what would be an actually good reason to believe in a god.

[Baruch]

lol which would mean you believe the claim there is no God.

  If you were not sure there was a God then you would not be a atheist correct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kibbitzing ... I would agree with the atheists that there are no unicorns.  If you came here claiming you somehow knew there were unicorns (other than as fictional animals) ... I would treat you as they do ... as a nut job (no disrespect, some of my best friends are nut jobs).

Hard atheists definitely are not agnostic, they claim to know, not believe, that there are no gods.  Some atheists fit between hard atheism and agnosticism.  On the other hand, I know that there is at least one god, G-d ... and I see no reason to complicate things further ;-)  My razor, not Ockam's.

[Baruch]

   Ok then why do you think the New Testament is false. I think it is true for several reasons but let's just give a few.

The disciples had nothing to gain and everything to loose.

  The historical details are accurate. People and places

The disciples gave testimony that would be embarrassing to them.

  It was written by eye witnesses or people who were disciples of eye witnesses and written very close to the time of Jesus.

  That's just a few. We can stick to the just the New Testament of you like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The books in the New Testament, were written by Jews, not by Gentiles ... and not by Christians.  Paul's Bible was the Greek OT ... unless he could also read Hebrew and Aramaic ... and in his time, the OT wasn't a closed canon.  That came after his time ... and in the Greek Bible case, with the added NT books ... it wasn't closed until the 5th century CE.  There were plenty of books that are Jewish, that didn't make it into either the OT nor the NT ... and the orthodox Christians include all the approved works of the Pre- and Post- Nicene Fathers as canonical as well.  None of these works, both in and out of the modern Bible, were written by Jesus, or by eye-witnesses ... they are literary fantasies and hagiographies ... written for reasons other than truthful journalism.  Truthful journalism at least on current evidence, should never be mentioned again ;-)

If you want to begin to perceive how the NT came about, you have to know Judaism in its various forms, many other religions of that time that impinged upon the NT writings, and pay very close attention to Kabbalah and the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Thomas .. either of which may have been written by Jews while under the influence of various psychoactive substances.  And that doesn't count the subsequent editing of what was included.

[GSOgymrat]

As materialists, they claim there is nothing supernatural, so there is no G-d.  As rationalists, they claim that life is reasonable if we learn to think straight.  I find both these claims to be false, that there is nothing natural and nothing rational about life, no matter how you think about it.  Any visiting theist would do better to spend time with me, since I at least have eyes to see and ears to hear.  Rationalism and materialism are like Wizard of Oz, before while Dorothy was still in Kansas.  Seeing in technicolor, black and white still exist for me, but they are not limits for me.  Some theists seem to experience color, but they deny the existence of black and white.  You are both wrong ;-)

Of your many contributions, this is one of my favorites.

[Blackleaf]

lol which would mean you believe the claim there is no God.

  If you were not sure there was a God then you would not be a atheist correct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Atheists make no claim to know whether or not there is a god. Most of us are open to evidence that gods exist, but since there is none, we remain skeptical. That is very different than the Christian way of thinking, certain that God exists, whether or not evidence supports that claim.

[Kaleb5000]

Atheists make no claim to know whether or not there is a god. Most of us are open to evidence that gods exist, but since there is none, we remain skeptical. That is very different than the Christian way of thinking, certain that God exists, whether or not evidence supports that claim.

I will admit many Christians do think that way but so do  many atheist. There is plenty of evidence for God it may just not satisfy what you require.

   What did you think of the picture I posted in response to your argument that none of the people I referenced were alive when Jesus was?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mike Cl]

  Kaleb-- Ok then why do you think the New Testament is false. I think it is true for several reasons but let's just give a few.
  The historical details are accurate. People and places

Me--The apostles should be twelve of the most famous people in history. We're told they were hand picked by Jesus to witness his wondrous deeds, learn his sublime teachings, and take the good news of his kingdom to the ends of the earth.

Which makes it all the more surprising that we know next to nothing about them. We can't even be sure of their names: the gospels list a collection of more than twenty names for the so-called twelve disciples â€" with Bartholomew sometimes showing up as Nathanael, Matthew as Levi and Jude as Thaddeus, Lebbaeus, or Daddaeus!

It should be apparent that if the twelve were actual historical figures, with such an important role in the foundation and growth of the Church, it would be impossible to have such wild confusion over the basic question of who they really were.

But what do we know about any of them?

"Twelve Good Men and True"?

The fact is that for seven of the twelve, our only early source, the Gospels, say nothing about them at all. They are just names on a list.

Isn't it a tad odd that such worthies, infused with the Holy Spirit and given powers to heal the sick and cast out demons, wrote nothing, or had nothing written for them or about them? Isn't it odd that men chosen to be eye-witnesses to the mighty deeds of Jesus, wrote no eye-witness statements, left no sermons, no memoirs, no letters, no teachings, no pithy words of encouragement?

All that we have about "the twelve" are conflicting legends and fantastic stories from a much later date, tall stories about where they went, what they did and most especially how they died. Their deaths, it seems, have been recorded in loving and lurid detail. And it is the graphic deaths of the disciples that solves the riddle. We've all heard the apologetic claim: "Would they have died for a lie? Therefore the story of Jesus must be true."

But we all know how useful to a cause is a dead martyr, even if he's a fiction. In the case of Jesus, the twelve are a fiction, a necessary entourage for a sun god, passing through the twelve constellations of the zodiac. Just like other saviour gods, Jesus had to have his retinue.

The truth is, the twelve disciples are a grubby and sordid invention.

The apostles should be twelve of the most famous people in history. We're told they were hand picked by Jesus to witness his wondrous deeds, learn his sublime teachings, and take the good news of his kingdom to the ends of the earth.

Which makes it all the more surprising that we know next to nothing about them. We can't even be sure of their names: the gospels list a collection of more than twenty names for the so-called twelve disciples â€" with Bartholomew sometimes showing up as Nathanael, Matthew as Levi and Jude as Thaddeus, Lebbaeus, or Daddaeus!

It should be apparent that if the twelve were actual historical figures, with such an important role in the foundation and growth of the Church, it would be impossible to have such wild confusion over the basic question of who they really were.

But what do we know about any of them?



"Twelve Good Men and True"?

The fact is that for seven of the twelve, our only early source, the Gospels, say nothing about them at all. They are just names on a list.

Isn't it a tad odd that such worthies, infused with the Holy Spirit and given powers to heal the sick and cast out demons, wrote nothing, or had nothing written for them or about them? Isn't it odd that men chosen to be eye-witnesses to the mighty deeds of Jesus, wrote no eye-witness statements, left no sermons, no memoirs, no letters, no teachings, no pithy words of encouragement?

All that we have about "the twelve" are conflicting legends and fantastic stories from a much later date, tall stories about where they went, what they did and most especially how they died. Their deaths, it seems, have been recorded in loving and lurid detail. And it is the graphic deaths of the disciples that solves the riddle. We've all heard the apologetic claim: "Would they have died for a lie? Therefore the story of Jesus must be true."

But we all know how useful to a cause is a dead martyr, even if he's a fiction. In the case of Jesus, the twelve are a fiction, a necessary entourage for a sun god, passing through the twelve constellations of the zodiac. Just like other saviour gods, Jesus had to have his retinue.

The truth is, the twelve disciples are a grubby and sordid invention.

Where DID they get their ideas from?

Joshua also chose Twelve

"The LORD spoke to Joshua, saying: 'Take for yourselves twelve men from the people, one man from every tribe' ... Then Joshua called the twelve men whom he had appointed from the children of Israel, one man from every tribe." â€" Joshua 4.1-4.


The names 'Jesus' and 'Joshua' both derive from the Hebrew Yehoshua â€" an heroic name ('Yahweh saves') given to the supposed leader of the Israelites in their conquest of Canaan.

The parallels don't end there. Matthew's Jesus promises his groupies that they will "sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." â€" Matthew 19.28.


Martyrs to the Cause: Those "Suffering Disciples"

"Would the disciples have suffered and died for a fabricated saviour?"


One of the reeds of straw holding up the shabby edifice of Christendom is the alleged suffering and cruel fate of his original apostles, the twelve disciples chosen by the Lord himself. By their heroic, cheek-turning sacrifice, these worthies earned their martyr's crown and joined their Lord in Heaven. In so-doing, they inspired generations of noble Christians, who ultimately taught the blood-thirsty Romans the Christian values of compassion and brotherly love. Well, that's the myth.

Though cruelty and human suffering have ever been integral to the history of the Church the fanatics of Christ have rarely been the victimized innocents. Rather it has been the Christians who have bathed their faith in the blood of others.

There is NO corroborating evidence for the existence of the twelve Apostles and absolutely NO evidence for the colourful variety of martyrs' deaths they supposedly experienced. The Bible itself actually mentions the death of only two apostles, a James who was put to death by Herod Agrippa (see James for a discussion of this tricky character) and the nasty Judas Iscariot (see below), who gets several deaths because he's the bad guy.

Legend and tradition alone, dreamed up by the early churches in their bid for legitimacy and authority, provided the uplifting fables of heroics and martyrdom. The plethora of conflicting claims and alternative deaths stand eloquent testimony to wholesale fabrication of the non-existent godman's non-existent companions.



The Fabricated Deaths of the Apostles

1. Peter (aka Simon, Cephas).

"Beheaded by Nero?" No, not really. This legend was dreamed up by the mid-2nd century pope Anicetus (156-166) when he became locked in a conflict with the venerable Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp had tried to win the argument (over the dating of Easter) by insisting that he spoke with the authority of the apostle John. In response, Anicetus staked a claim to Peter, and Peter, "Prince of the Apostles", trumps John.

2nd century texts known as the "Clementines" had made Peter the "first Bishop of Rome" and 3rd century invention gave him a 25-year pontificate â€" which made it a tad tricky for him to have died at the hands of Nero but, hey, this is "tradition."

3rd century Church Father Origen dreamed up a colourful flourish: Peter, feeling himself unworthy to be crucified the same way as his Lord, chose option 'B' â€" crucifixion upside down!



2. James, son of Zebedee (James the Greater?)

Acts 12.1,2 says simply:

"Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword."


Later legend adds the truly extraordinary nonsense that the Roman officer guarding James converted on the spot and elected to be beheaded beside him! Even later fabrication has James traipsing around northern Spain before he dashes back to Judaea for martyrdom.



3. John, son of Zebedee.

This guy has to be kept alive long enough to take care of Mary, lead the church in Ephesus, write the Book of Revelation and write his own gospel. He even survives being boiled in oil and is given a natural death!

Actually, John bar Zebedee disappears from the yarn in Acts at the same time his brother James is more dramatically removed from the story. The last reference to John is also verse 12.2. From Acts 12.12 onward we are dealing with another John "whose surname was Mark" â€" a lightweight character who nonetheless is credited with authorship of the first gospel.

The impending demotion of the thunder brothers is actually prefigured in Mark's gospel (and is embellished in Matthew, where Mrs Zebedee does the talking). The boys ask for front seats in the hereafter. JC is having none of it:

"And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you? They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.

"Jesus said unto them ... to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared.   And when the ten heard it, they began to be much displeased with James and John." â€" Mark 10:35-41.


Thus while the earthly career of Jesus features prominently brothers James and John, "the sons of thunder" (Mark 3.7), the story of the early church features a new James, "the brother of Jesus", and a new John, a sidekick to Paul and Barnabas (see below). We know little about either, although the death of James bar Damneus (Josephus, Antiquities 20.9) provides a basis for the colourful martyrdom of brother James beloved of Christian apologists.



4. Andrew, brother of Peter.

Pious invention gives Andrew a wonderful career covering everywhere from Scythia to Greece, from Asia Minor to Thrace. This guy, it seems, took option 'C' on the crucifixion menu: on an x-shaped cross. Apparently this allowed him to continue preaching for 2 days.



5. Philip.

Fable places this guy in Phrygia, Carthage and Asia Minor. The fairy tale has a proconsul crucifying him for converting his wife. Perhaps the love feast got a bit out of hand.

Somewhat confusingly, there are actually two Philips. The original apostle disappears from the tale after witnessing Jesus rise to Heaven from the Mount of Olives. Philip and the rest of the gang return to the upper room in Acts 1.13. But in Acts 6.5 a second Philip is chosen as one of the seven given responsibility for feeding widows



6. Bartholomew (Nathanael)

What a traveller â€" India, Persia, Armenia, Ethiopia and southern Arabia! Miraculously he managed to get himself crucified (flayed alive and beheaded!) in both India and Armenia. Pretty impressive stuff. Even when dead his bits got about: a church in Rome claimed most of his corpse but 11th century Canterbury did a roaring trade with his arm! His emblem is the flaying knife. Cool.



7. Matthew (Levi son of Alphaeus)

This guy has to be kept alive long enough to write his gospel â€" at least 20 years after the supposed death of Christ. Credited with 15 years in Jerusalem, then missions to Persia and Ethiopia and, of course, martyrdom in both places. According to Medieval iconography he worn spectacles, the better to count his tax money.

If Matthew, aka Levi, is a son of Alphaeus (Mark 2.14) then presumably he is also the brother of James son of Alphaeus (Mark 3.18)? And yet we are told the lesser James is a son of Mary, sister of the Blessed Virgin and wife of Cleophas (John 19.25). In which case, the evangelist Matthew is a cousin of Jesus himself! However, Acts 1.13 tells us that the lesser James has a brother called Judas (aka Jude) whereas Mark (15.40) and Matthew's "own gospel" (27.56) both say that James has a brother named Joses. So we now have a regular band of brothers: James, Joses, Judas â€" plus Matthew/Levi ... which comes mightily close to the supposed four brothers of Jesus himself!

"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

â€" Matthew 13.55.



8. Thomas Didymus (the Twin) aka Judas Thomas or Jude Thomas

Another grand traveller, seen everywhere from Parthia to Kerala in south India. 4th century invention, appropriately enough, gives this 'twin' two martyrdoms, one in Persia and one in India. He even gets a burial in Syria to boot! Yet another resting place, Mylapore, was claimed by the Portuguese in 16th century. Most famous for his "doubt", Thomas inspired a whole raft of pious flimflam: the Acts of Thomas (he built a palace for an Indian king, would you believe), the Apocalypse of Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Infant Gospel of Thomas.

Now, have you still got any doubts ...?



9. James son of Alphaeus (James the Less â€" or is James the Just?)

The myth-makers really go to town for this guy. Thrown down over 100 feet from the pinnacle of the Temple by "scribes and Pharisees", he actually survived only to be stoned, have his brains dashed out with a fuller’s club and have his body "sawn asunder" â€" all this at the age of 90!

Of course, if we don't conflate James the Less with James the brother of Jesus (an identification made by Jerome and later Catholics) all this mayhem belongs with the righteous James and the fate of the lesser James is unknown.

Perhaps it's the being sawn in half which causes the confusion?



10. Jude/Thaddeus /Lebbaeus /Daddaeus

Either a serious clubbing or crucifixion for this mixed up guy in the city of Edessa or Persia. Apparently his fan-club suffered because his name sounded too much like Judas.

Jude the apostle is often conflated with Jude the brother of Jesus and also with Jude the writer of the epistle of Jude (pay attention, there will be a test). Yet Jude (the letter writer) identifies himself as the brother of James and as a servant of Jesus, not his brother (Jude 1.1). He also speaks of the apostles in the past tense, not as if he was one of them (verse 17), so he cannot be identified as one of "the twelve" either.



11. Simon the Canaanite/ the Zealot.

Invention came late for this guy. When it did, it was a beauty â€" crucifixion in Persia and also crucifixion thousands of miles away in Britain. He also managed to preach in Africa. Quite an act to follow.



12. Matthias.

Fantasy sends this guy to Syria, Cappadocia, the shores of the Caspian and the "City of Cannibals" (Acts of Andrew and Matthias). Death by burning. Also death in Jerusalem by stoning â€" and beheading. Really just makes up the numbers, sometimes merging with Matthew and sometimes swapped out to let Paul into "the twelve."



13. Judas, son (or is that brother?) of James.

Nothing yet. Feeling inspired?



14. Levi, son of Alphæus.

Refer to his alter ego Matthew.



Mark (John Mark).

Though neither Clement of Alexandria (?153-215), nor Origen of Alexandria (182-251) seem to have noticed, Eusebius of Caesarea (c.263-339) relays the news that the apostle Mark had been "first bishop" of Alexandria and had suffered martyrdom in the "eighth year of Nero." This would have been 61 AD â€" rendering the apostle dead before the death of Peter whose memoirs Mark supposedly wrote up as the Gospel of Mark. "Dragged to death", or maybe not. His bones â€" well, someone's bones â€" turned up in 9th century Venice.



Luke.

"Hanged on an olive tree." Or, "lived to the age of 84 and died unmarried." Body parts claimed by both Padua and Constantinople.



Paul.

"Beheaded by Nero." No, not really, but legend tells us he shared the same fate as Peter, even dying on the same day. Pious romances scribbled between the 2nd and 4th centuries â€" Acts of Paul, the Apocalypse of Paul, the Martyrdom of Paul and the Acts of Paul and Thecla â€" provide all the fabulous nonsense you could ever wish for.

The above is reposted from the semi-retired Stromboli..........why reinvent the wheel???

Kaleb---The disciples gave testimony that would be embarrassing to them.
Me--  We don't even know who these people were.  Notice we do not know who wrote the gospels; even from within each, they are only attributed to a certain author; but we are ignorant of who wrote them.  What 'testimony' could they have given?  None--hersey is the best we can say; fictional is also a possibility.

  Kaleb--It was written by eye witnesses or people who were disciples of eye witnesses and written very close to the time of Jesus.
Me--Not a single eye witness wrote about jesus during his lifetime.  That is quite odd, when one thinks about it.  The things jesus is supposed to have done would not fail to cause uproars wherever he would go.  Yet nobody saw fit to write of it.  And it is not a lack of historians to write about it.  Philo, for one, would have written books about it, for it would have been near and dear to his heart--and he was a traveler.  I find it troubling and telling that no a single person wrote of jesus during his life--and jesus penned not a word. 

[Kaleb5000]

Ok so basically what you are saying is we have no proof that the disciples even existed? Am I'm correct?

  The whole New Testament is made up?

[Mike Cl]

Ok so basically what you are saying is we have no proof that the disciples even existed? Am I'm correct?

  The whole New Testament is made up?

We know that Paul existed.  The other authors of the NT are unknown.  Mark, for example, is attributed to Mark, but there is no evidence he wrote it.  And even if a person by the name of Mark wrote it, we have no evidence of who he is nor when he wrote it.  Paul is the first author of the NT--but he offers no autobiographical data for jesus.  For him, the christ is an ethereal character and not flesh and blood type person.  So, basically, we don't know the disciples even existed.

The NT made up?  No, it exists.  But it was crafted from among a very large number of writings to select from.  And this was a process that lasted hundreds of years.  And still, the NT is not a fully agreed upon compilation;  and the same is true of the bible as a whole.  Go into any christian book store and you can find hundreds of different versions of the bible.  The NT was crafted by various people over the course of time.  We know that the letters of Paul, for example, had text removed and added many times.  The gospel of john is a collection of several authors.  So, let's say the NT was engineered according to the wishes of various people over the course of a long time.  The bible did not drop from the sky a finished product of god.

[Kaleb5000]

We know that Paul existed.  The other authors of the NT are unknown.  Mark, for example, is attributed to Mark, but there is no evidence he wrote it.  And even if a person by the name of Mark wrote it, we have no evidence of who he is nor when he wrote it.  Paul is the first author of the NT--but he offers no autobiographical data for jesus.  For him, the christ is an ethereal character and not flesh and blood type person.  So, basically, we don't know the disciples even existed.

The NT made up?  No, it exists.  But it was crafted from among a very large number of writings to select from.  And this was a process that lasted hundreds of years.  And still, the NT is not a fully agreed upon compilation;  and the same is true of the bible as a whole.  Go into any christian book store and you can find hundreds of different versions of the bible.  The NT was crafted by various people over the course of time.  We know that the letters of Paul, for example, had text removed and added many times.  The gospel of john is a collection of several authors.  So, let's say the NT was engineered according to the wishes of various people over the course of a long time.  The bible did not drop from the sky a finished product of god.

Ok thank you it's getting late I will reply tomorrow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mike Cl]

Kaleb, the following will be a very long post.  No, I don't expect you to read it.  It is just one page of a huge and very interesting site dealing with textual criticism of the NT.  What that means is is that this (textual criticism) is an effort to determine what the various parts of the NT originally said.  We don't have any early compositions of the entire NT as it is accepted now.  So, each scrap that has been collected has been copied and cataloged as it was found--and where it was found.  I find it interesting that that is so; god should have been able to preserve one copy, at least--shouldn't he????  Anyway, no two copies of the writings agree, and textual criticism strives to figure out what the original was.  So, this huge page you will see, is an illustration of some of the NT and shows how many variants there  are for the various passages shown there.  Boring----to the max----right??  I don't think so.  Anyway:

Critical Editions of the New Testament

Contents: Introduction * Aland: Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum * Bover * Hodges & Farstad * Huck * Merk * The "Nestle" text: Nestle editions 1-25 | Nestle-Aland editions 26, 27 * Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus * Souter * Swanson * Tasker * Tischendorf * United Bible Societies Edition * Vogels * Westcott & Hort
Summary: A Comparison of the Various Editions
Appendix: Latin Editions

Introduction

Karl Lachmann (1793-1851) broke with the Textus Receptus in 1831. This, then, was the first "critical edition" of the New Testament -- an edition compiled using specific rules based on the readings of a significant selection of important manuscripts. Since then, many others have appeared. Some of these (Lachmann's own, and that of his younger contemporary Tregelles) are now almost completely obscure. Others -- notably those of Westcott and Hort and the United Bible Societies -- have exercised great influence.

Ideally, a critical edition will include an apparatus supplying information about how the readings were decided upon. There are, however, critical editions (e.g. that of Westcott & Hort) which do not include such information. The list below describes most of the major editions since Tischendorf's vital eighth edition.

Aland: Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum

Editor. Text and apparatus edited by Kurt Aland.

Date of Publication. The first edition appeared in 1963. A revised edition, listed as the fourth, appeared in 1967; another revised edition, the ninth, came out in 1976. The final major revision, the thirteenth, was published in 1985. The first three major editions (officially listed as the first through twelfth) use the same basic arrangement of the text; the revisions took place primarily in the apparatus. The thirteenth edition entirely recast the work; a new text was adopted and a new apparatus created. The structure of the synopsis was unchanged, but otherwise it was an entirely new publication.

The Text. The text of the first twelve editions is essentially that of the early Nestle-Aland editions. With the thirteenth edition, the text was adjusted to match that of the Nestle-Aland editions 26th edition.
The Aland Synopsis is one of the more substantial now available. All four gospels are presented in full, and there is a complete text of the Gospel of Thomas (in Latin, English, and German; neither Coptic nor Greek texts are offered!). The critical apparatus is also more than usually complete; an apparatus is usually supplied wherever a passage is cited, not just at its "main" appearance. In addition, the apparatus gives a fairly full list of variants -- many more than are found in the equivalent editions of the Nestle-Aland text, and not limited simply to harmonization variants. While SQE will not allow the student to completely reconstruct the cited manuscripts (especially the minuscules), it includes enough data to allow a valid comparison of the various text-types. (This cannot be said of NA27!)
For compactness, SQE uses the same set of critical symbols as the Nestle text (for details, see the picture in that article).
Unfortunately, the apparatus does have its drawbacks. (We are now referring specifically to the recent editions, from the thirteenth on.) For one thing, it has a high number of errors (most of them seemingly errors of the press; these are slowly being corrected). The selection of witnesses is also questionable. The Byzantine text of the uncial era, for instance, is represented by four manuscripts, E F G H. All of these, it should be noted, belong to the Kx recension. Thus, although there are more Byzantine witnesses than in the Nestle-Aland edition (which offers only K and G), they offer less diversity (of the witnesses in Nestle-Aland, K is a member of Family P, while G is Kx). The new minuscules are also an odd lot. Why would anyone make 1006 (purely Byzantine) an explicitly cited witness, while omitting 1241 (arguably the most Alexandrian minuscule of Luke)? As a final note, we should observe that while SQE cites many member of Family 1 (1 and 209, as well as 205, 1582, 2542 not cited explicitly as members of the family) and Family 13 (13, 69, 346, 543, 788, 983; note that the best family witness, 826, is omitted), it cites them in such a way that the readings of the individual manuscripts can only be determined when the manuscript is cited explicitly (that is, if -- say -- 346 is not cited explicitly on either side of a reading, it may agree either with f13 or M).
To sum up, SQE is a good synopsis with a useful critical apparatus, but one should take care not to rely upon it too heavily (due both to its inaccuracies and its slightly biased presentation of the evidence).

Bover

Editor. Text and apparatus edited by José Maria Bover, S.J.

Date of Publication. The first edition, Novi Testamenti Biblia Graeca et Latina appeared in 1943. The first four editions (1943-1959) are essentially identical; the fifth edition of 1977 and following (revised by José O'Callaghan Martínez) is slightly different, but primarily in the area of the parallel texts.

The Text. The Latin text of Bover, until the fifth edition, is simply the Clementine Vulgate (in the fifth edition the Neo-Vulgate was substituted and a Spanish version added). Thus the Latin text has no critical value.
The Greek text is somewhat more reputable. It is a fairly typical Twentieth Century product, compiled eclectically but with a clear preference for Alexandrian readings (though not as strong a preference as is found in the Westcott & Hort and United Bible Societies Edition editions). It has been esteemed by some for its balanced critical attitudes; others might view it as having no clear guiding principle.

The Apparatus. Bover's Latin text has no apparatus at all (from the critic's standpoint, there is really no reason for it to be there), and the Greek apparatus is limited. Bover's manuscript data, like that of Merk, comes almost entirely from von Soden. Like Merk, Bover cites a few manuscripts discovered since von Soden's time (papyri up to P52, including the Beatty papyri; uncials up to 0207; a few of the minuscules up to 2430, plus a modest handful of lectionaries).
In construction Bover's apparatus strongly resembles Merk's, using essentially the same manuscript groupings and much the same set of symbols. (For an example, see the entry on Merk). The most significant difference between the two in their presentation of the data is that Bover also lists the readings of the various editions -- T=Tischendorf, S=von Soden, V=Vogels, L=Lagrange (Gospels, Romans, Galatians only), M=Merk, H=Westcott & Hort (h=Hort's margin; (H)=Hort's text against the margin); W=Weiss; J=Jacquier (Acts only), C=Clark (Acts only), A=Allo (1 Cor., Rev. only).
These critical editions also define the apparatus; Bover only offers manuscript information at points where the critical editions disagree. His apparatus is thus much more limited than that of Merk or even Nestle. It also shares the defects one would expect from a work based on von Soden: Many of the collations are inaccurate or imperfectly reported (for details, see the entry on Merk). Bover's transcription of von Soden is somewhat more careful (and often more explicit) than Merk's, and is therefore perhaps slightly more reliable. It is, however, less full even for the readings it contains -- citing, e.g., fewer fathers (the introduction does not even list the fathers cited!) and fewer versions. And Bover has recast Von Soden's groupings a bit -- instead of having five sets of witnesses (for Gospels, Acts, Paul, Catholics, Apocalypse), he uses the same groupings for Acts, Paul, and Catholics. This is reasonable in one sense -- the groupings for the three are fairly similar -- but it makes it harder to use the apparatus, as one is always having to look up exceptions (e.g. 1739 files with H in Paul, but I in the other two). Also, a warning for those with older eyes: The typeface (at least in some editions) is rather unsuitable for the purpose; the symbols | and ] -- keys to understanding the apparatus -- are almost indistinguishable.

Hodges & Farstad

Editors. Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad

Date of Publication. The first edition, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, appeared in 1982. A slightly revised second edition appeared in 1985.

The Text. Unlike most critical editions, that of Hodges and Farstad does not attempt to reconstruct the original text on the basis primarily of the earliest manuscripts. Rather, it assumes that the Byzantine Majority text is the original text, and reconstructs this text. For the most part, this is done by "counting noses" -- looking for the reading which has the highest number of supporters (which in the gospels often becomes a matter of printing the reading of Kx). In the Apocalypse and the story of the Adulteress, however, H & F resort in a limited way to stemmatics, meaning that they print a few readings which, although well-supported, are not the majority reading.
It should be noted that Hodges and Farstad did not assemble their text based on manuscript collations; rather, for the most part they simply followed Von Soden's K text and its subgroups (which, in their edition, is denoted M when entirely unified and M when a portion of the type defects). Thus the edition may not always represent the actual majority text. Even so, H & F is the only edition of the Byzantine text-form to have an apparatus of any sort. This makes it useful to anyone who wishes to examine the strength and depth of the Byzantine tradition. (The critic does not have to subscribe to the editors' theories to find the edition useful.) The edition also serves as a useful demonstration that the Byzantine text-type, although more united than any other known type, is not the monolithic entity its opponents sometimes make it out to be.

The Apparatus. The H & F text has two apparatus. The first, and more important for the editors' purposes, is the apparatus of variants within the Byzantine tradition. Here the editors list places where the Byzantine tradition divides, even noting some of the strands identified by Von Soden (e.g. H & F's Mr is von Soden's Kr; their Mc is von Soden's Kc, etc.) They also note the variant readings of the Textus Receptus (demonstrating, incidentally, that the TR is a poor representative of the Byzantine type). This first apparatus, which contains relatively few readings, has its variants marked in the text with numbers and has lemmata in the margin.
The second apparatus lists variants between the H & F text and the United Bible Societies edition. A quick sample indicates that these are roughly three times as common as variations within the Byzantine tradition. For these variants the editors use the same symbols as the recent editions of the Nestle-Aland text.
A handful of witnesses -- Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, and certain papyri -- are noted in both apparatus, but their readings are noted only for variants included for other reasons. The H & F apparatus gives far less information about these manuscripts than even the Nestle apparatus, and cannot be used for textual classification of any specific witness.
Although the apparatus of H & F is very limited, it serves a useful purpose even to those who do not believe in Byzantine priority. It is the only available tool (other than von Soden's cryptic edition) for determining if a reading is the Byzantine reading, a Byzantine reading in cases where that text divides, or entirely non-Byzantine. This can be important when dealing with mixed manuscripts. Also, H & F includes some variants not covered in NA27.

Huck

The name "Huck," like the name Nestle, is actually a term for a constellation of editions (in this case, of a gospel synopsis rather than a critical edition), with various editors over the years. The two, in fact, are almost of an age. Albert Huck published his first synopsis in 1892, but this was designed for a particular class and synoptic theory; the third edition of 1906 was the first for general use. With the ninth edition of 1936, the book passed from the hands of Albert Huck to H. Lietzmann and H. G. Opitz. At this time the text was revised (Huck's own editions were based on Tischendorf's text; Lietzmann used a text approximating that of Nestle). The 1981 edition was taken over by H. Greeven, and the arrangement of pericopes significantly altered. Greeven also altered the text, using his own reconstruction rathr than any previous edition.

Editors. Albert Huck; later taken over by H. Lietzmann, H. G. Opitz, H. Greeven

Date of Publication. The first edition was published in 1892; a revised third edition came out in 1906, another revision constituted the fourth edition of 1910. The revised ninth edition of Lietzmann-Opitz was published in 1936. Greeven's thirteenth edition appeared in 1981.

The Text Prior to the appearance of Greeven's edition, Huck could not really be considered in any way a critical edition. Huck used Tischendorf's text, Lietzmann a modification of Nestle's. Neither editor provided a full-fledged critical apparatus. (Lietzmann admitted to having a "limited" apparatus. Not only was the number of variants limited, but fewer than a dozen Greek witnesses were cited, and the data on the versions was much simplified.) The value of Huck, at that time, lay in the arrangement of the parallel gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke; John was not included). This, obviously, was sufficient to keep the book in print for nearly a century, but the editions have little value to the textual critic. For this reason, the remainder of this discussion will be devoted to Huck-Greeven, which simultaneously provided a new text (edited by Greeven), a much fuller apparatus (also by Greeven), and a modification of the synopsis itself, including more parallels as well as some portions of the gospel of John.
The text of the Greeven revision is somewhat problematic. Greeven claims that it averages about nine variations per chapter from the UBS/Nestle text. This would be about typical for a modern edition -- if anything, it's at the low end of the scale. The problem is, Greeven gives not a hint of his critical principles. Nor does Greeven give us a list of differences from UBS. Thus it is almost impossible to reconstruct his method. This makes it difficult to know how far to rely upon his text. Ny impression, in compiling its readings for the list of Most Uncertain Readings, is that, in those readings at least, it inclines very strongly toward the Byzantine text; the result is probably about like con Soden in its "feel," though the rate of actual agreements may not be excessively high.
The apparatus is as peculiar as the text. In no sense is it complete; the focus in upon parallels, almost to the exclusion of other variants. It is at first glance an easy apparatus to read; each reading begins with the lemma, followed by its supporters if they are relatively few, then a square bracket ] followed by the alternate readings and their support; different variation units are separated by large spaces and bold vertical lines. Deciphering the list of witnesses is a much different matter. Witnesses are grouped by type (though Greeven denies that his groups have any actual meaning), and cited by group symbols (e.g. l f are the Lake and Ferrar groups), and are cited in group order. However, Greeven does not list the order of the witnesses outside the four groups (Alexandrian, Lake, Ferrar, Soden). Nor are the contents of the various fragments listed explicitly. Thus it is almost impossible to be certain which manuscripts are actually cited within the notation Rpl (referring to all uncited uncials and the large majority of minuscules). It is best to trust the apparatus only where it cites a witness explicitly. And even there, it appears that many of the citations are from von Soden.
The citation of the versions, as opposed to the citing of the Greek witnesses, is excellent. All Old Latin witnesses are cited by name, with lacunae indicated. Where the Harklean Syriac attests to multiple readings, Greeven shows the nature of each variant. Where the manuscripts of the various Coptic versions do not show a consensus, Greeven indicates the number on each side of the reading. Unfortunately, the Armenian and Georgian versions are not handled with anything like the same precision, but this is no reason to condemn the edition; most others treat these versions with equal disdain.
The list of Fathers cited is quite full and unusully detailed, listing both the language and the date of the author, and including at least a handful of Syriac, Coptic, and even Arabic texts as well as the Greek and Latin Fathers. A wide variety of Harmonies are also cited (under a symbol which implies they are versions of the Diatessaron, though this is not stated). The introduction gives a good concise description of these harmonies.
Great care must be taken to understand Greeven's apparatus, which is strongly dependent not only on the order of the witnesses, but on the typographic form in which they are presented (e.g. Or does not mean the same thing as Or, even though both refer to Origen).
To sum up, the apparatus of Greeven is very difficult, though it offers a wide variety of useful information, and does not list all the variants one would "expect" to find. Students are therefore advised not to rely solely upon it, but to use at least one other source -- both to get a full list of variants in a particular gospel and to check one's interpretation of the apparatus for the variants it does contain. Greeven can give a sense of the support for a reading. It cannot and does not give specifics capable of being transferred to another apparatus.

Sorry--had to cut it off here due to length.  If you'd like I can finish the article.

[trdsf]

He asked for one price of evidence so I gave him many. Of course I had to include some outside the Bible since atheist instantly reject the New Testament even though it has been historically accurate. But since Jesus is in it the atheist must reject it. The Atheist has already presupposed there is no God in their worldview.


All I need is the New Testament forget the other non biblical writers. There is plenty of reason to believe the New Testament is true. But I am certain no amount of evidence would say 90% of Atheist because they don't want there to be a God. They want to be their own God.

Translation: I've made up my mind, don't bother me with actual facts.

The simple truth is that it's physically impossible for the NT to be historically accurate because it's internally inconsistent.  Even the core of the New Testament, the Gospels, don't agree with each other on the events in Jeshua bar-Joseph's life (if he even existed in the first place) or on the order in which they happened.  Which makes them unreliable as historical documents.

And I don't want to be my own god.  Then I wouldn't exist.

What you religious types never seem to get is that evidence matters and that your word that the New Testament is valid is not evidence.  Evidence requires data that is outside of personal interpretation.  If I say to you that pi equals approximately 3.14159, you can demonstrate that for yourself without having to take my word for it just by inscribing a circle and dividing its measured perimeter by its measured diameter.  If I say to you that pi equals three, and then I demand that you take my word for it because an ancient book says so, you have every right to tell me to get stuffed.

And on that basis, I tell you to get stuffed.  Your book is not evidence.  Evidence is that which is independently verifiable.  Your book doesn't mean a thing, any more than the Harry Potter series proves there's a school for wizards in Scotland -- there's precisely as much independent evidence for both.

[Baruch]

Of your many contributions, this is one of my favorites.

Don't take it as harsh criticism of our regulars ... metaphors aren't always as PC as I would like.  It is directed in a friendly way to posters who are theists, who actually know something about theism ... that they don't see as much as they think they see (you have to consider non-theist positions, and it isn't either/or).

[Baruch]

Ok so basically what you are saying is we have no proof that the disciples even existed? Am I'm correct?

  The whole New Testament is made up?

There were NT writers, and editors too.  But they weren't disciples ... they were fabricators of fictions.  Very powerful fictions it turns out.

[Baruch]

trdsf - And I don't want to be my own god.  Then I wouldn't exist.

You don't exist, and neither do I, we are both fictional characters.  But not like you think.  Think of a movie of Gulliver's Travels.  Think of Lilliput coming off the page and into reality, with giant Gulliver.  That is what we are like, fictional characters that are more real than Hollywood could ever manage.  That is what incarnation amounts to.

[trdsf]

You don't exist, and neither do I, we are both fictional characters.  But not like you think.  Think of a movie of Gulliver's Travels.  Think of Lilliput coming off the page and into reality, with giant Gulliver.  That is what we are like, fictional characters that are more real than Hollywood could ever manage.  That is what incarnation amounts to.

Speaking as a writer, I prefer to think that I exist.  I might like to think that in a multiverse, there's somewhere that my multiple worlds exist, but alas, if they do, I don't have direct access to them beyond being able to open up a window in the back of my head and writing down everything I see, then ducking out of sight before anyone in there notices me.