Bart Ehrman wrote 'These are important nuances; but most of the New Testament can be reconstructed by scholars with reasonable certainty -- as much certainty as we can reconstruct *any* book of the ancient world.'

'Most' clearly means that not all of the NT can be reconstructed with reasonable certainty.

The nuances are, as Ehrman explains in his book, 'The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture', over whether Jesus was comforted by angels, was the son of God, forgave people on the cross, instituted a Last Supper etc.

But Ehrman clearly denies that the NT can be reconstructed *better* than any other book of the ancient world.

Aw, poor Stevie. His idol let him down. No more going to bed with Ehrman's book under his blankie with him.

Originally posted by stevencarrwork

Bart Ehrman wrote 'These are important nuances; but most of the New Testament can be reconstructed by scholars with reasonable certainty -- as much certainty as we can reconstruct *any* book of the ancient world.'

'Most' clearly means that not all of the NT can be reconstructed with reasonable certainty.

Wow. Just watch us fret over that 1 percent. 99 is most of 100 ain't it Stevie Weevie. Or do you add numbers in between?

By the way, do you obsessively check my page for updates? Does Farrell give you a lolly each time you find something he can quote badly?

The nuances are, as Ehrman explains in his book, 'The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture', over whether Jesus was comforted by angels, was the son of God, forgave people on the cross, instituted a Last Supper etc.

Uh huh. Want to discuss a specific instance here, little fellow? All of his points amount to either 1) no one cares; 2) it's verified by unquestioned texts anyway.

But Ehrman clearly denies that the NT can be reconstructed *better* than any other book of the ancient world.

Oh? Where's the "I deny" part? Did you find it between the lines?

Originally posted by jpholding

Aw, poor Stevie. His idol let him down. No more going to bed with Ehrman's book under his blankie with him.



Wow. Just watch us fret over that 1 percent. 99 is most of 100 ain't it Stevie Weevie. Or do you add numbers in between?

1 percent? Where does Ehrman say that? I notice that Holding could not resist not giving all of Ehrman's letter. I wonder why.

As for one per cent, watch Holding scream if somebody leaves out just one word of his own writings.

http://www.tektonics.org/mordef/funnyfarm.html where Holding yells and shouts because somebody wrote 'top-notch Biblical scholarship'", instead of 'bringing top-notch Biblical scholarship'.

One sees Holdings priorities here. He has no objection to scribes altering 1 percent of the word of God (about 3 entire pages of the New Testament), but if somebody should alter one word of the word of Holding , there is Hell to pay, and Holding's racism comes out in his anger 'I may as well be explaining flight aerodynamics to a naked native.' he writes.

Let us look at just a couple of parts of this 'one percent.'

Luke 24:40

Codex Bezae and many Old Latin texts do not include Luke 24:40 - 'having said this, he showed them his hands and feet'. Either some scribe added this verse, or some scribe dropped it. It is hard to see why any scribe would drop the verse. It is easy to see why a scribe would add the verse, basing it on John 20:20. He would have had to alter it as John 20:20 mentions 'hands and side' and there was no spear-thrust in Luke's Gospel, but that would only be a small change. It would all help to show that the Gospels 'recorded' a physical resurrection.
Luke 24:3

In Luke 24:3,Codex Bezae and most of the Old Latin texts do not have the phrase 'the Lord Jesus' in 'they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus' Clearly, the phrase 'the Lord Jesus' was added by a scribe to make sure that the Gospels recorded that the women went to the right tomb. The phrase 'the Lord Jesus' only occurs in the Gospels here and in Mark 16:19 (another addition by a scribe!) and it is hard to see why the phrase would have been dropped if it were original to Luke's Gospel.
Luke 24:6

In Luke 24:6,Codex Bezae and most of the Old Latin texts do not have the phrase 'He is not here, but has been raised'. Clearly, this phrase was added by a scribe to make sure that the women knew that Jesus had been raised It is hard to see why the phrase would have been dropped if it were original to Luke's Gospel.

