Guns, Lies and Forgeries:A Bible Story

Posted by Rnl on August 24, 2007, 06:01 AM | #

Annas and Caiphas and the Sanhedrin had rejected the messianic claims of Jesus. The New Testament documents had been written and were circulating by A.D. 70. The Jews knew that the credibility of the Christian Gospels depended on the credibility of the Septuagint. Something had to be done.

A more serious point would be that Jews did not want to share a sacred text with Christians. They preferred a text that Christians couldn’t read. Christians could read Greek; few could read Hebrew. Jews had no inkling that there would eventually arise a “Judeo-Christian tradition.” They hoped to suppress debate and dialogue with Christians. They also feared that their Greek Bible was corrupting Hellenized Jews.

Psalm 96:10 “Say among the nations, YHWH reigns from the wood” omitted.

“The Lord reigned from the tree” was missing from some Jewish copies of the Septuagint. We know that because Christians accused them of truncating the verse in their own Greek translations. It’s just as likely that eager Christians had themselves interpolated “from the tree.”

Psalm 22:16 the word “pierced” has been replaced by “lion”.

If anti-Christian Jews were attempting to corrupt Christianity by selective corruptions of their own Hebrew Bible, they didn’t succeed here. Jerome, supposedly following the Hebrew rather than the Septuagint, translates as _fixerunt_ - “they fixed” him to the cross. The most authoritative version of the Vulgate reads: “vinxerunt manus meas et pedes meas” (Psalm 21.17) - i.e. “they fettered my hands and feet.” A Latin paraphrase of the Syriac has “mordentes sicut leo,” piercing (or biting) [him] as a lion. The Douay has “they have dug my hands and feet” (21.17). The KJV and RSV have “they (have) pierced my hands and feet” (Psalm 22:16). All ignore or modify the Hebrew, which apparently reads literally “like a lion my hands and feet.” The verse appears in the various Christian translations as though the translators were reading the Septuagint, which they probably were for this difficult verse. Even Aquila, who was rigorously literal, translates as “they disfigured ...”

I don’t believe Psalm 22 (or 21 in the Vulgate) is a prophecy of Christ’s Crucifixion. But that interpretation remained available in all major translations of the Old Testament. Any ancient Masoretic chicanery had no effect whatever on the traditional Christian interpretation of the psalm. 

For your case to be plausible, there must be passages in important Christian translations that misstate or distort Christian doctrine as a result of the translators’ reliance on the Hebrew text. 

Isaiah 7:14. “Virgin” replaced by “young woman.” (When Aquila made his Greek translation of the Old Testament at the behest of Rabbi Akiva, he changed the Septuagint’s “virgin” into “young woman”. The Masoretic compilers may have followed his lead.)

Hebrew _almah_ - “young woman,” which could mean “virgin” - appears in the Septuagint at Isaiah 7:14 as Greek _parthenos_, which clearly means “virgin.” The difference in meaning is not large. In our own language _maiden_ offers a parallel. Until recently a woman’s maiden name was her virgin name. In earlier English _virgin_ and _maiden_ were almost synonyms. A young girl was presumed to be a virgin.

Now the difference between maiden and virgin may be substantial to some. But for those of us without any strong emotional investment in the history of Jewish mythology, it looks quite small. Even Martin Luther, who did have a strong emotional investment in Jewish mythology, reasonably treated _parthenos_ and _almah_ as synonyms. In any case most Christian translations, including both the Catholic Douay and the Protestant KJV, prefer _virgin_: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son.” No Jewish corruption of the dogma of virgin birth or the prophecy of Christ’s coming occurred, since the source of contention was translated exactly as it appears in the Septuagint.

The Masoretic text differs from the Septuagint in hundreds of places.

Only about fifty are relevant to your argument. There are over three hundred quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament, and the vast majority agree with the Septuagint. We would expect differences, but they are not abundant.

Your best example, incidentally, would be the omission of the Book of Susanna, which appears in Catholic Bibles following the last chapter of Daniel, but not in the Hebrew Old Testament, perhaps because it reflects poorly on the Jewish elders.

Control of the Dead Sea Scrolls was a military objective of Israelis. It was achieved by their victory in the Six Days War. The publication of the scrolls slowed to a trickle. After 1971, the international team even refused to allow the publication of photographs of the material. They excluded scholars who wanted to make independent evaluations. The embargo was not broken until 1991.

Please list the names of the Jewish scholars in the international team who suppressed publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Then list the names of the non-Jews who broke the embargo.

These are trick questions. 

The Masoretic Text is part of a tradition that began with Rabbi Akiva. Rabbis rewrote the Jewish Bible to destroy the credibility of the New Testament.

