Reddit reviews Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why
We found 13 Reddit comments about Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
> Christian here, and I am honestly looking to find what atheists believe is the best evidence against christianity or the Bible.
The best argument against it is that there is no credible evidence to support it in the first place. This might not agree with your current thinking but I will politely challenge you to come up with the best evidence you think demonstrates that Jesus is/was the Earthly avatar of the creator of the universe.
The bible itself is not evidence. The bible is the claim. Consider that there is no evidence outside the bible from the time the bible takes place that supports the existence of Jesus. All the mentions of Jesus outside the bible occur many decades after he was supposed to have lived. Worse, the gospel accounts are anonymous.
We know enough about the history of the bible from a literary perspective to know that it was written by men. (See my notes at the bottom of this comment.) What you think of the bible today is a collection of documents that was edited and copied repeatedly, then voted on by the Council of Nicaea - some books were omitted from the canon even though they are referenced by other books in the bible that are canon.
A few things worth pointing out:
Those are three things off the top of my head. Here's one list that has many more. Another list. One more.
In the end though, there's no credible evidence for anything supernatural in any religions. I don't believe in Jesus or Yahweh or Zeus or bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster for the same reasons - no credible, compelling evidence.
Edit:
Some additional resources as I think of them.
Welcome to the sub and also welcome to the sometimes terrifying, sometimes hilarious, sometimes just downright perplexing field of apologetics and counter-apologetics. Skeptic vs Christian? Well, we're all looking for the truth, so hopefully you can learn a bit from each of us here and make up your own mind once you feel that you have enough perspective and enough of the relevant facts.
Here are my answers to your questions (trying to be brief!):
1) Is the bible inerrant?
By inerrant I take it to mean that you are referring to what most conservative Evangelical churches say about inerrancy. For a good grasp on what most churches in America mean when they put the word "inerrancy" into their written 'statement of belief' please read the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
In my understanding of inerrancy there are plenty of "loopholes" and one can always push back and say we simply don't have enough evidence or enough knowledge to say for certain that there is or is not a problem. I talk about this more on my blog (see: http://kch.me/no-contradictions-allowed/ ), but basically if you come at the text with the assumption that there are no errors (specifically no internal contradictions) then it will be very hard to admit that there are any in the text, even where another reader (someone who doesn't make such an assumption) would be quick to point some out.
Some basic contradictions often brought up are the differences between the two Creation stories in Genesis (slowly read Genesis 1, noting the order and how things occur, then slowly read and take notes on Genesis 2...scholars posit that the reason for this is that these two chapters originally came from separate documents and it is accounted for in the Documentary hypothesis)
Another basic, narrative-level contradiction (just simple differences between stories) is how the death of Judas is described. Did he die of hanging or of sudden disembowlement? Who purchased the field that he died in? Acts gives one account while the ending of Matthew gives another account. Again, I'd suggest reading both accounts one at a time, slowly, taken notice of the details mentioned in each version and the order in which events are said to occur.
Those may not be "deal-breakers" for accepting Christianity, but the moment that you can admit that there is even 1 error (whether because of an admitted contradiciton between two parts of the Bible or because of a falsehood identified in the Biblical text--saying a wrong historical data point or something based on primitive knowledge of biology or cosmology [stars are "fixed" in a round dome above earth, earth is flat etc]) then I think it is improper to continue to try and call the text inerrant.
2) Is the bible to be taken literally? This question obviously only refers to the New Testament. If the answer to this question is "yes", then how would one explain Mark 16:17-18?
That specific passage is actually pretty easy to dismiss since most modern translations now acknowledge that it most likely was not part of the original gospel. There's a whole long history about how it got into the text in the first place and why it is in the King James and some other older translations. If that sort of stuff interests you, I'd highly recommend checking out Misquoting Jesus, which describes how scholars determine the actual text of the Bible and specifically focuses on the New Testament (you can probably find a copy through local library).
Some passages of the Bible are clearly intended as allegories (such as most of the parables of Jesus and also some of the very obvious allegories within Ezekiel and other OT books). Still, other passages seem like they could not possibly be taken as allegories or metaphors such as the story of Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist which seems like it is intended to be understood as a straightforward historical account (though there are some differences between how some gospel writers, especially John, view this event). Other parts are more ambiguous. What exactly is the gospel of John getting at when it calls Jesus the "son of God"? How can such a strong theological point be understood from a historical perspective? Or, look at some of the events in the life of Jesus which seem to be over-loaded with symbolic meaning like when he feeds the multitudes (on two separate occassions)...does the fact that there is symbolic significance to these stories (repeating the actions of God feeding the Israelites in the wilderness as one example) mean that the authors recording these stories did not believe that they actually happened? IMO, there are definitely some gray areas throughout the Old and New Testaments when it comes to such tricky interpretive issues.
