Do you know what was taken out of the Bible?

[cbayer]

http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2014/1126/Do-you-know-what-was-taken-out-of-the-Bible

Writer Joel Hoffman of 'The Bible's Cutting Room Floor' discusses the editing that was done by the humans who compiled the Old and New Testaments.

By Randy Dotinga NOVEMBER 26, 2014



It may seem like God self-published the Bible without having to worry about any pesky editors. The reality, as biblical historians have discovered, appears to be quite different.

Mere mortals put the Old and New Testaments together, drawing upon a rich supply of stories about the past. They also engaged in plenty of editing, says biblical scholar and translator Joel M. Hoffman, author of the lively and fascinating new book “The Bible's Cutting Room Floor: The Holy Scriptures Missing From Your Bible.”

The result is a Bible that was not preordained, he says, but instead the abridged product of crucial decisions about what to leave in and what to leave out. Now, thanks in large part to the Dead Sea Scrolls, we can look at the original material and find the nips and tucks.

In an interview, Hoffman talks about the discovery of the scrolls, the meaning of an alternate take on Adam and Eve, and the value of his book for readers with and without faith. “If you want to know about the human condition,” he says, “the experts you ask are in ancient Jerusalem."

more at link

[stopbush]

1. “If you want to know about the human condition,” he says, “the experts you ask

are in ancient Jerusalem."

Indeed, if one elects to view the human condition through the prism of misogyny, racism, paternalism, self aggrandizement and self loathing.

[cbayer]

2. I guess if you take that completely out of context, that might be your conclusion.

Since misogyny, racism, paternalism, self aggrandizement and self loathing are all part of the human condition, his statement is right on.

They all existed then and they all exist now. What he is talking about is how the stories that talk about those things were selected or not selected for inclusion in this set of books.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Here is the full context, please explain.

In an interview, Hoffman talks about the discovery of the scrolls, the meaning of an alternate take on Adam and Eve, and the value of his book for readers with and without faith. “If you want to know about the human condition,” he says, “the experts you ask are in ancient Jerusalem."

Hoffmann states clearly that modern readers "without faith" can "know" about the human condition by asking a bunch of misogynist racist paternalist self aggrandizing homophobic self loathing ancient "experts" from Jerusalem.

[msongs]

7. or we can ask the CURRENT "misogynist racist paternalist self aggrandizing homophobic self loathing"

experts living in Jerusalem

[Warren Stupidity]

9. either way it is just a stunningly odd statement

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Selected or not selected for institutionalization in 'this set of books'.

[edhopper]

3. Probably good for believers to read

since non-believers no none of it is "The Word of God."

My one quibble is he says a small minority think the literal.

Actually it's 28%, and aanother 47% think it's the "inspired word of God"

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170834/three-four-bible-word-god.aspx

So do they think God allowed his work to be edited by random people.

I would guess the think he guided them to get the exact result he wanted.

[cbayer]

5. Non-believers believe that none of it is "The Word of God".

They don't know anymore than those that claim it is know.

That being said, the whole issue of literalism remains terribly problematic. How people hang on to it in the face of gross contradictions is baffling.

I do think that the "guided" claim is much easier to reconcile and can even be reconciled with the editing process.

[edhopper]

10. I used "know"

for your benefit.

But the guided claims leaves us with the main reason the Bible is as it is, is due to Divine intervention. And not the numerous reasons scholars might give for the editing.

If one believes that the Bible is as God wants, then the editors were merely doing his work, and none of the cultural or historic reasons scholars might give matter.

Some of it being divinely guided is easier to defend. But then the argument is how do you know what part.

Of course since we know all of it is just the work of men...

[cbayer]

12. Well played, because the whole gnostic thing does set me off.

I don't know anything about divine intervention, but I also don't know enough to completely rule it out. If it did play a part, it wouldn't necessarily be incompatible with scholarly editing.

In fact, it gives you lots of wiggle room if one believes that both god and man had a hand in it. That way it is easy to dismiss some as just outright wrong.

You don't know which part. Maybe that is the challenge for believers.

[edhopper]

13. Even if one says they just accept some of it

they would be claiming to know the mind of God.

I imagine for those they just go with what feels right.

It reminds me of the scholarship in some Bibles (usually with red letters) of what are the true quotes form Jesus and which aren't.

Do I need to point out how ludicrous that is? The only legitimate claim might be what is from the earlier versions of the Bible and which came later. But true quotes?

[cbayer]

16. You here make an assumption that is not correct and beyond what

you know. Because you don't believe in god, you can't make a statement about what someone who accepts part of the bible claims to know.

