A New Testament “Contradiction By Omission”?

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

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?

 

At this point, I think apologists can find ways of spinning anything.  People who feel they are gaining by being part of the cult are fine with the spin. People who have woken up can identify a pile of shit when they see one.

 

I think there is no question that portions of Jeremiah were added, as it looks, after the 2nd century BCE.  My copy of the Latin Vulgate does have 33:14-26. I assume that means that Jerome had a text that included it.  Assuming that the modern text of the Vulgate represents something close to Jerome's translation, the passage appears to have been added no later than, say, the 380s CE.

 

For the issue of inerrancy, it does not matter when the passage was added, if it was not by Jeremiah.  But a date centuries after the lifetime of the prophet rules out any attempt to say that the verses were the production of Jeremiah's "school" or anything like that.

[readyforchange]

 

At this point, I think apologists can find ways of spinning anything.  People who feel they are gaining by being part of the cult are fine with the spin. People who have woken up can identify a pile of shit when they see one.

 

I think there is no question that portions of Jeremiah were added, as it looks, after the 2nd century BCE.  My copy of the Latin Vulgate does have 33:14-26. I assume that means that Jerome had a text that included it.  Assuming that the modern text of the Vulgate represents something close to Jerome's translation, the passage appears to have been added no later than, say, the 380s CE.

 

For the issue of inerrancy, it does not matter when the passage was added, if it was not by Jeremiah.  But a date centuries after the lifetime of the prophet rules out any attempt to say that the verses were the production of Jeremiah's "school" or anything like that.

 

 

Thanks ficino.  I'll plan to take a look at the Vulgate for Jeremiah 33:14-26.  I think the sources I read before indicated the verses were not present in Jeremiah until the MT, but I may have missed something earlier.  Right, even if the passage first appeared in Jerome's Vulgate, for the issue of inerrancy, that would still mean the passage was added hundreds of years after Jeremiah died. 

[♦ ficino ♦]

In your research, look around to see whether Jerome himself translated Jer 33:14-26, or whether those verses were incorporated into the Vulgate later.  My text of the Vulgate is the modern Catholic text, and it does not have a critical apparatus. Therefore it doesn't show the readings of the oldest manuscripts of Jerome.  And anyway, those are early medieval, so I am not sure that we can get behind them to ferret out whether Jerome himself translated those verses.  The history of the text of the Vulgate is one of constant modification.

 

Jerome wrote a six-volume work on Jeremiah, and I did a word search for "germen iustitiae," "seed of righteousness."  I didn't come up with a hit on that phrase, so 33:14-26 may not be in Jerome's commentary on Jeremiah.  I haven't plowed through that commentary to see whether he comments on every verse of the entire prophetic book.

 

------------------------- adding:

 

readyforchange, this is for you and anyone else interested enough to wade through the following.

 

The fourth of the sources you linked in #74 above presents what looks like a general consensus that Jer. 33:14-26 was added later than the Septuagint.  That conclusion is contested by Jack R. Lundbom, an OT prof at Gettysburg Lutheran seminary and author of the Anchor Bible commentary on Jeremiah.  In "HAPLOGRAPHY IN THE HEBREW "VORLAGE" OF LXX JEREMIAH," Hebrew Studies 46 (2005), 301-320, Lundbom argues that there are many careless omissions in the Septuagint, which were not made in the Masoretic text.  He says the Masoretic Hebrew text is more reliable.  Lundbom argues that the omissions are cases of haplography, by which the Greek translators or later Greek copyists accidentally skipped over certain sections because the same exact words appeared in more than one place on the page, leading the copyist/translator, after he looked away to copy down a string of words, to resume from the wrong spot in the manuscript he was copying/translating.  Lundbom enumerates hundreds of such omissions in the LXX Jeremiah and ties them to homoeoteleuton, where the same letters appear at the end of two phrases, or homoeoarcton (this is more often spelled homoeocatarcton), where the same letters appear at the beginning of two phrases.

 

I've forgotten most of the minimal Hebrew I once knew, so I can't evaluate Lundbom's argument.  He makes a good point in general.  he also says that the reverse happened between the LXX Samuel and the Masoretic Samuel: more omissions in the Masoretic text. He does not discuss 33:14-26, however, but merely lists it as a passage he thinks was omitted by haplography. Neither does he comment on its length - most of the passages he lists are only a few words.

 

Johanna Erzberger, author of source #4 that you linked, does not cite Lundbom.  She does present an argument against the conclusion that Lundbom advocates. Erzberger says that 33:14-26 is more likely an addition in the Masoretic text than an omission in the LXX. You probably read where she points out that these verses are built from other verses already in Jeremiah or elsewhere.  She also argues that its absence in the LXX does not disturb that text's coherence, while the interlinking between wording in 33:1-13 and 33:14-26 in the Masoretic text "makes any conscious or unconscious omission ... by the LXX less probable than a later addition by the MT."  She goes on to discuss particular words in 33:1-13 in the Masoretic text that are important for understanding wording in 14-26, and some of them do not have equivalents in the LXX - e.g. betw verse 9 and verse 16.  After more examples, she asks, "why should the LXX have omitted 33:14-26 and afterwards destroyed the links between 31:35-37 and a no longer existing text?" 

