neologist wrote:BDV wrote:5th century!!! that says it all
Obviously, you have not noted the fact that the catalogues are basically the same from 2nd to 5th century. Added to that is the fact that over 5000 manuscripts in the original Greek, some mere fragments, to be sure, but others extensive, are all in essential agreement. When compared to the mere handful of manuscripts available for ascertaining the writings of most classical authors, there is a vast library indeed.
This is false for two reasons--the first is that there are not only simply fragments from as early as the 2nd century, there aren't even very many fragments; of those fragments, more than half are from texts which were rejected by Origen, and therefore subsequently by Pamphilus and Eusebius.
The second thing which is false here is the impression you seek to create by claiming that " . . . [the fragments] are all in essential agreement." Not only is there the problem that what does survive is interpreted in a manner to make texts appear to be in agreement when they in fact differ--but the most crucial part of this is that you are, even if unwittingly, confusing cause and effect. It is not a matter of the text having happened to be "in essential agreement," it was a matter that even before Nicaea, church scholars had determined upon creating a "majority text." All modern versions of "the gospels" derive from this 'majority text," even those in use by the Protestants, whose post-Reformation translations were based on the
textus receptus (the received, or "bequeathed" text), which itself was derived from the majority text.
The texts almost all are "in essential agreement," because a canonical text was decided upon in the late 3rd century, and early 4th century, and most texts which were not part of the majority text were discarded.
I suggest you study the majority text, or Byzantine text-type, also known as the traditional, Ecclesiastical, Constantinopolitan, or Syrian text. The modern translations subsequent to 1520 were based either upon this text version, or upon the
textus receptus, which was based upon the majority text.
Essentially, you're attempting to claim scriptural reliability because of the internal consistency of sources, while ignoring that there was a policy within the church beginning more than 1700 years ago to assure that all texts in use were internally consistent. The reason that all Christians before the JW's believed that your boy Jesus is divine is not because there was always universal agreement on the subject, but because the Arians, the Eusebians and those Nestorians who did not believe the boy was divine were exterminated or have died out.
Until the rise of Islam, there was never an organized religion in history which moved as quickly to determine upon and enforce orthodoxy than was the case with Christianity.
