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

[1John2_26]

How do you know what should be in the bible?

Dan,

You believe what you read.

I believe what I read.

[theleftone]

I specifically LISTED some of the beliefs which were variant and which I considered "core beliefs".

And I would like for those core beliefs to be specifically spelled out, so there will be no confusion.

Why did you ignore them?

I haven't taken the time to read any of your posts elsewhere, but is this kind of behavior what I should expect going forward? Because if you're going to make accusations about what I did or did not do based on one question, then I will gladly bow out.

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.

Which core belief would this be addressing?

Another important variation is the resurrection ending of G.Mark - there are four different endings to this Gospels in various MSS, the original ending being 16:8

Ditto.

the issue of salvation through the Christ's Blood

Being?

the Trinity - found in no MSS before the 16th century

The Trinity is a theological concept, not a textual variant. The doctrine has long been established, and Comma Johanneum is irrelevant to it being established.

the Lord's prayer - much variations in manuscripts

Which core belief would this be addressing?

the names of the 12 apostles are highly variable in MSS and indeed the Gospels.

Ditto.

Which apologists?

Such as 1John2_26, or Pastor_Dave, or Willowtree, or Ray Martinez.

What on earth was the point of that question?

I wanted to know who these anonymous apologists were. It appears our list is limited to posters here though. I was hopeful the list would include some outside sources, preferably those of a scholarly bent. Not that these individuals are not, for I have no idea of their backgrounds. I was simply hoping for outsiders.

[Iasion]

Greetings Tilia,

Either you don't understand anything very subtle, or you do, and don't like what you understand. Let me put it so that there can be no escape.

Ah.
Staright into the insults - a clear sign you have lost.

Nobody believes that Tolkien's books represent reality; you won't find a single Church of the Middle Earth in your town. The books are popular, but then so are The Simpsons. But you will find one church that reckons to follow Jesus Christ in your town. Maybe more.

So what?
I can find a church that follows Krishna -
does that make Krishna real?

I can find a "church" that follows Satan -
does that make Satan real ?

I can find a church that follows Zoraster -
does that make Zoraster real ?

I can find a church that follows the Book of Mormon -
does that make the book true ?

I can find a "church" that follows Luke Skywalker
does that make the him real ?


People BELIEVE all sorts of things - we are debating WHETHER the Gospels represent history (among other things).
As part of your argument, you apparently claim the Gospels represent "reality".

Well,
this is your CLAIM, we have heard it many times.

What you haven't provided is any EVIDENCE.

And,
you ignore the evidence against.


Your BELIEFS are not proof - no more than the BELIEFS of a Jehovah's Witness are proof.


Iasion

[Iasion]

Greetings,

I haven't taken the time to read any of your posts elsewhere, but is this kind of behavior what I should expect going forward? Because if you're going to make accusations about what I did or did not do based on one question, then I will gladly bow out.

What behaviour would that be?
I GAVE a list of variants which affected "even core beliefs" and I listed them.
You asked me what beliefs?
I asked you why you ignored the list I had already given?
And you get all shirty?
Why?

Which core belief would this be addressing?

The belief that Jesus was baptised in the Jordan.
The belief that God said ".. in thee I am well pleased".
That scribes could change the word of God argues against this being a true record.

Feel free to argue HOW "core" this belief is, it's hardly a minor event to Christians.

Ditto.

I beg your pardon?
The RESURRECTION is not a "core belief" !?
This is ridiculous.

You don't think that the RESURRECTION story being MISSING from the original first Gospel is important?
What a laugh.

Being?

Salvation through the Blood of Christ is important in some doctrines - maybe not to you.

The Trinity is a theological concept, not a textual variant. The doctrine has long been established, and Comma Johanneum is irrelevant to it being established.

Rubbish.
The Comma is found in SOME MSS and not others - that is prima facie evidence of it being a textual variant.
The Comma is NOT FOUND in ANY EARLY GREEK MSS.
Checking my Nestle Aland 27 (you do know what that is, and what it is for?)
I see the apparatus covers EIGHT LINES of type - meaning a major variation.

Which core belief would this be addressing?

That Jesus actually gave this prayer to the Christians.

Ditto.

Sure, sure...
No Christian cares who the apostles were, or their names.

I wanted to know who these anonymous apologists were. It appears our list is limited to posters here though. I was hopeful the list would include some outside sources, preferably those of a scholarly bent. Not that these individuals are not, for I have no idea of their backgrounds. I was simply hoping for outsiders.

They ARE outsiders - with the exception of 1John2_26.
So,
I DID give you outsiders, you were wrong again.
You seem to seek any opportunity to be disagreeable.

