| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/02/2009 01:36:29 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I do understand statistics. But they are just that. Stats. There are flukes, there are other factors involved. So that example you gave, what of it? Haven't you ever played telephone? What if the one sentence with the "not" that obviously looks wrong, statistically at least, was the original sentence and the rest are wrong because one person got it wrong and the rest followed suit? Again I stick to my original sentiment that statistics don't prove anything. Sure they can be used to make an educated guess, but they aren't infallible. |
Of course the aren't infallible. That's a straw man. But they can certainly give us a strong sense of what was written. Telephone is an inaccurate analogy because it assumes translation works like A>B>C>D>E. Modern textual criticism is nothing like this. In the real word the last person is allowed to go back and ask "B" what they said and compare it to what "E" said. We may have lost A, but we have the ability to compare the other versions, arrange them chronologically, see which translations are based on which other translations (who's been talking to whom in telephone), etc. Once this is understood, your argument falls apart. |
Fair enough. :) It doesn't really matter to me I was just playing along. I don't put any faith in to any of the texts, original or not. Humans back then were just as corrupt, if not more, than humans today. Yes there were good ones, smart ones too, but they were just that, humans. I don't believe the bible is the word of god just because some people wrote it so long ago and said it was. Look at some of the newer religions that are also the "word of god" like mormonism, or has new truths like scientology and well... I just have to laugh. How anyone puts so much faith it any of it is beyond me. And I don't mean this to be insulting to those who believe. I think anyone can believe what they want, I don't really care. I believe some magical things myself that don't make sense. I'm referring more to the people I've encountered that have used the "word of God" like some sort of magical entitlement devise making them holy for believing it and me unholy and wrong because I don't. It just doesn't sit right with me.
Message edited by author 2009-04-02 13:39:45. |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 01:41:52 PM · #52 |
| OK, that's fair enough. :) You are certainly entitled to that opinion and it is shared by many. I just don't like the argument that we don't know what the original scriptures really said. We have a very good idea what they said. What they mean and are they important? Well, that's where we all have our own opinion, eh? :) |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 01:56:27 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I just don't like the argument that we don't know what the original scriptures really said. We have a very good idea what they said. |
But in order to be scrupulously honest, you have to admit that nobody really knows for certain.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2009 02:01:03 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You don't understand statistics very well, or probably more likely missed my point. Sure the sentence can change meaning with one word, but what if your different versions look like this?
She is in the school.
She is in the schol.
She is in the school.
She is not in the school.
She is in the school.
She is in the school.
She is in the school.
She is in the school.
Can statistical analysis be used to judge what the original sentence, now lost, looked like? |
Not if all the statements except "She is not in the school." are erroneous.
Statistics is only relevant if the information gathered is irrefutable.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2009 02:04:28 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You don't understand statistics very well, or probably more likely missed my point. Sure the sentence can change meaning with one word, but what if your different versions look like this?
She is in the school.
She is in the schol.
She is in the school.
She is not in the school.
She is in the school.
She is in the school.
She is in the school.
She is in the school.
Can statistical analysis be used to judge what the original sentence, now lost, looked like? |
Not if all the statements except "She is not in the school." are erroneous.
Statistics is only relevant if the information gathered is irrefutable. |
That's what I tried to say though apparently I didn't succeed at saying it right because I got hit with the straw man logical fallacy. lol. |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 02:04:30 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I don't put any faith in to any of the texts, original or not. Humans back then were just as corrupt, if not more, than humans today. Yes there were good ones, smart ones too, but they were just that, humans. I don't believe the bible is the word of god just because some people wrote it so long ago and said it was. Look at some of the newer religions that are also the "word of god" like mormonism, or has new truths like scientology and well... I just have to laugh. How anyone puts so much faith it any of it is beyond me. And I don't mean this to be insulting to those who believe. I think anyone can believe what they want, I don't really care. I believe some magical things myself that don't make sense. I'm referring more to the people I've encountered that have used the "word of God" like some sort of magical entitlement devise making them holy for believing it and me unholy and wrong because I don't. It just doesn't sit right with me. |
Well said.
As another fallible human, I know all too well the hazards involved with accepting anyone's take on any given subject......there is always the possibility of some error in the telling that can seriously change the meaning.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2009 02:05:08 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I just don't like the argument that we don't know what the original scriptures really said. We have a very good idea what they said. |
But in order to be scrupulously honest, you have to admit that nobody really knows for certain. |
Perhaps not word for word, but the broad message of the early Christians is pretty clear, the golden rule was a revolutionary message in an era of slavery and monarchy, that all men were equal before God's eyes was the clear message. that said when an odd discordant idea turns up you have to look at the possibilty of human error in translation or transcription.
Some confusion comes from bad translations in my humble opinion Pentecostal snake handling has little to do with the message of Jesus. Perhaps it is a bad translation of an Arameic phrase in the Peshitta,(an early hebrew and aremeic talmudic text on the scriptures, before greek latin or english translations) where you are advised to treat your enemies fairly, which could also translate to touching or putting your hand on the evil ones, or taking up serpents. Which one is consistent with the overall message isn't hard for me to figure out. Of course I still keep a snake in the house, just to be sure.
Message edited by author 2009-04-02 14:26:15. |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 02:15:48 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You don't understand statistics very well, or probably more likely missed my point. Sure the sentence can change meaning with one word, but what if your different versions look like this?
She is in the school.
She is in the schol.
She is in the school.
She is not in the school.
She is in the school.
She is in the school.
She is in the school.
She is in the school.
Can statistical analysis be used to judge what the original sentence, now lost, looked like? |
Not if all the statements except "She is not in the school." are erroneous.
Statistics is only relevant if the information gathered is irrefutable. |
Come on guys, you look silly when you say things like this. If you last sentence is true, then virtually all medical knowledge we have through placebo controlled trials is useless. That is ALL based on statistics and the results are NEVER irrefutable.
And of course the sentence "She is not in the school" could be the true one, but how likely is that if six different people wrote the other six sentences and did not use the same source document? It's quite unlikely.
But let's have an example of how this bears out in doctrine. Give me an example of something in Christianity that is changed based on differences in manuscripts. I'm not talking translation. I'm talking about different texts saying different things and it meaning something big. |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 02:16:32 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Perhaps ... that all men were equal before God's eyes was the clear message. |
Sadly, there exists a monumental amount of difference between what may have been contained in a message and what was actually implemented and adhered to by the various players, including the true believers.
True equality have never existed and never will, regardless of the good intentions of those who believe otherwise.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 02:21:21 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I just don't like the argument that we don't know what the original scriptures really said. We have a very good idea what they said. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
But in order to be scrupulously honest, you have to admit that nobody really knows for certain. |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Perhaps not word for word, but the broad message of the early Christians is pretty clear, the golden rule was a revolutionary message in an era of slavery and monarchy, that all men were equal before God's eyes was the clear message. Where we got the bit about not eating meat on fridays, that Im not clear on. |
Oh, I have no trouble at all with the base concepts.....to me most seem obvious.
The problem is when you get into interpretation.
*I* believe that all men are equal in God's eyes....even black, brown, yellow, red, but hey, let's face it, there are people to this day that don't agree on that basic precept.
Oh, and isn't it all PEOPLE in God's eyes.....like women, too?......
There were some issues with that for a week or two as well, weren't there?.....8>)
|
|
|
|
04/02/2009 02:26:39 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You don't understand statistics very well, or probably more likely missed my point. Sure the sentence can change meaning with one word, but what if your different versions look like this?
She is in the school.
She is in the schol.
She is in the school.
She is not in the school.
She is in the school.
She is in the school.
She is in the school.
She is in the school.
Can statistical analysis be used to judge what the original sentence, now lost, looked like? |
Not if all the statements except "She is not in the school." are erroneous.
Statistics is only relevant if the information gathered is irrefutable. |
Come on guys, you look silly when you say things like this. If you last sentence is true, then virtually all medical knowledge we have through placebo controlled trials is useless. That is ALL based on statistics and the results are NEVER irrefutable.
And of course the sentence "She is not in the school" could be the true one, but how likely is that if six different people wrote the other six sentences and did not use the same source document? It's quite unlikely.
But let's have an example of how this bears out in doctrine. Give me an example of something in Christianity that is changed based on differences in manuscripts. I'm not talking translation. I'm talking about different texts saying different things and it meaning something big. |
Doc, you know perfectly well that at least I, and perhaps not Monica either are going to be able to come up with examples because neither of us have the time or inclination to make a hobby/career out of trying to refute Christianity, neither is that outr point.
As you don't appreciate your beliefs as to the Bible's intent being questioned, neither do we appreciate our questioning it with legitimate concerns being chalked up as silly.
There simply isn't independent, accurate documantation for so much of what must be taken on faith to be a good and true Christian for a logical mind to qwrap around.
We just want you to understand this.
Not everyone who questions is interested in tearing down your beliefs, it could be just that we're asking "Why?" or "Really? How is this possible?".
|
|
|
|
04/02/2009 02:26:43 PM · #62 |
| OK, well, as I said, interpretation is a whole 'nuther issue and I fully agree different people interpret things differently and they can't all be right. (although now that I think about it, you may not agree with that last part). |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 02:29:41 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Doc, you know perfectly well that at least I, and perhaps not Monica either are going to be able to come up with examples because neither of us have the time or inclination to make a hobby/career out of trying to refute Christianity, neither is that outr point.
....There simply isn't independent, accurate documantation for so much of what must be taken on faith to be a good and true Christian for a logical mind to qwrap around. |
Come on Jeb. Do you think I am even going to allow you to say these two things in the same post? First you say you aren't an expert because it would take too much of your time, but then you make a huge assertion that basically Christianity is based on nothing. I'd think that even an armchair religious scholar ought to be able to show this if it's even remotely true. You aren't even up to the level of armchair scholar? |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 02:37:12 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
True equality have never existed and never will, regardless of the good intentions of those who believe otherwise.
Ray |
Absolutes and purity never exist, never will, never can. It is an ideal. Something to strive for, though you know you cant't do it. Are we not more equal today than in the past? Are we not better off for trying?
|
|
|
|
04/02/2009 02:54:47 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But let's have an example of how this bears out in doctrine. Give me an example of something in Christianity that is changed based on differences in manuscripts. I'm not talking translation. I'm talking about different texts saying different things and it meaning something big. |
Other than the snake handling thing below, how about the word effeminate?
In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul wrote, âKnow ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.â Many today hold that "effeminate" means homosexuals, but that's quite interesting since Tyndale's New Testament translation of 1526 says "weaklings" and the Geneva Bible of 1560 says "wantons" in other worlds a person sunken into the pleasures of the world. These of course are just the shifting interpretation of English words, going from language to language is a lot trickirer. And of course the concrete result of these murky words is that our laws do not allow homosexuals full franchise.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2009 03:12:19 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But let's have an example of how this bears out in doctrine. Give me an example of something in Christianity that is changed based on differences in manuscripts. I'm not talking translation. I'm talking about different texts saying different things and it meaning something big. |
Other than the snake handling thing below, how about the word effeminate?
In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul wrote, âKnow ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.â Many today hold that "effeminate" means homosexuals, but that's quite interesting since Tyndale's New Testament translation of 1526 says "weaklings" and the Geneva Bible of 1560 says "wantons" in other worlds a person sunken into the pleasures of the world. These of course are just the shifting interpretation of English words, going from language to language is a lot trickirer. And of course the concrete result of these murky words is that our laws do not allow homosexuals full franchise. |
I think this is an issue of translation but I also think translation is not an issue that can be glossed over when talking about manuscripts. I addressed this actually in my first response to him with a web site that went into the word "effeminate" as well as the word "homosexual" both of which don't mean what people think they mean. |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 03:54:48 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I think this is an issue of translation but I also think translation is not an issue that can be glossed over when talking about manuscripts. I addressed this actually in my first response to him with a web site that went into the word "effeminate" as well as the word "homosexual" both of which don't mean what people think they mean. |
Yes, definitely an issue of translation and it can be difficult to know exactly what Paul meant when he used a word that is hardly ever found (or could even have been made up). When you google the word you have to wade pretty deep before you get what could possibly be an unbiased approach to the translation of the word. Most pages seem to have an agenda either pro or against homosexuality and adjust their translation to fit. (the link I found is here).
But even if we look at this example (which again doesn't even fit the parameters of what was asked for), we can ask, so what? Does this substantially alter Christianity? If this verse were removed and thrown away, would anything really change? (The answer is clearly no as it offers no unique perspective that Christianity hangs its hat on. In other words, this is all covered in other passages as well.) |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 04:06:13 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Man, that was some pretty good memory! :)
I hope no reader will suppose that "mere" Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions-as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires andchairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable.
It is true that some people may find they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feel certain almost at once which door they must knock at. I do not know why there is this difference, but I am sure God keeps no one waiting unless He sees that it is good for him to wait. When you do get into your room you will find that the long wait has done you some kind of good which you would not have had otherwise. But you must regard it as waiting, not as camping. You must keep on praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling.
In plain language, the question should never be: "Do I like that kind of service?" but "Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?"
When you have reached your own room, be kind to those Who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house. |
Thanks for posting the actual text, sir. I appreciate it! :-) |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 04:19:57 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I think this is an issue of translation but I also think translation is not an issue that can be glossed over when talking about manuscripts. I addressed this actually in my first response to him with a web site that went into the word "effeminate" as well as the word "homosexual" both of which don't mean what people think they mean. |
Yes, definitely an issue of translation and it can be difficult to know exactly what Paul meant when he used a word that is hardly ever found (or could even have been made up). When you google the word you have to wade pretty deep before you get what could possibly be an unbiased approach to the translation of the word. Most pages seem to have an agenda either pro or against homosexuality and adjust their translation to fit. (the link I found is here).
But even if we look at this example (which again doesn't even fit the parameters of what was asked for), we can ask, so what? Does this substantially alter Christianity? If this verse were removed and thrown away, would anything really change? (The answer is clearly no as it offers no unique perspective that Christianity hangs its hat on. In other words, this is all covered in other passages as well.) |
Well I would argue no, it doesn't change "real" Christianity but it has had a tremendous effect on what people think is real Christianity. That passage and those like it are being used to justify the persecution of gays. And where a passage like that in the past had no real barring on the religion perhaps (I don't know) it DOES have a huge baring on it today. |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 04:25:55 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Well I would argue no, it doesn't change "real" Christianity but it has had a tremendous effect on what people think is real Christianity. That passage and those like it are being used to justify the persecution of gays. And where a passage like that in the past had no real barring on the religion perhaps (I don't know) it DOES have a huge baring on it today. |
Well, without getting into that whole argument, I would counter that without this verse and this translation Christianity would likely still have a negative view of homosexuality. In other words, it does not depend on the translation of the word arsenokoites.
Also, you are assuming that the word IS mistranslated. It is not obvious this is the case and it is possible this is what Paul actually meant. Read the link I posted which I think fairly describes the issues with the word. |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 04:53:47 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Well I would argue no, it doesn't change "real" Christianity but it has had a tremendous effect on what people think is real Christianity. That passage and those like it are being used to justify the persecution of gays. And where a passage like that in the past had no real barring on the religion perhaps (I don't know) it DOES have a huge baring on it today. |
Well, without getting into that whole argument, I would counter that without this verse and this translation Christianity would likely still have a negative view of homosexuality. In other words, it does not depend on the translation of the word arsenokoites.
Also, you are assuming that the word IS mistranslated. It is not obvious this is the case and it is possible this is what Paul actually meant. Read the link I posted which I think fairly describes the issues with the word. |
I wouldn't bank my whole religious beliefs in regards to homosexuality on the "possibility" that the word means homosexual. Your own link says its unlikely. Again, as with many of the versus used to condone homosexuality, it is more likely condoning rape, ritualistic sex, and prostitution.
Maybe Christians should spend more time and money on ending rape than homosexuality. EVEN IF you don't believe being homosexual is ok, there are much more important things to spend time trying to stop.
But I am getting off of the original topic. I'd love to discuss this further here: Gay Rights Thread
if anyone wants to go further on this subject. |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 05:34:27 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
But I am getting off of the original topic. I'd love to discuss this further here: Gay Rights Thread
if anyone wants to go further on this subject. |
Whew. That thread went on for a good long time, eh? But I can agree with out that I wouldn't bank my whole religious belief on such a "possibility". Definitely one's views toward homosexuality fall in the "opinion" pile I mentioned above. Nobody, in my eyes, is going to heaven or not because they are/are not gay or do/do not support homosexuality. |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 05:47:47 PM · #73 |
I started this side discussion and then had to go to class and so have just now caught up. I took statistics in college (many moons ago) and the one thing I remember is that statistics can be made to show what you want them to. It seems to me medical research is more about averages or success/failure than statistics (how many get better on drug vs how many get better on the placebo) I won't argue this as I am not a doctor or involved in research.
We do not have the original text, and everything we do have is based on multiple copies of copies done by hand. A simple game of gossip (start at one end of a line with a phrase, whisper it down the line and see what the last person hears. It's never the same as the beginning.) Maybe the 10 copies that agree with each other were made from the same source while the one that differs was made from a source that reflected the original. We have no idea what the originals said--they are lost. We can assume today's versions are close, or that the overall message is the same, but there is no proof. (Not talking about proof of God, proof of the content of the original documents.)
|
|
|
|
04/02/2009 06:42:02 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
I started this side discussion and then had to go to class and so have just now caught up. I took statistics in college (many moons ago) and the one thing I remember is that statistics can be made to show what you want them to. It seems to me medical research is more about averages or success/failure than statistics (how many get better on drug vs how many get better on the placebo) I won't argue this as I am not a doctor or involved in research. |
Yes. Don't argue it. You are very wrong. Statistics play a very big role in drug trial or other medical literature. The statistics come into play when you ask, "what are the odds the differences between these two groups came about by chance". That is, of course, a very important question.
Originally posted by chaimelle:
We do not have the original text, and everything we do have is based on multiple copies of copies done by hand. A simple game of gossip (start at one end of a line with a phrase, whisper it down the line and see what the last person hears. It's never the same as the beginning.) Maybe the 10 copies that agree with each other were made from the same source while the one that differs was made from a source that reflected the original. We have no idea what the originals said--they are lost. We can assume today's versions are close, or that the overall message is the same, but there is no proof. (Not talking about proof of God, proof of the content of the original documents.) |
Why do people just parrot this stuff? The study of biblical textual criticism is a whole field of research. Do you think that your comment "maybe the 10 copies that agree with each other were made from the same source" is something that hasn't been asked a thousand times already by people who are much more knowledgable about the subject than you or me?
Did you read the essay on this page? I'll highlight something here:
Using textual criticism, how much of the NT can we recover and designate as authentic? popular idea is that textual criticism has been able to recover the NT text with 99% accuracy. That's a total of three pages in your average Bible without study notes being in question. Textual critics Westcott and Hort asserted [Hunt.IntNT, 13] that the parts of the NT "still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part" of the NT - which would be less than a third of a page. Generally, however, it seems that very few scholars in this field are willing to be so bold! Most scholars in this field seem to settle for vague phrases, ranging from speaking of the "retreating mirage" of the original text to Comfort's assurance that "there are several manuscripts that are quite accurate copies of the original text."[Comf.TNT, 29] Scholars outside the field are more bold; France asserts that "among the textual variants in the gospels there are only two which throw doubt on more than a verse or two of the traditional text" - the ending of Mark and the adultery story in John [Franc.EvJ, 135-6], with the other variants bearing only on details of sentimental value. Beyond that, he proclaims (ibid., 137):
The student of the history of Jesus is, from the point of view of textual criticism, on vastly safer ground than the student of the life of Julius Caesar or indeed of any other figure of ancient history.
And Moreland adds [More.ScCy, 136]:
Most historians accept the textual accuracy of other ancient works on far less adequate manuscript grounds than is available for the New Testament.
Message edited by author 2009-04-02 18:45:21. |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 07:05:30 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by chaimelle:
I started this side discussion and then had to go to class and so have just now caught up. I took statistics in college (many moons ago) and the one thing I remember is that statistics can be made to show what you want them to. It seems to me medical research is more about averages or success/failure than statistics (how many get better on drug vs how many get better on the placebo) I won't argue this as I am not a doctor or involved in research. |
Yes. Don't argue it. You are very wrong. Statistics play a very big role in drug trial or other medical literature. The statistics come into play when you ask, "what are the odds the differences between these two groups came about by chance". That is, of course, a very important question.
Originally posted by chaimelle:
We do not have the original text, and everything we do have is based on multiple copies of copies done by hand. A simple game of gossip (start at one end of a line with a phrase, whisper it down the line and see what the last person hears. It's never the same as the beginning.) Maybe the 10 copies that agree with each other were made from the same source while the one that differs was made from a source that reflected the original. We have no idea what the originals said--they are lost. We can assume today's versions are close, or that the overall message is the same, but there is no proof. (Not talking about proof of God, proof of the content of the original documents.) |
Why do people just parrot this stuff? The study of biblical textual criticism is a whole field of research. Do you think that your comment "maybe the 10 copies that agree with each other were made from the same source" is something that hasn't been asked a thousand times already by people who are much more knowledgable about the subject than you or me?
Did you read the essay on this page? I'll highlight something here:
Using textual criticism, how much of the NT can we recover and designate as authentic? popular idea is that textual criticism has been able to recover the NT text with 99% accuracy. That's a total of three pages in your average Bible without study notes being in question. Textual critics Westcott and Hort asserted [Hunt.IntNT, 13] that the parts of the NT "still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part" of the NT - which would be less than a third of a page. Generally, however, it seems that very few scholars in this field are willing to be so bold! Most scholars in this field seem to settle for vague phrases, ranging from speaking of the "retreating mirage" of the original text to Comfort's assurance that "there are several manuscripts that are quite accurate copies of the original text."[Comf.TNT, 29] Scholars outside the field are more bold; France asserts that "among the textual variants in the gospels there are only two which throw doubt on more than a verse or two of the traditional text" - the ending of Mark and the adultery story in John [Franc.EvJ, 135-6], with the other variants bearing only on details of sentimental value. Beyond that, he proclaims (ibid., 137):
The student of the history of Jesus is, from the point of view of textual criticism, on vastly safer ground than the student of the life of Julius Caesar or indeed of any other figure of ancient history.
And Moreland adds [More.ScCy, 136]:
Most historians accept the textual accuracy of other ancient works on far less adequate manuscript grounds than is available for the New Testament. |
Perhaps you should start a new thread to argue this? |
|
