Blog (1) Blake Bernier

Although many stories that we have been told throughout history have many times been altered, I had never thought to question the stories that are written in the Christian Bible. I was raised a Christian and after all of the times that I have been to church or attended CCD classes, no one had ever mentioned to me that there have been multiple editions of the Bible. Many people may feel "fooled" by never knowing this about the Bible, but I just see it as a natural part of history. The beginning of the world was so long ago that stories of the past will forever be getting changed and altered and that is something that we all need to accept.
I found many things very true when reading this chapter of the textbook, such as the part which states that "One of the problems with copying a text, as I've intimated above, is that unless you have the original copy with which you compare the copy you're copying, you will reproduce the mistakes made by the copyist who made your copy." [1] No one who is alive today was there when these stories were being written down, and by this time many of the original resources have been destroyed, so it is extremely hard to pass these stories down. One example I found very interesting that relates to this is the drastic difference in two words such as "young woman" and "virgin" as seen in Isaiah 7:14. I found it fascinating that this could cause so much confusion within the Christian religion. However after analyzing it, it made sense how different these word's meanings could be. Another reason for altercations in the copying process of these stories was "The only way mistakes can be corrected is if a copyist realizes that a mistake has been made and tries to correct it. But there is no guarantee that a corrector will correct it "correctly." [1] People many times misconstrued what they were reading and "corrected" it wrongly. Language has altered drastically since when these stories were first written so it might be best to leave the story written how it was to avoid false corrections.
Many of these mistakes that scribes had made are literary mistakes that people are still making today. It does not always come out of a case of carelessness. These scribes had copied many, many stories and their eyes got very tired doing so. I know that when I try to copy words out of a textbook, after so long my eyes start to stray and my sentences get all mixed up. That is only human. At least we have multiple copies of the Bible that we can compare to one another and form together the correct stories. I just hope that the next time I attend church the priest is reading the correct stories to me.

[1] B. D. Ehrman. The New Testament (4; New York; Oxford; 2008), 489.

Bibliography

Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament. Fourth edition. New York: 2008, p 487-499

Blog (1) Andy Mehlhorn

    This chapter of textbook was very interesting to me because although I have been raised in Catholic teachings and in Catholic schools all of my life, I had never heard nor considered that the Bible's text could be altered so much from the original writings. The part of the text that I found to be the most interesting was the style of writing known as scriptua continuo, which is a style that leaves out “punctuation, capitalization of letters, or paragraph and sentence division.” [1] With this style being implemented while trying to transcribe the oral messages of the disciples or Jesus, I can see how easily confusion would arise in translating the different gospels. This was probably a factor that led to their being different translations of the same gospel writing, but with different wording. Even attempting to read the passages could prove to problematic for people of that era or later eras since their are no breaks in sentence structure or punctuation. I could see why scribes would use this technique since it is similar to some of the shorthanded writing styles of the modern era. However, with these passages only being written on papyrus or wax tablets, it was probably even more difficult to understand when scholars were trying to understand the writings. 
     The fact that the scribes took their own personal beliefs and social concerns into account when transcribing the writings of the gospels also presents problems for understanding the true words of the writing. Because scribes often changed the writings to adhere better to what they thought, I wonder if there were much repercussion if a scribe was caught changing the writings, but the text does not address it. When reading the works and keeping in mind that the writing may have been altered because of a scribe's personal beliefs, you also have to keep in mind the age, quality, geographical spread, etc of the witnesses to this work.  When trying to ascertain if a work is altered or completely true it becomes difficult considering that there are so many variables to consider, it's a wonder that works we understand today correlate to one another at all.

[1] B. D. Ehrman. The New Testament (4; New York; Oxford; 2008), 492.

Bibliography

Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament. Fourth edition. New York: 2008, p 487-499

Blog (1) Morgan Whittler

The thing that struck me the most about the reading was that knowledge produced by bible scholars has had little effect on what is delivered form the pulpit every Sunday. Words attributed, in fact entire letters, attributed to Paul, the most prominent and trusted writer of the New Testament, are not his at all but the common churchgoer is none the wiser.  The true problem isn’t a lack of general biblical knowledge, but in the teaching derived from manipulated translations. Ehrman talks about intentional textual changes being made for reasons mostly regarding consistent scriptural support for changing theological doctrine and social opinions [1], never to maintain the accuracy of original scripture. This has led to scripture being used to support discrimination and stunt social progress.

I’m not arguing for the dismissal of the Bible as a reference for spiritual guidance I am however unconvinced that the general public is too simple minded to be taught biblical morality through a historical critical method as opposed to the pastoral lens. I am also unconvinced that pastors, no matter the denomination should not have a firm grasp on the reasons their denominational beliefs have manifested the way they have.

  In 2008 at a Biblical Literature conference there was a panel discussion held to debate the merits of having divinity school students taught the Historical Critical Method. One scholar questioned the objective of keeping the bible at the center of theological education curriculum saying, “Are we just privileging one text even though we might give it multiple interpretation?” [2]. His question gets at my point that, because we acknowledge that there are multiple equally valid interpretations of text, we have no need for organized denominations if we are encouraging each individual to find biblical truth from themselves. 

Parishioners should not be babied they should be given the opportunity to know the truth about the bible. Teaching through a critical historic lens would help dispel practices that discriminate against minorities and help keep the bible from being used to justify human indecencies.

[1] B.D. Ehrman, The New Testament (4. New York. Oxford, (2008), 490.

[2]  A.K.M.Adam, “Should We be Teaching the Historical Critical Method?” Teaching Theology and Religion 12:2. 167.

------------------------------------------------------------

Bibliography

Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament. Fourth Edition. New York, 2008: 490-492.

Adam, A.K.M., Richard Ascough, Sandra Gravett, Alice Hunt, Dale Martin, Edward Wimberly, and Seung Ai Yang. 2009. "Should We Be Teaching the Historical Critical Method?." Teaching Theology & Religion 12, no. 2: 162-187. 

Blog (1) William Stegbauer

In the formation of an early Christian orthodoxy, church fathers try to move past the idea of having accepted yet non-canonical sources for supplementary materials in the moral and spiritual lives of the Christian community.  The goal in this endeavor centers on the early church’s need for a unified coalition of leaders able to stand under one banner.  Yet while not espousing the continued circulation of non-canonical texts Christianity’s sister religions, Judaism and Islam, do keep the idea of accepted non-canonical works integrated within their traditions. 

One can find Jews living during the Babylonian exile striving to keep their oral traditions alive in a very real sense with the Talmudic elaborations on the Genesis stories.  Out of that tradition we derive the fall from grace story of Lucifer which doesn’t get touched on until Toledo some two thousand years later or accepted as part of Christian tradition until Milton publishes Paradise Lost.  The idea with this is those stories keep growing like a movie franchise as Divine Inspiration strikes the reader.  This actually keeps with the idea of apostolic tradition where the Holy Spirit strikes an individual empowering them to carry out divine acts which the book of Acts centers around. [1] Voices in the church loved this idea finding it a valid argument for the making a work part of the accepted orthodox cannon. 

Even the Qur’an has their non-canonical portions kept in Islamic traditions where the Sunnah or a Hadith can be sited for legal precedence or moral guidance.  The Ottoman Turks were famous for their collections of Hadiths attributed to any of the major characters found in the Qur’an, even the angels, written centuries after death.  The reasoning behind this we attribute to the want of authors to view those people as dramatis personae from whom they draw authority as well as to make larger than life.  We see this with Paul’s letters.  While the Qur’an might not cover oral hygiene, one of the most valid Hadiths does citing Mohammed having a habit of chewing on roots that were used as a precursor to the modern day toothbrush or plaque pick. 

Bibliography

Thomas R. Correlation of Revelatory Spiritual Gifts and NT Canonicity. Master's Seminary Journal [serial online]. March 1, 1997;8(1):5-28. Available from: ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, Ipswich, MA. Accessed January 26, 2012.

---

[1] Thomas, R. L. (1997). Correlation of Revelatory Spiritual Gifts and NT Canonicity. Master's Seminary Journal, 8(1), 5-28.

