Showing the Bible faithfully reflects the first century texts

[Weareyoung]

This is a question for people who know about the history of how the Bible (specifically the New Testament) came to be, both Catholic versions and the Protestant King James Version.

I came across this meme on Facebook.

facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151491908215155&set=a.496176595154.294030.8798180154&type=1&ref=nf

It basically says that the oldest manuscripts that existed during the creation of the King James Version of the bible were written hundreds of years after the death of the last apostle and of all the “original documents” all of them were vastly different from each other.

I was wondering if these claims that this meme makes has more truth or falsehood.

Also if someone were to make a similar claim about Catholic approved translations of the Bible such as the New American Bible or the Catholic Revised Standard Version, how could you respond? What could I say to show that the translations approved by the Church accurately reflect what was written down in the First Century to someone who does not believe that the Bible is faithful to first century texts.

 

[capablanca911]

First, we have to understand the historical standard that is accepted for manuscript preservation.

defendingyourfaith.org/New%20Testament.htm

Scroll to the chart at the bottom.

A 300 year gap is a blink of an eye for manuscript history.

And when you look at the manuscripts that we do have, the different manuscript families agree almost word for word (almost all differences can be accounted for from spelling variations or word conjugation)

And then it matches almost perfectly with the translations fron that period (vulgate, peshitta).

And then we have other 2nd century sources to compare that to (Tatian’s gospel harmony, and generous quotes from Iraneus, Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement etc.)

And we have historical records of indepth textual comparisons like Origin’s Hexapla for the OT.

The textual accuracy of the Gospels is literally better preserved than many of Shakespeare’s works.

 

[bolinstephen]

Dawkins used to be a good scientist. Now he is dabbling in things he doesn’t understand. May God have mercy on his soul.

 

[bmonk]

We also got, for the Old Testament, a thousand year check-up. We already knew that there were some good variation between versions, mostly stuff moved around. Such as Jeremiah. But when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, they got manuscripts 1000 or so years earlier than what we had, and there were variations–but the texts were still surprisingly close, even given that span of time.

 

[sirach2v4]

What could I say to show that the translations approved by the Church accurately reflect what was written down in the First Century to someone who does not believe that the Bible is faithful to first century texts.

I don’t know.

First, how does this person claim that the Chuch is not faithful to first cent. texts?

You probably understand what you’re trying to say, but I don’t. What do you mean? Are you referring to deviations from the Old Testament writings as they existed in the first century, or are you referring to deviations from New Testament writings as they existed in the first century, or both?

Second, are you saying that the translations are not faithful to the original texts, but that the reference texts are not challenged?

Third, again your friend’s starting point has to be clarified, or somebody here could waste time discoursing about something that is not in dispute.

 

[bmonk]

Fourth, the Church teaches that it’s not just the original text that was inspired, but the whole process of writing, preserving and canonizing the texts in the Bible, so that the text as we have it expresses what God intended it to say to us. The idea that only the original text counts, and that God somehow allowed it to be lost, implies that God was not planning ahead quite far enough.

 

[Weareyoung]

I don’t know.

First, how does this person claim that the Chuch is not faithful to first cent. texts?

You probably understand what you’re trying to say, but I don’t. What do you mean? Are you referring to deviations from the Old Testament writings as they existed in the first century, or are you referring to deviations from New Testament writings as they existed in the first century, or both?

Second, are you saying that the translations are not faithful to the original texts, but that the reference texts are not challenged?

Third, again your friend’s starting point has to be clarified, or somebody here could waste time discoursing about something that is not in dispute.

I am referring to claims similar to the one in the Facebook meme I posted but about the New American Bible New Testament that it “isn’t a reliable translation and was translated from other incomplete translations of the original Greek”.
I am assuming that the original 1st century texts are not challenged because (if I’m not mistaken) we have no fragments from the New Testament from the first century, at least according to Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

This whole issue seems ridiculous to me but I get concerned because if you don’t know anything about history you can be misled.

 

[Augustine3]

This is a question for people who know about the history of how the Bible (specifically the New Testament) came to be, both Catholic versions and the Protestant King James Version.

I came across this meme on Facebook.

facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151491908215155&set=a.496176595154.294030.8798180154&type=1&ref=nf

It basically says that the oldest manuscripts that existed during the creation of the King James Version of the bible were written hundreds of years after the death of the last apostle and of all the “original documents” all of them were vastly different from each other.

I was wondering if these claims that this meme makes has more truth or falsehood.

Also if someone were to make a similar claim about Catholic approved translations of the Bible such as the New American Bible or the Catholic Revised Standard Version, how could you respond? What could I say to show that the translations approved by the Church accurately reflect what was written down in the First Century to someone who does not believe that the Bible is faithful to first century texts.

Scholars have found the Fathers of the Church dating from the 1st to the 3rd century have quoted the New Testament over 36,000 times. They have put all these quotes together and discovered they make up the entire New Testament less 9 verses. These match our current bibles. Catholics generally esteem the Fathers of the Church much higher than the Protestants.