The Bart Ehrman Blog - Forum: The Manuscripts of the New Testament https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/ Simple:Press Version 6.11.14 1stadam1stantiochian on Where did the teaching that the entire New Testament was written by God and supernaturally protected by God originate? https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/where-did-the-teaching-that-the-entire-new-testament-was-written-by-god-and-supernaturally-protected-by-god-originate/page-2/#p47630 The Manuscripts of the New Testament https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/where-did-the-teaching-that-the-entire-new-testament-was-written-by-god-and-supernaturally-protected-by-god-originate/page-2/#p47630

Stephen said

And it gets to the larger question of authority. Whom do you trust? The old nobly democritizing idea of the individual believer interpreting the scriptures by his own lights comes a cropper by fracturing into sects innumberable. If it's "true" then why can't people agree on what it means? And when scholars agree on what it means then why is it usually so different than what many Christians seem to think it means? I'm not objecting to the scholarly enterprise. Just pointing out that it seems to rather undermine the idea of a textual revelation.
  

Who fractured Christianity into sects innumerable, if not John the Revelator? Payback time arrived... His book actually dropped from heaven, but he is done, condemned. People will have to listen, better sooner, then later...

 

The Flying Scroll
Zechariah 5:2-4
"...And I said, I see a flying scroll; its length is twenty cubits and its width ten cubits. Then he said to me, This is the curse that goes out over the face of the whole earth: for everyone who steals shall be cut off according to this side, and everyone who swears falsely shall be cut off according to that side. I will send  OR LET it out, declares the Lord of hosts, and it shall enter the house of the thief, and the house of him who swears falsely by my name. And it shall settle in the midst of his house and consume it, both its timber and its stones."
 
damit!
 
To explain this further: in the Fourth Gospel (John 3:13), it is clearly written that no one has ascended into heaven (above the heavens, atop the heavens, higher than all heavens) except He who descended—the Son of Man who is in heaven (likewise in Ephesians 4:10).
Consequently, it becomes utterly absurd to claim that this very same Evangelist—the disciple whom Jesus loved, the one whose testimony we know to be true (John 21:24)—could have written the blatant untruth found in the false book of Revelation 4:1 regarding his own ascending into heaven, and/or the ascending of the two witnesses (Revelation 11:12) based solely on the command of an unidentified voice.
Furthermore, when the Lord speaks in advance about His own ascension, and previously speaks against self-exaltation, He does not claim to be the active agent of the action. Instead, He says that just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be LIFTED UP (John 3:14); that is, 'when you have LIFTED UP the Son of Man' (John 8:28); that is, 'when I am LIFTED UP' (John 12:32).
Even back then, this was the judgment upon the prince of this world (who rules in the wind/air), who was cast out (John 12:31)—cast out onto Patmos, he who did attempt to ascend into heaven (Revelation 1:9 AND Rev 4:1)! But he has no claim on the Lord (John 14:30), as he cannot even deliver his word personally, but must mediate it through an angel (Revelation 1:1). The Lord, therefore, was exalted by the right hand of God (Acts 2:33).
 
As for resurrection: the false book of Revelation claims that the two witnesses were killed (Rev 11:7) and stood on their feet because 'the breath of life from God entered into them' (Rev 11:11). This simply cannot be. Not even into Adam—in whom all die—did the spirit of life enter on its own; rather, the Lord God breathed it into him (Genesis 2:7).
It is the Lord Jesus Christ who said of Himself that He IS the resurrection. He personally resurrected individuals even before the general resurrection, regarding which He stated that He Himself, the Son of God, will make the dead alive by His own voice (John 5:25).
Whether intentionally or accidentally, the writer of the false book of Revelation has perverted and permuted both the resurrection and the ascension in the context of the VOICE—which I have just conclusively proven.
]]> Fri, 03 Jul 2026 12:08:32 -0400 1stadam1stantiochian on Where did the teaching that the entire New Testament was written by God and supernaturally protected by God originate? https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/where-did-the-teaching-that-the-entire-new-testament-was-written-by-god-and-supernaturally-protected-by-god-originate/page-2/#p47629 The Manuscripts of the New Testament https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/where-did-the-teaching-that-the-entire-new-testament-was-written-by-god-and-supernaturally-protected-by-god-originate/page-2/#p47629

