400,000 Textual Variants in our Bible Manuscripts. No Big Deal. (crucifixion, traditions, dogmas)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's high time people realize exactly WHAT is the only goal of these so-called textual "critics"
is - to defame the Holy Bible and to counterdict Tradition with their quips of atheist bent.
Period.
Look at this old link. Roman Piso outlines 40 cross-references in Josephus works: A Few Correlations Between Flavius Josephus & the New Testament
but wait. Roman Piso wrote a book claiming IT WAS JOSEPHUS who "created" Christianity ! ok ! A REVIEW OF "THE SYNTHESIS OF CHRISTIANITY"
these people will seek any reason to think that Christ wasn't real. ANY REASON.
Another author says it was THE ROMANS who "invented" Christianity. (Atwill is his name. Real professional
COMEDIAN)
This is the circuit they run on. It's a real barnburner industry, you know, with the internet
putting people's heads in a tizzy. lol. And that Dan Brown guy.. oooo... Jesus and Mary Magdalene
had kids and started a royal family. WTH I mean HOW STUPID can people be ?
Do you all understand what the deal is here ? It is the devil at work making the casual and gullible
lose their faith. They need faith to be lost so they can transform society the way they want it.
You have educators and authors who go to schools like Yale divinity and sit on the boards of
universities like Texas - like L. Michael White who are quoted on Wikipedia (if you want to use
Wikipedia for pop culture or science, or a quick date, go ahead, but for everything else it is utter garbage)
and they just gotta squeeze in a quip about how this guy says Josephus's account of James the Righteous slaying in Jerusalem is "spurious" because wait.. oh ! It's "only" in Wars of the Jews and not in Antiquities of the Jews ! ok ! got it ! Every part of one book must be in another now. !
We do have a reference in the book of Zechariah that shows he was the son of Berekiah, but that contradicts 2 Chronicles 24:20-21 which states "Then the Spirit of God came on Zechariah son of Jehoiada the priest."
So whose son was he...Berekiah or Jehoiada?
Maybe there is an explanation for this discrepancy? (even though it is "off topic"?)
It's high time people realize exactly WHAT is the only goal of these so-called textual "critics"
is - to defame the Holy Bible and to counterdict Tradition with their quips of atheist bent.
Period.
Look at this old link. Roman Piso outlines 40 cross-references in Josephus works: A Few Correlations Between Flavius Josephus & the New Testament
but wait. Roman Piso wrote a book claiming IT WAS JOSEPHUS who "created" Christianity ! ok ! A REVIEW OF "THE SYNTHESIS OF CHRISTIANITY"
these people will seek any reason to think that Christ wasn't real. ANY REASON.
Another author says it was THE ROMANS who "invented" Christianity. (Atwill is his name. Real professional
COMEDIAN)
This is the circuit they run on. It's a real barnburner industry, you know, with the internet
putting people's heads in a tizzy. lol. And that Dan Brown guy.. oooo... Jesus and Mary Magdalene
had kids and started a royal family. WTH I mean HOW STUPID can people be ?
Do you all understand what the deal is here ? It is the devil at work making the casual and gullible
lose their faith. They need faith to be lost so they can transform society the way they want it.
You have educators and authors who go to schools like Yale divinity and sit on the boards of
universities like Texas - like L. Michael White who are quoted on Wikipedia (if you want to use
Wikipedia for pop culture or science, or a quick date, go ahead, but for everything else it is utter garbage)
and they just gotta squeeze in a quip about how this guy says Josephus's account of James the Righteous slaying in Jerusalem is "spurious" because wait.. oh ! It's "only" in Wars of the Jews and not in Antiquities of the Jews ! ok ! got it ! Every part of one book must be in another now. !
Now, I am wondering Snowball...are there ample explanations for how and why the Jewish Tanakh and Christian OT are significantly different in many passages?
Instead of your shame you shall have double honor,
And instead of confusion they shall rejoice in their portion.
Therefore in their land they shall possess double;
Everlasting joy shall be theirs.
8 “For I, the Lord, love justice;
I hate robbery for burnt offering;
I will direct their work in truth,
And will make with them an everlasting covenant.
9 Their descendants shall be known among the Gentiles,
And their offspring among the people.......
DSS
instead of your shame (you will receive ) double, and instead of dishonor they will rejoice in YOUR lot.
therefore YOU will inherit a double portion in their land, and everlasting joy will be YOURS.
For I love justice and I hate robbery and iniquity; I will faithfully give YOU your reward and make an everlasting covenant with YOU.
YOUR descendant will be known among the nations and YOUR offspring among the people......
This set of scripture CHANGES to who God will make an everlasting covenant, from theirs to yours and from them to you. That is MORE then just a spelling error it changes a whole doctrine.
here's another one that changes a whole doctrine.
