Currently reading "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman.

[Richardo]

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=dR8SNPJBY4&isbn=0060738170&itm=1

Very good so far. Dr. Ehrman grew up a fundamentalist with a literal view of the Bible, but changed his view when he realized that there is no way we can be sure that what the KJV of the bible says is what was actually written down 2000 years ago.

This book points out the theological agendas that some scribes had, and describes the techniques of 'textual criticism' that demonstrate how one can get to the original text of the bible (or as close to the original as possible) when the source material is missing.

From a very young age, I always questioned how it could be that the bible could be written down and hand-copied with any accuracy whatsoever for 1500 years before the invention of the printing press. The answer: It wasn't.

A good (not great) and readable book for those interested in these questions. :thumbsup:

[msongs]

1. does it presume there actually was such a person?

any and every monk or other scholar who wrote out a bible transcription could and probably did change a few words here and there
to conform with his own views. Of course the catholic church would never do such a thing :-)

Msongs
www.msongs.com/chinamart.htm

[Richardo]

3. Yes. It presumes there was a Jesus.

I'm finding it a remarkably even-handed and non-hysterical treatment. I'm sure some fundies would disagree. ;-)

[Dr.Phool]

2. Interesting post from a Christian on another blog

Here's an interestin post I found on another blog this morning.

http://hughesforamerica.typepad.com/hughes_for_america/2005/12/a_nut_is_a_nut_.html

(snip)

I consider myself a charismatic fundamentalist Christian, but I actually read and study the Bible, in the original languages as well as English. I frankly don't trust my interpretations of King James English, because even though it seems to be my language, ... it isn't. Shakespeare wrote in the same language, and I have real trouble with Shakespeare, though it's OK to have such trouble with Shakespeare - it's not OK to have it with the Bible.

Jesus Christ was a socialist, in modern terminology, and the early church was communist. This should not be a point of controversy, it's so clear from the New Testament. I have called myself a socialist since a few years after I became a Christian - it was clear to me. Consider Acts 2:42-45, where the word "koinonia" is used in the original language - I believe "communism" is an accurate translation, and the context of its use (it's usually "fellowship" in verse 42) proves that it's accurate. There's also a word for "capitalism," used in 1 Timothy 6:10 - _philarguria_ is that one word, and "the love of money" is weaker than we might now imagine (it would be _patharguria_ if it was to mean what many want it to mean).

The Bible is clear on when human life begins, and it's not at conception - it's at first breath. And Jesus did speak more or less directly on the subject, if one understands his original words in context (John 3 particularly, notably John 3:8). The NT is full of contrasts between flesh and spirit, and this subject is one of those contrasts. The OT is just as direct: Genesis 2:7 and Ezekiel 37 are good examples.

(snip)

Interesting reading, and insightful.

[Strathos]

4. That's very interesting

I've said the same thing for years, that there's no way something that man has touched hasn't been corrupted or at the very least contaminated. The Bible had so many hands on it it's almost impossible to believe anything it says, except for the parts about loving your fellow human and treating them as you would yourself.

[CrispyQ]

8. So true!!

And aren't there some books that were excluded? IIRC, someone told me that Thomas wrote a book & it is not included. ????? Are there others?


Remember that old game 'gossip?' You would whisper something into someone's ear, they would whisper it into the next person's ear & so on until at the end of the line what the last person heard was nothing close to what the original statement was. Considering the number of years, the number of languages, the number of people involved in translations, etc, it can't be that different with the written word.

[Strathos]

9. Yes, there were many books left out of the Bible

Which is another question I've always been curious about. If the Bible were truly "the word of God" why did it need editing?

[FirenzeC]

11. Book By Thomas

CrispyQGirl,

Yes, there is a Gospel of Thomas -- read Ehrman's prior books: _Lost Christianities_ and _Lost Scriptures_ (they go together.) (You may also like Elaine Pagels' _The Gnostic Gospels_ and if you'd like to read more of what didn't make it into the Bible, try _The Complete Gospels_.)

This was an excellent, readable book on a difficult subject. Ehrman was taught by Bruce Metzger, who is one of the best in the field. (He's also written books ;)

Yours,
FirenzeC

[papau]

5. Interesting book - it is indeed amazing that the dead sea discovery proved

that the thousands of years of copying had very few changes inserted - but there were indeed some changes!

As noted in one of the reviews "He sketches the development of New Testament literature, the gradual accumulation of errors therein through the accidental or intentional revisions of copyists, and attempts (beginning with Erasmus in the 16th century) to reconstruct the original text. Since mainstream study editions of the Bible have long drawn attention to the existence of alternate readings, the reasonably well-informed reader will not find much revolutionary analysis here. But Ehrman convincingly argues that even some generally received passages are late additions, which is particularly interesting in the case of those verses with import for doctrinal issues such as women's ordination or the Atonement"

I like the book - Thanks for posting the review!

:-)

[FSogol]

6. Good book. Diane Rehm interviewed him on NPR recently

Here's the audio archive:

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/05/12/08.php

Scroll down its the second show on that day.

[Richardo]

7. As a matter of fact, the link to Rehm from B&N was what clued me in...

We don't get her on NPR down here, but now I can listen. Thanks! :thumbsup:

[AZBlue]

10. That was an interesting interview and I'm anxious to read the book because

of it. I was particularly intrigued by the fact that he left evangelicalism because of what he found out by translating the Bible from its original Greek manuscripts himself. He saw firsthand just how wrong the current "interpretations" are. He even learned Greek and undertook the translation at their urging! Really shows how misguided they are.