Claims about the NT

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear WolfBitn,

I have read the Wikipedia explanation of the "Western texts".

The Western text-type is one of several text-types used in textual criticism to describe and group the textual character of Greek New Testament manuscripts. It is the term given to the predominant form of the New Testament text witnessed in the Old Latin translation from the Greek; and also in quotations from certain 2nd and 3rd Century Christian writers, including Cyprian, Tertullian and Irenaeus. The Western text had a large number of characteristic features, which appeared in text of the Gospels, Book of Acts, and in Pauline epistles. The Catholic epistles and the Book of Revelation probably did not have a Western form of text.

Description

The main characteristic of the Western text is a love of paraphrase. "Words and even clauses are changed, omitted, and inserted with surprising freedom, wherever it seemed that the meaning could be brought out with greater force and definiteness." One possible source of glossing is the desire to harmonise and to complete. "More peculiar to the Western text is the readiness to adopt alterations or additions from sources extraneous to the books which ultimately became canonical." This text often presents longer variants of text, but in few places, including the end of the Gospel of Luke, it has shorter variants, named Western non-interpolations.

Only one Greek Uncial manuscript is considered to transmit a Western text for the four Gospels and the Book of Acts - the fifth century Codex Bezae; while the sixth century Codex Claromontanus is considered to transmit a Western text for the letters of Saint Paul, and is followed in this by two ninth century Uncials: F and G. Many "Western" readings are also found in the Old Syriac translations of the Gospels, the Sinaitic and the Curetonian, though opinions vary as to whether these versions can be considered witnesses to the Western text-type. A number of fragmentary early papyri from Egypt also have Western readings, 29, 38, 48; and in addition, Codex Sinaiticus is considered to be Western in the first eight chapters of John. The term "Western" is a bit of a misnomer because members of the Western text-type have been found in the Christian East, including Syria.

From this description, I consider the Western texts to be flawed representations since:

1) It is translated from the original greek

2) It contains extraneous insertions "so that meaning could be brought out with greater force and definiteness".

I had thought most christians believed that the word of god to be inerrant. From my understanding, inerrancy does not permit embellishments.

Regards,

UF

[WolfBitn]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear WolfBitn,

I have read the Wikipedia explanation of the "Western texts".

The Western text-type is one of several text-types used in textual criticism to describe and group the textual character of Greek New Testament manuscripts. It is the term given to the predominant form of the New Testament text witnessed in the Old Latin translation from the Greek; and also in quotations from certain 2nd and 3rd Century Christian writers, including Cyprian, Tertullian and Irenaeus. The Western text had a large number of characteristic features, which appeared in text of the Gospels, Book of Acts, and in Pauline epistles. The Catholic epistles and the Book of Revelation probably did not have a Western form of text.

Description

The main characteristic of the Western text is a love of paraphrase. "Words and even clauses are changed, omitted, and inserted with surprising freedom, wherever it seemed that the meaning could be brought out with greater force and definiteness." One possible source of glossing is the desire to harmonise and to complete. "More peculiar to the Western text is the readiness to adopt alterations or additions from sources extraneous to the books which ultimately became canonical." This text often presents longer variants of text, but in few places, including the end of the Gospel of Luke, it has shorter variants, named Western non-interpolations.

Only one Greek Uncial manuscript is considered to transmit a Western text for the four Gospels and the Book of Acts - the fifth century Codex Bezae; while the sixth century Codex Claromontanus is considered to transmit a Western text for the letters of Saint Paul, and is followed in this by two ninth century Uncials: F and G. Many "Western" readings are also found in the Old Syriac translations of the Gospels, the Sinaitic and the Curetonian, though opinions vary as to whether these versions can be considered witnesses to the Western text-type. A number of fragmentary early papyri from Egypt also have Western readings, 29, 38, 48; and in addition, Codex Sinaiticus is considered to be Western in the first eight chapters of John. The term "Western" is a bit of a misnomer because members of the Western text-type have been found in the Christian East, including Syria.

From this description, I consider the Western texts to be flawed representations since:

1) It is translated from the original greek

2) It contains extraneous insertions "so that meaning could be brought out with greater force and definiteness".

I had thought most christians believed that the word of god to be inerrant. From my understanding, inerrancy does not permit embellishments.

Regards,

UF

Sorry UF, you came away with the wrong impression

Concerning your #1, The Western Texts WERE the FIRST greek texts translated from the latin and POSSIBLY also from an aramaic

Concerning #2, they do not contain 'incertions' unless you believe that the alexandrian predate them, and they obviously dont. These 'embellishments' are claimed by people who believe the alexandrian text is correct when they in fact take 16,000 words from the text.