Christians are reading Jewish scriptures whenever they open the Old Testament. Nothing will change that. There is no non-Jewish Old Testament anywhere in existence.

Traditionally Christians have argued that Jews fail to understand their own religious texts. That’s a good tradition, which anti-Semitic Christians should retain. But you shouldn’t accuse Jews of elobarate conspiracies to corrupt your Old Testament, which is also their Hebrew Bible.

By creative misreading our Christian forefathers transformed this often monstrous collection of ethnocentric Jewish tales into a source of genuine moral edification and artistic inspiration. That has been one of the great accomplishments of our civilization. But _we_ were the corrupters of Jewish texts; they didn’t corrupt ours. Jews have every right to be irritated.

Posted by Maguire on August 24, 2007, 02:08 PM | #

Attention, Wintermute!  Calling Wintermute!  Where is Wintermute???

Here’s your chance, man.  In this thread we’re at least 2,000 years removed from any living white babies, and yet another mind inferior to yours has fallen into the “Septuagint Trap”.

Have at it, old boy.  Load this thread up: (repeat 500 times).

And after you’ve finished that semi-automated process, tell us yet again why Gutenberg’s Press had -0- effect on anything.

Maguire

Posted by cladrastis on August 24, 2007, 07:38 PM | #

In the documentary Zeitgeist, the directors posit that the new Testament story of Jesus is an allegory about astronomical/astrological events, and that the story of Jesus (who they assert likely did NOT in fact exist) is ripped almost word for word from the story of Horus in the Egyptian Book of the Dead.  Sounds a little far-fetched, but their evidence is convincing.  Such a motif might easily have been transmitted from one Semitic culture to another.

I’d be interested in hearing reactions to this interpretation of the New Testament from individuals who are more knowledgable than I.

The rest of the documentary is also worth watching - part II is about 911 (and the Iraq/Afghan/soon-to-be-Iran War) and part III is about international banking, the Fed, etc.

Overall, it’s very good, but like I said, I’m no expert on the subjects it discusses.  Admittedly, it gets a little New Agey at the end w/ flashes of Ghandi, MLK Jr and John Lennon w/ the usual song and dance about seeing past our superficial differences - and how all the “good people” are killed for their high ideals.  It also briefly discusses Nazi financing by *American* bankers and the Bush-Nazi connection (*yawn). 

Despite this, if you pay attention (for instance, to the names) and winnow the facts from the opinions, it is a powerful attack on the Jewish elite and the Anglo elite that sold us out.  I highly recommend it:

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

Posted by George Taylor on August 24, 2007, 08:06 PM | #

Who in their right mind actually cares about the “Septuagint”? Religion is nothing but a collection of lies anyway, from the Hindus to the Muslims and all in between.

Posted by Fr. John on August 31, 2007, 01:47 PM | #

Well, George, at least 100 millions around the world seem to ‘care’. They are known as Orthodox Christians, and they are the only viable remnant of what once was known as Christendom. They kept the faith entire, and did not suffer Rome’s errors, the schism of the Reformation, the heresies of the various anabaptist sects, and still to this day, use the LXX *(Septuagint) as THEIR ‘official’ OT, rather than the heretical massoretic [Jewish] one.

And, you know, whether you live in a hole in the sand or no, your taxes, and your presidents, from Washington on, have ALL either acknowledged religion, or flaunted it’s precepts (think of Adulterous Bill!)… which, of course, only corroborates its’ ultimate necessity in the affairs of men.

Where shall I flee from Thee? Whither shall I go from Thy spirit? If I descend to the depths of the sea, Thou art there.... - from Psalms

Or, as Gary North put it, “There is no neutrality.”

Submit to Christ, or you WILL submit to the Satan known as Allah.

The Choice is yours… but you WILL have to make a choice.

Posted by Khoi on February 12, 2010, 09:11 PM | #

Your accusation concerning Psalm 96:10 is baseless.

“Say among the heathen, The Lord reigns: for he has established the world so that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people in righteousness.” (Septuagint, translated by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton)

“Say among the nations, “The Lord has reigned.” Also the inhabited world will be established so that it will not falter; He will judge peoples with equity.” (Chabad Tanach with Rashi)

Whither your “wood?”

Moreover, only in ENGLISH does the word “wood” had a dual meaning:

1 a : a dense growth of trees usually greater in extent than a grove and smaller than a forest —often used in plural but singular or plural in construction b : woodland
2 a : the hard fibrous substance consisting basically of xylem that makes up the greater part of the stems, branches, and roots of trees or shrubs beneath the bark and is found to a limited extent in herbaceous plants b : wood suitable or prepared for some use (as burning or building)

(Merriam Webster)

Moreover, “vag·go·v·yim” does not mean heathen, but “nations.”

