hallq

Nazaroo-

If I were interested in discrediting Christianity and nothing else, I would enthusiastically agree with everything you've said in these two posts and spread your claims far and wide. Why? Because it all rests on the idea that our earliest Biblical manuscripts aren't reliable textual witnesses. If that's true, we have grounds for considerable agnosticism about the original text of the Bible, which is a nightmare for inerrantists who want to know what the Bible really says.

jgibson000

Must have existed??:huh:

Speaking of petitio principii ...


JG

Diogenes the Cynic

Nazaroo, in light of your decision to try to go around my decision not to split this thread by starting a new (and redundant) one, I have decided to turn this matter over to the other mods to see if they feel any action is warranted. I will be removed from their decision.

DtC, Moderator, BC&H

Nazaroo

I'm not an inerrantist. I'm a scientist.

God may be inerrant. But that is moot, since we are not. Logically, although all errors may be tracable to us, they cannot be identified with absolute certainty or eliminated.

'reliable' is a relative term. My brother-in-law is reliable enough to do the dishes, but I still check a dish before putting food on it and eating off of it.

Amaleq13

An Occam's Razor approach to thread topics is to be preferred so the two have been merged. The tangent-creating claim has been withdrawn so the discussion can continue.

Nazaroo

This second statement also sounds reasonable, until we delve into the details.

(1) There is no example of any "floating logion" that bounces around in the MSS tradition, being inserted here and there, but homeless.

The only textual variant even alleged to have such a feature is the PA. Not only does this beg the question, but the scenario is entirely hypothetical. Yet it is spoken of as though it were the norm in the actual textual transmission of the NT.

Since there are no other examples to draw any parallel or experience from, we must then turn only to the PA for any insight.

(2) But the PA just doesn't really reflect the required phenomenae. It doesn't 'bounce around' looking for a place to insert itself for the majority of the time-period in question (1500 years of MSS transmission from 100 A.D. to 1600).

In fact the earliest evidence for any 'alternate positions' for the PA must be extrapolated backwards to the late 9th century from MSS which are all very late (1000 - 1500 A.D.).

Thus all of the Family 13 MSS inserting the PA in Luke are late (12th century average). Although Family 13 contains some apparently ancient readings traceable back to the 5th or 6th century versions and lectionary texts, the text-type or profile itself doesn't exist before the 10th century A.D.

The handful of other MSS inserting the PA at the 'wrong' place in John (e.g. 7:38 etc.) are for the most part accounted for by a small battle late in the MSS tradition in which the PA was re-inserted from the Lectionary stream back into a handful of MSS by Medieval scribes attempting to correct the text.

These bumbling attempts at re-inserting the passage in various places in John, or mixing up the order with verse 8:12 etc. tell us more about the state of ignorance of late Medieval scribes than they can about the actual all-important early history of the text.

The main caution against taking this late evidence very seriously is the fact that most of these misplacements occur at precisely the time when the majority of MSS (some 1,350 MSS plus 1,000 lectionaries) treat the passage as a normal part of John's Gospel.

Thus the handful of abberant MSS inserting the PA elsewhere must be contrasted with the vast majority of equally weighted evidence (95% of MSS) from the same late period.

Petersen's point two also fizzles into an anecdotal observation about the (very) late transmission process and some minor skirmishes over the passage. Ironically, at the same time, this is the most stable and well-documented part of the MSS transmission stream, and it places the PA firmly between Jn 7:53 and 8:12.

Nazaroo

Again, the devil is in the details. Petersen accepts and assumes the previous work on this branch of 'internal evidence' is adequate and valid.

In fact, the case against the PA based upon internal evidence was created and compiled by S. Davidson in 1848, at a time when both knowledge of Greek, knowledge of John's style, knowledge of the textual variants, and even knowledge of scientific methodology was primitive to non-existant.

Since that time others have simply repeated the original claims of Davidson.

The details of Davidson's work are hopelessly naive and unreliable, but the biggest caution is the methodology itself. Relying upon word 'vocabulary' or short phrases from tiny sample bases, to characterise an author's style is now known to be objectively worthless.

A detailed examination of Davidson's 'internal evidence' can be found here:

Davidson's Internal Evidence Examined

Later, (1917), Cadbury tried to assemble a cautious case for 'Lukan' authorship or stylisms in the passage. But it too was based upon an inadequate methodology.

