Posted on 05/06/2006 7:04:47 AM PDT by canuck_conservative
For all those folks following the Good Book, we have some bad news. Turns out a lot of our modern Bible was tacked on, scratched out, and just plain garbled from the original Gospels as scribes over the millennia tried to present Christianity in what they thought was its truest light.
In fact, many of our modern Bibles are based on the wrong originals, says Bart Ehrman in his best-selling book Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind who Changed the Bible and Why. Even our beloved King James version has several segments based on a 12th-century manuscript that scholars now say was one of the most error-riddled in the history of the New Testament.
Some of those changes hit sore spots even today. For instance, St. Paul may not have been as critical of women as we have been led to believe. Prof. Ehrman, chairman of the department of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, says it was not Paul but a second-century follower of his who wrote in 1 Timothy 2:11-15: "Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent."
Similarly, says Prof. Ehrman, scholars doubt Paul wrote a passage in Corinthians saying "let the women keep silent."
It appears these later additions were intended to address a power struggle in the early Church. For one thing, why would Paul say women should only speak with their heads covered in 11:2-16 of 1 Corinthians, only to say elsewhere they may not speak at all?
To date, 5,700 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament have been discovered, the earliest a tiny fragment of John 18 written around 120 CE. Including the 10,000 Latin Vulgate versions, and the thousands in other languages, we have between 200,000 and 400,000 variants of the New Testament today.
Scholars can compare the scripts to determine which was likely the earliest and had the fewest errors, either accidental copying mistakes or intentional changes or additions tacked on by later writers to make a point or "clarify" something.
From the moment Christ left Earth, His followers were debating what His life and death had really meant, and how His teachings ought to be preached. All manner of letters and gospels were produced, many in conflict with one another. These authors setting down the story of Jesus saw themselves as writers creating a new story, not scribes transcribing an old story.
Most people expected Christ to return imminently and overthrow evil once and for all. When it became apparent that wasn't going to happen, the early Church realized it had to get more structured if it was to survive. At that point, leaders began to decide which gospels were legitimate, and which were not. They not only had to contend with external persecution but a constellation of different varieties of Christianity all clamouring for legitimacy. It was not until 367 CE that a canon was finally established.
Even though the Church had settled on which texts to use, it had trouble making true copies of them. Almost nobody could read and write very well. Even village scribes could barely comprehend what they were writing.
Prof. Ehrman began his academic career as a fundamentalist and evangelical who took the Bible as literal truth. Now, he sees the Bible as "a very human book with very human points of view, many of which differ from one another, and none of which offers an inerrant guide to how we should live."
Exactly.
ping of the ping list of which we dare not speaketh, lest we say.....neeet
The best scholarship places the Gospels as being completed prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 66 AD.
Depends on whether you believe in the supernatural. The scripture makes its own claim that revelation was superintended by the Holy Spirit. If you don't want to believe that, its your choice.
Yes, it is true that various portions of scripture have been questioned by biblical scholars. The good ones make note of it and let the reader decide. With few exceptions, those passages in question have little to do with key matters of faith and practice.
Sounds like the modern press corps...
Much was written by eye-witnesses or people who personally knew and talked to eye-witnesses and were largely anecdotal. Some of the later writings were more systematically structured and developed, but largely followed the eye-witness accounts.
Yes, we attach the word Easter to the Day of Resurrection. Common English words do not prove some sinister change has happened. When we use our Osterizer in the kitchen (the name we always used for a blender for decades) we never bow down to pagan fertility gods.
I am going to write The Free Republic Code, in which I prove that the FR writers do not mean what they say, that they really have a hidden code (known only to me) where they reveal their true thoughts.
Reagan was the last known leader with this secret knowledge. He passed it on to me. That's why the French secret police and the Girl Scouts are trying to kill me. They know I know. There is a rumor that I possess a thumb drive passed down from Aristophanes to Luther to Reagan and finally to me where all the wisdom of the ancient past is revealed.
Let me amend that. There is certainly some possibility that Matthew was written prior to A.D. 60. I just was trying to focus on the point that there is no serious belief that it was written "100 years" after the Resurrection.
That is tough slogging. Some pages have more notes of this or that manuscript than of text.
Oh now who told you it makes no difference, if the original words are corrupted it makes a world of difference. Sadly modern man does seem to put self glory first and not the teaching of what was originally written.
We this day have the benefit of reading the parables given to the masses and what Christ told privately they meant, and why the masses were given only parables, most modern man cannot tell the masses what the parables actually mean from Christ's own mouth.
Aside from that there are a few places that give a permanent sentence upon those who add and take away from the WORD!
I held my ribs, aching with laughter.
There are cases to be made in religion. This one is not well argued. It reads like a sophomoric rant after four beers at Hooters.
I do not believe the facts will convert anyone. However, the facts do matter. We can argue facts. When the data is invented with a claim on scholarship, my response is mirth.
The Gospel Promises convert.
I said to one of the wobblies, "God sent His Son, born of a Virgin, who died on the cross for the sins of the world, and rose from the dead, then entrusted this message to some dunces who could not get it down right?"
One person objected, "There are 100 ways to interpret a vese of the Bible." I said, "Correct. One right way and 99 wrong ways."
The Devil has never given up nor will he until he is cast into the lake of fire where the beast and the false prophet had also been thrown!
And the constant false teachings continue unabated as described in 2nd Peter 3:15-16 ...."there are certain passages in them hard to understand...the ignorant and the unstable distort them, just as they do the rest of the scripture to their own ruin".
"For one thing, why would Paul say women should only speak with their heads covered in 11:2-16 of 1 Corinthians, only to say elsewhere they may not speak at all?"
For that matter, there's no such thing as male or female in Christ Jesus: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. " - Galatians 3:28
view later
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.