Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 02-02-2007, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Texts are generally written for an audience...

Indeed. But if we take this view, how this differs from the ad hominem argument, directed against the authors, I don't see.

The problem is not that we can't think of reasons to ignore evidence. The problem is avoiding disposing of all evidence on the same grounds, if we act rationally; or having different standards for texts we like and those we don't, if we don't manage that.

IMHO, of course.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Atheos · 02-02-2007, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

Also I'd like to suggest the following:You don't get to claim supernatural involvement unless there is 100% error free transmission.

Why?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Because as I suggested in my post, the care taken by human beings involved in copying the texts more than adequately explains the level of accuracy observed. You may not have noticed my words because they were disguised as part of the quote. For convenience, here is the satarized quote:

Quote:

How could there be such accuracy over a period of 1,400 years of copying? Two reasons: The scribes that did the copying had meticulous methods for checking their copies for errors. 2) The Holy Spirit made sure we would have an accurate copy of God's word so we would not be deceived Many of the humans copying these passages believed God would punish them horribly if they screwed up. 3) (bonus reason) "Bad" copies were destroyed immediately.

If what we know happened is adequate to explain the observed phenomena you don't get to slip unobservable "supernatural involvement" into the mix. If the text had been transmitted over the centuries with 100% error free propagation then we'd be constrained to look for something beyond the observed capacities of normal human beings. This seems reasonable to me. Occam's Razor, if you will.

PhilosopherJay · 02-02-2007, 08:40 PM

Hi All,

I pointed out that the most ambitious film of the silent era Greed ended getting cut and changed significantly. Perhaps a better example of the fragility of historical transmission of text is The Lost World (see http://silentmoviemonsters.tripod.co...ld/LW1925.html for more information

The Lost World was made in 1925, it was based on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's book. Having created the wildly successful Sherlock Holmes, he was perhaps the most well known author in the world at that time. It cost over 1 million dollars, which made it one of the most expensive movies made up till that time. It was a huge financial and critical success, perhaps the biggest movie sensation of 1925. It was a direct forerunner and inspiration of the 1932 hit "King Kong"

Still the film was cut up and the original was essentially lost within 7 years. A 60 minute version and many shorter versions circulated for nearly 70 years. In 2001, David Shepard used 8 different prints to restore the movie to 90 minutes. The original film was 101-106 minutes, so there are still scenes missing.

When we consider that such a major film did not survive intact in the last century, we begin to understand the very real possibility that many texts from the First and Second century did not survive intact either. We should remember that besides the hundreds of lost text that we know about, we know most text from that period in vastly changed or truncated versions. There is no reason not to see this as occuring with the books of the New Testament as well. The vast number of narrative leaps in the Gospels of John and Mark especially suggest to me that we have very truncated and recut versions of the originals.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Malachi151,

Precisely. The later copies are irrelevent and the citing of the 24,000 manuscript number (most of which are fragments) is deceptive.

The situation may be compared to Erich Von Stroheim's "Greed"
In Dec. 1923, he showed a 45 reel, ten hour version of the film to friends and associates. He cut this down to 42 reels which he sent to the MGM studio. They demanded further cuts. He cut it to 24 reels, 4 hours and hoped the studio would release it in two parts. The studio took it away from him and cut the film to 10 reels, two hours. Apparently the other reels of Greed were burned in a fire. In 1999 Turner Movie Classics, using still photos, and descriptions of Von Stroheim's 4 hour cut, produced a four hour version similar to Von Stroheim's four hour version.

Now there have been DVD copies of the two hour 1925 released version, probably a million of them. We can say that they are 99.95% the same. We can say that therefore there is no descrepency between what we watch and the people in 1925 watched.

But this obscures the real problem that we don't have Von Stroheim's 4 hour, 8 hour or 10 hour versions of the film. We can say that the earlier versions of the film were tremendously different experiences, but we can't produce them.

