Forgetting Jesus Freak Bullshit, Let's Stick To History:

[robvalue]

Waiting for aractus to show up and call you a cunt.

I think it's competitive historian jargon.

C.u.n.t = Can't understand New Testament.

It's a way of saying someone isn't a True Historian™.

[RoadRunner79]

This is actually the first time I have heard of Samosata, and I haven't found, that he is normally brought up, when discussing early testaments concerning Jesus. But none the less, I think you are missing the point of bringing up a hostile witness. It isn't that they agree with the persons case (as then they would not be a hostile witness). They are brought into question, because even though they are hostile, they do confirm particular evidence in regards to what is being said. In this instance and others, it confirms that Christianity was known at this point in time. This goes against the mythers, and those claiming legend.

As to your quotes from Origen. The first thing that I did, was to try to search for the context. It appears that this is from Origen's commentary on Matthew, and has not been translated into English at this time. I found some commentary which hinted that it may be concerned with old testament scriptures, but nothing which directly addressed the work. With out context, it is difficult to understand exactly what he was referring to, and what are great differences. Is it great in number, or great in quality of the differences? I had seen one difference, in which a verse was changed from "father and mother" to "Joseph and Jesus's mother". This was to combat the heresy of adoptionism. Origen may very well have been appalled by any difference.

Further on your comment on the contradiction of Origen's statements. One can say that there are a great number of differences or alterations in the manuscripts, and that they are reliable or that they are virtually unchanged. You see this all the time from textual critics such as Bruce Metzger and Dan Wallace. It's all about the context and what is meant by the statement.

Even Bart Erhman says that we can reliably reconstruct the texts of the New Testament .

Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament. - Bart Erhman - Misquoting Jesus

And when a reader asked for clarification, Erhman sent the following email response

I do not think that the "corruption" of Scripture means that scribes changed everything in the text, or even most things. The original texts certainly spoke at great length about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. The issues involved in the corruption of the text usually entail nuances of interpretation. These are important nuances; but most of the New Testament can be reconstructed by scholars with reasonable certainty -- as much certainty as we can reconstruct *any* book of the ancient world. - Bart Erhman

It is my understanding, that textual critics can trace many of the variants, sometimes even to a particular scribe and some scribes where better than others. We can see when they appeared in time, and follow them as errors may have been copied by others. Sometimes there where corrections, and sometimes even insertions or deletions. But with a great multitude of manuscripts spread out of a large geographical area, and with early translations, it seems that most scholars agree, that the text of the bible is reliable and conveys the authors intentions.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You can PM your guess.  If correct, I'd give you a rep point but I've already done so.

PM sent. I'll settle for a kudos.

Boru

[Lemonvariable72]

I wonna read more on this

[Minimalist]

PM an email address.  I'll send you the epub version.

[Minimalist]

Celsus' comment is preceded by:

Even in the New Testament itself we see evidence of a still bigger problem. Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians repeatedly warns Christians to beware of letters forged in Paul’s name (2 Thes. 2:2, 3:17) – ironically, most scholars agree that this letter is itself a forgery! This is a bind for believers in an inerrant New Testament: because either this letter is a forgery, or it is authentic and Paul really is warning us that forgers are out there – but either way, it’s inescapable: people were forging letters in Paul’s name.16

 

It gets worse: the majority of Bible scholars are convinced that half the letters of Paul – as well as the epistles of James, Peter, John and Jude – are just such forgeries. Many apologists try to mitigate this uncomfortable fact by claiming that writing scripture under a more famous false name was a common and accepted practice. Though it was certainly common, it was hardly accepted. On the contrary, Bart Ehrman notes: “People in the ancient world did not appreciate forgeries any more than people do today. There are numerous discussions of forgery in ancient Greek and Latin sources. In virtually every case the practice is denounced as deceitful and ill-spirited, sometimes even in documents that are themselves forged.”17

 

Tertullian reports that a church tribunal convicted a presbyter (a church elder) from Asia Minor for forging fictional miracle stories about Paul. He confessed to committing the crime “out of love for Paul,” but the court was unimpressed and found him guilty. They reprimanded the presbyter and removed him from office.18 But unfortunately, in many if not most cases, forgers were able to get away with it. The criteria for determining forged scripture in the 2nd and 3rd centuries too often boiled down to whether you agreed with what it had to say!

 

There is abundant evidence that tampering with texts occurred again and again throughout the early Christian world – not least because the Christians themselves complained about it so often. The author of Revelation is so concerned about his work being tinkered with, he threatens divine wrath upon anyone who dares alter his book (22: 18-19). The second-century Bishop Dionysius of Corinth fumed about not only his letters, but even scripture being deliberately altered:  “When my fellow-Christians invited me to write letters to them I did so. These the devil’s apostles have filled with tares (weeds),  taking away some things and adding others…Small wonder then if some have dared tamper even with the word of the Lord himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts.”

Ehrman of course has written an entire book on the rampant forgeries in xtian "scriptures" so he has that burden to overcome.




 

 

 

 

[Wyrd of Gawd]

It's safe to conclude that the invisible celestial deity had nothing to do with any of it.

[Minimalist]

Quetzlcoatl may kick your ass for your lack of faith!

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Quetzlcoatl may kick your ass for your lack of faith!

That would make a great Halloween costume.

[Lemonvariable72]

PM an email address.  I'll send you the epub version.

Tomorrow