There are many fundamentalists who would have people believe the modern Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God. These are the same people who want to force "creationism" on the world, among other ideas such as a 6,000 year-old Earth, and the co-existence of mankind with dinosaurs. Biblical inspiration can be debated, but it now seems certain that the modern Bible contains many changes, or "mistakes".
The world's oldest surviving version of the Bible is the Codex Sinaiticus. It dates back to the fourth century, and has been hidden intact in St. Catherine's Monastery since that time. It was rediscovered in the 19th century, and now parts of it reside in four different countries -- Egypt, Germany, Russia and Great Britain.
The Codex is now in the process of being digitized and will be put on the internet for anyone concerned to read. The Problem? In addition to two extra books (Shepherd of Hermas and Epistle of Barnabas), there are thousands of differences between the Codex and the modern Bible.
Most troubling for those claiming biblical inerrancy, is the differences between this earliest text and modern texts of books contained in the modern Bible. How could an inspired and inerrant book have changed so much over the centuries? The changes (or mistakes) are obviously manmade (for the only other option is that an infallible god had to correct his own mistakes by putting out a revised edition).
Some of the big changes between the Codex and the modern Bible are:
-The Codex does not mention the ascension of Jesus into heaven, or contain any mention of his resurrection.
-The Codex does not include the story of the adulterous woman about to be stoned (the "let him without sin cast the first stone" story).
-The Codex does not have Jesus saying "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" from the cross.
These are just three of thousands of differences between the Codex and modern texts. Obviously, the earliest versions of the Bible did not fit the religion being taught, so it was changed by scribes to fit it better. The modern Bible is not "inerrant". It is simply the latest version of the stories.
Maybe the fundamentalists would be better served to explain these "mistakes", before they try to force their own self-righteous beliefs on the rest of us.
I read a great book this summer "Misquoting Jesus - The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible-and Why". http://salon.glenrose.net/default.asp?view=plink&id=7854
ReplyDeleteThe book talks about, for example, how the scribes had to hand copy the information and errors could either creep in accidentally, or on purpose. Also about the different versions of the scrolls available and that there is NOT an extant source that can definitively be said to be the original from whence all else came.
Very interesting about this particular codex. I'll have to read up on it.
The earliest known manuscript of the Book of Revelation has the number of the beast at 616.
ReplyDeleteNot as catchy as 666 so don't tell...
Maybe the fundamentalists would be better served to explain these "mistakes", before they try to force their own self-righteous beliefs on the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteI consider myself more of an evangelical than a fundamentalist, but since I believe that the Bible "is the inspired and inerrant word of God," that may be a difference without a distinction. That being said, let me take a crack at your challenge.
You claim that the Bible is "full of mistakes" (thousands, you say) yet you choose three to make your point. Each of these "mistakes" illustrates the absence in the Codex Sinaiticus of a particular phrase or event in today's Bible.
The fallacy of your argument can best be explained by a quote from Dr. Carl Sagan (no Bible-thumping fundamentalist he): "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." Even within today's Bible, there are examples of this. For instance, the Sermon on the Mount can be found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark and John. Does this mean that Jesus never gave this sermon? On the contrary, it means that for whatever reason, the authors of Mark and John did not report it.
You hold out the Codex Sinaiticus as the ultimate authority, but you conveniently ignore this paragraph from the BBC article you cite:
"But the picture is complicated. Some argue that another early Bible, the Codex Vaticanus, is in fact older. And there are other earlier texts of almost all the books in the bible, though none pulled together into a single volume."
Even assuming that the Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest existing "Bible," it dates from the Fourth Century, so it's not a primary source. Bible scholars often refer to "Q" (the first letter of the German word "Quelle," meaning "source") as the text from which all surviving biblical texts draw. As a Christian, I believe that God's hand was involved in the process that drew these surviving texts into the 66 books that are now known as the Bible. You cannot disprove this any more than I can prove it; ultimately, it's a matter of faith. As an atheist, I'm sure that's a bitter pill to swallow. As a believer, it's reinforced by the joy and peace that I experience on a daily basis as a result of accepting the Bible as God's instruction book for my life.
(cont'd)
Now that I've taken up your challenge, you're probably thinking that I'll try to force my "self-righteous beliefs" on you. The fact that you consider my beliefs to be self-righteous means that either 1) you've been beaten over the head one too many times by Christians who think they're superior to you; or 2) you don't understand what Christianity is all about.
