Is the Bible corrupt?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Don't like my posts? Don't read them.

Oh, my! :biglaugh:

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

It must be... it has been changed. We all know that. Are you saying that Islam has not changed one iota in all these years?

The bible itself says it is to not be changed Revelations 22:18-19, Islam has not changed people way of understanding it has. People are trying to make Islam into their own. So the new groups change. The teaching of Muhammed and the Quran do not.

The definition of tradition: "What we're doing right now." 'Cause I gurantee you that we weren't doing that 100 years ago.

Traditions are only kept religiously if they agree with the religion. Islam did that for the people at the time. Stopped them from commiting indecency. At the time of the Messeger it was tradition to bury the daughters alive. They do not do that now.

Stasis is unneccessary to authenticity.

So if i wrote a book and you came along and changed it. Is the book still authentic. If a star signed an autograph for you on his shirt and someone smudged it. you tried to correct it altering the original. Is it still authentic. does its value to a collector increase or decrease. What if you bought the shirt and the pen at the concert. And you signed for the band because they are busy. Does that still make the shirt an authentic. What about in a court of law is stasis unneccessary to authenticity

 

[Smoke]

That depends on what you're claiming is authentic. For example, it is important to many orthodox folk that orthodox teachings are apostolic. If several specifically othrodox docrines were redacted into the NT - like the divinity of Christ, the church, etc - the claim to authentic apostolic authority is severely weakened.

There's no doubt that the NT has been edited, and that some of the editing was done specifically to affirm orthodox teachings or deny heterodox teachings. However, an orthodox Christian might see that more as a matter of clarifying what the writer had in mind to start with.

If by "corrupted" we mean that the text has been altered, of course it has. There's no doubt about it. A problem arises, therefore, for people who imagine that the scriptures are divinely -- and even verbally -- inspired. But an orthodox Christian needn't believe any such thing, and he can still see the text in its altered state as an authentic expression of his faith.

I agree, though, that to a disinterested reader it appears that later doctrines have been redacted into the New Testament, and I don't think it does represent the authentic beliefs of Jesus' early followers. But I can see how one might think it did.

 

[sojourner]

That depends on what you're claiming is authentic. For example, it is important to many orthodox folk that orthodox teachings are apostolic. If several specifically othrodox docrines were redacted into the NT - like the divinity of Christ, the church, etc - the claim to authentic apostolic authority is severely weakened.

I would be willing to bet that some Orthodox practices, observances, and yes, even theological stances (based upon Western modern thought and society) have changed and evolved across the centuries. The teachings may certainly be Apostolic, but they are still interpreted and applied through the lens of our own time and place. Authentic they may be (and very probably are,) but static, they are not.

Even in the case of redacted doctrine, James is adamant about scripture only being part of the tradition. It is both scripture and tradition that guide theology. Therefore, it seems to me that those with apostolic authority can make changes and adjustments, as they are revealed. I'd still be willing to bet that the modern Orthodox understanding of christology and ecclesiology are somewhat different than the ancient understanding, esp. prior to Nicaea.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ref. the title of the thread: Is the Bible corrupt? If ignorance is displyed here, it is displayed by some who have forgotten the title of the thread.

The question is only cognitively meaningless to those who don't bother to think about the nature of the document in question and the implications inherent in the OP. The question at hand in this thread is the corruption of the Bible. I'm seeking to understand 1) the author's definition of "corrupt," and 2) the implications of "corruption." The OP seems to imply that changes = "corruption," and that such "corruption" = invalidity. I maintain that the Bible is what it is, changed or not, and that the extant changes have not corrupted what the Bible is, namely, a human document that is revelatory in nature. The changes did not make the Bible any less a human document (in fact, they make it the more so), nor did they render the Bible any less revelatory. In that sense, the Bible is not corrupt. It's original essence and intent remain intact.

Don't like my posts? Don't read them.

But that's a dogmatic view.

The point is that several groups were forced out of Christianity on the basis of the proto-orthodox group making these changes, this claim being substantiated by the declaration that the edits were authentically apostolic but now we know that the edits could have been part of a movement to exclude folks that were originally accepted.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There's no doubt that the NT has been edited, and that some of the editing was done specifically to affirm orthodox teachings or deny heterodox teachings. However, an orthodox Christian might see that more as a matter of clarifying what the writer had in mind to start with.

Not if the redaction includes nothing to clarify in its context. For example, if we can demonstrate that the teachings of the divinity of Christ were all added completely, there is nothing to clarify... if the edit is simply the changing of the tense of a word or the case that slightly modifies an existing idea in the context, then it is clarification.

