'Corruption' of the earliest New Testament texts by the orthodox Church.

it's just me said:

He claimed that several versions of Christianity existed in the first century, I pointed out that those heresies had been exposed and discarded even before the Nicene council, to wit he replied that history had been written by the winners, as if that made it wrong.

Click to expand...

it's just me said:

He claimed that several versions of Christianity existed in the first century, I pointed out that those heresies had been exposed and discarded even before the Nicene council, to wit he replied that history had been written by the winners, as if that made it wrong.

Click to expand...

COTO said:

Ah.

Well, good on you for setting him straight, then.

Click to expand...

Elvira said:

I disagree...when one considers there are 66 books, written by 40 something different men, over a period of 1,600 years, and yet those writings are in full harmony with one another, and focus on one theme throughout their writings...God's kingdom...it most certainly is a valid reason to use the Bible to support the Bible...no other book can make those claims...for good reason...the writings are inspired by God...

Click to expand...

it's just me said:

He (that would be me - Somerville) claimed that several versions of Christianity existed in the first century, I pointed out that those heresies had been exposed and discarded even before the Nicene council, to wit he replied that history had been written by the winners, as if that made it wrong.

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

"those writings are in full harmony with one another" Nope. The twists and turns of the believers as they try to reconcile obvious contradictions and non-factual historical statements have been called out for the past three centuries. For much of the history of Christianity, those who objected to the doctrines of the faith were often slaughtered or exiled.

Though Constantine was the first emperor to claim Christianity, he did, for the most part, tolerate the old religions with some exceptions: he ordered the execution of the priests of Attis who had undergone castration and did allow the destruction of some pagan temples. It was the emperor Theodosius (381–395 CE) who banned all pagan worship with the death penalty for many and the confiscation of properties of others. For some reason, the early Christians seem to have ignored that whole "turn one's cheek" directive.

Using the Bible to support the Bible is circular reasoning that refuses to accept contradictions and falsehoods.

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

I think I noted that there were multiple versions of Christianity, not just in the 1st century but for several centuries afterwards. Do you know of the Cathars who were prevalent in southern France and northern Italy during the 12th to 14th centuries until they were massacred at the direction of the Papacy and the Holy Roman Emperor? Sorry, but the heresies had not been exposed and discarded prior to the Nicene council and in fact, many survived for several centuries afterwards.

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

What we don't know today, because the winners destroyed the evidence that would tell us, is why there were so many early splits in the beliefs of the earliest followers.

Click to expand...

IF Paul was preaching the story of the Christ within just a few years of the resurrection, why were those who said he didn't know what he was talking about able to convince people that they were the ones who knew the TRUE Christ?

Click to expand...

Paul himself wrote: But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son to me,[e] so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus.

Click to expand...

Three years passed from the 'experience' to Paul's first meeting with the leaders in Jerusalem - Why? We don't know. But three years in a time of turmoil in the Empire and Judea was a ripe environment for a group of non-literate preachers to wander around telling others what they 'remembered' about their time with Jesus.

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

Three years passed from the 'experience' to Paul's first meeting with the leaders in Jerusalem - Why? We don't know.

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

That "core message" is THE reason the text has been changed - "corrupted"

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

Good grief, you apparently can't even comprehend an evangelical's attempted defence of one serious contradiction in one epistle. "one is forced to reconcile and harmonize their interpretation" instead of looking at the passages and saying "Whoa! Doesn't this look like an interpolation in order to defend changes in church leadership as the faith grew?" Ya know, kinda the point of this thread.

My "attacks" are meant to spur a bit of thinking on the part of those who read what I and others have posted here. 'Thinking' seems to be something that some find to be a bit difficult.

Using the Bible to support the Bible is not the way forward.

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

Looks like you are totally 'missing the point'. "Corruption of the text" can and does have many reasons. Reasons ranging from simple scribal errors to deliberate interpolations and revisions to support the "orthodox" view and to remove support for the various "heretical" beliefs. We simply don't know all of the time because we DON'T HAVE THE ORIGINALS, As Ehrman has said, we have copies of copies of copies of copies for an unknown number of transmissions.

Yes, one can find 'support' for the theological views one holds by going to other verses, but that is exactly the point being made about 'corruption' and the differences and contradictions which are throughout the text - Why are there differences in what is supposed to be an inerrant writing?

Why did Paul use Genesis 2 to support the subordination of women to men? Is the call for the submission of women original or are these passages interpolations How much of that requirement for submission was societal and not scriptural? What's wrong with Genesis 1, other than the fact it's not the same Creation tale?

NRSV Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.​

KJV And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.​

Click to expand...

The Earliest New Testament Manuscripts


The 2013 series is called "The Integrity of the New Testament" and deals with textual criticism. Can the New Testament be trusted? Has it been corrupted through time? Can we know what God has said? It should be obvious how important this topic is. This is especially so given the climate of society today and its attitudes toward the Bible. We wish this series to help everyone understand the process of the Bible's history as a document and why we can have confidence in its message. Near the end of the year we are planning to publish these twelve articles in book form (Kindle, Nook and old fashioned print and ink).


What about Variances in the Early Texts?
As we know it today, there are around 138,000 words in the Greek New Testament. There are literally hundreds of thousands of variants where there is not uniformity of wording. On average, for every word in the Greek New Testament, there are almost three variants. The large number is due to the large number of manuscripts. Are these differences capable in changing the meaning of the intent of the original authors? No. An overwhelming majority of alterations are accidental and trivial.


Despite undergoing all the processes of time, the fact that the Biblical manuscripts have been preserved in the way they have should strengthen our faith. The ancient inspired writings are not alone - no text coming from the ancient world has the originals. It should humble us when we see how Scripture has been handed down through the generations. Many scribes spent countless hours copying and checking their work to ensure an accurate text for the generations that would come after them. Theirs was often a behind-the-scenes endeavor that garnered little attention. But, there is little doubt they understood the significance of the Word of God. Instead of having our faith shaken, we should be strengthened when we consider that Modern Greek texts are very close to the original.

Click to expand...

tosca1 said:

But the core message has not changed! Not at all! That's the point!

Click to expand...

tosca1 said:

Here's a long read, explaining about it:


The Earliest New Testament Manuscripts

Click to expand...

Papyrus 52 (P52), which contains a small fragment of John’s gospel, (18.31-33, 37-38) is considered to be the earliest copy of New Testament text. Discovered in 1934 by C. H. Roberts, it is believed to have been copied no later than 150 AD but no earlier than 100 AD. “Nothing is unreasonable about assigning a date of 100-125 for P52. If John’s gospel was written in the 70’s or 80’s, we have a fragment 20-25 years removed from the autograph” (Comfort & Barret, 2001). Newly discovered fragments from Egypt have been recently found, one of which may date to the first century. The oldest piece contains verses from Mark’s gospel. The others, dating into the second century have portions of Luke’s gospel and letters from Paul. One fragment contains a sermon from Hebrews 11. The contents of these fragments are still being examined and subjected to dating methods. Scholars hope to publish their findings by late 2013 or early 2014 (Wallace, 2012).

Click to expand...

UPDATE 1 (23 May 2018): Peter Gurry has accessed the edition and confirmed that this fragment has been dated to the “(later) second or (earlier) third century.” Either there are two early Mark fragments (highly unlikely), or the “First-Century Mark” is not first-century, after all.

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

You and millions of others do not KNOW that the "core message has not been changed", you Believe that there has been no change but you don't KNOW as we do not have the original texts and we do not KNOW when the canonical books were written. Those who actually study the first three centuries of the faith, using their training in the original language(s) don't always agree, the consensus on the dating of the texts has a range of almost 100 years. As I have pointed out, the oldest extant fragments often have significant differences from what we generally can read today. The most recent translations do provide footnotes for many of the controversial translations.

The group which created the King James Version used a poor translation in creating the Bible that many English speakers see as the only "inerrant" text. The Greek manuscript which was used as the primary source for the KJV translation was created by Desiderius Erasmus and was printed in 1515. Erasmus used 11th and 12th-century manuscripts in producing the editio princeps of the Greek New Testament. Since that initial printing, many earlier texts have been discovered primarily in Egypt but also in other Middle Eastern countries and various monasteries.

English scholar John Mill spent 30 years in the late 17th, early 18th centuries creating a new edition of the Greek language New Testament using some one hundred Greek manuscripts. When his version of the New Testament was published with his analysis of the text, there was just a bit of upset in the congregations. Mr Mill found more than 30,000 variations in the language of the New Testament.

Since the 18th century even more early manuscripts have come to light, providing even more variations in the text.

Click to expand...

A few New Testament textual critics, such as Bart D. Ehrman, who have frequent access to the national media, assert or imply that the New Testament has undergone such a degree of prejudicial corruption that its message and theology is shaky and biased. No one can be sure of its original doctrines, such as the deity of Christ.

However, many world-class textual critics disagree with him if not directly, then indirectly. So this article has the second goal of providing web readers with information that balances out
hyper-skepticism employed by some scholars.


Three main facts give these reasonable textual critics their confidence.

First, we have a vast number of manuscripts. How is this an advantage? “The plethora of New Testament manuscripts is a great benefit when trying to determine the original reading of the New Testament, for it is easier to sift through and evaluate the various extant [existing and known] readings than to emend [correct] texts with no evidence” (Wegner, A Student’s Guide, p. 41)

Second, the New Testament has many, many more manuscripts backing it up than do classical texts, such as those written by Herodotus, Thucydides, Julius Caesar, Tacitus, and Livy. Moreover, the interval of time between the originals and the earliest copies is much shorter for the New Testament than for those classical texts, often by hundreds, even a thousand years.

The textual critics draw the right conclusion from this second fact: if scholars accept the classical texts as accurate, then why not accept the New Testament as accurate?


Third, the scribal variants do not overturn any doctrine. Where one word or clause in a verse may be scrutinized to determine the best reading among many variants, the entire sweep of the New Testament assures us that these doctrines stand on bedrock.

More...….

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

and the evangelical page concludes with "In the end, we simply need to fall back on faith. " Nevermind actual research and data.

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

You and millions of others do not KNOW that the "core message has not been changed", you Believe that there has been no change but you don't KNOW as we do not have the original texts and we do not KNOW when the canonical books were written. Those who actually study the first three centuries of the faith, using their training in the original language(s) don't always agree, the consensus on the dating of the texts has a range of almost 100 years. As I have pointed out, the oldest extant fragments often have significant differences from what we generally can read today. The most recent translations do provide footnotes for many of the controversial translations.

The group which created the King James Version used a poor translation in creating the Bible that many English speakers see as the only "inerrant" text. The Greek manuscript which was used as the primary source for the KJV translation was created by Desiderius Erasmus and was printed in 1515. Erasmus used 11th and 12th-century manuscripts in producing the editio princeps of the Greek New Testament. Since that initial printing, many earlier texts have been discovered primarily in Egypt but also in other Middle Eastern countries and various monasteries.

English scholar John Mill spent 30 years in the late 17th, early 18th centuries creating a new edition of the Greek language New Testament using some one hundred Greek manuscripts. When his version of the New Testament was published with his analysis of the text, there was just a bit of upset in the congregations. Mr Mill found more than 30,000 variations in the language of the New Testament.

Since the 18th century even more early manuscripts have come to light, providing even more variations in the text.

Click to expand...

tosca1 said:

Lol! Watch this video, especially timer: 7:20-8:50

Click to expand...

Elvira said:

...the early Christians existed long before he did...

Click to expand...

Rich2018 said:

So what ?

Many early Christians violently disagreed with each other.

Constantine wanted uniformity. He didn't really care what it was so long as it was uniform. Beliefs were accepted not because of how old they were but how popular they were.

You should care what he did...much of what Constantine did shaped what you believe today, what many Christians believe today.

Click to expand...

By the end of the second century there was no question but that the canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures was closed, and we find such ones as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian recognizing the writings comprising the Christian Scriptures as carrying authority equal to that of the Hebrew Scriptures. Irenaeus in appealing to the Scriptures makes no fewer than 200 quotations from Paul’s letters. Clement says he will answer his opponents by “the Scriptures which we believe are valid from their omnipotent authority,” that is, “by the law and the prophets, and besides by the blessed Gospel.”​—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II, p. 409, “The Stromata, or Miscellanies.”

Ken Berding, an associate professor whose field of study is the Christian Greek Scriptures, gives this comment about how the canon emerged: “The church did not establish a canon of its choosing; it is more proper to speak of the church recognizing the books that Christians had always considered to be an authoritative Word from God.”

Click to expand...

Elvira said:

Wrong...he had nothing to do with my beliefs...his doctrines of the trinity, hellfire, and the immortal soul are all false...

Click to expand...

Rich2018 said:

Sorry it's right

They weren't his doctrines anyway.

The very Bible you read was determined (and edited) by councils that assembled at his command.



I agree that what is in the Bible is false - old and new testament.

Click to expand...

Justin Martyr (died c. 165 C.E.) in his “Dialogue With Trypho, a Jew” (XLIX), used the expression “it is written” when quoting from Matthew, in the same way the Gospels themselves do when referring to the Hebrew Scriptures. The same is also true in an earlier anonymous work, “The Epistle of Barnabas” (IV). Justin Martyr in “The First Apology” (LXVI, LXVII) calls the “memoirs of the apostles” “Gospels.”​—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, pp. 220, 139, 185, 186.

Theophilus of Antioch (2nd century C.E.) declared: “Concerning the righteousness which the law enjoined, confirmatory utterances are found both with the prophets and in the Gospels, because they all spoke inspired by one Spirit of God.” Theophilus then uses such expressions as ‘says the Gospel’ (quoting Mt 5:28, 32, 44, 46; 6:3) and “the divine word gives us instructions” (quoting 1Ti 2:2 and Ro 13:7, 8).​—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1962, Vol. II, pp. 114, 115, “Theophilus to Autolycus” (XII, XIII).

Click to expand...

Elvira said:

No, it was not...the canon was already established by the 2nd century, long before Constantine came on the scene...you don't know your history...

Click to expand...

Rich2018 said:

I know history more than you do and what was "canon" in the early Christian church - and I accept that you are not a Christian - was determined by early councils. In many cases by simple majority vote right up to and including the nature of Jesus' divinity. ie: he was/is a god...a god from god...the god is diuvisible.

Early councils also decided what books to include in your Bible (specifically your New Testament).



There are so many gospels that aren't included which you have never heard of because they spread a confusing and conflicting message.

Click to expand...

Elvira said:

Wrong again...a Christian is one who follows Jesus' teachings, which I do...you can't seem to get any facts straight tonight...

Click to expand...