Scott Adams on Misquoting Jesus

If you've got a spare 5 minutes, read this post by Scott Adams. Very well put. If you've a spare week, read the comments.

Comments

[James Tauber]

Actually, I think it's terribly put. Adams is describing textual critcism the way a creationist might describe evolution. Which is funny given that, previously, Adams has described evolution the way a creationist might describe evolution.

[Bob M]

Reading the blog post only took a minute. So I spent 4 minutes reading some of the comments.

May I have my five minutes back, please?

[Roger]

I havnt read much on this topic, but didn't the dead sea scrolls show the credibility of the text that was copied through the ages?

[Cameron Reilly]

James - that's sounds terribly clever, but I have no idea what you just said.

Roger - Dont know where you get that idea from mate. According to wikipedia, The Dead Sea Scrolls were written at various times between the middle of the 2nd century BC and the 1st century AD and pertain mostly to the Old Testament and the lives of the Essenes/Sadducees (depending on which theory you subscribe to). About 30% are fragments from the Hebrew Bible, about 25% are traditional Israelite religious texts that are not in the canonical Hebrew Bible, another 30% contain Biblical commentaries or other texts and the rest (about 15%) of the fragments are yet unidentified.

[Sean Kelly]

James - you hit the nail on the head.

Mr. Adams should stick to Dilbert and poking fun of corporate culture. He's really good at it and we already have plenty of idiots in MSM giving us their expert opinion on topics they know nothing about.

[Christian]

I got into this stuff a couple of years ago. Did you know you can get the one book (the one 'bible'), with two versions?

On the left hand of each page is the King James Version. On the right is the NIV (New International Version)

Regardless, I liked the last line in his post best:

Seriously. I kid, but I have no idea what the real argument is.

[Roger]

Cam - I see you point, the dead sea scrolls refer to the credibility of the old testament, quote from same wikipedia article: "Although some of the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran differ significantly from the Masoretic text, most do not. The scrolls thus provide new variants and the ability to be more confident of those readings where the Dead Sea manuscripts agree with the Masoretic text or with the early Greek manuscripts".
What I dont understand is if no one copied the Old Testament wrong, then why would the New Testament be stuffed?

[Cameron Reilly]

Rog, because the OT didn't have an empire resting on top of its authority. The NT had to justify an entire empire for over 1000 years. Temporal power and religion are not great partners.

[Roger]

well now you've got me interested - I've just bought the book, I really need to find out more.

[Mel]

What the heck? "No one knows what the original bible books said"? I'm sorry, but that's not the way it works. Different translations, same Truth. Amen.

[Cameron Reilly]

Mel, the bible is a mish-mash of stories, some passed on by fishermen, some stolen from older cults, some just made up to suit the authors. If you have proof to the contrary, show me.