It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Jesus claimed Lucifer's title in Bible

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 04:38 PM
Last thing jesus said HE IS THE MORNING STAR (rev 22:16)
Satans title MORNING STAR look up lucifer in dictionary

For links see

Jesus = Lucifer

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 05:40 PM
Satan is not Lucifer.
The Lucifer referred to in the Biblical texts was a Babylonian king. It was a mistranslation/mis-interpretation in the editing.

You are correct that Jesus refers to himself as The Morning Star. But this does not mean that he is either Lucifer or Satan. As you've stated elsewhere, the Morning Star was Venus - the planet that represented the Roman ideal of Love. It also translates from the Latin as Bringer of Light.

[edit on 22-7-2004 by Leveller]

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 05:50 PM

Satan is not Lucifer.

The god of the philistine city of Eron's name was baal and was given the name of prince of demons in the gospels.

Jesus reference of the morning start was to the sun.

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 05:59 PM
Heh. Ba'al was the son of El - what I consider to be an early Hebrew god before Yahweh came along and absorbed him into Moses' new religion. He originated with the Canaanites.

Here's a link to explain how Lucifer came to be misinterpreted.

As you said, it's possible that Jesus could have been referring to the Sun - the link would support your claim. But I tend to believe that because of the time that he was living in and because of the need to capture a Roman audience, he was referring to Venus. It should also be remembered that the original word was "Helel" in the Hebew and that this signified Venus.
It's quite possible that he was getting the both of best worlds and referring to both!!!
Either way, I don't think it really matters. What does matter is that he most certainly was not referring to himself as Satan.

[edit on 22-7-2004 by Leveller]

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 06:00 PM

Originally posted by satans
Last thing jesus said HE IS THE MORNING STAR (rev 22:16)
Satans title MORNING STAR look up lucifer in dictionary

For links see

Jesus = Lucifer

You're absolutely right. Jesus is the Morning Star.

But can Satan be Lucifer then, according to the Holy Bible (Isaiah 14) if Jesus is Lucifer? I'm afraid this is a catholic (and satanic) deception!

posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 11:11 AM

The word "Lucifer" is a compound LATIN word (Luci-Fer) derived from TWO separate Latin words: LUX =”light” + FERO =”I carry” ) hence: LUCIFER: “Bearer of the Light”... (NB the term has BOTH positive AND negative connotations: "obscene boaster" and "gloriously divine"). is NOT Greek. It is NOT Hebrew. It is NOT English.

And the word LUCIFER does NOT occur in ANY of the the known Greek texts of the Apocalypse of Yohanon the Elder, whoever he was, i.e. the so-called “Book of Revelation.”

There are more than 6 contradictory Manuscript families in Greek for the book "of revelation". The word LUCIFER is not used in ANY of them:

The word "LUCIFER" only starts to occur in the Latin Version of the Book of Revelation completed by Jerome in AD 405---who used the official Christian Greek Old Testament (Septuaginta, or LXX) to translate the phrase derived from Isaiah 14:12

Of course, the “Book of Revelation” (of course) could not possibly have used the word “LUCIFER” anyway since the book was NOT originally written in Latin, but crude Koine Greek badly translated out of Hebrew and Aramaic original material from OT scraps of Hezekiel and Jeremiah, the Books of Henoch, the Plagues of Egypt, the Morning and Evening Tamid Psalms of the Jewish 2nd Temple Ritual, the books of Proto and Trito Isaiah, Zechariah, Malachi, Joel and Daniel etc.)

The gramatically awkward Greek of the “book of Revelation” ("full of Greek Howlers" as C.K.Barrett used to say to us) does not say “Bearer of the Light”,

The text actually says, “I AM IESOUS THE BRIGHT AND MORNING STAR” which points back to a non-Septuagint non authorised Greek LXX phrase in the later Hebrew Proto Masoretic Text Version of Isaiah 14:12

O, how art thou fallen, Thou Son of the Morning Star, from Heaven !

One wonders why the book of "Revelation" did not use the LXX Greek official translation of the Old Testament (the book was written in Greek, however crude): it would have been easier for the author (whose Greek is poor) just to copy it out word for word.

