Faithless
01-02-2006, 01:39 AM
Was the bible written in one take? Most likely not. But it sounds like parts were written, then rewritten to suit someone else's needs (or beliefs).
That being the case, what's to say we can't do it again to fit modern society?
Finding the original words, however, is not an easy task; the effort has been going on for centuries, resulting in hundreds of scholarly studies -- and many disagreements.
The problem stems from the fact that until the invention of moveable type in the 15th century, copies of the Bible had to be made by hand. These early scribes not only made accidental mistakes, but also often removed passages or inserted new ones to conform to their own beliefs, the book claims. Here are other examples from the book:
Many of these early scribes resented the Jews for not recognizing the divinity of Jesus, and they made alterations that directly places the responsibility for Jesus' death on them.
New biblical study claims history of alteration (http://www.islandpacket.com/editorial/col/book/story/5428770p-4903163c.html)
DON MCKINNEY, Packet columnist | Published Sunday, January 1, 2006
Those who believe in the literal truth of every word in the Bible may be dismayed to hear that some believe these words have been changed many times since they were originally written. And these changes are not minor. The changes deal with what the Bible says on the role of women, its attitude toward Jews and their role in Jesus' death, and even the divinity of Jesus.
There have been many manuscripts purporting to be the original text, and there are, the author of "Misquoting Jesus," Bart D. Erhman, says, "more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament."
Ehrman has academic credentials as chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. He was raised an Episcopalian, became a "born again" Christian, and went on to graduate from Moody Bible Institute, Wheaton College and Princeton Theological Seminary.
He also is the author of several previous books about the Scriptures and a recognized expert on the New Testament and the life of Jesus.
To prepare himself for his study of the New Testament, he learned both Greek (one of the languages in which it originally was written) and Hebrew.
Finding the original words, however, is not an easy task; the effort has been going on for centuries, resulting in hundreds of scholarly studies -- and many disagreements.
The problem stems from the fact that until the invention of moveable type in the 15th century, copies of the Bible had to be made by hand. These early scribes not only made accidental mistakes, but also often removed passages or inserted new ones to conform to their own beliefs, the book claims. Here are other examples from the book:
Many of these early scribes resented the Jews for not recognizing the divinity of Jesus, and they made alterations that directly places the responsibility for Jesus' death on them.
In the gospel of Matthew, Pontius Pilate declares Jesus innocent, but because of protests from the Jewish crowd agrees to his crucifixion. In the original text Pilate handed him over to his Roman soldiers; in the changed version, responsibility is placed on the Jews. "Now the responsibility for Jesus' execution is absolute," Ehrman writes, "a change motivated by anti-Jewish sentiment among the early Christians."
Early texts also showed that Jesus was accompanied by women in his travels and that they played a significant role in his work and had equal rights with men. Much of this appears in Paul's letters to the Galicians and Romans, which played up their important role. Subsequent writings diminished their role, but there is strong evidence, the book claims, that Paul did not write them and they were inserted later.
The King James version is often cited as the inherent word of God. But, as Ehrman puts it, "The King James was not given by God, but was the translation by a group of scholars in the early 17th century who based their rendition on a faulty Greek text."
He cites six other well known translations (including the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version, the Good News Bible) that are all based on texts that have been altered significantly. "If he really wanted people to have his actual words, surely he would have miraculously inspired them in the first place."
The author says he is not attempting to invalidate the Bible as history's greatest moral guide to human behavior, but to point out that it is neither infallible nor always an accurate rendition of what its original authors wanted to say. The Bible "was a human book from beginning to end. It was written by different human authors at different times and in different places to address different needs."
"Many of these authors no doubt felt they were inspired by God ... but they had their own perspectives, their own beliefs, their own needs, their own desires, their own understandings, their own theologies; and these ... informed everything they said ... The Bible, at the end of the day, is a very human book," Ehrman writes.
