Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Isaiah and the Dead Sea Scrolls
Taqless
Member (Idle past 5913 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 76 of 204 (198739)
04-12-2005 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Faith
04-12-2005 3:10 PM


I think we are drifting, partially my fault
Faith writes:
The Isaiah scroll among the Dead Sea scrolls confirms the fact that there haven't been all the changes in the text so often claimed.
Your defense of "objections TO the modern position" I'm taking to be the above which is "changes in the text".
In support of your defense of this "changes in the text" you have sited the Isaiah scroll (which you feel supports the idea you have that the copyists were obsessively adherent which has led to a modern text with few if any errors).
The problem?
The Isaiah scroll does not "confirm" anything. By your own admission (personally, I don't know about this) you have just informed me that the DSS is not/was not the basis for the modern text which means by default it cannot support your position and makes the above statement that started this thread [b][i]irrelevant[/b][/i].
Maybe coincidence, but not proof or support of "the copyists were obsessively adherent which has led to a modern text with few if any errors" (not your exact phrasing) since the copyists did not use this text as a basis. Right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 04-12-2005 3:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Faith, posted 04-13-2005 10:41 PM Taqless has replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 77 of 204 (198804)
04-12-2005 9:07 PM


Greetings all,
So,
we have the ancient DSS copies,
we have the modern copies,
we see many differences between them.
Isaiah has over a 1000 differences, including 100s of copying errors - missing letters and words, even multiple lines missed in places.
The other DSS MSS show much more serious variation, as I pointed out.
But somehow Faith thinks this proves the copying was accurate?
Even though Isaiah was clearly NOT copied that accurately,
and the other books show much corruption has occured.
Now Faith claims the DSS are NOT the basis for our modern MSS?
If so, Faith's whole argument crumbles, as PaulK and Tagless mentioned.
Furthermore, this means our modern MT was based on ANOTHER scripture tradition than the DSS MSS.
In other words, according to Faith,
in ancient times there were (at least) two scripture traditions -
1) the DSS family (a corrupt version)
2) the other version (identical to ours)
Yet we have NO evidence for this other version that was identical to ours (apart from Faith's faith).
All we have is the DSS family of MSS - which according to Faith was a corrupt variant.
In other words,
Faith ignores all the differences we do see,
dismisses the DSS MSS as "corrupt",
pretends there was a scripture tradition identical to the modern,
then pretends this proves the copying was accurate !
Honestly,
this is nonsense.
Iasion

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 04-13-2005 11:19 PM Kapyong has not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 78 of 204 (198893)
04-13-2005 7:58 AM


Changes to the NT
Greetings all,
The issue of changes to the bible e.g. Isaiah touched upon the NT also - I hope its ok to give a brief list of changes to the NT to show that it clearly has been changed over the years, just like the OT. If this belongs in a new topic, that's fine :-)
Mark 16:9-20
The Resurrection Appearances
Most of the earliest witnesses have G.Mark ending at 16:8 - with the empty tomb scene, but no resurrection appearances etc.
Intriguingly, an empty tomb scene was not unknown in other 1st century dramatic writings - e.g. Chariton's novel Chareas and Callirhoe included an empty tomb scene - as did some other documents AFAIR.
G.Mark ends at 16:8 in the very important early MSS Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and also in others such as : Latin Codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, and the two oldest Georgian translations and many Armenian manuscripts.
In later versions however, there are several DIFFERENT endings to G.Mark after 16:8 -
* the longer ending (16:9-20 in many Bibles)
* the shorter ending (also found in some study bibles)
* another minor variant of a few verses
(Many modern Bibles now indicate this with brackets or a marginal note.)
Origen and Clement of Alexandria and Victor of Antioch quote and discuss G.Mark WITHOUT mentioning the appendix.
Eusebius mentions that most MSS do not have the appendix.
Jerome also notes the passage can not be found in most Greek MSS.
This, this evidence is fairly clear that the post-resurrection stories were NOT original, but added later.
This helps to explain why the stories in G.Luke and G.Matthew and G.John are so wildly different - they did not have G.Mark to follow, so each made-up a different story.
Mark 1:1
Jesus Christ [Son of God]
Early MSS do not have "son of God".
John 9:35
Son of Man/God
Early MSS have :
"Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, Do you believe in the Son of man?"
Later versions have :
"Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?"
Acts 8:37
JC is the Son of God
"And Phillip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"
This passage is missing from all the early MSS.
Mark 1:2
As written in [Isaiah]
The early MSS have :
"As it is written in Isaiah the prophet..."
But most later versions have :
"As it is written in the prophets..."
Probably because the quote is NOT really from Isaiah (its composited from Isaiah, Malachai, and Exodus) - the eariest MSS were wrong, so later versions fixed this error by using just "prophets".
Luke 3:22
The words of God at the Baptism
Early MSS and quotes have the same as the Psalm :
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou are my son, this day have I begotten thee"
But later versions have changed it to :
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased"
1 John 5:7
The Trinity
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. "
This passage is not found in any Greek MSS, and was therefore not included in the original Textus Receptus of Erasmus. But it then appeared in a Greek MSS and was then included in the KJV.
Matthew 6:13
The Lord's Prayer
Early and important MSS (Aleph, B, D, Z, 205, 547) as well as some fathers (Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian) have :
"And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil"
Other MSS have :
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen"
And a few MSS have another version :
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, of the father, the son, and the holy spirit for ever. Amen"
A few MSS exclude the words "the power" or "the glory" or "the kingdom".
The Lord's Prayer is one of the more variant parts of the NT.
Colossians 1:14
Redemption by blood
All early MSS have the shorter :
"in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins"
But later copies have added "through his blood" :
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins"
This is an important proof-text for the doctrine of redemption by Chist's blood - but its a later addition.
This shows quite clearly that the NT was often changed during its history.
Iasion

