EthnAlln

I suppose one could extrapolate, as, for example, when a copy of Isaiah a thousand years older than previously-known copies was found to be very close to the later manuscripts. That's good evidence that there had been faithful copying over that thousand years. Of course, once you've got a document "debugged" by judicious editing over several hundred years and you know there are many other copies "out there," the motive for tampering with the text largely disappears.

What the inerrantists downplay, however (perhaps many of them are naive and simply don't realize it) is that many important parts of the modern Bible are actually missing from the early manuscripts. This applies, for example, to the Resurrection story at the end of Mark's Gospel, and to some passages where Jesus appears by implication to have set the Law aside, as in the story of the woman caught in adultery found in John's Gospel (and only there). There are early manuscripts of that Gospel in which the story does not appear. Interestingly, most, if not all, of the passages in which Jesus proclaims himself divine seem to be among those missing from the early manuscripts.

So also are some passages where Paul claims Jesus was God. A particularly egregious example is the "mystery of faith" passage in I Timothy 3:16, which the KJV translates as "and without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh." Trouble is, only a minority of the early manuscripts say that. Some versions say "God" (); others say "who" (). I don't know that there is much difference in sense between the two, since the "who" could only refer to God, but very little tampering, as one can see, merely adding a couple of small marks to change "who" into the abbreviated form of "God" would do the job. I've tried reading I Timothy without assuming the standard theology, and it makes more sense that way. Paul consistently refers to "our Father God" and "our Lord Jesus Christ." He doesn't seem to imply that Jesus was anything more than a man specially chosen by God. (To be sure, in other letters, such as Phillipians, he does make statements that imply Jesus was equal to God.)

HarryStine

I would like to see the verse. Though I can't see it now, I have a hunch that he was talking about it coming from the minds of men. Alos, Paul never wrote a Gospel. If he really used that word that may be a clue. In any case, Paul isn't the only witness of Christianity.

Julian

Galatians
11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up.
12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.


Julian

EthnAlln

And he's very emphatic that his message is the truth, to be maintained even if an angel comes down from heaven and contradicts it!

Doug Shaver

He used the Greek word evangelion, "good message," which was translated godspel in early English, which evolved into gospel. In Paul's writings it clearly refers not to any book but to a message. The books purportedly written by Matthew, Mark, and several others were called "the gospel according to ____" as a reference to their content, the "good message" being whatever they had to say about Jesus. Over time, the references were conflated, so that the books were treated as if they were themselves the message.

Meanwhile, evangelion also took another path through Latin and French by which it entered English as evangelist, which referred not to the message but to any person conveying the message.

EthnAlln

There are several related Greek words here: euaggelion was the reward given to a messenger who brought good news. The roots are eu (good) and aggeilo (I announce/I proclaim). An evangelist was euaggelistes, and the verb was euaggelizomai. All of these words are of course related to the English word angel. (In Greek the double gamma -gg is pronounced as if it were -ng.)

JoeWallack

JW:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_1:1

"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (ASV)"

JW:
Christianity likes the idea of "Gospel" Originally being an oral reference (as opposed to written) so it can support the position that Oral Gospel(s) were long before the written Gospel ("Mark"). Yet there The Word is, at the Start of the Original Gospel. With Apologies to Paul's use of the word I can think of a few reasons why "Mark" uses the word as referring to the written:

1) Writing First, he doesn't have to worry about confusion with other Gospels.

2) He starts his written story with it.

3) The Sophisticated nature of "Mark" indicates it was intended to be Read (as opposed to listened to).

4) "Let the Reader understand" is for Readers.

5) Not really much "Good News" in "Mark" considering:

1 - The Jews whose soul Job since the start of time is to identify the Messiah to the World, miss him even though he's right in their faces.

2 - The intended Hero is murdered by...see 1-.

3 - All of the Hero's and intended Messengers of the Good News scatter to parts unknown.

4 - No happy reunion or even a Postcard. This time Grace does not write off into the Son set with "John". Almost as if, dare I say, "Good News" is used (dramatic music)...Ironically.

But who to ask here? I know, maybe someone AntaGnosticizing to Skeptics yet Reverent to Truth-challenged Advocates for that guy in the Christian Bible whose name escapes me at the moment but I think starts with a "J" or "Y". Someone who doesn't like Amateurs posting to Professional lists but feels it's necessary for Professionals to criticize Amateurs on Amateur lists. And, most importantly, it has to be a Doctor.



Joseph

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

darstec

What document was that? If you are thinking of the Great Isaiah Scroll from the Dead Sea Collection, there were literally 1000s of differences from the Masoretic text. I think you fell into the trap of believing those lies on the evangelical, apologetic websites. It simply isn't true.

Isaiah Scroll and the Masoretic Text

http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qumdir.htm

Bodybuilder

Perhaps this is why Jews represent the serpent as the "yahtzer hara" (evil inclination). I believe Moses Maimonides viewed the genesis account as allegorical and this was back in the 12th century, and he has largely defined Jewish beliefs in many aspects. It's not like there was a problem with science at that point, although Maimonides was of the mind that if science and Jewish scripture didn't agree then Jewish understanding of them had to change. I believe some Rabbis view the problem differently (some don't view the "Tanach" as a science text, but rather a text to draw "truth" from), but it is a curious point. I do recall seeing a certain Rabbi Gottlieb saying there are in fact blatantly false things in their scriptures that only serve the point of drawing a moral point from.

I just know most of the Torah (or Pentateuch, whatever you want to call it) loses its point if read literal in many places. This is why I can't understand Christian fundamentalists, especially in light of how Jews treat their scriptures.

Aside from that, the only part of the bible that is supposed to be "direct word of God", so-to-speak, is the Torah (first five books). That leaves the prophets and writings as inspired, but entirely fallible and subject to flaws. Prophets received their messages from dreams, supposedly - that's highly fallible. Then they had to write it in their language so that they could understand it and relay it as best as possible.

(I've spent a fair amount of time studying Jewish beliefs)

EthnAlln

You are right that I fell for it. But it wasn't the Christian websites. It was in a general history of civilization textbook intended for use in universities. The author said (I can almost quote this): Christian and Jewish scholars alike have been thrilled to discover that this text, almost a thousand years older than our previous manuscripts, is essentially identical to the text we have been using.

So, it's not true. Very interesting....