(Web Archive) Full text of "Catholic encyclopedia; an international work of reference on the constitution, doctrine, discipline, and history of the Catholic church"
Just do a text search for "forge" ... which should bring up forgery, forged, etc...
"...forgeries of all kinds..."
--> History of Diplomatics. — There is abundant evidence that during the Middle Ages a certain watchfulness, necessitated unfortunately by the prevalence of forgeries of all kinds, was exercised over the authenticity of papal Bulls, royal charters, and other instruments. In this control of documents and in the precautions taken against forgery the Chancery of the Holy See set a good example. Thus we find Gregory VII refraining even from attaching the usual leaden seal to a Bull for fear it should fall into unscrupulous hands and be used for fraudulent purposes (Dubitavimus hie sigillum plumbeum ponere ne si illud inimici caperent de eo falsitatem aliquam facerent. — Jaff-Lowenfeld, "Regesta", no. 5225; cf.no. 5242); while we owe to Innocent III various rudimentary instructions in the science of diplomatics with a view to the detection of forgeries (see Migne, P. L., CCXIV, 202, 322, etc.). Seeing that even an ecclesiastic of the standing of Lanf ranc has been seriously accused of conniving at the fabrication of Bulls (H. Bohmer, "Die Falschungen Erzbischof Lanfranks", 1902; cf. Liebermann's review in "Deutsche Literaturzeitung", 1902, p. 2798, and the defence of Lanfranc by L. Saltet in s Bulletin de litt. eccl.", Toulouse, 1907, 227 sqq.), the need of some system of tests is obvious. But the medieval criticism of documents was not very satisfactory even in the hands of a jurist like Alexander III (see his comments on two pretended privileges of Popes Zachariasand Leo, Jaffe-Lowenfeld, " Regesta", no. 11,896), and though Laurentius Valla, the humanist, was right in denouncing the Donation of Constantine, and though the Magdeburg Centuriator, Matthias Flacius, was right in attacking the Forged Decretals, their methods, in themselves, were often crude and inconclusive. The true science of diplomatics dates, in fact, only from the great Benedictine Mabillon (1632-1707), whose fundamental work, " De Re Diplomatica" (Paris, 1681), was written to correct the misleading principles advocated in the criticism of ancient documents by the Bollandist Father Papenbroeck (Papebroch). To the latter's credit be it said that he at once publicly recognized the value of his rival's work and adopted his system. Other scholars were not so discerning, and assailants, like Germon and Hardouin in France, and, in less degree, George Hickes in England, rejected Mabillon's criteria; but the verdict of posterity is entirely in his favour, so that M. Giry quotes with approval the words of Dom Toustain: "His system is the true one. Whoever follows any other road cannot fail to lose his way. Whoever seeks to build on any other foundation will build upon the sand." <--
The Text Of The Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, by Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett. Copyright © 2001 by Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.
*amazon and reviews on logos
"...Containing transcriptions of the sixty-nine earliest New Testament manuscripts ever discovered, this book provides a representative sample of the New Testament that was read by Christians in the earliest centuries of the church. These manuscripts were the "Bible" they read and revered; to them, these manuscripts were the New Testament text.
Superb documentation. Painstaking accuracy. That's what makes this work an invaluable reference for serious Bible students. Intended for scholars and students who are interested in the original text of the Greek New Testament. This is an accessible and accurate collection, invaluable in determining the original text of the New Testament. "Fully revised and updated from its orginal publication, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts presents fresh transcriptions of the sixty-nine earliest Greek papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament—all produced before A.D. 325"
The reason the date cuts off at 325 A.D. is because FORGERIES were so rampant after that date (no printing presses, and everything was copied by hand) so forgeries and error and other "creative contributions" were being generated by the score and distributed that scholars involved with translations of the Bible refuse to accept anything after that date... including the early church itself... THIS BOOK DISCUSSES those "Something-Less-Than-Inspired Scriptures". It may have been Illegal for people to generate "copies" of scripture by order of the Empire.
But does not Paul say, in his letter to Timothy, that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God?" No, Paul does not say that. Look again at your Revised Version (2 Tim. iii.16): "Every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction, which is in righteousness." Every writing inspired of God is profitable reading. That is the whole statement.
Biblehub: What Did Moses Write?
IT IS THE EPITOMY OF DARK IRONY: The very verse which they've used to support the false and idolatrous doctrine of "infallibility" and "inerrancy," was taken out of its original intended context, turned around... and used now to enforce forgeries and false interpretations. Paul was warning that sound doctrine (scripture) would become corrupted with fables and forgeries.
Forgery upon Fraud upon Fraud upon Forgery!, confessed by the Catholic Church... quite the collection they've amassed.
The false doctrines were to be brought in without the people generally recognizing them to be false. Many were to be induced to believe them, and those who bring them in, will, by this means, “make merchandise” of the people. "...Paul predicted the “Middle Ages” and Catholic apostasy: “But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error, But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned and which have been committed to thee. Knowing of whom thou hast learned them: And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work. I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming and his kingdom: Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. For there shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables” (2 Tim. 3:13 through 4:4, Douay Version).
A most amazing thing. The author of Genesis writes detailed account of "artificial selection" (the cultivation of plants) and terms only familiar to Greek influence... but Moses didn't live during that time and Moses was suppose to "hand-write the whole book". How does one reconcile that with the Orthodox dogma?
"Before their kind" and "After their kind".
Genesis 2:5 (Some translations emphasize the absence of cultivated plants i.e., broccoli, cauliflower ------ while other translations emphasize their precursor, the wild ancestor, mustard plant which man used ARTIFICIAL SELECTION to cultivate . . . man created these vegetables, God did not create them. The author of Genesis confirms this:(1) CULTIVATED "PLANTS OF FIELD" DO NOT EXIST :
English Standard Version
"...no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up .... there was no man to work the ground..."New American Standard Bible
"...no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted .... there was no man to cultivate the ground."(2) ONLY WILD PLANTS (THEIR ANCESTORS) DO EXIST
King James Bible
"...And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew ....there was not a man to till the ground."Jubilee Bible 2000
"...and every plant of the field before it was in the earth and all the grass of the field before it grew... neither was there a man to till the ground.""...The Greeks had, it is true, no term exactly equivalent to "evolution"; but when Thales asserts that all things originated from water..."
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, iep.utm.edu
Here's what fruits and vegetables looked like before we domesticated them
I had a conversation with a fundamentalist inerrantist about this topic, --of course, if Thales and Anaximander's Greek "Pre-Scientific" philosophy was recorded in the opening of Genesis, (Chapters 1 through 6) the rest of the book is obviously older "Oral Tradition" passed down through generations, verbally taught to the people, and finally written down around 300-600 BC, and all of it was spliced together in written form to create the book titled with the GREEK/LATIN word, "Genesis,". Moses did not speak Latin, so later Jewish editors were obviously the authors of the written book. But, to dare challenge the Orthodoxy by saying, "Moses didn't write Genesis 1-6" -- that flies in the face of all the traditional simpleton, "Two sets of learning" approach to "Religion":
1) The mythical version mass-marketed for the obedient tithing sheep.
2) The actual version, quietly taught and known among the inner-circles of seminary and University theology academia.
Mass marketed Rubbish for the simpleton pew-sitters. As Jesus taught about trusting the religious establishment, 'If the blind lead the blind, they will both fall into a ditch." Hence, it is important to turn away from the fundamentalists, and to God, and trust in God to fulfill the prophecy, "All your children will be taught BY THE LORD, and great will be their peace." (Isaiah 54) and, (John 6) "It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me."
THERE ARE PRACTICALLY two kinds of Catholic literature. One sort for popular circulation and another of entirely different nature for the clergy; one in which she tells the truth, and in the other she does not. One is to be printed and sold very cheap or given away; the other, usually, in large expensive sets or expensive single copies. The casual reader, among Protestants, and the Catholic laity [def. “members of a religious community that do not have the priestly responsibilities of ordained clergy”], rarely will spend the money necessary to buy the expensive editions. Damaging admissions will be made here and there, in practically all her literature, the full import of which does not become fully apparent to one who does not get them all together.
Catholic Duplicity
What did Jesus do, say and teach when it came to the doctrines of "Inerrancy" and "Infallibility"?
Look to the Lord and Savior and exactly what he thinks of "Inerrant" and "Infallible" scripture:
The Mosaic Law is part of "Infallible Scripture" and "Inerrant" ... Good for teaching, reproof and all that, right?
