In this one Bandoli writes of "Errors and
forgeries in the Bible." Bruce Metzger is an unknown here.
Of all the 66 texts in the Bible, it don't
exist one single handwritten original. We don't even have the first copies of
the originals, we just have copies of copies of copies of copies etc. This of course is true of pratically every ancient document in existence, which makes it a meaningless point. Secular scholars do not run around in a panic whining about how we "don't even have first copies" of Tacitus, Josephus, etc. The scholarship of textual criticism allows us to look at texts, compare them, divide them into "families", and make determinations as to what the original text said. In the case of the NT there is such a wealth of information and texts (see here) that determining the original text is a matter of ease for over 95% of the material. The OT is less better off (see here) but still in better shape than the vast majority of ancieht works from the same period. So Bandoli's complaint about lacking originals is pointless drivel. The
writers in Antiquity also had somewhat looser standards for accuracy when
writing down or copying texts. Bald assertion with no documentation or justification. Sometimes they wrote in other authors' names
(usually more famous and authoritative, authors), - they usually added,
subtracted, altered and removed "historical" events in the texts as they saw
fit. Again, mere bald assertion without documentation or examples. They often mixed fiction with non-fiction, and some could write texts in
the name of their adversaries to discredit them, and then use the forged text
against them later. Cunning...Seems it was so cunning, Bandoli doesn't even have any evidence for it, since it was all destroyed. Since no examples are given for scrutiny, there isn't really anything to respond to, but this is the opposite of everything I have found myself (including most recently in Samuel Byrskog's Story and History). Without documentation, Bandoli is just a big mouth spitting out an elephant.
To start with the
beginning:
The Old Testament.The first five texts in the Bible; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers
and Deuteronomy are not written by Moses as the Church usually
claims. Unknown Jewish priests wrote these five books between 900 and 100 BC.
Their final editing was first done around 200 AD. An amazing claim, given that we have copies of all these books from Qumran, dated well before 200 AD. This is mere assertion as it stands; for rebuttal to the general claim see here. The Psalms of David are
not written by him, but were actually written much later. Some were, and these are not attributed to David; for the rest, there is no reason to deny them to David. In any event we are again not graced with arguments or details, just Bandoli's strained beets of summary, so that there is nothing to reply to other than biting his own sound bite.
We have our
knowledge of this king David ("the bloodhound") from his son, the
"prophet" Solomon (in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon).
But then it is the problem that the alleged Solomon died at least 100-400 years
before these texts ascribed to him were first created! Looking at the texts, it
is obvious that they are the product of several different writers, writing at
different times between 500 BC and 100 AD. Isn't it amazing all the details Bandoli piles up? There are none of course. And no reason then to deny these documents to Solomon. I've written up on Ecclesiastes here.
Both Judges, Kings
and Chronicles are anonymous manuscripts, written at a much later
time than the events they present. The same is the case for the books of the
so-called prophets, which also were subjected to heavily editing later. Once again, the details are quite overwhelming, are they not? It is actually agreed among those who do homework that Jeremiah was the likeliest to have compiled the history books from oral traditions -- if they WERE written later, it really doesn't matter; ancient oral tradition was more than capable of preserving a story accurately. As for "heavy editing" -- there's again little that can be said to such a non-specific grunge-complaint, but a certain amount of editing (as to get rid of anachronisms) is part of the normal process.
(Prophecies made much later than the events they predict, are never
particularly impressive. Begged questions aren't either, but that's the way it goes.)
The chapters 24-27 and 40-55 of
Isaiah, are forgeries in Isaiah's name. False. See here. Only the first chapter of
Zechariah are really by him, the rest is a forgery. I planned a project on this, but when I looked into it, there just weren't any modern writers arguing strenously for this anymore, which means Bandoli must be using ancient texts himself for reserach. Only 200-300 of the
total 1273 verses by Ezekiel are probably by Ezekiel. Etc etc. Sound bite supremo; I have yet to see this claimed by any commentator on Ezekiel. But lacking details or arguments to address, what can be said?
A lot of the stories in the Old Testament are in fact borrowed material. Particularly from the rich mythical heritage of the Sumerians, the inventors of writing. The story of Noah and the great flood, Cain and Abel, the gardens of Eden, creation of Eve from Adams rib, and numerous other myths are stories found recorded on Sumerian clay tablets dating 2-3000 years back, long before the earliest parts of the Old Testament were written down. "Borrowed" is a gratuitous assumption. Modern commentators admit that a common source of heritage is a more likely explanation, as they do with the creation story. The Sumerian flood story has obviously derivative elements, such as the Noah figure taking on board craftsman and treasure and riding a boat that is shaped like a Borg cube. The rest of this is vague and unaffirmed -- I have yet to see any claim that "Cain and Abel" is borrowed, for example. But maybe someday Bandolu will produce documentation rather than sound bites.
