Board index ‹ Bible

[Oblivious]

First of all - full disclosure. I am an agnostic atheist with a seminary and post-graduate education. New Testament Studies and an M.Div along the way. Not really germane to this post - or not very much.

The New Testament we have today are translations of copies, of copies, of copies. And, along the way, while scribes were copying the NT texts, often in very dim lighting? A great many errors were made. Things like textual criticism, form criticism and redaction criticism has helped alleviate a great many of these, however, the remaining text has still been corrupted.

And, very sadly in my opinion, the autographs have been lost to history. But here is my oddball (somewhat!) question.

How would we even KNOW if we did, someway somehow, stumble upon them? There is nothing at all to compare it to that could determine that is there? I have wracked my brain over and over pondering this.

Any ideas?

[jimwalton]

It's true we have copies of copies, but it's not as you are assuming. There's not necessarily a trail from one original through copies of copies and errors along the way. In all likelihood, since it was common in ancient Rome, there were multiple original copies scattered to the churches, and from there we have copies of copies. In other words, it's not a single common trunk, but more like a bush that was multiple strands from the beginning.

Therefore, examination of the manuscripts and fragments we have, through the eyes of form and textual criticism, given their dates and locations, added to the gross abundance of fragments and manuscripts, allows us to form with quite a bit of confidence what the autograph would have looked like. The somewhat "hopeless" corruption of the texts that you seem to be assuming is probably not the case. Because of the method of transmission of the biblical texts and the abundance we have, the text we have is likely very close to the original with very little corruption.

Therefore, of the 400,000 or so known variants among the early NT manuscripts, less than 1% of the NT is textually uncertain to any significant degree, nothing important is included in that 1%, and we can reconstruct the text with a high degree of probability.

In addition, we have learned that scrolls and books in antiquity remained in use anywhere from 150-400 years, some even longer. Craig Evans writes,

"This intriguing evidence suggests that the original NT writings (which scholars call autographs) were in circulation for a long time, being read, studied, and copied before being discarded or destroyed. The original copy of a biblical book would most likely have been used to make countless new copies over a period of several centuries, leading to still more favorable conditions for careful preservation of its contents. Even if we assume only the minimum longevity (150 years), this means that many of the original NT books would still have been in circulation at the beginning of the 3rd century. Indeed, writing at the end of the 2nd century, Latin church father Tertullian claims that several of Paul’s original letters were still available for inspection in the cities to which they had been sent. Manuscript evidence uncovered in the last century suggests that Tertullian knew what he was talking about."

Now, to your real question: How would we know if we discovered an autograph? Most likely, we would not, Carbon dating might tell us an era which would be intriguingly exciting, but we could never know for sure if we stumbled upon an autograph. Given what I said about the duration of texts in use, we may actually have some of them now (I think it's unlikely, but possible), and we don't even know it.

[Oblivious]

We may have fragments but nothing even close to multiple books. But it would be wonderful if we could find late first/early second century CE copies of, at least (if I am dreaming Mark) one Gospel account!

[jimwalton]

> We may have fragments but nothing even close to multiple books

Yeah, it would be great to have more than we do, but, honestly, we have THOUSANDS more copies and fragments of the NT than of any other ancient document. It's almost an embarrassment of bounty.

It was common in the ancient Greek and Roman world for an author to copy multiple original reprints of his own work for distribution around the empire. No author simply made one copy of his play, novel, or historical work. The same would have been true of the Gospels and of Paul's epistles. We know, for instance, that John's "Revelation" was distributed to at least 7 churches. When Paul's letter went to the church at Ephesus, for example, multiple copies were likely sent to various congregations throughout the city and region. In 2 Timothy 4.13, it's at least possible that Paul wanted parchments to write copies of his own epistles for distribution. This was a common practice. When Mark wrote his Gospel, the common practice of the day suggests to us that Mark wrote multiple copies for distribution to the churches. We know that the Gospel writers followed common practices and literary devices of the Roman culture. It's plausible that multiple original copies was part of their praxis.

It's also one of the reasons that the Islamic critique that the Bible is corrupted is not very plausible. While it's possible to corrupt a single copy, and every copy after that would then therefore have that "mutation," if there are 9 original copies circulation, from which multiple copies are being made of each, it's impossible to corrupt a text. One could never hunt them all down to create a textual adulteration.

For a modern illustration, history tells us that John Dunlop produced 200 "original" copies of the American Declaration of Independence, 26 of which still exist (as far as anyone knows). (https://declaration.fas.harvard.edu/faq/how-many-copies-were-originally-made-declaration-independence-were-they-all-signed). This is the way things were done.

> But it would be wonderful if we could find late first/early second century CE copies of, at least (if I am dreaming Mark) one Gospel account!

It would be awesome, but still eludes us.

P52 (Rylands Library Papyrus, P. Rylands Greek 457, discovered in 1934) of a few verses of John 18 is the earliest fragment of a Gospel we have. It is usually dated from AD 135-150, though some estimate it as early as 100.

P90 (Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 3523) (Gospel of John) is dated to the 2nd century.