If by "corrupted" we mean that the text has been altered, of course it has. There's no doubt about it. A problem arises, therefore, for people who imagine that the scriptures are divinely -- and even verbally -- inspired. But an orthodox Christian needn't believe any such thing, and he can still see the text in its altered state as an authentic expression of his faith.

Except if the edits are large portions of scripture inserted and propounded to have traditional apostolic authority. The issue is not inspiration but history.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I would be willing to bet that some Orthodox practices, observances, and yes, even theological stances (based upon Western modern thought and society) have changed and evolved across the centuries. The teachings may certainly be Apostolic, but they are still interpreted and applied through the lens of our own time and place. Authentic they may be (and very probably are,) but static, they are not.

Even in the case of redacted doctrine, James is adamant about scripture only being part of the tradition. It is both scripture and tradition that guide theology. Therefore, it seems to me that those with apostolic authority can make changes and adjustments, as they are revealed. I'd still be willing to bet that the modern Orthodox understanding of christology and ecclesiology are somewhat different than the ancient understanding, esp. prior to Nicaea.

But the only proof of apostolic authority is scriptural and historical authenticity!

 

[sojourner]

But that's a dogmatic view.

The point is that several groups were forced out of Christianity on the basis of the proto-orthodox group making these changes, this claim being substantiated by the declaration that the edits were authentically apostolic but now we know that the edits could have been part of a movement to exclude folks that were originally accepted.

But the actions of some ancient folks do not constitute corruption of scripture, any more than do the actions of some modern folks who misinterpret the Bible and drink poison Kool-Aid. The Bible is still a human document, and it is still revelatory. And in that sense, it is not corrupt from that nature and intent.

I think that most modern faithful would are more accepting of non-orthodox folks calling themselves "Christian" and accept them as such, than were our ancient forebears. And the Bible is still as revelatory for us as it was for them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I agree, though, that to a disinterested reader it appears that later doctrines have been redacted into the New Testament, and I don't think it does represent the authentic beliefs of Jesus' early followers. But I can see how one might think it did.

I can not - other than through simple ignorance - but that's a different topic.

It's important to note, I think, that the term 'corruption' has a somewhat different meaning in the field of textual criticism than it does when applied to, say, Chicago politics - so, for example, the New Advent Encyclopedia writes:

Corruptions introduced by copyists may be divided into two classes: involuntary errors, and those which are either wholly or partly intentional. To these different causes are due the observed variations between manuscripts.

(a) Involuntary Errors

Involuntary Errors may be distinguished as those of sight, hearing, and memory, respectively. Sight readily confounds similar letters and words. Thus, as can be seen in the pictured example, similar letters are easily interchanged in square Hebrew, Greek uncial and Greek cursive writing.

When the exemplar is written stichometrically, the eye of the copyist is apt to skip one or several lines. To this class of errors belongs the very frequent phenomenon of homoeoteleuton, i.e. omission of a passage which has an ending exactly like another passage which comes next before or after it. A similar thing happens when several phrases beginning with the same words come together. Secondly, errors of hearing are of common occurrence when one writes from dictation. But even with the exemplar before him, a copyist gets into the habit of pronouncing in a low tone, or to himself, the phrase he is transcribing, and thus is likely to mistake one word for another which sounds like it. This explains numberless cases of "itacism" met with in Greek manuscripts, especially the continual interchange of hymeis and hemeis. Lastly, an error of memory occurs when, instead of writing down the passage just read to him, the copyist unconsciously substitutes some other, familiar, text which he knows by heart, or when he is influenced by the remembrance of a parallel passage. Errors of this kind are most frequent in the transcription of the Gospels.

(b) Errors Wholly or Partly Intentional

Deliberate corruption of the Sacred Text has always been rather rare, Marcion's case being exceptional. Hort [IntroductiOn (1896), p. 282] is of the opinion that even among the unquestionably spurious readings of the New Testament there are no signs of deliberate falsification of the text for dogmatic purposes." Nevertheless it is true that the scribe often selects from various readings that which favours either his own individual opinion or the doctrine that is just then more generally accepted. It also happens that, in perfectly good faith, he changes passages which seem to him corrupt because he fails to understand them, that he adds a word which he deems necessary for the elucidation of the meaning, that he substitutes a more correct grammatical form, or what he considers a more exact expression, and that he harmonizes parallel passages. Thus it is that the shorter form of the Lord's Prayer in Luke, xi, 2-4, is in almost all Greek manuscripts lengthened out in accordance with Matthew, vi, 9-13. Most errors of this kind proceed from inserting in the text marginal notes which, in the copy to be transcribed, were but variants, explanations, parallel passages, simple remarks, or perhaps the conjectures of some studious reader. All critics have observed the predilection of copyists for the most verbose texts and their tendency to complete citations that are too brief; hence it is that an interpolation stands a far better chance of being perpetuated than an omission.

From the foregoing it is easy to understand how numerous would be the readings of a text transcribed as often as the Bible, and, as only one reading of any given passage can represent the original, it follows that all the others are necessarily faulty. Mill estimated the variants of the New Testament at 30,000, and since the discovery of so many manuscripts unknown to Mill this number has greatly increased. Of course by far the greater number of these variants are in unimportant details, as, for instance, orthographic peculiarities, inverted words, and the like. Again, many others are totally improbable, or else have such slight warrant as not to deserve even cursory notice. Hort (Introduction, 2) estimates that a reasonable doubt does not affect more than the sixtieth part of the words: "In this second estimate the proportion of comparatively trivial variations is beyond measure larger than in the former; so that the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation is but a small fraction of the whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text." Perhaps the same thing might be said of the Vulgate; but in regard to the primitive Hebrew text and the Septuagint version there is a great deal more doubt.

We have said that the object of textual criticism is to restore a work to what it was upon leaving the hands of its author. But it is, absolutely speaking, possible that the author himself may have issued more than one edition of his work. This hypothesis was made for Jeremias, in order to explain the differences between the Greek and Hebrew texts; for St. Luke, so as to account for the variations between the "Codex Bezæ" and other Greek manuscripts in the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles; and for other writers. These hypotheses may be insufficiently founded, but, as they are neither absurd nor impossible, they are not to be rejected a priori.​

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But the actions of some ancient folks do not constitute corruption of scripture, any more than do the actions of some modern folks who misinterpret the Bible and drink poison Kool-Aid.

Even by ancient standards what was done would be considered corruption. Ever heard of Marcion? He rejected early proto-othrodox redactions, and the proto-orthodox reject his redactions. The earliest communities cared deeply about this kind of thing.

The Bible is still a human document, and it is still revelatory. And in that sense, it is not corrupt from that nature and intent.

On this we agree, but I don't understand how you can insist that it is revelatory.

I think that most modern faithful would are more accepting of non-orthodox folks calling themselves "Christian" and accept them as such, than were our ancient forebears. And the Bible is still as revelatory for us as it was for them.

That depends entirely on who you think your ancient forebears are.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But the actions of some ancient folks do not constitute corruption of scripture, ...

You clearly do not understand what textual corruption means.

 

[sojourner]

But the only proof of apostolic authority is scriptural and historical authenticity!

Does either the perceived presence or absence of "apostolic authority" change either the "humanness" of the Bible, or its revelatory nature? The LDS certainly have a different idea of both the definition and content of apostolic authority. Yet, the Bible is as revelatory for them as for orthodoxy (little "o").

We all agree that the text has been changed. In what way (if at all) do those changes "corrupt" "The Bible?" Do textual additions or changes constitute corruption? If we're looking purely at historical content, then yes. If, however, we're looking at the validity and authority aspects, I'm not so convinced. At some point, the Church, who is the caretaker of the scriptures, and the body through which revelation is given, made changes. To me, that makes the changes valid and authoritative, at least for some of us.

 

[Smoke]

Not if the redaction includes nothing to clarify in its context. For example, if we can demonstrate that the teachings of the divinity of Christ were all added completely, there is nothing to clarify... if the edit is simply the changing of the tense of a word or the case that slightly modifies an existing idea in the context, then it is clarification.

Oh, well, you know it was more than that.

They were saying, "Wait a minute, this can be interpreted in a docetic way. We'd better fix that."

The issue is not inspiration but history.

If the issue is history (and for me it is) then the New Testament is inauthentic and unreliable. We can still make some deductions from the text, but we can't take it at face value.

But the only proof of apostolic authority is scriptural and historical authenticity!

Then people who rely on apostolic authority are out of luck.

It's important to note, I think, that the term 'corruption' has a somewhat different meaning in the field of textual criticism than it does when applied to, say, Chicago politics - so, for example, the New Advent Encyclopedia writes [...]

I agree, and in that sense the texts are undoubtedly corrupted -- and moreover, they're corrupted to a greater extent than the New Advent Encyclopedia lets on.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Oh, well, you know it was more than that.

They were saying, "Wait a minute, this can be interpreted in a docetic way. We'd better fix that."

I completely agree - but there's more than one type of edit. Some edits can be explained like that, but I'm making an important distinction between an edit and an insertion of a large peice of text like Phil 2.1-11.

If the issue is history (and for me it is) then the New Testament is inauthentic and unreliable. We can still make some deductions from the text, but we can't take it at face value.

But it can be purified by scholarly method, just like all of our other ancient manuscripts.

Then people who rely on apostolic authority are out of luck.

Not quite. The apostles are in there somewhere.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Does either the perceived presence or absence of "apostolic authority" change either the "humanness" of the Bible, or its revelatory nature? The LDS certainly have a different idea of both the definition and content of apostolic authority. Yet, the Bible is as revelatory for them as for orthodoxy (little "o").

We all agree that the text has been changed. In what way (if at all) do those changes "corrupt" "The Bible?" Do textual additions or changes constitute corruption? If we're looking purely at historical content, then yes. If, however, we're looking at the validity and authority aspects, I'm not so convinced. At some point, the Church, who is the caretaker of the scriptures, and the body through which revelation is given, made changes. To me, that makes the changes valid and authoritative, at least for some of us.

Of course this makes sense... if you are connected somehow to the group that made all the changes. There are some folks, the Gnostics especially, who are connected historically to the groups that were excluded by the redactions. Other groups, like the LDS and hundreds of modern splinter groups would be accepted into orthodoxy if the edits were not propounded as authentic.

That's significant.

 

[Smoke]

Even by ancient standards what was done would be considered corruption.

Burton Mack makes the point that everybody talks about ancient forgeries as if forgery were just an ancient literary convention and the ancients didn't think anything about it at all, but in fact the ancients did care about forgery, and were quick to point out forgeries when they spotted them. He gives examples, but I can't find them because the index in that book sucks.

I don't think that, say, the author of 1 Timothy thought what he was doing was perfectly acceptable. I think he knew very well that he was going beyond mere literary convention, and that the reader wouldn't accept the epistle on the same level if he knew it wasn't really written by Paul. Likewise with the intentional amendments of various texts. The forgers and redactors knew exactly what they were doing, but -- as people so often do -- they imagined that the end justified the means. That doesn't mean, of course, that they were about to accept forgeries by their opponents.

 

[Quiddity]

It is only corrupt to those who hold a different bias then my own....
Holy Tradition pretty much fills in the gaps for me. If you submit to a different tradition that was modeled by your own presuppositions and world view, textual criticism will be inevitably be stretched to your liking.

Textual criticism is left to the whim of those wishing to restore it to what the authors really wanted to say. It has no application except in regard to a work whose original does not exist.

 

[Smoke]

I completely agree - but there's more than one type of edit. Some edits can be explained like that, but I'm making an important distinction between an edit and an insertion of a large peice of text like Phil 2.1-11.

Good point.

But it can be purified by scholarly method, just like all of our other ancient manuscripts. [...] The apostles are in there somewhere.

We can probably arrive at a pretty fair approximation of the original texts. But I don't think we can assume that even the original texts are necessarily apostolic in the sense of reflecting the teachings of the earliest disciples of Jesus. We have a pretty clear idea of Paul, but who else? Outside of the genuine Pauline epistles, we don't know who wrote anything in the New Testament, so when we've "purified" the texts, we still haven't cracked the mystery of what the original disciples of Jesus believed and taught.

We don't even know for sure that there were Twelve Apostles (I doubt it), or even that the concept of apostle, as distinct from disciple, isn't in itself a later corruption. And if we could establish with certainty who and what the apostles were, and exactly what they believed, we still wouldn't have established a compelling reason for accepting their authority in dogmatic matters. Religious authority is pretty much something you have to take on faith, if you accept it at all.

 

[Quiddity]

Good point.


We can probably arrive at a pretty fair approximation of the original texts. But I don't think we can assume that even the original texts are necessarily apostolic in the sense of reflecting the teachings of the earliest disciples of Jesus. We have a pretty clear idea of Paul, but who else? Outside of the genuine Pauline epistles, we don't know who wrote anything in the New Testament, so when we've "purified" the texts, we still haven't cracked the mystery of what the original disciples of Jesus believed and taught.

We don't even know for sure that there were Twelve Apostles (I doubt it), or even that the concept of apostle, as distinct from disciple, isn't in itself a later corruption. And if we could establish with certainty who and what the apostles were, and exactly what they believed, we still wouldn't have established a compelling reason for accepting their authority in dogmatic matters. Religious authority is pretty much something you have to take on faith, if you accept it at all.

Yup...:yes:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Textual criticism is left to the whim of those wishing to restore it to what the authors really wanted to say.

Fortunately the Vatican is not so dismissive of scholarship.

It has no application except in regard to a work whose original does not exist.

Which would include all Christian scripture.