Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ElfLord

Is our current Bible corrupted?

64 posts in this topic

We read of a prophecy in Matthew but Scholars can't fint it in our Old Testament. Could this perhaps be a documented example of scribal tampering by the Jews to thwart the new Christian movement that the Christians have preserved for our Knowledge?

Matt 2

23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

The first Christians show us exactly where the prophecy was!

Once more it is written in the pages of the same evangelist,
0

Share this post


Link to post

I've been reading a book that claims that part of 1st Corinthians was added after the fact, and that 1st Timothy is a fraudent letter from Paul written not by Paul, but by someone else.

1 COR 14: 34-35

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Here is a site that contains information on other books whose authenicity is questioned.

0

Share this post


Link to post

[below]

Edited by nackhadlow
0

Share this post


Link to post

More primary sources that mention this.

Jerome wrote in his work Against Rufinus:

I composed recently the book De optimo genere interpretandi, in which I pointed out that the following passages taken from the Gospel are found in the books of the Hebrews:
Edited by ElfLord
0

Share this post


Link to post

We read of a prophecy in Matthew but Scholars can't fint it in our Old Testament. Could this perhaps be a documented example of scribal tampering by the Jews to thwart the new Christian movement that the Christians have preserved for our Knowledge?

The first Christians show us exactly where the prophecy was!

The Translators substituted a word and made the prophecy VOID?! :P

No, the word is netzer, which means Branch - a Messianic (and Temple-themed) title. It appears that, if this is even the text being referred to, that because Jesus did come from Nazareth and was a Nazarene (notzri), additional meaning may have been read into the text by his disciples, and applied to present circumstances and understanding.

Matthew was very...liberal with his scriptural interpretation and application.

The texts you quote appears to be playing apologetics, and making an (unsubstantiated) accusation. While there are Ante-Nicene Fathers who did make some substantial claims as to altered scriptures by the contemporary Jewish Community, this does not appear to be one of them.

Edited by nackhadlow
0

Share this post


Link to post

ElfLord and Elf,

I have some questions for you (other than whether you are related!).

1. ElfLord, how would you explain the fact that the famous Isaiah scroll from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which predates the coming of Jesus, does not have the word "Nazarene" in it? Doesn't this fact seem to undermine the theory that the text was altered by Jewish opponents of Christianity?

2. If the text of Isaiah originally used the word Nazarene, why didn't Joseph Smith restore it in the JST? After all, he made several inconsequential changes to the immediately preceding verse (Matt. 2:22) and other sizable changes to the same passage.

3. Also, ElfLord, do you think that a writing of a church father ca. 400 is a reliable source of information about such matters? After all, from your point of view the church fathers of that era were apostates, right?

Elf,

4. Is it your opinion that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is really something added to the text later, or is this just grist for the claim that the Bible was corrupted? If it should be omitted, why did Joseph Smith fail to do so in the JST, but instead simply reworded verse 34 somewhat?

5. Is it your claim that 1 Timothy is indeed pseudonymous? If so, should it be stricken from the canon of Scripture? If so, why did Joseph Smith not do so in the JST, instead of making various mostly minor edits to it?

And here's a question for both of you (and anyone else who cares to answer):

6. Why is it that the many discoveries of ancient biblical manuscripts over the past 160+ years since the death of Joseph Smith have failed to corroborate the Bible's alleged corruption in the places where Joseph claimed to have received revelation to that effect? Why haven't archaeologists found manuscripts of Genesis with the additions about Melchizedek or Joseph (Gen. 14, 50), or any of the other theologically significant "corrections" that Joseph Smith made to the Bible in the JST?

0

Share this post


Link to post

ElfLord and Elf,

I have some questions for you (other than whether you are related!).

Nope.

1. ElfLord, how would you explain the fact that the famous Isaiah scroll from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which predates the coming of Jesus, does not have the word "Nazarene" in it? Doesn't this fact seem to undermine the theory that the text was altered by Jewish opponents of Christianity?

I would take John calvines take on the verse...

23. He shall be called a Nazarene Matthew does not derive Nazarene from

Nazareth, as if this were its strict and proper etymology, but only

makes an allusion. The word N+Z+J+R+, or Nazarite, signifies holy and

devoted to God, and is derived from N+Z+R+, to separate. The noun

N+Z+R+, indeed, signifies a flower: [221] but Matthew refers, beyond

all doubt, to the former meaning. For we nowhere read that Nazarites

meant blooming or flourishing, but persons who were consecrated to God,

according to the directions given by the Law, (Numbers 6.) The meaning

is: though it was by fear that Joseph was driven into a corner of

Galilee, yet God had a higher design, and appointed the city of

Nazareth as the place of Christ's residence, that he might justly be

called a Nazarite But it is asked, who are the prophets that gave this

name to Christ? for there is no passage to be found that answers to the

quotation. Some think it a sufficient answer, that Scripture frequently

calls him Holy: but that is a very poor explanation. For Matthew, as we

perceive, makes an express reference to the very word, and to the

ancient Nazarites, whose holiness was of a peculiar character. He tells

us, that what was then shadowed out in the Nazarites, who were, in some

sense, selected as the first-fruits to God, must have been fulfilled in

the person of Christ.

2. If the text of Isaiah originally used the word Nazarene, why didn't Joseph Smith restore it in the JST? After all, he made several inconsequential changes to the immediately preceding verse (Matt. 2:22) and other sizable changes to the same passage.

Which shows he knew something was a miss.

3. Also, ElfLord, do you think that a writing of a church father ca. 400 is a reliable source of information about such matters? After all, from your point of view the church fathers of that era were apostates, right?

They would have a better prespective of what the original NT church taught and looked like than we would 2000 years later, would you not agree?

Edited by ElfLord
0

Share this post


Link to post

We read of a prophecy in Matthew but Scholars can't fint it in our Old Testament. Could this perhaps be a documented example of scribal tampering by the Jews to thwart the new Christian movement that the Christians have preserved for our Knowledge?

The first Christians show us exactly where the prophecy was!

The Translators substituted a word and made the prophecy VOID?! :P

This is a common defense among conservative Christians today of the prophecy in Matthew, but it hardly holds water. The Hebrew of Isa 11:1 reads as follows:

???????? ?????? ????????? ??????? ???????? ?????????????? ????????

?And a shoot shall come out from the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall sprout from its root

??? (netzer) means "shoot," "sprout," or "branch." It does not mean "Nazarene." It would have a yod on the end if that were the case, and that would ruin the parallelism of the verse. The most likely explanation of the prophecy in Matthew is either that Matthew refers to some missing text. "A Nazarene shall grow from its root" is quite distinct from "He shall be called a Nazarene," as well.

Edited by maklelan
0

Share this post


Link to post

6. Why is it that the many discoveries of ancient biblical manuscripts over the past 160+ years since the death of Joseph Smith have failed to corroborate the Bible's alleged corruption in the places where Joseph claimed to have received revelation to that effect? Why haven't archaeologists found manuscripts of Genesis with the additions about Melchizedek or Joseph (Gen. 14, 50), or any of the other theologically significant "corrections" that Joseph Smith made to the Bible in the JST?

Because the JST isn't a restoration of original text. Whatever Joseph may have thought was going on, it is clear that the text serves more as an 'updating' explanatory Midrash/Targum to make the text more relevant/applicable to the current saints in their present condition and and theological understanding.

To Joseph, there was no such thing as set-in-stone scripture. It was all fluid, the goal of scripture being to accurately express the mind and will of the Lord. If it was found that the way it was currently written (and this included his own earlier written explanations of his revelations) obscured a truth he understood, things were changed to more clearly express the mind and will of the Lord as he understood it. Additional vignettes were also added which practically served to illustrate a new revealed practice or concept. It's modern inspired pseudepigrapha.

Edited by nackhadlow
0

Share this post


Link to post

ElfLord,

You wrote:

I would take John calvines take on the verse...

But that is what you are not doing. Calvin accepted the texts of Isaiah and Matthew as reliably transmitted and offered an interpretation on that basis. You are proposing that we view the text of Isaiah as corrupt.

All of the sources you quoted in your earlier post -- Koester, Harrison, Henry, Gill, Calvin, et. al. -- agree on this point: there is nothing wrong with the wording of either Isaiah 11:1 or Matthew 2:23.

I asked why Joseph didn't fix Isaiah 11:1 if it was corrupt, and I pointed out that he made changes to Matthew 2:22, the verse immediately preceding Matthew 2:23 where the problem arises. You said only:

Which shows he knew something was a miss.

