NT Manuscripts

[Iasion]

Greetings all,

I thought readers may be interested in my investigation of te NT MSS.

I especially draw 1John2_26's attention to the 2nd section, and look forward to his reply.


NT manuscript attestation

Claims about the NT being the "best-attested" confuse two UN-related issues -
* reliability of the text,
* truthfulness of the contents.

Firstly, it is not true that the NT is "the best-attested document in all of antiquity" because there are some documents even older than the NT for which we have the ORIGINAL literally carved in stone (e.g. Behistun inscription, Egyptian tomb inscriptions, the Rosetta Stone, the Moabite Stone) - making them absolutely 100% accurately attested from the original because they ARE the original, and thus much better attested than the NT.
http://visopsys.org/andy/essays/darius-bisitun.html

It's true the NT is fairly well-attested (in terms of quantity) compared to SOME ancient writings - in the sense that we have many old copies (24,000 or more in total). However the vast majority of these copies are from the middle-ages. The number of NT manuscripts from before the dark ages is about a hundred.

But there are NO originals for ANY of the NT writings - all we have is copies of copies, all varying from each other (that's right - every single manuscript we have is slightly different from every other - not counting very tiny scraps) from long after the alleged events :
* NO copies from 1st century,
* a few tiny fragments from 2nd century (e.g. P52, P90),
* a few UNCOMPLETE copies from late 2nd / early 3rd (e.g. P75, P46),
* several fairly complete copies in 3rd / 4th century.
List by century :
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/Robinson-list.html
Detailed contents of all NT MSS :
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/st ... /EGBMP.htm

And, there is considerable variation in Gospel manuscripts, and it often DOES reach to core beliefs and events :

The words of God at the baptism in early MSS and quotes have "...this day have I begotten thee" (echoing Psalm 2) - later, as dogma about when Jesus become god had crystallized, thus phrase became "..in thee I am well pleased". If scribes can change the alleged words of God, they can change anything.
Another important variation is the ending of G.Mark - there are four different endings to this Gospels in various MSS, the original ending being 16:8
Other MSS variations include :
* the issue of salvation through the Christ's Blood,
* the Trinity - found in no MSS before the 16th century!
* the Lord's prayer - much variations in manuscripts,
* the names of the 12 apostles are highly variable in MSS and indeed the Gospels.
http://members.aol.com/PS418/manuscript.html

These are just some issues of manuscripts variations - contradictions between different Gospel's versions of the Jesus stories is another very smelly kettle of fish :
* the widely variant birth stories,
* the names of the 12 apostles vary among Gospels.
* the completely irreconcilable Easter morning stories :
http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php



Quantity of manuscripts irrelevant to truth

But more importantly, 1John2_26, like many apologists, has confused two fundamentally different issues - he is arguing that because we have so many copies this proves the contents true. Well, this is obviously not true - the number of copies has nothing to do with the truth of the contents. Consider -

* the Iliad - over 600 manuscripts, more than the NT until after 1000AD - does this mean that the Iliad was more true than the NT until about 1000AD, but from the middle ages on, the NT became MORE TRUE than the Iliad?

* the works of 10thC. Yen-Shou of Hangchow - about 400,000 copies exist, about 4000 times as many copies as NT copies at that time - does this make the work over 4000 times MORE TRUE than the NT?

* the Book of Mormon - there are millions of copies of this work, many dating maybe a FEW YEARS after the original - would this make the Book of Mormon much MORE TRUE than the NT?

* the Lord of the Rings - there are many millions of copies of this work, (including the original manuscript AFAIK), dating from very soon after its writing - does this makes the Lord of the Rings of vastly more true than the NT?

No.
It should be obvious that the NUMBER of copies attesting to a work gives no support to the truth of the contents - yet apologists like 1John2_26 repeatedly bring this point up as if it proves something.


Iasion

[Iasion]

Greetings,

I have no preference, both dates are excellent for being a witness to the original text. I merely recorded what I had learned from experts in this field, and I quoted the sources. It seems to be important to Iasion as he contest the 100 AD date and me adamantly even though Iasion himself references at least one source that indicated the 100 AD date is possible.

Nonsense.

You CHOSE to give the EARLIEST date.
You CHOSE to completely OMIT the ACTUAL range of dates.

Now you PRETEND you have no preference?
What nonsense.
You didn't even ADMIT P52 could be later until I mentioned it.

This is dishonest.
Your misleading apologetics fool no-one.


Iasion

[Bart007]

tsalem wrote:

For example, say an individual name Joe goes to church and has an experience which he calls supernatural. While one can doubt Joe had a supernatural experience, one need not doubt Joe had an experience in a spiritual setting.

That could be used for anyone. Certainly Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon meet that standard. Does that make the Book of Mormon true?

This is an excellent question. What criteria do we use to determine what is true?

The Mormons claim that the Book of Mormon does not contradict or add to anything recorded in the New Testament, e.g. That the speeches Jesus gave in America were the same ones recorded in the NT.

