The Atheist Game of Telephone

[rug]

January 9, 2016
by James F. McGrath

A friend shared this meme, together with the comment, “Showing that whatever else atheists are, they are not students of history and historical criticism.”



The irony is that the claims in the image above themselves circulate and circulate in the manner of the telephone game, among atheists and other self-proclaimed “skeptics” who are nothing of the sort, as they clearly fail to fact-check memes that come their way. Almost everything that is claimed in the image is wrong, or at least uncertain and open to dispute. Which kings had things removed? Which major mainstream translation today is a translation of an earlier translation? Paul didn’t write 30 years after the events in Jesus’ life, and if any New Testament source was written 90 years after the fact, it certainly didn’t do so in the absence of written sources, as should be self-evident.

Atheists, please consider this: The fact that Christians are sometimes wrong, and cling stubbornly to beliefs even when they are wrong, cannot be considered decisive proof that Christianity is wrong about everything. If it could, then the atheist penchant to do exactly the same thing would be proof that atheists are wrong about everything, too, wouldn’t it?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2016/01/the-atheist-game-of-telephone.html

[immoderate]

1. I don't get it. If a "source" is "written," therefore it's true?

Paul interviewed Jesus -- when?

What part of the bible are you claiming is bullshit free?

--imm

[rug]

2. You'll have to leave a comment for the author at the link.

My interest is the uncritical repetition of talking points.

[immoderate]

6. So, that atheists are not "students of history and historical criticism,” is your point?

And that's your evidence?

--imm

[Warren Stupidity]

12. typically this poster refuses to defend the crap he posts

apparently he has no choice in the matter, it is some sort of compulsion, so when the crap falls flat, its not his fault.

[rug]

14. Case in point.

You've provided a fine example of lunging for an ad hominem instead of factual rebuttal.

Oh, and you should be embarrassed to use the state meme of "compulsion".

[Lordquinton]

22. QED

[Warren Stupidity]

33. IPSO FACTO

[rug]

38. VOX NIHILI

[rug]

13. No, the point is that may, particlarly internet antitheists, are quick to repeat nonsense.

[immoderate]

17. Astounding. What do you call what theists repeat?

imm

[rug]

18. If it's nonense, nonsense.

But most atheists claim to revere facts and reality.

What's that overused phrase?



"Cognitive dissonance!"

[Warren Stupidity]

34. somebody is this thread believes in transubstantiation.

[rug]

35. somebody in this thread does not know what transubstantiation is.

[Lordquinton]

39. I love how gluten intolerance causes a theological crisis

Things like Crohn's and Hashimoto's diseases must be really hard if you're Catholic.

[rug]

40. I'm sure you love intolerance

Must be really hard if you're progressive. Or claim to be.

[EdwardBernays]

3. I would suggest

a trip to the British Museum in London, where you can see for yourself various early compilations of the bible and learn about the history of how it was made.

The silly joke David Cross (the comedian) made might not be accurate, but then again he's not a historian. On the other hand it's closer to the ACTUAL truth than what most casual - or even Evangelical - Christians believe.

Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon

The books of the bible changed frequently, and different religious and political authorities did not vaguely agree on what was canon, so to speak.

In fact the Catholic bible is quite different to the Protestant one to this day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha

Other books were removed or added for years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragment

Here, read this:

'"The Septuagint seems to have been a major source for the Apostles, but it is not the only one. St. Jerome offered, for example, Matt 2:15 and 2:23, John 19:37, John 7:38, 1 Cor. 2 9. as examples not found in the Septuagint, but in Hebrew texts. (Matt 2:23 is not present in current Masoretic tradition either, though according to St. Jerome it was in Isaiah 11:1.) The New Testament writers, when citing the Jewish scriptures, or when quoting Jesus doing so, freely used the Greek translation, implying that Jesus, his Apostles and their followers considered it reliable.

