In Jerusalem, scholars trace Bible's evolution (Liberal Critics Slam Old Testament)

JERUSALEM (AP) -- A dull-looking chart projected on the wall of a university office in Jerusalem displayed a revelation that would startle many readers of the Old Testament: the sacred text that people revered in the past was not the same one we study today.

An ancient version of one book has an extra phrase. Another appears to have been revised to retroactively insert a prophecy after the events happened.

Scholars in this out-of-the-way corner of the Hebrew University campus have been quietly at work for 53 years on one of the most ambitious projects attempted in biblical studies - publishing the authoritative edition of the Old Testament, also known as the Hebrew Bible, and tracking every single evolution of the text over centuries and millennia.

For many Jews and Christians, religion dictates that the words of the Bible in the original Hebrew are divine, unaltered and unalterable. For Orthodox Jews, the accuracy is considered so inviolable that if a synagogue's Torah scroll is found to have a minute error in a single letter, the entire scroll is unusable.

But the ongoing work of the academic detectives of the Bible Project, as their undertaking is known, shows that this text at the root of Judaism, Christianity and Islam was somewhat fluid for long periods of its history, and that its transmission through the ages was messier and more human than most of us imagine.

The project's scholars have been at work on their critical edition of the Hebrew Bible, a version intended mainly for the use of other scholars, since 1958.

"What we're doing here must be of interest for anyone interested in the Bible," said Michael Segal, the scholar who heads the project.

The sheer volume of information makes the Bible Project's version "the most comprehensive critical edition of the Hebrew Bible in existence at the present time," said David Marcus, a Bible scholar at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York, who is not involved with the project.

But Segal and his colleagues toil in relative anonymity. Their undertaking is nearly unknown outside a circle of Bible experts numbering several hundred people at most, and a visitor asking directions to the Bible Project's office on the university campus will find that many members of the university's own staff have never heard of it.

This is an endeavor so meticulous, its pace so disconnected from that of the world outside, that in more than five decades of work the scholars have published a grand total of three of the Hebrew Bible's 24 books. (Christians count the same books differently, for a total of 39.) A fourth is due out during the upcoming academic year.

If the pace is maintained, the final product will be complete a little over 200 years from now. This is both a point of pride and a matter of some mild self-deprecation around the office.

Bible Project scholars have spent years combing through manuscripts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, Greek translations on papyrus from Egypt, a printed Bible from 1525 Venice, parchment books in handwritten Hebrew, the Samaritan Torah, and scrolls in Aramaic and Latin. The last member of the original team died last year at age 90.

The scholars note where the text we have now differs from older versions - differences that are evidence of the inevitable textual hiccups, scribal errors and other human fingerprints that became part of the Bible as it was passed on, orally and in writing.

A Microsoft Excel chart projected on one wall on a recent Sunday showed variations in a single phrase from the Book of Malachi, a prophet.

The verse in question, from the text we know today, makes reference to "those who swear falsely." The scholars have found that in quotes from rabbinic writings around the 5th century A.D., the phrase was longer: "those who swear falsely in my name."

In another example, this one from the Book of Deuteronomy, a passage referring to commandments given by God "to you" once read "to us," a significant change in meaning.

The Book of Jeremiah is now one-seventh longer than the one that appears in some of the 2,000-year-old manuscripts known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some verses, including ones containing a prophecy about the seizure and return of Temple implements by Babylonian soldiers, appear to have been added after the events happened.

The year the Bible Project began, 1958, was the year a priceless Hebrew Bible manuscript arrived in Jerusalem after it was smuggled out of Aleppo, Syria, by a Jewish cheese merchant who hid it in his washing machine. This was the 1,100-year-old Aleppo Codex, considered the oldest and most accurate version of the complete biblical text in Hebrew.

The Bible Project's version of the core text - the one to which the others are compared - is based on this manuscript. Other critical editions of the Bible, such as one currently being prepared in Stuttgart, Germany, are based on a slightly newer manuscript held in St. Petersburg, Russia.

Considering that the nature of their work would be considered controversial, if not offensive, by many religious people, it is perhaps surprising that most of the project's scholars are themselves Orthodox Jews.

"A believing Jew claims that the source of the Bible is prophecy," said the project's bearded academic secretary, Rafael Zer. "But as soon as the words are given to human beings - with God's agreement, and at his initiative - the holiness of the biblical text remains, even if mistakes are made when the text is passed on."

