Hey Everyone,
I’ve heard a few times now that we don’t have the original manuscripts for the bible, and I was just wondering how we know that the copies we have aren’t the first ones?
Couldn’t the earliest manuscripts that we have for the gospels for example be the originals?
(Sorry it’s probably a bit of a naive question).
First of all, the manuscripts under discussion are usually dated by studying the style of handwriting (and some concomitant factors, like the kind of ink that was used). If you ever do a deed search for a property, as you go back in time you see how the handwriting changes–legal clerks in the 1920s used a different style of cursive than clerks from the 1870s. Paleography–the study of old writing–is a whole science in its own right. The method isn’t super precise–once a scribe learns how to write a script, he is probably going to keep using that script throughout his career, which could easily span a few decades, and nothing stops someone from deliberately imitating an older style of writing–so the best that paleography can do is usually give about a 40-year window for when a manuscript was copied, but in the worst case, they can usually nail a text down to ~100 year window with a fairly high level of confidence, although even that might not be true when dealing with very small fragments written in a very common general style (if you only have a few letters from a few words, there might not be much that’s really distinctive for you to base a date on).
Second of all, we usually establish the terminus ante quem–the absolute end of the period in which a work could have been composed–by looking at when it is quoted or otherwise referred to by other sources. E.g., Ignatius of Antioch seems to quote and allude to the Gospel of Matthew in a handful of places; assuming those apparent references to Matthew really are references to Matthew (and not, for example, part of an oral Christian tradition that Matthew also used), then if we know the latest that Ignatius could have died (and thus stopped writing), then we also know the Gospel of Matthew had to have been written before that.
Now, as to the question itself: we just look to see if there is overlap in those two time periods. Is the earliest date the manuscript might have been produced after the date by which we see the work being used or referred to by other people? If it is, then it can’t be the first copy of the work.
If you are talking about complete manuscripts (which I think is what people usually mean when they are talking about not having the originals, since the point is usually that we don’t know exactly what the originals said), the earliest complete copies of any of the books of the New Testament don’t show up until the end of the second century–after the books of the NT had already started being quoted by other people (I speak here of most of the books of the New Testament–I can’t say offhand when we get the first quotation for each of the 27 books of the NT). So we can say pretty definitively that there is no overlap, and therefore the MSS we have are not the originals but come from after the work was first composed and circulated.
We have possible overlap with the very earliest very tiny fragment of the NT, P52 (but there might be another such case). There is considerable debate over ** you do not have permission to see this link **, but it could be from about the same period that we get the first quotations from the Gospel of John in other works (c. 130). But even if we can’t absolutely exclude the possibility, it would still be extremely unlikely that this is the first copy produced, considering how few manuscripts have survived from that period of Christianity. And again, it is a very small fragment; it contains between 12 and 3 letters for each of 14 lines: Even if it were the autograph itself, it would be of very little use in determine what the original gospel said, because almost all of it is lost.
Mark seems aware of the destruction of the Temple in 70 and seems to associate this event with the Parousia. That’s why most scholars date Mark at 70ish.
Not a naive question at all. There are still huge gaps in our knowledge. And of course even if Mark was written 70ish that doesn’t mean it wasn’t revised subsequently by others. It seems pretty clear that at times there were different versions of the gospels out and about.
“Presumably the”
Do you believe:
“Mark seems aware of the destruction of the Temple in 70”?
this was written before, or after, AD 70?:
Mark 13:14 (New Living)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“The day is coming when you will see the sacrilegious object
that causes desecration standing where he should not be.”
(Reader, pay attention!)
“Then those in Judea must flee to the hills.
(Young’s Literal)
‘And when ye may see the abomination of the desolation,
that was spoken of by Daniel the prophet,
standing where it ought not,
(whoever is reading let him understand),
then those in Judea, let them flee to the mountains;
“I suspect it was written after, but I’m not certain”
Do you believe this was written before, or after, AD 70?:
Revelation 11 (NIV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
1 I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told,
“Go and measure the temple of God and the altar,
with its worshipers.
2 But exclude the outer court; do not measure it,
because it has been given to the Gentiles.
They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.
Again, I’m not sure.
Revelation is clearly full of symbolism and is sort of like a bad acid trip, so the fact it speaks of the temple as standing doesn’t settle it.
I know it is sort of a fringe theory (Bart doesn’t give it any credence at all)–but I happen to like the theory that Revelation was originally a Jewish text (quite possibly pre-70) that was later Christianized.
I haven’t looked into it. If the theory were correct–though I do like it, I’m not at all sure it is correct–I’d guess it would have been originally in Greek.
Although that said, Revelation has a lot of “septuagintisms”–without having gone through them, it is plausible that a Jewish original was in Hebrew or Aramaic, and it was translated when it was Christianized.
I’m really speaking from a place of ignorance. I really don’t know and haven’t studied it much at all.
I’ll be copying to here some material from
** you do not have permission to see this link **
What do you think of Torrey’s remarks about the date of Revelation’s composition?
_Documents of the Primitive Church_ by Charles Cutler Torrey (1941), 309pp., on 241-242
** you do not have permission to see this link **
….the fact is of no little importance that we have here, in plain words, an example of the early Christian assertion that the day of verbal inspiration had returned. The claim that John is an inspired prophet and that his book is holy scripture is as clear and emphatic as any words can make it. This brings the date of the book within narrow limits. The absurdity of supposing that this Aramaic document claiming Jewish canonicity could have been put forth after its doctrine had been officially pronounced damnable heresy is obvious. It certainly was published before the year 80. But this is not all; a date before the year 70 is plainly indicated. If the book had been written between 70 and 80 there certainly would have been in it some allusion to the great catastrophe. Silence in regard to it, in view of the author’s intense interest in the holy city, is simply inconceivable.
Moreover, the date cannot have been much _before_ 70. The theology of the book has advanced some distance beyond that of our earliest Christian writings. As Swete remarks, pp. cliv f.,
“No one who comes to the Apocalypse fresh from the study of the Gospels and Epistles can fail to recognize that he has passed into another atmosphere…. The Christ of the Apocalypse is the Christ of the Gospels, but a change has passed over Him which is beyond words.”
The Church doctrine has progressed.
It is to be observed how the results thus reached, a date shortly before the year 70, confirms the explicit statement of the author of Rev., that he wrote in the time of the sixth emperor before the seventh had come to the throne; that is, in the year 68.
The fact has already been emphasized, that the terror of the Beast is over all the latter half of the book. The horrible scenes of the year 64, in Rome, are fresh in mind. There is no need to conjecture what the steadfast Christians would be called upon to face, on the return of the Beast. The farther away from Nero’s reign the book is dated, the more incomprehensible is the amount of space given to this apprehension.
A most important passage, truly decisive in view of all the other evidence, is the beginning (the first two verses) of chapter 11, where John is commanded to take a reed (Ezek. 40:3 ff.) and measure the temple and the altar; but not to measure the court of the Gentiles, symbolic of the tribulation still to be endured. Jerusalem and the temple are standing, the armies of Titus have not yet entered the city. This was written before the year 70….
Dating the Apocalypse
** you do not have permission to see this link **
What is crucial is the question of why the date under the Roman emperor Domitian has become so widely accepted.
It seems in many circles to be an issue one dares not question.
And yet, in recent years, a number of highly reputable scholars are reconsidering the party line and have come out in favor of the pre-70 position.
Major New Testament scholars such as C. F. D. Moule^8, Joseph Fitzmyer^9, F. F. Bruce^10, E. Earle Ellis^11, and J. A. T. Robinson^12 have all recently supported the early date position.^13
Moreover, this is far from novel.
In reality, these writers are merely returning to what was once the foregone conclusion of nearly the entire New Testament studies world.
As Wilson notes, “Throughout the nineteenth century the majority of New Testament scholars favored a pre-70 dating of the Book of Revelation.”^14
Robinson echoes, “It is indeed a little known fact that this [a pre-70 date] was what Hort calls ‘the general tendency of criticism’ for most of the nineteenth century… .”^15
Indeed Lightfoot, Westcott, Hort, and a host of others held strongly to an early dating of the book,^16 so much so that one author in Lightfoot’s day agreed this date to be “_universally accepted by all competent critics_.”^17
The Greek Revelation was translated from Aramaic.
If anyone wishes to read some details about the atrocious Greek grammar in the Greek translation, see below.
Charles C. Torrey, _The Apocalypse of John: Introduction, Excerpts, and a New Translation_ (1958)
In regard to the strange Greek constructions Norden, quoted above, truly says that in every case of a barbarism the correct usage appears elsewhere in the book. There is no lack of knowledge of Greek idiom. As for the Greek particles, the manner of their use or absence is like what we see throughout the Greek Bible. Here also there is no proof of ignorance. Charles’ explanation is decidedly less plausible than the others.
