Not only text of New Testament is ALTERED but no book of Ancient Times: Admission of Catholic Encyclopedia

[huan_m]

Not only text of New Testament is ALTERED but no book of Ancient Times: Admission of Catholic Encyclopedia

"No book of ancient times has come down to us exactly as it left the hands of its author–all have been in some way altered. The material conditions under which a book was spread before the invention of printing (1440), the little care of the copyists, correctors, and glossators for the text, so different from the desire of accuracy exhibited today, explain sufficiently the divergences we find between various manuscripts of the same work. To these causes may be added, in regard to the Scriptures, exegetical difficulties and dogmatical controversies."

newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm#IV

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You should have read a little further down in the same article from which you snipped. . .

Let us say, however, from the start, that the substantial tenor of the sacred text has not been altered, not withstanding the uncertainty which hangs over some more or less long and more or less important historical or dogmatical passages. Moreover–and this is very important–these alterations are not irremediable; we can at least very often, by studying the variants of the texts, eliminate the defective readings and thus re-establish the primitive text. This is the object of textual criticism.

 

[juliamajor]

Not only text of New Testament is ALTERED but no book of Ancient Times: Admission of Catholic Encyclopedia

"No book of ancient times has come down to us exactly as it left the hands of its author–all have been in some way altered. The material conditions under which a book was spread before the invention of printing (1440), the little care of the copyists, correctors, and glossators for the text, so different from the desire of accuracy exhibited today, explain sufficiently the divergences we find between various manuscripts of the same work. To these causes may be added, in regard to the Scriptures, exegetical difficulties and dogmatical controversies."

newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm#IV

Oh the Horror! Any ancient book has problems because. A. many weren’t written at the time of the event.B. not a heck of a lot of the population could write so it took professional scribes to it.c. Most materials used were fragile and so fell apart Papyri, parchment degrade so original(which they’re aren’t any) would have fallen apart.Even stone and clay erode .So if this newsflash is trying to shock us it won’t- if that’s what you’re trying to get.
That doesn’t mean the information we got is wrong.First biography of Alexander the Great was written 400 yrs after he died.Were the ancients wrong about history of alexander’s battles life etc? no.Because , unlike modern society they had an oral history which stood side by side and frequently filled in the blanks that a written history could.

 

[PaulDupre]

Not only text of New Testament is ALTERED but no book of Ancient Times: Admission of Catholic Encyclopedia

"No book of ancient times has come down to us exactly as it left the hands of its author–all have been in some way altered. The material conditions under which a book was spread before the invention of printing (1440), the little care of the copyists, correctors, and glossators for the text, so different from the desire of accuracy exhibited today, explain sufficiently the divergences we find between various manuscripts of the same work. To these causes may be added, in regard to the Scriptures, exegetical difficulties and dogmatical controversies."

newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm#IV

haun_m,
Why did you only quote the part of the article that you think is defamatory toward Catholicism? Why did you not quote the whole passage?

You never really read the whole article, did you? You just copied-and-pasted from an anti-Catholic web site.

Troll. Liar.

Everybody, ignore this creep.

P.S.: Don’t you realize that the kind of intellectual honesty displayed in this quote indicates that the Catholic Church is concerned chiefly with factual truth?

 

[huan_m]

You never really read the whole article, did you? You just copied-and-pasted from an anti-Catholic web site.

When I came to know about Q document and Matthew and Luke both usiing the Gospel of Mark, independently of one another, I wanted to see what Catholics’ own source(s) has to say about documentation of New Testament, so , I did read the whole article of Catholic Encyclopedia. It’s admission is very clear and loud.

 

[huan_m]

P.S.: Don’t you realize that the kind of intellectual honesty displayed in this quote indicates that the Catholic Church is concerned chiefly with factual truth?

'factual truth"?? Where is it? Nowhere because"No book of ancient times has come down to us exactly as it left the hands of its author–all have been in some way altered".

^

 

[huan_m]

In the abscence of UNALTERED TEXT, it is natural to rely/invent other sources for self or people’s satisfaction. Unfortunately the other soruces are more unreliable/dangerous. Hence no wonder we have now countless sects and denominations that blaspheming and accusing each other.

 

[huan_m]

Are you now under the spell of 'Tu quoque ’ syndrome?

 

[huan_m]

Instead just present your own point of view but try not to be more Catholic than the Pope.

 

[inJESUS]

Who would be so ignorant of the scriptures, the Bible, and history yet come argue about them? the poster is a Muslim who has been banned so many times on this forum and it won’t take long until he is banned again…he’s got a dozen nicknames he used so far so do not waste your time…

 

[twopekinguys]

Who would be so ignorant of the scriptures, the Bible, and history yet come argue about them? the poster is a Muslim who has been banned so many times on this forum and it won’t take long until he is banned again…he’s got a dozen nicknames he used so far so do not waste your time…

You gotta love how “honest” people like this are in their approach to things. Especially on a religion based forum.

Thanks for the heads up.

 

[DOShea]

When I came to know about Q document and Matthew and Luke both usiing the Gospel of Mark, independently of one another, I wanted to see what Catholics’ own source(s) has to say about documentation of New Testament, so , I did read the whole article of Catholic Encyclopedia. It’s admission is very clear and loud.

You are also aware, I hope, that there has never been so much as a single scrap of the alleged Q document ever found? It’s entire existence is theoretical, though it is based on sound principles.

That aside, you seem to be painfully unaware of what the nature of these “alterations” are. Some are merely reordering of the text. Others are the addition of lines that were formerly in the margins of earlier text, and instead of being copied faithfully into the margins, they were joined to the text. Either way, a reader would be reading the same words. You are making a case that alteration = forgery, and I have yet to see even a single scholar (outside of the Jesus Seminar) make a claim that any biblical book is based on fraud.