One of the salient points made by our Theology prof, Fr. Hecker, was that half of the oldest manuscript
witness texts, including a Bodmer papyrus, the Vaticanus and Beza’s Codex, omit
the sentence in Luke 23: 34 which contains the words of Jesus: "
This interjects a significant
level of uncertainty into the textual tradition of hermeneutics, i.e.
[Text x] -> [Text x + dx’] -> [Text y]
Where dx’ above is the textual uncertainty introduced,
say into the Gospel of Luke, and Text y
represents a wholly new interpretation.
This means the ensuing
interpretation of the affected passage will be a subject of serious debate. Put
briefly, i.e. in the case of Luke 23: 34,
half the witnesses insisted Jesus begged God’s forgiveness for “them” – the other half
pretended to know nothing of the “Eloi,
eloi lama sabacthani” prayer.
What gives?
It is probably bogus and a later addition. Why
say so? Because the earliest Greek witness papyrus (called P 75 - which dates
back to 200 AD) has no such content. However, the prayer CAN be found in Codex
Sinaiticus and a large range of mss. produced in the Middle Ages.
To fix ideas, consider just
these two Latin examples:
1) Dicit
hos libri sunt clariores quam illi.
2) Hos
libros esse clariores quam illos.
The first (1) represents the original (Text x) which was copied to the form in (2).
The problem is that a simple copyist error dx’ changes
the translation - and it is the job of the textual analyst to ferret it out.
(1) Reads (ungrammatically): He says
these books are more famous than those.
(2) Reads: These books are more famous than
those.
The accurate and conscientious textual analyst
will quickly spot the grammatical error which changes the meaning from
inspection of (1) which ought to read, in Latin:
Dicit hos libros esse
clariores quam illos.
Which is therefore what the copyist version
(2) should also read.
The failure of the copyist and resulting
textual error makes it appear that the resulting "fame" of some book
simply emerges, and no one actually stated it. It's a fait accompli!
In the next copyist change (we won't call it an
error) a word is deliberately substituted to alter the meaning:
1) Id cum eis fecit. ("He
did it with them")
2) Id cum virtute fecit. ("He
did it with courage")
In this case, virtute is substituted for eis changing the entire
meaning (dx’).
To track this sort of change, one would need to go back to the original Greek
and Aramaic, locate the same passage and ascertain the translation there. If
one discerns that (1) is close to the result, then translation (2) with the
insertion of 'virtute' is bastardized. Such occurrences permeate the Bible as
Bart Ehrman has shown (Misquoting
Jesus).
Again, the issue is that unless the original
language forms are investigated, the exegete is only doing half his job. This
means even if he doesn't know Greek, Latin and Aramaic himself he must have a wise teacher (or Jesuit Professor) prepare scripts with the original
translations, say for given passages.
More perturbing, is that the ancient languages
are often not exhausted by the ones shown (or that we used at Loyola to compare
for specific texts). Thus, it has been pointed out that the phrase "lake of fire" was
originally in the Book of Mithras (Ized II of The Zendevesta) which predated the
Christian works, scriptures by HUNDREDs OF YEARS. It was the abode of
"eternal perdition" for all those who refused to "eat of the
body of the Son, Mithras". Thus, it was COPIED - to portray an
eschatological background for those unbelievers who refused to submit to
Christ. (But was never originally used in any of the quadriform gospels or
related literature).
Another critical aspect ignored by superficial
exegetical practitioners (I call them wannabes) is an inherent failure to
recognize that much of the biographic material (on Yeshua) in the New Testament
is merely a reworking of material taken from the Greek Old Testament, the
Septuagint. A considerable part of the narrative structure of the Gospel of
Matthew (and also of Mark, his source), for instance, can be thought of as a
fleshing out and adaptation of a "messianic checklist" such as would
have been formed for the nucleus of a messianic biography. Over and over,
events and circumstances both trivial and important, are recounted by Matthew
with the refrain: 'that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the
prophets'.
The many logia recounted in the Gospels would,
if they could convincingly be shown derived from a single personality or source, be
strong evidence that a historical Jesus existed. But such is not the case.
