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."
For Heaven's Sake!!!! It's
We're talking about the Bible,for Heaven's sake, so who could POSSIBLY get upset about the initials A.D.????
And, frankly, if they bother you so much, leave them off and just say in the year 120, or "early in the second century, around 120".
The letters "C.E." are ABSOFREAKINLUTELY MEANINGLESS!!
What the hell does 120 have in "COMMON" with 2020?
I bet it has a lot more in common with 120 B.C.
Sorry, but I'm boycotting this article now. Nothing else is worth reading within if the author is such an imbecile that he doesn't understand this or he is just one of these people that think that they can't on their own create a brand new calendar WHICH IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE OLD CALENDAR!!!!
Trivia time: when the French gave us Metric distance, weight and temperature, they also created metric TIME. It didn't catch on. Why? BECAUSE IT WAS STUPID!!!!!!
TS
"When those that translated the King James were finish there was attached a letter warning"
Where? Not in the preface directed to King James
I have studied the authorship question for many decades. I cannot say how many liberal, scholarly articles and book I read. Hundreds.
I think it is important to concentrate on the text rather than the arguments. The Four Gospels have a harmony which is simply astounding. For instance, John presumes that the reader knows the other three Gospels and supplements them. When I read John in Latin, Greek, or English, the text has the voice of an eye-witness (my intuition; others agree).
John's Gospel fits into the others so well that people think the Baptism and Last Supper are in John. Neither event is actually recorded but both are reflected upon.
So for me, the issue is not one of dates. The text themselves convince me of the authority, harmony, and verbal inspiration of the Gospels.
Apostates have tried to pit Paul against the Gospels. Those arguments break down. They insist on agreement but always ignore agreement. Like the pitiful expert who opines so much here in print, they began with faith and now bitterly denounce what they once believed.
May not have been as critical; it appears, etc, etc.
Well said!
Jesus approves of me believing in Him and acknowledging His rising from the dead as His victory over sin, death, and Satan.
Satan has a lot of names, too. The English language is a string of metaphors, many of them lost to the users. WOP was used of Italians because their papers were listed as Without Passport when they came over for railroad projects. The name might have been harmless then but it is derogatory now. The origin of a name does not prove its current use.
At the very least it is a very good story. And after reading it quite a few times, I've concluded that most Christians don't read the Bible. They rely on a pamphlet version that focuses on intimidation and initiation rites, so what does it matter that there are some transcription and translation errors here and there?
I always read CE as Christian Era and BCE as before Christian era.
"Look's to me like another non-believer telling the faithfull what the bible really says. Like she knows the mind of the Lord."
And I'm positive you do know, or that He has, in His infinite wisdom, decided to let you, and you alone,in on his most intimate thoughts.
Thye Bible is a wonderful guide in most cases, but relying on it verbatim and without corroboration, as history, is a stretch.
"Where? Not in the preface directed to King James"
It is in my "Cambridge University Press" King James Version.
"TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTY PRINCE JAMES......."
if the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writing. Because the copies are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy. This process has determined that the biblical documents are extremely consistent and accurate.
There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament.1 If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.
Graph at above link
As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.
Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the first century. If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the first century that contest the New Testament texts.
Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing. This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a first century document.
Many theological writers are saturated with theories rather than with the text. I agree with you there.
The best commentary on the Bible in English is Pilgrim's Progress, once the best seller in English (second only to the Bible), now hardly known or read.
Bunyand, the author, was imprisoned for being a Dissenter preacher. I just bought the Limited Edition of PP, Blake illustrations. for $75. The book is simply astonishing in its handling of the Biblical story.
For those of you with children, get the animated movie of PP. It is a great beginning.
Mark is believed to have been written 30-40 years after the crucifixion. As with most ancient texts, it began with oral stories. Some scholars think that Luke and Matthew (60-70 years after crucifixion) drew heavily from a single older source called "Q".
...says it was not Paul but a second-century follower of his who wrote in 1 Timothy 2:11-15....
Idiot writing makes it seem as if this is in any way related to textual criticism, and IT IS NOT.
Breaking news: someone finds the Bible inconvenient for his lifestyle, comes up with rationale for evading it.
Sheesh.
What a load.
Isn't this what Paul was addressing when he said that only men should be clergy?
I've always heard that "wop" was a corruption of "guappo," Italian for "handsome" but it was not necessarily a compliment even when it was coined.
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.