tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post1200411821705249629..comments2024-03-16T21:32:23.088-04:00Comments on A Sure Word: Textual criticism made amazingly easyRKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-43588550448300930822016-10-24T23:13:15.845-04:002016-10-24T23:13:15.845-04:00Without checking the internet, I would guess that ...Without checking the internet, I would guess that the title of a German mayor 200 years ago was <i>Herr Burgomeister</i>, on the assumption that "mayor" and its equivalents is an old title that hasn't changed in centuries. But I could be wrong (especially on the spelling).<br /><br />Most "modernist" scholars date the New Testament documents to the late first or early second century, less than a full century after Pilate was in office. I certainly do not feel qualified to suggest a later date.<br /><br />What I'm saying is that we can't be sure how much of the New Testament is accurate versus a medley of errors, legends, self-serving memories, and pious frauds. Even the most obvious implausibility -- that Jesus was born both before the death of Herod (ca. 4 BC) and after the accession to the governorship of Syria in 6 AD -- could be possible if, e.g. Quirinius somehow managed to be governor of Syria during Herod's lifetime (and while he was supposed to be busy putting down a rebellion in Asia Minor), before the governorship that is attested in surviving records. But that seems, if we were discussing any other document, less plausible than supposing that the author of Luke was confused about his dates.<br /><br />Note that you seem to be assuming two things. First, you assume that the burden of proof is on the skeptic or denier of the New Testament. The New Testament makes some rather extraordinary claims; these require rather more extraordinary evidence that the fact that the authors get official titles right. Second (and related, I suppose) you assume certain points that are among those in dispute -- e.g. that the New Testament actually is based on eyewitness reports, merely because it can be interpreted as claiming that it is.<br /><br />A point: Paul claimed to be a witness of the risen Jesus, even though on his own account none of the people who were with him at the time saw Jesus. He counted this vision as just as valid as the sightings of Jesus by his original disciples. Paul does not seem to have distinguished between seeing Jesus in a vision and seeing him in the flesh -- perhaps because originally there was no such distinction, and stories such as the risen Jesus eating fish were added later.Steven J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15638850493907393069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-43210714175674039002016-10-24T09:14:19.870-04:002016-10-24T09:14:19.870-04:00Steven J,
Rather than “over-simplified,” I prefer...Steven J,<br /><br />Rather than “over-simplified,” I prefer to think I've under-stated the integrity and veracity of the NT. Some people, for example, have pointed out the NT's correct usage of political titles. In the US, the person holding the executive position in a city is called, “mayor.” Without using the internet, do you know the equivalent title of a mayor in Germany 200 years ago? At the time of Jesus' crucifixion, Pilate was the “governor” or “procurator” while Herod was the “king.” At Antioch, Acts 13, Paul is talking to a “proconsul” but later, Acts 25, he's in chains before “king” Agrippa where Paul says he wants to be heard before the “emperor,” which was his right as a Roman citizen. There are dozens of other titles mentioned throughout the NT, the point being, if the NT were written centuries after the events actually occurred, it's not likely anyone could accurately identify the correct titles of people in such a shifting political climate like the Roman Empire. It's just another piece of evidence that helps us confirm the integrity and veracity of the NT.<br /><br />Of course, you're welcome to say that even though the NT is the most complete historical record that exists anywhere, it still doesn't mean what it contains is true. What you're saying, though, is that everything written in it is either a deliberate lie or rampant delusion. Do you have any evidence for this? Were there NO miracles? NO healing? NO feeding of the thousands? Then the crowds thronged Jesus, why? John said he saw Jesus die and later he saw Him alive again. Your incredulity is hardly a rebuttal to his eyewitness testimony. Also, why would Paul suddenly go from being a persecutor of the Church to being its most zealot champion?<br /><br />If I'm convinced the words recorded in the NT are accurate, what compelling argument exists that they're not also true?<br /><br />Your last point is hardly worth mentioning. It might be worth a look if human and chimp DNA were >98% similar as is often claimed. It's rather a weak point considering the differences are more like 20-30%.<br /><br />Thank you for your comments. God bless!!<br /><br />RKBentleyRKBentleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-22722292033432997122016-10-21T21:53:06.241-04:002016-10-21T21:53:06.241-04:00My contentions are threefold.