Blog (1) Noelle Lyons

Ehrman’s exploration into the editing and copying of the New Testament is fascinating. The straightforward context of the chapter presents the evidence and knowledge of changes in the New Testament, presenting that the New Testament, as we know it today, is very different from the original Scripture (of which we will very possibly never find). The various intentional deviations and editing mistakes introduce questions of what the New Testament was supposed to say, what we were originally intended to interpret and gain insight from, and a question of faith: how are we supposed to believe that the New Testament was inspired by God when it was carelessly handled or manipulated by multiple scribes over hundreds of years? The unintentional mistakes, either spelling or missing words and phrases, does not provoke any real concern about my understanding of the New Testament, as that is what should be expected when reading from a book that has been copied over a thousand years ago. The manipulation of scribes to prevent women’s roles in the church and to promote their own theological understandings and beliefs is very disconcerting. How can readers be sure that doctrines and practices of the church, as inspired by Scripture, are accurate representations of God’s will? The textual criticism allows for an outside approach to Christianity, in which readers can step outside of their faith driven views of the Bible and of their religion and realize that this is a religion- it can be manipulated, it can be wrong. For example, “God [as a] triune: three persons- the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit… is never explicitly stated in the Bible- except in some late manuscripts of one passage.” [1] A very prominent belief in Christianity was added years later, and may never have been intended to be added, or believed, by the original authors. Viewing the New Testament as a historical document that is susceptible to mistakes encourages the reader to further explore their church teachings, and rather focus on the message than the literal meaning.

[1] Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament (New York : Oxford University Press, 2008),

497.

Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Blog (1) Margaret Huffman

Blog (1) Margaret Huffman

As well as this course, I am also taking a class this semester on Judaism and its origins. It was interesting to learn about the copying of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek and the different interpretations that have stemmed from mistranslations and human influence. The aspect of this that interested me the most was the unsure case of Mary’s representation as a young woman or a virgin. Mary’s virginity is something that has been used as an argument against Christianity’s realistic nature as well as presenting discussion within Christian churches. Her virginity would elevate the miraculous nature of Jesus’ birth considerably, as well as planting doubt among those who would say that she claimed the inception of her child to be of God for fear of a scandal. For Jesus to be the son of God, as he is represented in Christianity today, it would seem contradictory for him to have been created by two humans. The change in meaning from virgin to young woman brings about an entirely new discussion, and presents a completely revolutionary view of the Christian faith and what the core beliefs consist of. The wording is so important because of the context that it represents, and as Ehrman states, without context we cannot understand what was said or meant [1].

2 B.D. Ehrman, The New Testament. (4: New York; Oxford; 2008); 494-495

Blog (M) Margaret Huffman

Blog (M) Margaret Huffman

The Gospel of Mark

I find an interest in this article that discusses the contextual and atomistical difference in Mark’s account of Jesus’ tirade in the Temple as well as the meaning of this tirade [1]. This story has always been a frequently taught story from the New Testament. The interesting aspect of this article’s discussion about Mark’s account of Jesus is that the way Jesus is represented in this book of the Bible is different than we see him elsewhere—more emotional and acting out in a way that Jesus is most often portrayed suppressing in other books.

1.      C.J. Holly Teachings and Tirades: Jesus’ Temple Act and His Teachings in Mark 11:15-19 (SCJ 10:1, 2007; 93-105

Holly, Carey J. Teachings and Tirades: Jesus’ Temple Act and His Teachings in Mark 11:15-19; Stone-Campbell Journal 10:1 (2007);93-105

Blog (0) Margaret Huffman

Why are you taking this class?

I am taking this class as an English major, because I am interested in looking at the Bible through a lens that is not necessarily a religious one. I like the idea of viewing the Bible as literature, and evaluating the context and history of the New Testament. Most people, including myself, are raised to believe the Bible is an unquestionable source of facts as well as the stone cold word of God. However, scholarly investigation and research has shown the public that while the Bible may be a sacred document, it has been influenced by the fallible hands of men and has therefore been subject to changes in translation and context over the centuries. I hope to learn more about that scholarly research and form my own opinion from a literary and religious standpoint as a student in this class.

