TexasMadness
Administrator
Global user (premium)
Registered: 03-2007
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 2518
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Misquoting Jesus
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart Ehrman
I'm making this a separate post instead of burying it in the 'books I've read recently' because I think this book needs special attention. Especially with the current American trend of blurring separation of Church and State.
Bart Ehrman is a Christian and is not out to denounce the Bible. Instead, he is simply pointing out that many oft quoted passages of the Bible are in fact in dispute as to their authenticity. Or even that scholars KNOW certain parts are later additions.
Ehrman began his interest in the Bible as a teenaged Born Again who was taught that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. As he continued his education, he began to realize that this was rather preposterous as there is no "one" Bible.
I found the book very thought provoking and well researched. I've since read many rebuttals of his work and find most of them taking quotes out of context from his book and interpreting his book in ways that I don't find valid. In fact, one of Ehrman's points is that text HAS to be interpreted or everyone would always know exactly what everyone else was saying in every document. Sure would make applying the Constitution easier! So it's funny that I see some of his critics misinterpreting his text and saying that you can't misinterpret the Bible!
I wish more Christians had such an open mind about the Bible. How can it be the inerrant word of God when we have so many different translations? It makes literalists seems even more removed from reality.
|
|
12/11/2008, 3:45 pm
|
Send Email to TexasMadness
Send PM to TexasMadness
|
de Corbin
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 09-2008
Posts: 568
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Misquoting Jesus
ROTFL! It's always good to know that there are people using good scholarship to prove the self-evident. 
Anybody who can speak two or more languages knows that translation is never "exact." Translation always involves making decisions literal translation as opposed to translation for meaning, poetic/structural concerns opposed to grammatical sense - and then there's the enormous problem of translating cultural ideas, symbols and idioms into those of another culture.
If you compare the King James Bible to the Catholic New American Bible, you will find passages that are so different in translation that they wouldn’t even be recognized as the same passage!
Here’s an example of two passages where the differences in translation – though small – convey a completely different meaning. This is John 1:5:
New American Bible : “…the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”
King James Bible: “And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”
Hmmm… what’s the difference between “overcoming” a thing, and “comprehending” a thing…?
Nietzsche once wrote (I don’t have the exact quote handy right now, but it was something like this): “Praise God’s wisdom for writing the Bible in Greek, and for doing it so badly.” By this he is referring to the fact that the New Testament is written in very, very poor Greek (something which Garry Willis, hard core conservative Catholic states in “What Jesus Meant” as well).
So rather than the high sounding language generally used to translate the New Testament, a more appropriate choice would be something written in modern slang, like this – “So Jesus, he comes up to these guys and he says ‘Yo, Dudes! What’s up?’”
On top of that, you have hundreds of years of hand copies, made by different people and different groups, each with it’s own particular agenda – Holy Cow! , and different groups cherry picking things to include, and things to exclude…
But it isn’t just the Bible – it’s the Koran, the Talmud, the Egyptain Book of the Dead, the Buddhist Sutras, the Bhagavad-Gita, the myths that were told verbally long before they were written down, etc. Change over time is the norm. The idea of a single correct text is unnatural.
TexasM, thanks for kicking the nest of wasps in my head. They need to be stirred up every now and then…
There’s a good reason why I’ll never be a fundamentalist in anything…
---   |
|
12/11/2008, 7:40 pm
|
Send Email to de Corbin
Send PM to de Corbin
|
TexasMadness
Administrator
Global user (premium)
Registered: 03-2007
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 2518
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Misquoting Jesus
You sound as though you've even read the book!
I already knew that the Bible couldn't be "the inerrant Word of God" because of the translation issues. And I knew that certain things were changed due to the current leader of the church that was having a hand written copy made. But some of the changes were rather interesting. The book was long and detailed so I'll refrain from spending too much time with examples! But Jesus is mad at lepers, whines and moans on the way to crucifixion, Joseph was referred to as his father in many places before the 'anti-adoptionists' changed the text, several of Paul's letters aren't even written by Paul, etc, etc, etc. Not just little minor changes here and there, but changes that would make you question your fundamental understanding of what it means to be Christian!
Good point that this is applicable to all old texts - especially ones that went from verbal to written and were hand copied for hundreds of years!
|
|
12/11/2008, 7:53 pm
|
Send Email to TexasMadness
Send PM to TexasMadness
|
de Corbin
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 09-2008
Posts: 568
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Misquoting Jesus
Yeah - one of the things that peeves me about fundamentalist views is that the fundies claim to be teaching the "authentic," original version of Christianity. Early Christianity was much, much more diverse than they would like us to believe.
The "accepted" Gospels (Mathew, Mark, Luke and John) aren't even the earliest known gospels - sometimes not by a hundred years - but they are the ones that tell the story that somebody wanted to be the official story!
One of the first and most important of the "Church Fathers" was Origen (200 CE). Origen was firmly against the belief in eternal punishment. He taught that souls were reincarnated until they learned what was right (he was heavily influenced by the Greek Neoplatonists). It wasn't until the 5th Ecumenical Council (535 CE) that reincarnation was officially renounced as a Christian teaching.