"... Jesus and His disciples did not observe the strict scribal rules against doing any work on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-14, Mark 2:23-28, 3:1-6, Luke 6:1-11, 13:10-17, 14:1-6, John 5:1-18). Neither did they perform the ritual hand washings before eating (Matthew 15:1-2). In contrast to the dietary rules of the Law, Jesus said no food can defile a person; it is bad attitudes and actions that can make a person unholy (Matthew 15:1-20, Mark 7:1-23). Jesus frequently criticized the scribal laws (Matthew 23:23, Mark 7:11-13) and some aspects of the civil law (John 8:3-5, 10-11)."
Old Testament Law, christianbiblereference.org
But... the scripture can not be wrong!
The son of God himself criticized the things written in those scriptures attributed to Moses as something less than perfect, and said, regarding those scriptures (the 613 commandments of Moses), "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition." (Mark 7:13)
Well, if Jesus could criticize, question, and rebel against absurd "scripture" and misinterpretations of the religious establishment... so will I.
I follow the teaching of the prophets and Jesus, 'They will all be taught by God.'
So, "God" has taught me this too:
The basis for the false doctrine of "Inerrancy" and "Infallibility" is a mistranslated verse I discovered in a "Pulpit Commentary".
There is VALID... REASON to QUESTION when reading Moses is described in the "third person".
Verses like this one miserably, erroneously translated, and misinterpreted to support the doctrine of "Inerrancy" and "Infallibility".
"...Does not Paul say, in his letter to Timothy, that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God?" No, Paul does not say that. Look again at your Revised Version (2 Tim. iii.16): "Every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction, which is in righteousness." Every writing inspired of God is profitable reading. That is the whole statement."
What Did Moses Write? biblehub.com
Additionally a review of the original Greek, from the commentary,Aramaic Bible in Plain English
"Every writing which is written by The Spirit is profitable for teaching, for correction, for direction and for a course in righteousness,"American Standard Version
"Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness."Douay-Rheims Bible
All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,English Revised Version
Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness:
"Therefore, just as πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα (Matthew 2:3) means "all Jerusalem," not "every Jerusalem," so here πᾶσα γραφή means "all Scripture." What follows of the various uses of Holy Scripture is not true of "every Scripture."*(2 Timothy 3:16)
As we all know, Jude quotes "Uninspired Scripture" (Jude 1:14) -- the forgery and fraudulent "Book of Enoch" which was not written by Enoch during the time of the Patriarchs, but was written by a man named Abba Bahaila Michael, second century B.C.E. during the Maccabees times.
Therefore NO ... NOT "EVERY SCRIPTURE" is "inspired by God," nor profitable to teach, reprove, correct, or instruct in justice. The Pulpit Commentary is correct, the word translates "All" but not in the sense of "Every".
Which Scripture is inspired by God? If it is of God, we will know it in our heart and mind, if... the living God is in our heart and mind. And that is what Jesus taught, "The Kingdom of God is within."
That verse (mistranslated for centuries) and misinterpreted for centuries has been the foundation for a mountain of lies by the religious establishment, and their false doctrines, the "Doctrine of Infallibility" and false doctrine of "Inerrancy".
SNAGGED FROM THE WEB:
"Most shocking of all, the Roman Catholic Church herself admits to the forgery of the Holy Scriptures. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 6, page 136, gives us this admission.
"Substitution of false documents and tampering with genuine ones was quite a trade in the Middle Ages. Innocent III (1198) points out nine species of forgery [of ecclesiastical records] which had come under his notice.
But such frauds of the Church were not confined to the Middle Ages; they begin even with the beginning of the Church and infest every period of its history for fifteen hundred years and defile nearly every document, both of "Scriptures" and of Church aggrandizement. As truly said by Collins, in his celebrated Discourse of Free Thinking:
"In Short, these frauds are very common in all books which are published by priests or priestly men... For it is certain they may plead the authority of the Fathers for Forgery, Corruption and mangling of Authors, with more reason than for any of their Articles of Faith.."(p.96.)
Bart D. Ehrmann (New Testament Professor of Theology at University of North Carolina) writes a scathing attack on the Forgeries in the New Testament, and an apologist and theologian comes to the defense of the Bible... and how?
APOLOGIST' DEFENSE:
--> "...Even if Paul didn’t write the second book of Timothy, he would have dictated it to a scribe for posterity, he says.
“When you have a trusted colleague or co-worker who knows the mind of Paul, there was no problem in antiquity with that trusted co-worker hearing Paul’s last testimony in prison,” he says. “This is not forgery. This is the last will and testament of someone who is dying.” <--
Ah, so the theologian still admits, ---> Spoken words <-- hearkening back to ORAL TRADITION which was used to preserve the "Words and tale of Moses" which is again, written in the "Third Person" <--- like confessed about Paul's supposed authorship, not actually "hand-written" by the person the book is attributed to,... Again.
A "Scribe" is employed, (one educated in the skill of being literate in written language -- because most of the region was illiterate, and incapable of reading or writing).
Source: Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says, By John Blake, CNN
Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters
"...Whoever wrote the New Testament book of 2 Peter claimed to be Peter. But scholars everywhere -- except for our friends among the fundamentalists -- will tell you that there is no way on God's green earth that Peter wrote the book. Someone else wrote it claiming to be Peter. Scholars may also tell you that it was an acceptable practice in the ancient world for someone to write a book in the name of someone else. But that is where they are wrong. If you look at what ancient people actually said about the practice, you'll see that they invariably called it lying and condemned it as a deceitful practice, even in Christian circles. 2 Peter was finally accepted into the New Testament because the church fathers, centuries later, were convinced that Peter wrote it. But he didn't. Someone else did. And that someone else lied about his identity.
The same is true of many of the letters allegedly written by Paul. Most scholars will tell you that whereas seven of the 13 letters that go under Paul's name are his, the other six are not. Their authors merely claimed to be Paul. In the ancient world, books like that were labeled as pseudoi -- lies.
Apart from the most rabid fundamentalists among us, nearly everyone admits that the Bible might contain errors -- a faulty creation story here, a historical mistake there, a contradiction or two in some other place.
- Bart D. Ehrman
Last but not least,
"...The common argument by which Christ is made a witness to the authenticity and infallible authority of the Old Testament runs as follows:
Christ quotes Moses as the author of this legislation; therefore Moses must have written the whole Pentateuch.
Moses was an inspired prophet; therefore all the teaching of the Pentateuch must be infallible.
The facts are, that Jesus nowhere testifies that Moses wrote the whole of the Pentateuch; and that he nowhere guarantees the infallibility either of Moses or of the book. On the contrary, he sets aside as inadequate or morally defective certain laws which in this book are ascribed to Moses.
It is needful, thus, on the threshold of our argument, to have a clear understanding respecting the nature of the testimony borne by our Lord and his apostles to this ancient literature. It is upon this that the advocates of the traditional view of the Old Testament wholly rely. "Christ was authority," they say; "the New Testament writers were inspired; you all admit this; now Christ and the New Testament writers constantly quote the Scriptures of the Old Testament as inspired and as authoritative. Therefore they must be the infallible word of God." To this it is sufficient to reply, Christ and the apostles do quote the Old Testament Scriptures; they find a great treasure of inspired and inspiring truth in them, and so can we; they recognize the fact that they are organically related to that kingdom which Christ came to found, and that they record the earlier stages of that great course of revelation which culminates in Christ; but they nowhere pronounce any of these writings free from error; there is not a hint or suggestion anywhere in the New Testament that any of the writings of the Old Testament are infallible; and Christ himself, as we have seen, clearly warns his disciples that they do not even furnish a safe rule of moral conduct. After this, the attempt to prove the inerrancy of the Old Testament by summoning as witnesses the writers of the New Testament may as well be abandoned."
What Did Moses Write?, biblehub.com
Additionally from that same commentary we find this,
"...The Jews in the time of our Lord always considered these five books as one connected work; they called the whole sometimes "Torah," or "The Law," sometimes "The Law of Moses," sometimes "The Five-fifths of the Law." It was originally one book, and it is not easy to determine at what time its division into five parts took place. Later criticism is also inclined to add to the Pentateuch the Book of Joshua, and to say that the first six books of the Bible were put into their present form by the same hand. "The Hexateuch," or Six-fold Work, has taken the place in these later discussions of the Pentateuch, or Five-fold Work. Doubtless there is good reason for the new classification, but it will be more convenient to begin with the traditional division and speak first of the five books reckoned by the later Jews as the "Torah," or the Five-fifths of the Law.
Who wrote these books? Our modern Hebrew Bibles give them the general title, "Quinque Libri Mosis." This means "The Five Books of Moses." But Moses could never have given them this title, for these are Latin words, and it is not possible that Moses should have used the Latin language because there was no Latin language in the world until many hundreds of years after the day of Moses. The Latin title was given to them, of course, by the editors who compiled them. The preface and the explanatory notes in these Hebrew Bibles are also written in Latin.
But over this Latin title in the Hebrew Bible is the Hebrew word "Torah." This was the name by which these books were chiefly known among the Jews; it signifies simply "The Law." This title gives us no information, then, concerning the authorship of these books.
When we look at our English Bibles we find no separation, as in the Hebrew Bible, of these five books from the rest of the Old Testament writings, but we find over each one of them a title by which it is ascribed to Moses as its author, -- "The First Book of Moses, commonly called Genesis;" "The Second Book of Moses, commonly called Exodus;" and so on. But when I look into my Hebrew Bible again no such title is there. Nothing is said about Moses in the Hebrew title to Genesis.
It is certain that if Moses wrote these books he did not call them "Genesis," "Exodus," "Leviticus," "Numbers," "Deuteronomy;" for these words, again, come from languages that he never heard. Four of them are Greek words, and one of them, Numbers, is a Latin word. These names were given to the several books at a very late day. What are their names in the Hebrew Bible? Each of them is called by the first word, or some of the first words in the book. The Jews were apt to name their books, as we name our hymns, by the initial word or words; thus they called the first of these five books, "Bereshith," "In the Beginning;" the second one "Veelleh Shemoth," "Now these are the names;" the third one "Vayikra," "And he called," and so on. The titles in our English Bible are much more significant and appropriate than these original Hebrew titles; thus Genesis signifies origin, and Genesis is the Book of Origins; Exodus means departure, and the book describes the departure of Israel from Egypt; Leviticus points out the fact that the book is mainly occupied with the Levitical legislation; Numbers gives a history of the numbering of the people, and Deuteronomy, which means the second law, contains what seems to be a recapitulation and reenactment of the legislation of the preceding books. But these English titles, which are partly translated and partly transferred to English from older Latin and Greek titles, tell us nothing trustworthy about the authorship of the books.
How, then, you desire to know, did these books come to be known as the books of Moses?
"They were quoted," answer some, "and thus accredited by our Lord and his apostles. They are frequently mentioned in the New Testament as inspired and authoritative books; they are referred to as the writings of Moses; we have the testimony of Jesus Christ and of his apostles to their genuineness and authenticity." Let us see how much truth this answer contains. It confronts us with a very important matter which may as well be settled before we go on. It is true, to begin with, that Jesus and the Evangelists do quote from these books, and that they ascribe to Moses some of the passages which they quote. The soundest criticism cannot impugn the honesty or the intelligence of such quotations. There is good reason, as we shall see, for believing that a large part of this literature was written in the time of Moses, and under the eye of Moses, if not by his hand. In a certain important sense, which will be clearer to us as we go on, this literature is all Mosaic. The reference to it by the Lord and his apostles is therefore legitimate.But this reference does by no means warrant the sweeping conclusion that the five books of the law were all and entire from the pen of the Lawgiver. Our Lord nowhere says that the first five books of the Old Testament were all written by Moses. Much less does he teach that the contents of these books are all equally inspired and authoritative. Indeed he quotes from them several times for the express purpose of repudiating their doctrines and repealing their legislation. In the very fore-front of his teaching stands a stern array of judgments in which undoubted commandments of the Mosaic law are expressly condemned and set aside, some of them because they are inadequate and superficial, some of them because they are morally defective. "Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time" thus and thus; "but I say unto you" -- and then follow words that directly contradict the old legislation. After quoting two of the commandments of the Decalogue and giving them an interpretation that wholly transforms them, he proceeds to cite several old laws from these Mosaic books, in order to set his own word firmly against them. One of these also is a law of the Decalogue itself. There can be little doubt that the third commandment is quoted and criticised by our Lord, in this discourse. That commandment forbids, not chiefly profanity, but perjury; by implication it permits judicial oaths. And Jesus expressly forbids judicial oaths. "Swear not at all." I am aware that this is not the usual interpretation of these words, but I believe that it is the only meaning that the words will bear. Not to insist upon this, however, several other examples are given in the discourse concerning which there can be no question."
