120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Lumpenproletariat]

Once again you prove the point that ONLY THE JESUS MIRACLE STORIES ARE CREDIBLE and not a product of mythologizing.

No, there were no "reputed miracle-workers running around" other than Jesus Christ. You still can't name one example.

Géza Vermes in his "Christian Beginnings: from Nazareth to Nicea" has an entire section devoted to them ("Charismatic Judaism"). I have the Hungarian edition, so I won't bother re-translating relevant sections back to English, especially as I fully expect you to ignore it anyway, but you should be able to lay your hands on the book and read it for yourself. It seems that the wandering Jewish sage who could heal people by prayer and laying of hands, could make rain etc. was a stereotypically common phenomenon in the Jewish culture of those ages.

No, all your examples that follow are AFTER "those ages" in question, i.e., before 50 AD. Every "wandering Jewish sage" you offer came AFTER Jesus in the written record -- i.e., an earlier reputed sage, but the recorded miracle stories all AFTER 100 AD.

The problem is that whenever you offer specific examples, it turns out that they always fit the normal pattern for mythologizing. E.g., the stories almost always date from centuries later than the alleged miracle events. Or in some cases 150 years, but these seem to be a part of the new explosion of miracle stories which begin appearing about 100 AD and later, AFTER the Jesus miracles and apparently part of a new fad of miracle stories which were probably inspired by the Jesus miracles, which seem to be the inspiration for this new explosion of miracle stories.

Such as all your examples:

Honi-Onias "the circle-drawer" who made God produce rain;

The earliest source for Honi the Circle-Drawer is Josephus, about 150 years after the miracle event. http://www.josephus.org/HoniTheCircleDrawer.htm

And the other sources for this are later Talmud stories.

Remember that "reputed miracle-workers running around" means persons reputed near to their lifetime to have been miracle-workers. Of course there were miracle stories and reputed miracle-workers all over the place, and most are totally forgotten. But of the stories that survived, in virtually all cases the accounts of them are more than 100 years later than the alleged miracle events happened.

Eleazar in the time of Vespasianus who could extract demons from people;

Granted, this one is reported by a contemporary, Josephus, who says:

Josephus ("Ant." viii. 2, § 5)

"I have seen a certain man of my own country, whose name was Eleazar, releasing people that were demoniacal, in the presence of Vespasian and his sons and his captains and the whole multitude of his soldiers. The manner of the cure was this: He put a ring that had a root of one of those sorts mentioned by Solomon to the nostrils of the demoniac, after which he drew out the demon through his nostrils; and when the man fell down, immediately he abjured him to return into him no more, still making mention of Solomon, and reciting the incantations which he composed. And when Eleazar would persuade and demonstrate to the spectators that he had such a power, he set a little way off a cup or basin full of water, and commanded the demon, as he went out of the man, to overturn it, and thereby let the spectators know that he had left the man; and when this was done the skill and wisdom of Solomon were shown very manifestly."

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5942-exorcism

Was this a miracle? Josephus saw him "releasing people that were demoniacal," but he doesn't give any description of the victims being released. It's not clear that they were cured of anything.

He says "when Eleazar would persuade and demonstrate to the spectators that he had such a power, he . . ." etc.

But what is the power? All Josephus tells us here is that the spectators were persuaded of something, but he doesn't say what happened with the victims released that shows any power from this exorcist. The only miracle is the overturning of a cup of water. So he was able to cause this cup or basin of water to be knocked over somehow.

Since it's not clear what the "miracle" is, other than a trick of making the cup overturn, and since Josephus is the ONLY source for this, we can't call this a case of a "reputed" miracle worker. There has to be more than only one source. And just making a cup of water be knocked over is a very poor example of a "miracle."

Hanina ben Dosa, who miraculously healed the son of reb Gamaliel (reputed to have been the tutor of the apostle Paul), made his wife capable to bake bread without flour and miraculously changed vinegar into oil;

The sources for Hanina ben Dosa are 200 AD and later, according to https://publicchristianity.org/library/was-jesus-miracle-work-unique#.VzGoj_krLIU and also http://www.apologeticsinthechurch.c...of-these-people-did-miracles-then-that-cancel

So, about 150 years past the alleged miracle events.

Both of the above links are polemical, but there's nothing else which puts the Hanina stories any earlier than 200 AD. There's a difficulty in finding something which says clearly when the sources are dated, other than the above two.

So, it appears the Hanina legend dates from Talmud writings no earlier than 200 AD, unless someone can find an earlier date. A gap of 150 years is too long.

We need an example where the reported event and the written source for it are not so far apart. The accounts of the Jesus miracles are from about 55-100 AD, or 25-70 years after the reported events, and there are 4 accounts, or 5 counting Paul as a source for the resurrection event. But the Hanina stories don't appear until 150 years after the reported events, and well into the period of the new explosion of miracle stories.

Abba Hilkiya and Haman, sons of Honi-Onias, rainmaking specialists;

Conceivably the son, or perhaps grandson, of Honi-Onias might be as late as 10 or 20 AD, so the later written source for it might be a bit less than 150 years. However, as a grandson of the famous "Circle-Drawer," this is obviously a copy-cat story, based on the earlier 60 BC story. Just as the miracles in the Book of Acts are copy-cat stories and much less credible than the original Jesus miracle accounts which inspired them. Also, these are clearly part of the new explosion of miracle stories, beginning around 100 AD.

and yes, Simon Magus and Apollonius, too, no matter that you want them excluded for no other reason that they are obvious counterarguments to your position:

The sources for Simon Magus are at least 100 years later, and for Apollonius 150 years. They illustrate the near-universal trend for miracle stories to not be recorded in writing until at least 100 years after the miracle events allegedly happened.

Why is it that you can't find one example of a miracle story which is recorded for us in a written document any earlier than 100 years after the alleged event?

Whereas for the miracles of Jesus we have 4 (5) sources less than 100 years after the event, most of them less than 60 years, and for the resurrection event we have one source within 30 years after the event. This time gap is shorter than average than for most normal historical events which we routinely accept, which are not recorded for us until a much longer time gap after the event.

how is it you don't you hear yourself when you essentially say "If I exclude all the known cases, then there remain no acceptable known cases"?

No, it's "If we exclude anything that doesn't appear in writing until more than 100 years after the event allegedly happened, then all that's left as being credible are the Jesus Christ miracle stories, which appear in the written record in 4 (5) sources in less than 100 years afterward, and some of them less than 50 years afterward."

Or, if we exclude all the cases which can easily be explained as a product of normal mythologizing, then the Jesus miracles are the only ones left, which cannot be explained this way because they appear too soon after the alleged events.

All the above are documented in the two Talmuds, btw. I have to partly trust Vermes on this, because I have no access to Talmud Yeroshalmi. I checked what I could in Talmud Bavli.

I.e., Babylonian Talmud, 3rd to 5th centuries AD -- too late for 1st-century events. We need something less than 100 years from the alleged events, not 200 years later.

Once again, your examples demonstrate the point that the Jesus miracle stories are the only ones which cannot be explained as a product of normal mythologizing.

Virtually all your examples are taken from documents written more than 100 years after the alleged events happened.

The only exception is the Josephus exorcist case, reported by a contemporary source, so probably this character did exist and did an impressive performance of some kind. But at best his only power was to cause a cup of water to mysteriously get knocked over. Presumably the spectators could not see what knocked it over, so admittedly it was a neat trick. But that's the best you can come up with.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

There were no significant changes in the NT text over many centuries of copying the manuscripts.

He says that there is no change in the text which alters any points of doctrine.

Except for the addition of Trinity to GJohn. And the replacement of 'his father' with 'Joseph' in GLuke. And the addition of the ending of GMark, supplying the resurrection narrative itself. Ehrman does acknowledge all these, and these are the basis of the difference between proto-orthodox Christianity and an unitarian+adoptionist heresy.

No, stop horsing around!

We're talking about changes in the same text, not contradictions between one gospel and another, or a contradiction from one chapter to another.

