Freethought & Rationalism Archive

long winded fool · 09-04-2004, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amlodhi

But we're not talking about "mistranslations or errors". We're talking about specifically targeted changes made to critical terminology in the text. Changes which consistently reflect an effort to make the existing text better conform to the prevailing (orthodox) theology.

Where?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amlodhi

That is irrelevant to me. I'm uninterested in "comparative trustworthiness". I'm interested in the extent to which specific targeted changes reflect an evolving theology > from that of the beginning Jerusalem church > to later orthodoxy.
Amlodhi

"...in thee I am well pleased." and "...today I have begotten you."

First of all. I see no proof that the former is a deliberate attempt to alter the text in favor of a particular ideology. Second, where is the records of this original Jerusalem church? How can we just assume that they have been altered and the original was "different?" Keep in mind that the fact that the pastor of church A now wears a white tie is not an alteration of orthodoxy. I'm talking about actual theology here. The theology is recorded as it was believed by the early authors of the Bible, and that is what we read today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaiser_Soze

I'm sorry - but is this good enough to build your world around? Your whole life, your worldview... "at least as pure as any other modern text translated from the same period".... is it a competition: which is the most accurate, Plato or the Bible? That seems to be what's coming out here...

No. It's good enough to answer the op.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

LWF, Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture is a major work by a major scholar, covering the major tampering with the Gospels. Not only do the differing texts themselves testify to the pattern of alterations, but the scribes themselves often left instructions on how to alter the text. For example, in the Codex Bezae there are instructions on how to alter the manuscript so that the original reading of Mary Magdelene's hometown, Melegada, is changed to the more acceptable but equally non-existent "Magdala." Further, There are numerous complaints of textual corruption found in Eusebius, for example, his cite of the second century Bishop Dionysus' complaint of the forging and faking of letters.

Such changes are common, and create problems for creating the so-called critical text. For example, consider the mundane issue of John 1:34. A few texts read "the chosen one of God" instead of "the Son of God." Based on the fact that the majority of texts read "the Son of God," the patristic fathers generally say the text reads "the Son of God" and the phrase coheres with John's theology, Metzger (Textual Commentary) favors "Son of God." However, this brings up another important criterion of choosing the right reading, and that is difficultly. It is a principle of such judgments that the more difficult reading is to be preferred. In other words, where a text creates problems theologically, it is to be preferred (why would anyone alter the text to make it more difficult, when the usual practice is to alter it to smooth it out?). Thus, given the problem of clashing criteria, it is impossible to know what the original text said, one can only make a reasoned guess based on imperfect but useful criteria.

This brings up the most important issue. The text you read in English is a translation based on a constructed text. In other words, when you read the NT, you are reading a scholarly reconstruction. No manuscript anywhere contains our modern critical New Testament. Therefore, when you say:

in the sense that the text is still just as trustworthy as it ever was

...there is a certain irony in observing that the text you think is trustworthy actually doesn't exist at all -- it is an invention, of scholars, and it is constantly being refined.

I refer you to two indispensable works, both by Bruce Metzger. One is his Textual Commentary on the New Testament and the other is The Text of the New Testament: Its transmission, corruption and restoration. Metzger, a religious conservative, is probably the leading scholar of NT textual matters.

Vorkosigan

I take back my statement that it is "just as trustworthy as it ever was." It is just as trustworthy as anything else of comparative age. But that the text is constantly being refined does not mean that it is being invented. It was invented by the original authors. Works of Michaelangelo are constantly being refined, but in such a way as to capture the original work. They were invented by an italian man, and scholars are attempting to restore them as closely to the original as they can. They are not adding and deleting in principle, even though they do have to make 'alterations' to the piece. In art, the alterations are material repairs. In historical texts, the alterations are no less repairs even though they are not material. Translations and interpretations are examined with the agenda of making the text as close to the original as it can possibly get. Today's Bible is being altered as much and for the same reasons as today's great works of art. Any damage done in the past is now as repaired as we can currently make it, and with each new edition, it becomes even more repaired. It is still not, nor will ever be, perfect, but the school of thought implied in the op is unwarranted and erroneous.

Vorkosigan · 09-04-2004, 04:21 PM

[

Quote:

I take back my statement that it is "just as trustworthy as it ever was." It is just as trustworthy as anything else of comparative age. But that the text is constantly being refined does not mean that it is being invented.

