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