CONTRACT REVISIONS

The model of Judeo-Christianity is that of a contract, a quid-pro-quo agreement between God and His Chosen People.

The word “Testament” means contract.

The Old Testament says if Jews obey Jahweh He will favor them among nations. When misfortune befell the Jews it was seen as divine retribution for disobedience, or as unjustified. The contract was two-way, and Jahweh was expected to uphold His end.

The New Contract is between God in the person of Jesus and each of us individually, that faith hope and charity here on Earth will merit eternal and exquisite bliss after death.

The great Novalis (wikilink) once asked, “Who declared the writing of the Bible complete?”

Just by clicking around recently I found that while the writing of the Bible may be complete, the editing of the Bible continues to this day.

When you consider that the Bible is the written contract(s) between God and us, it’s a little disconcerting that the exact language of the contract is subject to change.

I glanced at this quote at the top of a newsweek.washingtonpost.com article by Thomas Reese, S.J., and focused on the words which I have highlighted:

Apocalyptic literature has been a favorite genre of oppressed peoples who feel powerless in the face of unjust structures and authority. God’s justice will be victorious. But as the Gospel of Matthew says, “As for the exact day or hour, no one knows it, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father only” (Matthew 24:36). If the Son does not know it, who are we to try to predict it?

These words literally mean that God the Father can keep secrets from God the Son. This seems to contradict some Trinity dogma.

So I looked it up in Skeptics Annotated Bible and found this. Notice that the Bible verse as quoted omits “nor the Son.”

24:36 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

The best and earliest Greek manuscripts say, "not the angels of heaven, neither the son, but the Father only." But apparently it bothered the scribes that there were some things Jesus didn't know, so they fixed it by omitting the phrase, "neither the son." (Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus (2005), p.95)

So I looked it up. Douay-Rheims, which I grew up thinking was official Catholic, and found it agrees with the version quoted in Skeptics Annotated.

Douay-Rheims
36 But of that day and hour no one knoweth, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone.

So, gosh darn it, I had to do some more googling and found the newer version quoted by Father Reese is the New American Bible, with the accompanying commentary.

New American Bible
36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

22 [36] Many textual witnesses omit nor the Son, which follows Mark 13:32. Since its omission can be explained by reluctance to attribute this ignorance to the Son, the reading that includes it is probably original.

I guess the Trinity is a mystery.

It’s kind of funky. Like, with the U.S. Constitution, we don’t go back and revise the wording of the original document, we add, when necessary additional verbiage. No matter how many amendment we add, we can’t change the fact, for instance that the original wording counted a negro slave as two-fifths of a human being.

----- o -----