P
patg
Guest
Then it is interesting how it presents a Jesus who is totally different in words and actions than that of the synoptics. I guess maybe they got it all wrong?
- Status
P
patg
Guest
Except that we don’t have the words of those who walked the earth with him - we only have heavily edited and translated copies.
The original copies of all the written sources have completely disappeared. The oldest fragment of any portion of the New Testament dates from the 2nd century, 100 years after Jesus’ death. The next oldest fragments (of Matthew, Luke, John, and Thomas) date to about 200. The first complete copy of the Greek New Testament (Codex Sinaiticus) is from the 4th century. Thus, three centuries separate Jesus from the earliest complete surviving copies of the gospels.
None of the bibles we use are from a single source - they are formed from about 5000 Greek manuscripts that contain all or parts of the new testament.
The thinking that we are listening directly to those who walked the earth with Jesus is seriously flawed.
You are ignoring some important words - the key phrase "…really did and taught for their eternal salvation" does not include history, science, geography, etc. It specifically limits you to teachings and actions related to salvation.
B
buffalo
Guest
Patg,
I ask again - did you read the Gospels are Historical? You are also neglecting the power of Tradition and the Magisterium.
From the Gospels are Historical
It is worth recalling the two reasons for John writing his Gospel as explained in the Anti-Marcionite Prologues [See chapter II j]. John did not confine himself to refuting the Gnostic sects. He took the opportunity to clarify aspects of the life of Christ not to be found in the existing Gospels. John does not repeat details already given in the other Gospels. This is not evidence of him being unaware of them, nor that he wished to disparage them, as some critics have claimed. It is evidence of him being aware of the information Christians already possessed. It is interesting to note how John presumes many of his readers had a vivid knowledge of the environment of Christ
s preaching, which was radically altered in 70 AD. Apart from the main outline of the life of Christ, there was no reason for him to repeat information. If he wrote without knowledge of the existing Gospels, it would be incredible that he could so successfully have avoided repeating so much of what is related in them, such as: The Transfiguration, Christs confession of divinity before Caiaphas ((CCHS 778h)). Eusebius reports that the three existing Gospels were distributed to all, including John, and John testified to their truth. John then supplemented them ((EH 3: 24, 7 and 11)) and, by correcting any false impressions they may have given, closed openings for heretical attacks.
B
Brad
Guest
The Latin Vulgate is pretty darn close to original. Most of the sources that back up liberal scholars are information are at best, much less authentic material than the Bible and, at worst, information pulled out of thin air. The Bible, in regards to early copies, numbers of copies etc. is the most historically attested to set of books that has ever existed. Using your requirements for accuracy, we have to throw out the history of Caesar, Alexander, Constantine, and everyone else that lived prior to 1700. There are much less handwritten copies and originals of material attesting to anyone’s life prior to that year than there is of Jesus Christ.
That is simply the way you choose to read the text that obviously says something different to the rational and unbiased reader. There wasn’t a single thing that God Himself did on this earth that was not for our salvation. Everything He did was for our salvation. It was why He came.
P
patg
Guest
Except that no one knows what the “original” is.
No, it is irrational bias to totally ignore that:
"…truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.
Are you saying that the historical errors are something God did for our salvation? Are you saying that the authors were physically unable to write historical fiction about Jesus in order to teach the truths about him they wanted to convey?
B
Brad
Guest
Changing the subject to another text? It is not irrational bias for me to ignore something that has not been presented. It is irrational bias for you change to a different text when explaining the current one away is too uncomfortable. In any event, I will, as I always do, not avoid the text as written.
The Gospels were written in historical narrative form. There ARE NO historical errors in the Gospels. The writers had no intention to write historical fiction. The had intention to write pertinent facts. They didn’t write every fact and they didn’t necessarily write chronologically. No Church document says that Gospels were of the poetic form. Why would someone wnat to convey truths using historical fiction when they could much more easily convey truths using historical fact? Where is historical fiction listed as one of the forms of the Bible in a Church document? Is this how you classify the Gospels?
B
buffalo
Guest
What is historical fiction?
M
miguel
Guest
You assume the people who copied and translated through the centuries played fast and loose with their material…that they had no respect for their own work (i.e., the preservation of God’s Word for future generations.) If I spent all that extremely tedious effort copying by hand, I think I’d want to do a good job. Why bother otherwise? But that’s just me. No one else would ever think of that. And how about oversight (the head monk looking over the copier’s shoulder)? I suppose they were also too stupid to think of that. So what we have now must be “heavily edited.” I think there are those who would love to make this claim. But without the originals to compare, how can they? The effort comparing what we do have has shown remarkable consistency. How do all these different copiers heavily edit their material and end up being so consistent?
M
miguel
Guest
An oxymoron.
B
buffalo
Guest
M
miguel
Guest
More historical fiction.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
##
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Esther is historical fiction; and Judith, Tobit, Jonah, and one or two others.
That doesn’t mean they aren’t inspired - it means they are not historically accurate, and that they are not intended as history, but as something closer to historical novellas.The demand for the Bible to be meant as history and not as anything else, completely distorts the texts themselves: they do contain historical (or historiographic) texts; but they also contain saga, fragments of myth, wisdom literature, psalms, proverbs, prayers, apocalyptic texts, parables, ethical instruction, and much else that is only indirectly, if at all, concerned to tell of historical facts.
If the Bible can include parables, which are not direct accounts of historical events - why can it not also include other texts of the same description, such as historical novellas ? Historical truth is not the only mode of truth, any more than parable or wisdom or prayer is: yet they all express truth, but, in different ways. I thought it was the scienticists (so to call them) who thought of only one kind of truth as being true: the scientific kind; it is a great pity if Christians make the same sort of mistake - especially as the Bible is itself the denial that truth can be thought to be confined to a single type or mode of truth.
Christ was not ashamed to make truth known by means of fictions - why should we be uneasy about admitting
historical fiction to the types of literature recognised in the Bible ? Fiction, is not the same as a lie, or as an an untruth. ##
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
**## Certainly the NT has been edited. There is nothing unusual in that, at all. Why should it be so surprising that it has ? Every translation that makes decisions on whether a passage belongs where it is read in the text or not, is engaged in editing; as is every translation that makes decisions as to whether or not a reading is corrupt, or even not part of the text at all. **
This should help, a great deal:
[**The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration - by **Bruce M. Metzger](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...8/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/103-0400340-6971813)
**From one of the reviews: **
"Part three is an instruction manual for textual criticism, including the many theories of criticism and the method of conjectural emendation. In this section, Metzger also discusses the many types of errors and deliberate changes made by the scribes. He then gives an analysis of several textually difficult passages (e.g. Mark 16 and Acts 20:28). The book also includes 16 photo plates that show selected manuscripts. A working knowledge of Greek is helpful because Metzger often cites Greek words in the text and footnotes without an English translation. If one wishes to learn the basics (and more) about textual criticism, then this is the book to buy."
It is an excellent book. As is this:
[**New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide****by **David Alan Black](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...5/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/103-0400340-6971813)
They should both help to demystify the process of textual criticism, and to inform people of what is really involved, and why. ##
B
buffalo
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:
I think patg is trying to apply these things to the Gospels in a way that denounces passages in a super critical way without basis.
M
miguel
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:
No one here is arguing that the entire Bible is historical. patg doesn’t think any of it is. At least that is my impression from many of his posts on this thread.
P
patg
Guest
Actually, I do think many parts of the bible are reasonably accurate history and I’ve never denied that. I just enjoy discussing the many parts which are not with those who assume they are. There are a number of people I’ve encountered here who have been quite agitated when anyone suggested that the entire bible isn’t true literal history,
M
miguel
Guest
I’m curious. What motivates people to waste their time with writings they obviously don’t trust?
L
Liberian
Guest
Here’s an interesting exercise in imagination: Take the Big Bang theory and explain it to someone in a Stone Age culture. Use as much detail and take as much time as you need to make him understand it. Then he tells it to his kids, who tell it to their kids, and so on for a few generations. What is the result going to look like? My guess is that it would begin a lot like “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
- Liberian
P
patg
Guest
Don’t trust? I trust it completely in matters of faith and morals and as a guide and a lens to seeing and finding God.
It is not a history book, a math book, a science book, etc. People are constantly trying to make it one or all of those things and that is what I am arguing against here.
A writing can teach great truths and still be totally fiction. My goal and interest is to study and learn the truth.
I’m curious also. What motivates people to waste their time with writings they obviously don’t take the time to understand?
- Status