This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Proof Luke did not write Acts

#11OrangeWizardPosted 5/20/2013 9:01:46 PM(edited)
From: DarkContractor | #009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus One of our best, most complete manuscripts - Does not have verse 51. Here's a photo of it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sinaiticus_text.jpg


That manuscript is sandwiched between two other manuscripts that DO have it, one before and one after, in your link in the OP.
Is this a chronologically ordered list? I don't know.

and a 'trend' being broken does not matter several centuries afterwards


What matters is why the trend exists. Was there an "Edit war" and one of the sides just gave up? Were they erased out of existence? What's the manuscript "density" at both sides of the trend?

Since scribes were known to add or remove things all the time, it makes sense they would have had no choice but to add that bit about the Ascension once they realized the conflict it made with the Church's view that Acts and Luke included the same authorship.


If you say so. I don't "know" of any scribes who did this.

From: DarkContractor | #010
The very earliest one you could have is P75, iirc.


Oh well yep, that's the one I have that includes the ascension mention. Bodmer Papyrus P(75). Also the the Alexandrine Manuscript, the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, and "others".

I have no idea where those are in relation to the timeline you presented, or the entire timeline, though.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#12DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 5/20/2013 9:18:29 PM(edited)
From: OrangeWizard | #011
From: DarkContractor | #009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus One of our best, most complete manuscripts - Does not have verse 51. Here's a photo of it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sinaiticus_text.jpg


That manuscript is sandwiched between two other manuscripts that DO have it, one before and one after, in your link in the OP.
Is this a chronologically ordered list? I don't know.


I cba to check the chronological order, but with the older manuscripts, you basically look at the oldest manuscripts in general. It's a fallacy to say "Manuscript A precedes B therefore is more reliable" if theyre still in the early era of Christianity, because what matters is what manuscripts they were based on. It's not like the only manuscripts we have were the only ones previous manuscripts were based on. So when in close proximity, when the majority of our manuscripts don't include the ascension tidbit, even if P75 precedes many of them, that doesn't mean they were based off P75 and omitted that or anything, you know how a bunch of modern high school atheists will make a quip like "omg lol the bible has been translated soooo many times' as though to imply NLT was translated from NIV or some dumb **** like that? its the same sort of fallacy.


What matters is why the trend exists. Was there an "Edit war" and one of the sides just gave up? Were they erased out of existence? What's the manuscript "density" at both sides of the trend?


Are you asking whether more manuscripts say the ascension bit as opposed to ones that don't? Because no, more leave out the Ascension. And what do you mean edit war? Are you actually asking if scribes would intentionally edit manuscripts? Omg absolutely. And think about it this way, it makes a lot more sense for a scribe to want to edit in the ascension than they would edit it out.


If you say so. I don't "know" of any scribes who did this.



so you are saying that scribes didn't add or remove things out of bias, right? LOL


Oh well yep, that's the one I have that includes the ascension mention. Bodmer Papyrus P(75). Also the the Alexandrine Manuscript, the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, and "others".

I have no idea where those are in relation to the timeline you presented, or the entire timeline, though.


P75 is one of the earlier ones (I didn't realize the faultiness of that source I posted in the OP) but it is still outweighed in terms of reliable manuscripts that include it (some going straight to verses 52-53, so it wasn't some piece torn off or anything)
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya
#13JonWood007Posted 5/20/2013 10:57:29 PM
I discussed this over PM earlier, and just did some research on why that verse was excluded. Basically, it's something called a western non interpolation, which is pretty common in luke. Basically, manuscripts from different areas of the ancient world written in different languages sometimes tell the story a little differently....for some reason "western" manuscripts omit some words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_non-interpolations

http://www.bible-researcher.com/noninterp.html

The second link will have an explanation for why the longer definition is accepted if you scroll down:

Luke 24:51. Here א* and geo1 join D and ita,b,d,e,ff2,j,l in supporting the shorter text. (The Sinaitic Syriac condenses ver. 51 by omitting (greek text); "And while he blessed them, he was lifted up from them"; thus, though shortened, syrs still alludes to the ascension.) A minority of the Committee preferred the shorter reading, regarding the longer as a Western non-interpolation (see the Note following 24.53).

The majority of the Committee, however, favored the longer reading for the following reasons. (1) The rhythm of the sentence seems to require the presence of such a clause (compare the two coordinate clauses joined with (greek text); in ver. 50 and in verses 52-53). (2) Luke's opening statement in Acts ("In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up [(greek text)]") implies that he considered that he had made some reference, however brief, to the ascension at the close of his first book. (3) If the shorter text were original, it is difficult to account for the presence of (greek text); in so many and such diversified witnesses, beginning with P75 about A.D. 200. (4) If the clause were a copyist's addition, prompted by his noticing the implications of Ac 1.1-2 (see point (2) above), one would have expected him to adopt some form of the verb (greek text), used in Ac 1.2 and other passages referring to the ascension, rather than the less appropriate (greek text);, which in the New Testament ordinarily has the specialized meaning "to offer up." Finally, (5) the omission of the clause in a few witnesses can be accounted for either (a) through accidental scribal oversight occasioned by homoeoarcton ((greek text)) or (b) by deliberate excision, either (i) in order to relieve the apparent contradiction between this account (which seemingly places the ascension late Easter night) and the account in Ac 1.3-11 (which dates the ascension forty days after Easter), or (ii) in order to introduce a subtle theological differentiation between the Gospel and the Acts (i. e., the Western redactor, not approving of Luke's mentioning the ascension twice, first to conclude the earthly ministry of Jesus, and again, in Acts, to inaugurate the church age, preferred to push all doxological representations of Jesus to a time after the ascension in Acts, and therefore deleted the clause in question as well as the words (greek text); from ver. 52 for when the account of the ascension has been eliminated, the mention of Jesus being worshipped seems less appropriate). 2 [pp. 189-90]


That being said, I don't see how this proves luke and acts werent written by the same author.

As for the baptism issue, Acts contradicts matthew, not luke. This isn't a problem as far as luke/acts is concerned, it's only an issue for a literalist who believes the bible can't contradict. Since I'm clearly not that kind of person, I'm unphased by this argument. Luke and Acts are still internally consistent. See the four source hypothesis to see how matthew and luke developed separately, only sharing a couple common sources.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#14OrangeWizardPosted 5/20/2013 11:12:46 PM
From: DarkContractor | #012
you know how a bunch of modern high school atheists will make a quip like "omg lol the bible has been translated soooo many times' as though to imply NLT was translated from NIV or some dumb **** like that? its the same sort of fallacy.


Let's be friends. Right now. You and me.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#15TheRealJiraiyaPosted 5/21/2013 5:49:23 AM
The issue here being that we know Acts was written before you say these things were added to Luke
---
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
http://tinyurl.com/JoinThisIRunIt
#16Wandering__HeroPosted 5/21/2013 8:30:38 AM
Don't the names on the Gospel's just refer to who commisioned them?

SOmething like this hardly tears apart the foundations of Christianity.
---
Click the sites these contain to donate to charity for free http://www.thenonprofits.com/
Official Generic Village Girl of the FE13 board
#17JonWood007Posted 5/21/2013 8:49:49 AM
^^Well there's a VERY high chance that the gospels weren't commissioned by the people involved but were written anonymously.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#18DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 5/21/2013 4:53:22 PM
JonWood007 posted...


This is fair enough, conceded, though it should be noted reconciliation between Acts and Luke isn't the only plausible motivation for inserting the verse, a few scholars think a proto-orthodoxy scribe might have done so for denominational purposes.
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya
#19DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 5/21/2013 4:54:24 PM
Wandering__Hero posted...
Don't the names on the Gospel's just refer to who commisioned them?

SOmething like this hardly tears apart the foundations of Christianity.


I don't think anyone ever said such a thing about the foundations of Christianity or how it would be impacted by re-assigning authorship.
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya
#20actarusPosted 5/22/2013 12:50:53 PM
Nice that you use the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts as evidence while you forgot that the Vulgate of Jerome(405 AD) contains this verse.
---
Even the smallest star twinkles in the dark