Answer #8 Gene's comment on my last post challenged my assessment that the Bible wasn't edited. He stated,“Do you believe there wasn’t any editing in that process? Even changing one word would be editing”. Gene's comment demonstrates the difficulty in debate between two opposing ideas. The minds are in opposition one against the other, therefore what one says is not what the other hears. Defining words are a necessity, defining context is equally important. Let's define edit and set the context.
The editing process can involve correction, condensation, organization, and many other modifications performed with an intention of producing a correct, consistent, accurate and complete piece of work. In this context I will agree with Gene, yes, the Bible has been and continues to be edited. However, it can also mean to alter, adapt, or refine especially to bring about conformity to a standard or to suit a particular purpose. This is the context in which it was applied in the documentary. They were not implying it had been edited to accuracy, but edited by malicious means against the original intent to achieve and be conducive with their conflicts, human politics, and human imagination. It is to this definition and context I made the statement in the previous post.
To prove that assessment I presented the translation of manuscript P52 which is dated around the 1st century. I then compared that reading with the reading of our modern ESV English Bible. With the two readings side by side, I simply asked, does that look like editing to you? The verses preserved on manuscript P52 were written around 1,900 years ago, yet we still have the same reading in our modern Bibles. That is just one example, it remains true throughout thousands of our old manuscripts, so yes, the statement made in the documentary is false, it is not a true.
Is it a horse or an infant? Of the thousands of ancient Greek copies of the New Testament that exist, do they all say the same thing? Absolute not, and that is where the critics and skeptics have their heyday. One example is [1Th 2:7 ESV] 7 But we were gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her own children. One manuscript has ἵπποι (“horses”) instead of ἤπιοι (mild or kind:—gentle), very similar in spelling but very different in meaning. This would translate, But we were horses among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her children. Anyone reading this copy would immediately recognize it didn't make sense and do a correctional edit. Yet another copy has νήπιοι (“infants”) which would translate we became infants among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her children. Spelling still close, but this time it would not be so obvious, for infants does seem to fit the text somewhat. So what did Paul actually say in 1st Thessalonians? That is where the science of textual criticism comes in.
It is a known fact among scholars that less than 1% of the textual variants offer any change in the meaning of the text. However, that 1% still amounts to hundreds of meaningful and viable varants. Of that 1% it is never once stated, we don't know what it says, but it is always either a choice of A, B, or C. Like the illustration above, we know it was either gentle, infant, or horse. We know this because of the thousands of manuscripts in existence, those are the only choices. Bart Ehrman admits as much in his book “Misquoting Jesus”, where he states, “This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely) related to what the author originally wrote, and so it is the basis of our interpretation of his teaching.” — Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, page 62.
In the specific edition of “Misquoting Jesus” that includes a Q&A section, Dr. Ehrman states, “The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.” — Bart Ehrman Misquoting Jesus, p. 252.
Would Bart Ehrman agree that the New Testament text has been edited, revised, translated, debated, and censored over centuries. You would conclude by his book “Misquoting Jesus” he would. Yet, when pressed upon the facts of how serious these variants have effected what has been transmitted through the centuries, he admits there are no variant readings that affect any essential Christian belief. The Christian faith has been faithfully transmitted to us today.
The Council of Nicaea in 325 A. D. is most commonly referred to as the Council to do this. It is true that the Council did debate which books the church should recognize as authoritative. But this is not the scenario the skeptics would have you believe. We find difficulty in understanding this history because of our modern way of life. Bart Ehrman wrote “Misquoting Jesus” and within 3 months he had sold over 100,000 copies. This was not the world of the New Testament.
Paul would write a letter to a Church, and it would take days, or weeks for that one letter to arrive. None of the other churches would have that letter, but over time word would eventually reach another church and they would want a copy. Another handwritten copy would be made, and now two churches would have this letter. Over the next few decades, this very slow process would produce multiple copies over different areas of evangelism and the existing churches. It is easy to conceive, even after years of existence, churches would exist with different copies of these letters that were being passed around. It is also understandable if they were skectical of the letters they were not so familiar with. However, the copies they did have they considered to be authoritative for governing the Church.
First Timothy was likely written between A.D. 64 or 65, we know by then the Gospel of Luke was considered scripture because Paul quotes from Luke saying, [1Ti 5:18 ESV] 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” (Luke 10:7) We know Peter considered Paul's writings as scripture from [2Pe 3:15-16 ESV] 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
These Churches possessed different books at different times, each considering the ones they had as scripture. The fact they did not recognize quickly the books they were not familiar with as authoritative is a positive attribute. It demonstrates they were very careful about accepting just any book, it had to be proven to meet certain criteria before they would consider it.
The documentary stated,“gospels like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, and many others were excluded, not because they were less divine, but because they didn't fit the agenda of the church leaders in power.” There are no grounds to support that statement, nothing in history supports that view. These books came into existence in the 2nd and 3rd century, long after the Biblical text. In all the Patristic Fathers writings, they never quote from any of these sudo Gospels or sudo Apostolic letters. They were not included into the Cannon authorized at Nicaea because they were never consider authoritative. If the scenario the documentary was presenting were true, history would demonstrate that the church was using and quoting these unauthorized books. However, that is not what you find in the historical record.
To achieve their view of history, they sight events, councils, and the corruption within the Catholic Church which eventually led to the great schism in 1046, and later the Reformation. They convolute this history with the early church history to form their current narrative. This may not have been a purposeful effort by the documentary produces, but it is how they arrive at their view of history. But when we are talking about the formation of the Biblical Canon, we are talking about a time in Church history long before those events. You as a reader have a difficult choice, are the skeptics right or are the Biblical scholars right? I don't expect you to go and study 2000 years of Church history, I myself have read 5 volumes and only got a brief overview. Nor do I expect you to read the writings of the Patristic writers, it is estimated they quoted the New Testament over a million times. What you can do is apply basic logic, if all they say is true, how is it that Bart Ehrman, probably the most knowledgeable atheistic critic in the world today, ends it all by saying, “the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.” Above that, if you are inclined to research, you can use some online tools and actually translate the old manuscripts yourself and read them. You don't have to just accept what they or I say, you can go and read them for yourself. If you are familiar with the biblical text, you will recognize the old manuscripts as such when translated.
Hope this was helpful,
David
No comments:
Post a Comment