This doesn't answer the question. In fact, Joseph missed two opportunities to "fix" the problem. Isaiah 11:1 lacks the word Nazarene in the JST, and the word also does not appear in the Book of Mormon where it quotes Isaiah 11 (see 2 Ne. 21:1).

Regarding church fathers of the fourth or fifth centuries, you wrote:

They would have a better prespective of what the original NT church taught and looked like than we would 2000 years later, would you not agree?

That isn't the issue. The issue is the text of Isaiah 11:1. Jerome, though he was a brilliant scholar, did not have access to the manuscript evidence we have for the text of the Hebrew Bible. We're far better off today in our knowledge of Hebrew language, idiom, and of the Hebrew OT text, than Jerome could be.

As for them knowing what the original NT church taught better that people today would, there might be something to that -- but if so that would work against the LDS religion. In any case, the NT will have to be our final court of appeal for knowing what the NT church apostles taught.

0

Share this post


Link to post

maklelan,

You wrote:

This is a common defense among conservative Christians today of the prophecy in Matthew, but it hardly holds water.

What conservative Christians would those be?

0

Share this post


Link to post

ElfLord,

You wrote:

But that is what you are not doing. Calvin accepted the texts of Isaiah and Matthew as reliably transmitted and offered an interpretation on that basis. You are proposing that we view the text of Isaiah as corrupt.

All of the sources you quoted in your earlier post -- Koester, Harrison, Henry, Gill, Calvin, et. al. -- agree on this point: there is nothing wrong with the wording of either Isaiah 11:1 or Matthew 2:23.

I asked why Joseph didn't fix Isaiah 11:1 if it was corrupt, and I pointed out that he made changes to Matthew 2:22, the verse immediately preceding Matthew 2:23 where the problem arises. You said only:

This doesn't answer the question. In fact, Joseph missed two opportunities to "fix" the problem. Isaiah 11:1 lacks the word Nazarene in the JST, and the word also does not appear in the Book of Mormon where it quotes Isaiah 11 (see 2 Ne. 21:1).

See Nackhadlow.

Regarding church fathers of the fourth or fifth centuries, you wrote:

That isn't the issue. The issue is the text of Isaiah 11:1. Jerome, though he was a brilliant scholar, did not have access to the manuscript evidence we have for the text of the Hebrew Bible. We're far better off today in our knowledge of Hebrew language, idiom, and of the Hebrew OT text, than Jerome could be.

As for them knowing what the original NT church taught better that people today would, there might be something to that -- but if so that would work against the LDS religion. In any case, the NT will have to be our final court of appeal for knowing what the NT church apostles taught.

How so? They preserve a teaching of Baptism necessary for salvation. Baptism for the dead. a 3 tiered Heaven. And much more.

0

Share this post


Link to post

ElfLord and Elf,

Elf,

4. Is it your opinion that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is really something added to the text later, or is this just grist for the claim that the Bible was corrupted? If it should be omitted, why did Joseph Smith fail to do so in the JST, but instead simply reworded verse 34 somewhat?

5. Is it your claim that 1 Timothy is indeed pseudonymous? If so, should it be stricken from the canon of Scripture? If so, why did Joseph Smith not do so in the JST, instead of making various mostly minor edits to it?

And here's a question for both of you (and anyone else who cares to answer):

6. Why is it that the many discoveries of ancient biblical manuscripts over the past 160+ years since the death of Joseph Smith have failed to corroborate the Bible's alleged corruption in the places where Joseph claimed to have received revelation to that effect? Why haven't archaeologists found manuscripts of Genesis with the additions about Melchizedek or Joseph (Gen. 14, 50), or any of the other theologically significant "corrections" that Joseph Smith made to the Bible in the JST?

The Evangelical Scholar (Bart D. Ehrman) in question was making the argument that these were additions and or false letters from Paul.

I'm not a Prophet, I don't play one on TV, and I don't play it one on MADB. The whole thing is out of my paygrade.

As for your last question:

(yes I was having trouble posting)

Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it will not happen. We believe that there will be more records uncovered and translated as we grow closer to the Second Coming of Christ.