(1) As Einstein is...My contentions are threefold.<br /><br />(1) As Einstein is supposed to have said, "everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler." You explanation of textual criticism over-simplified and hence distorted the process.<br /><br />(2) Textual criticism deals with how well we can reconstruct the original text from current (imperfect) copies. This is an entirely separate question from how accurate the original text was. You can have very high and well-justified confidence that the New Testament books originally said such-and-such, but that tells you nothing, by itself, about how true such-and-such was. No number of accurate copies of a mistaken statement turn it into an accurate one.<br /><br />(3) My third contention was, at most, implicit in my comments. Evolutionary taxonomy and systematics -- the methods of reconstructing phylogenic trees of living organisms -- are exactly analogous to the methods used in textual criticism. Indeed, when applied to DNA rather than to anatomical characters, they are exactly the same techniques. That this is even possible is one of the arguments for common descent with modification.Steven J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15638850493907393069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-31746637553304036282016-10-20T07:23:31.460-04:002016-10-20T07:23:31.460-04:00Steven J,
I've read your comments a couple of...Steven J,<br /><br />I've read your comments a couple of times and I'm not sure what your contention is or even if there is any. I've tried to explain textual criticism in extremely simple terms (as the title implies) but obviously there's a little more to it.<br /><br />It's true, there are many variants in NT manuscripts. It's important to note, though, that there is not a single variant text that impacts any major doctrine of Christianity. Even the variant (missing) ending of Mark, for example, is not a problem; while some critics may use the missing verses in Mark to argue the resurrection was added to Mark at a later date, the other gospels all attest to the resurrection.<br /><br />You mentioned that variant texts can be grouped into families. It's also important to note that, at no time in history, has the entire NT been in the complete control of one group of people in one place. This is because copies made in on region will tend to accumulate the same mistakes as earlier copies in the same region. These families are still subject to textual criticism and can be compared against earlier copies and across regions. Textual criticism is a continuous effort as new texts are always being discovered. Each one of these new finds helps us either confirm what we believe to be true or helps clear up something we are unsure about. <br /><br />The King James was a fine translation for its time but we have discovered many more texts in the 400 years since it was edited. This is why there are some obvious differences between the KJV and modern translations. I believe the NASB is a superior translation to the KJV.<br /><br />Finally, the NT is the account of eyewitnesses to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The miracles of Jesus, the teachings of Jesus, and His claims of divinity, are all there in the original documents. Any claims of exaggeration are without merit. If you are certain of Caesar or Alexander, you should be at least as certain of Jesus. To believe He, His miracles, or His resurrection were invented centuries after His death would be as laughable as saying Alexander was invented.<br /><br />Thank you for your comments. God bless!!<br /><br />RKBentleyRKBentleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-1496362147896214412016-10-19T01:02:43.296-04:002016-10-19T01:02:43.296-04:00It's not just a matter of counting variants. ...It's not just a matter of counting variants. If, e.g. you had a thousand texts with the sentence <i>"Reading the Bible is not hard,"</i> but all of them were of recent origin, while you had half a dozen ancient copies of the text with one of the other sentences, those half-dozen copies would outweigh the thousand.<br /><br />Indeed, a minority of texts could outweigh a majority even if they were all of the same age. A single sentence is not much to work with -- there are only so many possible variant characters to compare -- but an entire gospel gives you more to work with, and you can group texts into families (as indeed biblical texts are -- e.g. you have New Testament texts of the "Alexandrian" type versus those of the "Caesarean" type (the differences are not huge but they're systematic).<br /><br />This is why modern translations of Mark close on Mark 16:8, despite many texts that continue the chapter for several more verses -- the oldest texts do not.<br /><br />Suppose you have a couple of thousand copies of some gospel-length text. All of these are fairly recent; they are copies of (lost) copies of (lost) copies of some lost original. Because copies tend to inherit the mistakes or variations of earlier copies, these two thousand or so texts will fall into families -- say, six families, one containing each of the six versions of the sentence you came up with. Suppose that some 1500 of these copies all belonged to the family that contained the version <i>"Reading the Bible is not hard."</i> The other five versions have about a hundred copies each. "Reading the Bible is not hard" outnumbers the other versions together by three to one -- yet the fact that only one "family" of texts has this version, while the others are much closer to one another and suggest a different version -- would imply that the "Reading the Bible" version was a deliberate alteration of the original text, and should be discarded when reconstructing the original.<br /><br />Note that just as having more copies doesn't automatically make one version of a text a better representative of the original than a version having fewer copies, it doesn't make the original text itself more likely to be accurate. Fifty-eight hundred copies of the gospels doesn't make Jesus' existence more certain than a handful of copies of Caesar's <i>Gallic Wars</i> make Caesar's.Steven J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15638850493907393069noreply@blogger.com