A cite for what? That the bible has been translated?
Ah, I see someone else cited.
Haven’t read that particular book, but it looks interesting.
That was prety much my point: while declaring the primacy of scripture, he actually subjected scripture to belief.
He was born into a world in which Christianity–in both its Western and in several Eastern flavors–had accepted a certain tradition of what was Scripture for over 1,000 years. When he decided to declare the primacy of Scripture, he chose to eliminate from received scripture those books that were used to support aspects of the faith with which he disagreed. When he looked to the Old Testament, he had an easier time, because by “reducing” it to only the Jewish Tanakh, he could eliminate the messy portions of 2 Maccabees that dealt with praying for the dead, while there were no messages in 1 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 1st (or 3d and 4th) Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, or Baruch that were primary to Christian tradition, so eliminating them did not cause any crisis of belief. On the other hand, he also tried to throw out James (which provided the tension of works with his reliance upon faith) along with Revelation the letter to the Hebrews until he was prevented by Melancthon and Carlstadt.
I am not going to engage in a dispute over the validity of Luther’s theology. I am simply pointing out that while Luther declared the primacy of Scripture, he used his own belief to decide what scripture was supposed to be.
I have made no claims regarding clergy or hierarchy. My sole point has been that no one has stumbled upon a manuscript of God from which they have taken their belief, but that for Scripture to come into being, there has been a set of beliefs that existed before Scripture.
Cite what biblically? I do not think you are reading what I have posted.
Let’s look at the the issue considering the tradition that Moses wrote the Torah as fact. Now, whatever the matter of God dictating the Holiness Code to Moses, when Joshua proceeded into the Promised Land with a scroll in the Ark, that scroll contained all the history of Genesis as well as the historical passages (including the condemnations of the Hebrew people) in Exodus through Deuteronomy. But for the people following Joshua to accept the words on those scrolls, (since they were along on the same journey), they have to have already displayed a certain amount of faith. By the time of the sealing of the Covenant at Sinai, the people had already been gathered into a community who believed in the same God as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Belief preceeded the text.
The gist of my request to Septima, and now to you, is to show me explicitly how the ‘content’ was ‘affected’.
You see, I’ve seen variations of this assertion many, many times here. In every instance, the point is that these differences, these variations, produce changes significant enough that it is impossible to ascertain the thrust, intent, end even the accurate words of the author. It naturally follows that the bible then cannot be a reliable guide in formulating doctrine. And you’ve said this again yourself below, right?
I’d like to see if this holds up to scrutiny. I’d be pleased to be taught and/or corrected, and simply ask for proof that this is so. Frankly this gets repeated so often around here that I think many take it for granted.
Here are both my questions and concerns.
-
Please give me a credible cite that quantifies the biblical archeological finds as it relates to the OT & NT. Is it in fact, “thousands and parts of copies of the books of the NT”?
-
No matter what the number,* in what ways do they differ?* I mean, I would expect some variations, but is the nature of the variations one of grammar, word selection, syntax, or nuance; or is the variation more substantial? I haven’t read Mr Ehrman’s book, but I surmise that the title “Misquoting Jesus” suggests that there are many, substantial variations among translations—enough to prove that Jesus was misquoted. So, if among thousands of copies “no two are alike”, in what way are they different?
-
I infer that the variations that you reference are from ancient artifacts; ancient translations. If this is true, I’d love to see these misquotes.
Are there instances where Jesus (or others) said “black” and the translation said “white”? Are there instances where “black” was translated “gray”?
Are there instances where Jesus said “black” and the passage was deleted—that it was omitted? (with prejudice or not)
- If, OTOH, the variations you and Mr Ehrman are referring to are among modern translations----and there is little dissension among scholars as to the continuity among the ancient texts----why wouldn’t a Christian center around the modern translation(s) that hold true to the ancient texts? If there are in fact translations that hold true to the ancient texts, wouldn’t it be true that we do in fact " know what the original authors said"; even if counterfeit translations exist?