Edited by ELF1024
0

Share this post


Link to post

Duplicate

Edited by ELF1024
0

Share this post


Link to post

nackhadlow,

You wrote:

Because the JST isn't a restoration of original text. Whatever Joseph may have thought was going on, it is clear that the text serves more as an 'updating' explanatory Midrash/Targum to make the text more relevant/applicable to the current saints in their present condition and and theological understanding.

To Joseph, there was no such thing as set-in-stone scripture. It was all fluid, the goal of scripture being to accurately express the mind and will of the Lord. If it was found that the way it was currently written (and this included his own earlier written explanations of his revelations) obscured a truth he understood, things were changed to more clearly express the mind and will of the Lord as he understood it. Additional vignettes were also added which practically served to illustrate a new revealed practice or concept. It's modern inspired pseudepigrapha.

This sounds lovely, but it is not plausible as an explanation, for example, of Genesis 50:33 JST. The whole point of that addition is to retroject into the text of the OT a prophecy about Joseph Smith. There's no way to explain such an addition plausibly as merely a modern "updating" of the text or as a midrashic commentary on the text.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Elf,

Why don't you just tell us the name of this alleged evangelical scholar?

Was silence your intended answer to my last question, or are you having trouble posting? I know I was running into trouble a while ago.

The Evagelical Scholar in question was making the argument that these were additions and or false letters from Paul.

I'm not a Prophet, I don't play one on TV, and I don't play it one on MADB. The whole thing is out of my paygrade.

As for your last question:

0

Share this post


Link to post

This is a common defense among conservative Christians today of the prophecy in Matthew, but it hardly holds water. The Hebrew of Isa 11:1 reads as follows:

??? (netzer) means "shoot," "sprout," or "branch." It does not mean "Nazarene." It would have a yod on the end if that were the case, and that would ruin the parallelism of the verse. The most likely explanation of the prophecy in Matthew is either that Matthew refers to some missing text. "A Nazarene shall grow from its root" is quite distinct from "He shall be called a Nazarene," as well.

Could what Jerome is pointing at here be a missing YOD in the original text that was dropped by the LXX scribes / translators?

Edited by ElfLord
0

Share this post


Link to post

nackhadlow,

You wrote:

This sounds lovely, but it is not plausible as an explanation, for example, of Genesis 50:33 JST. The whole point of that addition is to retroject into the text of the OT a prophecy about Joseph Smith. There's no way to explain such an addition plausibly as merely a modern "updating" of the text or as a midrashic commentary on the text.

This was an addition pasted directly from the Book of Mormon text - an attempt at harmonization. The Book of Mormon text does not place this element in this textual context in Genesis (although it is in the narrative context).

Whatever the original source is for the Josephite prophecy tradition (which appears to be testamentary-genre expansion), it was probably separate from, and not a remnant of, any original received institutional text of the Genesis narrative.

Edited by nackhadlow
0

Share this post


Link to post

maklelan,

You wrote:

What conservative Christians would those be?

I don't know names, but you can find them here, here, here, here, and here, and in numerous other places.

Also, I've posted a discussion of some issues with the New Testament's use of the Hebrew Bible here. I'm looking for critical commentary, and I'd appreciate your feedback.

Edited by maklelan
0

Share this post


Link to post

Could what Jerome is pointing at here be a missing YOD in the original text that was dropped by the LXX scribes / translators?

The DSS - which agree on many septuagint variations - don't make that look likely.

0

Share this post


Link to post

nackhadlow,

You wrote:

This sounds lovely, but it is not plausible as an explanation, for example, of Genesis 50:33 JST. The whole point of that addition is to retroject into the text of the OT a prophecy about Joseph Smith. There's no way to explain such an addition plausibly as merely a modern "updating" of the text or as a midrashic commentary on the text.

ACtually it is plausible you just think JS is a false prophet. On this point I would not worry about it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
1. ElfLord, how would you explain the fact that the famous Isaiah scroll from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which predates the coming of Jesus, does not have the word "Nazarene" in it?

As has already been shown, Matthew was not overly cautious about which prophecies he saw as relating to the meridian advent of Christ. One of the more famous ones is that of the virgin birth, also in Isaiah (7:14~16). Anyone reading this in the context of the times will recognize that the young woman (not a virgin in Hebrew) was known to both Isaiah and Ahaz, and that the child in question was Isaiah's own son, Mahershalalhashbaz. See chapter 8.