 

It seems to me that Lundbom's argument in favor of the Masoretic text against the LXX at this spot is weak because it rests only on the claim that a mechanical copying error occurred in the LXX.  Lundbom does not analyze the passage at all.  Maybe he does so in his commentary, I don't know.  In a review of that commentary, Carolyn J. Sharp of Yale Divinity School criticizes Lindbom's denial that ideology shapes the message, his denial that levels of redaction can be analyzed, and his mischaracterization of opposing views as fringe, when in fact they are more mainstream than his own.  She criticizes him for basing his defense of the Masoretic text only on the notion of mechanical scribal errors behind the LXX.

 

As to the Dead Sea Scrolls, though, Lundbom makes it appear that there were a short and a long version of Jeremiah in Qumran. He also speaks exclusively of "fragments." Did the short-version Jeremiah scroll in Cave 4 include the whole prophetic book or only fragments? 

[bornagainathiest]

To ReadyFC and Ficino.

 

Guys, could you please explain how this works to me?

 

1.  Christians maintain that every word of the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

2.  According to three Gospels, God brought the Levitical priesthood to an end in A.D. 33.

3.  But a post-33 A.D. addition to Jeremiah says that the Levitical priesthood will continue forever.

4.  Christians maintain that this later addition is also inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

Can you see my problem here and help me understand how the Holy Spirit can do this?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

I was going to add, and this is relevant to your question, BAA:  Erzberger (fourth link in #74) cites various guesses about the date of Jer. 33:14-26.  They range from the Persian period to the Maccabean period.  These attempts at dating seem to involve assumptions about the ideological/political purpose served by the passage's promises about a Davidic king.  Erzberger doesn't cite anyone who thinks that this passage was authored later than the Maccabean period.

 

It's not a certainty, then, that the passage postdates Jesus.

 

It still seems to me that you are correct to see a contradiction between this passage's promises of a perpetual levitical priesthood and Hebrews' announcement that the priesthood is fulfilled in Jesus.  But I suppose someone could say that the promises of Jer. 33 were fulfilled in Jesus.  That seems quite a stretch, though.  Jer. 33:18 says priests of Levi, plural, shall not be lacking to offer burnt offerings and cereal offerings and to sacrifice victims.  Unless that promise is interpreted out of all shape, it is contradicted by Hebrews.

[readyforchange]

In your research, look around to see whether Jerome himself translated Jer 33:14-26, or whether those verses were incorporated into the Vulgate later.  My text of the Vulgate is the modern Catholic text, and it does not have a critical apparatus. Therefore it doesn't show the readings of the oldest manuscripts of Jerome.  And anyway, those are early medieval, so I am not sure that we can get behind them to ferret out whether Jerome himself translated those verses.  The history of the text of the Vulgate is one of constant modification.

 

Jerome wrote a six-volume work on Jeremiah, and I did a word search for "germen iustitiae," "seed of righteousness."  I didn't come up with a hit on that phrase, so 33:14-26 may not be in Jerome's commentary on Jeremiah.  I haven't plowed through that commentary to see whether he comments on every verse of the entire prophetic book.

 

------------------------- adding:

 

readyforchange, this is for you and anyone else interested enough to wade through the following.

 

The fourth of the sources you linked in #74 above presents what looks like a general consensus that Jer. 33:14-26 was added later than the Septuagint.  That conclusion is contested by Jack R. Lundbom, an OT prof at Gettysburg Lutheran seminary and author of the Anchor Bible commentary on Jeremiah.  In "HAPLOGRAPHY IN THE HEBREW "VORLAGE" OF LXX JEREMIAH," Hebrew Studies 46 (2005), 301-320, Lundbom argues that there are many careless omissions in the Septuagint, which were not made in the Masoretic text.  He says the Masoretic Hebrew text is more reliable.  Lundbom argues that the omissions are cases of haplography, by which the Greek translators or later Greek copyists accidentally skipped over certain sections because the same exact words appeared in more than one place on the page, leading the copyist/translator, after he looked away to copy down a string of words, to resume from the wrong spot in the manuscript he was copying/translating.  Lundbom enumerates hundreds of such omissions in the LXX Jeremiah and ties them to homoeoteleuton, where the same letters appear at the end of two phrases, or homoeoarcton (this is more often spelled homoeocatarcton), where the same letters appear at the beginning of two phrases.

 

I've forgotten most of the minimal Hebrew I once knew, so I can't evaluate Lundbom's argument.  He makes a good point in general.  he also says that the reverse happened between the LXX Samuel and the Masoretic Samuel: more omissions in the Masoretic text. He does not discuss 33:14-26, however, but merely lists it as a passage he thinks was omitted by haplography. Neither does he comment on its length - most of the passages he lists are only a few words.