Deu.8:6 KJV
“Therefore you shall keep the commandments of the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to fear Him
DSS
And you shall keep the commandments of the Lord your God, by walking in all His ways and by LOVING Him.
Changed from fear to love.
I could go on and on but this should suffice to show everyone that it is NOT just spelling mistakes.
In Isaiah 61, ‘you’ refers to the Jews returning from the Babylonian Exile. “They’ refers to the Jewish people as a whole. It is a lot clearer in the NIV translation.
Isaiah 61:7-9 NIV
7 Instead of your shame
you will receive a double portion,
and instead of disgrace
you will rejoice in your inheritance.
And so you will inherit a double portion in your land,
and everlasting joy will be yours.
8 “For I, the LORD, love justice;
I hate robbery and wrongdoing.
In my faithfulness I will reward my people
and make an everlasting covenant with them.
9 Their descendants will be known among the nations
and their offspring among the peoples.
All who see them will acknowledge
that they are a people the LORD has blessed.â€
I don't think you know much regarding what, precisely, constitutes textual criticism.
Two concerns here: (1) you've moved well away from the notion of inerrancy to say that the text can be corrupted, and has been corrupted hundreds of thousands of times, but none of those corruptions affects our most important Christian doctrines, and (2) that's demonstrably false.
For instance, Acts 15:17 quotes Amos 9:12, but it quotes a variant version drawn and revised from the Septuagint, but that Septuagint version is a nonsensical mistranslation. The decision to open up the gospel to the Gentiles was based in large part on James' appeal to scripture as a justification. I would call that a pretty cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith. It also flatly precludes inerrancy, which I believe is another crdinal doctrine of the Christian faith (at least, the conservative Evangelical version of the Christian faith). Here's the problem with the text:
Acts 15:17 (KJV):
Amos 9:12 (KJV):
The big differences are bolded. Y'see, in the Septuagint, the Hebrew אדום, "Edom," was misread as אדם, "human, man," and the Hebrew יירשו, "to inherit, possess," was misread as ידרשו, "to seek." If you're wondering what the translators did for an object after they changed the original direct object into the subject, they didn't do anything. The Septuagint literally reads, "that the residue of men might seek." Seek what? It doesn't say. It's not a complete sentence. The Greek translators did this kind of thing frequently when they were left with a nonsensical interpretation.
The original context of Amos 9:12 is the military reconquest of lands that at one time had been in the possession of Israel. The prophecy insists that Israel will take over the lands of Edom once again. In Acts, the mistranslated variant from the Greek has been adopted, but the incomplete sentence has been filled in with a direct object: "the Lord." This likely comes from an early testimonia, but it completely alters the meaning of the verse. Now it has reference to all the world seeking after the Lord. James thus appeals to this mistranslation as a scriptural justification of taking the gospel to the Gentiles. It is very obvious that the mistranslation is in the original autograph. There is no way at all that the Greek of Acts 15:17 is original to the Hebrew of Amos 9. It's a mistranslation, pure and simple. That James calls it "the words of the prophets" is demonstrably false. It's no such thing. It's an edited mistranslation. The entire meaning of the verse derives from Greek translators and later editors, not from any prophets. James was wrong.
I have stated what Textual criticism concerns and it has nothing to do with how the New Testament quotes the Old Testament. 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. Acts 15:17's relationship to Amos 9:12 is irrelevant as far as New Testament textual criticism is concerned. 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.
Inerrancy concerns the original autographs only. Not the manuscript copies with all their variants.
No, Matthew unquestionably has inaccuracies. That's flatly demonstrable. Inerrancy is definitely tangential to the topic of this thread, though.
No, Matthew does not contain inaccuracies, and is not the topic of this thread, and no, inerrancy is NOT relevant to the topic of this thread. Textual criticism is not concerned with the issue of inerrancy.
09-22-2014, 07:23 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan
No, Matthew unquestionably has inaccuracies. That's flatly demonstrable. Inerrancy is definitely tangential to the topic of this thread, though.
Although it might not be since in the OP Mike quotes Bock as saying no 'doctrine' is affected by these variants. Well I thought inerrancy was a doctrine.
I know they will qualify that by saying something like 'cardinal' doctrines - but Christians differ on what those are (inspiration and inerrancy for ex.).
Furthermore, this whole point about affecting 'doctrine' is really a straw man because no atheist or non-believing critic is trying to limit their criticisms to just the cardinal doctrines. Also, accordingly Mikes believes that the WHOLE BIBLE not just the cardinal doctrines are inspired and inerrant.
The point of NT criticism is to get at the autographs and no one has done that - period. These variants absolutely affect inspiration and inerrancy which is what non-believers are really after not some rabbit-trail argument about 'cardinal doctrines.'
