Roger Pearse

Most Greek texts are known *only* in medieval or renaissance copies -- some (e.g. Macarius Magnes) are known only in printed editions made from a now lost manuscript. To evaluate how well any text is preserved, it is relevant to mention the existence of hundreds of manuscripts, even if they were all written after 1400; such a large number indicates a text which has a strong likelihood of existing in substantial numbers throughout its life.

Of course sometimes -- often -- all the renaissance copies derive from a single medieval exemplar. But other things being equal, the more there are, the less this is likely to be so.

The existence of ancient codices of a text is so uncommon as to be a very special thing all of itself, tho.

I hope that helps. For people to deny that the text of the bible is transmitted to us seems futile to me. I think that it often involves some kind of theological presumption that no book can be 'inspired' if any copying error is made. This may or may not be so -- how do we know? how do we test such a statement? -- but seems to be a creedal statement, not a historical statement. For all normal purposes, the bible has reached us as the authors wrote it. Even Macarius Magnes probably has, except for the bits missing.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Sauron

Incorrect. The question of:

(a) the preservation of any text in its original (autograph) form

is totally disconnected from

(b)the number of copies of the manuscript. Frequency of copying says nothing about how how faithful those copies are to the original.

Wishful thinking. The existence of a large number of copies at one point in history proves absolutely nothing about whether there were many copies all throughout history, before or after that point.

Doesn't follow at all. An abundance of renaissance copies doesn't prevent or make unlikely the scenario where they are all copies of a single predecessor.

Gee; I'll bet nobody saw that coming.

No, it is offered as a rebuttal to people who naively say that the texts have been passed down without corruption or change.

1. Interesting claim. Not much evidence for it, though.

2. You're going to have to do a better job than that of defining "normal purposes". Remember that a certain group of christians are prepared to argue biblical infallibility on every word, every nuance, every chapter division, and even the punctuation.

Roger Pearse

Fairly obviously, if we have 1 manuscript, any fault in it is hard to detect. If we have 2, we have a better chance to see faults specific to each. And so on.

Other things being equal, the existence of a large number of copies at one point in time suggests a large number of copies from which they could be taken. Each copy is made one at a time, you know.

You may certainly believe so if you wish.

It is probably true that common errors incur common rebukes.

Those who say this are in a far better position intellectually than the obscurantist who believes that history is mostly bunk, surely?

This needs no comment from me.

And, as I remarked, we're back to theology rather than history. I have some doubts as to your qualifications to speak for God, tho.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Steven Avery

Hi Roger,

Professor Maurice Robinson is one of the better writers on this topic. He asserts that even just taking manuscripts through the 11th-century the mass of Byzantine manuscripts (diverse geographically and culturally) demonstrates its originality. I'm doing this from memory and our discussions so I don't have an exact quote handy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse Fairly obviously, if we have 1 manuscript, any fault in it is hard to detect. If we have 2, we have a better chance to see faults specific to each. And so on.

Yes. The churches in various cities and locales provided a self-correcting mechanism. That is one reason why the hundreds of diverse variant blunders in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus generally have very little support. And why the mass of manuscripts are homogeneous.

All the numbers of tens of thousands of variants are skewed because they don't discard the errant corner manuscripts that have their own unique blunder variants (eg. Aleph, B, Bezae). Any sensible methodology would remove the radically corrupt manuscripts in order to get a sensible view of the homogeneity of the mass of manuscripts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse Other things being equal, the existence of a large number of copies at one point in time suggests a large number of copies from which they could be taken. Each copy is made one at a time, you know.

Right. The idea that anybody would claim that the numbers of hand-copies are irrelevant to determining the original just shows the absolute bondage of illogic and confusion in this field. Folks like Sauron make totally absurd claims like that frequently. However he is only taking the mistaken ideas of modern textual criticism to a heightened illogic and absurdity.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Amaleq13

Surely not.

Both appear to me to be extreme views that have less to do with the actual evidence than personal preferences.

anevilpetingzoo

I just read Misquoting Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Ehrman and I gotta say...
According to this expert in the field, there are more variants in the bible then there are words. Over 100,000 to be sure.

I would check out his book if you really are interested. The guy knows his shit.

Anyone who says 99% accurate should be punched in the face and laughed at.

Toto

anevilpettingzoo -

Neither Bart Ehrman nor the Internet Infidels approve of violence as a debate tactic (if I may take the liberty of reading Dr. Ehrman's mind.)

Yes, there are more variants in the Bible than words, but the essential differences are much less, although possibly still significant. It appears that you did not read the bulk of this thread.

Sauron

Which doesn't address the problem I pointed out: frequency of copying (or sheer numbers of copies) says nothing about how how faithful those copies are to the original.

