The Masoretic-Greek Hypothesis: An Introduction
Posted in Bible, Blogosphere, Religion, Responses, Thinking Critically on | 2 minutes | 31 Comments →
The basic concept behind the Masoretic-Greek Hypothesis (hereafter MGH) could be summarized as going to the source. Let's face it: the Christianity that many believers argue is indeed a moving target. Although I think it's an intellectual cop-out, I sympathize with atheists and unbelieving skeptics when they accuse believers of trotting out Courtier's Replies. Who wants to get bogged down trying to harmonize all the differing opinions of mainline religions and lesser sects, each of whom claim to be eating from the same salad bar called the Bible? Certainly not me. On the other hand, I sympathize with believers when they accuse atheists and unbelieving skeptics of gross negligence in their characterizations of religion.
M is the work of the Masoretes, Jewish scribes and scripture scholars living roughly 3,000 years ago in what today would probably be Jerusalem, Tiberius or even what would be considered Iraq (then Babylon, Babylonia). M represents the Hebrew rendition of the Tanakh. Many if not most Protestant and Catholic Bibles sample from M, as does the Septuagint (39 books of the OT + select Apocrypha) from which the New Testament writers sampled. G is the New Testament derived as described. This way, we arguably start as close to the actual events and oral traditions as possible, then apply our collective powers of reason to ascertain the set of reasonably permissible predictions.
This means we'll inevitably discuss Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Greek, lexicon that may be foreign, unwelcome or intimidating for some. We're bound for some rough spots for sure, as many a discussion between atheists and believers derails around this point, but I have faith in our combined powers of reason.
John Morales
says...I do see a number of problems.
Here’s one: Judaism and Christianity are both founded on the God of the Bible [GotB]; yet their conceptions of it and of its religious dicta are incompatible. This is powerful evidence that Biblical descriptions of GotB are, at best, ambiguous and open to widely-differing interpretations.
Accordingly, to accurately adumbrate the nature of the GotB, you will need to describe it in terms acceptable to both Jews and Christians.
This seems to me to be far more onerous than merely trying to “harmonize all the differing opinions of mainline religions and lesser sects [of Christianity]”; yet this is your stated intent in selecting this approach.
cl
says...Christianity is founded on the God of the Bible, Judaism is founded on the God of the Tanakh. The God of the Bible features New Testament elements Jews generally do not believe in.
So, there’s the answer to your first problem. And again, let’s try to run our experiment without mentioning names of specific religions or sects. Such only tugs us towards the mess we need to avoid at all costs if we are to resolve this. We don’t need to argue over what other people think about the Masoretic and Greek texts; we need to converge on our own positions and proceed from there. What Jews and Christians say is ultimately irrelevant to the exercise.
You said there were a number of problems. Where are the others?
cl
says...John,
I saw these comments of yours in DD’s Troll Watch Forum:
The logic is not explicit. I’ve left several comments that dealt directly with the post topic that were nonetheless moved, while others have left several comments that did not address any post topic yet remained. That is not explicit logic but something else.
I’m a self-admitted human being who makes mistakes, and there’s a difference. Make your own assumptions, as you do.
cl
says...John Morales,
I just found this one in the Troll Watch Forum as well:
If this is really the case, I have nothing further to say to you. If not, let me know and we can continue dialog.
John Morales
says...cl, it is really the case within ER’s demesne, for there you are the guest, not the host. Here, it is different.
Note that my recent comments here postdate those snippets you’ve quoted (and you’re welcome to engage me there); should you feel you don’t wish me to remain a commenter here, say so and I shall forthwith depart this site and trouble you no more.
It is entirely up to you.
John Morales
says...cl,
I don’t consider that a satisfactory answer. For one thing, Jesus was a Jew, and his God was “the God of the Tanakh”.
For example, cf. The Old Testament in the New Testament.
I’m no scholar, but I’m pretty sure Jesus had no issue with the GotT, but with the religious laws which had developed from the Scriptures until that time.
