The Bible Has Definitely Been Through Some Changes

[humanguy]

That's my problem with this book. It's been edited, parts kept in and parts thrown out, interpreted and translated and all of that according to the whim of who had the most to gain by having the bible say what they wanted it to.

All this stuff is from Wikipedia:

"James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy."

That's the King James Version, the one I guess most Christians read. King James gave the translators instructions to make the bible work for the Church of England. Smells fishy already.

"The Bible as used by Christians is divided into the Old Testament and the New Testament. The canonical composition of the Old Testament is in dispute between Christian groups: Protestants hold the books of the Hebrew Bible to be canonical and include them in what they call the Old Testament. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox additionally consider the deuterocanonical books, a group of Jewish books, to be a canonical part of their Old Testament. "

In dispute it says. This side says one thing and the other says another thing. It's all about "canonical composition."

"Pope Damasus I assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Council of Rome in AD 382. He commissioned Saint Jerome to produce a reliable and consistent text by translating the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin. This translation became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and in 1546 at the Council of Trent was declared by the Church to be the only authentic and official Bible in the Latin Rite."

Declared by the Church to be the official Bible. In 1546! Sorry, King James. Your 1611 version of the bible ain't official. Well, it is as far as you're concerned, and you're the king so hey! Why the hell not?

Now it doesn't take much imagination to figure that these people who were doing all this assembling and editing and translating under the influence of councils and kings weren't going to get every little thing exactly right. I mean, I'm still looking for the perfect translation of Crime and Punishment. My Russian speaking cousin tells me that such a translation is not possible, not really. So as someone who only speaks English I'll never know what it's like to read that book, not really.

So how in the Sam Hill, after so many people have had their hands on this collection of writings, after it's been through so many editions and versions and political fiddling about, how can anyone say that the Bible is the true undisputed word of God?

[KomradRed]

This is partly the reason why I find linguistics, history, and anthropology fascinating and humbling. When I was in high school I translated several of Cicero's trial speeches into English from Latin and it was really when I began to notice that despite translating Cicero's speech and getting the overall gist of what he was saying, the nuances of Roman culture, language, and thinking were lost with the translation and with my reading of the original language. It would be like sending Huckleberry Fin or Pride and Prejudice back to antiquity for Cicero to read. We could educate him endlessly about the history and culture the books were written in, even bring him forward in time to live in the period, to try and understand, but it just wouldn't be the same. In both cases, and in your example of Crime and Punishment, we are able to understand these books and whatnot from other cultures and times intellectually, for the most part, but just as importantly, perhaps emotionally, something prominent would be lost.

Now, as for political machinations in the construction of the Bible and Biblical translations, there have definitely been influences. During the late phase of the Roman Empire, the Bible was translated into Gothic for the newly converted, and Arian, Goths. Significantly about this translation was the omission of several Old Testament passages that condoned violent behavior or warfare, so an attempt was made to keep these parts out so the Goths wouldn't be able to use a religious excuse to make war against the Roman Empire, which had treated the Goths horridly. In my opinion, although the Bible has been tampered with quite a bit in its history, Christianity is kind of a self-regulating organisms. Many times in its history, Christianity has been reformed in order to combat corruption, drifting from the central tenants of the Bible, and whatnot. Probably the most visible example is the Reformation, where thanks to increased examples of corruption by the Roman Catholic Church, a significant portion of Latin Christendom broke away to return to a simpler, more refined, and Christ centered form of Christianity. Say all you want about the religion, there are people who sincerely believe what Christ taught and wish to have an account of his teachings and the other books of the bible that as true to the original texts as humanly possible.

[humanguy]

In my opinion, although the Bible has been tampered with quite a bit in its history, Christianity is kind of a self-regulating organisms. Many times in its history, Christianity has been reformed in order to combat corruption, drifting from the central tenants of the Bible.

The central tenants of which bible?

[KomradRed]

Welp, considering its Christians who seem most concerned with this Bible, I'd assume something to do with some guy named Jesus, or Yeshua depending on your preference. Also, are there any significant changes between these different bibles, like in some Jesus doesn't die, but wins the local Galilean surfing championship, or perhaps in another King No-togorash of the zHree people challenges Christ to a cage match for the souls of man?

[humanguy]

Welp, considering its Christians who seem most concerned with this Bible, I'd assume something to do with some guy named Jesus, or Yeshua depending on your preference. Also, are there any significant changes between these different bibles, like in some Jesus doesn't die, but wins the local Galilean surfing championship, or perhaps in another King No-togorash of the zHree people challenges Christ to a cage match for the souls of man?

Right, I see. So you're assuming that this bible, after all that has been done to it and at least as far as the Jesus part is concerned, is factual, is that correct?

[Pseudonym]

That's my problem with this book. It's been edited, parts kept in and parts thrown out, interpreted and translated and all of that according to the whim of who had the most to gain by having the bible say what they wanted it to.

