Jump to content
Science Forums

Who [Re-]Wrote the Bible?


Pyrotex

Recommended Posts

Charles,

that's cool. I think the point I was trying to make was that the very fundementalist church I grew up in did not, and still does not today, accept any scholarly book on the Bible, except those that are written by and generally approved of by the denomination. All REAL scholarly works, they accuse of being written by "liberals". The church teaches that "liberals" are agents of satan who spread lies about the Bible so as to pull folks away from the "one truth" -- that only this particular denomination has. I tried to get a cousin of mine to read this book, and he wouldn't even touch it. Literally, when I offered it to him, he drew back his hands, and his eyes bugged out.

 

That's what I escaped from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who (re-wrote) the Old Testament? Well, J, E, & D among others, if recent archaeology is any judge of the matter. I recommend this most excellent program from PBS's NOVA series.

:phones: :)

 

NOVA | The Bible's Buried Secrets | PBS

 

Did anyone manage to catch this? How was it?

 

This news article makes it sound interesting:

New PBS series exposes Old Testament fairy tales - Yahoo! News

A visually stunning two-hour special edition of "Nova" examines decades of archaeological studies that contradict much of what is in the Bible. The entire Exodus story is debunked, as is the idea that the Israelites were monotheistic following the contract made between God and Abraham. It turns out idol worship was common through the reign of King David and right up to the Babylonian exile.

 

 

Usually the documentaries I see on the Bible are on the same level as those about psychic detectives and UFO abductions, with a kind of SPOOOOOOOKY "maybe this could have happened!?!?!?" attitude. The above article makes this documentary sound like a skeptical deviation from the norm..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

QUICK START

 

A year ago I decided to study early Christian and late pre-CE Jewish literature [septuagent and Dead Sea Scrolls]. I assembled about 1,000 pages from online sources, then ordered and read just about all the Amazon books on the subject. Unfortunately, the very best site [earlychristianwritings.org] is now defunct. WOW thats bad.

 

My short conclusion is the text we know as the New Testament has come down to us in pretty good order, and that St. Paul wrote most of it. I conclude it is in pretty good order for the simple reason the texts were in very wide use for for a very long time with lots of contemporary cross referencing. Not a lot of room for shenagegans, really.

 

One unfortunate choice, however, was inclusion into the 'Cannon' of the Eastern version of Acts as apposed to the Western version. The Western version was well know and widely used in antiquity prior to the 'canon', but was only rediscoverred in relatively modern times. It is much longer, and may have been a first draft. As such it includes all sorts of additional material that was cut from the final draft for all the usual reasons. And it includes all sorts of really really good stuff.

 

Another important work that did not make it into the New Testament is likely one of the very oldest Christian documents of all. It is called The Didache and is an instruction manual for early Christians. I don't think anyone can appreciate early Christianity without reading everything available on this incredible document.

 

Finally, the Codex Sianaticus has already been mentioned. It is a PRE-Canonical 'Bible' and is near total accordance with the modern version. Some people seem to believe it may actually be one of the 50 or so texts commissioned by Emperor Constantine himself. He had them distributed for the purpose of providing a sort of standard library (biblos) for at least the Eastern Empire.

 

Thats enough for now. I need to brush up on some of this stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SPEEKING OF WHO WROTE THE BIBLE - Lets talk a bit about the Old Testament

 

There are three versions of the Old Testament in common use today. By order of antiquity

they are 1) The 'Old Greek' language Septuagint still used in the Greek Orthodox Church 2) The Hebrew Jewish Old Testament that has also been adopted by Protestant churches and dates from the early Christian Era 3) The Roman Catholic Vulgate that is based on the Septuagint, and was assembled in about 300 or 400 AD.

 

The Septuagint dates from about 200-something BC. It was commissioned by Greek Speaking Jewish Egyptians in the city of Alexandria. They petitioned Jewish authorities in Jerusalem to

provide greek translations of the most important Jewish Texts. Seventy translators (Septuagint - 70 - in Greek, although there were actually 72 translators, six from each tribe) assembled in Alexandria for this purpose.

 

It is not clear exactly how many books these 72 translators provided at the time, but over the years the entirety of the books included in the Roman Catholic Old Testament were included into this single document. Accordingly, it is the first actual Bible "Biblos" meaning book. A single book. It is what Jesus and St. Paul reference.