Stephen said
Sola Scriptura has always seemed self-contradictory simply because its hard to imagine conditions under which we could ever rely on the scriptures only. And even if you read the ancient languages you're still relying on the idea of the "preferred" text, a compilation of all the best guesses of generations of scholars (with no idea of their individual religious convictions of course).
Am I the only one who found the idea that there is no actual Bible in existence, that it is in fact an artificial creation, utterly flabbergasting? Scholars take this for granted; when I asked Prof Ehrman about it he seemed a bit mystified by the objection.
I think a lot of believers imagine there is a hermetically sealed vault somewhere - perhaps a mile under the Vatican - where the proto-manuscript is safeguarded, and all the various translations derive from that pristine original. But if you were really going to house the Bible in one spot you would need a huge warehouse with tens of thousands of shelves, each dedicated to scraps of codices and scrolls and papyri. In a very real sense what we call the "Bible" doesn't exist.
And it gets to the larger question of authority. Whom do you trust? The old nobly democritizing idea of the individual believer interpreting the scriptures by his own lights comes a cropper by fracturing into sects innumberable. If it's "true" then why can't people agree on what it means? And when scholars agree on what it means then why is it usually so different than what many Christians seem to think it means? I'm not objecting to the scholarly enterprise. Just pointing out that it seems to rather undermine the idea of a textual revelation.
  

You are entirely correct that Sola Scriptura is a self-contradictory delusion. But your crisis only exists because you are looking at revelation through a flawed, deductive lens [see bellow my mini essay written long time ago]. You imagined a magical, hermetically sealed 'perfect book' dropped from heaven, and now that history has smashed that idol, you think textual revelation is undermined.
It isn't. You are just looking at the wrong things.
Look at history through my eyes as Adam, the first to understand God. The School of Antioch always knew what the scholars take for granted: that the bound 'Bible' is a human compilation. That is exactly why Antioch fiercely rejected forged, apocalyptic books like Revelation—they refused to let human editing pollute the core truth.
True revelation was never about the physical paper or a pristine manuscript warehouse. In the beginning, GOD taught me WORDS through the Logos. It was an induced spirit, an unmediated, firsthand reality.
When Jesus spoke, He didn't drop a corporate-edited leather book. He spoke in grounded, logical parables like the Bread of Life. He used the physical world—specifically the yeast—as a living vehicle to explain the resurrection. He didn't tell us to worship a book as an idol; He told us to assimilate LIFE until the Logos became our very cells.
The reason 'individual believers' fracture into innumerable sects is that they are all trying to eat the dead, earthly stone tablets of a literalist text. They are digging broken cisterns, fighting over definitions of ancient languages, and staring at the physical bridge while remaining completely blind to the original, flowing Source. Scholars like Bart Ehrman are mystified by your objection because they only see the human ink. Stop looking for a perfect book under the Vatican, and look at the living Source that preceded the paper.
 
p.s.

The word bibliothèque (French) or biblioteca (Latin/Spanish/Italian) comes from the ancient Greek word bibliothēkē (βιβλιοθήκη). [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
 
The Fallacy of Biblical Inerrancy
Inerrancy is a modern, defensive doctrine (mostly formulated in the 19th and 20th centuries). It requires a massive leap of deduction: [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
    • Thesis: God is perfect.
    • Antithesis: The Bible is God’s word.
    • Deduction: Therefore, the text must be mathematically and historically flawless in its physical form. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]

Faith is always built through induction, and never through deduction. Thus, when the apostles asked the Lord to increase their faith, He answered that if they had faith the size of a mustard seed, they could tell a mountain to move (Matthew 17:20), or a mulberry tree to be uprooted and planted in the sea (Luke 17:6). That very same mustard seed—the smallest of all seeds—grows into a tree, becoming greater than all garden plants (Matthew 13:31-32). It induces shade for the birds of the air [my translation says heaven] (Mark 4:32), which come to nest in its branches (Luke 13:19).
Whenever an unbeliever wants to hide their unbelief and disparage the Word of the Lord because they do not believe in it, they claim it is not realistic or real. They dismiss it as mere 'symbolism,' 'abstraction,' and the like. They justify themselves, for instance, through the symbolism of the false book of Revelation—playing with numbers like 10x10x10 multiplied by 12 on 2nd degree, or calculating the mark of the beast—solely so that a cunningly devised myth [my translation says fable as in Peter's epistle] can gain the illusion and counter-weight of exact precision. Others put their faith in these numbers instead, but both groups forget that they are building their (un)belief on deduction (even the leaven of Herod), or rather, on unrighteousness. If only they were actually building at all.
'But when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth?' asked the Lord—the very same One whom even children believed in, and whom He directed us adults to turn toward and become like. But how can someone turn and convert when mystery-mongering merely scratches their itching ears? How can someone turn when they attempt to hide their unbelief behind abstraction, symbolism, or deduction? The house of such people will not withstand when the rain falls, the floods come, and the winds blow—let alone survive the reality behind the parable itself (Matthew 7:21-27).
]]> Fri, 03 Jul 2026 11:08:39 -0400 DavidFord on The Peshitta https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/the-peshitta/page-21/#p47575 The Manuscripts of the New Testament https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/the-peshitta/page-21/#p47575 While the translator of the Aramaic Revelation into Greek had a very large Greek vocabulary, he was very aware of the text's curse pronounced on those who might try to tamper with the text of Revelation.
His shoddy Greek grammar contains information about the Aramaic Revelation that would have been lost had he used proper Greek grammar.

atrocious Greek grammar in the Greek translation of Revelation
** you do not have permission to see this link **

Greek Revelation’s mistranslation of the original Aramaic for Rev 2:22 and Rev 10:1
** you do not have permission to see this link **

mistranslation at Greek Rev 1:13
** you do not have permission to see this link **

================
Tau and Omega

The book of Revelation was originally written in not Greek, but rather Aramaic.
When the Aramaic Revelation got translated into Greek, the translator likely interpreted the ‘tau’ as already being an omega, and put down simply the letter Ὦ.

Revelation 1:8 (Aramaic Bible in Plain English)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I am The Alap and The Tau,
says THE LORD JEHOVAH God,
he who is and has been and is coming, The Almighty.

** you do not have permission to see this link **
Egō Ἐγώ I
eimi εἰμι am
to τὸ the
Alpha Ἄλφα Alpha
kai καὶ and
to τὸ the
Ō Ὦ Omega

see
'Raphael Lataster,' _Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?: A Concise Compendium of the Many Internal and External Evidences of
Aramaic Peshitta Primacy_ (March 2008), 118-120
** you do not have permission to see this link **

]]> Mon, 29 Jun 2026 17:05:31 -0400 BJH1960 on How Can We Ever Get Back to The Autographs https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/how-can-we-ever-get-back-to-the-autographs/#p47208 The Manuscripts of the New Testament https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/how-can-we-ever-get-back-to-the-autographs/#p47208 Yes, a communal dimension, the text being a conversation among different audiences.

I read something the night before last in David Clines' ** you do not have permission to see this link ** on Job that is relevant but instead of posting it here, it might be better as part of a new thread either on Job, which I've been considering, or more likely one that talks about the reception, interpretation, adaptation, and perhaps translation of texts.

]]> Sat, 06 Jun 2026 22:52:25 -0400 Robert on How Can We Ever Get Back to The Autographs https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/how-can-we-ever-get-back-to-the-autographs/#p47183 The Manuscripts of the New Testament https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/how-can-we-ever-get-back-to-the-autographs/#p47183 Personally, I don't see this from a pessimistic perspective. The texts we have are the texts we have. The reception of texts always adds a communal dimension. Even if we were to possess a singular autograph of a work, it would still have been written for a particular readership, an individual or a group that we can only guess about. After I've read a book and seen a movie based on the book, I delight in seeing how a screenwriter, director, and actors may have adapted and re-interpreted the work.