We have clear evidence that Christians tampered with the text of the Gospels to make them better evidence for the Resurrection. How much tampering went on that we don't have evidence of?
Other Corruptions

There were many kinds of Christians in the first few centuries after Jesus died. What is called 'Orthodoxy' nowadays is just one strand of Christianity that happened to prevail. Just as their 'heretical' opponents did, Orthodox scribes would alter the texts to better reflect Orthodox views, views which are what we call Christianity nowadays.

One place where orthodox battled heretic was over when exactly Jesus became Son of God. Orthodox Christians maintained that Jesus was Son of God from conception or even earlier. Heretics maintained that Jesus became Son of God at his baptism or at his resurrection. Romans 1:4 says that '(Jesus was) designated Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead', which seems to imply that even Paul was not unsympathetic to this view.

The orthodox said that Joseph was not really Jesus's biological father. Some heretics said that Jesus was an ordinary man until he became Son of God and so was born in the normal way. Sadly for the orthodox, the Gospels did say that Jesus's father was Joseph. So some of them simply eliminated those places which said that Joseph was the father of Jesus. For example, Luke 2:33 says that Jesus's 'father and mother began to marvel'. Many Greek manuscripts changed the text to read 'Joseph and his mother began to marvel'. Luke 2:48 says 'Look, your father and I have been grieved'. Some manuscripts were altered to read 'Your relatives and I..' or 'We have been grieved'. In Luke 2:43 'his parents' was often changed to 'Joseph and his mother'.
Jesus the Son of God?
John 1:34

The NIV says here 'And I have seen and borne witness that this is the Son of God'. But is 'Son of God' the original reading?

A new manuscript has recently been found called p106. It is an early third century manuscript and it says , not Son of God, but the 'Elect of God'. This is also the reading of the very early manuscripts , p5, and Codex Sinaiticus - the only Greek manuscript before AD 800 which has all 27 New Testament books. The reading of 'Elect' is also present in Old Syriac and Old Latin manuscripts. This seems to be a place where later scribes altered the original Gospel to read that Jesus was the 'Son of God'.
Mark 1:1

Mark 1:1 says 'The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God'. However, important witnesses, including Origen, and Codex Sinaiticus, the only Great Codex to contain the entire New Testament, omit the phrase, Son of God. Did a scribe add this phrase or did a scribe drop it? In any case, it is clear that the idea that Jesus was the Son of God is an important point of Christian doctrine about which manuscripts differ.
Matthew 27:49

In 'Evidence that Demands a Verdict', Josh McDowell, the million selling Christian evangelist, has a nice story about the discovery of the very important document, Codex Sinaiticus, in a monastery in 1859. He also makes much of John 19:34-35, where Jesus's body is pierced by a sword after he died. He cites much medical opinion that only eyewitnesses could have observed that. 'The 'blood and water' from the spear-thrust is proof positive that Jesus was already dead'

Surprisingly, he forgets to inform us that Codex Sinaiticus says , in Matthew 27:49, that the spear was thrust into Jesus before he died. Codex Vaticanus (mid 4th century), Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (5th cent), and other manuscripts back that up. It seems that an orthodox scribe added that detail to Matthew. The issue of the spear-thrust became a major point of controversy between orthodox and heretic. The heretical 'Acts of John' denied that Jesus suffered on the cross - 'You heard that I was pierced , yet I was not wounded, that blood flowed from me , yet it did not flow'. What could be more natural for an orthodox scribe to alter the Gospels to make clear that Jesus suffered on the cross and shed real blood, as Church Fathers like Irenaeus maintained?

Although very ancient and valuable manuscripts maintain in Matthew 27:49 that blood and water came out of Jesus's side before he died, most translations of today drop the statement, probably because it clashes so horribly with John's Gospel. It is clear that the account of the spear-thrust in the Gospels was not written by eye-witnesses but by scribes, who wanted to show , in Matthew's Gospel, that Jesus really did suffer on the cross, or, in John's Gospel, that Jesus was definitely dead.

