Dominus Paradoxum

If that's true, why are there so many Christian denominations? And I would hardly call the differences between them minor: faith alone vs. faith and (grace of) works, imputed vs. infused righteousness, infant baptism, the necessity of baptism for salvation, Arminianism vs. Calvinism, "once saved, always saved", and even (between protestants, catholics, and orthodox) what books even count as part of the old testament, and hence inspired. And Luther said Scripture was so clear a plowboy could interpret it.

Roger Pearse

I think there is some confusion here. I was distinguishing between literary and documentary texts. There are of course any number of incidental papyri with letters to mum saying "send more beer", and administrative bits and pieces. None of these are literary texts, though, and to call them 'historical texts' seems a bit strange to me. All the texts we are discussing are historical texts, surely?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Are there any denominational differences that are related to a dispute over the transmission of the text of the bible? I don't know of any, but perhaps you do.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

pharoah

It's not a strange idea at all. It's simple. If God inspired some people to write his divine words then what they wrote, and only what they wrote, would be his divine words. The only way that we can know what they actually wrote is to either have the original texts or exact copies of the original texts. There is no doubt, not even among inerrantists, that we don't have an exact copy of the original texts. More on this later.

There is a big difference between ancient literature and the the Bible. Ancient literature was written by man, the Bible is supposedly written under the divine auspices of God. Surely you can see that an omnipotent deity that was concerned about the fidelity of his word could have easily ensured that we had an exact copy, not just a very close copy, of the words he dictated to his writers.
These aren't just small textual variations that we're talking about. For example, we know for a fact by looking at ancient manuscripts that John 7:53-8:11, the well-known story of Jesus and the adulterous woman, was inserted by later scribes. We know for a fact that 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript before the 13th century. It was inserted to bolster the doctrine of the Trinity. There is huge controversy over the correct ending of Mark 16. The most ancient manuscripts do not have verses 9-20. Did the original manuscript end at verse 8? Or did it have an alternate ending that someone decided was theologically unorthodox?

There is at least a 100-year gap between the time that the original NT manuscripts were created and the first extant copies that we possess. Since we know for a fact that there have pious alterations of the NT, whose to say how much alteration occurred doing that crucial gap in time? The only way to know that we have the original inspired Word is to have the original texts.

Looking at the OT, there are a large number of counting errors in our present-day texts. The inerrantists attribute virtually all of them to copying errors, claiming that the original manuscripts had no errors. Maybe they are right, but without the original manuscripts how can we ever know?

Roger Pearse

Do you know this by divine revelation?

If we are asserting that you (just you?) are a theological authority over how divine inspiration works; that it works with specific words (in specific languages only?); and that Christians (and Jews and Moslems?) must defer to your oracular pronouncements, then of course there is nothing more to be said.

Unless you claim to be a theological authority with a divine revelation, neither of us can sensibly decide how inspiration works. Surely?

Not for the purposes of this argument, tho.

But these are neither here nor there as far as the text is concerned; these are merely passages which may or may not be part of the original composition. Why does the possibility of adding a couple of extra passages affect the question?

How does that compare with the earliest extant ms of Velleius Paterculus?

This seems to be a separate topic.

I don't think your comments address mine, btw.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Malachi151

#1 Christians are the one who have claimed the the Bible is "THE" word of God. So, apparently it is important to them. If you make a claim that something is "THE" word of someone then you have to have some origional source, do you not?

#2 The story of the Ten Commandments says that God physically wrote them on the stone tablets himself, so clearly there is a tradition within Christianity of thinking that certian texts have come "straight from God" and their origionality is a part of their authority.

The irony here is that no copy of the so-called origional exists and the Torah/Bible contines three different versions itself, and there are many different translations, and in fact the Jews claim that there is no such thing as "the Ten Commandments" in the first place.

spin

No confusion. Just seeking for clarification and basically getting it (thanks). "[H]istorical" may be a stretch, but what I had in mind is textual material that could be used for historical purposes. "[S]end more beer" can be really useful stuff, telling us who is where, when, what their needs were, and allowing us to deal with why they were there. There is a vast wealth of epigraphic data that is fine raw material for history.


spin

Toto

Some posts have been split off here.

pharoah

It's funny that you should bring up divine revelation. Here's a passage from Revelations that inerrantists are quite fond of:

Here's another passage from Deuteronomy:
Both of these passages are strict injunctures from God not to add or take anything away from his Word. I really shouldn't have to point this out to you, it's one of the favorite themes of the inerrantists. What I have shown you in my previous post is irrefutable evidence that the Bible that you refer to as the Word of God has already been severely tampered with. If you're skeptical of my evidence then just ask your pastor. If he's honest he'll admit that what I've told you is the truth- albeit with his own spin. If not, ask him to join the forum and present his refutations.

