While a few instances may be true, 2000+ years of institutional violence puts Christianity at the forefront. as the Zulu cheiftain said, “the white man came to teach us to look to his god and while we looked, he stole our land!”
Which is an appropriate condemnation if “white man=Christian.”
And yet the “bloodthirstiness” of Christianity has been largely a function of the government, not the religion.
From Constantine in the 4th Century CE until well into the 19th Century (and in some cases the 20th Century) it was near impossible to seperate Chruch and State, so what was largely a function of the government was likewise largely a function of the religion. From the very beginning of its secular power, the religion has been a King-maker and as such exerted extreme political power. Such things as the Crusades and the Inquiistion were not spring from the decisions of the various states of Christiandom, but instead from the Church, whence came the bloodthirtiness.
The funniest part of it all is that the most common bible is really a mistranslated and edited (by one of the popes, something XIII, I think) copy that does not even have all the original books in it. They say follow the word of Jesus, but only this, this, this, and this part.
a good book for this point is “Misquoting Jesus, the story behind who changed the bible and why” by Bart D. Ehrman, one of the foremost biblical scholars of this century (and of the 20th century). Dr Ehrman began his quest of the scriptures as a devout evangelitical and ended up as an Agnostic. His indepth study of the ancient documents of the NT have shown him how the scriptures have been editted and changed over the centuries to the point one cannot say what they originally taught.
And yet the “bloodthirstiness” of Christianity has been largely a function of the government, not the religion.
From Constantine in the 4th Century CE until well into the 19th Century (and in some cases the 20th Century) it was near impossible to seperate Chruch and State, so what was largely a function of the government was likewise largely a function of the religion. From the very beginning of its secular power, the religion has been a King-maker and as such exerted extreme political power. Such things as the Crusades and the Inquiistion were not spring from the decisions of the various states of Christiandom, but instead from the Church, whence came the bloodthirtiness.
Well, I agree that the problems started in the 4th Century CE and that it was near impossible to separate the Church and State. Whence came the bloodthirstiness.
The funniest part of it all is that the most common bible is really a mistranslated and edited (by one of the popes, something XIII, I think) copy that does not even have all the original books in it. They say follow the word of Jesus, but only this, this, this, and this part.
Actually, most contemporary translations are translated from the earliest extant documents.
a good book for this point is “Misquoting Jesus, the story behind who changed the bible and why” by Bart D. Ehrman, one of the foremost biblical scholars of this century (and of the 20th century). Dr Ehrman began his quest of the scriptures as a devout evangelitical and ended up as an Agnostic. His indepth study of the ancient documents of the NT have shown him how the scriptures have been editted and changed over the centuries to the point one cannot say what they originally taught.
It’s a good book, but it’s pretty hard to justify conjecture and speculation without those “original” unedited documents.
Actually, most contemporary translations are translated from the earliest extant documents.
Not necessarily so, but even then the earliest extant documents complete enough all come from the 4th century CE, that’s 4 centuries after the reported actions of the characters and 3 centuries after the original documents (autographs) were first penned. That hardly makes for accuracy. LOL
It’s a good book, but it’s pretty hard to justify conjecture and speculation without those “original” unedited documents
Isn’t that what science is, conjecture and speculation with some evidence and often without any evidence. Is not a scientific theory conjecture and speculation, often being changed as new data becomes available? How is this different than textual criticism? Yes, textual criticism is conjecture and speculation, but more often than not the conclusions are based on strong evidence…I see no real difference.
The funniest part of it all is that the most common bible is really a mistranslated and edited (by one of the popes, something XIII, I think) copy that does not even have all the original books in it. They say follow the word of Jesus, but only this, this, this, and this part.
Actually, most contemporary translations are translated from the earliest extant documents.
I’m talking about the King James bible. There were a great many words mistranslated from aramaic, to latin, and to english...most of them in the latin to english jump, as far as I’m aware.
I’m talking about the King James bible. There were a great many words mistranslated from aramaic, to latin, and to english...most of them in the latin to english jump, as far as I’m aware.
