There are many textual variants of, for example, Deuteronomy (Ulrich, “The Bible in the Making,” in his The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible). If every word counts, why so many versions, and how do you decide which version is actually God’s dictation?
And can you give an example of a biblical text that no human could have written and why you believe that no writing could meet the criteria for your judgment?

We literally do not know what Jesus said, in his own words. Not one sentence.
Ahem. Matthew 27:46; Mark 5:41; Mark 7:34; Mark 15:34. Not much, but at least some complete sentences. Good editors check their sources, too!
Btw, if the theory of Aramaic primacy is correct, then we do have Jesus’ actual words in the Peshitta (the Aramaic New Testament). Personally, I tend to agree with the majority of scholars who hold to Greek primacy; however, even if true, this doesn’t mean that none of Jesus’ original Aramaic made it into the Peshitta through other written or oral sources.
Moreover, many scholars have argued that, given the multi-ethnic makeup of Galilee at the time of Jesus, his frequent contact with Gentiles and Hellenized Jews, and the use in the Eastern Roman Empire of Koine Greek as a lingua franca, that in some contexts Jesus may indeed have taught in Greek, in which case we may have his actual words in the Greek New Testament beyond the few quotes I provided above. I think it especially likely that the dialogues with Nicodemus (John 3) and Pilate (Matthew 27:11, Mark 15:2, Luke 23:3, and John 18:33-37 and 19:11), among others, were conducted in Greek, based on the political circumstances (Pilate probably didn’t speak Aramaic and no interpreter is mentioned) and the pun on anothen in the dialogue with Nicodemus.
In any case, Christian theology holds that Christ is the Logos, the Word of God incarnate (there are certain parallels with the concept of chokhmah in esoteric interpretations of Judaism); thus, the locus of faith has moved from the written text to the person of Jesus Christ. This is why the attitude of Christians towards translation of Scripture is very much different from that of Jews and Muslims, both of whom hold God’s presence, in a sense, to reside in the literal words of Scripture in their original languages. Christians, by contrast, while not denying God’s presence in His word, aver that His ultimate revelation is through the person of Christ, thereby making Scripture in a sense secondary as it points toward Christ; thus, while translation needs to be done carefully in light of the original, it is seen as legitimate in a way that it never could be for the Torah or the Qur’an.
I wouldn’t expect a Jew or Muslim to agree with this perspective, of course–I merely point out that the views of Scripture in the Abrahamic faiths are much more different than is commonly realized.

Final part of last sentence should read “…no writing other than that from your preferred version of the Hebrew Bible could meet the criteria for your judgment.”

David, I can’t believe this kind of comment from a reader. It reminds me of what Ann Coulter said about the Jews needing to be perfected. I defer to the Jews’ interpretation of their own Scripture. Whether you believe God wrote it or the Jews wrote down a combination of theology, history, genealogy and folklore, it’s their holy book and whatever they say it means, I’m in agreement, especially about the Messiah. Any non-Jew who presumes to think they know better is just whistling “Dixie”.

In another forum it would be very enjoyable to have a debate over language primacy. As for Jesus’ actual words, David is correct. We have quotes of Jesus translated into Koine Greek, but these are not his actual words since a 1:1 translation between Greek and Aramaic/Hebrew is rare.
As for my opinion, I hold that Jesus spoke Aramaic when discussing non-religious topics and spoke Hebrew when teaching Torah. Hebrew, tho’ a dead language when Jesus was born, was still in existence in the Temple (it was the lingua franca of the Temple much like latin, a dead-language, but for the Roman Catholic liturgies pre-Vatican II). The scrolls and the teachings were all conducted in Hebrew and for those who didn’t know Hebrew, the priests provided translators who orally translated the readings into Aramaic.
Finally, within the last 25 years or so, a great deal of research has been done in understanding idiomatic Aramaic and how these idioms are reflected in the Gospels. Much of the Greek of Matthew, as a matter of fact, reflects the underlying Aramaic (see Steinmann, “Fundamental Biblical Aramaic”).
Anyway, it’s all very fascinating.
Peace,
Michael

In some Bibles, the Gospels quote Jesus in red letters. Note that Paul quotes Jesus only once. I recall hearing a Jewish rule that a teacher was not allowed to quote another unless he heard it firsthand. So, Paul kept silent, except for the time having fallen to the ground because of the bright light around him and hearing Jesus speak. In the Bible there are lots of parallel complementing metaphors. We are used to Aristotlean logic, premise A, premise B, conclusion. But, what if there is another logic as found at many location in the Bible where the conclusion comes in the middle and is bracketed by parallel metaphors going out for 5 or 6 verses. For example, I Corinthians 11:10 is the conclusion. The woman may or may not have a covering on her head but she does have authority over her husband. A wise man as head of the family seeks out the counsel and approval of his wife. And dopey liberals think Paul was a sexist.