Now if there really is a Satan and he wanted to stop God's word, what would be his best strategy? The best thing that he could have done was to prevent it from being written in the first place. If he attempted that, he failed. Now what would be the next best thing that he could do? Perhaps it would be to destroy or conceal the original texts and allow significant alterations to be inserted or deleted.

So you think it's insignificant that monks and scribes have inserted their theological points of view in the Bible? Would you accept as God's word a Bible where Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Shelby Sponge, Paul Tillich or your pastor have inserted or deleted verses willy-nilly to espouse their point of view? If it's not OK now, why was it acceptable in the past?

James Madison

Pharoah:

I do not want to interject too much seeing as Roger and yourself are already sufficiently engaged in the dialogue but I have been following the exchange and want to follow up on a point Roger articulated earlier but has been largely ignored by your own posts.

You said the following in which I think Roger had already provided a sufficient reply.

Roger had said earlier the following: I think the point Roger is making here is based on your approach and reasoning we could question the credibility and veracity of a lot of texts about the ancient literature whose original manuscripts are forever lost to us.

I think the point Roger is essentially making is possession of the original texts are not necessary in being fairly confident we have received a very accurate, perhaps identical copy. We have this confidence when it comes to other forms of ancient literature and so why not the bible?

Of course to be "absolutely sure" the original texts is perhaps necessary. However, this is not the standard when it comes to other forms of ancient literature and it should not be so with the bible. The only way we can be sure of much of anything we read about the writings of people in the past, such as the Federalist Papers, James Madison's letters, John Locke's two treatises on government, Plato's Republic and other writings, Aristotle's writings, Marcus Aurrelius' writings, and so forth is to read the "original text". Yet I have never read the original text in regards to any of them, as is very likely true for the vast majority of us when it comes to these and other old texts, and yet this has not kept us or academia from being fairly confident we are reading a very accurate copy of the originals. Same goes for the bible as it is a piece of literature along with these other writings I have mentioned.

As for your obsession with possible "additions" to the text.

I concur with Roger in his assessment these additions to the text do not necessitate having the original manuscripts before us. Why? I may even concede there could be some additions or subtractions, just as there may be with other ancient literature in which the original text is lost, but this does not keep us from reading and absorbing the central theme of the text. Since the central theme of the current texts, which is identical to the central theme of the original texts, is not altered by the "additions" or "subtractions" then they are not "significant".

Your hypothetical question of what would Satan do to stop God's word? Hide the original texts and then make additions or subtractions to the future texts which are derivatives of the original text. Now if Satan were to stop God's word which part would he seek to subvert? Would Satan seek to subvert elements which have no bearing on the central theme of salvation? So Satan has added to the text an account of Jesus' having mercy on an adulterous woman. Does this addition really accomplish Satan's goal of abating the spread of God's word? Absolutely not. In fact it probably is conduciving to spreading the word of God as it demonstrates a merciful and loving God, qualities Jesus himself portrayed and instructed others to show to fellow humanity. So essentially Satan has effectively and unwittingly done nothing to preclude the spread of God's word with this addition but quite possibly added to the text's credibility by including an account of a merciful and loving God, a depiction of God emphasized throughout the NT, and a characterization of God which reinforces the central theme of salvation.

Let's use a parallel example. Plato's Republic is an ancient text. I have never read the original text of Plato's Republic and I am not even sure the original text exists. I do have, however, a "copy" of the original text in my book and have read it. I know the central theme of Plato's work. Plato is especially distrustful of democracy and the masses ability to elect good leaders as opposed to tyrants.

Now let's assume some of the very "earliest" manuscripts do not have a particular passage in them whereas some modern texts do. However, the passage at issue does not subvert the central theme of Plato's work but in fact is compatible with his central thesis in his work The Republic. Why, other than for the purposes of being "entirely" accurate, is it essential we have the original texts of Plato's Republic? Admittely we cannot be "sure" of what part is Plato's and which is not absent his original writings but how damaging are these additions? Not very and consequently, not significant. Same can be said for your additions.

Which, by the way, I have scrutinized those verses and it seems to me it is not a "fact" those verses you mention are fabrications. Whether or not it is a fabrication is a very contentious issue with both sides making some very compelling arguments.