Who changed the Bible and why? Bart Ehrman’s startling answers
How often do we hear people “explaining” religious beliefs by stating ”The Bible says so,” as if the Bible fell out of the sky, pre-translated to English by God Himself? It’s not that simple, according to an impressive and clearly-written book that should be required reading for anyone who claims to know “what the Bible says.”
The 2005 bestseller, Misquoting Jesus, was not written by a raving atheist. Rather, it was written by a fellow who had a born-again experience in high school, then went on to attend the ultraconservative Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. Bart Ehrman didn’t stop there, however. He wanted to become an evangelical voice with credentials that would enable him to teach in secular settings. It was for this reason that he continued his education at Wheaton and, eventually, Princeton, picking up the ability to read the New Testament in its original Greek in the process.
As a result of his disciplined study, Ehrman increasingly questioned the fundamentalist approach that the “Bible is the inerrant Word of God. It contains no mistakes.” Through his studies, Ehrman determined that the Bible was not free of mistakes:
We have only error ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways.
(Page 7). At Princeton, Ehrman learned that mistakes had been made in the copying of the New Testament over the centuries. Upon realizing this, “the floodgates opened.” In Mark 4, for example, Jesus allegedly stated that the mustard seed is “the smallest of all seeds on the earth.” Ehrman knew that this simply was not true. The more he studied the early manuscripts, the more he realized that the Bible was full of contradictions. For instance, Mark writes that Jesus was crucified the day after the Passover meal (Mark 14:12; 15:25) while John says Jesus died the day before the Passover meal (John 19:14).
Ehrman often heard that the words of the Bible were inspired. Obviously, the Bible was not originally written in English. Perhaps, suggests Ehrman, the full meaning and nuance of the New Testament could only be grasped when it was read in its original Greek (and the Old Testament could be fully appreciated only when studied in its original Hebrew) (page 6).
Because of these language barriers and the undeniable mistakes and contradictions, Ehrman realized that the Bible could not be the “fully inspired, inerrant Word of God.” Instead, it appeared to him to be a “very human book.” Human authors had originally written the text at different times and in different places to address different needs. Certainly, the Bible does not provide an an “errant guide as to how we should live. This is the shift in my own thinking that I ended up making, and to which I am now fully committed.”
How pervasive is the belief that the Bible is inerrant, that every word of the Bible is precise and true?
Occasionally I see a bumper sticker that reads: “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.” My response is always, what if God didn’t say it? What if the book you take as giving you God’s words instead contains human words. What if the Bible doesn’t give a foolproof answer to the questions of the modern age-abortion, women’s rights, gay rights, religious and supremacy, western style democracy and the like? What if we have to figure out how to live and what to believe on our own, without setting up the Bible as a false idol–or an oracle that gives us a direct line of communication with the Almighty.
(Page 14). Ehrman continues to appreciate the Bible as an important collection of writings, but urges that it needs to be read and understood in the context of textual criticism, “a compelling and intriguing field of study of real importance not just to scholars but to everyone with an interest in the Bible.” Ehrman finds it striking that most readers of the Bible know almost nothing about textual criticism. He comments that this is not surprising, in that very few books have been written about textual criticism for a lay audience (namely, “those who know nothing about it, who don’t have the Greek and other languages necessary for the in-depth study of it who do not realize there is even any “problem” with the text).
Misquoting Jesus provides much background into how the Bible became the Bible. It happened through numerous human decisions over the centuries. For instance, the first time any Christian of record listed the 27 books of the New Testament as the books of the New Testament was 300 years after the books have been written (page 36). And those works have been radically altered over the years at the hands of the scribes “who were not only conserving scripture but also changing it.” Ehrman points out that most of the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among the manuscripts were “completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance.” In short, they were innocent mistakes involving misspelling or inadvertence.
On the other hand, the very meaning of the text changed in some instances. Some Bible scholars have even concluded that it makes no sense to talk about the “original” text of the Bible. (Page 210). As a result of studying surviving Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, Ehrman concluded that we simply don’t have the original words constituting the New Testament.
