Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels

[Mike Cl]

Agreed.

And the 27 books that we do recognize as canonical were recognized as genuine because they met three criteria:

1. Apostolic Authority. The accepted books were written by an apostle or by someone in close association with them.
2. Doctrinal Conformity. The accepted books taught doctrines that were in line with what the living Church held as true. IOW, no heretical novelties were allowed.
3. Continuous Acceptance. The accepted books were held as genuine by the churches which had received them from the beginning.

For these reasons, books such as the Gospel of Thomas or Clement's Letter to the Corinthians did not make the canon.

Randy, welcome back.  You made my point for me.  The Bible did not plop to earth, totally complete.  Why not?  Was that beyond the ability of your god?  Apparently.  And why did that bible not plop to earth all over the earth?  Beyond the ability of your god?  Apparently.  In my eyes, the fact that there are people in the world who have not seen the bible or even heard of it.  Yet many of your christian friends will contend they will go to hell.  That is the justice of your god?  Apparently. 

The book you call the NT does indeed, mostly contain 27 books.  As that is so for those three reasons you give us, but for many more.  Power politics and control supplies the real answer to why so many of the writings have been left out of the modern NT.  But not all bibles contain 27 books--the Peshitta does not, for example.  So, for you that 'most' bibles have 27 books is enough for you to think that is what god wants.  For me it is simply proof of shoddy work of your god.  Understand there are not just different translations, but different bibles.  Once again, that is just proof of shoddy work of your god.  Which really leads me to believe that your shoddy god is simply the creation of people thousands of years ago.  Your god just simply does not exist.

[Mike Cl]

Randy, I have found the process of the canonization of the bible to be quite interesting.  Here is a brief snippet about that:

Establishing the canon: 2nd - 4th century AD

By the middle of the 2nd century it becomes evident that a great many different and often contradictory passages of holy scripture are circulating among the various Christian churches, each claiming to offer the truth. (There is even a Gospel according to Judas Iscariot.) Which of these shall be accepted as the official canon? This becomes a subject of urgent debate among church leaders. 

By the end of the century it is widely agreed that four Gospels, the Epistles of Paul and theActs of the Apostles are authentic. But it is not until 367 that a list is circulated by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, which finally establishes the content of the New Testament. 

Meanwhile the texts are being ceaselessly copied and recopied onpapyrus and later onparchment. A few fragments survive from the 2nd century, but the earliest complete New Testament (the Codex Sinaiticus, in Greek, written probably in Egypt, now in the British Library) dates from the late 4th century. 

By this timeJerome is working in Bethlehem on his Latin version of the Bible. The story of the New Testament evolves into the story of itstranslations.

Read more:http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=aa11#ixzz47MezBBgS

The canon of 27 NT books is simply the result of power politics--god is not evident in any of it.

[Mike Cl]

Randy, more evidence of power politics:


The New Testament of the Christian Bible is one of the most influential works of the last two millennia. As the key work of the largest religion in the western world, it has shaped our world in many subtle ways. But the list of 27 books we know today as the New Testament came together gradually through a series of councils and general usage until the books became the standard for most of Christianity. This list is about 10 of the most interesting books not included in the New Testament. Some were excluded for obvious reasons, some likely never had wide readership until found in an obscure library thousands of years later and some just barely missed the cut to being included. One probably never even existed. We know so little about the creation of the New Testament that I cannot tell you why each book was not included, only what makes them interesting. This list is not aimed to validate or discredit the value of any particular book but to provide some context to the creation of the New Testament.
*Because the New Testament is a result of the Orthodox opinion of the time I have chosen to exclude Gnostic texts from this list.

and another snippet:

The 39 books of the Old Testament form the Bible of Judaism, while the Christian Bible includes those books and also the 27 books of the New Testament. This list of books included in the Bible is known as the canon. That is, the canon refers to the books regarded as inspired by God and authoritative for faith and life. No church created the canon, but the churches and councils gradually accepted the list of books recognized by believers everywhere as inspired.
It was actually not until 367 AD that the church father Athanasius first provided the complete listing of the 66 books belonging to the canon.
ï,·
He distinguished those from other books that were widely circulated and he noted that those 66 books were the ones, and the only ones, universally accepted.
ï,·
ï,·
The point is that the formation of the canon did not come all at once like a thunderbolt, but was the product of centuries of reflection.
ï,·
Note that sentence above--not a thunderbolt but the product of centuries of reflection.  I actually understand 'reflection' to be another name for power politics.  God itself could have shortcut all that need for 'reflection' or picking and choosing and of power politics by dropping his word via the 'thunderbolt' around the world in the very beginning.  This is simply proof that your god does not exist.

[Mike Cl]

Randy, more for you.  His is a partial list of some of the English translations of bibles we have.  Each are different.  I find it strange that god's word changes so often--and that it is so difficult to understand.  Once again, it is proof for me that your god does not exist; no god could be so shoddy in it's work.
 
The list:
Each version has its own page where there is a brief description about that particular version, information taken from within the version itself. You can view a quote from Genesis 1: 1, 2; Wisdom (of Solomon) 1: 1; and/or John 1: 1-3 as recorded in each version to illustrate its style. Also noted is the library where the version is located.

