A New Testament “Contradiction By Omission”?

[bornagainathiest]

Interesting how the footnote in my Catholic Bible admits but brushes away the contradictions between Stephen's speech and Genesis. Re: Acts 7:2, where Stephen says that God appeared to Abraham when he was still in Mesopotamia and before he settled in Haran:

 

"the first of a number of minor discrepancies between the data of the Old Testament and the data of Stephen's discourse. According to Gn 12,1 God first spoke to Abraham in Haran. The main discrepancies are these: In 7, 16 it is said that Jacob was buried in Shechem, whereas G 50, 13 says he was buried at Hebron; in the same verse it is said that the tomb was purchased by Abraham, but in Gn 33, 19 and Jos 24, 32 the purchase is attributed to Jacob himself. The exactitude of detail achievable by modern scholarship was not a concern to ancient writers--who in any case were dealing with a variety of biblical and extra-biblical traditions."

 

The scholars who wrote this note clearly don't work from the assumption that we have the exact words of Stephen. Their concern lies solely in what the author of Acts wrote.  Unlike fundies, they don't try to claim that there are no discrepancies.  Instead, they airily dismiss them.  They don't explicate all the discrepancies, either - e.g. Stephen says with the Septuagint that 75 people went to Egypt, Acts 7:14, but the Masoretic Hebrew of Genesis has 70 people. 

 

BAA, if you're not interested in the following, that's quite all right!  But if you are --

 

it seems your question to exegetes such as the authors of the above note would have to be, not

 

"Why did Jesus inspire Stephen to make false statements?"

 

but rather,

 

"Why did the HS inspire the author of Acts to include discrepancies on minor details of the OT?  And if the HS--who is ex hypothesi OMNISCIENT-- is not faithful in little, why should we think the HS is faithful in much?"

 

I belabor this point because non-fundamentalist Christians like to dismiss a lot of atheist criticism of the Bible as applying only to fundies and not to sophisticated, non-fundy takes on scripture.  Non-fundies tend to be less crude than fundies, but they still promote and support structures that you and I and most of the other folks on here have struggled to set aside.  And when those non-fundies belong to churches that wield a lot of political power, like the RCs, they can still be dangerous, maybe more so.

 

That's why I try to consider how a critique of a given bible passage can stand up to sophisticated attempts to defend that passage as divinely inspired.  And if there's a more powerful rejoinder than what I sketched out in red above, I'd like to hear it!

 

Ficino,

 

The sentence in red is an excellent summary of the only logical conclusion of this topic - that Jesus and the Holy Spirit cannot be trusted.

 

All that I'd add is the following.

The author of the books of Luke and Acts adds his own human credentials to the Inerrantist's claim that he wrote with the inspiration of the (infallible and perfect) Holy Spirit.  As we read here...

 

Luke 1 : 1 - 4, NIV.

 

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

 

What more is there to say?  

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Joshpantera]

Yes, and if there were alternative versions of Abraham that were being quoted then we have to wonder why the HS used non-canonized material to inspire Stephen which was later deemed unacceptable or just plain forgotten in today's Bibles. ficino mentioned this earlier but it's worth recapping for those who may be reading along.

 

This line of questioning is a double edged sword.

 

1) Either Stephen was quoting the right version of Abraham,via the HS and today's Bibles are out of line with the HS and therefore errant, or

 

2) Stephen and the HS were errant together with an alternative story of Abraham and today's Bibles tell the right story of Abraham.

 

Neither option works out well for the theologians and apologists. They get cut either way they turn. If the liberals say ok, the Bible does contain some errant material then we have to wonder where the error ceases? Is it errant to believe in a God and the HS period, because the only source of their existence comes from an errant Bible? What makes one claim less errant than another when none it's proven? 

[bornagainathiest]

Non-canonical material appearing in scripture?  Like this...?

 

Jude 1:9New International Version (NIV)

9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”[a]

Footnotes:

1. Jude 1:9 Jude is alluding to the Jewish Testament of Moses (approximately the first century a.d.)

 

 

Maybe the writer/s of that Mosaic Testament were also inspired by the Holy Spirit - so that they could be quoted by Jude?

Or only the verses about Michael and Satan were inspired - so that they could be quoted by Jude?

Reductio ad absurdum, much?