Not only do we not have the originals, we don’t have the first copies of the originals. We don’t even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later-much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from one another, and many thousands of places . . . Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts and there are words in the New Testament.
In Misquoting Jesus Bart Ehrman spells out the ways in which several critical passages of the New Testament were changed or concocted. They are startling examples:
A.) Everyone knows the story about Jesus and the woman about to be stoned by the mob. This account is only found in John 7:53-8:12. The mob asked Jesus whether they should stone the woman (the punishment required by the Old Testament) or show her mercy. Jesus doesn’t fall for this trap. Jesus allegedly states “Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.” The crowd dissipates out of shame. Ehrman states that this brilliant story was not originally in the Gospel of John or in any of the Gospels. “It was added by later scribes.” The story is not found in “our oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Nor does its writing style comport with the rest of John. Most serious textual critics state that this story should not be considered part of the Bible (page 65).
B) after Jesus died, Mary Magdalene and two other women came back to the tomb to anoint the body of Jesus, according to Mark 16:1-2). They were met by a man in a white robe who told them that Jesus had been raised and was no longer there. The women fled and said nothing more to anyone out of fear (16:4-8). Everyone knows the rest of Mark’s Gospel, of course. The problem with the remainder of the story is that none of it was originally in the Gospel of Mark. It was added by a later scribe. Those additions include all of the following:
Jesus himself appeared to Mary Magdalene. She told the eleven apostles (minus Judas) about this vision, but they did not believe her. Jesus then appeared to the apostles, chastising them for failing to believe. He tells them that those who believe will be saved and those who don’t will be condemned. Then follows a critically important passage of the Bible.
And these are the signs that will accompany those who believe: they will cast out demons in my name; they will speak in new tongues; and they will take up snakes in their hands; and if they drink any poison, it will not harm them; they will place their hands upon the sick and heal them.
Jesus is then allegedly taken up into heaven and sits at the right hand of God, while the disciples go forth into the world to proclaim the Gospel in miraculous fashion.
Without the above passages (which, again, were not written by Mark) the Pentecostals lose their justification for speaking in “tongues.” And the Appalachian snake handlers have no basis for their dangerous practices.
C) John 5:7-8 is the only passage in the entire Bible “that explicitly delineates the doctrine of the Trinity (that there are three persons and God but that all three constitute a single God):
There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Spirit and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness on earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.
Ehrman cites strong evidence that this Trinity passage was entirely concocted and foisted upon Erasmus by outraged theologians who needed support for their prized theological doctrine (page 81).
–
Ehrman reveals numerous other difficulties with the popular assumption that the Bible was perfectly handed down from its original written expression.
Many believers rely fervently on the King James version of the Bible, for instance. They sometimes even say “If the King James was good enough for St. Paul, it’s good enough for me.” Ehrman points out many problems with the King James version, warning that “we need to face up to the facts.”
The King James was not given by God but was a translation by a group of scholars in the early 17th century who based their rendition on a faulty Greek text.
(Page 209).
So what should we make of the Bible? Ehrman argues that the attacks of the New Testament are not simply collections of obvious, self-interpreting words. It’s the same problem we have with other important documents, such as the United States Constitution:
Texts do not simply reveal their own meanings to honest inquirers. Texts are interpreted and they are interpreted (just as they were written) by living, breathing human beings, who can make sense of texts only by explaining them in light of other other knowledge, explicating their meaning, putting the words of the text “in other words.”
(Page 217) The scribes changed the original words of the New Testament by putting them in other words.
In my experience, many people who cherry pick excerpts from the Bible as the proper way to determine what is moral are in utter denial that we don’t have accurate copies of the original writings. Most of them refuse to acknowledge that current popular versions of the Bible contain numerous discrepancies, even compared to the earliest manuscripts we do have. This is on top of the fact that their are hundreds of patent contradictions in the English version of the Bible. To most believers, none of this matters. Stay the course! In fact, in my experience most believers rarely read what the consider to be God’s own inspired word.