Here is where, again, attention to the
historicity of the documents is the exegete's most crucial ally. Once more, the
person needs to avail him or herself of the historical basis before launching
into wholesale interpretation of passages - which is just as bad as not being
acquainted with the original languages.
For example, Yale University features a
detailed course on the NT Historicity, taught by Prof. Dale B. Martin and
entitled: Introduction to New Testament
History and Literature, and roughly on a par with my Introduction to the New Testament course
taken at Loyola in 1964-65. (The Loyola course was somewhat more difficult).
The compilation of course sessions, all on
video, can be accessed via this link:
Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature
And the one I recommend most for those short
on time is No.13, dealing with the "Historical Jesus". See link at end of previous entry.
In approaching these sort of issues, like
Jesus' historicity, inquiring students and curious others need to take care to
always be aware of the lurking presence of translational miscues and copyist
errors. As Yale Religious Professor Dale B. Martin notes these are not “delivered
from on high” but from very human brains and hands.
See Also:
Twenty Biblical Contradictions That Most Evangelicals Deny
----------------------------
THEOLOGY 220 FINAL (FALL, 1966): 1 hr 30 min
(10 marks each)
1. Estimate the percentage of
the Qumran scrolls that are copies of books of the Bible. Of which
proto-canonical books were there copies or fragments? Of which
deutero-canonical books? Define each type of book, making clear any unfamiliar
terms.
2. WHY are the Qumran scrolls of such great
importance? Why would it be erroneous to conclude that these scrolls provide us
with the original reading of
the New Testament books?
3. What aids did biblical scholars already
possess toward reconstructing the original reading of the Old Testament books?
How have the discoveries at Qumran enhanced the value of the Septuagint
translation as a reliable aid for reconstructing the original reading of the
Old Testament that appears in the scrolls?
4. How (not how much) have the Qumran scrolls
contributed to our knowledge of the history of Judaism? What caution(s) must we
keep in mind when reconstructing Israelite history from these scrolls?
5. Three fourths of the Dead Sea Scrolls are
writings composed by the Essenes themselves, treating their religious views and
way of life. What have we learned from them about the Essenes' beliefs to do
with the "angel of light"
and the "angel of darkness"?
What have we learned about their beliefs concerning the Messiah?
6. Discuss the moral views and practices of
the Qumran sectarians as they might have impacted their texts-scrolls. Give at
least two specific examples and expand on them at length, including likely
copyist errors.
7. Half the original manuscript witness
sources, including a Bodmer papyrus and Beza's Codex, omit the last line
(accorded to Jesus) from Luke 23:33-34. What does this omission convey
concerning the textual tradition of this sentence? What general caution does
this provide concerning exegesis for the synoptic gospels in general?
8. Some Protestant biblical scholars used to
hold that St. John's Gospel could not possibly have been written by a Jewish
Christian living at the time of Christ. They asserted it was more likely
written in the 2nd or 3rd century A.D., because of the terminology and ideas in
St. John's Gospel reflecting an abstract dualistic theology (e.g. emphasizing
the conflict between light and darkness).
Explain how the Qumran documents smashed this
theory. Why would Jesus (as reported in his speeches in St. John's Gospel) have
used such terminology and ideas?
9. Discuss fully the new insight for
interpreting the 'Epistle to the Hebrews' which we get from the Qumran scrolls.
10. The word "mystery" (Greek 'musterion': 'what is known only to
the initiated') occurs twenty seven times in the official New Testament and
almost all these occurrences demonstrate the "secret infrastructure of a
nascent cult". Further, a careful reading of the Pauline Epistles, and
Gospels (supplemented by modern documentary discoveries- such as at Qumran)
shows Christianity began as a mystery religion, replete with initiations,
secrets and multiple levels of indoctrination.
The 'mystagogoue' element is also very evident
in passages such as 1 Cor. 2:6 ff.
Explain the nature of a "mystery
religion". Do you concur that Christianity - from the scriptural elements,
passages noted- qualifies as such? Why or why not? If the negative, provide an
alternative exegesis to make sense of 1 Cor. 2:6 ff.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment