atpollard
Well-known member
It has the strength of "plausibility" and the weakness of directly attacking the ability of scripture to serve as a norma normans non normata.Apologies for this long post. I think it illustrates the underlying concept of this thread.
I've wanted to put together this analogy for a while now. It demonstrates my understanding of the transmission history of the New Testament text. I wanted to illustrate this using two completely different languages than what we usually associate with the New Testament texts. I think it demonstrates the concepts and issues more clearly.
Imagine that there is a family of manuscripts (labled [F]) which contain the following:
[F]
It's raining, it's dropping. Since the Crones are hopping around in the Hut, therefore, throw away every Pot.
There exist a lot of manuscripts with this text. Scholars recognize that this is idiomatic English and it has been long ago accepted that this almost certainly reflects what the original author wrote and meant. The most powerful religious leaders support this viewpoint and strongly defend this position against any dissenters. However, these manuscripts are known to be relatively young. While linguistic scholars confirm this is proper English, there are a few anomalies that suggest the author was not a native English speaker. They point out the capitalized nouns, for example.
Well, there have been some other manuscripts discovered after [F]. They contain very similar content but they've been confirmed as an older version of the text.
[D]
It rains, it drops. The Crones are hopping in the Hut around hop. Throw every Pot away.
It's still English. It mostly makes sense but it contains some odd grammar. Scholars are unsure why it is different. They theorize that since this family of manuscripts are fewer in number and from an area where English is a secondary language that it's been corrupted with the bad theology known to have existed at that time.
During this same time, another family of older manuscripts was discovered [E]. These were found in another part of the country.
[E]
It rains, it drops. The old Hags are hopping. Hop in the Cabin around. Throw all Pots down.
Again it's English. It mostly makes sense but displays some odd and stilted grammar. The meaning of the text is different than [F] and [D] - the action of throwing the pots does not depend on the actions of crones/hags. Also the text is arranged in 4 distinct statements and could very well be in the form of rhyming poetry. [F] does not have this feature.
Well, the staunch supporters of [F] will have none of this. They claim that [E] for sure is a corruption of the original. Look at the evidence. It uses the word "Hags" for "Crones". And it adds to the text – there is an extra word "old" that [F] does not have. It uses "Cabin" for "Hut". And instead of "throwing away", an entirely different meaning of "throwing down" occurs. This can't possibly be from the original author.
Confusion reigns. Scholars are at a loss to figure out which manuscript is the original one. And each manuscript has its devoted followers. They continually bicker and fight with each other using evidence to support their particular views. They even go so far as calling each other "unbeliever" and will have nothing to do with anyone who disagrees with their opinion. There are even entire denominations built up around a particular family of manuscript.
Unbeknowst to the vast majority of those that are dealing with these three manuscript families, in a different country, there is a family of manuscripts in a different language. They are of similar age to the earlier [D] and [E]. This text is in German [C]
[C]
Es regnet, es tropft
die Hexen hüpfen
in der Hütte herumhüpfen
wirf jeden Topf weg.
There are some scholars who know both English and German and have compared the various manuscripts. What they discover is that [D] is a word for word translation of this German [C]. That explains the stilted grammar in English. It also explains the carry over of capitalizing all the nouns. The English translation [D] wanted to preserve the exact wording of this text even if it meant that it resulted in awkward English. No one would ever talk this way but the Scripture specifically says to not add or take away from the words of Scripture.
These scholars recognize that the text was originally written in German, not English. While the overall concepts are clearly translated into English, there are some unfortunate differences that have crept in which cause native English readers of those manuscripts to misunderstand the original intent.
But the majority of English scholars and complacent followers of the religious leaders are mostly ignorant that they don't know what they don't know. And even when some are presented with these facts, they choose to ignore the evidence. There are some that do spend time to investigate but are motivated to discredit this evidence in order to protect the status quo and their jobs and positions and ego. Afterall, the system has been in place for centuries and nothing will be allowed to upset it.
There is yet one more family of manuscript that exists in that different country. This family can not be dated but it is of ancient origin. There is a long standing tradition that it is the original version of the text.
[ B]
Es regnet, es tropft
die alte Hexen hüpfen
hüpfen in der Hütte herum
wirf alle Töpfe um.
It is very close to [C]. Hardly different at all. But certain words are different which do not change the meaning. Certain verbs are arranged slightly differently. Only slight differences in shades of meaning. Those same scholars familiar with both German and English recognize that [E] is a word for word translation of this manuscript. It preserves the rhyming and poetic form of this text. This could very well be the closest to the original text and reflects the actual intent behind the text.
However, again, no English scholar attached to any major institution will support this evidence or even give it the time of day. They will take every opportunity to discredit it and claim that German [C] and [ B] are translations of the original English. But they can't determine which English manuscript that is. And the fighting continues.
But unknown to all, but suspected by some, there used to be a text that has been lost to the ravages of time. It is the actual original text.
[A]
As reagalat, as tropfalat
dia alde Weibla hopfalat
hopfat en dr Stuba rom
schmeissat älle Häfa om.
(original German Swabian text)
It's rainin', it's droppin'
the hags are a-hoppin'
hop around in the hut
throw down every pot.
(Idiomatic English of the original)
The original text was in a dialect of German. It was in Swabian. Looked down upon by the High German speaking as a folksy language. If you compare this text with all the others, you can see the path of transmission and where the changes took place and why they are the way they are.
In the grand scheme of things and for an unknown reason, [A] never survived. But [ B] as an exact word for word version in High German spread and was accepted as the authentic version which expressed the true intent of the text. More people spoke High German than Swabian and [ B] would be understood and spread farther than [A] ever could.
At a time very close when [ B] was made, [E] was translated into English and was a true reflection of the [A] text itself. The original text then existed in both High German and English. However, early on, English speakers lost contact and actually shunned anyone of German background. It didn't take too long for [E] to be (falsely) regarded as the original text. But it wasn't very good English and was course sounding and awkward. Why would God allow such mistakes in His communication with Mankind? So as time went by it was "corrected" into better, more grammatically correct English. But it still contained some flavor and characteristics of the older versions. There was respect for the text even though there was no remaining understanding about the history of the transmission of the text.
But then the religious leaders got involved and through power and agenda they manufactured history to support their views. They actively forbade research of dissenting views and over the centuries manufactured opinions became accepted facts. And human nature needs a sense of belonging and stability and naturally supports the "side" they feel comfortable with. Even if ultimately what they believe is not correct.
This analogy illustrates what my research has uncovered. I'm by no means the only one who has come to this conclusion. Usually this view point has been expressed by very few and obscure scholars who published their research in the 1800's and early 1900's. But their methods of explanation is not friendly to our modern short attention span.
In addition, what I've found is that many of those who have come to somewhat similar conclusions in our modern times are attached to questionable and faulty theology and want to use these topics to further their own agendas. But that's a whole other discussion.
It takes much effort to navigate the confusion to determine the actual facts of this matter.
From a "logic" standpoint it calls into question whether anything about God can be truly "known" ... inviting some form of Deism.
Last edited:
