Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Lost faith
-
31-08-2019 9:10pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Eyewitnjesses more often then not don't always produce the most accurate representation of what was said or done by a person.
You've only to ask several witnesses at an event what they saw, for example a crime and you'll generally get different stories
What you've said here is fine and generally true but it's important to note that the gospels aren't even eyewitness accounts or derived from eyewitness accounts so the point, though well made, doesn't hold for the gospels.theological wrote: »People have responded on the editing point many times. It isn't true. We can compare thousands manuscripts and see that there haven't been significant changes to the New Testament or Old Testament manuscripts.
Well this is wrong. For several reasons.
First the point about there being thousands of manuscripts is irrelevant. When people make the claim about there being over 5000 manuscripts of the New Testament, most people making that argument are either unaware or unwilling to acknowledge that these 5000 manuscripts are the manuscripts between the 2nd and 16th centuries. The earliest manuscript we have (Rylands P52) is only from the latter half of the 2nd century and is about the size of a credit card. We don't start getting complete gospel manuscripts until the 3rd century and there are entire books of the New Testmaent that we don't have manuscripts for prior to Codex Sinaiticus in the 4th century like 1 & 2 Timothy and 3 John. In fact, there are only 48 manuscripts older than Codex Sinaiticus. Which means for the first 250 years after the gospels of written we have no idea what changes were made to the text.
But what we do know is that there are several significant later interpolations in the text.
Mark 16:9-20 is not present in the earliest copies of Mark and removing it gives the chapter and the gospel as a whole a more natural ending.
The two main trinitarian references in the NT are also later interpolations. 1 John 5:7-8 is a later addition not found in any manuscript before the 14th century. Matthew 28:19 is also a later addition. It goes against the evidence of Acts 19:5, where people are being baptized in the name of Jesus alone and further, Eusebius writing in the 4th century quotes Matthew's text but only makes reference to Jesus and not the trinity.
There are in fact quite a lot of additions to the text with many passages being missing from the earliest manuscripts including John 7:53-8:11, Acts 15:34, Acts 18:37, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, Luke 23:34, 24:12 etc.
Then there are deliberate changes to the text often to "correct" mistakes made by the gospel authors. For example, the early manuscripts of Mark 1:2 read "as it is written in Isaiah the prophet" which is strange because the text that follows is actually a conflation of Malachi 3:1 with Isaiah 40:3. This lead later scribes to rewrite the passage as "as it is written in the prophets".
Of course sometimes these alterations are to embellish or exaggerate the text, to improve the character of Jesus like the addition of "to repentance" in later copies of Matthew 9:13 or the insertion of Luke 23:34 as noted above.
Then there are copying errors although these are less significant than the additions listed above.
Most of the copying errors that occur between New Testament manuscripts (about 300,000 individual variations in total) are minor and of a technical nature.
One type of variation is that of haplography and dittography, the omission or repetition of text where two different sentences begin with (homoeoarcton) or end with (homoeoteleuton) the same string of letters. This is seen in Matthew 5:19-20 where the presence of the same string of letters: ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν at the end of the first and last sentence of verse 19 and the last sentence of verse 20 has given rise to a haplographic omission in both the Codex Sinaiticus (where most of verse 19 is deleted) and the Codex Bezae (where everything between the end of the first sentence of verse 19 and the end of verse 20 is deleted).
Another example of variation is Romans 5:1 where homophonous words in Greek have created manuscript variations. In the verse:
"Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ"
the phrase "we have" above is translated as we have in some manuscripts and we might have in others with the split seemingly fairly even between both interpretations. This arises from the similarity between ἔχομεν and ἔχωμεν in Greek.
Most of the other forms of textual variation are unintentional and very minor and involve spelling errors, word sequence adjustments, corrections to grammar and word substitutions. However, that is not to say that aren't some intentional and in some ways significant alterations to the text.
One example of an intentional and non-trivial alteration to the text is the retroactive harmonization of the text of Mark 9:31 and 10:34. In Mark 9:31 and 10:34, the foretelling of Jesus' death predicts that he will arise "after three days" or "three days later" (μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας). This stands in contrast to Matthew 17:20 (and Luke) where the verse is rendered "on the third day"(τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ). Later copies of Mark use the wording from Matthew in order to try and gloss over Mark's seeming mistake.
Another intentional change is found in Luke 23:32. The verse is translated in modern bibles as:
"Two others also, who were criminals, were being led away to be put to death with Him."
The majority of manuscripts agree with this translation, however, the older manuscripts (P75, Sinaiticus etc.) render the verse as:
"And also other criminals, two, were led away to be put to death with Him."
The text was changed in later manuscripts to avoid the implication that Jesus was a criminal.
Then, there are passages which are inserted into gospels different from those where they are originally found as a duplication error such as Matthew 17:21 (a duplicate of Mark 9:29) or Matthew 18:11 (a duplicate of Luke 19:10).
Finally, we have other evidence of the alteration of the NT, like this scribal note from Hebrews 1:3 in Codex Vaticanus:
The scribal note in the margin reads: "Fool and knave, leave the old reading alone. Don't change it."
