Codec

We have no idea what the original looked like, what evidence we have seems to show that the very earliest copies were altered. Several scholars have made cases for John having at least two editors, and maybe more. As I said Mark ended originally at 16:8 in the earliest copies, so its probably been changed over time.

I imagine someone penned the first Mark, it was changed and edited as it was copied and handed around in the early years, maybe there were copyist who knew some of the events and added their views in, this was was just another account. One particular variant is what we end up with today. As it got cannonicalised and Christianity became more dominant, it was copied much more accurately. From that point on it seems to have been copied fairly faithfully, but I doubt the original "Mark" would recognise it as all his own work.

It seems fairly clear both Matthew and Luke copied large chunks from Mark, and changed it for their own purposes - so what does original mean in that context? Even without Mark, Mark would live on in Matthew/Luke - you can practically recover it all from those two even today.

I would say that the copying was fairly accurate from the 2nd century, but before that it looks as if more than one person had their hand in the text.
This is also true of the OT too, where up to 5 or more authors can be found for Moses pentateuch - though one has to go much further back.

Jedi Mind Trick

I suppose that what I am meaning by reasonable is that we are getting the intended meaning of the original text.

S.C.Carlson

That would be a major issue for Romans. The problem with the Catholic Epistles, of which 2 Peter is a part, is that the usual text-types except for the Byzantine fall apart. There's no real Western type and the Alexandrians are so divergent. Moreover, the number of early witnesses is scant. The poor textual attestation of them may be a result of their relatively late canonization.

Stephen

Toto

Christians have fighting and burning each other at the stake over that issue for about 1700 years now. Now they just get PhDs and accuse each other of incompetance. I don't see a way of answering that question. We can't even answer the question of whether Mark thought he was writing history or fiction.

Jedi Mind Trick

What evidence do we have that these copies were altered purposefully in order to change the basic meaning of the text, if any?

Ehrman, so far as I have read, says the texts were sometimes altered to jibe with the emerging orthodoxy. Is this accurate? Is this consensus? What is consensus anyway? Who belongs to the consensus? Liberals, conservatives and moderates?

Is this the consensus?

Does the consensus find that there was intentional editing that changed the basic meaning of the text?

Is this the consensus on the OT?

Toto

I see your problem. I don't think that you are going to find a real consensus in a field as politically and ideologically charged, or as volatile as New Testament studies.

The most you can say is that there is a consensus among liberal scholars on some issues. But if you are arguing with a fundamentalist, that person will not care about such a consensus.

Chris Weimer

Sometimes is the keyword. I cannot account for conservatives, but moderates and liberals generally agree that there may be some alteration for orthodoxy.

Yes.

I don't think Erhman implies that it changes the basic meaning of the text. Normally it was to elucidate and clarify. It theoretically could, however, do so.

Yes.

Jedi Mind Trick

So I can safely ignore any plea to consensus opinion?

Chris Weimer

No. Toto is introducing the "biased" concept without any hard facts. He says that you shouldn't trust the establishment because of its politically and religiously charged environment, but ignores how almost none of recent Biblical scholarship "validates" the faith. His appeal yet again is that fundies this or fundies that, forgetting that the vast Christian faith is not "fundamentalistic" (Riverwind's objection aside) nor is 99% of the establishment, with the ones most "fundamentalistic" generally being outcast by the larger, secular society. In the greatest Biblical establishment, the SBL, members have on more than one occasion questioned the Christian's place in the academic environment, lambasting their using faith in place of scholarship. That even Baptist preachers like Jim West can agree to such a thing is telling - Toto's remarks are indicative of one paranoid of the establishment, for whatever reason, and shows that there is some tie still to Christianity, which should tell you that Toto is not to be trusted with what he says, and that his objection to the establishment should be ignored.

Toto

You can't just ignore it, but you need to realize that it is often used to cover up some gaps in proof. In particular, William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas argue that there is a consensus of historical opinion that there was an empty tomb, and then go on as if they have proven that there is an empty tomb. In fact, there is no such consensus. There might be a majority of persons surveyed who hold that opinion, but at least some of that is based on confessional beliefs, not an evaluation of the evidence.

A person who says that there is a "consensus" that the texts are mostly okay, and then goes on to treat them as perfect, is probably pulling the same trick.