No Worries -- in all seriousness, what other ancient document do we put to that test?? what other document at all do we put to the test of having it be self-evident that it was not redacted? that's an impossible task to ask documents 2000 years old to be self-evident that they weren't redacted.
Although I understand the traditions about where Luke got his information from (i.e., Paul), the opening words of his gospel seem to suggest that he talked to many people: "Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus" (Luke 1:3). The verses I pointed out in my last post could be taken to indicate that he received at least some information from Mary herself (Luke 2:19, 51). If we were to follow the reasoning from your last post, we would virtually halt the flow of news in our society. Very rarely is a news account reported by an eye witness. More often than not, they are interviewed and the reporter gives an account of his or her findings.
In your third post, you quoted from a Web site that said, "The Gospels were not likely to have been written down so soon, and we have clear evidence, in numerous variations, that they were altered at various points in their transmission, and scholarly work in the last two centuries has gone far to get us to the earliest versions possible." In my thinking, that would have been a good time to elaborate on this clear evidence and scholarly findings. Don't you agree? If the evidence is so clear and compelling, why can't liberal New Testament scholars just tell what it is rather than allude to it? I am far from a Ancient History historian and/or biblical scholar. I did give a refernce to the writings of an ordained Catholic priest and scholar, Alfred Firmin Loisy. Here it is again: The Birth of the Christian Religion The author is definitely not liberal. The link point to not an article but an entire book. Reading the first three chapters should give a solid introduction to the evidence that the NT was heavily redacted. In the end you may not agree with everthing Loisy wrote, but his scholars arguments are well laid out.
The Greeks wrote and told tales of Zues and their other Olympic gods. Do you believe these stories a priori? What would it take for you to believe these tales? I would think that we should all be skeptical of tales recorded by a high priest of the Greek gods. Now if we had one or two impartial observers of the miracles performed by the Greek gods, the tales become more believable. (Archeological evidence is also good where applicable.) I think most historians do not think of believability as a black and white issue. Most think in percentages of probability. The more tall the tell, the more collaboration evidence wiil be needed by historians to increase the probability into being believable.
I understand that...ultimately it will ALWAYS be, in some respect, a matter of faith...but it's not completely uneducated faith, if you're fair. i think you would agree with that honestly what more would you want? 24,000 copies of ancient extant text. ridiculously more than any other ancient writing. with 95% agreement between the copies that we have. what ancient document exudes more reliability than that??
Again the document trail for the NT starts at around 200 CE and is firmly established by about 350 CE. After 350 CE, the NT has a great record of authentically being copied by scribes. Translation from the original Greek is at times problematic (see my 1 John 5:7 reference above), but I think the Christian commuity did an excellent job of self policing themselves in faithful translations. A better document trail from the first century CE is all I ask
I respect that answer, especially considering your severe doubts about the reliability of the Gospels overall. One of the problems with the redaction critics is that they presuppose the impossibility of the supernatural. Their reasoning flows from that presupposition. If miracles are impossible, and if there was insufficient time for legend to evolve, then the Gospels must have been redacted.
I’m going to deal with the second example you brought up first. For the sake of time, I’m going to quote directly from F. F. Bruce’s commentary on the letters of John. Thankfully, my scanner was working. “The sentence which appears in the AV as I John 5.7 (‘For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one') is no part of the original text of the letter. It appears in a treatise written by Priscillian (a Spanish Christian executed on a charge of heresy in AD 385) or by one of his followers. It may have originated as a comment on the authentic passage about the three witnesses (I John 5.8); at any rate in the course of the fifth century it was incorporated from the margin into the text of an Old Latin (pre-Vulgate) manuscript. It was not incorporated into the text of the Vulgate until about AD 800, but once incorporated it remained there securely, and the balancing words 'in earth' were added in the following sentence. When Erasmus published his first printed edition of the Greek New Testament (1516) he was attacked for omitting the 'three heavenly witnesses', but he replied reasonably enough that he found them in no Greek manuscript. Rather incautiously he added that, if a Greek manuscript could be produced which contained the passage, he would include it. In due course such a Greek manuscript was produced - by no means an ancient one, for it was written about 1520! Erasmus knew that this was no evidence at all - the passage had plainly been translated into Greek from the Latin Vulgate by the writer of this manuscript - but he had given his promise, and he was a man of peace, so in his next edition (the third edition, 1522) he included it, adding a footnote in which he complained that the manuscript had been written with the express purpose of putting him on the spot. From Erasmus's third