Vorkosigan

Chief, let's talk about some "simple" textual problems.

In John 1:34 the majority of manscripts read

"I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God."

but some read "...Chosen one of God" (some western texts) and a couple even "...chosen Son of God." The Committee opted for "...Son of God" based on the majority reading and the fact that it accords with John's theology, but as Meier points on in Vol2 of A Marginal Jew, these criteria are contradicted by another criteria, which says that the more difficult reading (grammatically, theologically, etc) is to be preferred, since scribes tend to make a text easier to read, and to conform it to what they perceive it should be saying (see Ehrman The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture). How should one choose in this case?

Another simple example is the problem of 1 Tim 4:10. As Carrier notes in an article right here in our own library:

• "As it happens, when it comes to 4:10, all the useful manuscripts are pretty evenly divided between both "struggle" and "reproach," in no discernible way, offering no solution. Several manuscripts that are older than Aleph exist in other languages, including the famous Vulgate, as well as Syriac and Coptic editions, and they all have words which translate as "reproach" rather than "struggle," but is this evidence of a better reading, or itself an error which became the source for the correction? We cannot know. Thus, no one today knows what 1 Timothy says here. It says one thing or the other, but that still means we cannot reconstruct Paul's original choice. This is a common problem throughout the New Testament.

So what does 1 Tim 4:10 actually say? Can you let us know how you know?

Similarly, in Luke 10:1 the actual number of disciples sent is impossible to know, as both the internal and external evidence are divided between 70 and 72 (Metzger, Commentary, p126-7). Since a committee of scholars cannot decide what the true word of God is, how is it that you know?

Conversely, Mark 14 offers this problem.

47: But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear.

48: And Jesus said to them, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me?

EA Abbot noticed back in 1914 that there seems to be a verse missing here, in which the violent act gets resolved. He argues the verse must have been something like "put it back" referring to the sword, which John and Matt both preserve, but Luke confuses and thought it referred to the ear, so he has Jesus miraculously heal the severed ear.

Such problems recur throughout the New Testament; I could multiply these problems across hundreds of verses.

...and those are just individual verses. We could also discuss the situation with regard to whole pericopes (Mark 4:26-29 is not paralleled in Matt and Luke; hence may be later insertion) or entire sections of the gospels (the faulty chapter order and long insertions in John, the Bethsaida section in Mark). At every level, the texts show that they have been edited and reworked, both by new writers who inserted and deleted material. We could go into raptures about the textual tradition of John alone. There is a text with at least three authors, which came into being over about a century of editing and redacting. It is not even possible to speak of "the original text" of John; there isn't one. Our current text is a marriage of two different works, one a miracle/narrative gospel, the other a discourse gospel, and deeply informed by the Gospel of Mark.

I suggest that you sit down with a copy of two of Metzger's works, The Text of the New Testament: Its transmission, corruption, and restoration and his A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Metzger is a conservative Christian scholar and perhaps the world's leading authority on the Greek text of the New Testament. Then read one of the standard introductions to the New Testament.

Vorkosigan

Sparrow

Allow me to rephrase please. 'Interpret' was the wrong word. My profuse apologies if I've offended anyone.
Chief, given your statements above, when do you think the book of Genesis was written? How has it survived through to today and what errors, if any, do you think were induced by humans (i.e. copyist errors, etc.)? I'm only thinking if we focus on just one book we can avoid getting sidetracked by the different histories of the different books, especially since different Christian faiths hold different canons.

Vorkosigan

Not offended! But I thought you were veering into E/C, so wanted to head the conversation off at the pass.

chapka

Not quite right.

First of all, can I assume that when you say "Bible" you're only talking about the Christian testament? Do you feel that Torah was similarly free from errors, and if so, which tradition do you feel reflects this--the Jewish tradition, the Catholic tradition, or the Protestant tradition?

As for the Christian Testament, the idea of any of the individual books being "written" by "authors" is probably not exactly accurate. And in an age of hand-copying, it's implausible to think either that the versions we have are the first versions or that there were no copyist changes introduced before the first surviving versions were produced. Yes, we have many copies and fragments of the Christian Testament, but AFAIK most are particularly late, and in those there are many, many differences. (For one collection, see BibleResearcher.com.)

I'll leave the detailed descriptions of the texts we do have to others more qualified. But one note I think is often overlooked is that for some things found in modern Bibles there is no textual evidence at all--namely, the names of the individual books and the identification of the authors (for example, "the gospel according to Matthew"), which are not contained in the early manuscripts we have but were added later by the Catholic Church based on the most popular traditional attributions.

