Haran

I haven't read them close enough to notice the consistency, except in this post.

However, why do you propose changing Peter to John?

Where have your proposed older readings been preserved? Is there any trace of them that was not overwritten?

The second-fourth century literature is how we know much of anything at all about Jesus and the NT.

Could you give an example of how the teachings in the DSS would have influenced the terminology in your translation above (i.e. a specific DSS reference)?

It was obviously eventually "hijacked" by the rich (e.g. Constantine), but even the changes they made seem minimal to me compared to what you are proposing.

That is because you are changing what were probably already rather consistent themes into new themes. Changes would flow rather easily in this instance. I think many early Christians fell into this trap of creating a text that agreed with their own notions and were labled heretics.

Geoff Hudson

In reponse to Haran:

Haran:
The second-fourth century literature is how we know much of anything at all about Jesus and the NT.

Geoff:
There are too few scholars with a good feel for Judaism who can interpret the NT from a Jewish aspect. There are too many who do the reverse and think they can work backwards to interpret what are essentially Jewish documents from a Graeco-Roman aspect. Those who interpret the NT from this aspect appear to have some success for the simple reason the Jewish documents were overwritten by Graeco-Romans. Such interpreters often ignore the plainly Jewish underlying core.

Haran:
Could you give an example of how the teachings in the DSS would have influenced the terminology in your translation above (i.e. a specific DSS reference)?

Geoff:
I would suggest that you read the Thanksgiving Hymns (1QH). This is an anomalous sectarian document, and it contains some concepts that show development, particularly with regard to purification by the Spirit, and the rejection of sacrifice as a means of atonement.

Haran:
Where have your proposed older readings been preserved? Is there any trace of them that was not overwritten?

It was obviously eventually "hijacked" by the rich (e.g. Constantine), but even the changes they made seem minimal to me compared to what you are proposing.

Geoff:
If they could change Josephus as much as they did, anything was possible with the NT, and probably by the same people. Do you really think that the powerful who rewrote history would leave any trace behind if they could avoid doing so?

Haran:
That is because you are changing what were probably already rather consistent themes into new themes. Changes would flow rather easily in this instance. I think many early Christians fell into this trap of creating a text that agreed with their own notions and were labled heretics.

Geoff:
I agree to some extent with your first sentence, but the chicanery in the extanct text was produced by some of the best brains of the day who had endless hours and massive resources to achieve it. Eisenman, for example, is highly critical of state involvement in the garbling of the NT, especially Acts. I would suggest that some of these early "Christians", for example Tertullian, were aware of much of the hoodwinking that was going on, and were condemned as heretics by the powerful establishment. Why did Tertullian, the first so called Christian theologian, join the Montanists?

Geoff