And then we have the warning in the bible itself about people interpolating the text in Revelation 22:18-19:
"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll."theological wrote: »The authoritative source concerning Jesus are the eyewitnesses who saw what happened and who were with Him, yes. What other source are you suggesting is better?
Well, that would be important if we did have eyewitness accounts but we don't. None of the biographical accounts for Jesus are eyewitness accounts. We don't know who wrote any of the gospels, the first time names were put on the gospels wasn't until Irenaeus in 180CE. We also know that the gospels aren't historical accounts because they bear none of the hallmarks of historical works of the time such as authorial presence in the narrative, clear citation of sources and discussion of their merits, attempts to reconcile contradictions between sources or other works etc. etc.
What would be more authoritative would be a contempraneous account by an actual eyewitness, or better yet a contempraneous account by a third party not disposed towards Jesus or even better first hand writings by Jesus. But we don't have any of those.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Well I can't comment on which bibles you personally have but the Johannine comma is still present in the Douay-Rheims, KJV, RGT and Young's Literal Translation, to name a few. Since there are quite a few KJV-only Christians and a lot of Catholics wedded to their Douay-Rheims bibles, it's worth noting this.
Oh definitely, it is important to note. I think we should be glad that textual scholarship has improved in the last 500 years, and that our modern translations (ESV, NIV, RSV etc.) are measurably better than what went before. That said, I don't think you are going to come to any different doctrinal conclusions by using the KJV (which is the translation from your list that I'm most familiar with).[/LIST]
Not really a fringe position, not at least unless you consider NT Wright and Raymond Brown to be fringe scholars and good luck with that. I'm not sure what the mention of Eusebius adds to the discussion. Even before Eusebius there is extant references to the triple formula (as it has become known) in the Didache and in the writings of Tertullian. But that is not the point. The point is that the phrase as is is unlikely to be original to Matthew. The principal reason for this is that both Luke and Matthew writing before and after Matthew's time are unaware of this formulation. Paul only refers to baptism in the name of Jesus (Romans 6:3, Galatians 3:27, Colossians 3:17). Then later Luke, who borrows from Matthew's gospel in his own also shows no familiarity with Matthew's formulation (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5). So it is very unlikely that this formulation is original to Matthew.
Not familiar with Browns work, but I've not seen this in N T Wright - which of his works are you referring to?
Even if both do think that a shorter form of Matthew 28:19 is original, I would still say that two scholars, even notable ones, holding this position is a fringe. There is zero textual evidence that there is a lost, original, shorter wording for Matthew 28:19, and it certainly is not a mainstream position among any scholars / commentaries I have seen.
On the other gospel writers, we can't assume that Mark and Luke are unaware of this wording: all we can say is that they didn't include it in their gospels. Since we know that all the gospel writers were selective in the material they included, it is too much to conclude that Matthew couldn't have originally written it either.
With regard to Paul writing of baptising in the name of Jesus, the New Testament is clear that Jesus is how we know and relate to the Father; it is equally clear that the Father and the Son have sent the Spirit. That leads me to conclude that Paul's wording is shorthand for Matthews formulation. There certainly isn't any conflict or contradiction between the two.[/LIST]
Well, not really. If the trinitarian references are later interpolations then that's a major change for trinitarian Christians because that doctrine lacks authentic biblical support.
The doctrine of the trinity does not stand or fall on those verses, even in the slightest. If anything, the argument seems to be that if the wording was modified it was done to reinforce the doctrine of the trinity, not prove or establish it.[/LIST]
Further, without the long ending to Mark there's no post-resurrection appearance of Jesus, no Great commission and no exorcism of demons, speaking in tongues or handling snakes. So if you're a pentecostal Christian the impact of this longer ending being a later interpolation is significant.
In Mark's gospel, but we have post resurrection appearances and the great commission from the other gospel writers. Pentecostal snake handlers might well have to reconsider their position, but I'm ok with that
[/LIST]
I'm not claiming that there were significant changes that we aren't aware of. Like I have already said we simply don't know one way or the other. Yes, we can't say that the text was changed but we can't say that the text wasn't changed either.
What we do know is that there were changes. We also know that the frequency and magnitude of changes decreases as time lapses from the original. So if there were major changes they were likely in the blackout period where we don't have extant documents as Bruce Metzger points out in The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration.
We can't say that the text we have today reflects the original autographs because we just don't know. There's a 150 year window in the textual evidence that makes any conclusion tenuous at best.
This is pure speculation and bordering on conspiracy theory territory. Where is the evidence? All the available evidence indicates that the biblical text as we have it is in essence identical to what was originally written.[/LIST]
Edit: FWIW, I don't think that all of the textual variants, interpolations, copying errors, when taken as a whole are a massive problem. They're fairly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things because, as I explained already, even if the texts we have now were identical to the original autographs or even if we had the original autographs, the coherency of transmission means nothing when we are trying to answer the veracity of what is written in the gospels. The problems with the gospels themselves and the gap between the events they describe and when they were written are far more relevant issues.
