The famed media theorist (and Christian) Marshall McLuhan will always be remembered for his famous and insightful soundbite, The Medium Is The Message. The invocation of this very phrase is a catalyzing agent for the analysis of any medium. But how do we dive into this discussion if the medium is a book and the message is, quite literally, the word of God? Last week National Public Radio’s Fresh Air featured an interview with biblical scholar Bart Ehrman, who is promoting his new book, Misquoting Jesus, which documents how the mechanisms of the text’s reproduction altered the text itself: “The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why”.

According to Erhman, of the thousands of pre-Gutenberg, pre- moveable type, editions of the Bible, there are more differences than similarities. Moreover, the fact that these editions were transcribed by hand means that errors have naturally crept into this process. But even more, in these iterations, sometimes new stories were added, or the meanings of passages were “enhanced” or “clarified.” All this leads to an immense problem when one interprets the text quite literally and at face value.

I also found a similar, and vastly more gritty and detailed interview with Ehrman by Diane Rehm on WAMU (listen via Real Audio or Windows Media)

Especially insightful was the discussion of the competing Christian sects, the differences between them, how the bible is basically an anthology of various texts, and how many more books existed than were included in The Bible. Ehrman reveals a little bit about how those books where chosen for inclusion, which is to say, how they became canonical. Issues of faith, homosexuality, the role of women, and other controversial topics are discussed.

A few miscellaneous observations:

• Erhman reveals the common Christmas tale to be a mashup of different versions of the Gospels.

• In the Rehm interview, Ehrman also discusses the notion of change in the Bible as part of its nature, as a living bible. That the living word changes over time. That God’s word is alive, so the changes in the texts over time reflects this.

• I would take the above point one step further, however, and assert that the word of God is not singular but multivalent, lacking a single objective truth except perhaps as it arises in an individual. Furthermore, that discrepancies in subjective experience can exist in reality, wherein it is possible that one person sees a man and another sees an angel while gazing at the same phenomena.

• Another issue which always needs further discussion is the very nature of translation and the editorial choices, and cultural assumptions behind this process. An older issue of Buddhadharma does a great job discussing and showing historical trends for various cultures and time periods, in translating the same texts.