Steven Carr

Isn't the reconstructed text of that about 10% different from later manuscripts?

Roger Pearse

This seems like a good way to crystallise the question. My experience as someone scanning texts is that a 1% error rate is actually more than we think, and so I don't think subjectively that in fact we're anywhere as high as that on a page of the NT.

A caveat: by 'disputed' we mean areas where professional scholars are not quite certain what the actual letters on the autograph (if any, in a pre-printing culture). This is NOT the same as saying 'where we are not quite certain what the autograph SAID'.

It is now almost 3 centuries since Addison caricatured the failure to distinguish between these in the Spectator. It is, after all, of no moment to determine whether a Latin text originally read 'ac', 'at', 'atque', 'et', '+', etc, when all these mean 'and'.

I make this distinction only because it is one that causes confusion among the unwary.

'Early' relative to what? In most of the texts where I'm concerned a 9th century exemplar is 'early'!

While this is certainly possible, I'm a little wary. Doesn't this idea tend to resolve to "we're certain that the text changed most just when we can't see it". I feel instinctively that we ought to be most certain where we *can* see it. Just my humble opinion, of course.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Julian

Yes, when I say less, it would be correct to emphasize that.
Certainly there is a distinction between the meaning and the actual words used in its conveyance. Nonetheless, we cannot entirely dismiss the role of little words. Significant controversy has been attached to, just as an example, this variant from Mark 1:10:

καταβαῖνον εἰς αὐτόν against καταβαῖνον ἐπ' αὐτόν

One could certainly ask, what is the difference? The first talks about a spirit descending into [Jesus] whereas the second talks about a spirit descending upon him. Well, to many people they seem similar. Many would even say that the meaning is pretty much the same. Yet there is a clear difference, each variation giving ammunition to its separate sects.

Anyways, Roger and I mostly agree here (scary enough in itself) that an attack upon the bible through textual criticism is not likely to score many points and rightfully so. It is valid to attack some of the obviously added doctrinal issues that are very disputed. The Western Non-interpolations is another valid target but I would argue that they do not seriously undermine the christian faith, merely some of its dogmatic aspects. It is an interesting issue when viewed from a historical perspective of the early church.
Early by the standards of the biblical manuscript tradition considering early variations, NOT early within the larger context of manuscript proliferation. Clearly, the books of the bible are in an entirely separate class and can be subjected to different rules given the overwhelming preponderance of copies in comparison to, well, every other work, ever.
Well, you should be wary. This is why is tried to cushion my post by portaying that part as an assumption. Nonetheless, one can make a decent argument for such a situation. Since I make the claim, I would bear the burden of proof. I have over the last few months devise a method whereby I may show mathematically that such a scenario is reasonable but there would be other parts that would need to be demonstrated putting such an endeavor out of my realm of possible undertaking, for the time being, at least. As it stands, I would not strongly support that such modifications did indeed happen, but I am reserving the right to pursue the issue at a future time when I can allocate the necessary neurons, should I still possess any at that time. (No snide comments necessary on that last one). If we cannot see the variations it would certainly be incumbent upon me to provide evidence that could reasonably demonstrate that such variations took place. Otherwise, it would just be another meaningless claim.

Julian

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ksen,

We can say that of the four gospels in the New Testament we have, we can reconstruct about 99% of how they were in the Four Century.

On the other hand, studying just the changes, fractures and breaks in the narrative structures, we can say that these gospels are 99% different from the original gospel written in the First century.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

ksen

Then unlike Julian and Roger Pearse you'd say that only 1% of the Gospels we can hold in our hands today are reliable copies of the originals?

If so, on what do you base that claim?

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ksen,

Compare the synoptic gospels. they are roughly 30% the same material. (I'm sure people on this site can give a more precise figure) Compare these to the Gospel of John. They are perhaps 10% the same material. Now compare the gospels of Peter, James, Mary and Thomas. They are perhaps 2% the same material. I believe something like 35 different gospels have been identified. We may assume that at least that number were in circulation in the Second century and possibly dozens more. How many rewrites and major overhauls these gospels got is impossible to determine, but based on testimony of Church fathers and others, we may assume they were changed on a fairly regular basis and when this minor tinkering no longer did the job, new gospels were written often by opposing groups/Churches. This appears to be the relationship of the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke.

There is some evidence from Church Fathers to believe that the synoptics were early gospels, but most of this evidence flows through the hands of Eusebius. He strongly wanted people to believe that these four gospels were First Century eyewitness accounts of events. We strongly suspect that Eusebius interpolated text into historical works. Much of the evidence turns out to disrupt arguments that the original authors are making and reflect Eusebius' rather unique style of writing. Once we eliminate this evidence from consideration, other historical evidence points to these four gospels either being created or getting major overhauls in the late Second or early Third century. There are a few passages in these gospels that do seem to be from the First century. This strongly suggests that there were Messianic stories circulating in the First century (probably about Simon, and Peter and John) and some forms of them were preserved, but the constant disruptions in the narrative, and shifts and jumps of story emphasis indicates that they went through numerous changes both major and minor even in these passages.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

jeffevnz

PJ's right. The answer depends critically on what you mean by "original".

Taking the NT for example, if by "original" you mean the state the Gospels were in at Nicaea, we not only have a clear picture, but that picture says there has been little change in the intervening centuries. If you want to go earlier, the picture is murkier, but note that GLuke, GMatthew, and GJohn can all be considered heavily edited versions of GMark. From that PoV, the three later Gospels aren't even close to 95% in their original form. It's also likely that the earliest versions of GMark we have access to have been altered. Where do you want to start? With the oral traditions on which these are all probably based? Bear in mind that there was likely at least a 30 year period between Jesus's death and the information in the Gospels first being written down. You'd expect the integrity of the stories to decay rapidly during that time.

Similar issues apply to the rest of the Bible. The whole story of Noah and the deluge is almost certainly a heavily edited version of the Epic of Gilgamesh (or a third story they're both based on... ). While the differences are large and numerous, there are a handful of improbable similarities that link them.

Roger Pearse

I don't think this is sensible, tho. It has no bearing on how accurately a text is transmitted in manuscripts of it, that someone has created a derivative work.

It's got to be best to start with facts rather than what we -- highly educated and informed as we are -- consider 'likely', tho.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

ksen

I'm sorry, but I read MountainMan's threads and I just can't take that kind of thinking seriously.

Who is the "we" that strongly suspect this about Eusebius?

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ksen,

It starts with St. Jerome in the Fourth century. I am sure that one could find more than one hundred critics from all religious and non-religious persuasions from the 17th to the 21th centuries who attribute interpolations to Eusebius.

While I respect the independence and strongly theoretical approach of Mountainman, my thesis is quite different. I would label my theory one of radical evolution of Christianities over three centuries; his is more of a Fourth century creationist theory. I think it is a good corrective to the popular First century creationist theories that have become institutionalized since Eusebius' times.

I think researching Eusebius and his role in Christian history is an excellent place to start a study of Early Christian history. I think everybody agrees at least that our knowledge of Christian history would have been quite different without him.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay