From: jrblack@teal.csn.org (Roger Black)
Subject: Re: Christian distortions (was Crucified for Prophecy's sake?)
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 05:37:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.141403.202958@uctvax.uct.ac.za> naturman@uctvax.uct.ac.za 
writes:

>> 022:016 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have
>>         inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

>If you check a Hebrew Old Testament you will see that these quotes are taken
>out of context and even mistranslated to make it look that they predict a 
>crucifiction. e.g  the bit that says "they pierced my hands and feet" is a
>blatant mistranslation the original Hebrew say "like a Lion they are at my
>feet". This sort of thing is typical of Christian dishonesty. Most of the 
>quotes are not even about a Messiah.

So many errors and misconceptions in a single paragraph.

First of all, the traditional Hebrew text is hardly the last word on
the subject.  Precisely because it is "traditional" (i.e., it follows
2000-year-old rabbinic traditions instead of utilizing the findings of
modern linguistic and critical research) the traditional Hebrew text is
often the _worst_ place to look for the original version of a disputed 
text.

The Jewish Publication Society translation of the verse in question
says:  "... like lions [they maul] my hands and feet."  The words in
brackets are an editorial insertion; they are not present in the actual
Hebrew text.  As the traditional Hebrew text stands, it apparently
reads "like lions my hands and feet", which makes no sense at all.
When this sort of thing happens, it generally means that the text has
become corrupt and must be reconstructed.

One tool scholars use in attempting to reconstruct a corrupt text is to
look at the early translations and versions, such as the Septuagint and
the Syriac.  What do they say?  "They have pierced my hands and my
feet."

A second tool used by scholars in the case of a corrupt text is an
emendation of the text based on comparative studies of related texts in
the same language and similar texts in related languages.  This is the
approach used by Mitchell Dahood, one of the world's greatest experts
on Hebrew and related languages, in his translation of the Psalms for
the Anchor Bible.  The result:  "... piercing my hands and my feet."
(See Dahood's notes for the linguistic arguments, parallel texts, and
references to the scholarly literature.)

Happily, in this case we have an even stronger reason for believing
that "piercing" is what was originally written, because even some of
the _Hebrew_ manuscripts say the same thing.

Unfortunately, it has become all too common here on the net to blame
every Jewish/Christian disagreement about Biblical interpretation on
"Christian dishonesty".  However, a brief sojourn through the footnotes
of any reputable Bible translation (including the Jewish Publication
Society version, I might add) should convince you that there are *many*
places where the traditional Hebrew text is muddled at best, and where
modern scholarship has served to vindicate the correctness of allegedly
"dishonest" Christian translations and interpretations.

>All this arguing is pointless, since Jesus is a mythical character. The name
>"Jesus the Nazarene" is based on a person who live c. 100 BC and Matthew and
>Thaddaeus are based on his disciples. This guy was confused with a guy named
>Ben-Stada who lived during the Roman period. The crucifixion myth is rather
>late, being partly based the three historical false Messiahs crucified by 
>the Romans. The Jesus myth also has many borrowings from the pagan myths of
>Osiris, Attis, Dionysus etc. 

Sorry, but this is total and complete nonsense.  I'm sure even Robert
Sheaffer, our "Skepticus Maximus", wouldn't buy this one, since he has
written an entire book about his version of the historical Jesus.

This whole line about "Ben Stada" and the misdating of Jesus originated
with G.R.S. Mead in his book "Did Jesus Live 100 BC?".  Unfortunately
for the theory's credibility, Mead had a definite axe to grind, being a
Theosophist himself and secretary to the occultist arch-fraud Madame
Blavatsky.  He also died in 1933, which means he had access to none of
the major archaeological findings of the last 60 years, such as the
Dead Sea Scrolls.  Mead was a giant in his time and originated some very
interesting theories, but much of his work is virtually worthless today.

>Go to a library and read up on the origins of Christianity!!!! Prometheus Books
>has a whole line of books devoted to this subject, get a catalog from them,
>buy some books and start reading!!.

Better yet, go to a _real_ library (e.g., one at a major public or
private university with a decent section on the history of religions)
and spend about ten or fifteen years immersing yourself in this area,
and maybe you'll be qualified to have an opinion on the subject.

>PS Stop posting Christian crap to sci.skeptic, we are having a hard enough
>time with UFO, crop circles etc

Much of the "Christian crap" posted to sci.skeptic is posted in self-
defense.  If certain people would stop provoking us by posting
anti-Christian crap to sci.skeptic, we could all devote our efforts 
here to more appropriate topics.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 James Roger Black                                       jrblack@csn.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------------