Genealogy Of Jesus

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not the versions we have - the earliest extant versions have been dated as 200-300AD, so perhaps 200 years after Jesus' death.

And how have those changed since?

[ProfessorDavey]

And how have those changed since?

Irrelevant - the issue isn't to what extent the epistles have changed from the earliest extant fragments dating from about 200-300AD, but how they may have changed from the dates when they were first believed to be written until the point, some 200 years later when we actually have versions.

And given the huge variation between early extant versions of a range of new testament texts we may reasonably conclude that they changed an awful lot.

So as an example, and related specifically to the OP - I presume you are aware that one of the earliest versions of Luke (codex bezae) that includes the genealogy has a genealogy pretty well 100% different to the genealogy in other early versions. That isn't merely a mistake in copying or a minor error, but a clear and deliberate alteration in one version or the other.

Now we do not know for sure which version better represents earlier (but lost) version, nor whether either version of the genealogy even appeared in the original text of Luke.

[jeremyp]

I sorry - you cannot justify that claim.

Of course I can. We have plenty of manuscripts starting from about the fourth century and whilst they do have variations, they don't change so much over the ages that you can't recognise the text.

The first fragments including the genealogies are from the 3rdC - how do you know that earlier versions of the gospels even included these genealogies.

But this is irrelevant. Spud is not claiming that the contradictions in the genealogies arise from copyist errors. He is claiming that they are different genealogies.

You can make assumptions - fine - but those assumptions aren't evidence-based as there is no evidence that conclusively demonstrates the genealogies were present in the earliest gospels - for example within 100 years of their original writing.

As I said before, if we adopt your approach, no ancient document for which we do not have the autograph could be trusted. You have to make reasonable assumptions about the documents you have or you have got nothing. It's reasonable to assume that the genealogies were in the original gospels and it's not actually relevant to the present discussion exactly when they were written.

[jeremyp]

Assuming, of course, that Jesus Christ ever actually lived!

I have only ever had the BIble presented to me a proof that he did so and as I think that is one of the, if not the, most inaccurate history books ever written, and the last time I bothered looking the earliest proven written account of JC was written at least 100 years after his supposed death!

Owlswing

)O(

The Bible is not a book, it is a collection of documents. The gospels weren't intended as history, they were intended as propaganda. Most scholars believe the gospels to be written between 40 and 80 years after the death of Jesus. Paul's letters are believed to have been written 20 years after the death of Jesus. If nothing else, they do demonstrate the existence of a Christian church (or churches) prior to Paul getting involved. Somebody founded it so the only reasonable question is whether the gospels are based on the real founder of Christianity or a complete myth. I lean towards the former.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Irrelevant - the issue isn't to what extent the epistles have changed from the earliest extant fragments dating from about 200-300AD, but how they may have changed from the dates when they were first believed to be written until the point, some 200 years later when we actually have versions.

And given the huge variation between early extant versions of a range of new testament texts we may reasonably conclude that they changed an awful lot.

So as an example, and related specifically to the OP - I presume you are aware that one of the earliest versions of Luke (codex bezae) that includes the genealogy has a genealogy pretty well 100% different to the genealogy in other early versions. That isn't merely a mistake in copying or a minor error, but a clear and deliberate alteration in one version or the other.

Now we do not know for sure which version better represents  earlier (but lost) version, nor whether either version of the genealogy even appeared in the original text of Luke.

I think you need to justify what you mean by ''huge variation'' and ''changed an awful lot''. To give you a steer, are the differences doctrinal?, do they differ on the important facts?
For example does a difference in geneology constitute a major and critical doctrinal difference. I would say not.

As I understand it the codex bezae is most notable for it's differences with other copies to the point where it has long been recognised that it is not typical of the variations.

Of course it is important to know of variations subsequent to extant versions particularly if you are hoping to generate some rule of variation that applies to non extant material.

Also the tone of what you are saying seems to suggest that those copies dating from 200 years after are probably completely different to the source materials.

There is also, of course, at least implicit use of the NT material by the early church fathers.

[jeremyp]

I presume you are aware that one of the earliest versions of Luke (codex bezae) that includes the genealogy has a genealogy pretty well 100% different to the genealogy in other early versions.

This is a false statement.

That isn't merely a mistake in copying or a minor error, but a clear and deliberate alteration in one version or the other.

This is true.

