manwithdream

Maklelan,

If they changed certain quotes, why would they change the Greek translations, but keep the Hebrew text the same? Wouldn't they change both?

How can you know if quotes were changed to fit a stricter monotheism with no other gods or if they were changed by some people to show the existence of other gods? If you see different versions of quotes, how do you know which is the original and which is the changed one?

Kenneth Greifer

Maklelan

There was no need. They were translating the text specifically because the communities couldn't read the Hebrew. Also, that would mean producing an entirely new transcription (they weren't being paid for that), or scratching out a portion of the text and writing something new on top, which was quite a no-no.

There are several text-critical principles at work here. One of the most basic is that the more difficult reading (logically, theologically, grammatically, etc.) is likely to be original, because alterations tend toward making things easier to understand, not harder. Errors do occur, though, which means in some cases, the more difficult reading is secondary. Text critics have to be sensitive to these dynamics, but when a change seems to be an intentional and theologically motivated one, the more theologically problematic reading is to be preferred. Additionally, we have a quite clear progression in the textual witnesses. All the late manuscripts (Vulgate, Syriac, MT) all have the "sons of Israel" reading, while the earlier manuscripts (LXX, Qumran) have either the "sons of God" or "angels of God" reading. We have numerous other examples of the Septuagint changing "gods" to "angels," and we also have early Septuagint translations where the change didn't happen, so we know the texts went "sons of God" > "angels of God" and not the other way around. In the case of Deut 32:8–9 we know "sons of God" is original because 4QDeut-j is the absolute earliest witness we have, by several centuries (there's no reason to insist manuscripts from centuries later are more original), and because the "sons of God" reading fits rather well into the context. "Sons of Israel" makes no sense, since there was no Israel and no "sons of Israel" when the nations were divided. Also, ancient Jewish tradition holds that there were seventy nations on the earth, which happens to coincide with the ancient Near Eastern idea that the El, the high god (the "Elyon"), had seventy sons. Early Jewish tradition also holds that each nations was assigned an angel to watch over it. This is found in Daniel where it speaks of the "princes" of Persia, etc., and in Ben Sira, where it talks about angels having stewardship over the nations. The reading of Deut 32:8–9 as a reference to divine beings (angels) being assigned to the nations is the most likely source for that tradition, and it predates any reference at all to the notion of dividing up the nations according to the number of the "sons of Israel." Texts like Psalm 82 and Genesis 6:2–4 also progress from being thought of as references to gods gods > angels > men.

manwithdream

Maklelan,

In the oldest version of Deut. 32:8-9 and I guess 32:43(?), "sons of G-d" which word for G-d is it? el, elim, or what?

Kenneth Greifer

Maklelan

Deut 32:43 just has אלהים, and 4QDeut-j has בני אלהים, although many scholars believe it was originally בני אל. Jan Joosten has posited that it was originally בני שר אל, "Son of Bull El," based on parallels with the Ugaritic epithet and the fact that this provides a quite clear route for MT's variant, which would only require the dittography of the yod on the end of בני.

manwithdream

Maklelan,

I was looking at the blog you linked to before, which I think is your blog, and in one article it said King David was called G-d in Psalm 45. In another article, it discussed something about appearances of G-d as an angel (I am not sure where I read that in middle of the night.) Anyway, I have a different explanation for Psalm 45 on my site, if you are willing to take the time to look at it. http://www.messianicmistakes.com/

I also have my own ideas about the angel of G-d that speaks as G-d in a chapter called "seeing G-d". I think the angel has G-d's name in it which is His presence, and that G-d speaks directly through it's mouth to people, so it can bring a message, "thus says the L-rd..." or G-d speaks through it. It sounds like G-d is speaking, but it is not really G-d exactly. I have more details on my site.

