Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Krusty · 03-05-2004, 05:32 PM

Great site - you guys really seem to know your stuff (well, at least enough to fool me

).

One thing I’ve been curious about for a long time that maybe you all can educate me in: It has always made me wonder about sections of the gospels that aren’t in all of the ancient manuscripts. For instance, someone here was recently bringing up the last chapter of Mark. Even gospelcom.net points out that “The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.�?.

When I considered myself a Christian many years ago, reading this kind of stuff really bothered me. Doesn’t this prove very simply that the Gospels were changed by believers over time and therefore not “inerrant�?? I know there were more passages like this one that aren’t in the oldest manuscripts (although right now I can’t recall any more). Can anyone explain why this is ignored by Christians and not bothered with by you all when arguing against the bible being error free?

Thanks.
--Krusty

Doctor X · 03-05-2004, 05:36 PM

For that reason. It demonstrates uncertainty in the texts and inerrancy in the texts.

Best just to ignore it . . . like ignoring your cannot fit all of the wee beasties into an Ark . . . or that Junior was born twice nearly ten years apart.

--J.D.

Gawen · 03-05-2004, 05:54 PM

Welcome Krusty,

And don't forget that any Christian admitted 'extra' stuff in the bible is expalined away as inspired as well. Kinda like this....

"Well, the guy that wrote Mark in the first place wrote this and that. And he was very good. But this other guy that added this part? Well, God inspired him too. See how it just rolls off the tongue? See how it fits? Praise the Lord.....etc etc etc."

Krusty · 03-05-2004, 07:06 PM

Yeah, I guess I can imagine someone arguing that. My response would be the same thing that nagged at me when I thought I was a Christian: Why didn't God inspire the first guy to get the whole thing down in the first place? Its hard to imagine a universe builder saying, "Damn, I knew I forgot something, let's make some modifications and hopefully no one will complain".

Thanks for the response.

Steven Carr · 03-06-2004, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Krusty
I know there were more passages like this one that aren’t in the oldest manuscripts (although right now I can’t recall any more). Can anyone explain why this is ignored by Christians and not bothered with by you all when arguing against the bible being error free?

Christians say that the correct reading is preserved in one of the manuscripts somewhere.

A strange excuse, if you are not sure which manuscript has preserved the correct reading.

I have some stuff on changes at
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli2.htm

doc58 · 03-06-2004, 10:44 AM

Steven,
Your article is tremendous. Thanks for spending the time putting it together. Reading articles like yours and then reading Bart Ehrmann's terrific works has really helped me to understand that the Bible is truly a "crooked stick".

judge · 03-06-2004, 11:21 AM

As far as the NT goes the variations between texts are basically because the greek versions are translations. Sometimes one translator went one way and at other times a translator went another.
Some people ommitted or inserted portions on rare occaisions as well.

If you want the original text you need to look at the Aramaic (Eastern Peshitta), which is not used for the translations done by western believers.

If you check out a translations done from Aramaic to english you won't find footnotes telling you one mss reads one way and another reads differently. This only happens with the greek copies

Aramaic was the language spoken by Christ (as in the recent movie the passion) so if you want the answers you must go to the Aramaic.

Western scholars have spent vast ammounts of time studying the greek and are reluctant to admit they have wasted time and money studying the wrong "original" texts. Understandable really

Doctor X · 03-06-2004, 11:57 AM

In the interest of accuracy:

Quote:

If you want the original text you need to look at the Aramaic (Eastern Peshitta), which is not used for the translations done by western believers.

This is absolutely incorrect. The various Syriac versions are well-known, as well as their variants, and are used in textual criticism. It is a myth perpetuated that the texts were written in Aramaic. It was the assumption over a century ago, that evidence overturned.

Quote:

Probably the earliest Syriac version was the Diatessaron--to whose very mention a whole host of unsettled problems is attached. Even if one assumes that the Syriac Diatessaron represented Tatian's work (and not a Gospel harmony by someone else), there is no certainty over the language in which it was first composed. . . . If Greek was the original language, [Of the Diatessaron, listed as the majority opinion, see reference to Metzger below.--Ed.] however, then the Syriac translation could have been made by someone else at an unknown later date. Because the Diatessaro does not survive in Syriac, our exact knowledge of its Syriac form depends entirely on quotations in early Syriac writters, . . .

Probably, though not certainly, subsequent to the Diatessaron come the Old Syriac Gospels, represeted in two somewhat different forms in the two surviving witnesses, the Curetonianus (C) and the Sinaiticus (S) [Not Codex Sinaiticus.--Ed.] both of the fifth century.

My word! Tons of earlier Greek witnesses exist, including Papyrus 75 and Papyrus 52 which is close to an autograph in age.