If orthodox scribes were prepared to alter the accounts of their Lord's crucifixion to make them agree with their doctrines, how much alteration went on , especially in the 300 years between the writing of the Gospels and our earliest complete manuscripts?
Luke 22:19-20

'And taking bread, giving thanks, saying ,'This is my body that is given for you. Do this in my remembrance. And the cup likewise after supper, saying 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood that is poured out for you'' Why does the RSV have these famous words by Jesus as a footnote? They are not in Codex Bezae , from the 5th century.

Probably because they were not original to Luke's Gospel. The phrase 'for you' occurs twice in that verse , but nowhere else in Luke-Acts. The word for 'remembrance' occurs nowhere else in Luke-Acts and nowhere else does Luke use the term 'the new covenant'. More importantly, nowhere else does Luke say that Jesus died 'for your sins' or 'for you'.

Luke , in the Gospel or in Acts, had many opportunities to say that Jesus died 'for' anybody or 'for' anything, but he consistently spurns them all. For example, in the famous 'prophecy , Isaiah 53, Luke in Acts 8 ignores 53:5 'wounded for our transgressions', or 53:5, 'bruised for our iniquities' or 53:10, 'an offering for sin'. As Luke never says that Jesus died 'for our sins', why would he add those words in Luke 22:19-20? If he did write those words, why would any scribe have dropped them? It is clear that the RSV is right and they were not original to Luke's Gospel.

Luke 22:14

'he sat at table, and the twelve apostles with him'. Some Christians had difficulties with calling Judas Iscariot one of the twelve apostles. The very earliest manuscript of Luke 22:14, p75, omits the word 'twelve'. Other manuscripts omit the word 'apostles'.

Luke 23:34

'Father forgive them for they know not what they do.' These words are often cited as an example of Jesus's ability to forgive his persecutors even while on the cross. However, many Christians had difficulty with the idea of Jesus forgiving the Jews who killed him. This verse is missing from the earliest manuscript of Luke, p75. It is also missing from the very early manuscripts Codex Vaticanus and Codex Bezae, along with others. The early manuscript, Codex Sinaiticus, originally contained the words, but a later corrector indicated that they should not be regarded as original to the text. An even later corrector reinstated them.

Similarly, they were added to Codex Bezae by a later corrector, although omitted at first.
Divorce

One Christian doctrine which varies a lot from one manuscript to the next is teaching about divorce.

The early manuscripts have some twenty different sayings about divorce. I list just a few of them. All of them are different versions of the same passage :- Matthew 19:9 They give different teachings about whether a man can remarry or whether a man can marry a divorced woman.
Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Ephraemi, Codex Regius Whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, and marries another commits adultery.
Codex Purpureus Petropolitanus Whoever divorces his wife , except for fornication, makes her an adulteress and the person marrying a divorced woman commits adultery

Here there is no prohibition on a man remarrying, but there is a new prohibition about marrying a divorced woman.
Freer Gospels, Koridethi Codex Whoever divorces his wife , except for fornication, and marries another commits adultery and the person marrying a divorced woman commits adultery

Both prohibitions have been combined
Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (Original Version) Whoever divorces his wife , except for fornication, and marries another makes her an adulteress and the person marrying a divorced woman commits adultery

The prohibitions on a divorced man remarrying has been removed , but the part saying 'makes her an adulteress' has been added.

So people would change even the most basic stories and sayings of Jesus.

So much for the 'one-percenters'

Originally posted by stevencarrwork

Let us look at just a couple of parts of this 'one percent.'

These are hardly convincing or even that important...

Luke 24:40

Codex Bezae and many Old Latin texts do not include Luke 24:40 - 'having said this, he showed them his hands and feet'. Either some scribe added this verse, or some scribe dropped it. It is hard to see why any scribe would drop the verse. It is easy to see why a scribe would add the verse, basing it on John 20:20. He would have had to alter it as John 20:20 mentions 'hands and side' and there was no spear-thrust in Luke's Gospel, but that would only be a small change. It would all help to show that the Gospels 'recorded' a physical resurrection.