You have to take one verse, find 2 different Bible translations/versions, and show that one version gives a different reading of that verse than the other.

Everyone knows that the Bible contains some discrepancies within itself, from one book to another, or even within the same book. That's not the point.

The question is about the text being changed in the earliest manuscripts, so that the same verse reads differently in 2 different manuscripts, showing that a copyist made a change in that verse, so that the earlier reading got lost and replaced by a later reading.

And there are no such cases other than something minor, like a spelling change. And there are many of these, but so what? The basic account is not substantially changed.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And there are no such cases other than something minor, like a spelling change. And there are many of these, but so what? The basic account is not substantially changed.

This claim requires access to the originals, Lumpy, in order to make a meaningful claim that nothing has changed. You've been asked before why you do not share these priceless documents with the rest of the world.

Or is your claim not really all that meaningful?

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

The sources for Simon Magus are at least 100 years later ...

9 Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, 10 and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, “This man is rightly called the Great Power of God.” 11 They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his sorcery.

Are you saying Acts was written at least 100 years later?

 

[funinspace]

Except for the addition of Trinity to GJohn. And the replacement of 'his father' with 'Joseph' in GLuke. And the addition of the ending of GMark, supplying the resurrection narrative itself. Ehrman does acknowledge all these, and these are the basis of the difference between proto-orthodox Christianity and an unitarian+adoptionist heresy.

No, stop horsing around!

We're talking about changes in the same text, not contradictions between one gospel and another, or a contradiction from one chapter to another.

You have to take one verse, find 2 different Bible translations/versions, and show that one version gives a different reading of that verse than the other.

Everyone knows that the Bible contains some discrepancies within itself, from one book to another, or even within the same book. That's not the point.

The question is about the text being changed in the earliest manuscripts, so that the same verse reads differently in 2 different manuscripts, showing that a copyist made a change in that verse, so that the earlier reading got lost and replaced by a later reading.

And there are no such cases other than something minor, like a spelling change. And there are many of these, but so what? The basic account is not substantially changed.

Do you really know so little about your own holy book? Simply spelling changes You don't perhaps know that some of Paul's letters are considered forgeries as well? Nah....I'm sure it don't matter. Besides, Lumpy you admit yourself that the birthing narratives and a few other things are forgeries. So they were pious forgeries, or they just don't matter cuz they are originating forgeries? Then the copiers got more honest after 50-100 AD, until we finally get our oldest copies another 150-250 years later? That certainly makes perfect nonsense...

I'll just quote the first three significant changes, so I don't borrow half the page. The rest include Mark 9:29, the huge fake addition within Mark 16:9-20, Luke 3:22, John 5:3-4, another huge fake addition with John 21, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, and Revelation 1:11.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm

* Matthew 6:13: The Lord's Prayer traditionally ends: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." This seems to have been absent from the original writings. 6

* Matthew 17:21 is a duplicate of Mark 9:29. It was apparently added by a copyist in order to make Matthew agree with Mark. But Mark 9:29 also contains a forgery*; this makes Matthew 17:21 a type of double-layered forgery*. 5

* John 7:53 to 8:11: One of the most famous forgeries* in the Bible is the well-known story of the woman observed in adultery. It was apparently written and inserted after John 7:52 by an unknown author, perhaps in the 5th century CE. This story is often referred to as an "orphan story" because it is a type of floating text which has appeared after John 7:36, John 7:52, John 21:25, and Luke 21:38 in various manuscripts. Some scholars believe that the story may have had its origins in oral traditions about Jesus.

These are just most of the big fibs. I'm sensing a goal post shift a coming...

PS I'm still waiting for Lumpy to provide a reference to a mainstream Christian theologian who provides an argument that the GMark Jesus miracle stories "clearly" originate mostly from "onlookers who were not his direct disciples"

 

[Barbarian]

Virtually all your examples are taken from documents written more than 100 years after the alleged events happened.

No. These events simply did not happen, at any time. But you were claiming that we don't know about other alleged miracle-workers at that time, and given the slowness of life back then, 200 B.C - 200 A.D. is 'that time'.

The only exception is the Josephus exorcist case, reported by a contemporary source, so probably this character did exist and did an impressive performance of some kind. But at best his only power was to cause a cup of water to mysteriously get knocked over. Presumably the spectators could not see what knocked it over, so admittedly it was a neat trick. But that's the best you can come up with.

Nope. Simon Magus and Apollonius of Tyana are also contemporaries, but even if they were not: this is the time you retract your arrogant assertion that we cannot name other contemporary 'miracle-workers'.

You should also notice that all stories everywhere are distinct, that's what makes them not the same story. You are simply announcing from on high that the specifics of the Christian stories are proof they are true. If the Christian stories differed from other stories in other details, you'd claim those other details are important. If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you'd be harping about how the tradition about Muhammad is more reliable than anything else we have, given how the hadith usually begin with the enumeration of the chain of chinese whispers from the one dictating the story to the scribe all the way back to a companion of Muhammad, also that no other miracle worker split and rejoined the Moon, therefore Islam is the light.

Jesus' stories are deemed made-up because miracles don't happen. It's that simple. You keep parroting this 'credibility of contemporary documents' thing without reflecting that if we had notarized written protocols detailing the Jesus miracles, countersigned by Pontius Pilatus and accepted as authentic by the entire scientific establishment, that still would not make those miracles one iota more likely to have happened. Instead, we'd have then a case of many people either being deceived or knowingly stating falsehoods for political reasons. Both are infinitely more likely than miracles or the existence of any god.

 

[Barbarian]

We're talking about changes in the same text, not contradictions between one gospel and another, or a contradiction from one chapter to another.

All the cases I listed are authentic changes, as in, we have both variants of the text. And they have deep doctrinal implications. And they are accepted as having happened by dr. Ehrman, contrary to what you claimed. It's about time you started acknowledging when you were wrong, because you are quite in arrears in that respect.

You have to take one verse, find 2 different Bible translations/versions, and show that one version gives a different reading of that verse than the other.

For all the cases I listed we do have Bibles wherein the same verse differs from its counterpart in the other Bible. Some versions of the text have Joseph as the father of Jesus, some don't. Some versions of the text have GMark describe the resurrection, some have a different ending and some don't have anything after Jesus died and the disciples mourned him. The Trinity was added to GJohn because it's a late invention and scripture had to be made arian-proof. Etc. etc. etc. How is any of these a spelling error? Did you really not know about them?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What is the point in claiming that the text was altered? We need an example of such an altered text.

And there are no such cases other than something minor, like a spelling change. And there are many of these, but so what? The basic account is not substantially changed.

This claim requires access to the originals, Lumpy, in order to make a meaningful claim that nothing has changed.

No, it only requires that 2 different known manuscripts give a different reading of the same verse.

There are now thousands of manuscripts, thousands of potential alternative readings of the same verse.

And there are thousands of variant readings, but nothing significant which affects doctrine, or where one text contradicts another, showing an editing effort to change the doctrine, or change the Jesus events.

If you claim there is any such change, give the example. What text is it?

You've been asked before why you do not share these priceless documents with the rest of the world.

Give an example from the known manuscripts. I'm saying that there are no significant changes you can give from the known manuscripts that our translations are based upon.

I am sure there is probably something you could find that someone somewhere claims is significant.

However, if you actually give any real example, it will be clear that it's not anything important.

Almost certainly there are some variant readings of other documents too -- Homer, Cicero, etc. -- where the text is slightly different in one manuscript than in another. And some avid readers or scholars might make an issue of it and claim that it makes a difference in what the author meant.

I'm not sure there's any example where the scholars have any serious squabble over it. What is the point of making an issue out of it?

If there is such a disputed text, does that mean that there is something sinister? that the author was a fraud? that none of the events in the source really happened? the whole thing is a massive hoax? What's the point?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

There are no reported miracles of Simon Magus until 100+ years after the alleged miracle events.

9 Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, 10 and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, “This man is rightly called the Great Power of God.” 11 They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his sorcery.

