5 ms·

The OP was referring to editing over the centuries. Implying that there were many changes over time. The early sources show that this isn't the case. Yes, ther

by learc83 10y ago

The OP was referring to editing over the centuries. Implying that there were many changes over time. The early sources show that this isn't the case. Yes, there is no way to prove that something wasn't edited in the intervening century. However we do have many early sources. If there were large edits made during this time we would expect to see more variation in the early sources we do have.

flukus 10y ago
> If there were large edits made during this time we would expect to see more variation in the early sources we do have. This assumes there was no selection bias in what was preserved. If they agreed so well then how would you explain the huge variety in early christian sects?
- learc83 10y ago
  >This assumes there was no selection bias in what was preserved. Yes it is possible that alternative versions of the books of the New Testament existed, but were destroyed or not preserved. However, it is likely that if this were the case, we would have references to these alternate versions. We have many writings from early church leaders discussing canonical and heretical texts. These writings don't mention that there were heavily edited versions of the New Testament texts when discussing heretical texts. They do mention that there were additional texts that they considered heretical. >If they agreed so well then how would you explain the huge variety in early christian sects? There are hundreds of protestant sects today, yet nearly everyone uses identical copies of the Bible. There is plenty of room for variety from different interpretation of the same text. Various heresies arose and were condemned as heresies, but they were mostly based either on differing interpretations or a different view was to what texts they considered canonical. No early Christian heresy that I'm aware of depending on an alternative version of the books of the New Testament.
  - flukus 10y ago
    > There are hundreds of protestant sects today, yet nearly everyone uses identical copies of the Bible. Protestantism came about long after the bible, early christian sects didn't have a bible. There are many books that never got accepted as canon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Non-canonical_gospels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Non-canonical_gospels , possibly many differing versions of the same books. And there were many early sects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_in_early_Christian_theology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_in_early_Christian_t... . The further down you go the messier things get but there was more diversity in early christianity than modern christianity.
    - learc83 10y ago
      >Protestantism came about long after the bible, early christian sects didn't have a bible. You argued that the variation between sects was evidence of multiple versions of the New Testament texts. I offered the number and variation of protestant sects despite using the same text as a counterexample. >There are many books that never got accepted as canon: Yes that is true. There are many non canonical books. That was however, not the original argument. We have no arguments from early church leaders that heretical sects were using an alternate version of various books. We have many arguments that heretical sects were using different books entirely. That being said, the modern canon was decided very early on --probably by the latter half of the 2nd century, and the books there are very good arguments as to why certain books were omitted. >possibly many differing versions of the same books There is little evidence for this. Again we have plenty of evidence for competing books. Not much evidence for differing versions of the books that we have. > And there were many early sects Most of the sects mentioned on the wikipedia page were offshoots of the mainstream church that were quickly declared heretical. You can obviously argue that the winner writes history, but this argument does nothing to support the claim that the books we have today are heavily edited versions. >The further down you go the messier things get but there was more diversity in early christianity than modern christianity. This makes no sense. Obviously as you go back to the source there were fewer followers and thus fewer versions. Thousands of years of schisms produced much more variation, not less.
      - 10y ago
dragonwriter 10y ago
> If there were large edits made during this time we would expect to see more variation in the early sources we do have. Except that the sources we have for even just the Gospels (specifically, the synoptic Gospels) are evidence of large edits (and probably at least one non-preserved source), it's just that then surviving differing results of those edits have been traditionally ascribed as independent works of different authors.
- learc83 10y ago
  Most scholars agree that the gospels were independent works written by different authors. Many scholars believe that Mark was written first, and that Matthew and Luke both drew from Mark and a non-surviving source called Q. Almost everyone believes that John was an independent work. I'm not aware of any scholars who believe that the Gospels are just differing branches--the results of various edits.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Your description (despite using the phrase "independent works") is exactly the opposite of what "independent works" means, as it describes a specific chain of dependency.
    - learc83 10y ago
      I meant that Matthew and Luke were independently written by separate authors at different times--potentially including information from earlier source material--not the results of various edits of the sources over time. Also most scholars believe that they were all written during the first century, so the claim that there were "edits over the centuries" that I was initially refuting is incorrect.
      - acqq 10y ago
        "The majority opinion among scholars is that Mark was the earliest of the three (about 70 AD) and that Matthew and Luke both used this work and the "sayings gospel" known as Q as their basic sources. Luke has both expanded Mark and corrected his grammar and syntax—Mark wrote poor Greek. Some passages from Mark he has eliminated entirely, notably most of chapters 6 and 7, which he apparently felt reflected poorly on the disciples and painted Jesus too much like a magician. Despite this, he follows Mark's plot more faithfully than does Matthew.[40]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#Comparison_with_other_writings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#Comparison_with...

by learc83 10y ago

flukus 10y ago

> If there were large edits made during this time we would expect to see more variation in the early sources we do have. This assumes there was no selection bias in what was preserved. If they agreed so well then how would you explain the huge variety in early christian sects?

learc83 10y ago
>This assumes there was no selection bias in what was preserved. Yes it is possible that alternative versions of the books of the New Testament existed, but were destroyed or not preserved. However, it is likely that if this were the case, we would have references to these alternate versions. We have many writings from early church leaders discussing canonical and heretical texts. These writings don't mention that there were heavily edited versions of the New Testament texts when discussing heretical texts. They do mention that there were additional texts that they considered heretical. >If they agreed so well then how would you explain the huge variety in early christian sects? There are hundreds of protestant sects today, yet nearly everyone uses identical copies of the Bible. There is plenty of room for variety from different interpretation of the same text. Various heresies arose and were condemned as heresies, but they were mostly based either on differing interpretations or a different view was to what texts they considered canonical. No early Christian heresy that I'm aware of depending on an alternative version of the books of the New Testament.
- flukus 10y ago
  > There are hundreds of protestant sects today, yet nearly everyone uses identical copies of the Bible. Protestantism came about long after the bible, early christian sects didn't have a bible. There are many books that never got accepted as canon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Non-canonical_gospels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Non-canonical_gospels , possibly many differing versions of the same books. And there were many early sects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_in_early_Christian_theology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_in_early_Christian_t... . The further down you go the messier things get but there was more diversity in early christianity than modern christianity.
  - learc83 10y ago
    >Protestantism came about long after the bible, early christian sects didn't have a bible. You argued that the variation between sects was evidence of multiple versions of the New Testament texts. I offered the number and variation of protestant sects despite using the same text as a counterexample. >There are many books that never got accepted as canon: Yes that is true. There are many non canonical books. That was however, not the original argument. We have no arguments from early church leaders that heretical sects were using an alternate version of various books. We have many arguments that heretical sects were using different books entirely. That being said, the modern canon was decided very early on --probably by the latter half of the 2nd century, and the books there are very good arguments as to why certain books were omitted. >possibly many differing versions of the same books There is little evidence for this. Again we have plenty of evidence for competing books. Not much evidence for differing versions of the books that we have. > And there were many early sects Most of the sects mentioned on the wikipedia page were offshoots of the mainstream church that were quickly declared heretical. You can obviously argue that the winner writes history, but this argument does nothing to support the claim that the books we have today are heavily edited versions. >The further down you go the messier things get but there was more diversity in early christianity than modern christianity. This makes no sense. Obviously as you go back to the source there were fewer followers and thus fewer versions. Thousands of years of schisms produced much more variation, not less.
    - 10y ago

dragonwriter 10y ago

> If there were large edits made during this time we would expect to see more variation in the early sources we do have. Except that the sources we have for even just the Gospels (specifically, the synoptic Gospels) are evidence of large edits (and probably at least one non-preserved source), it's just that then surviving differing results of those edits have been traditionally ascribed as independent works of different authors.

learc83 10y ago
Most scholars agree that the gospels were independent works written by different authors. Many scholars believe that Mark was written first, and that Matthew and Luke both drew from Mark and a non-surviving source called Q. Almost everyone believes that John was an independent work. I'm not aware of any scholars who believe that the Gospels are just differing branches--the results of various edits.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Your description (despite using the phrase "independent works") is exactly the opposite of what "independent works" means, as it describes a specific chain of dependency.
  - learc83 10y ago
    I meant that Matthew and Luke were independently written by separate authors at different times--potentially including information from earlier source material--not the results of various edits of the sources over time. Also most scholars believe that they were all written during the first century, so the claim that there were "edits over the centuries" that I was initially refuting is incorrect.
    - acqq 10y ago
      "The majority opinion among scholars is that Mark was the earliest of the three (about 70 AD) and that Matthew and Luke both used this work and the "sayings gospel" known as Q as their basic sources. Luke has both expanded Mark and corrected his grammar and syntax—Mark wrote poor Greek. Some passages from Mark he has eliminated entirely, notably most of chapters 6 and 7, which he apparently felt reflected poorly on the disciples and painted Jesus too much like a magician. Despite this, he follows Mark's plot more faithfully than does Matthew.[40]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#Comparison_with_other_writings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#Comparison_with...