Misquoting Jesus

[Belle]

MISQUOTING JESUS

by Bart D. Ehrman

From One Spirit (www.onespirit.com):

Since the dawn of the printing press, most people assumed the New Testament contained the actual words of Jesus and his apostles. But for 1,300 years prior to the Guttenberg Bible, sacred documents had been painstakingly hand-copied by anonymous scribes, many of whom were unschooled in the differing biblical languages ranging from Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek to the often slang-ridden Latin Vulgate. As a result, errors involving everything from simple misspellings to blatant alterations based on cultural and political opinion abound in the surviving manuscripts, making it difficult for modern scholars to reconstruct the original words.

Until now, that is. Bart Ehrman, the acclaimed author of Lost Christianities, sifts through the cherished beliefs and beloved parables that may actually be the result of accidental or intentional scribal alterations for a revealing journey into the actual words of the New Testament.

Someone suggested that I read this. I was wondering if anyone had heard of it or read it yet. There's no review on the website and usually there's at least one or two.

Thanks!

[George Aar]

I was O.K. with it until I got to the line "Until now, that is."

So the really smart guy is going to straighten us all out again, eh?

Sorry, Belle, don't know nuthin' 'bout the book, but the flyleaf notes are already giving me the jitters...

Edited December 28, 2005 by George Aar

[George Aar]

Well, here's the reviews from the "Amazon" readers (there's 25 currently):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006073817...glance&n=283155

They seem to like it pretty well...

[Belle]

Thanks, George. I didn't think to check Amazon for reviews. I'll read them.

I'm also wary of people who NOW have the truth that's been hidden and mis-understood for years. ;) Did reading the reviews, if you did, change your opinion?

[Thomas Loy Bumgarner]

Belle, I have read his book on the gnostic gospels and epistles which includes Gospel of Thomas, gospel

of Mary Magdelene, Epistle of Barnabus, etc. Interesting reading for non-canonical scripture.

[George Aar]

Belle,

Yeah, they might have changed my mind a bit.

Still pretty skeptical though. I mean, it's not like nobody's ever studied The Bible before.

And it's not like all sorts of new material has just been found. Near as I know, at least for the New Testament, it's the same 'ol stuff that theologians have been moldering around with for years. So how's come this guy has found out all this hitherto unknown wisdom of the ages?

I hope he doesn't have a class to sign up for...

[dmiller]

Speaking of *misquotes* ----

Here is one Sami posted in the "Silly Forum",

but makes a point about this topic ~~~~~~~~

A new young monk arrives at the monastery, and as with all new monks,

he is assigned to help the other monks in copying the old canons and laws

of the church by hand.

He notices, however, that all of the monks are copying from copies,

not from the original manuscript. So, the new monk goes to the head abbot to

question this, pointing out that if someone made even a small error in the first copy, it would never be picked up.

In fact, that error would be continued in all of the subsequent copies.

The head monk, says, "We have been copying from the copies for centuries,

but you make a good point, my son."

So, he goes down into the dark caves underneath the monastery where the original

manuscript is held as archives in a locked vault that hasn't been opened for hundreds of years.

Hours go by and nobody sees the old abbot. So, the young monk gets worried

and goes downstairs to look for him.

He sees him banging his head against the wall, and wailing,

"We forgot the "R", we forgot the "R".

His forehead is all bloody and bruised and he is crying uncontrollably.

The young monk asks the old abbot, "What's wrong,

father?" With a choking voice, the old abbot replies,

"The word is celebRate."

The word is celebRate."!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kinda makes ya wanna go hmmmmm, eh?

Edited December 29, 2005 by dmiller

[Oakspear]

Geo:

I read Lost Christianities by this guy this past year, and it wasn't too bad. He makes a good case for the bible that we have today being the end product of factional infighting among the differing versions of Christianity.

[Belle]

Thanks, y'all!

George, I agree with the skepticism, I really do! I also tug with the idea that so much was repressed and hidden by organized religion and politics that some things are now coming to light because of people like this dude and because of the information age where we have access to so much more information than we have ever had before. It's also easier to find and learn of things that we might otherwise have never found in a small town library or church.

