SkepticWiki And The Bible

[ceo_esq]

But there is one certain mistake there:

• Bible claims that Belshassar was the son of King Nebuchadrezzar (Dan 5:2 , 5:11, and 5:18). Instead, he was the son of King Nabonaid. Unfortunately I have only few books on ancient Babylonia and they don't identify the exact cuneiform texts that detail their relationship.

A very rapid review of scholarly annotations to these verses indicate that the term often translated as "father" here also meant "forefather", or something along those lines. Do we have anything to rebut that?

 

[LW]

A very rapid review of scholarly annotations to these verses indicate that the term often translated as "father" here also meant "forefather", or something along those lines. Do we have anything to rebut that?

I don't know Hebrew or Aramaic so I can't comment on the translation. What comes for ancestry of Belshassar, I'm under the impression that his mother's identity is not known for certain. Nabonaid was an usurper who was probably not himself Nebuchadrezzar's descendant. It is conjectured that he established his claim to the throne by marrying one of Nebuchadrezzar's daughters but that is not certain.

However, even if this is the case, it happened after Nergal-Sharezer's (who usurped throne from Nebuchadrezzar's son) death and by that time Belshassar was already at least teenager so she couldn't be his mother.

But since Behsassar's ancestry is unknown, it seems that this claim may have to be moved from "certain" to "possible" error.

 

[David Swidler]

A very rapid review of scholarly annotations to these verses indicate that the term often translated as "father" here also meant "forefather", or something along those lines. Do we have anything to rebut that?

In Hebrew there's no distinct term for ancestor; "father" would be used. My limited knowledge of Aramaic bears this out as well.

 

[Pauliesonne]

[tangent]
More to the point, the reasoning "X does not exist because X is a vicious son of a bitch" doesn't follow at all. By that reasoning, Tom DeLay, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell don't exist.
[/tangent]

You forgot the most evil, slimy son of a bitch on the planet....

Fred Phelps

 

[joller]

In Hebrew there's no distinct term for ancestor; "father" would be used. My limited knowledge of Aramaic bears this out as well.

OK, well there's always an out.
But isn't it the case that one of the translations (KJV?) was irrevokably proclaimed by the pope to be divinely inspired, and therefore is free of those problems?
If this translation says 'father' than it means 'father' and not 'forefather'.
That was the whole point of the papal decision - to stop reinterpretations of the early texts themselves.
So by doing that, RCC decided to rid themselves of that particular out.
If KJV still has some confirmed historical errors, the whole thing is rigged, since the translationed couldn't be divinely inspired, if they want to uphold the 'omniscient' attribute of the god they believe in.

 

[Dr Adequate]

OK, well there's always an out.
But isn't it the case that one of the translations (KJV?) was irrevokably proclaimed by the pope to be divinely inspired, and therefore is free of those problems?

The [swiki]King James Version[/swiki] was produced for the Church of England, and there are still looneys who think that it's the one perfect version of the Bible: sometimes to the extent of maintaining that in order to read the Real Proper Word of God, foreigners must first learn English.

The [swiki]Septuagint[/swiki] (Hebrew-to-Greek Old Testament) was said to have been translated under miraculous circumstances, but its perfection was never Church dogma.

The [swiki]Vulgate[/swiki] was cried up as being perfect by some Catholic woos as soon as it was pointed out that it needed revision, but again this was not official Church dogma, and in fact the RCC has produced its own revision of the Vulgate.

 

[ceo_esq]

OK, well there's always an out.
But isn't it the case that one of the translations (KJV?) was irrevokably proclaimed by the pope to be divinely inspired, and therefore is free of those problems?

You're probably thinking of the Latin Vulgate translation (the KJV was not a "Catholic" translation). It was proclaimed (not irrevocably, though) at the Council of Trent, and reaffirmed subsequently, to be the authoritative translation for pastoral purposes. This didn't mean that they thought it was a divinely inspired translation, or a perfect one, just that it was certified free of heresy after having been used by the Church for so long. As Dr. Adequate points out, it has since undergone official revision.

If this translation says 'father' than it means 'father' and not 'forefather'.

There are some complications here; first of all, father can also mean forefather even in English. One of the definitions in the OED for father is:

A male ancestor more remote than a parent, esp. the founder of a race or family, a forefather, progenitor. In pl. ancestors, forefathers.

A number of the examples of this usage of father given by the OED are from Scripture, in fact.

The Vulgate uses the Latin word pater in Daniel 5:2, but unfortunately, if I recall correctly, pater can mean either "male parent" or "forefather" in Latin as well, so that gets us nowhere.

