Is the New Testament in Error? by Revolg

[Yog^sothoth]

Is The New Testament in Error?

by Revolg

Have you ever sat in a circle and whispered a secret in the ear of the person next to you? By the time the secret reached the end of the circle it was totally different. That is what some people claim has happened to the Bible over the past two thousand years. They wonder whether or not we can trust the Bible.

But the New Testament we have today is not something the church has created over the years. The New Testament we read today is based on over 5,200 early manuscripts or pieces of manuscripts all written in the original Greek. These Greek manuscripts were found throughout the known world of New Testament times from Rome to Alexandria. What is surprising is how little these manuscripts deviate from each other. Besides minor discrepancies that never alter the meaning of any text, the bulk of these manuscripts agree word for word with one another. There is no other ancient document that even approaches the New Testament in manuscript integrity and evidence. You can see a further indepth study of this at http://www.carm.org/evidence/rewritten.htm.

In the past some scholars taught that the New Testament was written in the late second, third, fourth and fifth centuries after Christ. They then argued that the New Testament does not represent what really happened in the early church but is a record of the myths and stories that developed sometimes hundreds of years later. But one archaeological find smashed that whole school of thought. A fragment of the Gospel of John dated AD. 130 was found in Egypt. Today this papyrus is in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, England. And no scholar thinks this is an original. They would say it was a copy of a manuscript written thirty to fifty years before that.

The New Testament was written in the first century. Luke begins his Gospel, "Since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught" (Lk 1:3-4). Luke was a meticulous historian. John begins his first letter, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched-this we proclaim concerning the Word of life" (1:1). John claims to be writing an eyewitness account.

There are no contradictions in the Gospels which would cause us to question their credibility. There are some mysteries but no contradictions. Some used to claim that the pool in Jerusalem surrounded by five covered colonnades referred to in John 5 was a figment of John's imagination. Recently it was uncovered in an archaeological dig. Archaeology has validated many of the place names, governors, magistrates and emperors referred to in the historical narratives of the Bible. At no point does archaeology contradict the New Testament.

The apostolic fathers quoted the New Testament. A letter sent to the Corinthian church by Clement, bishop of Rome, about AD. 96, quotes Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews and 1 Peter. Letters written by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, as he traveled to his death as a martyr in Rome in A D. 115, quote Matthew,John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 Peter and 1 John. For these reasons-internal consistency, literary style of historical narrative, archeological evidence and a large collection of early Greek manuscripts-we can trust the New Testament as historically accurate.

We can read the New Testament for what it claims to be, an accurate, eyewitness account of the historical Jesus Christ. But now that we know the New Testament gives us an accurate picture of Jesus Christ and the early church, we must still ask is it true in what it says about God? This is a more complex issue that people have to decide for themselves. As a Christian I believe what Jesus and the biblical authors said is true and can be trusted. I believe that the Holy Spirit guided these writers to tell us what God wants us to know. Thus the Bible is more than just a history book. It is God revealing himself through the written word. It is the Word of God.

People who want to know if what the Bible says is true should try to read it openly and honestly. They should ask themselves, Do the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus ring true? If someone were making all this up, would they do it this way? Do the characters in the Bible sound like mere religious fanatics who are out of touch with real life, or do the prophets and apostles sound like they have a handle on what is real?

Another interesting exercise is to compare Old Testament prophecies about the Jewish Messiah (for instance, Isaiah 52:13-53:12) with how they were fulfilled hundreds of years later in the life of Christ.

It is only as we explore the claims of the Bible, studying its teachings and putting them into practice to see if they work that we will be able to know if the Bible is true and trustworthy. As we experience more of the truth contained in Scripture, the more we can trust it and the more we can put our trust in the one the Bible points to, Jesus Christ.

TheologyWeb thanks Revolg for being a faifhful member and supporter of this site and one of our first members.

[stevencarrwork]

revlovg writes 'The New Testament we read today is based on over 5,200 early manuscripts or pieces of manuscripts all written in the original Greek. These Greek manuscripts were found throughout the known world of New Testament times from Rome to Alexandria. What is surprising is how little these manuscripts deviate from each other. Besides minor discrepancies that never alter the meaning of any text, the bulk of these manuscripts agree word for word with one another.'

There is no Greek manuscript before 800 AD which contains 27 and only 27 books in its New Testament. Sinaiticus contains additional books, for example.

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli1.htm summarises the manuscripts, showing how these early manuscripts don't even agree on what book. It even has a nice picture showing where the scribes added words to the early manuscripts.


http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli2.htm analyses some of the doctrinal differences, where the early Christian scribes altered the manuscripts to make them conform to Christian doctrines.

[jpholding]

:zzz:

Mountains out of molehills, Stevie.

Bring your specifics here for discussion so I can give you another whuppin'. :brow:

[Dee Dee Warren]

I am moving this to the discussion thread on Revolg's article. Why would you place it here Steve?

[stevencarrwork]

Yesterday @ 11:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78911#post78911)
Dee Dee Warren:

I am moving this to the discussion thread on Revolg's article. Why would you place it here Steve?

Sorry. Didn't see a discussion thread.

Holding thinks whether or not the latest manuscript discoveries (p106) do not have Jesus being called the 'Son of God' is a molehill.....

As far as I know, p106 is the second earliest manuscript of John 1 we have, and 'Son of God' is replaced by something else.

Of course, Holding disregards the documented evidence of early Christian scribes altering the text at will as a 'molehill'.

[stevencarrwork]

Yesterday @ 11:48 PM
jpholding:



Bring your specifics here for discussion so I can give you another whuppin'. :brow:


OK. Revolg writes 'A letter sent to the Corinthian church by Clement, bishop of Rome, about AD. 96, quotes Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews and 1 Peter.'

Produce these quotes. Some of them do exist (Romans and 1 Corinthians, if I remember rightly). Produce the others.

Remember to show that Clement is not quoting any oral tradition, but is actually quoting the Gospels.

[judge]

I used to believe that the NT was penned in greek too but over the last couple of years I have come to the conclusion it was penned in Aramaic, and survives in it's original word for word , letter for letter form in the eastern pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta used in the liturgy of the assyrian church of the east.

Not only do I believe this is the truth, but many of the problems associated with defending the ancient greek mss are not there in the Aramaic.

From www.pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta.org...

"these claims are highly contested in western Christianity.The common misconception that the new testament was originally penned in greek still persists in the vast majority of christian denominations. Most scholars and theologians ackowkedge that eshoo mshikha, the apostles and the jews in general spoke Aramaic indeed many instances of aramaic survive in the greek new testament manuscripts. However they still maintain that the new testament was penned in greek by the apostles and disciples of nshikha.
The church of the east has always rejected this claim......

[Revolg]

Thanks Judge,

I knew some of it was written in Aramaic but my article was also edited to better clarity. So what you see in the article is mostly my words but some editing has been happening. Actually, Stevie, you are almost right... Just they "quoted" from all books if you had the chance to actually read their works, *sigh*.

Eric

[Jaltus]

There are only two books that show any evidence of being written in Aramaic first, namely Mark and Matthew. The reason Mark seems like it was written in Aramaic is due to the bizarre way he uses conjunctions between sentences.

As for Matthew, Eusebius mentions that it was originally in Aramaic. At this point in time, however, we can only say that if it was in Aramaic originally, then we have a highly edited version, for it shows little of that slant.

Luke, John, and Acts were all definitely written in Greek. They are too tightly written and use classical idioms at certain points.

Paul's epistles were all written in Greek, since nobody he wrote to would be able to read Aramaic. James was written in Greek, due to the style. Hebrews might have been written in Aramaic, I am not sure on the evidence for this one. I Peter and II Peter were both written in Greek, as were John's letters. Revelation could have an Aramaic root, but that seems unlikely due to the structure of 1-3.

If you have real evidence, bring it on. Your link above was nonfunctional.

[Revolg]

This is the better URL.

I wrote this article like half a year ago LOL (above one, not this URL).*

http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 12:35 AM stevencarrwork:




OK. Revolg writes 'A letter sent to the Corinthian church by Clement, bishop of Rome, about AD. 96, quotes Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews and 1 Peter.'

Produce these quotes. Some of them do exist (Romans and 1 Corinthians, if I remember rightly). Produce the others.

Remember to show that Clement is not quoting any oral tradition, but is actually quoting the Gospels.

Holding ducked this challenge as well.

As for any bit of the NT being written in Aramaic, there is not one first century Christian Aramaic document.

Eusebius , writing more than 2 centuries later, is evidence? The man who produced forged letters supposedly written by Jesus himself, and who doctored quotes of Josephus to make them appear to corroborate Acts?

Eusebius is about as much evidence as Joseph Smith's claim that the Book of Mormon was written in Reformed Egyptian.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 05:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79406#post79406)
Revolg:

http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm


Dee Dee has written recently 'Hey Joe, simply posting links in lieu of posting information here is against our Forum Decorum. If you wish to discuss information on those sites here, please post it here with a link if necessary for further information to the interested."'


As for the link you gave, it is full of the usual distortions.

Indeed it compares a fragment of the NT, consisting of about 120 letters (not words) with whole copies of other works.

Secular works have to have whole copies to be counted, while the author counts up credit-card sized fragments for the NT.

But we all know that Christian apologists have double-standards, and hope that their flock do no more research on what they read.

The author's lack of logic is breath-taking. Apparently, if we reject the NT as not history, we have to regard the Illiad as being fictional as well.

Guess what? The Illiad is fictional!

And the author is not above plain lies 'This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a first century document.'


Actually, we have genuine originals of other documents - letters for example.

Hasn't the author heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? They were also just as close in time. Perhaps they are all true as well.

As for the fragment the author crows about :-

This fragment contains 120 letters, and does not even mention Jesus!

Can you imagine Christians trying to win over sceptics if they told the truth - that the first known manuscript of the NT does not even mention Jesus? No wonder the author refuses to tell the truth about that!

Here is a rough English translation of the letters which can be made out

Recto side (John 18:31-33):

. .............the Jews [did], 'To us..... anyone'

that ...... id, signifying ......to die..

Ent....ium, P .... and sai .........ew..


Verso side (John 18:37-38):

'....this have been born.... world, that I may tes ..... the trut .'


' Says to him... nd this ..... the Je... thing....

And this is what CARM brag about, as evidence for the textual reliability of the New Testament!!!!

[Tercel]

Today @ 08:41 AM stevencarrwork:
Eusebius , writing more than 2 centuries later, is evidence?He's quoting Papias (c130AD).


The man who produced forged letters supposedly written by Jesus himself, and who doctored quotes of Josephus to make them appear to corroborate Acts?

Eusebius is about as much evidence as Joseph Smith's claim that the Book of Mormon was written in Reformed Egyptian.~sigh~ Just because the man was a bit uncritical in his use of sources, doesn't make him a liar or a forger. There is no evidence that Eusebius forged to the letter of Jesus or doctored Josephus.
If you want people to believe he did then prove it.

Eusebius is a very valuable source as an early historian who has preserved many early sources which otherwise would have been lost to us. That some of the sources preserved by him are inauthentic is not a slur on his character or honesty.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 11:24 PM
Tercel:

He's quoting Papias (c130AD).


One hopes so...

This is still two century old hearsay evidence from a work whose authenticity we cannot check.


Today @ 11:24 PM


~sigh~ Just because the man was a bit uncritical in his use of sources, doesn't make him a liar or a forger. [i]There is no evidence that Eusebius forged to the letter of Jesus or doctored Josephus.
If you want people to believe he did then prove it.



Did I say Eusebius forged the letter supposedly from Jesus?

I merely point out that such forgeries hardly establish Eusebius as so reliable.

As for 'proving it', I am very happy to do so.


Josephus wrote in Antiquities Book 19 Section 346

'But as he presently afterwards looked up, he saw an owl sitting
on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger (Greek 'Angelos') of ill tidings...'

Eusebius in his History (2.10) omits the words 'boubona - epi
schoiniou tinos' (ie an owl on a certain rope) and retains only the
'angelos' or messenger. As it stands in Eusebius, the 'quote' of
Josephus appears to support Acts 12:23 which mentions an 'angelos', but naturally does not say this messenger was an owl.

Eusebius also said Tertullian referred to the tribe of Christians. He did not.

Eusebius also said Trajan referred to the tribe of Christians. He did not.

Tercel will now check these quotes of Trajan, Josephus and Tertullian and confirm that I am correct in saying that Eusebius versions of them are altered and doctored.

[judge]

Today @ 04:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79400#post79400)
Jaltus:

There are only two books that show any evidence of being written in Aramaic first, namely Mark and Matthew. The reason Mark seems like it was written in Aramaic is due to the bizarre way he uses conjunctions between sentences.

As for Matthew, Eusebius mentions that it was originally in Aramaic. At this point in time, however, we can only say that if it was in Aramaic originally, then we have a highly edited version, for it shows little of that slant.

Luke, John, and Acts were all definitely written in Greek. They are too tightly written and use classical idioms at certain points.

Paul's epistles were all written in Greek, since nobody he wrote to would be able to read Aramaic. James was written in Greek, due to the style. Hebrews might have been written in Aramaic, I am not sure on the evidence for this one. I Peter and II Peter were both written in Greek, as were John's letters. Revelation could have an Aramaic root, but that seems unlikely due to the structure of 1-3.

If you have real evidence, bring it on. Your link above was nonfunctional.

Hi again... maybe matthew to start. As you have mentioned there is evidence that it was written in "the hebrew dialect" which I believe to be Aramaic.
Here is the evidence I am aware of ..

Many of the references to matthew having written his gospel in "the Hebrew dialect" may stem from a saying attributed to Papias.(c.125)

What we have is this (in greek)
MATQAIOS
MEN OUN hEBRAIDI DIALEKTWi TO LOGIA SUNETAKSATO, hHRMHNEUSEN D AUTA hWS
HN DUNATOS hEKASTOS

Schollars have argued about the exact meaning of the words here but i beleive the plain reading is as follows...."that Matthew wrote his work in a/the hebrew dialect and each translated as best they could"

Now the immediate question is what was meant by "hebrew dialect".
There is some disagreement among scollars but I think the "hebrew dialect" (note not hebrew language) was the dialect of Aramaic spoken by jews at the time of Christ.
Hebrew had by this time long ago ceased to be the common tongue of jews.

This view would find support in the catholic Encyclopaedia...
…Moreover, Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6) tells us that the Gospel of Matthew was a reproduction of his preaching, and this we know, was in Aramaic. An investigation of the Semitic idioms observed in the Gospel does not permit us to conclude as to whether the original was in Hebrew or Aramaic, as the two languages are so closely related. Besides, it must be home in mind that the greater part of these Semitisms simply reproduce colloquial Greek and are not of Hebrew or Aramaic origin. However, we believe the second hypothesis to be the more probable, viz., that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic.”

Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)




An interesting quote from this history is in Book V,
chapter 10 concerning an Egyptian father named
Pantaenus who lived in the 2nd century:

"Of these Pantaenus was one:it is stated that he went as
far as India, where he appears to have found that
Matthew's Gospel had arrived before him and was in the
hands of some there who had come to know Christ.
Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them
and had left behind Matthew's account in the actual
Aramaic characters, and it was preserved till the time of
Pantaenus's mission."

Quoted from the translation by G. A. Williamson, The
History of the Church, Dorset Press, New York, 1965,
pages 213-214.

Ireneus (170 C.E.)
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in
their own dialect.
(Irenaeus; Against Heresies 3:1)

Origen (c. 210 C.E.)
The first is written according to Matthew, the same
that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of
Yeshua the Messiah, who having published it for the Jewish
believers, wrote it in Hebrew.
(quoted by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 6:25)

Epiphanius (370 C.E.)
They have the Gospel according to Matthew
quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still
preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew
letters.
(Epiphanius; Panarion 29:9:4)

Jerome (382 C.E.)
"Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came to be
an emissary first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of
Messiah in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the
benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who
translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained.
Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the
library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently
collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this
volume in the Syrian city of Borea to copy it. In which is to be
remarked that, wherever the evangelist... makes use of the
testimonies of the Old Scripture, he does not follow the
authority of the seventy translators , but
that of the Hebrew."
(Lives of Illustrious Men 3)

"Pantaenus found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve
emissaries, had there preached the advent of our Lord
Yeshua the Messiah according to the Gospel of Matthew, which
was written in Hebrew letters, and which, on returning to
Alexandria, he brought with him."
(De Vir. 3:36)

Isho'dad (850 C.E.)
His book was in existence in Caesarea of Palestine,
and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands in
Hebrew...
(Isho'dad Commentary on the Gospels)


Whilst I am at it I might as well post some other indications that other books may have been written in Aramaic as well. :)

Clement of Alexandria (150 - 212 C.E.)
In the work called Hypotyposes, to sum up the matter briefly
he has given us abridged accounts of
all the canonical Scriptures,... the Epistle to the Hebrews he
asserts was written by Paul, to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew
tongue; but that it was carefully translated by Luke, and
published among the Greeks.
(Clement of Alexandria; Hypotyposes; referred to by Eusebius in Eccl. Hist. 6:14:2)

Eusebius (315 C.E.)
For as Paul had addressed the Hebrews in the language of his
country; some say that the evangelist Luke, others that
Clement, translated the epistle.
(Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:38:2-3)

Jerome (382)
"He (Paul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own
tongue and most fluently while things which were eloquently
written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek
(Lives of Illustrious Men, Book 5)

Eusebius says, (H. E. iv. 22) that:

"Hegesippus, (who lived and wrote about A. D. 188,)
made some quotations from the Gospel according to
the Hebrews, and from the Syriac Gospel"

Now this claims that in the days of Hegesippus, a Syriac
Gospel existed, and that it was a different book from the
Gospel according to the Hebrews.

And in the Passio Sancti Procopii Martyris, (annexed
by Valesius to the Hist. Eccles. of Eusebius, lib. viii. c. 1,
ed. Amsterdam, 1695. Annotatt, p. 154,) the martyr is said
to have been born at Jerusalem, and to have passed his
life at Scythopolis, where he performed three functions in
the church,- " unum in legendi officio, alterum in Syri
interpretatione sermonis, et tertium adversus
daemones manus impositione consummans ;" until his
martyrdom, under Diocletian, A. D. 303

This view seems to have persisted in some quarters even up to the time of Pope Leo X.

In a book written in 16th century Italy, "Masoret haMasoret", by Rabbi Eliahu Levita, this story is written:

"Now, when I was in Rome, I saw three Chaldeans, who arrived from the country of Prester John, having been sent for by Pope Leo X. They were masters of the Syriac language and literature, though their vernacular language was Arabic. The special language, however, wherin the books were written, as well as that of the gospels of the Christians which they brought with them was Syriac, which is also called Aramean, Babylonian, Assyrian... Pope Leo X. had sent for them, in order to correct by their Codices his exemplar of his New Testament, which was written in Latin.....Now I saw them reading this (Syriac) Psalter without points, and asked them, Have you points, or any signs to indicate the vowels? and they answered me: "No! but we have been conversant with that language from our youth till now, and therefore, know how to read without points." ( Eliahu ben Asher Ashkenazi (Elias Levita), Masoret HaMasoret (first published: Venice 1538), edited by C. D. Ginsburg, in: Harry M. Orlinsky (ed.), The Library of Biblical Studies, New York: Ktav, 1968, pp. 130-131. )

Most western schollars of of the view that the NT was penned in greek, but Assyrian Christians who to this day still conduct thier services in Aramaic have a different view.

"With reference to....the originality of the Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision."

Mar Eshai Shimun

by Grace, Catholicos Patriarch of the East.


These quotes are interesting however the internal evidence seems mare compelling again (to me anyway :) )
I believe there are indications within the books that even Pauls writings were originally composed in Aramaic.
This should not be so surprising as even our Lord addressed Paul in Aramaic.
At the end of the day they all rerad the same, but I do think it makes the defense of the scriptures easier by looking to Aramaic as the original.
This is due to the fact that the pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta texts are basically uniform. The kind of variations in the various greek texts are absent.
Secondly contradictions that appear in the greek translations are not there in the aramaic.