I saw Les Misérables in London soon after it opened, loved it, and then read the novel by Victor Hugo, in my opinion an overly long, rather boring novel that I had to force myself to finish. I know many of you will strongly disagree, but that doesn't matter, it was my reaction to the original. I loved the way in which the playright and others involved in the production adapted, revised, and distilled a great story into a beautiful and moving musical. Eventually the movie version came out and resisted seeing it for years because I didn't like what I heard of Amanda Seyfried singing an octave higher than I remembered in the play. But then I was reminded of Hugo’s use of ** you do not have permission to see this link ** (the lark) as a symbol for Cossette. Eventuality (only recently) I broke down and bought the DVD and watched it several times. Explaining some of the novel's elements left out of the play and movie (eg, the coin incident) to my daughter choked me up and I realized some of the beauty of the novel that I had not originally appreciated. A text comes to its completion as a conversation among its audience,band a classic multiplies the audiences involved in the conversation.

Even when we don't have an original autograph, some scholars will still imagine earlier sources or versions based on various criteria and methodologies. Do they succeed in this quest? Probably not all that well, but it is still an attempt to appreciate multiple dimensions of a text that may not be apparent otherwise.

So what we have with New Testament texts is access to a communal conversation among authors, audience, community leaders, early and later scribes, etc. Would it be nice to also have the various forms of autographs, sure, but we do have is a window into a larger dialogue that continues to this day.

Just my two cents.

*Dans le pays on l'appelait l'Alouette. Le peuple... s'était plu à nommer de ce nom ce petit être pas plus gros qu'un oiseau, tremblant, effarouché et frissonnant... Seulement la pauvre alouette ne chantait jamais.

In the neighborhood they called her the Lark. The people... took pleasure in giving this name to this tiny being, no larger than a bird, trembling, frightened, and shivering... Only the poor lark never sang.

]]> Fri, 05 Jun 2026 10:55:46 -0400 Porphyry on How Can We Ever Get Back to The Autographs https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/how-can-we-ever-get-back-to-the-autographs/#p47181 The Manuscripts of the New Testament https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/how-can-we-ever-get-back-to-the-autographs/#p47181 Everything Robert said. 

But a couple of further pessimistic thoughts, with respect to the Gospels more than the Paulines:

It isn't even clear to me that there was a single autograph. Even today, works can go through multiple editions (there may be several versions an author circulates privately as he continues to work on it, versions which sometimes circulate quite widely; then there are sometimes even multiple "final", printed editions). 

Adding to that is the more general question, Who is the author? Who is a redactor (does he count as an author)? Who is just a scribe taking liberties? I think it is common to recognize, especially in some of the gospels, that there are sometimes several voices at work or several layers in the text (John and Luke are prime examples). 

All the evidence suggests that the earlier we go, the less reliable transmission was and the freer people were with changing the text. And the earliest period is precisely where we have the fewest data. Thus when the texts were most in flux is when we have no direct view of the process. Indeed it seems that in the earliest stages the texts were, one might say, living documents.

So not only is it not clear how we could recover the pristine original with the data we have, it isn't even clear that there is a single pristine original to recover. 

]]> Fri, 05 Jun 2026 10:06:44 -0400 Doug891512 on How Can We Ever Get Back to The Autographs https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/how-can-we-ever-get-back-to-the-autographs/#p47134 The Manuscripts of the New Testament https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/how-can-we-ever-get-back-to-the-autographs/#p47134 Thanks Robert

]]> Tue, 02 Jun 2026 17:26:42 -0400 Robert on How Can We Ever Get Back to The Autographs https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/how-can-we-ever-get-back-to-the-autographs/#p47127 The Manuscripts of the New Testament https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/how-can-we-ever-get-back-to-the-autographs/#p47127 You're not wrong, Doug, but don't forget the early versions in Syriac (for the gospels) and Latin. Those are two independent witnesses at significant geographic distance from each other. That gives us reasonable confidence that the broad strokes of the New Testament texts were fairly consistent at a fairly early date. Of course that does not extend to the details and it doesn't get us closer than late 2nd century, but given there likely independence it offers reasonable confidence that there probably weren't major revisions prior to that.