 

[Bri]

I've added a piece on [swiki]Beersheba[/swiki]. Again, this needs explaining with reference to the redaction --- I can tell that J wrote Genesis 26, but who wrote Genesis 21?

I have a Hebrew/Jewish version of the Torah that translates Genesis 21:31 as follows:

Therefore that place was called Beer-sheba because there the two of them took an oath.

This translation does not imply that Abraham named it. There is no additional commentary.

Genesis 26:33 is translated as follows:

And he named it Shibah; therefore, the name of the city is Beer-sheba until this very day.

The "he" here refers to Isaac, and therefore implies that Issac named it. The commentary here states:

The name of the city commemorates two occurrences: the [Hebew word b'er], well, and the [Hebrew word sh'vuah], oath (Ramban). They named the well Shivah -- which means seven as well as oath -- to commemorate the seven ewes that Abraham had given to Abimelech (21:28-31), as well as the oath (Ibn Ezra).

It's possible that the translations has been "fudged" to make two accounts fit one another, but otherwise it might be that Genesis 21:31 is providing an account of why it was later named Beer-Sheba and Genesis 26:33 actually relates the naming of the well based on the prior event.

-Bri

 

[Dr Adequate]

The "he" here refers to Isaac ...

Thanks. I must have had a brainstorm or something. I've amended the article.

 

[Bri]

The only potential conflict that I can see seems to be the question of who came up with the name (or more precisely whether Abraham named it at all). Both translations seem to agree that Issac named it in Genesis 26:33. The question seems to stem from the translation of Genesis 21:31 which you have in the article as:

31. Wherefore he [Abraham] called that place Beersheba; because there they sware both of them.

If accurate, the translation in the article indeed implies that the city was named both by Abraham and then by Issac. However, the following translation (the one used by the Hebew version I have) doesn't yield that inconsistency:

31. Therefore that place was called Beer-sheba because there the two of them took an oath.

This is consistent with the idea that Issac named it later. This might also make sense in the context of the odd wording of the Genesis 26:28:

28. And they said, We saw certainly that the LORD was with thee: and we said, Let there be now an oath betwixt us, even betwixt us and thee, and let us make a covenant with thee;

Which is translated thusly in the Hebrew version I have:

28. And they said, "We have indeed seen that Hashem has been with you, so we said, 'Let the oath between ourselves now be between us and you, and let us make a covenant with you:

The commentary says that Abimelech is reaffirming and strengthening the oath he had previously made with Abraham. So Isaac may indeed have named it based on the oath made by Abimelech and Abraham.

The conflict noted in the article may only arrise from the translation used. Perhaps David Swidler can shed some light on which translation is the most accurate to the original Hebrew.

-Bri

 

[Dr Adequate]

Therefore that place was called Beer-sheba because there the two of them took an oath.

This is consistent with the idea that Issac named it later.

I don't follow you.

 

[Bri]

There is no inconsistency if you use the translation of Genesis 21:31 from the Hebrew version that I have. The difference is between "Abraham called the place Beer-sheba" (the SkepticWiki translation) and "the place was called Beer-sheba" (the translation from the Hebrew version). The contradiction implied by the SkepticWiki article relies on the translation used in the article which indicates that Abraham named the place (and then later that Issac also named the place, resulting in an inconsistency). The translation from the Hebrew version doesn't indicate that Abraham named the place at all, but rather that the place got its name (by Issac) because of the oath between Abraham and Abimelech.

Now, it is possible that the Hebrew version uses an inaccurate translation (perhaps specifically to resolve the inconsistency), but if it is accurate then there isn't necessarily an inconsistency at all.

-Bri

 

[David Swidler]

You rang?

The root for "oath" ad the root for "seven" in Hebrew are identical: Shin-bet-'ayin. That much is evident from the two differing explanations of the name.

The translation that Bri mentioned is interesting - and consistent with the use of the word "qara" in general, specifically regarding the giving of names. Despite its structure as "qal" which usually denotes a transitive or active verb, quf-resh-aleph often functions as one might expect of a passive verb. See Genesis 25:30 for a clear instance: "...'al kain qara sh'mo Edom - therefore his name was called 'Edom'."

