P
ProVobis
Guest
Lot of faith required in the modern translations as well IMO.
- Status
D
DelsonJacobs
Guest
It depends on what your friend means when they speak of “changes.” Some believe the books of the Bible have always been in a finalized form and that this is necessary since they base their doctrine and religion only on what is written. If anything has changed then this puts their Sola Scriptura-based doctrine in jeopardy. Others use the “changes” argument to claim the Bible is not dependable.
In simple terms, once the Bible was canonized by either the Jews or the Church, the texts have basically remained intact. There have been a few mistakes like missing words, a few stray sentences here and there, which the Dead Sea Scrolls have allowed us to fill in, but generally speaking what we have today is basically what the books were once they were accepted as either holy or canonized.
But the process between original authorship and canonization involved some editing and interpolation. Some of the works of the Old Testament have actually expanded from their first versions to include the official interpretation into the main text over the passage of time (this is known as “Mishnah”).
A comparison of the Dead Sea Isaiah scroll with today’s Masoretic texts show that several sections are a bit longer now than they were when the Dead Sea Scrolls were written. The information is the same in both but the Masoretic text appears to have explanatory information included within the now accepted text. How did this happen?
“Mishnah” became included over time. This could have been because people began always reading the text adding the explanation as they went along. Eventually this “Mishnah” became held as so sacred that it was never left out when the text was publicly read. So as the years passed this “addition” material became incorporated into the other. It was sort of like putting the “footnote” information into the actual text, but this was rare and never changed the sense original. The Isaiah version with the added redaction is what was accepted and declared inspired by both Jews and Catholics.
Other parts of the Bible, like Genesis chapter 1, were possibly written and added to other books after the return from Babylon. At the time this new material was added the books had a holy status, but the canon was not settled or closed. Of course these “additions” would have happened centuries before the Second Temple was built, so we are talking about thousands and thousands of years ago–and sometimes we are talking about this process in theory. Still, regardless of what happened, both Jews and the Church accept that everything that happened in this “editorial” process was part of the inspiration process as well, and it is the end result that makes up the full written revelation.
A book is inspired of God regardless of the processes involved or holy many authors and editors worked on it. Many of the epistles of St. Paul were written by the apostle and a scribe, for example, and Tradition holds that St. Peter’s recollection of the Gospel was written by Mark (and we even call the Gospel book by that name, “Mark.”) In this last case the original source is St. Peter, but the fact that Mark set Peter’s material into the final written form we cherish today does not alter the fact that it is the inspired Word of God.
While even some Christian denominations may find this unsettling, neither Jews nor Catholics or Orthodox Christians have ever shied away from the fact that written works went through a development phase. We sometimes have the exact written words of the author of a book and sometimes we have that with additions (such as the narrative of Moses’ death added to Deuteronomy–that clearly WASN’T written by the original author because Moses was dead at the time). These are not changes, but they are not the actual written words of the authors either.
Essentially nothing of import has ever changed. The integrity of the original works were also kept intact even through redactions since interpolations were often included as means of better explaining an already cherished work.
And again, it is not the first form that Christians and Jews consider inspired but their final form. God was involved in the entire process, regardless of what happened to deliver to us these final canonized forms. So even if the challenge regarding “change” is about something like Moses not being able to write the last section of Deuteronomy because he was already dead, that doesn’t matter. That’s not what the inspired process of the Bible is all about. We have today what God wanted us to have, regardless of how few or how many hands had a part in shaping it.
In simple terms, once the Bible was canonized by either the Jews or the Church, the texts have basically remained intact. There have been a few mistakes like missing words, a few stray sentences here and there, which the Dead Sea Scrolls have allowed us to fill in, but generally speaking what we have today is basically what the books were once they were accepted as either holy or canonized.
But the process between original authorship and canonization involved some editing and interpolation. Some of the works of the Old Testament have actually expanded from their first versions to include the official interpretation into the main text over the passage of time (this is known as “Mishnah”).
A comparison of the Dead Sea Isaiah scroll with today’s Masoretic texts show that several sections are a bit longer now than they were when the Dead Sea Scrolls were written. The information is the same in both but the Masoretic text appears to have explanatory information included within the now accepted text. How did this happen?