It's true, but it's terribly reductionist. As time goes on, our understanding can only increase. As we discover and analyse more texts, we converge on a standard text (at least for the Greek New Testament), and our understanding of the context in which that text was written gets better, not worse.

That's the King James Version, the one I guess most Christians read.

Hands up anyone here who uses the King James version as their primary Bible... No, didn't think so. Apart from a few fundamentalists of the KJV-only variety and a few "High Anglican" ceremonial purposes, the KJV has been moved to its own wing of the museum of Bible translation history.

Roman Catholics tend to use the Jerusalem Bible family (most recently the New Jerusalem), Evangelicals tend to use the NIV and Mainline Protestants tend to use the NRSV or NASB. The few groups who advocate the Majority Text tend to use the NKJV. But these are only tendencies. And, of course, researchers work from the original languages where appropriate.

King James gave the translators instructions to make the bible work for the Church of England. Smells fishy already.

To be fair, the brief was to produce an update of existing English bibles. The KJV didn't add any biasses which didn't already exist in the Great Bible.

The Bible as used by Christians is divided into the Old Testament and the New Testament. The canonical composition of the Old Testament is in dispute between Christian groups: Protestants hold the books of the Hebrew Bible to be canonical and include them in what they call the Old Testament. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox additionally consider the deuterocanonical books, a group of Jewish books, to be a canonical part of their Old Testament.

The dispute isn't as big as you may think. Protestant churches treat as canon the same books that Judaism does. However, to the extent that there is a mainstream opinion, it's this:

And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
[list of deuterocanonical books omitted]

Declared by the Church to be the official Bible. In 1546!

Ten years after the separation of the Church of England!

So how in the Sam Hill, after so many people have had their hands on this collection of writings, after it's been through so many editions and versions and political fiddling about, how can anyone say that the Bible is the true undisputed word of God?

As with most such issues, this is only a problem for a hyper-literalist view of the Bible.

We only know as much about the text of the Bible as we do because it was widely dispersed and widely translated early on. Had only one text tradition survived, scholars would quite rightly treat it with more suspicion than they do, because they'd never be quite sure what was modified, added or left out. The fact that we actually know is an advantage, not a disadvantage.

[humanguy]

We only know as much about the text of the Bible as we do because it was widely dispersed and widely translated early on. Had only one text tradition survived, scholars would quite rightly treat it with more suspicion than they do, because they'd never be quite sure what was modified, added or left out. The fact that we actually know is an advantage, not a disadvantage.

I'm not at all sure what you mean by "an advantage." Could you explain, please?

[Pseudonym]

I'm not at all sure what you mean by "an advantage." Could you explain, please?

Textual variations in the various known manuscripts are important clues to the history of the text.

Let's assume for the moment that no copy or fragment of the Greek New Testament pre-dates 300CE. (This isn't true, but let's assume it is for simplicity.) Consider the following scenarios:

1. There are multiple copies dating to 300CE, all of them identical.
2. There are multiple copies dating to 300CE, and they fall into essentially two categories: One family (call it "A") which consistently contains fewer words than the other (call it "B"). For example, texts in family A might say "Lord Jesus" where texts in family B say "Lord Jesus Christ". Apart from these minor wording differences, there is essentially no difference; certainly no difference in meaning.

In the first scenario, there is very little that you can deduce about the history of the Greek New Testament pre-300CE.

In the second, you've got something to analyse. It's likely that there were two or more earlier versions, probably sent to different geographic areas, so there was no chance of comparing the texts as they were copied. There must have been enough time for these versions to diverge and for the divergent versions to be copied, so this puts a lower bound on how much back further than that the "original" text goes. And by comparing the two families in detail, using knowledge of how copying errors occur, you have a better chance of reconstructing a version that both families of manuscript were based on, and giving it a rough date.

It seems weird, but the existence of variations in manuscripts helps textual critics.

Poor analogy: Imagine if Darwin had turned up at the Galapagos and discovered only one identical species of finch.

[KomradRed]

Welp, considering its Christians who seem most concerned with this Bible, I'd assume something to do with some guy named Jesus, or Yeshua depending on your preference. Also, are there any significant changes between these different bibles, like in some Jesus doesn't die, but wins the local Galilean surfing championship, or perhaps in another King No-togorash of the zHree people challenges Christ to a cage match for the souls of man?

Right, I see. So you're assuming that this bible, after all that has been done to it and at least as far as the Jesus part is concerned, is factual, is that correct?

Sure, why not? Haven't there been many translation attempts throughout history by groups who want a bible as close to the original greek and hebrew as possible. Dont we have texts dating back to early antiquity that people translate from. Aren't there a number of different bibles, while having their minor differences, all basically say the same thing? Or did No-togorash pull the wool over our eyes again?

[humanguy]

Very interesting comments. Thanks, guys!