In the Early Christian Church, the presumption that the Septuagint - LXX - was translated by Jews before the era of Christ, and that the Septuagint at certain places gives itself more to a christological interpretation than 2nd-century Hebrew texts was taken as evidence that "Jews" had changed the Hebrew text in a way that made them less christological. For example, Irenaeus concerning Isaiah 7:14: The Septuagint clearly writes of a virgin that shall conceive.[29] While the Hebrew text was, according to Irenaeus, at that time interpreted by Theodotion and Aquila (both proselytes of the Jewish faith) as a young woman that shall conceive. According to Irenaeus, the Ebionites used this to claim that Joseph was the (biological) father of Jesus. From Irenaeus' point of view that was pure heresy, facilitated by (late) anti-Christian alterations of the scripture in Hebrew, as evident by the older, pre-Christian, Septuagint.[30]

When Jerome undertook the revision of the Old Latin translations of the Septuagint, he checked the Septuagint against the Hebrew texts that were then available. He broke with church tradition and translated most of the Old Testament of his Vulgate from Hebrew rather than Greek. His choice was severely criticized by Augustine, his contemporary; a flood of still less moderate criticism came from those who regarded Jerome as a forger. While on the one hand he argued for the superiority of the Hebrew texts in correcting the Septuagint on both philological and theological grounds, on the other, in the context of accusations of heresy against him, Jerome would acknowledge the Septuagint texts as well.[31]

The Eastern Orthodox Church still prefers to use the LXX as the basis for translating the Old Testament into other languages. The Eastern Orthodox also use LXX (Septuagint) untranslated where Greek is the liturgical language, e.g. in the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, the Church of Greece and the Cypriot Orthodox Church. Critical translations of the Old Testament, while using the Masoretic Text as their basis, consult the Septuagint as well as other versions in an attempt to reconstruct the meaning of the Hebrew text whenever the latter is unclear, undeniably corrupt, or ambiguous.[32] For example, the Jerusalem Bible Foreword says, "... only when this (the Masoretic Text) presents insuperable difficulties have emendations or other versions, such as the ... LXX, been used."[33] The Translator's Preface to the New International Version says: "The translators also consulted the more important early versions (including) the Septuagint ... Readings from these versions were occasionally followed where the MT seemed doubtful ..."'


Does that seem like Cross is wildly wrong? And that's just a very, very brief overview of a tiny bit of the history.

[rug]

15. I agree. Davd Cross is far from accurate.

The fact that he isn't, and the glee with which it is uncritically reposted demonstrates that those doing so are far more interested in pushing an agenda that following facts and evidence. Ironically.

Meanwhile, thank you for a very informative post. It would be refreshing to discuss the genesis of the Bible - and other scriptures- without the usual cartoons, memes, insult and general bullshit that too many here consider discussion.

[EdwardBernays]

19. well.. yes...

but I would suggest that atheists are by far the minority in almost every walk of life.. and until you experience that it's pretty hard to understand it or empathise with it.. trying not to get sucked into a comfy echo chamber is very difficult for MANY people, even people with the absolute best intentions... Cross was exaggerating for comedic effect - which is pretty much the quickest shortcut to a laugh... and comedians, even if you find them offensive, should never be taken as representing anything precisely... they're exaggerated versions of things, intentionally, and for effect.

As for the origins of the bible.. there's REALLY GOOD scholarly research on that, as you'd guess, and there's also a HELL OF A LOT of crap online... people tend to try and self-reenforce, and that leads to a lot of delusional stuff...

Anyway, at the core of it all, Cross is closer to right than wrong, the bible was often double or triple translated. People DEFINITELY removed books for less than pure reasons and worse yet fiddled with the text to promote their specific region of strain of belief. I had a Thompson Chain Reference bible as a teen, and even the differences between the four different ENGLISH translations could be jarring!

On top of ALL of that - and this is the most crucial thing to me - even as an atheist - the bible should be about Jesus and a personal relationship with him. If it's NOT then all this other nonsense is a waste of your time, unless you're an academic. The OT is interesting, but... any serious study of it will make you doubt it's legitimacy as a literal history of anything really... but again, that's unrelated to Jesus and his message.

IF you NEED everything in the bible to be not contradictory, and historically accurate, and legitimate in 2016, you're gonna be SORELY disappointed. But. If you just keep focused on the New Testament and what Jesus preached then, for the most part, the bible is totally as legitimate now as when it was first compiled.