But he chose another text family...possibly one more familiar to the earliest Nazorean Christians in Palestine prior to the AD 66 War against Rome.

This would point to the conclusion that "Revelation" was originally written in Aramaic and/or Hebrew using a different version of the Old Testament (like some of Matthew's Prophecies and OT citations) than the LXX, perhaps some kind of Aramaic Targum paraphrase set into Greek.

As you may already know--- the familiar Masoretic Hebrew (MT) text of Isaiah 14:12 used by Jews today in the synagogues and also by Protestant Christians worldwide (which can be dated from AD 800 in Leningrad from SINGLE manuscript) is A MUCH LATER CLEANED UP TEXT ( WITH VOWELLS ADDED) than the Hebrew underlay text ("LXX Vorlage")which was used to make the Greek Translation (LXX) of the Old Testament in BC 200, some of which was found still in tact in Hebrew among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The phrase :”Bearer of the Light” derives from the LATIN VULGATE TRANSLATION BY JEROME OF THE TEXT OF ISAIAH 14 TAKEN NOT FROM THE PROT MASORETIC BUT FROM THE EARLIER GREEK LXX Septuaginta Greek Old Testment (LXX) of BC 200 of Isaiah 14:12: itself derived from an OLDER Hebrew Text Version of Hebrew Scriptures predating the year 200 BC.

The LATIN VULGATE OF JEROME chose to translate passage from Isaiah chapter 14 from the CATHOLIC CHURCH AUTHORISED GREEK LXX rather than merely translate into Latin what the author(s) of the Book of Revelation wrote in Revelation chapter 24: which was lifted from a PROTO-Masoretic Hebrew text family---

The MT was a Hebrew pointed (vowelled) text which was not formally finished for another 400 years, but were certainly circulating in some kind of Proto-Masoretic Form during the time of Jerome in 405 AD (the proto Masoretic Text or P-MT emerged into recogniseable shape ONLY after the 2nd failed Jewish War, i.e. the Bar Kokhba Revolt, after 138 AD).

Why did JEROME USE A DIFFERENT OLD TESTAMENT VERSION in REV 24 when he quotes the passage from ISAIAH 14:12 i.e. DIFFERENT THAN OUR AUTHOR OF "The Apocalypse" or Book of "REVELATION" USED????

The Greek phrase “ho 'Eosphoros ho proianatellon” is rendered in the Latin Vulgate as “Lucifer” (i.e. bearer of the Light”i.e. that rose in the morning) and is ONLY derived from the LXX GREEK TRANSLATION OF THE OLDER HEBREW VERSION OF ISAIAH THAN THE MASORETIC TEXT USED BY JEWS TODAY.

So...the term “LUCIFER” comes ONLY from a LATIN TRANSLATION of the Greek LXX phrase “Bearer of the Light” (but NOT the Masoertic Hebrew phrase “Son of the Morning Star”)

Perhaps that’s what's confusing so many people on this thread about this curious phrase "Luci-Fer"...

AGAIN: THE AUTHOR OF REVELATION (whoever he was) in chapter 24 actually ignores the "official hristian" "Alexandrian Egyptian" Septuaginta LXX Greek rendering and sides more in with a DIFFERENT version of the Masoretic OLD TESTAMENT Text family --which may be one of the reasons why the book of "Revelation" was considered "heretical" for the first 300 years of its existence !

The phrase: “I AM IESOUS: THE OFFSPRING AND ROOT OF DAVID: THE BRIGHT AND MORNING STAR” is in fact a “Messianic confession” used by Messianic Jews long before “Jesus” was even born as a FORMULA for the expected MESSIAH OF THE JEWS, descended from KING DAVID, who was to overthrow the Persians, later the Greeks, and later the Romans, all of whom had occupied Palestine.

The “Son of the Morning Star” originally meant to describe what we call today the Planet Venus, but which they thought was the brightest "star" in the sky just before dawn, which pre-figured the rising of the Sun each morning, and Arbarbanel points out that this star, namely Venus, is the “heavenly prince of Babylon” in other words, Babylon’s protective Deity or god.

