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."
Principal Areas of Research Interest: New Testament Interpretation; History of Ancient Christianity (first three centuries), especially Orthodoxy and Heresy, Formation of the Canon, NT Manuscript Tradition, Historical Jesus, and Apostolic Fathers;
Secondary Areas of Interest: Jewish-Christian Relations in Antiquity; Greco-Roman Religions; Christianization of the Roman World.
Bart Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He came to UNC in 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University.
Prof. Ehrman completed his M.Div. and Ph.D. degrees at Princeton Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude. Since then he has published extensively in the fields of New Testament and Early Christianity, having written or edited nineteen books, numerous articles, and dozens of book reviews. Among his most recent books are a college-level textbook on the New Testament, two anthologies of early Christian writings, a study of the historical Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet (Oxford Univesity Press), and a Greek-English Edition of the Apostolic Fathers for the Loeb Classical Library (Harvard University Press).
Prof. Ehrman has served as President of the Southeast Region of the Society of Biblical literature, chair of the New Testament textual criticism section of the Society, book review editor of the Journal of Biblical Literature, and editor of the monograph series The New Testament in the Greek Fathers (Scholars Press). He currently serves as co-editor of the series New Testament Tools and Studies (E. J. Brill) and on several other editorial boards for monographs in the field.
Winner of numerous university awards and grants, Prof. Ehrman is the recipient of the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching.
CC&E
Not every language calls the day Easter. German says Oster, but French Paque, Swedish Pask, Polish Pascha.
Mrs VS
The Dead Sea Scrolls Probably the most valuable of these documents is the `Isaiah Scroll`. Some 23 feet long and made of leather, it is a remarkable testimony to the textual accuracy of the Bible as we know it today. Modern methods of estimating the age of the scroll and its flax, or linen cover, reveal the fact that it is a transcription of the complete text of the book of Isaiah made in about 100 B.C.
Directory to the Dead Sea Scrolls Collection:
|
THE GNOSTIC SOCIETY LIBRARY DEAD SEA SCROLLS: TEXTS
|
Thanks! I looked it up - 9 p.m. Eastern time. Also at some point on Tuesday, but I didn't look up the time for that one.
Wombat,..from a purely soulish perspective without a living spirit from God, the above statement appears to be very reasonable. This fails to grasp the significance of Scripture, though, for the believer.
Once one has an initial relationship with God through faith in Christ, the Holy Spirit regenerates the spirit in the believer. As long as the believer remains in fellowship with God, through faith in Christ, the believer may continue to study the Word of God, which in turn is made understood to the believer in his soul, and in his spirit by the work of the Holy Spirit. This is the process of continuing sanctification and the daily inbreathing of Bible Doctrine via the Holy Spirit furthers the believers development in Christ.
This isn't simply an exercise in comparative theology or a process in only gnosis, but rather the edification of gnosis in the soul by the Holy Spirit (not the believer) is used to develop epignosis in the soul and in the spirit of the believer.
This is not something that is used as the basis of sanctification in communication that is not from God.
Accordingly, although one might be intellectually intriqued in a selfish fashion by extrabiblical texts, unless the Word is revealed by God Himself, it doesn't edify the thinking processes or the spirit of man.
In this sense, such thinking is really no different than any other thinking to a man prior to his salvation by God. We are all born condemned in that we are first dead to God with respect to the spirit and require some method by which He might change us so we come alive in the spirit to have a relationship with Him. That initial salvation simply comes by Him when we have a simple faith in Him, and He is then free to regenerate our spirit.
With respect to good, human morality is impotent in the face of divine judgment. Only divine righteousness will merit reward in heaven. Many may confuse human good with fallen Christians who seek morality over a relationship with God through a continuing faith in Him.
Hope this helps to explain why the 'Gospel of Judas' is considered generally insignificant to most believers, and perhaps even heretical in its delivery.
Thank you, but I don't consider the Book of Judas, for example, to be insignifigant. You have to remember that the first centuries of Christianity very often were consumed in, and shaped by, such philosophical differences and debates.
It may be insignigant because, in the end, the Gnostics lost the argument with in the Church, but from an historical viewpoint it is huge. How many people actually ever heard of Gnosticism, what it was, it's biggest defenders, it's greatest foes, prior to the Da Vinci Code (pure crap) or the more recent news reports vis-a-vis the Book of Judas. It is a very important period and philosopohy in the early development of the Christian faith.
