arndt@lymph.DEC (02/01/85)
I would like to speak to the following comment by Bob Atkinson. ------------------------- Subject: Re: Abortion and Capital Punishment -- digression Posted: Tue Nov 27 01:22:10 1984 From Bob Atkinson (watmath!csc): > ... I think it is important for us to realize that the > bible is NOT an OBJECTIVE piece of literature, any more than any other > work that has been transcribed by man is. For generations it was > passed down by word of mouth, subject to all the biases and interpretations > of those who passed it on. Even in written form, it has been through > countless translations and rewriting. I find it extremely difficult > to believe that its content is exactly the same as when it began. --------------------------- I wonder just what a definition of OBJECTIVE literature would be, given Bob's comment "any more than any other work that has been transcribed by man is." I mean, isn't EVERY piece of literature 'transcribed' by man. By printing (typesetting), copying in any format, even READING is an act of transcribing! There is very little of the Bible that is now believed to have been 'passed down by word of mouth' given the early date now known for the skill of writing. Not only that but the first book of the bible, while believed to be compiled by Moses, is in the format of Summerian tablets, ie. titles last, last phrase on bottem of tablet repeated on top of next tablet to be read, etc. So it is not at all out of place to speculate that Moses compiled from tablets or paper copies of the origional family tablets of Abraham, etc. As for the changes thought to have taken place (and those that did) during the written transmission of the text - well, the bible is THE most reliable body of writing we have in this regard!!!! No other body of writing comes close. Bob writes as if he knows nothing of current knowledge. The Dead Sea Scrolls have given us a look back hundreds of years from the date of the privious known manuscripts. And the texts are relatively unchanged! It IS possible to base doctrune on the texts because only minor changes in words, etc. have occured. NOT ONLY THAT BUT WE HAVE TEXTS WIDLY SEPARATED IN TIME AND PLACE BESIDES THE SCROLLS THAT ALSO SHOW ONLY MINOR CHANGES. It was 19th C. scholarship that believed that the texts must have changed - an argument from silence I might add - and now the EVIDENCE has shown them to be wrong! Just so it used to be believed that oral traditions must have changed with the passage of time. Then anthropological field work showed how reliable the passage of stories, etc. was. That some peoples took great pains to ensure the accurate transmission of their histories. "Primative" people could memorize long passages and pass them on over generations! Don't believe the bible, but don't use this argument. It doesn't hold up. No the content is not EXACTLY the same, but as a matter of judgement, it seems to me to be close enough. I would ask Bob to rethink his statement. Regards, Ken Arndt