We know that the early versions of the biblical manuscripts have the most descrepancies in them as opposed to later manuscripts. Based on these early manuscripts and the different readings that the Church Fathers give us, we can say that the earlier manuscripts were significantly different from what we now possess, whether 99.5% different or only 50% different is hard to say.

Warmly,

Philospher Jay

spamandham · 02-02-2007, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by link

Link to article

The oldest manuscript, the John Rylands manuscript, has been dated to 125 A.D. and was found in Egypt, some distance from where the New Testament was originally composed in Asia Minor.

What the fuck? This bullshit link makes it sound like we have a copy of the NT dated at 125! That's horse shit. The earliest extant gospels are from the early 3rd century. With such blatant misrepresentation, the link is worthy of no further consideration.

Roger Pearse · 02-03-2007, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

Because as I suggested in my post, the care taken by human beings involved in copying the texts more than adequately explains the level of accuracy observed.

I think that you are making two different points here, unless I misunderstand?

1. We cannot prove that the bible is inspired merely by examining the manuscript tradition. Agreed, but then I never knew anything who thought this.

2. Only books can be inspired that are 100% transmitted perfectly, and those that are not are not divinely inspired. Whenever I hear this I ask to see the evidence that this is so. Again I don't believe that anyone thinks this.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Atheos · 02-03-2007, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I think that you are making two different points here, unless I misunderstand?

1. We cannot prove that the bible is inspired merely by examining the manuscript tradition. Agreed, but then I never knew anything who thought this.

2. Only books can be inspired that are 100% transmitted perfectly, and those that are not are not divinely inspired. Whenever I hear this I ask to see the evidence that this is so. Again I don't believe that anyone thinks this.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Regarding your first statement, Rich Deem in the article linked in the OP appears to be making that exact argument. That's my whole point.

Quote:

How could there be such accuracy over a period of 1,400 years of copying? Two reasons: The scribes that did the copying had meticulous methods for checking their copies for errors. 2) The Holy Spirit made sure we would have an accurate copy of God's word so we would not be deceived. The Mormons, theological liberals as well as other cults and false religions such as Islam that claim the Bible has been tampered with are completely proven false by the extensive, historical manuscript evidence.

Is that not what Mr. Deem is saying? If so, I believe this to be about as incorrect a statement as can be made, considering the evidence. Add to that the hoardes of eager bibliophiles who'll lap stuff like that up and suddenly you're overwhelmed with a flood of people who think it's true.

Regarding your proposition # 2, I did not make that statement, and I have great difficulty seeing how you infer it from what I did say. The only thing I'm saying is that if the observed phenomena is adequately explained by known factors then the observed phenomena is not evidence for additional (and in my opinion imaginary) factors.

The moon's orbit around the earth is adequately explained by the known laws of gravitational attraction and inertia. It is not evidence of invisible horses pulling the moon through the sky.

The observed level of accuracy in textual transmission is adequately explained by the known care taken by the scribes in copying said texts. It is not evidence of supernatural intervention to keep the text accurate.

If the moon were to begin moving in a pattern not consistent with known laws of gravitational force and inertia then we would be constrained to look for additional factors in order to explain its erratic movement. Such factors might include the existence of invisible horses.

If the textual transmission was 100% accurate, then knowing that human beings are subject to make mistakes, especially over that long a period of time, we would be constrained to look for additional factors in order to explain such unlikely accuracy. Such factors might include divine intervention.

Roger Pearse · 02-03-2007, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

Regarding your first statement...

It would sound as if we are at cross-purposes, then. I think you misread Mr. Deem, btw.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Amaleq13 · 02-03-2007, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I think you misread Mr. Deem, btw.

Could you be more explicit? Deem appears to be concluding that the amazing accuracy he claims for the New Testament is only possible through the combination of meticulous scribes and divine intervention. One assumes that these factors are actually interconnected and really represent only one factor (ie divinely supported meticulous copying).

IOW, you can't get the allegedly amazing accuracy Deem describes unless God has prevented the errors that occur in every other example of copied texts.

I don't see how this differs significantly from Atheos' paraphrase.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.