Ehrman’s book points out numerous troublesome issues that demand attention even assuming that the original writers of the Bible accurately reported the events described in their original writings (whatever those writings were). The elephant in the room, however, is that none of the authors of the Gospels ever claimed to witness any of the events they were reporting. Further, the extraodinary nature of Biblical claims demands extraordinary proof that ancient self-contradictory writings are simply incapable of providing, except to those of us who believe that the Bible is completely true “because it says so in the Bible.”
For all of those people who continue to go around clentching and thumping those Bibles they bought at Wal-Mart, and for all the rest of us who want to get the story straight, Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus should be required reading.
[Administrator’s Note: More than 540 comments were quickly contributed to this post, making this page too long to download and display. Therefore, on March 23, 2007, I closed off new comments. Last night (February 4, 2009), I discovered a WordPress plugin that allows me to paginate comments, thereby protecting the site from the sudden and repeated load of 540 comments. Here's the good news, then. Anyone who has not yet had his or her say on Bart Ehrman's book may now jump in at the original post and post a comment. That's right! If none of the 540 comments that have come before you didn't address an important aspect of Bart Ehrman's book, you may now remedy that omission, right here in the comments to this original post. Godspeed. ]
Maybe a more fair analogy would be that of pollution. Suppose I am anti-pollution rather than anti-religion. I assert that any pollution, even the little bit seeping into the Chesapeake Bay from poultry plants, is bad. Even the little tiny combustible engines of California, are bad. Indeed, moderation such as recycling is better than dumping your motor oil right into the local pond (fundamentalist polluters), but it is not good enough for ME in THIS case. Sure it is a bit unrealistic to want to eliminate all pollution (religion). However, it is my goal, and it is a good goal, a mission from “God” where God is my idealogy of peace love and harmony with nature, earth, and whoever else will listen.
Whoooaaa, this is getting surreal. I ask the empiricists for evidence and I get… a parable. (Ben’s story about street corner thugs)
Sorry, I still have seen no evidence that religious moderation enables fundamentalism.
Nor any evidence that a heavy barrage of verbal abuse has ever solved any conflict, for that matter.
Vicki, Ben & gatomjp make a bunch of good points. So many, in fact, that time does not permit me to even summarize them, much less address them individually. Accordingly, I must focus on a few things I disagree with, taking the risk that you all will not think me uncharitable for failing to give praise where it clearly is due.
I’ll begin with something Vicki wrote. In defending religion, she said, “I think every thinking person in the world today knows that we have to get beyond individualism/greed and find some way to break out of the endless cycle of returning violence for violence.”
I agree with that sentiment, but, in fact, many of the people who “return violence for violence” have declared the Bible to be their moral compass. This includes more than a few popes, various kings and queens of European countries, political terrorists (Islamic, Christian & Jewish), abortion clinic bombers, and George W. Bush, to name just a few. Accordingly, if and when the human species finds a way to stop returning violence for violence, I doubt very much that the Bible will be the inspiration (Vicki’s list of Christian heroes notwithstanding).
As regards my objection to John’s middle-of-the-road view, my point was simply that it isn’t Biblical. Yes, we can point to the NT to find a god with a radically different personality than the one in the OT, but this does not alter the fact that the one in the OT is a ranting, intolerant, infantile tyrant. OK, so some good people have claimed to have been inspired to do good things by reading the Bible, but I bet the OT wasn’t where they found inspiration. Indeed, perhaps they, or others like them, would have done good things without reading the Bible, as many people have.
gatomjp writes: “Grumpy is assuming what John imagines god to be. That’s not fair. John never said that GOD was anything. John said that the bible reveals how other PEOPLE have viewed god in the past and I think that’s a fair statement to make.”
True, John did say that the Bible reveals how other people have viewed the god-of-the-Bible in the past, and he did not directly say that the god-of-the-Bible was anything, but I still believe my criticism is both fair and valid. John’s interprets the Bible using a middle-of-the-road approach: accepting the parts he likes and dismissing the parts he doesn’t as “mistakes.” I reject that approach, not because I am trying (as Vicki suggests) to characterize all Christians as extremists, but because it is simply not a legitimate way to interpret the holy book of a *revealed* religion. I am not saying we should not view the Bible as a work of literature which shows how our ancestors struggled with their spiritual beliefs; I’m saying that if we do so, then we should not call the result “Christianity.” We can call our watered-down, pick-and-choose religion “Johnianity” or “Vickianity” or “gatomjpianity;” we can call it “intelligent, reasoned, non-fundamentalist,” etc.; but we cannot call it “Christianity.”
Finally, Vicki writes: “The only alternative you portrayed to your version of “real Christianity” was a tepid, watered-down pop Christianity.”
True, the only alternative I mentioned to “real” Christianity was John’s tepid, watered-down pop version, but that’s because I was responding to John’s comment, which contained only John’s tepid, watered-down pop version. I didn’t address any other versions, because John didn’t, either. That’s why Vicki’s examples were unrelated to my comment: neither John nor I addressed the topic she did. Be that as it may, it just so happens that “real” Christianity is not practiced by any “Christian” I have ever known or heard of, so it appears to be a fact that all alternatives to “real” Christianity ARE tepid and watered-down, including those of the people Vicki mentions. While those people clearly were passionate about their beliefs, they did not, for example, become pilgrims for Jesus.
gatomjp writes: “All religions have good things to teach at their core, it is the way that they have been twisted by men to suit their own petty needs, that I have always objected to.”
The reverse is also true. Many religions, including all of the ones based on the Bible, teach vile, cruel, outrageous things at their core, and it is the way they have been *rejected and humanized* by irreligious people, to suit important community values, that has caused them to become acceptable.
Ben is right: the doors leading out of scriptural literalism did not open from the inside. They were yanked open by their neighbors who had a conscience, and more love in their hearts than did the believers behind the doors.
Grumpy writes “Why do moderates not reject and condemn extremists?”
I listed a number of links where religious people were rejecting and condemning extremists from their own group -evangelicals criticizing and opposing evangelicals even. Here’s another link to a Muslim woman who is risking her life by criticizing and working for re form of Islam from the inside: http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/index.html
You offer only repeated assertions (”it should be self-evident!”) and a rationale with some pretty wide inductive leaps, but no empirical evidence that religious moderation enables religious fundamentalism.
Grumpy writes “When was the last time you heard a moderate Christian minister criticize the Pope?”
Google “bishops defy pope” and you’ll get some results that may surprise you.
Grumpy and Ben, your rhetoric is the rhetoric of annihilation. There is ample historical evidence that your type of opposition just fans the flames of religious extremism. Attacks from the outside usually make the attacked group close ranks and defend each other. Look at the US in Iraq. We are generating terrorists faster than we can kill them.
Thanks Grumpy I would like to take credit for that inspired door-swinging metaphor, but my *entire* post was an excerpt which I pasted from the Sam Harris website (granted, I do agree with most of it). My reasoning being that since I hadn’t been reading all of the spiritual links provided here, it was possible that other folks didn’t have time (interest) to go the extra click either.
In terms of the rhetoric, I plead guilty with explanation. It seems like rhetoric to you, just like how the spiritual-everything-will-be-fine-if-we-all-hold-hands seems like *rhetoric* to me. The only real facts that I see (as a RARE scientist who is willing to engage in philosophical discussion) are those of science. Death is death. Life is life. The universe is infinite or at least gosh dern big (still counting the stars though, just in case).
Christians, Jews, Muslims and Spiritual Healers who come on the internet need to see this message loud and clear, and eventually the beautiful, natural, peaceful message of atheism won’t have to be kept a secret. Scientists will be able to practice science freely, therapists (what was once referred to as spiritual healing) will be able to teach well-being and have people listen with an eager ear. Try this link to “A Blog from Hell”, he is right on the money…
http://normdoering.blogspot.com
Even when I disagree with the author, I end up getting that eerie feeling that he is probably right, similar to what has been coined the “Grumpypilgrim” phenomena.
