Polycarp

What ancient writings have better textual attestation than the New Testament ? There must be writings that have more manuscript support from a time closer to the writing of the original document than the New Testament has. I’m compiling a list of such documents. Please let me know which writings I should include. I'm only looking for ones that were originally written prior to 1000 C.E.

katerina2

Why Polycarp?

What brings you to this neck of the woods?

I suppose you would start with the usual suspects...

but isn't the question of textual support a red herring or whaddayacallit?

any paleographers among us, mes cheris?

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by katerina2: What brings you to this neck of the woods? I suppose you would start with the usual suspects... but isn't the question of textual support a red herring or whaddayacallit? any paleographers among us, mes cheris?

Have we met? Or is my plan to convert hordes of skeptics so thinly disguised as to be uncovered at this early stage of the game?

I can assure you I’ve thrown out no scarlet-colored, foul-tasting fish. Quite surely, I wish to keep the topic focused on textual criticism. It is my deepest hope that the discussion not degenerate into a festival of buffoonery by either side.

I've returned to this neck of the woods simply as a diversion from my life as a world-renowned slayer of dragons.

katerina2

I must have you confused with the sdmb/pp Polycarp. Sorry.

Red herring (not even sure that is the word) because AFAIK the Biblical text is part oral history. And oral history is not text. Kinda similar but...

precisely what do you define textual criticism to be? Written record or also other traces (archeological evidence, etc).

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by katerina2: I must have you confused with the sdmb/pp Polycarp. Sorry. Red herring (not even sure that is the word) because AFAIK the Biblical text is part oral history. And oral history is not text. Kinda similar but... precisely what do you define textual criticism to be? Written record or also other traces (archeological evidence, etc).

My “online-ese” is rather weak. What does “sdmb/pp Polycarp” mean?

I would define textual criticism as the art and science of determining the original text of a written document for which we do not possess the original writing (autograph). This is done through the study of the copies that are in existence for any given writing. I’m speaking only of the written documents in the New Testament in comparison to other ancient written documents.

For example, we do not have the original version of Homer’s “Odyssey”. We don’t have the actual parchment or scroll that Homer wrote upon. We only have later copies that were made. This is the case with virtually every ancient writing. I’m looking for ones that have better support than the New Testament writings. For example, if writing X was originally written in 500 C.E. and we have 10 copies of it that were all written before 700 C.E., while writing Y was originally written in 500 C.E. and we only have 1 copy of it from 1400 C.E., then we would say that writing X has better textual support than writing Y.

Hope that helps…

madmax2976

Hell, lets just assume that the New Testament writings do have the best collection of manuscripts to support them. Given the power and wealth of the church I wouldn't find this all that suprising. It took a lot of resources to be able to do this before the advent of the printing press and paper.

Lets assume we have no other copies of writings that are as close to the originals and lets assume that there are more ancient copies of the NT than another other writing - after all - some writing would likely fit this description.

And? What would be the point, if any, of amassing the collection you speak of? Is there a conclusion you would draw from it?

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by madmax2976: And? What would be the point, if any, of amassing the collection you speak of? Is there a conclusion you would draw from it?

Well, if everything you said turned out to be true, then I would conclude that the New Testament has better textual support than any other ancient writings. I'd conclude nothing more or less. But I'd like to wait for others to present their evidence before reaching my conclusion, so we'll see what the rest of the crowd has to say.

BTW, do you think ancient Rome had any money during it's reign prior to Constantine?

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: Polycarp ]</p>

Kosh

The textual support for the NT may be the best, but so what? The textual support for the original autographs is VERY weak. So at best you only know what it said as of the 4th century A.D.

And it doesn't matter about the other documents. Nobody is asking people to change their behavior based on if the Illiad is accurate to the original.

This is a pretty weak argument Bede. I thought you were better than that.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh: The textual support for the NT may be the best, but so what? The textual support for the original autographs is VERY weak. So at best you only know what it said as of the 4th century A.D. And it doesn't matter about the other documents. Nobody is asking people to change their behavior based on if the Illiad is accurate to the original. This is a pretty weak argument Bede. I thought you were better than that.

A couple clarifications for you.

First of all, I don't see any posts in this thread in which Bede commented. One would assume your comments were directed toward me, so I'll respond. Correct me if you were speaking to someone else.

What argument have I made that is weak? I don't recall making an argument. I simply asked for writings that had better textual support than the New Testament. So what argument was I making??

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: Polycarp ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Poly --

I'm a little confused about "attestation." There's no question that there are a lot of copies of the NT lying around, but that is hardly surprising.

If by attestation you mean "multple copies," pride of place must go to Asia. Runs of a million copies for religious writings were not uncommon in Korea, Japan and China. The chief priest of the Ling-Yin Temple in Hangchow, Yen-shou (904-75) printed dozens of titles of sutras, charms and pictures of which 400,000 survive. Many exmples of a charm printed in the 8th century survive. Printed documents are common after the 8th century. See Volume 5, Book 1 of Needham's Science and Civilization in China, Paper and Printing.

As another poster pointed out, since there are no originals, the number of copies is really irrelevant. If it is solid originals you want, surely the thousands upon thousands of papyri found in Egypt, or the thousands of documents from China, blow away the NT as far as being original. There are millions of such original documents known to archaeology. "Multiple attestation" meaning "numbers of copies" is useless for determining anything except popularity.

Vorkosigan