POST #89
ALABAMA STORM :
Quote:
Clear lens said to mike555 : TRANSLATORS AND SCRIBES (AND IN THE AGE OF PRINTING : PRINTERS) OF BIBLES HAVE DELETED; HAVE ADDED TO; AND HAVE ALWAYS CHANGED THE TEXT OF BIBLES. For you to insist that no significant changes occur simply means that you are unaware of changes that have occurred.
Alabama Storm remarked : "That's been one of my concerns also. How to weed out the errors in the transcribing of the texts. And not only in that transcribing but also in it's translation from one language to another.
One of the studies I've been currently engaged in is the simple translation of the Greek definite articles. And it appears not to be so simple after all. This is one of the most abused portions of Greek text into English that my own personal studies have found.
It appears that translators take a great deal of liberty by telling their readers what they believe the context of the text is and then defining that context when translating that definite article. Definite articles most often simply point to the context of the text to define or give added emphasis to what is under discussion. Understanding that context and conveying it in translation is another matter however. This inevitably leads to a host of preconceived doctrinal positions that are being inserted into the text and presented to it's readers in English as being truth. It has an immense influence on what the reader is reading."
|
Alabama Storm, I was too busy at work today to do any research of significance specifically on definite articles (I actually don’t know much about sources that deal specifically with definite and indefinite articles in Greek or Hebrew texts so I’m not sure if my comments even AFTER research will be helpful to you. ) I do know that you are familiar with issues in textual criticism (perhaps moreso than myself) so I felt like I should at least make some comment so you know I wasn’t avoiding you. I’m not at a computer with greek text capabilities so my greek words in comments are transliterated. You’ll recognize them.
1) REGARDING ADDING AND TAKING AWAY FROM SACRED TEXTS
I very much agree that contextual and grammatical errors represent a significant portion of textual corruptions in all sacred texts. I have wondered if your observation regarding the effect of preconceived doctrinal positions isn’t one of the biggest hurdles in interpretation (which IS a critical part of translation) and transmission of religious data.
We all tend to add what we want.
For example :
Mike555, in trying to explain (mis-explain) the hebrew word “
bara” said “
...here is what the scriptures says. Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created (bara) the heavens and the earth.” which he then he interprets as follows, saying : “God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing...”.
The addition of the three words “
out of nothing” to the text represents the prohibited “adding to” scriptures and in most cases comes from a preconceived doctrinal position. Such mental “
adding to scripture” (or taking away from scripture) is commonplace and I suspect many who do this do not even realize they are adding to or taking away from scriptures. However,
the effect is that scriptures are made to fall in line with personal belief rather than personal belief falling in line with scripture.
On the other hand adding was done anciently as well. Multiple manuscripts were changed to reflect the opinion of illustrious individuals. For example Codices were often marked and corrections made to them either in the text or in the Margins.
For example : Codex Colberto-Sarravianus has several passages marked with an asterisk which indicated at that time that Origen did not find them in the Septuagint (the Greek old Testament) and supplied them from other greek versions. below you can see the additions of the missing text in the margins.
You can see from this single page that there are so many corrections that some scholars feel that the two types of book of Jeremiah’s represent entirely different versions rather than a great number of losses in one and additions in another.
This sort of adding to texts (and taking away what we don’t want) was common in ancient history (copyright and ownership laws are relatively new in history), so that often, at the end of texts, the writers would add a curse on those who changed the writing of that specific text.
For example, When Ben Asher finished Codex Cairensis version of his Bible, he writes “
Whoever alters a word of this Mahzor of this writing or erases one letter, or tears off one leaf...may he have neither pardon nor forgiveness, neither ‘let him behold the beauty of the Lord’ nor let him see the good that is reserved for those who fear him...”.
Such curses are also seen at the end of Old Testament and New Testament texts in OT deuteronomy and NT Revelations (to curse those who added to the text in deuteronomy or the text of revelation).
However, such curses did not stop individuals from adding or subtracting to the text if they were convinced they were more correct in their beliefs than the text was.
2) ONE GREAT PROBLEM WITH ADDITIONS AND LOSSES FROM SACRED TEXTS
I think Mike555 made a good point when he refers to the problems in corruptions and in the adding and losing of sacred text is not so much that core doctrines are COMPLETELY lost in the texts but I think the biggest problem with ancient texts is their lack of clarity and specificity on points Christians find themselves arguing about..
Many important doctrines exist in great clarity in the text and on the other hand, there exists, at least, some doctrinal debris of most of even the obscure doctrines and references to other Judao-christian texts.
The far greater problem is lack of clarity and specificity and the great amount of “doctrinal debris” out of which individuals may create multiple and opposing types of christianity from a single biblical text.
For example: When we look at the forum debates, Whether one believes Jesus is the same individual as His Father or if they believe that the son is a separate individual from the Father, there are scriptures that can be used to support either conclusion. Whether one believes in water and/or spirit baptism or not, both sides may find scriptures that support their conclusions. If one believes in universalism or if one does not, both sides arm themselves with supporting scriptures from the same sacred text. We see endless arguments regarding opposing (sometimes opposite) views where both sides use biblical texts with equal ease.