Nothing new here. It’s called “scientific Bible criticism.”

I taught the Bible as literature for a while, and had to read a ton of that stuff, although I found little use in it.

Basically, it began in German Universities back around 1870, when Bismarck was attempting to exterminate Christianity (especially Catholicism) so he could modernize the State. But it permeates almost all academic Bible study today.

thanks for posting this. very cool!

i wish to understand the Bible the best i can.
and i much prefer to have the oldest possible copies,
and translations from them.
(i read that in one very ancient scroll, the “666” was actually “616”...)

” The Book of Jeremiah is now one-seventh longer than the one that appears in some of the 2,000-year-old manuscripts known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. “

i don’t doubt, that some have tried to add or subtract from Scripture in the past 2,000 years.

a passage referring to commandments given by God "to you" once read "to us," a significant change in meaning.

First, the above difference is not significant as they claim

Next, they are apparently using sources a millennia later to dispute a text? That would be like quoting some monk in 900 AD as authoritative on events that took place in 30-90 AD, nearly a 1000 years earlier.

That, or the rabbis intentionally inserted "by My Name" in their quotation because they considered that to be the real meaning of the shorter phrase, possibly by way of cross-referencing with Zec. 5:4. Since there are no quotation marks in Hebrew or Aramaic, it's easy to become confused on that point.

On using the LXX to "fix" the Hebrew text, that'd be like trying to reconstruct the "true" Greek NT by using the KJV as a source--or worse, the NIV, since the LXX often paraphrases and interpolates to better explain the text to its audience.

Shalom

First, the above difference is not significant as they claim
Next, they are apparently using sources a millennia later to dispute a text? That would be like quoting some monk in 900 AD as authoritative on events that took place in 30-90 AD, nearly a 1000 years earlier.

I agree with you on both points. In a list of tens of thousands of "discrepancies" in older texts, the vast majority are no more significant than verb endings, vowel variants in David's name, or the word order of "Christ Jesus" or "Jesus Christ". There are about a dozen true passage variants that I consider meaningful, including the long/short endings of Mark. With these few isolated exceptions, we know what the Bible said when written within the accuracy of translation into English. A translator is likely to swap the order of "Jesus Christ" for readability or rhythm. A translator is compelled to change verb tenses not just for readability and consistency but also because we don't have all the verb tenses that the original Greek text used. Some who hate Christians like to say that the Bible has been translated from one language to another hundreds of times so that we no longer know what it really said, but the fact is that all major translations were done from the oldest and best texts available. We know that the original New Testament was written at least mostly in Greek. We also know how many translations were needed to arrive at the current Greek Orthodox Bible - zero for NT and one for OT.

And it has evolved, despite deeply held beliefs to the contrary... For many Jews and Christians, religion dictates that the words of the Bible in the original Hebrew are divine, unaltered and unalterable...

The writer of this hit piece against the integrity of the biblical text is either ignorant about what orthodox Christians believe about the inspiration/authorship of the Bible, or has intentionally misrepresented both those beliefs and the Hebrew University research. Most of my Hebrew has long flown, but in another life I have a strong background in classical Hebrew (including study at Hebrew University).

The salient point is that, for orthodox (vs. "liberal") Christians, the inspiration of the biblical texts extends properly only to the biblical writers and the original manuscripts.

In other words, Christians do not claim that every copy of the text that was produced, in any language at any time, is equally "inspired." There are many copies of the biblical texts of varying accuracy (both the Hebrew and the New Testament), produced by those with different motivations and often limited skill. It would be ludicrous for Christians to claim that each and every one was "inspired."

It is the job of textual criticism ("lower" criticism rather than "higher," which is largely destructive) to ascertain to the highest degree possible what the original text said. This is accomplished by comparing the best of the "extant" manuscripts and applying interpretive rules. As a general rule, older is more accurate, but not necessarily so.

Textual scholars who hold a high view of Scripture believe that the translations that we have today reflect the inspired originals to a very high degree. Although there are many minor differences in wording, there are exceedingly few instances where any point of doctrine is affected. Thus, we can read our English Bible with a very high degree of confidence that it reflects the original inspired texts.

