quote:
Originally posted by almeyda
. . . the books of the New Testament, were written in the latter parts of the first century. The earliest extant manuscripts (trifling scraps excepted) are of the fourth century, so say 250-300 years later.
Hello almeyda,
Personally, as regards the NT, I pretty much agree with everything you have said in your posts. I do also, however, think that there are some important points that have not received the proper focus.
To begin with, IMO, the accuracy/veracity of the Iliad or any other ancient work of literature is totally irrelevant to the question of the accuracy/veracity of our extant NT texts.
Also, the important consideration is not how many extant manuscripts we have. As you seem to understand, some 99+% of these manuscripts date from the 10th century to the middle ages and are simply copies of what was, by that time, more or less a standardized text.
The more relevant considerations are: "What was the state of the "orthodox" theology when the autographs were penned?" and "What revisions may have been made to the text in the early decades/centuries following the autographs? (If indeed there actually was a single original document, written by one person at one time, which could be called an autograph.)
Two of the implications inherent in the above questions are these:
1. Did the position of "orthodox" theology in the time and understanding of the author of a NT text accurately reflect its origins?
IMO, there are several indications that it did not. Acts 21:20-21 records one event that suggests there was some later revisionism:
quote:
Acts 21:20-21
(James and the elders of the Jerusalem council say to Paul): . . . thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous for the law. And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to foresake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise children, neither to walk after the customs.
Thus, here, James and the elders accuse Paul of teaching Jews to abandon Mosaic law, (and, of course, that was exactly what he had been doing), and they point out to him the thousands of Christian Jews in Jerusalem who were still zealously following Mosaic law.
The Gentiles here are not the issue as they were never obligated under Mosaic law to begin with, but had only to follow the Noahic covenant to be considered "fearers of YHWH".
This, then, is a candid window on the fact that the original disciples of Jesus were of the understanding that following Jesus (as a Jew) did not include abandoning the Mosaic law (which included sacrifice for the remission of sin). It would also follow then that these original disciples did not consider Jesus' crucifixion to be of a sacrificial nature.
The concept of Jesus' crucifixion as sacrificial was a Pauline revision (that he purportedly received by direct revelation) which was incorporated into the later "orthodox" theology.
So, not only do we not know whether the original teachings of Jesus and the apostles are accurately reflected in the later gospel material, there are indications (of which the above is just one) that this is, indeed, not always the case.
And the second implication is:
2. Do our current texts, in turn, accurately transmit what was originally written in a NT text?
Again, there are indications that this is not always the case either. One issue will suffice, having to do with whether the original theology considered Jesus to be human (born in a normal manner) or a pre-existent deity miraculously born.
The Textus Receptus (TR) of Luke 3:22 reads:
quote:
You are my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased
And yet, until the 3rd century manuscript p4, this reading is unknown. Another, reading is:
quote:
You are my Son, today I have begotten you.
As mentioned above, except for the 3rd century p4, this is the reading in all extant 2nd & 3rd century manuscripts, plus: "the codex Bezae and the Old Latiin text of Luke. In addition, it appears to have been the text known to Justin, Clement of Alexandria, the gospel according to the Hebrews and the Didascalia. And it was certainly the text attested by the Gospel of the Ebionites, Origen, and Methodius".*
Another example of this issue is the TR reading of Luke 9:35:
quote:
. . . this is my beloved Son, hear him.
And yet, again, the early and superior witnesses (including p45, p75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, L, 892, 1241) all read:
quote:
. . .this is my Son, my chosen one.
Thus, here again we have further early attestation that Jesus was (at some point in his life) chosen by God to be the
mashiach.
And though there are several more, one more example will suffice. In the TR version of the gospel, John 1:34 reads:
quote:
And I saw and bare record that this is the Son of God.
But, again, "there are solid reasons for thinking that the reading preserved in a range of early and significant manuscripts (p5vid, Sinaiticus, 77, 218, b, e, ff, SYRsc) is to be preferred"*, i.e:
quote:
And I saw and bare record that this is the Elect of God
So, as you can see from the above examples, at the very least we cannot know whether the original theology was that of a man who became the elect
mashiach of God or whether that theology included a pre-existent deity brought into the world by a miraculous birth. And that, again, is at the very least. As it is, there are some very compelling reasons to think that the former theology was the original and that the TR is a revision of the original record.
*(All the information contained under implication #2 is taken and/or excerpted from:
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart D. Ehrman, Oxford Univ. Press, New York/Oxford, 1993)
These are just a few among many of what (IMO) are the important issues surrounding the question of accurate transmission of both the original theology and the "original" NT; as opposed to such things as whether it is as dependable as the Iliad or whether there were 12,000 copies of a standardized text made in the middle-ages.
It is also not necessary for myriad changes to have occurred. I have often heard quoted varying percentages of "agreement" between texts. IMO, this is misleading as the bulk of the textual material has no direct bearing on the important theological issues and would thus invoke no revision. As it is, my observation has been that these revisions (revealingly) tend to occur
precisely in the areas of significant theological import.
So, again, while this is just a brief overview, my intention is to point out that while what you are saying in your posts is (for the most part) true, I think it nevertheless fails to address the more important aspects of the issue.
JMHO, and I will welcome your comments,
Amlodhi
This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-06-2004 06:39 PM
™ Version 4.2