Roger Pearse

I must admit that this is a new one to me. It's true that during the darkest period of the dark ages we have some manuscripts that are drawn, rather than written, in just this way. But even then it is a minority. It can't be true for antiquity.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

dog-on

Of course the scribes could read!

(How else would they know what to change!)

Roger Pearse

There are certainly deliberate changes made sometimes into the transmission of a text. But remember that any change is somewhat futile, unless that particular manuscript is the one that gets copied, rather than the much larger numbers of unchanged manuscripts. It will simply vanish in the stream.

If you get a deletion, it will probably be ineffective; the next scribe that sees two mss, one with and one without, will probably copy both and thus restore the deletion.

If you get an addition it is likely to be transmitted. Scribes usually are very faithful copyists, even of irrelevant marginalia. Detecting such corruptions also falls within the limits of text criticism. But it is remarkable how little it happens.

Human beings are willing to do these things. Damage happens. But books do survive even these interventions. This is not new information, we must remember; people who lived in the manuscript era were far more familiar with all this process than we are. It's part of being in a fallible world.

But if someone says that because the world is a fallible place an inspired text cannot exist (which is what these arguments tend to resolve to) I would tend to query it, because I don't see why. After all, I could inspire a text that would pass that test.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Well, we cannot.

But consider the Letters of Ignatius. These exist in three versions; a long version which contains 15 letters; a middle version of 7; and a short version supposedly of 3 extant in Syriac. So we have 3 of the letters in all three versions, getting shorter each time. That is data, and not up for discussion. How do we interpret this situation?

There are a number of scenarios that we can imagine.

1. That Ignatius wrote a number of versions, revised them etc. (Don't laugh; in the manuscript era this was pretty easy to do, and Cyprian did this with his letters and some treatises).

2. That the long version is authentic and the others abbreviations.

3. That the short version is authentic and the others interpolated.

4. That the middle version is authentic and the others interpolated/abbreviated.

In this situation I think we may reasonably infer intentional change (always remembering the distance between data and inference). The changes are simply too many and too long.

We look at the long version and find elements that support 4th century Apollinarism. We might infer interpolation by these heretics (who have form for this sort of thing anyway).

We look at the middle version and find elements that really promote heavily a Roman Catholic view of episcopal authority. We might infer interpolation by the Jesuits (or other RCC people).

Thus we come to the view that the short version is authentic -- wrongly. (The general view of scholars today is that the middle version is authentic, and the short version merely a summary).

I should add, tho, that I am a deep sceptic about whether any supposed purposeful change to the NT would pass this sort of analysis *. Some biblical scholars will utter the utmost tosh if they think they can get away with it, and I would include Bart Ehrman in that group (which is why I prefer less politicised fields, myself).

I'm not sure that I understand.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

* The endings of Mark and the passage in John on the woman taken in adultery clearly do have some kind of different history to the rest of these texts, since the manuscripts include them or not. That's a separate issue.

Ray Moscow

No, that's not what happened. The later, majority manuscripts contain numerous additions that we now know are later additions -- that is, forgeries.

And these additions/forgeries sometimes have major consequences. For example, the current ending of Mark is taken literally by some groups who make adherence to it a major part of their religious practice, by snake handling and other dangerous practices.

Yes, these groups are currently small, but so are many other denominations who based their lives on parts of "God's word" that are simply forgeries.

Ray

Roger Pearse

To what?

You are now discussing the transmission of the Greek text of the bible, rather than the general transmission which I was discussing.

If I understand you correctly, you are asserting that the text family known as the 'majority text' contains numerous intentional changes to the text, which you know to be forged.

You will appreciate that this view is not one widely held, and I don't feel any need to controvert it. It's very unlikely.

The majority text form of the bible is merely a family of text variants, some of which are probably original and most of which arise from the changes in the Greek language on its long journey from the language of Pericles to that of Papadopoulos.

I'm not sure that I would describe the existence of this heavily-published tiny group of Americans is 'major consequences'. At any event the Christians themselves do not think so, and no schism has ever arisen from a textual variant as far as I know.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ray Moscow

Perhaps you can offer an alternative explanation for the current ending of Mark, for example.

I prefer the more emotive term "forgery" for intentionally trying to pass off one's work as that of another author, instead of more neutral terms such as "variant" -- because of the vast importance that has been assigned to biblical documents.

We don't say that the fake Rembrandt is a "variant", nor do we regard the fakes as equal value to the originals.

Ray

Ray Moscow

I think your experience with Christianity may be limited to large, mainstream denominations, who tend to be more sophisticated politically and theologically.

To people in these groups who are following practices they see as commanded by God, such things are very major indeed.

Yes, there are groups that have split and remain divided over these few verses in Mark -- among others.

Ray

Roger Pearse

Unless you are asserting that this is the production of invention by someone --- who? -- in the early Byzantine period, I am unclear as to the relevance.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Probably not useful to speculate as to my background, tho.

You know that you have to document this claim, of course. I take it that neither of us is discussing the lunatic fringe, of course; nothing can be determined about anything by reference to the very human tendency of some people to be idiots.

All the best,

Roger Pearse