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 a theological point that you're making. Once you bring in a judgment call about "cardinal doctrine," you're talking about theology, not textual criticism.
False. Oral and cultural traditions are often written down independent of each other. Even if two scribes take dictation at the same time, you have absolutely no original text. You need to stop pretending to know something about textual criticism.
And in this case, we can know that Luke's original wording was a quotation of a mistranslation of the Hebrew.
Nothing was discussed in the interview, but you nowhere specified that you wanted to talk only about New Testament manuscripts. You mentioned only the Bible. If you want to specify only the New Testament, fine.
Well, I'm making a case for my position. Can you make a case for theirs, or can you only appeal to their authority?
Then why did you appeal to Drs. Wallace and Bock and "many other textual scholars"?
The discipline is not, but when you bridge over into theology by making claims about how it affects "cardinal doctrines," you're absolutely bringing it into view.
So you're trying to make a theological point, but you're going to refuse to allow any discussion of that theological point? Just what is the point of saying that no "cardinal doctrines" were affected?
What I can't figure out from his postings is how he can say textual criticism is only about NT writings when the NT quotes extensively from the OT. Are the quotes of the OT in the NT NOT a part of the NT? And if they are, why are they not the subject of NT textual criticism.
I think the argument is more about being "right" than being effective, because virtually every other poster understands that if the works you are subjecting to textual criticism include previous separate works, it is by nature inclusive, at least in part, of the other.
It's a theological point that you're making. Once you bring in a judgment call about "cardinal doctrine," you're talking about theology, not textual criticism.
I did not make a theological statement. I specifically stated that theology is not involved in textual criticism. You however did bring theology into it when you made this comment in post #49.
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).
Quote:
False. Oral and cultural traditions are often written down independent of each other. Even if two scribes take dictation at the same time, you have absolutely no original text. You need to stop pretending to know something about textual criticism.
The original autograph refers to what the authors of the books of the Bible wrote. Not what the scribes who made copies of the original autographs wrote.
Quote:
And in this case, we can know that Luke's original wording was a quotation of a mistranslation of the Hebrew.
This has nothing to do with the issue of getting back to what Luke wrote by comparing the extant New Testament manuscript copies.
Quote:
Nothing was discussed in the interview, but you nowhere specified that you wanted to talk only about New Testament manuscripts. You mentioned only the Bible. If you want to specify only the New Testament, fine.
This is simply not true. What was discussed was the fact that the 300,000 to 400,000 variants in the New Testament manuscripts are no big deal.
Common sense would have told you that the subject was what was discussed in the interview which
Quote:
Well, I'm making a case for my position. Can you make a case for theirs, or can you only appeal to their authority?
I don't have to make a case for their position. There are many videos in which their positions are made clear and people can access them for themselves.
And by the way, there is nothing wrong with appealing to authority.
Quote:
Then why did you appeal to Drs. Wallace and Bock and "many other textual scholars"?
I simply made the following comment in post #55.
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.
There was no attempt to invoke majority viewpoint as being the correct viewpoint.
Quote:
The discipline is not, but when you bridge over into theology by making claims about how it affects "cardinal doctrines," you're absolutely bringing it into view.
The point is that the discipline of textual criticism isn't concerned with inerrancy. Yet it is a fact that cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith are not affected by the variant's in the New Testament manuscripts.
Quote:
So you're trying to make a theological point, but you're going to refuse to allow any discussion of that theological point? Just what is the point of saying that no "cardinal doctrines" were affected?
Again, no I am not. That is, I am not saying New Testament Textual criticism is concerned establishing inerrancy. It is concerned with getting back to the reading of the original New Testament autographs. Again however, the New Testament variants do not affect any cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith.
What I can't figure out from his postings is how he can say textual criticism is only about NT writings when the NT quotes extensively from the OT. Are the quotes of the OT in the NT NOT a part of the NT? And if they are, why are they not the subject of NT textual criticism.
I think the argument is more about being "right" than being effective, because virtually every other poster understands that if the works you are subjecting to textual criticism include previous separate works, it is by nature inclusive, at least in part, of the other.
You have already made this claim and I have already told you that I have not said that textual criticism is only about the New Testament writings. What I have said is that there is New Testament textual criticism and Old Testament textual criticism.
You cannot figure out what I am saying because you cannot seem to understand the fact that the objective of New Testament textual criticism is to try to establish the reading of the original autographs as written by the New Testament writers as closely as possible. The objective is NOT to try to analyze WHY or HOW the New Testament quotes the Old Testament.
no doctrine of the Christian faith is impacted by this remainder
Quote:
Everything the Bible teaches that is a cardinal truth, an essential truth is found there in the manuscripts and is untouched by the variants.