]]> Tue, 02 Jun 2026 11:15:48 -0400 Doug891512 on How Can We Ever Get Back to The Autographs https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/how-can-we-ever-get-back-to-the-autographs/#p47072 The Manuscripts of the New Testament https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/how-can-we-ever-get-back-to-the-autographs/#p47072 Hi

I am frustrated by the fact that no matter what scholars attempt to do we will never know what the original gospels or letters of Paul said. The delicate tracing through manuscripts, church fathers and finally the bursting on the scene of the Codex Sinaiticus will never satisfy me. I would love some comments to prove me wrong.

Thanks 

Doug

]]> Sat, 30 May 2026 18:24:38 -0400 DavidFord on The Peshitta https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/the-peshitta/page-21/#p46852 The Manuscripts of the New Testament https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/the-peshitta/page-21/#p46852 ** you do not have permission to see this link **
"Paul, in early writings (e.g., 1 Corinthians 15:3), states he 'received' and passed on the doctrine that Christ died for sins"

Is 1 Cor 15:3 best rendered with:
"Christ died for our sins"?
"Christ died on account of our sins"?

1Corinthians 15:3
** you do not have permission to see this link **
(Etheridge) For I delivered to you from the first, according as I had received:
That the Meshiha died for our sins, as it is written;
(Murdock) For I delivered to you from the first, as I had received it;
that the Messiah died on account of our sins, as it is written:
(KJV) For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

]]> Sun, 17 May 2026 15:07:43 -0400 DavidFord on The Peshitta https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/the-peshitta/page-21/#p46851 The Manuscripts of the New Testament https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/the-peshitta/page-21/#p46851 ** you do not have permission to see this link **
"The teaching is rooted in Jesus’ own statements about his death as a 'ransom' (Matthew 20:28)"

Is Matthew 20:28 best rendered with:
ransom?
redemption?
salvation?
deliverance?

Matthew 20:28
** you do not have permission to see this link **
(Etheridge) So, the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve,
and to give his life the redemption for many.
(Murdock) even as the Son of man came, not to be served, but to serve;
and to give his life a ransom for many.
(Lamsa) Just as the Son of man did not come to be ministered to, but to minister,
and to give his life as a salvation for the sake of many.

Matthew 20:28 (Berean Literal)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
even as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve,
and to give His life as a ransom for many.”

Mark 10:45 (Lamsa)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
For also the Son of man did not come to be ministered to, but to minister,
and to give his life as a salvation for the sake of many.

Luke 1:68
** you do not have permission to see this link **
(NIV)
“Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel,
because he has come to his people
and redeemed them.
(Lamsa)
Blessed is the Lord, the God of Israel;
for he has visited his people
and wrought a salvation for them.

]]> Sun, 17 May 2026 14:38:36 -0400 DavidFord on The Peshitta https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/the-peshitta/page-21/#p46774 The Manuscripts of the New Testament https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/the-peshitta/page-21/#p46774 When Hebrews 8:10 and Hebrews 10:16 were originally written, did they say:
"my laws... write them"?
"my law... write it"?

Hebrews 8:10
** you do not have permission to see this link **
(Young's Literal)
because this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel,
after those days, saith the Lord,
giving My laws into their mind,
and upon their hearts I will write them,
and I will be to them for a God,
and they shall be to Me for a people;

(Aramaic Bible in Plain English)
“But this is The Covenant that I shall give to the family of the house of Israel:
After those days, says THE LORD JEHOVAH,
I shall put my law in their minds
and upon their hearts I shall write it,
and I shall be to them a God,
and they shall be to me a people.”

Hebrews 10:16
** you do not have permission to see this link **
(NIV)
“This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”
(Aramaic Bible in Plain English)
“This is the covenant that I shall give them after those days, says THE LORD JEHOVAH:
I shall put my law into their minds,
and I shall write it upon their hearts,

dukhrana.com, Peshitta tool, EBV with footnotes:
Hebrews 10:16 - “Dit is het Verbond dat Ik na die dagen aan hen geven zal, zegt de HEERE! ‘Ik zal mijn Wet in hun verstand leggen en die op hun harten schrijven,
Ik zal mijn Wet ... schrijven - dit is de lezing van de Aramese Peshitta. De lezing van de Griekse NA28, MHT en TR luidt: ‘Ik zal mijn wetten in hun harten geven en Ik zal ze in hun verstand schrijven”.

translate.google.com:
Hebrews 10:16 – “This is the Covenant that I will give them after those days, says the LORD!
‘I will put my Law in their minds
and write it on their hearts,
I will write my Law ... – this is the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta.
The reading of the Greek NA28, MHT, and TR reads:
‘I will put my laws in their hearts and I will write them on their minds’.

