Despite its popularity and prevalence in Islamic apologetics circles, Muslim critics of the Bible should really learn the ins and outs of textual criticism of the Bible before they speak with such confidence combined with ignorance. Because of his ignorance, this debate has been more of a seminar on biblical textual criticism and history than a debate.
It would also help Saaib if he'd done his due diligence and ensured that his presentations and arguments used consistent premises that wouldn't, if consistently applied, result in the destruction of his own position. Here again we see him relying on naturalistic premises and arguments when he is in fact a theist who has to place a great deal of trust in his god to preserve that god's revelation to mankind.
This is how it should be. We should and must place our trust in God; naturalism and paganism are irrational and impossible alternatives. And since by definition an omniscient, omnipotent God who never lies is a higher authority and a better source of truth than human historical recordings, which are certainly fallible and by necessity vastly incomplete, we have to figure out which God is the right one to follow. This is what Saaib has not yet grasped and thus has not engaged in his arguments.
Saaib finds it difficult to accept that the NASB is 100% the unaltered Word of God. A few clarifications:
1) I mentioned the NASB because it's my favorite, it takes few translational liberties (ie, it is a formally-equivalent translation), and it is based on the latest (more or less) MSS information.
2) There are of course textual variants whose original referents are mysterious and may very well never be known. I already mentioned this in my opening statement. Most are movable "nu"s and other untranslatable particles of Greek grammar.
3) None of these variants affect any doctrinal teaching of the Bible.
4) What does "100% unaltered" even mean? Does Saaib think today's written Qur'an is compiled in the exact order in which each Surah was revealed? It's a statement appealing to an imaginary ideal.
5) Requiring "100% unaltered" is an unreasonable standard, and one that the Qur'an can't meet. Just look at the way Saaib answered my 9 challenges in his last answer. Appeals to faith, every time. How does he know these things? When questioning the credibility of a man on one issue (whether "Mohammed correctly repeated what he heard from Jibril"), don't appeal to other statements he has made that have no other confirmatory evidence as confirmatory evidence of the first statement! That's merely begging the question.
Strictly speaking, "corruption" means that textual variants exist within the extant corpus of NT MSS, but it does not necessarily mean that this corruption is irreversible or that the authentic original reading is undiscoverable. Quite the contrary, and that's what textual criticism is all about. Broadly speaking, even if all 5000+ extant NT MSS agreed with each other, but one of them had a movable "nu" in a different spot, "corruption" would exist. The question is not whether corruption exists in ancient documents. The question is to what extent, and whether the resources are present to overcome it. With thousands and thousands of MSS to cross-reference, I'm afraid that Saaib's objection comes up empty. Saaib needs to give us a good reason to think that
1) God couldn't or wouldn't have used the process of copying that we see in the NT MSS history to preserve His Word,
2) there is good reason to think that some doctrines are placed in doubt and that these are serious, and
3) that he has a better alternative.
Think about it - the Apostle Paul writes a letter to a church. He sends it. It arrives and the church decides to send it out to all the churches they know. They copy it 15 times and send out those 15 copies. Those 15 churches want to send it to the 15 churches they know. Each makes 15 copies and sends it out. Etc. The copying causes the amount of MSS to grow exponentially, and the copies are dispersed all over the world. Thus nobody ever has centralised and final control over the text (unlike Islam) and contrary to what Saaib ignorantly asserted, it was possible back then to cross-reference copies of a given document, and it's possible (and common practice) now.
A few other tidbits:
-The NASB puts the pericope of the adulteress in brackets and leaves a footnote referencing the fact that many earlier MSS do not contain it. That's called full disclosure, and it's impossible on Islam, given the Uthmanic purging of Qur'anic MSS.
Of course it's an interpolation; the question is, was it in the original and removed, or was it added? More probably it was added later, for several reasons. Whether it belongs or not, it affects no doctrine. I personally do not hold it to be authentic.
-A few extant NT MSS are earlier than 200 years after Christ.
-Saaib asserted that the "Pauline epistles present...a problem" but didn't say why or what problem.
-I would never claim that the NASB translators were unbiased. I think it's easily demonstrated that they were fair.
-Saaib falsely claims I contradicted myself in my last cross-examination answer. He needs to read more carefully. "Not necessarily" and "all other things being equal. However, all other things are never equal" should have informed his thinking at that point.
-Memory was backed with writing." Exactly. Same with the NT. Be consistent.
-Saaib says "The companions of the prophet made written copies of Quran. Thus those who listened to the companions had a written book to correct them." Exactly. Same with the NT and Jesus and the apostles. Be consistent.
-Saaib's answer to challenge #6 is bizarre. That's the point: if something is lost, it's not found. This merely demonstrates that Saaib must trust his god completely at this point. Whether he'll admit it is another question.
(Word count: 995)
(Link to comment repository post)
Showing posts with label textual criticism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label textual criticism. Show all posts
Friday, January 27, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
The Bible Is the Word of God Debate - My First Cross-Examination Answer
Either Saaib doesn't really understand or is ignorant of what Ehrman says, he is being disingenuous, or we're having communication problems, but I don't understand his denial, from his first rebuttal:
If I hold a copy of the NASB in my hand, I will have no problem in saying that this English text, in here, is 100% the unaltered, pure Word of God. As for which language, the Word of God is meant to communicate to “a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues” (Revelation 7:9).
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, and there exists a stream of MSS testimony in those languages. It was translated into Greek in the LXX in the 1st century BC and a separate but overlapping stream of MSS evidence exists for it.
The NT was written in Greek, and textual streams are in place for Greek and then translations later made into all sorts of languages like Latin, Coptic, Syriac, etc.
All of these MSS were taken into account when the NASB was translated into English. All of these MSS were collated, compared and contrasted, and combined to form the standard text we have today. In Greek, that’s the NA27. The NA27 might be hard to find in Pakistan, where Islam's dominance means free thought and exchange of ideas is suppressed, but it's readily available in the USA.
Saaib again demonstrates here his ignorance of textual criticism of the Bible and the history of biblical MSS. Sure, he can cite this or that person, a couple of whom are well-known and several of whom are random people. Sure, he can make arguments from authority without providing those authorities' substantiating argumentation. How does any of this help his case, though?
Thus, Saaib, I will be able to present to you a document which according to me is 100% the unaltered, pure Word of God. No matter whether you agree with me, I will be able to do it.
This turnabout should illustrate the double standards inherent in Saaib’s position. For his own part, he makes naked assertions that the biblical authors didn’t in fact write the books they purportedly wrote. Not that historical, traditional sourcing is inerrant or infallible, but should there not be some argument given to rebut that understanding? Simply arguing that it’s implausible that Moses wrote his own obituary because that would require supernatural intervention doesn’t help anyone, least of all Saaib. Why? Saaib is a theist, as I explained earlier. God can do that if He wants. Don't argue like an atheist.
How could a mere man remember so much? He was inspired by God, as explained earlier.
How could a man’s writing style differ during different parts of his life? The same way yours does when you write a letter to your mother when you’re 11 years old and when you write a theological debate entry when you’re 60.
So what else do these men have? We have yet to see any argument, just authorities.
As for how I know that the Bible is the Word of God, I presented several arguments in my opening statement. Saaib is running out of time to address them substantively. He has not done so; he has merely waved his hands and said “no, that’s not right” or in some cases offered incompetent arguments which he did not rescue from the defeaters I offered, even though he had the opportunity in his second statement.
Due to his ignorance of textual criticism, Saaib may have gotten lost on the idea of “a copy”, as he says in his question. Nobody is claiming that any one extant MSS copy is the Word of God. The quality and preferability of a given MSS copy depends on various factors, including its age. Older, ie, closer to the original writing is better, all other things being equal. However, all other things are never equal. What textual stream it comes from matters. Whether it contains unique or rare readings matters. Etc.
Textual criticism is complicated and I don’t pretend to be anything close to an expert, but I do know enough to know that Saaib is offering to us a line of double standards and poor thinking.
I’ve already done this, but in the hopes of getting through to Saaib, let me reiterate.
How does Saaib know that he has 100% the unaltered, pure Word of God? I know he thinks he does, but let’s discuss some points of doubt.
How does he know that:
1) Mohammed correctly repeated what he heard from Jibril?
2) Mohammed's companions correctly heard him?
3) These companions correctly remembered what they heard over the course of decades?
4) Those that listened to the companions correctly remembered?
5) These guys correctly wrote it all down?
6) Important parts of the written documentation wasn't lost at some point?
7) Satan didn't influence one or more of those who wrote down what he remembered to write down some false things? (Indeed, Mohammed himself recited revelation from Satan and later recanted it.)
8) Uthman didn't have any evil ulterior motives when collecting all the Qur'anic MSS?
9) Uthman didn't burn the wrong MSS?
There are all these places where any critic who took on naturalistic presuppositions could "destroy" the idea of Qur'anic reliability. The point is that Saaib has to trust God to preserve what he wanted to say, and I'd like to ask him, when he is arguing against the debate resolution, to stay consistent and allow me to trust God where we cannot speak from direct observation and evidence, about deep history.
(Word count: 996)
(Link to comment repository post)
He started refuting Bart Erhman and wrote an essay on it. What I made was an entirely different argumentYet here he seems to circle right back to Ehrman's objections, which my first rebuttal wrecked, and Saaib has offered no counterargument.
If I hold a copy of the NASB in my hand, I will have no problem in saying that this English text, in here, is 100% the unaltered, pure Word of God. As for which language, the Word of God is meant to communicate to “a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues” (Revelation 7:9).
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, and there exists a stream of MSS testimony in those languages. It was translated into Greek in the LXX in the 1st century BC and a separate but overlapping stream of MSS evidence exists for it.
The NT was written in Greek, and textual streams are in place for Greek and then translations later made into all sorts of languages like Latin, Coptic, Syriac, etc.
All of these MSS were taken into account when the NASB was translated into English. All of these MSS were collated, compared and contrasted, and combined to form the standard text we have today. In Greek, that’s the NA27. The NA27 might be hard to find in Pakistan, where Islam's dominance means free thought and exchange of ideas is suppressed, but it's readily available in the USA.
Saaib again demonstrates here his ignorance of textual criticism of the Bible and the history of biblical MSS. Sure, he can cite this or that person, a couple of whom are well-known and several of whom are random people. Sure, he can make arguments from authority without providing those authorities' substantiating argumentation. How does any of this help his case, though?
Thus, Saaib, I will be able to present to you a document which according to me is 100% the unaltered, pure Word of God. No matter whether you agree with me, I will be able to do it.
This turnabout should illustrate the double standards inherent in Saaib’s position. For his own part, he makes naked assertions that the biblical authors didn’t in fact write the books they purportedly wrote. Not that historical, traditional sourcing is inerrant or infallible, but should there not be some argument given to rebut that understanding? Simply arguing that it’s implausible that Moses wrote his own obituary because that would require supernatural intervention doesn’t help anyone, least of all Saaib. Why? Saaib is a theist, as I explained earlier. God can do that if He wants. Don't argue like an atheist.
How could a mere man remember so much? He was inspired by God, as explained earlier.
How could a man’s writing style differ during different parts of his life? The same way yours does when you write a letter to your mother when you’re 11 years old and when you write a theological debate entry when you’re 60.
So what else do these men have? We have yet to see any argument, just authorities.
As for how I know that the Bible is the Word of God, I presented several arguments in my opening statement. Saaib is running out of time to address them substantively. He has not done so; he has merely waved his hands and said “no, that’s not right” or in some cases offered incompetent arguments which he did not rescue from the defeaters I offered, even though he had the opportunity in his second statement.
Due to his ignorance of textual criticism, Saaib may have gotten lost on the idea of “a copy”, as he says in his question. Nobody is claiming that any one extant MSS copy is the Word of God. The quality and preferability of a given MSS copy depends on various factors, including its age. Older, ie, closer to the original writing is better, all other things being equal. However, all other things are never equal. What textual stream it comes from matters. Whether it contains unique or rare readings matters. Etc.
Textual criticism is complicated and I don’t pretend to be anything close to an expert, but I do know enough to know that Saaib is offering to us a line of double standards and poor thinking.
I’ve already done this, but in the hopes of getting through to Saaib, let me reiterate.
How does Saaib know that he has 100% the unaltered, pure Word of God? I know he thinks he does, but let’s discuss some points of doubt.
How does he know that:
1) Mohammed correctly repeated what he heard from Jibril?
2) Mohammed's companions correctly heard him?
3) These companions correctly remembered what they heard over the course of decades?
4) Those that listened to the companions correctly remembered?
5) These guys correctly wrote it all down?
6) Important parts of the written documentation wasn't lost at some point?
7) Satan didn't influence one or more of those who wrote down what he remembered to write down some false things? (Indeed, Mohammed himself recited revelation from Satan and later recanted it.)
8) Uthman didn't have any evil ulterior motives when collecting all the Qur'anic MSS?
9) Uthman didn't burn the wrong MSS?
There are all these places where any critic who took on naturalistic presuppositions could "destroy" the idea of Qur'anic reliability. The point is that Saaib has to trust God to preserve what he wanted to say, and I'd like to ask him, when he is arguing against the debate resolution, to stay consistent and allow me to trust God where we cannot speak from direct observation and evidence, about deep history.
(Word count: 996)
(Link to comment repository post)
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Bonus exchange with Saaib Ahmed on textual criticism
This is an interaction that my debate opponent Saaib Ahmed and I had. It is separate from our formal debate and I tried to make sure not to rehash ground that is already being covered in our formal debate during this exchange.
Saaib began with:
Who is afraid of Textual Criticism?
The Christians or the Muslims. Who fails to pass the exam? The Bible or The Glorious Quran
Rhology: Is that why book after book comes out from Christian scholars about textual criticism, while Muslims ignorantly deny that there is any such thing as a Qur'anic textual variant?
Saaib Ahmed: Or is it that there really is some problem with Bible...
Rhology: Whether there is a problem with the Bible or not is irrelevant here. So let me ask you: Are you implying that Christians and not Muslims are afraid of textual criticism? What is your evidence? As for passing the exam, that's part of our debate so I'll leave it there.
Saaib Ahmed Rhology, Rhology Rhology............ huh...... Answering Islam had published an article on this.... Thats why i wrote this......
Rhology So why are there tons of Christians who study textual criticism, while Muslims deny that any Qur'anic variants even exist?
Saaib Ahmed When variants don't exist we say variants don't exist (as in case of Quran) and when they exist we say they exist (as in case of Bible).... I hope you and I mean same by the term "variants"....
Rhology Here's a variant - http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2499
Saaib Ahmed Rhology: Thanks for the link.... Before I answer I want to know what you understood from the article... Just two to three sentences...
Rhology Simply put, "(the palimpsest) gives the readings, showing how the original version of this text differed from the later standardized (i.e., called the "Uthmanic") text". So, you have to ask yourself whether any argument against the Bible from textual variants would allow you to be consistent.
Saaib Ahmed Suppose if I write on a leather sheet, "I am debating Rhoblogy".... Then you come across and tell me that it is not "Rhoblogy" but "Rhology" and I wash off the ink and write "I am debating Rhology". After 1000 years someone discovers the leather sheet and says that there exists a "variant", he is right but what does that variant prove. Absolutely nothing.
The leather shows that the original (wrong: Rhoblogy) text differed from the later (correct: Rhology) standardized text.... Wasn't it simple.... Same applies to above....
I based my reply on what you said. If you can please tell me the Manuscript number, i would have given a much better reply. Like if it was a Sana Manuscript then there are more possible explanations. like if it was a personal Mushaf of some companion then there are different explanations.... I hope this replies your query.... Your turn...
Rhology Yep, that 1st paragraph is right, and that is 90+% of all the textual variants in the Bible
I am bringing it up so you'll know not to use really stupid arguments like this one.
Saaib Ahmed: Rhology: I accept that. And I have no hesitation is accepting that there are variants in NT (and OT) which have no impact (or effect) on the reading of scripture. But there are some (in fact many) which do have an effect and such cases are not to be found with Quran and if there are (which I do not know of) there will also be explanations for them. For me Textual Criticism of Quran and Bible is my favorite topic and I want this discussion to continue so that I publish it to other people for education.
Rhology That is actually incorrect. In the Bible, there are NONE that make any doctrinal impact. You need to present an argument for that.
And I don't know for sure whether the Qur'an has any, but I believe it does.
The problem is that most Muslims I have encountered say "The Bible has been changed", etc. You in fact made that argument in our debate, and you don't have evidence that you can consistently maintain.
Saaib Ahmed Rhology: I never wanted a word limit.
As for my statement. It is correct. There are hundreds of cases (if not thousands) where the scripture was altered deliberately. Take for example the following example.
The only verses in the whole Bible that explicitly ties God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in one "Triune" being is the verse of 1 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."
However this verse is now universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible etc. have all unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages. Why is this?
This is one such example. Once you explain this to me then I will love to go ahead with a few. Once you reply to all of them. I will tell you "Gospel of Luke" is product of this editing by itself.
Most Muslims which you encountered know the above fact and many more like these. :D
Rhology:
;-) For the record, I am starting to think I made a mistake with the word counts I asked for. I should've asked for longer. LOL, too late now.
False about 1 Jn 5:7. The case for the Trinity is indubitable from the NT; we don't need 1 Jn 5:7 at all. And that's not a variant. It's not in the original text. There is no doubt of that. Choose one that actually matters.
Besides, I said "that make a doctrinal impact". If a variant proposes that a verse that TEACHES the Trinity, that doesn't impact doctrine, because the NT's doctrine is Trinitarian already. So try again.
Unfortunately, you haven't set yourself apart from most Muslims yet, b/c your arguments are so far garbage.
Saaib Ahmed Rhology : Aaah.... U should have not set a word limit at all.... I have been debating the issue for long and I know how much it hurts to keep a word limit...
As for 1 John 5:7, it shows (delibrate) alteration of text at least on two occasions and that two by who were not eye witnesses. Let me show you how.
We have two possibilities. Either the verse was in the original text (which seems impossible), or the verse was not in the original text.
We know that the verse in missing in the earliest manuscripts we have.
If the verse was in original then someone altered the text and we don't have it in earliest texts (Alteration No. 1). Then someone put it back, because we have it in later texts (Alteration No. 2). Now Revisers have removed it again (Alteration No. 3).
If the verse was not in the originals then someone altered the text and put it in, because we have it in later texts (Alteration No. 1). Now the revisers have removed it again (Alteration No. 2).
Its like, heads I win, tails you loose.
As for doctrines, even a jaundiced eye can see that this verse is a clear cut deliberate insertion so as to support the trinitarian view of God.
NT is trinitarian, well it is debatable. You have to make Jehova's witnesses to understand who follow the same text. Anyways, you have to accept that there are plenty who follow the same text and yet remain unitarians. Therefore you don't need to lie to a person who already knows things (and sometimes better than you, with due respect though). Had this verse been in the original text, trinitarians had a really good argument. Anyways it is like, "....seeing you see not, hearing you hear not. neither will you understand."
Unfortunately, you Christians get offended with whatever arguments we have. Instead of clearing the douts you act like GrecopaganJesus (who called Jews some very good names and sometimes even his own followers). You call it garbage and the thing we are discussing is Bible. May be you think it is garbage but we Muslims do have faith in some part of it.
:D
Rhology:
Yes it shows deliberate addition by someone OVER 1000 YEARS AFTER JESUS. Why would anyone care about that?
And if you think it's possible it was in the original, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?
If you want to say "debatable", strictly speaking EVERYTHING is debatable. But it's not REASONABLY debatable. The NT is Trinitarian, and it is easily proven. Very, very easily.
There are people (like me) who read the Qur'an and yet think that Islam is from the devil. Does that mean the Qur'anic teaching might be that Islam is from teh devil? No, it means that some ppl disagree with it, but that's no surprise. Be consistent, b/c your inconsistency is destroying you here.
I'm not offended. I'm actually laughing b/c you think you've made a good argument. You haven't.
Saaib Ahmed:
Rhology: You are an English speaking person but your comprehension skills seem very poor.
I said there are two possible "possibilities". I never said it was (or wasn't) in the originals....... You ought to read my comment again...
We have two possibilities. Either the verse was in the original text (which seems impossible), or the verse was not in the original text.
We know that the verse in missing in the earliest manuscripts we have.
If the verse was in original then someone altered the text and we don't have it in earliest texts (Alteration No. 1). Then someone put it back, because we have it in later texts (Alteration No. 2). Now Revisers have removed it again (Alteration No. 3).
If the verse was not in the originals then someone altered the text and put it in, because we have it in later texts (Alteration No. 1). Now the revisers have removed it again (Alteration No. 2).
Its like, heads I win, tails you loose.
You have to accept the interpolation in both cases....
Anyways the trinity of NT is like finding a dinosaurs egg.... You can find it but you need to search for it in down in the layers of the earth.... The simple prof is that the word itself isn't there.... Jehova's witnesses follow the same NT and yet remain unitarians... And one more example is Sir Isaac Newton, a firm bible believer, who was a unitarian. He, in fact, wrote a book on corruption of the Biblical scriptures. "A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture."....
Rhology:
Yes, and since it's not in the earliest MSS, to propose that it might be in the original is to go AGAINST the evidence. And since the verse does not appear in anything of note for such a long time, the evidence is stacked against. Thus, it's not even really a defensible conclusion that this was in the original. You're not catching my point.
The 2nd situation is what happened. It wasn't in the original. Someone added it into ONE copy, MANY MANY CENTURIES LATER. So what? There are thousands of others MSS. That's how we know that this verse was not in the original. I don't think you understand textual criticism.
And you are also ignorant of the NT if you think that the doctrine of the Trinity is "deep" in "layers". Tell you what - don't act like you're an authority in the NT and I won't act like I'm an authority in the Qur'an. Or better yet, GIVE AN ARGUMENT for your assertion. What is your argument against the dozens of passages that teach the Trinity, and the other mountain of passages that make no sense if the Trinity is untrue?
Isaac Newton was not a theologian.
I also don't accept arguments from authority. What is your ARGUMENT?
Saaib Ahmed
As for the verse I quoted. One thing I just proved to you is a deliberate corruption of scripture. The issue is resolved now.
Next, Trinity in the new testament. (i won't debate the issue) As you said I should not try to be an authority on that. True that. But I was neither acting like one. I only had one argument and that argument is that many people interpret the same passages in different ways (e.g Jehova's witnesses).
Newton wasn't a theologian (We agree on this), neither am I. Therefor you won't see me having formal debates on these topics (unless I study them). I am a critique and I am concentrating on the textual integrity of Bible and The Quran. That is where Newton comes in. I didn't quote him as a theologian, but I quoted him as a textual critique who wrote on Biblical Corruption favoring the trinitarian position.
Rhology
Deliberate addition to ONE mss copy 1000 years later is not even close to the same thing as "corruption of Scripture". You need to make an argument, not only so you can prove your point, but so your point can make sense. Right now it makes no sense.
Yes, plenty of ppl are not Trinitarians. Now you need to make an argument as to why that matters.
Consider how many people can read the Qur'an and can be Shia. I guess this means, by YOUR logic, the Qur'an is actually a Shia book. Right?
You need to give us some reason to think that Newton had any knowledge of textual criticism. Also, you need to give us a reason to think that his knowledge THEN, when he lived, is relevant to today's situation, since today scholars have much, much more information available to them and many, many more MSS discoveries.
Saaib began with:
Who is afraid of Textual Criticism?
The Christians or the Muslims. Who fails to pass the exam? The Bible or The Glorious Quran
Rhology: Is that why book after book comes out from Christian scholars about textual criticism, while Muslims ignorantly deny that there is any such thing as a Qur'anic textual variant?
Saaib Ahmed: Or is it that there really is some problem with Bible...
Rhology: Whether there is a problem with the Bible or not is irrelevant here. So let me ask you: Are you implying that Christians and not Muslims are afraid of textual criticism? What is your evidence? As for passing the exam, that's part of our debate so I'll leave it there.
Saaib Ahmed Rhology, Rhology Rhology............ huh...... Answering Islam had published an article on this.... Thats why i wrote this......
Rhology So why are there tons of Christians who study textual criticism, while Muslims deny that any Qur'anic variants even exist?
Saaib Ahmed When variants don't exist we say variants don't exist (as in case of Quran) and when they exist we say they exist (as in case of Bible).... I hope you and I mean same by the term "variants"....
Rhology Here's a variant - http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2499
Saaib Ahmed Rhology: Thanks for the link.... Before I answer I want to know what you understood from the article... Just two to three sentences...
Rhology Simply put, "(the palimpsest) gives the readings, showing how the original version of this text differed from the later standardized (i.e., called the "Uthmanic") text". So, you have to ask yourself whether any argument against the Bible from textual variants would allow you to be consistent.
Saaib Ahmed Suppose if I write on a leather sheet, "I am debating Rhoblogy".... Then you come across and tell me that it is not "Rhoblogy" but "Rhology" and I wash off the ink and write "I am debating Rhology". After 1000 years someone discovers the leather sheet and says that there exists a "variant", he is right but what does that variant prove. Absolutely nothing.
The leather shows that the original (wrong: Rhoblogy) text differed from the later (correct: Rhology) standardized text.... Wasn't it simple.... Same applies to above....
I based my reply on what you said. If you can please tell me the Manuscript number, i would have given a much better reply. Like if it was a Sana Manuscript then there are more possible explanations. like if it was a personal Mushaf of some companion then there are different explanations.... I hope this replies your query.... Your turn...
Rhology Yep, that 1st paragraph is right, and that is 90+% of all the textual variants in the Bible
I am bringing it up so you'll know not to use really stupid arguments like this one.
Saaib Ahmed: Rhology: I accept that. And I have no hesitation is accepting that there are variants in NT (and OT) which have no impact (or effect) on the reading of scripture. But there are some (in fact many) which do have an effect and such cases are not to be found with Quran and if there are (which I do not know of) there will also be explanations for them. For me Textual Criticism of Quran and Bible is my favorite topic and I want this discussion to continue so that I publish it to other people for education.
Rhology That is actually incorrect. In the Bible, there are NONE that make any doctrinal impact. You need to present an argument for that.
And I don't know for sure whether the Qur'an has any, but I believe it does.
The problem is that most Muslims I have encountered say "The Bible has been changed", etc. You in fact made that argument in our debate, and you don't have evidence that you can consistently maintain.
Saaib Ahmed Rhology: I never wanted a word limit.
As for my statement. It is correct. There are hundreds of cases (if not thousands) where the scripture was altered deliberately. Take for example the following example.
The only verses in the whole Bible that explicitly ties God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in one "Triune" being is the verse of 1 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."
However this verse is now universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible etc. have all unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages. Why is this?
This is one such example. Once you explain this to me then I will love to go ahead with a few. Once you reply to all of them. I will tell you "Gospel of Luke" is product of this editing by itself.
Most Muslims which you encountered know the above fact and many more like these. :D
Rhology:
;-) For the record, I am starting to think I made a mistake with the word counts I asked for. I should've asked for longer. LOL, too late now.
False about 1 Jn 5:7. The case for the Trinity is indubitable from the NT; we don't need 1 Jn 5:7 at all. And that's not a variant. It's not in the original text. There is no doubt of that. Choose one that actually matters.
Besides, I said "that make a doctrinal impact". If a variant proposes that a verse that TEACHES the Trinity, that doesn't impact doctrine, because the NT's doctrine is Trinitarian already. So try again.
Unfortunately, you haven't set yourself apart from most Muslims yet, b/c your arguments are so far garbage.
Saaib Ahmed Rhology : Aaah.... U should have not set a word limit at all.... I have been debating the issue for long and I know how much it hurts to keep a word limit...
As for 1 John 5:7, it shows (delibrate) alteration of text at least on two occasions and that two by who were not eye witnesses. Let me show you how.
We have two possibilities. Either the verse was in the original text (which seems impossible), or the verse was not in the original text.
We know that the verse in missing in the earliest manuscripts we have.
If the verse was in original then someone altered the text and we don't have it in earliest texts (Alteration No. 1). Then someone put it back, because we have it in later texts (Alteration No. 2). Now Revisers have removed it again (Alteration No. 3).
If the verse was not in the originals then someone altered the text and put it in, because we have it in later texts (Alteration No. 1). Now the revisers have removed it again (Alteration No. 2).
Its like, heads I win, tails you loose.
As for doctrines, even a jaundiced eye can see that this verse is a clear cut deliberate insertion so as to support the trinitarian view of God.
NT is trinitarian, well it is debatable. You have to make Jehova's witnesses to understand who follow the same text. Anyways, you have to accept that there are plenty who follow the same text and yet remain unitarians. Therefore you don't need to lie to a person who already knows things (and sometimes better than you, with due respect though). Had this verse been in the original text, trinitarians had a really good argument. Anyways it is like, "....seeing you see not, hearing you hear not. neither will you understand."
Unfortunately, you Christians get offended with whatever arguments we have. Instead of clearing the douts you act like GrecopaganJesus (who called Jews some very good names and sometimes even his own followers). You call it garbage and the thing we are discussing is Bible. May be you think it is garbage but we Muslims do have faith in some part of it.
:D
Rhology:
Yes it shows deliberate addition by someone OVER 1000 YEARS AFTER JESUS. Why would anyone care about that?
And if you think it's possible it was in the original, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?
If you want to say "debatable", strictly speaking EVERYTHING is debatable. But it's not REASONABLY debatable. The NT is Trinitarian, and it is easily proven. Very, very easily.
There are people (like me) who read the Qur'an and yet think that Islam is from the devil. Does that mean the Qur'anic teaching might be that Islam is from teh devil? No, it means that some ppl disagree with it, but that's no surprise. Be consistent, b/c your inconsistency is destroying you here.
I'm not offended. I'm actually laughing b/c you think you've made a good argument. You haven't.
Saaib Ahmed:
Rhology: You are an English speaking person but your comprehension skills seem very poor.
I said there are two possible "possibilities". I never said it was (or wasn't) in the originals....... You ought to read my comment again...
We have two possibilities. Either the verse was in the original text (which seems impossible), or the verse was not in the original text.
We know that the verse in missing in the earliest manuscripts we have.
If the verse was in original then someone altered the text and we don't have it in earliest texts (Alteration No. 1). Then someone put it back, because we have it in later texts (Alteration No. 2). Now Revisers have removed it again (Alteration No. 3).
If the verse was not in the originals then someone altered the text and put it in, because we have it in later texts (Alteration No. 1). Now the revisers have removed it again (Alteration No. 2).
Its like, heads I win, tails you loose.
You have to accept the interpolation in both cases....
Anyways the trinity of NT is like finding a dinosaurs egg.... You can find it but you need to search for it in down in the layers of the earth.... The simple prof is that the word itself isn't there.... Jehova's witnesses follow the same NT and yet remain unitarians... And one more example is Sir Isaac Newton, a firm bible believer, who was a unitarian. He, in fact, wrote a book on corruption of the Biblical scriptures. "A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture."....
Rhology:
Yes, and since it's not in the earliest MSS, to propose that it might be in the original is to go AGAINST the evidence. And since the verse does not appear in anything of note for such a long time, the evidence is stacked against. Thus, it's not even really a defensible conclusion that this was in the original. You're not catching my point.
The 2nd situation is what happened. It wasn't in the original. Someone added it into ONE copy, MANY MANY CENTURIES LATER. So what? There are thousands of others MSS. That's how we know that this verse was not in the original. I don't think you understand textual criticism.
And you are also ignorant of the NT if you think that the doctrine of the Trinity is "deep" in "layers". Tell you what - don't act like you're an authority in the NT and I won't act like I'm an authority in the Qur'an. Or better yet, GIVE AN ARGUMENT for your assertion. What is your argument against the dozens of passages that teach the Trinity, and the other mountain of passages that make no sense if the Trinity is untrue?
Isaac Newton was not a theologian.
I also don't accept arguments from authority. What is your ARGUMENT?
Saaib Ahmed
As for the verse I quoted. One thing I just proved to you is a deliberate corruption of scripture. The issue is resolved now.
Next, Trinity in the new testament. (i won't debate the issue) As you said I should not try to be an authority on that. True that. But I was neither acting like one. I only had one argument and that argument is that many people interpret the same passages in different ways (e.g Jehova's witnesses).
Newton wasn't a theologian (We agree on this), neither am I. Therefor you won't see me having formal debates on these topics (unless I study them). I am a critique and I am concentrating on the textual integrity of Bible and The Quran. That is where Newton comes in. I didn't quote him as a theologian, but I quoted him as a textual critique who wrote on Biblical Corruption favoring the trinitarian position.
Rhology
Deliberate addition to ONE mss copy 1000 years later is not even close to the same thing as "corruption of Scripture". You need to make an argument, not only so you can prove your point, but so your point can make sense. Right now it makes no sense.
Yes, plenty of ppl are not Trinitarians. Now you need to make an argument as to why that matters.
Consider how many people can read the Qur'an and can be Shia. I guess this means, by YOUR logic, the Qur'an is actually a Shia book. Right?
You need to give us some reason to think that Newton had any knowledge of textual criticism. Also, you need to give us a reason to think that his knowledge THEN, when he lived, is relevant to today's situation, since today scholars have much, much more information available to them and many, many more MSS discoveries.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Anonymous Gospels
In just another example of unlearning stuff I've assumed but never thought deeply about, I was challenged today in my default-mode thinking on something. I've heard it repeated over and over again that the New Testament Gospels are anonymous, and that their authorship is ascribed traditionally, even fairly arbitrarily.
QUOTE:
i) The Gospels are not anonymous. All our MSS name the authors of the Gospels. And there is no evidence that this is an editorial addition. Indeed, given the antiquity and uniformity of these ascriptions, the evidence is against their unoriginality.
You notice that Carrier has no hesitation in citing other Jewish and pagan writers by name—even though the quantity and quality of MSS evidence for those works is negligible compared with the NT.
Assuming that the traditional attributions are true—and the superscriptions are exceedingly well-attested—then Matthew and Luke would certainly have other sources of information at their fingertips.
ii) Mark is not an unknown individual. He is known to us from both the Lucan and Pauline corpus.
iii) "Tradition” and “legend” are hardly synonymous.
iv) Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Gospel of Mark was written around AD 70, “give or take a decade,” the lower figure would put it within the lifetime of Paul—even by Carrier’s reckoning. For Paul’s death is generally dated to around AD 65.312 So either Carrier can’t do the math or he doesn’t know the rudiments of NT chronology.
v) As a matter of fact, David Wenham has marshaled internal, comparative evidence to show that Paul, writing way back in the 40s, was already acquainted with the Gospels of Matthew and Luke—and maybe even the Fourth Gospel for good measure (Paul & Jesus [Eerdmans 2002]; Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? [Eerdmans 1985].).
Assuming Marcan priority, this completely upends Mr. Carrier’s entire thesis. Even without Marcan priority, the damage is done.
Of course, this runs counter to what “most” scholars believe, but the decades-long gap between oral tradition and the canonical gospels posited by “most” scholars has always been completely irrational. This was not a preliterate culture. If men could pen letters, they could just as well pen gospels.
vi) Carrier is trying to play both sides of the fence. On the one hand he says:
"Matthew and Luke clearly used Mark as their source, repeating the same elements in the same order and often using identical vocabulary and word order, not only for this story but for the whole Gospel."
If so, then this is an example of how extremely conservative Matthew and Luke are in handling their sources. How pedantically faithful they are in respecting and preserving the Markan source.
On the other hand, he also says:
"All other accounts rely upon it and basically just embellish it or modify it to suit each author’s own narrative and ideological agenda."
If so, then that is an example of how extremely cavalier Matthew and Luke are in
handling their sources. How faithless they are in reproducing the Marcan source.
You see how these two assertions are tugging in opposite directions? Carrier is in a bind. He needs one sort of argument to prove Markan priority, and a contrary argument to prove legendary embellishment. So his thesis is drawn-and-quartered by the conflicting demands of his own agenda.
Source: This Joyful Eastertide, Steve Hays, p 146
QUOTE:
i) The Gospels are not anonymous. All our MSS name the authors of the Gospels. And there is no evidence that this is an editorial addition. Indeed, given the antiquity and uniformity of these ascriptions, the evidence is against their unoriginality.
You notice that Carrier has no hesitation in citing other Jewish and pagan writers by name—even though the quantity and quality of MSS evidence for those works is negligible compared with the NT.
Assuming that the traditional attributions are true—and the superscriptions are exceedingly well-attested—then Matthew and Luke would certainly have other sources of information at their fingertips.
ii) Mark is not an unknown individual. He is known to us from both the Lucan and Pauline corpus.
iii) "Tradition” and “legend” are hardly synonymous.
iv) Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Gospel of Mark was written around AD 70, “give or take a decade,” the lower figure would put it within the lifetime of Paul—even by Carrier’s reckoning. For Paul’s death is generally dated to around AD 65.312 So either Carrier can’t do the math or he doesn’t know the rudiments of NT chronology.
v) As a matter of fact, David Wenham has marshaled internal, comparative evidence to show that Paul, writing way back in the 40s, was already acquainted with the Gospels of Matthew and Luke—and maybe even the Fourth Gospel for good measure (Paul & Jesus [Eerdmans 2002]; Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? [Eerdmans 1985].).
Assuming Marcan priority, this completely upends Mr. Carrier’s entire thesis. Even without Marcan priority, the damage is done.
Of course, this runs counter to what “most” scholars believe, but the decades-long gap between oral tradition and the canonical gospels posited by “most” scholars has always been completely irrational. This was not a preliterate culture. If men could pen letters, they could just as well pen gospels.
vi) Carrier is trying to play both sides of the fence. On the one hand he says:
"Matthew and Luke clearly used Mark as their source, repeating the same elements in the same order and often using identical vocabulary and word order, not only for this story but for the whole Gospel."
If so, then this is an example of how extremely conservative Matthew and Luke are in handling their sources. How pedantically faithful they are in respecting and preserving the Markan source.
On the other hand, he also says:
"All other accounts rely upon it and basically just embellish it or modify it to suit each author’s own narrative and ideological agenda."
If so, then that is an example of how extremely cavalier Matthew and Luke are in
handling their sources. How faithless they are in reproducing the Marcan source.
You see how these two assertions are tugging in opposite directions? Carrier is in a bind. He needs one sort of argument to prove Markan priority, and a contrary argument to prove legendary embellishment. So his thesis is drawn-and-quartered by the conflicting demands of his own agenda.
Source: This Joyful Eastertide, Steve Hays, p 146
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)