lisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette) (09/30/84)
<nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!> <Yirmiyahu (Jeremiah?) Ben David> > We're talking about a figure (Jesus) who differs considerably between > the historical figure (Yeshua or Y'shua) and the (mythical) image > created of him later by pagans of the Roman Empire (the Christian > Jesus). ... Y'shua taught Torah in synagogues while Jesus died to > save the world from the Jewish law of sin and death. The historical > N'tzarim sect which followed Y'shua kept the Sabbath and even offered > sacrifice in the Temple until the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE. > The heretical evolution of Christianity didn't get rolling well until > 110 CE when the N'tzarim leadership was booted out of Jerusalem with > the other Jews and the first gentile "bishop" was installed. ... > You have every right to practice Christianity if you want, but I don't > think you should disguise it in a mantle of pseudo-scholarship. After much thought I have decided to respond to this article, not so much because historical reconstruction has any merit, but because Yirmiyahu has raised the very important question of how Jesus fits into Christianity! First, Yirmiyahu has done a great service in reminding us that Jesus (or Yeshua) was a Jew. In a very real sense the founder of Christianity was not a Christian at all! It was his followers who elaborated on his words and expanded his ideas, and ultimately broke with Judaism (or more probably vice versa) to go their own way. The question Yirmiyahu poses is, basically, whether Christianity as it is practiced today (or in the first centuries of the "Common Era" - CE) is really true to the intentions and implications of Jesus' teachings. To say that Jesus "taught Torah in the synagogues" and that his earliest followers were "observant Jews" is both right and wrong. In one sense this means nothing more than saying Jesus was a First Century Jew. All Jewish teachers taught the Law of Moses (Torah), all participated in synagogue worship, and all were "observant" (e.g. Sabbath keeping and dietary laws). On the other hand, "observant" Jews today practice Judaism according to the interpretations of the Torah laid down in the writings of the Rabbis (the Mishna, the Talmud, and various other legal and homiletical tractates). The earliest of these writings stem from the Third Century, and few (if any) of their teachings predate Jesus (the best "popular" treatment I have seen is Jacob Neusner, "From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism," NY:KTAV, 1979). Judaism in the First Century was almost as diverse as Christianity in the Twentieth Century. The rigid (like the school of Shammai) held every letter of the Law to be inspired and every regulation to be interpreted literally. Philo (in Egypt), on the other hand, believed that Greek philosophy was just as valid as the Torah (in fact, Philo suggested that the Greeks stole all their best ideas from Moses). The Saducees were the "high churchmen" of their day, and the Qumran sectarians (Essenes) went off to the dessert to wait for the end of the world (when God would fry everyone who didn't belong to their group). All of these were "observant" Jews. All "taught Torah in synagogues." The real question is whether the followers of Jesus who wrote the books of the Christian covenant properly applied their Master's teachings to the new situations they found themselves in, and whether their followers correctly understood the Scriptures in formulating doctrines like the trinity, the deity of Christ, etc. This is the question I will take up in a second posting (this one is already too long). A footnote on the name the earliest followers of Jesus went by. Yirmiyahu mentions the "N'tzarim" - a term that does not appear in either Jewish or Christian Bibles. I assume he is referring to the Hebrew word "Netzer" (branch or sprout). Isaiah 11.1 does refer to a "branch" (netzer) which will grow from the roots of Jesse - a reference to the king who shall preside over the renewed earth. Some think this verse is referred to by Matthew ("... that which was spoken by the prophets, ... 'He shall be called a Nazarene'" - 2.23). There is no verse in the Hebrew Scriptures that predict this, and there is some similarity between the words Nazarene and Netzer (but there are other Hebrew words that would be more similar). All of this notwithstanding, the word "N'tzarim" does not appear anywhere in the Christian testament, nor in any early Christian writings with which I am familiar. It is at Antioch, we are told by Luke, that the followers of Jesus were first dubbed "Christians" (the term appears to have been intended as an insult). The church in Palestine is referred to as followers of "the way," the "poor," and "little ones" in the New Testament. There is no evidence that Jewish followers of Jesus stopped thinking of themselves as Jews, nor that Jewish society kicked them out, until the last decades of the First Century. Peter and John attended prayer at the Temple, Paul preached in synagogues, and James refers to the "synagoguing" of believers (2.2). There is no evidence to suggest that followers of Jesus continued to offer sacrifices in the Temple (the writer to the Hebrews made a theological point about this), but there is also no evidence to suggest they didn't (at least in the early years). Jeff Gillette ...!duke!phs!lisa The Divinity School Duke University Durham, NC
lisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette) (09/30/84)