Blog #1 Bria Brown

One thing I took away from Chapter 30 was the realization that the New Testament is not the original but a gathering of old manuscripts that had been passed down and copied. Meaning, words had to be changed, also causing new interpretations to be formed. I am raised Catholic and attended Catholic school since age four and I did not know this until now. This caught my attention because I had to process the idea that the New Testament is not the word for word original copy. Thirty-Thousand variations of the Bible exist and even more. [1] I found it unsettling to know that so many people had gone through the process of copying and rewriting the New Testament over centuries. I was shocked to know that words had been changed and other writers and translators opinions had been put in the bible shaping and my reading of the Bible.

How do I know which version to follow? This knowledge brought upon me was an eye-opener, both scary and satisfying. I know now not to take the Bible literally and it is scary to think of the people that do take the Bible literally, not knowing that the Bible has gone through many alterations and every story should not be taken so literally.

[1] B. D. Ehrman, The New Testament (4; New York; Oxford; 2008), 490.

Bibliography

Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament. Fourth Edition. New York: Oxford, 2008.

Blog (1) Stewart Freeman

When thinking about the thousands of different manuscripts of the New Testament, it's interesting to look also at the Septuagint as how the Old Testament and the Jewish Bible were formed. The New and Old Testaments seem to have taken inverted courses while being written. The writing of the Old Testament begins during the formation of the kingdom of Judea, before the diaspora and takes place largely within that time period. So Jewish traditions were well established in most respects before the destruction of the temples. Therefore, the amount of discrepancy between different groups separated for long periods of time is very low.
When you look at how the New Testament was written, the followers of early Christianity were dispersed to begin with and it wouldn't be until the 4th or 5th centuries that they were actually widely accepted. So the beginnings of Christianity were far more subjective than in Judaism. Most of the ministry would've been done without a Bible to reference, being told to a small congregation in the countryside or in a home. Inevitably, there will be changes as this story spreads along the Mediterranean coast and the long period of time before a version of the Bible can actually be called official means that the different accounts of the life of Jesus will be significant to a large number of people. People, who will undoubtedly resist others telling them that they were given the wrong story.
One interesting account that Ehrman brings up is the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark where the end is not chapter 12, verse 8: when the women hear Jesus has come back to life, but "they did not tell anyone, for they were afraid". Instead there are another 12 verses about how they did tell the disciples and they see Jesus and he talks to them before he ascends into Heaven. Ehrman says it best when he says "the ending comes as a surprise to many modern readers, who think that the women must have told somebody!" 1. Some of the changes made to translations and manuscripts of the Bible may not be just theological or social bias tarnishing the word of God. Sometimes, or maybe most of the time, it is simply a way of telling a better and more compelling story, thus making it easier to spread the core beliefs.

1. B.D Ehrmann, New Testament, New York Oxford, 4 2008. p.491

Blog (1) Nic Lefebvre

    The bit of information that I found to be the most intriguing from the reading regarding the origin of the cannon was that the manuscripts were written in a scriptua continuo style. It is difficult for me to imagine copying, by hand, a piece of writing longer than 10 pages, never mind the size of the New Testament. To do this from a text that is written in a style that leaves out “punctuation, capitalization of letters, or paragraph and sentence division”1, seems impossible. Some of the later scribes copying down the manuscripts written in this style, would be responsible for not only copying the texts into their language, but they would need to install these various grammatical devices. I imagine this task to be painstakingly difficult for a few reasons in addition to those given by the book.
    First off, the placement of certain punctuation will contribute to how a sentence or phrase is interpreted. Even if the basic idea remains despite the addition of punctuation, the reader’s aesthetic experience will be effected. Consider the following passage: “Our father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” The only change I have made to this passage from the version my New Oxford Annotated Bible has is that I have omitted all the paragraph breaks and one comma. Though the meaning of this prayer is the same, it does not have the same resounding effect that the version my bible possess. Is this resounding effect consistent with the initial intentions of the author?
    Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the language used in this style, even after translated into the language of the scribes, would be completely compatible with their punctuation. Some words might  be changed around, or phrases might be flipped out of necessity. Though often these changes would be trivial, I think it is fair to assume that there are cases in which the meaning was, perhaps inevitably, dramatically altered.
    Learning about the style from which scribes had to copy and translate the books of the cannon has given me a greater insight on and respect for their duties. I am inclined to read the New Testament with an increased level of skepticism, but also a greater level tolerance for the variation.