Hunt
says...Sounds like an interesting approach. At the very least, I’ll learn more about the Bible. Count me in on the discussion (if I have time — not a hugely available resource for me).
About your comment being relegated to DD’s troll watch forum unjustified. It’s probably a valid grievance. I myself have had my comments banned on other blogs after my opinion has been designated “counter” to the discussion — even when my comments are quite bland and neutral. It’s simply the way of the blogoshere, and the world in general. If you’re noticeable to the cops, you’ll get a ticket more often, etc. Not saying DD’s wrong or you’re wrong; it’s just the way things seem to work.
cl
says...Hunt,
Thank you. I thought so as well. I completely understand that you missed my response – I told DD his forum would certainly interrupt the smooth processing of threads, and as we can see, it has.
By all means, please stick around.
John Morales,
Arrogance is annoying, not troubling. I understand your distinction. No, I don’t want you to stop commenting here, if anything else because you’re intelligent and articulate. As I said, I’m not commenting at DD’s for a while, so I’m unwilling to address your comments there. I’ll just forget them and if you want to re-ask anything, feel free. The reason I brought it up at all is only because if you don’t take me seriously and I’m nothing more than an amusement to you, I see little reason for either of us to waste precious time. I can’t speak for you, but I’ve got more important (and rewarding) things to do than amuse atheists.
Your original complaint was that I, “..will need to describe [the MGH] in terms acceptable to both Jews and Christians.” Why do you contend such is necessary in the first place? The vast majority of Jews don’t accept the New Testament (see below).
I’d say that’s correct. I’ve not said Jesus “had issue” with the God of the Tanakh. Not all Jews are the same, you know. We have Jews who believe in the God of the Tanankh and reject Jesus as Lord. We have atheist and ethnic Jews. In far less number, we also have Jews who accept Jesus as Lord.
Besides, it’s all irrelevant. Again, we’re getting bogged down in religion and ‘ism’ nonsense, which is what we need to avoid. What do the opinions of Jews, Christians or anyone else matter when our goal is to converge on our own understanding of what the Masoretic Text and the Greek NT reasonably permit? I submit that we don’t need others to think for us – if we are freethinkers. Are you?
If we’ve sufficiently resolved your objection, where are all the other ones? If not, let’s resolve this one.
Arthur
says...It is the Myth Hypothesis you’re aiming for, right? If the GH loses ground to something more biblical, but the MH still leads the field in real-world consonance or whatever, then Deacon’s Evidence would seem to stand.
cl
says...I’m not sure I understand the question. Yes, I’m aiming to contrast my MGH to DD’s MH, if that’s what you meant.
Correct. Implicit in the paragraph you cited was the stipulation that my MGH is as or more consonant with reality than DD’s MH. Stick around if you’d like.
Question: Do scientists typically label studies Evidence Against X where X = an idea they dislike intensely? If not, doesn’t DD’s approach seem biased from the getgo?
Arthur
says...Actually, the implicit message seemed to be that showing the MGH to be more consonant with the Bible than the GH would be sufficient to defeat Deacon’s Evidence. But I’ll take your word for it that this was not the message.
Deacon has an agenda, and so do you. Do you mean that you consider your approach to be unbiased?
cl
says...The messages aren’t mutually exclusive as both require attainment before conclusions can be drawn. My agenda is to figure out which hypothesis is more consonant with reality, in an ecumenical setting where valid criticisms are factored into the experiment, not demonized and eschewed. You’ll note my subsequent refusal to title my series Evidence Against Atheism, create tiresome “Troll Watch Forums,” or further impede free speech by implementing secondary moderation features to distance dissent, or anything similar.
Arthur
says...I’ll have to take your word for that, too. There doesn’t seem to be any disagreement that the MH succeeds where the GH fails, so it seems like you could just leave the GH out of your discussion altogether. Better the best hypothesis, and you’ll have bettered them all.