I didn't say "invented." I said reconstructed. The current text is a reconstruction. It is only an approximation. No one manuscript has it -- in other words, it does not exist independently of scholarly effort. Because many words are not known -- of 8,000 in the OT, some 1,500 are a mystery -- the "original" text will never be recovered.

Quote:

It was invented by the original authors.

What original authors? The early texts were all edited and redacted, some many times. The third author of John re-arranged the gospel and inserted large blocks of text, deleting others. Similarly Mark seems to have gone through four or five evolutions. Which form of the Gospel is the correct original form? THe whole idea of "original" text is meaningless.

Quote:

Works of Michaelangelo are constantly being refined, but in such a way as to capture the original work. They were invented by an italian man, and scholars are attempting to restore them as closely to the original as they can. They are not adding and deleting in principle, even though they do have to make 'alterations' to the piece. In art, the alterations are material repairs. In historical texts, the alterations are no less repairs even though they are not material. Translations and interpretations are examined with the agenda of making the text as close to the original as it can possibly get.

Yes, but that is the problem. "Close as possible" is not "indentical." In the NT there are many places where the original language cannot be chosen due to a lack of data and limitations of methodology. Then, at that point, we just guess.

Vorkosigan

long winded fool · 09-05-2004, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

I didn't say "invented." I said reconstructed. The current text is a reconstruction. It is only an approximation. No one manuscript has it -- in other words, it does not exist independently of scholarly effort. Because many words are not known -- of 8,000 in the OT, some 1,500 are a mystery -- the "original" text will never be recovered.

Agreed, but the problem here is this very last fact. Since the "original" text will never be recovered, we treat the oldest text recovered as the source material until older texts are discovered. The current Bible is as close to the source material as it can be, until a genuine older source is discovered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

What original authors? The early texts were all edited and redacted, some many times. The third author of John re-arranged the gospel and inserted large blocks of text, deleting others. Similarly Mark seems to have gone through four or five evolutions. Which form of the Gospel is the correct original form? THe whole idea of "original" text is meaningless.

This is a notion that I have a problem with. How do we know that the third author of John deleted and inserted text if we do not have the text that was deleted and the text that was missing his insertions? If we do have these texts, then they are the source material and the text that underwent the alterations is no longer the text used to translate the books.

Again, as long as there is an older version, major changes in the text in latter editions do not appear in today's Bibles, and minor discrepancies whose reliability scholars disagree on are noted as such. Before the printing press, (and even after it, to a lesser extent) the older sources we find can be assumed to be closer to the original text based on the phenomenon seen in the game of telephone. Calling our Bible today closer to the original text than the Bibles of the Dark Ages (which were translated from newer texts than the ones today) doesn't mean that the Bible is perfect, nor that it is an exact replica of the original. It means that it is as close as we can get it. And it is closer than any other modern translation from a text written in the same time period.

The changes the original authors made is as irrelevant as the changes I make to a book before I have it published. Plato may have rearranged the whole of the Republic before it came into circulation. So what? The Republic we read today is close enough to the original intent of the text that it is an extreme exaggeration to say that it is an altered, abridged version, even with the knowledge that it isn't exactly perfect. It's close enough that it would probably easily be recognized by Plato himself, and any errors are likely to be superficial. And errors that are discovered are fixed to the best of our knowledge anyway, therefore The Republic is pretty much as close to the "original" as it has ever been. And if this is the case with The Republic, then it is even a more extreme exaggeration to accuse the Bible of being the same, since the Bible is under exponentially more scrutiny than the Republic.

Be careful with notions like "orthodox corruption of scripture." Even if this occured at some point in history, be even more careful if you assume that this scripture is still "corrupt." Today's translations of The Republic are far more corrupt in the sense that they are further from the original text than the Bible, yet most Greek scholors would be proud of how well preserved Plato's ideas are. "Corrupt" is very subjective, and in this case it is entirely unwarranted. Sure, if a book written fifty years ago were translated with the same degree of accuracy as The Republic or even The Bible, we would call it a sloppy and somewhat incomplete translation. But for their age, both books are remarkably well preserved and, if we are being objective and fair, should be celebrated for their accuracy, rather than derided for their remarkably few errors when taken in context with their age.

Chili · 09-05-2004, 09:44 AM

According to Jn.5:39-40 it really doesn't matter what the bible says because there is no salvation to be found in the bible in any way you read it.

Quote:

[You] search the scriptures in which you think you have eternal life-they also testify on my behalf. Yet you are unwilling to come to me to get that life.

It does say that it testifies on behalf of salvation to say that we can 'write' our own Gospel and compare it with the narrative found in the bible.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.