Jack the Bodiless

Chief594:

You haven't explained why you choose to believe these things.

To focus on two particular examples:

1. Why do you believe the manuscripts were "written within 20-40 years after the events actually occurred"?

2. How many manuscripts do you think we have from the 1st or 2nd (or even the 3rd) centuries?

I get the impression you've been fed some propaganda here.

Sven

I'm really interested in how this silly creation story appeared simply due to copyists errors. (edited to add: Sorry, Vorkosigan, I'm already the second who asks this. To stop a derailment into Ev/Cr: Chief, please ignore this).


So what?

LOL. Please learn some history.

Since your facts are wrong, this belief doesn't seem to be so reasonable.

Bullshit.

Wily Coyote

Still unclear how the discussion should proceed.

If I may try to restate your position, breaking it down to specific points, and then to make a few necessary assumptions, maybe this will get off the ground.

Chief, if I understand correctly, your position is as follows:

1. The books of what we call the Bible were provided to us directly by God. God, being omnipotent and perfect, gave the books to us without error; without mistake, contradiction, or incorrect statement.

2. The persons who reproduced God's words (you called them "copyists") were just that. They did not interject any of their own thoughts or misconceptions or beliefs into God's words. They were, in effect, divine tape recorders. (Not trying to mock your position, only state it with a sense of clarity). Any time a person's own belief differed from the message of God's words, that person's belief was subsumed and did not enter the texts.

3. Only people chosen as God's vessels for His message (the Divine tape recorders) have ever in fact conveyed that message to us through the Bible. No person with his or her own agenda has ever put words into the Bible, thus corrupting its message.

4. Through the centuries, as the Bible has been translated into hundreds of languages other than Aramaic, ancient Greek, and Latin, the persons making the translations have themselves become Divine vessels for His message. The translations have been as perfect and without error as are the original messages.

5. As a result, the book of Genesis as set down (allegedly) by Moses is substantively identical as was the book of Genesis in the Latin Vulgate of the Middle Ages as was Genesis under the King James Version as is that of the Revised Standard Version as is that of any and all versions in any and all other languages. A person could translate the Bible into an artificial language, (e.g. Klingon) and the message would still be perfect.

All translations are therefore created equal.

Now, the assumptions.

1. First, unless you correct me, I will presume you're referring to the Christian Bible, encompassing the Old and New Testaments.

2. For the sake of clarity, any scriptural quotations shall come from the King James Version. Not that it's any more perfect than any other version, (see statement 5, above,) but it's one of the most common versions available.

3. You haven't mentioned the fact that the Catholic Version has several Old Testament books which aren't in Protestant versions. However, this discussion won't reference any of those books.

Finally, a couple of questions:

1. When you say the Bible is the inerrant word of God, is every word the literal truth? Or may it be considered that God might use poetic license or metaphor or other literary devices to describe certain events?

2. If there are apparent contradictory or errant passages, facts, or statements in the Bible, whose fault are they? And how does that affect the inerrancy of the rest of the Bible?

3. If there have in fact been mistranslations or errors, is there in fact a true "Perfect Bible?" If so, which version and in which language is it?

Angyson

The admonition in the bible is that if so much as a period is changed, he who changed it is doomed to hell. I have no doubt that a numberof translators are languishing in Hell right now. I have compared bibles and discovered passages that are diametrically opposed in meaning. My belief is that this was purposely done to promote socialsm and/or other objectives.

{edited by Toto to fix tags - if not right PM me.}

PoodleLovinPessimist

I'd say that the variances of different versions of the bible are sufficient evidence that its origins and propagation were not carefully guided by an omnimax (or even particularly powerful) being. The printing press has had a better track record at maintaining textual integrity than Yahweh's quality control.

Chief594

Wow, so many different views to respond to, I’ll try to do my best, but bear with me as I am just one person trying to respond to several different questions asked by different people. I would like to thank everyone for your great points and questions asked.