But ironically even according to the OP if .25% of those variants do affect cardinal doctrines then you have at least 1,000 variants doing so. The issue with non-believers is not whether they only affect these unsettled 'cardinal doctrines' but that they militate against the ideas of inspiration, inerrancy, and preservation particularly the autographs which as stated before are not reconstructed. Thus bringing into question its reliability - and that is a BIG DEAL.
No, Matthew does not contain inaccuracies, and is not the topic of this thread, and no, inerrancy is NOT relevant to the topic of this thread. Textual criticism is not concerned with the issue of inerrancy.
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.
When you consider the number of times that parts of the OT are quoted, or claimed to be quoted in the NT, it is a legitimate part of textual criticism. Because a good percentage of those quotes are misquotes and in some cases we can't even find what they are claiming anywhere in the OT. Even one of the gospels has Jesus claiming something form the OT and yet no record of it is anywhere in the OT.
Did the author of the gospel get it wrong? Did Jesus not have a good understanding of scripture?
But regarding a "separation" of OT and NT with regard to textual criticism, it's simply not possible. Consider the statistics---
How many times do the writers of the New Testament quote the Old Testament? An index in the Jewish New Testament catalogs 695 separate quotations from the books of the Old Testament in the New (Jewish New Testament Publications, Jerusalem, 1989). There are many other passages where the Old Testament is referred to , as in cases where an Old Testament figure is mentioned, but no specific scripture is quoted. Depending on which scholar's work you examine, the number of quotations and references in the New Testament to the Old may be as high as 4,105 (Roger Nicole, The Expositor's Bible Commentary , Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1979, Vol. I, p. 617).
Compare those figures to the number of times other writers are quoted in the New Testament: four . The apostles quoted the Old Testament 695 times , but other writers only four times . Of the 27 books and letters forming the New Testament, 21 quote the Old. The only ones that don't directly quote the Old Testament are the six shortest-Titus, Philemon, 1, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. However, Titus, 1 John, 3 John and Jude allude to Old Testament personalities or passages.
The way modern Bibles are organized, there are 39 books in the Old Testament. Of these 39 books, only nine are not quoted in the New Testament. However, since the Hebrew Bible has long organized these books differently than they appear in modern Bibles, and some of these nine were originally combined with and part of other books, in reality only five of the Old Testament books are not quoted in the New Testament.
Some assume that the five books of Moses are obsolete, as they focus so heavily on laws supposedly annulled by Jesus Christ. However, these same five books are quoted at least 245 times and referred to many more. Paul, the apostle who some believe taught that the law contained in these five books is done away, quoted from those books between 70 and 110 times -more than any other New Testament figure. Jesus Christ quoted from these same books about 60 times.
So to state that textual criticism is only of the NT and excludes the Old, is simply showing a lack of how the NT personalities were influenced by the OT. And that is a very valid subject of textual criticism.
I agree with you. What I was not understanding was what relevance differences in the Dead Sea Scrolls from canonical scriptures had on what was said by NT writers, who used the Septuagint.
BTW I like your phrasing of some points.
"laws supposedly annulled by Jesus Christ" which of course is not the case.
"Paul, the apostle who some believe taught that the law contained in these five books is done away" again not the case.
But those are topics for another thread, being matters of understanding of what was written and not of what was actually written.
Although it might not be since in the OP Mike quotes Bock as saying no 'doctrine' is affected by these variants. Well I thought inerrancy was a doctrine.
I know they will qualify that by saying something like 'cardinal' doctrines - but Christians differ on what those are.
Furthermore, this whole point about affecting 'doctrine' is really a straw man because no atheist or non-believing critic is trying to limit their criticisms to just the cardinal doctrines. Also, accordingly Mikes believes that the WHOLE BIBLE not just the cardinal doctrines are inspired and inerrant.
The point NT of criticism is to get at the autographs and no one has done that - period. These variants absolutely affect inspiration and inerrancy which is what non-believers are really after not some rabbit-trail argument about 'cardinal doctrines.'
But ironically even according to the OP if .25% of those variants do affect cardinal doctrines then you have at least 1,000 variants doing so. The issue with non-believers is not whether they only affect these unsettled 'cardinal doctrine' but that they militate against the ideas of inspiration, inerrancy, and preservation particularly the autographs which as stated before are not reconstructed.
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.
I got this from reading a PDF transcript last night of a debate between Bart Ehrman and James D. White in 2009. From the debate I also noted some serious professional jealousy of Ehrman, because, of course, his stance gets more media attention than that of the more conservative textual critics. 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.
For his part, Ehrman stated that whenever he is called to debate it is the issue of "preservation of scripture" which is on the minds of his debate opponents although in his book Misquoting Jesus he mentions it only in the beginning and end, not as a thematic issue. It is instead, a personal issue for him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