1. B. D. Ehrman, The New Testament (3; New York; Oxford; 2004), 492.
Bibliography
Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament. Fourth Edition. New York: Oxford, 2008.

Blog (1) Miranda Hernandez

In my three years as a Journalism major, I have learned that a little editing goes a long way. The fine tuning at the end of the writing process is imperative. Effective storytelling comes from the ability to communicate eloquently. No one will read something that they cannot understand, no matter how compelling the text is. However, if something is changed too much, the voice of the author is lost on the reader’s ears.

I found myself reminded of this during the Ehrman’s reading. Ehrman emphasized the importance editing played in the compilation of the Bible. Many of the early writers, he pointed out, did not need to edit their work. They needed to create a compilation of the stories that they had heard through generations. “Many of these writers did not use punctuation, capitalization of letters, or paragraphs in their writings”¹ Therefore, Ehrman points out, it would be pertinent to make alterations to the Biblical text, so that all could comprehend and continually appreciate the word of the New Testament.

I could relate to the editors and translators of the Bible making their changes to create a better story. A dilemma results here: how much is too much editing? When does it go from the direct words of Christ to the interpretations of a scribe, editor, or worse, translator? Ehrman acknowledges himself that, eons later, we as readers of the Bible still may never know what the intention or interpretation was of some New Testament text. Ehrman writes that “it is impossible to know what a New Testament author meant if you don’t know what he said.” ²

As followers of the Bible, we are at the mercy of many storytellers, editors, and translators.  Just as Ehrman points out, we need to be cautious of text that may be less documented or completely made up. If I know anything as a Journalism major though it is that you cannot believe everything you read.

1  B.D. Ehrman. The New Testament. (4:New York: Oxford: 2008) 494

2  B.D. Ehrman. The New Testament. (4: New York; Oxford; 2008) 495.

Bibliography

Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament. Fourth edition. New York: 2008, p 487-499

Blog #1 Kieran Harper

The epilogue of this reading helped adjust the viewpoint that I will hold as we go forward with this class. It is important to acknowledge the changes that have and will continue to take place in the manuscripts of the Bible. Growing up going to the same church my whole life and religion classes at that church, I was never taught about the changes that have been made to the Bible. It was always presented to me as a complete, infallible record of history.

This reading taught me much more about the changes that have been made. In more recent years, I learned that things had been changed but not how or why. This article explained that there are both intentional and unintentional changes. The accidental ones that have been made were generally the result of a lack of technology to make exact copies. The lack of a printing press for a large majority of the manuscripts' existence led to many alterations being accidentally made throughout history.

Then there have been intentional changes made. These are made for a larger number of reasons, some of which include correcting mistakes that the transcriber believes were present, addressing social problems, and inserting the transcriber's own beliefs. These are all surprising to me because I have always thought that the people who would have been making copies of the Bible would dedicated to preserving the original manuscripts. This reading has helped me realize that everything read, even in the Bible, cannot just be taken as it is, because there will almost always be some sort of bias present.

Blog (1) Carli Marcello

After reading Chapter 30, I realize that the New Testament, the one I thought I was so familiar with, is actually very unfamiliar to me. It is not only unfamiliar, but this chapter made me realize that I could possibly be believing certain convictions found within the New Testament that was merely inserted by someone other than the author of the book. Scribes changing whole passages, verses, and women’s names to portray their own beliefs or beliefs of the community of that time is disturbing to me. I understand how scribes mistakenly copied down the wrong word or sentence or misspelled a few words, but changing the meaning of the actual translation, I believe, is truly upsetting. The beliefs that these scribes wanted to portray, in essence, basically overpowered oral and written tradition. I find this ironic because tradition is a major theme within the teachings of Catholicism and other Christian denominations. Nevertheless, words and sentences were changed, and those mistakes and intentional changes compose the New Testament we have today.

