400,000 Textual Variants in our Bible Manuscripts. No Big Deal. (the passion, hell, rituals)

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by Wardendresden

Then why is Dr. Wallace, if he believes the 400,000 textual variants don't mean anything, still trying to raise more money to look at the same documents--no new ones found since about 2007, I think, But McClellan, AS A TEXTUAL CRITIC HIMSELF, would know better than me.

It seems quite dishonest to state to everyone that textual variants don't mean anything and then continue to ask for $50,000 here and $100,000 there to study the meaningless variants. That in itself indicates Wallace either secretly KNOWS they make a difference, or is using his position as a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary to improperly bilk investors for something he knows means nothing.

I actually believe the first about him, but based on your postings you must be concluding the second.

Ask him yourself. And do NOT attempt to put your conclusions into my mouth.

[Wardendresden]

Originally Posted by Mike555

Ask him yourself. And do NOT attempt to put your conclusions into my mouth.

So tell us what you DO THINK about why the professor WHOM YOU STARTED WITH THIS THREAD, continues to ask for money to study textual variations that don't mean anything. Surely you have an opinion. And if you don't want people to conclude your thoughts, then you need to do the concluding yourself.

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by Wardendresden

So tell us what you DO THINK about why the professor WHOM YOU STARTED WITH THIS THREAD, continues to ask for money to study textual variations that don't mean anything. Surely you have an opinion. And if you don't want people to conclude your thoughts, then you need to do the concluding yourself.

This is also not the topic of the thread. And no, you will NOT put your conclusions into my mouth.

Originally Posted by Wardendresden

A bigger point is this, and I confess I may not be relating it in complete accuracy, there appears to be MORE SERIOUS variations the OLDER the manuscripts are. As they move along in time the variations become less serious as the existing church massaged them out of the picture.

This is absolutely true! Even though there are less mss, particularly up to 200 CE, than between 200 and 1000 CE, these earlier mss have more variation between them than those later mss. These later ones developed textual traditions from these various earlier copies. One reason is that at the beginning scribes were not professional like those that developed later and whom were more theologically inclined to - let's just say - mess with the text. Christians for the most part of the last 2000 years controlled these mss under State Authority just like they did the mss of Josephus (because Jews did not really care much about them because they thought him a traitor). Yes, no wonder there are less variants between the majority of later mss than those of earlier ones - Christianity became the state religion and scribes became more competent.

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by Mike555

I have stated what Textual criticism concerns and it has nothing to do with how the New Testament quotes the Old Testament.

It absolutely does. The Septuagint has a variant here based on a misunderstanding of the Hebrew. That Greek variant was the version of the Hebrew Bible in circulation for the author of Acts 15. Those concepts sit at the dead center of textual criticism, and a textual critic, I'll decide what issues relate to my research, not you.

Originally Posted by Mike555

The only function of New Testament textual criticism is to examine and compare the extant New Testament manuscripts in an effort to recover as closely as possible the reading of the original New Testament autographs; to determine the accuracy of our present day text compared with the original text.

But even the notion of an "original text" is only one of multiple possibilities within textual criticism. Additionally, the "original text" used by the author of Acts 15 is at the heart of my concerns.

Originally Posted by Mike555

Acts 15:17's relationship to Amos 9:12 is irrelevant as far as New Testament textual criticism is concerned.

Why are you suddenly limiting the scope of the discussion to the New Testament? The OP describes the manuscripts and variants of the entire Bible.

Originally Posted by Mike555

Textual criticism would be concerned with the readings of Acts 15:17 in the various New Testament manuscripts which contain that verse.

Your opinion that our most important Christian doctrines are affected by variants in the New Testament manuscripts is simply not true and is not shared by Dr. Wallace or Dr. Bock, or by many other textual scholars.

(1) It is true. (2) What Drs. Wallace and Bock think have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the value of my concerns. (3) The number of my colleagues who share my concerns outnumber those who do not by orders of magnitude.

Originally Posted by Mike555

Inerrancy concerns the original autographs only. Not the manuscript copies with all their variants.

One particular definition of inerrancy, but from the perspective of the entire Bible, the witness of Acts to the early manuscripts of Amos, whether in Greek or in Hebrew, is unquestionably directly relevant to textual criticism.

From here on out, please refrain from pretending to dictate to me what the boundaries, limitations, and standards of my academic specialization are.

[Wardendresden]

Originally Posted by Mike555

This is also not the topic of the thread. And no, you will NOT put your conclusions into my mouth.

You've just done the job yourself---for everyone on the thread. And you haven't had any problem at all arguing with an actual textual critic who has posted on your thread. The obvious here, is that you are interested in textual critics opinions, if they meet your criteria as a textual critic.