This goes back to the discussion about cultural competence. When you draw assumptions about a language that you do not speak, you are likely to make serious errors.

Is it not possible for someone to see the whole thing as a soup of stories, tales, allegories, metaphors that were overseen or even guided but were written by men? Is it not possible for that person to feel that their personal challenge is to take what is good and reject what is bad? Is it not possible that it doesn't actually matter whether they are right or wrong, but it is the challenge that is important?

And finally, are there not books and collections of books from which we derive great wisdom, guidance, solace, etc that have nothing to do with religion? Even if one believes that this was entirely written by man, that doesn't mean it is entirely without merit.

I wasn't raised with the red letter bible and I don't really know much about it, but if it helps some people derive the meaning they are looking for, it makes no difference to me.

[edhopper]

17. The first part really should have been clearer that I was talking about two types.

Ones who see parts of the Bible as definitely coming from God.

And ones who accept parts of the Bible as divine because it just seems right to them.

The latter would be more as you describe.

But I am not talking about how it impacts you. i am having a discussion about how people see the Bible and what they think is accurate.
If i find the assumption that some of the NT are the actual quotes of Jesus to be preposterous, I have no trouble pointing that out.

I am surprised you do not see the problems in this country from people who do not live their lives with some general Christian outlook, but who fight to make sure the true word of the Bible is observed, by all of us.

[cbayer]

18. Of course I see the problem with fundamentalists.

I am able to make clear distinctions between those that are using their religion in a theocratic way that harms others and those that don't.

It's the inability to make these distinctions that leads to missed opportunities and the alienation of allies.

I am curious as to why it seems so important to you to knock down the beliefs of those that do no harm with those beliefs.

If you are limiting your challenges to those that do harm, then I'm on your side.

But it seems to be much more the case that you want to prove all of them wrong.

It would just be a guess, but when I see fundamentalists wanting to hold the truth and denying that anyone else has it, I think their beliefs and faith are probably very shaky. Is that the case for you?

[edhopper]

19. I believe in an open discussion

without limits. If my questions offend some one's beliefs, they don't need to take part.

You are mistaken intellectual curiosity with personal feelings of uncertainty.

I feel the next question should always be asked. I am also interested in discussions about religion and belief. Hence I am here.

I came about my atheism by not shrinking from asking the next question, wherever it leads.
Though i arrived at my current state of nonacceptance a few decades ago, I guess old habits are hard to break so I still ask the questions and see what others think. I put forward my view and basically say "if I am wrong, what is the counter argument." None have arisen so far that make me think I am in error.

But no my non-belief is not shaky in the least.


Am I 100% sure there is no God, no, I would put it at 99.7% within one standard deviation.

[cbayer]

20. That was not my question.

You claim intellectual curiosity and I am not completely dismissing that, but it doesn't always come across as that.

Curiosity would imply that you are truly interested in what others think and why they think that. When you ask a question it often feels more like a challenge, along the lines of "The answer you are about to give me is wrong, and I am going to tell you why as soon as you answer."

You call people's ideas stupid, ludicrous and ridiculous. This is an approach that is unlikely to provide the culture necessary if one is really curious.

Asking yourself questions is a good thing and I think many come to their atheism and their theism that way. No one will ever be able to prove that you are in error, but I suspect you will continue to challenge them to do so. The question I have is why? Do you really want them to prove you are wrong or are you just reinforcing your belief that they are wrong?

Those that are 100% sure of god or no god are fools, imo. Even 99.7% is too high. Standard deviation doesn't mean anything here because that is a data based determination which is dependent on an average. There is no data and there is no average.

I think what you meant is you want to be 100% sure but you are hedging your bet.

[edhopper]

22. I was being humorous

And didn't succeed I guess.

There are many discussions here about the effects of religion on people and society and others that are more theological.
They overlap at times and the kind of response isn't always straight forward.
That is probably where my different types of replies come from. At least, that's the best explanation I can think of now.
I want to talk about what people believe and why as well as what they do because of those beliefs.

[cbayer]

23. The lack of visual and auditory cues creates so many problems on the internet, imo.

But we are adapting and creating a whole new way of communicating, and that's cool.

Humor and sarcasm are the biggest challenges, I think.

I'm not that interested in what people believe or don't believe unless it has some kind of negative impact on me or others. It's how they behave that most interests me. How they got to their current position can be interesting, but I firmly believe that no on has a superior position when it comes to religious beliefs.

As you know, I share your interest on the effects of religion on people and society. It is here, it is powerful and it's not going anywhere, so I am very interested in how it plays out. Unlike you, I see much good about religion and think it's important to promote the good while challenging the bad.

