Yuri Kuchinsky

Do you accept that there had been substantial theological changes over the first couple of centuries of Christianity?

Only a hard core biblical fundamentalist would try to deny this...

Yuri.

long winded fool

I certainly do. Christianity itself is merely a substantial theological change from Judaism. I do not believe, however, that the text of the NT was edited to reflect these changes. I believe it was written to reflect them, because I have no reason not to.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Why not?

Logically, if there had indeed been substantial theological changes, let's say from 100 CE to 200 CE, then the text of the gospels should reflect this.

Which is indeed the case.

Yuri.

long winded fool

Because I have no reason to believe this theory. I assume that the simplest explanation is the best. In order for me to believe this theory, the evidence for it would have to outweigh the evidence against it, and it does not.

The evidence would suggest otherwise. Keep in mind that I am not denying theological changes, I am denying a text changing to suit these theological changes. With a few exceptions that are no longer present in modern day Bibles, the text we read today and have read for centuries is as at least as pure as any other modern text translated from the same period.

Bede

The biggest problem for those who insist that the NT was substantially modified for theological reasons is all the stuff they didn't change. The lack of a clear trinitarian theology (which we know caused all sorts of trouble) shows that the editing options of the early church were seriously curtailed. Likewise, they left in all the contradictions between the Gospels. Why? If they were able to make big changes they would have dealt with this stuff.

We actually have a model - Marcion - of what substantial change looks like and his ideas were rejected.

Yours

Bede

Amlodhi

Hi Bede,

There is little argument (from me at least) that by the time of Marcion's "heresy" c. 140 A.D., the gospels were well enough known to inhibit any large scale revision. And by the time the canonical gospels were bound together in codex form, most "perceived" contradictions were pretty much set and had to be "dealt with" in another way; likely much as they are yet today.

Yet, while your point is understood, the qualifier, "substantially", is not only subjective but it is also irrelevant to the reasons, (i.e. theological or otherwise), for changes that were made.

For instance, from the examples I had listed in a previous post:

Not only are the changes here self-evident, they are, IMO, both substantial and theologically motivated.


As always,

Amlodhi

Magdlyn

Hi,

Jumping in late. An example of early tampering with text would be the "new" ending of Mark, would it not?

I have read that the original ending, of an empty tomb and fearful women who did not tell of their experience, was deemed unsatisfactory and was amended at an early date. This was later found to be an alteration. I am not sure (being no scholar) how many newer Bibles admit to this amendation. My Oxford Annotated does and discusses it at length in the notes.

Another much larger question would be, are not Matthew and Luke themselves "alterations" or "corrections" of Mark's low Christology? And John an even further reinterpretation of the narrative?

These seem to me to be attempts of later groups than Mark's, of building a new religion out of a mere offshoot of Judaism. This would be a theological agenda.

Chili

The real problem is that there are no contradictions except in our own interpretations of it. It may have taken some time to try and test the web they wove but in the end it as solid as a rock and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Lets face it, it is an inspired religion and there is no way in hell for reason to surpass it.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Which evidence would suggest otherwise?

Amlodhi and Magdlyn already gave you some specific evidence of late changes. So deal with it.

What they gave you is really just the tip of the iceberg...

Yours,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

LOL!

"The real problem" for whom?

Well, then I guess we should throw reason to the wind!

Yuri.