NT Manuscripts

[Iasion]

Greetings all,

I thought readers may be interested in my investigation of te NT MSS.

I especially draw 1John2_26's attention to the 2nd section, and look forward to his reply.


NT manuscript attestation

Claims about the NT being the "best-attested" confuse two UN-related issues -
* reliability of the text,
* truthfulness of the contents.

Firstly, it is not true that the NT is "the best-attested document in all of antiquity" because there are some documents even older than the NT for which we have the ORIGINAL literally carved in stone (e.g. Behistun inscription, Egyptian tomb inscriptions, the Rosetta Stone, the Moabite Stone) - making them absolutely 100% accurately attested from the original because they ARE the original, and thus much better attested than the NT.
http://visopsys.org/andy/essays/darius-bisitun.html

It's true the NT is fairly well-attested (in terms of quantity) compared to SOME ancient writings - in the sense that we have many old copies (24,000 or more in total). However the vast majority of these copies are from the middle-ages. The number of NT manuscripts from before the dark ages is about a hundred.

But there are NO originals for ANY of the NT writings - all we have is copies of copies, all varying from each other (that's right - every single manuscript we have is slightly different from every other - not counting very tiny scraps) from long after the alleged events :
* NO copies from 1st century,
* a few tiny fragments from 2nd century (e.g. P52, P90),
* a few UNCOMPLETE copies from late 2nd / early 3rd (e.g. P75, P46),
* several fairly complete copies in 3rd / 4th century.
List by century :
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/Robinson-list.html
Detailed contents of all NT MSS :
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/st ... /EGBMP.htm

And, there is considerable variation in Gospel manuscripts, and it often DOES reach to core beliefs and events :

The words of God at the baptism in early MSS and quotes have "...this day have I begotten thee" (echoing Psalm 2) - later, as dogma about when Jesus become god had crystallized, thus phrase became "..in thee I am well pleased". If scribes can change the alleged words of God, they can change anything.
Another important variation is the ending of G.Mark - there are four different endings to this Gospels in various MSS, the original ending being 16:8
Other MSS variations include :
* the issue of salvation through the Christ's Blood,
* the Trinity - found in no MSS before the 16th century!
* the Lord's prayer - much variations in manuscripts,
* the names of the 12 apostles are highly variable in MSS and indeed the Gospels.
http://members.aol.com/PS418/manuscript.html

These are just some issues of manuscripts variations - contradictions between different Gospel's versions of the Jesus stories is another very smelly kettle of fish :
* the widely variant birth stories,
* the names of the 12 apostles vary among Gospels.
* the completely irreconcilable Easter morning stories :
http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php



Quantity of manuscripts irrelevant to truth

But more importantly, 1John2_26, like many apologists, has confused two fundamentally different issues - he is arguing that because we have so many copies this proves the contents true. Well, this is obviously not true - the number of copies has nothing to do with the truth of the contents. Consider -

* the Iliad - over 600 manuscripts, more than the NT until after 1000AD - does this mean that the Iliad was more true than the NT until about 1000AD, but from the middle ages on, the NT became MORE TRUE than the Iliad?

* the works of 10thC. Yen-Shou of Hangchow - about 400,000 copies exist, about 4000 times as many copies as NT copies at that time - does this make the work over 4000 times MORE TRUE than the NT?

* the Book of Mormon - there are millions of copies of this work, many dating maybe a FEW YEARS after the original - would this make the Book of Mormon much MORE TRUE than the NT?

* the Lord of the Rings - there are many millions of copies of this work, (including the original manuscript AFAIK), dating from very soon after its writing - does this makes the Lord of the Rings of vastly more true than the NT?

No.
It should be obvious that the NUMBER of copies attesting to a work gives no support to the truth of the contents - yet apologists like 1John2_26 repeatedly bring this point up as if it proves something.


Iasion

[theleftone]

If I remember right (I'll have to dig out my copy of Metzger's Canon of the New Testement) the earliest christian canon (a list or collection of authentic books) rejected 3 of the 4 Gospels and included only a heavily redacted version of the fourth. The Gospels were then considered a judaic intrusion into genuine christian teachings.

This would be Marcion Canon. Marcion was booted from the church for heretical teachings. The claim of "Judaic intrusion on the Gospels" being one of them. Tertullian has a treatise against Marcion as well, called "Against Marcion."

[Iasion]

Greetings,

I admit of my mistake in my second response. I had forgotten exactly what you stated in the original post regarding variants and core beliefs. ou are correct in saying it does impact some core beliefs.

Thank you for that very reasonable response

Let me clear what appears to be a misunderstanding - there are a HUGE number of variations in the Gospels, and I said it impacted even some core beliefs. I then gave a quick list of some examples, of varying "coreness". However, I don't necessarily claim that all the examples listed are "core" beliefs. Thus, I won't answer every one of the issues we have discussed - some are "core", some are less "core"

Let's recap the point -
These variations cover many aspects of te Gospels stories, and all these variations argue AGAINST historicity - e.g. the 12 apostles - if they were a REAL founding group we would KNOW there names. Instead we have a list with odd variations (sure, apologists can hand-waven them away by pretending different names mean the same people.)

Incorrect. Man's ability to change and/or modify what God has said does not invalidate it as being true or not.

You are assuming the conclusion - that they WERE the words of God.
But,
if these were the REAL words of God, ACTUALLY spoken miraculously in front of witnesses and 2 holy men - we can be pretty sure those words would be well recorded
So,
the fact that these writers can change the words, apparently in response to an early heresy, is very strong evidence that these words were crafted by the writers, and not based on any real events.

The shortest ending of Mark stops at the eighth verse. The resurrection is established in verses 1-8, particular verse 6. Thus, any ending we accept would not exclude the resurrection. It would only exclude some post-resurrection accounts. So, how does this reach to the "core belief" of the resurrection? How does mean the resurrection story would be missing?

"Risen" may mean many things (such as that he has risen to heaven, an obvious possibility) - it is not a clear reference to the resurrection, unless you are a believer.

The very fact that the Gospel has SEVERAL different endings is a strong argument that it is all crafted (largely based on Jewish scriptures), not a record if history

The Comma is a textual variant. The Trinity is not. The trinity is a theological concept, doctrine.

Splitting hairs.
The ONLY clear NT support for the Trinity is the Comma, which is NOT found in the early Greek MSS.
Many scholars argue Jerome added this into the Latin stream of MSS in the 4th C.
This major textual VARIATION affects a core belief - my claim stands.


Iasion

[juliod]

This would be Marcion Canon. Marcion was booted from the church for heretical teachings. The claim of "Judaic intrusion on the Gospels" being one of them. Tertullian has a treatise against Marcion as well, called "Against Marcion."

Ah, but here's the key: Do you know whether or not Marcion was correct in his claim that the Gospels (and much else) were judaic intrusions?

In fact, nearly all we know about Marcion is contained in polemics against him. All we know is that he represented the loosing side. We don't know whether his view of doctrine was more authentic or less authentic than what would later be called "Catholic".

DanZ

[theleftone]

there are a HUGE number of variations in the Gospels, and I said it impacted even some core beliefs.

There are indeed a large number of variants in the Gospels, and more generally the New Testament or even Bible. The number of variants however is not really the important part, it's the nature of the variants. In the vast majority of cases, these variants are so minor it's like placing an 'a' where an 'e' should go. To think of it in modern terms, it's like a typo. And this is entirely reasonable, and should be expected. With the number of manuscripts we have to date, we have to remember each one of these manuscripts was written by had. This opens up the door of for scribal error, or "typos." Hence, we must be careful not to overstate or assign too much value to the number of variants. We must focus on the nature of these variants.

And as a side note, I did not catch this before -- perhaps a brain fart, but if you wish to deal specifically with the Gospels then Comma is irrelevant as it falls outside of these texts. This also includes the issue of blood as well.

These variations cover many aspects of te Gospels stories, and all these variations argue AGAINST historicity

I disagree. I believe the existence of the variants is support of (a) the authenticity of the Gospels, and (b) the subsequent historicity of the Gospels. The reason I believe this is the nature of the large majority of these variants are so minor that they make absolutely no difference in what the text says. The few variants which could be classified as "major" variants (i.e., ending of Mark and such), impact no major or even minor doctrine of the Christian faith. I realize you are going to argue against this, so we will focus on the issue of Mark below. It is the fact that so little impact is made by these variants that we can be confident in both the accuracy of the Gospel texts we use today is extremely close to the originals, and that they are indeed authentic. And since we know they are authentic, we can also trust they are historic -- at least in many aspects.

e.g. the 12 apostles - if they were a REAL founding group we would KNOW there names. Instead we have a list with odd variations (sure, apologists can hand-waven them away by pretending different names mean the same people.)

On what grounds do you know that we would know their names? Further complicating your argument are the other of 120 members of the "founding group" who were not named (Acts 1:15).

Incorrect. Man's ability to change and/or modify what God has said does not invalidate it as being true or not.

You are assuming the conclusion - that they WERE the words of God.

Here is your quote to which I was responding with this statement.

That scribes could change the word of God argues against this being a true record.

Taken in context, I believe the assumption was acceptable one based on your statement.

But, if these were the REAL words of God, ACTUALLY spoken miraculously in front of witnesses and 2 holy men - we can be pretty sure those words would be well recorded

And so they are. Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:21-22

So, the fact that these writers can change the words, apparently in response to an early heresy, is very strong evidence that these words were crafted by the writers, and not based on any real events.

Let me restate your argument here for clarity. You are saying the fact that the writers changed the words is "very strong evidence" that the words are not based on real events? If that's the case, then your argument is fallacious. A does not lead to B. Therefore, this is a non sequitur. The ability of one to change the words has not impact on the validity of what the original words were, nor what event they were based on.

To show the inconsistency of this argument, let me turn to a modern day event. Say Joe wrote a letter to his friend Mike. In that letter, Joe stated, "On September 11, 2001, two airliners were crashed into the World Trade Center towers." Now, say Sam our friendly postal man likes to be nosey and read other people's letters. When he reads Joe's letter, he decides to change the statement from Joe's original to the, "On September 11, 2001, two airliners were not crashed into the World Trade Center towers." Would this make Joe's claim false? Would it mean Joe's claims was no longer based on an actual event? Of course not. The argument simply does not stand because the ability of another to change words has no impact on the either the original accounts validity or the actual event.

While I have assumed your premise for the sake of argument above, I now turn and challenge them. What evidence, specific evidence -- not some general declaration (i.e., if you claim "manuscripts," I want you to point out exactly which ones), is there that the words in anyone of the passages above was changed from the original reading? How do you know that was the original reading? On your second premise, what early heresy are you referring to, and what sources can you site for this?

The shortest ending of Mark stops at the eighth verse. The resurrection is established in verses 1-8, particular verse 6. Thus, any ending we accept would not exclude the resurrection. It would only exclude some post-resurrection accounts. So, how does this reach to the "core belief" of the resurrection? How does mean the resurrection story would be missing?

"Risen" may mean many things (such as that he has risen to heaven, an obvious possibility) - it is not a clear reference to the resurrection, unless you are a believer.

Sorry, but this is incorrect. You must take the passage in context. The key to understanding this as a reference to the resurrection is verse 7. "But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you" (Mark 16:7, NIV). It would be kind of hard for the disciples and Peter to "see him" had He "risen to heaven."

The very fact that the Gospel has SEVERAL different endings is a strong argument that it is all crafted (largely based on Jewish scriptures), not a record if history

I could see this argument being valid for the endings themselves, but not the Gospel as a whole. If you're going to continue pounding this argument, I am going to demand some appeals to authority here. Please direct me some scholars who claim "several" variants or endings is enough to call into question whole text of an ancient writing as an historical account. Preferably, quotes from a book, academic journals, or work of a similar nature (i.e., no random web sites). And preferably from a historians or literary scholar who's specialization is this time period.

The Comma is a textual variant. The Trinity is not. The trinity is a theological concept, doctrine.

Splitting hairs.

This is not splitting hairs. This is a request -- nay, a demand -- for the accurate usage of the concepts being dealt with. A textual variant is something different it nature from a theological doctrine. They refer to two completely different concepts.

The ONLY clear NT support for the Trinity is the Comma, which is NOT found in the early Greek MSS.

Okay, for the sake of argument, let's assume the Comma is the only "clear New Testament support" for the Trinity. Now, let's remove that from consideration as support for Trinitarian doctrine. We can now, per your premise, assume there is no longer any clear support for the doctrine in the NT. So, how is it that the vast majority of Christendom, in their statements of faith, have managed to clearly articulate almost precisely the same statement and position on the doctrine of the Trinity?

Yes, you can counter that I'm appealing to numbers. However, it's not fallacious on this point because my argument is inductive in nature, and hence the statements which have been formulated without referencing or using the Comma to establish a clear doctrine of the Trinity gives additional weight to my argument. Thus, each additional one we can add to the list, further benefits my argument that there is clear support for the doctrine of the Trinity outside of the Comma. And it should be noted, some of those creeds pre-date Jerome's birth.

Many scholars argue Jerome added this into the Latin stream of MSS in the 4th C.

Which scholars are you referencing here? And, are you familiar with the debate surrounding what precisely Jerome translated? There is much debate about this outside of the Old Testament and the Gospels. In other words, it's possibly Jerome never even translated or touched 1 John.

This major textual VARIATION affects a core belief - my claim stands.

First, this is not a "major textual variation." It is, at best, in the moderate category. This is why few, if any scholars include this in their works today. For support of this, simply look at almost any modern translation. They exclude the Comma. Second, it affects the core belief only in that it would be supportive if it were included. So, yes, this claim stands. It does not affect the doctrine of the Trinity in a negative light. Thus, this claim does not stand.

I should note at this point, I will be going out of town and will be unable to respond for some time if it's warranted.

[theleftone]

This would be Marcion Canon. Marcion was booted from the church for heretical teachings. The claim of "Judaic intrusion on the Gospels" being one of them. Tertullian has a treatise against Marcion as well, called "Against Marcion."

Ah, but here's the key: Do you know whether or not Marcion was correct in his claim that the Gospels (and much else) were judaic intrusions?

In fact, nearly all we know about Marcion is contained in polemics against him. All we know is that he represented the loosing side. We don't know whether his view of doctrine was more authentic or less authentic than what would later be called "Catholic".

Two things.

First, we can draw a conclusion about which was the more authentic view of doctrine. We can do this by reviewing the New Testament, the texts which Marcion was referring to.

Second, you use the term "Catholic." I assume by the quotations, you mean this to refer to the "universal" church. If this is the case, then it's fair to assume a universal church is established as the primary religious authority. This being the case, it's fair to assume their doctrine is what should be considered orthodoxy. The definition of a heretic is one who disagrees with or holds a position which is unorthodox. Thus, if we are going to contrast Marcion's view against the "Catholic" church's view, then we must rightly assume him to be a heretic.

[juliod]

First, we can draw a conclusion about which was the more authentic view of doctrine. We can do this by reviewing the New Testament, the texts which Marcion was referring to.

How can we do this when we don't have the Marcion versions? The winners in this controversy were very effective in obliterating the loosers. We have only scraps and quotations from the Marcion canon.

Obviously, the texts of the winners is going to reflect the doctrine of the winners, that's why they have different versions in the first place.

The Marcionites were in the same position regarding the catholic tradition as modern Catholics are to the Mormon canon. If all you had ever seen was the Mormon canon, how sympathetic would you be to the view that the texts have been corrupted by intrusions from science fiction?

If this is the case, then it's fair to assume a universal church is established as the primary religious authority. This being the case, it's fair to assume their doctrine is what should be considered orthodoxy.

Why? We don't have anything like an original. We don't know what the first teachings were. All we know is that some versions were suppressed, destroyed and not copied. We have no assurance that the "winners" were closer to the original.

DanZ

[micatala]

Thanks, iason, for the interesting thread.

I would also suggest 'Misquoting Jesus' by Bart Ehrman as a good read which also covers the area of textual criticism in 'laymen's' terms and brings up many of the issues you have.

With respect to the baptism of Jesus, this is certainly an important point. Ehrman makes the case that the textual variations were intentional, suggesting that later scribes changed 'today I have begotten thee' to 'with thee I am well pleased' in order to combat the so-called 'adoptionist view.' This view held that Jesus was not born as the Son of God, but was 'adopted' as the Son of God due to some aspect of his righteousness. Certainly such a view is quite contrary to modern Christian theology, going to the very heart of the nature of Christ.

juliod I think makes a good point in that today's scriptures and the traditional doctrines are the result of 'who won the debate,' and that we tend not to have much information about the losers. Thus, it is not unreasonable to surmise that there was even greater controversy than we have evidence of at this time.

Ehrman also makes the point that when their are textual variations, it is the more difficult, unusual, or 'controversial' version that is probably authentic. The logic is that if textual variations exist, a more harmonious one A, and a more controversial one B, and we assume that either A was changed into B or B changed into A by some process (intentional or not) resulting in the variation, that it is more likely that someone (especially if they did it intentionally) changed the more problematic text into the more harmonious than vice versa.

Early church leaders and scribes, especially those who Ehrman calls 'proto-orthodox' and whose ideas eventually won out, would obviously be interested in trying to combat ideas they considered heretical, and also would likely have been interested in 'harmonizing' the text to avoid confusion and other theological problems. There is certainly ample evidence that alterations that appear designed to achieve these ends have occurred.

[theleftone]

First, we can draw a conclusion about which was the more authentic view of doctrine. We can do this by reviewing the New Testament, the texts which Marcion was referring to.

How can we do this when we don't have the Marcion versions? The winners in this controversy were very effective in obliterating the loosers. We have only scraps and quotations from the Marcion canon.

I'm a bit confused by this question. You assumed and accepted the claim was made by Marcion in your initial post.

If I remember right (I'll have to dig out my copy of Metzger's Canon of the New Testement) the earliest christian canon (a list or collection of authentic books) rejected 3 of the 4 Gospels and included only a heavily redacted version of the fourth. The Gospels were then considered a judaic intrusion into genuine christian teachings.

Then I pointed out that he was considered a heretic by the early church. You then asked the following.

Do you know whether or not Marcion was correct in his claim that the Gospels (and much else) were judaic intrusions?

To which I pointed out that we could by comparing this claim to the New Testament. And now you're questioning how we could know that Marcion made this claim? I'm sorry, but I simply don't understand where you're going with this. It appears as if you're trying to undermine one of your own points.

Obviously, the texts of the winners is going to reflect the doctrine of the winners, that's why they have different versions in the first place.

Agreed. However, in Tertullian's work he is countering Marcion's positions. While biased, we could still deduce what Marcion's positions were -- assuming Tertullian didn't misunderstand or misrepresent them.

The Marcionites were in the same position regarding the catholic tradition as modern Catholics are to the Mormon canon. If all you had ever seen was the Mormon canon, how sympathetic would you be to the view that the texts have been corrupted by intrusions from science fiction?

I'm not sure how this relates to my point. I was pointing out that Marcion was considered a heretic.

If this is the case, then it's fair to assume a universal church is established as the primary religious authority. This being the case, it's fair to assume their doctrine is what should be considered orthodoxy.

Why? We don't have anything like an original. We don't know what the first teachings were.

A "universal church" would be the established church, else it could not be called the universal church or the catholic church. The definition of orthodox is "adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion" (Dictionary.com).

All we know is that some versions were suppressed, destroyed and not copied.

How do we know this?

We have no assurance that the "winners" were closer to the original.

The original would be the New Testament and other related texts. Thus, we can make a determination as to who was closer. We can make the determination who held a more authentic view of doctrine, be it Marcion of the catholic church.

[theleftone]

With respect to the baptism of Jesus, this is certainly an important point. Ehrman makes the case that the textual variations were intentional, suggesting that later scribes changed 'today I have begotten thee' to 'with thee I am well pleased' in order to combat the so-called 'adoptionist view.'

Mind presenting Ehrman's arguments for this?

Ehrman also makes the point that when their are textual variations, it is the more difficult, unusual, or 'controversial' version that is probably authentic. The logic is that if textual variations exist, a more harmonious one A, and a more controversial one B, and we assume that either A was changed into B or B changed into A by some process (intentional or not) resulting in the variation, that it is more likely that someone (especially if they did it intentionally) changed the more problematic text into the more harmonious than vice versa.

Speculation.

Early church leaders and scribes, especially those who Ehrman calls 'proto-orthodox' and whose ideas eventually won out, would obviously be interested in trying to combat ideas they considered heretical, and also would likely have been interested in 'harmonizing' the text to avoid confusion and other theological problems. There is certainly ample evidence that alterations that appear designed to achieve these ends have occurred.

Ditto from the first comment.

[juliod]

You assumed and accepted the claim was made by Marcion in your initial post.

All I initially said was that Marcion created the first christian canon. I believe that this is a universally accepted fact. A canon is a list or collection of texts that are deemed "authentic".

The fact that the Marcionites were apparently the first to seriously consider the question of authenticity lends weight to their claim to be the original, since they were obviously seeking to protect their doctrine from alteration. This means that at the time of Marcion's writings they were working against what they saw as a threat to the original texts.

Then I pointed out that he was considered a heretic by the early church.

And he considered the early church to be heretics against what he considered to be the original documents.

To which I pointed out that we could by comparing this claim to the New Testament. And now you're questioning how we could know that Marcion made this claim? I'm sorry, but I simply don't understand where you're going with this. It appears as if you're trying to undermine one of your own points.

What I am saying is that we don't know what the "original" bibles contained. The contents of our modern bibles are the product of the winners in the dispute with Marcion (and others). Any early texts that supported Marcion and not the Catholic church would have been destroyed (or, at least, not copied).

We know that Marcion claimed the bible was infiltrated with cultic additions. In support of his view he produced the first list of authentic christian books. That list lacked the Gospels.

We also know that Marcion's claims were rejected by those who accepted those books. What we don't know is whether Marcion's claims were true. And since the writings of Marcion, his predecessors and his followers, are all lost to us, I don't know how we could decide this issue.

assuming Tertullian didn't misunderstand or misrepresent them.

That would be an unjustified assumption, considering that intra-religious strife is always the most nasty.

I'm not sure how this relates to my point. I was pointing out that Marcion was considered a heretic.

Just as a Catholic would be considered a heretic in a Mormon community.

The point is that Marcion is called a heretic only because he was on the loosing side of a debate. If he had won, the Gospels would be heretical (as is the book of Mormon).

A "universal church" would be the established church, else it could not be called the universal church or the catholic church.

Bzzzt! The church was called universal (I believe) because it held that christianity was for everyone, jews included. Marcion (I believe) held the doctrine that christianity was only for gentiles (and that judaic aspects of the catholic church were intrusions).

Note that this controversy was never resolved. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews is still in the bible even though it has pretty much been shown to be a fake. Hebrews was controversial in ancient days, and it's still controversial now. Is Hebrews an example of a judaic intrusion? Who can say?

>>All we know is that some versions were suppressed, destroyed and not copied.


How do we know this?

Because there are references to writing that no longer exist. Marcion must have written quite a bit. And there must have been other supporters of his view. Essentially none of their work survives. Yet we know it existed and we know it was important because polemics against them also survive.

The original would be the New Testament and other related texts. Thus, we can make a determination as to who was closer. We can make the determination who held a more authentic view of doctrine, be it Marcion of the catholic church.

So you would base your judgement of authenticity on the text produced by the winners? I think I can guess what your conclusion will be.

DanZ