Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
With respect though, Pie, we know that bits of the Bible have been added over time. Probably the best known example is that of John 7:53-8:11 - the story of the woman accused of adultery. This is not present in any of the earliest extant manuscripts of John, and appears to have been added in about the 4th century. Most modern Biblical translations print it enclosed in brackets to indicate its doubtful provenance.
|
Actually, you have to be careful here. More accurately, it's that bits
may have been added over time. One scholar I know, Bob Siegel, studied the "floating passage" (The Adultrous Woman) and concluded it was actually
removed by "some prude of a monk" as he puts it.
What's important, though, is that, while we don't know for sure if they were in original manuscripts or not, they are left in our modern Bibles but flagged (typically put in brackets) with a notation stating that they're somewhat suspect.
In terms of the effects of errors, let me cite a modern scholar named Bruce Metzger.
Quote:
Bruce Metzger:
"It should be mentioned that though there are thousands divergences of wording among the manuscripts of the Bible, the overwhelming majority of such divergent readings involve inconsequential details such as alternative spellings, order of words, or interchange of synonyms. In these cases, as well as relatively few instances involving the substance of the records, scholars apply such techniques as textual criticism in order to determine, with more or less probability, what the original wording was. In any event, no doctrine of the Christian faith depends solely upon a passage that is textually uncertain."
|
Quote:
Whole swathes of the bible were not included by the time of Constantine.
As to languages this sounds about right.
|
Technically, the Canonized Bible did not exist during Constantine's reign. All of the books of the New Testament, except Revelation, were included during the Council of Laodicea in 363 AD. So I'm not sure what "whole swathes" you're referring to here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WT Sharpe
Modern Bible scholars believe that some books of the New Testament weren't written until early in the 2nd century. I'm speaking here of I John, II John, and III John (100 CE), I and II Timothy (110 CE, written by an admirer of Paul), Titus (110 CE, also written by an admirer of Paul), Jude (115 CE, written by an admirer of Jude), and II Peter (130 CE, written by an admirer of Peter). All dates are, of course, approximate.
|
Now we get to the more consipracy-theory oriented stuff I was referring to in my initial post. Not the known corrupt texts, or the different manuscripts that vary from the oldest copies, but the wholesale denial of the extant texts.
There are certainly some scholars that dissent from the thousands of year of accepted teachings.
There was even the Jesus Seminar which voted on which particular passages were spoken by Christ himself, eliminating quite a bit of the gospels in the process.
So, sure, you can find modern scholars who will say many things. But let's just take the most basic question to illustrate how problematic this case is:
How do we know the books were written by an "admirer" of Peter or Paul? Especially when -- in the case of Timothy -- we have a direct claim of authorship, and no other evidence supporting a specific "other" author?
Quote:
|
The earliest New Testament writings appear to be the undisputed letters of Paul along with Colossians and II Thessalonians, which are judged to be written by a disciple or admirer of Paul. All seven of the genuine epistles as well as Colossians and II Thessalonians are judged to predate Mark, the first gospel to be written.
|
I'm not sure where you got this information. Passive voice is very powerful... "it is judged" sounds official, but judged
by whom is the real kicker.
The books of Paul were "judged"
by the Council of Laodicea to be written by Paul himself.
Authorship was a key component to inclusion in the original Canon. There is one specific book which some Bibles attribute to Paul's, but its authorship remains in question, and that's Hebrews. But it passed other tests of authenticity to earn it a spot in the Canon, regardless of authorship.
Okay, so my point was simply that adding or deleting from a book is a bad thing. (I would also now add to that making unsubstantiated claims about books is also a bad thing.) This, however, is totally different than deleting your own copy of the book. You're not editing or changing. You are merely deleting something you disagree with, don't like, or simply need to free up space.
-Pie