Following the comments of several others, I also believe that Jesus, as a religious Jew, would not have spoken Greek if he could have helped it, and would have spoken Aramaic primarily, plus Hebrew in the synagogue. There is incredibly strong external and internal evidence that Aramaic Primacy is indeed correct, that the Greek New Testament was translated from the Aramaic. Everyone should look into that evidence for themselves and make up their own mind.

You must have been an awful magazine editor. Does this: “revealing lair upon lair of meaning” look right to you? Hint: it should be layer, not lair.

Thanks for the correction, Ant. While I think of it, I’ll mention too that spelling anomalies are one of the ways the Hebrew Bible hints at subterranean meaning, strange as that may seem, despite the fact of its supposedly having been edited or redacted over the course of centuries, woven together from earlier documents. Yet despite the purported heavy editing, the anomalies were preserved. Why? With people, errors signify nothing more than carelessness, hurry, or, yes, poor spelling.

David: How do you know that spelling anomalies in texts copied and recopied over centuries are hints at meaning rather than evidence of scribal idiosyncrasies? You didn’t respond to my question of why there are so many variants of texts in which every word supposedly counts and how you decided that your version of the “supposed” and “purported” editing is the one that accurately reports God’s dictation. Nor did you offer a text that no human could have written.
ps. I’m also an editor, and I sympathize with the embarrassment of having mistakes show up in my own informal writing.

David: How do you know that spelling anomalies in texts copied and recopied over centuries are hints at meaning rather than evidence of scribal idiosyncrasies? You didn’t respond to my question of why there are so many variants of texts in which every word supposedly counts and how you decided that your version of the “supposed” and “purported” editing is the one that accurately reports God’s dictation. Nor did you offer a text that no human could have written.
p.s. I’m also an editor, and I sympathize with the embarrassment of having mistakes show up in my own informal writing.

What direct, tangible, verifiable evidence is there for the physical existence approximately 200 years ago of the Homo sapien, Jesus of Nazareth recorded in the Christian Bible (KJV or NIV for example) and referenced in Christendom? Or, is this Jesus a mythological figure? If we cannot verify his existence with a high level of confidence, how can we ascribe various acts and written text to him?
I’m inclined to agree with Klinghoffer – I’m not so sure we can attribute recorded utterances to this Jesus of Nazareth anymore than we can claim the flood of Noah was an actual, literal event which more-or-less occurred as recorded in Genesis. (whole earth, 40 days, ark, 2-by-2, etc, etc)

should be “approximately 2000 years ago”

As they may be of interest, I encourage readers of this blog to investigate the findings here:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007272

Turmarion writes: “Personally, I tend to agree with the majority of scholars who hold to Greek primacy; ”
Does that include the book of Matthew? See:
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=122724.0;wap2
(David, I think you might find this link interesting.)
Philip writes: “You didn’t respond to my question of why there are so many variants of texts in which every word supposedly counts and how you decided that your version of the “supposed” and “purported” editing is the one that accurately reports God’s dictation.”
Just curious if the variants you’re talking about in Deuteronomy (since you referred specifically to that book) are of the type one might find at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_errata (caution, this link is funny!) or are they of the “neighbor” vs “neighbour” type.

It’s worth noting that Muslims frequently claim the Koran in the original Arabic is too beautiful, and too complex and rewarding of study to be the product of a human mind. (Indeed, there are a couple verses that challenge non-believers to create prose of equal quality, if they can…)
So, which one is really the inspired or dictated word of God? Or can we conclude that humans can read meanings into a work pretty much indefinitely if they’re of a mind to?

Mark2
First, since it’s easy to misunderstand a brief written comment not backed up by what I’m sure would be an interesting face-to-face conversation, I’ll start with what I’m NOT saying:
I’m not denigrating the use of scripture for inspiration and understanding relating to issues of everlasting importance.
I’m not denying the usefulness of scripture as an account of a people’s relationship to its god.
I’m not using the existence of textual variants to raise questions of inerrancy or whether or how biblical reports are “true” accounts of historical events.
I am pointing out that if someone claims that every fine detail of the text in front of him or her has meaning(s) specific to those details, that person should explain why that particular text and no other should be taken as the detail-specific acccount dictated by God.
If you are interested in following up on the Qumran texts of Deuteronomy, check out Crawford’s Reading Deuteronomy in the Second Temple Period at http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=classicsfacpub