Mark originally ended with JC's followers finding his tomb to be empty. That bit about handling snakes and drinking anything dangerous was added later. 1 John 5:7-8, the only New Testament support for the Trinity, is a later addition. The story of Jesus Christ and the woman caught for adultery had moved around in some early manuscripts. Etc.

About Jesus Christ's crucifixion, in Mark, he seems rather defeated and says at the end "My God, My God, why have you abandoned me?" While in Luke, he gives people instructions as if in control of the situation, and at the end, says, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!"

Seems to me like they made it up as they went along.

All the manuscripts will bring you to the same conclusions.
It is the most reliable historical document on the planet.
Over 20,000 original manuscripts.
It puts any other historical document to shame.
And it was written within 20 years of Jesus death.

Clearly, imissbubbly, the world is your cloister...

Over 20,000 original manuscripts.

That says it all, I reckon.

All the manuscripts will bring you to the same conclusions.
It is the most reliable historical document on the planet.
Over 20,000 original manuscripts.
It puts any other historical document to shame.
And it was written within 20 years of Jesus death.

Strange that so should be so certain about this when so many scholars are divided

The Bible has been translated once. From the greek/hebrew to English. From the greek/hebrew to German, etc. And guess what they all say? The same thing.

This is not the point surely. It's the discrepancy in the early text that's at issue, not the modern language it's translated into.
All the manuscripts will bring you to the same conclusions.
It is the most reliable historical document on the planet.
Over 20,000 original manuscripts.
It puts any other historical document to shame.
And it was written within 20 years of Jesus death.Strange that so should be so certain about this when so many scholars are divided

"A few manuscripts read "Becoming angry, Jesus reached out his hand..." Ehrman argues that the second reading is correct, and that this changes the meaning of Mark's whole gospel. But again, the earliest Greek manuscripts affirm the variant that appears in our English translations.

CHANGES THE MEANING OF MARK'S WHOLE EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT?
The Bible has been translated once. From the greek/hebrew to English. From the greek/hebrew to German, etc. And guess what they all say? The same thing.

If you read this story in full context in the synoptic gospels, it reads like this (paraphrased): Jesus looked around at the hardness of men's hearts and it made him angry. Then he reached out and healed the man.

Guess who Jesus was frustrated with?
The people that didn't care about the hurting man.

I did not see Luke using "older, therefore original". I saw him say this is one of many criteria to consider. I thought his presentation was sufficiently meticulous. Sorry to be in a bit of disagreement with you, as you and your site are certainly among my favorites. But maybe our wee spat will encourage others to look also and form their own opinions. What is accurate is more important to both of us than being right, right? But on an atheist site, how could I resist being the devils advocate?

It doesn't get said enough - thanks for having a very interesting and informative site. And for caring enough about my remark to check it's reference out for yourself.

exrelayman, I read the article you suggested. It points out that although there are a vast number of variant manuscripts, most of them are trivial errors of spelling or grammar. No one denies this, especially not Ehrman himself; I said as much in my review.

But when it comes to some of the more important differences, I think this author fails to come to grips with the full force of Ehrman's argument. For example:

Now, about Mark 1:41. Most translations read, "Moved with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched him, saying, 'I am willing. Be clean!'" A few manuscripts read "Becoming angry, Jesus reached out his hand..." Ehrman argues that the second reading is correct, and that this changes the meaning of Mark's whole gospel. But again, the earliest Greek manuscripts affirm the variant that appears in our English translations.

This author appears to be using a more or less automatic approach to resolving textual discrepancies: the earliest manuscripts are the most trustworthy. That's certainly an important criterion, but it's not the only one. After all, it's possible that a particular manuscript, though itself written late, is a direct copy of a far earlier manuscript that's now lost; so even if it's later in chronological terms, there are fewer "generations" of recopying that lie between it and the original text.

There's another criterion which Ehrman discusses but the CSA author neglects, and I think it's a fairly persuasive one: given two variant readings, the more "difficult" one - the one that seems to make less sense, that's harder to square with orthodox Christian theology - is likely to be the original. This is because it's highly likely that a scribe would change a disconcerting or unorthodox reading to one that was easier to understand or more orthodox; it's much less likely that the reverse would occur. This is the criterion Ehrman uses in Mark 1:41 to argue that the "becoming angry" variant was the original. The CSA author doesn't address this argument, instead simply declaring "older, therefore original". Textual criticism is not so open-and-shut a process as that.

chanson,

I am not familiar with the Freidman book, but am very much enthralled with an excellent book which correlates passages from both the old and new testaments to passages from antecedent pagan sources. This book is 'The Origins of Christianity and the Bible' by Andrew Benton. Amazon has it. It is meticulous and well documented.