On the one hand, Cadbury again was working at a 'vocabulary'/phrase level, known to be weak and subjective in nature, while at the same time, he did not give sufficient attention to the counter-evidence of Johannine stylisms.

Cadbury on Lukanisms in the PA

A.T. Robertson's entry into the fray was also a tragicomedy, a weak attempt to justify the earlier work of Westcott/Hort.

The case for Lukan authorship of the passage was all but abandoned by textual critics, who during the 30's to 60's became acutely aware of the huge pile of missing groundwork that needed to be done.

a) Someone needed to properly and reliably collate the manuscript base, which had grown beyond the reach of one man in one lifetime to achieve. This was begun in earnest by people like von Soden and Merck.

b) Someone needed to actually independantly flesh out the living Koine Greek language, as the new papyrii discoveries revealed volumes of linguistic information affecting both interpretation and our understanding of the historical transmission of the text. Deissman and others dug in.

c) Someone needed to actually characterize and clarify in detail just what was the style and diction of the various NT authors. The first attempts in this area were those of Turner etc.

d) Someone needed to analyse the internal structure of John, and sift it for redactional and form-critical evidence.

Obviously we are only just arriving at the position where the tools and information is in place to tentatively piece together real internal evidence.

Petersen's assumption of a reliable characterization of the passage is naive. And it is based upon outdated methodologies and viewpoints about the meaning and interpretation of that evidence.

Nazaroo

Again, what we find upon actual examination is that:

(1) John is about as 'sensible' with the passage as without. Many critics have taken various sides upon this issue, and the fact there is such variance in the interpretation and weight of this aspect of the problem is a danger sign signalling subjectivity.

As an example, Pink had no problem finding continuity between sections while including the passage, while Bultmann was driven to further hack off large sections of chapter 8 because he couldn't fit the ends together without the PA.

(2) John displays multiple 'seams' and incontinuities, as well as 'weak' joins and time-lapses throughout. Adding or subtracting the passage does little or nothing to alleviate these built-in features of John. No clever rearrangements, (including Bultmann's) have shown any improvement in the quantity or quality of the temporal problems and connectedness of John.

For a look at the results of Bultmann's rearrangement, you can go here:
Bultmann's Rearrangement of John

(3) The whole question of the 'flow' or continuity of the narrative of John is not only in doubt, but also its relevance is in doubt, given the heavily interpretational nature of this gospel. Critics are still debating where various portions of dialogue and narrative begin and end in John. No confidence in any particular stance about the continuity of the narrative can be achieved when there is little agreement even on the compositional pre-history or redactional pre-history of this gospel.

Petersen's Fourth point is stillborn.

Nazaroo

While nominally a true statement, it is severely weakened by the fact that ALL pre-4th century evidence is fragmentary at best. We don't possess the complete works of a single early father, and for most we only have fragments.

The statement is further weakened when one tries to compile lists of NT verses that actually ARE quoted by early fathers.

The claim that "the entire NT can be reassembled from quotations of the early fathers" is a hopeless exaggeration of the case. While much of the NT can be cited in the early fathers, it is often paraphrased, misquoted, or subsequently harmonized with later texts and doctrine.

Petersen's fifth point is not without value, but must be taken cautiously, as it is an argument from the silence of fragmentary evidence.

Nazaroo

Yet Petersen himself after examining the frailty of the connection between Eusebius' quote of Papias and the PA rules that the Eusebius fragment is probably about another story.

Even in Ehrman's reconstruction, this piece of evidence, while 'convenient', can only fit into the history if it is admitted *not* to be a direct link to the version of the PA found in John.

A caveat should be issued along with a small alarm-bell, since the 'convenience' of Eusebius' dubious fragmentary story goes completely against the principle of preferring the 'harder reading' generally.

It is more likely on all accounts that even Eusebius has 'harmonized' his information with his own understanding and knowledge of the situation. His colored witness is simply too shakey to build reliably upon.

If Eusebius is talking about (or casting around for) an alternate tradition, then the whole edifice is a house of cards.

Peterson's 6th point is not a wide stable base of independant evidence, but rather a precarious balancing act dependant upon 'favourable winds'.