Replies

You are mixing apples and oranges. Conservative scholarship has been able to defend the position that ALL of the New Testament texts were written in the first century. So we are not subject to writers recollections after lots of time had transpired.

It is true that Luke was probably not an eye witness, but he states that he interviewed lots of eye witnesses in order to produce an accurate account. He served as a reporter. The rest of the Gospel writers were there.

So any infusion of inaccuracy would be in the transmission of the original autographs. The question at hand is whether we have reliable text. "Textual criticism" is the body of scholarship which deals with this problem.

Textual critics fall in both camps. There are those that argue that we do not have reliable texts as well as those who contend that the texts are reliable.

There are enough early manuscripts around to result in two major schools of thought within the Church. There are those who support the use of Byzantine texts, which are more numerous, from the area of modern Turkey. The other, more modern school, wants to use older manuscripts from Alexandria.

Recent New Testament translators have leaned toward the use of the Alexandrian texts. However, there are NO MAJOR DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES SUPPORTED BETWEEN THE TWO SETS OF MANUSCRIPTS. So we are talking about nits and nuances.

It should also be pointed out that there is a large body of manuscripts from the early church fathers. They quoted the manuscripts which later were adopted as the New Testament so frequently that most of the entire text of the New Testament can be reconstructed simply be resorting to these quotations.

"...You are mixing apples and oranges..."

I do not believe so. Human beings created the texts being unearthed. Those Human beings were subject to the same foibles as people are today.

"...Conservative scholarship has been able to defend the position that ALL of the New Testament texts were written in the first century. So we are not subject to writers recollections after lots of time had transpired..."

First century covers 100 years. If I wrote today of events that happened to me when I was just 25 years old, my account would ALREADY be 29 years after the fact. So, I ask you, do YOU trust YOUR OWN MEMORY to be perfect after say, 20 or 30 years? I know that I do not.

"...It is true that Luke was probably not an eye witness, but he states that he interviewed lots of eye witnesses in order to produce an accurate account. He served as a reporter. The rest of the Gospel writers were there..."

Your use of the work "probably" means that there is already uncertainty in your mind whether Luke was or was not an eye witness. Others may not share this uncertainty. Taking my earlier example of Civil War artifacts, we can see actual newspaper accounts of various battles. You will find the same battles reported upon with fairly divergent facts. Even today, first hand reports of news accounts are often blatantly incorrect. Reference "Ferguson" and "Shot in the Back".

"...So any infusion of inaccuracy would be in the transmission of the original autographs ... there are NO MAJOR DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES SUPPORTED BETWEEN THE TWO SETS OF MANUSCRIPTS. So we are talking about nits and nuances..."

So then I would expect a smoothly homogeneous Christian faith. That is not what is observable. Those calling themselves "Christian" have sacred texts that are indeed quite different, with different language translations, with different gospel texts either included or omitted. There are fierce doctrinal arguments between various sects as to what is "Cannon", and what beliefs are essential to the faith.

I do not say these things to be insulting, I am merely observing that which is true of all faiths. There are differing sects of Judaism, Hinduism, Islam (or whatever the correct term is for that).

These differences arise from MAN'S interpretation of texts taken to be sacred. They are further evidence that the process of recording, copying, interpreting and repeating is rife with the flaws of the humans involved.