 

Jewish authorities subsequently assembled their own 'single book Bible', in Hebrew, early in the Christian era, but long after Jesus and St Paul. This was made necessary because the Jewish State, its law courts and libraries were destroyed by the Romans. However,

these Jewish Sages decided to use only documents available in Hebrew or Aramaic; the Greek Septuagint was rejected as unathoritiative. Accordingly, since not all the well known Jewish books were available in these languages, the Jewish Old Testament of today is notable shorter then the Septuagint.

 

The Roman Catholic Old testament dates from about 300-400 AD. It is a Vulgate Latin translation from, apparently, a hodge podge of sources believed at the time, by St. Jerome, to be the best available. The result, none-the-less, reproduces the books of the Septuagint, one way or the other.

 

Now for my discovery of a biblical mistranslation. I believe the Hebrew bible and its Protestant translations discuss two brothers whose names I do not now recall. However, one of them, I believe, is banished and he will be "a wild *** of a man, and go to dwell among his people". This is also the representation provided in "The Apostles Bible" which is based on a 19th century translation of the Septuagint. However, the only authoritative translation of the Septuagent into English ever done was completed only last year.

 

The actual Septuagint Greek word describing this man is 'Agricos'. A rustic man, a rural man, perhaps hunter or farmer. Remind me to check the Roman Catholic version to see whether it is true to its own Septuagint sources.

 

All of this has revealed a number of other quandries. For instance, I believe ALL Christian Old Testaments include something like the following, concerning Jesus "He will be born of a Virgin...." The current Jewish Bible, by contrast, includes the very specific term 'young woman' instead of virgin. It must be noted there is no wiggle room in the two original Greek and Hebrew words. They can not both be translated honestly into the same English word virgin or the English phrase young woman.

 

Indeed, more then one biblical scholar has suggested the entry in the modern Hebrew Bible was a deliberate affectation and deliberate affront to the growing Christian movement of the time. A look into the dead sea scrolls might be useful at this point. Its something I might take up.

 

In any event, both Roman and Greek Catholic English 'virgin' is entirely consistent with the Greek Septuagint. However, the Protestant versions SHOULD be consistent with the modern Hebrew Bible, but are not! I quess the Hebrew Bible is the authoritative version only up to a point where it contradicts the Christian Protestant Powers That Be!

 

Finally, I invite corrections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should also comment on 'Devinely Inspired'. St. Paul flatly states his understanding of Christianity was from God himself. However, not all of his letters are represented as such. One good example is Philemon. Paul very specifically states he is NOT using his authority to command the recipient of the letter to do what he request of that recipient.

It is a short letter and is good reading.

 

In addition, the author of Acts very specifically states it is a research document using available sources to compile the history. He never claims it is devinely inspired, but is simply the best he could do. Incidentally, it seems likely St. Paul was still alive at the time since he is not mentioned as either martyred in Rome, or have died of other causes. This, amongh other things, helps date Acts as a very early writing.

 

Further, the rather recent re-discovery of the Western Version of Acts showes the version in The Bible was not much tamperred with. With one or two possibe exceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

 

It is not clear exactly how many books these 72 translators provided at the time, but over the years the entirety of the books included in the Roman Catholic Old Testament were included into this single document. Accordingly, it is the first actual Bible "Biblos" meaning book. A single book. It is what Jesus and St. Paul reference.

 

Both Jesus and Paul referenced 'the law and the prophets' but those had to fall within a certain criterion to qualify as that.

 

Jewish authorities subsequently assembled their own 'single book Bible', in Hebrew, early in the Christian era, but long after Jesus and St Paul. This was made necessary because the Jewish State, its law courts and libraries were destroyed by the Romans. However, these Jewish Sages decided to use only documents available in Hebrew or Aramaic; the Greek Septuagint was rejected as unathoritiative. Accordingly, since not all the well known Jewish books were available in these languages, the Jewish Old Testament of today is notable shorter then the Septuagint.

 

Jews then and now were suspicious of anything that was not Hebrew or Aramaic but that did not affect translation.

 

The Roman Catholic Old testament dates from about 300-400 AD. It is a Vulgate Latin translation from, apparently, a hodge podge of sources believed at the time, by St. Jerome, to be the best available. The result, none-the-less, reproduces the books of the Septuagint, one way or the other.

 

Different denominations organized certain portions of writings but the writings themselves were not changed.

 

Now for my discovery of a biblical mistranslation. I believe the Hebrew bible and its Protestant translations discuss two brothers whose names I do not now recall.

 

Jacob (father of the Jews) and Esau (father of the Arabs)

 

However, one of them, I believe, is banished and he will be "a wild *** of a man, and go to dwell among his people".

 

Esau (Gen. 16:12)

 

This is also the representation provided in "The Apostles Bible" which is based on a 19th century translation of the Septuagint. However, the only authoritative translation of the Septuagent into English ever done was completed only last year.

 

The actual Septuagint Greek word describing this man is 'Agricos'. A rustic man, a rural man, perhaps hunter or farmer. Remind me to check the Roman Catholic version to see whether it is true to its own Septuagint sources.

 

Esau was a hunter (Gen. 25:27).

 

All of this has revealed a number of other quandries. For instance, I believe ALL Christian Old Testaments include something like the following, concerning Jesus "He will be born of a Virgin...." The current Jewish Bible, by contrast, includes the very specific term 'young woman' instead of virgin. It must be noted there is no wiggle room in the two original Greek and Hebrew words. They can not both be translated honestly into the same English word virgin or the English phrase young woman.

 

Virgin: young woman and virgin are synonyms: a female who has not had sexual relations with a male (Gen. 24:16) It's speculated that Mary was 13 years old when she gave birth to Jesus. It's highly unlikely that she had had sex with a man at 13 because social structure was very strict back then.

 

However, there's the figurative meaning of the word:

"Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened to ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom." (Matt. 25:1)

 

Obviously the word virgin is a metaphor just as lamp is figurative for spirit. The kingdom of heaven is likened to ten virgins, which is a symbolic reference to those who are concerned about 'the kingdom of heaven'.

 

 

Granted it very much appears that Mary was a virgin in the physical sense as well as the figurative sense of one who was looking for the kingdom of heaven.

 

 

Indeed, more then one biblical scholar has suggested the entry in the modern Hebrew Bible was a deliberate affectation and deliberate affront to the growing Christian movement of the time. A look into the dead sea scrolls might be useful at this point. Its something I might take up.

 

In any event, both Roman and Greek Catholic English 'virgin' is entirely consistent with the Greek Septuagint. However, the Protestant versions SHOULD be consistent with the modern Hebrew Bible, but are not! I quess the Hebrew Bible is the authoritative version only up to a point where it contradicts the Christian Protestant Powers That Be!

 

Finally, I invite corrections.

 

You need to look at words in the context they are used in the writings. And you cannot just look in the context of one reference but need to research all same references where that word is used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'M ON A ROLL!

 

St. Paul is a real gas! For instance, the early church was VERY big about speaking in tongues. Paul diplomatically, however, cautions not to do too much of this so as not to frieghten the neighbors! I believe he recommends a limit of two individuals per service.

 

You've got it all wrong. Paul cautioned only one or two to speak at a time to avoid confusion. If a whole bunch of people are talking at the same time it would all sound like gibberish no matter what language people speak.

 

"To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues" (1 Cor. 12:10)

 

"But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church...for God is not the author of confusion but of peace." (1 Cor. 28-33)

 

Order was necessary (as in all meetings) so that someone would interpret the tongues, thereby edifying those listening. People coming in off the street would be amazed as those words would speak directly to their situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished reading "Misquoting Jesus" by Ehrman.

 

Imagine if you will, a good Christian boy from a Presbyterian family who at the age of 17 becomes a "born again Christian", a fervent Fundementalist, a believer in the absolute inerrancy of the the Christian Bible [King James] -- and who decides that he has the money, the time, the passion and the intelligence to go back to the original Greek and Latin manuscripts, and ONCE AND FOR ALL, determine what God actually said!!

 

That is Ehrman. And by golly, he did it!!!

 

His heart-wrenching conclusion is that if God inspired the words of the Bible, then we are in a world of hurt. Because we no longer have those original words. For the majority of the New Testament, we cannot even reconstruct the original words. The best we may ever be able to do is reconstruct approximately what the "Church Fathers" had access to in the 3rd and 4th centures C.E. And he quotes those Church Fathers who complained even then that the scriptures were not being copied faithfully.

 

If we assume that God created this reality then of course Ehrman would have cause for to doubt. However, Jesus said:

 

"And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world." (John 8:23)

 

"And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in wickedness." (1 John 5:19)

 

This is not God's creation (as I have said before) but apparently a clever ruse (a holographic pseudo-paradise) by the prince of the powers of the air (Eph. 2:2):

 

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (2 Cor. 4:4)

 

I don't like to think that it's all an elaborate illusion of some kind but my studies reveal otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we assume that God created this reality then of course Ehrman would have cause for to doubt. However, Jesus said:

 

"And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world." (John 8:23)

 

"And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in wickedness." (1 John 5:19)

 

This is not God's creation (as I have said before) but apparently a clever ruse (a holographic pseudo-paradise) by the prince of the powers of the air (Eph. 2:2):

 

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (2 Cor. 4:4)

 

I don't like to think that it's all an elaborate illusion of some kind but my studies reveal otherwise.

 

dude! the topic is who wrote it, not what you assume or like to think about it. you really should know better here by now. :naughty:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I am on topic as the writings themselves state they were divinely authored.

 

As for re-writing, the many translations were obviously done by human beings (a huge accomplishment) but overall very little has been lost in translation, especially in the KJV. An exception is The Good News Bible that para-phrased everything and so completely lost the unusual aspect to the writings.

 

How could the translators go wrong if they kept to the script? They took a word from Hebrew or Aramaic and matched it with an English word (or whatever) that had the same meaning! Of course it was much more complicated than that but if they used the same interpreting rules consistently throughout, would end up with a comparable rendering.

 

What I find truly amazing is that the books were initially passed on through oral tradition, then written in symbols and finally in writing, yet managed to retain their uniqueness and finally the exact same writing style picked up in the NT (which is considered to be very different from OT)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I am on topic as the writings themselves state they were divinely authored.

 

As for re-writing, the many translations were obviously done by human beings (a huge accomplishment) but overall very little has been lost in translation, especially in the KJV. An exception is The Good News Bible that para-phrased everything and so completely lost the unusual aspect to the writings.

 

How could the translators go wrong if they kept to the script? They took a word from Hebrew or Aramaic and matched it with an English word (or whatever) that had the same meaning! Of course it was much more complicated than that but if they used the same interpreting rules consistently throughout, would end up with a comparable rendering.

 

What I find truly amazing is that the books were initially passed on through oral tradition, then written in symbols and finally in writing, yet managed to retain their uniqueness and finally the exact same writing style picked up in the NT (which is considered to be very different from OT)!

 

:doh: you're a caution ducky. the styles in fact are not alike and we have elucidated that here in this thread. i do hope you have taken the time to read articles at the links provided as we are limited in the amount of material we are allowed to quote. that is the De rigeur of this place. those transcribers/translators had their own biasses and agendas and to presume they kept to the script is -to put it mildly- unsupported musings. i'll leave it to one of our language experts to Q up on some of your language issues if they care; i'm more onto the historical archaeological bent.

 

how could translators go wwrong...??? :rotfl: good grief you're a caution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one looks at the red lettered versions of certain bibles, these are the quotes said to come directly from Christ. One of the things Christ talked about was leaving behind a comforter; the Spirit of Truth (Holy Spirit). This additon to religion via Christianity meant that things were not meant to be carved in stone, but were meant to evolve with time.

 

It was meant to be carved in stone, literally, as there were two stone tablets that contained the Law of the Testimony. The Holy Spirit would teach and be a witness to that law.

 

Back then Christ said" blessed are the poor and it is with difficulty that a rich man will enter heaven" How many people are willing to give up all they own to be consistent with the orginal version?

 

The words are 'blessed are the poor (in spirit)'. Those that are poor in spirit are those to whom the Holy Spirit could teach the Law of the Testimony to. When Jesus told the rich young ruler to 'sell all you have and give to the poor', he was speaking of 'the poor in spirit' [sell your old knowledge of what you think the kingdom of heaven is like and give that knowledge freely to those who want it (poor in spirit)]:

 

"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:3)

 

Jesus would never tell anyone to give away their goods or money for that must be a free will decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the styles in fact are not alike and we have elucidated that here in this thread.