Ben, the funny thing is…I agree with most of what you desire. It’s just that I feel that your divisive methods are more harmful to our cause than helpful.
I’d like to quote Vicki here because she said it better than I can and I think it bears repeating…
“…your rhetoric is the rhetoric of annihilation. There is ample historical evidence that your type of opposition just fans the flames of religious extremism. Attacks from the outside usually make the attacked group close ranks and defend each other. Look at the US in Iraq. We are generating terrorists faster than we can kill them.
Great discussion! One with civility among many types of beliefs. That in itself is a miracle
I would say that the design of the universe (just the part we know about) is such that I very much lean to a “creator”, if you will. I stand in awe of the design of the human body as well as all of the animal kingdom just to start. It blows my mind how everything in the universe works and works together.
I can’t say I know anything for sure, except all the evidence is not in. People once believed the earth to be flat.
In the words of Jackson Browne:
“Let creation reveal its secrets by and by”.
But as a moderate, this should not bother you, as I am clearly an extremist. Unless of course you are leaning toward extremism yourself. Perhaps you should start with your own fundamentalists on your side and tell them to “cool their jets”. Then I will be glad to back down, but as for now, with the whole ID debate, the gay bashing, “gay is not holy”, gay is unnatural, fetuses are people too…this is the rhetoric of annihilation. I am not saying go burn down the local church, I am saying attend religious services occasionally, or never. The rest of the year, use the church as a community center, gym, like the YMCA is fine, but do not attend religious services. Do not donate money to the church, donate ping pong tables, and used vans, and bicycles, and arts and crafts, and textbooks. This is the world I envision. Annihilation is your choice, put down your bible or face the consequences of ignorance on a global scale.
Vicki writes: “You offer only repeated assertions (”it should be self-evident!”) and a rationale with some pretty wide inductive leaps, but no empirical evidence that religious moderation enables religious fundamentalism.”
Actually, I offered both specific examples and what I thought was a clear explanation of how religious moderates enable extremists, both of which Vicki has summarily dismissed with sweeping generalizations rather than clear justification. Perhaps we have different definitions of our terms?
Moreover, in what way is it not self-evident that religious extremists need the tolerance of large numbers of moderates in order to gain any sort of political power? Consider Dover, PA, where a few fundie crackpots on the school board voted to teach “intelligent design” in the public schools. In the very next election, the community threw them all out of office, thus stripping them of political power. Had the Dover community tolerated the crackpots, does it not seem likely that the fundies on the school board would continue their attack with some other issue — overhauling the family planning (sex ed) classes, for example, to remove any mention of condoms or contraception, just as the Bush Administration has done in its own programs? How is it you do not see this truth as self-evident — that extremism does not become widespread unless it is tolerated by moderates? Have you never heard of Nazi Germany?
A few sentences later, Vicki continues: “Grumpy and Ben, your rhetoric is the rhetoric of annihilation. There is ample historical evidence….”
Hald it a sec, Vicki. You demanded that I give “empirical evidence” to support my argument, and I provided some historical examples, yet your own assertion about “ample historical evidence” is conspicuously devoid of evidence — historical, empirical or otherwise. Fair is fair, Vic — where is your proof?
And what’s this about “rhetoric of annihilation?” Exactly what do you mean by “your type of opposition?” Are you seriously trying to argue that terrorism is caused by athiests?
Ben, I guess all the empirical evidence in the world is not going to shake your belief that there is no opposition to fundamentalism and theocracy among people who call themselves religious. If I tell you about Christian denominations that are pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-evolution and anti-fundamentalist, that doesn’t count because they are somehow not “real.” The concept that there are churches that function as community centers, food banks, and homeless shelters as well as religious centers will also probably not be able to penetrate your defenses. News of interfaith dialogues on peace and reconciliation will also probably fall on deaf ears. So, I give up and won’t bother you with the facts any more - you’ve made up your mind.
