Are the New Testament manuscripts reliable? (Part 1)

Daniel Wallace - "Are the New Testament manuscripts reliable? (Part 1)"

http://ehrmanproject.com

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Daniel Wallace
• Bart Ehrman
• Ehrman Project
• Bible
• reliability
• New Testament
• Misquoting Jesus

[corkystorky]

@TextusReceptusBible when we speak of 6000 manuscripts let us lay down the fact that it does not mean 6000 complete replica of the original. A fragment of manuscript or papyrus is counted as 1, and fragments do not contain the whole. When you said only 50 disagreed out of the 6000, that is a misrepresentation of the figures.

[CalumGilhooly]

@AgApE010 Hahahaha, yes, and consists of just over a hundred legible letters. WOW! What a wonderful piece of corroborating evidence....NOT! 130 years in which the copies were recopied many many times with more and more changes, errors, edits and additions. But the bottom line really is, even if we had signed original copies of all four gospels, they are NO PROOF AT ALL OF A GOB OR THAT Yeshua bar Joseph was anything other than a rebellious and troublesome Rabbi who rebelled and died.

[AgApE010]

@CalumGilhooly

Well if you want an earlier manuscript of John, p52 is only about 30 years after John was written. And yes, 130 years after the original is GREAT, actually. Especially considering that no other ancient writings come close to such small time gaps.

[CalumGilhooly]

@AgApE010 Perhaps YOU know the difference between 'manuscript' in the sense of what fragments we have of ancient gospel texts but the layman imagines a manuscript as an entire book in written form, not a scrap of papyrus the size of a credit card. An almost complete codex of John, great! And only 100-130 years later than the original was maybe written. Goody gum drops, tha's sure to be an accurate account then, isn't it? NOT!

[AgApE010]

@CalumGilhooly

Fragments are manuscripts. "Manuscript" doesn't mean "complete page." A manuscript can be anything from Ryland's papyrus fragment to p46, which is a collection of Paul's letters.

Besides, papyrus 66, which is an almost complete Gospel of John, indeed dates to the 200s AD.

[CalumGilhooly]

@AgApE010 It's a bit disingeneous of him to say that we have gospel manuscripts going back to 200AD. We have FRAGMENTS of gospel texts that old. I believe that the first entire gospel we have dates to around 4 or 500AD, a huge difference and those two do not match up either.

[44jaspar]

The bible is so reliable that they believe God begot his son Jesus. Begot is an animal act. So God performed a sexual act. According to Christians they looked at the older texts , they realised that this was wrong. They checked with the translation and still they believe Jesus is the only begotten son of God.

[AgApE010]

@MegaVldmr

Dude, I'm seeing your quasi-intellectual comments on every one of these videos. Do you really people will give a crap what a random YouTuber says over a New Testament manuscript scholar like Daniel Wallace? Get a life.

[MegaVldmr]

2% of changes over 2000 years??? Yeah, except that Mark now tells different story then it did in the earliest manuscripts. And that's after 200 years after the event. What did the original said, considering that texts are most susceptible to unnoticed alterations in earlier stages of copying.

Besides, after Mark come Mark-based Matthew and Luke. Additions to Mark in them contradict each other! Jesus birth story and after-death Jesus seeing accounts. Those has clearly came from oral tradition...

[k0smon]

@oldpreach :::Name calling does not prove your point. How about some specifics?