Textual Reliability of the Bible

[Cybrweez]

Let me just get the last word in!

Tjol,

It's a fair question: what is deliberate? It's more straightforward than you think. A lot of scribes would change passages in the Bible to suit their own theological views - of which there were many variations in early Christianity. For instance:

We know of a number of Christian groups from the second and third centuries that had an “adoptionistic” view of Christ. This view is called adoptionist because its adherents maintained that Jesus was not divine but a full flesh-and-blood human being whom God had ‘adopted’ to be his son, usually at his baptism.

In particular, it was their understanding of Jesus as the Jewish messiah that set these Christians apart from others. For since they were strict monotheists – believing that only One could be God – they insisted that Jesus was not himself divine, but was a human being no different in ‘nature’ from the rest of us. He was born from the sexual union of his parents, Joseph and Mary, born like everyone else (his mother was not a virgin), and reared, then, in a Jewish home.

A couple of changes made by these groups:

1 Tim 3;16 says “God was manifested in the flesh”
“Whereas; “Our earliest and best manuscripts say that ‘Christ was manifest in the flesh’…It was a change made to counter a claim that Jesus was fully human but not himself divine" (157-58)

“One of the most intriguing antiadoptionist variants among our manuscripts occurs just where one might expect it, in an account of Jesus’ baptism by John, the point at which many adoptionists insisted Jesus had been chosen by God to be his adopted son…’You are my Son, today I have begotten you’….....Today I have begotten you’ – is indeed the original, and that it came to be changed by scribes who feared its adoptionistic overtones" (158-59)

“Despite the fact that they are familiar, there are good reasons for thinking that these verses were not originally in Luke’s Gospel but were added to stress that it was Jesus’ broken body and shed blood that brought salvation ‘for you’ (166)

And so on.

His work is talked about here:
www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html

and here:
www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/june/10.24.html

Clearly, he's grasping. The one thing I can't wrap my head around is the fact that early church fathers quote the Bible. So, not only did these groups change the Bible manuscripts, but any writings outside of the Bible as well. Nonsense.

As stated in these links, variations amongst the manuscripts is plain to see. However, as Ehrman himself said in another book,

I do not think that the "corruption" of Scripture means that scribes changed everything in the text, or even most things. The original texts certainly spoke at great length about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. The issues involved in the corruption of the text usually entail nuances of interpretation. These are important nuances; but most of the New Testament can be reconstructed by scholars with reasonable certainty -- as much certainty as we can reconstruct *any* book of the ancient world.

IOW, we can accurately ascertain the original meaning.

[Lord Mhoram]

"Original meaning" is not sufficient for me. Christianity, like every single other world religion, would simply not exist without some sort of holy book. It is contended by Christian institutions, to varying degrees, that the Bible is divinely inspired. The huge amount of excellent scholarship, of which Prof. Ehrman is only one example, proves that, on the contrary, the Bible is a very human text filled with very human failings. If the text on which the faith is based is suspect, which it clearly is, quibbles or not, then it will follow that the faith itself is suspect. Is there a great deal of beauty and truth in the Bible? Absolutely. Is its general message eclipsed by errors? No, but it is clouded to a sufficient degree in my view that I cannot in good faith call myself a Christian.

[lucimay]

"Original meaning" is not sufficient for me. Christianity, like every single other world religion, would simply not exist without some sort of holy book. It is contended by Christian institutions, to varying degrees, that the Bible is divinely inspired. The huge amount of excellent scholarship, of which Prof. Ehrman is only one example, proves that, on the contrary, the Bible is a very human text filled with very human failings. If the text on which the faith is based is suspect, which it clearly is, quibbles or not, then it will follow that the faith itself is suspect. Is there a great deal of beauty and truth in the Bible? Absolutely. Is its general message eclipsed by errors? No, but it is clouded to a sufficient degree in my view that I cannot in good faith call myself a Christian.

agreed. succinctly put, Mhoram. thanks.

[dlbpharmd]

in good faith

A little subtle humor, LM?

[Lord Mhoram]

I'm glad you appreciated my subtletly.

Thanks, Luci.

[Cybrweez]

But that's just it, they are little quibbles. You quote a man who has said not to get carried away in thinking we cannot reconstruct the Bible, and get carried away thinking we have not reconstructed the Bible. You seem to ignore the fact that outside writers have quoted the Bible from the first few centuries, and it can be reconstructed by those means as well. Yet, in some way, its beyond doubt that it was corrupted? Sounds like Al Gore, 'the science is settled.'

