Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!duke!mcnc!bch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes )
From: bch@unc.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Paul's words not only his alone? Partial-Retraction!
Message-ID: <6336@unc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 30-Nov-83 00:25:39 EST
Article-I.D.: unc.6336
Posted: Wed Nov 30 00:25:39 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 1-Dec-83 04:24:46 EST
References: <301@ihuxj.UUCP>
Organization: University of North Carolina Comp. Center
Lines: 51

I am glad you brought up the subject of Josh McDowell.  His works are
rather remarkable, but do not deal with the central issue which was
brought up in my last submission.

That we can apply standard techniques to parts of the New Testament
does not mean that we can successfully apply them to all of it.  The
Bible was not written as a single document at a single time, and the
individuals which brought it into codified Canon between the 2nd and
4th centuries A.D. had definite points of view to advance.  If we
look at the political situation of the church, there was a main body
of Apostolic Bishops, claiming legitimacy from the original Apostles
plus Paul.  Outside this body, there were a large number of smaller
sects, some claiming different sources of legitimacy (one claimed
Mary Magdelene as having heard the truth from Jesus, for example)
and claiming a whole series of different documents in their tradition.

The Apostolics succeeded in having the Gnostics, Valentinians, etc.
branded as heretics, and their traditional writings and scriptures
excised from church canon *before* the New Testament as we know it
was completely codified.

We know, as well, that even portions of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew,
Mark, Luke, John) have come down to us in a form altered from the
original.  Many of the alterations are small "errors" by scribes, but
at least one of the important large alterations is the section in
Mark (the oldest of the synoptic Gospels and one of the source works
for both Matthew and Luke) which describes the resurrection.  This was
presumably added at a later date.  The alterations described took
place, again, *before* the text was adopted into canon.

McDowell places great stock in the number of "original" document
fragments still extant in his proof of the veracity of the New Testa-
ment.  Let me state (again, for long-time readers of net.religion)
that the number of copies of a given document does not, by itself,
give proof to its veracity.  We need to look at how, and why, the
documents in question were collected together, what was *not* included
in the collection and make inference from there.
As an aside to people who think any topic is boring or inappropriate
in net.religion (or net.anything else for that matter.)  Use your 'n'
key.  This newsgroup is precisely for this kind of discussion and to
inform and enlighten those people on the net who are interested in
the issue of the Bible as History.  If you are afraid, or not interested
in seeing your beliefs challenged (this applies to people on both sides
of the debate) then perhaps you would be well-advised to unsubscribe
to this newsgroup.  There is certainly no purpose in trying to quash
legitimate debate.
--

					Byron Howes
					UNC - Chapel Hill
					decvax!duke!mcnc!unc!bch