Actually, Luke has the most discussion of the events after Jesus' death to his Ascension than any other Gospel writer. Two verses later is plenty of proof that the resurrection was physical. (Although the end of v. 42 is textually disputed, concerning the "and some honeycomb" of the NKJV, the first part is not, that they gave him a piece of baked fish , and v. 43 is not textually disputed at all, that the resurrected Jesus ate the fish, i.e., it didn't just fall on the ground once he put it in his mouth.) Thus, regardless of whether v. 40 is original, the physicality of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection does not stand or fall on the acceptance or omission of this verse.

Concerning v. 3, it is fairly obvious that the Gospel writer assumes they went to the right tomb. I wonder if the objection that they went to the wrong tomb was around in the 200s, which is when we have our first extant Greek MS which supports the reading of "of the Lord Jesus."

[Edit: Also, looking at the phrase "Lord Jesus" as used by Matthew, Mark, and John, is not nearly as important as looking at the combination of the two by the same author, of which we do have attestation in Acts 1:21 (notice how closely it connects with testimony to the resurrection); 4:33 (interestingly enough, also in a resurrection context!); 7:59; 8:16; 11:17, 20; 15:11; 16:31; 19:5, 13, 17; 20:24, 35; 21:13; 28:31. It seems that Luke uses the term "Lord Jesus" after the resurrection, perhaps seeing the resurrection as a vindication of his status as "Lord." Thus, your pointing out of this fact does not show that it is unlikely to be authentic, since the writer of Luke-Acts clearly knew and used the phrase elsewhere.]

Luke 24:6

In Luke 24:6,Codex Bezae and most of the Old Latin texts do not have the phrase 'He is not here, but has been raised'. Clearly, this phrase was added by a scribe to make sure that the women knew that Jesus had been raised It is hard to see why the phrase would have been dropped if it were original to Luke's Gospel.

V. 7 pretty well makes it clear to the women that he was raised. Again, this doesn't affect the doctrine of the resurrection either way.

We have clear evidence that Christians tampered with the text of the Gospels to make them better evidence for the Resurrection. How much tampering went on that we don't have evidence of?

"Tampered" with them to make it clearer, that I'll grant, but these examples aren't necessary for evidence in the belief of a literal resurrection. First, the major points are attested in textually undisputed portions of Luke. Second, the examples are only given from Luke, meaning even if this is unsure in Luke, the testimony of the other Gospels and other NT writings would provide a sure enough basis. Third, the supporting evidence for omission are, I believe, all Western text-type MSS, whereas the other variants enjoy a greater geographical diversity, as well as earlier attestation. The Western text-type is also usually considered inferior, when in conflict with Alexandrian readings, of which the other variants have. Fourth, seeing whether or not it would be more likely to add or omit something than to do the opposite, though important, is not the only principle in textual criticism which helps determine the reading. It involves a subjective element, because it causes one to think of a reason for the omission of a word or phrase, for eample, when it may have been omitted because the copyist accidentally skipped a line. It involves our own perception of what is probable, although, in many cases the perception of probability is strong. Thus, I see the case for tampering with the resurrection accounts to prove the resurrection did occur based on textual uncertainties is quite weak.

Originally posted by stevencarrwork

1 percent? Where does Ehrman say that? I notice that Holding could not resist not giving all of Ehrman's letter. I wonder why.

When you get permission to use stuff, Stevie, that's just good manners. As for 1%, you just quoted less han 1% of the NT, so you have a ways to go to reach 1%.

As for one per cent, watch Holding scream if somebody leaves out just one word of his own writings.

Depends which words you leave out, little Stevie. If someone says, "Stevie is not ignorant" and I quote them as "Stevie is...ignorant" you'd wet your pants. If someone said "Stevie is not ignorant" and then gave a nacho recipe, your pants would stay dry if I quoted that one sentence and left out the nacho recipe, I hope, anyway. The one percent isn't of that value, too bad for you and your idolatry of Ehrman.