Cheers......judge

[Tercel]

Today @ 11:32 AM stevencarrwork:
Josephus wrote in Antiquities Book 19 Section 346

'But as he presently afterwards looked up, he saw an owl sitting
on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger (Greek 'Angelos') of ill tidings...'

Eusebius in his History (2.10) omits the words 'boubona - epi
schoiniou tinos' (ie an owl on a certain rope) and retains only the
'angelos' or messenger. As it stands in Eusebius, the 'quote' of
Josephus appears to support Acts 12:23 which mentions an 'angelos', but naturally does not say this messenger was an owl.That's nice. And this proves...?


Eusebius also said Tertullian referred to the tribe of Christians. He did not.

Eusebius also said Trajan referred to the tribe of Christians. He did not.? What passage in Eusebius' writings are you disputing here?


Tercel will now check these quotes of Trajan, Josephus and Tertullian and confirm that I am correct in saying that Eusebius versions of them are altered and doctored.I won't do any such thing. I'll say that Eusebius' quote of Josephus is different to our copies of Josephus. And I'll say: how on earth do you expect me to check allegedly non-existent quotes? You haven't even told me what non-existent quotes I'm supposed to be checking for.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 12:11 AM
Tercel:

What passage in Eusebius' writings are you disputing here?

I won't do any such thing. I'll say that Eusebius' quote of Josephus is different to our copies of Josephus. And I'll say: how on earth do you expect me to check allegedly non-existent quotes? You haven't even told me what non-existent quotes I'm supposed to be checking for.

Different quotes in Eusebius to what we have do show that Eusebius misquotes people. And the bit Eusebius left out just happened to be a part which contradicted Luke........

But Tercel thinks that is not doctoring, in a work which also includes forged letters, supposedly from Jesus.



You can compare what Eusebius wrote in Book 3, Chapter 33 of Ecclesiastical History.

'We have taken our account from the Latin Apology of Tertullian which we mentioned above. The translation runs as follows: "And indeed we have found that search for us has been forbidden. For when Plinius Secundus, the governor of a province, had condemned certain Christians and deprived them of their dignity, he was confounded by the multitude, and was uncertain what further course to pursue. He therefore communicated with Trajan the emperor, informing him that, aside from their unwillingness to sacrifice, he had found no impiety in them. And he reported this also, that the Christians arose early in the morning and sang hymns unto Christ as a God, and for the purpose of preserving their discipline forbade murder, adultery, avarice, robbery, and the like. In reply to this Trajan wrote that the race of Christians should not be sought after, but when found should be punished."

Eusebius is supposedly translating Tertullians Apology 2:6 and 2:7

The relevant sentence in Tertullian is 'Tunc Traianus rescripsit hoc genus inquirendos quidem non esse, oblatos vero puniri oportere.'

As you can see there is nothing in that sentence about Trajan which can be translated 'Christians', still less 'race' or 'tribe' of Christians.

Sorry I can't tell you were Trajan didn't say what Eusebius said he did. I can't give references for fabricated quotes. I'm sure you will understand....

[Tercel]

Today @ 12:33 PM stevencarrwork:
Different quotes in Eusebius to what we have do show that Eusebius misquotes people.Not necessarily. Eusebius could have been quoting from a copy in his library which differed in this passage to the copies we now have.


And the bit Eusebius left out just happened to be a part which contradicted Luke...Which makes it quite conceivable that Eusebius' copy might have been altered by a Christian copiest to read this way... possibly by the same one who altered the TF.


But Tercel thinks that is not doctoring, in a work which also includes forged letters, supposedly from Jesus.I think there is no reason to believe that Eusebius did any doctoring or forging.


You can compare what Eusebius wrote in Book 3, Chapter 33 of Ecclesiastical History.

'We have taken our account from the Latin Apology of Tertullian which we mentioned above. The translation runs as follows:
And indeed we have found that search for us has been forbidden. For when Plinius Secundus, the governor of a province, had condemned certain Christians and deprived them of their dignity, he was confounded by the multitude, and was uncertain what further course to pursue. He therefore communicated with Trajan the emperor, informing him that, aside from their unwillingness to sacrifice, he had found no impiety in them. And he reported this also, that the Christians arose early in the morning and sang hymns unto Christ as a God, and for the purpose of preserving their discipline forbade murder, adultery, avarice, robbery, and the like. In reply to this Trajan wrote that the race of Christians should not be sought after, but when found should be punished.

Eusebius is supposedly translating Tertullians Apology 2:6 and 2:7

The relevant sentence in Tertullian is 'Tunc Traianus rescripsit hoc genus inquirendos quidem non esse, oblatos vero puniri oportere.'

As you can see there is nothing in that sentence about Trajan which can be translated 'Christians', still less 'race' or 'tribe' of Christians.I would guess the translation of Tertullian's writings stops at "...avarice, robbery, and the like." and the words "In reply to this Trajan wrote that the race of Christians should not be sought after, but when found should be punished." are Eusebius' own statement summarising Trajan's reply to Pliny.


Sorry I can't tell you were Trajan didn't say what Eusebius said he did. I can't give references for fabricated quotes. I'm sure you will understand....Fine, I'll tell you where Trajan said what Eusebius said he did:
Pliny, Letters 10.96-97 (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html)

[Vorkosigan]

Trust the texts, or the content?

The New Testament we read today is based on over 5,200 early manuscripts or pieces of manuscripts all written in the original Greek. These Greek manuscripts were found throughout the known world of New Testament times from Rome to Alexandria. What is surprising is how little these manuscripts deviate from each other.

What is suprising is that anyone could write stuff like this without checking the reality of the situation. Doesn't anyone vet these "articles" for accuracy? As anyone could tell you, the vast majority of these manuscripts are Medieval and late, not "early" as this poster says. Only a few fragments date from the (late) second century, the majority of stuff coming from the third or later. Any respectable site can give the details. See this one:
Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts (http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html) at Duke. Any mainstream site will give a similar account.

Here's a large collection of links on manuscripts:
http://209.19.227.169:8080/

which notes:

"[3.1] No two MSS are the same. Language, antiquity, provenance, and scribal accuracy can, when taken together, indicate a manuscript's proximity to its archetype. Taken alone, however, none of these criteria is sufficient to establish a manuscript's value; an early MS may have a late text, and vice versa.

[3.2] There are many biblical MSS. For instance, 116 papyrus, 310 uncial, 2867 minuscule, and 2417 lectionary copies of Greek New Testament MSS are presently catalogued. We hope that they will all be included here eventually; however, our efforts are first directed towards including those MSS generally regarded as important representatives of major texttypes."

Yuri Kuchinsky, whom I almost never agree with, but who is one of the most interesting and vigorous posters on the net, has an antagonistic article here on p52 The Rylands Papyrus Fraud (http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/rylands.htm)

A fragment of the Gospel of John dated AD. 130 was found in Egypt. Today this papyrus is in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, England. And no scholar thinks this is an original. They would say it was a copy of a manuscript written thirty to fifty years before that.

This dating has been revised upward in many recent publications. As Schnelle, a Christian, notes in his resoundly mainstream History and Theology of the New Testament, the date of around 125 must now be regarded as perhaps too early, and 150 more acceptable. A number of scholars stick it in the second half of the second century, 150-175, and it bears a strong family resemblance to an Egerton 2 fragment dated to 200. See Schnelle's discussion on page 477.

Whether the texts represent what their original authors wrote is hotly debated. I don't want to get too into that. But clearly, a set of writings such as the NT, which contains heavily redacted and edited documents such as John and Mark, documents that extensively copy and rewrite other documents, such as Luke and Matthew, documents that are forgeries in the name of famous individuals (many letters, including about half the letters of Paul), documents that exist in differing versions (Acts, ending of Mark), and which in turn exists in several different manuscript traditions, should not be so cavalierly treated. The issue of the relationships between the "original" texts and the ones we currently have is thorny and complex, and as new arguments come out, old opinions are constantly being revised.

For example, see this on papyrus work in Egypt:
Some Recently Published NT Papyri from Oxyrhynchus: An Overview and Preliminary Assessment (http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/NTOxyPap.htm) with some notes on variant readings.

Richard Carrier has an example of some of the problems of reconstructing "original" texts here. (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/bible.html) Skip the first half and scroll down to the second on Calvinist Scorn of Text Criticism to read his discussion of the problems with 1 Tim:

"As it happens, when it comes to 4:10, all the useful manuscripts are pretty evenly divided between both "struggle" and "reproach," in no discernible way, offering no solution. Several manuscripts that are older than Aleph exist in other languages, including the famous Vulgate, as well as Syriac and Coptic editions, and they all have words which translate as "reproach" rather than "struggle," but is this evidence of a better reading, or itself an error which became the source for the correction? We cannot know. Thus, no one today knows what 1 Timothy says here. It says one thing or the other, but that still means we cannot reconstruct Paul's original choice. This is a common problem throughout the New Testament."

Vorkosigan

[stevencarrwork]

04-27-2003 @ 02:32 AM
Tercel:

Fine, I'll tell you where Trajan said what Eusebius said he did:
Pliny, Letters 10.96-97 (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html)

Sorry. I can't find where Trajan said what Eusebius said he did.

Are you sure you gave the right reference?

There is nothing about 'the race of Christians' or 'the tribe of Christians' in what you gavem which is what Eusebius said Trajan wrote.

Could you double-check that you have posted the correct URL please?

[PastorPenn]

04-25-2003 @ 01:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78606#post78606)
stevencarrwork:

revlovg writes 'The New Testament we read today is based on over 5,200 early manuscripts or pieces of manuscripts all written in the original Greek. These Greek manuscripts were found throughout the known world of New Testament times from Rome to Alexandria. What is surprising is how little these manuscripts deviate from each other. Besides minor discrepancies that never alter the meaning of any text, the bulk of these manuscripts agree word for word with one another.'

