FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-11-2008, 01:48 PM   #1
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Central Europe
Posts: 118
Default Forgeries and additions in the bible..

Where can I find a list of solidly proven forgeries and additions in the bible?

By additions I mean intentional deceit by scribers/translaters to fit the story or certain elements of the context.
AtheistVirus is offline  
Old 05-11-2008, 02:01 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 897
Default

No such clear list exists due to the fact that a forger would not sign it "this was forged", and even if he did, a later Christian scribe could remove it during copying.

However, a good start is to read Ehrman's "misquoting Jesus". For some short and easy answers, the books of 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus are nearly universally (other than fundys) known to be not written by paul (forged), and the story about the adulterer in John (chap 8) is similar.

Plus, the large number of variations between our manuscripts show forgery, since many have added details (compare the KVJ and the NIV, for instance - such as Acts 8:37, John in the story about the healing at the pool, etc.).

That's a start. There is of course a lot more.

Equinox
Equinox is offline  
Old 05-11-2008, 02:06 PM   #3
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Your question implies that there was an original Bible that was later corrupted, but there are those who classify the entire Bible as an intentional deceit, written for ulterior motives; and there are undoubtedly many additions that were done in good faith and not for the purposes of deceit.

But you might want to start with Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus"

In the Historical Section of the II Library, you will find works like Wheless' Forgery in Christianity and Ingersoll's Some Mistakes of Moses, but you should not use anything from the Historical Library uncritically, as it does not reflect subsequent research.
Toto is offline  
Old 05-11-2008, 02:13 PM   #4
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: ucla, southern california
Posts: 140
Default metzger

ehrman's 'misquoting jesus' is essentially an update of his professor's book. see bruce m. metzger's "the text of the new testament: its transmission, corruption, and restoration (or via: amazon.co.uk)[/URL]"
XKV8R is offline  
Old 05-11-2008, 02:16 PM   #5
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: ucla, southern california
Posts: 140
Default

my fav intentional corruption is the johannine comma (although the wiki article is not the best. it makes it sound like the comma is ancient. it is not. it is a medieval addition attempting to give some specific biblical support to the doctrine of the trinity.
XKV8R is offline  
Old 05-11-2008, 05:07 PM   #6
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Central Europe
Posts: 118
Default

Very interesting stuff...but what about list of contradictions and absurdities in the bible as they are, so without any external interpretation.

And since I'm on this I'm also looking for a list of catholic church individuals high up in the hierarchy trough-out history who made any kind of embarrassing statements/behaviors/policies from today's standpoint, also practices themselves to be viewed in that way.
AtheistVirus is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 10:22 PM   #7
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: queensland Australia and elsewhere
Posts: 172
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtheistVirus View Post
Very interesting stuff...but what about list of contradictions and absurdities in the bible as they are, so without any external interpretation.

And since I'm on this I'm also looking for a list of catholic church individuals high up in the hierarchy trough-out history who made any kind of embarrassing statements/behaviors/policies from today's standpoint, also practices themselves to be viewed in that way.
i am sure there are some very interesting comments on record regarding the behavior of church officials in Canada Ireland Australia as well as Archdiocese of Boston and Los Angeles ++ before everyone became aware of the real situation that prevailed over 150 odd years
simongc is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 11:17 PM   #8
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Your question implies that there was an original Bible that was later corrupted, but there are those who classify the entire Bible as an intentional deceit, written for ulterior motives; and there are undoubtedly many additions that were done in good faith and not for the purposes of deceit.
Can you give me an example of an addition in the Bible that was done undoubtedly in good faith and not for the purpose of deceit?
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-14-2008, 12:27 AM   #9
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Your question implies that there was an original Bible that was later corrupted, but there are those who classify the entire Bible as an intentional deceit, written for ulterior motives; and there are undoubtedly many additions that were done in good faith and not for the purposes of deceit.
Can you give me an example of an addition in the Bible that was done undoubtedly in good faith and not for the purpose of deceit?
The parable of the woman caught in adultery, where Jesus tells the mob that is about to stone her to let him who has so sin cast the first stone, is generally considered to not be original to the text. But I wouldn't call the person who added it "deceitful." I think his or her motives were generally good.
Toto is offline  
Old 05-14-2008, 01:53 AM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post

Can you give me an example of an addition in the Bible that was done undoubtedly in good faith and not for the purpose of deceit?
The parable of the woman caught in adultery, where Jesus tells the mob that is about to stone her to let him who has so sin cast the first stone, is generally considered to not be original to the text. But I wouldn't call the person who added it "deceitful." I think his or her motives were generally good.
It's a nice story, but the fact that it was added to a work that is touted to be "actual history", can be nothing less than deceitful.
dog-on is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:55 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.