Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Pardon?
We have plenty of evidence of CHANGES to the NT :


Mark 16:9-20
The Resurrection Appearances

Most of the earliest witnesses have G.Mark ending at 16:8 - with the empty tomb scene, but no resurrection appearances etc.
Intriguingly, an empty tomb scene was not unknown in other 1st century dramatic writings - e.g. Chariton's novel Chareas and Callirhoe included an empty tomb scene as the climax.

G.Mark ends at 16:8 in the very important early MSS Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and also in others such as : Latin Codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, and the two oldest Georgian translations and many Armenian manuscripts.

In later versions however, there are several DIFFERENT endings to G.Mark after 16:8 -
* the longer ending (16:9-20 in many Bibles)
* the shorter ending (also found in some study bibles)
* another minor variant of a few verses

In other words -
there are at least FOUR different ways that G.Mark ends.

(Many modern Bibles now indicate this with brackets or a marginal note - go check yours.)

Origen and Clement of Alexandria (early 3rd C.) and Victor of Antioch quote and discuss G.Mark WITHOUT mentioning the appendix. Eusebius (early 4th C.) mentions that most MSS do not have the appendix. Jerome also specifically notes the passage can not be found in most Greek MSS of his time (4th C.) This means Eusebius and Jerome KNEW of the appendix, but noted that it was NOT part of the Bible at that time.

Thus, this is clear and present evidence that the post-resurrection stories were NOT original, but added later, around the 4th-5th century or so.

This helps to explain why the stories in G.Luke and G.Matthew and G.John are so wildly different - they did not have G.Mark to follow, so each made-up a different story. (Scholars agree G.Luke and G.Matt were largely copied from G.Mark.)

The events on Easter Sunday, as described in the four Gospels can NOT be reconciled. It is NOT possible to include all the events from all four Gospels in a coherent sequence - go try it. Not one person has ever succeeded.


Luke 3:22
The words of God at the Baptism

Early MSS and quotes have the same as the Psalm :
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou are my son, this day have I begotten thee"

But later versions have changed it to :
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased"

Here we see Christian scribes have CHANGED the very words of God, or the alleged words of God. And we know the reason - it supports the view called Adoptionism - later called a heresy.

In other words, Christian writers had no compunction about changing the supposed words of God himself, at a crucial time in the story. Clearly this does not represent anything real or historical.



1 John 5:7
The Trinity

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. "

This passage is not found in ANY early Greek MSS, and was therefore not included in the original Textus Receptus of Erasmus in the 16th Century.
Erasmus said "I will not include the Comma unless I see a Greek MSS which includes it".
Sure enough, a newly written Greek MSS suddenly "appeared" with this passage, so Erasmus ADDED it to the 2nd edition - how dishonest and errant can you get !


Matthew 6:13
The Lord's Prayer

Early and important MSS (Aleph, B, D, Z, 205, 547) as well as some fathers (Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian) have :
"And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil"

Other MSS have :
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen"

And a few MSS have another version :
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, of the father, the son, and the holy spirit for ever. Amen"

A few MSS exclude the words "the power" or "the glory" or "the kingdom".

The Lord's Prayer is one of the more variant parts of the NT.

Now,
this prayer was supposedly taught by Jesus himself.
But
early Christians could not agree what the prayer said !



Mark 1:1
Jesus Christ [Son of God]

Early MSS do not have "son of God".


John 9:35
Son of Man/God

Early MSS have :
"Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, Do you believe in the Son of man?"

Later versions have :
"Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?"



Acts 8:37
JC is the Son of God

"And Phillip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"

This passage is missing from all the early MSS.

In other words, the MSS show a consistent pattern of "Son of Man" being changed into "Son of God".




Mark 1:2
As written in [Isaiah]

The early MSS have :
"As it is written in Isaiah the prophet..."

But most later versions have :
"As it is written in the prophets..."

Probably because the quote is NOT really from Isaiah (its composited from Isaiah, Malachai, and Exodus) - the eariest MSS were wrong, so later versions fixed this error by using just "prophets".

Here we see later scribes fixing up an earlier mistake.
Clear and present proof of errancy.



Colossians 1:14
Redemption by blood


All early MSS have the shorter :
"in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins"

But later copies have added "through his blood" :
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins"

This is an important proof-text for the doctrine of redemption by Chist's blood - but its a later addition.



So what does this show ?

