Dear OzSpen,

I am not trying to persuade you, I merely am answering your questions.

Regarding my holy scriptures, when you live in a house of glass it is unwise to throw stones.

Your faith in the world and in your senses seems greater than your faith in God, in the seen more than in the unseen. This is not religion, it is materialism.

Within a few decades we shall both leave this world behind and our senses will turn into dust. For the religious, this is a cause for great joy rather than for sadness, for once we stop craving for the world and its sensory pleasures we will remain with God forever.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You wrote :

«... the issue to which I responded …was whether we can depend on the copies when we don't have the originals. For the NT, the answer is 'Yes', just as it is for Homer's the Odyssey »
.

Of course – but that does not mean that they are exact reproductions of the autographs (manuscripts in the author’s own handwriting or as dictated by him). That is the problem.

As you acknowledged yourself regarding the New Testament copies: “This does not mean that the manuscripts that have reached us do not have variants/typos or changes in them”. Unfortunately, we have no way of determining this precisely because we cannot compare the copies with the original autographs.

According to the experts, the copyists of various Christian denominations modified the texts down the ages according to their personal interpretations and to accommodate their own particular group’s doctrine. Scientific analysis is helpless in detecting precisely what has been added, deleted or modified – nor which of the various versions, if any, are credible.

As for Homer, he is a highly controversial, enigmatic, legendary figure. Whether he actually existed or not is of little importance. Nor does it matter who actually wrote the Odyssey. Some experts consider it was written by a single poet, others that it is the work of several different contributors.

If, as you suggest, we consider that the New Testament and the Odyssey, as we know them today, are the result of exactly the same process, we have no way of knowing who actually wrote either of them.

The one major difference between the two is that Christianity claims that a hypothetical god inspired unknown sections of the former, alone, which is why the New Testament copies have been canonised and declared authentic and authoritative in their entirety by all Christian denominations.

The 2.4 billion Christians who adhere to Christian doctrine are held to believe that the copies of the New Testament are inerrant, “divinely inspired”, sacred texts.

Homer’s Odyssey just collects dust on the book shelves of most public libraries.

.

Banjo,

<<that does not mean that they are exact reproductions of the autographs (manuscripts in the author’s own handwriting or as dictated by him). That is the problem.>>

It's a problem for your presuppositions but not for one who takes bibliology seriously. One estimate is that there are thousands of 'errors' in the Bible. These 'errors' are mostly grammatical, punctuation and spelling variants. Philip Schaff calculated 150,000 variants known when he wrote and not one affected 'an article of faith or precept of duty’.

<<variants/typos or changes in them”. Unfortunately, we have no way of determining this precisely because we cannot compare the copies with the original autographs.>>

Again you fail the test. We have many ways to compare the copies to arrive at close to the original text. New Testament scholar and professor at Princeton University, USA, estimated the Hindu, Mahabharata copies, as 90% accurate; Homer's Iliad about 95%; NT about 99.5% accurate. Of the 0.5% in question, not one variant affects a single doctrine.

As for the NT vs the Odyssey, you claim <<we have no way of knowing who actually wrote either of them.>>

Not true. The NT was not written by one person but is a compilation of 27 books.

The Apostle Paul began the epistle to the Romans: 'I, Paul, am writing this letter. I serve Christ Jesus. I have been appointed to be an apostle. God set me apart to tell others his good news' (Rom 1:1) and concluded with 'I, Tertius, wrote down this letter. I greet you as a believer in the Lord' (Rom 16:22). It was common for early writers to use an amanuensis, a person who wrote what another dictated.

<<The 2.4 billion Christians who adhere to Christian doctrine are held to believe that the copies of the New Testament are inerrant, “divinely inspired”, sacred texts.>>

False! Many Christians may take that view but it’s because of lack of teaching on the originals being the only God-breathed documents.

<<Homer’s Odyssey just collects dust on the book shelves of most public libraries.>>

That's irrelevant.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You wrote :

« We have many ways to compare the copies to arrive at close to the original text. New Testament scholar and professor at Princeton University, USA, estimated the Hindu, Mahabharata copies, as 90% accurate; Homer's Iliad about 95%; NT about 99.5% accurate. Of the 0.5% in question, not one variant affects a single doctrine »
.

I am aware of Bruce Metzger’s comparative study of copies of ancient manuscripts to which you refer. He has done a remarkable job acclaimed by his peers.

Unfortunately, as none of the original autographs remained in existence (all having been destroyed hundreds, if not thousands of years previously) the statistics you mention were mainly based on the comparison of copies complemented in part by additional information from other, more or less “independent” sources. The results are interesting but by no means do they constitute any sort of proof.

The comparative study would have produced exactly the same results had it been based on fraudulent “original” manuscripts of the New Testament books.

Belief in the validity of the results of Metzger’s study is a question of personal faith – as is belief in the existence of a hypothetical god. There is nothing wrong with that, but it should be recognized for what it is, and not mistaken for scientific proof.

The early Christian leaders studied and debated the various copies in their possession for several hundred years before canonisation of the 27 books by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in 1545, the “Thirty-nine Articles” of the Church of England in 1563 and the Westminster Confession of Faith of Calvinism in 1647.

Sufficient time had passed for the original autographs to resurface if they had existed. As they did not, the copies could not be proven authentic but, more importantly, they could not be proven false.

The 2.4 billion Christians who adhere to Christian doctrine are held to believe that the copies of the New Testament are inerrant, “divinely inspired”, sacred texts. Whether they actually do or not is another matter – many probably don’t.

.

Banjo,

<<The comparative study would have produced exactly the same results had it been based on fraudulent “original” manuscripts of the New Testament books.>>

You're not listening. No matter what evidence I provide, you respond with your presuppositions, e.g. "fraudulent “original” manuscripts".

<<Belief in the validity of the results of Metzger’s study is a question of personal faith – as is belief in the existence of a hypothetical god>>

There you go again with dumping your presuppositions on me/us.

<<Sufficient time had passed for the original autographs to resurface if they had existed>>

Many MSS were written on papyri that disintegrates in a Middle Eastern environment, unless preserved in an environment where that is prohibited. I've demonstrated this to you with the discovery of P52 papyrus MSS. It is in the John Rylands Library of the University of Manchester, UK.

'The first side of the fragment contains the beginning of seven lines from John 18:31-33. The reverse of the fragment contains the end of seven lines from John 18:37-38', http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/search-resources/special-collections/guide-to-special-collections/st-john-fragment/

Many scholars regard it as the earliest portion of any NT writing ever found, dating to ca. AD 100-150. It was found in an archaeological dig in Egypt.

The majority of scholars date John's Gospel to the period AD 90-100, although J A T Robinson dates it to before AD 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem.

<<The 2.4 billion Christians who adhere to Christian doctrine are held to believe that the copies of the New Testament are inerrant, “divinely inspired”, sacred texts. Whether they actually do or not is another matter – many probably don’t.>>

I answered that statement in Posted by OzSpen, Wednesday, 6 February 2019 7:19:05 PM but here you are repeating it. I consider that to be spin.

Let's leave the topic there. I pray that God will open your heart to the truth of Jesus found in the reliable NT.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

To my observation : “The comparative study would have produced exactly the same results had it been based on fraudulent “original” manuscripts of the New Testament books”, you replied :

« … you respond with your presuppositions, e.g. "fraudulent “original” manuscripts" »
.

That is not a “presupposition” on my part – a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action (OED definition) – it is an important risk factor which Bruce Metzger’s does not mention in his comparative study of the copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Metzger could not have ignored that forgeries were rife in the ancient world – perhaps even more so than today, due to the development of modern scientific techniques of detection.

I think the important point is that the early Christian leaders’ decision to canonise the 27 books of the New Testament, despite the fact that they were modified copies, was taken knowing that it was impossible to prove they were in any way significantly different from the original autographs – given that the autographs no longer existed.

Metzger’s study does nothing to confirm or infirm the authenticity of the canonised copies.

That said, OzSpen, please be assured that I consider that the New Testament, as we know it, contains lots of interesting narratives. It is a very human anthology of morality, irrespective of who wrote it or why.
.

You conclude :

« Let's leave the topic there. I pray that God will open your heart to the truth of Jesus found in the reliable NT »

My heart is wide open, OzSpen. If there is any “truth of Jesus” in what you consider to be the “reliable NT”, then it must have already entered, c.f. my posts here.

I have a lot of admiration for the figure of Jesus : his revolt, his calm, his courage, his steadfastness, his loyalty, his politeness, his passive resistance … all, qualities to which I, personally, aspire. He was a great man, a great example.

Bye for now …

.