Ok, I know I am getting redundant if you have seen my other posts.
I searched Bible Gateway the terms Adam, Eve, and Noah. Nothing in the Old Testament outside of Genesis. IT is as if the authors of the Old Testament did not know of Genesis at all. But the New Testament mentions creation, Adam, and Eve, and Noah as importatn characters, especialy in the book of Hebrews.
The result for the word Abraham is similar. The mentions in the Old Testament outside of Genesis are only to name which God they are talking about – the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Isreal. The new testament mentions are of a character who is important to the faith.
Of course I am excluding the geneaologies like the beginning of Chronicles. It is obviously easy to add a few names to a listing such as the one found in Chronicles without changing the context at all. And there is no mention of the stories, just the names themselves.
I am surprised no one expressed interest in this question. I would be VERY interested in a comparison you suggest. We already know that Christianity has altered some words of the OT which they present. I am aware it also altered some personalities of the OT in order to support the Christian view. You raise a question I never thought of before : Did they ADD new personalities ?
I am no scholar to compare the OT versions – OT Original Jewish version and the Chrisian version (s) of it.
Perhaps someone here will pick up on this and enlighten us ? Meantime, thanks for raising the issue.
Lef said
I am surprised no one expressed interest in this question. I would be VERY interested in a comparison you suggest. We already know that Christianity has altered some words of the OT which they present. I am aware it also altered some personalities of the OT in order to support the Christian view. You raise a question I never thought of before : Did they ADD new personalities ?
Let’s be clear. Are you suggesting the writers of the NT books altered the words of the Tanakh? We know that early church fathers believed that the Jews changed the words of the OT when the OT didn’t support the early church’s christology. Jerome offered several examples of appeals to the OT that came from older Hebrew writings, but not the LXX. This is not an simple idea of “early Christians altered some words of the OT”. We only have the LXX from several Greek translations of earlier Jewish texts to make that claim, hence, we’re missing a lot.
As far as adding people not found in OUR OT, refer to what I just said. There are probably many apocryphal writings that were known 2000 years ago, but which don’t exist anymore.
@gmathews
What I had in mind when I wrote Christians “altered some words of the OT” is based on what I read once on a website which – for each verse – gives the English translation for each different Bible publication. I was amazed to notice that out of perhaps 20 editions, there was hardly a verse that is translated the same, there is always a difference. On many occasions, the translation gives a different meaning to the verse ! So I thought to myself “if they can’t even agree between themselves and they change words in almot every verse OF THE SAME TEXT, which version do I trust as being faithful to the original text ? And surely they may have altered the original text they are supposed to only translate …”
Now this topic makes me wonder if they have ADDED NEW PEOPLE putting into their mouth obviously new text as well. I wonder if anyone bothered to check ^whether the OT text they are all starting with is actually the same as the OT text used by the Jews.
Lef said
@gmathewsNow this topic makes me wonder if they have ADDED NEW PEOPLE putting into their mouth obviously new text as well. I wonder if anyone bothered to check ^whether the OT text they are all starting with is actually the same as the OT text used by the Jews.
That’s the thing. There were many versions of the OT (7 or more) known at least from the time of Jesus that are no longer extant. The Septuagint is the only version that survived to our times (because it was believed to be the most accurate?) therefore when you say Christians altered the OT you’re only comparing against the LXX. How would we know if they made intentionally altered the OT or were merely quoting from a version we no longer have? Many they intentionally changed some, but quoted from other versions in different places. There’s no way to know.
@gmathews
I am not aware the OT in its original version was ever changed. I suppose you are referring to the translations of the OT into Greek and possibly other languages have presented different versions. Today, it is possible to go to the original in Hebrew/Aramaic and compare with whatever OT ‘Christian versions’ there are in order to find out what was added.
Re. the Septuagint, I can definitely state that it is anything BUT an accurate translation. This is well established within Judaism though I am aware that Christianity likes to hang on to this particular translation. I wondered why until I learned from your post that it is apparently the only (or oldest?) translated text available today. Thanks.
Lef said
@gmathewsI am not aware the OT in its original version was ever changed. I suppose you are referring to the translations of the OT into Greek and possibly other languages have presented different versions. Today, it is possible to go to the original in Hebrew/Aramaic and compare with whatever OT ‘Christian versions’ there are in order to find out what was added.
What is the original version? The Torah, only the first 5 books, was put together from 4 sources written over the course of several centuries. How can you say it wasn’t changed when there was never a single source and we don’t even know what the originals said?
In this comment, I am using Torah interchangeably with Pentateuch.
To clarify my post from 1 year ago, 😀 , I meant that the writing of at least the first part of Genesis may have taken place extremely late when compared to the rest of the Old Testament. I am not claiming that those characters were written in by Christians, but that they were fairly new to the written works of the Jews when Christ came on the scene.
The more I read, the more I am thinking that Maccabee was P, and acted alone.
I am currently reading a series of essays in a book I find very exciting, “The Pentateuch as Torah” edited by Gary Knoppers and Bernard Levinson. The current thinking according to these writers is that J and E (if there was an E) were not Pre exilic, or were barely pre exilic like the Deutoronomist was, and that P tied them together while adding in their own pieces. The idea seems to revolve around the need for the leaders of Jerusalem to be able to lead all of Yehud (Judea) as a Satrapy of Persia. Thus the impetus to tie together various and actually conflicting ideas about who God is and what God expects. (I know this goes against the charts of JEDP theory in Mr. Ehrmann’s textbook, but I find the arguments compelling.)
I keep reading between the lines in these essays that there is no good reason to believe that a Genesis story (or perhaps even much of the Torah) predates Maccabee.
Anyway, now my big question is…
WHY do the educated say “the Torah is the 5 books of the Torah and has always been the 5 books of the Torah”? IT seems like Genesis and the first few chapters of Exodus are miles away from the rest of the Torah in substance. As a matter of fact the abhorrent behavior of the good guys in Genesis is often excused because it is Pre Mosaic Law. I only say it that way to illustrate the difference between Genesis and the rest of the Torah, not because I believe any part of Genesis actually predates the writing of the rest of the Torah. My premise is quite the contrary.
So why must Genesis have been written alongside all the legalese in the rest of the Torah?
Greg Matthews said
What is the original version? The Torah, only the first 5 books, was put together from 4 sources written over the course of several centuries. How can you say it wasn’t changed when there was never a single source and we don’t even know what the originals said?
Are Lef and FMV the same person?
If later versions could be altered, why couldn’t earlier ones? Was there a forcefield in the olden days that ran out of juice?
It hardly matters what a given group believes about its sacred literature. The question is always what the evidence tells us.
And who is JEDP? Did JedP P on Macabees?
JEDP.
J and E are supposedly two authors who use the terms Elohim (E) and Yahweh (J) primarily for their tales that end up in the Torah. This helps explain some of the inconsistencies in many of the stories, including things like Noah getting 7 pairs of animals in the ark, then later only getting 2 pairs. Again, God kills all the livestock of Egypt with one plague, then two plagues later kills all the livestock again (the livestock that was already dead).
D is the Deutoronomist that many like to date to Josiah’s finding of the Law.
P was the final redactor, or the final redactors over time. P is for Priest, because it was thought the Torah was very important to society and so only priests could redact it.
Now it seems there is more evidence that the Torah was virtually unknown, or at least was not of primary importance in the Yehud. P, as primary author or final redactor must have been very late. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, most of the prophets, many psalms, proverbs, etc would have predated P, and possible predate Genesis.
I find it curious that Noah predates Ezekiel though. I generally have worked under the assumption that the ANE stories of Genesis 1-6 would have been Judaized at the same time, by one author. The mention of Noah goes straight to his righteous character along with Job and Danel. At any rate, it would seem to me that Atrahasis was converted to Noah before Ezekiel was written.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)