ggazoo

Would love to get some thoughts on this:

http://www.africanaquatics.co.za/_ch..._the_bible.htm

Julian

What parts? Most of what is on there is wrong. Pick some parts that you want to discuss.

Julian

Roller

Oh, I see... Bible has more copies than X, so Bible must be true? Well, then its neck to neck with Harry Potter and Michael Jackon's Thriller.

Out of all those Latin and Greek manuscripts, do they say how many are identical? I'd say none. Do they say how one manuscript would say how "your father and I were looking for you" (Mary and Joseph looking for Jesus) but other manuscripts would say "we were looking for you" (of course, Jesus is not supposed to have an earthly father). A list like this could go on forever.

These manuscripts have important theological disagreements.

Quote from the web page: "Consider then that the Bible manuscripts date from only 30 -150 years after they happened, and that more than 30 000 original manuscripts exist!!"

There are no original manuscripts. And they all differ between eachother (as Ehrman said, there are more differences between them then words in New Testament).

Here's one "manuscript" (p52) that they probably count in these 30-150 years:


Impressive?

Dean Anderson

It's a bit off-topic, but does anyone know of a good web resource where I can compare some of these manuscripts side-by-side to see what the actual differences between them are?

pharoah

This is profoundly intellectually dishonest. What this site did, and what ALL of these literary comparison sites do, is completely omit the Old Testament from their comparisons. They do this to make the comparisons look better than they really are. This particular site then really adds to the sleight-of-hand trick in the above quote by trying to pass off the New Testament as being the Bible.

Roller

They also make it sound as if we have complete Bibles only after 30-150 years of Jesus' death. It seems that the goal is to make you think how Jesus walked around with KJV under his arm.

Roger Pearse

This would also apply to classical mss. Does this mean that we cannot rely on these?

Ehrman may indeed have said something like this. But it's obscurantist all the same. Hand-copying involves typos by its very nature (and so does printing!). But only a blind fool would throw away texts on these grounds.

Very. Most texts are extant only in copies 15 centuries later. A fragment from within 30 years of composition -- wow!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roller

I agree that would be stupid. However, there is no discussion on that page about the nature of the mss transmission. I think I know why. Since the intention is to show the "divine" transmission of mss, there is no room for discussion on real (scribal) transmission.

I agree and I'm not throwing anything away. Actually, as even Jon Stewart (a foremost biblical scholar ) said in the interview with Ehrman, it makes you appreciate the text even more. The text becomes alive!

However, its more then just typos (although typos are probably a majority). No? The web page doesn't mention that at all. The web page is talking about "30000 original documents."

I'll keep agreeing with you on this one too. Yes, it is VERY impressive as an archeological find. However, it is not what the web page is trying to show it to be. I think its pretty safe to assume p52 would be among the 30-150 years mss. Except its a tiny fragment, not the entire Bible. The text seems to say that we have entire Bibles in that time frame.

Thank you for you comments Roger.

Julian

This is probably the best resource on the web for MS to MS comparison: http://www.laparola.net/greco/

In print form I would recommend the Reuben Swanson series of books.

Julian

dzim77

For starters, I would like to hear your take on the fact that there are mountains more copies of the NT in a much shorter time span as compared with other classical mss. Do you differ from FF Bruce's conclusions?


Secondly, name some critical Christian doctrines that are in question due to differences in manuscripts.