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Nighttrain, posted 04-13-2005 8:27 PM Kapyong has not replied
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 04-13-2005 11:59 PM Kapyong has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 79 of 204 (199069)
04-13-2005 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Kapyong
04-13-2005 7:58 AM


Re: Changes to the NT
The appeal is often made to numbers as an indication of the surety of a version, e.g. 5000 manuscripts agree as against a small number of differing texts. Westcott/Hort tried to introduce the geneaological method to show the provenance of tramsmission of a single text-type, but have been refuted by many scholars (Burgon,Colwell, Lake, von Soden,Parvis, Aland, Zuntz, Metzger). They found it difficult to find a manuscript that could relate to a predecessor, let alone a family. With so many mixed-text types, the task of a translator remains one of wonder.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Kapyong, posted 04-13-2005 7:58 AM Kapyong has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 80 of 204 (199098)
04-13-2005 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Taqless
04-12-2005 4:27 PM


Re: I think we are drifting, partially my fault
Ah well. Let me ask you this: How do YOU explain that the DSS Isaiah scroll and the text of Isaiah in all our Bibles now are virtually identical after generations of copying of different texts of Isaiah over the centuries? Just some weird coincidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Taqless, posted 04-12-2005 4:27 PM Taqless has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Taqless, posted 04-14-2005 11:48 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 81 of 204 (199110)
04-13-2005 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Kapyong
04-12-2005 9:07 PM