The version of the Old Testament as we know it (with it's 39 texts) was first assembled in the 15. Century AD!! Slippery even if true. "Assembled" is a vague term. The canon of the OT was decided long, long before this, earlier than the first century (see here for the sort of details Bandoli hasn't got). Up through history there have existed a number of different Christian Bibles. Isn't that news. Now what's the point? Has Bandoli gone out and compared them all? All the different Christian sects had their own compilation of religious texts. Meaning, what? See here in general; in the meantime, what am I supposed to do? Go screaming in panic because the Ethiopic Church in 500 AD let 1 Enoch into their canon? Most of our Old Testament is based on translated medieval manuscripts not older then the 9.th or 10.th century AD. Supplement, however, by texts uncovered at Qumran dating between c. 200 BC and the middle of the first century. Again see link above.
The New
Testament
None of the gospels were written to be part of a "holy
Bible" inspired by God (Simply because the Bible as such didn't exist at that
time.) Very silly comment. The Evangelists may or may not have had an idea of a new canon in mind, but even if they didn't, it makes no difference. Bandoli is throwing lack of knowledge of an inessential in the air. We don't know anything about who wrote the gospels. The Church ascribed
the names of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John to the texts much later. Sure they did. Bandoli can't cope with stuff like this and I can just as authoritatively say (tongue in cheek), "We don't know anything about who wrote the Annals. The Latins ascribed the name of Tacitus to the text much later." What did that just prove? These four
texts were not originally in the Bible, and they first became authoritative
(approved by the church) late in the 2. century AD. See above link on canon. Bandoli doesn't offer any data (as usual) on when they became "authoritative" much less what he means by that. The gospels are all written
in Greek and there are no indication of any Hebrew originals, witch rules out
that the authors could be anyone among the followers of Jesus (who spoke
arameic [sic]). That's an outright boo-boo if there ever was one. There is plenty of indication of Aramaic originals -- testimony of the existence of Matthew in that language; detection of Aramaic and Semitic patterns in Mark (see Casey's Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel) and Luke. Not that it would make much difference, because Greek was the lingua franca of the day and many Jews spoke and wrote it just fine -- and if they didn't right away, they had plenty of time to learn (and those who spread the Gospel to the Gentiles had the motivation). The Gospels being in Greek says nothing against their origin in a Palestinian milieu or person. According too the gospels both Jesus and his disciples have no
education and were illiterates, as most of their contemporaries. False. Matthew as a tax collector and Paul as a rabbinic student would have had significant education. The passage usually taken to suggest Peter and John were illiterate means no such thing, and the data offered showed that Jesus was quite literate, thank you! Bandoli is right about widespread illiteracy in the ancient world (90-95%) but that does not mean "stupid" or uneducated -- oral transmission did the job just as well. The gospel
texts are also heavily edited by editors, in particular the gospel of St.
John. Evidence? None at all. Textual criticism disputes this. And don't expect Bandoli to give examples of such editing.
The letters of John are not written by John the apostle. All the
"Catholic letters" (I Peter, II Peter, I-III John, Jude) are also
forgeries. Ditto here. No evidence or arguments, just sound bites. On pseudox see generally here. On James see here. And six of the thirteen letters of St. Paul are not by him. Even his
"real" letters were later heavily edited by the Church. As usual, no arguments, no evidence. On the Pastorals see here. On Ephesians see here. On Colossians see here.
Around 400 AD the
scholar Hieronimus made a major editing of the latin Bible, the result is the
Latin Vulgata version of the Bible. This became the mother of all later
translations. Hieronimus changed no less than 3500
instances in the text. "Changed" in what way and why? Even if this is true, it's so without point as to be meaningless in context. And we have texts that predate the Vulgate. Tekton Research Assistant Punkish adds: Hieronymus is another name for St Jerome (347? - 420 AD), who translated and revised (not edited) the Vulgate into Latin, from the best possible Greek texts, improving on Old Latin translations by abandoning most of the Western readings, which are considered to be late and unreliable. The mother of all later translations? Hardly. Translators go back to the Greek and Hebrew. So as for a claim to forgery (i.e. changing the text - I don't know where he gets "3500" from), Bandoli needs hospital treatment for a shot foot.
Among the later added parts, not in the original Gospel texts: The
sermon on the Mount, The story of Jesus' birth (Luke 2:1-21) and the
stories of Jesus' resurrection!Complete nonsense here -- there is no evidence that any of these portions were ever lacking from our texts. It will remain a mystery for now where Bandoli gets his information, but it's clearly, from this example, not from competent scholarship.
