“I cite several well-kown [sic] biblical scholars. You just choose not to acknowledge them.”
I found where you cited a few sentences from Andrew Gregory at Oxford, I believe. You also quote him quoting Kim Haines-Eitzen. According to Cornell’s website, she “is Associate Professor of early Christianity and early Judaism and Chair for the Department of Near Eastern Studies. Her Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature (Oxford University Press, 2000) is a social history of the scribes who copied Christian texts during the second and third centuries. She is currently working on another book that deals with the intersection of gender, text transmission, and literacy in early Christianity.” I can’t wait to see what she says about gender affecting text transmission in the early church...
Those were mentioned on the thread I posted on NT documents (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2316798/posts).
I had quoted FF Bruce & Sir Frederic Kenyon, and posted a link to an entire book written by FF Bruce, and you said “Protestant Bible scholars, whether real or Wikipedia types (who porbably [sic] write Wiki article so they can use them as reference!) will continue to create biblical straw men and perpetuate their myths.” (reply 34)
I had started that thread after our discussion on this thread (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2310615/posts?page=317#317) - Twelve Differences Between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches
On that thread, you posted 3 pictures of papyri - single pages - and made it seem as tho that was the entire papyri “Here is Papyrus 46. very ‘complete’ indeed/s.”
In comparison, using Wikipedia to point out these papyri were much more extensive is a minor intellectual fault. Yes, I often use wiki - it is, as you have said, fast, and I’m already being criticized for spending way too much time researching and responding on these issues. If what I’ve posted from Wiki is wrong, point it out - but I’m not writing a scholarly paper. I have a daughter I’m home-schooling, 3 dogs, 3 horses, and will be protesting Rep Gabby Giffords (Rep, AZ-8) later today. I’m buying way too many books from Amazon.com and falling behind in reading them all.
Wiki was correct - the papyri were much more extensive than your set of pictures indicated.
However, while we often disagree, I’m enjoying all that I’ve learned both from you and in responding to you. These threads have forced me to think long and hard about what and why I believe, and driven me to find and read many fascinating articles - so keep on jumping in my chili where you think I’m wrong!
And I’ll feel free to do likewise...
;>)
Whether she has an agenda or not (who doesn't?) does not disqualify her credentials. After all, Origen was wrong on some things, but on many, most in fact, he was a brilliant orthodox theologian. You can't discredit someone's evidence based on their agenda. You can discredit how they use that evidence. I also mentioned Ehrman. You may have issues with him as well, but Ehrman is a rather respectable scholar. I should have used Robert M. Grant (U. of Chicago), a rather brilliant textual critic, however we are all on a clock and sometimes cut corners and sometimes are just plain lazy because we are not writing a doctoral dissertation.
At any rate, it is never just FF Bruce and kosta50.
As far as papyri are concerned, most papyri come as single sheets, or a portion of one, often if not usually damaged, or as several sheets, or quite often as shreds containing but a potion of a verse or two.
The pictures I used were certainly not representative of the codices and I clearly made a mistake.
However mistaken I was, your conclusion (that the early Church had for all practical purposes agreed on the canon) was equally mistaken because that agreement was basically on the titles of the books, not necessarily what was in them. Not only did these codices contain other books as part of their canon, but they were books that were later rejected as heretical or simply not inspired.
Even the NT books that everyone agreed on were not always doctrinally compatible with each other, or the ones ones used after the 4th century.
Considerable variation in the NT books continued in various parts of the Christendom as evidenced by the 5th century Codex Bezae, and as mentioned by Freeper Uncle Chip regarding versions of Luke 4:4 and countless other variants which indicate that the same-name NT books were also often doctrinally divergent and not identical, which sort of explains why heresies emerged and persisted.
Likewise, the case of Matthew 28:19 as mentioned by Eusebius is another strong indicator that variant NT books, with significant divergences in doctrine, existed and that their simple namesake agreement among various churches did not necessarily mean doctrinal agreement; the contents of the NT are hardly pristine or somehow protected by the HolySpirit from any corruption.
Doctrinally, even the current NT teaches subordination of the Son. This flies in the face of orthodox Trinitarian dogma, but it is so widespread that any attempt at removing such verses would decimate the NT! Being one with the Father and being equal to the Father are two different things, as evidenced by "Father is greater than I" (Jn 14:28). Most Chrsistological heresies came from the direct reading of the New Testament such as that one and, given variants, God only knows what else was in them! Current NT also has misquotes of the OT. As I commented to you, God doesn't misquote himself.
The Church teaches that the scriptures infallibly convey God's truth, not that they are free from any kind of corruption or that every word in it is God's own. Neither doctrine nor scriptures were in any way as we know them today. Catholic and Orthodox Church is a post-Nicene Church. They would like to think they are the same Church established in AD 33, but that would be difficult, if not impossible to prove. Apparently there was a faction of Christianity from the beginning that evolved and eventually won and became the "official" variant, claiming orthodox faith.
We all learn from each other. If we can stimulate each other to learn more, then it was all worth the effort (and aggravation sometimes). I learned that some of the papyri were actually extensive codices. That was rather eye-opening. While they point to the fact that early (end of 2nd century) Christians agreed on a lot of books (at least in name only), it turns out, the same codices also reinforced other evidence of a very doctrinally and canonically heterodox early Christianity. So, I thank you for making me aware of them and teaching me a valuable lesson with them.