There has actually been surprisingly little editing mostly because there are thousands of very old NT manuscripts, with copies of most of the NT dating from just 100 years or so after its writing.
There are scribe errors and even some editing, but the sheer number of ancient examples is enough to reach consensus.
There are known to be other gospels and epistles that were in circulation in the second and third centuries, and the oldest surviving manuscript of the Gospel of Thomas is roughly contemporaneous with the oldest surviving of the canonical gospels. So why is the Gospel of Luke more authoritative than the Gospel of Thomas? The short answer is those who the modern Christian churches choose to believe are authoritative found one more in agreement with it than the other (note that this does not pass judgement on whether or not that belief is historically accurate).
"Just 100 years after its writing"
... Because a verbal recollection about a controversial topic is so trustworthy and surely haven't been 'edited'. Remember how many 'facts' there are about Holocaust deniers? And this is happening with actual evidence to the contrary around.
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.
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?
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.
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 , possibly many differing versions of the same books. And there were many early sects 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.
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.
The marcionites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism#Marcionite_canon) for one had different versions Luke and the pauline epistles.
> 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.
It makes perfect sense, early schisms had much more genetic material to draw there variations from and no centralized authorities. Are there any sects today as diverse as the Ebionites and Marcionites?
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.
I'm not aware of any scholars who believe that the Gospels are just differing branches--the results of various edits.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#Comparison_with...
You've pointed out one case where some scholars believe some information wasn't included. However, Mark is right there along side it with that information. Nothing was lost. It certainly wasn't the result of various edits over the centuries.
Also the supposition on Matthew's motives is just that, supposition. If he were synthesizing multiple texts and other oral sources, he likely wouldn't reproduce them all in their entirety.
And why are you citing wikipedia as a source?
Excuse me, I guess you haven't noticed that the author of earlier comments with whom you exchanged opinions is not the one who wrote the comment you answered here.
Let me try to explain you why I gave that Wikipedia quote here. I've read your statement:
"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."
Now if you read my quote, it points to the text in Wikipedia that notes that "the majority opinion among scholars is" "that Matthew and Luke both used [Mark's Gospel] and the "sayings gospel"" "as their basic sources."
I don't claim that "everybody" believes that, I don't claim that Wikipedia itself is a proof, or always right. The quote I've selected, however, matches the information I have, and that is that majority of scholars believe that the basis for both Matthew's and Luke's is Mark's and "the sayings." I've never considered Wikipedia as a "proof" but only as a pointer for something that is written in the real books and articles about the topic.
I've just read your claim "independently wrote" and "potentially including earlier sources" and recognized that your claim doesn't match what I understand is the majority opinion opinion of the Gospel scholars (not "potentially" but that the basic source is Mark's), which you maybe haven't been aware of, and you could be interested to know about. So I've quoted the first entry that I stumbled to, not knowing how detailed Wikipedia is. And it is actually more detailed, this entry, for example, is the whole only about what is again claimed to be a "preferred by an overwhelming majority of critically trained New Testament scholars" as an answer to the so-called "synoptic problem":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis
"The Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke were based on the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical sayings collection from the Christian oral tradition called Q." It's surely not a proof by itself for anything but it links to more primary sources and also to the other opinions, which are claimed to be a minority ones.
The Gospels and most of the rest of the New Testament most likely existed in the form we have them today by the end of the first century. The collection as a whole was most likely standardized by the middle of the second century.
Then we got a collection of different people arguing mostly from what they just read on wikipedia.
The problem is that you and the other 2 people commenting don't seem to understand that I'm not saying that many Biblical scholars don't believe that Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q as sources. I'm arguing that most Biblical scholars believe they were written by 1 person each using Mark and Q, and other oral traditions as a source. As opposed to each being the end result of multiple edits made over the centuries.
>I've just read your claim "independently wrote"
I think you're mistaking my meaning of independently wrote. I mean that they were created independently of each other, by separate authors. I do not mean they are lacking any dependencies.
>"potentially including earlier sources"
I said potentially because no Biblical scholars are very certain of any of their hypotheses. Biblical criticism is not a science and most New Testament scholar would tell you that they believe that the 2 source hypothesis merely the most likely.
Most computer scientists believe that P != NP, but if I told you that "potentially P!=NP", you wouldn't take that to mean that I believe most computer scientists believe it does.
As to whether Matthew and Luke were based on Mark and Q, the current most accepted theory is that they were. However as I said before Biblical scholarship is an art not a science. The 2 source theory is currently fashionable, but there are many reasonable arguments against the 2 source theory and many scholars that do not agree with it.
However, again majority of these other scholars and the other theories that you refer to still claim that the synoptic gospels aren't "independently" written, that is, that they weren't written only on "oral traditions." The scholars are aware that arguing only "oral tradition" implies even more "edits" and "inventions" over the time between the events happened and were written, that is, that they'd have to assume that a direct "intervention from God" prevented "the Chinese whispers" effect that would ensue. And that the scholars can't believe because if it were so until the point the texts were written the first time, it would have continued to be even more so afterwards and they know it isn't so.
That's why I've entered the discussion, because I'm really not aware of scholars that would even use your choice of words. You can of course say that you personally don't even have to believe what any of scholars claim, and I wouldn't have reacted were it obvious for me that your argument is based purely on your faith, as in you having a "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction" rather than using a scientific approach. Again, I'm not aware of scholars that openly argue only from their "spiritual position" who are even accepted as being scholars from the rest of them. Because if "God made it intentionally so with all these errors and inconsistencies" all their efforts are in vain, and there's no point to even discuss.
There are actually mainstream Biblical scholars who propose that all 4 gospels were written mostly independently of each other based mainly on oral tradition.
The argument is that Jewish society at the time transmitted information primarily orally, oral tradition was regarded as more accurate than written sources. The argument goes that they were very practiced in transmitting stories without changes and had been doing so for generations. The gospels were all written within living memory of Christ's life. We're not talking about hundreds of years.
There are also Biblical scholars who believe that Luke was based on eyewitness accounts through interviews both written and oral. These Biblical scholars usually are usually also Christian, but in their academic works aren't arguing from a "spiritual position".
My personal opinion, based on reading many sources on this topic, is that it's likely that Luke combined early written accounts from Mark and other sources with witness interviews to produce his gospel.
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught."
Not really. Christianity is defined by the teachings of Christ "as we know them".
If Christ existed, but had e.g. completely different teachings, then it would be irrelevant to know them (as pertaining to Christianity).
(It would be interesting to know them, of course, but it wouldn't be the "real Christianity". Christianity is defined by its history: the scripts it was based upon, and what the churches calling themselves christian did.).
That's because Christianity caught on and was adopted for the specific message we know. Not just because some Christ person spoke those things, but for their content (as we know it).
It's just like if someone comes and says "the real KFC recipe by the kernel is actually with marmalade and fish-oil". Even if that's true, what KFC is to people is what they've known to eat for all those decades, not merely a generic placeholder than can hold any value as long as it proves to be more historically accurate than the previous.
So the "teaching of Jesus as we know them" is a human construct only remotely rooted in what the actual Jesus might have thought or said, and therefore has nothing special (magical) compared to, say, Buddhism.
I agree with most of your argument, and it's pretty similar to what I wrote. But:
> Not really. Christianity is defined by the teachings of Christ "as we know them".
How do you define "as we know them?"
It seems to me that you're supposing that there's some "overall message" to Christianity that exists within the modern population of Christians. I don't agree with this, and I see no coherent way to discover what that message would be. But if you want to define a religion in this way, you have to take on that task.
I think that Christianity should be defined by "what is practiced as Christianity today," within each community that sees itself as Christian. Therefore, my argument goes, there isn't a single coherent "Christendom." Instead, there exists a highly fragmented population of Christians, across which practices and beliefs significantly differ. My argument is that none of these Christian communities is any more correct than the others.
I think that's a pretty mainstream interpretation of modern Christianity. I don't think I'm really reaching here.
No, I just mean "as we know them" as books -- the words in series. Not their interpretations.
The various churches and demoninations, yes, they are about the teachings of Christ as they "know them" (that is, they include their historically developed interpretation on top).
It is not. Scripture defines the teachings of Christ.
> Not only is there the issue of discovering what's been lost in translation, but also the existing texts have been heavily edited over the centuries. Entire books could have conceivably been lost. Forgeries could have been adopted.
This gets into an area called textual criticism. I'm half-asleep right now so hopefully what follows will make sense...
1. Consider for a moment that the Bible is the most validated work of antiquity that humanity possesses[1]. The thing is, if you can look at the evidence and yet say "we don't know" then you (in order to be consistent) have to admit that you basically "don't know" about anything that you don't have exact photocopies of the originals.
2. If you understand the Christian claims surrounding scripture (and here, importantly is preservation) then you must understand that that doubt you have doesn't exist within our beliefs.
3. Based on what I understand, the Bible was essentially transmitted through time using something that instantly brought to mind the idea of bittorrent. We actually know when and where changes were made and we have gotten back to the original text in all but a handful of instances. And in the instances where there is a textual variant—it doesn't change any of the doctrines or core tenants of the faith. There are thousands of copies of the Old and New Testaments that have been preserved. Some of these copies were done under the threat of death (persecution). Scribal errors can be found because we have so many.
BTW this stands in stark contrast with a book like the Quran which doesn't have sort of historical manuscript tradition. There were likely changes to the Quran by Uthman but we don't know what they were because they were destroyed... so keep that in mind.
> Even if you disregard all that, is there really an objectively correct way to read Christian (or any) scripture? I'd say no.
Sure there is. Jesus makes claims you either have to accept or reject. There is a very clear line.
This is the main point; they do not. The manuscripts at best describe the teachings of different sects of early christianity invoking the authority of christ for validation. That's why they contradict so much and that is why there are so many. Even an actual "original" manuscript cannot change that.
For most notable events in history we have much more evidence than just text. Caesars writings may not have the same scrutiny but we've got coins with his face on them from around Europe. Christianity had little impact on the world for the first couple of centuries.
Not only is there the issue of discovering what's been lost in translation, but also the existing texts have been heavily edited over the centuries. Entire books could have conceivably been lost. Forgeries could have been adopted. Even if you disregard all that, is there really an objectively correct way to read Christian (or any) scripture? I'd say no.
My view is that religions are like languages. What defines a language is what is widely spoken and widely understood within some community. It doesn't matter whether a word has been recorded in a dictionary. It can be said to be part of the language if it is used and understood.
By the same token, I would define religions as they are practiced, not based on some interpretation of what has survived from the texts. Based on that view, there isn't (and never has been) a monolithic Christian religion. Instead there are many fragmented communities that have varying rituals/practices. Some of these practices are quite widespread (mainstream) and some are not.
I understand the desire to base our understanding of religions on the texts. But I can't see any coherent way to do it.