Are you saying Acts was written at least 100 years later?

No, this is not a source for any miracles done by Simon Magus. Obviously he had some charisma and could impress people. But what is a specific miracle act which he did?

The real sources for his alleged miracle acts do not appear until the mid-2nd-century and later.

 

[Barbarian]

And there are thousands of variant readings, but nothing significant which affects doctrine

First of all, whether Joseph or YHWH was the father of Jesus is a central doctrinal question, not something minor. Whether Jesus was resurrected or not is a central doctrinal question, not a variant reading. Whether the Bible mentions the Trinity or not - i.e. whether the Trinity is a biblical teaching or not - is hardly a minor difference. And yet we have textual variants with both, and in some of these cases we know for sure which variant is earlier, because e.g. church fathers quote the 'wrong' text.

Then: these are accepted as later changes by Ehrman, contrary to what you claimed. Specifically, Ehrman acknowledges that originally GLuke said Joseph was the father of Jesus and only later was this changed to align with the dogma we know of today. Ehrman acknowledges that the original GMark did not have the long ending, therefore originally there was no resurrection narrative. Ehrman acknowledges that the references to Trinity are later insertions. All these changes touch deep doctrinal issues, if you don't know why, just ask. It is, therefore, time for you to retract your claim and acknowledge that you were wrong about Ehrman.

ETA: since all I'm doing here is citing Ehrman from memory, it would perhaps be better if you went ahead and read Lost Christianities and Misquoting Jesus for yourself. They are easy introductory readings.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

Are you saying Acts was written at least 100 years later?

No, this is not a source for any miracles done by Simon Magus. Obviously he had some charisma and could impress people. But what is a specific miracle act which he did?

The real sources for his alleged miracle acts do not appear until the mid-2nd-century and later.

Acts speaks of Simon "amaz(ing) the people" by practicing "sorcery". And what is "sorcery" but miracles performed by the "wrong" people? Like yourself, the author of Acts isn't about to admit that anybody but his pet prophet performed miracles.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Any changes in the text by later copyists/editors are of no importance for doctrine or basic Christ belief.

We're talking about changes in the same text, not contradictions between one gospel and another, or a contradiction from one chapter to another.

You have to take one verse, find 2 different Bible translations/versions, and show that one version gives a different reading of that verse than the other.

Everyone knows that the Bible contains some discrepancies within itself, from one book to another, or even within the same book. That's not the point.

The question is about the text being changed in the earliest manuscripts, so that the same verse reads differently in 2 different manuscripts, showing that a copyist made a change in that verse, so that the earlier reading got lost and replaced by a later reading.

And there are no such cases other than something minor, like a spelling change. And there are many of these, but so what? The basic account is not substantially changed.

Do you really know so little about your own holy book? Simply spelling changes You don't perhaps know that some of Paul's letters are considered forgeries as well?

So some of the later epistles might not really be from Paul, but what's the point? None of this changes any basic doctrine or Christ belief. There was no change of anything important from the original text, and in some cases this original text is not Paul's but someone later who admired Paul and copied him and even used his name. So you can blurt out "forgery! forgery!" and get an orgasm by using this word? But other than this, what's the point?

You seem to think Christians are totally ignorant about these points of biblical criticism, such as questions about authorship and variant readings and copyist errors or changes. Obviously the vast majority of them don't care, but those who educate themselves learn all this from their own Christian sources, in the literature published by their own denomination or by scholars their church relies on.

One's belief is not disrupted by learning of these critical points, and there's no reason it should be. If they believed before that Paul wrote every one of those epistles but now learn that there's doubt about that, they just recognize this and change their belief about it -- this is a minor change. Also they might check some of those epistles and find that these are less important "Pauline" epistles and not the major ones like Romans and Corinthians and Galatians, which are definitely from Paul.



There is no Christian coverup about who wrote the books or about discrepancies.

In the Saint Joseph edition of the New American Bible (Catholic) there are introductions to each of the books, and it's noted casually in many cases that scholars today reject some traditional beliefs about authorship of this or that book. They note the possibility that some later "Pauline" epistles might date from as late as into the 2nd century. So while you're gleefully ejaculating "forgery! forgery!" and pretending that this totally blows up Christian belief, Christian believers learn some of this and adjust their belief accordingly and continue believing the same as before. These points you're making are NOT the volcanic explosion you're fantasizing.

Of course some Christians cling to the traditional belief that Paul wrote every one of the "Pauline" epistles, but so what? They don't all believe exactly the same about everything. In addition to these epistles there were many later NON-canonical epistles also attributed to 1st-century apostles and others contemporary to Jesus.

E.g., there's a letter of Pontius Pilate to Tiberias, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0810.htm , and many other "forgeries" attributed to someone, not just to good guys but also bad guys.

The existence of many Jesus-related forgeries only proves the point that the real historical Jesus must have done something important that everyone wanted to connect to him somehow and try to use him to promote their particular school of thought. The gnostic gospels are a good example. There are dozens of "gospels" which are "forgeries" from the 2nd century and later attributed to 1st-century sources.

Nah....I'm sure it don't matter.

What matters about it? Why are you having trouble making your point? Do you have an example of a change in the text, from one manuscript to another, which you think matters?

you admit yourself that the birthing narratives and a few other things are forgeries. So they were pious forgeries, or they just don't matter cuz they are originating forgeries?

But what is the change in a manuscript that you're claiming was important? Just repeating the word "forgeries" over and over doesn't prove anything. Why can't you make any point other than just hammering away with this "forgeries" word?

Then the copiers got more honest after 50-100 AD, . . .

Which copiers? those who added the birth stories? Whoever added the birth stories probably believed these stories were true. There's no reason to say there was a change in the "honesty" of the copiers.

But I believe all the known manuscripts contain the birth stories, even if they are later fictions added to something earlier. So this has nothing to do with any changes in the manuscripts.

We can conjecture that some earlier version of Matthew did not include the birth story. It is said that the Ebionites had an early version of Matthew without the birth story. But I don't believe there's a known Mt manuscript without the birth story.

Let's assume there was such an early manuscript. So what? The birth story could be fiction, so it did not happen. That changes nothing, except that a popular Christian belief is incorrect, but it proves nothing important. It only shows that vast numbers of people thought he had superhuman power, and so they added myths to try to explain his origin or his nature.

This doesn't change the fact that we have the evidence that Jesus had superhuman power, that he performed the miracle acts, and it's obvious that later mythologizing took place, in reaction to their belief that he was superhuman. That's normal. This later mythologizing is explained precisely by the fact of the original accounts of him performing the miracle acts.

What matters is whether Jesus had that superhuman power. It's not important where he was born, though some believers imagine that it matters. But they still believe the part that's important, regardless of this extra mythologizing.

. . . until we finally get our oldest copies another 150-250 years later? That certainly makes perfect nonsense...

There are some fragments earlier than that. But what's your point? For most ancient documents, the manuscripts are typically 1000 years later than when the originals were written. Are you saying all sources for any ancient history must be "forgeries" because they are later copies? It's difficult to make sense out of your ramblings.

I'll just quote the first three significant changes, so I don't borrow half the page. The rest include Mark 9:29, . . .

Your http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm link says:

Matthew 17:21 is a duplicate of Mark 9:29. It was apparently added by a copyist in order to make Matthew agree with Mark.

Mt 17:21 is omitted by most modern versions. But what difference does it make? It doesn't change anything of importance. Examples like this don't prove anything. So a copyist sometimes added a phrase, or rarely a whole paragraph. There's no example where such a change made any important difference in teaching or Christ belief or the Jesus events.

But Mark 9:29 also contains a forgery; this makes Matthew 17:21 a type of double-layered forgery.

This is so silly. A later copyist added a couple words to Mark, which changed nothing of importance. In the latest versions those words are omitted. You can't come up with any better examples than this? This only proves the point that nothing of any importance was changed by edits from copyists.

. . . the huge fake addition within Mark 16:9-20, . . .

