You know, I read the article, and it just doesn't seem to be offering any conclusions.
Well this is his conclusion. Take out his references to Nephi and his writings, and everything else he verified in his research:
"In viewing the state of Christian scripture in the second century, we have not, generally, had to rely on scholarly interpretation or writers later than the early third century to detect a large shift in the concept and content of scripture in the second century. The books that were considered scripture, and some of the content of those books, changed from the beginning to the end of the century. During the second century various fragmentary groups of Christians accused other groups of having changed the texts to fit their own ideas. These changes took the form of deletions, some additions, and the redefining of the text. What the angel told Nephi is largely supported by what remains of early Christian literature. To the second century, if not before, we may trace the corruption of scripture and the loss of the plain and precious things, and it is worth noting that none of the extant Greek manuscripts dates before that time period. We cannot look to scholarship to restore the plain and precious portions of the text that were lost. If it is not revealed again we shall never have it.
Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy - The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity
The table (which makes up most of the article) has no indications as to what the column headings indicate for us to be able to understand what the purposes of the notations within it mean.
I believe it is showing which sections of the Bible are had today in manuscript form, and in which century those manuscripts have been dated to have originated.
The text portion of the article seems to discuss everything but the Bible, and suggests that if it happened to (distantly related) texts, that it must be that the same thing happened with the Bible.
Well, no. The works cited clearly showed that manipulation (sometimes intentional, sometimes not) was occurring to the Bible, or to those documents in circulation which eventually would become the Bible. That's precisely what the early Christian writers were saying—that people were changing the writings of the Apostles to suit their whims, and the Jews were changing the Old Testament to eliminate references supporting the crucifixion of Jesus. Justin Martyr came right out and said that the Jews had were removing what supported Christian doctrine. What the citations do not show is whether or not those very manipulated documents ever were incorporated into the Biblical canon. Chances are good that those specific ones were not. Again, the actual evidence to support either position is not had by anyone.
I mean, the ECFs not agreeing doesn't mean that the text of the Bible has been altered.
And it doesn't mean that it wasn't.
Likewise, just because some texts were accepted by some at one point in time, doesn't mean that they were accepted by all, or that they are scripture.
And it doesn't mean that they weren't.
If it were the case, then that would mean that we'd need to accept writings like The Chronicles of Narnia as scripture, merely because a person who is considered a theologian wrote them trying to express (to children) the story of the Bible. I mean, the story is highly moving and definitely spiritual, but if I quoted it to someone as scripture, I'd get laughed at.
LOL. I wouln't laugh at you. But the point being made was not these things HAD been incorporated into the Bible. That is not provable. It was to show that changes were made, and were being made, and that they were not isolated to only one splinter group. Even the branch that became the "main" church was accused of these activities.
The one section that did quote a passage from the Bible out of the KJV and a modern text to demonstrate the differences between the various interpretations of the Biblical texts does not demonstrate a change or alteration in the Bible, merely in the interpretation of it. That is a separate issue. Changes in interpretation does not = change in the Bible because all versions are still translated from the original sources, and those sources don't change.
Acutally, I believe it showed the effect of changing the meaning of a word in the text, and how drastic an effect such a thing would have on interpretation. The words
must be interpreted in order for them to have meaning. That is inescapable. There is no comprehension without interpretation. (Interpret: make sense of; assign meaning to). From the article:
"Between the time of writing the New Testament and the end of the second century, the meanings of several of the words changed. Examples include the change of the principle meanings of pistis from "collateral, guarantee" to "belief;" of pisteuein from "to trust, rely on; entrust, commit, put up collateral" to "to believe;" of homologein from "to agree to terms, accept an agreement, enter into a legal contract, promise" to "to confess;" of mysterion from "(initation) rite" to "secret." Such changes in language are common in all languages and in all periods, some deliberate and some not. The Christians, like the Jews before them, used the Greek language in an idiosyncratic way that seemed strange to non-Christians around them. For example, both Christians and Jews used the term ouranoi "heavens", the plural of ouranos "sky", as a term for the dwelling place of God, even though Greeks never used the term in the plural. In the second century, however, various sects of Christianity began to redefine terminology to mean something different. Irenaeus claims that the Valentinians adopted pagan fables "changing . . . the names of the things referred to" to fit into Christian scripture. Because the New Testament is usually read with meanings of the second sophistic period and later—meanings which have often changed—the understanding of the text has sometimes been drastically changed."
But all this is really beside the point. When we examine the statement made by Joseph Smith, we have to interpret it as he meant it. His comment was that the Bible was not translated from texts that preserved the original writings as they were originally written, and he attempted to change verses, added whole passages, etc., to reflect what he believed the Bible originally looked like. As we examine the evidence that we have, maybe not the originals, but texts that date further and further back, we find no attempts to alter/add/delete the texts in the manner JS described. There is nothing that even remotely resembles the story of Enoch (much to my heart's sorrow). There is nothing that even remotely suggests that the changes he made in the NT texts, which greatly alters doctrine, took place.
That is the kind of evidence I feel that needs to be presented. We all know that, historically, there were disagreements between the ECFs and between the ECFs and the leaders of other groups that were considered heretical, etc.
I agree. The evidence that will put nails in the coffin of either position is wholly lacking. No one has it. That is why I don't put so much stock in proving Bible Manuscripts. All that you can prove is that the manuscript is like others, that it was copied when it claims to be copied, by whom it claimed to be copied. What no one can verify is what any single manuscript, or the composite of them (which are not identical), has been copied from, or that it (or they) were copied correctly.
This isn't philosophy and opinion, it's the "tangible" pure sciences...... It's the kind of stuff anti-mormons always claim don't exist for mormonism, when in fact a lot does.