Let me ask you this. Do you think your atheism provides you with any advantage or position that is superior in some way to a theist?

[edhopper]

25. I am not sure what you mean by advantage

I think if I give an intelligent, reasoned and logical side and the answer is "I just believe it", I would call my argument the better one.
Using logic and reason is the superior method to me.
But I can only use critical thinking to discern which answer seems more correct in an intellectual debate.
I wouldn't consider anything my answer, since greater minds than mine have espoused them before.

[cbayer]

26. An intelligent, reasoned and logical side of what?

Beliefs are beliefs. They are not intelligent, reasoned or logical. They are just beliefs.

And you can't vanquish them with something that has nothing to do with them.

Your "argument" is not better. You are tilting at windmills. There is nothing there for you to argue. You don't believe, they do. There is no argument.

The only exception would be if somone's beliefs fly in the face of science and in doing so have the potential for harm.

Logic and reason are all well and good and they have their place. But so does emotion and belief and faith. Everyone, including you and I, have irrational and illogical positions about certain things. Everyone has beliefs and faith.

If you wanted to change that position because it was causing you some discomfort, there would be a role for intervention. But if you are comfortable with it, no amount of someone telling you it's wrong will change it. You just believe it.

[edhopper]

28. I have heard this argument before

I just don't accept it. And I have logical reasons not to.

I am not going to go into that now, it would probably take at least a few paragraphs and more in the replies. But it's near suppertime and I have promises to keep.

I am very sure this particular discussion will pop up again in this forum.

[cbayer]

30. Have a nice supper.

I need to start making my side for the big potluck tomorrow. Lazy, lazy, lazy I am.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. "They hang onto it in the face of gross contradictions" but we can't "know" that

this crap is not the "word of god".

Are you sure about that? Actually, given your claimed inability to know anything, I withdraw the question.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Scrap 'guided' for 'made up' and it'll all click into place.

[safeinOhio]

6. Another great read

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart Eherman.

The closer he looked at the oldest copies, the foggier it got.

[tnlurker]

8. To read later

[NYC_SKP]

21. I remember feeling shocked when I first learned about this, then thinking, "well of course".

It's curious the way people often "go to the original source" to find citations with validity, when even the oldest versions of the bible are filtered edited and certainly carefully selected tracts.

It's a fascinating topic, that of lost and missing books, original texts, etc.

[cbayer]

24. It's a relatively new area of interest to me.

The Bible is such a powerful force. People embrace every word. People reject every word. People find that it instructs and supports their religious beliefs and faith. People claim that reading it is the biggest reason for atheism.

Whatever else it is, it's power can not be denied. How it got to it's present form is interesting indeed.

[NYC_SKP]

27. And, there's plenty of real life drama and intrigue around such matters....

...including the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Here's a good read from my favorite print magazine:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/who-wrote-the-dead-sea-scrolls-11781900/?no-ist

[cbayer]

29. Putting that aside for later.

I have considered looking for an online course. While I care much more about religion impact on current events, and much less about arguing about the historical accuracy, the first might be enriched by the second.

[Trillo]

31. It's curious so many military consider themselves Christians,

the bible, and Christianity, is fundamentally at odds with the military's honor code.

[cbayer]

32. How so?

[Trillo]

33. It is a religion of lying and cheating.

Of darkness and deceit.

[rug]

34. Unlike the military honor code, copies of which are readily available at every drone site.

[Trillo]

36. correct.

One lie in the military honor code is about hierarchy. If you're lower in hierarchy, you may not lie to those above. If you're higher in hierarchy, you may to those who are lower.

The military honor code is a sham, just like the Christian religion pretends it is about love.

[rug]

37. What is it about?

[cbayer]

39. Sounds to me that you would find them completely compatible.

So I don't get your initial response.

[Trillo]

40. They taught me differently in their schools.

They lied. Particularly the military aspect, you probably have to go through being a plebe to understand the mental aspects of the training. Honor is everything. Except when it comes to hierarchy, and I learned that later.

[cbayer]

41. I have had only limited contact with the military.

I had one situation where I was taking care of someone in an emergency room. His wife did not want him to be admitted to this particular hospital.

I called his CO to tell him and he said, "If we had wanted him to have a wife, we would have issued him one".

That was an eye-opening experience.

Anyway, I never saw christianity and the military as incompatible. And there are so many different flavors of christianity, but not so much military.

[stone space]

38. Oh, I thought you were referring to my favorite Bible quote.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218163786

[NaturalHigh]

35. Very interesting. I think I'll order this book.