PDA

View Full Version : New Testament Manuscripts



Christian3
04-06-2017, 04:39 AM
I read an article from a Muslim. It says:

"All present day Bibles are compiled from "ancient manuscripts," the oldest dating back to the fourth century C.E. No two ancient manuscripts are identical. All Bibles today are produced by combining manuscripts with no single definitive reference. The Bible translators attempt to "choose" the correct version. In other words, since they do not know which "ancient manuscript" is the correct one, they decide for us which "version" for a given verse to accept."

Is this true?

Thank you.

tabibito
04-06-2017, 04:52 AM
Somewhat slanted, but technically true.

The various manuscripts are grouped into a few main sets and they do show discrepancies. NU (formerly: the Nestle Eyland, and the United Bible Society) texts, and the Byzantine Majority are two such divisions. Almost all of the diversions are so minor as to be insignificant. Some arise from texts being written for differing regional dialects - much as in English an American sidewalk is a British pavement is an Australian footpath.

A very few texts are different in some passages. For example: the Byzantine Majority has a longer version of Romans 8:1 than does the NU, as under:

8:1 ουδεν αρα νυν κατακριμα τοις εν χριστω ιησου [μη κατα σαρκα περιπατουσιν αλλα κατα πνευμα]
There is therefore now no condemnation for them in Christ Jesus [- who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.]
NU only has the part before [ ]

Sparko
04-06-2017, 05:29 AM
Basically the variations are minor in the different manuscripts. And by comparing them (we have thousands of new testament manuscripts) it actually makes us more sure that we do have the correct text. Any parts that we cannot be sure of are usually noted in the footnotes of modern bibles.


Think of it like this. If you had 100 copies of a letter and 20 of them said, "Tom picked up the ball and threw it to Jim" and 20 said, "Tom ___ the ball and threw it to Jim" and 20 others said, "Tom took the ball and tossed it to Jim" and 1 said, "Jim caught the ball that Tom threw" and 1 said, "A ball was thrown to Jim by Tom" and so on, you could be pretty sure that the original was, "Tom picked up the ball and threw it to Jim"

37818
04-06-2017, 05:39 AM
Byzantine Majority is only one of the manuscript family text types. And it is by itself the largest. Family 35 (f35) is the majority text across all the family text types. The epilogue of Mark's gospel 16:9-20 is of the f35. Where only 3 Greek mss of about 1700 omit it.

Christian3
04-06-2017, 06:51 AM
Thanks to all who responded.

Sparko
04-06-2017, 07:03 AM
Thanks to all who responded.

PS - please go to your profile and set your faith designation (click here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/profile.php?do=editprofile )

One Bad Pig
04-06-2017, 09:00 AM
The earliest complete NT is from the 4th century, but we also have manuscripts from the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

psstein
04-07-2017, 09:17 AM
Byzantine Majority is only one of the manuscript family text types. And it is by itself the largest. Family 35 (f35) is the majority text across all the family text types. The epilogue of Mark's gospel 16:9-20 is of the f35. Where only 3 Greek mss of about 1700 omit it.

Okay, but the Alexandrinian text is by far more accurate, and Mark 16:9-20 is very different from the rest of the gospel. I see no reason why Mark can't terminate at 16:8; the Resurrection appearances are clearly referred to.

psstein
04-07-2017, 09:23 AM
I read an article from a Muslim. It says:

"All present day Bibles are compiled from "ancient manuscripts," the oldest dating back to the fourth century C.E. No two ancient manuscripts are identical. All Bibles today are produced by combining manuscripts with no single definitive reference. The Bible translators attempt to "choose" the correct version. In other words, since they do not know which "ancient manuscript" is the correct one, they decide for us which "version" for a given verse to accept."

Is this true?

Thank you.

Yes, it's true, but not in the way that the Muslim is arguing.

The way that the Biblical text is today determined comes from a process known as textual criticism. Textual critics evaluate the earliest manuscripts of the NT and try to create what's known as a "critical text," which is then published (usually by United Bible Society) and then translated into English (NRSV/NAB/etc.).