“Mishnah” became included over time. This could have been because people began always reading the text adding the explanation as they went along. Eventually this “Mishnah” became held as so sacred that it was never left out when the text was publicly read. So as the years passed this “addition” material became incorporated into the other. It was sort of like putting the “footnote” information into the actual text, but this was rare and never changed the sense original. The Isaiah version with the added redaction is what was accepted and declared inspired by both Jews and Catholics.
Other parts of the Bible, like Genesis chapter 1, were possibly written and added to other books after the return from Babylon. At the time this new material was added the books had a holy status, but the canon was not settled or closed. Of course these “additions” would have happened centuries before the Second Temple was built, so we are talking about thousands and thousands of years ago–and sometimes we are talking about this process in theory. Still, regardless of what happened, both Jews and the Church accept that everything that happened in this “editorial” process was part of the inspiration process as well, and it is the end result that makes up the full written revelation.
A book is inspired of God regardless of the processes involved or holy many authors and editors worked on it. Many of the epistles of St. Paul were written by the apostle and a scribe, for example, and Tradition holds that St. Peter’s recollection of the Gospel was written by Mark (and we even call the Gospel book by that name, “Mark.”) In this last case the original source is St. Peter, but the fact that Mark set Peter’s material into the final written form we cherish today does not alter the fact that it is the inspired Word of God.
While even some Christian denominations may find this unsettling, neither Jews nor Catholics or Orthodox Christians have ever shied away from the fact that written works went through a development phase. We sometimes have the exact written words of the author of a book and sometimes we have that with additions (such as the narrative of Moses’ death added to Deuteronomy–that clearly WASN’T written by the original author because Moses was dead at the time). These are not changes, but they are not the actual written words of the authors either.
Essentially nothing of import has ever changed. The integrity of the original works were also kept intact even through redactions since interpolations were often included as means of better explaining an already cherished work.
And again, it is not the first form that Christians and Jews consider inspired but their final form. God was involved in the entire process, regardless of what happened to deliver to us these final canonized forms. So even if the challenge regarding “change” is about something like Moses not being able to write the last section of Deuteronomy because he was already dead, that doesn’t matter. That’s not what the inspired process of the Bible is all about. We have today what God wanted us to have, regardless of how few or how many hands had a part in shaping it.
J
jakasaki
Guest
A sheikh is an Arab elder or chief, and or a leader of a Muslim organization or group.
D
DelsonJacobs
Guest
On paragraph 6 of my post, the following sentence should read as follows:
Of course these “additions” would have happened centuries before the Second Temple was built, so we are talking about* thousands and thousands of years ago*–and sometimes we are talking about this process in theory.
Should read:
Of course these “additions” would have happened centuries before the Second Temple was built, so we are talking about a process that began thousands of years ago–and sometimes we are talking about this process in theory.
I get carried away and begin waxing a bit “Carl Sagan” when I start writing about “thousands.” Sorry.
Of course these “additions” would have happened centuries before the Second Temple was built, so we are talking about* thousands and thousands of years ago*–and sometimes we are talking about this process in theory.
Should read:
Of course these “additions” would have happened centuries before the Second Temple was built, so we are talking about a process that began thousands of years ago–and sometimes we are talking about this process in theory.
I get carried away and begin waxing a bit “Carl Sagan” when I start writing about “thousands.” Sorry.
R
rfournier103
Guest
Oh, okay. The way that the OP phrased it led me to believe that “sheikh” was a religion. So, a Muslim friend of his said that the Bible has undergone changes… Got it.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
The sheik et al have a very tight, clannish even attitude about Christians…and they think St. Paul remade Christianity to be something it is not. It is very hard to dialogue with them. And those at the top in the Church say the same thing.
So Aamski, if you can get some where succeeding with the Muslims…you will be famous and everybody will want to study your approach.
I find very interesting the story of the Septuagint. This is also called LXX or 70.
This presentation of the Septuagint was given by a priest so many months back. Someone took my copy he had given me so I cannot draw from it completely.