[Lord Mhoram]

Oh, come on now. When I said "quibbles," I was referring to yours and others' problems with Biblical scholarship which shows that very serious and systematic modifications were made to the Bible. Ehrman has said that the Bible is not a perfect text. He's right. I don't base my religion on Lord Foul's Bane or on Huckleberry Finn. Why should I base my faith on an equally human text, the Bible? If you cannot accept the fact that a millennia-old set of books has not been significantly changed over that period of time, there is no debate to be had.

[Tjol]

Let me just get the last word in!

Tjol,

It's a fair question: what is deliberate? It's more straightforward than you think. A lot of scribes would change passages in the Bible to suit their own theological views.

My point is that people believe their theological views are accurate. Therefore the changes related to theological views is a consequence of trying to be more accurate rather than attempting to decieve.

- of which there were many variations in early Christianity. For instance:

We know of a number of Christian groups from the second and third centuries that had an “adoptionistic” view of Christ. This view is called adoptionist because its adherents maintained that Jesus was not divine but a full flesh-and-blood human being whom God had ‘adopted’ to be his son, usually at his baptism.

In particular, it was their understanding of Jesus as the Jewish messiah that set these Christians apart from others. For since they were strict monotheists – believing that only One could be God – they insisted that Jesus was not himself divine, but was a human being no different in ‘nature’ from the rest of us. He was born from the sexual union of his parents, Joseph and Mary, born like everyone else (his mother was not a virgin), and reared, then, in a Jewish home.

A couple of changes made by these groups:

1 Tim 3;16 says “God was manifested in the flesh”
“Whereas; “Our earliest and best manuscripts say that ‘Christ was manifest in the flesh’…It was a change made to counter a claim that Jesus was fully human but not himself divine" (157-58)

“One of the most intriguing antiadoptionist variants among our manuscripts occurs just where one might expect it, in an account of Jesus’ baptism by John, the point at which many adoptionists insisted Jesus had been chosen by God to be his adopted son…’You are my Son, today I have begotten you’….....Today I have begotten you’ – is indeed the original, and that it came to be changed by scribes who feared its adoptionistic overtones" (158-59)

“Despite the fact that they are familiar, there are good reasons for thinking that these verses were not originally in Luke’s Gospel but were added to stress that it was Jesus’ broken body and shed blood that brought salvation ‘for you’ (166)

And so on.

These kinds of changes are likely common in the early church times, and likely after the reformation. My point is that the changes where they were made, were not made for the sake of deception, but instead to pursue what that scribe or author perceived to be the most accurate portrayal.

Perceptions vary, especially when we speak of the metaphysical, and of history. I do not think people who have different interpretations of history to be inherently dishonest. There are people who care more about other things than an honest telling of history obviously, but when you speak of religious history, as reported by the faithful of that religion, alterations are attempted for accuracy rather than for deception.

Although, modern day does find people who hold leftist ideology higher than christianity who are rewriting the Bible, not for the sake of a more accurate Bible, but rather to attempt to subjugate Christianity to leftist ideology. Which kind of goes back to my example of the founding of the Anglican Church by a king of England whose name still escapes me for some reason. Was it a Henry or a Charles?

So some alterations, made for political motives, inevitably get found out and removed, because they are not consistent with theology. Other alterations, made for what is perceived to be better theological accuracy, when consistant with theology, tend to remain intact.

I still need to read more on the Apocraphaea(sp?) but if it's anything like my reading on the Gnostic Gospels, it is an inevitability that I will find it edifying for my faith rather than troubling to my faith. Yes, theologies differ, but on closer examinations, there are some threads of theological thinking that are consistant throughout.

[balon!]

Even without any research or knowledge about the matter, it seems clear in my view. I'm reminded of a game I used to play as a kid; Pass Along. One person whispered something in anothers ear, and the other kid whispered what he heard to the next kid, so on and so on.

By the end of the game a message like "I didnt do my homework" turns into, "My mom did my science project." Similar in meaning, but different in words.

Now compound the timelength by two thousand years (give or take) and transcribe the message not only from different languages, but into different cultures.

I have a very hard time thinking that it wasnt changed. But for me, as a soft agnostic, it doesnt change what I think the bible is for, portraying the "moral of the story." Doest matter what the words are, only what the words mean.

[Cybrweez]

Balon says it best, with no knowledge or research, I still have my opinion. I like it Balon. Balon, the Dead Sea Scrolls showed us that copying accurately was a big deal back then, as in that 1,000 year period, the OT we had was the same (not exact, but no variations changed meaning) as the scrolls. So, the game pass it along actually still got the same idea across, for example, the end result might be 'my homework was not complete.'

LM, do you think I'm asserting the Bible hasn't changed at all? Or that the original message hasn't changed? There's a big difference.