Greetings all,
So,
we have the ancient DSS copies,
we have the modern copies,
we see many differences between them.
A fair reading of the links that have been posted here shows that the differences are for the most part unimportant. The biggest differences are portions not being included, but the text itself simply shows spelling differences, typo type mistakes, different positioning of content, and so on, nothing that affects the message. And the Isaiah scroll is the best of them all I gather from those sites.
Isaiah has over a 1000 differences, including 100s of copying errors - missing letters and words, even multiple lines missed in places.
But as is clearly pointed out, many have been corrected by the scribes of Qumran, some are spelling variations peculiar to the time, and in any case nothing important is missing from the text. Read the links again.
The other DSS MSS show much more serious variation, as I pointed out.
But still not destructive of the basic meaning.
Put this in context for pete's sake. The Bible has more ancient texts representing it by far than any other ancient writing, with over 5000 Greek texts. The Iliad is the closest with 600 and something. The writings of Thucydides and -- I think they said Tacitus? -- have only a few incomplete texts. But nobody carries on about how unreliable they are for that reason. The Bible has so many texts representing it there are many ways of crosschecking meanings and correcting errors. Did you read the little "Aunt Sally's recipe" story at TheologyWeb? Mistakes in any one text are always correctable because there are so many other texts to compare it with. AND the discussion on the Moeller link made it very very clear that there were NO substantive changes in the Isaiah scroll, NOTHING that contradicts our reading.
But somehow Faith thinks this proves the copying was accurate?
Even though Isaiah was clearly NOT copied that accurately,
and the other books show much corruption has occured.
Now Faith claims the DSS are NOT the basis for our modern MSS?
If so, Faith's whole argument crumbles, as PaulK and Tagless mentioned.
Hardly. I don't know why you guys are having so much trouble with this simple piece of logic. I really don't.
The mere existence of one manuscript that is so ancient that has the same text as ours is definitely evidence against the big scribal errors so often claimed to have marred our current Bibles. It just didn't happen. We know it didn't happen anyway. But finding ANY Bible book from 2200 years ago that is the same as ours OUGHT to put that whole nonsense to rest. But I have this sinking feeling you're just going to go on not getting this.
Furthermore, this means our modern MT was based on ANOTHER scripture tradition than the DSS MSS.
Yes I believe that is most likely. Not too likely any copies came out of this isolated sect of Qumran down to us. Most likely they kept theirs within the group for their own use.
In other words, according to Faith,
in ancient times there were (at least) two scripture traditions -
1) the DSS family (a corrupt version)
2) the other version (identical to ours)
Many many more than two scripture lines as a matter of fact. Hundreds of copies were made at one time from one manuscript to distribute, as one of the links I posted pointed out. I've been assuming you must have read those links but you can't have. This isn't about different "traditions" as with few exceptions they are all consistent with each other, just different sources of manuscripts, most of which are identical with each other. If errors occur in one line they can be checked against other lines. You really do need to read the links I posted.
More and more I think that has to be the problem, nobody read them. OK I can go back and ferret out the relevant information if necessary.
Yet we have NO evidence for this other version that was identical to ours (apart from Faith's faith).
None? We have hundreds, thousands of texts of ALL the books of the Bible from all over the West and even the world. What are you talking about? The particular importance of the Isaiah scroll is that it is SO old and the oldest since then are fourth century and then there are more in the following centuries, the most around the year 1000 as I recall -- but the oldest carries special weight in people's minds. That's its importance.
All we have is the DSS family of MSS - which according to Faith was a corrupt variant.
No, that is NOT all we have. And I never used the term "corrupt variant" as I recall. You are making too much of terms like "corrupt." It just means that there are identifiable errors. If they are identifiable they are correctable. The Isaiah scroll is of importance simply because it has so few errors it is virtually perfect.
In other words,
Faith ignores all the differences we do see,
dismisses the DSS MSS as "corrupt",
pretends there was a scripture tradition identical to the modern,
then pretends this proves the copying was accurate !
Honestly,
this is nonsense.
Sigh.
OK I guess I'm going to have to re-post those links. Honestly you guys. Just think a little. You are too eager to find fault where there is no fault.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Kapyong, posted 04-12-2005 9:07 PM Kapyong has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 82 of 204 (199119)
04-13-2005 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Kapyong
04-13-2005 7:58 AM