There is excellent reason, however, for one conclusion he reaches―expressed in similar words by many before him―namely, that “the linguistic character of the Apocalypse is absolutely unique.” The grammatical monstrosities of the book, in their number and variety and especially in their startling character, stand alone in the history of literature. It is only in the Greek that they are apparent, for it is the form, not the sense, that is affected.
A few of the more striking solecisms are exhibited here in English translation, so that any reader may see their nature.
1:4. “Grace to you, and peace, from he who is and who was and who is to come” (all nom. case).
1:15. “His legs were like burnished brass (neut. gend., dative case) as in a furnace purified (fem. gend., sing. no., gen. case)”
11:3. “My witnesses (nom.) shall prophesy for many days clothed (accus.) in sackcloth.”
14:14. “I saw on the cloud one seated like unto a son-of-man (accus.), having (nom.) upon his head a golden crown.”
14:19. “He harvested the vintage of the earth, and cast it into the winepress (fem.), the great [winepress] (masc.) of the wrath of God.”
17:4. “A golden cup filled with abominations (gen.) and with unclean things (accus.).”
19:20. “The lake of blazing fire (“fire,” neut.; “blazing,” fem.).
20:2. “And he seized the dragon (accus.), the old serpent (nom.), who is the Devil and Satan and bound him.”
21:9. “Seven angels, holding the seven bowls (accus.) filled (gen.) with the seven last plagues.”
22:5. “They have no need of lamplight (gen.) nor of sunlight (accus.).”
This apparent linguistic anarchy has no explanation on the Greek side. It is hardly surprising that to some readers it should have seemed open defiance of grammar, to others a symptom of mental aberration. Nevertheless there is method to it all. The more grotesque these barbarisms, the more certain it is that they are not due to lack of acquaintance with Greek. Each of the rules broken in the passages here cited is faithfully observed in many other places and shown to be perfectly familiar.
….
In fact, underlying all of the amazing solecisms is seen the wording of the Semitic original. The grammatical monstrosities, recognized in their true nature, testify to the execution of a definite purpose carried through with remarkable consistency. When they are examined, they are found to show grammatical appreciation rather than the lack of it. But it is Aramaic grammar!
(Nevertheless, the ideal of a thoroughly accurate translation was incapable of realization, as we know to our sorrow. No Greek translator of an unpointed Semitic text of the extent of this apocalypse could possibly come through without his considerable sheath of mistranslations. We have no knowledge of any such faultless―or even nearly faultless―achievement.*)
What the Greek translator of Revelation does, in the effort to be exactly faithful, is merely an exaggeration of what is regularly and constantly done in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The translators rendered as they did because of the conception of their task. They were handing down works of high importance, and would assume no unnecessary responsibility. What they―each and all―aimed at was to produce a text which could be understood by the Greek reader and at the same should mirror faithfully every word and phrase of the sacred original. This, the original, was the all-important thing, and the fact was always kept in view. The style of the translation was of no consequence; it was not Greek, nor ever intended to be.
*See _Our Translated Gospels_ [by Torrey], chapter 1; _The Four Gospels_ [by Torrey], pages 265-74.
What’s your explanation of the atrocious Greek grammar in the Greek Revelation?
What’s the better rendering for Rev 10:1:
“feet as columns/pillars of fire”?
“legs as columns/pillars of fire”?
David Robert Palmer, The Revelation of John, part of The Holy Bible, The Ancient Greek Text, alternating verse by verse with A new English translation from the Greek, with translator’s footnotes and Greek textual variant footnotes (May 2017)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
PDF:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
170 10:1b The Greek word here, πους, is the word for feet, but in ancient Greek and many other
languages the words for foot or for hand (χειρ) can mean the whole extremity or whole limb.
That is especially true in Revelation, which displays much Aramaic influence. It is far more
appropriate here to speak of a leg being like a column or pillar than a foot being like a column
or pillar.
….
246 13:16b …. An Aramaism is an unusual and rare occurrence, and I think the burden of proof
that it is occurring, is on the one saying it is. That said, I have come to believe that Revelation does
show an Aramaic mind in its author. For example, though even ancient Greek the words for
foot πούς and hand χείρ originally meant the whole limb, not just the foot and hand, this is
most definitely always true in Hebrew and Aramaic. The author of Revelation uses πούς,
“foot” to mean the whole limb, where he says the feet of the angel were like “columns” of fire
Legs are like columns, and feet are not. Therefore similarly, we must conclude that in
Revelation 13:16, with χείρ the author means anywhere on the entire upper right limb, not
just the hand.
