God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens: Book Review (Scripted)
Part 2: God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens
Part 3: God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens
Video version of an old post (as I explained about HERE)
For the original post, see:
http://joelswagman.blogspot.com/2012/05/god-is-not-great-how-religion-poisons.html
In this particular case, I had to go off-script for this scripted review, because my original review of God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens was way too long, and because it quickly devolved into my commentary on a random list of quotations from the book, and because my commentary on these quotations often contained a lot of tangential thoughts that weren't directly related to the book.
That, plus I wanted to include a few bits of information that I'd learned since writing my original review.
In my original review, I wrote that I suspected Hitchens had misinterpreted Bart Ehrman's research when Hitchens wrote:
The New Testament is itself a highly dubious source. (One of Professor Bart Ehrman’s more astonishing findings is that the account of Jesus’ resurrection in the Gospel of Mark was only added many years later.) (p. 169)....but I didn't get confirmation on this until I read Misquoting Jesus a full year later.
Also, several months after reviewing God is not Great, I read and reviewed The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, and realized for the first time that almost all of Hitchens' best arguments come from Thomas Paine.
So I also tried to include these bits that I'd learned since in my video review.
The result is that I rambled on for 3 videos.
My camera has a 30 minute time limit before it shuts off, so in the first video, I get shut down after 30 minutes. I tried to film a second video that same night, but then my battery died after only 15 minutes. So I just decided to go to bed and film the 3rd video the next day.
In the third video I rambled on for 30 minutes, and then got cut-off again, but I decided at that point I had rambled on long enough, and I would just leave it there. (Anyone who wants all my thoughts on this book can just check my original blog post.)
Notes:
In Video 1, I mentioned that there was one theist who could actually beat Hitchens in a debate, but blanked on the guy's name when I was filming. It was William Lane Craig.
In Video 2, I said that Bart Ehrman talked about the added passages in Mark's resurrection account in Jesus, Interrupted, but I re-checked my reviews, and it actually comes from Misquoting Jesus.
Hitchens mistakenly credits Ehrman with discovering that this passage was added later. In my video review, I corrected this by saying that scholars have known for centuries that the end of Mark was added later. But I rechecked my original review, and Ehrman actually says scholars have known about it for just over a century.
5 comments:
The translation I grew up reading (RSV) took pains to mention there were three different endings to the Gospel of Mark, and explained why the translators went with the one they did. It was the sort of thing I fixated on once I reached adolescence (the way adolescents do, really).
I grew up on the NIV, which states [The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]. I've never heard (as far as I can remember) of the three different endings until now.
I've looked it up just now in the Bible gateway: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+16%3A9-20&version=RSV
...which reads
Mark 16:20 Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book to a close at the end of verse 8. One authority concludes the book by adding after verse 8 the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Other authorities include the preceding passage and continue with verses 9–20. In most authorities verses 9–20 follow immediately after verse 8; a few authorities insert additional material after verse 14
...is that the footnote you remember?
I also first heard about verses 9-20 being later additions in early adolescence. It was during devotions at Grandparents' house. They read out of the CRC daily devotional after every meal. (I think it was called "Today"). "Today" highlighted the footnote in the NIV, and acknowledged that verses 9-20 were a later addition, but stressed that they were also inspired by God just as much as the rest of Mark was.
The logic was, I think, that because it was in the Bible it was ipso facto inspired by God. Which I actually accepted at the time. I mean, sure, it was a little weird that God hadn't added this part later, but it was still one coherent whole.
If I had known at the time that there were 3 different choices, that might have made it harder to accept.
You've nudged me to dust off the old RSV and give it a scan. This is the end-note. Doesn't seem as concerned with potential theological controversies as "Today" was. :)
You've got me ruminating now -- the Bible College I attended in '83 used the NIV in all its classes, so that's where I first encountered the translation. There's something about its phrasing that seems to have had a deep appeal to Evangelicals at the time. I recently heard John Bentley Mays say something like, "The NIV embodies New Testament Greek the way West Side Story embodies Romeo & Juliet." I've no idea how hallowed the NIV is these days. My perception is people want to read The Message, and leave translation issues strictly to the geeks among us.
The NIV was the only version in use in my experience growing up. We knew there were other translations out there, of course, but nobody I knew used them. (The Living Bible was popular for reading for fun, but nobody took it seriously as a translation.)
I'm not sure how much to draw from that, mind you, since that was just my anecdotal experience at the time. But the NIV was the only translation used in both the CRC circles I was in, and the Evangelical Covenant circles. (We went to CRC schools, but went to Evangelical Covenant churches on Sunday.)
I had assumed the NIV was still dominant, but I've been out of church circles for so long now... I don't know. Come to think of it, I think the last time I was back home and going to Church with my parents, the church sermon might have been using The Message.
Post a Comment