Quote from jem:
I just read your link you may wish to read this powerful critique of the book.
Here is a sample.
And the idea that the very first scribes "changed" anything significant in the very earliest copies which we no longer have is also total speculation - Mr. Ehrman's views are unsupported by any tangible evidence and this is probably the weakest part of his book. In any case, we do have a fragment of the Gospel of John that has been dated to within 40 years of the original document and P46 (which has most of the NT) is dated rather early as well, so what else does he want? We see no meaningful changes among the thousands of manuscripts we have today that date back to these two second century sources, so why does Mr. Ehrman think there were significant changes in the very first copies no longer available from the first century? Using just common sense, why would there be significant changes in the first century copies, but none to be found in the second century and later copies??? On top of that, the first century is when many eyewitnesses would have still been alive to dispute and object to any drastic changes to the written record!!! Mr. Ehrman's conjecture here is neither logical nor reasonable - just pure speculation... it doesn't even pass the common sense test, let alone a scholarly and unbiased review. But, this is why people buy the book - they want to find a conspiracy or flaw in the Bible, regardless of how hack-eyed the theories are. Seriously, you need to read some books other than this one to get a balanced viewpoint.
---------------
By the way I have done plenty of research on this subject on my own.
My wife grew up in a Dutch born again protestant house, I grew up Catholic. As you know Luther took a few books out of the bible. Because her mom is a born again and her dad claims to be from a famous dutch family that has persecuted and been persecuted by Catholics ( he pretty much hates Catholics and has many of the other prejudices old line dutch people have. ) I have had to do a lot of research to determine if Protestant or Catholic claims are accurate.
I have done plenty of research as how the canon was created. I have also done plenty of research on why the jewish bible now differs from the Septuagint. (sp?).
I agree over the years specific groups interpretation of the bible has been disperate.
However, some groups have been very consistent in their views.
I think you may know who I mean.
i will counter with this:
of 13 people found the following review helpful:
Origins of the New Testament revealed, June 26, 2006
Reviewer: T. O. Whitehead (El Campo, Texas) - See all my reviews
This excellent book by Bart Ehrman details how early Christian documents evolved into the New Testament we know today. If you are committed to the idea that every word in the Bible is the unadulterated Word of God, you had best cover your eyes. Using a variety of evidence, the author makes it clear -- in a respectful way -- that the Bible is a very human production. Some parts are apparently close to original texts. Others are obvious add-ons that were written to serve a contemporary purpose. These add-ons do not mesh well with -- and in some cases violate -- the more authentic message. The author's analysis really helps those wishing to gain understanding of the true message contained in the New Testament. This is one of the best books I have ever read about the origins of the Bible. It is scholarly, concise, and true to the spirit of the written Word. A delight.
of 10 people found the following review helpful:
Eyeopening, and Credible, June 26, 2006
Reviewer: Pragmatist (Phoenix, AZ.) - See all my reviews
We don't have the original writings of the New Testament, but rather copies made years (mostly centuries) later, with both accidental and deliberate changes over the first almost 1,500 years. The copies differ from each other in innumerable (over 30,000, according to a 1707 source) places - mostly minor, but not all.
Variations between copies are not the only problem. The New Testament is largely made up of letters written by Paul and other early Christian leaders to Christian communities (eg. the Corinthians) and individuals. The letters that survive are only a fraction of those written. In addition, scholars have long suspected that some of the New Testament letters under Paul's name were written by his later followers. There were also Gospels written by disciple Philip, his brother Judas, and his female companion Mary Magdalene that have not been included; others have been lost. The Acts of the Apostles is in the New Testament, while the Acts of Paul, Acts of Peter, Acts of Thomas are not. Finally, teachings about how to structure and operate churches, apologies (logic to diffuse fear of Christianity by those running the empire) have also been left out.
How did we end up with four Gospels? Ehrman tells us it was an early decision based on the fact that just as we have four winds and four zones of the world, there should be four Gospels. Settling on the 27 books of the New Testament did not occur until 367 A.D., though the arguments continued well past then.
One of the problems with ancient Greek texts (includes the New Testament) is that when they were copied, no punctuation, distinction between upper- and lower-case letters, nor spaces between words were used. Spelling errors, and line skips by non-professional scribes were other problems. Another issue is that letter-writers in antiquity both dictated word for word, and (like today) set out general points, leaving the scribe to fill in the details.
The story of Jesus and the adulteress ("Let whomever is without sin be the first to cast a stone." - John) is one of the best known in the Bible - however, most experts agree it was added on later (doesn't fit the context of the rest of the Gospel).
Ehrman also tells us that deliberate changes in the text were made by scribes from different sects of Christianity (eg. those believing Jesus was adopted by God, vs. those believing he was literally his son).
Very eye-opening and credible; clearly doesn't support those holding for literal interpretations of the Bible.
Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)
1 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
Misquoteing Jesus, June 25, 2006
Reviewer: Frederick Martello "Fred Martello" (Mahwah, New Jersey) - See all my reviews
I have waited 20 years to hear this. How can one be a "People of the book, when they have very little knowledge of what Bible translattion, they are studyng. After all.... the first "New Testament" was not written down for 160 years! They they thought he was coming any day now too, no need to write... it's the end time!
