Wednesday, June 1, 2016
Answers to Grace and Frank Turek
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Answers to Grace and Frank Turek · somewhere else : Was Lack of Autographs a Major Problem to Bart Ehrman?
Same video as previous. Quoting description:
At SMU Dr. Frank Turek was asked, “How do we account for the errors of the scribes in the New Testament since these documents were handed down from one person to the next and what if these errors are not simple and interfere with the teachings of the scriptures.
In answer to description:
The question in itself is a great argument for the Church for keeping Latin. In 800, when Latin pronunciation was changed so French and Provençals no longer understood it, there was no standard French, no standard Provençal etc. That's when Latin became an artificial, learned only, language. About 500 years later French and Provençal were in shapes that one could use for translations - but the Church kept Latin from conservatism, and even then there was so much variation from one end of a country to another that a translation correct in one place would have been erroneous if read elsewhere, just like a Danish translation might be misleading for a Swede who had learned no Danish.
So, for accurate transmission of Bible text, we are actually dependent on the Church having used for so long nearly exclusively in some places, chiefly elsewhere, liturgic languages that stayed the same.
0:42 "we don't think we have any original documents, they are all copies"
This dates only from Iconoclasm. Originals were honoured as very precious relics in Constantinople, of the Four Gospels, and thus they were attacked by the iconoclastic emperors' persecution of icons and relics. Lost, either destroyed or hidden.
1:36 You did the very bad thing of siding with iconoclasts. Originals of Gospels SHOULD be venerated.
Original two tablets of ten commandments were venerated by being placed in the Ark for millennia of the OT period of the Church (Ok, about a millennium from Moses to Jeremiah, who hid the Ark).
1:43 If I had an original and venerated it, I would not alter it.
Your point of each having a copy is however a good one.
1:50 Point equal for preserved originals if some stupid had tried to alter them.
Plus, a manuscript, try to alter text, you have to efface old text first, and there are experts in palimpsest readings who can now restore it, but even before the change would have left visible traces.
So, no, God was not dumb in letting Church preserve originals visibly up to Iconoclasm.
2:00 THOUGH not preserving originals after c. 800, not BY not preserving them.
The good point of many copies still stood back then, when originals were still available and venerated.
5:17 Metzger and Ehrman are a bit contradicted by Watchtower sect.
You know the verses or verse variant relevant to Holy Trinity where Codex Sinaiticus differs from Textus Receptus (of any ecclesiastic tradition).
I would however there argue, the Church knew which version to copy, while Codex Sinaiticus may have been a fake by Arians, and that is why it was laid aside. After Arianism had lost.
Actually, the question can only be secondary. If Christianity is true, such an error about Holy Trinity (or supposed such) cannot get support by a fake verse becoming Textus Receptus. God will preserve His Word's words.
If Christianity were false, we would be able to tell from many more important issues than a doubt about the text.
Now, I think St John regularly paraphrased Jesus whenever he said "Jesus said to the Jews, woe to ye, for ..."
In synoptics we would see "Jesus said, woe to ye, Pharisees and Sadducees" or whatever specific group of Jewish people Jesus was adressing.
St John is, after AD 70, using "Jews" - but not letting Jesus use "Jews", except before Pilate, as a synonym for Christ's enemies.
6:38 - you mean the prevalent culture in Jewish community of discipleship back then involved highly developed memory.
"Back then" vs "now" is not relevant. Hindoos memorising Mahabharata verses are probably even more impressive than the disciples of Our Lord.
But then, Our Lord gave shorter taxations on their memories than the cantos of Mahabharata.
It does matter if we can get "verbatim" what kind of exception if any Christ envisaged for indissolubility of marriage, or whether "Peter" and "rock" mean same thing or different things (Greek has different words, Aramaic same one, Kipha). And we can.
Also, the guys can have carried tablets of wax and taken notes while He spoke. Verse 1 of a speech written down by Peter, up to full stop or colon, verse 2 by Andrew, verse 3 by James, verse 4 by John. And so on.
Afterwards, Peter, Andrew, James, John and the other eight read the talk over and over again, until all are fluent in whatever the others noted as well.
And then, clean the wax tablets and be ready to use them for next speech.