Posted by Khoi on February 12, 2010, 09:33 PM | #

About the “virgin-young woman” controversy, consider the HISTORICAL context of Isaiah 7:14 and read Prof. Uri Yosef’s materials debunking the “virgin birth prophecy.”

Moreover, consider what Dinah was called by the Old Testament after being raped by Shechem:

Genesis 34:3

“And he was attached to the soul of Dina the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and he spoke kindly to the damsel.” (Septuagint Translated by Sir Lancelot Brenton)

Greek Original

“καὶ προσέσχεν τῇ ψυχῇ *δινας τῆς θυγατρὸς Iακωβ καὶ ἠγάπησεν τὴν παρθένον καὶ ἐλάλησεν κατὰ τὴν διάνοιαν τῆς παρθένου αὐτῇ”

Clearly “παρθένον-parthenon” and “parthenou-παρθένου” were both from Greek “parthenos.” However, how can Dinah be considered a virgin AFTER being raped by Shechem. Clearly, “parthenos” does NOT mean EXCLUSIVELY “virgin.” If not, why the Heaven did Sir Lancelot Brenton translated its two derivatives as “damsel?” Why do you Christians insist that in Isaiah 7:14 “parthenos” can only be a woman who still has her virginity intact?

You cannot have it both way.

“And his soul cleaved to Dinah the daughter of Jacob; he loved the girl and spoke to the girl’s heart.” (Chabad Tanach with Rashi)

In the Hebrew original:

vat·tid·bak naf·shov, be·di·nah bat-ya·’a·kov; vai·ye·’e·hav et-han·na·’a·ra, vay·dab·ber al-lev han·na·’a·ra.

“han·na·’a·ra.”

Original Word: נַעֲרָה
Transliteration: naarah
Phonetic Spelling: (nah-ar-aw’)
Short Definition: damsel

NAS Exhaustive Concordance

Word Origin
fem. of naar
Definition
a girl, maiden
NASB Word Usage
each young lady (1), girl (21), girl’s (11), maidens (8), maids (7), young (4), young ladies (1), young lady (4), young woman (2), young women (1), young...woman (1).

Strong’s Concordance 5291

damsel, maiden, young woman

Feminine of na’ar; a girl (from infancy to adolescence)—damsel, maid(-en), young (woman).

see HEBREW na’ar

The Masoretic Text is more consistent, since naarah signifies the young age of Dinah, rather than her virginity.

Posted by Khoi on February 12, 2010, 09:40 PM | #

The Book of Susannah is clearly a forgery.

From Wikipedia:

“In the Greek text, the names of the trees cited by the elders form puns with the sentence given by Daniel. The first says they were under a mastic (υπο σχινον, hupo schinon), and Daniel says that an angel stands ready to cut (σχισει, schisei) him in two.”

Why is the PUN can ONLY be applied to the GREEK LANGUAGE but not Hebrew and other related Semitic languages?

Do some research before pouring your anti-Semitic filth.

Note: I also count Arab Muslims as Semites. Before the Massacre of Grenada, there exitsed a Golden Age of Jewish Culture under ISLAMIC rule on Iberian Peninsula. If I am not wrong, there had no been NO Golden Age of Jewish culture under Christianity. From a persecuted Jewish sect, Christianity grew to be a persecutot.

Posted by Khoi on February 12, 2010, 09:44 PM | #

Concerning the missing “Nun” verse in Psalm 145:

The Talmud (Berachot 4b) asks about this missing NUN: “Rabbi Yohanan says: Why is there no NUN in the Ashrei prayer? Because [the verse about] the fall of Israel begins with it. For it is written (Amos 5:2): “Fallen (NAFLAH), not to rise again, is Maiden Israel.”

Thus, according to Rabbi Yohanan, the NUN is left out of the Ashrei prayer so as not to remind us of a Biblical verse that prophesies the downfall of Israel (God forbid!). However, the verse in Ashrei that follows what would be the NUN verse begins, of course, with our friend SAMECH (it is an alphabetical acrostic after all). And what is that verse? “God SUPPORTS (SOMECH) all the fallen (haNOFLEEM) and raises up all who are bowed down.” The NUN verse about falling down is thus implied in the SAMECH verse that assures us that God will support the fallen.

However, read the long, acrostic Psalm 119 and you will see all the letters from Alef to Tav.

Posted by anonymous on February 12, 2010, 09:48 PM | #

Posted by Fr. John on August 31, 2007, 01:47 PM | #

The Choice is yours… but you WILL have to make a choice

Incorrect. The choice is NOT yours. The choice is Come willingly or unwillingly but come you will have to.