The original manuscripts

[McCulloch]

In various threads reference has been made to the original manuscripts of the Bible. Rather than continue to clog up those debates with discussions about those documents, let us please debate the issues here.

Questions for debate:

1. How accurately can we know what the original manuscripts of the Bible contained?
2. Are modern English translations, properly compared, acceptable stand-ins for the original manuscripts?
3. Can we meaningfully and confidentially speak of what was contained in the original manuscripts?
4. What assurance is there that what we now have has not been altered or changed from the time the first original was penned to the time that a standard version was made from which all of the subsequent copies have been made?

[kayky]

Nothing meaningful or confident can be said about something that no longer exists or, at least, has not as yet surfaced. There is also no reason to believe that significant changes have been made in our current copies if they could be compared to the originals. Either way, this provides no evidence that the Gospels are literally true and historically accurate.

[Heterodoxus]

How accurately can we know what the original manuscripts of the Bible contained?

Unfortunately, we can't with 100% certainty. There are methods we theologizer types use to guesstimate, rightly or wrongly, what the nonextant originals might have contained (comparisons of extant mss., conjectural emendation, research and critical reflection, and the like). But even the best efforts of practical theologians is, sometimes, speculative.
My least favorite technique for reconstructing lacunae (visible gaps in lettering, missing words) was the use of "conjectural emendation" (the critical editing of a text based on nothing but conjecture). E.g., the orthodox rendering of the last phrase in Matthew 1:16 as "Jesus, who is called the Christ." For many centuries, both Catholic and Protestant theologizers have conjectured that this must be the correct Greek wording. I say not necessarily because manuscript P1 (ca. II-III CE) has a lacuna at the place where the word ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ (Christ) is thought by many textual scholars to have been copied.
However, the missing word might have been ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑ�ΟΣ, making that phrase read Jesus, who is called a Christian." If this is true, can you imagine the impact that wording could have on Judeo-Christian theology and "Christian" (follower of Messiah) worship/activities?
Nonetheless, orthodox theologians can't conclusively prove that wasn't the wording in the autograph/original, and I can't conclusively prove it was. And 'round and 'round we go!

Are modern English translations, properly compared, acceptable stand-ins for the original manuscripts?

It depends on how one defines "properly compared" but, IME, no. The ubiquitous KJV, and subsequent translations based on it, are rooted in the Greek wording seen in the pro-Protestant Textus Receptus (TR) of 1550 CE. Other Bible versions, like the ASV, are based on Westcott & Hort's later Greek New Testament (GNT, 1885, pro-Catholic) which is based in part on the earlier Young's Literal Interpretation (1862, pro-Catholic) and the later Tischendorf's Eighth Edition (1869, and also pro-Catholic). Whatever the modern Bible version, they all reflect either a pro-Catholic or pro-Protestant perspective.

Can we meaningfully and confidentially speak of what was contained in the original manuscripts?

Meaningful? Surely, in the sense that all conjecture-based opinion is meaningful to its espouser. Confidently? Not so much because many points in orthodox Judeo-Christian theology are, as the name indicates, Judaism-influenced conjecture.

What assurance is there that what we now have has not been altered or changed from the time the first original was penned to the time that a standard version was made from which all of the subsequent copies have been made?

That depends on who you ask.

[JoeyKnothead]

Anyone? Anyone? The Laffer Curve?

The silence is deafening.

[TheOneAndOnly]

Questions for debate:

1. How accurately can we know what the original manuscripts of the Bible contained?

We cannot know.

[*]Are modern English translations, properly compared, acceptable stand-ins for the original manuscripts?

If they have different meanings, no. I believe there are various known examples of this.

[*]Can we meaningfully and confidentially speak of what was contained in the original manuscripts?

Not to my knowledge.

[*]What assurance is there that what we now have has not been altered or changed from the time the first original was penned to the time that a standard version was made from which all of the subsequent copies have been made? [/list]

We already know that some parts of the scriptures have been changed. It is acknowledged by various theological scholars and Christian apologetics that the early Christians fiddled with some of the scriptures. The end of the Gospel of Mark is one confirmed example.

So we basically have no assurances whatsoever that the copies are pristine compared to the originals. We have no need of the originals to confirm this.

[micatala]

In various threads reference has been made to the original manuscripts of the Bible. Rather than continue to clog up those debates with discussions about those documents, let us please debate the issues here.

Questions for debate:

1. How accurately can we know what the original manuscripts of the Bible contained?

My view is we can be fairly confident that most of what is written in the early manuscripts we have is the same as the autographs. I guess we could get into what "fairly confident" or "how accurate is accurate" if you want, but such probabilities are all going to be somewhat subjective.


This view is based on the notion that where all the early manuscripts agree, it is reasonable to think these passages all went back to the same source. It is possible this is not true, and it is also possible the "same source" is not the original.

Suppose we call A the original and we assume there is a source B, perhaps a different manuscript than A, and all known manuscripts agree with B on a particular passage X. If B's version of X is different than A's, then we would have to ask why there are no manuscripts which has the A version of X. How likely A and any copies having the same version of X got lost depends on lots of things, in particular how many copies of A got made. Well, we can't know that. However, I think it is fair to say that the more manuscripts we have that have the B version of X, the more likely the B version of X is the same as the A version. The earlier the date on the manuscripts, the more the contribute to increasing this probability.

[*]Are modern English translations, properly compared, acceptable stand-ins for the original manuscripts?

I would have to ask "acceptable for what purpose?"

[*]Can we meaningfully and confidentially speak of what was contained in the original manuscripts?

Did you mean "confidently" rather than "confidentially?" WE can certainly speak confidentially, but not on the public forum.

To answer the assumed intended question, I would give a qualified yes. The qualification is "how confident are we?" I'll throw out a completely subjective number and say that I am at least 80% confident that passages which appear entire and identical in all given manuscripts and in the same language as the original are as the original.

[*]What assurance is there that what we now have has not been altered or changed from the time the first original was penned to the time that a standard version was made from which all of the subsequent copies have been made? [/list]

We cannot be 100% assured.

Perhaps it would be good to consider some scenarios based on what we think we know about when and where and for whom a given gospel was written. Who is likely to have been making the first copies? In how many different places? How quickly did distribution of manuscripts and the copying process occur? etc.

[Heterodoxus]

Anyone? Anyone? The Laffer Curve?

The silence is deafening.

That's likely because, Joey, no one is making that connection since the Laffer Curve shows the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue collected by governments.

How, and why, are you applying the Laffer Curve of economics and financing to Bible source documents?

[TheOneAndOnly]

Anyone? Anyone? The Laffer Curve?

The silence is deafening.

That's likely because, Joey, no one is making that connection since the Laffer Curve shows the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue collected by governments.

How, and why, are you applying the Laffer Curve of economics and financing to Bible source documents?

Bueller? Bueller?