I would tell the Mormons that since the Book of Mormon does not contradict or add to anything in the NT, then what is written therein does not in anyway validate the Book of Mormon as being from God.

Furthermore, betraying the Book of Mormon as an authentic historical document is that the city, places, events, and peoples mention in the Book of Mormon have no historical record. There is no historical evidence that any of these ever existed. The same is true of books that portray a 'New Age Jesus', claiming his lost years were spent in India under Hindu Shaman who taught Jesus how to perform Miracles such as walking on water. These claims totally lack the depth provided by a rich established verifiable historical background.

Finally, the Book of Mormon and the Mormon Church are founded upon a single human being, Joseph Smith, who supposedly had a vision and he was allegedly chosen to receive and pass what the Angel told Smith. This is analogous to Islam and its' sole founder who allegedly received a message from an angel. The immediate effect was to make the founder the cental authority figure in their new religion exerting enormous power over their converts to their religion. In fact, both used the OT and NT Scriptures combined with new revelation to attract converts.

For the above reasons, when I debate modern day Mormons, who are decent people who do accept the gospel of Jesus, I urge that the Book of Mormon should be discarded since it does not illuminate God's word any better than the NT does and is itself a source of controversy and division.

Jesus is the sole founder of Christianity, but unlike Joseph Smith of Mohammed, Jesus never personally benefitted from it. Satan offered Jesus the whole world if Jesus would bow before him, and Jesus said no. Instead, Jesus accepted mockery, spitting on His face, brutal beatings, and a cruel death on the cross to take our punishment that we deserved for our sins, but:

John 4:10-14
"If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water." ... "Everyone who drinks of this water [from the well] will thirst again; 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up toeternal life." NASU

And his disciples, over the next three centuries suffered imprisonment, confiscation of their properties, deaths of family and friends. beatings, stonings, persecutions, crucifixions, were burned alive, beheading, boiled in oil, and they would never had done so for a lie. The behaviour they espoused was that of Love, Mercy, Forgiveness, Integrity, Hospitality, Compassion, Patience. Their character was of the highest quality. They spoke the truth.

But what about the NT, Christianity, and Jesus. Here there is a historicity with an abundance of riches. If claims be made challenging the portrait of Jesus in the Nt, then the NT and challenges to it must be brought before historical scrutiny to determine the merits of the challenge. The historical integrity, authenticity, and accuracy will bear witness to the sincerity, truthfullness and integrity of its' authors.

The NT writers call for walking by faith, but it is not a blind faith, it is a faith built on knowable fact.

Luke wrote of Paul's bold witness to King Agrippa, appealing to well known historical facts:

Acts 26:24-27
While Paul was saying this in his defense, Festus said in a loud voice, "Paul, you are out of your mind!Your great learning is driving you mad." But Paul said, "I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I utter words of sober truth. "For the king knows about these matters, and I speak to him also with confidence, since I am persuaded that none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a corner."
NASU

Paul appeals to the many living eyewitnesses on the key point of Jesus ressurection after His crucifixion on the cross. 1 Cor 15:3-10

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. NASU

One can not write such a letter and remain credible unless these eyewitnesses were real and living. This statement must have obviously been be true.

Luke 1:1-4
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. NASU

Luke was after nothing less than historical certainty based upon first hand testimony. A very carefully documented orderly biography, from birth to death, of the life and teachings of Jesus from the most reliable sources. Luke's Gospel emphasizes Jesus as MAN.

Luke clearly wrote his gospel prior to writing the book of Acts because he says so at the beginning of the Book of Acts:

Acts 1:1-8
The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God. Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, "Which," He said, "you heard of from Me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?" He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."
NASU

If Luke wrote the Gospel before he wrote the Book of Acts, and the Book of Acts were ends with Paul still living, then both must have been written before Pauls death in 64 AD. Therefore, the evidence is clear that Luke wrote of Jesus prophecy of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, well before it's actual occurence in 70 AD.

Supporting these facts is the hard evidence of what Luke did not write in his two books. If Luke wrote his Gospel after 70 AD, he would have certainly included Paul's (and Peter's) death in 64 AD, millions of Jews slaughtered, and the Christian persecution under Nero. After all he had recorded Stephens martyrdom and smaller persecutions of Christians.

Dr. Ramsey, a noted historian, was a skeptic when he checked out Luke's
writings and he showed that all the historical details that could be
checked proved to be accurate. This is consistent with Luke's own
testimony on how he wrote the Gospel and the Book of Acts (which was
written before 65 AD and continues where his Gospel left off.), and with
the uniform testimony of the early church.

Matthew appears to have used Mark's gospel and he added in additional information from his own experience as Jesus disciple. Matthews name does not appear in the book, but the early Christian church did assign the book to Apostle Matthew. Matthew addresses Jewish audience and establishes Jesus as the rightful heir to the throne of David and applies the Messianic prophecies of the OT to Jesus. Matthew is also the only Gospel that uses the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven", Luke and Mark's use the "Kingdom of God". This is most likely because the Jews are not allowed to pronounce the name of God. Matthew's Gospel emphasizes Jesus as KING.


The Gospel of Mark was written by John who is also called Mark.

Acts 12:12
And when he [the Apostle Peter) realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John who was also called Mark.

Acts 12:25
And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their mission, taking along with them John, who was also called Mark.


Acts 15:37-39
Barnabas wanted to take John, called Mark, along with them also. But Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work. And there occurred such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas tookMark

1 Peter 5:12-14
I have written to you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand firm in it! She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings, and so does my son, Mark. Greet one another with a kiss of love. Peace be to you all who are in Christ.
NASU

Mark was a cousin of Barnabus, befriended by the Apostle Peter early on, went on a missionary journey with Paul and Barnabus, but later rejected by Paul when he deserted them in Pamphylia. Mark was then taken under wing by the Apostle Peter and went on to write his Gospel from details supplied by the first hand accounts of Peter in particular. Mark's Gospel emphasizes Jesus as SERVANT.

John's Gospel was written much later than the other three gospels. He obviously used his own first hand accounts. He was also the Apostle whom Jesus charged to take care of His mother Mary. John's Gospel exclusively details Jesus miracle of turning water into wine, that apparently came from Mary, the Mother of Jesus. John's gospel, though written about 60 years after Jesus crucifixion and 25 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, provides intimate details of Jerusalem and environs at the time of Jesus that only one who lived there could have been familiar with. In 1888, Archaeologists discovered the pool of Bethesda (John 5:2), a fragment of a Latin plaque confirmed the exstence of Pontius Pilate, The Method of Crucifixion by the Romans that Jesus endured was confirmed in an ossuary dating to 70 AD showing a long nail through the feet attached to the wood, and nails driven through the wrist. etc. etc. John's Gospel emphasizes Jesus as GOD.

The OT provides a wealth of information on the coming of the Messiah, who he is, his nature, his life and sufferings, and his very important death. Jesus said Himself, the OT testifies to Him. I will provide how the OT is all about Jesus as the foretold Messiah of the OT in a separate thread.

The Gospel accounts are based on eye witness testimony, more manuscripts, more cross references, and more archeology than any other ancient literature. Many skeptics became believers in their attempt to disprove the authenticity of the NT, including Lawyer Frank Morrision, Sir William Ramsey, Simon Greenleaf, Lord Lyttleton, to name a few.

Simon Greenleaf, a Professor of Law at Harvard University and one of America's greatest legal minds, is particularly interesting because he was the world's leading authority as to what constitutes legal evidence in a Court of Law. He was challenged by a persistent student to apply the rules of legal evidence on the New Testament. He accepted that challenge and concluded that the New Testament was reliable, The witnesses were all credible, and that in a court of law, the verdict would be that Jesus rose from the dead.

Matt 11:25-30
"I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."
NASU

[theleftone]

Iasion,

1. There is a difference between what Bart007 claimed, and what you are demanding he support. It is not his job to support any asinine claim you decide you want him to support. He only has the burden to support the claims he makes.

2. Sources of evidence or support were provided to support the claim made by Bart007 in slightly a modified form (i.e., my claim). These sources were the e-Catena project, "critical editions" of the New Testament (e.g., Nestle-Aland, Merk, Tischendorf, etc.) and a quotation by the New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger.

3. The declaration that an unsupported claim is false is an appeal to ignorance.

4. Regarding my comment regarding preferences, it's called hyperbole. And, considering the responses of you two towards one another, maybe my hyperbole is more fact than myth.

[theleftone]

For example, say an individual name Joe goes to church and has an experience which he calls supernatural. While one can doubt Joe had a supernatural experience, one need not doubt Joe had an experience in a spiritual setting.

That could be used for anyone. Certainly Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon meet that standard. Does that make the Book of Mormon true?

I am not saying the "supernatural" portion of the experience is necessarily true. Only that we can have confidence that he had an experience of some sort. It could have just as well of been indigestion which Joe understood as a "supernatural experience."

[The Nice Centurion]

Nobody believes that Tolkien's books represent reality

I don't quite understand you. Tolkien's writings tell stories with moral themes. So does the bible. Which "truths" are there in the bible that are not present in Tolkien? Or Shakespear?

For instance, LOTR doesnt have a passage saying that all Homosexualist Hobbits (so called Ho-Ho's) must be put to death by the command of Gandalf.

The question here is reliablity of the copies of the manuscripts. We can be sure that the text of the Lord of the Rings is very close to the original. But we can have no similar confidence in the bible.

BTW, I think Iasion has been doing a real bang-up job in these recent threads.

DanZ

If we had numerous full originals never contradicting each other from the first century it would be an argument.

Iason did remarkable workout here