Grumpy, you write: “While those people clearly were passionate about their beliefs, they did not, for example, become pilgrims for Jesus.” Those people again were MLK, Father Daniel Berrigan, and Dietrich Bohnoffer - I could list dozens more, like Archbishop Oscar Romero, murdered nuns in El Salvador… I think they would all have been quite comfortable calling themselves “pilgrims for Jesus.” They were all ordained priests or ministers. They might also have used terminology such as “taking up the cross” and becoming “fools for Christ” in the sense of disregarding personal prudence to do what they felt was morally right.
Again, I’m more than willing to join in on any practical campaign against teaching of pseudo-science in public schools and in support of separation of church and state, but this dialog is proving pretty fruitless.
Grumpy:
I mean the type of opposition that takes a fellow human being (John in the post above) who has made a courageous step toward truth and liberation, and jumps all over him.
That’s what Buddhists call “not being skillful.”
I offered one example of how extreme, indiscriminate response to perceived threat has served to fan the flames of extremism: the US in Iraq. Add the US in Indochina. Also look at how the 9/11 attacks were used by the Bush administration to consolidate power and wrest a carte blanche from Congress and the populace to wage total war on a noun - terrorism.
I’m not saying that atheism promotes terrorism, but that attacks - verbal or otherwise - do not motivate people to leave a position they perceive as safe.
“How is it you do not see this truth as self-evident — that extremism does not become widespread unless it is tolerated by moderates? ?”
Yes, indeed I do see it. Also that extremism is often fostered by those in power who think they can use and control its energy - the US military-industrial complex allying with Christian fundies, British imperialists promoting the Wahabis, etc. capitalists supporting Nazis to ward off Communists, etc.
Your point however was that “religious moderates” - those who believe the Bible is not the inerrant word of God, but are still religious - enable religious fundamentalism.
According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline) there are 26,344,933 members of mainline or “moderate” churches versus 39,930,869 members of evangelical Protestant churches. So, as a voting bloc, they have no way of overpowering evangelicals. They are however vocal in denouncing fundamentalism as I have pointed out. The current prominence of fundamentalism in the US is the result of an unholy alliance between religious extremism, capitalism, and nationalism.
The Dover school board incident shows how the fundamentalists are hella good strategists. Rather than denouncing the Johns of this world, your time would probably be better spent studying school board agendas and getting to know the candidates. Again, I am willing to write a check to support a candidate for local school board of your choice.
True, I have not clicked on a fair sample of the links you have provided, but I have not ruled out doing so. You can trust that I will investigate them fully, but I have been instructed to go searching for my own evidence. (I have been busy over at scienceblogs, found some wonderful writers, Carl Zimmer the Loom for example deserves mention for his book written with the help of the smithsonian institution) http://scienceblogs.com/loom/
(Sorry got sidetracked…continued below)
Of course, I am already familiar with the beauty of Christianity, and I am admittedly a lover of the holidays and family get-togethers. Vicky’s message is probably a better message than mine (for some people). Something to keep in mind, maybe both our viewpoints are valid and necessary. Also, I doubt that either of us entered, or will leave the conversation with an completely altered viewpoint (or at least admit to it). However, as you probably know, the human mind works in peculiar ways, and no matter how hard I try not to be changed by your suggestions, I have heard some of it, and you have heard mine.
You are right to be frustrated with me, we have opposing viewpoints. I have not given up on you, and I doubt that you have given up, maybe just need to refuel your mantra/chakra. Please don’t treat Grumpy this way though, ignore me if you like because I am (as accused) possibly creating argument for the sake of creating discourse (albeit necessary, it seems).
(cont…)
the smithsonian museums are one of our nations treasures, more valuable than fort knox in my opinion, please visit them when you come to Washington. I have been to them many times, except the ones that are off the beaten path like the american indian museum. (but I’m sure they don’t suck, just get overlooked standing next to the air and space museums, and natural history (my favorite) museums.
