Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JES · 01-30-2006, 11:06 AM

As a layman to textual criticism I have difficulty responding to some of the arguments put forth by Christians with regards to the reliability of the Bible (specifically the NT). If I had a nickel for every time I heard the number of copies of manuscripts that have no real differences argument, I’d be a rich man. It’s usually the first or second thing out of a Christian’s mouth when you challenge the reliability of the Bible. Based on my limited studies I have found 4 serious challenges to this argument; Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, 1 Timothy 3:16 and 1 John 5:7 (KJV or earlier). All of these are examples of the NT being added to or changed for theological purposes. Yet when you bring these up as examples, Christians simply poo-poo them saying that they have been found and are noted as such. They in no way detract from the ‘perfection’ of God’s Word.

My question; are there other less known examples of textual corruption that can show how ‘imperfect’ God’s Word is throughout the ages? specifically NT?

Lord Emsworth · 01-30-2006, 11:13 AM

Uncorrupted != reliable

JES · 01-30-2006, 11:23 AM

The NT can be corrupted and still be considered the infallible Word of God? I was confused by your response.

Also I thought I should clarify what argument(s) I am trying to counter.

Below is an excerpt from a Bible reliability apologetic website.
Here is the full page: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html

Quote:

In his book, The Bible and Archaeology, Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, stated about the New Testament, "The interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."{8}
To be skeptical of the 27 documents in the New Testament, and to say they are unreliable is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as these in the New Testament.

B. F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, the creators of The New Testament in Original Greek, also commented: "If comparative trivialities such as changes of order, the insertion or omission of the article with proper names, and the like are set aside, the works in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly mount to more than a thousandth part of the whole New Testament."{9} In other words, the small changes and variations in manuscripts change no major doctrine: they do not affect Christianity in the least. The message is the same with or without the variations. We have the Word of God.

Julian · 01-30-2006, 11:28 AM

Start by looking into Codex Bezae ( D(05) ) and the old latins. Also check out the Western Non-interpolations. The list goes on and on. If you can read Greek I suggest that you get a copy of UBS4 or NA27 or Swanson's editions. This site is a good reference on all things textual criticism: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/

Julian

Ben C Smith · 01-30-2006, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JES

My question; are there other less known examples of textual corruption that can show how ‘imperfect’ God’s Word is throughout the ages? specifically NT?

I have a tiny collection of interesting variants on my site.

Ben.

Lord Emsworth · 01-30-2006, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JES

The NT can be corrupted and still be considered the infallible Word of God? I was confused by your response.

No, I meant that the other way 'round, i.e. even if the texts are uncorrutped it doesn't keep them from being/containing fiction/bullhockey.

JES · 01-30-2006, 11:39 AM

Great resource suggestions...Thanks! Yeah, now I have a bunch of new things to study.

And Lord Emsworth,
I agree completely that if even if the NT was shown to be 100% uncorrupted it would still not mean it was true. Even though that is exactly what Christians are trying to argue. :banghead:

richard2 · 01-30-2006, 11:44 AM

I'm new to this also. I just read Bart D. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. He provided a few examples of where the Church changed the text according to their theology, but I would like to know if there are any more instances?

Arioch · 01-30-2006, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JES

Great resource suggestions...Thanks! Yeah, now I have a bunch of new things to study.

And Lord Emsworth,
I agree completely that if even if the NT was shown to be 100% uncorrupted it would still not mean it was true. Even though that is exactly what Christians are trying to argue. :banghead:

Yes, and this is the point where the non-Christian should start noting that corroborating accounts of Biblical documents are lacking.

However a valid counter-example is that the Koran has survived 'uncorrupted', does that make the Koran a true testament of God?

thanks,

Julian · 01-30-2006, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richard2

I'm new to this also. I just read Bart D. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. He provided a few examples of where the Church changed the text according to their theology, but I would like to know if there are any more instances?

Misquoting Jesus is a popularized version of his excellent Orthodox Corruption of Scripture which goes into much more details. Not sure if it has more instances, since I haven't read Misquoting Jesus, but I suspect that it might.

Julian

01-30-2006, 11:06 AM	#1
JES Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: MN Posts: 39	textual criticism question As a layman to textual criticism I have difficulty responding to some of the arguments put forth by Christians with regards to the reliability of the Bible (specifically the NT). If I had a nickel for every time I heard the number of copies of manuscripts that have no real differences argument, I’d be a rich man. It’s usually the first or second thing out of a Christian’s mouth when you challenge the reliability of the Bible. Based on my limited studies I have found 4 serious challenges to this argument; Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, 1 Timothy 3:16 and 1 John 5:7 (KJV or earlier). All of these are examples of the NT being added to or changed for theological purposes. Yet when you bring these up as examples, Christians simply poo-poo them saying that they have been found and are noted as such. They in no way detract from the ‘perfection’ of God’s Word. My question; are there other less known examples of textual corruption that can show how ‘imperfect’ God’s Word is throughout the ages? specifically NT?

01-30-2006, 11:39 AM	#7
JES Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: MN Posts: 39	Wow..you guys are good Great resource suggestions...Thanks! Yeah, now I have a bunch of new things to study. And Lord Emsworth, I agree completely that if even if the NT was shown to be 100% uncorrupted it would still not mean it was true. Even though that is exactly what Christians are trying to argue. :banghead:

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

01-30-2006, 11:13 AM	#2
Lord Emsworth Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 132	Uncorrupted != reliable

01-30-2006, 11:28 AM	#4
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	Start by looking into Codex Bezae ( D(05) ) and the old latins. Also check out the Western Non-interpolations. The list goes on and on. If you can read Greek I suggest that you get a copy of UBS4 or NA27 or Swanson's editions. This site is a good reference on all things textual criticism: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/ Julian

01-30-2006, 11:44 AM	#8
richard2 Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: The Nox Planet Posts: 438	I'm new to this also. I just read Bart D. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. He provided a few examples of where the Church changed the text according to their theology, but I would like to know if there are any more instances?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.