This is largely because the KJV is based on the Eramus’ 1535 Greek Text translation , which became known as the “Textus Receptus”. Eramus used no more than 6 Greek texts in his work, the oldest (and least used, they say) was of 10th century origin. Eramus often bowed to convention in his works, including things that he felt (usually correctly) were not part of the original text, such as 1 John 5:7-8, considered to be the basis for the Trinity (5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one: 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one). These words were not included in the earliest Greek texts or in the earliest form of the Latin Vulgate, but were first found in the writings of Priscillian. Circa 385 CE. On the other hand, the Latin Vulgate did indeed stem from the best 4th century manuscripts available, but once again we are speaking of a 3 century gap between the autographs and the manuscripts that Jerome used to “create’ the Vulgate. A point to consider, the earliest Christian writings seem to be those of Paul/Saul of Taurus, whose Christ bears little resemblance to the Christ currently worshipped by modern Christians, no virgin birth, no Joseph and Mary, no 12 disciples, no miracles and even the crucifixion seems not to take place on this plane of existence but instead in some “never-never land”, this likewise is the case with the Gospel of Thomas and the reconstructed “Quelle” document. Also, as Ehrman pointed out, the first scribes working on the NT were those members of the religion with at least a small level of literacy (literacy was not very high in those times) and thus were not professional scribes. They were much more likely to make minor to serious copy mistakes. It wasn’t until Constantine that the Alexandrian, Western and Byzantine schools of professional scribes got into the business of copying Christian documents, at that time the problems of textual mistakes was somewhat alleviated, but they only had the documents of the barely literate to work with.
I’m talking about the King James bible. There were a great many words mistranslated from aramaic, to latin, and to english...most of them in the latin to english jump, as far as I’m aware.
This is largely because the KJV is based on the Eramus’ 1535 Greek Text translation , which became known as the “Textus Receptus”. Eramus used no more than 6 Greek texts in his work, the oldest (and least used, they say) was of 10th century origin. Eramus often bowed to convention in his works, including things that he felt (usually correctly) were not part of the original text, such as 1 John 5:7-8, considered to be the basis for the Trinity (5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one: 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one). These words were not included in the earliest Greek texts or in the earliest form of the Latin Vulgate, but were first found in the writings of Priscillian. Circa 385 CE. On the other hand, the Latin Vulgate did indeed stem from the best 4th century manuscripts available, but once again we are speaking of a 3 century gap between the autographs and the manuscripts that Jerome used to “create’ the Vulgate. A point to consider, the earliest Christian writings seem to be those of Paul/Saul of Taurus, whose Christ bears little resemblance to the Christ currently worshipped by modern Christians, no virgin birth, no Joseph and Mary, no 12 disciples, no miracles and even the crucifixion seems not to take place on this plane of existence but instead in some “never-never land”, this likewise is the case with the Gospel of Thomas and the reconstructed “Quelle” document. Also, as Ehrman pointed out, the first scribes working on the NT were those members of the religion with at least a small level of literacy (literacy was not very high in those times) and thus were not professional scribes. They were much more likely to make minor to serious copy mistakes. It wasn’t until Constantine that the Alexandrian, Western and Byzantine schools of professional scribes got into the business of copying Christian documents, at that time the problems of textual mistakes was somewhat alleviated, but they only had the documents of the barely literate to work with.
O.O
...Someone seems to be an authority on the subject.
I’m talking about the King James bible. There were a great many words mistranslated from aramaic, to latin, and to english...most of them in the latin to english jump, as far as I’m aware.
A point to consider, the earliest Christian writings seem to be those of Paul/Saul of Taurus, whose Christ bears little resemblance to the Christ currently worshipped by modern Christians, no virgin birth, no Joseph and Mary, no 12 disciples, no miracles and even the crucifixion seems not to take place on this plane of existence but instead in some “never-never land”, this likewise is the case with the Gospel of Thomas and the reconstructed “Quelle” document. Also, as Ehrman pointed out, the first scribes working on the NT were those members of the religion with at least a small level of literacy (literacy was not very high in those times) and thus were not professional scribes. They were much more likely to make minor to serious copy mistakes. It wasn’t until Constantine that the Alexandrian, Western and Byzantine schools of professional scribes got into the business of copying Christian documents, at that time the problems of textual mistakes was somewhat alleviated, but they only had the documents of the barely literate to work with.
Except that the Greek of Luke is exception for Koine Greek.
Also, you (or Ehrman) are neglecting the high rate of literacy in a culture of the “people of the Book.” Consider, for example, the differences between the Dead Sea Scrolls copy of Isaiah with the Masoretic text, which dates from about 1000 years later. The differences are minor--spelling and grammar. How could this be in a culture with “low literacy”?