I don't believe in any of the religious bits, so we're clear, but if every Christian behaved like Jesus the world would be 1,000,000 times better...

[rug]

20. Cross' quote is funny. It's the repetition of it as a fact-based indictment I object to.

Even aside from religious belief, the Bible is one of the oldest extant human artifacts. The fact that it's an artifact of words makes it all the more intriguing. The where and how of its compilation is a story in and of itself. The fact that it contains many passages that resonate almost universally only adds to its draw. Now the bizarre passages in it are jarring. My reaction, though, is not "what a sadistic monster!" but what's it doing there.

I agree about the New Testament. I learned it from listening to the Gospel read every week and then talking about it. Any spiritual value it has is from living it, more so than studying it. As St. Francis reputedly said, "Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words."

[EdwardBernays]

21. the only thing I'd disagree with

"the Bible is one of the oldest extant human artifacts"

The bible, the first written bits are about 3500 years old... ancient no doubt about that.

But...

researchers have found shell jewellery that is at least 100,000 years old

wheels that are 5000 years old have been discovered... there's also 7-8000 year old intact bows for hunting that have been found in Denmark...heck the oldest map I've heard of is something like 12,000 years old...



Göbekli Tepe ^^ is something like 12,000 years old.

The oldest tools ever discovered are 3.3 MILLION years old!

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/20/worlds-oldest-known-stone-tools-found-in-africa.html

Heck down the road from me in Ireland is a MASSIVE passage tomb that is 5000 years old!

Then again everything is pretty ancient here... there's - no kidding - at least 10 pubs still in operation that are older than America. One dates to something like 900AD.

[rug]

23. I stand corected.

That stuff is amazing.

[EdwardBernays]

24. It's crazy amazing!

I often take the kids up the mountain (big hill) a few minutes drive from my house... they play on this big pile of stones - lots of kids do - that is known locally as the fairy castle... it's ACTUALLY a bronze age tomb and is 4000-5000 years old...

I don't say this though, because it's particularly special... these thousands of years old relics are all over the place here... literally this one is just a thing kids play on or adult stop for a rest at to have a look at Dublin Bay (because the view is extraordinary!)

It's also pretty easy to be walking down a road and see an Ogham stone (pronounce ohm)... they're like 1600 years old, and have this insane ancient writing which is basically just notches:



http://www.megalithicireland.com/Ogham%20Stones%20Page%201.htm

Living in Ireland has completely changed my mind about what ancient means!

Oh and how did I ever forget about cuneiform?

?v=1448355356

Amazingly cool looking language... you can see how it's made... a trianglur instrument was used to press shapes into wet clay... amazing..

it was fist used something like 5000 years ago... the oldest truly famous story, The Epic of Gilgamesh is over 4000 years old!

[rug]

25. Seven of my great-grandparents are from there.

You're a lucky lad.

[EdwardBernays]

26. I am

I love it here honestly... it's kinda a weird mix of the ancient, the 1950s and modern Europe... big fan. I grew up in Arkansas and it couldn't really be more different.

[Humanist_Activist]

30. The oldest Bible manuscripts date to about 150 BCE, and those are fragmentary...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

Current consensus is that Jewish monotheism didn't really begin to take hold until about the 3rd century BCE or a little later.

Here's a summary of when many books of the Bible were written, according to scholars:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

Even the oldest is about 8th to 9th century BCE.

Contrast that with Hindu texts which date far earlier.

Actually, there are a lot of religious and non-religious texts that predate the Bible, some mundane, some extraordinary, even I Ching predates it, which I didn't know till I just looked for it now. Very interesting.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_literature

One piece of literature there popped out at me, The Babylonian Theodicy of Šaggil-kīnam-ubbi written around 1050 BCE, and what do you know, there's a translation of it(it being apparently relatively complete), right here. Interesting the type of theological thinking that people had well before the Bible was written.

ON EDIT: Looking at the supposed dates and authorship of the various books of the Bible in that Dating the Bible wikipedia page, I would say that David Cross's only problem is that he oversimplified things, hell they were a lot more complicated.