Many cultures worshipped Venus in this regard, not the least of which were the Maya to judge from the few Mayan texts that survived the Massive Burnings of Mayan and Aztec literature by the Catholic Church (AD 1520-1620) which had been written on rolls of Tree Bark (4 are now housed in Museums in and around Berlin).

The Apocalypse of Yohanon the Elder (aka the Book of Revelation) spends a great deal of the text on the subject of the overthrow by the Elect of Israel of the Symbolic Babylon (i.e. Rome) taking verses from Jeremiah and Hezekiel as his model (the author quotes most of it in Midrashic Fashion).

Don’t forget that the socalled “Book of Revelation” was compiled from Apocalyptic “end of days” old testament and apocryphal scraps originally DURING the failed 1st Jewish Revolt Against Rome (AD 66-72) using Babylon as a code name for the Empire.

The Hebrew Masoretic Text word of Isaiah 14:12 that the "book of Revelation" seems to be translating is HEYLEL. It means the morning star or the day star from the sense of brightness : HALAL can mean clear and hence “to shine with clarity.”

HENCE: it has BOTH positive AND negative applications in that it can mean to boast or to glorify, to glory, to give light. In other words, this verse gave rise to the Praise of the Messiah (bringer of the Light) as well as to Denounce the Boaster (i.e. Satan).

It can mean to feign madness in the negative application. In the sense that it is used in a positive sense and applied in the form as it developed over time: Heylel, it is as Morning star or Day star.

Historically, the phrase “How you have fallen down from the heavens, O shining star son of the morning !” originally meant to indicate (by the author of Proto (1st) Isaiah) the “prophetic fall” of the King of Assyria who had militarily occupied the Israelites of northern Kingdom in Ephraim in 722 BC.

The 10 Tribes who were LOST as a result of Assyria’s conquering the Northern Kingdom of Israel were supposed to be BROUGHT BACK to Israel by the MESSIAH (or “Christ”), so this verse was used in various ways to draw these ideas together by Messianic Jews and early Christians.

But t originally the phrase had nothing to do with SATAN (or to the MESSIAH for that matter). These were LATER reflections on the text of Isaiah 14:12

The phrase as used in the Greek “Book of Revelation” refers to a WARRIOR DAVIDDIC KING MESSIAH who was expected to liberate Palestine from the Yoke of Rome (see Luke chapter 24: “and we thought he (“Iesous”) would be the One who would Redeem Israel from its enemies…”)

This was one of the expected functions of the Jewish Messiah (Gk: Christ) to overthrow the “gentile” Occupation in Israel, and Bring Back the Elect of the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel Scattered among the Gentiles (i.e. Jews of the Diaspora).

The historical “Jesus” failed in his armed coup attempt against Rome and was crucified as an armed seditionist in breach of the Roman Lex Maiestatis (no King by Caesar law) during the reign of Tiberius, see Luke chapter 22:10-20), but that did not keep his followers "from revering his memory" (to quote Josephus) and using Messianic Slogans which they placed into his mouth ("I am Iesous the Bright and Morning Star...")

The Hebrew Masoretic Text phrase “Son of the the Dawn” (sometimes in the plural “Sons of the Dawn” possibly the followers of the Son of the Dawn, where they are warned by the Teacher of Righteousness to repent or else) was used as early as the Dead Sea Scrolls (BC 250 to AD 68) NOT ONLY as a pejorative against proud Rulers, but ALSO as a kind of Title for the Jewish Warrior Messiah to Come (“bearer of the Light”) i.e. as a kind of Herald to the Coming “Messianic” Kingdom, in which all the gentile “Kittim” (Romans) would be annhialated.

So, in summation:

The curous Latin phrase “Son of the Morning Star" has both a POSITIVE as well as a NEGATIVE connotation to 1st century Messianic Jews and “Jewish Christians” who made use of books like “Revelation” to foster hope in the hearts and minds of the Jews who were fighting for the Rebellion against Rome during the Jewish War.

Which by the way........they lost.