Let's assume the ending on Mark was not in the earliest manuscript. It doesn't imply any change in doctrine or Christ belief. A later editor probably added the ending. But this did not contradict anything earlier in Mark. The addition brought the text closer into line with the other gospel accounts. But it did not produce any change in doctrine.

The part about handling snakes and drinking poison (16:18) is obnoxious, but so what? Not every Bible text has to be believed or taken literally. Christ belief does not require acceptance of every scripture text.

An occasional goofy text does not negate any of the overall Christ belief or the Jesus events or any point of doctrine.

Luke 3:22, . . .

At the baptism of Jesus scene. The most common reading is:

and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.’

However, there was another reading: "You are my Son, this day I have begotten you." Which conforms more to the Arian or "adoptionist" teaching which makes the Son possibly inferior to the Father.

The worst you can claim is that an early Christian copyist, an Arian, changed this text to make it conform to his belief. Even if that did happen, it hardly matters. Christians today are not bothered by the Arian-sounding phrases.

However, there are two reasons to doubt that the verse got changed in order to promote Arianism:

-- The "I have begotten you" wording is obviously lifted out from Ps. 2:7. So the wording was dictated by that Hebrew text and was not invented arbitrarily by the Luke author. This wording is easily explained in the same way as many other Gospel passages which take Hebrew verses as their source. Probably Psalms is the most quoted Hebrew source for these NT quotes.

You can argue that the NT writers were frequently creative in how they used the earlier prophecies. You could poke fun at them for this, but it doesn't prove anything significant that they did this, and it doesn't prove any change of the NT text in order to promote one Christology over another.

-- The Luke author, also the author of Acts, was fond of this Psalm, as he uses it in Acts 13:32-33:

And we bring you the good news that what God promised to our ancestors he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.”

Here the Arian-sounding words appear from this same author.

The original Greek ms. of Luke 3:22 is generally accepted to be the "I am well pleased" wording, and yet it's clear that the original author also used the "I have begotten you" wording elsewhere.

The same author did use both wordings and did not think they were any contradiction to each other. There is no need to assume that this wording has to be a result of some sinister Arian copyist who pulled a fast one on other Christians by changing the wording here. Both wordings were respected, and the "begotten" wording did not inflame the Athanasian school and cause them to fight back in a bar-room brawl with the Arians over this passage. It's silly to make a big issue out of this variant reading. There were no books burned or heads chopped off over this.

John 5:3-4, another huge fake addition . . .

This is a healing story:

Now in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate there is a pool, called in Hebrew Beth-zatha, which has five porticoes. In these lay many invalids—blind, lame, and paralysed. One man was there who had been ill for thirty-eight years. When Jesus saw him lying there and knew that he had been there a long time, he said to him, ‘Do you want to be made well?’ The sick man answered him, ‘Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up; and while I am making my way, someone else steps down ahead of me.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Stand up, take your mat and walk.’ At once the man was made well, and he took up his mat and began to walk. John 5:3-9

So what's the complaint about this text? Was something added or subtracted that served some insidious purpose?

Here's the claim (again from http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm ):

These verses describe how "a great multitude" of disabled people stayed by the water. From time to time an angel arrived, and stirred the waters. The first person who stepped in was cured. This passage seems strange. The process would not be at all just, because the blind could not see the waters being stirred, and the less mobile of the disabled would have no chance of a cure. Part of Verse 3 and all of Verse 4 are missing from the oldest manuscripts of John. It appears to be a piece of free-floating magical text that someone added to John.

All the modern versions agree on what the original text was, and they omit the questionable text because it was not in the original manuscript before 500 AD. A good explanation of this passage is at http://mattdabbs.com/2008/03/20/the-case-of-the-missing-verse-john-54/

This begins by quoting the KJV version which contains the doubtful text:

“In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. 4For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. 5And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.”

What happened to verse 4? The KJV decided to include it because it was in the manuscripts they had at their disposal. The NIV decided to omit it because in the 400 years since the KJV was translated much older manuscripts had surfaced that did not have that verse. Remember, the KJV was translated largely from the Textus Receptus which was a compilation of manuscripts that did not even date prior to 1100 AD. The NIV translation committee had access to manuscripts dating back within 150 years of the original documents of the New Testament.

What happened in the 800 years between the texts the NIV is based on and the texts the KJV is based on? Copying, copying, and more copying. Often a copyist would write an explanation in the margin and some times that explanation would end up in the text. Bruce Metzger (Text of the New Testament, 194) thinks that is exactly what happened in the case of John 5:4. Why? For several reasons (listed in Metzger’s textual commentary 3rd ed, 209):

1 – Because the earliest manuscripts don’t contain it. Why not? Did they omit this verse just like the NIV? Of course not. They don’t contain the verse because the manuscripts they were copied from didn’t have it and the ones before them didn’t have it because the original didn’t have it. It doesn’t start appearing in manuscripts for at least 500 years When no manuscript before 500 AD has a verse you can be fairly certain that it was added in from a marginal note, from a copying error, or due to the copyist remembering that verse in another gospel and accidentally harmonizing them in his head and copying it wrong (such is the case of a few other “missing verses”). But once it is added it then gets copied over and over and from that point on may appear original to the next copyist

2 – Multiple Greek manuscripts copied after 900 AD have a mark showing that they thought the verse was questionable but they included it because it was in the manuscript they were copying from.

3 – This verse has multiple words that John doesn’t use anywhere else = out of character

4 – This verse has a larger number of textual variants = there are many versions of this text in many different Greek manuscripts which points to it being very questionable as to what was original if it even was original.

OK, so this is a questionable passage, about an "angel" coming and stirring the water, but there is nothing here about any theological faction conspiring to change the text in order to promote their theory. The omitted text is from some other source explaining what the worshipers believed about the healing effect of the water.

In addition to the above, there is a wikipedia explanation of this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pool_of_Bethesda , which identifies this pool as an "asclepieion" or place where the healing god Asclepius was worshiped. The legend about the waters being stirred and having healing power was connected with the Asclepius tradition, and this bath had been used this way going back into the 1st century BC. There might have been another pagan god worshiped here also. These were pagan healing traditions going back many centuries.

So what's the problem with this John text? It was not changed, except that an explanatory note was added, perhaps unnecessarily, to explain how worshipers waited for the waters to be "stirred" because they thought this stirring somehow activated healing power of the pagan gods for a moment, so that one person could hop in and be healed miraculously.

There is nothing wrong with this verse, or about the fact that a later copyist/editor added this explanatory note. This doesn't make it a "forgery" or show a change of the text in some way to promote any new doctrine. Nothing about the added text has any effect on doctrine or changes the Jesus events in the gospel accounts.

Apparently the original text did make reference to the belief of the worshipers about the water being stirred. This obviously was connected to their pagan belief, in Asclepius mainly, and led to their attributing magical power to the water at this bath. So the original author did make reference to this pagan belief of the worshipers there. And the later copyist thought a further explanation was necessary. There's nothing here to make a fuss over or to cast any doubt on Christ belief.

. . . with John 21, . . .

There are problems trying to make John 21 compatible with the Luke/Acts version of what happened after the resurrection. The best explanation of these events is that Peter and "the eleven" (Mt. 28:16) did not really go back to Galilee to see Jesus, but that they saw him in Jerusalem only, and that it was some of the other disciples to whom he appeared in Galilee.

But whatever the explanation, even if the whole chapter is fiction, there is no change in the text here which alters Christian doctrine. The only contradiction is that he appeared to these ones in Galilee, but that they saw him in Jerusalem where he ascended and was then gone. The ascension seems to be final, so that it's not likely they then went back to Galilee to see him yet again. So there's some discrepancy here. But it's not an important point of doctrine whether they saw him in Galilee or not.

The simplest explanation is that it was a different group of disciples who saw him in Galilee. This chapter 21 is the author's version of the encounter in Galilee, and it hardly matters whether it's partly true or is totally fiction. There are definitely many fiction stories about Jesus, which appeared mostly in the 2nd century. That fiction stories appear later about an historical figure is no reason to disbelieve the earlier factual reports about him.