Anyway, 200 years before Christ, the emperor of Egypt wanted to build the greatest library in the world. He wanted a copy of the bible in there and he wanted it translated correctly. He had 70 rabbis come and had each one separate until they had all completed their work in transcribing the bible for him.
At the end was a great miracle.
The 70 rabbis’s of Sacred Scripture were all identical to each other, work of the Holy Spirit, this work called the Septuagint interpretation. It is the tradition traditionally in the Church called that of Our Lord’s. The Septuagint interpretation is the one that looked forward to the coming of the Messiah in the manner and way we know Him, and it is the interpretation that the apostles and St. Paul likewise followed.
Two hundred years after Christ, there were Hebrew rabbis who wanted to redo interpretation of Sacred Scriptures. At the end, there was dissension and conflict between them. Likewise, their interpretation did not anticipate the Messiah as we know as Christians.
Luther, when breaking away from the Church, went to this latter Hebrew interpretation as he was wanting to seek Scripture in its pure form, not that in use by the Catholic Church.
You can share with the sheik this story of how we have come to understand Scripture as Catholics, the crucifixion did happen, which the Muslims do not believe, and I think it is their major opposition to Christianity, thinking we believe in multiple gods and that God would likewise take the life of His only Son. So far I don’t hear of any Muslim getting over these hurdles except by grace and the prayers of many.
So Aamski, if you can get some where succeeding with the Muslims…you will be famous and everybody will want to study your approach.
I find very interesting the story of the Septuagint. This is also called LXX or 70.
This presentation of the Septuagint was given by a priest so many months back. Someone took my copy he had given me so I cannot draw from it completely.
Anyway, 200 years before Christ, the emperor of Egypt wanted to build the greatest library in the world. He wanted a copy of the bible in there and he wanted it translated correctly. He had 70 rabbis come and had each one separate until they had all completed their work in transcribing the bible for him.
At the end was a great miracle.
The 70 rabbis’s of Sacred Scripture were all identical to each other, work of the Holy Spirit, this work called the Septuagint interpretation. It is the tradition traditionally in the Church called that of Our Lord’s. The Septuagint interpretation is the one that looked forward to the coming of the Messiah in the manner and way we know Him, and it is the interpretation that the apostles and St. Paul likewise followed.
Two hundred years after Christ, there were Hebrew rabbis who wanted to redo interpretation of Sacred Scriptures. At the end, there was dissension and conflict between them. Likewise, their interpretation did not anticipate the Messiah as we know as Christians.
Luther, when breaking away from the Church, went to this latter Hebrew interpretation as he was wanting to seek Scripture in its pure form, not that in use by the Catholic Church.
You can share with the sheik this story of how we have come to understand Scripture as Catholics, the crucifixion did happen, which the Muslims do not believe, and I think it is their major opposition to Christianity, thinking we believe in multiple gods and that God would likewise take the life of His only Son. So far I don’t hear of any Muslim getting over these hurdles except by grace and the prayers of many.
B
benjohnson
Guest
Adamski,
Were you referring to this religion: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism
I’ve have pretty good relations with their adherents - they’ve been trustworthy.
P
ProVobis
Guest
You bring up excellent points.
When I was employed by a laboratory (doing a physics job) we were instructed to keep all our data in a pre-assigned lab book and that NONE of the data could be copied to prevent any possible error. The reason was simple, in a courtroom any kind of copying could create doubt in a juror’s mind. In many cases even xerox copies weren’t allowed. I hear tax auditors look for copying errors and generally find a lot.
N
nmgauss
Guest
Here is a brief review of a book by Dr. Bart Ehrman called “Misquoting Jesus: The Story of Who Changed the Bible and Why”:
Jeffrey Weiss of the Dallas Morning News wrote: “Whichever side you sit on regarding Biblical inerrancy, this is a rewarding read.”[4] American Library Association writes “To assess how ignorant or theologically manipulative scribes may have changed the biblical text, modern scholars have developed procedures for comparing diverging texts. And in language accessible to nonspecialists, Ehrman explains these procedures and their results. He further explains why textual criticism has frequently sparked intense controversy, especially among scripture-alone Protestants.”[5] Charles Seymour of the Wayland Baptist University in Plainview, Texas wrote: “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.”[6] Neely Tucker of The Washington Post wrote that the book is “an exploration into how the 27 books of the New Testament came to be cobbled together, a history rich with ecclesiastical politics, incompetent scribes and the difficulties of rendering oral traditions into a written text.”[7]
Weiss, Jeffrey (Apr 16, 2006). “Book review: Some ask: Are Bible texts authentic? Are stories true?”. Dallas Morning News. Retrieved 2009-04-06.
“Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind Who Changed the…”. Booklist. Nov 15, 2005. Retrieved 2009-04-06.
“Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind Who Changed the…”. Library Journal. 2005. Retrieved 2009-04-06.
Tucker, Neely (March 5, 2006). “The Book of Bart”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-04-06.
D
dronald
Guest
That’s nice that a claim has been made, but you provided nothing further.
For example I can say “The Bible is corrupt and there’s controversy over it!” and say nothing further. Such proves nothing; you’ll have to provide more.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
I tend to look at the scholarship of those in the Catholic Church, that began 2000 years ago, as well as the contributions to understanding Scripture over the ages…but some how I cannot see Dr Bart trumping them all.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Proving the Accuracy of the Bible
Each author of a NT book wrote an original manuscript which I’ll call “M”. Using M, copies were made and sent to various Churches in the NT era. I’ll call these second-generation copies, C1, C2 & C3. The number of copies is not important for this illustration. Now, imagine that copies of the copies were made as the Christian Church expanded since every local congregation wanted to have a copy of these important texts. I’ll call the copies of C1, C1a, C1b & C1c. There would also be C2a, C2b, and so forth. With me so far? I sure hope the following diagram reproduces well…think of each column as a generation. The copies which have not been lost are in red.
M—C1—C1a—C1a1
-------------C1b—C1b1
----------------------C1b2
-------------C1c—C1c1
----------------------C1c2
------C2—C2a—C2a1
-------------C2b—C2b1
------C3—C3a—C3a1
----------------------C3a2
-------------C3b—C3b1
-------------C3c—C3c1
----------------------C3c2
----------------------C3c3
Now, imagine further that M, C1, C2 & C3 along with C1a, C2a, C3a & C3b have all been lost, but that C1b, C1c, C2b & C3c are all in museums scattered around the world - Moscow, London, the Vatican, etc. Additionally, all of the copies of those copies still exist (I’m simplifying, of course).
We know that M must have existed, and logic dictates that C1, C2 & C3 must have existed (though we may be unsure of the number of first-generation copies). We can learn that both C1 & C2 must have existed by comparing the extant copies C1b & C2b and discovering subtle variations in the texts - copyists glosses or “typos”, if you will. If C1 was slightly different from C2, then those differences will be reflected in C1a and C2a along with all of the subsequent copies of those copies. Variations were passed on from generation to generation. Make sense?
So, how can we know with certainty what the Bible actually said if we don’t have the original autograph (M) or if errors (variations) crept into the text? By comparing the existing texts, scholars can work backwards to determine what M actually said. This process, called Textual Criticism, can never be perfect since humans are involved (along with the Holy Spirit!), but we can have a high degree of confidence that the Bible we have to day contains the message that the original authors intended to convey.
+++
At least that’s how I understand it. I welcome any corrections to this explanation.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
nmgauss,
I’ve read Misquoting Jesus. . . It’s an interesting read. However, after reading 3 or 4 of Ehrman’s books; I began to feel a great sadness for him. He seems to have lost his way in a sea of scholarship–purely my opinion, of course.
No doubt that scribes made errors in copying manuscripts; but the truth of the Gospel message has survived remarkably intact–quite miraculously, actually.
I went through a long phase of doubting and questioning. During that period, I was drawn to books that attempted to discredit the Bible. I found my way back through God’s Grace.
I learned a very important lesson: a* little bit of study can be dangerous*. It was for me anyway. As time passed, I “studied my way back” to Christ, with God’s help and guidance, of course. God takes care of us that way.