The Western type and the Byzentine type, sandwich the Alexandrian type and the 2 match almost exactly, while the alexandrian is controvercial, errant, sloppy, and revised constantly over an 800 - 1200 year period

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear WolfBitn,

Thank you for your response.

Sorry UF, you came away with the wrong impression

Concerning your #1, The Western Texts WERE the FIRST greek texts translated from the latin and POSSIBLY also from an aramaic

Concerning #2, they do not contain 'incertions' unless you believe that the alexandrian predate them, and they obviously dont. These 'embellishments' are claimed by people who believe the alexandrian text is correct when they in fact take 16,000 words from the text.

The Western type and the Byzentine type, sandwich the Alexandrian type and the 2 match almost exactly, while the alexandrian is controvercial, errant, sloppy, and revised constantly over an 800 - 1200 year period

From what I have gathered, the oldest Western text of importance is Codex Bezae, which is dated to circa 400 CE. While the oldest and most important Alexandrian text is Codex Sinaiticus, which is dated to circa 330-360 CE. Is it your position that the Western text is still older and more accurate than the Alexandrian text? Even forgetting the accepted and controversial Western non-interpolations, I think most scholars believe it is the other way around.

More to the point, and in answer to my example from Professor Ehrman, regarding the story of the woman caught in adultery (pericope adulterae), I found this from Wikipedia:

The pericope is not found in its canonical place in any of the earliest surviving Greek Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John - P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. The first surviving Greek manuscript witness to the pericope is the Latin/Greek diglot Codex Bezae of the fifth century. Papias (circa 125 CE) refers to a story of Jesus and a woman "accused of many sins" as being found in the Gospel of the Hebrews, which may well refer to this passage; while there is a certain reference to the pericope adulterae in the 3rd Century Syriac Didascalia Apostolorum; though without any indication as to which Gospel, if any, then contained the story. The Second Epistle of Pope Callistus section 6[4] contains a quote that may be from John 8:11 - "Let him see to it that he sin no more, that the sentence of the Gospel may abide in him:

Edited August 5, 2009 by UndecidedFrog

[WolfBitn]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear WolfBitn,

Thank you for your response.

Sorry UF, you came away with the wrong impression

Concerning your #1, The Western Texts WERE the FIRST greek texts translated from the latin and POSSIBLY also from an aramaic

Concerning #2, they do not contain 'incertions' unless you believe that the alexandrian predate them, and they obviously dont. These 'embellishments' are claimed by people who believe the alexandrian text is correct when they in fact take 16,000 words from the text.

The Western type and the Byzentine type, sandwich the Alexandrian type and the 2 match almost exactly, while the alexandrian is controvercial, errant, sloppy, and revised constantly over an 800 - 1200 year period

From what I have gathered, the oldest Western text of importance is Codex Bezae, which is dated to circa 400 CE. While the oldest and most important Alexandrian text is Codex Sinaiticus, which is dated to circa 330-360 CE.

No

Not so at all

The western text dates to the 2nd century and was used to translate into the latin which was widely used in africa. Cyprian used this very latin bible, and quoted the Johannine Comma before 250 AD. The one you are referring to is certainly the most famous of the manuscripts, but its also certainly not the oldest, as the western types trace to the 2nd century.

Is it your position that the Western text is still older and more accurate than the Alexandrian text? Even forgetting the accepted and controversial Western non-interpolations, I think most scholars believe it is the other way around.

Yes and youve certianly been shown that the western is the oldest. If you dont miind, specify one of these controvercial western non-interpolations... give me all you have please

More to the point, and in answer to my example from Professor Ehrman, regarding the story of the woman caught in adultery (pericope adulterae), I found this from Wikipedia:

The pericope is not found in its canonical place in any of the earliest surviving Greek Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John - P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. The first surviving Greek manuscript witness to the pericope is the Latin/Greek diglot Codex Bezae of the fifth century. Papias (circa 125 CE) refers to a story of Jesus and a woman "accused of many sins" as being found in the Gospel of the Hebrews, which may well refer to this passage; while there is a certain reference to the pericope adulterae in the 3rd Century Syriac Didascalia Apostolorum; though without any indication as to which Gospel, if any, then contained the story. The Second Epistle of Pope Callistus section 6[4] contains a quote that may be from John 8:11 - "Let him see to it that he sin no more, that the sentence of the Gospel may abide in him:

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear WolfBitn,

Thank you for your response.

No

Not so at all

The western text dates to the 2nd century and was used to translate into the latin which was widely used in africa. Cyprian used this very latin bible, and quoted the Johannine Comma before 250 AD. The one you are referring to is certainly the most famous of the manuscripts, but its also certainly not the oldest, as the western types trace to the 2nd century.

If you claim that the Western texts are older than the Alexandrian, please provide the Papyri or Codexes to which you are referring, and I will check their dating. From my understanding, the Codex Bezae is the most complete of the western text examples, and that is certainly later than the Alexandrian Codex Sinaiticus.

Yes and youve certianly been shown that the western is the oldest. If you dont miind, specify one of these controvercial western non-interpolations... give me all you have please

No, you are mistaken. You have not shown me that the western is the oldest. You certainly claim it, but you have not shown it.

I dont know... id have to study the issue independantly

Please do, as this was the specific example (pericope adulterae) I asked about several posts ago.

Regards,

UF

[WolfBitn]

No

Not so at all

The western text dates to the 2nd century and was used to translate into the latin which was widely used in africa. Cyprian used this very latin bible, and quoted the Johannine Comma before 250 AD. The one you are referring to is certainly the most famous of the manuscripts, but its also certainly not the oldest, as the western types trace to the 2nd century.

If you claim that the Western texts are older than the Alexandrian, please provide the Papyri or Codexes to which you are referring, and I will check their dating. From my understanding, the Codex Bezae is the most complete of the western text examples, and that is certainly later than the Alexandrian Codex Sinaiticus.

the works already done for you

This site is even biased in YOUR favor and admits its date to the 2nd century... and as far as the codex Bezae, being the most complete text by no means implies even that its the oldest.

http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/text_crit.html

The Western Text

The Western Text

This family of texts was clsoely related to the church in the west, particularly in North Africa. Although it can probably be traced to the second century, its value has been disputed. It was used by the erly church fathers. Its age would seem to suggest great importance, but there are clear indications that it was not carefully preserved. It is best represented by the Old Latin translations, by the Syriac versions, and the church fathers. Its most famous representative is manuscript D (Codex Bezae) for the book of Acts.

I dont know... id have to study the issue independantly

Please do, as this was the specific example (pericope adulterae) I asked about several posts ago.

Regards,

UF

I could study the issue, but frankly i dont have the time, i have other projects going right now... you can feel free to ask me specifics though and not just my opinion. I would be happy to discuss any part of your point on this, dont take me as shying from it at all, i wouldnt do that to you

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear WolfBitn,

Thank you for your response.

the works already done for you

This site is even biased in YOUR favor and admits its date to the 2nd century... and as far as the codex Bezae, being the most complete text by no means implies even that its the oldest.

http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/text_crit.html

The Western Text

The Western Text

This family of texts was clsoely related to the church in the west, particularly in North Africa. Although it can probably be traced to the second century, its value has been disputed. It was used by the erly church fathers. Its age would seem to suggest great importance, but there are clear indications that it was not carefully preserved. It is best represented by the Old Latin translations, by the Syriac versions, and the church fathers. Its most famous representative is manuscript D (Codex Bezae) for the book of Acts.

I looked at the site. "Probably be traced to second century" is not very convincing. We do not know that Codex Bezae (the most complete) is the same as the second century western text from which it is alleged to originate, since we have no older example of second century western text beyond fragments. From what I have read, the Alexandrian text type Codex Sinaiticus predates Codex Bezae. What I have been able to understand from several sources now is that the Western text type paraphrases, and embellishes, which (IMO) flies in the face of claims of inerrancy.

I could study the issue, but frankly i dont have the time, i have other projects going right now... you can feel free to ask me specifics though and not just my opinion. I would be happy to discuss any part of your point on this, dont take me as shying from it at all, i wouldnt do that to you

The specific example of the pericope adulterae is the example that Professor Ehrman used to show that the bible has been tampered with. The pericope does not exist in the Codex Sinaiticus, but does exist in the examples of Western Text Type that date much later. I have provided the reference sources for arguments for AND against, and will weigh them as I read Professor Ehrman's book (that I have since ordered). Professor Ehrman claims that the pericope was an addition to the original gospel of John. There are several scholars that agree with him. There are some that do not. I was just wondering if any here at Worthy had an opinion.

Regards,

UF

[WolfBitn]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear WolfBitn,

Thank you for your response.

the works already done for you

This site is even biased in YOUR favor and admits its date to the 2nd century... and as far as the codex Bezae, being the most complete text by no means implies even that its the oldest.

http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/text_crit.html

The Western Text

The Western Text

This family of texts was clsoely related to the church in the west, particularly in North Africa. Although it can probably be traced to the second century, its value has been disputed. It was used by the erly church fathers. Its age would seem to suggest great importance, but there are clear indications that it was not carefully preserved. It is best represented by the Old Latin translations, by the Syriac versions, and the church fathers. Its most famous representative is manuscript D (Codex Bezae) for the book of Acts.

