Freethought & Rationalism Archive

blastula · 03-16-2008, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Agreed. The following is an example of a strawman-type idea since the gosple writer frequently wrote "As it is written in the prophets" and then combined a scripture from several OT books.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

Mark 1:2
As written in [Isaiah]

The early MSS have :
"As it is written in Isaiah the prophet..."

But most later versions have :
"As it is written in the prophets..."

Probably because the quote is NOT really from Isaiah (its composited from Isaiah, Malachai, and Exodus) - the eariest MSS were wrong, so later versions fixed this error by using just "prophets".

Here we see later scribes fixing up an earlier mistake.

3. The reason the NT was changed was often arguments over doctrine - i.e. different Christian sects fiddled the books to support their sect.

Iasion

What and who is being strawmanned there?

arnoldo · 03-16-2008, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastula

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Agreed. The following is an example of a strawman-type idea since the gosple writer frequently wrote "As it is written in the prophets" and then combined a scripture from several OT books.

What and who is being strawmanned there?

There are no mistakes that the gospel writers tried to "fix." I posted the following earlier which explains how the gospel writers related Yeshua to the Old Testament:

Quote:

Agreed, the gospel writer didn't have a "chapter/verse' mentality when they wrote the gospels, they also really didn't care if a particular OT writing was specifically mentioning Yeshua because the reality of His earthly existence transcended all of that ( I have a picture in mind of the question whether Yeshua is the Lord of the Sabbath). Anyway Vernard Eller puts it much more eloquently thusly:

Quote:

...In part, this must be attributed to the fact that early Christian thinkers just did not make the sort of historical, developmental distinctions with which we have been dealing. They gave no thought to the difference between Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, or the third part of Isaiah. In fact the gave little or no thought to the difference betweeen one prophetic book and another. A not at all uncommmon occurrence in the New Testament is to the author saying "As it is written in the prophets," and giving a quotation that is constructed out of lines taken from a number of different prophets.

Quote:

I listed the amazon link (or via: amazon.co.uk) to Vernard Eller's book in this post: War and Peace: From Genesis to Revelations

blastula · 03-16-2008, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastula

What and who is being strawmanned there?

There are no mistakes that the gospel writers tried to "fix." I posted the following earlier which explains how the gospel writers related Yeshua to the Old Testament:

Quote:

I listed the amazon link (or via: amazon.co.uk) to Vernard Eller's book in this post: War and Peace: From Genesis to Revelations

I'm not sure that describes a strawman (if you asked a Christian, would they tell you that if they saw "Isaiah" in the text, that they wouldn't assume it means exactly Isaiah?).

Anyway, even granting Ellar's explanation, that explains why the original gospel writers might have conflated the terms, but it doesn't explain why a later copyist would change "Isaiah" to "prophets." Do you think scribes routinely would change "God's word" as they wished? If you want to say everyone from the original author to the copyists weren't sticklers for accuracy, then again, what does "textual purity" mean?

Do you think it's a strawman to say many Christians maintain that the Bible versions they have today are exactly the same as the original?

remez · 03-16-2008, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

Greetings,

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

None bearing any weight on doctrinal issues.

This is not true at all.

Let's look at some of variations found in the NT -

Mark 16:9-20
The Resurrection Appearances

Most of the earliest witnesses have G.Mark ending at 16:8 - with the empty tomb scene, but no resurrection appearances etc.

G.Mark ends at 16:8 in the very important early MSS Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and also in others such as : Latin Codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, and the two oldest Georgian translations and many Armenian manuscripts.

In later versions however, there are several DIFFERENT endings to G.Mark after 16:8 -
* the longer ending (16:9-20 in many Bibles)
* the shorter ending (also found in some study bibles)
* another minor variant of a few verses

In other words -
there are at least FOUR different ways that different G.Mark MSS end.

Origen and Clement of Alexandria (early 3rd C.) and Victor of Antioch quote and discuss G.Mark WITHOUT mentioning the appendix. Eusebius (early 4th C.) mentions that most MSS do not have the appendix. Jerome also specifically notes the passage can not be found in most Greek MSS of his time (4th C.) This means Eusebius and Jerome KNEW of the appendix, but noted that it was NOT part of the Bible at that time.

This is clear and present evidence that the post-resurrection stories were NOT original, but added later, around the 4th-5th century or so.