TLB, you have really studied and read a lot, haven't you??? My little brother gave me a book on Mary Magdalene this year for Christmas and I'm looking forward to reading it. I feel like a kid in a candy store being able to read all this stuff that was verboten in TWI and, moreso, because I had never heard of any of it before even though it's been around forever.

David,

Oakspear, Lost Christianities sounds like a good read, too. That seems to be the conclusion that I keep running into with the things I've been looking at. BTW, I was talking to my brother about your return to the Celtic background and beliefs and he thinks that's totally cool! He has been studying a lot about Celtic history lately and is fascinated with it. :)

[Mike]

Does anyone hear the phrase "tattered remnants" being faintly whispered in the wind?

[George Aar]

Does anyone hear the phrase "tattered remnants" being faintly whispered in the wind?

Uh, no. But then, I was never much good at hearing voices...

Edited December 29, 2005 by George Aar

[Mike]

Those with any memories of the "Mike Wars" will remember the phrase "tattered remnants" well.

[GarthP2000]

So speaking of 'tattered remnants', what are you doing adding to the frey, ... hmmmm?

[WordWolf]

He's throwing in a a cliche.

Since he doesn't have SUBSTANCE to add, he's pretending he actually

ADDED to the discussion.

He's determined to know as little about the subject as possible.

He STARTED from his position,

and anything that sounds like it might support his position,

he declares accurate and calls a victory.

This is the same type of thinking that gave us Piltdown Man.

===========

As for me,

my reading of late suggests Mike's position is silly.

I'm not afraid of books like the one that started the thread.

However, I recommend balancing the read with all OTHER

books on the subject rather than just embracing it immediately.

BTW,

the last 50 years has introduced information that may have

been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in

Biblical documents 50 years ago.

[Mike]

WW,

Since you have so much to contribute compared than lowly me, how about getting specific?

You wrote: "the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago."

Like WHAT?

Please name five such things and then discuss one.

I'd like to see what wonderful things the egg heads have discovered for us lowly followers.

[TheInvisibleDan]

I'd like to see what wonderful things the egg heads have discovered for us lowly followers.

I get the impression that you're really not interested in such things at all.

And never mind the findings of the last 50 years - the average "Way follower" acquainted with nothing but PFAL seems to lag far behind in the disciplines, methodologies and theories of serious "Biblical research" for the past 100+ years. This is painfully apparent everytime I bring up the mention of such topics as the questionable Pauline authorship behind the "Pastoral Epistles" of 1&2 Timothy and Titus, from whence material (in my own personal observation and experience with twi) many of the roots of idolatrous "Bible worship" derive. This stuff is not new. The theory was introduced as early as 1921 (if not earlier in the German schools) and has persevered to the present day.

I must confess, as much as I appreciate their findings, a part of me also has an axe to grind with "egg heads" and the various churches which have apparently been derelict in their duty of educating the general public with this kind of critical information.

If they had taken the time to "translate" their findings from their pompous scholarlise into the language of the common "lowlife", we might have spared a lot of religious abuse, headaches and heartaches from such outfits as twi.

Danny

[WordWolf]

WW,

Since you have so much to contribute compared than lowly me, how about getting specific?

You wrote: "the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago."

Like WHAT?

Please name five such things and then discuss one.

I'd like to see what wonderful things the egg heads have discovered for us lowly followers.

Trade you three for one, Mike.

Mention any ONE and discuss,

then I'll mention THREE and discuss ALL THREE.

Surely with a handicap that big, you can come up with SOMETHING.

[Mike]

WW,

You wrote: "BTW, the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago."

BS!

[TheEvan]

BS!

Mike, so Piffle doesn't make into this category either? Or hey, maybe WW was taking about The Class©.

[WordWolf]

Make up your mind, Mike.

Did you really want to know what's been uncovered,

(no you don't)

or do you just want to presume that anything you've never heard of,

doesn't exist

(bingo),

especially since it discredits your theology?

