Is the New Testament in Error? by Revolg

[Yog^sothoth]

Is The New Testament in Error?

by Revolg

Have you ever sat in a circle and whispered a secret in the ear of the person next to you? By the time the secret reached the end of the circle it was totally different. That is what some people claim has happened to the Bible over the past two thousand years. They wonder whether or not we can trust the Bible.

But the New Testament we have today is not something the church has created over the years. The New Testament we read today is based on over 5,200 early manuscripts or pieces of manuscripts all written in the original Greek. These Greek manuscripts were found throughout the known world of New Testament times from Rome to Alexandria. What is surprising is how little these manuscripts deviate from each other. Besides minor discrepancies that never alter the meaning of any text, the bulk of these manuscripts agree word for word with one another. There is no other ancient document that even approaches the New Testament in manuscript integrity and evidence. You can see a further indepth study of this at http://www.carm.org/evidence/rewritten.htm.

In the past some scholars taught that the New Testament was written in the late second, third, fourth and fifth centuries after Christ. They then argued that the New Testament does not represent what really happened in the early church but is a record of the myths and stories that developed sometimes hundreds of years later. But one archaeological find smashed that whole school of thought. A fragment of the Gospel of John dated AD. 130 was found in Egypt. Today this papyrus is in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, England. And no scholar thinks this is an original. They would say it was a copy of a manuscript written thirty to fifty years before that.

The New Testament was written in the first century. Luke begins his Gospel, "Since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught" (Lk 1:3-4). Luke was a meticulous historian. John begins his first letter, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched-this we proclaim concerning the Word of life" (1:1). John claims to be writing an eyewitness account.

There are no contradictions in the Gospels which would cause us to question their credibility. There are some mysteries but no contradictions. Some used to claim that the pool in Jerusalem surrounded by five covered colonnades referred to in John 5 was a figment of John's imagination. Recently it was uncovered in an archaeological dig. Archaeology has validated many of the place names, governors, magistrates and emperors referred to in the historical narratives of the Bible. At no point does archaeology contradict the New Testament.

The apostolic fathers quoted the New Testament. A letter sent to the Corinthian church by Clement, bishop of Rome, about AD. 96, quotes Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews and 1 Peter. Letters written by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, as he traveled to his death as a martyr in Rome in A D. 115, quote Matthew,John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 Peter and 1 John. For these reasons-internal consistency, literary style of historical narrative, archeological evidence and a large collection of early Greek manuscripts-we can trust the New Testament as historically accurate.

We can read the New Testament for what it claims to be, an accurate, eyewitness account of the historical Jesus Christ. But now that we know the New Testament gives us an accurate picture of Jesus Christ and the early church, we must still ask is it true in what it says about God? This is a more complex issue that people have to decide for themselves. As a Christian I believe what Jesus and the biblical authors said is true and can be trusted. I believe that the Holy Spirit guided these writers to tell us what God wants us to know. Thus the Bible is more than just a history book. It is God revealing himself through the written word. It is the Word of God.

People who want to know if what the Bible says is true should try to read it openly and honestly. They should ask themselves, Do the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus ring true? If someone were making all this up, would they do it this way? Do the characters in the Bible sound like mere religious fanatics who are out of touch with real life, or do the prophets and apostles sound like they have a handle on what is real?

Another interesting exercise is to compare Old Testament prophecies about the Jewish Messiah (for instance, Isaiah 52:13-53:12) with how they were fulfilled hundreds of years later in the life of Christ.

It is only as we explore the claims of the Bible, studying its teachings and putting them into practice to see if they work that we will be able to know if the Bible is true and trustworthy. As we experience more of the truth contained in Scripture, the more we can trust it and the more we can put our trust in the one the Bible points to, Jesus Christ.

TheologyWeb thanks Revolg for being a faifhful member and supporter of this site and one of our first members.

[stevencarrwork]

revlovg writes 'The New Testament we read today is based on over 5,200 early manuscripts or pieces of manuscripts all written in the original Greek. These Greek manuscripts were found throughout the known world of New Testament times from Rome to Alexandria. What is surprising is how little these manuscripts deviate from each other. Besides minor discrepancies that never alter the meaning of any text, the bulk of these manuscripts agree word for word with one another.'

There is no Greek manuscript before 800 AD which contains 27 and only 27 books in its New Testament. Sinaiticus contains additional books, for example.

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli1.htm summarises the manuscripts, showing how these early manuscripts don't even agree on what book. It even has a nice picture showing where the scribes added words to the early manuscripts.


http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli2.htm analyses some of the doctrinal differences, where the early Christian scribes altered the manuscripts to make them conform to Christian doctrines.

[jpholding]

Mountains out of molehills, Stevie.

Bring your specifics here for discussion so I can give you another whuppin'. :brow:

[Dee Dee Warren]

I am moving this to the discussion thread on Revolg's article. Why would you place it here Steve?

[stevencarrwork]

Yesterday @ 11:52 PM post located here
Dee Dee Warren:

I am moving this to the discussion thread on Revolg's article. Why would you place it here Steve?

Sorry. Didn't see a discussion thread.

Holding thinks whether or not the latest manuscript discoveries (p106) do not have Jesus being called the 'Son of God' is a molehill.....

As far as I know, p106 is the second earliest manuscript of John 1 we have, and 'Son of God' is replaced by something else.

Of course, Holding disregards the documented evidence of early Christian scribes altering the text at will as a 'molehill'.

[stevencarrwork]

Yesterday @ 11:48 PM
jpholding:



Bring your specifics here for discussion so I can give you another whuppin'. :brow:

OK. Revolg writes 'A letter sent to the Corinthian church by Clement, bishop of Rome, about AD. 96, quotes Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews and 1 Peter.'

Produce these quotes. Some of them do exist (Romans and 1 Corinthians, if I remember rightly). Produce the others.

Remember to show that Clement is not quoting any oral tradition, but is actually quoting the Gospels.

[judge]

I used to believe that the NT was penned in greek too but over the last couple of years I have come to the conclusion it was penned in Aramaic, and survives in it's original word for word , letter for letter form in the eastern peshitta used in the liturgy of the assyrian church of the east.

Not only do I believe this is the truth, but many of the problems associated with defending the ancient greek mss are not there in the Aramaic.

From www.peshitta.org...

"these claims are highly contested in western Christianity.The common misconception that the new testament was originally penned in greek still persists in the vast majority of christian denominations. Most scholars and theologians ackowkedge that eshoo mshikha, the apostles and the jews in general spoke Aramaic indeed many instances of aramaic survive in the greek new testament manuscripts. However they still maintain that the new testament was penned in greek by the apostles and disciples of nshikha.
The church of the east has always rejected this claim......

[Revolg]

Thanks Judge,

I knew some of it was written in Aramaic but my article was also edited to better clarity. So what you see in the article is mostly my words but some editing has been happening. Actually, Stevie, you are almost right... Just they "quoted" from all books if you had the chance to actually read their works, *sigh*.

Eric

[Jaltus]

There are only two books that show any evidence of being written in Aramaic first, namely Mark and Matthew. The reason Mark seems like it was written in Aramaic is due to the bizarre way he uses conjunctions between sentences.

As for Matthew, Eusebius mentions that it was originally in Aramaic. At this point in time, however, we can only say that if it was in Aramaic originally, then we have a highly edited version, for it shows little of that slant.

Luke, John, and Acts were all definitely written in Greek. They are too tightly written and use classical idioms at certain points.

Paul's epistles were all written in Greek, since nobody he wrote to would be able to read Aramaic. James was written in Greek, due to the style. Hebrews might have been written in Aramaic, I am not sure on the evidence for this one. I Peter and II Peter were both written in Greek, as were John's letters. Revelation could have an Aramaic root, but that seems unlikely due to the structure of 1-3.

If you have real evidence, bring it on. Your link above was nonfunctional.

[Revolg]

This is the better URL.

I wrote this article like half a year ago LOL (above one, not this URL).*

http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 12:35 AM stevencarrwork:




OK. Revolg writes 'A letter sent to the Corinthian church by Clement, bishop of Rome, about AD. 96, quotes Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews and 1 Peter.'

Produce these quotes. Some of them do exist (Romans and 1 Corinthians, if I remember rightly). Produce the others.

Remember to show that Clement is not quoting any oral tradition, but is actually quoting the Gospels.

Holding ducked this challenge as well.

As for any bit of the NT being written in Aramaic, there is not one first century Christian Aramaic document.

Eusebius , writing more than 2 centuries later, is evidence? The man who produced forged letters supposedly written by Jesus himself, and who doctored quotes of Josephus to make them appear to corroborate Acts?

Eusebius is about as much evidence as Joseph Smith's claim that the Book of Mormon was written in Reformed Egyptian.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 05:02 PM post located here
Revolg:

http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm

Dee Dee has written recently 'Hey Joe, simply posting links in lieu of posting information here is against our Forum Decorum. If you wish to discuss information on those sites here, please post it here with a link if necessary for further information to the interested."'


As for the link you gave, it is full of the usual distortions.

Indeed it compares a fragment of the NT, consisting of about 120 letters (not words) with whole copies of other works.

Secular works have to have whole copies to be counted, while the author counts up credit-card sized fragments for the NT.

But we all know that Christian apologists have double-standards, and hope that their flock do no more research on what they read.

The author's lack of logic is breath-taking. Apparently, if we reject the NT as not history, we have to regard the Illiad as being fictional as well.

Guess what? The Illiad is fictional!

And the author is not above plain lies 'This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a first century document.'


Actually, we have genuine originals of other documents - letters for example.

Hasn't the author heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? They were also just as close in time. Perhaps they are all true as well.

As for the fragment the author crows about :-

This fragment contains 120 letters, and does not even mention Jesus!

Can you imagine Christians trying to win over sceptics if they told the truth - that the first known manuscript of the NT does not even mention Jesus? No wonder the author refuses to tell the truth about that!

Here is a rough English translation of the letters which can be made out

Recto side (John 18:31-33):

. .............the Jews [did], 'To us..... anyone'

that ...... id, signifying ......to die..

Ent....ium, P .... and sai .........ew..


Verso side (John 18:37-38):

'....this have been born.... world, that I may tes ..... the trut .'


' Says to him... nd this ..... the Je... thing....

And this is what CARM brag about, as evidence for the textual reliability of the New Testament!!!!

[Tercel]

Today @ 08:41 AM stevencarrwork:
Eusebius , writing more than 2 centuries later, is evidence?

He's quoting Papias (c130AD).

The man who produced forged letters supposedly written by Jesus himself, and who doctored quotes of Josephus to make them appear to corroborate Acts?

Eusebius is about as much evidence as Joseph Smith's claim that the Book of Mormon was written in Reformed Egyptian.

~sigh~ Just because the man was a bit uncritical in his use of sources, doesn't make him a liar or a forger. There is no evidence that Eusebius forged to the letter of Jesus or doctored Josephus.
If you want people to believe he did then prove it.

Eusebius is a very valuable source as an early historian who has preserved many early sources which otherwise would have been lost to us. That some of the sources preserved by him are inauthentic is not a slur on his character or honesty.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 11:24 PM
Tercel:

He's quoting Papias (c130AD).

One hopes so...

This is still two century old hearsay evidence from a work whose authenticity we cannot check.

[i]Today @ 11:24 PM


~sigh~ Just because the man was a bit uncritical in his use of sources, doesn't make him a liar or a forger. There is no evidence that Eusebius forged to the letter of Jesus or doctored Josephus.
If you want people to believe he did then prove it.

Did I say Eusebius forged the letter supposedly from Jesus?

I merely point out that such forgeries hardly establish Eusebius as so reliable.

As for 'proving it', I am very happy to do so.


Josephus wrote in Antiquities Book 19 Section 346

'But as he presently afterwards looked up, he saw an owl sitting
on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger (Greek 'Angelos') of ill tidings...'

Eusebius in his History (2.10) omits the words 'boubona - epi
schoiniou tinos' (ie an owl on a certain rope) and retains only the
'angelos' or messenger. As it stands in Eusebius, the 'quote' of
Josephus appears to support Acts 12:23 which mentions an 'angelos', but naturally does not say this messenger was an owl.