What is lost in corruptions is not mostly doctrinal, rather it is clarity and deep exposition of doctrines in such a clear manner that would make great errors less likely. Justyn Martyr in his dialogue with Trypo the Jew claimed that the Jews had edited Old Testament scriptures in such a ways that it was less clear that Jesus was the Christ.
In the same way that incorrect word order affects doctrine, rarely "directly", it does immediately affects the directions our logic and doctrinal assumptions take in understanding doctrines. It matters for example, if Jesus will say to the Evil Doers “
I never knew you, depart from me...” or if he said “
You never knew me, depart from me...” (Matt 7:23)
Each version affects omniscience, or christs relationship to us and to "evil doers" differently.
One current debate on the forum regards whether God hardened Pharoah’s heart so that he would not let Israel God and for which evil, which caused Israel longer and more difficult servitude(for which pharoah may presumably be punished?) It matters if the correct version is one where God says “
But I will harden Pharaoh's heart...” (which God does not do) or if the correct text is where God tells Moses “
But Pharoah will harden his heart toward God...” (exodus 7:3). I think that
Mike555 is correct when he claims that despite such corruptions, there is usually at least one place in the bible where the correct doctrine is represented (however dimly). In this case 1 Sam 6:6 has the prophet asking : “
Why do you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh did?”.
However, given multiple versions of a corruption that says God did harden pharoah’s heart, how is a single correction in a relatively inconspicuous place in a different text in a different place in history likely to correct several prominent verses that have an incorrect version of events? More individuals are familiar with Exodus’ version where "God hardens the heart" of a man compared to those who’ve read the more correct version in Samuel where "the man hardens his own heart".
Multiple commentaries both at the turn of the century AND nowadays, speculate as to how it was possible that “righteous abraham” deceived the egyptians concerning Sarah being his sister instead of his wife. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and it’s texts, we can correct our view of Abraham since we now have the text explaining the dream God gave Abraham,
instructing Abraham to say that Sarah was his sister (the dream of the cedar and the palm).
Abraham is left both righteous and obedient with the addition of such textual insights.
In the context of YOUR specific observation regarding definite articles, I am sure that someone has made lists of problems caused by definite and indefinite articles (I am not one of those). However, I believe that incorrect articles cause their own difficulties and individuals create theologies based on incorrect definite and indefinite articles.
Some mis-translated articles matter little and others matter more. The missed article in NIV Matt 6:6 “... when you pray, go into
your room, close the door” matters little, however confusion of more important theologies may rest on John 1:1 “
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God”... it matters to theology whether “
the Word was God” or “
the Word was ‘A’ God”. The second translation fits 1st century Judao-Christianity better than the first one.
Such problems are worse when rendering from semetic Aramaic, and creating a Greek sentence and then creating an english sentence since ancient aramaic/hebrew does not HAVE an “is” in it, whereas Greek want’s the “is” (estin). What does a translator do to try to make the best sense for the average person? He adds an “is” to it and the English inherits the resulting corruption.
For example, the earliest translator of Matt 26:28 must translate the oral aramaic “
This : my blood of the covenant” which is correct aramaic, but poorly understood by non-hebrews. Rendering the Greek he then adds a non-existent “estin” to the Greek to create an "
incorrect, but better understood" sentence “
This [IS] my blood of the covenant” which the english speaker is left to interpret in multiple ways. It is the non-existent “
estin” [is] which underlies the doctrine of trans-subtantiation.
TENSE also creates problems : Is one SAVED as a perfect and past tense, or as an ongoing process? What does one do with a Greek Aorist sense when going to a language that lacks it. Separate theologies are created with endless arguments due to a word tense.
It bothers me when an educated person speaks incorrectly and says “
We was driving from our house, up to the farm.” ("we was" sounds bad and the farm is south of their house so you would expect them to at least say "down to the farm"...) However, one translator makes the point that the ancients were probably worse at speaking and writing proper greek than we are at speaking and writing proper english and, in fact, he suggests that
to translate, one ought to use, not the rules of “proper” written koine Greek, but rather translate by “rules of usage”, that is how people actually USED greek, rather than how people SHOULD HAVE used greek according to a text book. It’s very complicated.
WORD MEANING also creates theologies and the problems attending new theories.
Mike555 and I discussed the difference between greek “
plasmon” “
to form” in his attempt to use the word to support his ex-nihilo
creation from “nothing”, versus the meaning of the verb as “
to shape” an already existing thing.. Thus a doctrine can be created or at least supported by a person who assigns an ANCIENT word a meaning which is independent of it’s ancient context or meaning.
Such a lack of HISTORICAL CONTEXT is, I believe, also a difficult, perhaps insurmountable problem for the casual reader of any of the bibles.
Theologies are often built by individuals who have little or no theological blueprint or historical foundation other than what they are given by others. They often live their lives inside such theologies but often, nothing is square; the fuses often blow and the plumbing leaks.
Clear
eidrviseol
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
