I wish I had these editing skills hahaha it’s taking me sooooo long to post videos because I’m so bad at editing 🤣😩 great video though I liked it I’m making a video on this topic as well :)
@grumpylibrarian
4 ай бұрын
1. Quality of message: * You are assuming that what is written in the new testament is accurate, and therefore privileged. It is not established that these stories are accurate to any level of detail, and it does not follow that stories being true are immune to corruption. * You assert that these events "were witnessed by people." You do carefully avoid asserting that these writings themselves are eyewitness testimonies, so kudos for that, but claiming that eyewitnesses could have corrected these if in error is absurd. Paul's writings are earliest, have virtually no historical detail,. and he was already in conflict with followers of Apollos, Cephas, and those who claimed to follow "Christ" but not through Paul's teachings. (1 Corinthians 1:11--12) Paul complained to the Galatians that some were trying to "pervert" the gospel of Christ. (Galatians 1:6--7) The first gospel, Mark, was written no earlier than 70ce, 35-40 years after Jesus was crucified, and the last gospel John was written no earlier than 100ce, so most people present at these events were simply dead. These works were all in Greek, a language not spoken by the common people in Judea, and written and circulated well outside of where they lived. The literacy rate for their OWN languages of Hebrew or Aramaic were roughly 5%, with public education not coming into the picture until after 65ce. And for all you or I know, there were people furious about what was written, and did... what, exactly? Complain to the manager? We don't even know who wrote the gospels! Who are they gonna sue? 2. Quality of Transmission: * You now go to "the bible" instead of focusing on the new testament with the claim of "written not spoken," but that probably hurts rather than helps your case. Even at face value of the claims within the text, we have historical compilations such as Chronicles and Kings that were written up to HUNDREDS of years after the events they describe, because the works span up to hundreds of years of content. Judaism was a heavily oral tradition, with a Talmud at least on par with the written documents if not above them based on purely oral traditions until after the destruction of the second temple in 70ce. * Even in the new testament, the gospels as mentioned above are 35-65+ years after the events described, and *best case* they were gleaned from oral traditions, worst case polemics invented by the authors. We have in Papias circa 95ce a third story of the death of Judas that doesn't align with either Matthew or Acts, signifying a cottage industry of inventing and elaborating details of these early stories. * Your story of copies of copies being compared to the predecessor document and the original document are pure speculation. Even if somebody somewhere did this, we have no reason to expect this was routine, let alone a standard. Copies were made to generally be *moved* elsewhere; a wealthy benefactor would send a scribe to a library or other wealthy benefactor to copy a document and come back home with it, largely making comparing more than one iteration back entirely impractical. * "The bible has over 99% agreement across manuscripts" is an erroneous claim with a root of not vetting your sources. The original and true claim comes from Dr. Bruce Metzger, who was describing the textual criticism that results in iterations of Novum Testamentum Graece, the critical edition of the Greek new testament, which is compiled from the oldest and "most authoritative" (based on criteria, but some subjectivity here) to determine which variant available from the manuscripts is most likely (again subjective) to be the original text. Of the 200,000 lines in the new testament, we have _consensus_ on all but 40 lines on which was original, or 99.8% consensus among textual critics that we've chosen the closest match to the original. But we don't know if we even HAVE the original variant available in existing manuscripts, and we don't know if we've actually chosen it if it is present... all this measures is consensus. Dr. Metzger was also the person who said that we have more variations in the new testament than we have WORDS in the new testament. * We don't have as encompassing a paper trail of variations in the old testament, but we can extrapolate from the Great Isaiah Scroll at the Dead Sea scrolls, estimated to have been produced maybe 200-300bce. It being written in Jewish Square Script means it's extremely unlikely to predate the Mishnah period that started 516bce. It has over 2600 variations from the masoretic texts we use today, that are circa 10th century ce. The lesser Isaiah scroll was much closer to the masoretic, and it's dated to likely first century ce. We have no reason to believe that other early works of Judaism weren't similarly updated over time. ... to be continued ...
@grumpylibrarian
4 ай бұрын
PART 2 3. Quality of motive: * "It was believed by copiers to be the word of god." And that does seem reflected in the edits we do see: mostly stuff added, rarely things changed, almost never things removed. People indeed seemed uncomfortable changing something they thought was divinely inspired, but they were less inhibited on adding details and entire sections to fit their views. The differences in Isaiah are mostly large sections of words added to the text. We see the ending of Mark (16:9--20) and the story of the woman taken in adultry (John 7:53--8:11) added much later, The Johannine comma (1 John 5:7--8) was added as late as the 15th century, and wasn't in the first two editions of the Textus Receptus, the work from which the KJV was translated. We see words added here and there especially within the gospels, such as repeating Mark 9:48 into Mark 9:44 and 9:46 or adding "in me" to the first clause of Mark 9:42. * In the new testament, these works weren't regarded as "scripture" at first; these were letters or biographies, and free game for manipulation. We see 1 Timothy 5:18 quote wording specific to Luke by referring to it as "scripture," but this is just one of many, many reasons we know this was a non-Pauline late work, possibly as late as 140ce and written specifically as a polemic against Marcion. We have decades in which changes would have been unchecked and long before our earliest manuscripts, of which we have a fragment or two from the late 2nd century at the earliest. * The assertion that any changes would be matched against other copies? Well, we have evidence of that... that works against your claims. We have heavy edits on early manuscripts showing changes over time; they WERE comparing documents, but they were ADDING changes to the other documents, not removing them. Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, one of the four "Great uncial codices" that are primary sources for the Novum Testamentum Graece, is notable for having tracable and historically differentiated "correctors" with at least three identified. Early manuscripts of John 11 are all heavily edited in a way that suggests that Martha might not have been original to the story, and was later added as Mary's sister. * "Major errancy requires conspiracy": pure speculation, not borne out of the evidence. Changes that are small and subtle are enough to introduce or clarify a theology or polemic. For the most part, they just need to say it somewhere. Look at how the synoptics make minor adjustments to each other, and John is a polemic against many of the claims of the synoptics. We still have Mark! It doesn't need to get tossed, just contradicted elsewhere. * If your hilarious strawmen archaeologists are altering and burying texts to be rediscovered, why would they need textual critics to cover up anything? [4?] Analogies to trust of other works: * We don't accept everything Heroditus writes at face value! We critically analyze it for what is likely true and what is likely not, and accept that we will have false positives and false negatives. Some copypasta: ----- Kenton L. Sparks writes, "In antiquity, Herodotus had acquired the reputation of being unreliable, biased, parsimonious in his praise of heroes, and mendacious". The historian Duris of Samos called Herodotus a "myth-monger". (Marincola, John (2001). Greek Historians. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, page 59.) Cicero (On the Laws I.5) said that his works were full of legends or "fables". (Roberts, Jennifer T. (2011). Herodotus: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, page 2.) The controversy was also commented on by Aristotle, Flavius Josephus and Plutarch. (Sparks, Kenton L. (1998). Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel: Prolegomena to the study of ethnic sentiments and their expression in the Hebrew Bible. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, page 58.) (Asheri, David; Lloyd, Alan; Corcella, Aldo (2007). A Commentary on Herodotus, Books 1-4. Oxford University Press.) The Alexandrian grammarian Harpocration wrote a whole book on "the lies of Herodotus". (Cameron, Alan (2004). Greek Mythography in the Roman World. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, page 156.) ----- * Plato is writing argumentation, not history. We accept or reject his arguments on their merits, not their source. We can't confirm if -Aristotle- Socrates (correction per @hansdemos6510) existed or was an invention by Plato, but that doesn't matter, just what is attributed to him. * The Odyssey is an epic poem, not history. I don't know anyone who thinks there's anything in there to trust. * You have no way to measure how "accurate" the bible is, nor a clear indication of what you mean by that. I happen to thoroughly enjoy most of the content of the bible. If you aren't trying to run your life by it or decipher hidden messages from it, it has great stories. It's fascinating as insight on how religions develop and change over time. I take issue with the accuracy of the transmission where we have good reason to question it, not because I don't like what it says. For example, the woman taken in adultery is a heart-warming story that can be appreciated by many people over the ages. It has everything you'd want in a short story: an admirable protagonist, a relatable victim, hubris of the antagonists, and a witty comeuppance in the end. But it's not an original story, no matter how much I like it.
@hansdemos6510
4 ай бұрын
@@grumpylibrarian Great job! One minor criticism though... I think you meant Socrates where you said Aristotle in _"We can't confirm if Aristotle existed or was an invention by Plato, ..."_
@grumpylibrarian
4 ай бұрын
@@hansdemos6510 You are correct, and my bad for trusting my memory on that one. I get in trouble when I do that. I have edited it to reflect your correction. Thanks!
@hansdemos6510
Ай бұрын
@@grumpylibrarian You're welcome!
@hansdemos6510
4 ай бұрын
Strawman alert! Leaving aside the fact that we already know that there are scribal errors, redactions, additions etc. in the Bible that have been passed on in writing, even though on the whole it is indeed pretty remarkably, though by no means perfectly, preserved, it is not the *_"copying"_* of the Bible that is alleged to be like the "Telephone Game", but rather the oral development of the stories *_before_* they were canonized. If you photocopy a fairytale, does that make the fairytale true? Of course not. Faithfully (in more than one sense) copying a text does not make the contents of that text true. If the faithful copying of the Bible over the ages is a reason for you to believe its contents is true, then you are simply making an error.
Пікірлер: 10