Johnny Skeptic

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

A fundie at the Theology Web: Thus, for the gospels, at least, bad copying cannot undermine our certainty that they testify to the original manuscripts quite closely. John A. T. Robinson's Redating the New Testament (1975) puts it all to have been completed within forty years of Jesus's crucifixion.

Amaleq13 replied: John Meier in A Marginal Jew, Vol 1 on Robinson's efforts to redate the Gospels:

"The result is a dazzling tour de force that fails to convince. The thesis has been largely rejected by NT scholars; for a telling review, see Robert M. Grant in JBL 97 (1978) 294-96."

If your opponent is not persuaded by the opinion of a Catholic scholar who clearly desires to maintain as much tradition as he considers reasonably possible, perhaps you might find what you are looking for by following Meier's reference.

Johnny: Thanks for the reference, Amaleq. My opponent also said:

"there are multiple root sources of the thousands of copies, from
Sinaticas and Vaticainas to the Byzantine to the Western type. There are also Alexandrinus and other minor types, as well, all of which give us different bodies of witnesses to the original text.

"We also have some VERY old fragments (some as early as 50 years after the original writing) which give us a LOT of insight into what happened to the copies as time progressed.

"........you're IGNORING the science of textual criticism and how MANY witnesses we have to the originals, all of which give us a VERY accurate picture of the original text, close enough for textual scholars to say that any remaining questions don't have any discernable affect on the doctrine of the church or the understanding of the scriptures.

"I suggest reading some Metzger, since he is, by many anyway, considered to be the best textual scholar alive today."

Amaleq, how would you respond to the fundie? Anyone else please feel free to comment as well.

My topic of main interest is the topic of the appearances of Jesus, particularly Paul's claim of the 500 eyewitnesses. The claim has no corroboration elsewhere in the New Testament, so it seems to me that in this case, fundies can't get away with their multiple, independent attestations argument. Do you agree?

Regarding the issue of the disciples being eyewitnesses, I think that fundies have a problem. My argument goes as follows:

When the Gospel of Mark was released decades after the fact, let's assume 70 A.D., did the disciples defend their status as eyewitnesses? Well, in order to adequately answer that question, we would first have to have external evidence how many disciples were still alive and what, if anything, they said about their status as eyewitnesses.

Yuri Kuchinsky

The state of NT text before 200 CE is highly uncertain. Many, if not most, textual scholars freely admit this.

Just because 3 (or even 4) gospels agree on some passage, this doesn't mean that this passage is very early. Such agreement can just as easily mean that the passage in question was inserted by a later editor.

The 4 gospels were assembled together ca 180 CE. OTOH our major uncials (on which the Hortian text is based) are from ca 400 CE. There was certainly plenty of time between 180 and 400 CE for the joint editing of all 4 gospels as one unified text. Hence, some theologically important passage could have easily been inserted into all 4 in that long period between 180 and 400 CE.

In particular, this seems to apply to many of the sayings of Jesus (what is now known as Q). Many of these Q-passages are almost identical in Mt, Mk, and Lk. Which, to me, is a pretty good indication that they had been inserted into all 3 Synoptics at a late date.

The big focus of recent NT scholarship has been on the sayings of Jesus. But I think that this is entirely misguided -- in fact, this might be the worst way to look for the Historical Jesus.

Regards,

Yuri.

Johnny Skeptic

I wonder why no Christian has opposed Yuri Kuchinsky's post #12.

Huon

Uncial is a majuscule script commonly used from the 3rd to 8th centuries CE by Latin and Greek scribes.

Codex Alexandrinus :

Greek manuscript of the Old and New Testaments admittedly brought to Europe from Alexandria by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Alexandria, when he was transferred in 1621 to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
written in uncial characters.
belongs to the beginning or middle of the fifth century or possibly to the late fourth.Gregory would bring it down even to the second half of the fifth century.
In the Gospels, we have the best example of the so-called Syrian type of text, the ancestor of the traditional and less pure form found in the textus receptus. The Syrian text, however, is rejected by the great majority of scholars in favour of the "neutral" type, best represented in the Codex Vaticanus.