[lucimay]

believers believe (have faith in the "divine inspiration" of the texts)

non believers don't

one group views the texts one way, the other group another way.
one group sees the bible as divinely inspired religious texts, the other group sees it as dogmatic propaganda written by zealots (or those with an interest in the dissemination of said propaganda, i.e. Constantine or King James).

intellectual debate on the matter is, therefore, useless.

faith has little to do with intellect and is (or should be) non-assailable.
(thats not to say that those who have faith aren't smart so don't even go there with that!)
faith, by definition, is belief in something that cannot be proven.

in my way of thinking, those of any given religion who think there is (or should be) a factual basis for their belief don't really have faith. if they need proof, faith is negated.

the "i'm right - no i'm right" arguments only cause animosity between the two groups.

[Prebe]

intellectual debate on the matter is, therefore, useless.

And yet, many of those who believe want to sell their message on scientific/intellectual arguments. Thus the the non-believers think that there is a point in intellectual debate.

This thread is an excellent example of that.

Good post Lucimay.

[Lord Mhoram]

Cyberweez,

LM, do you think I'm asserting the Bible hasn't changed at all? Or that the original message hasn't changed? There's a big difference.

Of the first I wasn't sure, but I realize now that you are not saying that. Of the second, I suppose the overall message hasn't been changed (although it has certainly been tweaked by adding certain anecdotes of the Bible, replacing others, changing language, etc.), but again, that isn't good enough for me. It is a human text through and through. Divine intervention hasn't saved it from human failings. I therefore do not place any more worth in it than any other text that I enjoy and read.

Luci, Prebe,

Good posts.

[Zarathustra]

I can't believe people have intellectual arguments about the divine inspiration of a book that advocates slavery, murder, killing children who insult priests, running a sword through the belly of pregnant women, destroying entire cities because the neighbors want to have gay sex with a couple of visiting angels, etc., etc. Not to mention the talking donkeys, talking snakes, a flood that can cover the entire earth (when there's not even enough water on the planet to do this), an all-powerful God who needs to rest after 7 days of work, a God who tests the loyalty of his followers by telling them to kill their own children, a God who plays horrendous games with his loyal followers (Job) because Satan dares him to . . . and the big fanale: a God that burns his children in an eternal lake of fire simply because they have difficulty accepting all the above. If that's "divinely inspired," then I have completely misunderstood the word, "divine."

[lucimay]

I can't believe people have intellectual arguments about the divine inspiration of a book that advocates slavery, murder, killing children who insult priests, running a sword through the belly of pregnant women, destroying entire cities because the neighbors want to have gay sex with a couple of visiting angels, etc., etc. Not to mention the talking donkeys, talking snakes, a flood that can cover the entire earth (when there's not even enough water on the planet to do this), an all-powerful God who needs to rest after 7 days of work, a God who tests the loyalty of his followers by telling them to kill their own children, a God who plays horrendous games with his loyal followers (Job) because Satan dares him to . . . and the big fanale: a God that burns his children in an eternal lake of fire simply because they have difficulty accepting all the above.

AND....don't forget,....he LOVES you.




( )

Spoiler

ps...awesome sig Mhoram!!

[Avatar]

God got some 'splaining to do huh Malik? You forgot to mention that the priest-insulting children weren't just killed, they were ripped to shreds by bears.

--A

[Prebe]

Thanks for reminding us what it is we are discussing exactly Malik. Sometimes even I (the paragon of rationality) gets carried away by the
the mote that is in my brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in mine own.
(Matthew 7:3)

because the neighbors want to have gay sex with a couple of visiting angels

(puerile, tastless, blasphemous gay-joke warning)

Spoiler

In like manner shalt thou do with his ass

Edited to add warning. Let's see who can skip it with that apetizer

[Xar]

I can't believe people have intellectual arguments about the divine inspiration of a book that advocates slavery, murder, killing children who insult priests, running a sword through the belly of pregnant women, destroying entire cities because the neighbors want to have gay sex with a couple of visiting angels, etc., etc. Not to mention the talking donkeys, talking snakes, a flood that can cover the entire earth (when there's not even enough water on the planet to do this), an all-powerful God who needs to rest after 7 days of work, a God who tests the loyalty of his followers by telling them to kill their own children, a God who plays horrendous games with his loyal followers (Job) because Satan dares him to . . . and the big fanale: a God that burns his children in an eternal lake of fire simply because they have difficulty accepting all the above. If that's "divinely inspired," then I have completely misunderstood the word, "divine."

