Freethought & Rationalism Archive

katerina2 · 06-21-2002, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:

Let it go. He was just being Koy.

I reasonably doubt it!

Jayhawker Soule · 06-21-2002, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by katerina2:


I reasonably doubt it!

katerina2 · 06-21-2002, 01:02 PM

Oh! Je vous aime tous!

madmax2976 · 06-21-2002, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Polycarp:
[b]

I was replying to this statement of yours:

"Hell, lets just assume that the New Testament writings do have the best collection of manuscripts to support them. Given the power and wealth of the church I wouldn't find this all that suprising. It took a lot of resources to be able to do this before the advent of the printing press and paper."

You seemed to be implying that Christianity may have had an unfair advantage in making huge numbers of manuscripts at a very early date. I was simply pointing out that pre-Constantine Rome could have easily done the same thing with their historians.

"Unfair"? I wouldn't characterize it that way. I wouldn't call having sufficient resources as being unfair. Besides, it could take other factors as well, such as motivation to do the work, and good fortune that the writings weren't destroyed accidentally or on purpose.

As I said, some collection of copies is likely to come out the "winner" in this regard. Why not the NT manuscripts?

The question is whether its supposed to mean anything other than the NT has the most and oldest copies. If just that, its not a very astounding or impressive statistic.

06-22-2002, 04:07 AM

Greetings all,

The variations in the text of the NT are not just typos and omissions - there are many changes which appear to be deliberate and result from the debates of the early centuries. Bert Ehrman's work The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture is a signficant step in this area - highly recommended.

The variations in manuscripts are large in number and wide in scope. Here are some classic examples :

Markan appendix -
not found in early manuscripts - there are now three different versions of endings to Mark.
Matt. 6:13 -
to this day, there are different versions in various bibles - the early manuscripts show that "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" is a later addition.
Luke 3:22 -
early witnesses have :
" . . . and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou are my son, this day have I begotten thee"later manuscripts have the KJV version :
"...Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased"
John 9:35 -
The KJV has "...son of god", but the early manuscripts show "..son of man".
John's pericope of the Adulteress -
not found in the early witnesses - generally agreed to be a later addition.
Colossians 1:14 -
the phrase [i]"through hs blood"[I] is a later addition.
Acts 9:5-6 -
Absent from early manuscripts - a later addition.
Acts 8:37 -
"And Phillip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"
Absent from early manuscripts - a later addition.
John 8:59 -
"...going through the midst of them, and so passed by"
Absent from early manusripts - a later addition.
1 John 5:7
The Trinity formula found here only originated centuries after the events -
Bruce Metzger notes :
[i]"The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late rescension of the Latin Vulgate . . .
"The passage is quoted by none of the Greek fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version
of the (Latin) Acts of the Lutheran Council in 1215."
"The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin;
and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex
Fuldensis [copied AD 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before AD 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [9nth century]) "
"The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chapter 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic
Priscillian (died about 385CE) or to his follower Bishop Instantius . . ."

In short - the NT shows considerable evidence of having been tampered with by the early church during the early arguments over doctrine - and these variations in texts cover most of the fundamental points of Christian dogma.

Quentin David Jones

katerina2 · 06-22-2002, 05:16 AM

Wow, thanks for that incredibly synthetic summary!

Merci, Monsieur Jones

Yes, but two questions:

1. With the exception of the adulteress woman passage (which is a major exemplum for changing of a point of law), and perhaps the trinitarian passage, how significantly do these accretions change meaning? The addition of the closure "In the name of the..." is akin to a re-framing of the passage.

2. When you use the word 'tampering', do you explicitly imply intentional obfuscation of meaning?

[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: katerina2 ]

Jayhawker Soule · 06-22-2002, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by katerina2:
2. When you use the word 'tampering', do you explicitly imply intentional obfuscation of meaning?

Harmonization?

katerina2 · 06-22-2002, 06:06 AM

huh?