Just a little background is all.

posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 01:38 PM
the King James Bible does not use the words "morning star" to describe lucifer. it uses the words "son of the morning." this means that the person lucifer was a son or angel present at the "morning" or dawn of creation. please note that Jesus Christ spoke of the GLORY he had WITH THE FATHER BEFORE creation itself! there is also much debate about whether lucifer is the devil/satan because the idea that lucifer was once good contradicts what Jesus christ messiah , the son of God said about the devil. that the devil only comes to steal murder and destroy and that satan was a MURDERER from the very beginning.

so please dont read the NIV of the bible and then come up with a weak idea. the bible has existed long before any new version. the KJV is the best version mainly because it contains the most texts. all other versions leave tons out.

posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 06:32 PM
Hey Stranger (i.e. to the Truther):

Before you say WRONG, read over my post above a little more carefully next time.

Newsflash: the Bible was NOT written in English. It was translated into English after having existed in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic (Ezra, parts of Daniel and Nehemiah), Syriac (the Pe#ta), Coptic and other languages for centuries before it existed in English translation.

The "King James Version:" of the Bible (1611) is primarily based on 5th century Vulgate of Jerome using basically a version of the Greek Codex Alexandrinus as its main source (Jerome completed it in Latin in AD 405).

There are many passages which are probably spurious additions in the KJV and also several mis translations.

It is also a very poor translation, since they did not have access to many ancient MSS as we do:

Today we have hundreds of additional MSS to compare and contrast along with several major text Codex families (e.g. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bezae, Ephremi etc.), so the Revised Standard Version is certainly an improvement.

Also the discovery of the Dead Sea Scroll material in 1946-1956 has revealed a Hebrew source for the LXX as well as thousands of new readings which further help the translator get back to a more original reading: these were UNAVAILABLE to the King James translators who only had a handful of texts to work with (so they did they best they could).

For centuries prior to 1611, Latin was the only scholarly language in Europe. The Latin Vulgate translation of Jerome, based upon a corrupt Alexandrian Text of the LXX for the Old Testament, was the "official" text of the powerful Roman Catholic Church.

The King James translators being familiar with the Latin Vulgate, sometimes put words into their translations based upon the Latin which were never there in the other Greek versions.

Schaff points out that in about 80 places in the New Testament, the KJV adopts Latin readings not found in the Greek.

Erasmus had a corrupt, incomplete text of Revelation to work from, and hence this book has many errors which was carried over into the King James Version of 1611.

The English Language has also changed: "Suffer little children to come unto me" should mean "Let the little ones approach me..." etc.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but be wary of quoting the King James Version in English unless you know the underlying text in the original language and specify which text you are using....

'nuff said.

posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 04:37 AM
I think it would be more along the lines that Jesus is Lucifers opposite,... a Yin Yang type of thing,... which is why Jesus had to die and god had to turn his back on him, inorder for the cycle to be complete,...

posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 07:40 AM
Amadeus what leads you to belve that jesus was an armed revolutionry?

posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 09:09 AM
Hi MWM 1331:

R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean ("Iesous" in Greek, "Iesus" in Latin) was arrested and tried for armed sedition agains the Majesty of the Divine Tiberius (breach of LEX MAIESTATIS) during Pesach (Passover) c. AD 36 during the 100th anniversary of the Invasion of Palestine by the Roman Army under General Pompey (in BC 63).

The punishment for sedition against the Emperor (claiming to be a king for example) was crucifixion (being suspeded naked on a gibbet) , a specific and ghastly punishment reserved for political criminals. There were literally thousands of Roman Executions in Palestine in the first century AD, and "Iesous" was just one of the bunch (like BarAbbas would have been if he, according to the gospels, was not released during the feast).

The Gospel narratives cover up much of the militancy of the event, but they did mention (e.g. in Mark) that Jesus Bar-Abbas ("Jesus who is called the Son of God" in some early MSS copies of Matthew) was "arrested during the Insurrection"....which means that some kind of Political Upheaval had occured during the recent Passover and "Jeeezuzz" was caught up in it, since he was arrested in the middle of it.