 

[Joshpantera]

Jude also quoted the book of Enoch: 

 

 

“And to these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, ‘Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their works of ungodliness which they have wrought, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him’” (Jude 14-15).

 

And here we find an apologist trying to claim that it's not conclusive that Jude quoted from Enoch: https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/562-did-jude-quote-from-an-apocryphal-book

 

 

 

What is the Christian to make of this matter today?Here are some facts that may help to clarify the issue.

Furthermore, the ad hominem use of a quotation from an uninspired source does not negate the inspiration of the one who uses it — if there is evidence otherwise that establishes the sacred character of the message he is presenting.The argument just cited relative to Paul’s citations from the classics equally establishes this truth.

1. There is nothing in the sacred text that identifies the actual origin of Jude’s quotation.Enoch’s original message was from God.It is entirely possible that the prophet Enoch may have been quoted directly by Jude, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit—since the prophecy is not contained in the Old Testament.(Note: Paul once quoted the Lord Jesus, though the quotation he employed is nowhere recorded in the Gospel narratives; cf. Acts 20:35.)No one can prove, therefore, that Jude’s text was taken from the “Book of Enoch.”Further, it is likely that the quotation in the “Book of Enoch” reflects the echo of an ancient tradition that has its roots in the events of the Patriarchal period, and that the inspiration of Jude, and the tradition of the “Book of Enoch,” merely merge at this juncture.
2. Even if Jude quoted from the “Book of Enoch” that would not establish the inspiration of the latter work.Paul quoted from several Greek writers, e.g., Aratus (Acts 17:28), Menander (1 Cor. 15:33), and Epimenides (Tit. 1:12), yet no one contends that the apostle’s use of these quotes endowed the original classical works with the aura of divine inspiration.

In conclusion, therefore, we must note that the controversy over Jude’s quotation actually is of no vital consequence. First, we simply do not know the immediate source of Jude’s quotation.Second, it does not matter about the immediate source of the quote.Enoch’s original affirmation, and Jude’s subsequent employment of the quote, represent all of the authority that is needed to acknowledge the genuineness of the ancient, holy warning.

[Joshpantera]

And here's another link that discusses Jude's obvious use of the book of Enoch: http://reluctant-messenger.com/enoch.htm

 

So it seems Jude enjoyed several works that are now considered uninspired. Funny how the apologist tries to reason that even though Jude may have quoted (obviously did quote) the book of Enoch that in no way invalidates the inspired status of the book of Jude.

 

 

 

Also in Jude I see an appeal to the HS: 

 

 

 

18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

 

Does Jude have not the spirit?

 

Jude has the books of Moses and Enoch which are deemed unworthy. Does the all-knowing spirit deal in terms of unworthy source material?

Once again, if the HS can not be trusted in little, how can he be trusted in much? Or did Jude have not the spirit? 

 

More and more apologetic's, more jumping through hoops. At some point you'd think that these apologist's and theologians would wonder why something that's true requires so much apologizing? Could it be that maybe it isn't true, and that's why endless apologetic's are required in order to attempt holding position? 

[♦ ficino ♦]

When I was in my Calvinist stage, we were told that whatever makes it into canonical scripture is inerrant.  so whatever the weird verse that looks like Enoch, that verse is true:  the rest of the text, which wasn't quoted in scripture, is just another ancient text.

 

Ka-ching!

[bornagainathiest]

Just to reinforce your point, Josh...

 

Not every historical document using the appellation, 'Jude' has been accorded the status of inspired by the Holy Spirit.

As we can readily see here... http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/153

The gospel according to this Thomas (to be found in his second book, which precedes 'Jude' by nine years) is not recognized as being inspired by any spirit except that of the ethanol variety.

 

 

[Joshpantera]

When I was in my Calvinist stage, we were told that whatever makes it into canonical scripture is inerrant.  so whatever the weird verse that looks like Enoch, that verse is true:  the rest of the text, which wasn't quoted in scripture, is just another ancient text.

 

Ka-ching!

 

This is a good case study to pin against BAA's argument. 

 

With Stephen the Abraham story is either an incorrect recital of the canonized version or a trace of some alternate version lost to time. The lost to time material by that standard is inspired because it's quoted by Stephen in the canonical book of Acts. But it contradicts another part of the canon, the OT canon which has Abraham's story completely different than Stephen's recollection of events.

 

How are both versions of the story of Abraham inspired to a Calvinist? 

[bornagainathiest]

Just remembered this!

 

http://spindleworks.com/library/rfaber/aratus.htm

 

https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2014/09/16/lying-cretans-and-unknown-gods-allusions-to-epimenides-in-the-new-testament/

 

Now this is excruciatingly relevant.!  

The apostle Paul quotes the pagan Greek poets, Aratus of Soli and Epimenides of Crete to the Areopagus, using their words to explain to the Athenians that they... "live, move and have their being" and are the offspring of the UNKNOWN GOD they ignorantly worship.

 

So according to Ficino's Calvinistic definition of inerrancy, pagans can be inspired by the Holy Spirit, even when they aren't writing about the triune God of Christianity, but about Zeus.

 

Thoughts?

[♦ ficino ♦]

Calvinists wouldn't claim that the unregenerate are ever inspired by the HS in any theologically relevant sense of "inspired".  They would allow that God, who is the first cause of every event, worked it out that the unregenerate poets spoke truths.  As to these verses' status as parts of inspired scripture, the Calvinist would just say that Paul was led by the HS to quote pieces of truth that were embedded in those poets' works, and that Luke was inspired to put those parts of Paul's discourse into Acts.  So we know that those pieces of poetry are true because we know that the whole of scripture, of which they are parts, is true.  Not because those poets were inspired.

[bornagainathiest]

Calvinists wouldn't claim that the unregenerate are ever inspired by the HS in any theologically relevant sense of "inspired".  They would allow that God, who is the first cause of every event, worked it out that the unregenerate poets spoke truths.  As to these verses' status as parts of inspired scripture, the Calvinist would just say that Paul was led by the HS to quote pieces of truth that were embedded in those poets' works, and that Luke was inspired to put those parts of Paul's discourse into Acts.  So we know that those pieces of poetry are true because we know that the whole of scripture, of which they are parts, is true.  Not because those poets were inspired.

 

Ah... I see.

 

So perhaps the only way a Calvinist could be caught out would be if scripture made a factual claim that was factually proven to be untrue?

 

Like the non-existent Gospel according to St. Veritas the Infallible saying that...

 

"The Moon is made of green cheese.  It is actually physically formed from pale green Cheddar cheese and this indisputable fact about it's physical, material nature shouldn't be seen in any kind of allegorical, symbolic, metaphoric, poetic, stylistic, artistic or non-actual sense.  It really is made from 100% green cheese."...?

[♦ ficino ♦]

Yes, I think Calvinists, like other inerrantists, are refuted by contradictions between one scriptural assertion and another.  usually they try to say that the contradiction is not really a contradiction, or that the contradiction is only apparent. In the latter case, they may say that to fallen human intellects, the contradiction seems a genuine contradiction, but to God it is not, and we'll understand some day.

 

There may be some Calvinists who explain away historical errors in the Bible by saying that the relevant utterances are not really assertions about history but instead are either: assertions about something else; not assertions but some other kind of speech act (e.g. pretend assertions, if they've declared the passage fiction - Job, maybe - or some other genre than history).  Ditto with science.  Most of the Calvinists I knew were pretty literal inerrantists, and I don't hang out with Calvinists anymore so I'm not up on the latest thinking.  I believe Vern Poythress is still a pretty strict inerrantist.  But in your St. Veritas example, I think a Calvinist would be hard pressed to deny that the events of the Exodus are presented as fact.  So perhaps, no Exodus, no inerrancy.  ??  They'd just have to say, "well, the right places haven't been excavated yet."

 

A test case would be contradictions between the gospels over Jesus' last days, death, and resurrection.  Some sophisticated inerrantists may say that the extra earthquake in Matthew serves theological purposes and is not meant by the HS as a historical claim.  More literalistic ones may insist that there were two earthquakes and that the other three gospel writers just chose to speak only of one earthquake (or hadn't noticed the second one).

 

Wearisome, after a while, this hoop jumping.

[bornagainathiest]

Yes, I've had enough of this too.

[Joshpantera]

Yes, that was my point earlier. 

 

It seems bloody obvious that the degree of hoop jumping that is required to hold the Bible as true is a real red flag. At least that's how carefully considering apologetic's in my own denomination caused me to see how frail our beliefs really are. Witnessing pastors and leaders getting stumped or scrambling for an answer and producing illogical answers, sort of revealed their weaknesses - their weak mental capabilities.