The earliest fragment of Mark in existence is P137 (AD 150-250, which is a wide spread). P45 is thought to be from 200-250.

Recently there was an intriguing discovery of a fragment of Mark in a mummy mask (P5345) that was initially thought to be from the first century, but further examination makes it more likely from the 2nd or 3rd.

As I'm sure you know, papyrus rarely lasts 2000 years.

[Oblivious]

> we have THOUSANDS more copies and fragments of the NT than of any other ancient document. It's almost an embarrassment of bounty.

In reality? It is meaningless. Remember who was making the copies. Amateur and professional Christian scribes. But that is a fact.

And you ARE aware that the Gospels were written anonymously and Paul did not write 1st or 2nd Timothy? Those 2 books are part of the deutero-Pauline books that a lot of scholars believe were written, at least in part, by followers of Paul. And it is likely that whoever wrote 1st Timothy did NOT write 2nd Timothy. The genuine Pauline epistles are:

Galatians (c. 48 AD), First Thessalonians (c. 49–51), First Corinthians (c. 53–54), Second Corinthians (c. 55–56),Romans (c. 55–57), Philippians (c. 57–59), Philemon (c. 57–59)

And that is a good point about 'publication' copies. In the case of Paul I think the congregations he addressed made the copies for distribution. I am not going to dispute much as I have almost NO expertise in that particular practice.

Good ole P52. Subject to much scholarly debate and abuse by apologists like William Lane Craig of the still useless Ontological Argument. And remember...You can put a glass slipper on a pig...but it's still a pig at midnight. I am not much impressed by 99.9% of Christian 'apologists'. They ought to be apologizing to their fellow Christians for being such an embarrassment for crying out loud.

And thanks for a cool discussion - I am really enjoying it

[jimwalton]

> It is meaningless.

Oh, I heartily disagree. Our abundance of manuscripts gives us an excellent opportunity to determine the original text.

> Remember who was making the copies. Amateur and professional Christian scribes.

The problem with this criticism is that the Christian scribes are proven by history to have been excellent and accurate copyists. We can have deep confidence in the texts we have because of the evidence of accuracy.

> And you ARE aware that the Gospels were written anonymously

Ah, I've had this discussion dozens of times, and the weight of evidence is greatly in favor of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And, by the way, just for the record, no anonymous copies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John have ever been found. They do not exist, and possibly never have. In addition, there are no actual examples in early Christian history of a document known to have been written by someone other than the person to whom it is attributed. We have no evidence at all that early Christianity accepted pseudonymity as a legitimate device in the testimony that exists. (That came in the second century.) Brant Pitre writes, "It is utterly implausible that a book circulating around the Roman Empire in multiple copies could somehow at some point be attributed to exactly the same author by scribes throughout the world and yet leave no trace of disagreement in any manuscripts—with all four of the Gospels. If the Gospels were truly anonymous, we would expect to find some attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but the same Gospels attributed to others elsewhere. If the Gospels really got their titles from scribes falsely adding them to manuscripts up to a century later, we would expect to find both (1) anonymous copies, as well as (2) contradictory titles."

> Paul did not write 1st or 2nd Timothy?

This is very debatable, and is hotly debated, but it has nothing to do with the discussion we're having and has no import on it. You've made a subject switch here. Your question was about textual corruption and existence of the autographs, not the authorship of two pastoral epistles.

But, as far as 1 Timothy is concerned, the evidences for Pauline authorship is stronger than non-Pauline.

1. It says it was written by Paul.
2. There are constant personal references either to Paul’s own life
3. The Church Fathers and early Church attribute it to Paul.
4. No other author’s name has ever been suggested. There is no evidence that any other author wrote the book. It is uncontested.
5. There is much in the contents that is Pauline
6. The doctrinal background is Pauline
7. The style of writing is more Pauline than that of any other NT writer

The evidences for not-Paul are weaker

1. Tatian (considered a heretic) and Basilides (the Gnostic) said it wasn't Paul.
2. Marcion (excommunicated for heresy) excluded it from his canon for unknown reasons
3. The Pastoral Epistles contain 306 words that Paul doesn’t use in his unquestioned letters.
4. The writing style is different from Paul’s unquestioned letters.
5. The theology represents a developed form of ecclesiology not otherwise known until the late 1st or 2nd century.

As far as 2 Timothy, the case is much weaker. I think there are a few more pros than cons to Paul's authorship. I think Paul wrote it, but it's much more questionable. Regardless, that has nothing to do with our discussion.

> Good ole P52 ... I am not much impressed by 99.9% of Christian 'apologists'

Wow, you made quite the subject switch here. The existence and dating of P52 have nothing to do with your opinion of WLC and the way he might use an argument. It's a matter of science. Its existence is indisputable. The dating is what is disputed, with most paleographic experts staking their claim in the first half to he second century. I'm not aware that the fragment has ever been subjected to radiocarbon dating analyses. But more to the point, no one considers P52 to be an original, an autograph. It is thought to be at least a 2nd-generation copy.