The codex bezae actually replaces the section between Joseph and David with the equivalent section from Matthew and three names from the Septuagint. The names between David and Abraham are mainstream Luke.The names from Abraham to Adam are mainstream Luke with the omission of one name.

https://peterlorenz.me/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Lorenz-Lukan-Genealogy-of-Codex-Bezae-2018.pdf

It's clear that whoever wrote the codex was well aware of the contradiction between Matthew and Luke and tried to fix it.

Now we do not know for sure which version better represents earlier (but lost) version

Why not? It's not the earliest manuscript and we have a pretty good hypothesis as to why it is a variant. Nor is it a choice between this and one other manuscript. You're just being obtuse at this point.

nor whether either version of the genealogy even appeared in the original text of Luke.

This is frankly ridiculous. Are there any complete manuscripts that don't have the genealogy?

[ProfessorDavey]

This is a false statement.

It isn't a false statement - the codex bezae is one of the earliest extant versions of Luke that includes the genealogies. There are a number of earlier fragments, but few of those include Luke 3 within the portions that have survived.

Looking at the papyrus and codex details I think there are only three potentially earlier papyrus versions where the genealogies are intact and perhaps just two uncial codices.

So the codex bezae is likely in the top 6 (at worst) earliest versions of Luke where the genealogy is present.

My statement is true unless you consider being in the earliest six versions doesn't count as 'one of the earliest versions of Luke (codex bezae) that includes the genealogy'.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's clear that whoever wrote the codex was well aware of the contradiction between Matthew and Luke and tried to fix it.

Speculation.

You will perhaps also be aware that the codex bezae is the earliest version of the gospels that includes the story of the adulterous woman - was that also an attempt to 'fix' an issue. That story, while not being present in the earliest versions appears in codex bezae and was retained in later versions and has become part of the orthodox gospel.

The point is that there is ample evidence of a kind of 'pick and mix' approach within the early gospel fragments we have (which are all from perhaps at best 150 years after they were supposed to have been written. This includes whole sections that are present in some versions and not in others from the same time. Also of sections (the ending of Mark being the most well known, but not the only, example) where early versions don't include a section or key wording (in some cases with major doctrinal importance) which then appear only in later versions so likely deliberately added. And other examples of sections which appear in early version, but then vanish.

Point being that with all this 'churn' going on in the gospels in the years from about 200-400 it is completely naive to assume that there was no similar 'churn' from 70-110 through to 200. Indeed it is more reasonable to argue that the 'churn' in the earliest years was likely to be greatest with a slow settling towards an establish orthodox version.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think you need to justify what you mean by ''huge variation'' and ''changed an awful lot''. To give you a steer, are the differences doctrinal?, do they differ on the important facts?

Well there are people who spend their time working out the number of variants between early versions of the gospels - and the typical view is that there are more variations than there are words in the bible - so an awful lot.

Now of course most of those are errors or minor variants that have no doctrinal relevance.

However not all are:

So here are some examples of changes that appear in later versions (from 400 onwards) that don't exist in the earlier version we have (from about 200-300 onward and are likely to have been deliberate additions:

John 5: 7-8 Doctrine of the trinity
John 1:18 - Jesus as unique god
Luke 22: 19-20 - doctrine of atonement
John - adulterous woman
Mark 16: 9-20

None of these appear in the earliest version but are included in later versions and from about 400 onwards are established as part of the gospels although they weren't included perhaps 100 years earlier.

We only know about those changes as by good fortune we have before:after versions so we can see that they start to appear. Of course we have no versions within the first 150 year-ish from original writing, so we have no idea what equivalent additions were made, or sections removed. We simply cannot say and we certainly cannot assume that the earliest extant version we have are the same as the original.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well there are people who spend their time working out the number of variants between early versions of the gospels - and the typical view is that there are more variations than there are words in the bible - so an awful lot.

Now of course most of those are errors or minor variants that have no doctrinal relevance.

However not all are:

So here are some examples of changes that appear in later versions (from 400 onwards) that don't exist in the earlier version we have (from about 200-300 onward and are likely to have been deliberate additions:

John 5: 7-8 Doctrine of the trinity
John 1:18 - Jesus as unique god
Luke 22: 19-20 - doctrine of atonement
John - adulterous woman
Mark 16: 9-20

None of these appear in the earliest version but are included in later versions and from about 400 onwards are established as part of the gospels although they weren't included perhaps 100 years earlier.

We only know about those changes as by good fortune we have before:after versions so we can see that they start to appear. Of course we have no versions within the first 150 year-ish from original writing, so we have no idea what equivalent additions were made, or sections removed. We simply cannot say and we certainly cannot assume that the earliest extant version we have are the same as the original.

