Steven Avery

It's fairly new. He had the material on an earlier one a while back, this is the new improved version.

aChristian

I consider myself rational and after reading Pickering's book and doing a little more research on the subject, I would have to agree with praxeus. It's hard to come up with any other reasonable explanation for the fact that we have 99% of the texts agreeing 99% of the time with each other, even though they are separated by hundreds miles and and hundreds of years, other than that they go back to the same original.

Julian

Nobody is disagreeing with that. Certainly, for each gospel there was an autograph. The point that for some reason gets lost in this thread is that errancy has nothing to do with it. It is an attempt at restoring a lost autograph, nothing more.

Julian

JoeWallack

JW:
I Am. I have Faith that the Infancy Narratives are Second century. They don't fit the rest of the Gospels and Mainstream Christian Bible scholarship considers this a serious position. The lack of direct evidence for the early centuries is suspicious and Motive and Opportunity are normally under-estimated for a Biased Institution. In our Legal System people are Convicted of Sin all the time for nothing more than Motive and Opportunity.

JW:
Yes, it's very diffiCult to be certain that a 2,000 year old writing is evidence of Inerrancy. On the other hand, we can be absolutely certain that the Christian Bible is Witness to Errancy:

1) Any claim of the Impossible.

2) The many Contradictions, at least one of which must be Errant.

In an Irony that I Am sure the Author of "Mark" would appreciate, even though Fundies claim that the Christian Bible is Witness that the Truth has been preserved by Christianity from 2,000 years ago, 1) and 2) above Proves the Opposite. The Christian Bible is Witness that Errors have been preserved by Christianity from 2,000 years ago.



Joseph

"Well they did Forge a resurrection sighting to the original Gospel "Mark" which contradicts the primary theme that no one in Jesus' time believed he was resurrected and provides the best potential evidence that Jesus was resurrected as opposed to a mere Empty Tomb." - Baalam's Donkey

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Yuri Kuchinsky

I don't think so. The Tepl version is rather obscure, and is not generally used in textual criticism.

These are not continuous manuscripts. The Julicher edition of Old Latin gospels typically lists around ten manuscripts for any given passage.

Best,

Yuri.

Steven Avery

Yet you were. In attacking the Byzantine and Textus Receptus views, and the work of Erasmus, whose textual work was the fulcrum upon which all the TR analysis of others, such as Bezae, Stephanus and Elizvir, was based. If you are now acknowledging that the views of Pickering, or the textual work of Erasmus, (which places the great mass of diverse geography and language manuscripts as far more signficant than two oddball and scribally corrupt alexandrian manuscripts), are essentially viable and sound textual views, then we are much closer than before.

Then why promote modern textual criticism theories that work from a defacto presumption of errancy ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Yuri Kuchinsky

http://www.nttext.com/index.html

This website has been there for at least a few months, and can be found by both Yahoo and MSN search engines. But not by Google.

Could it just be incompetence on Google's part?

Regards,

Yuri.

aChristian

I think the original question was whether our current NT is an accurate representation of the autographs. JES was saying that it isn't a perfect copy of the autographs and the point I was agreeing to (that praxeus made) is that our current majority text has been shown to agree with the autographs in more than 99% of the text. This is opposed to the text used in modern translations that rely heavily on Alexandrinus, Sinaticus, and a few others that disagree with the 99% and with each other.
Thus, if you ignore the current majority position of textual criticism (which is flawed) and use the majority text, we do know (not perfectly, but close to it in 99% of the text) what the autographs said.
I agree that this just proves we know what the autographs said, not that they are inerrant. JES seems to be looking for evidence that there are so many copyist mistakes that we cannot tell what the autographs said and thus our current NT is in great error. However, that is just not the case.

Roger Pearse

This idea that one particular textual family of a text should be privileged is a different issue, however. I am not at all sure I agree with the idea stated above, however.

I agree; and let's keep these two issues widely apart. Conversely the existence of normal human conditions for the transmission of data in this imperfect world has no bearing on whether a text may be said to be theologically inerrant as originally given. IMHO, of course.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Steven Avery

True, but the limitation "as originally given" is essentially a concession speech for true inerrancy.

This was not the historic Christian view, e.g. in the Westminster Confession, and up until the creation and dissemination of the Duckshoot Text in supposed evangelical circles, which necessitated a new theory largely due to the easy-to-see errancy of the version texts so created (Asa, Gerash, 'not going to the feast', and many, many more). A new method was needed to obscure apologetics issues, and "inerrancy in the original autographs" was dusted off a shelf and morphed into popular 'evangelical' doctrine.

Since nobody could ever demonstrate inerrancy in an unknown and unknowable text, most of the current debate is simply theoretical pirouettes on air, very pretty, very ethereal, but of no substantive value.

Shalom,
Steven Avery