N
nmgauss
Guest
Do you want to follow the teachings of the Church because they appeal to you without knowing the origin of these teachings? For the vast majority, that is what faith is all about. Determining the differences between guesses of Jesus’ teachings (they are guesses because no documents survive from that era) versus the Apostolic Creed versus the teachings of the Church today may not appeal to you. It can be unsettling. Believing in the infallibility of the Pope and Bible may appeal to some without knowing whether there is justification in believing this. I have to agree that if it makes you feel good, then by all means go for it.nmgauss,
I’ve read Misquoting Jesus. . . It’s an interesting read. However, after reading 3 or 4 of Ehrman’s books; I began to feel a great sadness for him. He seems to have lost his way in a sea of scholarship–purely my opinion, of course.
No doubt that scribes made errors in copying manuscripts; but the truth of the Gospel message has survived remarkably intact–quite miraculously, actually.
I went through a long phase of doubting and questioning. During that period, I was drawn to books that attempted to discredit the Bible. I found my way back through God’s Grace.
I learned a very important lesson: a* little bit of study can be dangerous*. It was for me anyway. As time passed, I “studied my way back” to Christ, with God’s help and guidance, of course. God takes care of us that way.
For Dr. Ehrman, he needed to know the original teachings. If the original teachings were truly inspired, then what were they? He needed to know. And through his many years researching the history of Christianity, he came to the conclusion that Christianity as we have come to know it did not, in any event, spring into being overnight. It emerged over a long period of time, through a period of struggles, debates, and conflicts over competing views, doctrines, perspectives, canons, and rules. The ultimate emergence of the Christian religion represents a human invention. People invented Christianity, not Jesus, and not God.
Whether one stresses the continuities or the discontinuities in the development of early Christianity, it is clear that the beliefs and perspectives that emerged among Jesus’ later followers were different from the religion of Jesus himself. Paul was not the only one responsible for this set of theological innovations, this invention of what we think of as Christianity. He may not even bear the grestest responsibility among those who transformed the religion of Jesus into the religion about Jesus. There were numerous Christians involved in these transformations, the vast majority of them lost in the mists of antiquity, unnamed Christians, thinkers, and preachers who reinterpreted the traditions of Jesus for their own time, whose reinterpretations were guided and molded by historical and cultural forces that we, living later, can sometimes only surmise and ponder.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, if you were on a Bible-Alone forum, perhaps your question would be a puzzler to them. I dunno.
But you do know you are on a Catholic forum, and our teachings do not originate from the Bible.
The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.
B
benhur
Guest
i thought the Septuagint was a collection of Jewish writings,inspired or not. That is for sure they included what was inspired but also other works that were famous but not necessarily inspired . Even the Catholics rejected several if the books, while Luther 7 I think. So I have heard the Egyptian did,t really care but wanted as much cultural,spiritual writings as posible .dont think Jesus ever quoted from any of the disputed books,but he did not quote from every good book either.
B
benhur
Guest
Has anyone mentioned the text us receptus, the 5000 or so fragments,documents,manuscripts containing nt, that all match pretty close? I have heard Eusebius made 50 copies of 27 nt bibles for Constantine around 350 ad. Some think the codexvaticanus is one of those…does Islam have any original copies of Quaran, that is how well are they documented copied etc ?
N
nmgauss
Guest
The Textus Receptus was the first printed Greek edition of the Bible, originally published by Erasmus in 1516. Erasmus’ source material was primarily late manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type. He tried to write a coherent volume minimizing inconsistencies, so he altered quotations from his source material to create a more unified presentation. In the Book of Revelation, he had no original source material so he translated the Vulgate text back to the Greek.
It is considered a poor source on which to base the King James Bible. Erasmus did not have access to the most accurate source material, and his Textus Receptus suffered because of that.
N
nmgauss
Guest
Are you saying that when St. Paul wrote his first letters in the years 40-50 AD, the Trinity had already been established as a key doctrine? Even before the Gospels were written in 65-100 AD, the Catholic faith was firmly established? Even before Irenaeus and Athanasius established key doctrines, you are saying the Catholic faith was already whole?
B
benhur
Guest
I would beg to differ at a later time. It is a considered a poorer source by whom , liberals ? But it is in the eyes of the beholder. It is a debate/discussion for sure, the 5000 vs the several though older.
- Status