Release of the Dead Sea Scrolls prompts The Vatican to revise the Bible

[DoctorGonzo]

A few key passages.

The completion of publication is a landmark for academics and for Christians and Jews, whose most dearly held beliefs have been challenged by the scrolls � including that of the Virgin birth of Christ, which arose from the use of the word for virgin in early Greek versions of the Bible.The scrolls reveal that this was a mistranslation: the original Hebrew word used simply meant young woman.

Experts have studied the scrolls and discovered much about the way the Bible was written, including its discrepancies, contradictions and repetitions. The first five books � Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy � were ascribed to the same writer, Moses, but they have many inconsistencies. The scrolls include several different editions of the books of Exodus and Numbers, and the Psalms. They revealed that the Bible was not a rigidly fixed text, but was edited and adjusted to make the text more relevant to its audience.

You have got to wonder what they edited out from the Bible?

Maybe someday we will get an unabridged version....or maybe not.

[This message has been edited by DoctorGonzo (edited 11-30-2001).]

[Klodomir]

Could you post a link to this, please?

[DoctorGonzo]

I guess that's what I get for posting so early in the morning

Here it is

Thought it was in the origional post.

[Klodomir]

Thanks! That's huge, if it's true. Can anyone confirm that the Vatican is actually planning on revising sections of the Bible based on this?

[melon]

Personally, I severely doubt that the Vatican will revise St. Mary's virginity, because it is one of only four "ex cathedra" statements within the Church, which means that it was declared infallible. Luckily, the Church has not abused this article of tradition, and has only used it in regards to dogma.

As for the idea that the Bible was not a rigid text, but often edited for relevancy to the target audience, I believe it, because I've been saying that for a while, in one form or another. I'm glad that the Dead Sea Scrolls corroborate with my theories. You can see this even within the four existing gospels, which were written to different target audiences, and Jesus does contradict Himself in a few places.

Regardless, I do expect the Catholic Church to make revisions, perhaps some that are drastic, because it is in keeping with a 1930s era papal encyclical that called for the critical analysis and the attempt to discover the true intent of the Bible using the original texts. I will be curious to see what will be changed, but, knowing the Church for what it is, I doubt the changes that are made will rock the boat. I guess, instead of God commanding the killing 40,000 Israelites, he will only have killed 30,000 or something.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[This message has been edited by melon (edited 11-30-2001).]

[Klodomir]

Originally posted by melon:
I guess, instead of God commanding the killing 40,000 Israelites, he will only have killed 30,000 or something.

Hahaha - see? The OT God wasn't so bad after all.

Well, that's a big nice "told you so" for you, Melon. I remember you talking about how the NT wasn't supposed to be the final word, so I guess now we should wait for the Brand New And Improved Testament.

[sharky]

After going to the link I thought this paragraph was pretty interesting as well.

"It was not only the religious significance of the work that the scrolls questioned but also their historical truth, for they revealed that the writers would have coloured their accounts with their prejudices too."

So since it was written by men, does that mean there could have been female apostles who were given male names? or female rabbis and female priests in the early church established by Paul in Rome? And if that's possible what else is out there that they forgot about?

[sulawesigirl4]

Isn't the NIV (New International Version) translation based on the Dead Sea Scrolls? (I may be wrong about that, but it's what I have heard.)

sharky, in some of my studies last year I read works by scholars that have found reason to believe that, yes, there have been instances of female apostles having their names changed in later translations. The one that comes to mind is of Junia being "renamed" Junius. I'll have to find the source material...but I must say it was intriguing.

[melon]

Originally posted by sulawesigirl4:
Isn't the NIV (New International Version) translation based on the Dead Sea Scrolls? (I may be wrong about that, but it's what I have heard.)

To be blunt, the NIV is one of the worst translated Bibles ever. It simply took traditional interpretations of questionable words and amplified it. It would be equivalent to taking Jacob's Ladder, translating it as Jacob's Stairs, and then translating it again as Jacob's Escalator. That is the NIV, and you would do better to find other translations.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[sulawesigirl4]

Originally posted by melon:
To be blunt, the NIV is one of the worst translated Bibles ever. It simply took traditional interpretations of questionable words and amplified it. It would be equivalent to taking Jacob's Ladder, translating it as Jacob's Stairs, and then translating it again as Jacob's Escalator. That is the NIV, and you would do better to find other translations.

Melon

Actually, I wasn't asking how "good" of a translation it was...just curious about the source material. I'm aware that there are better translations, but my understanding was that they had used the material in the Dead Sea Scrolls rather than revising the existing KJV.

Out of curiousity, which translations would you consider to be accurate and still relevant in terms of today's language?

-sula

[speedracer]

Um, I don't see how the possible mistranslation of "young woman" as "virgin" contradicts the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus.

