Sit back and enjoy Bart Ehrman’s research regarding what we know about the origin of the Bible. Ehrman is a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill . I’ve previously posted about Ehrman’s 2007 book, Misquoting Jesus.
Ehrman starts by telling the audience about a question that he asked his students recently: If the Bible is really the inerrant word of God, why aren’t all believers actually reading it? Many of Ehrman’s own students truly believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but large numbers of them haven’t yet read the entire Bible. Ehrman asks: “If God wrote a book, wouldn’t you want to see what He said?”
Most of this lecture concerns the origin of the modern version of the Bible. Ehrman presents a fascinating history of a book based upon thousands of incomplete and conflicting earlier versions. These versions are riddled with mistakes. The oldest copy that we have of any book of the new testament is a tiny scrap from the Gospel by “John” called “P52). It is about the size of a credit card and it only contains a couple sentences. It is dated at “the first half of the second century” (minute 15 of the video). Our earliest surviving complete copy of the Gospel of “John” was created about the year 200 A.D.
Most of our manuscripts of the Bible are not anywhere near this old. Most of our manuscripts were created around the beginning of the third century (around the year 200). The earliest manuscripts of most of the books of the Bible date from the 7th or 8th century. By the time that a man named John Mill actually tracked the conflicts among the 100 manuscripts he reviewed (about 300 years ago), he noted about 30,000 differences. We now have about 7,000 manuscripts, and nobody has been able to add up all the differences among these copies (21:30). “There are more differences in our existing Greek manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.” So, then how can we really know what any of the writers really said? Ehrman characterizes this as “a problem.” Most of these differences are “completely insignificant . . . mistakes.”
I especially enjoyed Ehrman’s description of one scribe’s mistaken version of the alleged genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam and Eve (27:00). Many other more significant translation problems have been detected by modern scholars (32:00).
Unfortunately, this video has a glitch and it ended at the 34-minute mark. This is as far as I got tonight. I now see that there are other versions of Ehrman’s lectures available in ten-minute chunks, starting here. I’m planning on viewing the remainder of Ehrman’s lecture, and I’ll report on it in the comments.
I would add a few questions to the one Ehrman asked at the top of his lecture: If the Bible really is the inspired word of God, why aren’t more believers taking the time to understand the genesis of the Bible itself? Why aren’t they more interested in learning about the things that Ehrman has researched throughout his career. Why don’t they care more about the inaccuracies and contradictions? As Ehrman asked, don’t you need to be confident that you know the accurate version of the Bible before telling others how “important” it is? I raise these questions because, in my experience of having discussed the Bible with hundreds of Christian believers, almost none of them know about these critically important issues raised by Ehrman, and it’s a rare American Christian believer who exhibits any curiosity regarding these issues. How strange, unless, as Daniel Dennett suggested, that most believers believe in belief, rather than in the religious stories that they claim to be true.
Ehrman has also published, Jesus, Interrupted, in which he argues that “the Bible is riddled with inconsistencies and outright forgeries, but that many fundamental stories and doctrines don’t actually exist within its pages–they were later inventions by people trying to make sense of a disconnected collection of texts.” At his website, Ehrman further states:
Only 8 of the 27 books of the New Testament were actually written by the authors to whom they’re attributed. Others are likely forgeries.
The gospels provide remarkably divergent portrayals of Jesus.
The message of the Apostle Paul and the message of gospel writer Matthew are completely at odds over the question of whether a follower of Jesus also had to observe the Jewish law.
The Nicene Creed and the Trinity were constructs of the later church and are not found in the pages of the Bible.
Traditional doctrines such as the suffering Messiah, the divinity of Christ, and the notion of heaven and hell are not based on the teachings of the historical Jesus.
The commonly told story of Jesus — his birth, death, and resurrection is actually a composite of four vastly different gospel narratives.
Samantha and Samantha's husband:
Sorry, I'm sure you feel as though we are ganging up on you! I hope you don't feel that way, we just all really enjoy the debate, and it's rare that someone sticks around long enough to have a discussion of this length. Thanks for your willingness to discuss all of this, I really appreciate it.
Anyway, I was thinking about your testimonies, or witnessing as a form of evidence. There's no doubt, at least in my mind, that personal experience should be a valid form of evidence. The richness of the world that we experience with our own senses cannot be easily measured, or quantified, it can only be experienced. How can you convey the beauty of a sunset to someone who has never experienced one?
However, the reason why it's unconvincing to us is that many converts to other religions report having similar experiences. The template usually is that a person is lost, fallen, or searching for the truth. They usually try several different religious choices, none of which are "real" or "true" to them. Then one day, something happens which to them is sure proof that God exists and has shown them the one true religion that they should be a part of.