(i read that in one very ancient scroll, the “666” was actually “616”...)

True, but Irenaeus in the 2nd Century was aware of the 616 number going around and soundly blasted it, insisting that the true number was 666 and even giving several examples of names that fit the requisite number. Since he was the disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the same John who penned Revelation in the first place, I consider him to be a good source on the subject.

Shalom

I find that a tricky challenge when choosing how to render text into another language. Do you translate word by word even though that sounds clunky in the new language, or do you translate to maintain the overall meaning but flow smoothly paragraph by paragraph? Maintaining the precise meanings and connotations can be hard with either option. I mostly like Young's Literal Translation for study purposes, but I would not recommend it to a new Christian as a Bible for reading. LXX does not tell one what the original said, but a word by word translation often misses the mark by at least as large a margin for anything but scholarly study.

Exactly. And it's worse when trying to translate from the Hebrew. The Greek is so precise that the biggest problems for translators is how to handle the loss of precision when going to English. It's the exact opposite with Hebrew, since one word in Hebrew can cover the meanings of ten or more words in English.

For example: "Sh'ma Israel, Hashem Eloheynu, Hashem Echad." It's not just a matter of literally vs. dynamic equivalency; you can translate that phrase literally several different ways, from the classic, "Hear O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is One" to "Hear [and respond], Israel, the Lord is your God, the Lord alone" to "Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord."

And that's not even getting into trying to convey the Tetragrammaton.

That's why quite a few Jewish translations provide the Hebrew on the page opposite the translation--it's acknowledged that it's practically impossible to "properly" translate the Hebrew to convey its full range of meaning. It's a convention that I wish more Christian Bibles would pick up on.

Shalom

Wasn't Jeremiah a grouping in some contexts, as when it says "as was said by Jeremiah" and such a statement being in the Jeremiah grouping?

No, that's a supposition that is put forth by some Christian scholars to try to explain why Matthew attributed the prophecy of Yeshua being sold for thirty pieces of silver to Jeremiah when it's obviously referencing Zechariah 11. What was actually happening is that Matthew was citing both the Zechariah passage and two other passages from Jeremiah (18 and 31, IIRC) all at the same time.

I've not heard of the DSS version of Jeremiah being significantly shorter before, so I'll have to look into that and get back to you. On the face of it, however, I'd have to ask, "How do they know?" Given the disintegrated nature of the DSS, how are they discerning that Jeremiah was actually shorter rather than just 1/7th of it was turned to dust?

Shalom

Well put, and a nice, appropriately placed closing word. “Shalom” can be peace (appropriate in your friendly and informative post), hello (since we have not corresponded much on FR), good bye (ending your post), and so much more . . . covering the meanings of several relevant English words all at once, while adding a direct illustration of your point. My own Hebrew is terrible, in part because I often forget half or more of the meanings associated even with those words I do know, and those alternate meanings very often matter, even when the primary meaning is also intended.

Thank you for your comments. I am convinced, the more I study the Bible, that it has been the Creator all along who has preserved and protected his revelation to mankind. Such a miracle has not and never will be the work of just men.

This would be true even in today's time WRT translation from one language to another. Some words simply may not exist in another language and we see many times the word itself is just not even translated but used as is. That is why any good translation MUST have multiple scholars proficient in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew to put together a reliable translation of the Bible and it entails not just word for word but context. They also need a good understanding of the culture and times in which they were written.

I remember in Bible College this salient point being brought home when we studied the Gospel of John. In John 10:28, Jesus said, "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.". We found that the word "never" was actually a triple negative and where the Greek used four words, the English version just translated as "never". In Greek the words were: οὐ μή εἰς αἰών , and really were saying: never, certainly not, not at all, by no means, at any time, at any place, for any purpose, whether male, female or even neuter, forever, perpetually, eternally. WOW! Jesus really meant something, didn't he? That is why I am grateful for multiple translations as well as concordances and lexicons, so we can actually have a real glimpse at the true intent of the words and so we can know, even today, exactly what God wanted us to know.

We’ve got Greek manuscripts back to the 4th century. I wonder why they are refusing to use the best textual evidence?

Because they have some quite serious doctrinal differences with the official Masoretic Text, and that causes some discomfort. The fact that most of the LXX differences are supported by both the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls, of course, causes even more discomfort.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.