Just because a text contains something difficult or problematic in establishing what really happened does not mean it's a "forgery" or that a later copyist changed the text in order to promote a contrary doctrine.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35, . . .

OK, let's poke fun at these famous words:

women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

What's the point? You think this was not in the original Paul epistle but was added by some later copyist/editor?

Who cares? It doesn't change any of the basic facts about Jesus. And it doesn't matter whether Paul said this or someone else added it later. Just producing something we can laugh at doesn't prove anything. What matters is whether Jesus had the power depicted in the gospel accounts, in the miracle acts. Much else got added in different writings and became attached to the new Christ cult(s) which emerged. So you found something goofy in some of those writings -- go ahead and snicker and cackle at it. You haven't proved anything. This is not anything of importance. One can totally reject this verse and still believe in Christ.

. . . and Revelation 1:11.

The objection to this text:

The phrase "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and," which is found in the King James Version was not in the original Greek texts.

It's silly to make an issue out of this. These words were added later to this place in Revelation, but this obviously is nothing important being added, because the same words do appear in Rev. 1:8, so what difference does it make that a later copyist also added those same words into another spot a few lines down? There's obviously no change in doctrine caused by this addition.

Matthew 6:13: The Lord's Prayer traditionally ends: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." This seems to have been absent from the original writings.

But what is changed by this addition? No one has said there were no changes. The vast majority were minor points, like spelling. But where a whole new sentence was added, something major, it still does not have any impact on doctrine, or anything about the basic Jesus events, such as the miracle acts.

Why can't you give an example where something of significance was changed? something that would mean a major change in teaching or Christ belief? Christians who take the trouble to educate themselves on these fine points then simply adjust their belief about that minor point. It doesn't contradict anything important.

Matthew 17:21 is a duplicate of Mark 9:29. It was apparently added by a copyist in order to make Matthew agree with Mark. But Mark 9:29 also contains a forgery; this makes Matthew 17:21 a type of double-layered forgery.

This is a repeat from earlier. Again:

Mt 17:21 is omitted by most modern versions. But what difference does it make? It doesn't change anything of importance. Examples like this don't prove anything. So a copyist sometimes added a phrase, or rarely a whole paragraph. There's no example where such a change made any important difference in teaching or Christ belief or the Jesus events.

But Mark 9:29 also contains a forgery; this makes Matthew 17:21 a type of double-layered forgery.

This is so silly. A later copyist added a couple words to Mark, which changed nothing of importance. In the latest versions those words are omitted. You can't come up with any better examples than this? This only proves the point that nothing of any importance was changed by edits from copyists.

All you have to offer in these examples is your repeated "forgery! forgery! forgery!" hysteria. Other than just ejaculating this word over and over, you're saying nothing.

John 7:53 to 8:11: One of the most famous forgeries in the Bible is the well-known story of the woman observed in adultery. It was apparently written and inserted after John 7:52 by an unknown author, perhaps in the 5th century CE. This story is often referred to as an "orphan story" because it is a type of floating text which has appeared after John 7:36, John 7:52, John 21:25, and Luke 21:38 in various manuscripts. Some scholars believe that the story may have had its origins in oral traditions about Jesus.

Again, all you are doing is just repeating the "forgery" word over and over and hoping somehow that this proves something. What are you proving with these examples?

So a story got attached to Jesus. This only proves the point that he must have done something important that so many different writers and myth-makers were driven to adopt him as their hero figure. None of these examples cast any doubt on the credibility of the Jesus miracle stories or the gospel accounts generally. They only show uncertainty about many of the details. And some myths or legends were added to the original Jesus story, and we can reasonably sort it out and distinguish the factual from the fictional, while some parts remain doubtful.

These are just most of the big fibs.

The only fib is the lie that there were major changes in the text caused by copyists and that these have any significance for teaching or Christian doctrine or Christ belief. Obviously there is the fictional element in these writings along with the factual part. There are also contradictions or discrepancies from one writing to another. But there are no later changes/edits to the original text which alter the major facts or teachings about Jesus.

Rather, there are some discrepancies between the several accounts as they were originally written. These are due to differing interpretations of the original writers, not from later distortions introduced by copyists producing additional manuscripts centuries later.

The original writers did not all have the same understanding of what happened, or the same explanation for it. But their accounts agree on the major points.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Step 1, insist there were no changes
Step 2, insist that the changes were small
Step 3, insist that the big changes were trivial with respect to the main topic
Step 4, return to step 1...

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The Jesus miracle stories probably originated from actual events reported by observers who were not his disciples.

I'm still waiting for Lumpy to provide a reference to a mainstream Christian theologian who provides an argument that the GMark Jesus miracle stories "clearly" originate mostly from "onlookers who were not his direct disciples"

Christian theologians have virtually nothing to say about the miracles of Jesus. They play them down, not only today, but always, going back to the first Christian theologian, Paul.

The stories themselves clearly imply that the reputation of Jesus as a healer was spread by the general population, or outsiders who were not his disciples. You can disbelieve these accounts, but these report the miracle healing acts as events witnessed by large numbers who told others so that the word about him spread throughout the region.

I already showed examples of this in the first series of miracles in Mark, through chapter 3. Continuing with chapter 5 we still see this pattern.

Mark 5:14-20
The swineherds ran off and told it in the city and in the country. Then people came to see what it was that had happened. They came to Jesus and saw the demoniac sitting there, clothed and in his right mind, the very man who had had the legion; and they were afraid. Those who had seen what had happened to the demoniac and to the swine reported it. Then they began to beg Jesus to leave their neighbourhood. As he was getting into the boat, the man who had been possessed by demons begged him that he might be with him. But Jesus refused, and said to him, ‘Go home to your friends, and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and what mercy he has shown you.’ And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him; and everyone was amazed.

In the above text, it says three times that someone told others, who were not his disciples. The last one was the demoniac himself who had been healed, who proclaims "in the Decapolis" (not just one town, but several) what had happened. They "told" it, "reported" it, and "proclaimed" it to others. Even if this is an exaggeration, it clearly shows that the gospel writer understands that the stories were spread by these outsiders, non-disciples of Jesus.

Also, in explaining this story, you have to consider that it's not possible it could be a total invention. Even though it contains superstitious elements and could be partly fiction, it cannot be a total fiction story, because it partly depicts Jesus in an UNfavorable way, saying the population in that neighborhood took offense at him and demanded that he leave the area.

The story inventors could easily have made the story more favorable to Jesus if it was total fiction. There was no need to include the negative reaction to him, or the harm to the herd of swine and damage to the owners. Why is there no favorable response to Jesus other than from the cured demoniac? Why is there no amazement expressed by the local residents, no praise expressed at his wonderful healing power, but instead only fear? -- "they were afraid" -- These innocent local residents have nothing but fear and scorn for him? That cannot be the product of a later Christian storyteller.

So this story has to be at least partly factual. (One possible explanation of what happened is that the demoniac screamed and the pigs nearby were frightened and stampeded in a panic.)

Mark 7:35-37
And immediately his ears were opened, his tongue was released, and he spoke plainly. Then Jesus ordered them to tell no one; but the more he ordered them, the more zealously they proclaimed it. They were astounded beyond measure, saying, ‘He has done everything well; he even makes the deaf to hear and the mute to speak.’

The picture Mark presents here is of people who are surprised and tell others. And these were not his disciples.

Mark 6:53-56
When they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennesaret and moored the boat. When they got out of the boat, people at once recognized him, and rushed about that whole region and began to bring the sick on mats to wherever they heard he was. And wherever he went, into villages or cities or farms, they laid the sick in the market-places, and begged him that they might touch even the fringe of his cloak; and all who touched it were healed.