Quote:
the estimated 400,000 textual variants in our 20,000 to 30,000 manuscripts simply are not a big deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
I specifically stated that theology is not involved in textual criticism. You however did bring theology into it when you made this comment in post #49.
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).
The original autograph refers to what the authors of the books of the Bible wrote. Not what the scribes who made copies of the original autographs wrote.
I don't need to be told what "original autograph" means, but you could obviously use a crash course in textual criticism. The existence of an autograph for any given text is not something we can presuppose, as I have explained.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
This has nothing to do with the issue of getting back to what Luke wrote by comparing the extant New Testament manuscript copies.
This is simply not true.
It very much is true. Your OP nowhere has "New Testament." It only has "Bible."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
What was discussed was the fact that the 300,000 to 400,000 variants in the New Testament manuscripts are no big deal.
Your OP says "Bible."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Common sense would have told you that the subject was what was discussed in the interview which I don't have to make a case for their position. There are many videos in which their positions are made clear and people can access them for themselves.
And by the way, there is nothing wrong with appealing to authority.
It's a fallacy, for one, and if someone is making an actual argument against their case, appealing to authority does nothing for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
I simply made the following comment in post #55.
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.
There was no attempt to invoke majority viewpoint as being the correct viewpoint.
You were appealing to authority and to popularity. You can equivocate all you want, but those fallacies are demonstrable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
The point is that the discipline of textual criticism isn't concerned with inerrancy. Yet it is a fact that cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith are not affected by the variant's in the New Testament manuscripts.
It is not a fact. It is a subjective theological assertion, and it is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Again, no I am not. That is, I am not saying New Testament Textual criticism is concerned establishing inerrancy. It is concerned with getting back to the reading of the original New Testament autographs. Again however, the New Testament variants do not affect any cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith.
You're making theological statements again. You're barking at others for engaging theology, and you turn around and assert theological statements. Why can't you just deal with the facts? Why do you have to try to whittle away all the problematic aspects of the Bible and insist that your theology is correct provided you ignore X, Y, and Z, and don't talk about theology? That's pathetic.
You have already made this claim and I have already told you that I have not said that textual criticism is only about the New Testament writings. What I have said is that there is New Testament textual criticism and Old Testament textual criticism.
There's also textual criticism of both. Trying to isolate one from the other to make a theological point is kinda myopic and naive.
The following are theological statements:
My so called 'theological statements' simply show that the variants do not affect any cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith. And that is a fact. That is not implying that the purpose of textual criticism is to establish doctrine.
Quote:
I don't need to be told what "original autograph" means, but you could obviously use a crash course in textual criticism. The existence of an autograph for any given text is not something we can presuppose, as I have explained.
There is always an original writing from which copies stem. At some point for example, the apostle Paul wrote his letters either by himself or with the use of an amanuensis.
Quote:
It very much is true. Your OP nowhere has "New Testament." It only has "Bible."
Your OP says "Bible."
You are now just resorting to petty and immature arguments. The intent of the OP is clear and concerns the content of the interview with Dr. Wallace and Dr. Bock.
Quote:
It's a fallacy, for one, and if someone is making an actual argument against their case, appealing to authority does nothing for you.
You were appealing to authority and to popularity. You can equivocate all you want, but those fallacies are demonstrable.
It is not a fallacy to appeal to the expertise of legitimate experts in any given field.
Quote:
It is not a fact. It is a subjective theological assertion, and it is wrong.
It is a fact that no cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith is affected by the variants. The deity of Christ is not affected. The virgin birth is not affected. The resurrection of Christ is not affected.
Quote:
You're making theological statements again. You're barking at others for engaging theology, and you turn around and assert theological statements. Why can't you just deal with the facts? Why do you have to try to whittle away all the problematic aspects of the Bible and insist that your theology is correct provided you ignore X, Y, and Z, and don't talk about theology? That's pathetic.
I'll repeat what I said. ''Again, no I am not. That is, I am not saying New Testament Textual criticism is concerned establishing inerrancy. It is concerned with getting back to the reading of the original New Testament autographs.
Again however, it is a fact that the New Testament variants do not affect any cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith.'' And this is nothing more than textual critics down through the years have stated.
There's also textual criticism of both. Trying to isolate one from the other to make a theological point is kinda myopic and naive.
You cannot use the Old Testament documents which were written prior to the New Testament documents to establish the original reading of the New Testament documents which were not even written yet. You have to work backwards from the existing manuscript copies in order to attempt to determine the reading of the original autographs.
The issue in New Testament textual criticism is not to make a theological point. Only to determine as nearly as possible the original reading of the New Testament autographs.
You are now just resorting to petty and immature arguments. The intent of the OP is clear and concerns the content of the interview with Dr. Wallace and Dr. Bock.
It is not a fallacy to appeal to the expertise of legitimate experts in any given field.
It is a fact that no cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith is affected by the variants. The deity of Christ is not affected. The virgin birth is not affected. The resurrection of Christ is not affected.
I'll repeat what I said. ''Again, no I am not. That is, I am not saying New Testament Textual criticism is concerned establishing inerrancy. It is concerned with getting back to the reading of the original New Testament autographs.
Again however, it is a fact that the New Testament variants do not affect any cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith.'' And this is nothing more than textual critics down through the years have stated.
It's only a fact if YOU are the one choosing which doctrines are cardinal. Obviously you are NOT considering inerrancy to be a cardinal doctrine because that has been patently proven false.
Cardinal doctrines according to Religioustolerance.org:
There appears to be a general consensus by conservative and some mainline Protestant faith groups that a list of common beliefs might include:
The incorrectness of inerrancy of scripture had definitely been PROVEN BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT, by textual criticism. And even without textual criticism careful reading of the Bible uncovered a host of problems as far back as the mid eighteenth century.
Now what has happened is that almost all the classically trained conservative scholars have re-defined inerrancy so that they still claim it while admitting errors exist. That is a level of dishonesty reached only by politicians! Thank God textual criticism IS disproving some cardinal documents. And the Trinity, the first on the list, is still very much in debate by textual critics. The cardinal doctrines too often get in the way of a spirit-filled life.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 09-23-2014 at 07:23 PM..
You are now just resorting to petty and immature arguments. The intent of the OP is clear and concerns the content of the interview with Dr. Wallace and Dr. Bock.
And if someone doesn't go watch the video, they will have the impression that you are referring to the entire Bible. Even in the video, no one ever states that none of this is true for the Old Testament, or that their remarks are limited to the manuscripts of the New Testament.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
It is not a fallacy to appeal to the expertise of legitimate experts in any given field.
When you make that appeal in the face of an argument provided by an expert in that field, yes, it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
It is a fact that no cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith is affected by the variants. The deity of Christ is not affected. The virgin birth is not affected. The resurrection of Christ is not affected.
Not true at all. First of all, the New Testament doesn't support the concept to which you refer as the "deity of Christ." It supports Christ's deity, but not in the Trinitarian sense. One is forced to appeal to variants just to find any support at all, and even then, it's pretty weak. Next, the resurrection of Christ is indeed affected. The textual instability of the resurrection accounts within particular books as well as between them shows that the tradition was in flux and was likely not well established. The shorter ending of Mark also complicates the post-resurrection traditions, in addition to the notion of inerrancy, another unquestionable cardinal doctrine of Christianity. You're just trying to carefully draw boundaries around this argument and around your doctrines so that all the many pieces of evidence that flatly undermine it are precluded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
I'll repeat what I said. ''Again, no I am not. That is, I am not saying New Testament Textual criticism is concerned establishing inerrancy. It is concerned with getting back to the reading of the original New Testament autographs.
And I'll repeat that you don't know much about textual criticism, New Testament or broader.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Again however, it is a fact that the New Testament variants do not affect any cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith.'' And this is nothing more than textual critics down through the years have stated.
No, it's nothing more than apologists down through the years have stated. Being textual critics is largely incidental there. It's also demonstrably false. Numerous New Testament variants complicate central Christian doctrines.
You cannot use the Old Testament documents which were written prior to the New Testament documents to establish the original reading of the New Testament documents which were not even written yet.
But you can use them to demonstrate the exclusively human origins of the New Testament, which completely undermines the entire point at which you're trying to get. Saying evidence X supports conclusion Y, provided you ignore evidence Z, when Z flatly precludes conclusion Y, is asinine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
You have to work backwards from the existing manuscript copies in order to attempt to determine the reading of the original autographs.
Or if there were original autographa. You keep forgetting that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
The issue in New Testament textual criticism is not to make a theological point.
The issue with this thread is unquestionably to make a theological point. Don't pretend otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Only to determine as nearly as possible the original reading of the New Testament autographs.
Again, you can't presuppose an original reading.
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.
The 
