Confirmations of the New Testament

[JonathanL]

Not so. I am quoting from the 1995 edition of Aland & Aland, The Text of The New Testament, pp. 69.

Do you have the 1995 edition at hand or something, or are you simply uncritically taking the cite somewhere from the internet? Because if what you say is true then it seems like Aland & Aland contradict themselves a mere 24 pages afterwards when they say that the picture has changed completely when it comes to the view that the early text was "free".

[lee_merrill]

Do you have the 1995 edition at hand or something...

I have the book, and both quotes are in there, as well as what I quoted saying the editions of the NT are substantially in agreement. Continuing on p. 95, we read:

Source: Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament

Although many details are obviously still debatable, there can be no doubt that the earlier view of the textual situation before the rise of the major text types is now due for a radical and thorough review... All the papyri before the third/fourth century are placed in the highest category because of their age, even when their "free" text sets them at a distance from the original text.

© Copyright Original Source

So they can speak of a distance from the original text here, showing that we have a good idea what the original text would be.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Within a hundred years meets YOUR EXPRESS CRITERIA. Further, YOUR CRITERIA throws out almost all ancient documentation. No cherry picking allowed.

The historians nor I are not biased on any one ancient historical document. All ancient documents are open to skepticism as I referenced when rogue brought up Julius Caesar's commentaries, which are NOT considered authoritative in any way, and contain conflicts with archaeological evidence. There is no standard of selectivity. Can you name one ancient document that historians selectively endorse over another? Within a hundred years even whether it is so or not does not make the documentation solid in anyway, as referenced by Tassman and I referenced by academic historians.

STILL WAITING . . .

[JonathanL]

The historians nor I are not biased on any one ancient historical document.

Historians, maybe.

You? Not so sure about that one...

[Teallaura]

The historians nor I are not biased on any one ancient historical document. All ancient documents are open to skepticism as I referenced when rogue brought up Julius Caesar's commentaries, which are NOT considered authoritative in any way, and contain conflicts with archaeological evidence. There is no standard of selectivity. Can you name one ancient document that historians selectively endorse over another? Within a hundred years even whether it is so or not does not make the documentation solid in anyway, as referenced by Tassman and I referenced by academic historians.

STILL WAITING . . .

Too bad - point stands since there is no rebuttal.

[shunyadragon]

Too bad - point stands since there is no rebuttal.

Point not made, only a baseless assertion.

[Teallaura]

Point not made, only a baseless assertion.

Point made - no refutation attempted.

[Tassman]

I have the book, and both quotes are in there, as well as what I quoted saying the editions of the NT are substantially in agreement. Continuing on p. 95, we read:

Source: Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament

Although many details are obviously still debatable, there can be no doubt that the earlier view of the textual situation before the rise of the major text types is now due for a radical and thorough review... All the papyri before the third/fourth century are placed in the highest category because of their age, even when their "free" text sets them at a distance from the original text.

© Copyright Original Source

So they can speak of a distance from the original text here, showing that we have a good idea what the original text would be.

[JonathanL]

The textual similarity does not refer to the closeness to an 'original' text because that is unknown. No such letter-perfect manuscript is known to have ever existed or what books comprised it if it did, especially given that some texts moved between canonical and non-canonical status. Books such as Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

You'll have to reword this a bit, because as it's written it's like you're claiming that it's not even certain if the original autographs of the writings making up the NT ever existed, which is a thesis I find hard to believe many scholars would be willing to defend.

[Tassman]

You'll have to reword this a bit, because as it's written it's like you're claiming that it's not even certain if the original autographs of the writings making up the NT ever existed, which is a thesis I find hard to believe many scholars would be willing to defend.

[shunyadragon]

Point made - no refutation attempted.

Without references and explanation no points made for unsupported assertions.

[shunyadragon]

Letter perfect?!?! I do not believe this is a realistic standard in the history of Hebrew nor Christian scriptures. They both show the distinct characteristics of evolved, edited and redacted scriptures. It is true that Hebrew scriptures became relatively evolved at some time between ~1100 and 500 BCE, but these scriptures are the result of a process of evolution up until the Dead Sea scrolls. The oldest known Torah as we know it today is from the 11-12th century.

[lee_merrill]

The textual similarity does not refer to the closeness to an 'original' text because that is unknown.

It does refer to closeness to an original text, even though we don't have the originals.

Source: Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament

All the papyri before the third/fourth century are placed in the highest category because of their age, even when their "free" text sets them at a distance from the original text.

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

[rogue06]

And yet in II Peter 3:15-18 we have Peter describing Paul's letters as Scripture and in I Timothy 5:18 Paul quotes Scripture citing Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7.

[Tassman]

Letter perfect?!?! I do not believe this is a realistic standard in the history of Hebrew nor Christian scriptures. They both show the distinct characteristics of evolved, edited and redacted scriptures. It is true that Hebrew scriptures became relatively evolved at some time between ~1100 and 500 BCE, but these scriptures are the result of a process of evolution up until the Dead Sea scrolls. The oldest known Torah as we know it today is from the 11-12th century.