You've been shown the impropriety of divorcing OT and NT, and you've been shown the impropriety of divorcing the dogmas of inerrancy and infallibility from textual criticism (the dogmas arose BECAUSE textual criticism began to develop in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.

But you still remain single-minded and deny the opinions of at least a half-dozen others--including a textual critic.

Some seed fell on the rocky ground and couldn't even germinate.

What that says is it really is time for me to depart from this thread.

If I get a clear response from Dr. Wallace, I will post it for all to read.

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by Wardendresden

But it was nice to note that even Dr. White stated that when he preaches from the pulpit on scripture with alternative readings he lets everyone in the congregation know both sides of the issue before proceeding. At least that is a more honest approach to the textual variant issues.

James White's approach to textual criticism can neither be called honest nor particularly informed. He does more to misrepresent textual criticism than he does to explain it.

Speaking of the LXX here is a good little intro. Watch and you will notice the relevance.


The Septuagint - YouTube

[thrillobyte]

The biggest textual variant (to me, anyway) is the actual day of Christ's crucifixion. I recall Mike attempting to reconcile the two days into the same day. I can't recall how successful he was, but I think that if the day before Passover (preparation in John) and the day of Passover (Matthew, Mark, Luke) could be reconciled then Ehrman wouldn't have a leg to stand on and he's too good a scholar to let such a huge detail slip by him.

Let's assume Ehrman is correct when he states that the synoptics give a different day for Christ's crucifixion than John. This would have tremendous implications for Christianity, possibly the credibility of the theology itself: Matthew, Mark and Luke clearly didn't make the connection between Jesus and the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." Notice that only in John is Jesus equated with the "Lamb of God".

This is clearly a later development in Christianity. It is so patently obvious that churchmen were trying to figure out how to lift Jesus to a higher level of Godhood, seeing how the synoptic authors simply didn't do a good enough job of making Jesus into a God that could be worshipped by potential pagan converts.

John accomplishes this marvelously at first, having John the Baptist declare, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." This is the first time in the gospels Jesus is identified as a special "Lamb" who is going to be slaughtered.

But John has painted himself into a corner, probably not knowingly as the author likely wasn't familiar with what the other gospel authors had written about which day Jesus was killed. So John, with the deliberate intent of linking Jesus to the Passover lamb slaughtered for the feast, has Jesus killed a day earlier so that his death would happen at the precise moment the lambs were slaughtered for the Feast of Passover.

It's great symbolism--Jesus dying at the exact moment the lambs are dying. But it places Jesus time of death a day earlier than the synoptics. So Ehrman has a legitimate question, "Which day did Jesus die? Did he die on Passover or the day before on the Day of Preparation? It depends on which gospel account you read."

Again, if three authors say Jesus died on Passover and John says, "No, he didn't; he was the Passover Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world; he had to die on preparation Day when the lambs were slaughtered", well you've got a real theological conundrum.

This, to me, is the biggest error in scriptures because it goes to the very heart of what Christianity claims: that Jesus was the culmination of all the millions of lambs killed since Moses' day to bear the sins of mankind. The Holy Spirit obviously didn't clue Matthew, Mark and Luke in on this critical detail.

Oddly, the Holy Spirit doesn't pick up on Jesus being the Lamb of God until John comes along some 70 years after Jesus' death.

[godofthunder9010]

Originally Posted by Mike555

As Dr. Wallace has pointed out, as have textual critics through out the centuries, no cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith is affected by the variants. Quoting Dr. Wallace, ''the deity of Christ is untouched by these viable variants, the virgin birth is untouched, the resurrection of Christ is untouched. Everything the Bible teaches that is a cardinal truth, an essential truth is found there in the manuscripts and is untouched by the variants.''

So says Dr Wallace. Why should take his word for it??

And what is a cardinal truth? Dr Wallace says Christ's deity, the virgin birth and the resurrection. What about denomination specific doctrine that hinges almost entirely upon the context of specific passages?

What if we uncover the true wording of Ephesian 2:8 and it changes as follows:

Current: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-"

Updated: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through your faithfulness--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-"

That would begin to put some key Born Again Christian dogma into question, wouldn't it? What if the rest of the passages supporting Born Again doctrine were likewise altered just a tiny bit, but enough to invalidate the entire born-again concept of once saved always saved? To a Born Again Christian, that once saved always saved doctrine is one of the cardinal foundational truths that they are built on.

Slight changes in phrase could invalidate a great many denomination-specific doctrines. And the most problematic part: This is based upon science that must of necessity offer up best guesses and broad sweeping assumptions. Will we ever know for certain that the wording of the Bible is exactly the same as the original texts? I don't think it's possible to know that for certain.

And again, textual criticism is not concerned with the issue of inerrancy. It simply attempts to uncover the original wording of the autographs.

So you're saying they're trying to fix a perfect Bible, but the Bible doesn't need fixing because it's already perfect and flawless ...