Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
The OT for sure. The NT is different, there's decent evidence the NT was substantially completed in the first century with minor edits in the second. (Wholesale rewrites in the first century totally on the table, though unlikely)
As a secular scholar I'd point to the lack of substantive differences between the versions used by the widely dispersed church fathers in the early second century, their preoccupation with pointing out error, and their lack of having to tackle massive differences in the text when they tackled lots of other problems and heresies
The problem is that most heretic versions were intentionally and efficiently destroyed. The only ones that survived were by accident.
Many heretical texts were not preserved though it's more likely they were simply copied less due to being less popular. What's known of them is preserved in the church fathers discussing them and arguing against them. But aside from the fact there's no positive evidence that heretical texts were deliberately destroyed, the fact that the church fathers quote them and make arguments against them in surviving documents shows there's was no campaign to eradicate discussion of them nor hide the fact that they ever existed.
Which is what makes it even less likely that there was some great debate over what the text of, say, Matthews gospel was that was then settled and somehow covered up. There's no evidence that this took place at all.
The original author of (for example) Mathew was not the apostle Matthew, it was written somewhere around 80-100. But the fact that a single version was widespread in the second century and even churches far apart are quoting the same version and evidence for any debate of its content is lacking that shows the text is most likely stable from very shortly after it was written. The same goes for the other gospels, Paul's undisputed letters and most other NT texts.
"Heresies" were entire other books, not different versions of the canonical texts. There were examples of short forms of gospels being used (Marcion's Luke) but not entire alternate versions.
The simplest explanation for this is that gospels were produced by a sponsoring church (in Matthews case, Antioch) and then accepted by other churches and rapidly copied widely. There is no evidence later churches substantially rewrote it and some sort of battle ensued.
We know from how church fathers talked about other disagreements that there would have been no issue preserving such a dispute had it happened.