For my part, I own 13 different translations, and through Bible Gateway etc have access to another 6 or so online. In looking over hundreds of texts I see very little difference in intent, thrust, content, thrust or nuance. Those translations span around 450 years. The version that gets the most criticism seems to be the KJV. My complaint is that 16th century English can be very different to grasp—even then the texts that are difficult to comprehend are quite few, and when comparing texts, including the KJV, I find no instance that I can remember where two different translations were so different I was left conflicted about words, intent, context.
So please show me side by side comparisons* of texts/translations with differenes so substantial that it is difficult to determine the author’s true words or intent. I’d be pleased to see them:
a) Between different ancient manuscripts.
b) Between ancient manuscripts and their modern translations, or;
c) Between different modern translations
I assume that in whatever form they take they are common enough to render the bible as useless.
(* i.e. Manuscript Ba1 says “X”, but corresponding texts in Manuscript D2a says “Y” in the same place, or; The NIV says “X” at Luke X:X-Z, while KJV says “Y” at Luke X:X-Z.)
I find this really … odd. Nowhere, in all the news reports you’ve read, have you ever encountered anyone who claimed to be a Christian but not an inerrantist? Do the names Desmond Tutu or Gene Robinson ring a bell? What do you know about Matthew Shepard besides the occasion of his death? Do you recall Ronald Reagan’s funeral and the man who conducted it, former Sen. the Rev. John Danforth? What about the present Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams?
But that is the position, absurd in my estimation, of the absolutist literalists. I believe there have been one or two erroneous statements made on this message board. That does not negate the great value of the rest of it. Why is the Bible to be held to that standard? Because Der Trihs will certainly appear here to give you as many errors and inconsistencies as you’re willing to look at – and there are others, myself included, who would happily stipulate they exist and even provide examples ad lib.
First, it’s arguable whether the Bible describes an omniscient God (as opposed to whether the God which it describes is real and if so whether he is omniscient), but I don’t believe that’s germane. What is germane is that the Bible appears to everyone except those who have decided to subscribe to the view that it’s His inerrant “user’s manual” as a collection of writings from a wide variety of human beings, most of which claim to relate the interrelationships of people with God (but some don’t). I fail to see why one should reject what the evidence of one’s senses shows on examination of the book, in favor of some human being’s theory about what He intended it to be.
This is a canard which annoys me immensely. Liberal Christians, in general, subscribe to the scientific discipline of Biblical criticism, which means to subject the text to paleographic analysis, interpretation on the basis of what the words meant to the persons and cultures from and to whom they were written, and not to take the face value to someone in 2006 America as necessarily the intent of the writer. It does not mean carte blanche to attach oneself to any random interpretation that may suit the reader’s prejudices or predilections.
The literalists would have us believe that every word of Scripture is literal repertorial truth and/or divine command, as appropriate, except those few portions that are “clearly” fictional or allegorical (which ones are “clearly” that being selected by them, of course). What they’re missing is that literal narrative history dates to only the late 1700s and early 1800s, annals and relatively credulous and/or slanted narrative preceding it, and that story was a common means of conveying an insightful truth about human affairs or reality as far back as Aesop. Legend predates the Bible, e.g., Gilgamesh. I’m sure you know the story of the abandoned child placed in a boat of rushes and found by a princess, who grew up to free his people from oppression and lead them to conquer a new land? No, not Moses. That fable about Sargon of Agade was a thousand years old on the traditional dates for Moses’s life.
The word of God means several different things, including, in context, Jesus, particular statements in Scripture alleged to be God speaking through prophets, and the abstracted unity of teachings claimed to be from God and preserved in Scripture. For “the word of God” to mean the 66-book Bible of Protestant Christianity is a very late development, almost certainly within my great-grandmother’s lifetime (1841-1937).
And I respect that. Although, and I am not attacking you, your veracity, or your grandparents personally, there is this strange phenomenon on this board lately of atheists with family members they love and respect who were/are highly respected and respect-worthy conservative Christians, and whose evident views on Christianity the atheists in question feel pressed to push as the only reasonable view which a Christian ought to have. It’s odd, and frustrating – almost as if I were vetting your words against Robert Ingersoll, and denouncing you as “not a true athiest” (are you of Scots descent? ;)) if you should disagree with the saintly words of Ingersoll. Like I said, not a complaint against you, but voicing a frustration.