These types of experiences are common to many religions. The part of these experiences that are intensely personal seem to be untouchable by scientific or objective truth, much in the same way that explaining an amazing sunset cannot be adequately explained using just words. But the fact that these types of things are common across the religious spectrum suggests that these experiences have more to do with the psychology of the person having the experience than the truth or falsity of any given religion. For example, here are some stories of people who have converted to Islam. Can you see the similarity between these stories and the testimonies of those who are "saved" in Christianity?
Some examples:
Or this one:
There are dozens more stories like these- stories of people who were involved in drugs and alcohol, or who lived promiscuously, or were simply searching for the right way to live. They find what they are searching for eventually, but they find it because they are looking, not because it's "true" in any objective sense. It's "true" to them, on a personal level. But the fact that it's so subjective is exactly why personal testimony or witnessing is so ineffective in conveying the truth of any religion.
Tony, my father said the same thing, until he got cancer, then he changed his mind. I see it all the time with terminally ill patients I take of at the hospital. Things change when death is actually knocking at the door and you know you only have a short time left here. Erich, I did watch the video in its entirety. I asked anyone if they googled any critiqing of his book and received no answers. I challenge everyone to view this website http://bible.org/article/gospel-according-bart. Bart Ehrman's book is not earth shattering to me, as it is to you.
Bart Ehrman will be the first to tell you that there is nothing earth-shaking in his best sellers. All of that painstaking work that he has packaged so accessibly has been known for a long time. What is phenomenal, he writes, is that after learning about all of the inconsistencies in the Bible, in learning about the contradictions and the well established facts (e.g., there is no proof that "Matthew," "Mark," "Luke" or "John" wrote the Gospels), the seminary students graduate and then start preaching as if they never paid attention in class.
What's motivating this decision to tell their congregations things that aren't true, and holding back information that would be inconvenient? I can only guess that preachers can keep the churches filled up more easily if they wildly spin the Bible into a more simplistic and more threatening epic. They scare the folks into coming back each week by presenting a Disney version of the Bible instead of teaching them how to seriously study (horizontally, not just vertically) this book that is supposedly the inspired word of God. Speaking of Disney, how is it even fathomable that people who claim that the Bible is the inspired word of God will spend 50 times more time and effort going to secular movies and sports events? My assumption is that most of these people don't really believe what they say that they believe.
Samantha
I am sorry to hear about your father, and I wish to offer my thanks to you for spending time (professionally, or voluntarily?) with terminally ill patients. However, when people are at a low ebb, physically or mentally, they are vulnurable to anything that might offer hope. Indeed, most people do not think deeply about themselves, their origins, our evolution, about 'what this all means' if indeed it means anything. Most people simply live their lives.
When confronted with tragedy, I agree than many seek solace in religion. However, that solace is not a confirmation of the power of Jesus, or of religion – it is merely Pascal's wager, which is at best a weaselly approach to anything, never mind eternity.
To paraphrase what others have said – Any god that accepts a 'death bed' conversion, while rejecting a lifetime of good works – is not a god that I will ever follow. It is a juvenile, vindictive and callous creature beyond redemption and beyond my desire to associate. I'd rather go to hell for eternity than spend even a moment with such a vile monstrosity.
You received lots of answers related to this and other topics. You asked for our evidence (despite the claim being yours), you asked for our consideration, and our acceptance of you and your faith.
You have failed to provide any citations whatsoever.
We *know* that other biblical scholars and apologists have issues with Mr Erhman. I. Don't. Care.
From my perspective he is just another apologist for religion, a little closer to my end of the spectrum, but still very much on the religion side of the fence. I am not a supporter. Nor, I would venture to say, is Erich.
However, from the perspective of Christianity, he is very much an insider. From that perspective alone, we find him interesting. As we find interesting the calumny heaped upon him for daring to state openly that the bible is a collection, a hodgepodge, a tangle of tales, and is as internally inconsistent as we should expect any such man-made (however inspired) collection of documents to be.
I'm still waiting for the revelatory evidence that will challenge my hard won understanding of the world.
Should I hold my breath?
It's apparent no one will view the website I gave, therefore you are doing what you are accusing me of doing (not being open minded). No wonder you can't keep anyone engaged on this website. You don't play by your own rules. You also have your own beliefs. Everyone believes in a god, yours just happens to be yourselves. I have heard quite enough of the same things over and over (talk about a broken record) and I have come to the conclusion that you are just as closed minded as you accuse others of being and your belief being that you are your own ultimate authority (God). Being on this website reminds me of a verse stated in Matthew 7:6 "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again rend you".
With all due respect to those people Samantha mentioned, a deathbed (or sickbed) conversion is like a confession gotten under torture.
