the timeline of ancient history. There are no ancient works which even come close.
The parent says nothing about historicity (although is Kings really more historical than Livy or Plutarch or Herotodus?) but just marvels that through so many copies there were relatively few major changes. But any ancient work we have was preserved in precisely the same way -- scribes making copy after copy.
> That's a strange statement to make? It sounds more like modern-day form criticism creeping through than an objective understanding of events.
What's strange about it? The Bible was considered holy writ; if careful copying is done for stories without the benefit of that classification, surely it's all the more appropriate in that case.