Doesn't this fact seem to undermine the theory that the text was altered by Jewish opponents of Christianity?

How so? If the text didn't say that Christ was to be a Nazarene, but the early, ante-Nicene Church Fathers (not all of whom were apostate) read that into the text, as Matthew did with the virgin birth, how does this non-corruption of the text suggest anything?

2. If the text of Isaiah originally used the word Nazarene, why didn't Joseph Smith restore it in the JST? After all, he made several inconsequential changes to the immediately preceding verse (Matt. 2:22) and other sizable changes to the same passage.

The process of restoring (only one of several purposes of the JST) the original text was one of question and answer. If Joseph didn't ask the question, Father didn't necessarily provide the answer. Only when it was an issue of tremendous import did an "imposed" revelation occur. (See Doc&Cov 77.)

3. do you think that a writing of a church father ca. 400 is a reliable source of information about such matters? After all, from your point of view the church fathers of that era were apostates, right?

Not all, and even then, not even the apostates were wholly apostate as to doctrine. It was their rejection of legitimate Priesthood keys that made them apostates.

4. Is it your opinion that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is really something added to the text later, or is this just grist for the claim that the Bible was corrupted? If it should be omitted, why did Joseph Smith fail to do so in the JST, but instead simply reworded verse 34 somewhat?

More than "somewhat". The meaning of the verse was changed significantly. Women should not rule in churches, but for them to keep silent and only ask their husbands at home (difficult for a Saint whose husband was not also baptized and ordained as a king and priest) is not sound doctrine. Sounds like Judaizers to me.

5. Is it your claim that 1 Timothy is indeed pseudonymous? If so, should it be stricken from the canon of Scripture? If so, why did Joseph Smith not do so in the JST, instead of making various mostly minor edits to it?

Why indeed? Why do you ask?

6. Why is it that the many discoveries of ancient biblical manuscripts over the past 160+ years since the death of Joseph Smith have failed to corroborate the Bible's alleged corruption in the places where Joseph claimed to have received revelation to that effect? Why haven't archaeologists found manuscripts of Genesis with the additions about Melchizedek or Joseph (Gen. 14, 50), or any of the other theologically significant "corrections" that Joseph Smith made to the Bible in the JST?

CFR that Joseph claimed either, much less both, of the following as implied by your queries:

  1. That all his amendments were "corrections" to or "restorations" of the original texts.
  2. That he had entirely completed his translation of the Bible (the JST).

Neither of the above assumptions is grounded in fact.

BTW, if you cite the famous (or infamous) quotation that he had finished it, please supply the full context, not just the interesting sentence. And please do not leave out the fact that just weeks before his martyrdom, Joseph was still working on the manuscript, pinning interlinear changes to the text as it the meaning became clearer in his mind.

Further, the changes that were not explicitly restorations of the original scriptural wording fell into several categories, the two most important being a sort of midrash (or explanation of the text that could have or should have been included in the original) or a clarification or extension of the original author's meaning or thought.

It is sometimes useful to look past the object (the JST in this case) to the reason it exists. Joseph, unlike ancient prophets, had no role model. Prophets, even in Israel's worst periods of apostasy, were a common background element in the national scene. A newly appointed prophet knew what a prophet should do. Joseph had no such mentors. So God had him translate* the Bible, because, as anyone who has translated a serious document can tell you, translation requires an intimate knowledge of the meaning and intent of the author. By gaining this intimacy, Joseph had to internalize the text, but also internalize the processes that prophets use to become literal mouthpieces of God, and to become the models for those to whom their calling applies in both deed and word.

* Translate with its earlier, XIX meaning.

Thus, the JST was, more than a doctrinal source (which it still is, please note), a textbook for Joseph for his practical coursework in Prophets and Prophecy 101, taught by special guest lecturers, experts in their field.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
2

Share this post


Link to post

Elf,

Why don't you just tell us the name of this alleged evangelical scholar?

Was silence your intended answer to my last question, or are you having trouble posting? I know I was running into trouble a while ago.

Yes I was having trouble...

The Evangelical Scholar (Bart D. Ehrman) is the author the book I am reading. I am not sure who he was using as sources for his conjecture.

As for your last question:

Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it will not happen. We believe that there will be more records uncovered and translated as we grow closer to the Second Coming of Christ.

Edited by ELF1024
0

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.