edition the passage was translated into German (by Luther) and into English (by Tyndale); it was taken over into other early printed editions of the Greek New Testament, and hence appears in the 'Received Text' and in the Authorized Version.” (The Epistles of John, 129) These facts in no way bears upon your original premise: “I think the only thing that I am currently sure of is that most of the books of the NT were redacted to conform to the changing theology during 60 to 150 CE.” The quote itself comes from the fourth century. It made its way first into at least two Latin translations. By the time Erasmus published his Greek New Testament (1516), the Catholic Church had come to view the Latin Vulgate as authoritative (just like some people erroneously do the KJV today). The only way it made it into the “Textus Receptus” (and thus into the King James Version) was by someone producing a manuscript that contained this verse. And the only way it made it into the Greek text of Erasmus was by a foolish promise. But understand this: The vast majority of Greek manuscripts still do not contain this verse. The overwhelming weight of evidence points to the fact that this wasn’t part of the original text. Was it a redaction? Yes. Is it of the same kind you’ve been suggesting all along? No. Everything you’ve said has given me the impression that you’re talking about changes that have fundamentally changed the Greek manuscripts in general. An example showing that a few Greek manuscripts (at most) from the 1500’s doesn’t exactly prove this. I personally wouldn’t use this verse to “prove” the Trinity. I don’t believe it was part of the original text. The main translations I use (New American Standard and English Standard Version) don’t even have this verse. The main translations that do are the King James Version and New King James Version (although it has a footnote explaining that most Greek manuscripts are missing this verse). If the doctrine of the Trinity (a word which of course is not in the Bible) was dependent on this verse, this might be a problem for “orthodox” Christianity. The truth, however, is that any number of passages can be used to address the concept of the Trinity. 16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; 17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:16-17) 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Matthew 28:19) The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. (2 Corinthians 13:14) I’ll have to deal with Mark 16 later. I need to get some work done.
I also am having problems with Q but for other reasons. The Two Source solution to the Synoptic Problem (which may not be a problem for most bible readers) is problemtic in its own assumptions. The assumption that Mark was completed and then used as a source for Matthew and Luke is untenable. We just do not have a document trail to support this assumption and I am unwilling to concede it due to the heavy redaction of the first two centuries. (BTW, one reference by an Ante-Nicene Father in ~140 CE stated that the Gospel of Mark was a book of sayings like theoritical Q and the Gospel of Thomas. This comment is either flat wrong, with the author mistaking Mark for Thomas, or the dating for the Gospels needs to be as late as possible and the Synoptic problem is a potentially different problem.) The Q theory also states that there are three layers to the Q. The first is a set of sayings. The second is apocalyptic (maybe coinciding with the fail of Jerusalem). I forget the third exactly but iirc it display signs of the Q community about to merge with the Christian community proper. In my mind, Q appears to be two or three separate books. The first layer appears to be written by a gnostic Wisdom sect (Hellenistic), while the second layer appears to be written by a Kingdom of God sect (like John The Baptist's sect). At face value, these are two separate prespectives with little in common. Why would these layers come from the same sect? It just does not make sense. A simplier expalnation would that two separate books from two separate communities.
The Jesus Seminar is a small group of liberal New Testament scholars. They're not really a separate movement. They would have been included among the people KateBeckinsale7 was talking about, not a separate group who came to the same conclusions.
You are correct; it does not. I gave it as an example of a serious redaction for theological reasons viz-a-viz an innocent scribe error. (BTW I suspect that it is still part of the Catholic Bible since it was part of the Council Of Trent cannonization.) I backed up my above quoted claim with a link to an online book written by a Catholic priest and scholar.
When she wrote "redaction critics", I had assumed that she was targeting the non-biblical NT scholars. I made my comment to let her know that biblical scholars, albeit liberal, have also gone down the same road. BTW, it would not surpise if some of the JS scholars thought that the miracle stories were put in by the original author, i.e. the miracles were not redactions but a product of the oral tradition.
The Catholic Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Biblica are other sources for the redaction history of the NT. Atheist author, Joseph Wheless, uses these two books as his principle sources in his book Forgery In Christianity The link is to another online book. The author's venom toward the Catholic Church make this bit of a hard read, as you have to constantly filter out his attacks from the facts.
I don't really have anything to add here since you all definitely know more than I, but I just wanted to say good job to all of you on this thread. This has been one of the most interesting and well thought out threads I have ever read on this BBS. There haven't even been senseless and childish attacks in disagreement either, thank you.
