There has been-as we all know- intense discussions of the ‘original’ Manuscripts both OT and NT. Yet, it is not presented in the Bible as something that is necessary!
In Luke 4:17,18 Jesus read from the scroll the book of Isaiah. He reads from Isaiah 61:1,2 LXX. He reads this section with authority and accepts it as factual and true even saying it has now been “fulfilled” in Him! The LXX was a translation from Hebrew into Greek It seems that as long as the meaning in the translation then is correct it was accepted. It did not have to come from the direct hand of Isaiah or any other prophet. There are other quotes from the OT in the NT and never once is there any issue in not reading or quoting from an ‘original Ms.! Yet, some make this an issue to the max-the NT does not do this! Do we say the LXX is incorrect? Were they translating from a very faulty set of MS’s? Jesus and the Apostles didn’t think so! None of the scholars at that time thought so either and they knew their scared Writings.
Then if asserting we have the thousands of OT and NT MS’s and these present the meaning God intended; then those who are asserting we do not have the full and/and or correct meaning -depending on which section we are dealing with ;are just as much in a position for we who do believe based on research(I have researched Hebrew and Greek and kindred subjects since 1963) to doubt them for not having ready facts to prove (‘doubting’ is no proof of anything) their position as ‘new’ manuscripts are being uncovered all the time around the world, and at any point first century NT MS’s could appear disproving certain doubts as to the accuracy of the NT/OT. It is quite a public gamble they are taking when so many facts that were publically disbelieved by skeptics and scholars alike made in the OT, for example, have been disproven hundreds of times by various discoveries down through the centuries. The list is long, but the memory of the doubters is short!
I like the story of the young man who- in jest demonstrates or illustrates my point- 10 years teaching his dog to walk on water! He then finally took the dog to the lake where the town atheist was fishing. The boy shot a duck and as soon as the duck hit the water the dog ran quite a distance on top of the water in the deepest part of the lake and brought the bird to the boy. This happened three times in succession as the atheist carefully watched.
The boy proudly waked over to the atheist blurting out ,”Well, what do you think of my dog?
The man looked at him and said, “Yes, he can’t swim!”
Maybe it’s not always that necessary to know what every ancient text said in its original form. Last night I was helping my sixth-grade daughter with her homework, which happened to be about Socrates. I didn’t remember that much, but in looking into him, I learned that our sources are mostly his students, especially Plato, and no one really knows if what Plato wrote was the real Socrates. Maybe some of it was more Plato.
Then I remembered something that Dr. Ehrman had said about the NT being far better attested than other ancient texts. So presumably, even knowing what Plato wrote would be difficult since there would be less evidence in terms of a textual tradition. Do either of those problems matter?
I don’t know. Maybe what’s actually important is to understand not what Socrates originally taught, but rather what he is understood to have taught in our Western tradition. For all I know, the historical Socrates was a bonehead. Maybe Plato’s Socrates is what’s actually most relevant for most purposes.
Researchnow333, is there a possibility that the story of Jesus in Luke 4:17 is not all it seems. Chapter 4 starts off with the writer (whoever that was??), recalling the story of Jesus and the devil in the wilderness. The devil tempts Jesus in various ways. Who witnessed this episode in Jesus’s life?, was there an interloper writing it all down as it happened?, or maybe Jesus told Luke and/or the other disciples about it when he returned from his 40 day fast. I’d say it’s more likely that this story comes from the imagination of whoever wrote Luke. It’s interesting to note that in Luke 4:14, it mentions Jesus returning to Galilee and spreading his message far and wide. Yet in Mark and Matthew, he seems very reluctant to let others know of his miraculous powers, i think he mentions several times after performing a miracle, “not to tell others” or words to that effect. ( Matt 8:4 and Mark 8:30), Jesus seems to be inconsistent when it comes to spreading his message. All interesting stuff.
I like your story. ‘Yes, he cant swim’, is analogous to ignoring the obvious in favor of ones prejudice, I assume. I think there might be some confusion about the difference between a theological argument and a historical one. Legend has it that the Septuagint was translated into Greek by 70 scholars. Presenting an argument about its veracity as the word or intent of a God is theological. Historically, we know there were many different versions of the OT translated into Greek and other languages. There are many errors and blunders in each of them, we have known these problems existed since the time of Origen. A statement of theology is critically endangered when an analysis of textual variety is done. As an example, let us use the birth of Christ. In a literary sense it is a rather benign difference if he was born of a virgin or a young maiden. The theological difference is devastating to one position depending on which translation you read. Was he a person who swore an oath to God or was he from a town called Nazareth? It depends on which translation you read. Once again the theological impact is profound. The inference that a Gods meaning or intent was preserved even if the words are not exactly the same is simply not true. I often find myself engaged with people who’s prejudice for a particular theological view leaves them seeing little more than ‘Dogs that cannot swim’.
bonnie43uk said
Researchnow333, is there a possibility that the story of Jesus in Luke 4:17 is not all it seems. Chapter 4 starts off with the writer (whoever that was??), recalling the story of Jesus and the devil in the wilderness. The devil tempts Jesus in various ways. Who witnessed this episode in Jesus’s life?, was there an interloper writing it all down as it happened?, or maybe Jesus told Luke and/or the other disciples about it when he returned from his 40 day fast. I’d say it’s more likely that this story comes from the imagination of whoever wrote Luke. It’s interesting to note that in Luke 4:14, it mentions Jesus returning to Galilee and spreading his message far and wide. Yet in Mark and Matthew, he seems very reluctant to let others know of his miraculous powers, i think he mentions several times after performing a miracle, “not to tell others” or words to that effect. ( Matt 8:4 and Mark 8:30), Jesus seems to be inconsistent when it comes to spreading his message. All interesting stuff.
He nearly starved to death, willingly, as a fully functioning young man and he endured the full impact of evil when he was most vulnerable. That’s the point and the theme of this passage. How interesting to observe folks overlooking that incredible feat.
This sounds fascinating:
—–
Mummy Mask May Reveal Oldest Known Gospel
At present, the oldest surviving copies of the ** you do not have permission to see this link ** date to the second century (the years 101 to 200).
This first-century gospel fragment was written on a sheet of papyrus that was later reused to create a mask that was worn by a mummy. Although the mummies of ** you do not have permission to see this link ** wore masks made of gold, ordinary people had to settle for masks made out of papyrus (or linen), paint and glue. Given how expensive papyrus was, people often had to reuse sheets that already had writing on them.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
mikehamm123 said
This sounds fascinating:—–
Mummy Mask May Reveal Oldest Known Gospel
by Owen Jarus, Live Science Contributor | January 18, 2015 04:21am ETA text that may be the oldest ** you do not have permission to see this link ** a gospel known to exist — a fragment of the Gospel of Mark that was written during the first century, before the year 90 — is set to be published.At present, the oldest surviving copies of the ** you do not have permission to see this link ** date to the second century (the years 101 to 200).
This first-century gospel fragment was written on a sheet of papyrus that was later reused to create a mask that was worn by a mummy. Although the mummies of ** you do not have permission to see this link ** wore masks made of gold, ordinary people had to settle for masks made out of papyrus (or linen), paint and glue. Given how expensive papyrus was, people often had to reuse sheets that already had writing on them.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
If you look directly below this post at one I posted a couple weeks ago ** you do not have permission to see this link ** you’ll find more info on this. They’ve been “set to publish” this for a couple years so don’t go holding your breath waiting for publication.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)