Hmmm… the church I belong to is part of a denomination founded in 1784 as the American expression of a denomination which separated from Catholicism in 1531 and which dates back as an institution to before 600 AD. Most fundamentalist and evangelical sects were founded in the 19th century or early in the 20th. Who exactly was making up their own religion?
The obnoxious behavior of, e.g., the Crusades and the Inquisition, or the 30 Years War, I’ll cop to. But one can name almost any institution that has been around a comparable length of time, or even much shorter, and adduce atrocities associated with it. It’s the ideals associated with Christianity that matter to me – the behavior of some Christians notwithstanding. (Ask Lib to explain “handstabbing” – a classic rejoinder to “But look at all the ee-vul in your past.”)
However, I’d point out that the majority of the BS that has a large proportion of the populace disgusted with “Christianity” is the excesses of the evangelical/fundamentalist Religious Right – the Moral Majority, the “family values” campaigns, the well-planned marginalization of GBLT people, the assault on reproductive freedom, the lies spread about the Founding Fathers, school prayer, and the Ten Commandments – these are all the doing of the people you want to give exclusive right to define what I ought to believe. Bleh!
Oh, and although it was not in this post, that closet-gay Colorado minister does not have a 30 million member church – he was the supposed head of an association that claimed a membership of 30 million. (By comparison, Donald Wildmon’s American Family Association published some numbers a few years ago that purported to identify as their supporters everyone who had visted their website – which includes such anti-gay-rights fundamentalists as Jodi, Zoe, jayjay, Otto, Gaudere, RTFirefly, and others from this board. The Religious Right leaders are not really very nice people at all.)
I thought it was obvious that was a big part of it. It’s not just about what the details of doctrine are, but how you feel about being there and what you get from it.
And i will never forgive him and the others who tossed out the “Apocrypha.” I mean, kick out “Bel and the Dragon?” Those are fun stories and great for getting the kiddies involved. All of “Esther” and “Judith?” Shameful!
Considering it’s David, I suspect he’s jerking your chain to get you to think about your faith.
As for me, I’m all for everybody having his own interpretation of the Bible and if you want to blend in books from outside your faith that’s fine. If everybody followed the same path it would get muddy when it rains and dusty when it doesn’t and you couldn’t see the wonderful things a hundred feet away. And I have nothing against adding other books, too. I can always benefit from some good advice, be it from Paul or a fortune cookie.
Polycarp–Among my reasons for viewing Xianity , and particular Liberal Xianity, with extreme skepticism is the revisionism of textual interpretations. I’m content to dismiss fundamental Xians as more or less total whackjobs with little understanding beyond “I believe” but liberal Xians disturb me almost as much because of the way they cling to a particular textual interpretation, yet abandon it when confronted with new evidence. Not that I don’t welcome openness to new evidence, but I object to certainty that is capable of being changed to doubt. If you’re certain of any reading of the Bible, then you must (by my lights) undergo a crisis of faith in order to reinterpret your certainty when new evidence comes along. If you’re OTOH not certain of any interpretation of the Bible, and are willing to say so, then your entire faith comes down to a subjective and personal beief which may very well be in error.
I don’t hear many Liberal Xians expressing that level of doubt, which is something I think I’d have more respect for than “I’m certain, absolutely certain–but that could change tomorrow.”
Fundies are at least consistent in their obstinence, I’ll give them that.
As much as time permits I am willing.
If the doctrine is “Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and , love your neighbor as yourself.” then the Bible has that covered and a bit more. Those alone are worthy of a lifetime of dedication and effort. When we get into other details it seems painfully obvious given the example of a wide variety of conflicting doctrines among groups all calling themselves Christians, that the Bible cannot be a reliable guide.
It deserves examination, not blind acceptance.