For my part, I can't believe that many people - believers and non-believers alike - tend to take what the Bible says literally. Of course, we have extreme examples of these among fundamentalists claiming the world was created in seven days, around 6,000 years ago; but still, it's obvious that arguments about the Bible almost always eventually revolve on the literal meaning of the text.
Has anyone actually realized what "divine inspiration" mean? It doesn't mean that God put pen to parchment and wrote down everything; it means that he put the ideas in the minds of the writers, and these writers then expressed these concepts in ways they could understand and with words they knew. Remember that many of these authors weren't deeply learned men, and that in any case, knowledge at the time was obviously limited.
I'll try to make an example of what I mean. Let's assume that the original, true concept for the Genesis is that God was the Prime Mover who set into motion the Big Bang, and therefore created the whole universe, which then evolved according to modern-day scientific theory. Let's also assume for the sake of argument that from time to time, God subtly directed the evolution of the solar system in order to have the Earth and, eventually, humankind through evolution (which we'll assume was "directed" towards the production of mankind). Finally, as per the modern-day theory, let's assume that this whole process lasted several billion years.
Now drop this in the mind of an ancient scholar who believes the Sun goes around the Earth, thinks that everyday life is heavily influenced by the will of the gods and demons, has no clue what a "Big Bang" is, and likely doesn't even know how to count past 100, let alone billions - maybe he doesn't even have a concept of what a "billion" is. Oh, and don't forget the scholar has the comforting worldview that only the Earth and the Sun exist - there's nothing else out there, except the stars which - as far as he knows - might simply be sewn over a velvet blanket the gods throw on the Earth every night.
So picture this scholar when the enormity of this revelation is shown to him: imagine, if you will, how the scholar must feel when realization dawns that the universe is mind-bogglingly big and old, that the Earth is even less than a speck of dust when compared to it. Imagine him confronted with the concept of the Big Bang, and all that happened later, as well as the concept that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and that life slowly crawled out of the primeval seas, evolving in what would eventually become humankind.
Now picture this scholar - who might even have met with madness when faced with something so complex and so alien to his way of thinking - having to put into words all this with only the vocabulary he knows, and even worse, having to do it in such a way that others who have NOT seen what has been revealed to him will still understand the message.
Do you honestly think he would, or could, describe Big Bang theory? Or is it not more likely that he would desperately attempt to reduce the enormity of the truth into something more easily manageable, a tale perhaps, which still gets the point across but is far more easily digested by others - a tale which even our scholar might desperately try to believe in, rather than facing the enormity of the truth?

My point is that this could have happened with all of the Bible - the message is there, the way it is written reflects the knowledge, familiarity and perhaps fear of the scholars and authors of the various books. Additional material might have been modified or added by priests seeking to validate the religion, or simply to offer good advice through a medium which would ensure more people would follow: the example comes to mind of the prohibition Muslims have towards drinking wine or eating pork, two religious taboos which scholars nowadays believe to have arisen because both things would be unhealthy in the Middle East's climate and environment.

So yes, if this hypothesis is true - or close to truth - then it follows that the Bible is a very human book. But it also follows that the message is there for those who are willing to delve into the book and find it; and this is all that is ultimately needed for the faithful.

[Prebe]

Of course, we have extreme examples of these among fundamentalists claiming the world was created in seven days, around 6,000 years ago

Thing is, that according to polls more that 40% of Americans actually believe it. Yet, I don't think they consider themselves fundamentalists,

[Xar]

Of course, we have extreme examples of these among fundamentalists claiming the world was created in seven days, around 6,000 years ago

Thing is, that according to polls more that 40% of Americans actually believe it. Yet, I don't think they consider themselves fundamentalists,

But we're not talking about Americans only here, Prebe... there are about 1 billion Christians in the world, and that's without counting followers of Judaism - which is based on the OT, after all - and Islam (as above). Even if 40% of all these faithful believed the world has been created in 7 days, it doesn't mean the other 60% should be "judged" for having faith in the message of the Bible; and even if 99,9% of the faithful believed in the literal interpretation of the Bible, that still wouldn't make it necessarily true. As a matter of fact, this whole conflict between the faithful and those who do not believe (I was going to say "the unbelievers" ) seems to me like it is a giant waste of time - and terribly harmful to boot. It is ironic, but also interesting to notice that in Italy - which theoretically, should be a "hot spot" for this kind of conflict, given the presence of Vatican City within its borders - this conflict is mostly absent. Fascinatingly enough, what little conflict there is, has been subsumed by politics - extreme left wing attacking the Church, right wing defending the Church. But as I recall, the majority of believers in Italy have at least moved past the "literal interpretation" stage and many of them have even begun to live their faith as a more personal thing, which does not necessarily have to go through a priest all the time.
So you see, there ARE differences according to the country you speak of; I'd rather focus on this discussion from a global point of view than from an American point of view.