On the other hand, if this “GH vs. MGH” thing is just a disagreement between you and Deacon over the nature of the Bible, then wake me when you get to the “more consonant with reality” part.
Your agenda is to show that the Bible is not a myth (or, if you prefer, not necessarily a myth). You wear your bias on your sleeve, just where Deacon wears his.
cl
says...But part of my argument is that DD’s GH fails, so I do need to discuss that. It’s an integral part of my argument showing why and how DD’s Evidence Against Christianity fails.
My first priority is for us to converge on the baseline MGH statements, so please stick around.
I disagree. I can’t show that the Bible is not a myth. My agenda is to proffer my MGH and see how you folks react, and I seek to do this by beginning and proceeding in agreement as opposed to DD’s “my way or the highway” approach.
Arthur
says...That sounds like a concession to the superiority of the Myth Hypothesis. I can’t imagine that’s what you mean.
Well, okay. It would be hard to overestimate my ignorance of the Bible (Apocrypha? Septuagint? Catholics have their own?) but I look forward to learning something about it, as far as I’m able. That said, my personal bias is such that I’ll be waiting for the part where your argument addresses the MH, and enters the wider world.
cl
says...Honesty is never a concession to the superiority of one idea over another.
I’ll see you when I see you.
Arthur
says...I hate to ask after all that closure, but what does this mean?
cl
says...What I meant was, we’ll be making an honest evaluation, not starting with a concession.
Arthur
says...Oh brother.
cl
says...If you’d care to better express your concern, I’d be happy to address it.
John Morales
says...Sorry
for the belated response, but here it is. I am not learned in Biblical literature, so it’s a layman’s response.
As I understand it, the Christian Bible is composed of the Old Testament (what you call the Tanakh) and the New Testament.
Clearly, Christians must consider that the God of the OT is the same God as that of the NT; and therefore that their God is the same as the Jewish God.
Now, I was taught that Christian God is Triune*, and I understand that the Jewish God is unitary – but they are both the God of the Bible/God of the Tanakh.
I think it’s entirely relevant what the opinions of Jews and Christians are about the GotB/GotT, inasmuch as their belief is based on those opinions, which are based on those Scriptures.
Or, to put it more succintly: How is not the OT God the same as the NT God, and why are Judaic and Judeo-Christian conceptions of it different?
I think it’s a fair question, and I don’t think you’ve yet addressed it satisfactorily.
—
* and I’m pretty sure this is true of the majority of sects within Christianity (not that I know whether you personally consider, say, Mormons as Christians, but they’re pretty far from mainstream Christianity).
cl
says...Hey no worries. In all seriousness, I’m just glad to have you back. I’m getting the impression that most involved in the discussion at DD’s – notably those who slandered and demanded counterarguments most vociferously – really had no interest in hearing my purportedly non-existent counter arguments. I believe you’re in this for the right reasons, John. Sure, a few of your comments have pissed me off, and likely vice-versa, but I honestly don’t have anything against you, just to be clear. Life is too short for drama whether online or real-time.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not treating your question lightly, but here it is: Jews don’t accept the New Testament. That’s where the “all-loving” part of DD’s GH came from, and Jews don’t believe Christ was God, as just a few examples. Jews themselves will likely never be able to participate in our exercise unless we throw the New Testament out, and I would expect them to raise the same complaint against my MGH as (now 7 people) have raised against DD’s GH – that it doesn’t accurately reflect the full baseline. Contrary, though, in my case, Jews would probably say my MGH adds non-baseline beliefs. I argue a separate hypothesis (perhaps just a Masoretic Hypothesis) would be more fitting for examining Judaism.
Also, I realize Mormons, Witnesses and many others are very far from mainstream Christianity. Mainstream Christianity itself happens to be very far from what I think the writers of scripture intended, for whatever that’s worth. But I still politely suggest that we not worry about what other people think the MGH logically permits – WE – meaning you, myself, the Power Commenters (PC’s), DD, the new people I’m purposely bringing into the discussion like Karla, and any of DD’s guests that are still interested – WE need to converge on what we think the MGH should entail. Then we can move forward.