I’ve already said my information comes from a particular book. I also did some research to check Ehrman’s credentials. He is a legitimate and widely recognized biblical scholar who studies in the filed of biblical textual criticism. FTR I’ve also read several reviews by other scholars critical of his conclusions.
SDMB has rules against quoting too much of a copywritten work but I’ll try to give you some idea of the content. I recommend if you are seriously interested that you read the book.
I’ll have to start tomorrow. Too late and too tired now.
Polycarp and tomndebb, could you guys provide cites for your biblical/theological histories? Not that I’m challenging anything (although some of it doesn’t quite jibe with my vague understandings of things), but because I’m interested. I converted to Christianity relatively recently, and consider myself a "liberal Christian. " I actually converted because I felt God working through some good friends of mine who are bible-thumping fundie Baptists, but I find literalism inconsistent and untenable. Which is all to say, I’d like some reading to help me shape my theological views. Thanks.
Gestalt.
A brief argument for “liberal C’nity”- God reveals Himself to humanity as humanity is able to recieve that Revelation- in the infancy of human social consciousness, God had to be a strict Judge & Warlord as well as a Nurturing Parent in order to whip those talking monkeys into shape. A brutal world needs a brutal God to keep it in line. As individuals & societies developed intellectual & morally, God could cede more autonomy to humans, guiding them by moral teaching & personal & historical examples, rather than shows of miraculous or governmental brute force. Finally, God through Jesus fully abdicated the use of Force & Law, & surrendered from then on to the risky path of Love & Grace. RE the fabulous tales in the Bible- God would occasionally intervene miraculously, but more often God’s interventions would be more subtle & the tales would grow in the telling. Yes, God created everything, humans fell into distrusting Him, natural disasters came upon early societies, centralized authority fell into civil anarchy as rulers challenged God’s primacy- and those are encoded in the mythic tales of Creation, Eden, the Flood & Babel.
While I mostly differ, I do understand that view. It sounds reasonable & appealing, letting one keep the “best” of the Bible & the “best” of human knowledge. However, it still allows too much “picking & choosing”. Why do we
toss out the Levitical & Paulist ban on gay sex but keep the bans on incest & bestiality? Why do we toss out Jesus’ “I am the Way… No one comes to the Father but through Me” and keep “Love your enemy… Turn the other cheek”? Why do we toss out Paul’s ban on non-marital sex & keep his Grace > Law message? And where does it end? Do we accept JC as bodily resurrected & virgin born; as bodily resurrected but not virgin born; or as neither bodily resurrected nor virgin born?
SO I take the other route & more about that sometime later.
No, not necessarily. You said,* “And on top of that, there is the fact that the bible has been translated any number of times, so that what most people have (depending on language) is a copy of a copy of a copy…”*
I wanted a cite to show that this is actually so.
“look what they made Jesus say”… [in American English, as a pertinent , useful example] strongly implies that there are significant differences between manuscripts and/or translations; significant enough to frustrate the reader’s ability to ascertain the original author’s words or intent. I wanted to see examples of this. (and just as importantly, how pervasive this is)
because I obviously haven’t? 
Or, as an alternate cite on different translations, how about just searching Amazon.com for the term “Bible”
Sorry, I missed this post.
I’m not inclined to buy this book*. (I have a backlog of books on my shelf that are unread; and I’m close to needing a 12 step program)
I’m interested in the assertion—made many times at SDMB----that the bible translations (interestingly never answered with anything but a hyperlink to a book) are so rife with mistranslations, misquotes etc to be useless in ascertaining the original words and intents of the authors.
This assertion is always the foundation of the larger argument that the bible iteslf is useless as a reliable guide of God’s thoughts, intent, requirements etc.
I’m not interested in the theological argument. I’m more interested if this assertion is valid. If you’ve read the book, I’d be interested in knowing:
- Side by side comparisons where Jesus was misquoted, either in differing manuscripts or modern translations. Most importantly, do the variations go to the substance or heart of the narrative, or are the variations in the minor details? (I have no opinion on whether they exist, and in fact assume they do. Also, I’m not interested in a bible innerancy debate. )
My interest is simple: In most of these debates one or two (or more) people chime in with the meme (did I use that word?) that the bible is a copy, of a copy, of a copy and it is therefore impossible for us to determine original words and intent. I want to see if this is true.
