jenn

I have been looking over this forum for a couple of days and find it to be very interesting! I only wish I knew half of what some on here know! My question is this. Can anyone tell me where to find original texts of the "Bible"? I started my journey a couple of years ago and I am learning an awful lot. I hate to admit, but I am a little confused with all I have read. Can anyone point me into a direction that would be useful.Please don't tell me to read the Bible again
Jenn

cloudyphiz

hi jenn
those texts are filed under 'n'; 'n' for 'non-existant'. and as far as the new testament goes, there are no autographs or even original language versions of the gospels (assuming that the eye-witnesses wouldn't have written in greek, as all the earliest MSS (manuscripts) we have are written in greek). basically, asking for original versions opens up a big, ugly can of worms as far as christianity goes .

my advice? check out steven carr's site
<a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/christ.htm" target="_blank">here</a>

and peter kirby's site
<a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/" target="_blank">here</a>

both are excellent resources, particularly kirby's "early christian writings" page.

also, you might do a google.com search for terms like 'codex vaticanus' and 'codex sinaiticus', which are two of the oldest copies of the xian bible. but, as steven carr points out, those bibles differ significantly from the versions in popular circulation.

-gary

Vinnie

"""""there are no autographs or even original language versions of the gospels (assuming that the eye-witnesses wouldn't have written in greek, as all the earliest MSS (manuscripts) we have are written in greek).""""

Hi Jenn. Regarding what cloudyphiz said above, it should be noted that the majority of scholars do not accept the Gospels as eyewitness accounts.

Vinnie

Skeptical

For NT documents, this site is useful for listing the actual documents that are extant:

<a href="http://www.bibletranslation.ws/manu.html" target="_blank">http://www.bibletranslation.ws/manu.html</a>

You'll notice that until the 4th century copies of the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, most of the documents are very fragmentary.

I can understand why you might be confused, inerrantists fundies like to make ridiculous claims like "20,000 copies of the NT were made within 25 years of its completion" which is not only plainly false it is so easily shown to be false that its hard to imagine a person remotely attached to reality making claims such as this, yet they do. (that one is taken from the feedback on Steven Carr's website)

Unfortunately, what you find all too often in Christian circles is many people who claim they are "Christian" yet have very little, if any, knowledge of the NT documents and the history of the early church. Many who claim to follow the Christian religion would be hard pressed to recognize names like Clement, Origen and Papias.

I am constantly amazed by "believers" who show so little knowledge about what they claim to believe, and then try to convert us "heathens" to a belief system about whose origins and background they know nothing.

B. H. Manners

Hello,

You will find the original autographs to be non-existant. Also, as you read about manuscript copies remember to look for information about the many differences in copies of the texts. These variants can range from one or two letters to whole chapters being contained in one copy of a book but not another.

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]</p>

Vinnie

If you want to read about the texts of the New Testament you can try a book like Bruce Metzger's 'The Text of the New Tetament'. He gives the basics of everything in there pretty much.

CX

This is mostly wrong. We do not have the autographs tis true, but a)There is no indication whatsoever that the original gospels weren't written in Greek b)Two of the gospel authors AMk and ALk were not eyewitnesses to gospel events even according to Xian tradition, and neither one appears to ahve been a Palestinian Jew, c)It is perfectly reasonable that the author of GMt was an educated Jew conversant in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek particularly if he was truly a publican (which is sheer speculation at best) and even if he wasn't it is clear that Paul, a pharisaic Jew was converant in Koine so why not also the author of GMt. It is nearly inconceivable to conclude that the original gospel texts weren't written originally in Greek based on the structure and nature of the texts themselves.

That being said, the best attempt to reconstruct the New Testament texts is found in the NA27/UBS4 critical text. There is little reason to suppose that these are not reasonably close to the original texts though there is ample evidence of significant editing and it would be extremely difficult to identify individual authentic pericopae given the paucity of MSS attestation early in the Xian era. Which is to say, as I have argued before, that it is extremely difficult to perfectly reconstruct the original gospel texts, but there is ample evidence of what were roughly considered the gospels by the earliest Xians.

cloudyphiz

well, i definately phrased what i said quite badly.
most christians i know are under the impression that the four gospels are indeed eyewitness accounts, which would imply that they should have originally been written in hebrew or aramaic. as you said (and i should have) there is no reason to think that this was the case. my ill constructed point was that christians need to produce a text in one of the languages of the suppposed eye witnesses, or they need to come up with a solid argument that the text were not originally written in greek. neither of which has happened.

-gary

CX

I don't want to be contentious over a point that has little bearing on anything, but why would the traditional attributions require that the gospels be written in Hebrew or Aramaic? Luke is supposed to have been a Gentile physician. Mark is supposed to have been an interpreter for Peter in Rome writing after Peter's death. Neither of them is considered to be an eyewitness to gospel events (though some speculation has been made though largely rejected even among evangelicals that Mark was the naked boy at the arrest). GMt is attributed to Levi an apostle and a publican for the Roman government. He would have had to have known Greek in the Hellenistic world of 1st century Palestine.

Also I must be severely out of touch, but most of the evangelical Xians I know do not claim that Mark or Luke were eyewitnesses to gospel events based on the traditional attributions I already outlined. Luke is considered an historian writing based on eyewitness accounts from others some written and presumably some oral. Mark is some kid who wrote down a bunch of stuff for Peter after his death and in the wrong order. I think both you and IntenSity in another thread are presenting an incorrect iamge of Xian belief. But any Xian who thinks Luke is an eyewitness to the events in his gospel even if we accept the traditional attribution, is not paying attention.