Text And Tradition: The Role Of New Testament Manuscripts In Early Christian Studies

[rhinomelon]

Hey Drew, nice to see ya. I would agree that accepting the Bible as the reliable word of God is always a matter of faith in the end.

On the other hand, I don't really find the argument that lots of changes could have crept in between the original writings and the copies we have. These are documents that were in constant use by the early church, cited in the early church fathers, copied and spread throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. In order to really get a variant accepted as a genuine part of the original, one would have to introduce it into all these sources for it to have a shot, and we simply don't see that. We have many copies from all over the Roman world, different time periods and different source, in addition to citation in the early church fathers. With all this evidence, it stretches my imagination to believe that any significant additions could slip through.

Take care, everyone

I will check out that chapter in Early Christians in Disarray, however, see how they present their case.

[Drewm777]

I tend to agree, Rhinomelon.

However, I do not believe we can ever scientifically prove that the Bible as we now have it even closely represents the original. You can't prove something that doesn't exist. The originals are gone. We can never, scientifically, say it with 100% certainty. Maybe 85% or even 95%, but never 100%.

Is it possible that say, the Church in Corinth, very quickly changed 1 Corinthians after receiving it because of doctrines they didn't like? Then the copy would then be passed on from there to the rest of the world as the original and correct reading, and we'd never know. Is that likely? Maybe not. But it's not impossible. So, I think our trust should rest in God and not in the Bible alone. What does God say about the Bible? Well, if you're not LDS, he doesn't say anything about it directly because of the sola scriptura doctrine! If he doesn't say it in the Bible, then he doesn't say it at all. And of course, the Bible doesn't say anything about the Bible. It can't, after all, since it isn't a single book but a compilation made hundreds of years after the individual books were written. So, I think there's a problem in the logic of sola scriptura. I, however, believe that God has told us we can trust the Bible, because of modern revelation, particularly the Book of Mormon, tells me so.

I suppose a protestant can know the Bible is true by personal revelation our illumination.

[Zakuska]

I think the original poster had the right question. Does it matter? I don't think so. Why would it? Either way, their traditions (a) do not apply to Christians, and ( Jesus still condemned them.

Yes like there only being one God in all of existance.

This one is perhaps the only one that I would consider significant in some way. But again, either variant would fit into established Christian thinking. In fact, my first response to that particular example was, "Huh, I actually agree with both of those!" And actually, looking at the passage, I don't see that it has anything to do with our works at all! Where is this idea coming from?

I would choose "laid bare"... as per Revelations 20: 12. But the question still remains... which was original. One says "our God is a consuming Fire" and another says he's a micro manager.

The reason I brought up the Mark verse and the angry Jesus, is because it brings up the point that Matthew and Luke ommited the fact from their accounts. (ie they where white washing their Histories) It also shows, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Heres another very good example:

Another example occurs in Paul's letter to the Romans, where Paul states that "since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God" (Rom. 5:1) Or is that what he said? The word for "we have peace," a statement of fact, sounded exactly like the word "let us have peace," an exhortation. And so in a large number of manuscripts, including some of our earliest, Paul doesn't rest assured that he and his followers have peace with God, he urges himself and others to seek peace. This is a passage for which textual scholars have difficulty deciding which reading is the correct one [17]

Misquoting Jesus pg. 93

[Drewm777]

Another example occurs in Paul's letter to the Romans, where Paul states that "since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God" (Rom. 5:1) Or is that what he said? The word for "we have peace," a statement of fact, sounded exactly like the word "let us have peace," an exhortation. And so in a large number of manuscripts, including some of our earliest, Paul doesn't rest assured that he and his followers have peace with God, he urges himself and others to seek peace. This is a passage for which textual scholars have difficulty deciding which reading is the correct one [17]

For the most part I like Ehrman. But here, I have to say, what? His conclusion does not follow the problem at all. The second reading "let us have peace" would simply be a reminder that they need not be overly anxious. It doesn't have to mean that Paul or his followers had doubts about their standing with God. I don't see how his interpretation follows the second reading at all.

[rhinomelon]

However, I do not believe we can ever scientifically prove that the Bible as we now have it even closely represents the original. You can't prove something that doesn't exist. The originals are gone. We can never, scientifically, say it with 100% certainty. Maybe 85% or even 95%, but never 100%.

In one way, I agree. One simply takes many things on faith, after all. Am I talking to real people on these boards, or is it all in my head? But with all the evidence we have on the table, I think the case to be made for our ability to substantially reconstruct the original text is a pretty solid one. Moreso, I think, than the case that could be made for other ancient documents that are rarely questioned. So in a courtroom metaphor, perhaps it's not "beyond a shadow of a doubt", but I do believe there is a substantial "preponderance of evidence" in favor of the Scriptures we have today being quite close to the original.

Also, since the evidence is all we have to go on (scientifically, as distinct from spiritual witness), any argument about the "gap" theory really just has speculation to go on, which can never really go anywhere.

Yes like there only being one God in all of existance.

What? I don't get it.

I would choose "laid bare"... as per Revelations 20: 12. But the question still remains... which was original. One says "our God is a consuming Fire" and another says he's a micro manager.

What you would choose hardly matters. While I disagree with the "micromanager" comment, would either reading create problems for Christian orthodoxy?

The reason I brought up the Mark verse and the angry Jesus, is because it brings up the point that Matthew and Luke ommited the fact from their accounts. (ie they where white washing their Histories) It also shows, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

All of the gospel writers were writing their own "biographies" of Christ. They were not simply copying from each other. Mark emphasizes different things than John, and both of them emphasize different things than Matthew and Luke. It's not "whitewashing". Perhaps if you provided passages where Luke or Matthew specifically denied that Jesus got angry, then you might actually have a point. Otherwise, it's just four writers telling the same basic story in different ways, emphasizing some things over others. And I don't get your "two or three witnesses" comment. Are you saying that two or three gospel writers have to testify to Jesus getting angry, or else they're "whitewashing history"? Give me a break. Now I think you're just stretching.

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

Heres another very good example:

QUOTE

Another example occurs in Paul's letter to the Romans, where Paul states that "since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God" (Rom. 5:1) Or is that what he said? The word for "we have peace," a statement of fact, sounded exactly like the word "let us have peace," an exhortation. And so in a large number of manuscripts, including some of our earliest, Paul doesn't rest assured that he and his followers have peace with God, he urges himself and others to seek peace. This is a passage for which textual scholars have difficulty deciding which reading is the correct one [17]

And again, either way you read it, Paul says both things elsewhere in his letters, both the exhortation to have peace, and referencing the fact that we have peace with God through Christ. So again, even if I accept Ehrman's reading (and there's no real reason why I should), my beliefs and doctrines remain unchanged.

And Drew is quite correct about Ehrman's tendency to make grandiose overstatements and extreme interpretations based on little evidence. I must admit to being a little frustrated to seeing his extreme interpretations being parroted by many LDS without thinking or understanding what it is they're arguing against.

Take care, everyone

[Zakuska]

Ive had Christians quote the very verse in discussion on Justification.

Exhibit A

Now go ahead and tell me Rhino with a straight face that "justification" and "peace with God" doesn't have anything to do with a central tenent of the Christian faith!

[rhinomelon]

Now go ahead and tell me Rhino with a straight face that "justification" and "peace with God" doesn't have anything to do with a central tenent of the Christian faith!

Ive had Christians quote the very verse in discussion on Justification.

I don't think you understand a word I've been saying. Let me say this one more time, and then I'm going to go back to watching my beloved Huskers getting whupped by USC

Yes, this passage has to do with a central Christian doctrine. BUT EVEN IF YOU ACCEPT EHRMAN'S INTERPRETATION, THERE ARE OTHER PASSAGES THAT SUPPORT THE DOCTRINE! So taking this out doesn't do anything to the doctrine; it simply affect one of the many passages that is used to support it. If this passage were cut out of my Bible, I'd simply go to others. No big deal. So do you get it now?

If you want to really affect my view on the infallibility of the Bible on matters of teaching, doctrine, faith, etc., first find me a doctrine that rests on a passage or group of passages THAT CAN ALL BE DEMONSTRATED AS VARIANTS AND NOT ORIGINAL!

For example, if snakehandling were a central Christian practice, you could demonstrate that the long ending to Mark (which contains the reference to picking up snakes and not being bitten) is a later addition, and my faith would be shattered to your satisfaction. Obviously snakehandling is not a central Christian doctrine, but I hope you're getting the picture. These random variants and non sequitur interpretations simply carry little weight with me, and most mainstream Christians, and for good reason. They simply don't matter much.

Take care, everyone

[Zakuska]

Yes I get what you mean. Completely. But now you are changing your argument mid discussion.

( that the variant readings left over affect no area of central Christian doctrine.

Is it just me or did the Goal posts just move.

[rhinomelon]

Yes I get what you mean. Completely. But now you are changing your argument mid discussion.

QUOTE

( that the variant readings left over affect no area of central Christian doctrine.

Is it just me or did the Goal posts just move.

Actually, they haven't moved at all. You've just been trying to kick through them from all over the map!

None of the variants that you have mentioned would affect a single central Christian doctrine if they were removed or discounted. There are variants that touch on central Christian doctrine, of course (I've never denied that), but the variants are not essential to that doctrine. The doctrine can be derived from other passages. I suppose I could have been more specific in what I meant by "no variant affects a central Christian doctrine", but I thought it was pretty plain. So, just show me a variant that is the only support for a Christian doctrine. Otherwise, you must agree that Ehrman's conclusions, while based in good research and information, overshoot the evidence and have no real effect on mainstream Christian belief and practice.

For another example of what I mean about variants and doctrine, here's an example for your side of the fence. Ehrman and othe scholars say that the passage in Luke where Christ sheds blood in Gethsemane is a later addition. Now, mainstream Christianity places no real weight on this passage, but LDS do. So if this passage is dismissed, the LDS doctrine has no place to stand because this is the only passage in the Bible that says what it says. That would be an example of a variant affecting a doctrine. Other examples for the LDS side would be if scholars suddenly agreed that the "baptism for the dead" passage is a forgery. Suddenly, that whole practice has no biblical support.

Take care, everyone

P.S. And sorry if I was a bitty snippy last night. It was late and I hate seeing my Huskers lose, even if it's to the #1 team in the nation (for now).

[Zakuska]

Ok Rhinomelon... you said "first find you a doctrine that rests on a passage or group of passages that can all be demonstrated as variants and not original."

So the core Christian doctrine we are considering... the divinity of Christ. (The whole reason the Council of Nicea was called)

The verses?

1) 1 John 5:7-8 - aka The Johnianne Comma - A later addition to the text after Nicea

2) 1 Timothy 3:16 - Everyone who posts on the MA&D board should recognize this as a proof text Christians use to support the divinity of Christ.

3) Acts 20:28

The passage in question, 1 Tim. 3:16, had long been used by advocates of orthodox theology to support the view that the New Testament itself calls Jesus God. For the text in most manuscripts refers to Christ as "God Made manifest in the flesh, and justified in the Spirit." As I pointed out in chapter 3, most manuscripts abbreviate sacred names (the so-called nomina sacra), and that is the case here as well, where the Greek word God (ΘEOΣ) is abbreviated in two letters, theta and sigma (ΘΣ), with a line drawn over the top to indicate that it is an abbreviation. What Wettstein noticed in examining Codex Alexandrinus was that the line over the top had been drawn in a different ink from the surrounding words, and so appeared to be from a later hand (i.e., written by a later scribe). Moreover, the horizontal line in the middle of the first letter, Θ, was not actually a part of the letter but was a line that had bled through from the other side of the old vellum. In other words, rather than being the abbreviation (tehta-sigma) for "God" (ΘΣ), the word was actually an omicron and the sigma (OΣ), a different word altogether, which simply means "who". The original reading of the manuscript thus did not speak of Christ as "God made manifest in the flesh" but Christ "who was made manifest in the flesh." According to the ancient testimoney of the Codex Alexandrinus, Christ is no longer explicitly called God in this passage.

As Wettstein continued his investigation, he found other passages typically used to affirm the doctrine of the divinity of Christ that in fact represented textual problems; when these problems are resolved on text-critical grounds, in most instances references to Jesus's divinity are taken away. This happens, for example, when the famous Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8 ) is removed from the text. And it happens in a passage in Acts 20:28, which in many manuscripts speaks of "the church of God, which he obtained by his own blood." Here again, Jesus appears to be spoken of as God. But in Codex Alexandrinus and some other manuscripts, the text instead speaks of "the Church of the Lord, which he obtained by his own blood." Now Jesus is called the Lord, but he is not explicitly identifed as God.

Misquoting Jesus (pg. 115-116)

This is a core doctrine here Rhino, and the Bible was altered in other places to support it!

Oh dear... now whats Johhny going to do... one of his Favoritest verses is a variant!

[rhinomelon]

This is a core doctrine here Rhino, and the Bible was altered in other places to support it!

Oh dear... now whats Johhny going to do... one of his Favoritest verses is a variant!

If the verses were altered in order to back up a doctrine that was already believed (which would be Ehrman's point, I believe), then how did that previous doctrine come to be? Answer: the divinity of Christ is not something that rests on a few explicit passages, but on an overall reading of the New Testament, the gospels in particular. And there are other explicit references that Ehrman does not claim to be variants, including Colossians 2, references in Titus that call both God and Jesus "savior" interchangeably, and John's prologue, and Philippians 2, Hebrews 1, etc. Aside from the explicit references, reading the gospels shows Jesus claiming things for himself that only apply to God, doing things that only God can do, and even being worshipped (which, if he's not God, means Thomas was committing the grave sin of idolatry).

But I commend you for finding a doctrine that has more than one variant that can be knocked away from it. You're getting closer!

Also, I would simply forget about using the I John 5:7-8 in discussions like this. It's about the biggest non-issue in the whole field of biblical textual criticism. Nobody, other than some scattered KJV-only types, accepts that verse as scriptural, or uses it as a linchpin of any particular doctrine. Heck, it's just a random footnotes in most biblical translations!

Take care, everyone

[Zakuska]

Heres a table for us to work with...

http://www.contenderministries.org/biblest...ityofchrist.php

Comparison Chart of Passages on the Deity of Christ4

Reference

NIV

NASB

KJV

John 1:1

Clear

Clear

Clear

John 1:18

Clear

Clear

Absent

John 20:28

Clear

Clear

Clear

Acts 20:28

Clear

Clear

Clear

Romans 9:5

Clear

Ambiguous

Ambiguous

Philippians 2:5-6

Most Clear

Clear

Least Clear

Colossians 1:15-17

Clear

Clear

Clear

Colossians 2:9

Clear

Clear

Ambiguous

1 Timothy 3:16

Absent

Absent

Clear

Titus 2:13

Clear

Clear

Ambiguous

Hebrews 1:8

Clear

Clear

Clear

2 Peter 1:1

Clear

Clear

Ambiguous

[rhinomelon]

Well, that chart seems to settle it for me. Are all these passages actually later variants? I don't believe that scholars would claim that for even a majority of them. And I think these would be passages that speak of the divinity of Christ explicitly; there is still a wealth of information that points at the divinity of Christ in a more roundabout way.

Take care, everyone

[e=mc2]

Ny Good Friend Rhino Melon:

God says that it's a textually errant, infallible in matters of teaching and practice, and more authoritative than any other book.

God said this? Where? I understand this is a human interpretation, not what God ever proclaimed.

[Bernard Gui]

God says that it's a textually errant, infallible in matters of teaching and practice, and more authoritative than any other book.

I guess I was absent from Sunday School on the day they discussed

this. Help me out...where did God say this?

Bernard

[rhinomelon]

God said this? Where? I understand this is a human interpretation, not what God ever proclaimed.

Why, through personal revelation, of course.

My statement was more of a tongue in cheek response to a leading question. No doubt the LDS answer would be something like, "I know the nature of the Bible because of the prophet, which you don't have," or something like that. Which is really just another form of personal revelation at the core of it, so we're just left back where we started; our personal revelations cancelling each other out, leaving us to hash through the facts (which I think is the point of this thread and a much more productive discussion anyway).

Clear as mud? By the way, Kerry, I am hauling through Latin right now. Pretty soon I think I'll be moderately intelligent!

Take care, everyone

[Drewm777]

I think you hit it right on the head, rhinomelon.

I get super frustrated when some christians try to prove their belief or claim that the Bible can be proven true scientifically.

I'll never ever buy that. Anyone who really believes or really knows it is true, knows it by revelation from God. You can't prove it any other way.

I might add, the same is true for the Book of Mormon. And God has told me it is true.

[e=mc2]

Rhinomelon:

By the way, Kerry, I am hauling through Latin right now. Pretty soon I think I'll be moderately intelligent!

Crimany you were way past that when I met you at the conference a month or so ago dude. I'm still working my way into Hebrew and Greek, more or less. It's rather stimulating. I just haven't gotten to Latin just yet, though I may in the next decade or so.

[rhinomelon]

Crimany you were way past that when I met you at the conference a month or so ago dude. I'm still working my way into Hebrew and Greek, more or less. It's rather stimulating. I just haven't gotten to Latin just yet, though I may in the next decade or so.

I've found that faking intelligence is a great way to get through parties. But what I've actually figured out is that taking Latin first is great preparation for Greek. It helps you get used to the various grammatical quirks, which then transfer pretty well to Greek. I'll be taking a one-and-a-half-years-in-twelve-weeks Greek class this summer, so we'll see how that turns out...

Good to hear from you! And I'm still nibbling away at "Early Christians in Disarray". Now I've got my advisor wanting me to bring that and Nibley's books that you suckered me into buying to class one day. Should be some good discussion!

Take care