Re: Changes to the NT -- all insignificant
Greetings all,
The issue of changes to the bible e.g. Isaiah touched upon the NT also - I hope its ok to give a brief list of changes to the NT to show that it clearly has been changed over the years, just like the OT. If this belongs in a new topic, that's fine :-)
Mark 16:9-20
The Resurrection Appearances
Most of the earliest witnesses have G.Mark ending at 16:8 - with the empty tomb scene, but no resurrection appearances etc.
Intriguingly, an empty tomb scene was not unknown in other 1st century dramatic writings - e.g. Chariton's novel Chareas and Callirhoe included an empty tomb scene - as did some other documents AFAIR.
Have you read this thread at all? I've answered this up one side and down the other to jar. If you aren't reading the thread you are just causing work for me.
G.Mark ends at 16:8 in the very important early MSS Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and also in others such as : Latin Codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, and the two oldest Georgian translations and many Armenian manuscripts.
I have posted on this at length. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not have any authority in Church history. Over 5000 other ancient texts include the Mark passage as I've said over and over in this thread. The variant readings that leave it out are decidedly the minority readings, and they carry NO authority in the history of the Church. Certainly some other MSS were based on this tradition but they are in this minority.
Again I have pointed out that it seems to get forgotten that ALL THESE ARE COPIES in any case, so that some being the "oldest" simply means "the oldest that happened to survive." The majority tradition includes the Mark passage. The MSS from which these were copied have apparently disintegrated but the likelihood is that they were always the majority tradition.
In later versions however, there are several DIFFERENT endings to G.Mark after 16:8 -
* the longer ending (16:9-20 in many Bibles)
* the shorter ending (also found in some study bibles)
* another minor variant of a few verses
(Many modern Bibles now indicate this with brackets or a marginal note.)
Why don't you quote them? These are minority variants, and they don't contradict the basic meaning of the gospels, right? Why put so much weight on them?
I have pointed out that the HUGE PREPONDERANCE OF GREEK MSS -- over 5000 of them -- INCLUDE the Mark passage you are so uselessly repeating after my lengthy discussion of it here, while the variants amount to some 45 mss out of all that, besides which Church authorities have verified the validity of the passage. PLEASE READ THE THREAD BEFORE YOU COMMENT.
Origen and Clement of Alexandria and Victor of Antioch quote and discuss G.Mark WITHOUT mentioning the appendix.
Eusebius mentions that most MSS do not have the appendix.
Jerome also notes the passage can not be found in most Greek MSS.
This, this evidence is fairly clear that the post-resurrection stories were NOT original, but added later.
Not that I see from what you've quoted. Simply means they had the MSS without it. Why is this such a big deal anyway? The other gospels have post-resurrection accounts in any case. It's not as if that Mark passage is the only reference to that period. What it says is completely consistent with the others, but if it's left out the Bible can do without it too without damage to its meaning.
This helps to explain why the stories in G.Luke and G.Matthew and G.John are so wildly different - they did not have G.Mark to follow, so each made-up a different story.
You making this up? Where are your links, your quotes? The stories are complementary, they add to each other. The supposed contradictions are figments of debunkers' imaginations for the most part, easily reconciled by combining all the accounts, and the few that are real are trivial.
Mark 1:1
Jesus Christ [Son of God]
Early MSS do not have "son of God".
Which MSS? Do you know what you are talking about? What do you mean by "early" -- the oldest surviving MSS? But these are the extreme minority of the texts that have been followed by the Church over the centuries.
Also, if it doesn't say it in one place it certainly says it in others. This is a trivial concern. It's in brackets. That means it was added by intentional edit later anyway, to help the reader.
John 9:35
Son of Man/God
Early MSS have :
"Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, Do you believe in the Son of man?"
Later versions have :
"Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?"
You don't know what you are talking about about "early" and "later." You need to start thinking in terms of numbers of ancient MSS -- over 5000 that include the Mark passage to 45 that don't include it. It is the extreme fewest that are the oldest and had the least impact on the majority Biblical texts that came down to us.
Acts 8:37
JC is the Son of God
"And Phillip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"
This passage is missing from all the early MSS.
You are simply following the modern scholars who have introduced these "early MSS" into our modern Bibles against the testimony of the Church over the centuries that those readings are the inferior ones. Again you don't seem to grasp that you are talking about COPIES OF COPIES OF COPIES in any case. "Early" just means an old copy that survived. But the majority readings, which are represented by thousands of MSS not all that much later, a century or two, were copied from other traditions that may most likely go back to the originals, but obviously in greater numbers showing that the Church considered them most authentic, NOT the minority readings from which you are quoting.
Mark 1:2
As written in [Isaiah]
The early MSS have :
"As it is written in Isaiah the prophet..."
But most later versions have :
"As it is written in the prophets..."
Again, the "later" and "earlier" are bogus concepts. They are all copies from different copying lineages. Some left it out, the minority left it out. There is no justification for giving these authority. The others have the weight of Church authority behind them, in numbers of copies as well as written preference from what some of those links you obviously didn't read show.
Probably because the quote is NOT really from Isaiah (its composited from Isaiah, Malachai, and Exodus) - the eariest MSS were wrong, so later versions fixed this error by using just "prophets".
Since you don't give the quote I can't judge this. Are you a Bible scholar that you can make such comments? One thing that is often not taken into account is that many of the references to the OT in the NT are to the Septuagint which is worded differently from the readings of the prophets in our Bibles made straight from the Hebrew.
Luke 3:22
The words of God at the Baptism
Early MSS and quotes have the same as the Psalm :
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou are my son, this day have I begotten thee"
But later versions have changed it to :
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased"
What's your justification for preferring the earlier copies since the Church preferred the later? There is no substantive difference. Those meanings are both consistent with the gospel testimony overall, there are no contradictions.
1 John 5:7
The Trinity
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. "
This passage is not found in any Greek MSS, and was therefore not included in the original Textus Receptus of Erasmus. But it then appeared in a Greek MSS and was then included in the KJV.
You are a Bible scholar? You have shown your abysmal ignorance of how copies were made and passed down in that discussion of the importance of the Isaiah scroll. I'd say that pretty much disqualifies you from making any comments whatever.
Matthew 6:13
The Lord's Prayer
Early and important MSS (Aleph, B, D, Z, 205, 547) as well as some fathers (Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian) have :
"And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil"
Other MSS have :
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen"
And a few MSS have another version :
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, of the father, the son, and the holy spirit for ever. Amen"
So? You find any contradictions of the spiritual message there? The many witnesses wrote partial histories, had partial memories. It may have been taught by Jesus in both forms. In any case there is no contradiction, all the meanings enhance one another and are completely consistent with the overall testimony of the gospels and the entire Bible.
A few MSS exclude the words "the power" or "the glory" or "the kingdom".
The Lord's Prayer is one of the more variant parts of the NT.
In a completely trivial way, the concern of nitpickers.
Colossians 1:14
Redemption by blood
All early MSS have the shorter :
"in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins"
But later copies have added "through his blood" :
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins"
This is an important proof-text for the doctrine of redemption by Chist's blood - but its a later addition.
There are SO many separate sources in the NT of the knowledge of the importance of Jesus' blood for our salvation that focusing on such minor differences is ridiculous. No doubt there were additions made to remind the faithful, but the additions are all in keeping with the gospel, enhance it and do not subtract from it.
This shows quite clearly that the NT was often changed during its history.
In ways that amount to nothing. There is nothing in any of it that compromises the gospel message. If a passage is missing from one place it can be found in others. Spiritually, in terms of the gospel message, the meaning, it is all a whole.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-13-2005 11:01 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Kapyong, posted 04-13-2005 7:58 AM Kapyong has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Monk, posted 04-14-2005 12:42 AM Faith has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 83 of 204 (199122)
04-14-2005 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Faith
04-13-2005 11:59 PM