First, in response to Vorkosigan. In post #11 you mention several different passages and I see it didn’t take long for you to revert back to “Scholars say this and Scholars say that� leading us back to our original problem of Scholars changing their opinions faster than they can be printed. You know how I feel about this and you should know that it isn’t a useful argument in my opinion. We’ve gone round and round on this before. However, back to the subject, the verses you quote substantiate what I said earlier. That is the Bible is without errors as it was received from God and any errors found now are indeed copyist. The different readings of John 1:34 being “Chosen on of God, Son of God, or Chosen Son of God� either way, when read in context means the same thing. That is, one who was set apart, chosen by God. Similar to saying that

“Fred Smith is the son of Dave Smith� versus “Dave Smith is Fred Smith’s father� or “Fred Smith came from the Smith ancestry.�

Any way you word it, does not detract from what the meaning of the sentence is. That is Fred Smith is a descendent of Dave Smith. That is an important point to remember. The meaning of the sentence, that is, what is the sentence trying to say, is what is important.

It is also important to remember that an accurate translation must be made off of the original languages, not another translated document. In other words, to get an English Bible, we should use the original Greek not a version of Latin which was a translation of the original. When you start using different translations is when the copying errors start.

Chapka, in response to your post #14, I can’t speak for Catholic additions or what I understand to be the Torah except for as it is consistent within Protestant traditions. You wrote

“the idea of any of the individual books being "written" by "authors" is probably not exactly accurate. And in an age of hand-copying, it's implausible to think either that the versions we have are the first versions or that there were no copyist changes introduced before the first surviving versions were produced�

I both agree and disagree with you. I do think there are a very very small amount of copyist errors that have probably made it into the Bible. (For example, 2 Chronicles and 1 Kings 426) But I believe all of them to be rather insignificant number transpositions which in no way shape or form affect or contradict the basic Bible message; That is who Jesus is, what he did, the problem of sin etc…

Remember my belief is that the Bible is inerrant in so far as that it was given to us. Inerrancy only requires the originals to be without error or mistake. Although people used to make a profession of copying the bible so accurately that one small mistake would cause the entire page to be destroyed, we are still humans and prone to mistakes. But none of these reflects anything of supreme importance.
Jack the Bodiless, in response to your post #15, you inquire as to how many manuscripts we have and when were they written. Considering many volumes have been published on this topic alone (such as F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? And P. Comfort, The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts) I will make it brief and focus on the New Testament alone.
There are over 13,000 copies of the New Testament. Most Scholars (conservative AND liberal) agree that they were originally written sometime between 40 and 100 AD. Most of the oldest copies we have date between 125-325 AD which gives a time span of 25-285 years after the events happened. Now compare this with the second greatest ancient manuscript volume we have, Homer’s Illiad. The Illiad is thought to have been written in 900 BC. The date of the oldest copy we have is from 400 BC for a difference of 500 years. Compare this with the fact we only have 643 copies. There is a difference of over 12,000 copies (fragments included in both) between the number 1 and number 2 ancient documents. You would think that with this many copies (over 13,000) we’d find a lot of errors. However, the opposite seems to be true. There are less errors in the New Testament manuscripts than any other ancient document.
Next there is the Rylands fragment. This fragment is the earliest undisputed part of the NT that we have. Most Scholars agree it dates between 117 and 138 AD while some thing it was even earlier (See Metzger [as referenced by Vorkosigan] Text of the New Testament page 39). Irenaeus (135AD – 203AD) believed that John wrote his Gospel from Ephesus which would probably put his gospel as being written around 90AD. Using the conservative estimate of 117 AD, we have a fragment from a document written 27 years after the original. This is incredible when you consider all the originals were written on papyri which lasts for just a short period of time.

Wily Coyote, in your response to post number 17, you clarify my belief in five points:
Point 1… I agree with
Point 2… I agree with
Point 3….I agree with
Point 4… I disagree with…. They are without error in so far as intentional changes and issues of faith and salvation and morality, however, transpositional errors could have taken place.
Point 5… Refer to point 4

For your assumptions,
Assumption 1… I agree
Assumption 2…I would prefer use of the NASB, the NASB was translated after much earlier manuscripts had been found.
Assumption 3… Those books are the apocrypha and are indeed better left for a different thread

And your questions (great questions by the way,)
Question 1….I would answer it as “both.� Every word is the literal truth of God (minus those transpositional errors we talked about) however, God is more than capable of using whatever literary method he chooses.
Question 2… It depends…sometimes certain statements appear contradictory until a closer examination shows they aren’t. Other times, as in the Chronicles example above, an error has come that is clearly a copying mistake. In those cases the error would be attributed to that copyist. It would not however affect inerrancy as inerrancy is in regards to the original manuscript, not the copied version we have.
Question 3 … a “Perfect Bible� would be subjective would it not? I believe the Bible I have is perfect.


Well hopefully that helps to shed a little more light on a complex topic. I’m looking forward to your responses.