Confirmations of the New Testament

[shunyadragon]

<SNIP! nothing of consequence>

Nothing can be dated close to the life of Jesus to indicate eyewitness testimony.

What we have from Kurt and Barbara Aland, and generally accepted by biblical scholars, is that the concept of 'original text' is non-existent. The New Testament text that we have today is the work of scholarly committees which decided on the readings it thought were most likely closest to the earliest versions of the New Testament.

[lee_merrill]

What we have from Kurt and Barbara Aland, and generally accepted by biblical scholars, is that the concept of 'original text' is non-existent.

Well, I think not! We have about 17 variants per text (see my post above), which is not much, considering many documents are multiplied pages of text.

The New Testament text that we have today is the work of scholarly committees which decided on the readings it thought were most likely closest to the earliest versions of the New Testament.

I have been reading the NT text and seen variants, and again, most of them are not significant. Could you point me to some variants the Alands refer to?

Blessings,
Lee

[rogue06]

This might be a good time to note that the various copies of the Gettysburg Address, which is a very short document written in recent times, contain some rather interesting differences among them but nobody argues that this somehow makes the Address inaccurate, invalid or unreliable.

[Teallaura]

This might be a good time to note that the various copies of the Gettysburg Address, which is a very short document written in recent times, contain some rather interesting differences among them but nobody argues that this somehow makes the Address inaccurate, invalid or unreliable.

I vaguely remember hearing that the only reason we have a copy is because someone asked Lincoln for a copy shortly after the address.

[Tassman]

Well, I think not! We have about 17 variants per text (see my post above), which is not much, considering many documents are multiplied pages of text.

I have been reading the NT text and seen variants, and again, most of them are not significant. Could you point me to some variants the Alands refer to?

[rogue06]

I vaguely remember hearing that the only reason we have a copy is because someone asked Lincoln for a copy shortly after the address.

IIRC there are 4 copies and each is different.

[One Bad Pig]

"Widely divergent" copies are the extreme exception.
I'm sure I don't need to remind YOU that Aland & Aland is not holy writ. Speaking of which:
This appears to be both an inaccurate citation and misleading; the text you quote appears on page 69 of the 1987 edition. In contrast, this is what the Alands had to say in 1995:

Source: The Text of the New Testament: The Science and Art of Textual Criticism by Edward Andrews and Don Wilkins, quoting Aland and Aland 1995 p. 93-95

Our research on the early papyri has yielded unexpected results that require a change in the traditional views of the early text. We have inherited from the past generation the view that the early text was a "free" text, and the discovery of the Chester Beatty papyri seemed to confirm this view. When P⁴⁵ and P⁴⁶ were joined by P⁶⁶ sharing the same characteristics, this position seemed to be definitely established. P⁷⁵ appeared in contrast to be a loner with its "strict" text anticipating the Codex Vaticanus. Meanwhile the other witnesses of the early period had been ignored. It is their collations which have changed the picture so completely.

© Copyright Original Source

Try not uncritically copying from sloppy atheist sites, k?

[JimL]

The irony of all this is shunya is ostensibly Baha'i, and those writings have been massively edited over the less than two centuries since the Bab. He seems to have no problem with that.

Do you think he should he have a problem with it?

[Teallaura]

Do you think he should he have a problem with it?

If he isn't a hypocrite, yes.

[shunyadragon]

This might be a good time to note that the various copies of the Gettysburg Address, which is a very short document written in recent times, contain some rather interesting differences among them but nobody argues that this somehow makes the Address inaccurate, invalid or unreliable.

We have the original Gettysburg as written and spoken by Abraham Lincoln, We have nothing within a hundred years of the life of Jesus Christ,

[Teallaura]

We have the original Gettysburg as written and spoken by Abraham Lincoln, ...

No, we DON'T.

Source: Wikipedia

Despite the prominent place of the speech in the history and popular culture of the United States, its exact wording is disputed. The five known manuscripts of the Gettysburg Address in Lincoln's hand differ in a number of details, and also differ from contemporary newspaper reprints of the speech.
Source

© Copyright Original Source

... We have nothing within a hundred years of the life of Jesus Christ,

Yes, we DO.

Earliest Fragments of Matthew

Earliest Fragments of Luke

Earliest Fragments of Mark

Earliest Fragments of John


There's no rational question that the Gospels were in circulation in the First Century AD and that they have been reliably transmitted to the present day.

[shunyadragon]

No, we DON'T.

Source: Wikipedia

Despite the prominent place of the speech in the history and popular culture of the United States, its exact wording is disputed. The five known manuscripts of the Gettysburg Address in Lincoln's hand differ in a number of details, and also differ from contemporary newspaper reprints of the speech.
Source

© Copyright Original Source

Yes, we DO.

Earliest Fragments of Matthew

Earliest Fragments of Luke

Earliest Fragments of Mark

Earliest Fragments of John


There's no rational question that the Gospels were in circulation in the First Century AD and that they have been reliably transmitted to the present day.

Sorry to inform you, but no the latest news is that the earliest dated fragment of Mark (P137) first believed to from the first century, is now dated to between 150 to 250 AD. All other fragments are are most definitely not from the first century.

Source: https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2018/may-web-only/mark-manuscript-earliest-not-first-century-fcm.html

Despite Disappointing Some, New Mark Manuscript Is Earliest Yet

© Copyright Original Source

The article goes into considerable detail concerning the earliest known fragment of the NT from Mark (P137), and the now published dating of the fragment.

Again, there are absolutely no known earlier fragments of the NT.

[Teallaura]

Sorry to inform you, but no the latest news is that the earliest dated fragment of Mark (P137) first believed to from the first century, is now dated to between 150 to 250 AD. All other fragments are are most definitely not from the first century.

Source: https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2018/may-web-only/mark-manuscript-earliest-not-first-century-fcm.html

Despite Disappointing Some, New Mark Manuscript Is Earliest Yet

© Copyright Original Source

The article goes into considerable detail concerning the earliest known fragment of the NT from Mark (P137), and the now published dating of the fragment.

Again, there are absolutely no known earlier fragments of the NT.

Er, no - one source doesn't over rule four.

And there is more than adequate evidence for rational people that the earliest fragments date no later than the Second Century (with fragments actually dating to the First but I'm just using the 'older' known documentation) - which utterly and completely destroys the

We have nothing within a hundred years of the life of Jesus Christ,

myth.


You, as usual, are wrong.

[shunyadragon]

Er, no - one source doesn't over rule four.

And there is more than adequate evidence for rational people that the earliest fragments date no later than the Second Century (with fragments actually dating to the First but I'm just using the 'older' known documentation) - which utterly and completely destroys the


myth.


You, as usual, are wrong.

Your making blind assertions without references. My references are the result of published research.

Still waiting . . .

[Teallaura]

Your making blind assertions without references.

References were provided - and you are still wrong.

And don't use the possessive.