Eusebius also said Tertullian referred to the tribe of Christians. He did not.

Eusebius also said Trajan referred to the tribe of Christians. He did not.

Tercel will now check these quotes of Trajan, Josephus and Tertullian and confirm that I am correct in saying that Eusebius versions of them are altered and doctored.

[judge]

Today @ 04:57 PM post located here
Jaltus:

There are only two books that show any evidence of being written in Aramaic first, namely Mark and Matthew. The reason Mark seems like it was written in Aramaic is due to the bizarre way he uses conjunctions between sentences.

As for Matthew, Eusebius mentions that it was originally in Aramaic. At this point in time, however, we can only say that if it was in Aramaic originally, then we have a highly edited version, for it shows little of that slant.

Luke, John, and Acts were all definitely written in Greek. They are too tightly written and use classical idioms at certain points.

Paul's epistles were all written in Greek, since nobody he wrote to would be able to read Aramaic. James was written in Greek, due to the style. Hebrews might have been written in Aramaic, I am not sure on the evidence for this one. I Peter and II Peter were both written in Greek, as were John's letters. Revelation could have an Aramaic root, but that seems unlikely due to the structure of 1-3.

If you have real evidence, bring it on. Your link above was nonfunctional.

Hi again... maybe matthew to start. As you have mentioned there is evidence that it was written in "the hebrew dialect" which I believe to be Aramaic.
Here is the evidence I am aware of ..

Many of the references to matthew having written his gospel in "the Hebrew dialect" may stem from a saying attributed to Papias.(c.125)

What we have is this (in greek)
MATQAIOS
MEN OUN hEBRAIDI DIALEKTWi TO LOGIA SUNETAKSATO, hHRMHNEUSEN D AUTA hWS
HN DUNATOS hEKASTOS

Schollars have argued about the exact meaning of the words here but i beleive the plain reading is as follows...."that Matthew wrote his work in a/the hebrew dialect and each translated as best they could"

Now the immediate question is what was meant by "hebrew dialect".
There is some disagreement among scollars but I think the "hebrew dialect" (note not hebrew language) was the dialect of Aramaic spoken by jews at the time of Christ.
Hebrew had by this time long ago ceased to be the common tongue of jews.

This view would find support in the catholic Encyclopaedia...
…Moreover, Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6) tells us that the Gospel of Matthew was a reproduction of his preaching, and this we know, was in Aramaic. An investigation of the Semitic idioms observed in the Gospel does not permit us to conclude as to whether the original was in Hebrew or Aramaic, as the two languages are so closely related. Besides, it must be home in mind that the greater part of these Semitisms simply reproduce colloquial Greek and are not of Hebrew or Aramaic origin. However, we believe the second hypothesis to be the more probable, viz., that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic.”

Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)




An interesting quote from this history is in Book V,
chapter 10 concerning an Egyptian father named
Pantaenus who lived in the 2nd century:

"Of these Pantaenus was one:it is stated that he went as
far as India, where he appears to have found that
Matthew's Gospel had arrived before him and was in the
hands of some there who had come to know Christ.
Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them
and had left behind Matthew's account in the actual
Aramaic characters, and it was preserved till the time of
Pantaenus's mission."

Quoted from the translation by G. A. Williamson, The
History of the Church, Dorset Press, New York, 1965,
pages 213-214.

Ireneus (170 C.E.)
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in
their own dialect.
(Irenaeus; Against Heresies 3:1)

Origen (c. 210 C.E.)
The first is written according to Matthew, the same
that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of
Yeshua the Messiah, who having published it for the Jewish
believers, wrote it in Hebrew.
(quoted by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 6:25)

Epiphanius (370 C.E.)
They have the Gospel according to Matthew
quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still
preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew
letters.
(Epiphanius; Panarion 29:9:4)

Jerome (382 C.E.)
"Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came to be
an emissary first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of
Messiah in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the
benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who
translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained.
Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the
library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently
collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this
volume in the Syrian city of Borea to copy it. In which is to be
remarked that, wherever the evangelist... makes use of the
testimonies of the Old Scripture, he does not follow the
authority of the seventy translators , but
that of the Hebrew."
(Lives of Illustrious Men 3)

"Pantaenus found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve
emissaries, had there preached the advent of our Lord
Yeshua the Messiah according to the Gospel of Matthew, which
was written in Hebrew letters, and which, on returning to
Alexandria, he brought with him."
(De Vir. 3:36)

Isho'dad (850 C.E.)
His book was in existence in Caesarea of Palestine,
and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands in
Hebrew...
(Isho'dad Commentary on the Gospels)


Whilst I am at it I might as well post some other indications that other books may have been written in Aramaic as well. :)

Clement of Alexandria (150 - 212 C.E.)
In the work called Hypotyposes, to sum up the matter briefly
he has given us abridged accounts of
all the canonical Scriptures,... the Epistle to the Hebrews he
asserts was written by Paul, to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew
tongue; but that it was carefully translated by Luke, and
published among the Greeks.
(Clement of Alexandria; Hypotyposes; referred to by Eusebius in Eccl. Hist. 6:14:2)

Eusebius (315 C.E.)
For as Paul had addressed the Hebrews in the language of his
country; some say that the evangelist Luke, others that
Clement, translated the epistle.
(Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:38:2-3)

Jerome (382)
"He (Paul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own
tongue and most fluently while things which were eloquently
written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek
(Lives of Illustrious Men, Book 5)

Eusebius says, (H. E. iv. 22) that:

"Hegesippus, (who lived and wrote about A. D. 188,)
made some quotations from the Gospel according to
the Hebrews, and from the Syriac Gospel"

Now this claims that in the days of Hegesippus, a Syriac
Gospel existed, and that it was a different book from the
Gospel according to the Hebrews.

And in the Passio Sancti Procopii Martyris, (annexed
by Valesius to the Hist. Eccles. of Eusebius, lib. viii. c. 1,
ed. Amsterdam, 1695. Annotatt, p. 154,) the martyr is said
to have been born at Jerusalem, and to have passed his
life at Scythopolis, where he performed three functions in
the church,- " unum in legendi officio, alterum in Syri
interpretatione sermonis, et tertium adversus
daemones manus impositione consummans ;" until his
martyrdom, under Diocletian, A. D. 303

This view seems to have persisted in some quarters even up to the time of Pope Leo X.

In a book written in 16th century Italy, "Masoret haMasoret", by Rabbi Eliahu Levita, this story is written:

"Now, when I was in Rome, I saw three Chaldeans, who arrived from the country of Prester John, having been sent for by Pope Leo X. They were masters of the Syriac language and literature, though their vernacular language was Arabic. The special language, however, wherin the books were written, as well as that of the gospels of the Christians which they brought with them was Syriac, which is also called Aramean, Babylonian, Assyrian... Pope Leo X. had sent for them, in order to correct by their Codices his exemplar of his New Testament, which was written in Latin.....Now I saw them reading this (Syriac) Psalter without points, and asked them, Have you points, or any signs to indicate the vowels? and they answered me: "No! but we have been conversant with that language from our youth till now, and therefore, know how to read without points." ( Eliahu ben Asher Ashkenazi (Elias Levita), Masoret HaMasoret (first published: Venice 1538), edited by C. D. Ginsburg, in: Harry M. Orlinsky (ed.), The Library of Biblical Studies, New York: Ktav, 1968, pp. 130-131. )

Most western schollars of of the view that the NT was penned in greek, but Assyrian Christians who to this day still conduct thier services in Aramaic have a different view.

"With reference to....the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision."

Mar Eshai Shimun

by Grace, Catholicos Patriarch of the East.


These quotes are interesting however the internal evidence seems mare compelling again (to me anyway :) )
I believe there are indications within the books that even Pauls writings were originally composed in Aramaic.
This should not be so surprising as even our Lord addressed Paul in Aramaic.
At the end of the day they all rerad the same, but I do think it makes the defense of the scriptures easier by looking to Aramaic as the original.
This is due to the fact that the peshitta texts are basically uniform. The kind of variations in the various greek texts are absent.
Secondly contradictions that appear in the greek translations are not there in the aramaic.

Cheers......judge