This is clearly not the view held by Evangelicals, or indeed even most Christians, but at the end of this scholarly and at times overly detailed book, it is hard to disagree with the author's conclusion.
That being the case, what's to say we can't do it again to fit modern society?
Finding the original words, however, is not an easy task; the effort has been going on for centuries, resulting in hundreds of scholarly studies -- and many disagreements.
The problem stems from the fact that until the invention of moveable type in the 15th century, copies of the Bible had to be made by hand. These early scribes not only made accidental mistakes, but also often removed passages or inserted new ones to conform to their own beliefs, the book claims. Here are other examples from the book:
Many of these early scribes resented the Jews for not recognizing the divinity of Jesus, and they made alterations that directly places the responsibility for Jesus' death on them.
New biblical study claims history of alteration (http://www.islandpacket.com/editorial/col/book/story/5428770p-4903163c.html)
DON MCKINNEY, Packet columnist | Published Sunday, January 1, 2006
Those who believe in the literal truth of every word in the Bible may be dismayed to hear that some believe these words have been changed many times since they were originally written. And these changes are not minor. The changes deal with what the Bible says on the role of women, its attitude toward Jews and their role in Jesus' death, and even the divinity of Jesus.
There have been many manuscripts purporting to be the original text, and there are, the author of "Misquoting Jesus," Bart D. Erhman, says, "more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament."
Ehrman has academic credentials as chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. He was raised an Episcopalian, became a "born again" Christian, and went on to graduate from Moody Bible Institute, Wheaton College and Princeton Theological Seminary.
He also is the author of several previous books about the Scriptures and a recognized expert on the New Testament and the life of Jesus.
To prepare himself for his study of the New Testament, he learned both Greek (one of the languages in which it originally was written) and Hebrew.
Finding the original words, however, is not an easy task; the effort has been going on for centuries, resulting in hundreds of scholarly studies -- and many disagreements.
The problem stems from the fact that until the invention of moveable type in the 15th century, copies of the Bible had to be made by hand. These early scribes not only made accidental mistakes, but also often removed passages or inserted new ones to conform to their own beliefs, the book claims. Here are other examples from the book:
Many of these early scribes resented the Jews for not recognizing the divinity of Jesus, and they made alterations that directly places the responsibility for Jesus' death on them.
In the gospel of Matthew, Pontius Pilate declares Jesus innocent, but because of protests from the Jewish crowd agrees to his crucifixion. In the original text Pilate handed him over to his Roman soldiers; in the changed version, responsibility is placed on the Jews. "Now the responsibility for Jesus' execution is absolute," Ehrman writes, "a change motivated by anti-Jewish sentiment among the early Christians."
Early texts also showed that Jesus was accompanied by women in his travels and that they played a significant role in his work and had equal rights with men. Much of this appears in Paul's letters to the Galicians and Romans, which played up their important role. Subsequent writings diminished their role, but there is strong evidence, the book claims, that Paul did not write them and they were inserted later.
The King James version is often cited as the inherent word of God. But, as Ehrman puts it, "The King James was not given by God, but was the translation by a group of scholars in the early 17th century who based their rendition on a faulty Greek text."
He cites six other well known translations (including the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version, the Good News Bible) that are all based on texts that have been altered significantly. "If he really wanted people to have his actual words, surely he would have miraculously inspired them in the first place."
The author says he is not attempting to invalidate the Bible as history's greatest moral guide to human behavior, but to point out that it is neither infallible nor always an accurate rendition of what its original authors wanted to say. The Bible "was a human book from beginning to end. It was written by different human authors at different times and in different places to address different needs."
"Many of these authors no doubt felt they were inspired by God ... but they had their own perspectives, their own beliefs, their own needs, their own desires, their own understandings, their own theologies; and these ... informed everything they said ... The Bible, at the end of the day, is a very human book," Ehrman writes.
This is clearly not the view held by Evangelicals, or indeed even most Christians, but at the end of this scholarly and at times overly detailed book, it is hard to disagree with the author's conclusion.