I agree with you here. The bible as we have it trustworthy, and Christians don't need to worry that about its transmission or its reliability as a historical document. The real question doesn't relate to matters of textual criticism, but on whether Jesus is who the new testament writers say he is.0 -
-
Not familiar with Browns work, but I've not seen this in N T Wright - which of his works are you referring to?
Brown makes the case for interpolation in Introduction to Christology. Wright comments in The Resurrection of the Son of God that neither Paul nor Luke speak of a trinitarian God. As Wright points out, when Paul and later Luke speak of "son of God" that they do so in the context of the Jewish messiah and not as the second person of the trinity. This makes its use in Matthew an odd disconnect.Even if both do think that a shorter form of Matthew 28:19 is original, I would still say that two scholars, even notable ones, holding this position is a fringe. There is zero textual evidence that there is a lost, original, shorter wording for Matthew 28:19, and it certainly is not a mainstream position among any scholars / commentaries I have seen.
Well, actually there is textual evidence of this being an interpolation. In Greek when Matthew talks about baptising in the name of he uses the greek word onoma in its singular form and yet the passage refers to three entities. This would make no sense to a greek reader and would just be confusing.In Mark's gospel, but we have post resurrection appearances and the great commission from the other gospel writers. Pentecostal snake handlers might well have to reconsider their position, but I'm ok with that
Since the other gospel writers, particularly Luke and Matthew copy their story from Mark, the post resurrection appearances and great commission in those are not independent corroboration.This is pure speculation and bordering on conspiracy theory territory. Where is the evidence? All the available evidence indicates that the biblical text as we have it is in essence identical to what was originally written.
I'm not speculating at all. That seems to be the point you're missing. "All the available evidence" is insufficient to make a claim like the one you're making that " the biblical text as we have it is in essence identical to what was originally written". We don't have the original copies to compare. Neither do we have the first 150 years of copies to check against. There is a massive hole in our available textual evidence.
Somebody who says the text was altered during the blackout period is speaking beyond the evidence. By the same token, somebody (like you) who says that the text we have now is essentially identical to the originals is also speaking beyond the evidence. We don't know either way.
But let's say, hypothetically, we tried to assess whether there were alterations to text during the blackout period. How would be make such an assessment. Well we would start by examining the alterations in the copies that we do have. If we were to graph the alterations and changes to the copies with time on the x-axis and the magnitude of the change on the y-axis (i.e. additions and deletions vs. copying mistakes), then what you would see is a large cluster of deliberate changes in the earliest copies. You would also see a rapid fall-off in the frequency and magnitude of alterations with increasing time. This is unsurprising. We would expect to see more changes and more significant changes the closer we are to the original. 300 years after the text was written it would easily have been regarded as scripture and the idea of making changes to it would have been anathema. But that wouldn't have been the case 2 years after its writing or 5 or 10. If someone was going to make a change to the text its likely to happen earlier rather than later.
Finally, I'm not sure you've grasped just how little evidence is actually available. Matthew, according to the mainstream opinion was written in 80CE. The oldest manuscript we have for Matthew is P104 from about 150CE. This only contains pieces of 6 verses. That's 6 out of 1071 or 0.56%. 50 years after that we have 4 manuscripts and about 3% of the verses. 50 years after that we're now up to 9 manuscripts and 13% of the verses. 50 years after that we're up to 13 manuscripts and 16% of all verses. Finally by the time Codex Sinaiticus comes along in the middle of the 4th century we get our first complete manuscript of Matthew and we still have only 20 fragmentary manuscripts. For the vast majority of verses in Matthew we have nothing older than Codex Sinaiticus. That's 270 years after it was written. And let's not forget that when we talk about a manuscript containing x number of verses, we're not talking about that manuscript containing the entire verse. It simply means that it contains one or more words from that verse. For example, Papyrus P62 looks like this:
This is one of the later manuscripts we've been talking about, from the 4th century. It contains six verses (Matthew 11:25-30) But each of those six verses are incomplete. We don't have the complete text of any of them. This is how fragmentary the evidence is.
So when you say that the text we have now is essentially the the same as the original, there is no evidentiary basis for this. It is merely speculation. We don't have enough evidence to say this.I agree with you here. The bible as we have it trustworthy, and Christians don't need to worry that about its transmission or its reliability as a historical document. The real question doesn't relate to matters of textual criticism, but on whether Jesus is who the new testament writers say he is.
You're not agreeing with me. Yes, its true that the transmission of the text matters less than what is actually written in the bible. But the bible, specifically the gospels, is in no way trustworthy. The gospels are not reliable as historical documents because they aren't historical documents, they're theological documents. The gospels don't look like historical works of the time. They don't name their author, the author doesn't place himself in the story, there's no clear citation of sources nor any discussion of their merits, there's no attempt to reconcile disparate sources or accounts, there's no indication when the author may be speculating on content such as when quoting direct speech. Then you have all the internal contradictions, external contradictions, factual mistakes and fabricated stories. So the idea that the gospels are in any sense a reliable picture of what Jesus said, did, condoned or condemned is fantasy.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 26430
sbsquarepants wrote: »Isn't there something similar going around linking global warming to the fall in pirate numbers? Just because 2 things happen at the same time doesn't mean they are in any way connected!
But...but...there's a clear link!
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement