Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!duke!unc!bch
From: bch@unc.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: General replies
Message-ID: <5424@unc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Jun-83 13:03:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: unc.5424
Posted: Wed Jun 22 13:03:13 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 23-Jun-83 22:06:53 EDT
References: unc.5423
Lines: 55

I have to concur with Tim Maroney about Larry Bickford's responses.
He may believe that the questions he raised have been dispensed with --
I certainly do not.

At one point he challenged anyone to "disprove the resurrection."
The challenge, I thought, was taken up (with qualification since it is
logically impossible to "disprove" anything) by calling into question
the source documents for the resurrection.  (While I hate to bring up
a question which may be old and tired to some of you, I feel a lack of
closure here.)  In Larry's latest epistle to the net he seems to feel
that the issue has somehow been settled.  Lest anyone think it is, let
me add more fuel to the argument.

Many people seem to believe that the New Testament of the Bible was
written down as a coherent set of documents by people apparently
directly inspired by God's word.  This is not quite the case.  The
original documents for each of the books are long lost, and what we
have to go on is a compendium of various versions and fragments of
versions of the New Testament books.

These source texts for what we now use as the New Testament are not
necessarily verifiable copies.  The copyists (1) made a fair number
of errors in reproduction and (2) often "adjusted" the text of the
works to "correct" discrepancies.  Even so, there are still large
dissimilarities between various versions of the same text and what
is formally accepted now is an historically selected "traditional"
version -- compiled from various documents according to the religious
beliefs at the time compilation and translation was made.

Of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke,) Mark is clearly the
oldest and least embellished.  It is considered to be the source
document for Matthew, Luke and probably John.  Interestingly enough,
Mark omits any discussion of the Nativity and the Virgin Birth (why?.)

Further, the oldest versions of Mark we know of end where Mary of
Magdala leaves the tomb after being told by person or persons unknown
that Jesus is not there because he has been raised.  It is only in
later correlative documents that Jesus himself appears (these also
vary in their description of the number of witnesses, the number of
people inside the tomb, etc.)  Again, why?

Note that I am not suggesting any alternate theory or that anyone
is lying.  I am pointing out that the oldest documents available
omit discussion of some of the most doctrinally crucial points of
Christianity.  It is not unreasonable that later copyists of these
versions would add and embellish on the original to fit their own
beliefs or to meet some standard of doctrinal purity of the time.
What we have been discussing in this group is as much a political
document as a reliable record of the events that transpired.  It needs
to be interpreted as such.

Again, I trust that Larry will respond to these points.

				Byron Howes
				UNC - Chapel Hill