“So, as a voting bloc, they have no way of overpowering evangelicals”
Vicky, you are not completely wrong, but you are missing the big picture. Following is an example of the numbers you need to spend more time focusing on. Your compass is simply way off in terms of the Global clash of religion. As a show of good faith toward the rest of the world, please put down your bibles, as moderate, compassionate humans. Once you take the foundation (moderate Christians) away, the fundamentalists will begin to slide toward rationality, or die out. Such is natural selection, adapt or perish. Your handfull of American Christians, whether moderate or not, are part of the problem, not the solution. Someday, you will get the big picture.
Islamic Population by Country:
Indonesia: 213,469,356
Pakistan: 156,491,617
India: 138,188,726
Bangladesh: 127,001,272
Egypt: 70,530,237
Turkey: 68,963,953
Iran: 67,337,681
Nigeria: 64,385,994
China: 39,189,414
Ethiopia: 34,700,310
Morocco: 32,300,410
Algeria: 32,206,534
Afghanistan: 29,629,697
Saudi Arabia: 26,417,599
Sudan: 26,121,865
Iraq: 25,292,658
Uzbekistan: 23,897,563
Russia: 21,513,046
#19 Yemen: 20,519,792
#38 France: 4,549,213
#40 Philippines: 4,392,873
#41 United States: 4,140,277
#49 West Bank: 3,159,999
#51 Germany: 3,049,961
#62 Britian: 1,631,919
#69 Spain: 1,008,536
#70 Italy: 987,751
#71 Netherlands: 984,449
#72 Israel: 916,424
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/rel_isl_pop-religion-islam-population
Hi Ben -
Astute observation in your post - I skipped weekly meditation at the sangha and have skimped on practice at home due to illness of family members and shortened school schedule for the kiddo this week. So I’m a pretty grumpy pilgrim myself. I don’t do the glamorous Tibetan type of chanting or chakra balancing though - just straight up Vipassana meditation, 20 -40 minutes alone with my mind every day. Scary - especially if your mind seems stuck on grumpy like mine is this week!
I’ve been to the Smithsonian, it’s pretty far away from where we are now but we try to hit Lawrence Hall of Science at Berkeley, Tech Museum in San Jose, Exploratorium, and Cal. Academy of Sciences whenever we can. At the age most kids are into dinosaurs, my daughter was into human evolution and talked about australopithecus and homo habilis the way other kids talked about triceratops. I never found a source for little plastic models of early hominids though. I’m hoping I can keep her interest in science and math alive as she moves into middle school, and onto practical experiments in evolutionary biology (interest in boys).
I think the only real difference between our positions is that I see ignorance, and not religion as the real “enemy.” And the only cure for ignorance is education. And the only effective method of education is one that has compassion for the learner at its heart.
In an earlier post, Gatomjp referenced a video clip that I think illustrates the problem I have with the methods of “education” employed by some of the brightest minds in this debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEl4QfcAK2o
Deus caritas est. Caritas deus est. Yes, I believe that, 100%.
Ben:
Well, I am not getting your reasoning. In what way is moderate Christianity the foundation of Islamic extremism? I would have thought US support of the Shah of Iran, British support of Wahabism, and US arming of Afghan jihadis against the Soviets, had rather more to do with it. These ventures were embarked on with the best of intentions for “reasons of state”, not religion.
Administrator’s Note: More than 530 comments have been posted to this post regarding Bart Ehrman– making this page too long for some computers to download and display quickly and properly. We’re therefore allowing no new comments to be added to this original post. Please use the following new page to add any new comments you might have on Bart Ehrman: http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1165
[...] it isn’t important, even if it IS important. This includes such critical topics as as Iraq, the cobbled together all-too-human nature of the Bible, Global Warming and , of course, sex [...]
[...] Who changed the Bible and why? Bart Ehrman’s startling answers. (I had to close this last post down because we were getting so many comments that it was making it difficult to load the post). [...]