This helps to explain why the stories in G.Luke and G.Matthew and G.John are so wildly different - they did not have G.Mark to follow, so each made-up a different story. (Scholars agree G.Luke and G.Matt were largely copied from G.Mark.)

Luke 3:22
The words of God at the Baptism

Early MSS and quotes have the same as the Psalm :
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou are my son, this day have I begotten thee"

But later versions have changed it to :
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased"

Here we see Christian scribes have CHANGED the very words of God, or the alleged words of God. And we know the reason - it supports the view called Adoptionism - later called a heresy.

In other words, Christian writers had no compunction about changing the supposed words of God himself, at a crucial time in the story.

1 John 5:7
The Trinity

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. "

This passage is not found in ANY early Greek MSS, and was therefore not included in the original Textus Receptus of Erasmus in the 16th Century.
Erasmus said "I will not include the Comma unless I see a Greek MSS which includes it".
Sure enough, a newly written Greek MSS suddenly "appeared" with this passage, so Erasmus ADDED it to the 2nd edition.

Matthew 6:13
The Lord's Prayer

Early and important MSS (Aleph, B, D, Z, 205, 547) as well as some fathers (Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian) have :
"And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil"

Other MSS have :
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen"

And a few MSS have another version :
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, of the father, the son, and the holy spirit for ever. Amen"

A few MSS exclude the words "the power" or "the glory" or "the kingdom".

The Lord's Prayer is one of the more variant parts of the NT.

Now,
this prayer was supposedly taught by Jesus himself.
But
early Christians could not even agree what the prayer said !

Mark 1:1
Jesus Christ [Son of God]

Early MSS do not have "son of God".

John 9:35
Son of Man/God

Early MSS have :
"Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, Do you believe in the Son of man?"

Later versions have :
"Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?"

Acts 8:37
JC is the Son of God

"And Phillip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"

This passage is missing from all the early MSS.

In other words, the MSS show a consistent pattern of "Son of Man" being changed into "Son of God".

Mark 1:2
As written in [Isaiah]

The early MSS have :
"As it is written in Isaiah the prophet..."

But most later versions have :
"As it is written in the prophets..."

Probably because the quote is NOT really from Isaiah (its composited from Isaiah, Malachai, and Exodus) - the eariest MSS were wrong, so later versions fixed this error by using just "prophets".

Here we see later scribes fixing up an earlier mistake.

Colossians 1:14
Redemption by blood

All early MSS have the shorter :
"in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins"

But later copies have added "through his blood" :
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins"

This is an important proof-text for the doctrine of redemption by Chist's blood - but its a later addition.

So what does this show ?

1. The NT was often changed during its history.

2. The changes included some of the most important parts of Christian doctrine :
* the resurrection
* the alleged words of GOD at the Jordan!
* the Lord's Prayer
* the Trinity
etc.

3. The reason the NT was changed was often arguments over doctrine - i.e. different Christian sects fiddled the books to support their sect.

Iasion

As you have presented them they would appear so. But a closer examination would change the appearances all together.

So briefly: The Lords Prayer does not end the way you claim it does in our modern versions. The most modern versions match the earlier MSS. Same with your references to Mark 1:2, Col 1:14.

Acts 8:37 does not even appear in today’s versions matching the early MSS.

And Mark’s ending is completely labeled as short and long once again representing the early MSS.

And John 5:7 says The sick man answered him, ‘Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up; and while I am making my way, someone else steps down ahead of me.’ ……and has nothing to do with the Trinity.

Luke 3:22 Give me your support for the early MSS saying such. Either way this is hardly a doctrinal issue.

remez · 03-16-2008, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

In 4 pages of posts, I haven't seen remez actually give a citation for the 99.5% claim. Did I miss that?

regards,

NinJay

Sorry, in this discussion I thought this would have been well known.
here is one..........
Metzger, Bruce M. 1992. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. (or via: amazon.co.uk) Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Toto · 03-16-2008, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

In 4 pages of posts, I haven't seen remez actually give a citation for the 99.5% claim. Did I miss that?

regards,

NinJay

Sorry, in this discussion I thought this would have been well known.
here is one..........
Metzger, Bruce M. 1992. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. (or via: amazon.co.uk) Oxford, Oxford University Press.

That partcular statistic does not appear to be in that book.

I have located the source of the "99.5% pure" - here

Quote:

Scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix conclude, "The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts that any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book-a form that is 99.5 percent pure."

