 |
|
|
|
Conder Minimum
Summary Points
James Patrick Holding
Conder writes of "150,000 conflicting words or verses in the 'original' Greek New Testament from which Christianity derives its holy book." Like Stanton, Conder doesn't "get" none of them is actually problematic to Christian faith. He doesn't name many of these variants, nor explain why we should be worried. It also doesn't occur to him that the words of The Complete Gospels, which say, "The Greek texts behind our English translation is a reconstruction produced by patient and exacting comparison of thousands of differences in wording among the numerous copies," is GOOD news for us, as it shows that the practice of textual criticism, of figuring out the original text as we do for ALL ancient documents, is alive and well.
Conder rehashes the charge of destruction of ancient documents answered here.
We have allusions to Spaniards destroying Aztec works because "the priests discovered that the natives had a pagan religion that virtually mirrored their own" which is presumably Conder accepting Quetzalcoatl pagan copycat mythology whole. Other featured blunders include on Galileo.
Conder tells us: "The question here is what comprises the original Greek? At every turn one will find that this is a complicated and virtually impossible question to answer" and we are actually told that new mss. discoveries "further complicate matters"! How, we are not told. Conder thinks that "the existence of these mss. is not a welcomed fact in Christendom" but Bruce Metzger, the Alands, and Evangelical scholarship haven't heard that news. In terms of actual "workovers" Conder cites very few: an example of erasure of a whole verse, Matt. 6:28/Luke 12:27, from ONE mss. (though WHY it was erased is not specified -- was it in the wrong place? -- the only hint is a quote from Robin Lane Fox that mysteriously speaks of the KJV offering a "wrong version" and "lilies" not being the actual flower at hand); the adultery pericope which is no mystery to anyone; two versions of Acts (very important, for the longer version contains such pertinent doctrinal information as what hours Paul taught in the lecture hall of Tyrannus); two versions of Jeremiah. This Conder supposes causes "no small embarrassment for countless theologians" and who allegedly are upset about early mss. surviving. It does not, not among serious commentators.
We are told, "...the Septuagint, written in Greek, would have been totally unacceptable by the Orthodox Jews of first century Judea. This is a destructive fact for Christianity because the Septuagint was apparently the translation used in New Testament quotations..." Oh? The Dead Sea Scrolls use the LXX; were the Qumaranites not orthodox Jews? (Try to say "no" without begging the question, please.) And as Miller notes: "...it must be remembered that the LXX and MT are not as widely divergent as is commonly supposed:"
"The Hebrew text presupposed by the LXX basically represents a tradition which is either close to that of MT or can easily be explained as a descendant or a source of it. In several individual instances, however, the LXX represents a text that comes close to other sources, viz., certain Hebrew scrolls from Qumran and the Sam. Pent." [Tov, in HI:TCULXX:188]
Meanwhile Philo "even ascribed the highest level of divine inspiration to the LXX (the Pentateuch only), and called the translators prophets." Josephus used it, and so did numerous Jewish pseudopigraphical and apocalyptic works, from before the time of Christ. Some no one is quoted as saying: "The New Testament undoubtedly shows a preference for the Septuagint; out of about 350 texts from the Old Testament [cited in the New], 300 favor the Greek version rather than the Hebrew." Eh? Miller says:
Jesus clearly cites the OT 64 times in the Synoptics--matt, mk, luke--(there are many more allusions, of course.). Of these:
- More than half (32+) AGREE with BOTH the LXX and the MT (simply because the LXX is a GOOD translation of the MT in those cases.)
- One-fifth of the 64 DIFFER from BOTH the LXX and the MT
- One-fifth of the 64 AGREE with the MT against the LXX
- The rest agree with the LXX AGAINST the MT (but we have a couple of verses where we see different versions of the LXX itself! (Ex: Mr 13:25 vs Mr 9.48)
(Of course, Jesus spoke Aramaic, mostly, although he would have had conversational knowledge of Greek as well) -- so His quotes would likely NOT have been from the LXX to begin with.)
Mark seems to generally follow the LXX form, but Matthew shows independence from it.
Of Paul's abundance of quotes, about half demonstrate LXX forms (with minor variations from it) and the other half show a completely independent treatment of the Hebrew Text.
In general, the NT writers NEITHER studiously AVOIDed citing the LXX, NOR slavishly quoted from it (as having some special authority).
Against the idea of Aramaic originals (never mind the work of Casey, Black, and others to reach back to that), Conder misuses The Complete Gospels, and their comment, "The frequent word-for-word agreements between Matthew and Luke are impossible to account for if both were independently translating from Aramaic," and taking that to mean that "the New Testament used by the Christian Church was originally written in Greek." No -- it just means that Matthew and Luke did not BOTH translate INDEPENDENTLY from Aramaic. This says nothing about one or the other using an Aramaic background, and Matthew is the one who would do that.
It is said, "what canonization really means is that the pious liars, cheats, perverts and murderers who comprised the early Christian Church were the ones who decided irrevocably what books of the New Testament were sacred and what books were to be discarded. In time their pronouncement was backed by torture and a death sentence for anyone who disputed it." We say, answer this. Testimony for the poor character of these folks is provided by -- wait for it -- such sources as "Knights of Columbus, The Catholic Pilgrimage, p. 4"; more of Conder's correspondence course material, and Barbara Walker.
Conder gives some attention to the Gospel of Thomas; he may consider this to know why it did not deserve much attention, and consider how funny it is to say that GThom is "in certain respects, the oldest known complete mss. of the New Testament in existence."
Conder thinks Gnosticism competed with Christianity and is found in the NT. No examples are given, but try this to start.
The Trinity, pagan? No.
John anti-Jewish? No.
In a response to a critic, Conder tells us: "What Eric isn't telling his readers is that the author of Acts, whoever that was, is not considered by most NT critical scholars to be the same man who wrote a book we now know as the Gospel of Luke..." Exactly the opposite is true. Those who see Luke and Acts as by different authors are a distinct and very tiny minority.
A reader alerted us to this comment posted by Conder (I do not know when):
Ever notice how Christian apologists go for each other's throats, when one of their own says or writes something that goes against their own brand of theology? (That's why there are so many different Christian churches in the world, and why so many Christians have killed one another in the name of Jesus!) "My scholars are better than yours" is their standard excuse when defending their indefensible mythology. Okay, Mr. Holding, drop your smug "I've got all the answers and this guy’s no threat to anyone" arrogance, and let's get to the brass tacks! I will debate you, but we shall stick to the bible, and only to the bible. Let's see how well you fare when you've no place to hide except behind your "holy book" of error and contradiction!
And that's it. Well, Conder clearly knows that he can't handle scholarship, which is no doubt why he wants to "stick to the Bible," so that he can offer his decontextualized readings without opposition. Of course that in itself constitutes an admission of defeat by Conder, and so we conclude that he has offered here his terms of surrender. We thank him for that, and if he ever wishes to show up, he knows where we are.
Go Home! |
|
|