An intentional change that I question is the insertion of John 7:53 – 8:11, which is the “Story of Jesus and the Woman Taken in Adultery.”[1] While we mentioned this in class, after reading the text along with the other passages that were changed (i.e. Luke 22:44), I wondered why was this story inserted? Why was the man involved with the woman not mentioned within the verses? After researching the story, I found that others pose these questions as well. While I had no knowledge about why such a story would be inserted, F. T. Gench’s article states that historians believe “that the story is a truly ancient one with all the earmarks of an authentic incident from Jesus' life” which was concealed due to the disturbing image it would represent to the community. [2]

I believe I can apply Gench’s above stated reason with my own insights to answer my question about why the man was not convicted for committing adultery. I reason that the woman was seen to be below the man in the society; therefore, she was the one who was wrong. Maybe the man in question was someone of importance? No matter his class, he was a man, who was superior to the woman.

This passage being inserted does demonstrate a great lesson to everyone, but I wonder, what other changes were done throughout the New Testament earlier on that we will never know about?

---

[1] B.D. Ehrman, “Do We Have the Original New Testament?” 498.

[2] F.T Gench, “John 7:53-8:11,” I 60: 4 (2009), 398-400.

Bibliography

Ehrman, Bart D., “John 7:53-8:11.” In The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 4^th Edition. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) 498.

Gench, Frances T., “John 7:63-8:11.” Interpretation 60:4 (2009): 398-400.

Blog #1 Dillon Warren

The epilogue in the Ehrman’s The New Testament provided new insights into the Bible that I had never heard before prior to reading. I grew up moving a lot when I was younger so I spent a lot of time with my parents trying to find the best-fit church with each move. The point of bringing up how many times I moved is that I never once heard of any changes to the original manuscripts, despite traveling and seeing many different churches. Which leads me to ask the question how many individuals actually know what is being changed and read in the first place?

Ehrman’s begins to talk about the different types of changes that have been made. The first type of change he brings up is the accidental changes. Accidental changes are something that should be assumed for the simple reason that individuals did not have printing presses. Ehrman writes, “This could obviously lead to some problems of interpretation, as can be see even by a modern illustration: lastnightatdinnerisawabundanceonthetable”.¹ Accidental mistakes are common and has happened to me before as well when copying something down. The idea that whole pages could be missing is fanscating because there could be many untold stories.

The second kind of change Ehrman brings up in this dialogue is the Intentional Changes. Ehrman has a list of different types of intentional changes and describes why these changes were most likely made. The type of change that stuck out to me the most was, “To insert cherished theological beliefs.”² The idea that an individual decided to insert his or her own beliefs into the task is interesting and daunting. The fact that someone copying the text is putting his or her own theological beliefs makes me question the validity of the text. Ehrman writes, “Sometimes scribes took the occasion to insert their own beliefs into texts that, in their judgment, did not already promote them sufficiently.”² Ehrman talks about establishing a lens on how the bible is read. What if the individuals lens leads him to believe something that should not have been written down or altered?

The epilogue was very interesting and provided a good base on how to continue with the class over the course of the semester. I am still attempting to develop a lens that is most relevant to my own understanding of the bible, but I hope that will come with time.

1) B. D. Ehrman, The New Testament (4; New York; Oxford; 2008), 492.

2) B. D. Ehrman, The New Testament (4; New York; Oxford; 2008), 494.

Bibliography

Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament. Fourth Edition. New York, 2008: 487-499.

Blog #1 Sable LeFrere

I came into this class not knowing what I was really getting myself into. I was always taught in CCD classes, from my family and in church that the Bible was the truth. If it was in the Bible, then there was no questions about it, but after reading this chapter, everything that I was taught seems to be in question.