Zahavi's research determined that throughout the animal kingdom costly signals are much more reliable than cheap signals. What does this say about deathbed conversions? That they are cheap and thus not reliable.
I've heard this odd "everyone believes in a god" argument from several Christians. They seem totally bewildered when I list current and traditionally popular religions that never had any personal god, and certainly not a main God. A significant fraction of people on this planet have not been raised and ingrained with a need to worship anyone.
Rationalists, Deists, agnostics, etc don't worship anyone. I feel comfortable claiming that they don't have a God-shaped hole in their lives. Therefore there is no need to fill that worship-hole by deifying themselves. No such hole exists in nature; it is a nurtured, taught trait.
Samantha
I looked at your site, and it was blah blah blah blah blah.
It was the christian apologetics equivalent of a hall of mirrors.
Some choice quotes
Wow! really! no! say it ain't so!
Actually, Yawn. old stuff, not new, move along… nothing to see here.
What? Wait! Surely not! You say the book is good (at least through chapter 4)? Gosh!
This quote is the preface to a dismissive attack on Ehrman's background. Reading it as a non-Christian it comes across as a "No True Scotsman" attack…
Having positioned Ehrman as a deviant biblical scholar (how dare he be so), we then move on to theological matters…
Sorry, what? The fact there we don't have source documents means you can't talk about the bible being inerrant? Isn't that a core belief, a primary assumption?
And then the variants – of course. There are many variants – and depending who you talk to, you get support for differing interpretations (that interpretation is not meaningful… this interpretation is meaningful)
The set up here is that Ehrman makes the wrong interpretations. According to what authority is not stated. Merely saying he is wrong is sufficient (and Ehrman has already been painted as some kind of strange no-longer-evangelical apostate)
The following section drones on in appalling minutiae about seven particular passages, beginning with
OK – so the first three of seven are 'fine'. INdeed, Erhman is to be thanked. So far, all we have is "this guy is bad, but I have no evidence of that"
What could be next???
This is a very scholarly attack on Ehrman's interpretation. It dismisses Ehrman's perspective that
Seems fine to me, but then I'm not a biblical scholar. But it also does not suggest hellfire & damnation – merely a disagreement in textual analysis.
A further disagreement is present in the interpretation in Mark 1.41, about whether Jesus is angry or not. It hinges not on the interpretation of the verse as 'with compassion' or 'with anger', but on whether this changes the comprehension of Jesus from this Gospel.
Actually, I'd disagree. If part of Mark suggests compassion, then Jesus is not the all-fired angry guy – just 'mostly' and 'with reason'. If none of Mark depicts compassion, but only depicts anger, that is a very different picture – of a Jesus who is all-fired-up and easily and always riled. Not exactly the all loving god, but that's another book, right?
The next segment is basically a riff on Matthew, and the inclusion or absence of the phrase "or the Son". totally all about the scholar. 'nuff said.
The next is a riff in greek grammar, where the reviewer accepts Ehrman's grammatical conclusions, but indicates that other usage exists in other documents. As far as I can see, this is both deep and meaningless.
If a greek writer and a greek reader would not use such a construction, then the greek is either wrong (in all of the places so used – copied erroneously by a scribe, or whatever) or the phrase has the meaning & sense it 'must' have according to greek grammar.
The majority of this section is concerned with discussions about the whichness of the was (or somesuch). the conclusion of the reviewer is that Ehrman overstates (or does not make) his case.
The final section
Ah! the trinity. That bugbear of Newton, and scandal of all true scholars. Where in the NT can mention be found of the actual trinitarian godhead? Nowhere (other than this verse) which is/was a very late addition. regardless oif anyones perspective – this is still a challenge for most non scholars (to whom this book is addressed) so of course this would be mentioned.
The conclusion of the review simply paints Ehrman as a lost Christian – the reviewer is saddened
To which I reply – and?
This review appears to me to be little different from other documents of biblical scholarship, especially those focused on textual analysis. I see nothing earth-shattering, and nothing other than a personal bias against a friend 'lost to agnosticism', thus enabling the dismissal of any conclusions made – it is easy in any scholarly row to paint to other fellow as being blinded by bias, and point to selected passages and phrases to support that thesis. It is core to debate, and core to scholarship.
this is simply more of the same.
So, Samantha – Can you perhaps provide any citations or analysis, beyond the single fact that you find a single mundane scholarly dispute so enlightening.
Tony, Thanks for taking to the time to read it. After all, I do believe it was you that said in a past post that you like to read anything you can get your hands on. But you meant anything that appeals to your core beliefs, right? I hope others read it (not just Tony's interpretation) Sadly enough, I have been on this website long enough to know that people will pick a certain word or sentence and focus an entire comment on just that. In this case, I will be presumption and say the word will be inerrant. No Tony and others, Christians refer to the Bible as being the Inspired Word of God. One prior poster said, Since it is Jesus we are talking about, why don't you just ask him? That takes humility, which I don't get from any of the posters here. With that said, we will just have to wait and see what happens.
Samantha
lets try this again, and this time don't make assumptions about my intent.
I said I will read pretty much anything. I meant that. I actually prefer to be challenged. I prefer to learn things that cause me to reflect and question previously held positions (I hesitate to use the loaded term 'beliefs' since that will only confuse you – our semantics are incongruent with regard to that word)
My beef with almost all apologetics is that they are just. so. dull!
The debates about how many angels can dance on a pin are just tiresome. Arguing over the meaning of meaning is all so PoMo it hurts.
You might notice that the review you were so excited about, was on the site I pointed you to (bible.org). The same one I told that I use to assist me in my understanding of christian apologetics.
You again demonstrate that your arguments are merely superficial posturing.
You dismiss my response to you regarding the devastating review as just Tony's interpretation. Unlike you, I do not expect others to be in lockstep with my interpretation – certainly not in detail.
However I think I understand that the position of most religionists versus agnostics and atheists will result in interpretations that are diametrically opposed, simply because our baseline assumptions about what evidence means is so different. (Discussed earlier in this thread, regarding personal 'witness' versus externally verifiable data)
You see a stirring defense of your holy book against an apostate, Ehrman.
I see another piece of PoMo scholarship that bases its entire foundation upon two things – a suite of documents of often dubious provenance (your tame scholar admits as much in his attack on Ehrman), and an unwavering belief in Christ (part of his closing).
It's the latter that makes apologetics so annoying. It's the last defense of the religious. That I (an atheist) can never understand, because I'm not saved by Jesus. To me that simply means I have not been brainwashed into your cult.
I can only argue honestly using observable and repeatable evidence. Or so the imp on my shoulder tells me. What? You don't believe I have an imp on my shoulder? Why ever not? Do you find that just a little unbelievable? You want me to provide proof of my imp? Proof that you can independently verify?
As Brynn stated earlier
If I could find this "Jesus" you mention, I'd ask him. But since there is simply life, then death, and no such thing as an afterlife (despite your desire for it to be so), even if Jesus were a historically real person, he would not be available to ask.
I could use my understanding of people, read all that has been said about this "Jesus" to try to build a model in my mind of what he would say or do (wasn't that a Christian vogue a while back?). Unfortunately, that would still result in a model that is warped by my biases. Mine says – yep – seems like a pretty cool dude, still stuck in his time, but equal parts anger at the status quo, and some wild-eyed ideas for improvement of the situation. Kinda like Che Guevara, or Trotsky. Your's says 'divine being, Son of God, does no wrong, always good, died for our sins, la la la bloody la'
I have lots of humility. Enough humility to recognize that I argue for myself, and not for others. That I speak for myself, and not for others. That I do not claim any 'special knowledge' or 'special relationships'. That I accept other people for who they are – as expressed by their acts and their actual words.
You fail to argue: you chastise and harrangue.
You fail to respond: you divert and change topics
You fail to engage: you promise openness, but never actually deliver on that promise
You fail to participate: simply posting essentially the same comment multiple times is not participation, it's proselytization
A conversation is not just an opportunity to proselytize. Unfortunately, that's how you seem to approach it.
As McCoy might say It's language Jim, but not as we know it
Lastly:
Really? No desire to explore, to investigate, to work through issues and differences? To seek ways to better communicate your message to those of us here, and make no attempt to really understand why we say what we say?
I'm disappointed, but not surprised.
Samantha,
I appreciate that you recognize the distinction between "inerrant" and "inspired." You do understand, then, that there are so-called christians who prefer the former and defend the Word as necessarily being absolutely correct and inviolable? Just as Mr. Ehrman's work is not very earth-shaking to you, it is profoundly threatening to them.
That said, you write:—"Since it is Jesus we are talking about, why don’t you just ask him? That takes humility, which I don’t get from any of the posters here."
Humility wears different coats, and from the outside has different appearances. It takes a certain humility to assume discourse with someone of a wholly different world view is worthwhile. To attribute honest motives and a presumption of equal intelligence on the part of someone who disagrees with you requires humility. Given that, I think you've encounter considerable humility here. Speaking for myself, just because I may know something you don't know or have come a conclusion about something you have not does not mean I am in any way superior. My default self-image is that I'm just like you, I've just read different books (maybe) and see things differently. Where's the arrogance in that?
Conversely, a rejection of an argument I've heard before, considered, and found wonting is not a rejection of the person making it. Nor is it grounds for you to assume an arrogance on my part because you seem not to be making headway convincing me of your position. Assuming it is arrogance that deafens us to your arguments is a bit of arrogance on your part–that the only thing that can keep your view out is a presumptive lack of humility on our part.
As for asking Jesus, well…
I did. If you wish to take No Answer for an answer, then the answer was "You'll have to figure that out for yourself."
Of course, no answer could just be that—no answer.
I have my opinions about that, but maybe they would be better in another thread or even another venue.
I'll leave it at this: there are those who think we may be rid of religion some day. I am not one of those. What I believe is this: "god" is an emergent property of human interaction. That's why no matter where you go, where you look, or when you look, you find people have a concept of a deity (or deities). They don't know what it is they sense, so they give it a name and worship it. I believe people carry it around with them and under communal circumstances it manifests as a concept of the divine.
It is not external. It is part of us.
It's therefore entirely up to us what we do with it.
Mark:
I like the way you phrased this. I'm wondering how one would go about testing it, though.
Lately, I've been working on a hunch that the reason people believe in personified gods is continuous with the same complex underlying process for why they believe in all ilk of things they cannot really prove (and, in some cases, things that have been clearly disproved). For instance, even many non-religious folks believe in things like the Self, or that there is freedom of choice that is in some significant way unhinged from our physical selves, or that life is meaningful. [Here's another one touted by Karl: even though uniformity of basic and elegant physical laws seems 99.9999% established, there must always be at least a tiny crack in the fortress to allow God to step in and intervene]. These things have many of the same problems as beliefs in gods. They are quite vague, for instance. To the extent that they are phrased in testable manner, the evidence tends to threaten rather than help. And like religion, when someone denies these things strongly, many of us feel threatened and, perhaps, angry. Another connection between these things and beliefs in gods is that they are intensely social beliefs; we bond over these things–these things are repeatedly assumed in folk psychology. They are also palliative. Many people have expressed that they would go "insane" if these things weren't true. I have written more about these things that people believe that they can't prove here.
One difference between these things and religions, is that they don't tend to be embellished. They don't need to be drilled into children, and adults, repeatedly. But perhaps if we back up and exclude bureaucratic religion, we can see a similarity. Those who are spiritual-but-not-religious don't seem to work very hard at all to believe that there is a benevolent god who watches over us, but who doesn't rely on any particular holy text to "substantiate" that belief.
But back to your point. This emergence hypothesis reminds me of one approach to the "hard problem" of consciousness: that it emerges from the underlying neural activity. You can't put a finger on it, at least not so far.
Re: god as an emergent property of human interaction
I think a lot of 'god' sense arises from our intrinsic empathy and our ability to model other humans and, indeed, other creatures.
Early gods were, on the whole, humans and animals writ large (or small!). They capriciously controlled things that were outside our control (such as weather), and through confirmation bias (another innate 'trait') we conflate success in the hunt, and success in the field, and success in the tribe, with the actions that brought you there – regardless of their actual relevance (see almost any behavioral/cognitive research from the last 50 years for numerous examples). We also conflate failure with their precursor actions – hence the remaining popularity of 'knocking on wood', of 'tossing spilled salt over your
shoulder', 'rubbing a rabbit's foot for luck', and other quaint folk-wisdoms.
The result in most cases is ritual behavior and animism (seen in almost all 'primitive' religions). More sophisticated peoples simply evolve more sophisticated gods, while retaining many of the 'lower gods' characteristics – they merely get subsumed.
Our brains seek to fill the 'something must have caused X' hole in our psyche with an X. That X is/was god, and is simply an emergent property of human intellect, emotion, and empathy.
But as with a shadow-puppet show, as we learn more, as we peer behind the curtain, we discover that the actions we presumed to be real are merely shadows cast by the real 'actors' – and reality is surely more grand, more mysterious, more glorious, and more wondrous than any petty little god crafted out of human foibles and wishful thinking.
This is from Samantha's reference concerning Bart.
"Ehrman overplays the quality of the variants while underscoring their quantity. He says, “There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”13 Elsewhere he states that the number of variants is as high as 400,000.14 That is true enough, but by itself is misleading. Anyone who teaches NT textual criticism knows that this fact is only part of the picture and that, if left dangling in front of the reader without explanation, is a distorted view. Once it is revealed that the great majority of these variants are inconsequential—involving spelling differences that cannot even be translated, articles with proper nouns, word order changes, and the like—and that only a very small minority of the variants alter the meaning of the text, the whole picture begins to come into focus. Indeed, only about 1% of the textual variants are both meaningful and viable.15 The impression Ehrman sometimes gives throughout the book—and repeats in interviews16—is that of wholesale uncertainty about the original wording,17 a view that is far more radical than he actually embraces.18"
Why then is a 1% variation in Neutrino Flux of no significant consequence but a 1% viable meaningful number of textual variants something to haggle about?