1. The NT was often changed during its history.

2. The changes included some of the most important parts of Christian doctrine :
* the resurrection
* the alleged words of GOD at the Jordan!
* the Lord's Prayer
* the Trinity
etc.

3. The reason the NT was changed was often arguments over doctrine - i.e. different Christian sects fiddled the books to support their sect.


The NT is one of the most errant books you could find.


Kapyong

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Can you prove their was an Exodus? a Moses? an Adam? Is this the same crime or a different crime?

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

The equvalence premise of the NT and Hebrew bible is totally baseless. With the former there is 'zero' proof of anything it says, of a period where there can be no excuses, with writings being commonplace - with the later there is over 70% proven scientifically, of a period where almost nothing is provable.

Further, Moses cannot be proven by its own texts saying this is not possible [which is a form of proof in itself], while there is loads and loads of 'evidences' for Moses - more so than Jesus and Buddha of much later vintage.

While we cannot prove the exodus yet, we cannot dispute that a nation left Egypt and settled in Canaan for 1000s of years upto 70 CE, and we can prove historical figures like David - a mere 250 years from Moses. In contrast we cannot prove a single figure in the NT as historical. Paul is provable not by the NT but by Hebrew writers only, but what writings is ascribed to Paul is a later, non-historical Eurpean input. These are not my personal opinions but facts. The Hebrew writings cannot be made equally unproven as the NT or Quran, nor can the term 'all religions' be applicable here.

FYI, Rome recorded trials in its archives!

Originally Posted by sschlichter

yes, it actually does. The more copies I have of a document the closer to the time they were written, the more confident I can be in the document's authenticity.

ok, well then describe for me the support you had in mind for Tacitus and Josephus.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I think you are missing what I am referring to. I am not talking about whether they are true or not. I happen to believe they are true but that is irrelevant to the point.

Our certainty that what we have is what the author wrote is what I am talking about. I am confident we have an accurate record of both the NT and the book of mormom. It does not mean I beleive both to be true.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

The equvalence premise of the NT and Hebrew bible is totally baseless. With the former there is 'zero' proof of anything it says, of a period where there can be no excuses, with writings being commonplace - with the later there is over 70% proven scientifically, of a period where almost nothing is provable.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Further, Moses cannot be proven by its own texts saying this is not possible [which is a form of proof in itself], while there is loads and loads of 'evidences' for Moses - more so than Jesus and Buddha of much later vintage.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

While we cannot prove the exodus yet, we cannot dispute that a nation left Egypt

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

and settled in Canaan for 1000s of years upto 70 CE, and we can prove historical figures like David

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

- a mere 250 years from Moses. In contrast we cannot prove a single figure in the NT as historical.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Paul is provable not by the NT but by Hebrew writers only, but what writings is ascribed to Paul is a later, non-historical Eurpean input. These are not my personal opinions but facts. The Hebrew writings cannot be made equally unproven as the NT or Quran, nor can the term 'all religions' be applicable here.

FYI, Rome recorded trials in its archives!

Originally Posted by sschlichter

without going into a discussion on each of those points, you have illustrated well how the sheer volume of early mss we have allows us to catch any subsequent changes to the texts of the NT.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

The earlier a copy exists and the greater the number of copies, and the greater the geographical disbursement of the copies, the less time and opportunity exists for change. NT is best preserved by far.

Originally Posted by spamandham

If this were true, then we could identify what is original and what is a subsequent change. We can not. The more we study the NT books, the more we reject as authentic. That's perhaps the best lesson of the Jesus Seminar.

It may be the case, that the originals are nothing whatsoever like what we have today. The original Gospel could easily be nothing more than a poem or a song, modified endlessly over the course of a couple of hundred years.

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

OK. All else being equal, then, we can have more confidence, compared with our confidence relative to other ancient documents, that the extant copies of the NT are approximately the same as what the original authors wrote.

Now, some additional points:

• I do not stipulate that all else is equal.
• There is abundant evidence that changes were in fact made, and we're not talking about mere scrivener's errors.
• If the question is whether the originals should be regarded as historically reliable, then the issue of accuracy of transmission is totally irrelevant.

Originally Posted by spamandham

If this were true, then we could identify what is original and what is a subsequent change. We can not. The more we study the NT books, the more we reject as authentic. That's perhaps the best lesson of the Jesus Seminar.

It may be the case, that the originals are nothing whatsoever like what we have today. The original Gospel could easily be nothing more than a poem or a song, modified endlessly over the course of a couple of hundred years.