The Gospels show hints that he physcally armed his disciples with REAL LIVE SWORDS (read Luke chapter 22:18-25):

"When [the Son of Man] sent you out to preach the Good News of the Kingdom two by two without sandals or purses did you lack anything? And they said, No Rabbi. And he said to them, But Tonight, let every one of you who has an OUTER TUNIC, take it off and sell it, and immediately buy SWORDS...and they said to him, Rabbi here are two swords...and he said: Do you really thing 2 will be enough?"

All FOUR of the canonical gospels that were later voted in as "holy scripture" (!) mention that the SLAVE OF THE HIGH PRIEST had an ear cut off during the revolt on the hill before the Arrest.

Or do you imagine the slave of the high priest's ear was cut off with...a butter knife left over from the Last Supper meal?

This is one of the most covered up aspects of the founder of Christianty whom the original Jewish Christians later tried to "make over" into a man of peace: but nothing is further from the truth in this regard if we take the poor Koine Greek of the NT and translate it word for word and phrase by phrase back into the Aramaic Galilean oral stream: we get much tougher language than the watered down Greek (and English!) translations which attempt to cover the Militant Aspect up...

After all the first Christians were Jews, and the Jews lost the War against Rome in AD 70 when the Temple was destroyed.

Here's a quote from your Prince of Peace found in the Gospels:

"Do you think the Son of Man (bar-Enasha) has come to Bring Peace upon the land? No: The Son of Man did not come to bring Peace, I say, but a Sword: Not Harmony but Division. The Son of Man came to set three against two and two against three in the same house so that a man's enemies be they of his own household!"

Does this help any?

posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 09:32 AM
Heavy stuff amadeus (what's the name mean? has deus in it lover of god?)
You really did your home work it seems ;p

Just wanted to say, to me it sounds like Jesus was a kind of Che Guevara of his time.
Hasta la victoria, Siempre!

Viva la revolucion!

posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 09:35 AM

Originally posted by TruthStrgnrThanFiction
the King James Bible does not use the words "morning star" to describe lucifer. it uses the words "son of the morning."

The King James ]version is referred to as such because it is his ]version......he changed a anything he didn't agree with in the bible, added to and took's not accurate, as most bibles aren't.

posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 11:43 AM
Hi Corinthas:

Actually "Amadeus" (Greek: Theophilos, German: Gottlieb, Italian : Amadeo, French Amade etc. etc.) and can mean either "lover of the god" or "beloved of the god" in both directions:

e.g. Hyacinthus (one of Apollo's male lovers who included Orpheus. Troilus or Caereinus the Ram god to name a few) or Ganymede (Jupiter's male lover) or Polyphemus (one of Heracles/Hercules' 20 or male lovers, too many to count apparently) or Achilles (one of the BiSexual wine god's Dionysius' male lovers)

Just a little useless trivia for case you get bored today !

posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 01:55 PM
How can the KJV of the bible or any other version claim that it is the complete word of God? I have read that there are 26 versions of the Holy Bible, so if this is even half true then how can I take what is in the bible as the word of God? As far as i'm concerned if it's not the original text written in the original language (Hebrew?) then it is NOT the complete and only word of God.

posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 05:20 PM
Hey there Dakuma:

Even if you had a Hebrew text of the Old Testament, you wouldn't have anything like the "original form of the writings" which went through something like 8 different re-editings (between 722 BC and BC 165).

A good book to get would be: WHO WROTE THE BIBLE? By Richard Elliot Friedmann (a Jewish scholar who studied under the great Frank Cross at Harvard, and who explains the Graf-Wellhausen source theory for the layperson to understand the different religio-political groups who wrote the texts we read today)

The original forms and manuscripts of the socalled Old Testament books (=scrolls) are lost and thought to be irrecoverable unless someone gets lucky and finds an old Synagogue Genizah with some ancient documents protected from the elements one day.....

Even though the won't tell you, there are (in fact) several "text versions" all in Hebrew of the Old Testament currently in print to choose from: the discovery of the different text families all being happily copied at Qumran between 150 BC and AD 68 came as quite a shock to the rabbis when the Dead Sea Scrolls finally were published and discussed in detail:

Here are some of the main versions all of them different in Hebrew from each other.

l. The Dead Sea Scrolls Versions of the Hebrew Scriptures (variously protoMasoretic and proto LXX Vorlage) copied between 350BC and AD68

2. the SamPent (Samaritan Pentateuch Torah) version (from texts dating from around 420 BC) = only the first 5 books however.

3. The "standard received" Masoretic Text (pointed, i.e. with the vowels added) c. 860 AD from a single Hebrew MS in Leningrad

4. The Hebrew Text Family that underlies the Syriac Pe#ta (c. 300 AD)

5. The Aramaic Targums of the OT (with much material added (c. 250 AD

6. The LXX Vorlage from around BC 350 (i.e. the Hebrew which underlies the Greek Old Testament known as the LXX or Septuaginta translated into Greek from Hebrew originals, much different from the Masoretic Text Hebrew around 220 BC)

Each of these "editions" or "versions" of the Hebrew are actually textually DIFFERENT from one another by approximately 20% (only 4 out of the 5 words are essentially the same), so there is NO SINGLE HEBREW TEXT TO BE CONSIDERED AUTHORITATIVE AS HOLY SCRIPTURE OF THE JEWISH SCRIPTURES.

However, all this needs to be filed under the heading "Things NEVER to ask your Rabbi About, at least in Public..." they really hate it when you point things like that out....

(it's up there with the Nehushtan Story, you know the one about Moses making a Bronze Snake Idol and Putting it on a Pole for the sons of Israel to worship, it says so in the Torah, Numbers 21:5, and it says that YHWH told him to do it!).

Does this help any?

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 02:54 AM
Amadeus I have very little interest in th OT as I have always practiced christianity on the basis of the words of jesus alone (at least as I knew them). However if you could reccomend some books on the original gospels as well as translatons from the original (aramaic I believe) language it would be most appreciated. BTW what is yor profession I assume you are a linguist or historian is that correct?

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 03:15 AM
Thanks Amadeus
Very interesting, so really there is no final or complete word if there are many texts missing, and we all know about the KJV and how some of the less kind things about kings were left out. Hmm politics shaping the bible interesting. I may just check out "Who wrote the bible" sometime.

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 09:51 AM
Even with all the discussion above, it's still a pretty funny connection, hehe.....

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 11:47 AM
Hi MWM 1331:

The problem is that there are no "original Aramaic texts for the material found in the Gospels" (or the rest of the socalled "New Testament" for that matter) still around today, i(f the Aramaic underlays were ever written down in the first place) apart from the odd Greek transliteration of some Aramaisms (e.g. Talitha cumi, roughly equivalent to modern slang "girlie git up" or "maranatha" = "may the Lord come quickly" or the Aramaic "Abba!" (="daddy!") often found on the lips of the Greek "Iesous" in the gospels)

The original oral Aramaic traditions about "Iesous" (R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean) which lay behind the pericopes of the 4 canonical Gospels were later translated and refitted rather drastically (i.e. de-Palestinaianized and de-Judaeised to some degree) into Greek, Coptic, Syriac etc. and some of these changes no doubt occured when the material was still in its early Aramaic "oral stage" when nothing was actually set in writing, much less in stone and people could alter the message from city to city to fit the individual needs of the communities throghout the Roman Empire that these books were read or preached in.

The earliest coherent writings that we have of the base material found in the today's "modern cleaned up, edited, canonized and council-authorised" Greek New Testament date from the late 2nd and early 3rd century AD---and these are based on nothing but loose copies of copies of copies of copies of the various Greek Text families (mostly from manuscripts which were copied out during the 2nd century AD).

The quotations of the 4 gospels (as well as other gospels which did not get into the NT) found in the epistles and writings of the socalled Church Fathers before AD 200 do not show exact parallels with the words of the Greek of our now familiar NT--Bishops like Clement of Rome were quoting "as scripture" texts (like the Gospel of the Hebrews) which we no longer have and the words that bishops like Clement place into the mouth of "Iesous" do not match the wording we use today in the Greek Gospels.

After 200 AD, there is much more of a similarity in patristic writings than before that time with the present "accepted" and "canonised" text of the Gospels.

Occasionally a scholar trying to "restore" a given text is able to work with some random smaller papyprus fragments from the early 2nd century AD (which despite their smallness show large differences from the "received texts" ---in other words, the New Testament, and the gospel material especially, is actually comprised of nothing but hundreds of contradictory manuscripts which do not match each other very exactly until after AD 250.

The later the period a copy of a Manuscript is made AWAY FROM THE LIFETIME OF "Jeeezuzzz" the more carefully the text is likely to be copied out---probably because as time went on, the gospel texts (and other writings which later got voted in as "authoritative") were beginning to be regarded as more and more "sacred literature" by the churches.

But this was (unfotunately) NOT the case with the first generation of copyists who "played fast and loose with the texts" as they saw fit.

We find the same phenomenon among the Jewish copyists of the Torah and the Prophets who were quite happy to handle texts like Jeremiah and Leveticus and Isaiah with some audacious fluency between BC 300 and AD 68) but after the destruction of the Temple, and especially after the Bar Kokhba revolt in 137/138 AD, Jewish scribal copyists took their work much more seriously and began to "count the middle letter" in the columns or sheets they were working from to make sure that every letter was accurately transcribed (i.e. from AD 200 to today).

The Jewish Mediaeaval scribes were actually (comparatively) very accurate, but this was not the case before the time of the Bar Kohkba Revolt (2nd Jewish revolt against Rome, which again, the Jews lost) as the Dead Sea Scroll material amply proves to the "shock and awe"of the Rebbes and Christian clergy who wanted to see a single text (the holy scriptures as set in stone). What we found were contradictory manuscripts all being copied out side by side, and the copies of the texts they copied out were quite a mixed bag of source-texts, with all sorts of emendations, omissions, additions, marginialia commentaries and mis-copies/scribal errors etc.)

With the New Testament Greek Texts, it was a very similar case: it was the early part (especially the first 60 years or so) of the Greek manuscripts history that formed the "crucial formation period" when the originally Aramaic-Galilean "oral" material and later written Greek traditions went from something very fluid (especially when the material was still oral and could be formed and reformed without the check of a hard copy to work from) to gradually being jellied into form like firm Jello from an originally runnier liquid, and later more firmly "set".

For the first 50 years, the Gospels were not considered "holy" writings at all but were merely functional, i.e. read as Midrash in the Churches and Synagogues of Jewish Christians every week, and thus the contents could easily be more manipulated than later, after Constatnitne when there was more control from a central authority over which families of MSS to retain and which to burn, destroy or otherwise supress or outlaw.

It was not until the time of Iraenaeus (around AD 170) that the gospel material started to become regarded as somehow "inspired" and the four gospels started to be held up as sacred---mainly as a reaction to Marcion the son of the Catholic Bishop of Sinope who in 160 AD published his Antitheses and publicised a "canon" (list of sacred books) of his own, rejecting most of the NT except Luke's gospel and the letters of Paul.

If you want to find some discussion about the Aramaic "underlay" of the Greek Gospel material, a good place to start would be a scholar called Joachim Jeremias, who was born at the turn of the century to German parents who lived and worked in Palestine.

Jeremias' main body of work focusedon translations of the sayings of Jesus from Greek into Aramaic. He wrote extensively on the theological implications of God as Abba/Father, and Jeus's understanding of Abba, especially in the Lord's prayer.

In a collection of lectures entitled The Central Message of the New Testament ( SCM Press, London, 1965; p.16) He taught at the University of Gottingen and died in 1982.

Check out his other books, The Parables of Jesus, and The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, and The Lord's Prayer.

You might have to read them twice if you are a layman (and not a theologian) but well worth the trouble.

If you get the time, you should see if you can hunt around for some books by T.W. Manson, e.g. "The Sayings of Jesus" and "Teaching of Jesus".

These are some starting places, but they do assume a (very basic)knowledge of Greek and Hebrew so procede with caution...

There are dozens of other fine scholarly books on this subject that I could recommend, especially ones that have come out over the past 20 years, but these should be a good starting point for you...

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in