In Matthew, an angel tells Joseph that Mary's child is conceived of the Holy Spirit, and in Luke another angel tells Mary the same thing. So I don't see how a mistranslation would refute the virgin birth of Christ--to do so, one would have to refute the texts of Matthew and Luke directly.

[bonoiswubbus]

Melon, where in the Bible does Jesus contradict himself?

[melon]

Originally posted by bonoiswubbus:
Melon, where in the Bible does Jesus contradict himself?

I'll do it in the most simplest manner, and ask you (or anyone else who wishes to answer):

1) What did Jesus say before he died on the cross?

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[Se7en]

Originally posted by melon:
I'll do it in the most simplest manner, and ask you (or anyone else who wishes to answer):

1) What did Jesus say before he died on the cross?

Melon

Father, forgive them for they know not what they do. It is finished.



------------------
The numeral 7

[agentorange]

Let me get this right... A bunch of scholars have been poring over these scrolls for half a century, and we are JUST NOW hearing that the word "virgin" may best be translated "young girl", and that's supposed to shake the validity of the scriptures?
Has it ever occurred to anyone that some scholars may have an agenda or bias? Is it possible that not all researchers are completely objective? From my experience, people who refuse to believe will find things to "corroborate (their) theories", and those who will believe blindly will not be dissuaded from their beliefs as well. But that's why it's called "faith": there's always the possibility of being wrong.
Regardless of the possibilities of this alleged error, they don't change these facts:
1) The scrolls show that the scriptures have been accurately preserved, traceable to within the lifetime of contemporaries of Jesus.
2) According to these scrolls, some 500 people claim to have seen Jesus alive after his crucifixion. Many of these gave their lives because they would not retract this claim. Maybe they were emotionally unstable people who were easy targets for a personality cult; maybe not.
3) According to these scrolls, Jesus blatantly claimed to be God publicly before his crucifixion.
Even if this theory is plausible and someone wants to challenge the virgin birth (who WOULD blindly accept this?), the historically-documented life and claims of Jesus must be considered. After all, no one ever accused Mary of dying to reconcile humans to God.
And yes, even in the "erroneous" versions of the Bible, the new testament is littered with examples of women who were waist-deep in the ministry of Jesus, and who were prophets and leaders in the early church. Jesus did NOT seek to "keep the woman down."
Comments welcome. I'm no Greek scholar, and it's very possible that I'm ignorant as all get-out.

[melon]

But what about Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34?

"And about three o'clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice, 'Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?' which means, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'"

How could Jesus have had two sets of last words?

But wait...what about Luke 23:46?

"Jesus cried out in a loud voice, 'Father, into your hands I commend my spirit'; and when he had said this he breathed his last."

Then there's John 19:30:

"When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, 'It is finished.' And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit."

But what's the most intriguing is that none of these quotes I got from my Bible were what you stated. Are you wrong? No. Your translation may have stated that, and that's the problem:

1) Four gospels give three different sets of last words, and:

2) Different Biblical translations phrase his last words differently.

When, in fact, it is likely Jesus said nothing at all for His last words, as, duly noted by scholars who studied crucifixion, the method requires one to make huge effort to speak. If Jesus was near death by crucifixion, it is highly unlikely He would have said anything, as He would not have had the strength to state last words.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[melon]

The scrolls, I bet, do not challenge the most sacred held beliefs. Jesus, most assuredly, is not challenged. It's the details that are different, and, honestly, show evidence that people tainted subsequent editions of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, with their own prejudices or with honest mistakes in translation.

We're only human. It was a 2000 year old game of telephone, and some messages are likely to get obscured on the way. The totality of the message, however, is likely intact.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by melon:
But what about Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34?

"And about three o'clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice, 'Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?' which means, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'"

How could Jesus have had two sets of last words?

But wait...what about Luke 23:46?

"Jesus cried out in a loud voice, 'Father, into your hands I commend my spirit'; and when he had said this he breathed his last."

Then there's John 19:30:

"When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, 'It is finished.' And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit."

But what's the most intriguing is that none of these quotes I got from my Bible were what you stated. Are you wrong? No. Your translation may have stated that, and that's the problem:

1) Four gospels give three different sets of last words, and:

2) Different Biblical translations phrase his last words differently.

When, in fact, it is likely Jesus said nothing at all for His last words, as, duly noted by scholars who studied crucifixion, the method requires one to make huge effort to speak. If Jesus was near death by crucifixion, it is highly unlikely He would have said anything, as He would not have had the strength to state last words.

Melon

I don't believe this is evidence that Christ, as you so controversially put it, contradicted himself.

How many sets of last words?

