Toto

I was able to find this via Google by putting in enough search terms. What search could not find it?

Google's alogithm will eventually push it to the top of the listing if enough other URLs point to it (like these.)

Julian

I must have misunderstood your post. My bad. I certainly do not agree that the majority text is anything like the autographs. And a percentage agreement means nothing if that final few percent happens to be critical words. It only takes one word change to reverse the meaning on any sentence.
Yeah, it's a bitch, ain't it? The older the texts get the more they disagree with each other. What is the rational conclusion one can infer from this? That the autographs suddenly emerge in the TR or that they were 'fixed' as time went by?

Another strange fact is that only people who believe in inerrancy and fundamentalist christians think that the TR is any good. What does that tell you? Doesn't it seem strange that the nature of one's belief is a deciding factor here?
Nothing is perfect, so what's your point?
Only if you are a fundamentalist christian who believes in inerrancy. It is clearly not a fact, of course. There is no reason to believe that TR represents the autographs. TR is only attractive if your christianity is based on a book. I know lots of christians who manage to study textual criticism and believe. All at the same time.
Yes, it is the case. We don't know what they said and probably never will.

Julian

Steven Avery

That good texts were used and copied, that copying had a self-correcting system among a wide variety of churches and locales, that the text would properly jump over major changes like materials and script (see below).

That most texts were in a climate where they would not preserve 2000 years,

** and a few oddball and ultra-corrupt Greek and Syriac texts in the desert were full of errors, used for awhile, considered too corrupt for further use, and then raised to mythic status by goofball textcrits a millenium and a half later when dug out of the debris and nooks where they were kept unused **

Professor Maurice Robinson, top textual scholar....
"I have argued for two massive disruptions in the transmissional process which reflect known processes that resulted in the destruction or discarding of previous exemplars: the conversion from papyrus to vellum after Constantine, and the conversion from uncial to minuscule script beginning in the 9th century (the same process is also recognized to exist in regard to classical authors, in which the best approximations to the classical originals are generally recognized to be MSS of the minuscule era)."

Two big conversions issues, both mentioned in the discussion.
Medium - (Papyrus to Vellum)
Script - (Uncial to Minuscule)

On top of all this you will find (as Dean John Burgon points out) that the supposed late Byzantine readings are well represented in the early church writers.

And one more point. The 4th-5th century Old Latin manuscript also frequently supports the Byzantine readings over the alexandrians. In those cases, however, their witness is generally downplayed, especially
in the cases where the two alexandrian witnesses agree, even if the count is something like 500 to 2. Yet even the ancientness of the alexandrian, the own point really in their favor, would be expected to be obviated by the similar ancientness of the Old Latin.

A good project (Gospels) would be to see how many of the alexandrian omissions (compared to the Byzantine Text) are omitted in Vercellensis and Veronensis. Of course the ending of Mark is usually given the most attention, (a special and complex situation) however there should be about 25-50 major verses and phrase omissions that would be very easy to check. Does anybody know a good translation of these manuscripts available, or this work having been done ?

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

JoeWallack

Schmuelman!:
Hello JDubbery.

JW:
(Clenching teeth). Schmuelman!


JW:
This is a Misleading<edit> Statement. Patristic writings generally reflect the Manuscripts of their time (surprise). And the Earlier Manuscripts are generally supported by contemporary Patristic evidence.

The % and number of "Byzantine Text" manuscripts is also Overstated by <edit> Advocates for that guy from the Christian Bible whose name escapes me at the moment but I think starts with a "J" or "Y". Some "Byzantine Text" manuscripts have been legibly "corrected" or at least have the Scribal sign for correction and/or notes indicating correction. Thus they should be counted as evidence of the earlier reading.

The Early Church Father Standard for the Text is what they Thought it should say and what it currently said was Secondary. Not surprising therefore that Christianity would end up with a Text based on what they Thought it should say and not necessarily what it Said.

We have the following Specific list of Significant Forgery:

1) "Son of God" to the Beginning of the Original Gospel.

2) "New" to "Covenant" in the Original Eucharist.

3) Resurrection sighting in the Original Gospel.

4) Water Baptism command in the Original Gospel.

