Extrapolation

I've been rolling my eyes about this article all day; I thought I might pass it along, and see if anyone else enjoys it.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/006/7.26.html
We have all the standard devices: omitted data, flagrant logical gymnastics, supporting the Bible using the Bible...on and on it goes. And this is from Christianity Today, which is normally a relatively sane publication, as far as such publications go.

For those interested, here are some of the more noticeably awkward bits.

Yes, and of course, we can determine actual dates and events of Mesopotamian history by extracting them from the Epic of Gilgamesh.

That must have been the Holy Spirit who inserted those words into that passage for you, and allowed you to interpret it as the direct inverse of its clear meaning.

So you argue the veracity of the New Testament texts by pointing out that there is no consistent New Testament text? Also, if by "5,000" you somehow mean "actually less than ten, plus a few hundred single-passage fragments," you might be able to argue for such survival...if, that is, the majority of those separate documents contained identically written passages, which they do not.

Admittedly this isn't much of a debate, but this article is like a shady tree, ripe with fallacies for the plucking. I thought it might be an enjoyable read for anyone wondering how fundies are still standing their ground against textual criticism these days. And besides, if a discussion gets started, I wouldn't mind joining in.

Toto

It's by Ben Witherington III.

I will try to refrain from doing more than alluding to the James Ossuary, his six figure advance for his and Shanks' book, or his statement that it would be possible to match the DNA from bone fragments from the Ossuary with the Shroud of Turin to prove that Jesus' brother's bones were in fact interred there.

He clearly illustrates the motive apologists try to date the NT books as early as possible, and at least he admits to his bias:

gregor2

Lots of spin?

I didn't draw the same conclusions from Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption as Mr. Witherington apparently did. The article gave me the impression that Ehrman concluded that a few rogue scribes altered texts, but that these nefarious deeds were caught and corrected in the 4th Century.

Chief594

So you argue the veracity of the New Testament texts by pointing out that there is no consistent New Testament text? Also, if by "5,000" you somehow mean "actually less than ten, plus a few hundred single-passage fragments," you might be able to argue for such survival...if, that is, the majority of those separate documents contained identically written passages, which they do not.

In regards to the statement you made above, as one who has spent a great deal of time in the study of textual criticism, I feel obliged to shed some light on your statement.

First, in regards to the number of copies available you are mistaken as there are not 5,000. That number is more accurately described as 24,000. However, you do make a good point about fragments and the such. Preserved manuscripts available NOT including fragmented passages number closer to 13,000. This is very important to know because scholars have more manuscripts of the New Testament than ANY OTHER ANCIENT DOCUMENT KNOWN TO MAN. For example, few would question the words of Plato as being his own yet we have only 7 surviving manuscripts. Scholars have only found 49 works from Aristotle. In fact, besides the New Testament, the second greatest amount of ancient manuscripts we have is that of Homer's Illiad of which there are 643 manuscripts (of which there is a 20:1 ratio with Biblical manuscripts). Yet no one questions Plato, or Aristotle or Homer's words as being their own.

The second statement you made refers to mistakes in non-identical passages. In this case you are correct, however you fail to state both sides of the case. 99.5% of all alleged mistakes in the Bible are copiest errors. In other words, statements we can clearly tell were copied wrong. Keep in mind that with such a large amount of manuscripts we can easily see where the mistakes were made. For example the following sentence would be an example of the types of mistakes we are talking about:

1. Jesus Christ is the Savior of the whole world.
2. Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world.
3. Christ Jesus is the Savior of the whole world.
4. Jesus Christ is the Savir of the whole world.
5. Jesus Christ is the Savior of the whol world.

With manuscripts supporting sentences such as these, one can easily construct what the true sentence should say. In fact, in studies I've read, the Bible has been given between 99.5 and 99.9% accuracy rate. This is by far higher than any other ancient work ever known.

Obviously due to space and time constraints I cannot elaborate on every detail. However, there have been many publications where this information can be found and I would be glad to share that with anyone whom asks. Hopefully you see that there is a little bit more than meets the eye as far as evidence goes when one wants to immediately discredit the Biblical manuscripts.

Toto

This is false. Homer is a semi-mythical figure at best, and may be a composite. The works attributed to Homer have most likely been written, rewritten, and edited by a series of poets.

Casper

I wonder if the number of hand written (or hand copied) new testament manuscripts is anything like the number of hand written copies of Euclid's Geometry?

Was Euclid even a historical figure? His teachings have certainly permeated most cultures throughout the world. And they seem to stand scrutiny better than most works. Even without a true zero character or fixed-place nomenclature. Worthy of cult icon in my book, fer sure. :angel:

Vorkosigan

Chief left after we torched his low-grade apologetics.

Stuff like this is comedy on every level.