Karl: Are you trying to mislead, or are you quoting from Samantha's site out of ignorance? In the video I posted Ehrman clearly explains "Most of these differences are “completely insignificant . . . mistakes.” I clearly posted that sentence as well. He spends a significant portion of his talk describing the inconsequential nature of many of these variants, but then also indicates that many of the changes are consequential to anyone who really wants to know "the bible." He made the same clarification in Misquoting Jesus, which I read from cover to cover. He says the same thing on page 184 of his newest book, Jesus, Interrupted: He states that there are hundreds of thousands of mistakes 'among our surviving copies" (note that he is talking about variants among the multitude of surviving manuscripts and fragments). Immediately thereafter, he states the following: "The vast majority of these mistakes are completely insignificant, showing us nothing more than that scribes in antiquity could spell no better than most people can today."
So here's a difference. I bothered to actually read the original sources from which I write and actually watch his video. You have chosen to read a rickety second-hand source, and happily went about unfairly smear a well-reputed author, instead of investing a little time in order to get your story correct.
You have well-earned your reputation as a Gish Gallop: "The Gish Gallop is an informal name for a rhetorical technique in debates that involves drowning the opponent in half-truths, lies, straw men, and bullshit to such a degree that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised, usually resulting in many involuntary twitches in frustration as the opponent struggles to decide where to start."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Gish…
How does that make you feel, to be a man who so often needs to be corrected factually? My evidence is at least every other comment that you've written at this site, and you have probably written three hundred comments.
Karl is conflating a meaningful measurable physical metric (decay rate) with an error rate (variants in a set of document copies). You might equate the error rate in the measuring of the decay… that will at least be equating like with like (I'd expect the gross error to be orders of magnitude smaller than 1%, since they would not state a result without 'confidence' (math term, not english term) in the result – i.e. clear and unambiguous measurements within a narrow error band. )
Anyone with an inkling of statistical knowledge will know these are not things you can equate, unless you can somehow define an identity function that pairs apples with elephants.
And yes, Erich, he is quoting from the 'review' – which is astonishingly dismissive towards Erhman – typical behavior in such 'scholarly' disagreements. You might want to read my post regarding the review – I made some comments about that (I think).
Erich,
Rickety? I can assure you Daniel B. Wallace is no rickety second hand. He is a well known Bible scholar and critic and has written text books in Greeek. I watched Bart's video, I said it was good. But, he is very misleading. If you went onto the site I gave, you might actually learn something. For instance, there are 16 different ways to say Jesus love John in Greek. Let me put this in perspective for you. We have 30,000 manuscripts in all different language, 138,000 words in each manuscript and over 1 million quotes from the early church father. Only 400,000 inconsistency, of which 1% are both meaningful and viable. The fact is that those 1% variants, DO NOT change the deity of Christ one iota. If you would read the article for yourself (not Tony's version). Tony admits that he knows little (just a dabbler) about the Bible . You might learn something. Remember your words "keep an open mind
You know, guys, to be fair, Karl said he was quoting Samantha's review. He ought to have gone back and read the article and watched the video, but he did say what he was quoting, so I, for one, found nothing misleading in what he wrote. (Sloppy scholarship, maybe.)
Comparing an error rate (in my simplistic way of describing this) of a human-made artifact with an error rate found in nature through observation is a typical debating trick and takes detailed explication to untangle.
Years ago I had an argument with someone denouncing evolution by claiming that a reduction of phenotype to just DNA code with an expectation of recovering the individual was ridiculous, because in such a reduction information is always lost. As an example he compared it to reducing a book to its component material parts and then trying to constitute it. "Information is lost, because even if you can recover the pages, the binding, and the ink, the words are gone."
It took a bit to figure out the error—"You're confusing sources. The material from which the book is made can be recovered because it all comes from one suite of sources—wood, carbon, cotton, etc—but the words are imposed upon it from a completely different source—the writer. Same with an individual. You can recover a physical body from DNA, but the individual is the result of a different process—living a life."
Conflating primary sources and making comparisons between them as if there is no difference is a common mistake.
I've been checking out Bart for several years now and I chose a single quote to present the most balanced review of how I consider him.
The final analysis lies here – What kind of changes can 1% do to the overall message of the New Testament?
By the manner and style of Bart's writing it is clear to him that he believes the message has been distorted to the extent that he no longer has confidence in its ongoing "holy" or divine inspiration. Man has corrupted it beyond recovery, so he wants others to know what he believes they should realize so they can make informed decisions for themselves.
