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