Anyway,
what difference does it make?
Apologists and their claims are a dime a dozen.


Iasion

[Iasion]

Greetings,

Oh what would this site be without a practicing Christian to attack?

Pardon?
Playing ther martyr - pathetic.

The same old dribble about manuscript evidence? Ho hum.

Insults and posturing, but no evidence, facts, arguments, or answers - what a surprise.

Deal with the fact that the New Testament is accurate to what happened in Judea all the way to the cross and resurrection.

Your "fact" is just your faithful beliefs.
I produced a lenghty essay showing you were wrong - you ignored it all and responded with insults and preaching.

Deny to agree, that is the only position of the opposition.

Rubbish.
I often agree, just not with nonsense beliefs.

In alll of the copies of copies was Jesus NOT crucified? Not resurrected?

Every copy of The Golden Ass of Apuleis has him turn into a donkey -
so therefore according to you, that makes it true.
Will you be converting to Assism?

The followers of Jesus literally carved into stone about Him.

Long, long after the alleged events.

The catacombs?

Yet strangely, the earliest images do NOT have a cross, but the LAMB.

By the way, has anyone ever thought that if a group of people wanted to invent a totalitarian political system to rule the world by force, the sentences about "loving your enemies" and "doing good to those that hate you, may have found and editor or two to remove them?

Um, pardon?
You think this proves the books were true?
Wow.

Darn that word "honesty."

Do you have a point?

I couldn't find one in your post.


Then you posted another irrelevent essay -
why?

Please don't waste space with posting OTHER PEOPLES essays.
It just shows you have nothing to say for yourself.



===============
P.S.
Thanks to juliod
Have you seen my site?
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/C ... iters.html



Iasion

[Tilia]

Nobody believes that Tolkien's books represent reality; you won't find a single Church of the Middle Earth in your town. The books are popular, but then so are The Simpsons. But you will find one church that reckons to follow Jesus Christ in your town. Maybe more.

So what?

So people think that the Bible is not fiction. Millions of them.

[Lotan]

So people think that the Bible is not fiction. Millions of them.

I don't understand...
You told me on this thread...

Argumentum ad numerum is a classic false argument, even if your numbers add up.
Deal with the substantive argument.

So, does it really matter what millions of people think?

[Tilia]

So people think that the Bible is not fiction. Millions of them.

I don't understand...

Of course you do. You understand that even a false argument may be better than none at all. No-one knows better.

[Cathar1950]

juliod wrote:

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

I agree Dan or should I say Julie.
It is refreshing. Thanks for the links Iasion.
Like the bible Tolkien's books were based on old myths and are some what more Entertaining.
I am amazed at the lengths some will go believing that the bible is perfect and just dropped out of the sky directly from God.
Cathy

[theleftone]

Iasion,

I admit of my mistake in my second response. I had forgotten exactly what you stated in the original post regarding variants and core beliefs. You are correct in saying it does impact some core beliefs.

The belief that Jesus was baptised in the Jordan.

Which variant(s) have what impact on this?

The belief that God said ".. in thee I am well pleased".

This is not a "core belief."

That scribes could change the word of God argues against this being a true record.

Incorrect. Man's ability to change and/or modify what God has said does not invalidate it as being true or not.

The RESURRECTION is not a "core belief" !? You don't think that the RESURRECTION story being MISSING from the original first Gospel is important?

The shortest ending of Mark stops at the eighth verse. The resurrection is established in verses 1-8, particular verse 6. Thus, any ending we accept would not exclude the resurrection. It would only exclude some post-resurrection accounts. So, how does this reach to the "core belief" of the resurrection? How does mean the resurrection story would be missing?

Salvation through the Blood of Christ is important in some doctrines - maybe not to you.

Granted, though the doctrine can be established via other passages.

The Trinity is a theological concept, not a textual variant. The doctrine has long been established, and Comma Johanneum is irrelevant to it being established.

Rubbish.
The Comma is found in SOME MSS and not others - that is prima facie evidence of it being a textual variant.

The Comma is a textual variant. The Trinity is not. The trinity is a theological concept, doctrine.

The Comma is NOT FOUND in ANY EARLY GREEK MSS.

This is precisely why I don't think it should be included, and why I think it's irrelevant to the doctrine of the trinity.

That Jesus actually gave this prayer to the Christians.

And this is a core belief how?

No Christian cares who the apostles were, or their names.

And the names of the apostles is a core belief how?

They ARE outsiders - with the exception of 1John2_26.

Partially correct. Ray is also a member here. The other two names appeared to be forum names, which is why I assumed (incorrectly) that they were also part of this forum. However, they still remain anonymous individuals to myself.