New Testament Textual Criticisms

[txag007]

The following recently came up in the third "inventing a religion" thread:

[ QUOTE ]
You can learn a lot about the history of the Bible and how its been changed and edited.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO the bible is a giant storybook collection that has been exaggerated over time due to the chinese whisper effect of many translations and much editing

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If the bible was made into a film it would need the caption in the opening credits "based on a true story"

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
somewhat akin to an old wives tale it contains some kernels of truth - but also a healthy dose of fiction and exaggeration to make it a better read.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, there is plenty of evidence [that Biblical stories have been edited]. The existence of all the books of the Bible that were rejected is plenty. The works of numerous Biblical scholars tracing the changes made in various versions is further evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]
There seems to be a strong belief among many on these boards that the Bible we have today nowhere near resembles the orginal texts from long ago. The implication seems to be that these texts were edited for political reasons or in an effort to exaggerate or embellish its claims.

Here is an article from tektonics that does a great job explaining what we know about textual criticism and how many of the beliefs regarding how the Bible has been edited simply are not true.

Someone asked me for proof of how I know today's Bible is accurate, so I thought I would provide some quotes and general points from the article as an introduction to it:

24000+ copies of New Testament documents are still in existence today. The copies match the "current" Bible to 99% accuracy.

"Among the textual variants in the Gospels, there are only two which throw doubt on more than a verse or two of the traditional text -- the ending of Mark and the adultery story in John (with other variants bearing only on details of sentimental value.)"

"No doctrine of Christianity is in the least dependent on any textual variant."

"Textual conspiracies such as often suggested would be quite impossible -- there is no way that the Church could have eliminated all known readings of a given text."

"95% of the errors found in the New Testament text are recognized as unintentional. These include confusion of similar letters, repitition of words or sentences, and just plain bad copying."

"The remaining 5% of errors includes revised spelling and grammar, harmonization of similar passages, elimination of textual difficulties, and, indeed, theological or doctrinal changes."

"There is evidence textual criticism was already in process as early as the 2nd and 3rd century."

"Even Ehrman, though he has found only a few dozen corruptions -- which he was able to find because original readings are still preserved! -- cannot resist speculating that there are actually 'hundreds' of uncovered corruptions...The evidence is far better that we do have the 'original text' -- it is simply mixed up with 'unoriginal variants' and it is speculative to believe we have lost any real parts."

I do not think that the "corruption" of Scripture means that scribes changed everything in the text, or even most things. The original texts certainly spoke at great length about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. The issues involved in the corruption of the text usually entail nuances of interpretation. 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. -Bart Ehrman

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
24000+ copies of New Testament documents are still in existence today. The copies match the "current" Bible to 99% accuracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This does not preclude redaction if the oldest of these documents is well outside the date of composition.

[ QUOTE ]
"No doctrine of Christianity is in the least dependent on any textual variant."

[/ QUOTE ]

You will not find universal agreement on this point. The doctrine of the trinity, for instance, has much firmer support if one accepts 1 Jn. 5:7 as original.

[ QUOTE ]

"95% of the errors found in the New Testament text are recognized as unintentional. These include confusion of similar letters, repitition of words or sentences, and just plain bad copying."

[/ QUOTE ]

Recognized by whom? Some will see Matt. 27:9-10 as a copying error. Others will say that the biblical author goofed up and quoted the wrong prophet. A third party will come up with a rationalization for why "it only appears" as if he makes a mistake.

[Ben K]

This is all well and good txag but all it needs is for the written documents of the NT to be vetted for consistency prior to release as gospel. We know at least some vetting went on because some books made it in and others didn't.

So when inventing a religion don't forget to review your holy books for consistency. It's very important.

Also, look how subjective the error explanations are. Here we have the perfect word of god. <font color="red"> </font> Hey, there's errors in the text. <font color="black"> </font> Oh? Well, don't worry, it's, ummm, unintentional human errors. The rest of it is still the perfect word of god. So if they could make errors, is the supernatural part of the resurrection story an error? No, I told you it's the perfect word of god. How do you know the difference? Ummmmmmmmm.

[matrix]

[ QUOTE ]


Here is an article from tektonics

[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped reading here - thats at least twice you've pimped tektonics.

I googled Tektonics - hit's #1 and #2 were links to the site itself.

hit #3 was interesting...

“Why an entire site devoted just to articles debunking Turkel’s apologetics? Is he that important?” The answer is, no, Robert Turkel is not that important. However, his articles are referenced by a number of gullible inerrantists and Turkel writes with such an acerbic tongue that sometimes this kind of idol worship and self-aggrandizement requires a check. This site is that check. - link (emphasis added)

I have now spent approximately the same amount of time reading that site as I spent reading and responding to some of your previous posts - IMO it was time much better spent.

You have NO idea how tempting it is to change your undertitle to "gullible inerrantist" as I believe it describes you rather well.

as far as this thread goes this page neatly describes my position better than I could and saves me a crap load of typing to which you'll just ignore and reply "I Disagree" so forgive me if I cut this reply a little shorter than some of my previous ones.

and just in case you can't find the time to read the page I linked to above - here are a couple of juicy quotes. (my emphasis)

some biblicists, [...] have just admitted that there are discrepancies and inconsistencies in the Bible

The problem is a simple one. If the Bible errs in matters where there is available information, [...] to establish that errors were made, then how can anyone be sure that the Bible is right in what it says about matters that cannot be corroborated by extrabiblical records?

[Ben K]

Someone with 1,300 posts needs some sort of special title. It's only right.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
You have NO idea how tempting it is to change your undertitle to "gullible inerrantist" as I believe it describes you rather well.


[/ QUOTE ]
Go ahead. What do I care? I'm reading your links now.

[txag007]

Your links were not topical to the OP. They did not address any of the facts in the tektonics article regarding the comparison between the Bible and original texts. They spoke instead of errancy/inerrancy of the original texts, which is another issue entirely. Why post a reply that does nothing more than change the subject?

[matrix]

[ QUOTE ]
Your links were not topical to the OP. They did not address blah blah blah blah... etc

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

D U C Y ?

[TimWillTell]

Paul is the name most frequently adopted by the popes.
Why is that?
That is because of what is called:"The secrets of the Vatican."
If there was one person who knew what was needed to make Christianity more acceptable to the Romans, it was Paul.
He gave the religion a complete make-over.
In the period after, for hundreds of years, original writings about the time of Jesus and many times also about Jesus himself were destroyed by the church of Rome.
This was because they were not consistent with the make-over by Paul.
However in the Vatican a lot of these inconsistent writings are preserved.
I'm quite sure that I will not live to see the day that these secrets are revealed; but one day they will, it might take a couple of hundreds of years, but the people have a right to know the truth...

[Ben K]

[ QUOTE ]
Your links were not topical to the OP. They did not address any of the facts in the tektonics article regarding the comparison between the Bible and original texts. They spoke instead of errancy/inerrancy of the original texts, which is another issue entirely. Why post a reply that does nothing more than change the subject?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you're attempting to justify beliefs based on the bible by saying it compares well to the original texts? Of course it does, it's bloomin' based on them. You are following an apologetic technique mentioned in that link Matix provided. Basically, you're taking each little criticism and addressing it individually without considering the wider problem. You're assuming that one non-failure in argument allows you to decide that, overall, the christanity is proved. Not a correct assumption. It's a bit like this:

Luke 9:41 - And Jesus answering said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you, and suffer you? Bring thy son hither

It can't be proved Jesus didn't say the above.
Sure.
Therefore, christianity is proved.
eh?