Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Misquoting Jesus 16

Journal by pudge

The author of Misquoting Jesus was on The Colbert Report, and it was mostly misleading.

He several times trotted out the notion that there are "hundreds of thousands" of differences in our copies of the New Testament. There are, indeed, somewhere around 200,000 differences, but that it is out of 24,000 copies, and -- for example -- when the same misspelling shows up in 2,000 of those copies, that is counted as 2,000 differences.

They add up quickly that way, and the number itself is not interesting in this context, as it has little-if-any bearing on the trustworthiness of the New Testament. Overwhelmingly, most of the differences are easily accounted for as transcription errors, and none of the remaining differences have any theological significance.

As to the "hundreds of years" between original writing and copies, we have a few copies within a hundred years, and many within 200 years. Our earliest complete copies are within 300 years. This might seem like a long time, but in textual criticism it is not, especially when you realize that most, if not all, of the originals existed at the time these copies did, and any glaring errors would have been easily exposed; further, the wide spread of the copies and high degree of unanimity between those disparate copies is further testament to their trustworthiness (indeed, even if we had none of the several thousand Greek manuscripts at all, we could come up with a nearly perfect reproduction of the oldest texts merely by piecing them together from private correspondence and the thousands of manuscripts available in other languages).

He also brought up the story of the woman to be stoned, and Jesus' words that "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." He said this is not in our earliest copies of John, and probably therefore was not in the original copies.

He is correct in this, as every modern translation will attest in the footnotes, but his implication that this has significance for the trustworthiness of the rest of the New Testament is not accurate, as he otherwise implies by giving a nod to the earlier manuscripts (surely, Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) that do not include that part of the text. That is: if the story is not to be trusted because it was not in these earlier texts, then how does that impugn these earlier texts, which are primarily what our current copies of the Bible are based on, including the Greek New Testament that most scholars use?

So fine, throw that story out. Now tell me why I should throw out Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus.

Oh, cat got your tongue?

NAILED.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Misquoting Jesus More

Misquoting Jesus

Comments Filter:
  • Don't remember anywhere where I saw it, but it was recently. Jesus intervenes in a stoning and says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." A few seconds later someone throws a stone, narrowly missing Jesus. He calls out: "MOM! I told you stay home!"

    I hope God has a sense of humor, otherwise I'm going to hell...
  • I just started reading this book. (I'm assuming this is it: MisQuoting Jesus by Ehrman [amazon.com].

    I hope the ReplayTV recorded the show :)

    But I'm curious, you state:

    Overwhelmingly, most of the differences are easily accounted for as transcription errors, and none of the remaining differences have any theological significance.

    I'm wondering exactly how you can make such a statement. The author, in the first bit of the book, explained some of his background with having learned a vast array of "ancient" languages to be ab

    • I'm wondering exactly how you can make such a statement. The author, in the first bit of the book, explained some of his background with having learned a vast array of "ancient" languages to be able to read the actual transcripts. What gives you this ability to determine that the differences were mostly transcription errors?

      First, I can read Koine Greek, the original language of the New Testament. Not extremely well, but enough that I can evaluate many claims presented to me, and so on, about the original

    • One of the most common differences between manuscripts is saying "Christ Jesus" in places where other manuscripts say "Jesus Christ." And nearly all of the differences are on this order of significance. In other words: most of them just aren't a big deal, don't matter theologically, and are easily accounted for when you just think through the process of a person tediously copying a long work by hand.

      There are a few more significant additions (or possible additions) in later manuscripts, including at lea

    • I'd find it difficult to believe the author will say "none of the remaining differences have any theological significance"

      If any of them do, it should be easy for someone to produce a counterclaim. :)

      • Yes, although as noted, there could be a difference of opinion on what constitutes theological significance. However, still -- again, not having read the book -- it appears to me that the author is attempting to use the weight of large numbers (hundreds of thousands!) to call the whole thing into question, rather than coming up with an actual example of a serious dilemma.

        • Yes, although as noted, there could be a difference of opinion on what constitutes theological significance.

          True. The handfull of alleged counterclaims which could be produced (and I'm thinking less than five, and likely merely one) are easily addressed. The main point is that there's nothing in there that says, "Oh, by the way, all of this is made up, and Jesus never really existed."

  • Just how significant the differences are depends on your theology.

    There is a pretty substantial, and very loud, portion of professing Christians today who hold to doctrines such as inerrancy and divine inspiration and shepherding of the text. Logically, even very minor differences in early texts pretty much shoots that out of the water.

    Other theological frameworks won't necessarily be troubled so easily though. I just added you as a friend because of some exceptionally insightful comment you posted recently
    • There is a pretty substantial, and very loud, portion of professing Christians today who hold to doctrines such as inerrancy and divine inspiration and shepherding of the text. Logically, even very minor differences in early texts pretty much shoots that out of the water.

      The traditional doctrines of inerrancy and divine inspiration are not in the least bit damaged by these minor differences. For those who believe there are no errors in our current texts -- which is not what the traditional doctrine of iner

      • And no worry ... I don't take anything you said as remotely flamebaity ...

        I certainly hope not. I find religious discussions can be fascinating, but it's hard to find someone that can discuss it for long without getting emotional about disagreements.

        The traditional doctrines of inerrancy and divine inspiration are not in the least bit damaged by these minor differences. For those who believe there are no errors in our current texts -- which is not what the traditional doctrine of inerrancy claims -- yes

        • If you *do* believe the texts as originally written were inspired, but then in the thousands of years of copying and many translations and so on there was no divine control of the process, you're really not saying anything of use it seems to me.

          I agree, but no one is saying this. Again, saying there was divine control/influence in the process does not necessarily imply that the divine intended for the process to proceed without any changes or differences.

          It's fine to say 'the differences in the manuscripts

Slashdot Top Deals

The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much.

Close