Lordy, Stevie, I figured you'd get smarter, but you're still so dumb you can't conceive of ancient people building a dam, can you?

BLM has said a lot of what needs saying, so I'll just pop a few points back...

[qupte] It would all help to show that the Gospels 'recorded' a physical resurrection. [/quote]

Come on, Stevie, don't be a dingbat. Jews believed in no other kind of "resurrection" than a physical one. Paul teaches one clearly in undisputed passages (1 Cor. 15). "Raised" could mean nothing else in the Gospels, once it's a matter of Jesus coming to visit on earth. This verse is icing on the cake. Get with the program.

the phrase 'the Lord Jesus' was added by a scribe to make sure that the Gospels recorded that the women went to the right tomb.

Clearly you have serioous problems with paranoia. Importing "wrong tomb" apologetics into the text is just plain speculative crackpot reverse-engineered psychoanalysis.

The phrase 'the Lord Jesus' only occurs in the Gospels here and in Mark 16:19 (another addition by a scribe!) and it is hard to see why the

Ask us why we should care. Please?

Clearly, this phrase was added by a scribe to make sure that the women knew that Jesus had been raised

Yeah, an empty tomb sure as hell would not clue them in would it.

How much tampering went on that we don't have evidence of?

Yes indeed, Tacitus' Annals could have once been a sandal repair manual. I thought "guilt by association" was a fallacy?

Orthodox Christians maintained that Jesus was Son of God from conception or even earlier. Heretics maintained that Jesus became Son of God at his baptism or at his resurrection. Romans 1:4 says that '(Jesus was) designated Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead', which seems to imply that even Paul was not unsympathetic to this view.

YAWN.... Stevie, Ehrman doesn't have his clue on with this. The defining of Jesus as God's eternal Wisdom makes all this moot. "Son of God" is a title of the incarnated Jesus, not the pre-existent one. Get with the program.

The NIV says here 'And I have seen and borne witness that this is the Son of God'. But is 'Son of God' the original reading?

Who cares? John 1 makes Jesus eternal Wisdom, a lot better than Son of God and way more explicit anyway. Cool it.

I have answers to all your other crap in http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html but I want to slap you down on these above first. Show us why we need to panic.

So much for the 'one-percenters'

Only maybe .10%ers so far. You've got over two pages to go before you hit three pages, Stevie Weevie.

Back Monday. Don't panic.

Of course Christians altered the stories of the crucifixion, last supper, resurrection, teachings etc to support their own theologies. They altered mark's Gospel to add in 'Son of God' etc. Ehrman goes through this in 'The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture'.

JP (No Link) Holding might claim Ehrman is harmless, but he is scared stiff of linking to Ehrman's lectures,

Here is one http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol05/Ehrman2000a.html where Ehrman said ' Interpreters of the NT are faced with a discomforting reality that many of them would like to ignore. In many instances, we don't know what the authors of the NT actually wrote. It often proves difficult enough to establish what the words of the NT mean; the fact that in some instances we don't know what the words actually were does more than a little to exacerbate the problem. I say that many interpreters would like to ignore this reality; but perhaps that isn't strong enough. In point of fact, many interpreters, possibly most, do ignore it, pretending that the textual basis of the Christian scriptures is secure, when unhappily, it is not.'

Now who could possibly by 'pretending that the textual basis of the Christian scriptures is secure....'?

Originally posted by stevencarrwork

Of course Christians altered the stories of the crucifixion, last supper, resurrection, teachings etc to support their own theologies. They altered mark's Gospel to add in 'Son of God' etc. Ehrman goes through this in 'The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture'.

Aw, thanks, Stevie. I knew you'd avoid answering the specifics. You never fail to disappoint, and that's why I'm proud to have you as my Number 1 Fan.

