Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 05-15-2008, 06:06 AM

There are two different questions that must be separated, at least in principle:

1. Was it possible for the early Christians to make changes to existing works?
2. Was it possible for the early Christians to make changes to existing works without having left any evidence of them at all in the manuscript record?

My answer to the first question is of course. Toto already mentioned the accusations exchanged between the proto-orthodox and Marcion. We also have Tertullian complaining that his first edition of Against Marcion had been very incorrectly copied and circulated. There are dozens of significant manuscript variations (that is, variations related to real changes in content rather than slips of the pen or spelling variants) in the gospels and epistles. The longer and shorter endings of Mark are spurious. The Testimonium Flavianum has been tampered with if not added wholesale. Galen complained that his books had been abused.

My answer to the second question is also of course (so much evidence from century II has been lost)... but it is naturally much harder to track down the particulars of something for which no evidence remains. If we spot a fairly clear example of change (as on the above list), it is clear only because we have evidence for it. Postulating changes for which we have no extant evidence is a matter of probability and analogy.

It is important, BTW, to bear in mind that the manuscripts are not the only avenue of investigation; the testimonies of the fathers also count. Is the Marcionite gospel lost to us? In its fullest form it is. But we can still investigate some of its particulars through Tertullian, Epiphanius, and others.

Ben.

Malachi151 · 05-15-2008, 06:37 AM

Ben: I think a more interesting question, and perhaps the only one that matters for what I perceive the line of thinking in the OP to be, is whether it would have been possible for changes to the manuscripts to have been in the 2nd century and gone undetected in the 2nd century. I think the answer to this is even yes, it would have been "possible". Again, I don't think this was widespread, at least in terms of the Gospels. Probably a little more-so in terms of the letters of Paul.

Again I think the contradictions and deficiencies in the various texts points to the notion that these texts are relatively representative of the originals. If there were some agenda to "fix the texts" then they would have been "fixed", but the fact is that they aren't fixed, they are full of contradictions and discrepancies, which points to there not having been too much tampering with them.

dog-on · 05-15-2008, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Ben: I think a more interesting question, and perhaps the only one that matters for what I perceive the line of thinking in the OP to be, is whether it would have been possible for changes to the manuscripts to have been in the 2nd century and gone undetected in the 2nd century. I think the answer to this is even yes, it would have been "possible". Again, I don't think this was widespread, at least in terms of the Gospels. Probably a little more-so in terms of the letters of Paul.

Again I think the contradictions and deficiencies in the various texts points to the notion that these texts are relatively representative of the originals. If there were some agenda to "fix the texts" then they would have been "fixed", but the fact is that they aren't fixed, they are full of contradictions and discrepancies, which points to there not having been too much tampering with them.

Good Christians see no contradictions. Do you think things were different in the past?

aa5874 · 05-15-2008, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

How difficult would it have been to actually make changes to existing works during the 2nd century and to have all exisiting evidence of such changes disappear over the course of the next few hundred years?

I think Justin Martyr's writings give some insight into your questions.

In Justin's extant writings, he constantly referred to a document called "memoirs of the apostles" which seems to have completely disappeared.

Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen, all writing within 25-60 years of Justin Martyr, did not refer to these "memoirs of the apostles", they all made mention of certain documents that Justin Martyr did NOT mention by name at all.

Now, the "memoirs of the apostles", as stated by Justin, contains many passages that appear to be identical or very similar to the gMatthew and gLuke and gMark[KJV], yet Justin did NOT ever call these "memoirs" by the names of the gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

In chapters 15,16 and 17 of 'First Apology by Justin', there are over fifty verses from the 'memoirs of the Apostles" that are found in the Gospel of Matthew, Mark or Luke [KJV] and there are many more similar verses in other chapters of "First Apology" and "Dialogue with Trypho".

What happened to Justin Martyr's documents called "memoirs of the apostles''? Why did they just disappear?
Were they re-written and then called the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

andrewcriddle · 05-15-2008, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

How difficult would it have been to actually make changes to existing works during the 2nd century and to have all exisiting evidence of such changes disappear over the course of the next few hundred years?
.................................................. .......................
Would the early church have had the means, motive and opportunity to rewrite the holy books, based on their own, then current, theological understanding and make the evidence of such rewriting simply disappear?

Once copies of the texts were available to churches in Syria Egypt Italy etc it would be dificult for them to be rewritten in ways that left no evidence. At least one of the local texts would be likely to preserve evidence of the original reading.

Andrew Criddle

Huon · 05-15-2008, 01:10 PM

The oldest NT manuscripts (of which I know the name) are :
Codex Vaticanus, fourth century, considered to be the oldest extant copy of the Bible,
Codex Alexandrinus, beginning or middle of the fifth century or possibly the late fourth,
Codex Bezae, probably belongs to the fifth century,
Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, first half of the fifth century,
Codex Sinaiticus, experts place it in the fourth century, along with Codex Vaticanus and some time before Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephræmi Rescriptus,
Codex Amiatinus, beginning of the eighth century.

There are also three New Testament manuscripts that are part of the Chester Beatty Papyri. These fragments are palaeographically dated to the first half of the 3rd century.

The Sinaiticus is different from the other versions, on many important points.

Gamera · 05-15-2008, 02:30 PM

Even assuming some uncanny efficiency of orthodox harmonizers, if even one unaltered version of a NT text slipped through their clutches, and survived, we would all know about and be able to identify the subsequent alterations that were made. So they had to alter or distroy all unharmonized versions. 100% efficiency was required.

Query whether they had such power and whether a 100% success is likely.

sschlichter · 05-15-2008, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I tend to think this is unlikely. What would have been the motive? The thrill of being killed for an illegal religion. They decided to ignore what Jesus originally taught, in a conspiracy, teach something else that they all agree on and results in their likely death. They managed that and to decieve another generation (or couple generations) whom also faced death. In only looking at the motive, I cannot see one.

'That they all agree on'?

Have you read the bitter hatred of Christian-on-Christian in 2 Peter and Revelation?

But not even those works think many Christians are being killed.

To rectify the fact that their Christian enemies were just not being killed, some of the authors looked forward to the Lord coming and killing the Christians they themselves hated.

Revelation 2:20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.

21 I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling.

22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways.

23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.

I guess the author is really telling us that these other churches preached the same thing he himself did, and that it was the Roman Emperors who searched the hearts and minds of Christians, killing them if they departed from what he believed.

Who knows?

Well, I don't know for sure but I do not guess that. The 'I' is not a christian, it claims to be the words of Christ. The message of warning against a woman (Jezebel is probably a reference to the same type of undue influence that Ahab's wife had over Isreal). This tells me that the author was directing the church and wanted the prophetess thrown out. I think the allegory in Revelation is meant to hid the message from Roman government.

I am not suggesting that christians are not capable of hating each other as much as anyone else but I do not see that in this message.

As to how this pertains to the original question - I think it speaks to means. The apostles and post-apostolic church fathers exerted authority over the churches across Rome and beyond. I think they did have the means as they controlled the message and made sure alternate messages (such as gnosticism) did not take root in the church. I think they did have the means. It is the motives that I do not see.

sschlichter · 05-15-2008, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I tend to think this is unlikely. What would have been the motive? The thrill of being killed for an illegal religion. They decided to ignore what Jesus originally taught, in a conspiracy, teach something else that they all agree on and results in their likely death. They managed that and to decieve another generation (or couple generations) whom also faced death. In only looking at the motive, I cannot see one.

~Steve

I do not understand the relevance of your answer to the question I asked.

Here's a hypothetical:

2nd century AD;

Church A has some books;

Church B has some other books;

These books are similar, but do have certain significant theological differences.

Church A absorbs Church B, but in doing so must, initially, take Church B's "baggage".

How difficult would it be for Church A to then "adjust" Church B's books to better fit Church A's view of things, using terms like "heresy" to help convince the former Church B's membership that any such edits, (if such changes where even realized by the mass congregation itself, which is another question entirely), where in fact, a restoration?

