I like to listen to books on CD during my 1 hour per day round trip commute. Right now I'm listening to a book called
Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman who is a biblical scholar. The book is about all the accidental and purposeful changes made to copies of New Testament books as they were copied over and over again. It's quite interesting so far. I'm maybe halfway through it, and up to this point he hasn't gotten to the real meat of what things were changed that changes the meaning of the Christian faith in any way. I'm eager to hear that part and so I hope it's getting to that. So far it's mostly talked about minor mistakes in copying and slight word changes. That's what I've always heard: There have been changes to the New Testament books over the centuries, but the vast majority of them are minor (e.g. speling errors) and anything more significant doesn't really change anything to do with basic Christian doctrine.
One good point he brings up though, is that while we may have lots of really old copies of these texts, we still don't have the originals (the autographs) of the original authors. And if these texts are the word of God himself, the exact wording of the exact originals is the only authority on what God really said. While I understand, if you have faith, you would argue that God has intervened to ensure that the text has been preserved, that would seem to be an assumption that can't be supported by actual facts. (I'm open to being wrong there, I'm not an expert after all.) And not having the original words of God would seem to be a bit of a problem for a religion that based almost entirely on books and the precise wording of those books (because they are THE word of God).
i like it. keep writing about your experience with misquito Jesus. also check out Love Wins by Rob Bell. It will be next book purchase.
ReplyDeleteCorrection, I was only about a quarter of the way through, not half. So there is plenty of time for him to develop his argument further. Although he's focusing a lot (at the point I'm at now) on the addition of the ending of Mark (which is not orignal) and the addition in John of the story of the woman caught in adultery. Neither of which seem like big game changers to me.
ReplyDeleteQuestion though: Can one really, seriously study the Bible, the Word of God, without reading it in the original language (mainly Greek and Hebrew)? That was the actual "word of God" right?
Also, in light of the original languages not being English, I think it's totally ridiculous to think of all the sermons I've heard preached based on a single word from a single passage of scripture - in English! - when it's very likely the English word doesn't even convey the same meaning as whatever word or words it was translated from in the original.
Let’s assume for a moment that the New Testament writings in their original form are simply the writings of normal humans without divine intervention. Let’s treat these texts like any other writings from thousands of years ago. Based on these and other writings external to the New Testament, including non-Christian Roman & Jewish writers, most Biblical scholars (even those who do not believe in Divine inspiration) agree on the following:
ReplyDelete1. Jesus existed.
2. Many people believed Jesus performed miracles.
3. Jesus was crucified, dead, and buried.
4. There was an empty tomb.
5. The early followers of Jesus believed he appeared to them post-mortem and were willing to be tortured to death rather than recant.
Even if you assume the NT has errors, these events still consistently emerge and need to be reconciled. What is the best explanation for these historical facts? Who was Jesus? Was Jesus accurately represented by the NT authors? Is there more to the story than a lot of deceived religious zealots? Can the NT writings be trusted? Who were the people that Luke interviewed before writing the books of Luke and Acts? Who were the people Paul interviewed among the 500 that had seen Jesus at a single post-mortem appearance and what was their mental status? Did Paul need medication for his hallucinations of Jesus or for thinking his singing caused an earthquake which broke the chains of all of the prisoners in jail with him (add Silas to the meds list…or was he a figment of Paul’s imagination too)?
My view of whether or not the Bible can be trusted is not based on whether Jesus sent out 70 (NASB) or 72 (NIV) followers, or that his pre-death demeanor/words are different in the Gospels, or the timeline of certain miracles, or that the original is missing, etc. If the New Testament authors were inconsistent regarding the crucifixion and resurrection, that would be a major problem. The message we need to receive was effectively delivered. I believe there is sufficient evidence to reasonably believe that Jesus was who the NT authors claimed. Whether or not I am willing to submit to that belief is another story.
Karen
Were there other gospels that were excluded from the official cannon that did disagree with the overall picture of what happened with Jesus' death and crucifixion though? And those were excluded in order to preserve one general version of the story? We know there were other gospels. I haven't researched this or read any of them in order to find out (except the gospel of Thomas, which is pure silliness).
DeleteI haven’t researched this yet either, but my understanding is the other “gospel” accounts were excluded because they were written a long time after the four in the NT and some were starting to embellish the stories; thus they were deemed to be less accurate and were rejected.
DeleteKaren
Here's a quote from William Lane Craig:
ReplyDelete"So if we are confronted with what appears to be an error in Scripture, we should first ask whether we’re not imposing on Scripture a standard of inerrancy which is foreign to the genre of the writing and the intent of its author…..But secondly, suppose you’ve done all that and are still convinced that Scripture is not inerrant. Does that mean that the deity and resurrection of Christ go down the drain? No, not all….. It really is true that a solid, persuasive case for Jesus’ resurrection can be made without any assumption of the Gospels’ inerrancy."
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5717
Karen
Fact: We do not have the original manuscripts of the New Testamnent, the autographs are missing or destroyed.
ReplyDeleteFact: The manuscripts we do still have contain variations in the text. Some of those changes are accidental and some are purposeful. Most of those changes are insignificant, but a small number of them are significant in terms of some specific points of doctrine. We do not know which variations represent the original.
Therefore I think it stands to reason that either: A) the originals were not inspired by God since he didn't preserve them, or B) they are inspired but the exact words don't really matter, only the big picture. I would entertain other possible conclusions if you have any.
The author brought up another good point at the end regarding interpretations and variations in the text. Any time anyone reads anything, but the very nature of comprehension, they are interpreting and translating the words into concepts they understand, filtered through their knowledge, experience, background, etc. So that there is not one pure or correct understanding of it all. So in regard to Christianity and the Bible you get what we have in the church: lots of various factions that have different understandings of the text of the Bible. None of them are "right" per se, because there's not an objective truth to at least parts of it.
Part of your conclusion is in error I think. Just because the nature of comprehension creates a different understanding of the words written that doesn't necessarily mean there is no objective truth. The objective truth is communicated but in receiving there are different understandings. This would not be an error or absence in the truth but in the understanding.
DeleteI don’t believe premise A to be a true statement, nor do I believe that words don’t matter as stated in premise B. I also don’t know that inspired by God is equivocal to without error when humans are involved. I absolutely believe the Bible was inspired by God. I’m not 100% convinced the Bible is without error. IF all of the originals were found and show that Matthew & Mark still say there was one angel at the tomb and Luke & John say two, that doesn’t change anything for me. Why does it change for you? I don’t understand why there is a direct line from small discrepancies to Jesus was nothing more than a man. Show me the inconsistencies in the core message.
ReplyDeletePlease give an example on where these changes “are significant in terms of some specific points of doctrine”. Jesus said he was “the truth”. Apart from Christ, a lot of these doctrinal differences we see today are just details that we humans have added importance to.
Karen
While it would be great to have the original texts, if they were required, the truth would only last as long as papyrus. If this standard was applied to everything it would have a profound effect on most of our knowledge of history, philosophy, mathematics...
ReplyDeleteBut this standard isn't applied to anything else... except for artwork I think. And maybe autographs.