mountainman

Try "Rufinus's Epilogue to "Pamphilus the Martyr's Apology for Origen", otherwise known as "the Book Concerning the Adulteration of the Works of Origen.". I have a copy of the text here. In the text presented by Rufinus, Rufinus has Origen interviewing his own personally assigned heretic, who has altered Origen's text, and Origen notes the heretics response.

The Reason Provided by the Heretic for altering Origen's works
according to the Personal Interview of Origen recorded by Rufinus ....

"I did it because I wished to improve that treatise and to purge away its faults."

All this of course is hardly credible. Its a Christian Fairytale.
What's behind the 4th century Farytales of Rufinus?
IMO probably the forgery of material by Eusebius in the name of Origen.

darstec

How can it be spin doctoring when you just admitted that there were well over one thousand differences in just the book of Isaiah alone.? I did not say how many over a thousand but the actual count is staggering. It is a high multiple of thousands.

As far as the Nestle-Aland version is concerned (thank you for recommending something I already have) his latest edition published in 1979 as the official website admits, uses only 20 witnesses (in other words manuscript versions) for comparison and to derive their statistics. Do you realize how many different versions are out there now? How many have been discovered in the last 30 years? And that doesn't take into account when the author had to start writing the book prior to publication.

You weren't paying attention. I think this quote from their official website sums up the matter very well:

Petergdi

It is absolutely spin-doctoring. We must both know about the two Isaiah scrolls: 1QIsaa (which you mentioned) contains a lot of variation from the MT (mostly trivial, but some not), while 1QIsab (which you chose not to mention) is very close to the MT. Mentioning one or the other, but not both gives a rather unbalanced picture, doesn't it? If you mention only one or the other, someone might easily be misled. The truth seems to be that there was quite a bit of textual variation in Temple times, but that the transmission of the text since then has been very good.


I know, and you must know, that it covers the most important stuff quite nicely, and gives you a fairer picture of our knowledge of the text than scary stuff about more variations than there are words in the NT does.

That's all true, but it still gives you a much better picture than statistics worded in such a way as to make them sound scary.

Peter.

mountainman

Have a look at Differences between codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus

darstec

I think you are either reading some apologist's balderdash or making it up. A comparison of the three sources shows what you wrote is not the case. You have actually compared facsimiles of those texts side by side, haven't you? We know you haven't otherwise you would not have made those statements. And by the way using 1QIsaiahb is not a good idea. Had you looked at it you would have discovered that while lengthy is is severely fragmented and of practically no use. Nonetheless, it does not support your assertion.

You might want to actually learn the biblical languages and start reading facsimiles of the manuscripts yourself if you believe you are a Christian instead of depending on what others tell you. On the other hand, that is a dangerous proposition as the adage about the best defense against Christianity is the bible itself is true.


It does not and that is why their own official webpage points out the deficit. It is specifically aimed at theology students studying the Greek. Since the original way back in issue one, there weren't anywhere near the tens of thousands of manuscripts and fragments that have been amassed in very recent years.

DCHindley

Dar,

Are you thinking of Dionysius, bishop of Corinth?

Church History, Book 4, Chapter 23:

The same writer also speaks as follows concerning his own epistles, alleging that they had been mutilated: "As the brethren desired me to write epistles, I wrote. And these epistles the apostles of the devil have filled with tares, cutting out some things and adding others. For them a woe is reserved." (PNF series 2, vol 1)

It is not wonderful, then, if some have attempted to adulterate the Lord’s writings, when they have formed designs against those which are not such. (ANF volume 8)

DCH

Petergdi

I've never quite figured out who counts as an apologist on BC&H, I try to depend on mainstream sources with no obvious axe to grind. I am certainly no expert and I do not claim to be.

I knew it was highly fragmented and poorly preserved. Everything I had seen had said that what could be made of it was surprisingly close to the MT. You do seem to be an expert, and I am not, so I will make note of what you say of it. Some quantitative measure of differences which distinguishes the types of difference in each case would be helpful. Are you an ex-fundamentalist? Your idea of what constitutes a big deal might be different from mine. Anyone can look at the difference between an LXX based translation and one based on the MT. They are quite different in many respects, some books are appreciably different lengths even, but I can't see how any of it would make a big difference to my religion.

I have some Greek and zero Hebrew. I've seen greek manuscript reproductions, they tend to be very much harder to read than a printed text. And yes, there are a lot of variations, but I'm not at all sure why anyone thinks I should be particularly astonished or disturbed by this.

Everyone depends on what others tell them for everything except the usually narrow fields they can become expert in. I'm glad to have people tell me facts, I can do without having people tell me what opinions to have in reaction to the facts.

If I were to make a contribution to biblical scholarship, it would be on the subject of Pauline christology and soteriology and its relation to the rest of the NT. I think I may have something valuable to contribute there, if I can get everything in the order it needs to be to make a compelling case.

Peter.

aa5874

Another example of "Chinese whispers".

You assert that an author complained about SCRIBES altering his own works and then cannot find the quote because of tens of thousands of post that you may have to go through.

Well, go through all ten thousand and you will find out if an actual SCRIBE did alter anyone's work without the expressed permission of the owner or author of the work.

People who forged documents IN ANTIQUITY may not have been SCRIBES.

darstec

As I said, the author whose name I forget claimed that he found many of his own books altered, changed or .... {use your own words here}. I have the name and direct quote including source somewhere on one of my computers. I just cannot remember where it is right now. I suspect the information can be found in one of my many posts.

I brought that up to demonstrate that there is at least one account of an actual author claiming works were changed during his own lifetime.

As far as not finding posts, not every post is archived by Deja Vu and now Google, they have lost a good sampling of posts over the years. Also many, many forums and message boards have closed over the last 15 or so years. And during that time I've change computers, have had computer crashes and messages get lost. I suppose nothing like that has happened to you or anyone you know? If you can put your fingers immediately on every single post you have ever made in the last fifteen years and know the specific contents of each and every post then one can deduct a few things. One, you haven't made very many posts. Two, you are one of the luckiest computer users in the world. Three, your posts are general, contain little detail and lack substance. Which is it in your case? [Hint: I know it is not number three.]

And if it wasn't scribes who altered his works, and multiple occurrences, whom do you propose did it? I'm using scribe in the general sense. For instance if you bought the book, altered it and then passed out or sold copies of it, you would be performing the function of a scribe whether or not it was your job description.

Huon

Jeremiah 8,8
"How can you say, `We are wise,
And the law of the LORD is with us'?
But behold, the lying pen of the scribes
Has made it into a lie.