Confirmations of the New Testament

[JonathanL]

The answer is that there are significantly more than you are prepared to acknowledge. The extant texts of the New Testament contain literally thousands of variations, or variants, from each other.

http://www.textexcavation.com/textualvariants.html

There's a huge amount of variations and variants. The number of significant/meaningful variations, are miniscule however, when compared to the total number of manuscripts we have. Or another way to put it, the amount of meaningful variants relative to the total amount of variants that we have are hardly even worth mentioning.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, when someone claims to be an eyewitness, we count that as a reference to being an eyewitness.

Bob claims to be an eyewitness and Mary records the account - we have an eyewitness account.

There are no claims of eyewitnesses in the references so far.

[shunyadragon]

There's a huge amount of variations and variants. The number of significant/meaningful variations, are miniscule however, when compared to the total number of manuscripts we have. Or another way to put it, the amount of meaningful variants relative to the total amount of variants that we have are hardly even worth mentioning.

Not based on the references provided from the historians and academic references.

[JonathanL]

Not based on the references provided from the historians and academic references.

I was responding to Tassman's claim about "the extant texts of the New Testament contain[ing] literally thousands of variations, or variants, from each other." I was not saying anything about Christian interpolations in texts from other ancient authors like Tacitus or Josephus.

[lee_merrill]

There are no claims of eyewitnesses in the references so far.

[Teallaura]

There are no claims of eyewitnesses in the references so far.

Source material ALWAYS trumps historian assumption/interpretation.

Isn't it hard to eat with your fingers in your ears?

[Tassman]

I was responding to Tassman's claim about "the extant texts of the New Testament contain[ing] literally thousands of variations, or variants, from each other." I was not saying anything about Christian interpolations in texts from other ancient authors like Tacitus or Josephus.

[shunyadragon]

Abain, again, and again . . . absolutely none of these references claim to refer to eye witness to the life of Christ. What they witnessed in their life is another matter. Yes, there were likely many writings before Luke including Mark, Mathew, and possibly Q, and also other writings not accepted by
christians, but none of this reflects claims of eye witnesses.

Tassman's post is accurate with an accurate academic citation. It need not be repeated.

[shunyadragon]

Source material ALWAYS trumps historian assumption/interpretation.

Isn't it hard to eat with your fingers in your ears?

There are no claims of eyewitnesses in the references so far.

Isn't it hard to eat with your fingers in your ears?

Tassman's post is accurate with an accurate academic citation. It need not be repeated, unless you have a reading deficiency problem.

[lee_merrill]

That's strange, I've been reading the Nestle-Aland critical edition of the Greek NT, and the variants I've checked have not been significant. There are some well-known variants such as the longer ending of Mark, but they seem to be implying extensive variation here, beyond what is typically mentioned. Could you point me to some variants they refer to here?

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Abain, again, and again . . . absolutely none of these references claim to refer to eye witness to the life of Christ.

[Teallaura]

Abain, again, and again . . . absolutely none of these references claim to refer to eye witness to the life of Christ. What they witnessed in their life is another matter. Yes, there were likely many writings before Luke including Mark, Mathew, and possibly Q, and also other writings not accepted by
christians, but none of this reflects claims of eye witnesses.

Tassman's post is accurate with an accurate academic citation. It need not be repeated.

Learn to read:

"For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." (2 Pet. 1:16)


Stop talking like a moron - they are claiming to BE eyewitnesses - an actual eyewitness account trumps an account about an eyewitness.

[shunyadragon]

Learn to read:

"For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." (2 Pet. 1:16)


Stop talking like a moron - they are claiming to BE eyewitnesses - an actual eyewitness account trumps an account about an eyewitness.

Absolutely NO.

Stop talking like a moron - they are claiming to be the eyewitnesses of his majesty (?), ie testimony of personal experiences. No, mention of being a witness to the life of JEsus Christ.

[Teallaura]

Absolutely NO.

Stop talking like a moron - they are claiming to be the eyewitnesses of his majesty (?), ie testimony of personal experiences. No, mention of being a witness to the life of JEsus Christ.

And repeating moronic drivel doesn't make it any the less moronic.

That's not even pedantic - it's literally insane. Being an eyewitness to the Person doing anything at all is more than sufficient to establish that Person's existence.

Oh, and repeating the same exact barb makes you sound even more moronic. Impressive, really - I didn't think anything that can type could be that moronic.

For the sane people in the room, the point is established.

[Tassman]

That's strange, I've been reading the Nestle-Aland critical edition of the Greek NT, and the variants I've checked have not been significant. There are some well-known variants such as the longer ending of Mark, but they seem to be implying extensive variation here, beyond what is typically mentioned. Could you point me to some variants they refer to here?

What we have from Kurt and Barbara Aland, and generally accepted by biblical scholars, is that the concept of 'original text' is non-existent. The New Testament text that we have today is the work of scholarly committees which decided on the readings it thought were most likely closest to the earliest versions of the New Testament.