Ah, so you will just repeat it. If the exact same word variant occurs in 2000 manuscripts, your quote calls that 2000 errors. The link I gave you and other sources tell me that scholars refer to that as one variants. When scholars say there are more than 200,000 variants in the New Testament manuscripts, they are referring to 200,000 variations, not 100 variations repeated in an average of 2000 manuscripts each. I am just explaining to you what scholars mean by a variant. The link I gave you is aware of the quote you use, and says this is a misrepresentation of what scholars are saying.
That's right, I will repeat it because it's still true no matter how many times you try to dismiss it. What is more the nature of the text variants is evident and obvious, a misspelled word doesn't change the meaning of the text. The autograph while now lost to the ages is still represented in the manuscripts having no bearing on the history of doctrine in any substantive way. Nothing from antiquity whether historical or otherwise has been preserved with this kind of fidelity and the overwhelming consistency and agreement of the manuscripts on such a broad scale with so much detailed fact established provides an incomparable historical record.
Understood. But when we don't know which word should be there, then the books we are reading are not inerrant as some claim.
The doctrine of 'inerrancy' is a word coined by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy that the Protestant Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact"
Article XI. WE AFFIRM that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses. WE DENY that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.
Article XII. WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. (
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition 1978)
This statement clearly allows for copy errors and text variation, nothing you have said comes close to denying, let alone disproving the Scriptures are inerrant.
Again the problem for this thread is not the minor variations that occurred in the Middle Ages, but the many large variations that we have reason to believe happened into the second century.
Then present them and we can talk about them, inerrancy only applies to the autograph.
But even that is really a sidelight to this thread. The main point of this thread is that Paul does not clearly refer to a resurrection, Mark gets closer to mentioning an empty grave and body, and then later gospels add details, which contradict.
You have got to be kidding me:
Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. (1 Cor. 15:1-4)
Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:3,4)
Paul’s emphasis on the resurrection is so central to his preaching of the gospel it’s sometimes referred to as a ‘credal formula’.
The overwhelming consensus of scholarship today accepts that the apostle Paul wrote the New Testament letters 1 Corinthians and Galatians, and that we have a very reliable account of what he actually wrote. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul starts the chapter by saying that he wants to remind them and make clear for them the gospel he had preached to them and on which they had taken their stand. He then states that he had delivered to them what he had also received (verse 3). These verbs are the equivalent Greek words for the technical rabbinic terms, which were used to describe the handing on of a formal, word of mouth, memorized, formulaic teaching. This is what he had delivered to them and he said it was a matter “of first importance”. He then recites the credal statement, which is usually said to consist of two parallel sentences structured rhythmically as an aide memoire. It reads:
Christ died / for our sins / according to the scriptures / and was buried
He was raised / on the third day / according to the scriptures / and appeared
To Peter / and to the twelve. (1 Corinthians 15:3-5)
(
The Resurrection of Jesus and the Witness of Paul, bethinking.org)
I've seen some bizarre errors and misstatements but this one takes the cake. Paul does not clearly refer to a resurrection? No one who has read Paul could honestly make that statement.
Overlapping testimony is to be expected. Again, that is not what we have. If two witnesses repeat the same 20 sentences, often word for word, then we suspect that there has been copying and memorizing of the response. Real witnesses use their own words, which will differ from witness to witness.
Unless it's been an oral tradition and a received doctrine. All four Gospels have a unique approach, at times the wording can be the same but the narrative and lessons diverge often. John spends most of his time focused on the last four days of Jesus ministry and focuses mostly on discussions Jesus had with people. Matthew writes a distinctly Jewish narrative the intermittently includes lessons, then narrative, then another lesson. Luke is loaded with detailed specifics that none of the others have. John Mark wrote a distinctly Roman style narrative even using Latin words occasionally.
The canon was hardly closed in 367 AD. Up until then we have several published lists, which all exclude some of the books in Athanasius' list, and most include other books. And this was only the list of one man, not a universally agreed list. But we digress.
