quote:We assume that scripture's meant to be a legal text or a handbook of instructions, and we parse it as such by prooftexting wildly (all four Standard Works, here). Indeed, prooftexting's the hermeneutic taught in Mormon seminaries and in CES; thus I think it has institutional support that makes generalization, to some degree, possible.
I agree to this as it concerns the Bible and the D&C and Pearl of Great Price, maybe, but not as it concerns the Book of Mormon. I think the push last year (the year before?) to get the entire church to read all of the Book of Mormon in 2007 (2006?) was a very deliberate attempt to avoid us just proof-texting the Book of Mormon and instead get members to read and consider all of it, in context.
There isn't a push to read the Bible like that. There is no church-wide challenge to read Isaiah together. Except, amusingly, from Nephi in the Book of Mormon.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think the push last year (the year before?) to get the entire church to read all of the Book of Mormon in 2007 (2006?) was a very deliberate attempt to avoid us just proof-texting the Book of Mormon and instead get members to read and consider all of it, in context.
I'd actually disagree. Reading a book of scripture from start to finish isn't quite the same thing as the means by which we interpret it.
Approaching the Book of Mormon without prooftexting it would require that we read its admonitions and assertions with different interpretive tools. For one thing, we'd have to jettison scripture mastery and give up quoting particular verses out of context, treating them as context-free statements of truth rather than products of a particular time and place. We'd have to stop taking the Book of Mormon's claims at face value, and ask in what ways they are influenced by their time and place and biases of the author.
We could, for example, approach it using historical criticism, and ask to what extent it's a Nephite triumphalist narrative. Does it characterize the Lamanites accurately? Should First Nephi be read wondering if Nephi is attempting to justify the political and cultural situation of his old age? Can we take his assertions about God's favor at face value? (There is, actually, some proof of this sort of bias in the Nephite narrative in the text - see what Christ has to say about the Nephites' treatment of their record of Samuel the Lamanite in 3 Nephi.)
This has relevance to how we use the Book of Mormon as a source of doctrine. For example, to what extent are the claims about doctrine like atonement influenced by Nephite (or, historically, Hebrew) conceptions of justice and law? To what extent are its narratives and statements about missionary work influenced by Nephite beliefs about their own cultural superiority to the Lamanites?
How should we read the so-called 'pride cycle' and other attempts to equate political and social events with righteousness? Is it an accurate description of what actually happened in Book of Mormon history, or an example of the sort of pre-modern historical thinking of the authors?
It's easy for Mormons to assume these sorts of biases in the triumphalist narratives of the book of Numbers and other Old Testament texts; we're less comfortable treating the Book of Mormon the same way, because of the proof-text hermeneutic we approach it with. We believe that everything that's in it is of equal truth value, which is classic proof-texting.
quote:There isn't a push to read the Bible like that.
I also think that the 'read the Book of Mormon campaign' was driven more from the ground up than from the top down; bishops and stake presidents took GBH's suggestion and ran with it and turned it into a 'challenge.' We have not seen the same grassroots effort with, say, this conference talk - an example of the sort of 'push' you're talking about - this, I think, is because we're uncomfortable with the Bible.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some things simply can't be translated, because there's no English equivalent in a single word. A great example is the Hebrew word seh. It's usually translated as "lamb", because that's simple. But it doesn't mean lamb. It means any small domesticated animal, like sheep or goats. And in fact, in Exodus 12, where it tells us to take a seh for the pascal offering, it explicitly says that the seh can be taken from sheep or goats.
But there's no English word for such a thing. And you can't very well use "any small domesticated animal, like sheep or goats" every time the word appears. I once had a missionary in Jerusalem try and use this mistranslation as a sort of proof text. I was polite; I didn't laugh at him. I just showed him why he was wrong.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, I found a discussion (on a political blog of all places) that I thought you would find interesting about the KJV Bible as the only real Christian Scripture. The good stuff starts around the fourth page. Some real winners include:
quote:That is, what part of Christology divides real Christians from false Christians?
Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 4:42 PM For the answer we need to look to the Scriptures. What does God’s Word say? Okay I know.. which Bible is correct? Well, I learned that if you want to find out the truth about something you need to learn the history of it. So I have researched the history of the Bible. This was to satisfy myself. I wanted to be sure that what I was believing in was true.
There’s lot’s to this, but these are the basics.
It is a well established fact that there are only two lines of Bibles: one coming from Antioch, Syria, and one coming from Alexandria, Egypt. The Syrian text from Antioch is where our King James 1611 comes, and the Egyptian text is where all the new perversions come, including the Catholic Bible (Rome got her manuscripts from Alexandria).
Here’s the story:
In the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D., after the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, new copies of the New Testament were written. There was not a printing press at this time in history, so exact copies were by hand, compared to the Original, and then distributed to the various Churches. These copies of the Originals were from Antioch, Syria, and became known as the Antioch Manuscripts, then later as the Textus Receptus. The Originals, it is known, lasted at least into the 3rd Century A.D.
Then a 2nd set of manuscripts came along. They came from Alexandria, Egypt. These manuscripts were corrupt having many changes and omissions to them. These are known as the Alexandrian Manuscripts. They came out in the 3rd Century A.D. and were made by an man named Origen Adamantius.
Origen Adamantius (185-254 A.D.) was President of a group of teachers at the School of Philo located in Alexandria, Egypt. His preference was for Greek philosophy including Gnosticism, Platonism and Mysticism (considered heresy by Christian churches). He believed these were all of God. So when he was presented with a set of the Antioch Manuscripts - he RE-WROTE them blending in his own pagan philosophies - in the mistaken belief he was correcting them.
So friend we have a choice. We can get our Bible from Alexandria, or we can get it from Antioch. If you have a KJV (version I have), then your Bible is based on manuscripts from Antioch. If you have a new version, or a Catholic Bible, then you are one of many unfortunate victims of Satan’s salesmen from Alexandria, Egypt
And another one:
quote:But there are other versions. Why shouldn’t one just use the Peshitto, in Jesus’ own language?
Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 5:15 PM Here are the different methods used to translate the original Biblical manuscript into English. We have Literal, Dynamic, and Paraphrase Bibles:
1.) Literal translation - Keeps the exact words and phrases of the original. It is faithful to the original text. (Examples: King James)
2.) Dynamic equivalent translation - the translator works phrase by phrase, or sentence by sentence, to express the same thought as the original, for our modern language. (Example: New International Version (NIV), New English Bible)
3.) Free translation (paraphrase) - the translator exercises even more freedom in trying to convey the original message, not being concerned with using the key Hebrew, and Greek words that are in the text that is being translated. Paraphrase may omit large sections of text, or add other explanatory material not in the original. (Example: Contemporary English Version (CEV), “The Message”)
As we can see the King James Bible is a literal translation, a “word-for-word” translation from the original Hebrew, and Greek manuscripts into English. It is faithful to the original text.
Remember, it is a well established fact that there are only two lines of Bibles: one coming from Antioch, Syria, and one coming from Alexandria, Egypt. The Syrian text is where our King James 1611 comes, and the Egyptian text is where all the new versions come, including the Catholic Bible.
The King James is a “word for word” translation from the original Hebrew, and Greek manuscripts into English. It keeps the exact words and phrases of the original. That is your answer.
My own personal favorites are the last lines of both of the quotes about word for word translations and the Alexandrian salesmen. Classics.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The King James is a “word for word” translation from the original Hebrew, and Greek manuscripts into English. It keeps the exact words and phrases of the original. That is your answer.
This is, of course, misleading (though the whole excerpts here are good examples of the way KJV onlyists work). It assumes that Hebrew, Greek, and English are functionally equivalent languages which conceptualize the world in the same way, and thus have parallel words to express parallel concepts.
This is not the case; the word translated 'Spirit' in the KJV's Paul, for example, is actually 'pneuma,' which is closer to 'breath' in English, but it also has more metaphysical connotations than the English.