1. Repeating your initial assumption with different words is not proof. And yes, I noticed the change in your claim:

original: such a large number indicates a text which has a strong likelihood of existing in substantial numbers throughout its life.
revised: the existence of a large number of copies at one point in time suggests a large number of copies from which they could be taken.

I don't blame you for reworking your claim.

2. But - not even your second claim works. At certain times in history, manuscripts were burned or destroyed (narrowing the pool). At other times, explosions of copying occurred (broadening the pool). The presence of a large number of copies in 1400 does not mean that a large number existed in 1300 or 900, or whatever.

The fact that they are made one at a time does not help you here. As each copy is made it becomes the basis for another copy. 2 become 4, 4 become 8, 8 become 16, 16 become 32, etc. in fairly short order you can have a large number of copies where you originally started with only a single copy, or a handful.

Well, that's what logic says, and you've certainly presented no reason to believe otherwise, other than assertion.

It's even more true that people assume errors and then rebuke out of season. I've noticed that you state your assumptions as your conclusions, in the hope of sneaking them into evidence without anyone objecting.

How positively juvenile.

1. Those who say such things are in manifest error, since their position is absolutist and easy to disprove with a single contrary example;

2. Nobody around here is saying that history is mostly bunk. Of course, the bible and history have only a passing familiarity with each other, so I'm not sure why you tried to intertwine the two;

Indeed. Since your original claim was just a statement of faith, it's not going to be supported with evidence, thus removing the need for you to make a comment.

No, we're not. We're discussing your comment about "normal purposes", which you've failed to define twice;

Says the many who wanted to discuss the historical context. How quickly you jump positions. Let's review:

1. You inaccurately - probably deliberately - tried to portray skeptics who doubt the infallibility of the text thusly:
I think that it often involves some kind of theological presumption that no book can be 'inspired' if any copying error is made.

2. I corrected you as to the motives of skeptics (at least myself, and the skeptics I have encountered):
No, it is offered as a rebuttal to people who naively say that the texts have been passed down without corruption or change.

So back to your current strawman: where did I say I was speaking for God? Since you misidentified the motive behind skeptical rebuttals to the inerrantist position, I corrected you on the reason. Then, I repeated the doctrinal position of people who believed in a 100% inerrancy of the texts, for your education.

You would do well to slow down and read for content.

Roger Pearse

One reason why I cannot like Bart Ehrman is his undoubted efforts to convince ordinary people that texts are not transmitted accurately from antiquity. This post is surely evidence that this is indeed the message being taken away; and I suspect it is intentional.

If we really took that view seriously, that would make all study of ancient texts largely pointless, and the rediscovery of antiquity in the renaissance -- the foundation of the modern world -- merely a pretty illusion. Do we really believe this?

I can see no practical difference between such a position and "history is mostly bunk". Regardless of the issue about the bible -- only one text of many transmitted from antiquity -- I do not think that we need pay our taxes merely in order to get people teaching obscurantism. If the humanities deserves respect, it cannot well preach that the humanities are bunk.

In truth, anyway, no scholar can simply treat all testimony as unreliable; what they tend to inevitably end up doing is treating unwelcome testimony as unreliable. But it won't do, in my very humble opinion. We've been here before, in the late 19th century. The editions of that period do mark a real advance, but, for Tertullian at least, scholarship has retreated from them to a text based rather more closely on the manuscripts, and treats the editions of that time as far too subjective and subject to too many arbitrary changes.

Most texts are transmitted fine. Indeed in some cases texts can be transmitted fine even when chunks of the only manuscript are missing; because we can see what the missing words must have amounted to, in the clause and sentence.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

anevilpetingzoo

He often writes that in fact most of the meaning of the passages is intact, and further that most of the countless errors/corrections are inconsequential. Funny thing... When I was a Christian I was always taught that the Bible was perfect and free from error.

I do think that many of the passages in the bible were not transmitted accurately, or not included in the original writings. I also think that that is a significant fact that is often overlooked by more fundamentalist Christians. Many hang on every single word as if it was directly written by God himself.

The point of the book is to understand how Biblical scholars look for clues in texts and try to deduce the original writings. When you take this view seriously, you learn that there are many ways that texts can get and do get changed. The effect of that on the rediscovery of antiquity is left to the reader. Do I think the Iliad and Odyssey are perfect and flawless copies of the original story? No way. Do I base my life on its words? No way. I can enjoy it for what it is... Fiction.

I am not sure what your point is. No one says it is bunk, I'm simply saying that if you think it is a many times transmitted perfect copy of the original well, I would say you are probably wrong. Is the intent and meaning in tact, probably.

Would you stake your eternal soul on a manuscript with chunks missing? That sounds like a bad idea to me.
All and all it seems silly to me. The people that take it too seriously are those that find deep spiritual meaning in every word of every passage. These same people mine every little quote to support their religion de jour.