 

And so I began to loose respect for their authority, imaginary spiritual authority.   

[♦ ficino ♦]

Agreeing with BAA and Josh but adding:

 

perhaps to those who brush off the Bible's historical and scientific errors and who merely say that it's inerrant on faith and morals, one could point out that the Bible contradicts itself even on faith and morals. 

 

Here are two examples off the top of my head:

 

1. Paul teaches substitutionary atonement, but various OT verses, e.g. Ezekiel 18, say that one person cannot be punished by God for the sin of another.  Here's an article on this point:

 

http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation1.html

 

(This has come up before.)

 

2. Mark has Jesus say that no one can divorce, but Matthew has him add the exception of cases of adultery.

[★ Citsonga ★]

It seems bloody obvious that the degree of hoop jumping that is required to hold the Bible as true is a real red flag.   

 

Indeed it is. Unfortunately, many who are steeped in indoctrination can't see the red flag. I was into apologetics for years before I started questioning, and all that time (until the questioning phase at the end) I didn't see the red flag. I just thought it was supplying answers to skeptics' claims. Now, as an outsider, it seems abundantly obvious how absurd it is to need an apologetics field to explain a god who should be perfectly capable of explaining himself.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Not exactly on thread, but just saw this:  Mike Licona, evangelical non-fundy (said maybe Matthew's extra stuff about the resurrection etc. is theological meditation and not historical fact) was worried about stalking by Norman Geisler and other literalistic fundies:

 

http://www.risenjesus.com/speaking-events-calendar-removed-web-site

 

Geisler thinks if you allow any detail not to be literally factual, the whole house (of cards) collapses.  Licona tries to go the sophisticated route but maintain doctrinal purity.  Licona has been in the crosshairs of Southern Baptist higher-ups for a while now.

 

When you hear loud squawking in the hen house, does that mean the fox has entered? 

 

Sigh.  There always seem to be more chickens where the dead ones came from.

[readyforchange]

And here's another link that discusses Jude's obvious use of the book of Enoch: http://reluctant-messenger.com/enoch.htm

 

So it seems Jude enjoyed several works that are now considered uninspired. Funny how the apologist tries to reason that even though Jude may have quoted (obviously did quote) the book of Enoch that in no way invalidates the inspired status of the book of Jude.

 

 

 

Also in Jude I see an appeal to the HS: 

 

 

 

18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

 

Does Jude have not the spirit?

 

Jude has the books of Moses and Enoch which are deemed unworthy. Does the all-knowing spirit deal in terms of unworthy source material?

Once again, if the HS can not be trusted in little, how can he be trusted in much? Or did Jude have not the spirit? 

 

More and more apologetic's, more jumping through hoops. At some point you'd think that these apologist's and theologians would wonder why something that's true requires so much apologizing? Could it be that maybe it isn't true, and that's why endless apologetic's are required in order to attempt holding position? 

 

The reference in Jude to the book of Enoch was something I found interesting.  Same here - in Jude 1:14-15, Jude states that "...Enoch prophesied..."(NLT).  So if Enoch was a prophet, or at least made a prophecy that was recorded in the book of Enoch, then I kept wondering, shouldn't the book of Enoch be included in the Old Testament canon?  But I learned later that the book of Enoch IS in the Old Testament canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.  The Ethiopian Orthodox Church's Bible contains 81 books, including Enoch - So that's 15 additional books beyond those in the common Protestant bibles.  I had to ask myself, how do I know who has the "right" books in their Bibles?

 

Then there are the 6 additional books found in Catholic bibles, such as the New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE):  Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, and Baruch, I believe.  If I remember correctly, these books have something of a secondary status, because they were originally written in Greek instead of Hebrew.  But still, these books are considered scripture and are in the Catholic bibles.  I think the NABRE also has a longer version of Esther and an additional chapter at the end of Daniel.

 

Beyond the more noteworthy New Testament additions in Mark (multiple endings), John (pericope adulterae), and 1 John (holy trinity statement), some additions that I did not find out until later were changes to the book of Jeremiah.  I'm just going off memory here, so I might be off with some of this, but the version of Jeremiah found in today's Bible's is something like 1/7 longer than the version of Jeremiah found in the Septuagint and in the Dead Sea Scrolls.  The Jewish Masoretes scribes added verses to Jeremiah and moved some sections around when they re-wrote the Hebrew of Jeremiah, and those additions and changes ended up in the King James version, I believe.  For example, Jeremiah 33:14-26, which is a rather prominent text describing Yahweh's promises of peace and prosperity to Israel and Judah, was not in the Septuagint or the DSS.  These verses were not in Jeremiah until the Masoretes added them, which was over 1,000 years after the prophet Jeremiah died. 

 

¹⁴ “The day will come, says the Lord, when I will do for Israel and Judah all the good things I have promised them.

¹⁵ “In those days and at that time

    I will raise up a righteous descendant^[a] from King David’s line.

    He will do what is just and right throughout the land.

¹⁶ In that day Judah will be saved,

    and Jerusalem will live in safety.

And this will be its name:

    ‘The Lord Is Our Righteousness.’^[b]

¹⁷ For this is what the Lord says: David will have a descendant sitting on the throne of Israel forever. ¹⁸ And there will always be Levitical priests to offer burnt offerings and grain offerings and sacrifices to me.”

¹⁹ Then this message came to Jeremiah from the Lord: ²⁰ “This is what the Lord says: If you can break my covenant with the day and the night so that one does not follow the other, ²¹ only then will my covenant with my servant David be broken. Only then will he no longer have a descendant to reign on his throne. The same is true for my covenant with the Levitical priests who minister before me. ²² And as the stars of the sky cannot be counted and the sand on the seashore cannot be measured, so I will multiply the descendants of my servant David and the Levites who minister before me.”

²³ The Lord gave another message to Jeremiah. He said, ²⁴ “Have you noticed what people are saying?—‘The Lord chose Judah and Israel and then abandoned them!’ They are sneering and saying that Israel is not worthy to be counted as a nation. ²⁵ But this is what the Lord says: I would no more reject my people than I would change my laws that govern night and day, earth and sky. ²⁶ I will never abandon the descendants of Jacob or David, my servant, or change the plan that David’s descendants will rule the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Instead, I will restore them to their land and have mercy on them.”

[bornagainathiest]

¹⁸ And there will always be Levitical priests to offer burnt offerings and grain offerings and sacrifices to me.”

 

So the offerings that will always be made to God by the Levitical priests, as written by Jeremiah, aren't sin offerings? 

​But the offerings made by the Levitical priests, as written by Paul, are sin offerings?

 

Hebrews 10 New International Version (NIV) Christ’s Sacrifice Once for All

10 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins.4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
    but a body you prepared for me;
6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
    you were not pleased.
7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
    I have come to do your will, my God.’”[a]

8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:

16 “This is the covenant I will make with them
    after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
    and I will write them on their minds.”[b]

17 Then he adds:

“Their sins and lawless acts
    I will remember no more.”[c]

 

18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

 

If both Jeremiah and Paul are referring to sin offerings, then why did the Holy Spirit inspire Jeremiah to write that they will always continue - but then also inspire Paul to write that they won't (not now that Jesus has made the one perfect sacrifice for all sin) and couldn't take away sin anyway? 

[readyforchange]

¹⁸ And there will always be Levitical priests to offer burnt offerings and grain offerings and sacrifices to me.”

 

So the offerings that will always be made to God by the Levitical priests, as written by Jeremiah, aren't sin offerings? 

​But the offerings made by the Levitical priests, as written by Paul, are sin offerings?

 

Hebrews 10 New International Version (NIV) Christ’s Sacrifice Once for All

10 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins.4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,

    but a body you prepared for me;

6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings

    you were not pleased.

7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—

    I have come to do your will, my God.’”[a]

8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:

16 “This is the covenant I will make with them

    after that time, says the Lord.

I will put my laws in their hearts,

    and I will write them on their minds.”[b]

17 Then he adds:

“Their sins and lawless acts

    I will remember no more.”[c]

 

18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

 

If both Jeremiah and Paul are referring to sin offerings, then why did the Holy Spirit inspire Jeremiah to write that they will always continue - but then also inspire Paul to write that they won't (not now that Jesus has made the one perfect sacrifice for all sin) and couldn't take away sin anyway? 

 

Hey BAA.  Good question.  I don't know.  Maybe there is some type of distinction or a difference between burnt / grain offerings and a sin offering, such that burnt / grain offerings are still needed, despite Jesus being the ultimate sin offering?  But Paul (or the unknown author of Hebrews) would not have seen Jeremiah 33:14-26 in his version of the book of Jeremiah, since these verses were not in the book of Jeremiah until the Masoretes added them (I think the Masoretes wrote somewhere between 700 - 1,000 AD).  Would be interested in others' takes or explanations. 

[readyforchange]

Another scripture discrepancy is that one of the oldest complete manuscripts of the New Testament, Codex Siniaticus, included the Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas as part of the New Testament.  I think both of these books are also found in a few other New Testament codices.  I wonder who later decided that these books should not be part of the canon, and what circumstances led to these books being removed?

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

Beyond the more noteworthy New Testament additions in Mark (multiple endings), John (pericope adulterae), and 1 John (holy trinity statement), some additions that I did not find out until later were changes to the book of Jeremiah.  I'm just going off memory here, so I might be off with some of this, but the version of Jeremiah found in today's Bible's is something like 1/7 longer than the version of Jeremiah found in the Septuagint and in the Dead Sea Scrolls.  The Jewish Masoretes scribes added verses to Jeremiah and moved some sections around when they re-wrote the Hebrew of Jeremiah, and those additions and changes ended up in the King James version, I believe.  For example, Jeremiah 33:14-26, which is a rather prominent text describing Yahweh's promises of peace and prosperity to Israel and Judah, was not in the Septuagint or the DSS.  These verses were not in Jeremiah until the Masoretes added them, which was over 1,000 years after the prophet Jeremiah died. 

 

Good point.  It looks pretty solid that Jeremiah did not write this passage.  My Catholic Bible, in the footnote, says it was written by an "inspired writer" after the Exile.  Since the LXX was translated in the 3rd century BC., this passage may well be later than that.

 

In any case, here we don't even have "The Church hands down to us what was written by the prophet Jeremiah, so it's inspired because it's by the prophet."  Instead it's "The Church tells us that this writing of some other guy, fobbed off as though it's by Jeremiah, is inspired."

 

You might think that the writings of the prophet Jeremiah are inspired, if you believe in biblical prophets.  But what makes a forgery inspired? 

 

"Because we say it is!"

 

It always comes down to taking what the church leadership says is true because the church leadership says it's true.  A cult that just started a generation ago is viewed as a cult.  A cult that started 2000 years ago has gained sacrosanct status.

[bornagainathiest]

Hey Ready!
 
Thanks for that info on those late, late additions to Jeremiah. (Do you have a link that we could follow, please?)
If this is kosher (pardon the pun ) the sequence of events for these Levitical offerings looks very interesting indeed, especially when taking your quoted dates for Masoretic additions into account.
 
1.  God gives instructions to Moses about Levitical offerings, with the temple curtain separating God from the priests.
2.  Jeremiah is inspired by the Holy Spirit to write chapters 1 thru 52...but not 33 : 14 -26.
3.  The same Holy Spirit inspires Matthew, Mark and Luke to write that the temple curtain was torn apart when Jesus died.
4.  Somewhen between A.D. 700 to 1,000, the Holy spirit DID NOT inspire the Masoretes to add those verses to Jeremiah.

5.  At some later point, Christians say that ALL of Jeremiah is to be taken as god-breathed scripture.

 

But if the Masoretes had been inspired by the Holy Spirit, then they wouldn't have written about any more Levitical offerings being made to God, would they? 

 

Instead, the Holy Spirit should have inspired them to write about the God doing away with the Levitical priesthood, 700 to 1,000 years earlier, when Jesus died on the cross.

 

So how can Jeremiah 33 : 14 - 26 be considered by Christians to be God-breathed scripture?

 

If in it, the Lord God Himself says that... there will always be Levitical priests to offer burnt offerings and grain offerings to me ...in total contradiction to Matthew, Mark and Luke and the book of Hebrews? 

 

Doesn't God keep a track of His own doings (curtain ripping) on Earth?

.

.

.

Ready,

 

For this line of argument to bear fruit, you'll need to come thru with that link about the Masoretes.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 
 
 
 

[readyforchange]

Hey Ready!

 

Thanks for that info on those late, late additions to Jeremiah. (Do you have a link that we could follow, please?)

If this is kosher (pardon the pun ) the sequence of events for these Levitical offerings looks very interesting indeed, especially when taking your quoted dates for Masoretic additions into account.

 

1.  God gives instructions to Moses about Levitical offerings, with the temple curtain separating God from the priests.

2.  Jeremiah is inspired by the Holy Spirit to write chapters 1 thru 52...but not 33 : 14 -26.

3.  The same Holy Spirit inspires Matthew, Mark and Luke to write that the temple curtain was torn apart when Jesus died.

4.  Somewhen between A.D. 700 to 1,000, the Holy spirit DID NOT inspire the Masoretes to add those verses to Jeremiah.

5.  At some later point, Christians say that ALL of Jeremiah is to be taken as god-breathed scripture.

 

But if the Masoretes had been inspired by the Holy Spirit, then they wouldn't have written about any more Levitical offerings being made to God, would they? 

 

Instead, the Holy Spirit should have inspired them to write about the God doing away with the Levitical priesthood, 700 to 1,000 years earlier, when Jesus died on the cross.

 

So how can Jeremiah 33 : 14 - 26 be considered by Christians to be God-breathed scripture?

 

If in it, the Lord God Himself says that... there will always be Levitical priests to offer burnt offerings and grain offerings to me ...in total contradiction to Matthew, Mark and Luke and the book of Hebrews? 

 

Doesn't God keep a track of His own doings (curtain ripping) on Earth?

.

.

.

Ready,

 

For this line of argument to bear fruit, you'll need to come thru with that link about the Masoretes.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for these points, BAA.  Sure, definitely kosher to me (I caught your pun)!  I have not studied the differences between Jeremiah and Hebrews much, but from what I can tell, I think you're on the right track in your analysis about the Masoretic Text (MT).  Here are some websites I found that discuss the MT and Jeremiah.  Would be interested in what you and ficino think: 

 

https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/masoretic-text-vs-original-hebrew/ - Gives background on the Masoretes and discusses the Masoretic text in general.

 

https://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/sources/deadseascrolls.htm - Does not specifically cite Jeremiah 33:14-26, but describes changes to Jeremiah at a high level and describes other differences between the Septuagint (LXX), DSS and MT. 

 

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/4jerem90.html - Goes into detail on the MT changes to Jeremiah, including 33:14-26. 

 

http://repository.up.ac.za/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2263/40035/Erzberger_Jeremiah_2013.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y - Not sure if this link will work or not, as I think it is to a Google docs site and may take a while to load.  But this is a 21-page paper specifically on Jeremiah 33:14-26.  The abstract on the first page gives a summary.  Looks like a good read, and I'll try to read through it at some point. 

[readyforchange]

Good point.  It looks pretty solid that Jeremiah did not write this passage.  My Catholic Bible, in the footnote, says it was written by an "inspired writer" after the Exile.  Since the LXX was translated in the 3rd century BC., this passage may well be later than that.

 

In any case, here we don't even have "The Church hands down to us what was written by the prophet Jeremiah, so it's inspired because it's by the prophet."  Instead it's "The Church tells us that this writing of some other guy, fobbed off as though it's by Jeremiah, is inspired."

 

You might think that the writings of the prophet Jeremiah are inspired, if you believe in biblical prophets.  But what makes a forgery inspired? 

 

"Because we say it is!"

 

It always comes down to taking what the church leadership says is true because the church leadership says it's true.  A cult that just started a generation ago is viewed as a cult.  A cult that started 2000 years ago has gained sacrosanct status.

 

 

I agree ficino.  I think claiming that a forged text is inspired is like opening Pandora's Box, because if an anonymous scribe, priest, etc., living decades or centuries after the original author could add verses to earlier "inspired" writings and have his additions become scripture, then it seems to me that means any of the apocrypha texts become open cases for potentially also being "scripture".  For example, how do I know the author of the Gospel of Thomas was NOT inspired?  How do I know that the author of the Apocalypse of Peter was NOT inspired? 

 

From a Christian standpoint, I think it has to mean that God, when He was inspiring the prophet Jeremiah, intentionally did not give Jeremiah all of his book to write and/or Jeremiah wrote verses down in the wrong order.  It has to mean that God decided to wait over 1,000 years to inspire anonymous scribes to finish, or "correct", Jeremiah's book.  So I guess everyone who lived before the Masoretes edited and updated the book of Jeremiah were only supposed to read the original version, and everyone living after the Masoretes is/was to only read the edited version?  Do you think this type of argument works?