ReplyDeleteJobsanger, we've never met face to face, but you seem to be a very decent, compassionate, caring person. I, on the other hand, tend to be verbose, preachy and arrogant at times, even though I do have my good qualities as well. I'm certainly not an axe murderer, and I have done some pretty noble things in my life. But I would never rely on my own righteousness when standing before a God who is absolutely holy.
It's not about how good I am; it's about how good the One who paid the ultimate price for my sins is. The fact that He did that makes me feel humble, not self-righteous. And He did it for you too, jobsanger. All you have to do is accept it.
I'll close before I start getting verbose, preachy and arrogant (I know, I know - it's already too late for that!) :)
Yeah, what he said!
ReplyDeletesalon-
ReplyDeleteI just ran across that book a few weeks ago, and bought it. I'm looking forward to reading it when I get a little time.
CT- When one book contains a story and another doesn't, it's probably simply a matter of what each author considered important.
ReplyDeleteBut when two versions of the same book are different, you have a problem. Which one was "inerrant" and why?
Asfor whether I understand christianity or not. I was raised in a fundamentalist church (Church of Christ). I went to Harding University (Church of Christ) for three years. I graduated from Texas Wesleyan Yniversity (Methodist). If I don't understand christianity yet, then I probably never will.
I find it a bit condescending to say I either don't understand christianity or someone beat me over the head with it. I prefer to think I reasoned my way to my current beliefs.
jobsanger,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry you found my comments a bit condescending; that really wasn't my intent. It's just that when people people use the words "Christian" and "self-righteous" in the same sentence, I tend to jump to the conclusion that they've either been poisoned by hypocrites masquerading as Christians, or else they've fallen victim to the stereotype of Christianity that's so pervasive in popular culture today.
I also find it interesting that you were raised in the Church of Christ. Some of the most virulently anti-Christian people I've ever met grew up in that denomination. Conversely, I've also met some very loving Church of Christ members as well. I'm certainly no expert on the Church of Christ, but from what I understand about the tendency of at least some congregations toward legalism, I can surmise where your view of Christians as self-righteous may come from. People who gauge their righteousness on how well they follow rules are by definition self-righteous.
(cont'd)
You may be interested to know that I grew up in a denomination with a very similar name, but a very different creed, than yours: the United Church of Christ. The UCC is the denomination of Senator Obama's former church, Trinity United Church of Christ.
ReplyDeleteDuring my junior high years, I went through two years of Saturday confirmation classes, culminating with my being confirmed as a member of my church. During those two years, I learned a lot about the Bible (I've still got the study Bible I was given the first Saturday), but without ever being taught the fundamentals of what it means to be a Christian.
I ask this next question, neither to trip you up nor to start an "Inside Baseball" dialogue on theology, but can you sum up your understanding of Christianity in a nutshell? I'm really curious (hence the name).
I think a christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus. Suffice it to say, I've met very few people who do that. Most are wrapped up in the rules of Paul, and think these rules are more important than people. I really don't think Jesus would approve of this, but that's just my opinion.
ReplyDeleteWhile I'm not a religious person, the United Church of Christ is one of the few denominations that I do have a lot of respect for.
ReplyDeleteI think a christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus. Suffice it to say, I've met very few people who do that.
ReplyDeleteI haven't met any, especially when you consider that Jesus taught, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:38 - NIV).
The only way that we can do this is to admit that we're incapable in and of ourselves of living up to God's standard (Adam and Eve only had one rule to follow, and they couldn't even do that). Once we've admitted our inability, we need to surrender our will to the Will of God and let Christ live through us. We will still fall short, but Jesus has already made a provision for our shortcomings on the Cross.
For those interested in "Misquoting Jesus" - another good perspective on the topic is "Dethroning Jesus"
ReplyDeletewhile I must say this is quite interesting, I don't need a book to beleive in god. A book doesn't tell me if he is real or not.
ReplyDeleteWhat tells me god is real is life it's self.
Your first point is incorrect. I just read the Codex and found that Paul mentions everything you fail to report. See I Corinthians 15.
ReplyDeletePaul points out that if there was no resurrection, then we (Christians) are of all men most miserable.
But, as Paul said, there was resurrection so we have hope.
Perhaps you need to read the Codex before you make your assertions.