 

If they're not alike then how is it possible to do the following:

 

 

And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: And Enoch walked with God and he was not; for God took him.” (OT Bible, Genesis 5:22-23)

 

By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.” (NT Bible, Hebrews 11:5)

 

Before these things Enoch was hidden, and no one of the children of men knew where he was hidden, and where he abode, and what had become of him. 2. And his activities had to do with the Watchers (angels), and his days were with the holy ones” (brackets mine).” (Book of Enoch Chap. 12)

 

…and those men said to me. ‘Have courage Enoch, do not fear, the Eternal God sent us to you, and Lo! Thou shalt today ascend with us into heaven... (Book of Enoch Chapter One)

 

…one man among them was clothed with linen, with a writer’s inkhorn by his side. (OT Bible Ezekiel 9:2b)

 

…since the Lord chose you, rather than all men on earth, and designated you writer of all his creation…” (Book of Enoch Chapter XLIV)

 

And he brought me thither, and, behold, there was a man, whose appearance was like the appearance of brass, with a line of flax in his hand, and a measuring reed; and he stood in the gate. (OT Bible, Ezekiel 40:3) line = a (carpenter's) scribing-awl (for pricking or scratching measurements)

 

“I lifted up mine eyes again, and looked, and behold a man with a measuring line in his hand.” (OT Bible, Zechariah 2:1)

 

Synonyms: line of flax/measuring reed or rod/writer’s inkhorn/plumb line/plummet

 

Without the Book of Enoch we could not know that the man with the writer’s inkhorn in Ezekiel and the man with the measuring line (having to do with writing) in Zechariah are one and the same, Enoch!

 

I can do this with all of the Bible and these topics branch off to other subjects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The PBS documentary by NOVA/The Bible's Buried Secrets is very good but long. You should watch this when there are no distractions. I watched most of it but still feel like I missed a lot and plan to watch it again.

 

Some notable points is there is no archeological evidence for a mass exodus, as reported in Exodus.

 

According to the Bible itself the exodus was not just comprised of Israelites but a 'mixed' bunch of people (Exodus 12:36), which is something most Christians don't know and I didn't know (I've never done a study on it).

 

Noah's ark contained 'by sevens' male and female of every clean animal and 2 of every (male and female) unclean animal (Gen. 7:2), news to me but again, I've never studied this. However, 7:8-9 & 15 mention only 2.

 

The documentary noted another seeming Biblical discrepancy of the Ark story. It says in one part that it rained '40 days and 40 nights' (7:4) but then it says "the waters prevailed upon the earth 150 days" (Gen. 7:24 and 8:3). I can explain this apparent discrepancy. It rained 40 days and nights but took 150 days for the waters to abate (Noah and his family and the animals were in the Ark were a total of one year, seventeen days).

 

Another apparent Ark discrepancy the documentary noted was that Noah sent out a raven in 8:7 but it didn't return. So he sent a dove in 8:8,she returned because she couldn't find 'rest for the sole of her foot' and 7 days later was sent out again and returned with an olive leaf. Which brings up the question, what happened to the raven? A raven is a scavenger bird, a dove is not.

 

Still there is no geological evidence to support a global flood (mine).

 

Excavations found evidence of both David and Solomon within the time line specified in the OT.

 

It was mentioned the Israelites were originally Canaanites but Abraham was from Ur which is Assyrian. (Sarai was Abraham's half sister).

 

 

Oh yes, I forgot to mention the biggie, 'God had a wife', at least her name was found inscribed on rock (can't remember the exact, I should have written it down). However, it could have been in reference to Ashtoreth (this goddess had other alias's) that the Israelites sometimes sacrificed their own children to. However, when the Israelites were strictly monotheistic they did not practice human sacrifice but when they followed the teachings of the countries around them, would commit barbaric acts.

 

Many finds of personal idols in home dwellings revealed that many of the Israelites were not monotheistic, which is not new because in the OT, God was always rebuking the Israelites for their idolatry.

 

 

I think the Yahoo article title was one-sided because there was evidence that some Biblical narration was in sync with archeological findings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...