I'm waiting for one (just one) source from Mike that suggests

"tattered remnants",

just one sign that Mike didn't toss out all the evidence and then

decide there WAS no evidence.

Then we can discuss that and the three (two more than one)

sources I promised.

I didn't ask Mike prove himself as capable as WordWolf,

or even HALF as good.

I asked for Mike to prove himself 1/3 as good as WordWolf,

which is a goal Mike may potentially reach.

This new "insightful comment" - "BS"-

is this really the closes Mike can do in backing up his claim?

Is he honestly and truly THAT incompetent that even the

SLIGHTEST proof of his position is impossible?

We'll see.

If his followups are equally "insightful",

then we have our answer.

[Mike]

WW,

You wrote: "BTW, the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago."

I've heard your BS before about some "wonderful" discoveries regarding ancient texts and now you come out with it again.

I decline your offer for a trade and I repeat my BS call on your assertion that there have been "major" breakthroughs in textual studies. Your offer is more a dare and I see no payoff for me to put my time into it. I don't need your deal to say "BS!"

Thread topic: the bottom line remains that we don't have the originals and there are such a huge number of discrepancies from the sloppy copying of the originals that the critical texts were a necessity to wade through all the TATTERED REMNANTS. And then, even after a dozen critical texts are produced EVEN THEY have inconsistencies as anyone with an interlinear can see by looking at all the footnotes. There's even no proof that ANY ONE of the critical texts have it right for any one passage.

I don't need your deals to call your bluff. You offered to ALL the readers here a bluff and I called you on it. NO DEAL.

Even if the originals were discovered in a cave tomorrow what proof could there be that they were said originals? How would anyone even get a strong hunch that they were the originals?

I say BS because you have no wonderful discoveries to report.

Thread topic: Biblical text research is a huge pile of opinions, guesses, theories, sense knowledge workings, and devilish interferences, just like it was 50 years ago and 100 years ago. There's NOTHING spiritually authoritative in that field. It can be useful for verification at times for someone who does already have some spiritual insights, but it's not what it's members tout it to be.

I'm out of the deal, WW. Never was in in the first place.

Now to all the folks at home, tell THEM what the great discoveries are and I'll look the other way.

Tell THEM what you meant when you wrote: "BTW, the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago."

Edited January 3, 2006 by Mike

[WordWolf]

[WordWolf in boldface again.]

'Mike':

WW,

You wrote: "BTW, the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago."

I've heard your BS before about some "wonderful" discoveries regarding ancient texts and now you come out with it again.

[i've never MENTIONED it before.

So I'm curious what voices you've heard that have mentioned it...]

I decline your offer for a trade and I repeat my BS call on your assertion that there have been "major" breakthroughs in textual studies. Your offer is more a dare and I see no payoff for me to put my time into it. I don't need your deal to say "BS!"

[Anybody ELSE would.

See, the whole "tattered remnants" thing was an

UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION.

That means that-until you support it- there's no contextual difference

between it and "unicorns carried off copies of the text!"

We only have your say-so.

Since we've known this was all just a smokescreen to claim

another Bible was NEEDED,

we knew your claim was made in the ABSENCE of any supporting

documentation.

So, I offered you a chance to surprise us-show us you have more

to offer than just pulling something out of your...hat.

In exchange, I'll answer your own claim I don't have an answer-

which in ITSELF was a dare-

and I'll offer TRIPLE the documentation YOU will.

In short, I offered you the chance to show you had something to

offer, and could at least equal 1/3 of my own "offer".

Oddly, the fact that YOU started with a dare has escaped you.

If you actually HAD some documentation, and I really WAS

making this up-which you claim are BOTH true-

then it would take you little effort to show me up-

demonstrate to neutral observers that you actually HAD

something to offer, while one of your detractors DIDN'T.

Since you've miserably failed at those efforts so far,

a gift-wrapped opportunity like this one would have proved

useful-if you weren't all bluff.

I offered a challenge, laid the odds on the weaker side,

and STILL you won't meet it. I think most people can see

which way the wind blows there...]

Thread topic: the bottom line remains that we don't have the originals

[Technically correct and universally agreed-upon.]

and there are such a huge number of discrepancies

[unsupported assertion. Wild claim.]

from the sloppy copying of the originals

[ANOTHER unsupported assertion. ANOTHER wild claim.]

that the critical texts were a necessity to wade through all the TATTERED REMNANTS.

[ANOTHER unsupported assertion. In stereo.

Doesn't even sound like you know what a "critical text" IS.]

And then, even after a dozen critical texts are produced

[You know of a dozen? You're familiar with ANY?]

EVEN THEY have inconsistencies as anyone with an interlinear can see by looking at all the footnotes.

["He said" for "Jesus said", and alternate spellings count as "inconsistencies"?

I guess if you're desperate to find ANYTHING to call one, they count.]

There's even no proof that ANY ONE of the critical texts have it right for any one passage.

[unsupported assertion. As I said before, my CURRENT reading's sufficient

to address it...presuming you want to go beyond bald statements made

by fiat.]

I don't need your deals to call your bluff. You offered to ALL the readers here a bluff and I called you on it.

[YOU started by claiming "TATTERED REMNANTS."

THAT'S a bluff, and your entire claim of this is a smokescreen

to hide that, and switch the subject.

Sorry, I was paying attention.

YOU support your assertion ONE time,

I'll support mine in TRIPLICATE.

I'm confident in this because:

A) You lack support for one time

B) I have sufficient support for three.]

NO DEAL.

[Leaving, of course, no support for your doctrine

of "tattered remnants", which was the original point you're hiding]

Even if the originals were discovered in a cave tomorrow what proof could there be that they were said originals? How would anyone even get a strong hunch that they were the originals?

[Well,

if one has already concluded-as you have-that it is impossible,

such a text would be mislabelled anyway, so that's a moot point.

It's also a smokescreen for your unsupported opening assertion

about "tattered remnants", which you've engaged in this new

song-and-dance about my comment to conceal.]

I say BS because you have no wonderful discoveries to report.

[Which, of course, means that your doctrine declares discoveries

are impossible, so you don't believe in them, even when dealing with

one face-to-face. I presume you're also woefully under-researched

on the subject, since you find the concept of seeing you're wrong so

utterly repugnant that you do everything you can to avoid

facing it. I'm doubtful you know as much on the subject as vpw

did as of pfal, and HE was under-researched for his time-frame.]

Biblical text research is a huge pile of opinions, guesses, theories, sense knowledge workings, and devilish interferences, just like it was 50 years ago and 100 years ago.

[it's SO much easier to dismiss entire fields of study than to

actually EXAMINE and EVALUATE them. It saves SO much time

to declare oneself right by fiat. It allows one's bubble to remain

intact much faster and surer than any honest evaluation...]

There's NOTHING spiritually authoritative in that field. It can be useful for verification at times for someone who does already have some spiritual insights, but it's not what it's members tout it to be.

["Spiritually authoritative" meaning,

an angel drops in and announces

"this is the correct text".

If that's the case, I agree.

Otherwise, your casual dismissal shows an ignorance of the fields

and a haste to dismiss them without a glance.]

I'm out of the deal, WW. Never was in in the first place.

[...otherwise, you'd demonstrate your own claim was hot air,

and I'd spank you with a paddle again,

even with a 3-for-1 handicap.

Care to disprove it?

Please, please try.]

Now to all the folks at home, tell THEM what the great discoveries are and I'll look the other way.

[My offer was to demonstrate the substance of BOTH our claims-

especially since yours is an assertion based on "faith"

rather than on "evidence".

I've noticed that every time I ask for documentation of

your claims, you run off-

even when I offer something of greater value in exchange.

Supposedly, you're right and the rest of us are wrong-

but your claims can't hold up to even casual scrutiny

or even a comparison.

You know, if you ever actually WERE right,

you might salvage your reputation somewhat,

earn a little respect, and people might conceivably read

some post of yours and agree sometime.

For you, that would be a rich prize.

Too bad it's unattainable.]

Tell THEM what you meant when you wrote: "BTW, the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago."

[i made you an offer. I STILL never agreed to you assigning "homework".

