A Day in the Life of...

I finished Misquoting Jesus last week. Some of it I'd already known from previous readings, some I hadn't. The diminishment of women's role in the church happened gradually from the Second Century A.D. onward. First Timothy was written by someone who claimed to be Paul, but was not. Timothy is an example of a book that was included in the Bible for social reasons. The salutations in Romans were altered. A woman named Prisca was greeted by Paul as "first among the apostles". Later copies of the same Greek manuscript alter her name to that of a man, or put her husband first, or omit the apostles reference entirely. The Bible was altered for several reasons: copying mistakes, theological differences from what would become the Orthodox view (i.e. passages were altered to prevent one or more groups of Christians from claiming that their view was supported in scripture), logical differences/inconsistencies (i.e. passages that pagan critics pointed out that made little or no sense from an intellectual standpoint were corrected or omitted), social (i.e. women and slaves who were declared equals spiritually were declared subservient in every other way to the social norms of the time). The author also points out that in Mark's version, Jesus is angry a great deal of the time, while Luke's version is of a loving and compassionate Jesus. Yet, Luke's Gospel didn't remain unscathed from deliberate alteration by scribes. Mark's Gospel ended abruptly so verses were added to end the story a little better. The Johannine story of the woman who committed adultery (John 7:53-8:12), the last twelve verses of Mark, and the Johannine Comma (I John 5:7-8) do not appear in the earliest manuscripts that have been found. They appear in the Modern English New Testament versions. The English translations are also based on one of the most altered Greek manuscripts. In other words, the King James version is riddled with errors. This doesn't let the Catholic Bible off the hook either, although it had fewer errors. Jerome had to collect and collate several Greek manuscripts in his day and translate them to Latin, so the problem with textual and theological errors probably was already recognized in Jerome's time.

Professor Ehrman's take is that every time someone reads a book, he or she has to interpret and make sense of the book. Interpretation is also part of the role of an author. Mark's portrayal or interpretation of Jesus is different from Matthew's and Luke's, or even Jefferson's (who wrote his own Bible and who didn't believe in an angry Jesus). If Dr. Ehrman is to be believed, the angry Jesus is the historically accurate version of Jesus. These shadings of interpretation is how our Bible came to be. It is a living, breathing document, a part of its time, and now, an integral part of our society and civilization. However, I believe that he does the Bible a disservice in one respect. Texts are generally superior to oral histories and accounts because they are written down and the rate of change is less in written documents. The rate of change or alteration is significantly faster via oral transmission. Then too, oral transmission is a faster means of communication, but it is less reliable over time. Witness gossip in a small town or business or corporation. I am making some assumptions here. One, is that any written document is accurately written in the first place. Of course, there are written lies and fabrications called propaganda or spin, but most religions start out as spiritual truth that is written down and transmitted both orally and in writing. The second assumption is that where deliberate alterations were made, they were made with good intentions. By and large, professional scribes didn't alter documents they copied without good reason and many, if not the majority, of alterations were mistakes (according to Professor Ehrman). The few that were intentional were made for some very good reasons so the scribes or elders thought. The invention of the printing press has probably lessened the error rate, but how many books have you read lately that were poorly edited. I've read my share. How many books will survive 2,000 years hence with printing errors intact? How many Classical era religions have survived for 2,000 years? Buddhism is about 500 years older than Christianity. I'm not sure how old Judaism is, but it's likely almost as old as Mesopotamia. (Some religions likely survive longer because they are a truer picture of the Universe, but they are not the entire truth. Some religions are wiped out by force (i.e.Aztec, Incan). Since we were beaten, our God(s) have failed us. Your God is superior. The Jews never fell for that line of reasoning in spite of their many defeats.) That said, it's not the words or laws that matter. It's their essence. The only laws that are absolute are physical laws and even they might not be if another Einstein or Newton comes along and sees a truer version of the physical Universe.

Experience is truly the best teacher. Intellectual knowledge just shortens the learning curve, but it can't substitute for experience. One must experience "God". Reading about a "God" in the Torah or Bible is a poor substitute for experiencing spiritual truth and "God" for oneself - what the inadequate label points towards. Why believe the Torah or Bible unconditionally in the first place? Use them as a starting point, but they will make poor foundations for living if not used with discernment.

Let the flames commence.