I believe we can, and I believe it’s imperative. DD was right that submitting to the considerations of every fringe sect would be a dire waste of time. DD and I agree in that regard.
John Morales
says...cl,
Sure.
I will note, however, that my overall issue in that objection was that the GotB must, however various religions or indiviuals interpret it, be only one, and be consistent across both the OT and NT. I hope this is not disputed by you. I also think it remains problematic in light of the multiple interpretations over a number of religions and individuals. So, enough of that.
As the conversation has already moved on, I’ll also set aside other issues I might’ve raised earlier, and not introduce any further issues (though I will respond) to this thread.
John Morales
says...PS thanks for the compliment.
You recognise that I recognise that I am a guest in your blog, and you can expect the same respect in that regard as I show DD in his.
I appreciate that.
cl
says...John,
Then maybe we are off to a tough start. By “only one” are you excluding Trinitarian interpretations? Clearly, God as described in the OT/NT is not consistent, and I don’t really think said consistency is a necessary attribute we need to converge on. I can explain this more, if it sounds odd.
Of course, and if I’m hearing you the way I think I’m hearing you, I agree. We’ll always be able to find some sect or individual who says we’re misinterpreting their beliefs. But these exercises are for us. I’m looking to get a bunch of people – both atheists and believers – to converge and say, “Wow, finally an interpretation of scripture that seems reasonable and cogent.”
Gotta think big if you wanna reach the stars, right? Then we can discuss the predictions we think the MGH reasonably entails, and then we can discuss the real-world part of things. Still, this means we need more people. I’m a bit disappointed in DD’s guests whose interest in the conversation doesn’t seem to extend beyond DD’s lair.
If you don’t mind, could you summarize objections that you don’t think I’ve sufficiently addressed? My goal here is to proceed in full agreement, addressing any and all agreements as they arise, no matter how seemingly insignificant.
John Morales
says...I find Trinitarianism either contradictory or incoherent, depending on how it’s rationalised; but no, by “only one” I was simply trying to say that the GotB and the GotT must be the same god, not two different ones which Christianity has conflated.
cl
says...Don’t you think that will ground our discussion from the getgo? Jews generally don’t accept Jesus.
John Morales
says...That’s why I consider it problematic.
To clarify:
The fact is that Judaism and Christianity are both monotheistic religions. Monotheism means only one god; even if those two religions did not have the OT in common, they should therefore be referring to the same (one and only) God.
Assuming this deity is not a construct of the human imagination then (arguendo), the ineluctable implication is that the Scriptures are not ambiguous – and the implication of that is you have chosen to clearly summarise an ambiguous concept.
—
(PS I hope you realise I capitalise ‘god’ based on linguistic, not on theistic reasons. It is not some puerile attempt at disrespect.)
cl
says...John,
Let’s flip the script for a moment: how would you suggest that a person successfully integrate two mutually exclusive ideas into one hypothesis? Frankly, I’m not interested in evaluating Judaism, as DD didn’t, and I doubt Jews would accept DD’s GH, either. I really see no point in making my MGH palatable to Jews, and I’m wondering why you think it matters at all.
Noted re capitalization. Many neglect to do so on account of the puerile attempts at disrespect you describe.
John Morales
says...It matters because, if believers can’t agree on this GotB, and haven’t (I refer to the schismatic history of Judaism and of Christianity on theological issues), the historical evidence is that there is no unambigously-described GotB there to summarise.
Let me review your intent:
See what I mean?
The religious who worship the GotB don’t agree amongst themselves as to what this God is, yet you seek an “accurate [representation]” of it agreeable to both worshippers and non-believers.
Good luck.
John Morales
says...As an example of that to which I refer to above, I offer this section of Socrates and Sozomenus Ecclesiastical Histories describing some of the fallout from the Council of Nicea and the Arian Heresy – all over a single iota of difference.
(Source: Christian Classics Ethereal Library)