The quote is actually from Lee Strobel's Case for Christ. But when I checked Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (or via: amazon.co.uk) on Amazon, I found some discussion on p. 474 that made this seem a vast oversimplification.

And I did find this from JPHolding discussing some Islamic critics:

Quote:

The first point for consideration is that the authors tackle the common claim that we are able to restore the text of the NT to an accuracy of 99.5%. I have noted this as a popular argument; the authors complain that they do not find such a statement in the works of Metzger, who is often cited, but the offer of Westcott and Hort (Westcott and Hort asserted [Hunt.IntNT, 13] that the parts of the NT "still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part") offers much the same quantity estimate. (They charge Geisler with inventing the claim for Metzger, which I seriously doubt; though I indeed cannot find the referenced citation in Metzger's older book, I would suspect a mis-citation by Geisler as opposed to pure invention.) ...

03-16-2008, 11:41 PM

Greetings,

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

As you have presented them they would appear so. But a closer examination would change the appearances all together.

Appearances?
Pardon?

The subject is:
whether differences in the MSS impact on matters of doctrine. (Because YOU claimed they didn't.)

I showed several examples where the MSS differences DO impact on matters of doctrine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

The Lords Prayer does not end the way you claim it does in our modern versions.

Pardon?
I made no claim.

I showed that different MSS had several different versions of the Lord's prayer.

The Lord's prayer is an important matter of doctrine, and the MSS show a great deal of difference in this important matter of doctrine.

Your claim is shown false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

The most modern versions match the earlier MSS.

So what?
This issue is whether the MSS show differences in this matter of doctrine. They do.
Many modern versions have settled upon an agreed version, and discarded the others.

This does not change the fact that the MSS show differences in this important matter of doctrine.

Your claim is shown false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

Same with your references to Mark 1:2, Col 1:14, Acts 8:37.

The subject is whether the MSS show differences in matter of doctrine. Jesus being the son-of-God is one the most important item of Christian doctrine. The MSS show many places where son-of-man is changed to son-of-God. This proves the MSS DO indeed have differences in important matters of doctrine.

The fact that many modern versions ignore these differences does not change that fact.

Your claim is shown false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

And Mark’s ending is completely labeled as short and long once again representing the early MSS.

So what?
Have you forgotten what the issue is?

The subject is whether the MSS show variations in matters of doctrine. The resurrection is THE SINGLE MOST important matter of Christian doctrine.

The Gospel of Mark shows HUGE variations in the MSS for the resurrection stories - we see some MSS have :
* no ending
* the short ending
* the long ending
* both short and long
* (even another minor variant ending)

Thus we see that the variations in the MSS do indeed affect the single most important item of Christian doctrine.

The fact these variations are labelled in modern Gospels PROVES I am right - there ARE variations in the MSS for this crucial item of doctrine.

But perversely, you pretend that these VARIATIONS in the MSS being labelled in modern bibles somehow proves these MSS variations do not exist.

WTF?

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

And John 5:7 says The sick man answered him, ‘Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up; and while I am making my way, someone else steps down ahead of me.’ ……and has nothing to do with the Trinity.

I said "1 John", not the "Gospel of John".
Do you actually not know the difference?
Have you really never heard the debate about the Johannine Comma before?

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

Luke 3:22 Give me your support for the early MSS saying such.

Sure, the few MSS and many cites for
"this day have I begotten thee" are found in :
Codex Bezae,
a few minor MSS,
Justin (Dial., 88),
Clement of Alexandria (Paed., I, 25, 2),
Origen (Comm. on John),
Methodius (Symp. 9),
Lactantius (Div. Inst. IV, 15),
Augustine (Enchiridion 49),
Faustus,
Tyconius,
Hilary,
and Juvencus.

In addition, this form of Luke's text also appears to be the one known to the authors of the Gospel According to the Hebrews, the Gospel According to the Ebionites (as qtd. by Epiphanius), and the Didascalia (93:26), and several of the later apocryphal Acts,such as the Martyrdom of Peter and Paul (par 1) and The Acts of Peter and Paul (par 29).

Bart Ehrman notes, "among sources of the second and third centuries, it is virtually the only reading to be found; down to the sixth century it occurs in witnesses as far flung as Asia Minor, Palestine, Alexandria, North Africa, Rome, Gaul, and Spain"

Your claim is shown false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

Either way this is hardly a doctrinal issue.

You cannot be serious?
This difference of views sparked an entire heresy (adoptionism), and centuries of arguing - that's WHY it was changed - to support the crystalizing orthodox Christian doctrine.

