Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sschlichter · 09-16-2009, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

if it is dated in the late 2nd century, then no. it alone does not discredit your theory.

It doesn't matter if it dates to specifically the late 2nd century, as there is no reason to presuppose that the shenanigans of the late 2nd century were unique to those few decades. The simplest position is that the same thing was going on in the earlier stages of Christianity as well (and in the culture at large), and later too. We even see direct evidence of that in the canon, with the existence of the 3 synoptic Gospels.

I conclude from all this that it was acceptable in those days to modify the works of others and pass it on, as well as to attach the name of a legendary figure to one's own work. This was the norm rather than an aberration, and that's why I *assume* the works of Paul are actually the works of multiple authors over some unknown period of time.

The hypothesis is not spurious, but based on cultural evidence. Scholarly analysis that started with an assumption of single authorship has been forced to arrive at the same conclusion I start with, which is a strong validation of the hypothesis.

Quote:

Don't you find it strange that all mss are quite similar. Wouldn't you expect to find greater variances among texts found in the same period?

I think that depends on what point a text is considered sacred. Prior to that mystique, I would expect to find notable differences between copies of the "same" text - such as is the case with the synoptic gospels. But once they came to be considered scripture, less so, which is why the gospels eventually became mostly frozen in time, even though there clearly was a period when they were not.

After all of that is said, there is still very little evidence of tampering. As far as Gal 2, p46, Alexandrinus, Sinaticus, Vaticanus (all included in the chart) are all substantially the same. I find little issue with the change in the name of Cephas in v9 and 11.

There is actually many reasons to conclude that earlier christians did not typically tamper with the text as you would conclude jews did not tamper with their scriptures.

spin · 09-16-2009, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

After all of that is said, there is still very little evidence of tampering. As far as Gal 2, p46, Alexandrinus, Sinaticus, Vaticanus (all included in the chart) are all substantially the same. I find little issue with the change in the name of Cephas in v9 and 11.

There is actually many reasons to conclude that earlier christians did not typically tamper with the text as you would conclude jews did not tamper with their scriptures.

Do you still leave your milk teeth under the pillow?

spin

sschlichter · 09-16-2009, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

After all of that is said, there is still very little evidence of tampering. As far as Gal 2, p46, Alexandrinus, Sinaticus, Vaticanus (all included in the chart) are all substantially the same. I find little issue with the change in the name of Cephas in v9 and 11.

There is actually many reasons to conclude that earlier christians did not typically tamper with the text as you would conclude jews did not tamper with their scriptures.

Do you still leave your milk teeth under the pillow?

spin

really, you do not see a textual preservation in historical judaism? (of course, I am not referring to the 6th - 12th century, in case you were assuming.)

aa5874 · 09-16-2009, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

There is actually many reasons to conclude that earlier christians did not typically tamper with the text as you would conclude jews did not tamper with their scriptures.

I find it very puzzling when people claim passages were interpolated or tampered with when it cannot be established that the author himself could not have altered the passage.

The writer using the name Tertullian in "Against Marcion" did claim to have re-written or amended his OWN WRITING that was full of mistakes or was written in a hurry.

This is "Against Marcion" 1

Quote:

Whatever in times past we have wrought in opposition to Marcion, is from the present moment no longer to be accounted of. It is a new work which we are undertaking in lieu of the old one

. My original tract, as too hurriedly composed, I had subsequently superseded by a fuller treatise. This latter I lost, before it was completely published, by thefraud of a person who was then a brother, but became afterwards an apostate.

He, as it happened, had transcribed a portion of it, full of mistakes, and then published it. The necessity thus arose for an amended work; and the occasion of the new edition induced me to make a considerable addition to the treatise.

This present text, therefore, of my work— which is the third as superseding the second, but henceforward to be considered the first instead of the third— renders a preface necessary to this issue of the tract itself that no reader may be perplexed, if he should by chance fall in with the various forms of it which are scattered about.

Before any claim of interpolation or tampering can be settled, mistakes by the original author must first be explored or that the author himself amended his own work at some later time.

Even today, authors re-write or amend their writings or have discovered errors that are not due to interpolations or fraud.

spin · 09-16-2009, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Do you still leave your milk teeth under the pillow?

really, you do not see a textual preservation in historical judaism? (of course, I am not referring to the 6th - 12th century, in case you were assuming.)

Out with one foot, in with the other. Have you compared the LXX, MT and SP? (There are LXX, SP & MT Vorlage in the DSS.) Variation is the name of the game. If you note the differences, you'd start changing your tune.

Sorry, I've just read the fact that you are a christian from your profile. That explains your irrationality and refractoriness to me. It's no wonder you couldn't contemplate anything I said to you. You have a different relation to the biblical texts from what I do. You are damned to christianity.

All that apologetic I saw was in fact apologetic. Your self-serving reaction to the notion of self-serving is suddenly clear. Oh well. Shoulda known.

spin

spamandham · 09-17-2009, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

After all of that is said, there is still very little evidence of tampering.

I see strong evidence of widespread tampering within and outside the works of Paul, but you start with an assumption of authenticity and maintain an unreasonably high standard of proof to overcome it.

This is too fundamental of a difference for further discussion to be likely be worthwhile.

Quote:

There is actually many reasons to conclude that earlier christians did not typically tamper with the text as you would conclude jews did not tamper with their scriptures.

The synoptics are *proof* that it was acceptable to edit the works of others and pass it on.

angelo · 09-18-2009, 03:19 AM

I read somewhere that up to 40% of Pauls letters and epistles were forgeries.
I think I read that in one of Bishop [retired] John Shelby Spong's many books.

aa5874 · 09-18-2009, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

The synoptics are *proof* that it was acceptable to edit the works of others and pass it on.

Your statement is not really true.

The Church writers vehemently complained and found it totally unacceptable that Marcion edited [mutilated] gLuke and the Pauline Epistles and these writers implied or stated that Marcion was of the Devil.

Even Origen, as claimed by Rufinus, was very disgusted with those who edited his work.

And further, neither the Church writers nor the authors of the Gospels did claim that the Synoptics were the results of editing at all. The author of Luke claimed to have done some kind of research or used eyewitnesses to compile his Jesus story.

The Synptics may be proof of editing but certainly not proof that it was acceptable until evidence can be found where the authors of the Synoptics admitted openly that they did no research at all but merely copied and edited the writngs of others.

Doug Shaver · 09-19-2009, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

I read somewhere that up to 40% of Pauls letters and epistles were forgeries.

When the subject has to do with Christianity, you can read anything somewhere.

spamandham · 09-19-2009, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

I read somewhere that up to 40% of Pauls letters and epistles were forgeries.

When the subject has to do with Christianity, you can read anything somewhere.

Including the idea that the NT is 100% authentic and accurate.

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

09-18-2009, 03:19 AM	#637
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	I read somewhere that up to 40% of Pauls letters and epistles were forgeries. I think I read that in one of Bishop [retired] John Shelby Spong's many books.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.