It is obvious that Bart Erhman writes to provide fuel for his higher criticism thesis and thus spur discussion so people will buy his book.
Bart is a pragmatist before anything else. He looked for the only way he could make money off of his education and he found it.
He could have easily written his research findings for the scholarly consideration of others but that would have greatly limited the money he could make by his mass appeal to all manner of people who would be glad to see the New Testament turned into a book with only limited literatary significance.
Worked for him!
Karl
Your latest comment is a much more nuanced representation of your opinion regarding Bart Ehrman. Thank you for taking the time to share it.
Our baseline assumptions disagree here, so our conclusions differ, somewhat, too.
For what it's worth – I agree with your take on Mr Ehrman – that he has taken his skills and leveraged them for his personal gain (that's the American Way, isn't it?).
I wonder what an unbiased observer would make of all this hoorah about an anthology of stories?
Erich writes or cuts and pastes concerning an apparent contradiction concerning the death of Jesus as illustrated by Bart.
"For instance, in Mark, we learn that Pontius Pilate found Jesus guilty and condemned him to death by crucifixion. Mark also tells us that Jesus was crucified that same day at nine o’clock in the morning of the day of Passover. Now compare this to the Gospel according to John (written 25 years after Mark’s gospel), which indicates that Jesus died a day earlier, on the day of preparation for the Passover, and that Jesus died in the afternoon.
Both of these things cannot be true. This is merely one of hundreds of contradictions easily available to anyone who wants to read the Gospels “horizontally” (comparing what each gospel “author” had to say about particular topics. – End quote
This is really not confusing if you understand both language and culture.
Jesus was PLACED on the cross in the morning and since crucifixion is not a pleasant way to die he had at least three hours of suffering on the cross before he DIED in the afternoon.
The confusion over the actual day of Passover and the Day of Preparation is seldom set straight. This was a cultural matter for the Jews. Many link the terms Day of Preparation with an assumed day of preparation for the Passover. This was not the case. People could prepare and eat the passover on the same day. In fact, the first Passover was prepared and eaten that same day/evening. It is only when Passover is on Saturday that one might consider Friday to also be a Day of Preparation for the Passover.
Passover was Friday and the Day of Preparation was for Saturday's Sabbaoth day.
Every so many years passover (the mid point of that month)falls on Friday which is both a Passover and a Day of Preparation for the Sabbaoth, the Hebrew Sabbaoth being on Saturday.
So Mark is correct to say Jesus died on the exact day of Passover – Friday.
John by implication is mis-interpreted as saying that Jesus died on a day that was the preparation for the Passover when in actuality it was both the Passover the Day of Preparation where they had to get all of their work done because they couldn't work after sundown on Friday. There was no custom about working on the actual day of a Passover. People could prepare and eat the Passover on the same day, unless Passover fell on Saturday any year.
They didn't need to get Jesus into a grave by Sundown because it was a Passover, they needed to do so because the Sabbaoth was going to begin and all of their preparations and labors had to be finished by sundown.
Bart sensationalizes a very simple matter to reconcile and because people fawn all over him for "debunking" the Bible he gets declared an authority and people hang on his every declaration.
Samantha and Karl: I would propose a compromise. I’ll stop pushing Ehrman’s work with vigor (at least for the time being) if both of you will simply give your assent to the following:
Modern English translations of the New Testament A) contain at least dozens ambiguities and contradictions, and thus is not inerrant B) contain at least some material not written by the original authors, that this material was added by scribes, and that this added material includes the story from the book of John containing the lesson: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," C) contain only books selected by politically motivated human beings who excluded other books that could have been included D) contain Gospels that were written by unknown persons who were not eye-witnesses to anything that they wrote about, E) contain assertions that Jesus was going to return to earth many centuries ago, and that this has not happened, F) Do not refer to the “Trinity” or to any notion that there is “three persons in one God”, and G) in order to be understood, should be studied using the historical-critical approach promoted by Ehrman, yet most Christians are completely satisfied with merely cherry-picking their favorite snippets, rather than using any sort of “horizontal” analysis.
Just reply to this comment with "I agree" and we'll move on to other topics.
How in hell did this get from "Samantha, please provide citations" to "Erich, defend your critique"?
Samantha, you are in danger of toppling Karl from his place atop the "most oblivious poster" rankings. Please see the comments regarding the "Gish Gallop" – it applies to you, too.
You do everything except answer the questions put to you. Yet demand answers and critique and effort from us?
Sounds to me like you borrow your technique from a "Fair & Balanced" TV channel.
