Original documents

  • Thread starter Thread starter ajcstr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

ajcstr

Guest
I am a little confused about fragments and codex (s).

I know that there are the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus and the Textus Receptus which I think are the oldest manuscripts we have?

There are also fragments which are older than the manuscripts. I am trying to understand what period the oldest fragments that we have are from. Someone was telling me last night that there was a find in the 70’s that contained NT as well as apocrophal fragments. He said that these fragments were original writings which I find hard to believe.

Finally, regarding the apocrophal gospels, was there a major “find” of manuscripts or fragments for these?

Also, I really am not intending to start a canon discussion, just curious as to what has been descovered to date.
 
I do not believe ANY originals have been discovered nor have survived. I believe there is a fragment dating from the 2nd century of Mark if memory serves me.

We have no originals…just copies of copies of copies of copies with a myriad of variations between them…more variations between the copies of the NT than words contained in the NT.
 
this is all i could find "For such an ancient period as that between A.D. 100 and 300 it is of course much more difficult to be confident about the date of a manuscript. There is infinitely less comparative material. Nevertheless we are now in a fairly comfortable position to date papyrus manuscripts according to their handwriting. We do not have to rely on manuscripts of the New Testament only. We have hundreds of papyrus manuscripts of Greek pagan literary texts from this period and again hundreds of carefully written papyrus documents that show the same types of handwriting. These documents are very important for paleographers because they are often exactly dated. As a rule New Testament manuscripts on papyrus are not. A careful comparison of the papyrus documents and manuscripts of the second and third centuries has established beyond doubt that about forty Greek papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament date from this very period. Unfortunately only six of them are extensively preserved.

Even within the period that runs from c. A.D. 100-300 it is possible for paleographers to be more specific on the relative date of the papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament. For about sixty years now a tiny papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John has been the oldest “manuscript” of the New Testament. This manuscript (P52) has generally been dated to ca. A.D. 125. This fact alone proved that the original Gospel of John was written earlier, viz. in the first century A.D., as had always been upheld by conservative scholars.

We now have early and very early evidence for the text of the New Testament. A classified list of the most important manuscripts will make this clear. Numbers preceded by a P refer to papyri, the letters refer to parchment manuscripts.

ca. A.D. 200 250 300 350 450

Matthew P45 B Sin.
Mark P45 B Sin. A
Luke P4,P45,P75 B Sin. A
John P66 P45,P75 B Sin. A
Acts P45 B Sin. A
Romans-Hebrews P46 B Sin. A
James-Jude P72,B Sin. A
Apocalypse P47 Sin. A

As you can see, from the fourth century onwards the material base for establishing the text of the Greek New Testament is very good indeed. The manuscripts Sin. (Sinaiticus), A (Alexandrinus) and B (Vaticanus) are almost complete parchment manuscripts. With the help of the earlier papyrus manuscripts we have been able to establish that the text of these three great manuscripts is to a large extent reliable. The papyrus manuscript P75 was the latest to be published, but it showed a virtually identical text to manuscript B. This settled the vexed question whether we have in the parchment manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries a safe guide to the original text of the New Testament. We have.
That is not to say that we can dispense with later manuscripts of the New Testament. With the exception of Sin. the oldest manuscripts are not complete. Moreover they contain scribal errors of all sorts. P46 is a case in point: it is the manuscript with the largest percentage of blunders on record! Most of this kind of errors can, however, be removed by comparing the readings of the oldest manuscripts. The remaining puzzles can only be solved by taking later manuscripts into account. Most of the work in textual criticism in the past forty years has been done by Kurt Aland in Münster and Bruce Metzger in Princeton. The latest translations of the New Testament are based on their work.

It is to be noticed that all the manuscripts listed above come from Egypt. The papyri were found there in the twentieth century. They are now in Dublin, Ann Arbor, Cologny (in Switzerland), the Vatican and Vienna. Sin. was found in a monastery library on the slopes of Mount Sinai in the nineteenth century and brought to St. Petersburg. In 1933 it was sold to the British Museum in London for a mere 100,000 pounds. A was transferred from the patriarchal library at Alexandria in the seventeenth century and is now also in the British Library. B has been in the Vatican since the Middle Ages. We owe the early Egyptian Christians an immense debt. Those who are fortunate enough to be able to work with part of their heritage count their blessings every day."

~ library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html

shalom
 
I do not believe ANY originals have been discovered nor have survived. I believe there is a fragment dating from the 2nd century of Mark if memory serves me.

We have no originals…just copies of copies of copies of copies with a myriad of variations between them…more variations between the copies of the NT than words contained in the NT.
Dear Publisher I believe that a good Jewish scribe would say that you are in great error that the copies have a myriad of variations. I have been to a Synagog and the rabbi there described that when a person got up to read from the scrolls two people would stand next to him reading the same text and their sole purpose was to ensure that he read EXACTLY what was written. They were very particular about accurately passing on God’s word. I doubt that this idea was lost with the dawn of Christianity. It is only the translations that have a myriad of variations now because of different ways of translating the same work. The word that we translate as either teaching or tradition comes from one word in the original.
Also it is my understanding that when the ancient scrolls were discovered in Qumran ( known as the Dead sea scrolls ) about the 50s I believe and once they were preserved opened and read some were word for word exactly the same as in the later OT texts available at the time. centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html this si a good link for more info on the DSS.
It is also my understanding that some of the Deutero Canonical books or the Apocrypha were discovered in Hebrew. The argument for those not being canonical was that we did not have them in the original language…now put to bed.
 
Dear Publisher I believe that a good Jewish scribe would say that you are in great error that the copies have a myriad of variations. I have been to a Synagog and the rabbi there described that when a person got up to read from the scrolls two people would stand next to him reading the same text and their sole purpose was to ensure that he read EXACTLY what was written. They were very particular about accurately passing on God’s word. I doubt that this idea was lost with the dawn of Christianity. It is only the translations that have a myriad of variations now because of different ways of translating the same work. The word that we translate as either teaching or tradition comes from one word in the original.
Also it is my understanding that when the ancient scrolls were discovered in Qumran ( known as the Dead sea scrolls ) about the 50s I believe and once they were preserved opened and read some were word for word exactly the same as in the later OT texts available at the time. centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html this si a good link for more info on the DSS.
It is also my understanding that some of the Deutero Canonical books or the Apocrypha were discovered in Hebrew. The argument for those not being canonical was that we did not have them in the original language…now put to bed.
Friend Maryann…where in my post did I even bring up the subject of the canonical nature of the Apoc/Duet.

Your Jewish friend was most likely not thinking of the NT…the variations between manuscripts of the NT are more numerous than there are words in the NT. However, you are free to disblieve something that can be shown with some research on your part.

Peace friend…it’s too early to go to bed.🙂
 
First of all, you really need to realize that Ehrman isn’t a scholar so much as a professional celebrity. His business is to write bestsellers and go on talkshows; his secondary business is being a professor in his spare time. In the pursuit of his primary business, he likes to stir the pot and dramatize everything.

Second, a lot of “variants” are just things like variations in word order. In English, it matters whether you say something is a “big green apple” or a “green big apple”. In other languages like Latin, they don’t care. Heck, in Latin, all the parts of speech are attached to the word, so you can mess around with word order all you want. (Thus the advantages of Latin poetry.)

Third, there are variants that basically consist of whether you use an article or not. “I was riding sleds” or “I was riding the sleds” makes a bit of difference to meaning, but nobody dies if you leave out the “the”.

Fourth, there are variants which consist of quote differences. When the NT quotes Scripture, sometimes Bob the copyist saved papyrus by just writing enough so you recognize the quote. Sometimes Bill the copyist decided to copy the whole Bible quote instead of just the little bit Jesus quoted. The words in the Scripture quote may vary, if the local versions of the OT Septuagint varied or if the copyist consulted memory or hymns instead of looking up the actual quote.

Fifth, there are variants where the copyist misspelled a word, or misread the word as another common word that would make sense there. This isn’t so much a variant of Scripture text as a typo.

Sixth, some copyists used synonyms, so that they wouldn’t have somebody complaining about not understanding some weird Greek word.

In general, though, any copyist would only have a few variants in his copy. The “more variants than words” thing is mostly a function of how many copies we have, and how many typos are possible in the course of making hundreds of copies. You don’t see all the variants in any one copy. The whole point of recording variants is that most early copies of the NT are mostly the same, so variants are useful for identification and study. If they were all messy messes of random words, nobody would care.

It is also possible that a lot of variants are actually modern scholar errors in reading, by scholars who don’t understand someone’s handwriting or spelling, or couldn’t make out what was written in a damaged portion of ms and just guessed.
 
Actually, Mr. Erhman is an historian…and and accomplished author and professor. While the majority of variants may be inconsequential…some of the variants are not.

As an accomplished author his books are widely available…so anyone wanting to research them for themselves…they are easily accessible.
 
Is anyone aware of a find in the 1970’s that uncovered very old NT writings?
 
According to Raymond Brown (‘An Introduction to the New Testament’), “Approximately 3,000 mss. of the Greek NT (part or whole) have been preserved, copied between the 2d and 17th centuries, plus over 2,200 lectionary mss. containing sections (pericopes) of the NT arranged for reading in church liturgy from the 7th century on. These witnesses to the text of the NT do not agree among themselves in myriad ways, **but relatively few of the differences are significant.”(2)

(2) Metzger, New 281, states, “No doctrine of the Christian faith depends solely upon a passage that is textually uncertain.”**
 
…and the Textus Receptus which I think are the oldest manuscripts we have?
The Textus Recpetus is not an ancient manuscript but a printed edition, a product of 17-century Bible scholarship. (source) However, many ancient manuscripts were compared in its creation.
 
Some good info has been shared on this thread. I’ve done some study on this subject, and have found that it is likely, that the authors of the Biblical books probably wrote more than one copy of their their works, and probaly in more than one language. That would make sense in the case of omissions and longer versions and shorter versions.
 
Publisher: Actually, Mr. Erhman is an historian…and and accomplished author and professor. While the majority of variants may be inconsequential…some of the variants are not.
As an accomplished author his books are widely available…so anyone wanting to research them for themselves…they are easily accessible.
Hi, sorry, but Ehrman is no scholar–and if I were Princeton I would revoke his degree. While they’re at it, they should fire the equally awful Pagels.

Ehrman’s arguments are laid out in an hysterical, over-the-top manner, the sort of breathless style usually found in a tabloid, or book by a psychic about the secrets of Atlantis. Oh, is he ever dreadful. But never mind those problems. Those are teeny compared to his constant historical and biblical errors and his outright (chronic) deceptions.

Yes, deceptions. Clear, obvious, and often. The fact that he hasn’t been called on them is nothing less than a scandal. I would be delighted to prove this to you if you are interested. I believe I have read every one of his wince making books.

Sorry, but if you have been reading Ehrman without reading any competent biblical scholars you will end up believing downright nonsense. Ehrman is not to be trusted.
You also wrote: We have no originals…just copies of copies of copies of copies with a myriad of variations between them…more variations between the copies of the NT than words contained in the NT.
The various variations are inconsequential, as others have pointed out. And the Catholic councils which decided the canon may well have had the original autographs. After all, we know that the Codex Vaticanus was actually re-inked in the 10th century. So it was apparently still in use six hundred years after it was made.

God bless, Annem
 
Friend Maryann…where in my post did I even bring up the subject of the canonical nature of the Apoc/Duet.

Your Jewish friend was most likely not thinking of the NT…the variations between manuscripts of the NT are more numerous than there are words in the NT. However, you are free to disblieve something that can be shown with some research on your part.

Peace friend…it’s too early to go to bed.🙂
You didn’t bring it up . I added the point to emphasis that we now have evidence that shows the copies, even copies only of translations, are pretty darn close to the original language texts newly discovered and infact ( perhaps I should have elaborated to make my point- my appologies) that also that Duet/Apoc books that were discovered in the original Hebrew/Aramaic ( but were discarded from the cannon by those who thought they were not inspired BECAUSE we did not have them in the original text), proves that the Holy Spirit knew what he was doing when he inspired the Church to compile the official church Bible which I believe is still actually the Vulgate…but could be wrong on this I know it was discussed on another thread.
I enjoyed reading from the Book Of Isaiah yesterday as I looked at the original text on the Dead Sea Scroll parchment online and was able to point to a line and see the English translation- can’t get more direct than that, See the links I have already posted.

IMHO the ‘variations’ as has already been mentioned are from either ‘typos’ or by the different scholars who are looking at these ancient documents and see a different swirl of an ancient line and ‘interpret’ that line differently. BUt I am no ancient script scholar. IF however you look at one of the links I posted you will see the agonizing over the reliability of the ancient scriptures is no new concern as Erasmus grappled with this issue along with many others.
I like to take a step back and look at God’s bigger picture. BUT that would be another long post to explain what I mean. In short my understanding of Jerome- I read about him not just the little I have heard- is that he was an excellent scholar and that is why he was selected for the job of compiling a universal language translation to help STOP the changing and twisting of scripture meaning by others in their own translations. I trust this was a movement inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore God’s plan.
If you look at the link I posted (protestant refuting protestant) you will see there that there is indeed debate that the correct translation of “hail Mary full of Grace” is more correctly translated “highly favoured one” but that statement can not be taken alone and has to be understood in the whole context of the Bible and God’s plann. 🙂
 
Also found this.

Archaeology And The NT

Independent archaeological research has solidified the authenticity and the historical reliability of the New Testament. Some of the discoveries include:

Luke refers to Lysanias as being the tetrarch of Abilene at the beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry, circa 27 A. D. (Luke 3:1) Historians accused Luke of being in error, noting that the only Lysanias known was the one killed in 36 B. C. Now, however, an inscription found near Damascus refers to “Freedman of Lysanias the tetrarch” and is dated from 14 and 29 A. D.
Paul, writing to the Romans, speaks of the city treasurer Erastus (Romans 16:23). A 1929 excavation in Corinth unearthed a pavement inscribed with these words: ERASTVS PRO:AED:P:STRAVIT: (“Erastus curator of public buildings, laid this pavement at his own expense.”)
Luke mentions a riot in the city of Ephesus which took place in a theater (Acts 19:23-41). The theater has now been excavated and has a seating capacity of 25,000.
Acts 21 records an incident which broke out between Paul and certain Jews from Asia. These Jews accused Paul of defiling the Temple by allowing Trophimus, a Gentile, to enter it. In 1871, Greek inscriptions were found, now housed in Istanbul which read:
NO FOREIGNER MAY ENTER WITHIN THE BARRICADE WHICH SURROUNDS THE TEMPLE AND ENCLOSURE. ANYONE WHO IS CAUGHT DOING SO WILL HAVE HIMSELF TO THANK FOR HIS ENSUING DEATH.

Luke addresses Gallio with the title Proconsul (Acts 18:12). A Delphi inscription verifies this when it states, “As Lucius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the Proconsul of Achaia …”
Luke calls Publicus, the chief man of Malta, “First man of the Island.” (Acts 28:7) Inscriptions now found do confirm Publicus as the “First man”. (Josh McDowell, The Best of Josh Mcdowell: A Ready Defense, pp. 110-111)
The five porticoes of the pool of Bethesda by the Sheep Gate and the pool of Siloam mentioned in John 5:2 and 9:1-7 has now been unearthed.
The pavement (Gabbatha) of John 18:13 and Solomon’s porch in the Temple precincts (John 10:22-23), have been found.
Archaeologists have unearthed Jacob’s well at Sychar. (John 4:5)
An inscription found in Ceasarea confirms Pilate’s role as the prefect of Judea during the time of Christ.
The discovery of a bone-box of a crucified man named Johanan from the first century Palestine confirms the fact that nails were used to pierce the ankles of the victims. Such was the case of Christ, of course, and this discovery is significant in answering the skeptics who believed that the Romans used only ropes to tie the victim’s legs to the cross.
Finally, in 1990, the burial grounds of Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest, and his family were uncovered. This is an undeniable fact that Caiaphas existed as a true historical figure.
The significance of such extra-Biblical evidence is of such magnitude that honest skeptics are now forced to agree that the Bible is historically accurate and reliable. One such person was Sir William Ramsey, considered one of the world’s greatest archaeologists. He believed that the New Testament, particularly the books of Luke and Acts, were second-century forgeries. He spent thirty years in Asia Minor, seeking to dig up enough evidence to prove that Luke-Acts was nothing more than a lie. At the conclusion of his long journey however, he was compelled to admit that the New Testament was a first-century compilation and that the Bible is historically reliable. This fact led to his conversion and embracing of the very faith he once believed to be a hoax.

Dr. Ramsey stated:

“Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy … this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”

Ramsey further said: “Luke is unsurpassed in respects of its trustworthiness.” (Josh McDowell, The Best of Josh Mcdowell: A Ready Defense, pp. 108-109)

Other skeptics who have conceded the Bible’s historical accuracy include the renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck:

“It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference,” and “the almost incredibly accurate historical memory of the Bible, and particularly so when it is fortified by archaeological fact.” (Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict p. 65)

This is a very significant statement since it is made by one who totally denied the inspiration of Scripture. Earl Radmacher, former president of Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, notes:

“I listened to him [Glueck] when he was at Temple Emmanuel in Dallas, and he got rather red in the face and said, ‘I’ve been accused of teaching the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scripture. I want it to be understood that I have never taught this. All I have ever said is that in all my archaeological investigation I have never found one artifact of antiquity that contradicts any statement of the Word of God.’” (Ibid., p. 22 [emphasis ours])

Another one time skeptic was Dr. Clifford Wilson who, due to the discoveries made, concluded that, “It is the studied conviction of this writer that the Bible is … the ancient world’s most reliable history textbook …” (Wilson, Rocks, Relics And Biblical Reliability, p. 126)
 
Ramsey further said: “Luke is unsurpassed in respects of its trustworthiness.” (Josh McDowell, The Best of Josh Mcdowell: A Ready Defense, pp. 108-109)

Other skeptics who have conceded the Bible’s historical accuracy include the renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck:

“It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference,” and “the almost incredibly accurate historical memory of the Bible, and particularly so when it is fortified by archaeological fact.” (Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict p. 65)

This is a very significant statement since it is made by one who totally denied the inspiration of Scripture. Earl Radmacher, former president of Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, notes:

“I listened to him [Glueck] when he was at Temple Emmanuel in Dallas, and he got rather red in the face and said, ‘I’ve been accused of teaching the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scripture. I want it to be understood that I have never taught this. All I have ever said is that in all my archaeological investigation I have never found one artifact of antiquity that contradicts any statement of the Word of God.’” (Ibid., p. 22 [emphasis ours])

Another one time skeptic was Dr. Clifford Wilson who, due to the discoveries made, concluded that, “It is the studied conviction of this writer that the Bible is … the ancient world’s most reliable history textbook …” (Wilson, Rocks, Relics And Biblical Reliability, p. 126)

Dr. Wilson, like Ramsey, goes on to hail Luke for his accuracy:

Luke demonstrated a remarkably accurate knowledge of geographical and political ideas. He referred correctly to provinces that were established at that time, as indicated in Acts 15:6. He demonstrated a clear knowledge of local customs, such as those relating to the speech of the Lycaonians (Acts 14:11), some aspects relating to the foreign woman who was converted at Athens (Acts 17:34), and he even knew that the city of Ephesus was known as the “temple-keeper of Artemis” (Acts 19:35) … he refers to different local officers by their exact titles – the proconsul (deputy) of Cyprus (Acts 13:7), the magistrates at Phillipi (Acts 16:20,35), the politarchs (another word for magistrates) at Thessalonica (Acts 17:6), the proconsul of Achaia (Acts 18:12), and the treasurer of Corinth (Aedile) – which was the title of the man known as Erastus at Corinth (Acts 19:22; Romans 16:23 …)

Luke had accurate knowledge about various local events such as the famine in the days of Claudius Caesar (Acts 11:29); he was aware that Zeus and Hermes were worshiped together at Lystra, though this was unknown to modern historians (Acts 14:11,12). He knew that Diana or Artemis was especially the goddess of the Ephesians (Acts 19:28); and he was able to describe the trade at Ephesus in religious images. (Ibid., pp. 112-113)

Hence, Wilson’s statement:

“Those who know the facts now recognize that the New Testament must be accepted as a remarkably accurate source book …” (Ibid., p. 120)

Leading NT archaeologist John McRay was interviewed by atheist turned Christian Lee Strobel regarding the archaeological evidence for the NT. After dealing with the evidence for Luke’s accuracy, Strobel asked McRay about the evidence supporting John’s Gospel:

Archaeology may support the credibility of Luke, but he isn’t the only author of the New Testament. I wondered what scientists would have to say about John, whose gospel was sometimes considered suspect because he talked about locations that couldn’t be verified. Some scholars charged that since he failed to get these basic details straight, John must not have been close to the events of Jesus’ life.

That conclusion, however, has been turned upside down in recent years. “There have been several discoveries that have shown John to be very accurate,” McRay pointed out. "For example, John 5:1-15 records how Jesus healed an invalid by the Pool of Bethesda. John provides the detail that the pool had five porticoes. For a long time people cited this as an example of John being inaccurate, because no such place had been found.

“But more recently the pool of Bethesda has been excavated - it lies maybe forty feet below ground - and sure enough, there were five porticoes, which means colonnaded porches or walkways, exactly as John described. And you have other discoveries - the pool of Siloam from John 9:7, Jacob’s well from John 4:12, the probable location of the Stone Pavement near Jaffa Gate where Jesus appeared before Pilate, even Pilate’s own identity - all of which have lent historical credibility to John’s gospel.”

“So this challenges the allegation that the gospel of John was written so long after Jesus that it can’t possibly be accurate,” I said.

“Most definitely,” he replied. (Strobel, The Case for Christ - A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus [Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1998; ISBN: 0-310-20930-7], p. 99)

Finally, John Elder states emphatically, “Nowhere has archaeological evidence refuted the Bible as history.” (Elder, Prophets, Idols And Diggers, p. 16)

The Internal evidence - knowwhatyoubelieve.com/believe/evidence/internal_evidence_test.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top