This one doesn't say explicitly that the crowds of non-disciples were reporting his acts, but where did all these "people" or "they" come from? where did they get the word that he could heal the sick? They "recognized" him, so maybe they had seen him earlier, or maybe they had heard about him and realized this one coming was the one they had heard about. In any case it's clear that they were not with him, i.e., not his disciples, but were just part of the general population which became aroused at hearing of his arrival.

And again, even if there's some exaggeration in Mark's description, the point is that these accounts of the miracles give a scenario where the crowds are hearing of this from others in the local population, from local residents, and not from among the disciples of Jesus.

These are scenes of large numbers reacting and becoming excited and seeking others to be brought, especially the sick. There is never any indication that this agitation of the population was caused by the disciples going out and telling them and trying to bring them to Jesus.

The behavior of the populace, reacting to the reports, is spontaneous. They even react against the orders of Jesus to keep quiet about it in some cases.

Of course you can simply reject all these gospel accounts of what happened. But your only reason to reject them is that you start out with the dogmatic premise that no such miracle acts can ever happen, and so therefore any stories about such things must be fiction, and from this premise you draw the conclusion that it must have been only later believers who promoted the stories after having invented them, and that the scenario of the stories being spread by the general population, outside the Jesus disciples, simply must be rejected no matter what, because it undermines the dogmatic premise that such events can never really happen, and protecting this ideological premise has to take priority over the available evidence, which must be discounted.

This conclusion that the stories must have originated only from the disciples (direct or later disciples) and were promoted only by them, is not based on any evidence, but only on your dogmatic premise that no such miracle events could ever have happened. It's not necessary for a reasonable person to start out with this dogmatic premise. A totally objective or neutral view is to accept the accounts as accurate generally, while maintaining doubt about any miracle claims.

From this objective or neutral view, one holds off judgment about the miracle claims, but recognizes that the miracle stories, as presented to us in the gospel accounts, assume a context in which large numbers witness the miracle acts and tell others about them, and this causes the word, or rumors about him, to spread.


Did the Gospel writers lie about the behavior of the crowds or witnesses?

or the behavior of the victims healed (who sometimes reported what happened)?

The possibility cannot be ruled out that the stories are totally invented and that the later storytellers intentionally fashioned the stories to make it appear that people from the general population, not his disciples, were amazed and went out to tell others. But there is no evidence that the stories were contrived with this intent, and it's not normal to just assume such intent by the writers or sources.

Of course writers may distort the account to favor this or that cause. But to distort how the first reports of an event originated and were spread abroad, i.e., to distort who witnessed it or heard of it or reported it, is not the norm. Is there another example of a source/writer distorting the account of an event in order to make it appear that someone reported it who did not really report it? Doesn't this add unlikely extra layers of complex creativity and subtlety to the minds of the story promoters? (Maybe you could find such a thing in modern examples, but 1000-2000 years ago there is probably no case of this.)

If the gospel accounts of the miracles were created from such motivation as this, the writers could have been much more explicit about it. They could have repeated explicitly in every case that the witnesses were outside observers and not disciples of Jesus. That they were generally outsiders is clear from the context, but the writers do not say this explicitly as part of their intended meaning, as a point they were trying to make. They were not trying to provide later apologists with debating points about how the Jesus miracle stories originated.

The stories can be best explained as generally-accurate descriptions of how people reacted by spreading the reports of what they saw (or thought they saw) or what someone else told them.

In virtually all other cases of witnessed miracle acts, where a guru performs alleged healing acts, the stories themselves -- the available accounts, where they exist -- tell us that it was the disciples of the guru who reported the events, and these are the witnesses as well as the ones healed by the guru. (E.g., the example repeatedly given here of Joseph Smith, in which case all the stories originated from his disciples, and virtually every victim reportedly healed by him was a disciple.) This is one of the reasons why the Jesus miracle stories are more credible, because the accounts available to us tell us that the original source for the stories, at the time the event happened and was reported, were people other than his direct disciples promoting the healer or his cult.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Once again -- and again and again -- there are NO INSTANT MIRACLE-WORKERS! It required generations for these myths to evolve.

No, this is not a source for any miracles done by Simon Magus. Obviously he had some charisma and could impress people. But what is a specific miracle act which he did?

The real sources for his alleged miracle acts do not appear until the mid-2nd-century and later.

Acts speaks of Simon "amaz(ing) the people" by practicing "sorcery". And what is "sorcery" but miracles performed by the "wrong" people?

No, if that's the explanation why Acts mentions no real miracles, i.e., narrates no specific miracle acts by Simon Magus, then it should also apply to later Christian writers like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus who do narrate specific miracle acts allegedly done by Simon Magus. Why are there no such specific miracle acts of his reported earlier, nearer to the time of the alleged events?

Answer: because they did not really happen. There are plenty of miracle stories by the "wrong" people reported by Christian writers, but only centuries after the alleged acts happened.

We need something more specific than "sorcery" acts. We all know that "sorcery" and magic etc. are real events where there is illusion and deception. And most people know the difference, including Galileans and Judeans and Greeks and Romans in the 1st century. They did not get very excited about another "sorcerer" coming to town. They did not write these acts down and publish them a generation or two later in multiple accounts, and start a new religion over it.

Like yourself, the author of Acts isn't about to admit that anybody but his pet prophet performed miracles.

On the contrary, later Christian writers did reluctantly admit (incorrectly) that Simon Magus performed miracles, because the mythologizing or legend-building around him had 100+ years in which to grow. But no one believed it in 100 or 90 AD because these legends had not yet accumulated.

Some of those later Christian writers also admitted (incorrectly) that Apollonius of Tyana performed miracles, after this legend had time to reach maturity.

So you're wrong to say that the Christ believers would never admit that anyone other than Jesus had performed miracles. They believed it in some cases because of the popular legends that had accumulated.

(However, to get the whole story straight, not ALL Christian writers believed these stories.)

 

[Keith&Co.]

Once again -- and again and again -- there are NO INSTANT MIRACLE-WORKERS!

You say that and say that, Lumpy, but have you noticed that no one seems to grant you any great authority when you do say these things?

 

[funinspace]

Do you really know so little about your own holy book? Simply spelling changes You don't perhaps know that some of Paul's letters are considered forgeries as well?

So some of the later epistles might not really be from Paul, but what's the point? None of this changes any basic doctrine or Christ belief. There was no change of anything important from the original text, and in some cases this original text is not Paul's but someone later who admired Paul and copied him and even used his name. So you can blurt out "forgery! forgery!" and get an orgasm by using this word? But other than this, what's the point?

The point is that from even the first century people were quite willing to start doing what they wanted to tinker with the theology of the emergent Christian system(s).

You seem to think Christians are totally ignorant about these points of biblical criticism, such as questions about authorship and variant readings and copyist errors or changes. Obviously the vast majority of them don't care, but those who educate themselves learn all this from their own Christian sources, in the literature published by their own denomination or by scholars their church relies on.

Actually, most Christians would have a tough time naming much of anything about their holy book accurately, so yeah many are totally ignorant. I remember one time in a mainstream Protestant church Bible study, one of the actual elders started reading from the notes side of the Chapter he was asked to read out loud. He went on for several sentences until one of us pointed out that he wasn’t reading the Bible verses. He was no idiot, but he was pretty ignorant of his Bible. And about 25% of American Christians, who are fundagelicals firmly believe the Bible is God-Breathed, and strongly deny this reality.

One's belief is not disrupted by learning of these critical points, and there's no reason it should be. If they believed before that Paul wrote every one of those epistles but now learn that there's doubt about that, they just recognize this and change their belief about it -- this is a minor change. Also they might check some of those epistles and find that these are less important "Pauline" epistles and not the major ones like Romans and Corinthians and Galatians, which are definitely from Paul.

Let’s see: Dump the major Yahweh miracles and events like the Deluge, Tower of Babel, the Exodus, the day the sun stood still, et.al. Dump the whole birthing narrative, the forged (squirt…squirt….squirt) ending of Mark, now dump half a dozen Pauline letters like Ephesian, Hebrews, 2nd Thessalonians, First Epistle to Timothy, the Second Epistle to Timothy, and the Epistle to Titus. You should probably drop Revelations as well. Yeah, nothing amiss here….

