Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 84, Issue 18

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: berlant AT advanced-studies.org
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 84, Issue 18
  • Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:41:03 -0500

At 01:20 PM 12/21/2009, Stephen Shead wrote:

>I find any conspiracy theory saying that the NT MSS were
>"tampered with" (and there are several such apostasy / conspiracy theories
>out there on different topics, with different theological agendas) very
>difficult to swallow, given the historical reality of the way in which the
>NT texts were copied and propagated. There simply was no centralised control
>of a set of canonical "Scripture" documents, since the NT canon was a long
>way off being established, and the early Christian church was not a
>homogenous, tightly organised body


I don't want to belabor this debate any more than it has been. But, imho, it revolves to a large extent around a semantic problem; namely, what does and does not constitute a conspiracy.

According to the AHD, a conspiracy is, by definition, is (1) "an agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act; (2) an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action; or (3) a joining or acting together, as if by sinister design. Calling the substitution of KS or YHWEH a conspiracy therefore implies that the people who effected these substitutions got together and agreed to illegally or, perhaps, immorally corrupt the original MSS in a way that suited their needs -- which, in this case, was to substitute their deity for a Hebrew deity.

Since a conspiracy is a consciously wrongful act, it differs significantly from an act whereby people who adhere to a given world-view alter the names, documents and symbols of people who adhere to a different world-view based on the former's belief that the alterations reflect the truth far better than the originals. So, it is that scores of Christian icons and motifs are demonstrably altered forms of icons and motifs that Christians deemed pagan. For instance, as many authors have already pointed out, the Christmas tree was derived from a much older Nordic tradition, depictions of the Madonna suckling Christ harkens back to Egyptian depictions of Isis suckling Horus, and the ansate cross was arguably an assimilated ankh.

The very same process is readily apparent today in what is the now politically-correct process of divesting Christmas of its Christian underpinnings by calling it a Winter Festival, identifying the Christmas tree as or with the Chanukah bush, identifying Christmas lights as or with the Menorah, etc. Would it be correct to call this process a conspiracy to subvert Christianity. I think not, yet I believe that is exactly what it will end up doing, sooner or later.

I therefore suggest that the aforementioned substitutions cannot be considered conspiratorial in that they were effected by people who simply shared a world-view that they believed was far truer than the one they were ended up supplanting to one extent or another.

Regards,

Steve Berlant






  • Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 84, Issue 18, berlant, 12/22/2009

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page