Jayhawker Soule · 06-22-2002, 08:39 AM

Quote:

The term harmonizing alteration or harmonization involves alterations made in accordance witrh another element in the text. The harmonizations in [the Samaritan Pentateuch] reflect a tendency not to leave in the Pentateuchal text any internal contradiction or irregularity which could be taken as harmful to the sanctity of the text. This feature, which is characteristic of [the Samaritan Pentateuch], was already found in all the pre-Samaritan texts which preceded it. [Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible by Emanual Tov, pg. 85 - RD]

Textual recensions bear recognizable textual characteristics, such as an expansionistic, abbreviating, harmonizing, Judaizing, or Christianizing tendency, or a combination of some of these characteristics. [ibid, pg. 161 - RD]

I see no reason to think that this would not equally apply to NT textual criticism.

Ted Hoffman · 06-22-2002, 09:04 AM

Polycarp
...
Many stories
...
Does this help?

No it does not help. In fact you have used a false analogy and you are also quibbling. Copysts helped circumvent the problem of perishability during the early days. A copyst is not a plagiarist.

Are you with me so far?

Plato does not have people claiming they died for our sins, Plato does not relate as truth people rising from the dead and virgin births.

I wouldn't give a rats ass what Plato said so long as it passed the test of naturalistic plausibility and so long as if it was mythical, he related it as myth.

Haven't you ever asked yourself why no one questions the story related under the title Alices Adventures in Wonderland?

Does this help?

06-22-2002, 04:07 AM	#35
Iasion Guest Posts: n/a	Greetings all, The variations in the text of the NT are not just typos and omissions - there are many changes which appear to be deliberate and result from the debates of the early centuries. Bert Ehrman's work The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture is a signficant step in this area - highly recommended. The variations in manuscripts are large in number and wide in scope. Here are some classic examples : Markan appendix - not found in early manuscripts - there are now three different versions of endings to Mark. Matt. 6:13 - to this day, there are different versions in various bibles - the early manuscripts show that "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" is a later addition. Luke 3:22 - early witnesses have : " . . . and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou are my son, this day have I begotten thee"later manuscripts have the KJV version : "...Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased" John 9:35 - The KJV has "...son of god", but the early manuscripts show "..son of man". John's pericope of the Adulteress - not found in the early witnesses - generally agreed to be a later addition. Colossians 1:14 - the phrase [i]"through hs blood"[I] is a later addition. Acts 9:5-6 - Absent from early manuscripts - a later addition. Acts 8:37 - "And Phillip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" Absent from early manuscripts - a later addition. John 8:59 - "...going through the midst of them, and so passed by" Absent from early manusripts - a later addition. 1 John 5:7 The Trinity formula found here only originated centuries after the events - Bruce Metzger notes : [i]"The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late rescension of the Latin Vulgate . . . "The passage is quoted by none of the Greek fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lutheran Council in 1215." "The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied AD 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before AD 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [9nth century]) " "The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chapter 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385CE) or to his follower Bishop Instantius . . ." In short - the NT shows considerable evidence of having been tampered with by the early church during the early arguments over doctrine - and these variations in texts cover most of the fundamental points of Christian dogma. Quentin David Jones

06-22-2002, 05:16 AM	#36
katerina2 Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: . Posts: 20	Wow, thanks for that incredibly synthetic summary! Merci, Monsieur Jones Yes, but two questions: 1. With the exception of the adulteress woman passage (which is a major exemplum for changing of a point of law), and perhaps the trinitarian passage, how significantly do these accretions change meaning? The addition of the closure "In the name of the..." is akin to a re-framing of the passage. 2. When you use the word 'tampering', do you explicitly imply intentional obfuscation of meaning? [ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: katerina2 ]</p>

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

06-21-2002, 01:02 PM	#33
katerina2 Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: . Posts: 20	Oh! Je vous aime tous!

06-22-2002, 06:06 AM	#38
katerina2 Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: . Posts: 20	huh?

06-22-2002, 09:04 AM	#40
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Polycarp ... Many stories ... Does this help? No it does not help. In fact you have used a false analogy and you are also quibbling. Copysts helped circumvent the problem of perishability during the early days. A copyst is not a plagiarist. Are you with me so far? Plato does not have people claiming they died for our sins, Plato does not relate as truth people rising from the dead and virgin births. I wouldn't give a rats ass what Plato said so long as it passed the test of naturalistic plausibility and so long as if it was mythical, he related it as myth. Haven't you ever asked yourself why no one questions the story related under the title Alices Adventures in Wonderland? Does this help?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.