In the Saint Joseph edition of the New American Bible (Catholic) there are introductions to each of the books, and it's noted casually in many cases that scholars today reject some traditional beliefs about authorship of this or that book. They note the possibility that some later "Pauline" epistles might date from as late as into the 2nd century. So while you're gleefully ejaculating "forgery! forgery!" and pretending that this totally blows up Christian belief, Christian believers learn some of this and adjust their belief accordingly and continue believing the same as before. These points you're making are NOT the volcanic explosion you're fantasizing.

Ah, no I don’t think any particular item “totally blows up Christian belief”, firstly because there is no such thing as “Christian belief”. There are a cornucopia of Christian beliefs, and many don't get along with the others. I have made it clear over the last year dealing with your shifting and baseless goal post challenges, that it is a culmination of a host of issues that make Christianity unbelievable to me today, ergo why I left the faith.

you admit yourself that the birthing narratives and a few other things are forgeries. So they were pious forgeries, or they just don't matter cuz they are originating forgeries?

But what is the change in a manuscript that you're claiming was important? Just repeating the word "forgeries" over and over doesn't prove anything. Why can't you make any point other than just hammering away with this "forgeries" word?

The point is this:

Except for the addition of Trinity to GJohn. And the replacement of 'his father' with 'Joseph' in GLuke. And the addition of the ending of GMark, supplying the resurrection narrative itself. Ehrman does acknowledge all these, and these are the basis of the difference between proto-orthodox Christianity and an unitarian+adoptionist heresy.

<snip>
And there are no such cases other than something minor, like a spelling change. And there are many of these, but so what? The basic account is not substantially changed.

I'll just quote the first three significant changes, so I don't borrow half the page. The rest include Mark 9:29, . . .

Your http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm link says:

Matthew 17:21 is a duplicate of Mark 9:29. It was apparently added by a copyist in order to make Matthew agree with Mark.

Mt 17:21 is omitted by most modern versions. But what difference does it make? It doesn't change anything of importance. Examples like this don't prove anything.

Do you really not get it? When you blather on about something that is patently false, you are going to get called on it. Trying to bury your previous misleading or false statements within walls of text, doesn’t help your argument. See your statement above where you claimed there are only minor spelling changes et.al. within the iterations of the copying of books now within the Bible.

 

[funinspace]

I'm still waiting for Lumpy to provide a reference to a mainstream Christian theologian who provides an argument that the GMark Jesus miracle stories "clearly" originate mostly from "onlookers who were not his direct disciples"

Christian theologians have virtually nothing to say about the miracles of Jesus. They play them down, not only today, but always, going back to the first Christian theologian, Paul.

Uh, what a strange and inaccurate thing to say….but whatever. I will have to assume that this notion above is something that you cannot find any backing from within Christian theological circles. I find the lack of support for your notions of “clarity” to be pretty damning of your view.

The stories themselves clearly imply that the reputation of Jesus as a healer was spread by the general population, or outsiders who were not his disciples. You can disbelieve these accounts, but these report the miracle healing acts as events witnessed by large numbers who told others so that the word about him spread throughout the region.

“Clearly” -- You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

Clearly the moon is made of Cheese…as I have read of it.

 

[funinspace]

Step 1, insist there were no changes
Step 2, insist that the changes were small
Step 3, insist that the big changes were trivial with respect to the main topic
Step 4, return to step 1...

'It's just a flesh wound!

I do like your version of denial more, but I felt the contradiction clearly needed some clarity

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Whistle-blower Bart Ehrman exposes hidden textual-variants, uncovers plot to hide the truth behind Christianity's dark origins!

And there are thousands of variant readings, but nothing significant which affects doctrine

First of all, whether Joseph or YHWH was the father of Jesus is a central doctrinal question, not something minor.

Yes it is minor. It is semantical and abstract and subject to dozens of interpretations. It might be interesting, but one could believe either way and still be a Christ believer. Those victims who were healed by Jesus "believed" him but did not have theories about whether his "father" was Joseph or YHWH.

Whether Jesus was resurrected or not is a central doctrinal question, not a variant reading.

Yes it is central, and there is no variant reading which denies the resurrection. It would be a major discrepancy if they discovered an alternative manuscript of any of the gospels which denied the resurrection. This would be a problem for Christ belief, and the powers that be would try to find a way to exclude that text.

Whether the Bible mentions the Trinity or not - i.e. whether the Trinity is a biblical teaching or not - is hardly a minor difference.

The word "Trinity" is not mentioned and does not matter.

But if you mean "Trinity" language, like "The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost" (the "FSHG") -- then maybe it matters a little, but probably not much.

There are NT texts which seem to imply some kind of separation between the "Son" and the "Father" -- and this is not totally explained, and never has been. "Trinity" language, like the FSHG, is an attempt to explain this. It's not a new doctrine if a variant text containing such language should turn up.

And yet we have textual variants with both, and in some of these cases we know for sure which variant is earlier, because e.g. church fathers quote the 'wrong' text.

But the "Trinity" problem always existed, from the very beginning. There are several texts in the earliest manuscripts which imply some kind of "Trinity" idea, or separation of the "Father" and the "Son" -- and the "Holy Ghost" idea pops up also in one form or another.

Every Christ believer has his/her own understanding of the "3 persons" and tries to remain a monotheist while at the same time recognizing the 2 or 3 different "persons" somehow. Hardly any believer is offended when s/he encounters a new Bible text that is pro-Trinitarian or anti-Trinitarian. Both kinds of text have always been there, and a believer just tries to accept both, and this doesn't seem to be a problem for Christ believers.

The account of Jesus praying in the Garden while the disciples are sleeping is a revered scene for Christians, and this seems to suggest a distinction of the "Son" and the "Father" -- how can they be "One" if one of them is praying to the other?

And yet, is this really a contradiction that Christians have a problem with? The truth is that believers have become accustomed to this "contradiction" and just accept it as some kind of mystery, or dilemma, that doesn't need an ultimate resolution.

Then: these are accepted as later changes by Ehrman, contrary to what you claimed.

There may be "changes" on these points, but they are not major doctrinal points. I.e., the "changes" don't really change anything important in doctrine, or present any new challenge to traditional doctrine. Christians today don't care about it, and it's not clear that average Christians in the 3rd century really cared either. The "Arian" controversy, which the theologians cared about, was not about the "Trinity" -- both Arian and Athanasius accepted the "Trinity" language.

The "Trinity" points have only minor importance. Nothing has really changed simply because a new text is discovered, or a text variant is discovered, relating to the "Trinity" -- No matter what new text variant turns up, this minor problem remains anyway. The theologians will keep nitpicking forever about the 3 Persons, regardless what it says in some new text variant, even if that variant can be proved as the earliest wording of that text. It still won't settle this issue anymore than it has already been settled (or not settled).

Specifically, Ehrman acknowledges that originally GLuke said Joseph was the father of Jesus and only later was this changed to align with the dogma we know of today.

What was "changed"? What text was changed by a later copyist to say that Joseph was not the father of Jesus?

In any case, it does not matter whether Joseph was the father of Jesus. However, you need to identify the text variant in question. Until you show otherwise, I don't believe there is any text variant saying that Joseph was not the father of Jesus. And anyway, one can believe in Christ without believing Joseph was his father, though this would contradict an accepted tradition.

Ehrman acknowledges that the original GMark did not have the long ending, therefore originally there was no resurrection narrative.

But there was this narrative in Mark, and it's in the original short ending. It mentions the empty tomb and the admonition to the disciples to go to Galilee to meet the risen Jesus. What it omits is any narration of the appearances.

The appearances in Mark are only in the long ending, so these were added by a copyist/editor, but they don't change anything significant in the doctrine or basic Jesus events. The appearances are anticipated in the original Mark, so there's no major change in doctrine by the later addition of these.