/EXCERPT
Further,
"...Who wrote these books? Our modern Hebrew Bibles give them the general title, "Quinque Libri Mosis." This means "The Five Books of Moses." But Moses could never have given them this title, for these are Latin words, and it is not possible that Moses should have used the Latin language because there was no Latin language in the world until many hundreds of years after the day of Moses. The Latin title was given to them, of course, by the editors who compiled them. The preface and the explanatory notes in these Hebrew Bibles are also written in Latin."
[...]
"...When we look at our English Bibles we find no separation, as in the Hebrew Bible, of these five books from the rest of the Old Testament writings, but we find over each one of them a title by which it is ascribed to Moses as its author, -- "The First Book of Moses, commonly called Genesis;" "The Second Book of Moses, commonly called Exodus;" and so on. But when I look into my Hebrew Bible again no such title is there. Nothing is said about Moses in the Hebrew title to Genesis.
It is certain that if Moses wrote these books he did not call them "Genesis," "Exodus," "Leviticus," "Numbers," "Deuteronomy;" for these words, again, come from languages that he never heard. Four of them are Greek words, and one of them, Numbers, is a Latin word. These names were given to the several books at a very late day."
To me, the course of events as they occurred in the Bible becomes apparent. The book of Genesis was compiled somewhere around the 300-600 BC time frame when Greek "manifest destiny" was in force, to spread Greek thought, customs, religious and civic life, far and wide and enlighten the non-Greek, "heathen gentile" or "barbarians". (My commentary on the article at Religious Liberty, on "Greek Hellenism's Influence over Jewish Culture" With overthrow of Judea, -- including a corruption of Priesthood (which was already discussed by a Secular-Jewish author in a previous post) -- Thales and Anamaxinder's "Naturalist and material" explanation for Origins (common by that time), was introduced into Biblical literature --with exception, those "natural phenomena" were explained in terms of being an "act of God".
The chapters beyond Genesis 6, sound as if they are "Oral Tradition". Passed down through centuries of Hebrew folk lore and kept alive by word of mouth, which explains why there were no inscriptions or cuneiform tablets to give supporting "Archaeological evidence" to substantiate the existence of Moses and the Patriarchs as actual living, historical figures in antiquity.
The use of Oral Tradition is still practiced today in remote tribes and was common place, in an illiterate "society" like the Hebrews and other people of ancient near east.
Some may want to believe the myth that "Moses penned every word of the Hebrew Genesis by hand," but pencils, ballpoint pens, ipod & android text pads, PC, and paper didn't exist during the time of Moses (1390 BC) and Hebrew language was still in its most rudimentary infancy.
ORAL TRADITION (stories passed down through many generations) was the method used by illiterate people in the ancient near east that eventually, with more education, centuries later, finally written down on... Papyrus scrolls or tablets by trained scribes. Compiled by Jewish Editors, which naturally explains why Moses is spoken of in the "third party".
Even within the early Catholic church, "Oral Tradition" was widely practiced. Regarding the "Apostle's Creed" which has been called into question regarding forgery:
--> ".....that according to ancient tradition the Creed was to be learned by heart, and never to be consigned to writing. This undoubtedly provides a plausible explanation of the fact that in the case of no primitive creed is the text preserved to us complete or in a continuous form...." <--
"The Apostle's Creed"
--> (2) Whatever difficulties may be raised regarding the existence of the Discipline Arcani in early times (Kattenbusch, II, 97 sqq.), there can be no question that in Cyril of Jerusalem, Hilary, Augustine, Leo, the Gelasian Sacramentary, and many other sources of the fourth and fifth centuries the idea is greatly insisted upon; that according to ancient tradition the Creed was to be learned by heart, and never to be consigned to writing. This undoubtedly provides a plausible explanation of the fact that in the case of no primitive creed is the text preserved to us complete or in a continuous form. What we know of these formulae in their earliest state is derived from what we can piece together from the quotations, more or less scattered, which are found in such writers, for example, as Irenaeus and Tertullian.
