(October 22, 2012 at 12:17 pm)John V Wrote:yes, but who made sure they were themselves accurate?(October 21, 2012 at 7:00 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Anyway, who's to say that the original witnesses would prevent the spread of some extra features on their favorite boy? I mean, how many could have been the original witnesses? 100? 200? How many of these would have been traveling to keep an eye on what other people were saying about the real events?I suppose that's why the gospels were written.
No peer review in that process, as far as I see it.
(October 22, 2012 at 12:17 pm)John V Wrote:Quote:As it says on the OP, texts had to be sent to particular places so they could read them in their assemblies. Who made sure these texts were accurate? No one, or, at most, one person at each location for a small time... and how could he tell people things didn't happen exactly like they were written?If the texts were being embellished in various locations, we would expect to see divergences in manuscripts across time and across locations. We don't. The changes we see are normal changes resulting from translation and evolution of language and have no effect on any significant doctrine.
According to what I read, the texts seem to have been embellished at one point (Paul?) and sent out to the world, hence the (somewhat) consistency among them.... all inspired (I can't say this with a straight face, sorry!) by some ghost to the same man.
