Malachi151

The question is, what does "99.9% accurate" mean?

Does it really matter if there have been discrepancies over the years in the big picture? No.

From what I can understand, the 99% accurate claim comes from, as I have said, taking all the manuscripts produced from the 4th century to the 16th century and then looking at the total variance within this sample.

As I have pointed out, in terms of claiming that this shows that "we have the authentic version" it is meaningless.

Most of the real variation probably took place prior to the 4th century, in copies that no longer exist. In addition, most of the existing variation is in the copies from the first 3 or 4 centuries.

I don't know what the real numbers are, but if you look at the variation in the manuscripts from the first 3 or 4 centuries it is much higher than looking at total variation from the whole set.

All that Christians really show when they talk about the consistency of the total set is that from the 9th century on the level of copying was very good. That these people were coying the same things that were written in the 1st century we have no idea and no way to prove, but we know at least that they weren't copying the exact same things that even existed in the 4th century for that matter.

The quality of Middle Age manuscripts is really doesn't do much, except allow Christians to make this bogus 99% accuracy claim.

As for "history being bunk", that IS part of the question.

If we DID have more accurate copies of these works, especially the letters of Paul, that could easily make the difference between confirming that Jesus was a real person or showing conclusively that he was not.

That's a pretty big swing in term of history. Is Jesus bunk? More accurate texts COULD help establish that position.

Most history doesn't hinge on these types of issues though.

Equinox

Malachi, that's an illustrative graph. Is there a good source for the data, and a place where I can get the data and the graph electronically?

I've made a similar graph that fills in the time before the 4th century. My graph shows the amount of the BIble that we have evidence of based on manuscripts, breaking it down by verse (yes, that assumes that all verses are the same length, which isn't true, but hopefully there is no trend, so a little noise might not change things much). I don't have a URL link, so I've just cut and pasted the number table below - you may be able to reconstuct the graph by pasting it into excel. The graph also ignores quotations from church fathers, which help a little, but not a huge amount - partly because church fathers didn't have any numbering scheme, partly because church fathers didn't quote precisely, and partly because many church fathers are late anyway (like Augustine).

Anyway, I got the manuscript data from this site: http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/t...pyri-list.html, use the graph if you like. Like your graph, it shows that we really don't have evidence for what the NT was like for a long time - certainly long enough for it to have been rewritten in significant ways (though probably not wholesale).

While Roger points out that we know the NT as good as many ancient texts, there are few ancient texts that had been subject to as large an incentive to change the text. The early controversies between Christianities made even small changes very attractive, especially if done with an honest intent, thinking that one was "fixing" and "obvious mistake" because one knew that the original "apostle" would have the "correct" theology.

Anyway, I'll be gone for the weekend. Have a fun weekend-

Equinox

Year % Written% Written Cumu. % Found % Found Cumu.
35 0 0 0 0
40 0 0 0 0
45 0 0 0 0
50 0 0 0 0
55 18.80266633 18.80266633 0 0
60 0 18.80266633 0 0
65 1.194818262 19.99748459 0 0
70 0 19.99748459 0 0
75 12.32549365 32.32297824 0 0
80 0 32.32297824 0 0
85 1.345742674 33.66872092 0 0
90 15.99798767 49.66670859 0 0
95 6.401710477 56.06841907 0 0
100 27.09093196 83.15935103 0 0
105 13.02980757 96.1891586 0 0
110 0 96.1891586 0 0
115 0 96.1891586 0 0
120 0 96.1891586 0 0
125 3.043642309 99.23280091 0.1 0.1
130 0.767199094 100 0 0.1
140 0 0.1
150 0.364733996 0.464733996
160 0 0.464733996
170 0 0.464733996
180 0 0.464733996
190 0 0.464733996
200 31.8 32.264734
210 0 32.264734
220 0 32.264734
230 0 32.264734
240 0 32.264734
250 20.1 52.364734
260 0 52.364734
270 0 52.364734
280 0 52.364734
290 0 52.364734
300 3.3014 55.666134
310 0 55.666134
320 0 55.666134
330 0 55.666134
340 0 55.666134
350 44.333866 100 (Sinaiticus)

Sauron

No, we don't - and with good reason: it's a false dichotomy foisted onto the discussion. By doing so, Roger (and others) have hopes of getting everyone to believe that the only two choices are:

1. either accept the idea that the bible is transmitted accurately; or
2. reject all ancient history and knowledge

Option #2 is clearly not acceptable, so Roger et. al. hope that #1 becomes the default.

Of course, a person with even a rudimentary understanding of history and science realizes that there is a wide spectrum of reliability between the two phony extremes. Moreover, the disingenuous attempt to get a blanket stamp of authenticity over ALL the texts ignores the fact that the reliability of transmission varies on a point-by-point basis.

Moreover, Roger has a strangely incorrect view of how we judge ancient history and knowledge; apparently he thinks we are solid in our assurance about events of those times. This ignores the fact that there is much about history that we admit we are only tentatively sure of. There are plenty of gaps and statements of carefully couched probability surrounding certain people and events in history. And when another ancient text is simply nonsense, repeating fables, or clearly impossible, we have no problem saying exactly that.

In other words, we - skeptics, scholars, etc. - we say the *same* things about ancient history (as a whole) that we are saying about the bible texts (as a whole). I'm sure that Roger doesn't object to scholars & historians saying that history has some holes and gaps in it. Then one has to wonder why he would object when those same comments are said about the bible texts. We wonders why, yes precious, we wonders.

So no double standard exists after all, since (contrary to Roger's implied assertion) skeptics *are* treating the bible the same way they treat the rest of ancient history.

That is perhaps what *you* do.
And I know that biblical inerrantists positively engage in that.
But I have seen no evidence that "they" (meaning scholars in general) engage in this practice.

That's only because acknowledging the spectrum of points between those two extremes is certainly not convenient for your personal faith.

And since no one is doing that, I guess everyone can relax and not worry about your false alarm.

Ah. Another claim.
Is "fine" related to "normal purposes"?
Will you be defining either term in the near future, hmm?

Riverwind

I think one of the points that Roger is trying to make is that many (most?) works that are older than the New Testament are only preserved medieval manuscripts, much farther in time from the originals than in the case of the New Testament manuscripts.

Some may not, today, place much significance in the wording of Homer's works, for instance, however this was the "Bible" of ancient paganism. So, to think that these texts would not have been as "theologically" significant to people such that there would be desire to also change the text is simply incorrect.

Although, as Bart Ehrman points out, there are many thousands of "errors" in the transmitted texts, it seems to me that he really did not point out clearly enough the insignificance of the vast majority of those "errors". That is plainly seen from the comments made by non-experts who have read his book, knowing that he has rejected his former faith, and take his word on these issues as if it were handed down from The God of textual criticism.

Regardless of Bart Ehrman, most of these thousands of "errors" are scribal slips and mispellings. One could easily list the "significant" differences. In fact, most of the newest Bible translations come with footnotes that mention all of the major variants, give the actual text of them, and state that they are or are not found in the oldest manuscripts.

It's just not as eye-popping a subject as when one first learns about all these supposedly horrible problems with the transmission of the New Testament. Of course, this is only taking into account one position. Steven, praxeus, has his own take on the originality of the Byzantine text. Personally, there is so little difference between 'Alexandrian' and 'Byzantine' that only the most literal of Christians would probably even care.

vsop44

From Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman : If god made the miracle of inspiring the bible writers , Why didn't he , also , make the miracle of preserving the original copies for us ?

God sure works in mysterious ways !

Riverwind

There are lots of theological answers to common questions of this type. One might say that a perfectly preserved Bible would make the existence of the Christian God obvious, thus negating our free will.

If God's major and important messages contained in the Biblical text, regardless of slight transmission errors, made it to us intact, then humans could still follow it reasonably. For instance, some of the main tenets are still obvious regardless of transmission errors...faith in Jesus saves, love God with all your heart, mind soul, and love your neighbor like yourself, etc.

One could reasonably argue that God inspired the works and inspired the transmission of the text "just enough" so that his ultimate message still comes through loud and clear.

Johnny Skeptic

That is false. Demonstrations of God's power would not negate free will in any way. Free will means the ability to make choices. Assuming for the sake of argunent that free will exists, I would choose to reject the God of the Bible even if I believed that he exists.

One could also reasonably argue that the Bible is a poor substitute for a tangible God who is always available to consult with everyone. In other words, there ain't nothin' like the real, tangible thing.

Riverwind

I have found that the more I learn about life, the less I see things in a binary sense. People throughout history have wrestled with the issue of free will, and so I doubt very much that simply labeling these views "false" will change anything.

People define free will in various ways. It is quite easy for one to offhandedly remark that they would choose to reject God if confronted with his existence. However, if one were to suddenly become aware that the God was a "good" God, his "reasons" behind everything were made clear, and it became clear that an eternal fiery hell was just punishment for his given reasons, I doubt that people would feel as if they had "free will" any longer. They would see one way...God's way. Of course, any sort of spin can be put on this. It is merely speculation because he did not preserve the texts as some, in their limited human intelligence, would if they were playing God.

One could, from a human view this would make sense. However, the more one learns, the more one realizes there is to learn...that is, we aren't Gods, so we should not presume to put God in a box of our own making and tell him what he should and should not do.

Toto

This forum is for Biblical Criticism and History. If you are concerned with issues of free will or divine hiddenness, there are other forums.

Thanks for your consideration.

Roger Pearse

Indeed. In short, we would use the bible just like every other book in our imperfect world, and like every other text from antiquity, and treat imperfections as minutiae. That must be particularly so in this forum.

But I have an idea that the argument that you are addressing really amounts to this:

1. This is an imperfect world
2. All books have mistakes of transcription
3. An inspired book cannot have any mistakes of transcription in it
4. Therefore there cannot be any inspired books

The weak point is #3, relying as it does on some revelation which which I am not familiar to inform us of this. Since people living in the manuscript era, and so familiar with the idea of copying errors, did not consider this an issue, I suspect that the whole thing is misconceived; setting up a strawman and then complaining that it doesn't exist.

All the best,

Roger Pearse