tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post6101309824752359080..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Textual Criticism Done Dan Brown StyleRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-50719668816826741812010-09-06T19:09:14.037-04:002010-09-06T19:09:14.037-04:00Based on the evidences provided, without much doub...Based on the evidences provided, without much doubt as to their verity or your veracity to muddle the verity of the evidences provided, I have concluded that Bart Ehrman must be of the faith of those who believe there is no devil to deceive you!<br /><br />Is there no other rational explanation for his deception to be offered thus?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-81167533882622353652010-09-06T18:02:37.077-04:002010-09-06T18:02:37.077-04:00Very nice Jason. I might actually post this as an...Very nice Jason. I might actually post this as an addendum to my article above.Dusmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18050174688923887698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7542561749507452992010-09-06T17:54:30.640-04:002010-09-06T17:54:30.640-04:00Several other points:
- We can also judge the rel...Several other points:<br /><br />- We can also judge the reliability of Christian scribes by how they preserved other documents, not just the New Testament. As the Josephan scholar Steve Mason notes, "in general, Christian copyists were quite conservative in transmitting texts" (Josephus And The New Testament [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005], p. 232).<br /><br />- Not only are patristic <i>quotations</i> of the New Testament relevant, but so are patristic (and other) <i>descriptions</i>. If a skeptic wants to raise textual issues to cast doubt on Jesus' resurrection, for example, then it's significant if a patristic source <i>describes</i> a New Testament document as making reference to the resurrection, even if he doesn't <i>quote</i> the document.<br /><br />- It was common for documents in antiquity to exist in two or more copies before being sent out to circulate more widely. Authors often kept a copy of their document before sending out another copy (Stanley Porter, in Craig Evans and Emanuel Tov, edd., Exploring The Origins Of The Bible [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008], pp. 189-190, 195, n. 106 on p. 195). Thus, an author didn't entirely give up control of the transmission of his text to other people. He kept a copy himself and could restart the copying process anytime he wanted with his own edition of the original.<br /><br />- Authors often took steps to ensure the preservation of their text and to monitor the status of the text's circulation. Thus, ancient authors often commented on subjects like what titles were being applied to their works in libraries, how some people were interpreting their work inaccurately, how some people were altering their text, etc. Their concern over the text didn't end once the first copy was sent out.<br /><br />- Documents were read publicly (1 Thessalonians 5:27). Thus, even those who were illiterate could become witnesses to the original text by means of hearing it read publicly. That increases the number of witnesses involved.<br /><br />- Ancient non-Christian sources <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/10/arguing-for-new-testament-text-part-3.html" rel="nofollow">corroborated the reliability of the New Testament text</a>.<br /><br />- Many of the objections non-Christians raise against Christianity in modern times depend on the textual accuracy of ancient extra-Biblical sources. For example, when a critic appeals to an alleged contradiction between Luke and Josephus, suggesting that we have a reliable text for Josephus, he's accepting the Josephan text on the basis of less evidence than we have for the New Testament text.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.com