3) If the bible is not to be taken literally, instead if it is to be more of an allegory, then how am I supposed to know? How do I know when Jesus is talking to his disciples if he is really talking to me? Is Jesus ALWAYS talking to me in the bible? How does one differentiate?
The answers you will get on this question will vary wildly but they will pretty much be dependent upon what specific verse you are citing (or what set of parallel verses) and also upon the tradition of the person you are asking. I mentioned the parables earlier, and that's an area where most would at least agree that the parables aren't literal accounts of anything (maybe the parable of Lazarus can tell us something about heaven/hell, but it isn't clear). BUT, different Christian commentators would still disagree on the exact meaning and nuance of some of these stories. One that is more hotly debated is the parable of the sower...Arminians and Calvinists will hotly contest the understanding of this passage since it is seen to impact their debates over whether or not one can lose their salvation.
Another big area of disagreement when it comes to interpretation is the Sermon on the Mount. Those in the Anabaptist traditions (itself a pretty broad group but thinking mainly of Mennonites and Amish here) see Jesus' radical commands here quite literally...some Christians will not swear oaths, even in a court of law, because of what Jesus says here. Mennonites and other pacifist Christians refuse to serve in the military or the police and even consider personal self-defense sinful because it would violate Jesus' command to "turn the other cheek." Other groups though will down-play the significance of what Jesus is saying here or they will insist that nothing Jesus said is relevant because he was speaking to the 1st century Jews before his death and this was a different "dispensation" and in fact the specific commands which Christians are required to follow are all found in Paul's later epistles ( see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperdispensationalism )...this view and similar theologies would also say that we can't look to certain parts of Scripture to give us an example of how the church should behave, since God had not yet fully revealed his plan for the church. This stuff can get tricky real quick and like I say a lot depends upon the tradition that is used to filter the text. I think that some of the NT writers disagreed with each other and now that they are all part of one unified canon different methods have been proposed which try to harmonize all of the diverse teachings and make sense of them together, which is (part of) why there are so many diverse Christian denominations each claiming to have the truth and yet each pointing to one authoritative Scripture.
4) How many gods do you believe in? Is Jesus a god? Is his heavenly father a god? Are they the same person? Is the Holy Ghost a god? How does this relate to your views on the Trinity?
I don't believe in any gods. I'm an atheist. On some gods I simply don't know enough either way to judge the claim while for certain specific deities I assert that the existence of such a being is either downright impossible (due to logical absurdities or historical flaws) or is extremely implausible and extremely unlikely based upon knowledge we now have.
I will say that I think it is possible to be a fulfilled, devout Christian without buying into everything that modern fundamentalism teaches (namely an "inerrant" Bible, eternal conscious torment for the wicked and a very specific formula for "how to be saved and go to heaven").
I wish you well on your journey and hope that you find satisfactory answers to your questions. Peace and Freedom :)
EDIT: I'm noticing that some atheists here are recommending the Skeptics Annotated Bible. Please don't waste your time with that website...you are going to find that the SAB is rather ahem uncharitable when it comes to presenting what it sees as contradictions or problems.
we switch books each year... (BoM, PoGP, D&C, NT) we skip the OT cause last time we tried (when i was still TBM) I told my wife that most of the stuff we were reading was disturbing, so we crossed off that book of madness. And frankly after reading
https://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed-ebook/dp/B000SEGJF8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1503676427&sr=8-1&keywords=misquoting+jesus
I really don't want anything to do with the Bible either.
My new bible is this, I have it on my nightstand and read it daily and HIGHLY recommend it to anyone still looking for daily insight to living a good life.
https://www.amazon.com/Daily-Stoic-Meditations-Wisdom-Perseverance-ebook/dp/B01HNJIJB2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1503676497&sr=8-1&keywords=daily+stoic
I find the books written by Bart D. Ehrman to be both informative and interesting. I have read three of them: Forged: Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are
Misquoting Jesus
Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them)
All three of them are solid reads.
Online Bible Links:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
https://www.biblegateway.com/ (over 100 versions and 50 translations of the bible, including audio.)
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (with Cross-References) [Kindle Edition] [free]
(edit:formatting to make it easier to read)
I really like his book Misquoting Jesus
The way it is written, it could be read by a Christian without taking offense.
Misquoting Jesus?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000SEGJF8/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
Misquoting Jesus is one of his more popular-level books. He has several very detailed academic ones; see his personal page.
I read the bible with the aid of a commentary (The New Jerome Biblical Commentary), and a Bible Dictionary (HarperCollins Bible Dictionary). It slowed the pace a bit, but I got a lot out of it. I also had some good intros to the New Testament (An Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond Brown and The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings by Bart Ehrman).
Some other interesting study aids:
Good Luck.
Probably not the answer you're looking for, but I recommend starting by simply just getting a really good annotated study Bible or two. Those are going to give you some great jumping off points as you get to various places, and you can start digging in libraries and online and even start up a discussion from there. Thing is, the Bible isn't merely one book. It's a collection of various works by different authors from different time periods, and you'll find that to this day there's still a lot of disagreement over who wrote what and when as well as which works should be included.
I guess if I had to recommend two other books that could get you started and are easy to understand, I'd go with these two, in order:
https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Beginners-Guide-Bible-Head/dp/0789734192/
https://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed-ebook/dp/B000SEGJF8/
These are by no means a final authority on just about anything in them, and there are a ton of great books out there, but again... This is just about getting you started.
Probably an unusual choice for a Christian, but I actually like the The Skeptic's Annotated Bible as a kind of companion to my annotated study Bibles. Unfortunately, my physical copy was lost in a move. It's a little condescending at times, in my opinion, but it's useful in giving an outside perspective, and I love that some of the notes give me something else to look into. For anyone who has fundamentalist views, this is of course going to be problematic, but I'm obviously not a fundamentalist.
Part of the problem may be that people wrongly think atheists just go around saying "religion is bad" over and over, like a broken record. It's a bit more nuanced than that. Sam Harris for example, though he has been accused of just being anti-religious, has openly said that religion is not the problem, and even fundamentalism isn't the problem. The more extreme Jains get, he points out, the less you have to worry about them. He addresses specific beliefs, which he feels that Islam has a disproportionate burden of.
On the larger scale, yes, skeptics argue that the religious way of looking at the world is bad. But there are many arguments for that, many approaches. One person may point to the impact religiosity has on social health, while another will argue over human rights, another will argue epistemology, another will argue over the provenance of Biblical doctrine, another will use humor to point out absurdity, and then there is advocacy for a scientific worldview. This list could, of course, be a lot longer.
If someone dismisses the diversity of these approaches, I have trouble believing they're paying attention. But I'd say the same of those who think that religion is "really" about stories in which we frame our morals, and not about sincere belief in supernatural claims about Gods that really exist, really love and punish, rose from the dead, sent prophets, and so on.
Much of what the atheists get chided for is just listening to the fundamentalists and taking them seriously as to their beliefs and motivations. Then we're finger-wagged for missing the point of what religion "really" is.
> I don't think the Bible in it's current form was heavily modified - at least not intentionally
Misquoting jesus, an eye-opening book.
> suspend disbelief
I shouldn't have to do this in order to believe in something that is real. It's like asking you to suspend your disbelief that water turns to wood.
>It is only because you come at the Bible with the circular reasoning that flawed humans came up with it that you therefore assume the information conveyed is primitive and not timeless truth.
Some of the information is somewhat true. The reason that some of it still applies today is that human psychology has changed little in the past 2,000 years. Things that were wrong 2,000 years ago are still wrong today, stealing, indescrimate killing, etc.
As for the Bible, perhaps there is a version one that will settle all debate, but as it stands right now through the scholarly scrutiny of it, we've found that the Bible has been changed, edited, things have been left out or put into it. Some of these changes were innocent scribe mistakes, but others weren't. I suggest reading Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman for a layman's look at contexual critism of the Bible.
>Such as the earth is the center of the universe... I don't think the Bible states that.
No, but as with any religious text it's open to interpretation and there are verses that talk about the circle of the Earth and how it shall not be moved and how it has corners that could be taken and misconstrued to mean just that.
Reading Joshua 10:13 (And the sun STOOD STILL, and the moon stayed...So the sun STOOD STILL in the midst of heaven, and HASTED NOT TO GO DOWN about a whole day. ), those back in that day might have come to the conclusion that the Sun moved around the Earth otherwise how could the Sun just stay in the sky and not move. This is where our human intuition breaks down. There are many things that appear to be true and feel psychologically true, but aren't. This is how it looked to the ancient people of that time. It was what they were comfortable knowing. It made them feel special. God's creation at the center where it should be. Later, though we found this to be wrong.
So, why not from the beginning state these things? Why not say that the Earth revolves around the Sun and is a spherical ellipse? Why not explain that insects have six legs and not four (Leviticus 11:20)?
These things show a primitive understanding of the world and cosmology not an awe-inspiring truth. But then perhaps this wasn't what God had in mind? Maybe he didn't care for us to know that the Earth is round and not the center of the solar system or that insects have six and not four legs?
Read Bart Erhman. My library has all his e-books, hopefully you have access to one.
This way we remove all the accretions stuck to Jesus' story, and the real truth of how loving and progressive and radically equality-oriented earliest Christianity was will make you love them more.
https://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed-ebook/dp/B000SEGJF8/ref=la_B001I9RR7G_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1498111603&sr=1-3