Iasion

03-16-2008, 11:52 PM

Greetings,

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

There are no mistakes that the gospel writers tried to "fix."

Yes there are.
I quoted one.
But you have not actually addressed this example :

The early MSS have :
"Mark 1:2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet
Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."

This is MISTAKE.
Isaiah does NOT say this.
It's wrong.

So, later versions change "Isaiah" to "Prophets". This is clear and present evidence of an attempt to fix the mistake.

Iasion

-Jay- · 03-17-2008, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

In 4 pages of posts, I haven't seen remez actually give a citation for the 99.5% claim. Did I miss that?

regards,

NinJay

Sorry, in this discussion I thought this would have been well known.
here is one..........
Metzger, Bruce M. 1992. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. (or via: amazon.co.uk) Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Yeah. I thought you might pop Metzger here. Interestingly, I had an email exchange with Bart Ehrman recently regarding this same issue in conjunction with another discussion I'm involved in elsewhere.

My note to Dr. Ehrman:

Quote:

Dr Ehrman:

Please forgive the intrusion - I know you're very busy.

I'm peripherally involved in an on-line discussion of issues of Biblical inerrancy.

Part of the discussion turns on the claim that the Biblical books are "inerrant in the original autographs".

One of the supporters of this position has made the claim that modern scholars have reconstructed the original autographs with "99.5% accuracy".

This number is variously attributed to you and to the late Bruce Metzger, always via a secondary source like Norman Geisler.

I have been unable to locate this assertion in (admittedly quick) surveys of either your work or Dr. Metzger's.

In order to clarify the matter, I'd like to ask if this 99.5% number is one you have cited, or if (to your knowledge) it is one that Dr. Metzger considered valid?

As a second question, would it be acceptable to you if I were to post your response, with attribution, in a public forum?

Very Respectfully,

[name deleted]

Dr. Ehrman's response:

Quote:

Thanks for your note. No, to my *knowledge* I have never indicated that
we have been able to reconstruct the originals with 99.5% accuracy. That's
certainly not something I believe. I don't recall Prof. Metzger ever
putting a statistic on our efforts either, though I haven't checked all his
writings (In the eight years I studied with him, I don't recall him ever
saying such a thing.)

The reason such statistical certainty is impossible is that one would
need to have the originals themselves to see whether our reconstruction is
99.5% correct in relation to them. Without the originals as a base text,
there is no way to know.

Let me give you a hypothetical situation. Paul writes his letter to the
Galatians. The first church (in the region of Galatia) that receives it
decides to have someone make a copy. That person is not a trained scribe,
just a literate Christian, and he doesn't do a very good job (remember, I'm
just speaking *hypothetically* here! But why *couldn't* this be possible?).
He leaves out some words, he adds some words, he corrects the grammar, he
adds a few thoughts of his own -- these things happen! Suppose, then, that
he changes something like 10% of the letter in one way or another. And
suppose the original was destroyed in a fire, so that all subsequent copies
are made from this one copy that is 10% different from the original. How
would we ever know that this is what happened? We'd have absolutely no way
to know -- all of our subsequent copies would go back to this one copy,
which was off by 10%. So even if we could reconstruct the exemplar from
which all surviving copies derive with 99.5% certainty (which I doubt), we
would be reconstructing an "original" that was in fact 10% removed from the
*real* original.

There are hundreds of such possibilities that could be imagined. We
simply don't know what the original looked like -- in some places that we
know we don't know (since scholars regularly debate dozens and dozens of
places) and probably in places where we don't know (since the oldest form of
the text may itself be a change of the original text). People who want to
put a statistic to it do so because they are afraid of the implications of
not knowing. But fear is not a historical criterion.

Yes, feel free to post my response as you wish. Thanks again for the
question. Best wishes,

-- Bart Ehrman

So folks should really stop trying to pin this number on either Dr. Ehrman or the late Dr. Metzger. It just won't stick.

(And Toto - thanks for the digging to ferret this thing out.)

regards,

NinJay

remez · 03-17-2008, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

Sorry, in this discussion I thought this would have been well known.
here is one..........
Metzger, Bruce M. 1992. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. (or via: amazon.co.uk) Oxford, Oxford University Press.

That partcular statistic does not appear to be in that book.

"Particularly" Cute.
Do you know how to do a batting average?
The numbers a quoted earlier are in the book.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.