As much as I hate to admit it, the New Testament has some translational and semantic flaws.
i.e., In Colossians 2:13
"…having canceled the written code, with it's regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took "it" away, nailing "it" to the cross."
Sounds familiar (Clinton), "what is "it"?
Most Sunday keeping Christians do not understand the Hebrew context in which they read the New Testament, which is pretty clear on how a person should live.
Answer: the "it" is not the laws given to Moses for us to keep and follow,(Not talking the Levitical regulations), it is the man made traditions and cultures that Christ was nailed for. Christ never ever told His followers to start eating pork, do work on the Sabbath, to commit adultry, idol worship and so forth…
The Pharisees and Saducees made fences around the laws, so that it was impossible to break any of them. It made a heavy yoke upon the people, whom, could not read Hebrew, and had to "listen" (Shema) to the word and did not know better. Yeshua(Jesus) came to tip tables over and break those fences. Christ was the living fulfillment of the Torah. Thank the Jews for painstakingly keeping the Torah!!!! We would have no Bible today if it was not for the Act of God and His people, the Israelites, job to teach the Gentile world how to live. They have failed, but not the seed thru Judah.
Without Torah, The Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs there is no New Testament.
We are forgiven, because of His Grace and Mercy. Mercy, meaning you do not deserve it based on your merit or status.
Yes, there are errors, but the main focus of creation, man's redemption, love and forgiveness is there…there are no excuses to those who bash the bible. I think a Hebraic focus will help people to go back and find the meanings in Torah, because The Christ followed the Torah all of His life, even to death.
Can Erich state that Karl has a answer that Erich will have to consider?
I'll give assent that this list is what Erich currently writes and believes. Not Karl, and probably not Samantha – can't speak for her.
Can Erich agree to only one statement – one about ambiguities.
There are ambiguities concerning the New Testament because it is clear people tend to read, interpret and translate meanings from the words of others for their own ends. The main end usually being a desire to eliminate those ideas and matters they don't agree with.
I do not doubt that there may be a few zingers of some sloppy scribe or that even a few decisions issued concerning some specific doctrine pushed by an enthusistic council may have found its way into the Textus Receptus.
Barts area of scholarship is suppose to be higher criticism that deals with the Textus Receptus but because that won't sell books he has chosen lower criticism to create hype and amibiguitiy.
Bart is probably a better creater of ambiguities than an actual scholar of anything besides how to make a fast buck by appealing to the desire for others to agree with these ambiguities and thus appeal to their worldview.
I'll take this as a "no deal" from Karl.
Karl asks:
How about the only clause in the entire Bible that is translated as "Jesus is God" that turns out to be simple misreading of bleed-through on the original "Jesus is of God". Tiny fraction of a percent of the document, but the entire basis of them eventually declaring (not till the 4th Century Council of Nicaea) that this prophet of God was actually God himself.
Might the tiny difference between "Jesus is God" and "Jesus speaks for God" make some slight difference in most of the thousands of Christian denominations?
Karl,
I found your comments also, with error,
In Luke 23:4, Pilate found no basis for a charge against Yeshua (Jesus).
Secondly,
In rabbinical thinking, the hour is calulated bt taking the total time of daylight in to 12 equal parts. This is called sha' ah zemanit, or a "proportional hour".
Since the duration of daylight varies according to seasons of the year, a proportionate hour will therefore vary by season. The "sixth hour of the day" does not mean 6am or even six 60 minute hours after sunrise,(A day begins at sundown , not sunrise)but is the 6th proportionate hour of the 12 that are counted for the day in question.
For example, if the sun rises at 4:30am and sets at 7:30pm, the total time of daylight is 15 hours. 15 hours times* 60 minutes is/= to 900, which divided by 12 yields a proportional hour of 75 minutes. The "sixth hour of the day" therfore begins 450 minutes after sunrise, or about 11:30 in the morn.
The calculation of these zemanim ("times") are important for the observance of Jewish/Hebraic holidays and Sabbath candle lighting hours. The results will vary depending on the length of the daylight hours in the particular local.
In my humble opinion, I believe He died on a Wednesday, and rose on the Sabbath(saturday night)and not the 1st day of the week, Sunday. This is the major problem with the rise of the Paganistic traditions of Christianity. Don't mean to bash Christian Sunday(SunGod)Keepers, but they do not understand why they chose Sunday as the risen day…not so.
God created everything, including mankind, in 6 days and rested on the seventh…same with the Messianic Kingdom, the seveth Millenium. God is precise and orderly.
Tony, There was no going forward until it was understood that the variants in the Bible which make up 1% doesn't do squat to basic Bible doctrine. I gave you the numbers. You can check it for yourself. Now how do you defend your notion that the "scribes lied and people died" concept?