Ehrman explained in the chapter that throughout centuries, the Bible has been altered and edited. Some changes mistakenly and others intentionally. "The same is true of all the books of the New Testament," he wrote. "We do not have the originals or any early copies, but only copies made much later." [1] It was said back then that most were illiterate, barely being able to read and/or write and those that were literate made humanly mistakes that could have been copied years later. For example, some scribes got a case of what is known now as "periblepsis occasioned by homoeoteleuton," meaning their eyes skipped from one line to the next because they both ended with the same words.[2] This mistake was seem in John 17:5 when Jesus prays to God saying, "I do not ask that you keep them from the world, but that you keep them from the evil one." Ehrman wrote the middle line is omitted in an older manuscript because of the lines ending the same way and reads as Jesus saying, "I do not ask that you keep them from the evil one."[3] To many christians, especially those that grew up in previous generations, this could cause a world wind of problems and strike many nerves. As we've talked about in class, there are some that are more excepting of these mistakes and there are others that will totally ignore Ehrman and continue to believe the words in the Bible are the original words.


As for me, I don't know quite how I feel about all that I've read. Being a student, I can understand how mistakes can be made when copying things down as the scribes did. I guess growing up in this era, my generation is more acceptable of the things that Ehrman talks about where as other before me like my grandparents' generation maybe wouldn't be. For instance, the church just recently made a change to the wording of the Roman Missal, which is the book of texts and prayers. For about four decades we have been use to saying prayers and responses one way, and now we are having to embrace a new translation of the Mass that more faithfully embraces the original Latin. I still find myself saying the old wording and having to flip through pew cards for the new phrases. Even the priest at my church pokes fun at us for all mumbling when it's time to say the new wording. It is frustrating? Yes, sometimes it is, but it will just take some getting use to in my opinion.

[1] B. D. Ehrman, The New Testament (4; New York; Oxford; 2008), 489.

[2] B. D. Ehrman, The New Testament (4; New York; Oxford; 2008), 492.

[3] B. D. Ehrman, The New Testament (4; New York; Oxford; 2008), 493.

Bibliography

Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament. Fourth Edition. New York, 2008: 487-499.

Blog 1 James Leman

Before reading this chapter in our book I had a completely different perception of the Bible. I am not the most religiously active person, but from the time I have spent in Catholic education and Sunday school I learned a few things. After reading this chapter I found things I believed to be true about the Bible to actually be false. Firstly, I believed that the person in the name of the gospel, for example Gospel of Mark, was the actual author of what we read in church on Sunday. It turns out that we do not even have the actual original copies of the New Testament, rather all we have are literally thousands of manuscripts copied by scribes that were actually written hundreds of years after the originals would have been written. According to Ehrman there are more discrepancies amongst the different copies of the NT than there are actual words![1]
Most of these discrepancies are minor things, such as spelling and simple mistakes made by scribes. For example in one copy of the Gospel of Luke the lines 12:8-9 are nearly identical. Line 8 reads "Whoever confesses me before humans, the son of man will confess before the angels of God". Line 9 reads "But whoever denies me before humans, will be denied before the angels of God"[2]. This is thought to be an error made by a scribe who simply lost his place in copying the document by hand since most people wrote in scriptua continuo. Since scribes are merely humans, they are bound to make mistakes of this nature, but some of these discrepancies found in the different manuscripts of the NT are ground shaking to peoples Christian faith. For example, the Story of Jesus and the Woman Taken in Adultery. This story is a favorite to many Christians and is told any where from Hollywood films all the way to your local Catholic church. Yet the story was not written by John in his original Gospel, the story did not begin to show up in the Gospel of John until nearly 800 years after the Gospel was originally written.[3] The story was added by a scribe and was a great story so it stuck and was adopted as original.
After reading this chapter I recalled a personal experience I encountered when in high school. When I went to public high school and played basketball we said the Lord's Prayer before every game or practice, but when I went to Catholic school and recited the Lords Prayer at the beginning of every day I found a difference between the two versions. I was taught that the last two lines were "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.” In Catholic school the Lord's Prayer ended in "and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen."

---

[1] B. D. Ehrman, The New Testament (4; New York; Oxford; 2008), 490.

[2] B. D. Ehrman, The New Testament (4; New York; Oxford; 2008), 492.

[3] B. D. Ehrman, The New Testament (4; New York; Oxford; 2008), 491.

Bibliography

Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament. Fourth Edition. New York, 2008: 490-492.