Now, in terms of textual variants, most of them are completely inconsequential- spelling errors, repetition/omission of words, etc. We don't "know" to an exact degree what the original text looked like, but we have a pretty good idea. My knowledge of Quranic studies isn't nearly as good as my NT knowledge, but the reality is that the Quran has a manuscript tradition as well.

37818
04-07-2017, 10:16 AM
Okay, but the Alexandrinian text is by far more accurate, and Mark 16:9-20 is very different from the rest of the gospel. I see no reason why Mark can't terminate at 16:8; the Resurrection appearances are clearly referred to.

It is an epilogue. So why can it not be different in the ways that it is? It for some 1500 years undisputed as the word of God. Even the makers of the Codex Vaticanus left a sufficient blank column between Mark's gospel account and Luke.
21798

One Bad Pig
04-07-2017, 01:24 PM
It is an epilogue. So why can it not be different in the ways that it is? It for some 1500 years undisputed as the word of God. Even the makers of the Codex Vaticanus left a sufficient blank column between Mark's gospel account and Luke.
21798
You're unnecessarily conflating "word of God" with "original to Mark's gospel".

37818
04-08-2017, 08:43 AM
You're unnecessarily conflating "word of God" with "original to Mark's gospel".

Not if the epilogue was written by Mark the writer of that gospel. Why would he not have? And if not, who and why (2 Peter 1:21; 2 Timothy 3:16)?

One Bad Pig
04-08-2017, 06:17 PM
Not if the epilogue was written by Mark the writer of that gospel. Why would he not have?
The internal evidence is fairly decisively against it, AFAICT, and the external evidence leans that way as well.

And if not, who and why (2 Peter 1:21; 2 Timothy 3:16)?Who? No idea. Why? Possibly because he felt the gospel was incomplete stopping at Mk. 16:8.

Regardless, begging the question is not an answer to my observation. Scripture is God-breathed whether written by Mark or not - and post-16:8 Mark is more pastiche of other post-Resurrection accounts than prophecy, so I'm not sure why you think that cite applies.

tabibito
04-08-2017, 07:42 PM
Yup:
2 Peter 1:16 is about "prophecy of scripture" - so it can't be applied to all of scripture.

And in the Koine Greek,
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
reads as more of an adjectival phrase than as a sentence: so, the inclusion of those "is"s is somewhat dubious.

psstein
04-08-2017, 10:05 PM
It is an epilogue. So why can it not be different in the ways that it is? It for some 1500 years undisputed as the word of God. Even the makers of the Codex Vaticanus left a sufficient blank column between Mark's gospel account and Luke.
21798

Because it basically is compiled from the rest of the Resurrection appearance accounts, plus the vocabulary is not Markan.

Christian3
04-10-2017, 04:56 AM
The earliest complete NT is from the 4th century, but we also have manuscripts from the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

The Qur'an confirms the Bible Scriptures in many verses. So, they are confirming the NT we have today?

37818
04-10-2017, 06:18 AM
The internal evidence is fairly decisively against it, AFAICT, . . . What is that internal evidence against the epilogue being by Mark?


. . . and the external evidence leans that way as well.And that external evidence is?

Who? No idea.The accepted tradition is that it was by Mark. The external evidence supports this.


. . . Why? Possibly because he felt the gospel was incomplete stopping at Mk. 16:8. Who is he you refer to?



Regardless, begging the question is not an answer to my observation. Scripture is God-breathed whether written by Mark or not - How was my comment begging the question? Now as I mentioned tradition attributes the epilogue to Mark.


. . . and post-16:8 Mark is more pastiche of other post-Resurrection accounts . . . Why do you think that?


. . . other post-Resurrection accounts than prophecy, . . . It is either God-breathed or it is not prophecy (2 Peter 1:19-21).


. . . so I'm not sure why you think that cite applies.Peter's argument was the written word is more sure v.19 that hearing God's voice from heaven, which Peter and the others with him did vs.16-18.

37818
04-10-2017, 06:30 AM
Yup:
2 Peter 1:16 is about "prophecy of scripture" - so it can't be applied to all of scripture.No. If the writing is not prophecy it is not God-breathed holy scripture - God given holy writing. Peter's whole argument was the written vs.19-21 is more sure then the spoken v.18.