Andrew Xian Nyhärt, _The One Law Covenant: Recovering the Heart of the New Covenant_ (2025), 186pp., on 57, 61

In Hebrews 8 and 10, the writer quotes Jeremiah 31-- the new covenant promise-- not from the Hebrew wording but from the Greek Septuagint.
The LXX renders Jeremiah's "_my law [torati]_" in the singular as "_my laws [tous nomous mou]_" in the plural.
Hebrews cites that Greek wording faithfully.
...
Also worth noting: Hebrews itself, outside the quotation, prefers "law" in the singular when stating the theological shift (Heb. 7:12).

=====================
snips
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Hebrews 7:5 N-AMS
INT: according to the law this is

Hebrews 7:12 N-GMS
NAS: a change of law also.

Hebrews 7:16 N-AMS
NAS: [such] not on the basis of a law of physical

Hebrews 7:19 N-NMS
KJV: For the law made nothing

Hebrews 7:28 N-NMS
NAS: For the Law appoints men

Hebrews 7:28 N-AMS
NAS: which came after the Law, [appoints] a Son,

Hebrews 8:4 N-AMS
KJV: gifts according to the law:

Hebrews 8:10 N-AMP
GRK: Κύριος διδοὺς νόμους μου εἰς
NAS: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS,

Hebrews 9:19 N-AMS
INT: according to the law by Moses

Hebrews 9:22 N-AMS
INT: according to the law and apart from

Hebrews 10:1 N-NMS
KJV: For the law having a shadow

Hebrews 10:8 N-AMS
NAS: are offered according to the Law),

Hebrews 10:16 N-AMP
GRK: Κύριος διδοὺς νόμους μου ἐπὶ
NAS: I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART,
KJV: I will put my laws into their

Hebrews 10:28 N-AMS
NAS: who has set aside the Law of Moses

]]> Wed, 13 May 2026 16:19:07 -0400 Robert on How Did We Get To The Codex Sinaiticus https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/how-did-we-get-to-the-codex-sinaiticus/#p46726 The Manuscripts of the New Testament https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/how-did-we-get-to-the-codex-sinaiticus/#p46726 According to Eusebius of Caesarea's Life of Constantine, the emperor ordered, around 331 CE, Eusebius to have fifty codices of the holy scriptures prepared for the churches of Constantinople, his new capital. Some scholars have speculated that Codex Vaticanus or Sinaiticus might have been part of this group of codices. While that may not be true, they are probably similar. 

]]> Mon, 11 May 2026 20:16:28 -0400 Doug891512 on How Did We Get To The Codex Sinaiticus https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/how-did-we-get-to-the-codex-sinaiticus/#p46719 The Manuscripts of the New Testament https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/how-did-we-get-to-the-codex-sinaiticus/#p46719 Hi

I am wondering if anyone can point me to information on how the New Testament progressed from various scattered manuscripts over several centuries to what appears to suddenly become the completed Codex Sinaiticus.

Many Thanks

Doug

]]> Mon, 11 May 2026 17:23:05 -0400 BJH1960 on Where did the teaching that the entire New Testament was written by God and supernaturally protected by God originate? https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/where-did-the-teaching-that-the-entire-new-testament-was-written-by-god-and-supernaturally-protected-by-god-originate/page-2/#p46610 The Manuscripts of the New Testament https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/where-did-the-teaching-that-the-entire-new-testament-was-written-by-god-and-supernaturally-protected-by-god-originate/page-2/#p46610 Sounds like both are worth getting.

Such an interesting topic.

]]> Wed, 06 May 2026 08:45:12 -0400