Of course Romans altered the stories of Caesar conquering the Gauls, etc. to support their own histories. And they must have been guilty of more we don't know about.

JP (No Link) Holding might claim Ehrman is harmless, but he is scared stiff of linking to Ehrman's lectures,

Didn't know he had any online, Stevie Weevie. That was a nice sound bite, but may I ask where your answer is to any one of the specifics I gave?

Here is one http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol05/Ehrman2000a.html where Ehrman said ' Interpreters of the NT are faced with a discomforting reality that many of them would like to ignore.

Funny, I have seen the same points Ehrman raises in the other text crit works by Metzger, Alands, etc. and in commentaries too. Maybe he means, they'd like to ignore it, but they don't?

From what I see this is just OCOS Lite. Ehrman shows his ignorance of the social world of the NT one this one. Jesus is angry in Mark 1:41 because the guy came in and forced his hand and makes him have to leave town because he is now considered ritually unclean from touching the leper. Nothing here any ancient agonist would find problematic, so that kills his theory about the change being deliberate rather than accidental. Matt and Luke didn't leave it out; Mark (Peter) adds it as a testimony of a first person witness. The reaction-report was likely not in the oral original.

And by the way, "compassion" would have meant that he thought he owed the guy some sort of social-ingroup obligation. It wouldn't have "improved" things much.

In many instances, we don't know what the authors of the NT actually wrote.

Yeah 1% sure has us panic-stricken.

It often proves difficult enough to establish what the words of the NT mean;

Gee, are any classical scholars saying this and wetting their pants too?

[quote]In point of fact, many interpreters, possibly most, do ignore it, pretending that the textual basis of the Christian scriptures is secure, when unhappily, it is not.'

It isn't? Funny how those specifics seem to evade us....

Now who could possibly by 'pretending that the textual basis of the Christian scriptures is secure....'?

Que pasa? That's not a complete sentence, Stevie, at least not in American English. How about answering some of my questions?

At least explain why we should give a tripe about "Son of God" on Mark 1 when Jesus makes so many more clear and textually undisputed (even by Rockin' Roll Ehrman) identifying himself as Eternal Wisdom.

Come on, I know you can do it. You're my #1 Fan. Help me out here.

Originally posted by jpholding

At least explain why we should give a tripe about "Son of God" on Mark 1 when Jesus makes so many more clear and textually undisputed (even by Rockin' Roll Ehrman) identifying himself as Eternal Wisdom.

But not in Mark's Gospel, where Jesus says that God has forsaken him, quite forgetting that he himself is the one god of monotheistic Christianity.

Originally posted by stevencarrwork

But not in Mark's Gospel, where Jesus says that God has forsaken him, quite forgetting that he himself is the one god of monotheistic Christianity.

Read the rest of the Psalm that Jesus quoted...

Originally posted by Xavier

Read the rest of the Psalm that Jesus quoted...

One thing is for certain. The Psalm is about somebody who is not God.


25% of the last 167 verses of Luke's Gospel were edited or amended in the second century AD.

As the Reverend D. C. Parker writes in 'the Living Text of the Gospels' (CUP) (page 200) 'If we accept that it was possible in that culture to remember more accurately, and that it was possible to transcribe with a very high degree of accuracy, the evidence that early Christians at least sometimes did neither gains in significance.' The early manuscripts show enormous variations , which prove that accurate transcription of Jesus's words was not a priority.

Originally posted by stevencarrwork

One thing is for certain. The Psalm is about somebody who is not God.

One unsupported assertion...

25% of the last 167 verses of Luke's Gospel were edited or amended in the second century AD.

And an off-topic Elephant Hurl...

Congrats on addressing the issue at hand...

Yours,
Xavier

Originally posted by stevencarrwork

But not in Mark's Gospel, where Jesus says that God has forsaken him, quite forgetting that he himself is the one god of monotheistic Christianity.

Ugh...

This is one of the dumbest statements Stevie has ever made. He's revealed himself as a heretical modalist!