Amaleq13

Christians take great comfort in their faith that textual variation is a by-product of the means by which Providence insured that the original text would be preserved for all generations.

Julian

Well, I'll start out with one correct conclusion from your quoted material. It is true that the textual variants do not change the fundamentals of christianity, for that we have the non-canonical writings.

What the textual variants do point out is that god is falling somewhat short in preserving his word. Wouldn't one expect god to have a 100% preservation rate? While most are innocent, meaningless errors there are some serious textual variants. Things such as the pericope de adultera, the comma johanneum and the Western non-interpolations come to mind. There are other issues in the Pauline epistles, like verses moving about or are missing entirely. There are blunders surreptitiously 'fixed' by later scribes. All these examples clearly show that providence has done a rather poor job of preserving the autographs.

I am also noting that you impugn Ehrman without any knowledge of the field of textual criticism and his writings. You have appointed yourself to reveal the truth about textual criticism, a field you know nothing about. Do you honestly think that you can attack a field of science armed only with faith and posts that display complete ignorance?

Why don't you go ahead and cut and paste some more arguments since your own knowledge is not up to the task? Try something a bit more modern than Hort's assessment from the 1880s, which is interesting, by the way, because you would not like Hort's methods nor his results.

Julian

P.S. For the benefit of lurkers I would like to point out that, even though Hort is dated and some of his assertions were questionable, he was a brilliant scholar still relevant today, although he didn't have many of the MSS we have today so he had a rather limited view. Even so, the NA27/UBS4 versions of today are not radically different from the Westcott and Hort text from 1881.

DavidfromTexas

Why not just say "falling short" instead of "falling somewhat short"?

Your hesitation to go that far implies that what has been preserved is indeed remarkable, perhaps even miraculous in my estimation.


Yes, of that which God had purposed would be preserved, I would say yes.

The actual papyrus of the original autographs are no longer extant, yet that which God had purposed would be preserved, has been preserved.


And they all stick out like a sore thumb, don't they?

Do you see where I am going here?

The fact that those interpolations, additions, etc., stick out like a sore thumb indicates that God has allowed us to know with a fair degree of accuracy what is authentic and what is not... Therefore, the text has been preserved. By Providence, the inspired writings proliferated profusely in the early centuries... This prevented an over-reaching magisterium from having control over all of the manuscript copies. This prevented the nefarious actions of an overiding magisterium in having complete control of all of the manuscripts whereby alterations of all of the texts could be made at the same time for doctrinal purposes, or for hiding embarrasing so-called contraditions, etc. Instead, the changes that would occur in later manuscript copies, either due to copyist errors, interpolations, or whatever, would stick out like a sore thumb... And such changes DO stick out like a sore thumb. Therefore, the text has been faithfully preserved.



Wrong.

See the above.

The examples you cite all stick out like a sore thumb. Unless there had been variants, the above conclusions could not have been made.

Do you understand?



Ehrman impugnes himself. It is obvious. Look at the title of the book. Listen to his arguments. They are nothing but rhetoric. There is NOTHING of surprise in what he is writing about.

He takes advantage of a gullible public that is not commonly aware of textual variants, nor of the significance of the variants. He casts textual variation in the light of something that contradicts the truth of Christianity, when in fact textual variation SUPPORTS the truth of Christianity.


What makes you think that I am attacking the field of textual criticism? Where did you come to that absurd conclusion?

The field of textual criticism is a FRIEND to Christianity. Textual criticism SUPPORTS the truth of Christianity. What are you talking about?


Why not provide some specific examples?

What makes you think that I would not like Hort's methods? It seems that you may have a wrong impression here.


And the point of the above?

Phlox Pyros

This gets into theology. I would imagine that many conservative textual critics would say that a perfect Bible would be like nothing else and make God obvious. If God is obvious to all, then there is no reason for faith, and we get into the "free will" problem. There is no answer here, only speculation.

Most evangelical textual critics would say that few if any critical Christian teachings are effected by the known variants. Whether one subscribes to this view or not is a matter of faith.

I agree with you in respect to the impugning of Ehrman. I will say that I think that at least his most recent work has a rather sensational title and seems to be directed at laymen and timed very conspicusouly to coincide with the release of the DaVinci Code movie.

I would disagree with this assessment. I believe that modern critical editions are very close to the W&H text.

What I would say to David, however, is that if he is using a biblical text other than the KJV or NKJV, then his English translation is likely relying heavily on modern critical editions that are substantially the same as the W&H text.