I'm ready to support my claim as soon as I have a reason-

which, in this case, means actually seeing you offer something

of SUBSTANCE. Yet again, you've weaselled out.

If I really AM bluffing-which, supposedly, I've been doing-

there's a very easy way to demonstrate it....]

========

Oh, and Dan?

Mike's hoping you'll jump in and do his work FOR him.

If you offer ANYTHING, he'll do his usual

"see-that's what I meant all along."

Figured you'd want to know that BEFORE

he pulls it again.

[Mike]

Here's some evidence: the existence of the critical texts.

WHY the critical texts? Why did Stevens and then all the others, starting in 1550, take on such projects? Why did they need to criticize the most ancient manuscripts? Because they saw a need. They saw the tattered remnants needed cleaning up. Even still, they failed to even agree with each other (see interlinear footnotes for evidence), let alone get an spiritually authoritative end product.

And a spiritually authoritative end product would need more than angels to declare it, because there are false angels to reckon with. Without the Spirit of God working in a man of God there's nothing authoritative whatsoever. Theologians can talk about God, but can they HEAR Him?

You may have forgotten your previous bluff but I didn't. What do you mean by these words of yours (the audience is waiting): "BTW, the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago."

Edited January 3, 2006 by Mike

[WordWolf]

Here’s some evidence: the existence of the critical texts.

WHY the critical texts? Why did Stevens and then all the others, starting in 1550, take on such projects?

[because of the love of the task, and the desire to get to the original text.

That's been true of every workman on this task for centuries.

That's what history records of them, anyway.]

Why did they need to criticize the most ancient manuscripts? Because they saw a need. They saw the tattered remnants needed cleaning up.

[still expecting us to buy "tattered remnants" without support...]

Even still, they failed to even agree with each other (see interlinear footnotes for evidence),

[The vast majority of the texts DO agree with each other-

compare any 2 interlinears for evidence. Sheesh, I did that back in twi...]

let alone get an spiritually authoritative end product.

[Failing to define your terms-like "spiritually authoritative"

allows you to continually change and warp their meanings when it suits

you. DEFINE a term if you're going to use it.

Anything otherwise is intellectually dishonest.]

And a spiritually authoritative end product would need more than angels to declare it, because there are false angels to reckon with.

[Of course, NOTHING would consist of "certification" for you,

my example was just one scenario among many.

Your mind was made up before it ever encountered information...]

Without the Spirit of God working in a man of God there’s nothing authoritative whatsoever. Theologians can talk about God, but can they HEAR Him?

[The CHRISTIAN ones-with the Spirit of God-they can hear him as clearly as

anyone else. That's because they're Christians wih the Spirit of God.

Of course, you're going to claim all of them are dishonest and deceptive

and dedicated their lifes' works to this for less-than-honest reasons.

How else can you dismiss the word of experts?]

Mike,

if you're going to discuss text, that's a good thing.

I recommend you go away, check your sources,

THEN post. Otherwise, the posts will waste everyone's time

and you look like shooting from the hip is ALL you can offer.

I'd like your position represented honestly.

=======

Oh, and Dan?

(Sorry to keep bugging you.)

Sorry about this interruption to your thread.

I hope you're at least getting entertainment value

while this plays out...

Thank you for your tolerance.

[Mike]

WW,

You wrote: "The vast majority of the texts DO agree with each other- compare any 2 interlinears for evidence. Sheesh, I did that back in twi..."

All you need is one interlinear that is footnoted to show many texts.

Mine has the Stevens text as a base, and the footnotes document all the deviations that about ten other texts take from it.

EVERY PAGE is littered with footnotes of deviations... and these are in the CLEANED UP versions of the tattered remnants.

We were taught that if ONE WORD is changed we no longer have THE Word of God. I believe that. I saw how Eve didn't believe that, and succumbed to a huge lie as a result.

***

Lots of people are still waiting for some examples of the innovations in textual studies you alluded to. Are you balking due to the innovations having a pointy headed overintellectual inapplicability to our spiritual life?

Edited January 3, 2006 by Mike