How long would it then take for the old Church B books to simply disappear?

Well, you asked 3 questions. I was addressing motive. I think what you described is exactly what happened. If you beleive the message then you see it as protection of the truth. If not, you see it as a conspiracy. The process of canonization itself was a response to the disparate gospels and heresies that arose. the books never did disappear. You can find many of the books and teachings they excluded today.

I think your question also assumes an independance between church A and B that never existed.

Since motive was in your question, what do you suppose the motive for conspiracy was for two centuries? Where do you suppose it most likely started? Christ? Apostles? Later?

sschlichter · 05-15-2008, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

The Sinaiticus is different from the other versions, on many important points.

Can you give me an example of a difference that is important? How are you defining important?

~Steve

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

05-15-2008, 06:06 AM	#11
Ben C Smith Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Midwest Posts: 4,787	There are two different questions that must be separated, at least in principle: 1. Was it possible for the early Christians to make changes to existing works? 2. Was it possible for the early Christians to make changes to existing works without having left any evidence of them at all in the manuscript record? My answer to the first question is of course. Toto already mentioned the accusations exchanged between the proto-orthodox and Marcion. We also have Tertullian complaining that his first edition of Against Marcion had been very incorrectly copied and circulated. There are dozens of significant manuscript variations (that is, variations related to real changes in content rather than slips of the pen or spelling variants) in the gospels and epistles. The longer and shorter endings of Mark are spurious. The Testimonium Flavianum has been tampered with if not added wholesale. Galen complained that his books had been abused. My answer to the second question is also of course (so much evidence from century II has been lost)... but it is naturally much harder to track down the particulars of something for which no evidence remains. If we spot a fairly clear example of change (as on the above list), it is clear only because we have evidence for it. Postulating changes for which we have no extant evidence is a matter of probability and analogy. It is important, BTW, to bear in mind that the manuscripts are not the only avenue of investigation; the testimonies of the fathers also count. Is the Marcionite gospel lost to us? In its fullest form it is. But we can still investigate some of its particulars through Tertullian, Epiphanius, and others. Ben.

05-15-2008, 06:37 AM	#12
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Ben: I think a more interesting question, and perhaps the only one that matters for what I perceive the line of thinking in the OP to be, is whether it would have been possible for changes to the manuscripts to have been in the 2nd century and gone undetected in the 2nd century. I think the answer to this is even yes, it would have been "possible". Again, I don't think this was widespread, at least in terms of the Gospels. Probably a little more-so in terms of the letters of Paul. Again I think the contradictions and deficiencies in the various texts points to the notion that these texts are relatively representative of the originals. If there were some agenda to "fix the texts" then they would have been "fixed", but the fact is that they aren't fixed, they are full of contradictions and discrepancies, which points to there not having been too much tampering with them.

05-15-2008, 01:10 PM	#16
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	The oldest NT manuscripts (of which I know the name) are : Codex Vaticanus, fourth century, considered to be the oldest extant copy of the Bible, Codex Alexandrinus, beginning or middle of the fifth century or possibly the late fourth, Codex Bezae, probably belongs to the fifth century, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, first half of the fifth century, Codex Sinaiticus, experts place it in the fourth century, along with Codex Vaticanus and some time before Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephræmi Rescriptus, Codex Amiatinus, beginning of the eighth century. There are also three New Testament manuscripts that are part of the Chester Beatty Papyri. These fragments are palaeographically dated to the first half of the 3rd century. The Sinaiticus is different from the other versions, on many important points.

05-15-2008, 02:30 PM	#17
Gamera Banned Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Palm Springs, California Posts: 10,955	Even assuming some uncanny efficiency of orthodox harmonizers, if even one unaltered version of a NT text slipped through their clutches, and survived, we would all know about and be able to identify the subsequent alterations that were made. So they had to alter or distroy all unharmonized versions. 100% efficiency was required. Query whether they had such power and whether a 100% success is likely.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.