Kenneth Greifer

Sheshbazzar

No. Do you require that all writers about The Batte of Little Big Horn have to have been personally present?
Is the fact that they were not, to be taken as some evidence that the Battle never occured?
No. Does one need to believe in the Unktehila., the power of the Ghost Dance, and in Ghost Shirts to accept that the genocide of the Indian wars took place?

Sheshbazzar

You were there? How do you know this?
And in the ANE religion and political dynamics were inextricably linked. To all intents the one was the other.
Jehu would not have even needed to believe in any of the tenets of the Jewish religion to have employd its Laws for Political ends.
As an aside, the texts writers despised Jehu because he didn't do a better job of carrying out this fratricide by likewise exterminating Jeroboam. (2 Kings 10:29-31)
This 2 King's report is that of a hostile witness. It is hardy likely that they would have invented stories portraying Jehu in a positive light, whom they declared took "no heed to walk in The Law of YHWH EL of Israel with all his heart". IE that what they were reporting he had done, had only been done for political reasons.
The writers being apparently happy with what was done (carrying out YHWHs 'will'), but establishing themselves as hostile witness against the person that did it.

Maklelan

There's evidence for human sacrifice, but there's no evidence for religiously motivated mass murder.

The palace and the temple were still quite distinct and oftentimes antagonistic institutions.

Not true at all.

Those writers were writing centuries after he lived, and were just promoting a certain ideology.

Sheshbazzar

Woah there pardner!
Let's get this back into context.
I said;
You replied;I asked;You replied;When you reject the TORAH accounts of mass murder, all claims of human sacrifice from the same source also go down the chute.

And if any religiously motivated murder did take place before 600 BCE, even if you were find the actual human remains, how would you be able to establish what the actual motivations for their deaths were 2500-3000 years latter? You get human bones, not access to their long lost thoughts or motives.

The lines between religiously motivated mass murder and religiously motivated human sacrifice are not all that distinct.
When a Theocracy or a people dominated by 'righteous' religious passion enter a war (particularly a 'civil' war) the opposing sides invariably paint their motivations in the terms of their religious beliefs.

Getting away from these contentious Biblical examples for a bit,
When the Aztecs sacrificed a thousand victims a day for twenty days in the inauguration of the Great Temple of Tenochtitlan in 1487, was it religiously motivated mass murder or religiously motivated human sacrifice?
(I doubt the fine points of such a distinction made much difference to the victims. Whom of course, had it been in their power, would likely done exactly the same against these their countrymen. )
When Pedro de Alvarado and his men cornered and massacred an estimated 8,000–10,000 Aztec nobles inside of their Temple's Sacred Precincts was it not as likely motivated by their own religious views and revulsion against the Aztec religious practices ?

I am certain that both sides in this were also 'just promoting a certain ideology'. So that must mean that none of this ever happened.

Maklelan

Completely untrue. There are material remains from the ancient Near East that show human sacrifice going back well beyond the Pentateuch. Also, we have to weigh the historical value of each event from the Bible. I'm not just unilaterally rejecting all accounts, just the accounts that don't really track with the evidence or make much sense.

Grave good and burial practices tell an awful lot, as does knowledge of the manner of death and the material context of the burial. If remains do not contain evidence of religious mass murder, though, it happens to fall into the category of "no evidence."

Actually, they are. Human sacrifice is usually accompanied by ceremony, symbolic burial goods, and specific and consistent treatment of the body. Religiously motivated mass murder is not.

As far as we know from much more recent religious conflict, anyway.

First, that's quite a different culture, but the prisoners used in those sacrifices were often slaves from the Aztec culture, children of nobles, or other who are otherwise religiously indistinguishable from the sacrificers. That is a pretty good indication that they were not being murdered for their religious beliefs.

The Spanish account says the primary motivations were to preemptively stop a mutiny and to take their treasure. It says some were also concerned that the Aztecs had given themselves over to the devil, which sounds an awful lot like Christian religiously motivated mass murder, but that's a different culture and time period from eighth century BCE Syria-Palestine, isn't it?

Don't put words in my mouth.