<> <Yirmiyahu (Jeremiah?) Ben David> > All translations suffer from the attempts of non-Jewish translators > trying futilly to understand the Judaic concepts of an early group of > Jews. ... Christian doctrines of today originate in the paganism of > the Roman Empire. ... One of the major problems with citing passages > from modern versions [of the Bible] is that there it is slanted by so > many interpretations from the Roman Empire which were alien to the > early N'tzarim sect. ... Relying upon "Christianized" versions > promulgates the muddying of the distinction between Christian and > Jew. Granted that Jesus was a Jew; his disciples were Jews; and until at least the eighth decade of the First Century followers of Jesus in Palestine continued to live as Jews in a Jewish society (see part 1 of this posting). The question, then, is 1) to what extent are the writers of Christian Scripture faithful to the meaning and intentions of Jesus; 2) to what extent were those who formulated early Christian theology (up till, say, the time of Augustine in the Fifth Century) influenced by "pagan" thought; and 3) to what extent have "Roman" interpretations corrupted the transmission and translation of the New Testament. Yirmiyahu has rightly reminded us that there are no "objective" translations. Anyone who has taken a foreign language knows that some words and ideas just can't be translated adequately. Other words carry connotations that just weren't intended by the original text. The only way to *really* understand the teachings of Jesus is to be a Jew living in the First Century. The closest scholars can come (i.e. intensive study of the language and culture of the First Century) is rather like looking at a black-and-white photograph of the Grand Canyon - not only has the landscape been flattened into two dimensions, but the shades and tints are discerned only with great difficulty. How, then, can we trust modern translations of the Bible? As Yirmiyahu knows, we have more manuscripts of the New Testament than any other document from antiquity. This includes over 81 fragments of papyrus (most of which date from the Second through Fourth centuries), over 266 "uncial" manuscripts (Fourth through Ninth centuries), 2754 "miniscule" manuscripts (Ninth Century and after). Additional evidence is available in over 100 early christian writers (pre 500) who quoted Scripture passages, and early translations of the New Testament (also pre 500) into Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, and Armenian. These figures are available in Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (1968 - Dr. Metzger is a recently retired professor of New Testament at Princeton). Yirmiyahu is correct when he suggests that many thousands of differences exist in these manuscripts. *Some* do effect the meaning of a passage, and *some* even appear to have been introduced, on purpose, to bring the text into line with some theological point. The *vast* majority (from my own experience with the text of the New Testament) turn upon some point of grammar. Of those variations that appear to be intentional, the vast majority are "benign" attempts either to add details to make a passage more "interesting," or (in the Gospels) to bring it into harmony with other passages of Scripture. If "it is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS tradition is wholly uniform" (a statement I would take issue with if I cared to take the time to check it out in the texts), it is also safe to say that the canons of textual criticism (a quasi-scientific discipline), which compare and evaluate the *whole* MS tradition, has given us a Greek text in which the authenticity of hardly one percent presents serious question. Pardon the extended digression on the subject of textual criticism. The point I wish to make, however, is this: we can be more certain of the reliability of the Greek text of the New Testament than *any* other literary/religious document from antiquity - even the Hebrew Scriptures. The difference in English versions of the New Testament stem almost entirely from the subjective process of *translation*, not from a "corrupt" text! So how does the lay person, without detailed knowledge of the language and culture, hope to understand the New Testament? Probably the best advice is that given by Charley Wingate - get a variety of (reputable) opinions. Studying a few scholarly commentaries (that discuss questions of language and culture) should give the basic issues in a passage. The bare minimum, however, is to look at several *reputable* English versions, preferably with different translation philosophies (like the New American Standard Bible and the New English Bible, or the Revised Standard Bible and the New International Version). A person who carefully studies several of the best commentaries on a particular passage probably will understand it as well as many of the "experts." The point I wish to make (am I becoming redundant :-) ) is that the text of the New Testament is *reliable* and *accessible*. If Yirmiyahu wishes to assert that modern Christianity is a "corruption" of the teachings of the Jesus, he is going to have to prove either 1) that modern Christianity misinterprets the writings of the early Church (specifically the 27 books of the Greek New Testament), in which case examples will be appropriate; or 2) that the early Christian authors (again, the 27 books of the Greek New Testament) misinterpreted and misapplied the teachings of Jesus, in which case some type of evidence will also be appropriate. Obviously sects and cults from Second Century gnosticism to Twentieth Century ????? (fill in the blanks yourself :-) ) have claimed one or the other, and all have advanced arguments for their position. Perhaps, however, as I challenge Yirmiyahu to provide concrete evidence for his claims, I also should address these two criteria. After all, how do we judge whether early Christianity correctly understood Jesus' teachings and applied them to new situations, and how do we know that *we* are correctly interpreting our own Scriptures? This will have to wait for the third (and last) installment on Jesus, N'tzarim, and Yirmiyahu. Jeff Gillette ...!duke!phs!lisa The Divinity School Duke University Durham, NC