Julian

I agree with your assessment here regarding theology and speculation. I generally don't go there and shouldn't have this time. Bad Julian!
The examples I gave above should affect them somewhat although, as I admitted earlier, the fundamentals remain the same.
So he found a way to make some money. Good for him. I haven't read MJ and won't, either. I have read his scholarly foundation for the book, i.e. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture and he clearly has done some solid scientific work to back up his theories. They are just not suitable for a general audience.
Erm... You might want to read my post again. That was exactly what I said, that they are not radically different, i.e. they are close but still different. Or, are we differing in our concept of degree here? The Western non-interpolations are back to their long form again, for example. Grrr... I have quite a few ideas and views on that issue and I suspect some politics were involved.

Julian

Julian

How do you know this? Where is your evidence?
Nowhere it would seem. Those stick out, sure, because I picked the worst offenders. How about other important issues where we cannot tell which is the right answer? Like what is the last verse in the Gospel of Mark? If not 16:8 then which of the many endings is the real one? Any of them?

Does it say "υιου θεου" (son of god) in Mark 1:1?
Except they frequently don't stick out like a sore thumb. Sometimes we have no clue which is the correct reading. Also, we have almost no MSS from the 2nd century and none from the first. That is when they would have been the most pure. As we see from the Western text, there was corruption going on before our first extant MSS. That means that there are readings, probably original, that no longer exists in any MS.
Have you read his new book? Or are you just assuming here?
The book is written for a general audience. If you have a problem with this I suggest that you read the book this new one is based on: The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture : The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk)
He shows that there are textual variants, something which many christians are not aware of. They do not support christianity, I think. You disagree. That's fine although I see no logic behind your certitude. Looks like faith to me. The textual variants cast the texts into some doubt, although not significantly so in the overall scheme. He is presenting knowledge to the general public, an excellent idea regardless of the knowledge or area. If I know Ehrman then I doubt that he would be biased in his presentation. He might be sensationalistic, I don't know, but I doubt he would be dishonest.
Well, I am inferring here. Surely it is possble that I am wrong. You impugn Ehrman via ad hominem attacks on him despite the soundess of his methods. That looks to me like you don't respect the methodology. The fact that you seem to think that it supports the truth of christianity shows me that you do not know much about the field, its findings, state and methodology. That again makes me think that you don't respect it.

I could be wrong, if so tell me in what way.
Most christians who know of Hort and his writings regarding his 1881 text do not care for his methods and result. I generally make the assumption that christians do not like him. That assumption could be wrong here, of course. What is your position on the Western non-interpolations? Would it bother you if there was no eucharist in Luke?
Just an informational blurb for the general readership.

Julian

Phlox Pyros

I agree although I think that a Christian doing this sort of thing (eg. Ben Witherington) would be more looked down upon. Am I wrong?

I've browsed the MJ at the book store, but I can't decide whether I want to purchase it either. I am always interested in peoples motives and speculation and what leads them to their conclusions, so it could be interesting from that perspective. After all, we're all, whether we acknowledge it or not, on a quest of the meaning of our existence. Why not try to understand the paths that others choose to take...

Mea Culpa. Somehow I missed the not in there. That makes a big difference!

JoeWallack

JW:
Shakespeare, who was not from Texas, wrote, "There are those who are born great, those who achieve greatness and those who have greatness Thrust upon them." So which One was "Mark's" Jesus? If "Mark" described his Jesus as "son of God" at the Start of his Gospel than there is an Implication that he was already "son of God" before his One/Three year tour of duty. This makes it easier for a Truth-challenged Advocate for that guy in the Christian Bible whose name escapes me at the moment but I think starts with a "J" or maybe "Y" to argue that "Mark" refers to and accepts the Virgin Birth story of "Matthew" but found it too ordinary to repeat. If there is no "son of God" at the start of "Mark" than the Implication is that Jesus Became "son of God" at some point in "Mark's" narrative. So was Jesus born great, did he achieve greatness or did he have greatness thrust upon him?

All this should be obvious so you are asking a stupid question but what else would I expect from someone who thinks that in his early youth, Papias heard Fred Flintstone. As opposed to Jesus' magical powers which you are unable to give an illustration of, let me give you an illustration of what I Am talking about:

http://www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic...augustine.html

From the profilic Latin Church Father Augustine, De Consensu Evangelistarum, which according to Roger Pierce's translation is Latin for "The Lying For Jesus":

Fool Hearted Memory

"I.4. Of these four, to be sure, only Matthew is regarded to have written in the Hebrew language, the others in Greek. And although they seem to have each maintained a certain story line of their own, it is still recognized that each one of them did not want to write as if ignorant of another before him or omit by mistake the things that the other is found to have written. But as each was inspired, he did not add an unnecessary duplication for his own work. For Matthew is understood to have adopted the incarnation of the Lord according to the kingly lineage and his very many deeds and words according to the present life of men. Mark seems to have followed closely after him like someone following on his footsteps and abbreviating him. For in fact, he has said nothing with John alone, very little by himself, a few with just Luke, but much more indeed with Matthew, and just as almost many things too in the same words, agreeing either with him alone or with the others."


