NZSkep

although the evidence - not least the continued prevalence of the Koran - and the movement of Allah suggests that He is indeed there.

TomboyMom

What is NA27/UBS4?
(You forget how deeply ignorance can penetrate.)

Helpmabob

Hi NZSkep - I think your point about the number of translations of the Bible, like the errors and contradictions point by Didymus, might be outside the scope of this thread which is about how/when (and if) tainting of the Bible occurred.

However, there are probably over 100 different Anglophone newspapers and magazines all reporting the same news stories. They all use different words, but we recognise them all as reporting exactly the same news. By having more than one newspaper, allows a broader and more refreshing appreciation of the truth. A vaguely similar effect is gained from reading the various Bible translations.Now the existence of these things should suggest to the neutral observer that there is something (or things) unseen, which can be known spiritually. First, you can choose to delve deeper or to ignore. If one chooses to dig, then the choice remains in what it is we are seeking to know, and how we are seeking to know it.

Hi aa5874 - You mean for example the Qu’ran, say (if not, please specify)? I get no pleasure from reading the Qu’ran as it contains no firm hope for the future, unlike the Bible, which has the word of forgiveness and everlasting life by grace, through faith. I believe the Qu’ran purports to offer the adherent access to paradise by careful observance of strict rule sets. It Whether the Qu’ran has been tainted, I cannot say – it does not matter for this discussion, but the Bible predates it by several centuries.

TomboyMom

I'm up in the middle of the night and started thinking about P45 and P46. There it is, the real deal, as close as we have to it. As a Jew, a skeptic, and an atheist, I am absolutely amazed that they even exist. It's a mind-blowing testament to the power of the book. Millions of people have changed or arranged their lives, fought wars, built cathedrals, slaughtered each other, written music, lived in celibacy and done millions of things because of a book, and there it is, as close as we have to it--an actual object, a stack of papyrus with some marks on it...it's just amazing!

So this is the fact of the matter: a tattered and stack of scraps from an anonymous Alexandrian scribe stuck away in someone's library, its true provenance unknown. These should be among the most venerated relics in Western civilization. Why aren't Christians content with learning and telling the truth about their history? Why do they spew meaningless crap like "the bible is the closest to the original of any ancient text" and "the bible is 99.5% accurate/pure/whatever" that are both meaningless and false? Not to mention the common belief that this stuff was written by 4 guys who lived through the events described. Their entire received history is based on lies about how their religion got started.
If I weren't already a disbeliever, that fact alone would be enough to make me deeply suspicious.
I bet that other than the biblical scholars in this forum, there's not a Christian on these boards who even knew that P45 and P46 exist, let alone what they are or what they actually contain. Tell us the truth, one allegiance, Patriot7, Helpmabob, did you know about P45 and P46? These are the actual origins of your religion, or the closest we have to it. How much do you know about them? And for heaven's sake, CLICK ON THE LINKS and learn the truth. It's amazing enough without making stuff up.

NZSkep

interesting point. i like it. but nobody suggests that these newspapers are the protected word of god and should be relied upon to guide you throughlife.


or......... the existence of the koran, bible + all the other 'holy books' that have existed to the neutral observer would suggest that since at least all bar one must be wrong (they all contradict each other)then why not all of them?

Iasion

Greetings TomboyMom,

Hmmm..
There are several concepts to keep clear :

The TEXT :
========
Paul wrote texts in the 50s (probably.)
But we do not have any MSS this early.

The MSS :
========
Each MSS will have 1 or more texts in it.
P46 is a MSS containing many Pauline texts, c.200CE
P45 contains Gospel texts, 3nd/3rd C.

The major MSS consist of:
* 2 scraps from 2nd C.
* several MSS from c.200 with much of the Bible
* several important Bibles from 4th century
* many later MSS
Here is a brief summary in order :
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentin...nuscripts.html
There are many lists of MSS online - no simple list by century that I have found.

Constantine ordered 50 bibles made in about 350 (NOT at Nicea)
We still probably have 1 or 2 of these today.
Note they are NOT exactly like our modern bible.
You can buy a replica, real cheap :
http://www.linguistsoftware.com/codexvat.htm


The CANON
=========

The LIST of books that makes the bible is the Canon.
That is what Athanasius did first - not just a list of books CLOSE to ours.
Athanasius wrote a letter (a festal epistle) with a list - not a MSS.
The first list to be EXACTLY like ours.
You can see how the canon developed here:
http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml


Versions and families and variants
=========================

So,
the modern Greek NT is a re-construction of the many MSS that exist.
There is a particular re-construction that is considered the current start of the field - i.e. the generally accepted best attempt to recreate the original NT. This work is calld the NA27 - the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (also called the UBS4 as well, the same document produced for the United Bible Society.) Eberhard Nestle, Kurt and Barbara Aland. It can be considered to be an "average" of what the NT looked like in about 200CE.
The NA27 is a must have for any NT researcher - your library should have one - it's a fascinating book to read, so DENSE with knowledge.
The NA27 has a critical "apparatus" - codes with allow you to tell what the major variations are, as well as the main re-constructed text.

Obviously some MSS are considered "better" than others - the earlier the better e.g.
The MSS tend to belong to families - they have similar variations.
I you want to see the specific details - about what every MSS variant says for every verse of the Gospels, see here:
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html


Iasion

Roger Pearse

I think that we take quite a risk if we presume that any text changed most only when we weren't looking...

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Julian

Sorry about that.

NA27 is the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (Novum Testamentum Graece), 27th edition. It is the bible that scholars use. It based on careful examination of all available manuscripts and a committee selects what passages they think are authentic based pretty sound principles. Many English translations are based on it, like the NRSV, for example. UBS4 is the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, 4th edition. The text is identical to NA27 but the apparatus (the portion of the book showing variant readings) is smaller.

As I am typing this, I just put down a double whopper with cheese on my copy of NA27 and page 27 got kinda crinkly from the moisture, dang it.

Julian

Julian

It's not really a presumption. We know that

1) the texts were not as widespread and well-known in the 2nd century as they became later, they could be 'fixed' without too much trouble.

2) Many forgeries took place during that time. I think your buddy Tertullian himself points out a forger, doesn't he? And there is the back-and-forth accusations involving Marcion.

3) We know there was a textual split that happened before we have substantial manuscript evidence as demonstrated by the Western text.

4) We know that there were a lot of issues about the interpretation of scripture in the polemical battles between the proto-orthodox and the 'heresies.'

I could probably list a few more if I took more time but basically we have motive, opportunity and evidence. Probably not enough to sentence someone to death beyond a reasonable doubt but I would pursue a civil suit with this kind of backing. It is a very reasonable assumption that the texts were extensively changed (the word extensively meaning different things to different people, obviously, as we discusssed earlier) and someone would need to present some good reasons for why they think they weren't changed. Personally, I would love to see the autographs. I suspect that they wouldn't be radically different from what we have (assuming massive changes is not reasonable, either) but I am sure that there would quite a few surprises nonetheless.

Julian

TomboyMom

I cannot tell you gentlement how interesting this all is. Is no one else out there as amazed and impressed as me, or am I the only one heretofore ignorant. Yes, Iason, thank you, I understand the distinctions you're making.

So it sounds like the NRSV, which a lot of people use today, is pretty close to what we might hypothesize/speculate/guess was "the original", true? How close? And how different is the NRSV to the KJV? I guess I could just go on line to see.

Am I right that the claims on this thread, that the text is 99.5% accurate, or that the bible is closest to the original of any ancient document, are crap? That they either don't make sense or are not true?