Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!sun-barr!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: wcsa@iwsgw.att.com (Willard Smith) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Corruption in Christianity (was Re: How Message-ID: Date: 19 Feb 91 05:51:41 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Indian Hill West - Naperville, IL Lines: 81 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , EFL0@ns.cc.lehigh.edu (Ed Lamb) writes: | If the Bible were just another book, I would agree that it would have |to be contaminated by the world by now. But if we see that it is the |Word of God, why would He allow it to be corrupted? The Bible is God's |relevation of himself to man -- he knew we would mess it up I suppose that the "corruption" (?) of the Bible would be a theme that would generate more heat among advocates of Bible inerrancy. If indeed the Bible was corrupted then the possibility of deriving exactly one and only one accurate theological structure from the Bible would be extremely reduced. I am curious though, after reading a discussion on the various attempts to recapture the original New Testament Text via the "received text" or the "neutral text," which text is assumed by the inerrants to be the "inerrant text?" The evidence of ancient "corrections" and additions in the text by early scribes appears to be irrefutable. For a few examples, compare the English Revised Version (or American Standard Version) which are based on the "neutral text" with the Authorized Version (KJV) which is based on the "received text": Mark 1:2 AV: As it is written in the prophets, ERV: Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, The later manuscripts (received text) "corrected" an error; the quotation being introduced actually is a combination of Malachi and Isaiah. In other words, the AV represents the "corrupted" text. Acts 8:37 AV: And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The "neutral text" omits the above verse. Some ancient scribe had inserted into the account of the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch this dialogue which probably reflected the baptismal practice of the church of his own day. I John 5: 7,8 AV: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one. ERV: For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one. An ancient scribe, in the West, added a reference to the Trinity which is not found in the early texts. I John 4:19 AV: We love him because he first loved us. ERV: We love, because he first loved us. The omission of the pronoun makes a considerable difference to the teaching in this passage. The above passages and their analysis is taken from the second appendix of _The New Testament; An Introduction_ by Norman Perrin and Dennis Duling, Published by Harcourt, Brace, and Jovanovich. Perrin and Duling also state: "Since the work of Westcott and Hort it has been shown that their Neutral Text, although ancient, had in fact been subjected to considerable editing. It could not be, therefore, as near to the original as Westcott and Hort claimed. Today, thanks to renewed study of the text represented by the various groups of manuscripts, to extensive investigation of the texts represented by the ancient versions, and above all to the discovery of the papyrus codices, WE KNOW THAT THERE WAS A PERIOD OF SUCH SIGNIFICANT DISTRUBANCE OF THE TEXT IN THE EARLIEST TIMES THAT IT MAY WELL BE THAT THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WILL LIE FOREVER BEYOND OUR GRASP. [Emphasis Mine] But we are constantly making new discoveries and textual critics are constantly refining their tools, and the various revisions of the Greek New Testament text published by the Bible societies do represent better and better texts." (p. 454) While they do end on an upbeat, nevertheless, the evidence clearly points to a "corrupted" New Testament text, otherwise there would be no need to try to recreate the "original text." -- Willard C. Smith att!cbnewsc!iwsgw!wcsa wcsa@iwsgw.att.com "It's life, Captain, but not as we know it."