RParvus

Your hypothetical is very similar to what I propose in my book “A New Look at the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch and other Apellean Writings.” I argue that around 155 CE there was a reconciliation between the proto-orthodox church and a group of Apelleans, i.e. followers of Apelles. As part of the reconciliation, the Apelleans agreed to a review/revison of their sacred writings (i.e. proto-John and I Corinthians) by the proto-orthodox church.

Roger Parvus

Huon

You can find a translation of the Sinaiticus at :
http://www.sinaiticus.com/

I have found this on the net :

Huon

Here is another link :

http://www.bsw.org/project/filologia...Fil15Art04.pdf

In this article (in french), the author Alain Martin (possibly a Catholic) analyses a variant reading of Matt. 1:16 that only appears in a Syriac palimpsest of St Catherine in Mount Sinai and which concerns an important issue of the Christian dogma: the virginal conception of Jesus.

This syriac palimpsest was discovered in 1892 by Agnes Smith Lewis and should not be confused with the greek manuscript discovered by Tischendorff in 1859.

Agnes Smith Lewis published her discovery in The Old Syriac Gospels (London 1910).

There is also another Old Syriac text, published by William Cureton in 1858, which can be compared with the other Syriac, and also with the Peshitta.

The Peshitta is the official Bible of the Church of the East. The name Peshitta in Aramaic means "Straight", in other words, the original and pure New Testament. The Peshitta is the only authentic and pure text which contains the books in the New Testament that were written in Aramaic, the Language of Mshikha (the Messiah) and His Disciples. So says the Church of the East. This version of the New Testament is used by both East Syrians (Nestorians) and West Syrians (Jacobites) and therefore certainly predates the division of the Syriac church along political, geographical, and theological lines during the mid-5th century.

I cannot give a translation of these 8 pages, because a translation from syriac to french, and then from french to english, is rather risky. But the core of the question is this : what were exactly the relations of Joseph, Mary, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost ?

And in this text, the author Alain Martin writes that in the Syriac palimpsest, Joseph is the biological father of Jesus, and that Joseph and Mary had later some other children.

I don't want to develop this further, because it is not the goal of the OP. I simply wanted to show that the oldest manuscripts of the NT are later than the 4th century, post Nicaea, and that there are some other Eastern sources.

Solo

Interesting. I think the standardization of the texts came as a result of two closely related issues. One, as Walker says, it was imposed by the church to present an invariant, sacred canon, which would be the basis of the Christian faith and support the episcopal hierarchy of the church around the major centres, i.e. Rome, Alexandria, Antioch. The obverse side of this process was the elimination of the Holy Spirit as "authority" for writing new "eyewitness" reports of Jesus. The original "witness" of the canonical Jesus was the Spirit who entered in the gospel writers who then envisioned Jesus through their (Spirit) experience. The "ecclesiastical fixation of Christianity", as Tillich called it, replaced the (living, present) Spirit with apostolic authority and the scriptures were edited as aposolic memoirs in a literalist mold.

Tillich writes of the failed attempt of the Montanist Johannines to revive the original MO of the faith:

In other words, the Christ and the Inquisitor, in Dostoyevski's Brothers Karamazov.

On the orthodox redaction of Paul writings: Paul, in the manner simply and elegantly described above by Tillich, was an ecstatic who operated his own church as he could not come to terms with the Jerusalem group of Jesus original followers. In Tillich's terms, Paul was unique in that he provided in an uncanny degree the "second generation" rational morality as complement to his visions and with it the foundation of a new, organized religion. It is for this reason - mostly that, I believe - Paul was a sought-after commodity in the succession churches - Marcion's, the Valentinians', the patristic Church. The proto-orthodox Christianity, I believe, started to co-opt Paul's moral and organization model without much of Paul's original "paradox" theology, which was diametrically opposed to Jesus' teaching on the coming kingdom. There was to be no kingdom on earth, Paul taught.

In essence, in the emerging Proto-orthodox church Paul had to be shown as a part of the apostolic Church, its orderly succession, as compliant to the original message of Jesus, and agreeable to the Palestinain traditions about Jesus (e.g his royal Davidic pedigree).

Jiri

sschlichter

that's helpful, thanks.

I am curious, since the post was related to theological differences (between church A and church B) how you (or Tischendorff) are determing what is theologically "important". The woman, in John 8 is a great story but it does not provide grounds for substantive theological disagreement (except for those that just like to disagree). you listed 8 sources starting at 400 (or so) + and they are widely consistent. The fact that history "caught" people adding or altering tells me that the answer to the question of opportunity is unlikely. The sheer volume is how we know what attempts have been made.

Maybe 1 John 5 is a good example of an attempt to add something deceptive that is "important" but that person / persons got "caught" as well. Interestingly enough, they were changing the text to support the orthodox view so I do not even think it is an instance of the scenario supplied in this post.

I would argue that this points to the fact that the manuscripts(s) were early enough and of sufficient volume to protect against deceptive transcription.

~Steve

Huon

What is theologically important to me is what was a source of quarrel between different groups of Christians, for instance the Arians and the Catholics. These quarrels were an important element of the history of Western Europe between 300 and 500 CE. But I will not side with any group. Except Wulfila's gothic Bible, where are the arian documents ? I know the answer.

sschlichter

I agree (as to the importance) and I am sure you are right about where the Arian writings are? However, if you establish the new testament writings were consistent "enough" prior to this period, then what the Arians beleived really doesn't matter, theologically. Is there enough pieces prior to that period to know that what we have is consistent with what the apostles taught? What date does that reliability not exist among theologically important passages? I beleive for things that I care about (as an orthodox christian) that it bumps right up to the time of the Apostles.

In fact, Arianism/Orthodoxy was debated from specific passages. John 1, Col 1. The Arian argument is still compelling in some cases so whoever supposedly purged / altered them would have done a bad job.

Out of curiosity? Do you know if Wulfila's translation is consistent with others? I know he skipped violent OT books (Kings maybe) intentionally but am curious otherwise?

~Steve

andrewcriddle

According to Metzger "The Early Versions of the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk)" Ulfilas was a very literal translator. The only clear example of bias may be Philippians 2:6 where "equal with God" is translated "similar to God."

Andrew Criddle

Huon

It is not my concern.
What the Protestants believe does'nt matter.
What the Catholics believe does'nt matter.
What the Orthodoxes believe does'nt matter. Etc... Theologically, I mean.
All of them follow what the apostles taught. Paul and the "pillars", of course.
And the Muslims (every sect) also have the true religion.

gurugeorge

Well orthodox Christianity was pretty close to 100% successful in destroying, say, Gnostic stuff, and it's only by a remarkably lucky find (Nag Hammadi) that we have even some later representatives of that. No reason why they couldn't have been about as successful in destroying evidence of other heretical viewpoints, surely?

(Sure, Nag Hammadi proves they weren't 100% successful (and there were even a few fragments before that). But so would some other cache, as yet unfound, and probably never to be found, of other heretical texts! Chances are there are a few of those sorts of things that we'll never ever find.)

Given how people here are constantly emphasising how sketchy the concrete basis on which we theorise history is, and how careful we have to be in committing ourselves because of that, you seem remarkably insouciant in saying "we would all know about and be able to identify the subsequent alterations that were made."