Heck, you can prove this argument wrong with your very own copy of the KJV. Open it up to any random page. The words in italics were inserted by the translators to make the English grammar make sense.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Incidentally, Jews have the same issues with what you're calling prooftexting. Unfortunately. The primary Torah that's done is learning the Babylonian Talmud. Now, the Talmud quotes Tanach left and right, prooftextishly. And I'll tell you in all honesty that most people, when they're studying Talmud, use those verse as strings of words without any consideration given to their context.
I've met people who are extremely learned Torah scholars whose ignorance of events recounted in Tanach (specifically in the post Pentateuchal books) is stunning.
The common term for the Pentateuch (first five books of the Torah) is Chumash (that's a ch like in achtung or Chanukka, and not as in cherry or champagne). And a common phrase heard at many Yeshivas is "Chumash is for girls". Worse than that, I've heard "Nach is bittul Torah". Nach is the second and third parts of Tanach (Prophets and Writings). Bittul Torah is time-wasting that could better be used learning Torah.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa - it's my impression, though, that at least Orthodox Jewish theology supports prooftexting for the same reason Christian fundamentalists do, correct? That is, the text is read as more or less the verbatim Word of God, to the point that it might as well have been spoken by him (or perhaps it was). This means that each word is invested with great depths of meaning, and thus each part of the text is of equal spiritual value as each other part.
Understandably, this reduces concern with issues like context and historical production.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattB: That is, the text is read as more or less the verbatim Word of God, to the point that it might as well have been spoken by him (or perhaps it was). This means that each word is invested with great depths of meaning, and thus each part of the text is of equal spiritual value as each other part.
Chumash, pretty much; Nach, to a much lesser degree.
And Lisa, there are legitimate historical reasons for the negativity regarding learning Nach. Nonetheless, the attitude is unfortunate, and I know some parts of the charedi community that are working on changing it.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I finally looked and thought, "Oh that? What's the big deal?" I figured it was just a recap in backwards order, very typical of Hebrew literary style, the going forwards then going backwards thing to help you remember it all. I can't remember what it is called, though.
But it's not in backwards order! Will you please read the dang text before saying this sort of thing? Again: The Gen 1 order is
1. Light 2. Sky, or heavens 3. Land and plants 4. Sun, moon, stars 5. Living creatures 6. Man and woman 7. Rest
The Gen 2 order is Man, plants and animals to be named, woman. No mention of light, sky, or sun, and the order is not reversed. As a mnemonic, this must be the most useless text ever devised.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ignorace calling: Are there diifering versions of the Torah, or is ther some type of version control?
Given the source and nature of the Bible I find it hard to believe that anyone can claim one version is more correct than any other. They are all based on re-writes and edits, mistranslations and the whole gamut of chinese whispers.
Also, it's convenient that the King James version of the Bible is the 'Word of God'. I wonder how the French/Germans/Spanish/etc. feel about that...
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anti_maven: Also, it's convenient that the King James version of the Bible is the 'Word of God'. I wonder how the French/Germans/Spanish/etc. feel about that...
They're infidels, it doesn't matter how they feel Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattB: That is, the text is read as more or less the verbatim Word of God, to the point that it might as well have been spoken by him (or perhaps it was). This means that each word is invested with great depths of meaning, and thus each part of the text is of equal spiritual value as each other part.
Chumash, pretty much; Nach, to a much lesser degree.
And Lisa, there are legitimate historical reasons for the negativity regarding learning Nach. Nonetheless, the attitude is unfortunate, and I know some parts of the charedi community that are working on changing it.
The only reason I was ever given was that it could be used to support Zionism, or some such. Are there others?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anti_maven: Ignorace calling: Are there diifering versions of the Torah, or is ther some type of version control?
Serious version control. The Aleppo Codex was the text all Torahs were compared to for a very long time. And it lasted until well into the age of printing presses.
