but I remember seeing a TV documentary years ago that claimed that there
were originally far more than four gospels in the NT and that at some
point an editing process occurred.
A quick google search brought up these pages HYPERLINK
"http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TextHist.html"http://www.skypoint.com/
~waltzmn/TextHist.html and HYPERLINK
"http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html"htt
p://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html which
seem to show that either my memory or the program were basically wrong,
but that there have been a lot of changes and editing to the text over
the years - "Contrary to common belief, there was never a one-time,
truly universal decision as to which books should be included in the
Bible. It took over a century of the proliferation of numerous writings
before anyone even bothered to start picking and choosing, and then it
was largely a cumulative, individual and happenstance event, guided by
chance and prejudice more than objective and scholarly research, until
priests and academics began pronouncing what was authoritative and holy,
and even they were not unanimous." (The Formation of the New Testament
Canon)
Warning - the links are to quite long articles which will either bore
you rigid or take up far too much of your day!
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 15 October 2003 20:31
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's "THE PASSION"
Sorry, I should have made clear that I don't know whether that bit in
the
bible is a victim of translation, revisionist history, or if it's
correctly
translated and Vatican II is engaging in revisionism. I was asking the
question before because I don't know but I know it's within the realms
of
possibilty based on things I know about translation and the study of
religions.
<cf_speculation>
It is possible for entire sections to be, if not mistranslated per se,
misinterpreted. Many of the concepts are presented in such a way that
they
are rife with cultural interpretation. When referring to the "chief
priests", what does that mean? Are they actually jewish priests? Are
they
roman priests, but maybe that was lost in understanding? Are they jewish
slaves who the romans used as their figureheads to control the jewish
population and they are given the title of "chief priests" by the
romans?
Take the latter. One reference to a roman installed "chief priest" here
or
there and a translator's approach to later sections will be skewed based
on
that misunderstanding.
</cf_speculation>
<cf_sociology>
It's also interesting to look at the cultural background of the
political
necessity of a christ figure. At the time, the Caesar was god. Perhaps
self-appointed, but culturally that was his position. There were also
many,
many jewish tribes/sects/groups what have you. There was particularly a
differentiation of city and country jewish communities. The jewish
people as
a whole were trying to come up with a way to get out from under the
romans.
They needed an alternative to the Caesar. But they were also fighting
amongst themselves for power, just as people in the city today have
different social needs than people in the country. I've read accounts of
many viable christ figures that came out of the jewish communities, but
the
personage of Jesus as a diametrical opposite to the rich, wealthy,
powerful
and ruthless Caesar was the one that history remembers and was
eventually
documented in the bible. Documented of course by the ones who put him in
power.
</cf_sociology>
I'm just stringing together things I've read years ago and suppositions
based on that. They provide a viable enough context for me to see the
Vatacan II pronouncement as credible as any of the religious history.
But
I'm not a believer. If anything these days, I'm an armchair scholar.
So my only question is, if intellectually there's enough reason to cast
doubt on the story, why stick steadfastly to a story that justifies some
people's hatred of some other people?
-Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Small" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's "THE PASSION"
> OK, that's a single word, but are there entire sections of text which
are
mistranslated so that it appears that Jews are responsible for the death
of
Jesus rather than some other group - the Romans, perhaps? Like Brob,
I'd
always thought it was the Romans alone who put Jesus to death, but then
I
started reading the Bible.
>
> Matthew 26:14-16
> 14Then one of the Twelve--the one called Judas Iscariot--went to the
chief
priests 15and asked, "What are you willing to give me if I hand him over
to
you?" So they counted out for him thirty silver coins. 16From then on
Judas
watched for an opportunity to hand him over.
>
> John 18:12-13
> 12Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish
officials arrested Jesus. They bound him 13and brought him first to
Annas,
who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year.
>
> I'm not holding anybody today responsible for the death of Jesus, but
the
Bible does say what it says. Are you saying that these passages are
incorrect?
>
> -Matthew Small
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael Dinowitz
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 3:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's "THE PASSION"
>
>
> Sorry, the actual word is Michashefa, which is the feminine form
used in
the
> particular place. Its from the root Kishuf.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Dinowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 2:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's "THE PASSION"
>
> > I can document it with a single word. Michushef. This Hebrew word
has
a
> > meaning of sorceress or witch. i.e. one who uses impure forces to
affect
> > reality. A type of magic basically. Because of the way Greek is,
the
word
> > they used was basically one who uses herbs or poisons which was
translated
> > later on as poisoner and on and on. King James has it as witch,
which
> pisses
> > off the modern pagans.
> > What the word is and what it has become and is becoming over time
and
due
> to
> > 'popular' input shows exactly how the Christian Bible has changed.
Yes,
> the
> > original Greek is the original Greek, but who here reads that? We
all
read
> > the English.
> > A change in a word can be a change in the entire story. Take my
comment
> > about the last supper not being able to be the Passover Seder.
That
was
> > probably added later in a translation.
>
>
>
_____
[HYPERLINK "http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:5"Todays
Threads] [HYPERLINK
"http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=i:5:92216"This Message]
[HYPERLINK
"http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:5"Subscription]
[HYPERLINK
"http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=464.445.5"Fa
st Unsubscribe] [HYPERLINK "http://www.houseoffusion.com/signin/"User
Settings]
_____
HYPERLINK "http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=17" \n
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 09/10/2003
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 09/10/2003
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