1. Matthew does NOT claim any specific phrase as Christ's last words:

And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. - Matthew 27:50 (well separated in context from 27:47)

2. Ditto with Mark:

And Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and breathed His last. Mark 15:37 (also quite separated from 15:34)

3. Luke seems to suggest an actual quote of Christ's last words, but it's not explicit; Luke doesn't say "And these were Our Lord's last words":

And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, "Father, 'into Your hands I commit My spirit.' " Having said this, He breathed His last. - Luke 23:46

4. John seems to fall between Matthew/Mark, who gave no "last words", and Luke, where a case can be made for pointing to His last words:

So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit. - John 19:30

This case depends greatly on how closely related the two clauses are -- the clause "He said..." and "He gave up His spirit."

It seems to me that Luke may have actually attempted to record Christ's last words. It's a stretch, but John *might* have as well; but Matthew/Mark didn't. You have AT MOST two sets of last words, not three, and the argument for two sets is tenuous at best.

What contradiction?

For a second, let's indulge the argument that the Gospels suggest multiple sets of final words. Does this mean, as you said, Christ contradicted Himself? That Christ (somehow) had two sets of last words?

Um, no.

What seems more likely is that Christ said quite a few things on the cross (contrary to the belief that you cannot speak while crucified -- AND as evidenced by Luke's inclusion of "Forgive them, Father" and the conversation with the convicted criminals; and by Christ speaking from the cross to His mother and John, as recorded in John's Gospel). Given that, each Gospel writer was struck by certain statements (or only heard or remember certain statements) and included them in their works. These statements have since been confused as "last words", or were intended by the authors to be, in their divinely inspired views, the last *important* words.

Either way, it isn't a contradiction on the part of Christ. A legitimate contradiction would be if He said X and Y, and X and Y were contradictory. After nearly two millenia of study, no such contradiction has been found.

(And it seems to me that if this popular and dangerous Nazarene passing himself off as a religious teacher said something contradictory or hypocritical, the Pharisees would have caught Him on it long before us.)

The issue of liklihood.

"When, in fact, it is likely Jesus said nothing at all for His last words, as, duly noted by scholars who studied crucifixion, the method requires one to make huge effort to speak. If Jesus was near death by crucifixion, it is highly unlikely He would have said anything, as He would not have had the strength to state last words."

Now THIS is a legitimate argument...

...unless, of course, you consider the other unlikely events chronicled in the Gospels, including - but not limited to - the following:

* The fulfillment of EVERY Old Testement prophesy about the Messiah (including the seemingly contradictory prophesies about coming from Bethleham, Egypt, and Narazeth).

* The Virgin Birth.

* Walking on water.

* Commanding the sea to become immediately calm.

* Feeding thousands with essentially scraps of food.

* Healing an untold number of the blind, lame, leperous, and insane.

* Raising a man from the dead.

* The Resurrection itself.

Achtung Bubba

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 12-02-2001).]

[melon]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Now THIS is a legitimate argument...

...unless, of course, you consider the other unlikely events chronicled in the Gospels, including - but not limited to - the following:

* The fulfillment of EVERY Old Testement prophesy about the Messiah (including the seemingly contradictory prophesies about coming from Bethleham, Egypt, and Narazeth).

* The Virgin Birth.

* Walking on water.

* Commanding the sea to become immediately calm.

* Feeding thousands with essentially scraps of food.

* Healing an untold number of the blind, lame, leperous, and insane.

* Raising a man from the dead.

* The Resurrection itself.

Well, here's the thing: this may be a case of circular reasoning on the part of the gospel writers.

Things I do not dispute? The Resurrection and Virgin Birth. Why don't I? Faith really, and faith alone.

As for the miracles, they could likely have been exaggerations or self-fulfilled prophesies, meaning that the gospel writers, clamoring to get people to believe, made him more of a circus show than He really was. Intellectually, we are more likely to handle Jesus on message alone, but, with a very low educated audience, magic tricks might have to be in order.

The same goes with the last words. Do you honestly believe that people, forty years after the fact, would remember His exact last words? Keep in mind that these were the days before mass media and news agencies. The gospels themselves? Matthew was mostly taken from Mark, the first gospel, but added a Jewish bent on it. Luke was written by a Palestinian. John is totally unrelated to all three, but was written 60-70 years after the fact.

Regardless, His last words, or lack thereof, do not matter, in my opinion.

Regardless, getting back to the original topic, mistranslation, Jesus does contradict Himself on divorce in the KJV.

"But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Matt. 5:32 [KJV])

However, the Catholic Bible states otherwise:

"But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Objectively, the Catholic Bible is closest in original intent. The contentious word is "porneia," which refers to "incest," and is a reference to Leviticus 18:6-18, which commands which family members one cannot have sex with. "Unlawful," while incredibly ambiguous, makes sense in the context that the Jewish-minded Christians behind Matthew required full adherence to the Mosaic Law, including dietary and circumcision laws.