I looked at the site. "Probably be traced to second century" is not very convincing. We do not know that Codex Bezae (the most complete) is the same as the second century western text from which it is alleged to originate, since we have no older example of second century western text beyond fragments. From what I have read, the Alexandrian text type Codex Sinaiticus predates Codex Bezae. What I have been able to understand from several sources now is that the Western text type paraphrases, and embellishes, which (IMO) flies in the face of claims of inerrancy.

well i find this kinda the lazy way out to ask for evidence and then just push it aside with non of your own to refute it... i dont regard opinion, no offence

I could study the issue, but frankly i dont have the time, i have other projects going right now... you can feel free to ask me specifics though and not just my opinion. I would be happy to discuss any part of your point on this, dont take me as shying from it at all, i wouldnt do that to you

The specific example of the pericope adulterae is the example that Professor Ehrman used to show that the bible has been tampered with. The pericope does not exist in the Codex Sinaiticus, but does exist in the examples of Western Text Type that date much later. I have provided the reference sources for arguments for AND against, and will weigh them as I read Professor Ehrman's book (that I have since ordered). Professor Ehrman claims that the pericope was an addition to the original gospel of John. There are several scholars that agree with him. There are some that do not. I was just wondering if any here at Worthy had an opinion.

Regards,

UF

he is incorrect. Thats my opinion, based on the fact he is going by the alexandrian manuscripts which are completely corrupt

[kross]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

"The Gospels "were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus' death by people who did not know him, did not see anything he did or hear anything that he taught, people who spoke a different language from his and lived in a different country from him." They are not disinterested accounts of what "really" happened, an impartial record of an infallible oral tradition. The anonymous authors were often biased "in light of their own theological understandings". Nor are the Gospels independent - "Mark was used as a source for Matthew and Luke" - and for many of the stories about Jesus there is no "corroboration without collaboration". And yet they are still "widely inconsistent, with discrepancies filling their pages, both contradictions in details and divergent large-scale understandings of who Jesus was."

Bart D. Ehrman, Biblical scholar, and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at UNC-Chapel Hill.

Professor Ehrman makes several claims:

1) Gospels were written 35-65 years after Jesus' death

2) by people who did not know Jesus, did not see anything he did or hear anything he taught. (by deduction, could not be eyewitnesses)

3) They are not disinterested accounts of what really happened. (implying that the writers had an agenda beyond recording history)

4) Gospels are not independent, Mark was used as source for Matthew and Luke.

Are these claims true to your understanding? Just curious what your take on this quote may be.

Regards,

UF

There is a book called "The Case For CHRIST" written by a journalist/lawyer who was a non-believer who set out to determine whether the story of JESUS would holod up in a court of law. It would directly answer most of your questions.

Two of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. (Some say that Mathew and Luke wrote from Marks gospel, I do not see that as likely) Some also say Mark wrote based on dictation from another source. That may or may not be. What we know for certain is that Mathew and John were part of the original twelve disciples who were not only witnesses to the miracles, but also privy to the private teachings. Since the other books do not contradict anything written in these two Gospels, there is no reason to doubt their authors had good information.

The books about Alexander the Great were written hundreds of years after his death and are still considered accurate history. For the Bible to be written within the life time of those who walked and talked with JESUS and HIS original twelve is better history than we have for George Washington.

They are not disinterested accounts of what happened. They are the accounts of men who were offered a chance to live by simply denying that JESUS rose from the grave. They chose to die. No-one chooses to die for something they know to be a lie. That is reason enough to believe that they wrote what they knew to be absolute truth.

There are many who study the scriptures as if they are some text book. Truth is, and I know this will not sit well, the words are Spirit. Men who do not have the Spirit to understand them, can not understand them.

You can always find a reason not to believe, that is why it is called faith. By faith, we read and study and pour over the scriptures and we wait for GOD to reveal truth from them. If HE doesn't, then truth will be allusive.

I am sure there are many who will continue to give you good information. Keep asking.

Peace

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear WolfBitn,

Thank you for your response.

well i find this kinda the lazy way out to ask for evidence and then just push it aside with non of your own to refute it... i dont regard opinion, no offence

Offense taken. It is not lazy to point out the meaning of the exact words used from your source. "Probably" is not the same as "definitely". It is not lazy to have examined your source to find it is spouting opinion that (in your own terms) do not have references to support its opinions.

he is incorrect. Thats my opinion, based on the fact he is going by the alexandrian manuscripts which are completely corrupt

OK, thank you for your opinion. However, if the reason for your opinion is based on the fact that the alexandrian text types are completely corrupt, we should apply that same standard against the western text types. How corrupt are the western text types, if many scholars agree that they are prone to paraphrasing and embellishments? Which version is closer to the original? The one with the pericope adulterae or the one without?

Regards,

UF