Codex Amiatinus :

Manuscript of the Latin Vulgate Bible written in uncial characters.
Accordingly, it was settled that the Codex Amiatinus dated from the middle of the sixth century, was the oldest manuscript of the Vulgate, and was written in Southern Italy.
Another opinion : Amiatinus originated in Northumberland about the beginning of the eighth century, having been made, as Bede states, at Ceolfrid's order.

Codex Bezae :

One of the five most important Greek New Testament manuscripts, and the most interesting of all on account of its peculiar readings. written in uncial characters.

The codex contains only the Four Gospels, in the order once common in the West, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, then a few verses (11-15), in Latin only, of the Third Epistle of St. John, and the Acts. There are missing, however, from the manuscript of the original scribe, in the Greek, Matt., i, 1-20; [iii, 7-16]; vi, 20-ix, 2; xxvii, 2-12; John i, 16-iii, 26; [xviii, 14-xx, 13]; [Mk. xvi, 15-20]; Acts, viii, 29-x, 14; xxi, 2-10, 16-18; xxii, 10-20; xxii, 29-xxviii, 31; in the Latin, Matt., i, 1-11; [ii, 21-iii, 7]; vi,8-viii, 27; xxvi, 65-xxvii, 1; John, i, 1-iii, 16; [xviii, 2-xx, 1]; [Mk., xvi, 6-20]; Acts viii, 20-x, 4; xx, 31-xxi, 2, 7-10; xxii, 2-10; xxiii, 20- xxviii, 31. The passages in brackets have been supplied by a tenth-century hand. It will be noticed that St. Luke's Gospel alone, of the books contained, is preserved complete.

It has commonly been held that the manuscript originated in Southern France around the beginning of the sixth century. Following Scrivener, scholars universally dated it from the beginning of the sixth century, but there is a tendency now to place it a hundred years earlier. Scrivener himself admitted that the handwriting was not inconsistent with this early date, and only assigned it a later date by reason of the Latinity of the annotations. But the corrupt Latin is not itself incompatible with an earlier date, while the freedom with which the Latin N.T. text is handled indicates a time when the Old Latin version was still current. It probably belongs to the fifth century. Nothing necessitates a later date.
The type of text found in Codex Bezae is very ancient, yet it has survived in this one Greek manuscript alone, though it is found also in the Old Latin, the Old Syriac, and the Old Armenian versions. It is the so-called Western Text, or one type of the Western Text.

Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus :

The last in the group of the four great uncial manuscripts of the Greek Bible, received its name from the treatises of St. Ephraem the Syrian (translated into Greek) which were written over the original text.

Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus is placed in the first half of the fifth century.
The New Testament text is very mixed; the scribe seems to have had before him manuscripts of different types and to have followed now one now another. "Sometimes", says Kenyon, "it agrees with the neutral group of manuscripts, sometimes with the Western, not unfrequently with the Alexandrian and perhaps oftenest with the Syrian". Such an exemplar would not be used in church services and would have no guarantee of a good text. Possibly the rest of the manuscript was copied from similar codices.

Codex Sinaiticus :

A Greek manuscript of the Old and New Testaments, of the greatest antiquity and value; found on Mount Sinai, in St. Catherine's Monastery, by Constantine Tischendorf, in 1844. He learned of the existence of a manuscript there; when it was shown to him, he saw the very manuscript he had sought containing, beyond all his dreams, a great part of the Old Testament and the entire New Testament, besides the Epistle of Barnabas, and part of the "Shepherd" of Hermas, of which two works no copies in the original Greek were known to exist.

Experts place it in the fourth century, along with Codex Vaticanus and some time before Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephræmi Rescriptus; this conclusion is not seriously questioned, though the possibility of an early fifth-century date is conceded.

It seems to have been at one time at Caesarea in Palestine ; one of the correctors (probably of seventh century) adds this note at the end of Esdras: "This codex was compared with a very ancient exemplar which had been corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus of Caesarea [d. 309]; which exemplar contained at the end of the subscription in his own hand: `Taken and corrected according to the Hexapla of Origen: Antonius compared it: I, Pamphilus, corrected it'." Pamphilus was, with Eusebius, the founder of the library at Caesarea in Palestine. The site of ancient Caesarea in Palestine, or Caesarea Maritima (preserved in its Arabic form as Qaisariyeh) is located about 30 miles north of Joppa (Jaffa) and about 70 miles northwest of Jerusalem. Some are even inclined to regard Codex Sinaiticus as one of the fifty manuscripts which Constantine bade Eusebius of Caesarea to have prepared in 331 for the churches of Constantinople; but there is no sign of its having been at Constantinople.