And in the Koine Greek,
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
reads as more of an adjectival phrase than as a sentence: so, the inclusion of those "is"s is somewhat dubious.Not all writings are God-breathed. Paul was continuing his comment in reference to holy writings (v.15) which Timothy was raised on.

37818
04-10-2017, 06:34 AM
Because it basically is compiled from the rest of the Resurrection appearance accounts, . . .You admit the epilogue is in agreement. What is your evidence that it was written post Matthew, Luke and John? The agreement of those accounts does not prove that.


. . . plus the vocabulary is not Markan.And you know this how?

One Bad Pig
04-10-2017, 08:40 AM
What is that internal evidence against the epilogue being by Mark?

And that external evidence is?
Why do you ask? It's not like you haven't been presented with the evidence before.


The accepted tradition is that it was by Mark. The external evidence supports this.
Well, it is accepted as part of Mark's gospel. The external evidence (that it is missing in some MSS, and replaced with an alternate ending in others) indicates that there is some uncertainty in tradition on just how Mark's gospel ends.


Who is he you refer to?
I already answered that as well as I can.


How was my comment begging the question? [quote]
You didn't actually address my observation - your response merely assumes that it is irrelevant.
[quote] Now as I mentioned tradition attributes the epilogue to Mark.
Well, it attributes the gospel to Mark.


Why do you think that?
Because it does? I'm not sure how to answer that. For good measure, it also throws in a reference to Paul surviving a snakebite and refers to the tradition that John drank poison with no ill effects.


It is either God-breathed or it is not prophecy (2 Peter 1:19-21).
I will grant that prophetic scriptures are God-breathed, just like all other scripture. Again, if someone else wrote the ending, does that necessarily mean it was not God-breathed? Moses did not write the end of Deuteronomy (it references his own death, after all). Does that mean it was not God-breathed?


Peter's argument was the written word is more sure v.19 that hearing God's voice from heaven, which Peter and the others with him did vs.16-18.
I have no idea how you get that interpretation, and I'm frankly not interesting in pursuing that particular rabbit trail.

37818
04-11-2017, 06:38 AM
Why do you ask? It's not like you haven't been presented with the evidence before.None of that evidence proves the epilogue is not part of the original of that gospel.


Well, it is accepted as part of Mark's gospel. Not by everyone today.


The external evidence (that it is missing in some MSS, and replaced with an alternate ending in others) indicates that there is some uncertainty in tradition on just how Mark's gospel ends.Only one Latin ms has the shorter ending by itself. All the Greek mss which have the shorter ending conflate vs. 9-20 ending right after it.


I already answered that as well as I can.OK.



How was my comment begging the question?
You didn't actually address my observation - your response merely assumes that it is irrelevant.

Well, it attributes the gospel to Mark.

Because it does? I'm not sure how to answer that. For good measure, it also throws in a reference to Paul surviving a snakebite and refers to the tradition that John drank poison with no ill effects.Those two comments assume the long ending is post those events and not part of the original gospel of Mark.


I will grant that prophetic scriptures are God-breathed, just like all other scripture. Again, if someone else wrote the ending, does that necessarily mean it was not God-breathed? Moses did not write the end of Deuteronomy (it references his own death, after all). Does that mean it was not God-breathed?"Apples and oranges," so to speak.

Chrawnus
04-17-2017, 06:37 AM
. . . plus the vocabulary is not Markan.

This is whole "vocabulary"-argument is so dumb (whenever it's used, and not just here) I'm not even sure why actual scholars even use it. It's not like we have enough surviving Markan literature (or literature from any other NT author for that matter) to tell us whether or not a certain word is a part of that writers vocabulary or not.

One Bad Pig
04-17-2017, 06:51 AM
This is whole "vocabulary"-argument is so dumb (whenever it's used, and not just here) I'm not even sure why actual scholars even use it. It's not like we have enough surviving Markan literature (or literature from any other NT author for that matter) to tell us whether or not a certain word is a part of that writers vocabulary or not.
As I understand it, the issue in the text at hand is not so much unique words (which could be attributed in large part to the unique (to Mark) subject matter), but the different way things are phrased compared to the rest of the book and the awkward transition from 16:8 to 16:9.

Chrawnus
04-17-2017, 07:01 AM
As I understand it, the issue in the text at hand is not so much unique words (which could be attributed in large part to the unique (to Mark) subject matter), but the different way things are phrased compared to the rest of the book and the awkward transition from 16:8 to 16:9.

Well, in that case they should be more clear about it being an issue of phrasing rather than vocabulary. :shrug:

psstein
04-17-2017, 09:23 PM
This is whole "vocabulary"-argument is so dumb (whenever it's used, and not just here) I'm not even sure why actual scholars even use it. It's not like we have enough surviving Markan literature (or literature from any other NT author for that matter) to tell us whether or not a certain word is a part of that writers vocabulary or not.

That's a good point, and one that I think is often ignored when it comes to what is Pauline and what isn't (I hold to the 7 undisputed, plus 2 Thessalonians and Colossians). With regard to Mark, stylistically, the text is different. The transition is awkward, counteracting what had just happened at the empty tomb. The attempt to create a mish-mash of resurrection appearances from the rest of the gospels is what gives me evidence that it's not original.

37818
04-24-2017, 06:44 AM
That's a good point, and one that I think is often ignored when it comes to what is Pauline and what isn't (I hold to the 7 undisputed, plus 2 Thessalonians and Colossians). With regard to Mark, stylistically, the text is different. The transition is awkward, counteracting what had just happened at the empty tomb. The attempt to create a mish-mash of resurrection appearances from the rest of the gospels is what gives me evidence that it's not original.

Why? Please give a specific.

psstein
04-24-2017, 10:54 PM
Why? Please give a specific.

Mark ends with the sentence "and they told nothing to anyone (lit. no one) for they were afraid," with the ending of the sentence in Greek being γαρ. We know it's acceptable to end a sentence with γαρ, as it appears in a few other works. Beyond that? The narrative shows knowledge of the story of Mary Magdalene in Luke-Acts. The other issues are external evidence: several church fathers show no knowledge of the addition.

Mark 16:19 uses the phrase "μὲν οὖν," which appears nowhere else in the entirety of the gospel. It also uses the term φαίνω, which is never used in Mark, but does appear in Luke-Acts to describe Elijah's appearance during the transfiguration.

This is not just a position taken by liberal scholars who may desire to undercut the validity of the gospels. Very conservative evangelical scholars hold this position as well.

37818
04-25-2017, 06:37 AM
Mark ends with the sentence "and they told nothing to anyone (lit. no one) for they were afraid," with the ending of the sentence in Greek being γαρ. We know it's acceptable to end a sentence with γαρ, as it appears in a few other works. Beyond that? The narrative shows knowledge of the story of Mary Magdalene in Luke-Acts. The other issues are external evidence: several church fathers show no knowledge of the addition.

Mark 16:19 uses the phrase "μὲν οὖν," which appears nowhere else in the entirety of the gospel. It also uses the term φαίνω, which is never used in Mark, but does appear in Luke-Acts to describe Elijah's appearance during the transfiguration.

This is not just a position taken by liberal scholars who may desire to undercut the validity of the gospels. Very conservative evangelical scholars hold this position as well.

Ok. Given that to be a consensus. But how does any of those distinctions prove Mark did not write it?

psstein
04-25-2017, 08:17 PM
Ok. Given that to be a consensus. But how does any of those distinctions prove Mark did not write it?

There's no such thing as proof in anything outside the mathematical sense. But, when you have a series of non-Marcan words, all of which appear in other texts, an awkward transition in contradiction to other elements of the gospel, then it's fairly likely that Mark either ends at 16:8 or a lost ending exists.

37818
04-26-2017, 06:18 AM
There's no such thing as proof in anything outside the mathematical sense. But, when you have a series of non-Marcan words, all of which appear in other texts, an awkward transition in contradiction to other elements of the gospel, then it's fairly likely that Mark either ends at 16:8 or a lost ending exists.
Maybe not.

It is a modern interpretation that Mark did not write that epilogue, while the modern basis for it dates from the 4th century. It is a modern. The long ending was the accepted reading.