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.

> 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?

>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.

> 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 , 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.

>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.

> 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.

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?

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

"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...

Some scholars believe that Matthew and Luke were dependent on earlier sources. This proves that the Gospels were "edited over the centuries?"

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?

> You've pointed out one case

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.

This is entire thread is the result of someone saying that the New Testament is a result of being "heavily edited over the centuries". Many people believe that the Bible was translated many times through the centuries and thus edited many times. This is a myth, and what I was trying to refute.

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.

> 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.

>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."

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."