h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I found another - well a few, actually:

Luke 19:30-35.

Pikey gang leader sends a couple of his thugs to steal a horse, and if the owners object, the thugs are to say "the boss NEEDS it". So they do.

Seriously. Sounds like a scene from "The Godfather", doesn't it?

SoRB

It's the oldest protection racket.

Hi Gif

Thank you for your condolences, much appreciated.

We're off the topic of " favourite Bible verses " but perhaps the others following this entry may find this diversion interesting. I do agree with most of your succinct analysis. But there is one startling omission that most pro- Alexandrian scholars fail to consider: that of the Bibles placed in the newly-dedicated church at Byzantium c. 330 A.D. by Constantine following his decision to institute the Christian faith as the state religion of the Roman Empire.

Historical records show that these Bibles were scribed by Byzantine scholars and they may have even pre-dated the Alexandrian versions; but, if not, they certainly co-existed. Regrettably, these dedicated Byzantine Text Bibles have been lost -- perhaps after Byzantium fell to the Turks in the later Middle Ages.

The fact that the subsequent Byzantine Text Bibles available to us today (dating from the 5th C. A.D.) do show the questionable gospel portions, suggests that the earlier Byzantine Bibles no longer extant, may have contained them also. Again, this is just speculation but something that should cause sincere scholars/enquirers to consider.

The claim that the " early church fathers " never related these two sections of Scripture is not conclusive. There were a lot of scribes, teachers and theologians in the first four centuries -- none of whom (to my knowledge) wrote an exhaustive Bible commentary that still survives. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

After so long a controversy, we may never know the truth. But regardless, it seems that the content of Mark 16:9f and John 8:1-11 do indeed, qualify for inclusion within the Canon of Scripture since the directives and moral lessons align very well with Christ's teachings found elsewhere.



Rick

I'm a fan of "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." John 8:7

Hi Bright Blue Shorts,

Yes, that's the very verse RC and I are discussing! I'm saying that it's not technically part of the Bible at all, as it's a later addition.

Hi RC,

Yes, it's very likely that the original from which the Byzantine texts were copied contained the Pericope Adulterae. But taken in conjunction with the generally inferior nature of the Byzantine texts, textual scholars are pretty much unanimous that it was not originally part of John. Even Metzger - not generally regarded as a 'revisionist liberal' - regarded this as virtually certain and undisputed among his colleagues.

As to your point that it should be part of the Bible anyway - I agree

Gif

"Alas, the true manuscript source grouping is not provable; that due to the original autographs having disappeared."

What, the author turned up to sign a few copies? That should be worth seeing at Waterstones! (Cue long snaking queue up the stairs, to where a pillar of flame waits behind a table stacked with copies of the Bible.A cherubim or two with flaming swords provides security, and on the other side are nervous Waterstones staff with fire extinguishers. Satisfied customers are leaving with things like "You'd better believe it! God." and "I know what you do on a Tuesday night when your husband thinks you're at Weightwatchers. Stop it. Now. Love God" written in the flysheets...)

I'm a fan of "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." John 8:7

At which point a slightly built lady in blue dashed forwards and got the ball rolling with the first brick. Jesus crossed his arms and scowled as, first stone having been cast, everyone else joined in.

"MOTHER!!!!" he said, in exasperation, "That wasn't the point and you knew it!"

Bart Ehrman tells that same joke in his lectures. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cK3Ry_icJo&feature=related

He prefixes it with a spiel about how there's a variant reading in some versions of the text at this point...

Gif

Hi Gif

Scholars are far from unanimous on the point of textual accuracy i.e. Alexandrian vs. Byzantine. Actually, if you are following up-to-date commentary, the pro-Byzantine camp is growing.

I give you your point of view, Gif but it is not so cut and dried as you make out. The fact that more than 90% of the surviving codices are " Byzantine " presupposes a far greater level of discrepancy, especially those found in the Armenian and Georgian churches. They evidently had very sloppy scribes.

Rick

Hi Rick,

>if you are following up-to-date commentary, the pro-Byzantine camp is growing.

Any evidence for this? I'd got exactly the opposite impression.

Or an explanation for what line of reasoning they are following? There will, of course, always be people who insists that the KJV is God's inerrant word, but I don't know of any reasoning to support that.

Gif

See, for instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrian_text-type#Evaluations_of_text-types

Gif

Hi Gif

I will list some links for you to look at (you may have viewed some of them already). I'll get back to you later after I find the best ones.

RC

"To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice"

Proverbs 21:3

<< I'm saying that it's not technically part of the Bible at all, as it's a later addition.>>


Even if so, that doesn't necessarily mean it can't be part of the Bible.

I can go along with that. The message of the story should be part of any ethical code.

Gif

It's a brilliant message.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Exodus 20:4

I don't like this one.

Hi Gif

I contacted a noted British theologian and historian who writes for the Banner of Truth (Edinburgh), requesting the websites that he felt best advanced the Byzantine textual position. I had considered a few myself but wanted an expert's viewpoint.

Surprisingly, he replied that he long ago quit the debate and suggested that I do the same. He deems that the argument is a stalemate. There is no clear victor; the Majority Text supporters hold to consistency while the Alexandrian supporters anchor on manuscript age. Neither camp can ultimately prove the superiority of their preferred manuscript source over the other-- and that is due to the absence of the original autographs.

He stated further that every major doctrine of the Christian faith is supported by both textual camps and that any reader of the Bible may discover saving faith through the grace of God whether he chooses the KJV, the NIV or some other eclectic text derived from either manuscript source.

There are some manuscripts that have their originations in other so-called " schools " which are clearly corruptions of the truth, though even among them e.g. the New World Translation, there is enough truth to direct a soul to Jesus Christ.


Rick

>corruptions of the truth<