This kind of ambiguity has given rise to differing interpretations of basic tenets. For example, Isaiah 9:5 (my improvised translation): "For a child has been [or "was born" - I haven't the inclination to read the whole context right now] to us, a son given to us, and authority rested [or "will rest"] upon his shoulders; and his name was called 'Wondrous Advisor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Interpreting the verse as referring to the messiah, Christians understood that the messiah would necessarily be divine - how else to explain his being called that? The Jewish interpretations - yes, plural - have this passage referring possibly to the messiah and possibly to the birth of Hezekiah - but in any case, while "vayiqra" is the verb, the subject is not 'his name' but 'Wondrous etc., i.e. that God would do the naming.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Hold on, hold on.

I now see your point: the meaning in Gen. 21 might conceivably be that Abraham was fighting with Abimelech over the well which would later be named Beersheba by Isaac.

But there's still a problem. Which is that Abraham can't have been fighting with Abimelech over a well which wasn't discovered by Isaac's servants until after Abraham's death.

And it came to pass the same day, that Isaac's servants came, and told him concerning the well which they had digged, and said unto him, We have found water. And he called it Shebah: therefore the name of the city is Beersheba unto this day. (Genesis 26:32-33)

 

[Bri]

I now see your point: the meaning in Gen. 21 might conceivably be that Abraham was fighting with Abimelech over the well which would later be named Beersheba by Isaac.

Sort of, but I didn't take it to indicate that Isaac's well was necessarily the same well as Abraham's -- only that it was in the same general area that the original oath between Abimelech and Abraham was made. Isaac's well was named after the oath (and the city hence named after Isaac's well).

-Bri

 

[David Swidler]

Hold on, hold on.

I now see your point: the meaning in Gen. 21 might conceivably be that Abraham was fighting with Abimelech over the well which would later be named Beersheba by Isaac.

But there's still a problem. Which is that Abraham can't have been fighting with Abimelech over a well which wasn't discovered by Isaac's servants until after Abraham's death.

And it came to pass the same day, that Isaac's servants came, and told him concerning the well which they had digged, and said unto him, We have found water. And he called it Shebah: therefore the name of the city is Beersheba unto this day. (Genesis 26:32-33)

It's not such a problem given verse 18: "And Isaac returned and he dug the wells that were dug in the days of Abraham his father, and that the Philistines had stopped up after Abraham had died; and he called them names like those that Abraham had called them." Taken as an introductory verse, it clears up a lot of the confusion.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Okay.

It still looks to me suspiciously like a doublet, but there's definitely an "out" there.

I'll revise the article.

Thanks, guys!

 

[Dr Adequate]

[swiki]Beersheba[/swiki] revisited.

 

[David Swidler]

I wanted to comment on the Qeri vs. Ketiv article, but can't seem to create an account - it thinks I want to log in, and of course doesn't recognize my as-yet-nonexistent name and password. So I'll post my comment here.

The article states - or rather implies strongly - that the q'ri marginalia are primarily a post-Masoretic phenomenon. While that may be the case for some instances, the Talmud actually discusses the phenomenon, several centuries beforehand (in the context fo the Talmud, the term "massorah" or "massoret" refers to the actual spelling of a word vs. its vowelization). The traditional Jewish approach, following that lead, is that the q'ri variances are a specific Rabbinic institution to "soften" the message and/or introduce additional midrashic meanings.

An example of "softening" can be found in Deuteronomy 28:27. The text reads, "The Lord will smite you with the boils of Egypt and with hemorrhoids..." where the word for that affliction is "'afolim," a word that literally refers to the anus. The q'ri renders it "t'horim," (with a guttural "h," the letter het), which describes the physiological phenomenon without overt reference to an "unclean" body part.

Just a few verses later (verse 30): "A man shall betroth a woman and another man shall lie with her..." where the verb "lie with her" uses the root "sh-g-l" in the text, which denotes an ongoing sexual relationship, whereas the q'ri has it read with the root sh-k-b(v), which refers to a one-time incident.

An example of the "broadened meaning" variety occurs in Psalms 100:3, the same "lo" variation that the article mentions in Job. In this case, the text reads, "Know that He is God; He made us, not we..." with the lamed-aleph spelling of "lo." The q'ri renders it with a vav, not an aleph, having it mean, "...He made us, and we are His..." What's interesting about this case is that there's no appreciable difference in the pronunciation between the two; it's clearly only referring to the "text."

 

[davefoc]

My apologies, but a little digression.

I read through the skeptiwiki artilcles linked. I enjoyed them and look forward to reading them as they develop.

I left a comment on the masoretic text article in the discussion section. One thing that I hadn't thought about before I left that comment was what is the politically correct way to refer to the old testament. I felt a little uncomfortable with "old testament" since it seemed to be Christian oriented, but Tanak, Jewish Bible, Hebrew Bible or just plain bilbe didn't seem right either.