Also, the anti-female bias that irks me in Christianity was never a part of early Christianity. In the first century, Christian groups would gather and draw lots to see who would be the priest for the day - and women were NOT excluded from the luck of the draw. I have read that much of the anti-female ideas are attributed to the writings of Paul - specifically, the later "additions" you mention.
I'm not a scholar, but I've read some research that indicates that the same is true of Islam. Mohamed was, apparently, very fond of his wife and daughters, and accorded them equal status. It wasn't until much later that the anti-female thing was "inserted" into Islam.
You gotta wonder what is up with these guys who were so afraid of women that they would falsify their own holy books in order to keep them in check. Silly boys! They're like a bunch of overly macho, but insecure high school football players...
--- |
|
12/11/2008, 11:11 pm
|
Send Email to de Corbin
Send PM to de Corbin
|
playfultree
Moderator
Global user
Registered: 10-2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 427
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Misquoting Jesus
Someone please explain one thing to me please. In chapter 7 the states that pagans of the day believed that the Gods/Goddess did not show emotion and were above such things????? That is opposite of everything I have ever read.
help
---
Love and Light
tree
May your journey be full of happiness and blessings
|
|
1/2/2009, 6:33 pm
|
Send Email to playfultree
Send PM to playfultree
Yahoo
|
TexasMadness
Administrator
Global user (premium)
Registered: 03-2007
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 2518
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Misquoting Jesus
Hmmm...I don't read that passage as saying that the gods don't have emotions at all. Here's the quote:
"By this period it was widely believed among pagans that the gods were not subject to the petty emotions and whims or mere mortals, that they were, in fact, above such things."
It sounds like it's more emphasizing "petty" and "whims". The following passage has a description of Jesus acting very "ungodly" - getting angry with people, etc. The pagan gods were above getting flustered over silly human issues - unlike Jesus who was mad at people misbehaving. Many Christian critics said that this sort of behavior meant that Jesus could not be divine. The author is using this as a cultural reason why certain passages in the bible were changed - to better match the populace's idea of Divine,. i.e. a being that doesn't have petty emotions.
By the way, that sentence has a footnote. I looked up the book for it and I couldn't find anything quickly on why there was even a connection (it's about superstition) but I didn't have a chance to read the whole thing. might be something to look into if you are interested!
Last edited by TexasMadness, 1/2/2009, 9:47 pm
|
|
1/2/2009, 9:43 pm
|
Send Email to TexasMadness
Send PM to TexasMadness
|
muladzh
Registered user
Global user (premium)
Registered: 10-2008
Posts: 631
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Misquoting Jesus
To read of the supposed words and works of Jesus, when knowing the nature of the Gods, proves beyond any doubt the falsity of those words and works. I am aware that the modern idea is to tolerate all religions, so I will keep most of my thoughts to myself. Any book that tries to wake people up to the idea that the judochristian bible is not the truth it claims to be, is a good book, in my eyes.
---  |
|
1/2/2009, 11:57 pm
|
|
playfultree
Moderator
Global user
Registered: 10-2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 427
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Misquoting Jesus
TexasMadness wrote:
Hmmm...I don't read that passage as saying that the gods don't have emotions at all. Here's the quote:
"By this period it was widely believed among pagans that the gods were not subject to the petty emotions and whims or mere mortals, that they were, in fact, above such things."
It sounds like it's more emphasizing "petty" and "whims". The following passage has a description of Jesus acting very "ungodly" - getting angry with people, etc. The pagan gods were above getting flustered over silly human issues - unlike Jesus who was mad at people misbehaving. Many Christian critics said that this sort of behavior meant that Jesus could not be divine. The author is using this as a cultural reason why certain passages in the bible were changed - to better match the populace's idea of Divine,. i.e. a being that doesn't have petty emotions.
By the way, that sentence has a footnote. I looked up the book for it and I couldn't find anything quickly on why there was even a connection (it's about superstition) but I didn't have a chance to read the whole thing. might be something to look into if you are interested!
That is what I found I could not find the book.
That and the stories and legends that I know of the Greek and Roman Gods/Goddess they were very petty and quick to anger.
---
Love and Light
tree
May your journey be full of happiness and blessings
|
|
1/3/2009, 9:29 pm
|
Send Email to playfultree
Send PM to playfultree
Yahoo
|
TexasMadness
Administrator
Global user (premium)
Registered: 03-2007
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 2518
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Misquoting Jesus
playfultree wrote:
That and the stories and legends that I know of the Greek and Roman Gods/Goddess they were very petty and quick to anger.
I thought about that too. In another place in that chapter, Ehrman mentions that the Gods would be "displeased" or some such. Perhaps "displeasure" is a divine emotion but "anger" is not? Or perhaps that Greek legends we know of have been a bit too modernized? It would be interesting to look into this further. Perhaps I'll add the cited book to my reading list!
|
|
1/5/2009, 8:28 pm
|
Send Email to TexasMadness
Send PM to TexasMadness
|
Add a reply
Link to us
- Blogs
- Hall of Honour
- Chat
|
You are not logged in (login)
Board's time is: 11/29/2009, 3:40 am
|
|
|
