μαθητής
I just recently had a PhD tell me that at the Council of Nicea the Christians blatantly redacted Isaiah's "Servant Songs" to make them singular in person and added verses to make it sound more like it was originally about Jesus. This person was so matter of fact about the whole thing that I (for the moment, anyway) let it go. Please tell me this was just them grinding their proverbial axe...
analyze. synthesize. repeat.
*It is the next chapter of my life, whether I'm ready or not. My time here in these forums has come to its close. I bless you as I go!*
μαθητής
PPS, I know you've done a whole lot of reading about this Council; have you read about them doing this?
analyze. synthesize. repeat.
*It is the next chapter of my life, whether I'm ready or not. My time here in these forums has come to its close. I bless you as I go!*
Coffee Break
Was the PhD suggesting that our current Bibles reflect this change?Originally Posted by Nihil Obstat
μαθητής
She just said that what they did wasn't done in secrecy; that it's a well known fact that the council changed and even added to the Servant Songs to make Jesus be the fulfillment. This immediately presented several problems in my mind: first, this isn't the only place in the OT where the faithful of Israel are spoken of as if they were one person, so the fact that we see the servant now as one person does not mean that the early Christians did this; secondly, there are a number of places in the NT where the authors quote an OT passage about Israel in the plural and retain that plurality - they felt no need to redact it to the singular, but trusted that their listeners would still be able to see how Jesus fulfilled that word; thirdly, the NT does not quote / reference the servant songs so often that the early church would have felt pressured to doctor the songs in their favor; fourth, did the council redact the NT quotations and references of the songs as well?; fifth, the servant songs aren't just quoted / referenced in the NT when speaking about Jesus, but when speaking about John the Baptist, Paul, and the church; sixth, I've never heard a Jewish person bring this up in debates, nor atheists or any other skeptics of the NT - why not?; and seventh, I've read a few commentaries and books and articles on Isaiah, and have never run across this before. All that to say, I think this lady was either lying or mistaken or alone out on the fringe. But I thought I'd ask you all anyway.
analyze. synthesize. repeat.
*It is the next chapter of my life, whether I'm ready or not. My time here in these forums has come to its close. I bless you as I go!*
μαθητής
I still can't find anything to substantiate her claim...
analyze. synthesize. repeat.
*It is the next chapter of my life, whether I'm ready or not. My time here in these forums has come to its close. I bless you as I go!*
Good bye.
Just to add some extra input: I have a few books that discuss the Council of Nicea, one of which is entirely about the council and what happened at it (written by a Jew, not a Christian), and none of them attest to anything like this.
μαθητής
Thank you for posting this: I'm going to challenge her on this next time I see her.
analyze. synthesize. repeat.
*It is the next chapter of my life, whether I'm ready or not. My time here in these forums has come to its close. I bless you as I go!*
μαθητής
Would you mind sharing who this Jewish historian was?
analyze. synthesize. repeat.
*It is the next chapter of my life, whether I'm ready or not. My time here in these forums has come to its close. I bless you as I go!*
Good bye.
Richard E. Rubenstein.
I think the claim is patently false, given that (a) it's the first time either of us has heard of it (which is to say, I'd think between even just the two of us, let alone the many studious friends we have, we'd have heard of it by now if it was a reputable scholarly opinion), (b) the claim is not reflected in pre- or non-Christian copies of or quotes of or paraphrases of or allusions to Isaiah (i.e. the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Talmud, Josephus, the Masoretic text, etc.), and (c) it otherwise requires an unbelievable totalitarian conspiracy in which every single copy of Isaiah that existed at that time to have been destroyed and replaced with the redacted version, and that no Christians (let alone any Jews) mentioned or complained about this.
Banned
Would the council also had to redact the New Testament of Luke 22,23 and Mark 15:28? Oh I see you asked that already, Well I for one haven't heard of this before.
Deadpan Snarker
I don't think it was the council of Nicea, but the KJV in particular is a crappy translation of Is 53.
Hear the word of the Lord, O nations, and declare it on the islands from afar, and say, "He Who scattered Israel will gather them together and watch them as a shepherd his flock."
Jeremiah 31:9
Coffee Break
Is Isaiah 49 crappy too?
"Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The Lord has called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother has he made mention of my name." Isaiah 49:1
"For he shall be great in the sight of the lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink: and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God." Luke 1:15-16
Deadpan Snarker
Dunno, I only know the bad translations when I compare them to the Hebrew. 53 is of particular interest because of it's importance to Christians, so I've read both languages.
If you're curious, in 49 the Hebrew makes no mention of "the holy ghost" or whatever.
Hear the word of the Lord, O nations, and declare it on the islands from afar, and say, "He Who scattered Israel will gather them together and watch them as a shepherd his flock."
Jeremiah 31:9
Coffee Break
How do you interpret Isaiah 53:9?
Coffee Break
If it was always identical one would have to assume it was merely copied.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks