Sinfest

WheelsOfConfusion · Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 11639 Location: Unknown Kaddath

There are generally very good reasons for not including various apocrypha as canon, some of them showing more obvious signs of late authorship and conflicting with the established gospels (not that the ones we do have don't share those problems to a degree). Unfortunately it was fashionable in the day to write action adventures and secret origin stories for religious figures, and so much of them are pure embellishment.
As to global warming, I really should have to tell everyone that there is a scientific consensus on the issue, yes?

Major Tom · Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 7562

"As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change"...

..."less" than 100%, my bet on the reference.

i'm so glad christie whitman dissappeared, she had convictions and aboLUTEly no balls. worst sellout in my recent personal recollection.

Sam · Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 9088

E-boy · Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:04 pm Post subject:

I never said their weren't. Although biblical scholars generally accept that orthodox christians made more textual changes to the New testament than the gnostics and other groups did. Which isn't to say that the gnostics are free of sin in this department either. Pardon my terminology.

Protestant biblical scholars have turned textual study into a real science. Their analysis techniques have even been used for taxonomic analysis.

Dusty · Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 650

E-boy · Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:32 pm Post subject:

No that's not what I'm saying. Early christians weren't generally anymore literate than anyone else and initially there were few, if any professional scribes about. Early greek manuscripts were also written withoutspacesorpunctuation like that. Many accidental errors crept in, and many other "corrections" were made by well meaning scribes. The reason the orthodox christians made many changes they did (when they made them intentionally) was often to do what they thought of as clarifying passages they felt they knew the meaning of but other sects interpreted differently. For example, in the oldest texts of the new testament scholars have there are NO explicit references to Jesus being divine. Nor with the exception of one rather cryptic passage is there any discussion of the holy trinity. You can see where wording was changed in many places to support Jesus's divinity (many early sects did not believe he was divine). In passages where mary and joseph were originally referred to as his "parents" the wording has been changed. Now it's Jesus's mother and joseph.

There are so many different variations of the new testement that there are literally more of them than there are actual words in the entirety of the new testament. Biblical scholars of textual analysis do a pretty good job puzzling together a semblence of what may have been originally written.

One of the reasons these studies exist to begin with was that when all these variations were first discovered the catholic church siezed the opportunity to rub in the the protestants faces that their belief in the word of god (IE the scriptures as the inviolate word of god) was unpracticeable if no one knew what the words were and that the only way to maintain true belief was through the apostolic traditions of catholocism.

I think the protestants response to that was rather brilliant. So brilliant, that as I said earlier their techniques are even used in taxonomy.
_________________
"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid" ~ SGT John Stryker from "Sands of Iwo Jima".

Dusty · Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 650

theres no way im retaining any of that at 5:30 in the morning.

MsFrisby · Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:45 pm Post subject:

WheelsOfConfusion · Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 11639 Location: Unknown Kaddath

E-boy · Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 4:14 pm Post subject:

Good call wheels. The story about "Let he who is free of sin cast the first stone" with Jesus and the pharisees (SP?) Isn't in any of the older new testament manuscripts. It's thought it was a remnant verbal tradition that was later included (either accientally or intentionally) by scribes. The evidence supports a possible case of it being a mistake as one of the first manuscripts the story appears in has it written as a note in the margin. A later scribe might possibly have viewed this as an error or note.

One of my favorite quotes from "Misquoting Jesus" is a note written by a scribe who'd found a passage an earlier scribe had "Corrected". I can't remember the exact wording now, but he left a note to the effect of "Thy scoundrel, thy knave! DO NOT CHANGE THE WORDS!" So not all scribes were so liberal in tinkering. This, of course, was in a much later era in which professional scribes were employed.
_________________
"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid" ~ SGT John Stryker from "Sands of Iwo Jima".