hatsoff

I just thought I'd share this: I was browsing some old doc files I wrote when I was in high school. Jesus, was I a moron back then! Here are some quotations from just one of my apologetic tracts. Please note, I was a silly teenager at the time, with little or no experience in Christian history. About the only thing I'd read of any importance was Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History of the Church--but I had done so without any backdrop, believing every word of it. Anyway, some of this stuff is hilarious... Enjoy!

I wouldn't go so far to say that the Holy Scriptures are infallible, or immune to corruption. Nevertheless, I think it's entirely too presumptuous to say that the very first scribes--those who copied the original manuscripts--were unconcerned with accuracy. The very fact that they troubled themselves with the texts at all demonstrates a sort of respect which I imagine would protect the heart of the content, and would likely go far to shield even the exact wording of individual passages.

New discoveries are being made even now, which shed light on exactly how corrupted the original epistles and gospels actually grew. Quite recently, a very small portion of Matthew dated c.late first century was found, a papyrus fragment suggesting the original work may have even pre-dated Mark. The first complete New Testament manuscript has been dated as mid-fourth century, but the text remains remarkably accurate when compared with second and third century fragments--as well as the only first century fragment (that I've ever heard of, anyway).

This unusual discipline, textual criticism, is indeed useful to folks who are curious about church history and such. Moreover, it serves as a reminder to Christians that, although God's Word may pass through many mouths and hands alike, the gospel message shall remain forever constant.

(emphasis added for humor)

Oral tradition doubtless gave rise to many misconceptions over and misrepresentations of the gospel message, and probably caused the composition of many apocryphal N.T. works. These works have been revealed as frauds, though, by modern scholars, who are themselves largely supported by the early church fathers. As for authorship, there is strong evidence to verify the origins of every N.T. work save Hebrews and Revelation; yet those two epistles, theologically speaking, assert nothing further than what is in the rest of Scripture, nor change any doctrine in the least. It is therefore illogical to claim that the accepted works were falsely credited.

Mark as an outline for Matthew and Luke, along with the idea of Q, lost acceptance by scholars some time ago. Early church father Papias (c.mid-second century) quoted one of the earliest sources available as noting that John Mark's gospel was a compilation of Peter's preachings with respect to Jesus' ministry. There is even some evidence that he may have communicated with the elder John while he was on Patmos, to verify the accuracy of his narrative.

(emphasis added; I have no idea what I was talking about, there)

John's gospel and epistles all work together for a particular interpretation of the gospel message. Form criticism, if nothing else, is strong evidence to support John as author. Irenaeus and Tertullian both cite John as author to this gospel, and I can't find any good reason to doubt their testimony.

Chris Weimer

1st century papyrus of Matthew found? What?

hatsoff

No doubt P64. Not really 1st century, of course.

hatsoff

By the way, all this was apparently written as a formal response to Matthew Black's Peake’s Commentary on the Bible (or via: amazon.co.uk). Yet I have no memory of that book or its contents. Every day I have more understanding for those old farts who can't remember jack, because I'm getting there, myself!

Chris Weimer

You must have been following Thiede. No doubt, of course.