Revelation 10:1
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
(Etheridge) AND I saw another mighty angel descending from heaven, clothed (with a) cloud, and the bow of the cloud (was) upon his head; and his countenance was as the sun, and his feet as columns of fire.
(KJV) And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet [Greek: podes/πόδες/feet] as pillars of fire:
Revelation 10:1 (Aramaic Bible in Plain English)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And I saw another Angel who descended from Heaven and he wore a cloud and a rainbow of the sky on his head and his appearance was like the Sun, and his legs like pillars of fire.
4228. pous
** you do not have permission to see this link **
pous: a foot
Original Word: πούς, ποδός, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: pous
Phonetic Spelling: (pooce)
Definition: a foot
Usage: the foot.
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a prim. word
Definition
a foot
NASB Translation
feet (83), foot (9), under* (1).
** you do not have permission to see this link **
rgl, rglˀ (rḡel, re/iḡlā) n.f. foot; pilgrimage
CPA …; pl. in īn but in Syr. also ān, āṯā in metaphorical senses.
1 foot Com-OA. TAD A4.7R.16 …. the dogs removed the chain from his feet. Dan7:19 …. while it was trampling the remainder with its feet. P Ex3:5 …. untie your shoes from your feet. P Is1:6 …. the sole of the foot [MT ….]. BT Suk 53a(23) … a person’s feet are his surety. They transport him to the place where he is sought (at his death). (a) leg of a table, chair JLAtg, Syr, LJLA. TgO Ex25:26 . P Ex25:26 …. PJ Ex25:26 …. the four corners of the four legs. (a.1) base, bottom Syr. EphPar 1:4.4 …. it touched its [the mountain of Paradise] feet, lowered itself, and retreated. (b) foot (as a measure) Syr. ESRef1ER 52:1 . © in adv. expressions (c.1) … on foot JLAtg, Syr. TgJ Jud4:15 … then Sisera got off of the chariot and turned back on foot. OS MtCur14:13 … they went after him on foot. JulSok 433(213):3 … Shapur arose from his dais and came toward him on foot. (c.2) … at his feet Syr. P Jn20:12 … who were sitting, one at his head and one at his feet .
2 march (a) pilgrimage festival Qumran, Gal, JBA. 1QapGen 12.14 … on the first day of the first festival in the [seventh ??] month. BT Ber 30a(51) … PN and PN2 used to gather ten people on the Sabbath of the pilgrimage, pray the teïfillah, and then go out to the public lecture. (a.1) rigla : a memorial festival of the be rav JBAg. ISGF 90:19, 91:11 . (b) military campaign or movement OfAPer. TAD C2.1 5..11 … on the second march the rebels had assembled.
3 as prep.: because of Gal. PTBer5.a:23[2] … because of him (the Temple) was destroyed, and because of him it will be rebuilt. (a)… ibid. Gal. EchRB[1]89(16) … we trust that it was destroyed because of him and will be rebuilt because of him. (b) … ibid. Gal.
4 a plant name : milk vetch (?) Syr. GalSimp 253:11 .
For the colloquial Babylonian form with metathesis, see s.v. ngr #6. That dialect does regularly distinguish between the original form for “pilgrimage” (a Hebraism!) and the metathetic form for the appendage.
There are a number of possibilities and I don’t know enough to know which possibility is correct.
It could have originally been written in Aramaic or Hebrew.
It may have been based on a prior Hebrew or Aramaic text.
It might be written by a person whose first language was Aramaic, whose Greek was poor.
It may have been written by a Greek-speaking author deliberately attempting to sound like the version of Ezekiel he knew (much as the Book of Mormon imitates the KJV).
“It could have originally been written in Aramaic or Hebrew”
And the translator did a lousy job of translating into Greek?
“It may have been based on a prior Hebrew or Aramaic text”
And the translator did a lousy job of translating into Greek?
“It might be written by a person whose first language was Aramaic, whose Greek was poor”
While having a large Greek vocabulary, and frequently using _correct_ grammatical Greek constructions?
“It may have been written by a Greek-speaking author deliberately attempting to sound like the version of Ezekiel he knew (much as the Book of Mormon imitates the KJV)”
And that deliberate attempt involved purposefully having grammatical monstrosities?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)