Re: Changes to the NT -- all insignificant
faith writes:
So? You find any contradictions of the spiritual message there? The many witnesses wrote partial histories, had partial memories. It may have been taught by Jesus in both forms. In any case there is no contradiction, all the meanings enhance one another and are completely consistent with the overall testimony of the gospels and the entire Bible.
I agree, the spiritual message is what is important. Skeptics point to all the inconsistencies and contradictions of the gospels without considering the failing memories of the writers or the partial histories of witnesses. There are endless discussions about how one gospel is inconsistent with another.
Consider the skeptic criticism if the gospels were indeed much closer to each other and matched on almost a word for word level. Then the accusation would be collusion. They would say that surely it is not possible to have gospels that match so closely without the authors getting together to exchange notes.

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. ---Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 04-13-2005 11:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 04-14-2005 12:50 AM Monk has not replied
 Message 86 by LinearAq, posted 04-14-2005 11:39 AM Monk has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 84 of 204 (199123)
04-14-2005 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Monk
04-14-2005 12:42 AM


Re: Changes to the NT -- all insignificant
Hi Monk. Glad to hear from someone on my side of this.
Consider the skeptic criticism if the gospels were indeed much closer to each other and matched on almost a word for word level. Then the accusation would be collusion. They would say that surely it is not possible to have gospels that match so closely without the authors getting together to exchange notes.
Yes, exactly and they do both anyway. They find fault with trivial differences that are to be expected from centuries of copying {Edit: and imperfect witness testimony, and they find fault with the lack of differences too, as with those passages of the gospels that clearly are from the same source.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-13-2005 11:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Monk, posted 04-14-2005 12:42 AM Monk has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 85 of 204 (199128)
04-14-2005 1:42 AM


Links on Bible reliability, DSS etc.
Here are all the links I posted on various aspects of the reliability of the Bible that have been raised on this thread, on its general reliability, on the factors involved in OT and NT reliability separately, on the number of ancient manuscripts available for comparison, on the contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the solidifying of the reliability of our Bible, and specifically on the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20.
Is Our Bible Reliable?
New Testament Reliability:
quote:
In considering the New Testament we have tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament in part or in whole dating from the second century A.D. to the late fifteenth century when the printing press was invented. These manuscripts have been found in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, and Italy, making collusion unlikely. The oldest manuscript, the John Rylands manuscript has been dated to 125 A.D. and was found in Egypt, some distance from where the New Testament was originally composed Asia Minor). Many early Christian papyri were discovered in 1935, which have been dated to 150 A.D., and include the four gospels. The Papyrus Bodmer II, discovered in 1956, has been dated to 200 A.D. and contains 14 chapters and portions of the last seven chapters of the gospel of John. The Chester Beatty biblical papyri, discovered in 1931, has been dated to 200-250 A.D. and contains the Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Revelation. The number of manuscripts is extensive compared to other ancient historical writings, such as Caesar's "Gallic Wars" (10 Greek manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), the "Annals" of Tacitus (2 manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), Livy (20 manuscripts, the earliest 350 years after the original), and Plato (7 manuscripts).
...With all of the massive manuscript evidence you would think we would have massive discrepancies - just the opposite is true. New Testament manuscripts agree in 99.5% of the text (compared to only 95% for the Iliad). Most of the discrepancies are in spelling and word order. A few words have been changed or added. There are two passages that are disputed but no discrepancy is of any doctrinal significance.
Reliability of Old Testament
quote:
Because the Dead Sea Scrolls were a thousand years older than the oldest and most reliable Masoretic Text we have today (the Leningrad Codex, dating to A.D. 1008), scholars thought they might find drastic differences over that long passage of time. But did they?
After years of study, they found that the Dead Sea Scrolls they examined have only a relatively few minor, insignificant differences from today's Masoretic Text of the Old Testament. "These oldest-known Biblical texts have one absolutely crucial feature," explains historian Ian Wilson. "Although ... a thousand years older than the texts previously available in Hebrew, they show just how faithful the texts of our present Bibles are to those from two thousand years ago and how little they have changed over the centuries. Two Isaiah scrolls, for instance, contain the Isaiah text almost exactly as it is in our present-day Bibles ...
More evidence of Bible reliability, including DSS evidence
quote:
...The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date from 200 B.C. to A.D. 68, included a copy of every Old Testament book except for one. Comparison with the texts of a thousand years later shows little or no variation and change between them.
Christianity Today on the support of the DSS for Bible reliability and traditional teachings:
quote:
Take the Isaiah scroll. Until 1947, the oldest manuscript of Isaiah was a Masoretic text that had been copied in the late 900s. Although any book or scroll produced 1,000 years ago is very old, the Masoretic text is actually very "young" when you consider the prophet Isaiah lived 1,600 years before that (around 700 B.C.). This means it had been recopied many times during that interim, with plenty of opportunity for errors to be introduced. With the Qumran Isaiah text, 1,000 years older than the Masoretic text, how accurate was the later text? How significant was "the telephone game" problem? "Despite the fact that the Isaiah scroll was about a thousand years older than the Masoretic version of Isaiah," says James VanderKam of the University of Notre Dame, "the two were nearly identical except for small details that rarely affected the meaning of the text." In other words, a word like "over" in one text might read "above" in the othernot the kind of difference that rocks your faith in the reliability of the Bible texts. Though the Isaiah text had been "whispered" down the telephone line through generations of scribes, God had carefully protected his Word...
Together they give us a picture of how the Jews who lived at Qumran between 200 B.C. and A.D. 70 lived and thought. Having discovered their library, we can compare their sacred writings to those of the New Testament, which would have been composed after A.D. 50. Interestingly, the comparison has knocked down some long-cherished liberal theories about the New Testament. If we take Bultmann's claim that the Gospel of John is Greek, and therefore foreign to how Jesus would have really taught, we find today a respected expert like Edwin Yamauchi of Miami University writing: "John's Gospel, once considered by critics to be late and Hellenistic (Greek), is now shown by the Qumran parallels (in the Dead Sea scrolls) to be the most Jewish of the Gospels." Rudolph Bultmann, needless to say, would find this hard to swallow, since John focuses on the divine nature of Christthat before he was born in Bethlehem he was "with God, and was God." This was "Greek thinking" at its worst, Bultmann believed, and because Jesus was Jewish, he wouldn't have accepted this description of himself, much less taught it to his disciples. Now the Dead Sea scrolls show how wrong Bultmann wasJesus was a Jew of his day, and there is nothing anti-Jewish with John presenting him as God incarnate.
Scholarly account of the DSS manuscripts and their errors: Dead Sea Scrolls
quote:
4. The gaps in the text caused by disintegration of the leather on which the text was written are called "lacunae" In each lacuna as in this one on the page above it is possible to reproduce the missing text from the Masoretic text which is absolutely always consistent with the context. Although there are some variation from the Masoretic text, these are very infrequent and most often involve only a word and more often person and number of a verb or number of a noun, but even this is infrequent and can not be considered substantial.
5. There are several places where an extra word or two is added to the text. These are infrequent in relation to the total text and they add no real content that is not already in the text. One such addition of 2 words can be seen on this page in the last word in line 18 and the first word in line 19 These words are especially interesting because of their Aramaic origin and are discussed under Variations below.
6. Rarely, a verse is missing altogether. There is no example of this on the first page here but you can see in the portion of the next page , between the second and third line up from the lacuna there are editor's marks indicating where verse 10 of Isaiah 2 is completely omitted. Whoever the editor was he marked the text circa 100 BCE. before it was "bottled" Thus the original Isaiah text was understood at that time to contain some words which were not written by the original Qumran scribe and the elision was taken (in BCE) to be a scribal error. This is also the case in other places where there is an omission or a redundancy where the scribe has copied the same text twice and an editor has marked the error
And specifically concerning Mark 16:9-20 I posted these:
This...
quote:
Looking at the evidence, we see that there is little reason to question Mark 16:9-20. The witness in its favour is nearly as old as that opposed. Further, we should note that the near uniform testimony of the Greek manuscript evidence is in favour of these verses (the Byzantine majority). Additionally, while manuscript 2386 is listed as lacking this verse, we should note (as Terry does) that the reason for this lack is due to the fact that this manuscript is missing the sheet upon which these verses would appear (which makes one wonder why textual critics would bother to include it pro or con at all). Essentially, the primary Greek witness opposed to these verses consists of the vaunted "oldest and best" manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Thus, on the basis of these two preferred texts and little else, textual scholars hope to overturn the vast body of manuscripts in favour (which are buttressed by additional evidences, as we shall see below).
And this...:
quote:
One of the most attacked portions of Scripture is Mark 16:9-20. This portion of Mark is found in 618 extant manuscripts. The two manuscripts which they are not found in are the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which are the two primary underlying manuscripts used in every modern version. This means that the evidence is overwhelming in favor of Mark 16:9-20, 618 versus 2. Keep in mind that the modern versions are based on 45 manuscripts out of 5255 which is less than 1% of all available manuscripts. This is why they can say that this portion of Mark is not part of Scripture because they reject 5210 of the 5255 manuscripts.
And this... Credenda Agenda debate on the Textus Receptus including remarks on Mark 16:9-20, in which the authority of the Church over independent scholars in the matter of Bible translations is emphasized:
quote:
DW: If a problem with the TR is variant readings, then how does it help to expand the field so that we have thousands more variant readings? The "errors" you cite are a wonderful example of the power of paradigms. How is "Christ" instead of "Lord" a mistake? Or Mary's purification? The issue is not whether careful scholarship goes into the formation of the text, but rather who is qualified to do that scholarship, and who is responsible for authoritatively receiving it. The Church has been entrusted with the oracles of God, not autonomous scientists. We have agreed that a traditional manuscript bridge is necessary. Who stands guard at the bridgethe Church or autonomous science?
DW:...the confessing historical Church has determined that the Bible contains 66 books and that Mark 16:9_20 is in one of them. A few readings remain to be settled, but the settling is to be done by the confessing historical Churchnot Zondervan. Individualistic efforts may be believing work, and yet not submitted to the authority of the Church. Secular canons of academic text criticism do not require ecclesiastical review. Incidentally, admitting that no one form of the TR is perfect and admitting error in the TR are two distinct things. [Douglas Wilson]
And here is TheologyWeb on the reliability of the scriptures, including the discussion of how the manuscripts were not passed down in a linear fashion as so many wrongly assume, but many copies at a time, copies from which further copies were made, in the hundreds sometimes, so that there's no way there's just one source of all Bible texts, but many different intermediate sources. And this fact makes comparisons for the sake of correcting errors easy.
TheologyWeb Campus
quote:
Just the Facts, Ma’am
It’s hard to imagine how one can reconstruct an original after 2000 years of copying, recopying, and translating. The skepticism, though, is based on two misconceptions about the textual history of ancient documents like the New Testament.
The first assumption is that the transmission is more or less linearone person telling a second who talks with a third, etc., leaving a single message many generations removed from the original. Second, the objection assumes oral transmission which is more easily distorted and misconstrued than something written.
Neither assumption applies to the text of the New Testament. First, the transmission was not linear, but geometrice.g., one letter birthed 50 copies which generated 500 and so on. Secondly, the transmission was done in writing, and written manuscripts can be tested in a way oral communications cannot.
Reconstructing Aunt Sally’s Letter
Let me illustrate how such a test can be made. It will help you to see how scholars confidently reconstruct an original from existing manuscript copies even though the copies have differences and are much younger than the autograph...

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 86 of 204 (199275)
04-14-2005 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Monk
04-14-2005 12:42 AM


Re: Changes to the NT -- all insignificant
Monk writes:
I agree, the spiritual message is what is important. Skeptics point to all the inconsistencies and contradictions of the gospels without considering the failing memories of the writers or the partial histories of witnesses. There are endless discussions about how one gospel is inconsistent with another.
I believe the subject of their discussion was the differences between older copies of the same Gospel, not the differences between different Gospels.
I note from your comments that you feel the Bible is not completely inerrant. The point to be made of the inconsistancies that you mentioned is that the Bible is not inerrant in all things. Otherwise, how could the "failing memories of the writers" affect this "God breathed" document? The only thing that should be in question is whether the spiritual message is consistent throughout the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Monk, posted 04-14-2005 12:42 AM Monk has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 04-14-2005 1:31 PM LinearAq has not replied

  
Taqless
Member (Idle past 5913 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 87 of 204 (199279)
04-14-2005 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Faith
04-13-2005 10:41 PM


Your kidding, right?
For the second time:
Let me ask you this:...
...How do YOU explain that the DSS Isaiah scroll and the text of Isaiah in all our Bibles now are virtually identical after generations of copying of different texts of Isaiah over the centuries...
even though the DSS were not the basis of modern texts?
...Just some weird coincidence?
Yes, this is what I asked you to explain from post #76. AND, very good, that is what I proposed...a coincidence. Don't ask me to explain your logic, you explain it to the rest of us on this thread!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Faith, posted 04-13-2005 10:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 04-14-2005 1:21 PM Taqless has replied

  
moronman
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 204 (199283)
04-14-2005 12:05 PM


If it were inspired by God and I believed all that is written is definitely inspired then I would believe that all that is written would have been translated perfectly. The idea is too immaculate to completely comprehend though. Who first found these scrolls and why did we automatically trust them assume them translate them and pass them on? Is there anything that we have in our Bible that was written and translated before historians found artifacts that proved it was identical? And even that has falsity's.. if you're going to go that far to believe something, why not take it all the way through? Someone could have easily wrote something, true or made up, then copied it passed it around and then the original got lost and buried.. so over the years we think w're passing something great around then all the sudden we find the original and it matches pretty closely to what we already have. When I put it like that, it makes it sound less impressive to have found something like that. What we percieve a long time in our minds may not really be a long time, or maybe it's longer. All of the variables that we create in our minds are limited by our human brain. We'll never be able to fully comprehend anything/everything.

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Faith, posted 04-14-2005 1:44 PM moronman has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 89 of 204 (199330)
04-14-2005 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Taqless
04-14-2005 11:48 AM


Re: Your kidding, right?
I explained it beautifully already. You have to give YOUR version now. How do YOU explain the virtual identity between the DSS Isaiah and ours. Hmmmm????

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Taqless, posted 04-14-2005 11:48 AM Taqless has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Taqless, posted 04-14-2005 2:11 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 90 of 204 (199335)
04-14-2005 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by LinearAq
04-14-2005 11:39 AM


Bible inerrancy in what sense?
Just my two bits on your comment to Monk:
I note from your comments that you feel the Bible is not completely inerrant. The point to be made of the inconsistancies that you mentioned is that the Bible is not inerrant in all things. Otherwise, how could the "failing memories of the writers" affect this "God breathed" document? The only thing that should be in question is whether the spiritual message is consistent throughout the Bible.
I also gather he does not regard the Bible as inerrant, so I probably should not have agreed with his "failing memories" line. I agree only that different witnesses reported on different facets of what they witnessed, and none had perfect perception of all the events. That's why many witnesses are needed to round out the picture, and even then most of it was not written down. I also believe, as he may not, that the Bible is inerrant IN THE AUTOGRAPHS, that is, that the originals were inspired by God, although some copying errors may have rearranged the exact words over the years since then. Nevertheless nothing was subtracted that isn't clear from other parts of the Bible and nothing was added that doesn't support its message and spirit. As Jesus said, the letter kills but the spirit is life. It's the message that's important, not exactly how it was worded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by LinearAq, posted 04-14-2005 11:39 AM LinearAq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Monk, posted 04-14-2005 6:57 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024