Now, it's one thing to strictly adhere to all aspects of Scripture as an act of faith, it's an altogether different animal to trace the path that faith and Scripture took to it's modern form, warts and all. You can't know where you're going until you know where you've been. I think that the biggest concern to organized Christianity in regards to the Book of Judas, etc, is not that these writings exist or but that the insights or ideas they might provide might cause some to "leave the reservation".
According to the scriptures the resurrection occurred on the Sabbath....late. Verse 6 says He is risen!
Now, are you certain of your original statement? Why do you celebrate His resurrection on a Sunday morning? Scripture plainly tells us the resurrection happened on a late Saturday afternoon. I will agree with one thing....the pagans always celebrated "Easter" on a Sunday.
Scripture clearly tells us that the resurrection happened on the first day of the week. Mark 16:9
There are those who would like to deny Mark's statement by changing the punctuation but those same people contradict themselves. They want to claim that the women were present during the resurrection, based on Matt 28:1-6, but that they did not see Jesus until early on the first day of the week.,based on Mark 16:9. If the women had been there at the time of the resurrection they would have seen the resurrected Christ.
They fail to understand that Matthew is giving a summation while other writers are giving the details.
There is no punctuation to change. The greek text, from which most English texts are derived, has no punctuation. All punctuation is non-inspired. It's why translators translate Mark 16:9 differently:
(Webster) Now when Jesus was risen early, the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven demons.
(MSG) [After rising from the dead, Jesus appeared early on Sunday morning to Mary Magdalene, whom he had delivered from seven demons.
(KJV-1611) Now when Iesus was risen early, the first day of the weeke, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seuen deuils.
(CEV) Very early on the first day of the week, after Jesus had risen to life, he appeared to Mary Magdalene. Earlier he had forced seven demons out of her.
They want to claim that the women were present during the resurrection, based on Matt 28:1-6, but that they did not see Jesus until early on the first day of the week.,based on Mark 16:9. If the women had been there at the time of the resurrection they would have seen the resurrected Christ.
The bible clearly states that they did not see him at (or more correctly, just after) his resurrection:
Mat 28:6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
Mat 28:7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
Mary did see him, in Galilee, very early on the first day of the week:
(CEV) Very early on the first day of the week, after Jesus had risen to life, he appeared to Mary Magdalene. Earlier he had forced seven demons out of her.
In addition to this, Mark 16:9-20 may have been added later by some dark ages monk to try and prove a Sunday morning resurrection.
As a final note....the women arrived at the tomb "Late on The Sabbath". Our Saviour had already risen. As the women were running from the tomb they met him and worshiped him. John verifies this in chapter 20:14-16. The women were not present at the resurrection....but arrived later.....yet still on the Sabbath, but now.... after sundown, it is the first day of the week when they greet the newly resurrected Saviour. This would be early Saturday evening "modern time". The notion of a Sunday morning resurrection was invented to "fit in" to the "Roman pagan celebration of Easter". And Easter always included a "Sunrise" service. John 20:1 confirms it was still dark.
In the year 2006, whenever you see the words "scholars now say" preceeding a comment about Christianity, it's safe to disregard everything that follows.
On the other hand, the fact that the "Holy Spirit" doesn not guide people making copies or translations of the scripture is fair to middling proof that that G-d does not exist.
Like, can't He pick up a phone and call?
Best scholarship? My thought is that the best scholarship pedigree would come from the Roman Catholics, they having been in business longer than most others.
They hold (per my copy of the New American Standard) that Mark may have been written that early, but Matthew almost certainly was not. Luke and John came later yet.
Of course Joseph Smith Jr. had his two stones to help him.
No. I'm sure others are offering up specifics for you in this thread, but no, that's definitely incorrect.
MM
CE is not meaningless, especially since the monk, (who about 900 CE decided to figure all dates back from when he thought the Birth of Christ occured) made a few errors. Luke dates the Birth with a census which occured about 6CE, and Matthew dates the Birth with the death of Herod the Great, say 4 BCE.
That is why scholars don't use AD. We don't know when it was, but we are pretty good at relating things to the Common timeline.
To be fair, the monk had a tough job. Each Roman emperor died when he died, and the last year of his rule was usually also the first year of the next emperor's rule. Emperors also claimed authority over the East, over the West, and some dated their documents based on when they became "Caesar" rather than when they became "Augustus". What we do have is a good solid timeline since the Roman Principate, in large part due to his work.
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.