There is no Greek manuscript before 800 AD which contains 27 and only 27 books in its New Testament. Sinaiticus contains additional books, for example.

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli1.htm summarises the manuscripts, showing how these early manuscripts don't even agree on what book. It even has a nice picture showing where the scribes added words to the early manuscripts.


http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli2.htm analyses some of the doctrinal differences, where the early Christian scribes altered the manuscripts to make them conform to Christian doctrines.

And your point is...? Any first year student of textual criticism is aware of the problems with the transmission of the text. The question is one of reliability, i.e. is the text of the New Testament that we possess essentially the same as the autographs?

When we compare the totality of witnesses; including Greek manuscripts, Italic, lectionaries, the Patristic quotations, the Syriac, Latin, etc., we may conclude with a high degree of probability that what we possess is a reasonably accurate text.

When we compare an eclectic text such as Nestle-Aland to the Majority Text, we find that there are no essential doctrines that are effected by varient readings.

Most varient readings concern spelling, minor grammatical differences, a misplaced article, etc.

I admit that in certain books there are large differences, such as the longer ending of Mark which is absent in the Alexandrian text type, but again, this does not effect any major doctrine.

Your observation of Codex Aleph having additional books tells me that you are unfamilar with the process of the development of the cannon. The absence of complete, early witnesses is a testament to their use. The estimated life of a highly circulated papryus is forty years; that of parchment or vellum eighty years. We assume that these early writings were circulated extensively and wore out rather rapidly, thus the need for copying and the attendant problem of error in the text due to scribal error, redactor emendation, etc. (May I suggest that you try to copy one book of the New Testament by hand to compare your accuracy in copying?)

For further reading I suggest INTRODUCTION TO TEXTUAL CRITICISM, Greenlee, Eerdmans.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 06:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84246#post84246)
PastorPenn:



When we compare an eclectic text such as Nestle-Aland to the Majority Text, we find that there are no essential doctrines that are effected by varient readings.

Most varient readings concern spelling, minor grammatical differences, a misplaced article, etc.



Or whether Jesus was called Son of God in Mark 1:1, or John 1, whether Jesus was comforted by angels, whether Jesus forgave his enemies on the cross, whether Luke 24:12 is a later addition, what Jesus said when establishing the Eucharist etc etc.

Whether Luke said Peter went to the tomb is not a minor grammatical difference, no matter how you spin it.


I suggest you look at
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli2.htm to bring yourself up to speed on the issues

[Socrates]

Most of the NT was originally written in Greek -- see www.tektonics.org/greekbrew.html Inspiration and its corollary inerrancy apply the Greek originals behind the current extant manuscripts.

The "Hebrew roots" movement, run overwhelmingly by Gentiles, claims that the Greek manuscripts are errant copies of Semitic originals, which we must try to reconstruct. In practice, this means according to the heretical views of the proponents of the movement, many of whom deny the Trinity.

Christians are right to trust the Greek texts.

[Tercel]

Steven, don't be silly.


Trajan to Pliny
You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.
-Pliny, Letters 10.96-97


Trajan made the following decree: that the race of Christians should not be sought after, but when found should be punished.
-Eusebius, H.E 3.33.2

Eusebius is paraphrasing Trajan. You may therefore consider him a "liar" and "forger" and "doctorer" if you wish. I have paraphrased people in the past myself, I only hope you do not consider me such.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 12:08 PM
Tercel:

Eusebius is paraphrasing Trajan. You may therefore consider him a "liar" and "forger" and "doctorer" if you wish. I have paraphrased people in the past myself, I only hope you do not consider me such.

Eusebius said he was translating the Latin Apology, not paraphrasing.

Curiously, Eusebius uses the same phrase 'tribe of Christians' when 'paraphrasing' Trajan and Tertullian (who never used that phrase), and also that exact phrase appears in his quote of Josephus (not the quote Josephus doctored to remove the messenger being an owl, when Luke did not say it was an owl, I'm talking about a different quote)

Perhaps the letter by Jesus which appears in Eusebius is also a paraphrase, and the different text of the Martyrdom of Polycarp to what we have today is also a paraphrase....

[jpholding]

Dream on, Stevie. I just didn't get notice of updates on this thread. But that's not what I challenged you about. I challenged you on changes in the mss. I want five examples of those. Take them from Ehrman, I still have my copy.

If you want to do the other I will pick up something on it next week.

Secular works have to have whole copies to be counted, while the author counts up credit-card sized fragments for the NT.

A pathetic lie, actually, but no surprise from Stevie PWS Carr. :ahem: Nor his usual strawman that we use textual criticism as a pointer towards historicity. He and the Jury crew got that wrong even 7 years ago.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

05-01-2003 @ 11:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84504#post84504)
stevencarrwork:



Or whether Jesus was called Son of God in Mark 1:1, or John 1, whether Jesus was comforted by angels, whether Jesus forgave his enemies on the cross, whether Luke 24:12 is a later addition, what Jesus said when establishing the Eucharist etc etc.

"or John 1"...er, Steven that is from Codex Regius, a post-canon text (i.e. irrelevant to questions of NT error issues) which involves a misplaced article in verse 1, which is exactly what was stated by PastorPenn. What's the problem here?

from Guy

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 08:25 AM ghbearman:



"or John 1"...er, Steven that is from Codex Regius, a post-canon text (i.e. irrelevant to questions of NT error issues) which involves a misplaced article in verse 1, which is exactly what was stated by PastorPenn. What's the problem here?



Fascinating! I might learn something here. This is all new to me.

When was the canon formed? 100 AD, 200 AD, 300 AD, 400 AD, 500 AD - do tell us please?


Which are post-canon texts and which are pre-canon texts, using your date for the formation of the canon? Can you tell me which respected textual critic divides manuscripts into 'post-canon' and 'pre-canon' and then claims that manuscripts after that date are irrelevant?


Can we be sure that we have a pre-canon text which is a good example of the canon?

For example, p72 P72 contains Jude and 1 and 2 Peter and various non-canonical works, such as The Nativity of Mary,the eleventh Ode of Solomon,Melito's Homily on the Passover,the Apology of Phileas etc. Presumably that is a pre-canon text and so relevant to the idea of what is in the NT.

Codex Vaticanus about AD 350. This has lost the New Testament from Hebrews 9 onwards. Is this a pre-canon or post-canon text?


Sinaiticus includes Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas. Nine correctors worked on it until the 12th century. It also includes works from the Old Testament which are rejected by Christians today, such as 4 Maccabees. Are the corrections (remember it was still being corrected as late as the 12th century) post-canon corrections or pre-canon corrections?

Which are the pre-canon texts which are good?

Or have you simply made up this claim that 'post-canon texts' are irrelevant? Don't worry about saying 'yes'. Nobody minds if Christians just make things up.

[stevencarrwork]

05-03-2003 @ 12:08 PM
Tercel:




Eusebius is paraphrasing Trajan. You may therefore consider him a "liar" and "forger" and "doctorer" if you wish. I have paraphrased people in the past myself, I only hope you do not consider me such.

When Eusebius says he is turning Trajan's words from Latin into Greek , Tercel refuses to call it a translation, but says it is a 'paraphrase'. He does this because Eusebius doctored the translation, and Tercel needs an out, to get around that.

When Sherbear is told the Greek in Bibles today is still koine Greek, she says it is a 'modern Greek translation' of koine Greek. She needed an out, because she wants to claim that modern Bibles have different words to what was originally written.

So going from one language to another, Christians say it is not a translation.

When it is still the same language, Christians say it is a translation.

True Christian double-talk.

They will say anything!

[Jason Clark]

Steve, I'm sure JP has told you numerous times that in ancient times it was not necessary to quote another author word for word. It was regarded as sufficient to convey the sense of what they were writing ie what Tercel calls a paraphrase.

As Trajan wrote in latin, and Eusibius conveyed the sense of his words in greek it was by their standards a translation.

Try this:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/eusebius_the_liar.htm

For an answer to the allegations of Eusibius' dishonesty.

Steve, don't be an anachronist all your life.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 09:16 PM Jason Clark:

Steve, I'm sure JP has told you numerous times that in ancient times it was not necessary to quote another author word for word. It was regarded as sufficient to convey the sense of what they were writing ie what Tercel calls a paraphrase.

As Trajan wrote in latin, and Eusibius conveyed the sense of his words in greek it was by their standards a translation.



I see your sig records conversations which never took place....

'Richard Dawkins: 'Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.'
AiG: 'Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?'
Richard Dawkins: '...'

One would almost get the impression from your quote that
Answers in Genesis asked that question just after Dawkins made the quote you claimed he made in that interview. But that would be a false impression.


Let me recap. I said Eusebius did not quote people accurately. Your response is that I am wrong, Eusebius did not quote people accurately. It looks like you were actually agreeing with me. Eusebius would put words in people's mouths that they had not actually said.

At least, we know now that the version of the Testimonium Flavanium found in Eusebius is not necessarily a word for word quote of what was found in Josephus......

Indeed, the phrase' tribe of Christian's found in the 'quote' of Josephus is a favourite phrase used by Josephus when he paraphrased what other people said rather than giving what they actually had said.

[jpholding]

Let me recap. I said Eusebius did not quote people accurately. Your response is that I am wrong, Eusebius did not quote people accurately. It looks like you were actually agreeing with me. Eusebius would put words in people's mouths that they had not actually said.

One has to wonder when Stevie will stop wearing black and white like a jester. To recap the real deal:

1) Precision quotation in this era was seldom possible. Paraphrasing or getting the "jist" was permitted.

2) Such paraphrasing was not considered "inaccurate" because everyone lived under the same constraints and understood -- they were not anal-retentive obsessors like Stevie.

3) Therefore, it is anachronistic and erroneous to say that Eusebius, or whomever, was not "accurate" in their quotes, as long as they captured the jist or meaning of what they referred to.

Indeed, the phrase' tribe of Christian's found in the 'quote' of Josephus is a favourite phrase used by Josephus when he paraphrased what other people said rather than giving what they actually had said.

Stevie is apparently unaware that "tribe" was a word used in Greek to refer to groups of people called out of other larger groups. And thus suits well what Christians were.