The process of canonization involved all the churches and while not universally agreed upon until the fourth century there is no way it's the work of just one man:
Collections of related texts such as letters of the Apostle Paul (a major collection of which must have been made already by the early 2nd century) and the Canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (asserted by Irenaeus of Lyon in the late-2nd century as the Four Gospels) gradually were joined to other collections and single works in different combinations to form various Christian canons of Scripture. Over time, some disputed books, such as the Book of Revelation and the Minor Catholic (General) Epistles were introduced into canons in which they were originally absent. Other works earlier held to be Scripture, such as 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Diatessaron, were excluded from the New Testament. The Old Testament canon is not completely uniform among all major Christian groups including Roman Catholics, Protestants, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Slavic Orthodox Churches, and the Armenian Orthodox Church. However, the twenty-seven-book canon of the New Testament, at least since Late Antiquity, has been almost universally recognized within Christianity. (
New Testament, Wikipedia)
These are fundamental errors you are making, I'm still waiting for you to make a factual statement that isn't directly contradicted by well established history:
Writings attributed to the Apostles circulated among the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating, perhaps in collected forms, by the end of the 1st century AD. Justin Martyr, in the mid 2nd century, mentions "memoirs of the apostles" as being read on "the day called that of the sun" (Sunday) alongside the "writings of the prophets." A defined set of four gospels (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus, c. 180, who refers to it directly.
By the early 3rd century, Origen may have been using the same twenty-seven books as in the present New Testament canon, though there were still disputes over the acceptance of the Letter to the Hebrews, James, II Peter, II John, III John, Jude and Revelation, known as the Antilegomena. Likewise, the Muratorian fragment is evidence that, perhaps as early as 200, there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to the twenty-seven-book NT canon, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them. Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings are claimed to have been accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the 3rd century.
In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of the books that would become the twenty-seven-book NT canon, and he used the word "canonized" (Greek: κανονιζόμενα kanonizomena) in regards to them. (
Development of the New Testament canon)
Critical scholars do not accept that the 27 books of the New Testament are all apostolic. Titus, I Timothy, 2 Timothy, and 2 Peter are all regarded to be 2nd century forgeries. Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessaloninans are thought to be by immediate followers of Paul, not by Paul. And the four gospels and Acts are thought to be written after 70 AD, by writers who were not eyewitnesses.
That's simply not true, Modernist dating and criticism regarding authorship is based on highly speculative rationalizations, never approaching an objective standard of proof. The bulk of the New Testament was completed between 60 AD and 70 AD and John was certainly an eye witness. Up until the 60s the church had the Apostles teaching them the history and doctrine for almost 30 years. I'll take the historical critics over Ivy League revisionists any day if for no other reason, their proximity to the historical events described:
John Mark was a Levite and apparently well acquainted with scribal methods of recording and preserving sacred history. The legacy of the faithful transmission of history and doctrine was received and embraced by the Apostolic witness:
And the presbyter [the Apostle John] said this: Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. (Papias, bishop of Hieropolis, writing about A.D. 140. From the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord)
Evangelical scholars have suggested dates for the writing of Mark’s gospel ranging from A.D. 50 to 70. A date before the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70 is required by the comment of Jesus in 13:2. Luke’s gospel was clearly written before Acts (
Acts 1:1–3). The date of the writing of Acts can probably be fixed at about A.D. 63, because that is shortly after the narrative ends (
see Introduction to Acts: Author and Date). It is therefore likely, though not certain, that Mark was written at an early date, probably sometime in the 50s. (
Mark, Bible Introductions)
If that's what you want to call it.
Thanks for your honesty. It is an interesting story how the Comma Johannine was inserted. But that is a diversion. Let's get back on track.
The Comma Johannine is a valid criticism of Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text"), nothing more. I think Erasmus bowed to academic and social pressure without doing any lasting or serious damage to the first printed Greek text. It's an interesting issue that has some intriquing and sometimes tedious details.
Throughout the history of man's dealings with God's Word, the Holy Bible, few portions of Scripture have suffered from more vigorous assaults then the passage I John 5:7-8, otherwise known as the Johannine Comma. Because this verse is one of the most direct statements of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity, it has borne the brunt of attack by those who are in opposition to trinitarian beliefs, these most often being unitarians such as Muslims and certain of the various pseudo-Christian cult groups (Jehovah's Witnesses, some Churches of God, etc.). Likewise, this verse is rejected by theological liberals who tend to view the Bible from an entirely naturalistic perspective, and who therefore also reject the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture (Psalm 12:6-7, Matt. 5:18, Luke 16:17, I Pet. 1:25, etc.).
(
A Defense of the Johannine Comma Setting the Record Straight on I John 5:7-8)
It underscores an important consideration behind Textual Criticism, simple unbelief.
Grace and peace,
Mark