The process of writing a Torah scroll is painstaking (wikilink). I can't tell you how many times I've been in synagogue hearing the Torah read when the person reading realizes that there's a problem with the text. The reading stops, the Torah is wrapped back up and the belt that's used to tie it is tied on the outside to let people know that it can't be used until it's repaired by a scribe.
I used to read in an Conservative congregation. Twice, when I was reading, we had to do that. Once when I noticed a missing letter, and once when the guy who was called up to the Torah at the time I was reading noticed it. It's rare and annoying.
If I'm not mistaken, there are two differences between Yemenite Torah scrolls and those from the rest of the Jewish world. Both differences do not cause a change in meaning or pronunciation in the words where they are found. In one case, as I recall, the word "daka" is spelled with a heh at the end in one case and an alef at the end in the other. The other place is like that as well, I believe. And the reason this difference happened was because the Yemenite community was out of touch from most of the other Jewish communities in the world for centuries. Think of that. Centuries of no communication to speak of, and that's the only divergence that happened.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The only reason I was ever given was that it could be used to support Zionism, or some such. Are there others?
It's older than that! The Haskala (and later the Reform) scholars tended to be particularly knowledgeable in Nach (usually as opposed to Gemara), and this made anyone who was especially knowledgeable about Nach suspect.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: If I'm not mistaken, there are two differences between Yemenite Torah scrolls and those from the rest of the Jewish world. Both differences do not cause a change in meaning or pronunciation in the words where they are found. In one case, as I recall, the word "daka" is spelled with a heh at the end in one case and an alef at the end in the other. The other place is like that as well, I believe. And the reason this difference happened was because the Yemenite community was out of touch from most of the other Jewish communities in the world for centuries. Think of that. Centuries of no communication to speak of, and that's the only divergence that happened.
Seven, in fact, but the rest of the above stands. None change the actual meaning of the word.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anti_maven: Given that the contents of the Torah is scrupulously controlled, and according to Lisa's link, there are copies that are over 800 years old.
How would a translation compare with the parallel content of current Bible versions? Are there descrepencies? Are there any studies available?
I'm not sure what you mean by that. How would a translation of the Hebrew text compare with current translations? That seems like the same thing, no? Or am I misunderstanding your question?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, sorry to be vague. I mean, if the Torah has such rigourous copy control, lets consider it as the control version of the Old Testament. If you then take a modern translation of the control text and compare it to a modern Bible version of the same books, it would be interesting to see if or where any differences lie.
I would like to be able to compare the original text of a Torah scroll with my dog-eared Good News Bible* for example. Or better still to the text of the standard King James version.
It's just an experiment to judge the extent of variations in the text due to centuries of translations.
As I mentioned I'm sure this experiment has done before, hence the request for any studies or papers on the subject.
* one free for every child - the benefits of going to a church school Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I assume that any translation you look at is going to be based, at least in part, on the Torah that we have, which is called the Masoretic Text. Some of them also factor in the Septuagint, which was a Greek translation which differs from the Masoretic text. The Talmud recounts how the Septuagint came to be, and it has some deliberate differences from the Masoretic text. But they all (I assume) take the Hebrew text into account.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anti_maven: Ok, sorry to be vague. I mean, if the Torah has such rigourous copy control, lets consider it as the control version of the Old Testament. If you then take a modern translation of the control text and compare it to a modern Bible version of the same books, it would be interesting to see if or where any differences lie.
I would like to be able to compare the original text of a Torah scroll with my dog-eared Good News Bible* for example. Or better still to the text of the standard King James version.
It's just an experiment to judge the extent of variations in the text due to centuries of translations.
As I mentioned I'm sure this experiment has done before, hence the request for any studies or papers on the subject.
* one free for every child - the benefits of going to a church school
I'm still not sure what you're getting at, but if you're suggesting somebody compare various translations against the Hebrew text, this is neither hard nor novel. (Blue Letter Bible will show you a dozen Christian translations into English, the Hebrew, and the Septuagint, and that's just the first resource off the top of my head.)
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Good News Bible is a paraphrase, however, not a straight translation, so it will be less accurate, in terms of word-for-word equivilence.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