 

Johanna Erzberger, author of source #4 that you linked, does not cite Lundbom.  She does present an argument against the conclusion that Lundbom advocates. Erzberger says that 33:14-26 is more likely an addition in the Masoretic text than an omission in the LXX. You probably read where she points out that these verses are built from other verses already in Jeremiah or elsewhere.  She also argues that its absence in the LXX does not disturb that text's coherence, while the interlinking between wording in 33:1-13 and 33:14-26 in the Masoretic text "makes any conscious or unconscious omission ... by the LXX less probable than a later addition by the MT."  She goes on to discuss particular words in 33:1-13 in the Masoretic text that are important for understanding wording in 14-26, and some of them do not have equivalents in the LXX - e.g. betw verse 9 and verse 16.  After more examples, she asks, "why should the LXX have omitted 33:14-26 and afterwards destroyed the links between 31:35-37 and a no longer existing text?" 

 

It seems to me that Lundbom's argument in favor of the Masoretic text against the LXX at this spot is weak because it rests only on the claim that a mechanical copying error occurred in the LXX.  Lundbom does not analyze the passage at all.  Maybe he does so in his commentary, I don't know.  In a review of that commentary, Carolyn J. Sharp of Yale Divinity School criticizes Lindbom's denial that ideology shapes the message, his denial that levels of redaction can be analyzed, and his mischaracterization of opposing views as fringe, when in fact they are more mainstream than his own.  She criticizes him for basing his defense of the Masoretic text only on the notion of mechanical scribal errors behind the LXX.

 

As to the Dead Sea Scrolls, though, Lundbom makes it appear that there were a short and a long version of Jeremiah in Qumran. He also speaks exclusively of "fragments." Did the short-version Jeremiah scroll in Cave 4 include the whole prophetic book or only fragments? 

 

Thanks ficino, this is a great analysis of the positions and arguments put forward by Lundbom and Erzberger.  You've really done a lot of research here!  I remember seeing Bart Ehrman discuss haplography in a video lecture.  Had not really considered that with regard to what might have happened when the Greek translators worked on the translation of Jeremiah.  If I find anything on Jerome and whether or not he himself translated Jeremiah 33:14-26, I'll post that. 

[readyforchange]

I was going to add, and this is relevant to your question, BAA:  Erzberger (fourth link in #74) cites various guesses about the date of Jer. 33:14-26.  They range from the Persian period to the Maccabean period.  These attempts at dating seem to involve assumptions about the ideological/political purpose served by the passage's promises about a Davidic king.  Erzberger doesn't cite anyone who thinks that this passage was authored later than the Maccabean period.

 

It's not a certainty, then, that the passage postdates Jesus.

 

It still seems to me that you are correct to see a contradiction between this passage's promises of a perpetual levitical priesthood and Hebrews' announcement that the priesthood is fulfilled in Jesus.  But I suppose someone could say that the promises of Jer. 33 were fulfilled in Jesus.  That seems quite a stretch, though.  Jer. 33:18 says priests of Levi, plural, shall not be lacking to offer burnt offerings and cereal offerings and to sacrifice victims.  Unless that promise is interpreted out of all shape, it is contradicted by Hebrews.

 

I read through Erzberger's paper more closely and see her citations of the theories on the Jeremiah 33:14-26 passage as being written earlier and left out of the LXX.  I agree they seem to be based on the ideological and political purposes served by the promises of a Davidic king.  The passage would seem to fit during the time of the divided kingdom and as a message of hope for the Jews in Babylonian captivity.  But to me, it seems like the most plausible explanation for the lack of the passage in the LXX would be that the passage was simply not in the version of Jeremiah that the LXX translators had access to.  I admit that I do not know Hebrew, but it just seems odd that the LXX translators could have overlooked a passage of this theological importance via haplography, homoeoteleuton, and/or homoeoarcton.  It's a passage that would appear to stand out and be one that it would seem a scribe or translator would ensure is copied or translated correctly.  But then again, maybe the Greek translators of the LXX (who I think were Greek-speaking Jewish converts?) would not have had the same perspective as Jews living back during the time of Jeremiah.  Just my own speculation...

[♦ ficino ♦]

If there is a fairly complete short-version Jeremiah scroll among those found at Qumran, that would add strong confirmation to the theory that the LXX preserves an older strain of the text.  If there were only fragments found of the short Jeremiah at Qumran, and if those fragments did not include chapter 33, then we have no third anchor.  I haven't been able to find out the extent of the Jeremiah material found at Qumran.

 

As to haplography: it seems antecendently more probable that a copyist would omit a long section by haplography than that a translator would omit it.  The translator would have to have been working very quickly and sloppily to skip over that big a chunk of what he was translating.  But of course anything is possible when human error is in play.  Lundbom's position seems weak to me, however.