[rug]

31. Interesting stuff.

Zoroastrianism is another older religion.

The roots of Zoroastrianism are thought to have emerged from a common prehistoric Indo-Iranian religious system dating back to the early 2nd millennium BCE. Although older, Zoroastrianism only enters recorded history in the mid-5th century BCE.

I'd like to know more about that common religion that existed before history.

Thanks for the links.

[Humanist_Activist]

32. Its interesting stuff, and seems to follow the rise of agriculture...

which makes sense, because agriculture allows for people to specialize and not everyone is required to find or grow food anymore, so people can settle down, have a lot more kids survive, and think about things, and damn they thought of a lot.

You know, some say there's nothing new under the sun, and frankly, when reading stuff that people just like you and me wrote 5000 plus years ago, it does appear to be correct. They had the same problems we do, more or less.

But, to get back on subject, the rise of agriculture and civilization, as we define, seemed to have started mostly in the Indus river valley, the Nile river vally, and, of course, the Tigris-Euphrates river valley. The rise of such civilizations lead to writing, and us being able to read a 4000 year old text that a father wrote for his son, his wisdom through the ages.

What doesn't surprise me is that religious texts are some of the earliest, such as the Pyramid Texts from ancient Egypt, with civilization, cities in close quarters, and the need for government, structures for such government will take the most convenient forms, types of theocracies, though not quite, more like divine government, that seems to have been a common practice, at least in Egypt, the Akkadian and Babylonian Empires, several of the Indus Valley and Persian civilizations, etc.

But think of those stuck in the middle, such as ancient Judah/Israel/Canaan. There religious practices and beliefs were influenced by a whole host of sources that were relatively close by, you had, just a couple hundred years before the some of the first books of the Bible were written, Atenism was founded by the Pharaoh Akhenaten, the first known attempt at monotheism. And while the religion itself may have failed, its ideas may have lived on. Seems likely that much of the myths, ideas and stories of surrounding religions were integrated into Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

[Brettongarcia]

59. James McGrath is not fact-based

Don't know how he got thru Cambridge and Durham, except by Christian charity.

Against McGrath, probably the English Douay Rheims Bible is a major English translation of the also major Lain Vulgate. Both also refer in turn to the famous Septuagint, and then earlier documents. Then back to the Hebrew. Then oral speakers.

That's a simplified version. If we had the time, we could show at least twenty steps between today, and the time of any alleged Jesus and more for Moses.

Our comedian is actually more accurate than McGrath. Who by the way, loves Science Fiction as well as religion. Probably because they are related.

[MisterP]

4. the translation that went furthest afield was Douay-Rheims

it was translated from the Latin ... (and even Latin's not a dead language, I keep hearing it from my Italian neighbors' house)

[Goblinmonger]

5. You do know that David Cross is a comedian

So he's presenting things in that fashion.

Though he's not that far from the truth. But, again, the important thing to remember is that this comes from a stand-up comedy bit and was not being presented as an academic paper for peer review.

[Silent3]

8. I clicked on the link hoping for more detail about these alleged inaccuracies...

...but there wasn't anything much more to the article than what's quoted in the OP, certainly nothing that seriously challenges the thrust of the joke.

[rug]

16. You do know people pass that off as accurate, don't you?

My favorite is the Horus poster.

[SwankyXomb]

28. Lots of people do the same thing

with their particular brand of Bronze Age Mental Illness.

[rug]

29. You've got two errors in one sentence, Swanky.

Congratulations.

[edhopper]

7. It's not that Christianity is wrong about everything

but if it is wrong about the nativity and the resurection,. The rest is immaterial.

[Silent3]

9. And is Christianity right about anything that isn't easy to be right about?

It hardly takes divine inspiration to come up with a bit of sometimes-worthy advice for living, to come up with the idea that killing and stealing and making false accusations is naughty, and to record a few historical events without completely mucking them up.

[edhopper]

10. I don't think any historical events are accurately portrayed

in the NT. Some of the event mighht have happened, but not like the Gospels say.

[goldent]

11. Who would think that atheists are students of history and historical criticism?

[Warren Stupidity]

36. Uh what?

Outside of the peculiar field of "biblical history" there is no connection between belief or non-belief and the study of history.