- In addition to the nature of these misquotes, I’d be interested in how pervasive this is; just how many misquotes there are.
((*I have a passing familiarity with Ehrman and his books, and have read some of his material and debates)
Obviously, this post was not directed to me, but it confuses the hell out of me. You’re saying that you’re skeptical of the revisionism implied by textual interpretations, yet you dismiss fundamentalists as having no understanding of their texts, and you welcome openness to new evidence*, as long as that new evidence doesn’t actually change a Christian’s beliefs?
My head is spinning from that.
*I’ll let someone more knowledgeable deal with the question of with what sort of frequency “new evidence” is uncovered for differing textual interpretations. On an individual level, of course everyone who studies texts over a long period of time and does research on the period in order to better understand the texts will gather “new evidence” at a great clip and this will most likely alter their understanding of certain books or passages. But I seriously doubt that “new evidence” in the way prr has used it is gathered up by any denomination at anything near the pace of individual learning. Doctrine in liberal churches just cannot be so flexible.
I meant to add, that I don’t believe any liberal Christian churches or liberal Christians express any uncertainty regarding the “fundamental” aspects of their belief. In fact, those fundamental aspects must guide their understanding of scripture.
The comment on doctrine made here and in Xeno’s post following the quoted one is pretty close to on target. The Baptismal Covenant is the quickest short summary of what matters to Episcopalians. (Click “next” for the conclusion of it; the significance of those final five questions, after the Q&A form Apostles Creed, should not be underestimated.) The Outline of the Faith, a catechism, is also rather cool.
I do confess to, like Xeno, being a bit confused by what PRR is asking me to respond to, and given that he and I have had some rather sharp exchanges in the Pit, rather than presume what it is he’s asking, I’ll await his clarification.
But I think I can take a first cut. Faith in God is mediated through the Church and through the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer. It is not, for Anglicans, anchored in and inseparable from the Bible, so that the work of scholarship illuminating new understandings about the meaning of Biblical passages is not the sort of dramatic shift that, for example, a sudden and unexpected promulgation of new dogma by the Pope might be for Catholics. It’s something to be expected and dealt with.
To draw a parallel, I inquired about the phylogeny of the placental mammals over in GQ. John Mace and Colibri provided some valuable information on what new discoveries had resulted in, including the highly unexpected result that the earliest ancestors of bats and pigs were closely related. But this new information is not destructive of existing evolutionary theory, as some “Creation Science” advocates enamored of an unchanged and unchanging truth might feel. Rather, it expands and illuminaes that truth.
In the same way, Biblical scholarship does not destroy any aspect of faith. Rather, it gives new and clearer understanding of the source material. It enriches one’s faith, in the same way as new and clearer understanding of phylogenetic cladistics enriches one’s understanding of the richness of evolutionary processes.
But I will await PRR’s clarifying response before elaborating further (or, more likely, answering what it was he really was asking, that I misinterpreted as being answered by the above.)
Could you be a bit more explicit regarding what puzzles you? It’s a moderately large topic and I am not sure what introductory texts that i might have read forty years ago (if I could remember their titles) might still be in print much less whether I would endorse them, today.
For one (fairly) brief overview of the creation of scripture that is fairly consistent with my views, try reading the SDSTAFF report that Dex and Euty put together just about five years ago:
Who Wrote the Bible? (Part 1)
Who Wrote the Bible? (Part 2)
Who Wrote the Bible? (Part 3)
Who Wrote the Bible? (Part 4)
Who Wrote the Bible? (Part 5)
This being the SDMB, we can find any number of folks to disagree with any number of details they present, but it is a fairly even-handed and respectful approach to the understanding that most Christians who are not Biblical Literalists hold.
If you have specific questions, feel free to ask them, but it took five separate Staff Reports to present their synopsis, and I doubt that anyone wants me to retype all that in my own words into this thread.