Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You mean through things like the Gnostic Gospels, Q, and other "missing" books of the Bible? The whole point of the gathering of the Bishops at the Council of Nicea in 320AD was to quell these spin-off texts from cults.
If I was living back then I wouldn't have trusted the gathering of the Bishops of the Council of Nicea on what is and is not a spin off, as far as I could throw them.
Has any one taken a look at the Hebrew Gospel Of Matthew? I have a copy, it's interesting. By George Howard Professor of Religion, University of Georgia. It's in Hebrew on the left page and English on the right page. I have enjoyed reading it.
If I was living back then I wouldn't have trusted the gathering of the Bishops of the Council of Nicea on what is and is not a spin off, as far as I could throw them.
pcamps, if you get the chance, look into the first meeting of the council of Nicea. It is HUGELY FASCINATING. Like you, I was skeptical until I looked into it myself.
The Council of Nicea took place a couple of centuries after Jesus' crucifixion. During this time, Christianity was growing leaps and bounds. Unfortunately, alternative religions and cult movements were being spun off. Emperor Constantine presided over a group of Church bishops and leaders with the purpose of defining the true God for all of Christianity and eradicating all the confusion, controversy, and contention within. Basically the church wanted to clarify "who was this Christ?" Some people questioned his deity. Using the manuscripts written from after Jesus' time (perhaps the one that is mentioned in this thread?), and before the Council of Nicea was held, over 300 bishops did a majority vote deciding who Christ was. The bishops voted to make the full deity of Christ the accepted position for the church. The Council of Nicea voted to make the Trinity the official doctrine of the church. However, the Council of Nicea did not invent these doctrines. Rather, it only recognized what the Bible taught, and systematized the doctrines. Today, scholars are using the same manuscripts that were used then--and some historians are dating a few of these to having existed a mere 30 years after Jesus' supposed death. I hope I explained it good enough. Don't let stuff like the Da Vinci Code be your history book :0P
Q: For the NT versus other ancient works, what is the number of manuscript variations?
A: Here are Bruce Metzger's estimates compared with other religious literature. There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Metzger estimates the New Testament has 20,000 lines, an accuracy of 99.5% with only 40 lines (about 400 words) in question. (This is probably on a letter by letter basis.) Homer's Illiad is the next most reliably preserved document. It has 643-650 manuscripts, and is 95% accurate. It has 15,600 lines, with about 764 lines in doubt. The Hindu Mahabharata has 250,000 lines and is 90% accurate. Over 26,000 lines have textual corruption. See A General Introduction to the Bible - Revised and Expanded p.474-475 for more info.
Excerpt: [In the link you can view this with the columns properly aligned.]
Author Date Written Earliest Copy Time Span Copies (extent)
Secular Manuscripts:
Herodotus (History) 480 - 425 BC 900 AD 1,300 years 8
Thucydides (History) 460 - 400 BC 900 AD 1,300 years ?
Aristotle (Philosopher) 384 - 322 BC 1,100 AD 1,400 years 5
Caesar (History) 100 - 44 BC 900 AD 1,000 years 10
Pliny (History) 61 - 113 AD 850 AD 750 years 7
Suetonius (Roman History) 70 - 140 AD 950 AD 800 years ?
Tacitus (Greek History) 100 AD 1,100 AD 1,000 years 20
Biblical Manuscripts: (note: these are individual manuscripts)
Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26) 1st century 50-60 AD co-existant (?)
John Rylands (John) 90 AD 130 AD 40 years
Bodmer Papyrus II (John) 90 AD 150-200 AD 60-110 years
Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.) 1st century 200 AD 150 years
Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels) 1st century 200 AD 150 years
Codex Vaticanus (Bible) 1st century 325-350 AD 275-300 years
Codex Sinaiticus (Bible) 1st century 350 AD 300 years
Codex Alexandrinus (Bible) 1st century 400 AD 350 years
(Total New Testament manuscripts = 5,300 Greek MSS, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 9,300 others = 24,000 copies)
(Total MSS compiled prior to 600 AD = 230)
The Bible's Manuscript Evidence (http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm - broken link)
There are all sorts of evidence of a sole Divine authorship that worked through unique individuals throughout the Scriptural text. The message is he's both our Creator and Redeemer. A centralized message throughout the 40 authors and 66 books we call the Bible. The reason so many attempt to discredit it, is because they are running from accountability for their lives.
God puts it like this.
Psalm 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
Q: For the NT versus other ancient works, what is the number of manuscript variations?
A: Here are Bruce Metzger's estimates compared with other religious literature. There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Metzger estimates the New Testament has 20,000 lines, an accuracy of 99.5% with only 40 lines (about 400 words) in question. (This is probably on a letter by letter basis.) Homer's Illiad is the next most reliably preserved document. It has 643-650 manuscripts, and is 95% accurate. It has 15,600 lines, with about 764 lines in doubt. The Hindu Mahabharata has 250,000 lines and is 90% accurate. Over 26,000 lines have textual corruption. See A General Introduction to the Bible - Revised and Expanded p.474-475 for more info.
Excerpt: [In the link you can view this with the columns properly aligned.]
Author Date Written Earliest Copy Time Span Copies (extent)
Secular Manuscripts:
Herodotus (History) 480 - 425 BC 900 AD 1,300 years 8
Thucydides (History) 460 - 400 BC 900 AD 1,300 years ?
Aristotle (Philosopher) 384 - 322 BC 1,100 AD 1,400 years 5
Caesar (History) 100 - 44 BC 900 AD 1,000 years 10
Pliny (History) 61 - 113 AD 850 AD 750 years 7
Suetonius (Roman History) 70 - 140 AD 950 AD 800 years ?
Tacitus (Greek History) 100 AD 1,100 AD 1,000 years 20
Biblical Manuscripts: (note: these are individual manuscripts)
Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26) 1st century 50-60 AD co-existant (?)
John Rylands (John) 90 AD 130 AD 40 years
Bodmer Papyrus II (John) 90 AD 150-200 AD 60-110 years
Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.) 1st century 200 AD 150 years
Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels) 1st century 200 AD 150 years
Codex Vaticanus (Bible) 1st century 325-350 AD 275-300 years
Codex Sinaiticus (Bible) 1st century 350 AD 300 years
Codex Alexandrinus (Bible) 1st century 400 AD 350 years
(Total New Testament manuscripts = 5,300 Greek MSS, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 9,300 others = 24,000 copies)
(Total MSS compiled prior to 600 AD = 230)
The Bible's Manuscript Evidence (http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm - broken link)
There is something that is bothering me here, and that is the use of the term "manuscript". Perhaps that is the basis of my skepticism based on reading.
When I think of the term "manuscript" I think of a "book" or a "scroll" with lots of handwriting... dozens of pages, those dusty old tomes of medieval period movies, pulled from a shelf and paged through for secret ancient knowledge.
What you and the scholars you reference are saying is that any scrap of papyrus containing a couple of words is a "manuscript". And that is technically true, but from what I can see reading through your sources, and then doing some independent reading, it is misleading.
There is something that is bothering me here, and that is the use of the term "manuscript". Perhaps that is the basis of my skepticism based on reading.
When I think of the term "manuscript" I think of a "book" or a "scroll" with lots of handwriting... dozens of pages, those dusty old tomes of medieval period movies, pulled from a shelf and paged through for secret ancient knowledge.
What you and the scholars you reference are saying is that any scrap of papyrus containing a couple of words is a "manuscript". And that is technically true, but from what I can see reading through your sources, and then doing some independent reading, it is misleading.
Because they all come from different manuscripts, even a fragment is called a manuscript. Even a fragment has value to the Scholars who conduct textual criticism for the purpose of seeking to determine from the existing manuscript copies the reading of the original autographs. And many of these are not just fragments.
This fragment is manuscript P87 of Philemon from the 3rd Century.
This is P52. The Rylands Papyrus from the Gospel of John. Dated 125 - 160 A.D.
Everything regardless of how complete or incomplete, is of value to the textual critic in determining the reading of the original autographs.
Excerpt:
Commenting upon the comparison between the Bible and the classical writings, Andrew Archibald in 1890 declared:
None of the original manuscripts of the Bible have been preserved. Shall we therefore reject this book? As well might we throw away the works of Homer, who flourished from eight to nine hundred years before Christ, but of whose writings we have no complete copy older than the thirteenth century, and no fragments even older than the sixth century–-fifteen centuries after the blind poet died. Of the history by Herodotus there is no manuscript extant earlier than the ninth century, but this historian lived in the fifth century before the Christian era. There is no copy of Plato previous to the ninth century, and he wrote considerably more than a thousand years before that (29). The New Testament Compared to Classical Literature : ChristianCourier.com
We have far greater attestation to the reliability of the reading of the Bible then we do of ancient secular works.
whoppers, I agree with your comments for the most part, but I just think that it is possible this may be a genuine find regardless of the worldview. From reading blogs and other sources, we know that this paleographer is considered "the best in the field", so I doubt it's a credence issue.
Like you said, we will have to wait. I actually heard that it will take about a year before a conclusion is released to the public partly because they want to make it into a book (a process which is going to make the skeptics even more skeptical). On the other hand, the fact that he wants to take it through a publication process shows that he believes the discovered material is strong enough.
About the claim of the eyewitnesses actually "witnessing the resurrection"--that is the claim those witnesses make. This is why this is a big deal of a find.
The normal publication process in scholarly endeavors is through peer-reviewed academic journals - not in a popular book format. After the peer-reviewed journal line, usually comes any books - scholarly or popular. If he is skipping the peer-reviewed process, then it's already in doubt. Good scholars try not to hide things from other scholars, unless they are worried about making a name for themselves at the cost of scholarship.
Until the paleographer is named (blogs claiming the unknown person is credible doesn't really count for anything, frankly), the suspicion will be that something is being hidden for a reason. And that's a fair assumption. Scholarship has been quite open, especially after Shanks called for more openness after the whole Dead Sea Scrolls delay with certain scholars.
Your last paragraph - it's highly unlikely that any of the Gospel writers were actual eye-witnesses. I would reccomend to you a large dearth of scholary information dealing with this information, in lieu of me repeating it all here. When a minority scholar from a fundamentalist background makes comments regarding "eye-witnesses to the resurrection" - it raises suspicions of the scholar's motivations and training.
Has any one taken a look at the Hebrew Gospel Of Matthew? I have a copy, it's interesting. By George Howard Professor of Religion, University of Georgia. It's in Hebrew on the left page and English on the right page. I have enjoyed reading it.
That's a translation INTO Hebrew FROM Greek, is it not?
For we have no indication that the author of the Gospel of Matthew wrote in Hebrew. That used to be an older theory, long superseded by his dependence on the Septuagint for many of his quotations from it, among other linguistic markers pointing to a Greek original.
Because they all come from different manuscripts, even a fragment is called a manuscript. Even a fragment has value to the Scholars who conduct textual criticism for the purpose of seeking to determine from the existing manuscript copies the reading of the original autographs. And many of these are not just fragments.
This fragment is manuscript P87 of Philemon from the 3rd Century.
This is P52. The Rylands Papyrus from the Gospel of John. Dated 125 - 160 A.D.
Everything regardless of how complete or incomplete, is of value to the textual critic in determining the reading of the original autographs.
Excerpt:
Commenting upon the comparison between the Bible and the classical writings, Andrew Archibald in 1890 declared:
None of the original manuscripts of the Bible have been preserved. Shall we therefore reject this book? As well might we throw away the works of Homer, who flourished from eight to nine hundred years before Christ, but of whose writings we have no complete copy older than the thirteenth century, and no fragments even older than the sixth century–-fifteen centuries after the blind poet died. Of the history by Herodotus there is no manuscript extant earlier than the ninth century, but this historian lived in the fifth century before the Christian era. There is no copy of Plato previous to the ninth century, and he wrote considerably more than a thousand years before that (29). The New Testament Compared to Classical Literature : ChristianCourier.com
We have far greater attestation to the reliability of the reading of the Bible then we do of ancient secular works.
Your post has some good information, but I'm not so sure I would be quoting someone from 1890(!) for reliable and up-to-date information concerning the topic.
The Jehovah's Witnesses do the same thing when they claim that modern scholarship has added aboslutely nothing to the understanding of the Bible - they do this by quoting a Jewish Orthodox source from the 1800s. But they also claim they use the Dead Sea Scrolls in their translation, so we have a bit of a contradiction there...
I'm not sure what you mean by "the reliability of the reading of the Bible". Which reading? What reliability?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