The text of Codex Sinaiticus bears a very close resemblance to that of Codex Vaticanus, though it cannot be descended from the same immediate ancestor. In general, Codex Vaticanus is placed first in point of purity by contemporary scholars and Codex Sinaiticus next. This is especially true, for the New Testament, of the Gospels. The differences are more frequent in the Old Testament where the codices Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus often agree.

Codex Vaticanus :

a Greek manuscript written in uncial letters of the fourth century.
The Vatican Codex, in spite of the views of Tischendorf, who held for the priority of the Codex Sinaiticus, discovered by him, is rightly considered to be the oldest extant copy of the Bible. Like the Codex Sinaiticus it represents what Westcott and Hort call a "neutral text", i.e. a text that antedates the modifications found in all later manuscripts, not only the modifications found in the less ancient Antiochene recensions, but also those met with in the Eastern and Alexandrine recensions. It may be said that the Vatican Codex, written in the first half of the fourth century, represents the text of one of those recensions of the Bible which were current in the third century, and that it belongs to the family of manuscripts made use of by Origen in the composition of his Hexapla.

The original home of the Vatican Codex is uncertain. Hort thinks it was written at Rome; Rendel Harris, Armitage Robinson, and others attribute it to Asia Minor. A more common opinion maintains that it was written in Egypt.

<end quote>

All these informations come from Catholic Encyclopedia. I am quite unable to check them. But as every reader can see, all these Codices are rather recent, and not older than the installation of Christian Religion as a state religion by Constantine.

Huon

My previous post #14 says why... Impossible.

Steven Carr

Strawman. Nobody has ever claimed that copyists have blurred all traces by bad copying.

There are manuscripts where some bits don't make sense, because a sentence or a phrase has been left out, but you don't need to 'blur all traces' to alter important bits.

For example, why would adding 'Son of God' in Mark 1 'blur all traces' of Markan style? Why would the differences in John 1:18 'blur all traces' that John 1 is in a different style to most of the rest of John?

Yet these are still important differences.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Huon,

Please note that this info you've posted from Catholic Encyclopedia is about 100 years old (since this is an old encyclopedia). Still, for the most part, these same things are still accepted today by textual scholars. (Only some of the details, such as some of the nomenclature, have now changed.)

What I wrote in my previous post is based on my reading of mainstream literature, so it can hardly be challenged either by 'liberals' or by 'conservatives'.

Regards,

Yuri.

Peter Kirby

I believe Raymond Brown said a similar thing in The Churches the Apostles Left Behind, unless I'm confusing the references. I once tracked down the review cited by Brown and posted it here. The scholar who wrote it planned to write a "master work" on the dating of the New Testament but died before he could finish. His son is carrying on the work towards publication.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Amaleq13

The Grant follow-up sounds very interesting but I've never read that book by Brown. My quote is from my "Meier collection" scribbled into a 3x5 notebook from when I borrowed the book from the library.

Speaking of my "Meier collection", this is another one that I like but I wonder if you know whether the referenced work has since been translated into English?

"It is unfortunate that the work of the third giant has not been translated into English, since more than anyone else he established that the narrative framework of Mark (and, a fortiori, the other evangelists) should not be taken as historical: Karl Ludwig Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Ruchgesellschaft*, 1969; 1st ed, 1919)" p.49 (2)


*this might, instead, be Buchgesellschaft

Steven Avery

God said His Word was Inspired

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

God said He would preserve His Words

Psalm 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

And He is faithful, this has been fulfilled,

His Word is quick, powerful, sharp

Hebrews 4:12 -
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

The preservation has been preserved through the Historic Bible, which in the NT is the Byzantine or Majority Text, representing the great majority of manuscripts, culminating in the Textus Receptus of Erasmus, Bezae and Elziver. From this came the great English Bibles, Tyndale, Geneva and the King James Bible.

This is the Scriptures, the living Word of God.
The 'original autographs' are long gone.

Hope that helps.

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/