Ehrman acknowledges that the references to Trinity are later insertions.

You mean that there were earlier manuscripts which did not have these references?

The famous Matthew reference, Mt 28:19, is the earliest reading ("baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost"). This is not from a later copyist.

Ehrman says that 1 John 5:7-8 had a Trinity insertion which made it into the KJV but has now been removed because it is a later copyist insertion.

So, yes there was that one later variant reading, in the 1 John text. But there was always the Matthew text, which was not a variant reading. And the Matthew text is just as much a Trinity text as the 1 John text. So the Trinity is an established doctrine, from the earliest Mt manuscript.

The Mt source dates from about the same time as 1 John. So this added reading in 1 John was not a significant change in the existing doctrine.

I can't find Ehrman's interpretation of Mt 28:19 which is in all the translations and is based on the earliest manuscripts, unlike the 1 John text which everyone agrees is later and is no longer included in the modern translations.

So, what does it matter that the 1 John text had that variant reading in some earlier versions? It didn't conflict with settled doctrine.

All these changes touch deep doctrinal issues, if you don't know why, just ask.

I am asking. Why does it matter for doctrine if a text variant popped up which was consistent with the existing doctrine? And where is there a text variant saying Joseph was not the father of Jesus? and in any case, why would this matter? Do you think any Christians would be shocked at a text suggesting that the real "Father" of Jesus is the one in Heaven rather than the husband of Mary? This supposed text variant, whatever it is, sounds very innocuous. Are you really saying that the Church Councils had big knock-down-drag-out battles over something like this?

It is, therefore, time for you to retract your claim and acknowledge that you were wrong about Ehrman.

Whatever you say I was wrong about -- I retract it. (But instead of 50 Hail Mary's, prescribe some physical penance for me -- I need the exercise.)

But he does say or does agree that the textual variants have little or no consequence for Christian doctrine:

E.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1AZqkJIjYE , debate, Daniel Wallace vs. Bart D. Ehrman, February 1, 2012. Wallace says in this debate:

The smallest group of variants are those which are meaningful and viable. What I mean by "meaningful" is that they change the meaning of the text to some degree, and "viable" means they have a good chance of representing the original wording. Less than 1% of textual variants fit this group, as Bart and I would both agree.

Ehrman did not later correct Wallace on this, so it must be his view that less than 1% of textual variants are "meaningful and viable."

Wallace gives as an example the Mark 9:29 text, where a later copyist added the words "and fasting" to the text, and also Revelation 13:18, where the "number of the beast" might have been changed by a copyist from 616 to 666, which means it's possible this famous number might have to be changed in the accepted text, though this remains unsettled so far. So he's saying these two textual variants are examples of what is not meaningful and viable. And Ehrman agrees with these two examples and with the "less than 1%" being meaningful and viable.

You decide what you think. But I don't see how "and fasting" adds anything serious to the Mark 9:29 text, or how it matters whether the magic Devil's number is 666 or 616. And over 99% of the textual variants are in this same category, according to Ehrman and Wallace.

But Wallace continues, saying there are still hundreds of texts that are in dispute. So this sounds like texts where there are variant readings and there might be some importance to the meaning, depending on which text is correct. Then he poses the question: "What theological beliefs depend on textually suspect passages?"

Then he quotes from Bart Ehrman's book, Misquoting Jesus, from a Q&A section:

The most telling question asked of Bart is this: "Why do you believe these core tenets of Christian orthodoxy to be in jeopardy based on scribal errors you discovered in the biblical manuscripts?" Bart's answer might surprise you: "Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament."

So this is quoting Ehrman saying that "essential beliefs" are not affected by textual variants. Ehrman did not subsequently say anything to qualify this statement from his book.

Another question:

Dr. Ehrman, what are the manuscripts inconsistencies that matter a lot? Dr. Wallace, do these undermine the Christian faith?

Ehrman's answer was Luke 22:43-44, probably a textual variant, and Wallace seemed to agree, though it might really be a later copyist omission rather than addition. Here the author describes Jesus in the Garden as being in agony. Ehrman says this depiction of Jesus conflicts with Luke's general depiction of him as non-emotional and unaffected by pain or suffering.

Assuming this text is suspect, Ehrman uses this as an example of an "inconsistency" that matters a lot. Wallace agrees that it's important, but doesn't answer whether it "undermines" Christian faith. Almost certainly his answer would be that it does not.

But maybe it's important whether Jesus suffered, or experienced human stress or anguish, etc. And so you could say it's highly critical for Christian doctrine whether Jesus was capable of such human suffering, and that without this he could not really pay the great SACRIFICE necessary to redeem humans from condemnation.

So this is Ehrman's example of a textual variant he perhaps thinks was critical or "matters a lot" for Christian doctrine. He had a chance to give a better example but chose this one. He even emphasized this example by returning to it later, so he must think it's pretty important.

But this really indicates that he doesn't have any good examples of a textual variant which would be critical for doctrine. It may be important that Jesus suffered, but this verse does not change the truth about this. All believers assume that Jesus did suffer, as the other gospel accounts indicate he did, and that he experienced human anxiety. The extra words added to Luke 22 are not necessary to make this point about Jesus suffering.

Ehrman's revelation about the mystery scribe who altered Luke's account: But Ehrman makes the interesting observation that the original Luke removes words from Mark which show Jesus suffering pain at the crucifixion. So the authentic Luke presents a "passionless passion" where there is no suffering by Jesus, but then we are accosted by the scene in the Garden where Luke has Jesus being in anguish. So this extreme anguish scene in Luke 22:23-24 seems to be from the hand of a later copyist.

So Ehrman's theory is that some scribe who thought Luke's Jesus needed to more human decided to add this extra suffering element to the scene. Ehrman could be right and yet it does not have any important consequence for Christian doctrine that these words were added.

He says this text "changes the tone" of Luke's gospel, which may be true, but what important difference does it make for basic Christ belief? How is this anything other than some interesting literary criticism, and perhaps a psychoanalysis of the authentic Luke and the later copyist? With or without this inserted text, Christians generally believe that Jesus did suffer and felt pain, even though he somehow was "God" and was omnipotent. This may be a dilemma, but it remains a dilemma regardless whether this variant text in Luke is there or not.

Even if Ehrman is entirely correct about this text, there's probably fewer than 1% of Christians who would be shocked to learn that this text was artificially added or artificially omitted by some copyist, and fewer than .0001% of theologians who would get into a barroom brawl over it. Even though Ehrman says the scribe who added these words (or omitted them?) did it for "theological reasons." So this looks like a serious example from Ehrman of the idea that textual variants did something to impact the doctrine or change something critical to the Christology or the actual historical Jesus person.

And this seems to be the best he comes up with. So this is the "smoking gun"? to show that the Christ figure we have in the gospels is somehow distorted or, or -- or what? What is the point? What is the great significance of it even if Ehrman is correct about the text being tampered with this way by a later copyist?

Wallace basically agrees with Ehrman and says this text adds "a significantly different picture" in some sense, and he contrasts the "portrait" of Jesus in Luke vs the "portrait" in John and explains them both as "portraits" of the same historical person.

But does this doubtful text "matter a lot" for Christ belief or doctrine? Is this the best example of a textual variant that "matters a lot" or has a strong impact on doctrine?

ETA: since all I'm doing here is citing Ehrman from memory, it would perhaps be better if you went ahead and read Lost Christianities and Misquoting Jesus for yourself. They are easy introductory readings.

No doubt he says many statements that sound like there were violent knock-down-drag-out fistfights over textual variants like the above. Even beheadings and bookburnings and excommunications -- Ehrman is a sensationalist.

But it's also obvious, from the above debate, that he agrees with Wallace that "less than 1% of textual variants fit" the "meaningful and viable" category and that "Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants" (from his Misquoting Jesus), and also that he can't give a strong example of a textual variant that "matters a lot."

We need someone to help out Ehrman by offering a textual variant which really does make a difference for Christian doctrine. He's not succeeding at giving us any good examples of this.