(3) Though no uniform type of Creed can be surely recognized among the earlier Eastern writers before the Council of Nicaea, an argument which has been considered by many to disprove the existence of any Apostolic formula, it is a striking fact that the Eastern Churches in the fourth century are found in possession of a Creed which reproduces with variations the old Roman type. This fact is fully admitted by such Protestant authorities as Harnack (in Hauck's Realencyclopadie, I, 747) and Kattenbusch (I, 380 sq.; II, 194 sq., and 737 sq.). It is obvious that these data would harmonize very well with the theory that a primitive Creed had been delivered to the Christian community of Rome, either by Sts. Peter and Paul themselves or by their immediate successors, and in the course of time had spread throughout the world.
(4) Furthermore note that towards the end of the second century we can extract from the writings of St. Irenaeus in southern Gaul and of Tertullian in far-off Africa two almost complete Creeds agreeing closely both with the old Roman Creed (R), as we know it from Rufinus, and with one another. It will be useful to translate from Burn (Introduction to the Creeds, pp. 50, 51) his tabular presentation of the evidence in the case of Tertullian. Cf. MacDonald in "Ecclesiastical Review", February, 1903 <--
Source: St. Catherine, Genoa, "The Apostle's Creed"
Notice how God didn't write the commandments on Paper, Papyrus or otherwise... it was written in STONE. Printing presses didn't exist, paper didn't exist, and the majority of people were illiterate and couldn't read or write.
Education was exclusively reserved for the elite... those known as scribes. Can it be imagined Moses sitting around, wiling the days away, carving stones, or clay cuneiform tablets of the "Five GREEK/LATINIZED books of Moses".. can't you?
"Five things you didn’t know about Moses"
By Joel S. Baden, special to CNN
Moses didn’t write the Torah.
Despite the well-established Jewish and Christian tradition, the Torah never says, or even remotely suggests, that Moses wrote it.
"...The Bible does refer to the Torah as “the book of Moses.” But this doesn’t mean that Moses wrote the Torah, any more than “the book of Job” was written by Job or “the book of Kings” was written by Kings. “The book of Moses” means the book in which Moses is the main character — as in Job, or Kings.
The Torah is written in the third person from start to finish. Even the great speech of Deuteronomy is a reported speech: It begins with “These are the words that Moses addressed to all Israel” and ends with Moses’ death.
The verse in Deuteronomy that states that “Moses wrote down this Torah” isn’t proof that he actually wrote the Torah. Again: He’s a character, and in any case he’s taking dictation, not composing anything himself.
A final note on this point. If Moses did write the Torah, then consider this verse in Numbers: “Now Moses was a very humble man, more so than any other man on earth.”
If Moses wrote that, he’s at worst a liar and at best a serious humblebragger. It’s probably fortunate, then, that he didn’t write that verse, or any other, for that matter."
Joel S. Baden is the author of “The Historical David: The Real Life of an Invented Hero” and an associate professor of Old Testament at Yale Divinity School. The views expressed in this column belong to Baden.
Did you get that note: -->
"...Nothing is said about Moses in the Hebrew title to Genesis..."
"...When we look at our English Bibles we find no separation, as in the Hebrew Bible, of these five books from the rest of the Old Testament writings, but we find over each one of them a title by which it is ascribed to Moses as its author, -- "The First Book of Moses, commonly called Genesis;" "The Second Book of Moses, commonly called Exodus;" and so on. But when I look into my Hebrew Bible again no such title is there. Nothing is said about Moses in the Hebrew title to Genesis. <--
What Did Moses Write, biblehub.com
CONCLUSION: I love the opening chapters to the book of Genesis, because they're so much more than they seem on the surface. That period (600-300 BC) in history was a turning point, the precursor to what would become "modern science" --and sadly, the contribution of Greek thought in the opening chapters of Genesis has been avoided, missed or glossed over for centuries by theologians.
Edward T. Babinski has written numerous articles on the topic "Who wrote the books of Moses?" It's quite obvious what he's written about much of the books, written in the "Third Person" perspective bears true:
" Israelites and Canaanites. How Different Were They?" and "Who wrote the books of Moses?""...In short, the Pentateuch reads like a story "about" Moses, written in the third person, and from the point of view of later editors (as demonstrated by many little phrases scattered throughout the Pentateuch) rather than being a story written entirely by Moses. In fact, whomever wrote the Pentateuch, they did not make any great effort to disguise the fact that Moses "wrote" only select portions, not the whole books, just sections mentions within them."
No comments:
Post a Comment