|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I need a list of the arguments themselves, the claims and concepts with their references for every time the subject comes up or someone demands evidence for something or other. So: I'd need "Evidence That Simonides Was Not Lying", followed by the references, location, page and paragraph etc., and quote, along with references to counterarguments and everything else related. I've started this reference index. It's not something you could help me with, it's something only I can do for myself. But thanks anyway.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Perhaps I read the word "mutilated" to imply human work and you don't? But Burgon makes it quite clear that he thinks that was an accident. "Mutilated" does not imply intent, let alone malicious intent.
And then from where he says it is notorious that the gospels were tampered with in the early centuries I would consider that to be a reference to gnostic tampering ... That Gnostics messed with some Gospels is highly likely (certain if we count Marcion as a Gnostic). But it is not to this that Burgon attributes the deficiencies of the early uncials. Rather, he writes, let me quote this once more:
One remark should be premised, viz. that various Readings as they are (often most unreasonably) called, are seldom if ever the result of conscious fraud. An immense number are to be ascribed to sheer accident. It was through erroneous judgment, we repeat, not with evil intent, that men took liberties with the deposit. They imported into their copies whatever readings they considered highly recommended. [...] To accidental causes then we give the foremost place. This stuff about Gnostics seems to have been invented by loonies who apparently decided that Burgon's position just wasn't crazy enough for Christian fundamentalists. After all, if you just went about saying that the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus are not entirely reliable, and that Westcott and Hort attributed to them greater evidential weight than they actually possess, you run the risk, not only of sounding sane, but of being downright correct. And where's the fun in that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: Literary Forgeries, James Anson Farrer, 1907
quote: quote: The periplus of Hannon, by K. Simonides (1864) I provided the links earlier, shouldn't be too hard for you to find the quoted sections (use the Full Text link over to the side so you can do easy searches, the OCR isn't perfect as you can see). Oh, and 'Is Codex Sinaiticus (א) The Oldest Manuscript OR Just An Invention of the 19th Century?', Brian Sirois, 2013 should be a veritable Gold mine for you. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What is so inherently crazy about the idea of gnostic tampering as the cause of the omission of, say, the Johannine Comma, the Pericope Adulterae or the last twelve verses of Mark? These are blatant omissions. I don't have any need to think it's gnostic tampering, that's just what I've understood to have been the case with so much of the alteration, especially the changes that remove well known passages, remove references that identify Jesus as God, leave out key concepts of the gospels and so on. Corrupt the manuscripts certainly are, not merely less than "entirely reliable."
HERE'S a page of some of the differences that someone just sent as a comment at my blog, comparing the KJV as based on the Traditional or Majority Greek texts, with the NIV as representing the Critical Texts that incorporate the corrupt Alexandrians: These are the sorts of changes that gnostics would make. Edited by Faith, : Reduce URL code to word "HERE'S" Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
This stuff about Gnostics seems to have been invented by loonies who apparently decided that Burgon's position just wasn't crazy enough for Christian fundamentalists. Or perhaps, to put it more charitably, everyone loves a good story, and a good story needs villains. Scribal error is something we might all perpetrate, how much more dramatic to lay textual corruptions to the blame of Evil Gnostics. Bishop Westcott, perhaps, was not a very good textual critic; the same may be true of many of us. Let him instead be a "leading non-Bible-believing apostate". Burgon writes of Tischendorf: "That [he] was a critic of amazing research, singular shrewdness, indefatigable industry; and that he enjoyed an unrivalled familiarity with ancient documents; no fair person will deny", but goes on to say that he was lacking in critical judgement. Well, this will never do. Let him instead be a moronic bungler and a crook who unjustly conspired to defame the virtuous St. Constantine Simonides. And now we have a story! Unfortunately it's complete bollocks, but it is much more appealing to the imagination than the unvarnished truth. For the hero of the piece, you seem to have seized on Dean Burgon. You could do a great deal worse: the man was a scholar, in which capacity he would appear to exceed all the members of his fan club put together. But your hero does not concur with the dramatic scenario in which you wish to place him. He thinks his enemies are carelessness, error, and folly, and not the forces of darkness made incarnate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Burgon was a very careful scholar, very cautious about his arguments and very generous to his opponents, and I admire him greatly for all that. But just that one paragraph of his about how notoriously it was known that the Bible was tampered with in the early years shows that he did not exclusively attribute the errors in the Alexandrians to "carelessness, error, and folly."
And although I do appreciate some of the work done by the KJV-onlies, including those of the Dean Burgon Society, which is what I assume you mean by his "fan club," I don't identify myself with them at all and generally try to keep my distance from them. ABE: And I'll mention again the link I just included in my previous post of the differences between the two manuscript traditions which suggest something rather more premeditated than mere "carelessness, error and folly." Burgon may have held back from making the obvious accusations that must have occurred to him as he contemplated this pattern of changes and omissions, but there are places in his writings where he comes close. In any case the rest of us don't have to be so cautious when we see this blatant pattern. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
These are the sorts of changes that gnostics would make. I don't see why you would say that except that it's the sort of thing you like to say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But just that one paragraph of his about how notoriously it was known that the Bible was tampered with in the early years shows that he did not exclusively attribute the errors in the Alexandrians to "carelessness, error, and folly." Or to Evil Gnostics. And the sort of tampering he describes in the Alexandrians, where it was by design, would in fact fall under "folly". Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
What is so inherently crazy about the idea of gnostic tampering as the cause of the omission of, say, the Johannine Comma Did the Gnostics manage to keep it out for over a thousand years? You will find it in Greek in the following:Codex Montfortianus (which omits 'Holy') Codex Ottobonianus (which is just a Latin translation Minuscule 918, 2318 (which may be a translation from Pope Sixtus V's version of the Vulgate), 2473, 221 (in the margin), 177 (margin), 636 (margin) Codex Regis (margin) Codex Wolfenbttel (margin) Look at any other Greek manuscript that contains the chapter, and it is simply not there. That is, to be clear, IT IS ABSENT FROM THE BYZANTINE MAJORITY TEXT. Scholars, therefore identify that it doesn't appear in an original Greek version until about the 16th Century. Then Erasmus was harangued into including it and it was in the countless versions that copied his work. Of course, it's all over the Latin stuff. The Roman Catholic works: Codex LegionensisFrisingensia Fragmenta Codex Cavensis Codex Ulmensis Codex Complutensis I Codex Toletanus Codex Theodulphianus Codex Sangallensis 907 Codex Sangallensis 63 (margin) And just about every version of the Vulgate ever made (except some in the 19th and 20th Centuries). All that remains are the Church fathers, but I can't easily find the dates of the copies of their works. In any event, one has to suppose that Catholic corruption is quite likely here. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The thing is, there IS a pattern to the changes that "folly" doesn't capture. They play down the deity of Christ and essential elements of the gospel message among other things. Heretics other than gnostics may also have had a hand in it, since there are omissions that would please Arians (Jehovah's Witnesses) as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
... this verse is found in "The old Syriac A.D. 170, old Latin A.D. 200, Vulgate: 4th and 5th century, Italian 4th and 5th century". Also many church fathers quoted this and it is found in "Liber Apologetic A.D. 350, Council of Carthiage A.D. 415." SOURCE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The thing is, there IS a pattern to the changes that "folly" doesn't capture. They play down the deity of Christ and essential elements of the gospel message among other things. Heretics other than gnostics may also have had a hand in it, since there are omissions that would please Arians (Jehovah's Witnesses) as well. What is your opinion of the fact that 'Christian' is not present in the original Sinaiticus (and Vaticanus for that matter)? It was 'corrected' by someone later from 'Chrestian', meaning 'do-er of good'. So it might read something like
Acts 11:24-26 writes: For he [Barnabas] was a good [man], and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord. Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called good [men] first in Antioch Acts 26:27-31 writes: King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be gracious. ...And when they were gone aside, they talked between themselves, saying, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds. 1 Peter 4:15-16, 18-19 writes: But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or [as] a thief, or [as] an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters. Yet if [any man suffer] as a good [man], let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf There is the reference by Tacitus which some people think has been 'corrected' from:
Tacitus Annals 15:44 writes: Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Chrestians (good men) by the populace. And there's a few other references in the ancient world. Which do you think is the real corruption? Or are they both legit?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The thing is, there IS a pattern to the changes that "folly" doesn't capture. They play down the deity of Christ ... Not noticeably. And, crucially, not remotely systematically. Can you imagine your crew of Evil Gnostics or Arians or whatever saying "Aha, let's remove one percent of the proof texts for the divinity of Christ from the Bible, that'll show 'em! But let's leave in, for example, the first chapter of John, we don't want to overplay our hand." Compare this with what you get when someone really does edit the text with an agenda --- the Jefferson Bible, for example, or the Gospel of Marcion. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
You realize that I gave you that source. On your blog?
The old Syriac A.D. 170 Research time, which manuscript is this? Diatesseron?
old Latin A.D. 200 Where?
Vulgate: 4th and 5th century, As the words of an apostle/Jesus? Where? And why are you citing books that the Catholic Church foisted upon the world as the official Bible? I thought there was an agenda by the evil Tischendorf, who was partial to a bit of Vulgate, to undo sola scriptura...
Italian 4th and 5th century Such as?
Also many church fathers quoted this But always in Latin, right? I think your best shot is The Varimadum. Give it a try. Let me know what the earliest copy is you can find so we can see how long the church/gnostics/jesuits/jews/satanists/atheists had to 'massage' things... Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It's more like they omitted words that bothered them here and there as they were copying a portion of the manuscript, and their changes got passed down. Not systematic, just enough to show a certain mindset and make a mess of the text.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024