That these might, with varying probability be additions has been known in most cases for centuries.
Some are thought to be Glossa or margin notes that have migrated into the text. Many bibles will therefore have a 'health' warning in the footnotes.

The question is though is do any of these introduce anything novel which significantly adds or changes fundamental doctrine. When we study the doctrine of the very early fathers we see that the answer is no and we can say with some certainty that trinitarian formulations were abroad at the time.

[Roses]

That these might, with varying probability be additions has been known in most cases for centuries.
Some are thought to be Glossa or margin notes that have migrated into the text. Many bibles will therefore have a 'health' warning in the footnotes.

The question is though is do any of these introduce anything novel which significantly adds or changes fundamental doctrine. When we study the doctrine of the very early fathers we see that the answer is no and we can say with some certainty that trinitarian formulations were abroad at the time.

There is no certainty about that at all, and even if there was there is no evidence to support it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is no certainty about that at all, and even if there was there is no evidence to support it.

There is documentary evidence....That is what all this is based on. NT evidence and the works that support the doctrine of the New Testament constitute probably the best corroboration of Religious Doctrine of the ancient world. Historical scholarship of it is exactly that.

 Whether you agree with that doctrine is a completely different matter.

[BeRational]

There is documentary evidence....That is what all this is based on. NT evidence and the works that support the doctrine of the New Testament constitute probably the best corroboration of Religious Doctrine of the ancient world. Historical scholarship of it is exactly that.

 Whether you agree with that doctrine is a completely different matter.

I was told but I am not sure that there are no original versions, and everything is a copy of a copy of a translation of a copy.

If you do not have the originals, you cannot be sure the versions you have now accurately reflect what was there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I was told but I am not sure that there are no original versions, and everything is a copy of a copy of a translation of a copy.

If you do not have the originals, you cannot be sure the versions you have now accurately reflect what was there.

Which is why you need some kind of model for how translations mutate and this of course is done by comparison of what you have. What I am saying is that for christian text there is much more material of any kind on which do do scholarship than for anything else in the ancient world. This is a reflection of whatever it is, probably reverence allows religion to pass down the ages more or less intact in comparison with say, civilisations and cultures.

NT Canon becomes fixed on documents which are extant around the fourth century. Fidelity from here is pretty high.

We should also note that Orthodox christian doctrine can also be tract through heterodox and heretical writings and of course if we have a theory about how inaccurate history is we should extend that to all of ancient history...but sadly rarely do IMHO.

[BeRational]

Which is why you need some kind of model for how translations mutate and this of course is done by comparison of what you have. What I am saying is that for christian text there is much more material of any kind on which do do scholarship than for anything else in the ancient world. This is a reflection of whatever it is, probably reverence allows religion to pass down the ages more or less intact in comparison with say, civilisations and cultures.

NT Canon becomes fixed on documents which are extant around the fourth century. Fidelity from here is pretty high.

We should also note that Orthodox christian doctrine can also be tract through heterodox and heretical writings and of course if we have a theory about how inaccurate history is we should extend that to all of ancient history...but sadly rarely do IMHO.

The copies you have may agree with each other, but you cannot know how close they are to the original, and no amount of study can tell you.

Either you can compare against the original or you can't.

If you can't (which is the case) then you can study all you like, you cannot know if they match the original.

Surely this is obvious?

[ProfessorDavey]

The copies you have may agree with each other, but you cannot know how close they are to the original, and no amount of study can tell you.

Either you can compare against the original or you can't.

If you can't (which is the case) then you can study all you like, you cannot know if they match the original.

Surely this is obvious?

Exactly - we can work forward from the point where we begin to have extant copies. We cannot work backwards through the approx. 150 years where there are no extant fragments to the point when the gospels were supposed to have been originally written. The copies we have might be identical or very similar to the originals - on the other hand they may be radically different as they evolved over those 150 years. We have no way of knowing which is the case. So effectively our only justifiable approach is to conclude that we know what the gospels ended up like in approx. 250-400AD, but we cannot reasonable infer what they were like in 70-110AD.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The copies you have may agree with each other, but you cannot know how close they are to the original, and no amount of study can tell you.

But you can make an educated shot based on historical methods and be reasonably confident of it. That is how history works. Most historians woulld be confident with ecclesiatical history.

It does seem however that there is a body of documentation about christianity that other ancient history doesn't have.

As I say as long as you are applying the same rules to all ancient or modern history then at least you have a consistent view without special pleading or genetic fallacy. Whether it's recognised historical method is another issue. The trouble with the UK is academically we tend to specialise early and this injects a bit of trouble down the road in terms of coming up with educated criticism.

[BeRational]

But you can make an educated shot based on historical methods and be reasonably confident of it. That is how history works. Most historians woulld be confident with ecclesiatical history.

It does seem however that there is a body of documentation about christianity that other ancient history doesn't have.

As I say as long as you are applying the same rules to all ancient or modern history then at least you have a consistent view without special pleading or genetic fallacy. Whether it's recognised historical method is another issue. The trouble with the UK is academically we tend to specialise early and this injects a bit of trouble down the road in terms of coming up with educated criticism.

I disagree.
You knowledge begins at the earliest copy. You can say very little about earlier versions apart from there were earlier versions.
You cannot know what was copied correctly.
This is just a fact.

[jeremyp]

It isn't a false statement

Yes it is. You said the genealogy is 100% different. It is, at most, about 35% different. You made a false statement. The fact that you are now doubling down instead of admitting you were perhaps exaggerating, makes me want to upgrade your statement to "a lie".

[jeremyp]

I was told but I am not sure that there are no original versions, and everything is a copy of a copy of a translation of a copy.

If you do not have the originals, you cannot be sure the versions you have now accurately reflect what was there.

This applies to all ancient documents that are not literally carved in stone. It gets us nowhere.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I disagree.
You knowledge begins at the earliest copy. You can say very little about earlier versions apart from there were earlier versions.
You cannot know what was copied correctly.
This is just a fact.

I think you have to look at this issue as probabilistic.
What is the probability of the original being completely different, not a lot in my opinion. And I certainly dont see it
as a "No originals so say no more about it" matter as you obviously do. Can I ask you in the sake of consistency to therefore follow your own advice.

Also I don't see any reason not to study the success rate of
Other scribes..not only biblical scribes but other scribes and copyist of other works prior to printing to get a better picture of your claim.

A

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes it is. You said the genealogy is 100% different. It is, at most, about 35% different. You made a false statement.

Fair enough, although I thought you were challenging me on whether they were 'early' or not - hence my response about how few earlier versions of Luke exist where the genealogy section survives.

However in the context of this thread which is largely about the discrepancies in the genealogies between Luke and Matthew then my comment remains valid. The key differences between the two are from Jesus to David (and indeed Matthew doesn't include anything beyond Abraham) - and in that key section of the genealogy (Jesus to David) where the debate exists about inconsistency Luke's version in codex bezae is pretty well 100% different to that in other early extant versions of Luke.

However the broader point is that we only know about this because we have before/after extant versions. The same is true in other major changes - e.g. end of Mark, adulterous woman etc. They don't stand out textually, nor do they not fit within the broader narrative. We know they are additions through the pure luck of having existing versions with and without the section. But we only have texts from about 250AD onwards, and most of those before/after examples appear in the 250-400AD timepan. How many other major additions were inserted between 100 and 250AD. We don't know and we cannot know unless further and earlier extant versions of the gospels are discovered.

The only reasonable conclusion is to say that we can be confident about the nature of the gospels from about 350 onwards and have some reasonable knowledge from about 250, but we do not know how the gospels changes and evolved from 70-110, when they were believed to have been first written, until about 250.

[ProfessorDavey]

This applies to all ancient documents that are not literally carved in stone.

Indeed - 100% correct, unless there is other corroborating evidence.

It gets us nowhere.

Wrong - it is being honest about what we know and what we don't know. To somehow assume that the original version of a text is identical, or close to identical, to the earliest extant version we have from hundreds of years later is naive, dishonest and poor scholarship.

[BeRational]

This applies to all ancient documents that are not literally carved in stone. It gets us nowhere.

Agreed it is the same for all documents.
I disagree that it gets you nowhere. It makes you honest in accepting that fact.

To increase confidence in historical documents you need other sources that corroborate the stories being told.

If you have one source written by biased people you cannot draw too many conclusions

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Agreed it is the same for all documents.
I disagree that it gets you nowhere. It makes you honest in accepting that fact.

To increase confidence in historical documents you need other sources that corroborate the stories being told.

If you have one source written by biased people you cannot draw too many conclusions

How do you know how bias ancient people were?
Careful now, if you say that people associated with the early church are more biased than any other ancient epistle writers and non church writers of the genre the Gospels are often included in i.e. Roman biography you are in danger of making the Genetic fallacy.

It seems to me that someone who is trying to point out that we don't know stuff about these writers is also making huge assumptions about the very people he is claiming we don't know about.