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (10/01/84)
In article <phs.941> lisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette) writes: >How, then, can we trust modern translations of the Bible? As >Yirmiyahu knows, we have more manuscripts of the New Testament than >any other document from antiquity. This includes over 81 fragments >of papyrus (most of which date from the Second through Fourth >centuries), over 266 "uncial" manuscripts (Fourth through Ninth >centuries), 2754 "miniscule" manuscripts (Ninth Century and after). >Additional evidence is available in over 100 early christian >writers (pre 500) who quoted Scripture passages, and early translations >of the New Testament (also pre 500) into Latin, Syriac, Coptic, >Gothic, and Armenian. These figures are available in Bruce >Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (1968 - Dr. Metzger is a >recently retired professor of New Testament at Princeton). > I have seen these figures before, in a variety of contexts, and I remain unimpressed. Sheer weight of documentation does not attest to accuracy, only to distribution. That early Christianity, as practiced by the followers of the Roman bishops, was widespread is not, I think, in dispute. > ...we can be more certain of >the reliability of the Greek text of the New Testament than *any* other >literary/religious document from antiquity - even the Hebrew Scriptures. >The difference in English versions of the New Testament stem almost entirely >from the subjective process of *translation*, not from a "corrupt" text! The notions of reliability and accuracy are confused here. That we have many copies of the text says little about its state of corruption. The initial translations most likely serve as the source for further copies. Rather than having many independent translations of an initial unknown source, we have iterative copying, with errors in the earliest being carried through to the later editions. That we believe we know what the earliest translations say is not at issue, the question is do they reflect the reality of the time. -- Byron C. Howes {decvax|akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (10/01/84)
There are two additional points worth raising on the questions of textual accuracy and translation. First, ideological editing can take place at a level far higher than that of textual changes. The most obvious example is the process of canonicalization -- who decided what early writings should be considered part of the "Bible". One case in point is the so-called "gnostic gospels" -- a collection of early writings unearthed in 1947, but which was little-known for several years for various reasons. (See Elaine Pagel's book, "The Gnostic Gospels"; the remainder of this paragraph is a very poor summary of her conclusions.) Some of the works found correspond quite well to other Biblical texts of the time; others, though, are totally new works that present a very different view of some of Jesus's teachings. Pagel's claim is that these works were omitted from the canon because their proponents lost out in a power struggle with the surviving church hierarchy. Among the significant differences are gnosticism, the status of women, and the role of Mary Magdalene. It's easy to claim, of course, that these views are not Christian -- but that's begging the question, since the whole point is that these works may present as accurate a picture of Jesus as do the accepted works. (You're also welcome to claim that Pagel doesn't know what she's talking about; however, she's a professional in this business (a professor of religion, I believe), and I doubt very much if anyone on this newsgroup is qualified to debate her on her specialty. One need not go so far afield to find works that some groups accept as canonical and others don't, of course; consider the Apocrypha. There are many other Bible-like works that have survived.) A second point is that some of the errors of translation and interpretation are fundamental indeed. The best-known cases from the Tanach (the Old Testament) are the famous passage from Isaiah about a child being born to either a young woman or a virgin, and the passage about "until Shiloh come". Both are held (by Christians) to refer to the Messiah in general, and to Jesus in particular. I posted a long article several months ago on Shiloh; the gist of it was taken from Hertz's commentary in the Soncino Bible. I can summarize it all by saying that the meaning is very unclear, the King James translation of it is dubious at best, and no one can be certain what it means (there is even some Jewish support for the view that it is messianic, though not necessarily in the sense accepted by Christians). These are major doctrinal points, not grammatical niceties.
lisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette) (10/02/84)
<Yup, It's me again!> <Yirmiyahu Ben David> > [The] early followers of Yeshua were observant Jews some 40 years > after the execution of Yeshua. ... Christian doctrines of today > originate in the paganism of the Roman Empire - not with the > authentic early group of Jewish followers. ... The heretical > evolution of Christianity didn't get rolling well until 110 CE > when the N'tzarim leadership was booted out of Jerusalem with > the other Jews and the first gentile "bishop" was installed. In the past two postings, I have tried to emphasize a few points: First, Jesus was a Jew. He lived in a Jewish society, worshipped in synagogues, and kept the Sabbath and dietary laws. Palestine in the First Century was not, however, a homogeneous society. Beneath the bonds of community, ritual and tradition that linked all Jews together, many competing sects claimed to teach the "real" meaning of Torah and God's covenant. The followers of Jesus undoubtedly saw him in this very role - one who taught the way of truth and life. The second point I have attempted to make is that the writings of early Christians which have come to us as the Greek text of the New Testament have been preserved in a most remarkable way. We have so many different lines of transmission - manuscripts from all parts of the Roman Empire, quotations in other Christian writers, early translations - that the careful scholar can critically compare the evidence and make a pretty good statement about what the original autographs really said. By all evidence available, the text of the Greek New Testament has greater claim to *reliability* and *accuracy* than any other document from antiquity. Thus our *interpretations* of the New Testament may well be fallible and corrupted by theological prejudice, but the *text* stands the most rigid scrutiny of textual criticism. The crucial question (and the one I find most interesting) is the middle term. How can we claim that those who wrote the 27 letters, tractates, apologies, etc. that have come to be called the New Testament, *really* understood and *correctly* applied the teachings of Jesus. The first point here is that the books of the New Testament are not the work of "observant" Jews writing to other "observant" Jews about interpretations of the Mosaic Law. The Acts of the Apostles record that the church quickly expanded to include Samaritans, and even Gentiles at Antioch. The dominant question of that generation - what to do with the "uncircumcised" was answered at a council in Jerusalem around the early 50s: let them observe four basic commands incumbent upon all people (Jew and Gentile alike), and let them live in peace with their Jewish brothers and sisters. Among the Gospels, Matthew knew of a time when Jesus commanded his disciples to go only to the "lost sheep" of Israel, but for the present generation, the command of Christ was to "go and make disciples of *all* nations" (ethnoi - nations, peoples, etc.). The audience of John's Gospel certainly included non-Jewish elements. The opponents of Jesus are referred to as "the Jews," and basic Hebrew/Aramaic terms like "Rabbi" are interpreted for those not familiar with the language. By the way, *all* of the New Testament is written in Greek. A few scholars occasionally posit a possible Aramaic original for a few (mainly liturgical) verses here and there, but the vast majority of the text in no way resembles a translation. In fact more quotations of the Old Testament are from the Septuagint (an Greek translation used in the synagogues) than are from the Masoritic (Hebrew) text! And even the most unliterary books of the New Testament are unquestionably Greek originals. They adopt Greek sentence style. They argue on the basis of Greek words and idioms (ever try to translate a pun to another language :-) ). In short, there are *no* Hebrew/ Aramaic originals standing behind the New Testament. There may be an Aramaic source used by the Gospels (as Papias, an early Christian writer suggested), but the only writings from the first (and second) generation of Christianity which have come to us were written in Greek. St. Paul gives us a most radical re-interpretation of Jesus' teaching. For him Christ is the "end" of the Law (telos - goal or termination). The Law of Moses was a "schoolmaster" (paidagogos - a tutor) that led to faith in Christ - now that faith has come, the paidagogos is no longer in authority. Paul tells of a visit to Jerusalem where he took along Titus (an uncircumcised Gentile) specifically to make an issue of *not* circumcising him! Paul's operating principle is the "theology" that the death/resurrection of Jesus is the basis of Christian existence and ethic, and thus the (old) covenant of Israel and the Law of Moses are no longer relevant to one's relationship with God. (By the way, was Saul/Paul one of the N'tzarim, or was he one of the "pagan" Romans :-). ) But, would Jesus have agreed with Paul? In one sense it is impossible to say with certainty what Jesus believed. The only reports of his teachings come from the very writers in question. On the other hand, those who claim Jesus to be the ultimate