Bble History

[Hanna]

I am really confused about Bible History before the TR.

The original NT was penned in Greek, correct? How much of the oringal writings are available to us? How many copies of the original mauscripts are there? Where were/are they? Where are they now? Do these copies of the orignal match?

Let me stop there for now cause I need to get that straight before I can go further.

[Will]

I am really confused about Bible History before the TR.

The original NT was penned in Greek, correct? How much of the oringal writings are available to us? How many copies of the original mauscripts are there? Where were/are they? Where are they now? Do these copies of the orignal match?

Let me stop there for now cause I need to get that straight before I can go further.

Well, I think it's safet to say much of the NT was originally penned by the authors in Greek(especially Paul who wrote mostly to Gentiles). However, I think at least two of the Gospels may have been written in Hebrew or Aramaic, then later copied into the Greek.

The original writings? That the author penned? Long gone. However, many of the Greek manuscripts available are very, very, very close in everything they say. There's a pretty good matching rate.

[Alen]

There is a great deal of manuscripts available, I don't think any of them match exactly, the manuscripts are generally split into several groups, I forgot their names atm, but once of them is the TR and I think the others are the Alexandrian and the Majority texts.

The earliest manuscripts are probably around 200-300AD I think. These are of course copies.

If you are looking for a line of texts that agree perfectly with the TR and the KJV, I don't think anyone knows of them.

-Alen

[dwayner79]

Do some research on textual criticism. We have thousands of partial manuscripts that mostly agree with each other. Here is a good history of the Bible text book

[Hanna]

There is a great deal of manuscripts available, I don't think any of them match exactly, the manuscripts are generally split into several groups, I forgot their names atm, but once of them is the TR and I think the others are the Alexandrian and the Majority texts.

Ok, these manuscripts that are split in groups. Are these the Byzantine Text,Codex A Vaticanas and Codes B Sanaticas (sp on all that).

If the answer to that is yes, are those copies of the original, how well do they match the original and how do we know that, since you say the original is long gone, that they match at all?

Sorry I am not trying to be a pain, just trying to understand.

[Will]

Ok, these manuscripts that are split in groups. Are these the Byzantine Text,Codex A Vaticanas and Codes B Sanaticas (sp on all that).

If the answer to that is yes, are those copies of the original, how well do they match the original and how do we know that, since you say the original is long gone, that they match at all?

Sorry I am not trying to be a pain, just trying to understand.

Yeah, the first part is pretty much right. As to how we know they are close to the originals. Well, the answer lies in the fact that there is so much matching between the manuscripts. At some point in history, there had to be a primary source that would cause all of this matching. That source would have to be the originals.

[dwayner79]

Start here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism

It is the wiki, so not overly reliable, but a good overview none the less. Scroll to the large section on Bible. After that, get the book I mentioned.

[Alen]

How well do they match the originals?

The Dead Sea Scrolls were found a while ago, and people criticized the view of a preservation of God's Word. Those manuscripts are the oldest available of the OT (at least at that time) they agreed with the later manuscripts with a 99.99% accuracy, 1 in 10, 000 words differed, and those words differed so little, that upon translation of the texts, the translation would of been the same.

If the OT is that well preserved, I think we can trust the NT

-Alen

[Hanna]

Ok, I found this on the OB Website, written by Pastorj.

As Jerry stated, the modern translations make no bones with where they came from. The WH texts are based on primarily two greek manuscripts (Sinaiatics and Vaticanus) These manuscripts come from a family line known as the Alexandrian line. This line of manuscripts is known for its non literal interpretation. These two manuscripts were not considered acceptable source documents until Westcott and Hort in the late 1800's. They date back to the 3rd century. Hence there is a 1600 year gap between these documents and the WH greek text in this family.

The KJV comes from the Byzantine line where there are over 5000 manuscripts that were used to create the TR. This line held to a literal interpretation of Scripture and preservation. it also had no breaks in it's history dating back to the early second century.


So there are the manuscripts which are called Sinaiatics and Vaticanus and both of these are written in Greek. And there is the Byzantine line.

I am going to assume that these all came from the original, kind of like the 2nd line on a family tree. If I am wrong please correct me.

But are these 3 copies of the original or are they translations of the original?

[Hanna]

How well do they match the originals?

The Dead Sea Scrolls were found a while ago, and people criticized the view of a preservation of God's Word. Those manuscripts are the oldest available of the OT (at least at that time) they agreed with the later manuscripts with a 99.99% accuracy, 1 in 10, 000 words differed, and those words differed so little, that upon translation of the texts, the translation would of been the same.

If the OT is that well preserved, I think we can trust the NT

-Alen

The dead sea scrolls are JUST the OT?

[Alen]

Uhh..yeah

The DSS are just the OT, well not the full OT but most of it I believe.

-Alen

[kevinmiller]

Weren't the Alexandrian manuscripts written by gnostics?

[JJJ4given]

Ok, I found this on the OB Website, written by Pastorj.

As Jerry stated, the modern translations make no bones with where they came from. The WH texts are based on primarily two greek manuscripts (Sinaiatics and Vaticanus) These manuscripts come from a family line known as the Alexandrian line. This line of manuscripts is known for its non literal interpretation. These two manuscripts were not considered acceptable source documents until Westcott and Hort in the late 1800's. They date back to the 3rd century. Hence there is a 1600 year gap between these documents and the WH greek text in this family.

The KJV comes from the Byzantine line where there are over 5000 manuscripts that were used to create the TR. This line held to a literal interpretation of Scripture and preservation. it also had no breaks in it's history dating back to the early second century.


So there are the manuscripts which are called Sinaiatics and Vaticanus and both of these are written in Greek. And there is the Byzantine line.

I am going to assume that these all came from the original, kind of like the 2nd line on a family tree. If I am wrong please correct me.

But are these 3 copies of the original or are they translations of the original?

The Siniaticus and the Vaticanus I believe are both corrupt ms.


There are actually closer to 6000 manuscripts total and 90% of them are in agreement with each other almost exactly. Those are the Majority Text. There is another 5% that is in disagreement with the 90% and even with themselves. These are called the minority text. Then there is another 5% that is in agreement sometimes with the Majority Text and sometimes with the minority text. The Sinaiatic and Vaticanus fall under the minority text.

Most critics call the minority text better ms only because they were in better condition(practically unused) and had no notes in them. However, most of the minority texts do not agree with each other.

The KJV was taken from the Textus Receptus which was a compilation from the Majority Text.

[Kubel]

Weren't the Alexandrian manuscripts written by gnostics?

On the flip side, the Byzantine texts were copied by Arians.

Hanna, another good site that explains a lot:
http://www.gotquestions.org/textual-criticism.html

[IM4given]

If any of you are close enough to visit this traveling Museum Exhibit - I highly recommend it! I visited it when it was in St. Petersburg - well worth the price of admission! It is going to be in Idaho in February.

http://www.inkandblood.com/exhibit/overview/index.php