by Simon 76 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
One wonders if the many denominations that existed then, as now, had to do with the simple fact that there were many "bibles" in circulation.
Certainly interpretation played(plays) the key role in the differences in many denominations, nevertheless, one wonders if Denomination A believed they were the "right one" because they had verison 1.2 and Denomination B had version 1.4, or that Denomination C was correct because they had version 1.7 and the other version were "obsolete".
This particular codex is placed around 350. The Canon was not really decided on by a council until the close of that century. Some flux before that point could be expected. And really, the inclusions that do not exist in the canon today, such as the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas, are not radical. The author of the article went out of his way to cast the Bible in a negative light (and as a rival to the currently accepted Bible which shows a lack of understanding) and to attack what many Christians believe regarding the book. That is not honest reporting. One wonders how he would have commented on an old manuscript of the Quran.
BTS
The problem is ... the oldest bible shows that it's been changed significantly so all the claims about it being gods word are clearly bogus. Of course, the fundies will still claim that it is, that gods word has never changed and that the changes are just a test of their faith anyway.
Don't confuse 'em with the facts!
PSacramento,
I think I agree with the essence of your comment, but perhaps you are (unconsciously?) applying an anachronistic "Protestant" pattern to the ancient church. There was probably no concept of "denominations" back then, nor were the differences only a matter of text interpretation (à la "sola scriptura"). There was a certain amount of local diversity within the "catholic" (universal) church, and a number of "heresies" outside; this was related to textual diversity but to many other things as well (liturgy, sacramental practice, and so on). The idea of "the book" being the only source of belief and community couldn't really emerge before the invention of the printing press (the next technological shift followed by an ideological one after the codex).
Narkissos,
You make a valid point,I used the term "denominations" for lack of a better word and the pint of the printing press is a very good one too.
Still, when I hear the arguments of today and how "we have the REAL bible" and such, I can't help but wonder if this wasn't also the case in ancient times.
If we take a look at the concil of Nicea we see people trying to interpret things to answer questions and, typiclaly, going beyond what is plainly stated in the Bible (aprroved scriptures of the time).Just human nature I guess.
Even now if we look at the majority of Christian denominations, they have more in common than differences.
Which more Christian would see that.
During the reighn of the first christian ceacar Consantine, they gatherred all the bisschops at the consile of Nicea, and there they decided what historic books would end up in the bible as we now know it.....
There are many more books written by apostals and old historical figures who worshipped God, that simply did not get in to the bible because it contridicted with the way they wanted the people to believe...
I have read some of those books and believe me, you get surprised
As one French textual criticism scholar once put it: the manuscripts, with all their variant readings, are the facts; the "original" is a hypothesis.
A classic statment! Thanks for sharing
From the article:
Many Christians have long accepted that, while the Bible is the authoritative word of God, it is not inerrant. Human hands always make mistakes.
While my Xian self pretty much thought this by mid-article, I can't help but also think about how many JWs feel this way about the WTS/GB.
I think people believe, see, and reason what they want to regarding the bible. Some will be 'disturbed' others will simply dismiss this version as proof that God cause the 'correct' version to be massed produced to the world.
I think one of the main interests of publishing such ancient mss and codices is to help the general public realise that there has always been a lot of "Bibles," all different from one another not only in the exact wording but also in the books they included or excluded, the order of the books, titles, annotations and so on -- all of which contributed to make every one different and unique.
Narkissos whose job do you see it as being "to help the general public realise" this, and to what purpose? Churches, scholars, the state? And who gave them the authority, and what means should they be allowed to employ to disseminate this "knowledge"? Does the state now have an interest in convincing the general public that manuscript evidence shows the textual history of the Bible is complicated? I find it such a weird notion that the state should get involved in this debate at all.
I am all in favour of publishing documents, but not "to help the public to realise" any particular view. If documents are published for a particular reason then I think we need to know who is behind it, their credentials, and what interest they have in the view being promoted getting accepted.
(sbf) - Just a thought off the top of my head about what popped into my mind re: "who should publish what and for what reason";
Prescription medicines are given to people to assist with, control, save from pain symptoms of some medical condition. Whenever problems with medications being described arise, it is in the best interest of the public to be alerted to it.
For 1-2 thousand years, the core of Jewish/Christian thought has been that human beings suffer from a condition which can only be escaped from by following the words of the Bible. People need to be "saved' and the Bible is part of the prescribed medicine for being saved.
If there exist facts about the Bible that are not common knowledge, that could improve upon the public's ability to make a careful/educated choice on the medication they are being given for their problems in this life and improve their 'after-this-life' life; I would think that just about anyone having the knowledge (and the evidence to back up claims), would be entitled to reveal such knowledge in order to 'let the public know' or 'help the public realize'