5) Jokehannine Coma

6) Mistranslation of "The Holy Spirit".

7) Misrepresentation of "Matthew" and "Luke" as additional Witness rather than just Editing of "Mark".

8) Unoriginal Origin of Jesus (virgin birth stories)

9) Subtle Harmonization of "Mark" to "Matthew" and "Luke" to TransFigure "Mark's" Imperfect Jesus into Subsequent ChristianiTease Perfect Jesus.

We have the following General list of Evidence for Forgery:

1) Motive of Biased, Faith based Institution to Forge.

2) Opportunity of Biased, Faith based Institution to Forge.

3) Suspicious lack of Manuscripts before Christianity gained Control.

5) Early Manuscripts.

6) Early Patristic Evidence.

7) Altared Manuscripts.



Joseph

"Remember Jerry, it's not a lie if you really believe it's true." - George Costanza

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

Steven Avery

Joe, could you try to write in a comprehensible manner ?

You have a style that texts so much and actually says so little,
and that only assumes and repeats your own presumptions
... the lack of substance is striking.

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

Braveheart

Jes,

What is your problem with all the NT manuscripts that consisently (fine a few minor variations) attest to Jesus? Around 28,000 in all I think.

Bear in mind that the gospel was spreading all over the then known world and one would expect cultural and theological differences would be incoroporated in the manuscripts. But this did not happen. Why not?

On the subject of proof. Julius Caesar invaded Britian (allegedly) in 55 bc. What is the written evidence? Well the earliest document attesting to this fact is around 900 AD. Don't worry I believe Caesar did invade and I know that there is archaeological evidence too, but why slag off the Bible?

But the Bible requires us to vacate our comfort zones..................

hang loose,




braveheart

Toto

There are more than a few variations and none of those manuscripts are eyewitness testimony.

You find a lot of cultural and theological differences where there was no orthodox church to enforce uniformity. Have you even looked at the "Jesus in India" literature?

We know that people write things in documents that didn't really happen. Ancient documents without archeological or other forensic confirmation are not especially reliable.

I suspect that realizing that the Bible is not a guide to anything would be more of a challenge to some people's comfort zones.

Roger Pearse

Can I plead for a bit of rephrasing here? Testimony (true or false) is contained in a text, not a manuscript. Manuscripts (or printed editions) contain copies of texts. A manuscript is not testimony, eyewitness or not. It is a vehicle for the text in which that testimony is to be found.

I realise this may seem like nit-picking, but this does cause the unwary real confusion, and it will help everyone to keep our language clear.

This involves the same terminological problem as above (see? you're both doing it). The earliest now extant copies (handwritten) date from the 9th century. The text (document) contained in those copies is contemporary.

Here using the word 'document' in a different sense again.

If you are arguing that ancient literature (which mostly cannot be verified, unless someone thinks that Pliny's dinner parties can be verified archaeologically!) is "not especially reliable", and thus may be ignored when convenient, I would only ask how this position is distinguishable -- in practice, not theory -- from both obscurantism and subjectivism? I don't see how we avoid both these problems, unless we take the view that the testimony of the historical record must broadly be accepted, modified by contradictory testimony with minimum subjective interference. I understand the problems; what I do not see is how to avoid the obscurantism/subjectivism pitfall.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

I don't think it is obscurantism or subjectivism to say that ancient documents are not especially reliable proofs of the assertions that they make. It is more a matter of reasonable skepticism, or possibly agnosticism.

If you insist that "the testimony of the historical record must broadly be accepted, modified by contradictory testimony with minimum subjective interference" you are forced to accept all sorts of official propaganda that you would instinctively reject if it were a contemporary document.

Roger Pearse

In the absence of data? I agree. But what's the alternative? In the absence of other testimony, do we just decide "what feels good"? This is the problem!

I see no problem with expressing scepticism about whether the historical record is reaching us accurately. But I think we must keep separate our theories about the data from the data.

You probably don't disagree with that, as such, of course. But I think you want to disregard some ancient evidence, whereas, like Talleyrand, I fail to see the necessity. We both know that some sources are junk. But... I'd rather not start ignoring data.

All the best,

Roger Pearse