Quote:

. . . it is likely that C and S have independently undergone some revision of the basis of the Greek text (itself developing), . . .

In the course of the fifth century the Old Syriac ad Diatessaron were replaced by the Peshitta, a further (and surprisingly inconsistent) revision of the Old Syriac. So effectively was this particular revision circulated that it succeeded in quickly becoming the standard (and remarkably stable) text of all the Syriac churches.

Thus, you have a consistent collection of an inconsistent revision of late witnesses.

I have challenged Judge to submit his opinions to the peer-reviewed literature. Answer came there none.

--J.D.

References:

Brock SP, "The Use of the Syriac Fathers for New Testament Textual Criticism," The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research

Metzger BM. The Early Versions of the New Testament.

Steven Carr · 03-06-2004, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by judge
As far as the NT goes the variations between texts are basically because the greek versions are translations. Sometimes one translator went one way and at other times a translator went another.

No, scribes copied the manuscripts and made errors, or harmonised or whatever.

If the variations were the result of translation, they would be vastly different, with differences of a type that we do not have.

Steven Carr · 03-06-2004, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by doc58
Your article is tremendous. Thanks for spending the time putting it together. Reading articles like yours and then reading Bart Ehrmann's terrific works has really helped me to understand that the Bible is truly a "crooked stick".

Thanks, but if you read Bart Ehrmann's works (or The Living Text of the Gospels by D.C.Parker - also highly recommended), there is little reason to bother with my amateurish rehash.

03-05-2004, 05:32 PM	#1
Krusty Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Springfield Heights, CA Posts: 33	Question about differeces in ancient biblical manuscripts Great site - you guys really seem to know your stuff (well, at least enough to fool me). One thing I’ve been curious about for a long time that maybe you all can educate me in: It has always made me wonder about sections of the gospels that aren’t in all of the ancient manuscripts. For instance, someone here was recently bringing up the last chapter of Mark. Even gospelcom.net points out that “The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.�?. When I considered myself a Christian many years ago, reading this kind of stuff really bothered me. Doesn’t this prove very simply that the Gospels were changed by believers over time and therefore not “inerrant�?? I know there were more passages like this one that aren’t in the oldest manuscripts (although right now I can’t recall any more). Can anyone explain why this is ignored by Christians and not bothered with by you all when arguing against the bible being error free? Thanks. --Krusty

03-06-2004, 11:21 AM	#7
judge Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Bli Bli Posts: 3,135	Re: Question about differeces in ancient biblical manuscripts As far as the NT goes the variations between texts are basically because the greek versions are translations. Sometimes one translator went one way and at other times a translator went another. Some people ommitted or inserted portions on rare occaisions as well. If you want the original text you need to look at the Aramaic (Eastern Peshitta), which is not used for the translations done by western believers. If you check out a translations done from Aramaic to english you won't find footnotes telling you one mss reads one way and another reads differently. This only happens with the greek copies Aramaic was the language spoken by Christ (as in the recent movie the passion) so if you want the answers you must go to the Aramaic. Western scholars have spent vast ammounts of time studying the greek and are reluctant to admit they have wasted time and money studying the wrong "original" texts. Understandable really

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

03-05-2004, 05:36 PM	#2
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	For that reason. It demonstrates uncertainty in the texts and inerrancy in the texts. Best just to ignore it . . . like ignoring your cannot fit all of the wee beasties into an Ark . . . or that Junior was born twice nearly ten years apart. --J.D.

03-05-2004, 05:54 PM	#3
Gawen Contributor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Cylon Occupied Texas, but a Michigander @ heart Posts: 10,326	Welcome Krusty, And don't forget that any Christian admitted 'extra' stuff in the bible is expalined away as inspired as well. Kinda like this.... "Well, the guy that wrote Mark in the first place wrote this and that. And he was very good. But this other guy that added this part? Well, God inspired him too. See how it just rolls off the tongue? See how it fits? Praise the Lord.....etc etc etc."

03-05-2004, 07:06 PM	#4
Krusty Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Springfield Heights, CA Posts: 33	Yeah, I guess I can imagine someone arguing that. My response would be the same thing that nagged at me when I thought I was a Christian: Why didn't God inspire the first guy to get the whole thing down in the first place? Its hard to imagine a universe builder saying, "Damn, I knew I forgot something, let's make some modifications and hopefully no one will complain". Thanks for the response.

03-06-2004, 10:44 AM	#6
doc58 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 101	Steven, Your article is tremendous. Thanks for spending the time putting it together. Reading articles like yours and then reading Bart Ehrmann's terrific works has really helped me to understand that the Bible is truly a "crooked stick".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.