Freethought & Rationalism Archive

BALDUCCI · 06-08-2007, 09:07 AM

I know of no one who claims that the NT is based on "originals". I dont even understand the meaning of the word. They are based on documents, but how these documents evolved, what their predecessor sources are, is a huge field of theological scholarship. So "originals" is really disney.

Chris Weimer · 06-08-2007, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BALDUCCI

I know of no one who claims that the NT is based on "originals". I dont even understand the meaning of the word. They are based on documents, but how these documents evolved, what their predecessor sources are, is a huge field of theological scholarship. So "originals" is really disney.

That's why a couple of posts ago I put originals in quotation marks.

S.C.Carlson · 06-08-2007, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

It also depends on which book as well. We're more secure of the contents of 2 Peter than of Romans.

I thought it was the other way around....

Ben C Smith · 06-08-2007, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

It also depends on which book as well. We're more secure of the contents of 2 Peter than of Romans.

I thought it was the other way around....

Does 2 Peter have more textual issues than Romans? If so, I was certainly unaware.

Ben.

achristianbeliever · 06-08-2007, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Yes, that is a sad hypocrisy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackwater

Admitedly, if that is what he was doing then I think it was unfair.

Very respectable of both of you and yes it was what Johnny was doing. Here is an example in the thread where he quotes the Bible to show his point:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

He is no doubt aware of and endorses the following passage that is well-known and much-used by fundamentalist Christians:

Romans 9:13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!

15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'"

21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath - prepared for destruction?

23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory -

24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

Ok, following that same line of reasoning, parents who conceive children have the right treat them however they wish.

Another example:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Revelation 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Johnny: How do you interpret those Scriptures?

So then sometimes ksen would do the same and show his point and then Johnny would say this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

You have no business quoting the Bible in any thread until you have properly defended inerrancy. Second of all, if you introduce the Bible as evidence, it is reasonable for me to ask you to provide reasonable proof that what you quote was in the originals.

So obviously ksen would catch him on this and say:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

You have no idea what the Bible originals claimed about God according to your argument.

I hope this has been a lesson showing everyone the hypocricy Johnny has been showing.

Chris Weimer · 06-08-2007, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

It also depends on which book as well. We're more secure of the contents of 2 Peter than of Romans.

I thought it was the other way around....

It was an off the top of my head remark.

However, according to Julian's NA27, there's 1099 words in 2 Peter, and only 18 textual problems according to the UBS apparatus criticus.

There are 7,111 words in Romans and 85 textual problems.

18/1099 x 100 = 1.64%
85/7111 x 100 = 1.20%

So I guess, from the raw data, that you're right. (Did I do the math right? I'll freely admit I'm no math person at all.)

However, I guess I was thinking of the large variations in placement of several verses at the end of chapter 16.

Jedi Mind Trick · 06-08-2007, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BALDUCCI

I know of no one who claims that the NT is based on "originals". I dont even understand the meaning of the word. They are based on documents, but how these documents evolved, what their predecessor sources are, is a huge field of theological scholarship. So "originals" is really disney.

Educate me... I have always assumed that "originals" meant the actual autographs penned by the authors. That there was at one time, one papyrus or whatever of say Mark written by the hand of the original author of Mark.

What I want to know is:
How certain can we be (and what is the consensus) that what we have that is called, say again "Mark" is a reasonable copy of that first penned "original”? Please let me in on the arcane here; what is meant then by “original” if not that?

Codec · 06-08-2007, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwater

Educate me... I have always assumed that "originals" meant the actual autographs penned by the authors. That there was at one time, one papyrus or whatever of say Mark written by the hand of the original author of Mark.

We don't have the original Mark, so who can say, we don't even have anything close to the supposed time it was written. The earliest copies of Mark end earlier than the later ones too.

The earliest copy we have of a gospel is a fragment of John - dated sometime around 120-150Ad.

So there is no original, in most cases there isn't even a first, 2nd or 3rd generation copy - so how can we know. Only indirectly by textual analysis and supposition.

Jedi Mind Trick · 06-08-2007, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Codec

So there is no original, in most cases there isn't even a first, 2nd or 3rd generation copy - so how can we know. Only indirectly by textual analysis and supposition.

Is the OP correct then? Through indirect textual analysis and supposition we have reaced a scholarly consensus that what we have in our modern possession is a reasonable copy of the "original" Mark, Luke, John, Mathew, Epistles of Paul, etc? Also, what is this arcane meaning for "originals" everyone alludes to?

I'm not trying to be dense, but I am confused.

Toto · 06-08-2007, 11:37 AM

It depends on what you mean by "reasonable." If you are not an inerrantist, the copies are "close enough for government work". If you ascribe magical properties to the putative original, there are enough differences among manuscripts to give your problems.

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

06-08-2007, 09:07 AM	#21
BALDUCCI Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: scotland Posts: 365	I know of no one who claims that the NT is based on "originals". I dont even understand the meaning of the word. They are based on documents, but how these documents evolved, what their predecessor sources are, is a huge field of theological scholarship. So "originals" is really disney.

06-08-2007, 11:37 AM	#30
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	It depends on what you mean by "reasonable." If you are not an inerrantist, the copies are "close enough for government work". If you ascribe magical properties to the putative original, there are enough differences among manuscripts to give your problems.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.