[goldent]

37. Yeah, I think we agree.

[lob1]

27. You can't say the Bible hasn't been changed.

There's the King James version, which implies there are other versions.

[Major Nikon]

41. The author is an idiot

The source was a comedian and obvious hyperbole, but even so it's not all that inaccurate.

Who doesn't know Constantine edited numerous gospels from the NT? He even went so far as having competing ones destroyed and possessing them was heresy punishable by death. Is the author really this fucking stupid, while claiming others are historically ignorant?

Paul didn't write any of the cannocal gospels, and never even met Jesus once, although much like George W Bush he did claim the holy poltergeist whispered in his ear when he hit rock bottom. Not exactly a great source of divine fidelity, but kinda funny of the author to claim as much.

The earliest translations found for most of the cannocal gospels were authored in Greek and not by those in which they are attributed, a language most or all of the 12 disciples and Jesus would not have spoken. Even the most original sources contain obvious translation errors and all of them contain edits from early scribes, some occurring centuries later and still obvious editorial additions may be found in some of the most commonly used translations today. So yeah, the bible has been retranslated over and over and still is being done so today. Dozens of translations may be easily found online. Each one is unique.

These "written" sources the author refers to are quite funny. The only ones known for the cannocal gospels are themselves, which simply means much of it is one big cut and paste job with much of the rest full of contradictions. So again not exactly the high degree of fidelity the author pretends.

[rug]

42. You've confirmed six of his points in five paragraphs.

Still, better than average.

Constantine edited Gospels? Did he use a red pen?

[Leontius]

45. The Constantine one is my favorite "truth" they all know.

Ignorance of the work of the First Council of Nicaea is a touchstone for many anti-theists even after they're given the actual facts of what was done they can't let it go.

[Major Nikon]

47. So please enlighten us

Tell us how certain gospels were not deamed divine while the rest were not destroyed throughout the empire with their adherents executed or banished. I'm always up for a good pro-theist whitewashing.

[Leontius]

54. What would be the point you already know the "truth" so why would you listen to the facts?

[cleanhippie]

55. The point is, you can't, which is why you didn't.

And instead chose to deflect.



As expected.

[Major Nikon]

56. I seriously doubt you know what I do or don't know

Your diversionary response speaks volumes, BTW.

[Leontius]

57. Your statement about Constantine speaks volumes about what you don't know.

But then it's typical of anti-theists. Fiction is always their strong point, fact not so much. You are right about Paul not writing any of the four Gospels but then again no one claims he did, not even Paul. The history of how the Bible became what it is is a fascinating story you really should read about it.

[Major Nikon]

58. So what facts have you offered?

When you have yet to offer anything substantive of your own, throwing out an opinion on what someone else doesn't know kinda seems a bit lame.

[Major Nikon]

46. Because you said so

Looks like you have a good handle on #3, but are oblivious to definitions 1 and 2.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/edit

[rug]

53. And there you are posting (unedited) Gospel.

Silly me.

[Brettongarcia]

60. Many biblical books were thrown out entire

That is how the gospel canon was often edited.

This practice can be provably seen in say the Protestant Reformation. When Protestants simply ripped six or seven whole books out of the Catholic Bible (SIRACH, TOBIT, BARUCH, WISDOM OF SOLOMON, ETC). To form their own, shorter Bible.

[Lordquinton]

43. You made some semantic errors

Therefore anything you have to say is wrong, you evil atheist.

[rug]

44. Ironically, you do not distungish between sematics and substance.

[Major Nikon]

48. I'm writing one handed from an ipad on a beach in Costa Rica

The other hand is wrapped around a pulverized fruit and ethanol mix adorned with a small umbrella.

[edhopper]

49. I hate you right now

NYC - 27 degrees.

[Major Nikon]

50. If it's any consolation it is entirely too hot and humid

I find myself having to take a dip in the bay periodically to cool off.

[edhopper]

51. Yeah

that makes me feel soooo much better.

[Lordquinton]

52. What I said before?

Remove the sarcasm from it.