Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshonq · 03-14-2008, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Of course the NT is ancient literature written in the first century/early second century.

Indeed so.

The idea that a book must have a different process of copying and disemination, purely because people today make various claims for it,

Which -- as you know already -- is not the reason that such is discussed.

Nice try.

Sheshonq · 03-14-2008, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastula

Except, it's claimed by Christians that the words of the Bible had an extraordinarily different source than other books....

Does it matter who the author is, for questions of copying etc?

Yes it does. Because who the author is alleged to be impacts the motivations, attention to detail, and agenda of people doing the copying - or the editing, as the case may be. OR, whether differing copies are allowed to exist, or not.

You still have a two century gap between (a) time of alleged autographs and (b) our first fragments.

Johnny Skeptic · 03-14-2008, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Of course the NT is ancient literature written in the first century/early second century.

Better stated "Of course a God would never use copies of copies of ancient texts as a primary means of communicating with humans, especially is heaven and hell are actually at stake."

Sheshonq · 03-14-2008, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastula

Even granting your alleged 99.5% number, you still don't know what originals said.

This has already been addressed in this thread.

Uh, no it has not. I specifically pointed out what the problem with your dismissal was: this isn't just any old text.

Quote:

If this is so, then we don't know what any ancient text says.

In point of fact, we do *not* know what many ancient texts say. Some texts have only a handful of copies, and they are not in good shape. Determining 100% what those texts say is simply not possible.

But that's fine, because having a reasonably complete picture is satisfactory for historians. Nobody is trying to use those texts as a blueprint for society or their lives.

Solitary Man · 03-14-2008, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Does it matter who the author is, for questions of copying etc?

Yes it does. Because who the author is alleged to be impacts the motivations, attention to detail, and agenda of people doing the copying - or the editing, as the case may be.

You still have a two century gap between (a) time of alleged autographs and (b) our first fragments.

P52 would negate this statement.

Roger Pearse · 03-14-2008, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agenda07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I admit that I tend to use the "would this difference be visible in a literal translation" test as a quick rule of thumb on how important (to non-specialists) a variant is. Addison long ago satirised the self-importance of textual critics, and pointed out that it hardly matters if a scribe wrote 'et' or 'ac' or 'atque' or '&'.

Please correct me if I'm wrong (as what little Latin I know is self-taught and flaky in the extreme) but don't the different words for 'and' have some significance in determining the date and authorship of a text? If a writer consistently uses 'et' throughout their work, except for one short section where they use 'atque' then presumably that would raise questions about the authenticity of that passage? Similarly, I thought there were variations on the frequency with which the words were used in different time periods, although I can't remember where I heard that.

This is interesting. I don't know, to be honest; I've always treated them as synonymous. So you know more than I do on this one!

In view of the tendency of medieval manuscripts to use abbreviations (such as the Tironian shorthand symbol), I'd have thought that it would be difficult to be sure whether the author wrote (or more probably spoke) et or ac.

Probably there *is* information to be gained in this manner, and textual critics would gather it. But this won't affect the English meaning, I think.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 03-14-2008, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Yes it does. Because who the author is alleged to be impacts the motivations, attention to detail, and agenda of people doing the copying - or the editing, as the case may be.

You still have a two century gap between (a) time of alleged autographs and (b) our first fragments.

P52 would negate this statement.

Rather more to the point, perhaps we could go back to Euclid, where the text is based on two 9th century manuscripts (i.e. 11 centuries later). Do we throw Euclid away, on this kind of argument? But of course we don't! I use this merely to point up the obscurantist nature of some of the arguments which we are invited to assent to. Most of the classics have at least an 8 century gap between composition and first now extant witness, but we don't worry about that.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

blastula · 03-14-2008, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

P52 would negate this statement.

Rather more to the point, perhaps we could go back to Euclid, where the text is based on two 9th century manuscripts (i.e. 11 centuries later). Do we throw Euclid away, on this kind of argument?

If Euclid were claimed to be of divine origin on the basis of manuscript "purity," yes, you discard that claim.

Headache · 03-14-2008, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

P52 would negate this statement.

Rather more to the point, perhaps we could go back to Euclid, where the text is based on two 9th century manuscripts (i.e. 11 centuries later). Do we throw Euclid away, on this kind of argument?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

As far as I know, Euclid only discussed math which is why we still talk about him. The good thing about math is that you and I can verify what Euclid claimed and very easily. Euclid doesn't threaten to send people to hell, nor does Euclid claim any miracles. As such, the importance of whether this is actual Euclid work or not, is not of much relevance in todays world other than from mathematical historical perspective. The bible is a bit different.

Johnny Skeptic · 03-14-2008, 01:40 PM

Regardless of what Roger Pearse says, if a God inspired the Bible, his motives is the most important issue by far. A God would have no need of using copies of copies of ancient texts as a primary means of communicating with humans, especially since he would know that doing so would frequently cause disputes even among his own followers, not to mention failing to convince skeptics.

If a God wished to use written records as a primary source of communicating with humans, there is no way that he would have inspired a book like the Bible.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-14-2008, 01:40 PM	#60
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Regardless of what Roger Pearse says, if a God inspired the Bible, his motives is the most important issue by far. A God would have no need of using copies of copies of ancient texts as a primary means of communicating with humans, especially since he would know that doing so would frequently cause disputes even among his own followers, not to mention failing to convince skeptics. If a God wished to use written records as a primary source of communicating with humans, there is no way that he would have inspired a book like the Bible.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.