This was really my point in regards to the topic at hand. The original intent might be uncontradictory, but, through time and translation, the meaning is changed that contradiction may happen. Personally, I think that "unchastity" or "unlawful" should be replaced with "incestuous," but oh well. With this in mind, Jesus does not contradict Himself on divorce, but, under the KJV, He does contradict Himself on divorce.

Anyway, let's try and keep this civil, okay?

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[This message has been edited by melon (edited 12-03-2001).]

[Achtung Bubba]

Melon,

I thought my post was quite civil - as was your reply. There's really no need to preempt the outbreak of an argument by asking me to keep this civil.


Moving on, I think I'll first address the point most salient to the current discussion, namely mistranslation and contradiction.

While it is indeed possible that the Bible can be mistranslated (perhaps inevitable, given the large chasms of differences among English translations), I see mistranslation and contradiction as two completely different things.

The example you cited appears to be two translations of the same verse, and it raises the discussion of mistranslation - of whether one translation is substantially closer to the author's intended meaning. It is not a case in which "Jesus does contradict Himself on divorce in the KJV" - at least, if one translation suggests that he contradicts Himself, you do not provide substantial evidence.

Essentially, the evidence that is needed for contradiction is this: two different verses within the same more-or-less accepted translation, verses concerning Christ's words or behavior that indicate hypocrisy - saying two things that are utterly irreconcilable or saying one thing and doing another.

Until such evidence is provided, the subject that we are discussing will remain one of mistranslation, not one of Christ contradicting Himself.

And, as a serious aside, you were not quoting the King James Version of the Holy Bible. Matthew 5:23, KJV, is as follows:

"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

Whatever translation you used is clearly not KJV.


On to the subject of miracles.

I suggested that the fact that Jesus spoke on the cross isn't so amazing, given His track record of miracles performed. You responded by questioning that track record!

To be honest, I'm a bit astounded. While your reply does appear to be one of the few ways to hold your ground on the unliklihood of last words, it seems to be a position very few Christians would seriously take.

Further, it seems quite odd that, while you are very skeptical about most of the miracles, you cling to the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, the two miracles that make healing the blind seem commonplace, the two miracles that are, for most, the hardest to accept.

In fact, I can't accept the premise that the Apostles would - after seeing Christ risen from the dead - begin to fabricate other lesser miracles to make "him more of a circus show than He really was". It makes no sense to risk discrediting such an amazing event as a man coming back to life by adding lesser amazing events that, even forty years later, could have been revealed as utter fabrications. And it makes even less sense that a great and good Man mighty enough to raise Himself from the dead could not or would not meet the needs of the hungry, blind, leperous.

No, I see only two reasonable possibilities: either the miracles of Christ are on the whole true, or they are all lies.

(Either way, many people who heard the story believed it so thoroughly that they were willing to die rather than reject it. What's more peculiar is that first-hand witnesses, including Peter and other Apostles, were also willing to die for their beliefs. It seems totally against human nature that men who fabricated these stories would be willing to die slowly and painfully for the same.)

It seems to me that the question of Christ's miracles begs the more important question: was Christ merely a man, or also the Son of God?

If He was merely a man (short of being a prophet or a servent of Satan), miracles would be out of His reach.

And if He was the God Incarnate, miracles seem to be necessary - to fulfill prophecy and bring about salvation; to dramatize God's plan of redemption and reign of supreme authority over nature; and to show that He is the ultimate power through which other great servants and miracle workers (Moses especially) acted.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the miracles did not occur, that Jesus was (as so many thoughtful people like to say) a "great teacher", a man whose message we would like to "handle intellectually."

What then was His message?

"Think not that I am come to destory the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destory, but to fulfil." Matthew 4:17.

"All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." Matthew 11:27.

"All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Matthew 28:18.

"Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of theives." Mark 11:17, referring to the Temple (see also Luke 19:46).

"I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." Mark 14:62, in response to 'Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?'

"Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached." Luke 7:22.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16.

"My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." John 5:18, to which 'the Jews sought to kill him, because he... said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God' (5:19).

"I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." John 6:35.

I hope I do not go too far in making my point, but I also hope my point is clear: inherent and indivisble from Christ's moral teachings is his assertions of divine power, of being the Son of God and the Son of Man; His claim to the Temple; His working of miracles, and His key role in the salvation of man.

Jesus claims to be God, and miraculous works would certainly materialize en masse as God comes down to His creation and finds so many in need of physical healing, the restoration of hope, and the blessings of forgiveness.

I believe C.S. Lewis said it best, in the closing paragraph to "The Shocking Alternative", a chapter in Mere Christianity:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.