Augustine would have been considered an Intellectual (like Bede), by Christian standards, which is true, but in a Markan, ironic unintended sort of way. Let's look at some of the Assertians above from this very Brave and Influential Church Father:

1) "it is still recognized that each one of them did not want to write as if ignorant of another before him"

2) "But as each was inspired, he did not add an unnecessary duplication for his own work."

3) "For Matthew is understood to have adopted the incarnation of the Lord according to the kingly lineage and his very many deeds and words according to the present life of men. Mark seems to have followed closely after him like someone following on his footsteps and abbreviating him."

JW:
Seems to me that having "son of God" at the start of "Mark" helps support all 3 (evidence of the trinity?) of the above:

1) "son of God" at the start of "Mark" could refer to the Virgin Birth of "Matthew".

2) Since "son of God" already refers to the Virgin Birth there was no need to duplicate the story.

3) "Son of God" shows that "Mark" is following 'Matthew" and giving an abbreviated account.

Does the worth of my forte ever cross your mind?



Joseph

EDITOR, n.
A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

DavidfromTexas

Are you suggesting that the gospel of Matthew was written before Mark? The order of books in the Bible does not necessarily confer chronology as to when the books were written. Perhaps you are not suggesting this, but I wanted to ask for clarification.


The above is a reasonable question.

The answer would depend upon your perspective. As a Christian, I believe that scripture interprets scripture, therefore, the answer to your question is that Jesus was born the Son of God... which means that greatness was Him for all of time.

From the perspective of persons not yet believing, then Jesus did seem to have greatness thrust upon Him as time passed in the gospel narratives... one example being God's voice heard from Heaven when Jesus was baptized. However, when Jesus chose His disciples, there seems to have been no hesitation in their leaving everything to follow Him, suggesting that they must have known of His greatness from the time of introduction, yet the gospels record that the disciples did not have full understanding of His greatness until after the Resurrection.


It is important to remember, that Augustine, as brilliant and gifted as he obviously was, was still human, and that his writings were not inspired. Augustine was a man of his times. He did not have access to the scholarship that would come over the next 1500 years. He implies in his writings that Mark wrote after Matthew, when in fact, the evidence available today, suggests otherwise.


Again, all of the above is meaningless if the phrase "son of God" was not at the beginning of the gospel of Mark. There is good evidence to suggest that this is the case.

Notice that the translation of Augustine's writings has the word "seems" in reference to Mark's following closely after Matthew. Therefore, if the translation of Augustine's writing above is correct, then Augustine may have only been referring to what "seems", instead of to what actually happened.

JoeWallack

JW:

Significant Variant #5:

Mark 1:40

καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς αὐτὸν λεπρὸς παρακαλῶν αὐτὸν καὶ γονυπετῶν

And comes to him a leper begging him and kneeling down


And Metzger commentary:

"1.40 [καὶ γονυπετῶν] {C}
On the one hand, the combination of B D W al in support of the shorter text is extremely strong. On the other hand, if καὶ γονυπετῶν αὐτόν were the original reading, homoeoteleuton could account for its accidental omission. On the whole, since in the parallel passages Matthew’s use of προσεκύνει (Mt 8.2) and, still more, Luke’s πεσὼν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον (Lk 5.12) seem to support the originality of the idea of kneeling in Mark’s account, the Committee decided to retain καὶ γονυπετῶν with א L Θ f 1 565 al but to enclose the expression within square brackets."

Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. 1994. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition; a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) . United Bible Societies: London; New York

JW:
The Translation of what Metzger is saying is that "kneeling down" may not be Original. Also note that "Matthew"/"Luke" use different phrases here indicating it wasn't original. "Kneeling/Bowing/Going down" is often cited by Apologists as evidence of Jesus supposed divinity. I think everyone would agree that "Mark's" Jesus is more Human than the other Guys and Dolls' Jesuses. I Am also pretty sure that the Issue of Jesus' supposed divinity not only affects Christian Doctrine but affects it Significantly.


Joseph

EDITOR, n.
A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page