revelation of God to mankind have to try to reach some conclusions! All four Gospels speak of the questioning of Jesus the night before his death. In each of them the gist of the charge is that Jesus deserves to die because he has claimed himself to be the "Son of God/Son of Man" - the Messiah who would usher in the reign of God. Now it was not a capital offense to claim to be the Messiah. In the Second Century Aqiba, a respected Rabbi, endorsed the Messianic claims of Bar Kokhba. When the Jews were crushed and Bar Kokhba was killed, Aqiba was reported to be somewhat chagrined (:-)), but remained a respected Rabbi. The obvious implication is that there was something different about Jesus' claim that was incompatible with established Judaism. Perhaps a hint comes through in Matthew and Mark, where Jesus is initially charged with disrespect for the Temple - the focus of Jewish life and religion. Did Jesus preach a "kingdom of God" without Temple, without sacrifice, even without the Torah of Moses (which laid out extensive regulation of ritual practices)? Did Jesus preaching about worshipping God "in spirit and in truth" rub the religious establishment the wrong way? Did the freedom with which Jesus reinterpreted - and even revoked - Torah regulations rub the scholarly establishment the wrong way? Apparently Jesus' capital offense was elevating himself from a "disciple" of Moses and teacher of Torah, to a "greater" than Moses and a giver of Torah (instruction). And because of this subversiveness, the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus to death. What is the point of this discussion? Simply that Jesus, a good Jew, an "observant" Jew, even a loyal Jew, saw God's kingdom focused in *himself* not in *Judaism*. Thus Matthew correctly interpreted the significance of Jesus commission - "Go and make disciples of *all peoples* ... teaching them to observe all that *I* have commanded." Similarly, Paul was correct that "in Christ, it is neither circumcision (being a Jew) nor uncircumcision (being a Gentile) that has any importance, but rather faith which works through love." Alas, I have said enough (someone might say too much!). The question I wish to leave is this: If the writers of the New Testament were able to cut through the cultural trappings in Jesus life and teachings (his observance and teaching of ritual practices) and adapt the "essential core" of Jesus' message to their non-Palestinian (and often non-Jewish) congregations, how may we at the end of the Twentieth Century appropriate the "essential core" of Jesus' message to the faith and practice of our own situation? Jeff Gillette ...!duke!phs!lisa The Divinity School Duke University
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (10/02/84)
the question is do they reflect the reality of the time ?
Byron Howes
Mercy Sakes Byron we ain't never gonna get the answer to that
one unless we get a super find like the dead sea scrolls.
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (10/04/84)
In article <akgua.1018> rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) writes: >> >> the question is do they reflect the reality of the time ? >> > > Mercy Sakes Byron we ain't never gonna get the answer to that > one unless we get a super find like the dead sea scrolls. > I think you missed the point on this. Many Christian apologists imply that the accuracy of New Testament texts (in the sense of their truth value with respect to early Christian thought) is in some sense proven by the existance of large numbers of copied text fragments. As Steve Bellovin has pointed out, there is a significant body of text which dates from the same period that is not included in NT canon and is often at odds with the Apostolic Christian thought represented by that group of writings compiled by the early Christian Bishops as the New Testament. There has also been considerable research indicating that the Synoptic Gospels were culled from earlier works, some in the Gnostic tradition, in such a way as to reflect the Apostolic authority. Why is it that most fundamentalist Christians claim the NT as authority by the direct word of G*d? The history of the Bible is one of political foment and competing theologies. As someone has said, "history is written by the winners." This is no less true of historical theology. Without challenging the legitimacy of modern Christian thought, as it is a philosophy which extends well beyond its seminal documents, I do find the often-stated assumption of Biblical inerrancy to be extremely suspect. -- Byron C. Howes {decvax|akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/05/84)
[Byron Howes] > ... As Steve > Bellovin has pointed out, there is a significant body of text which > dates from the same period that is not included in NT canon and is > often at odds with the Apostolic Christian thought represented by that > group of writings compiled by the early Christian Bishops as the New > Testament. Very recently, a large collection of these was published in paperback, under the title "The Other Bible". It's nice to have readily available when arguing about the origins of the bible. -- Mike Huybensz ...mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh