Assembling the Bible

Last post 07-02-2008 11:59 PM by Istvan. 14 replies.
Page 1 of 1 (15 items)
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 04-01-2008 8:43 PM

    Assembling the Bible

    Ben brought up in another post the topic of how the Bible (in the state we have now) came together.  I do not know all the details.  However, I believe it is something that Christians need to know.  So I plan on doing a personal study and give some of my findings here as I go (I encourage input from others as well).

    To begin, we have to eliminate one of the most used (and stupidest) arguments for the Bible.  The argument is that the Bible (specifically the NT) is made up of "copies of copies of copies of ..." (you get the point).

    Of course, we do not have the original manuscripts of the NT.  However, this realization is true for most ancient documents.  What the NT has in its favor is the LARGE number of copies that have survived.

    Interesting Facts:
    1. Tacitus, the Roman historian wrote Annals of Imperial Rome around AD 116.  His annals consists of 10 books.  We only have ONE manuscript of his first six books dating from AD 850 (~730 years after he wrote them).  Books seven through ten are lost.

    2. Josephus, first-centruy historian, wrote The Jewish War.  We have NINE copies of this work.  They date from the tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries (900-1100 years after he wrote it)

    3. Homer probably wrote the Iliad in 800 BC.  We have a little fewer than 650 Greek manuscripts of it today (pretty impressive).  However, the copies date from the second and third century AD (~1000 years from the original)

    4.  MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND (5,000) New Testament Greek manuscripts have been cataloged to date.  For the date of the copies, scroll down and examine the second column at the following website (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri).  WOW!

    • Post Points: 25
  • 04-01-2008 8:58 PM In reply to

    Re: Assembling the Bible

    Are you still believing that garbage that the "Catholic Church made changes which have a huge impact on our Bible"?

    The earliest copies of the NT we have are fragments of papyrus (see link in last post)--papyrus being a thick paper made from a plant found in Egypt.  [ASIDE: byblos is what the Greeks called papyrus.  This is where we get the word Bible!)

    Besides, the copies on fragments of papyrus, we have later copies on parchment.  One type of copies is called uncial manuscripts, which are written in all-capital Greek letters.  Today we have over 300 uncial manuscripts.  As for their dates, scroll down column four at the following link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_uncials)

    • Post Points: 15
  • 04-01-2008 9:05 PM In reply to

    Re: Assembling the Bible

    I'm not finished!  A new style of writing, more cursive in nature, emerged in roughly AD 800.  We call these miniscule codices.  For a sample of the nearly 3,000 copies see the following link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_miniscules)

    Therefore, if we add the papyrii, uncial manuscripts, and miniscule codices, we get almost 5,700 Greek manuscripts (OVER 5000 manuscripts I said earlier)

    Now, if it only stopped there.  I would be foolish to ignore the 8,000 to 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts and the 8,000 manuscripts written in Ethiopic, Slavic, and Armenian.

    Are you blown away yet?  Or are you still swallowing that liberal garbage that we have copies of copies of copies of copies that date FAR from the original manuscripts and are full of errors (a topic to be mentioned next)?

    • Post Points: 25
  • 04-02-2008 11:41 AM In reply to

    Re: Assembling the Bible

    I have a book and will bring it to church this evening for you to borrow. It's not a in depth study, but a brief overview to get you started.

    • Post Points: 25
  • 04-03-2008 1:01 PM In reply to

    Re: Assembling the Bible

    Best I know of:

    Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh Mcdowell (boiled down version is  More Than a Carpenter)

    Historical textual reconstruction is a widely accepted scholastic endeavor in the secular world. But, whenever this very same accepted process is applied to the extant texts available to us, most secular scholars will not accept the stunning, inescapable conclusion: The New Testament is the most internally and externally validated ancient text of ANY sort.

    Hope you guys are well.

    B8

    The existence of God is proven by the impossibility of the opposite. GB
    • Post Points: 25
  • 04-03-2008 1:11 PM In reply to

    Re: Assembling the Bible

    B8 is back! Yippee! 

    • Post Points: 25
  • 04-04-2008 4:03 PM In reply to

    Re: Assembling the Bible

    *chuckling*

    You sound like my kids after I've been on call for a weekend.

     

    Business venture planning fun underway.

    The existence of God is proven by the impossibility of the opposite. GB
    • Post Points: 25
  • 04-04-2008 4:34 PM In reply to

    Re: Assembling the Bible

     They call you "B8"? LOL!

    • Post Points: 25
  • 04-05-2008 4:35 PM In reply to

    Re: Assembling the Bible

    Most of my focus so far has been on the NT.  Why?  Because the NT clearly establishes that the OT was already recognized as complete.  Jesus said, "This is what I told you while I was still with you:  Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." (Luke 24:44)  (the three sections of the Tanakh--i.e., OT)

    I will return back to the assembling of the OT at a later time.

    Listed below are the recognized dates for the NT books:

    1 Thessalonians (~51 AD)
    2 Thessalonians (end 51-52 AD)
    James (before 50 AD or early 60s)
    Galatians (48-49 or 51-53 or 53-57)
    1 Corinthians (early 55 AD)
    2 Corinthians (late 55 AD)
    Romans (~57 AD)
    Ephesians (~60 AD)
    Colossians (~60 AD)
    Philemon (~60 AD)
    Philippians (~61 AD or 57-59 or 53-55)

    Matthew (late 50s, early 60s)
    Mark (late 50s, early 60s)
    Luke (late 50s, early 60s)

    Acts (~63 AD)

    1 Timothy (63-65)
    Titus (63-65)
    2 Timothy (66-67)
    1 Peter (between 60 and 67/68 AD)
    2 Peter (65-68)

    John (50-70 or 85 AD)
    Hebrews (before 70 AD)
    1,2,3 John (85-95?)
    Jude (65-80?)

    Revelation (54-68 or 81-96) [Most scholars believe it to be written in 95 AD--sorry B8]

    • Post Points: 15
  • 04-05-2008 4:42 PM In reply to

    Re: Assembling the Bible

    So how long did it take for the early believers to recognize these books as inspired and holy?  NOT LONG AT ALL!

    Paul writes: "For the Scripture says, 'Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,' and 'the worker deserves his wages.'" (1 Timothy 5:18)

    The first quote is from Deuteronomy 25:4 (OT), and the second quote is from Luke 10:7 (NT).  If we look at my list above, 1 Timothy was probably written in 63-65 AD.  Luke was written no more than 8 (yes, eight) years before.  WOW!

    • Post Points: 15
  • 04-05-2008 4:46 PM In reply to

    Re: Assembling the Bible

    Peter writes: "His [Paul] letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures ..." (2 Peter 3:16)

    2 Peter is one of the most interesting books (historically speaking).  If we consider it really written by Peter (as most do), Peter is recognizing Paul's letters as Scripture within 15 years of their composition.

    • Post Points: 25
  • 04-05-2008 8:46 PM In reply to

    Re: Assembling the Bible

    "Revelation (54-68 or 81-96) [Most scholars believe it to be written in 95 AD--sorry B8]"

    Thanks for thinking of me, Wesley.

     

    Most scholars also used to think the world was flat.

    Most scholars also laughed out loud at the germ theory of disease.

    Smile

    The existence of God is proven by the impossibility of the opposite. GB
    • Post Points: 25
  • 04-05-2008 9:34 PM In reply to

    Re: Assembling the Bible

    Bahnsen8:

    "Revelation (54-68 or 81-96) [Most scholars believe it to be written in 95 AD--sorry B8]"

    Thanks for thinking of me, Wesley.

     

    Most scholars also used to think the world was flat.

    Most scholars also laughed out loud at the germ theory of disease.

    Smile

    Your welcome.  However, I think the majority of the scholars have a strong case for the 95 date!!  But if you want to stick with your "fragile" view, that is okay.  Stick out tongue

    • Post Points: 15
  • 04-05-2008 9:41 PM In reply to

    Re: Assembling the Bible

    In writing to the Philippians (between 110 - 140 AD), Polycarp says, "... as it is said in these Scriptures, 'Be ye angry and sin not,' and 'Let not the sun go down upon your wrath.'"

    Hmm?!  These Scriptures--plural.  Paul writes: " 'In your anger do not sin' (Psalm 4:4); do not let the sun go down while you are still angry." (Ephesians 4:26)

    Looks like Polycarp recognized Paul as well as the Psalmist as Scriptural.

    • Post Points: 15
  • 07-02-2008 11:59 PM In reply to

    Re: Assembling the Bible

     If I remember right LEE STROBEL’S "THE CASE FOR CHRIST" has some info on the number of manuscripts that have been found.  Good book!!!

    Fidei defensor

    Istvan
    • Post Points: 15
Page 1 of 1 (15 items)