Abbreviated Bible - TAB - 1971, eliminates duplications, includes the Apocrypha
American Standard Version - ASV - 1901, a.k.a. Standard American Edition, Revised Version, the American version of the Holy Bible, Revised Version
American Translation (Beck) - AAT - 1976
American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed) - SGAT - 1931
Amplified Bible - AB - 1965, includes explanation of words within text
Aramaic Bible (Targums) - ABT - 1987, originally translated from the Hebrew into the Aramaic
Aramaic New Covenant - ANCJ - 1996, a translation and transliteration of the New Covenant
Authentic New Testament - ANT - 1958
Barclay New Testament - BNT - 1969
Basic Bible - TBB - 1950, based upon a vocabulary of 850 words
Bible Designed to Be Read as Literature - BDRL - 1930, stresses literary qualities of the Bible, includes the Apocrypha
Bible Reader - TBR - 1969, an interfaith version, includes the Apocrypha
Cassirer New Testament - CNT - 1989
Centenary Translation of the New Testament - CTNT - 1924, one of the few versions translated solely by a woman
Common English New Testament - CENT - 1865
Complete Jewish Bible - CJB - 1989, a Messianic Jewish translation
Concordant Literal New Testament - CLNT - 1926
Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Translation - CCDT - 1953, includes the Apocrypha
Contemporary English Version - CEV - 1992, includes Psalms and Proverbs
Coptic Version of the New Testament - CVNT - 1898, based on translations from northern Egypt
Cotton Patch Version - CPV - 1968, based on American ideas and Southern US culture, only contains Paul's writings
Coverdale Bible - TCB - 1540, includes the Apocrypha
Darby Holy Bible - DHB - 1923
Dartmouth Bible - TDB - 1961, an abridgment of the King James Version, includes the Apocrypha
De Nyew Testament in Gullah - NTG - 2005
Dead Sea Scrolls Bible - DSSB - 1997, translated from Dead Sea Scrolls documents, includes the Apocrypha
Documents of the New Testament - DNT - 1934
Douay-Rheims Bible - DRB - 1899
Emphasized Bible - EBR - 1959, contains signs of emphasis for reading
Emphatic Diaglott - EDW - 1942
English Standard Version - ESV - 2001, a revision of the Revised Standard Version
English Version for the Deaf - EVD - 1989, a.k.a. Easy-to-Read Version, designed to meet the special needs of the deaf
English Version of the Polyglott Bible - EVPB - 1858, the English portion of an early Bible having translations into several languages
Geneva Bible - TGB - 1560, the popular version just prior to the translation of the King James Version, includes the Apocrypha
Godbey Translation of the New Testament - GTNT - 1905
God's Word - GW - 1995, a.k.a Today's Bible Translation
Holy Bible in Modern English - HBME - 1900
Holy Bible, Revised Version - HBRV - 1885, an official revision of the King James Version which was not accepted at the time
Holy Scriptures (Harkavy) - HSH - 1951
Holy Scriptures (Leeser) - HSL - 1905
Holy Scriptures (Menorah) - HSM - 1973, a.k.a. Jewish Family Bible
Inclusive Version - AIV - 1995, stresses equality of the sexes and physically handicapped, includes Psalms
Inspired Version - IV - 1867, a revision of the King James Version
Interlinear Bible (Green) - IB - 1976, side-by-side Hebrew/Greek and English
International Standard Version - ISV - 1998
Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) - TJB - 1966, includes the Apocrypha
Jerusalem Bible (Koren) - JBK - 1962, side-by-side Hebrew and English
Jewish Bible for Family Reading - JBFR - 1957, includes the Apocrypha
John Wesley New Testament - JWNT - 1755, a correction of the King James Version
King James Version - KJV - 1611, a.k.a. Authorized Version, originally included the Apocrypha
Kleist-Lilly New Testament - KLNT - 1956
Knox Translation - KTC - 1956, includes the Apocrypha
Lamsa Bible - LBP - 1957, based on Peshitta manuscripts
Lattimore New Testament - LNT - 1962, a literal translation
Letchworth Version in Modern English - LVME - 1948
Living Bible - LB - 1971, a paraphrase version
McCord's New Testament Translation of the Everlasting Gospel - MCT - 1989
Message - TM - 1993, a.k.a. New Testament in Contemporary English, a translation in the street language of the day, includes Psalms and Proverbs
Modern Reader's Bible - MRB - 1923, stresses literary qualities, includes the Apocrypha
Modern Speech New Testament - MSNT - 1902, an attempt to present the Bible in effective, intelligible English
Moffatt New Translation - MNT - 1922
New American Bible - NAB - 1987, includes the Apocrypha
New American Standard Version - NAS - 1977
New Berkeley Version in Modern English - NBV - 1967
New Century Version - NCV - 1987
New English Bible - NEB - 1970, includes the Apocrypha
New Evangelical Translation - NET - 1992, a translation aimed at missionary activity
New International Version - NIV - 1978
New Jerusalem Bible - NJB - 1985, includes the Apocrypha
New JPS Version - NJPS - 1988
New King James Version - NKJ - 1990
New Life Version - NLV - 1969, a translation designed to be useful wherever English is used as a second language
New Living Translation - NLT - 1996, a dynamic-equivalence translation
New Millenium Bible - NMB - 1999, a contemporary English translation
New Revised Standard Version - NRS - 1989, the authorized revision of the Revised Standard Version
New Testament in Plain English - WPE - 1963, a version using common words only
New Testament: An Understandable Version - NTUV - 1995, a limited edition version
New Translation (Jewish) - NTJ - 1917
New World Translation - NWT - 1984
Noli New Testament - NNT - 1961, the first and only book of its kind by an Eastern Orthodox translator at the time of its publication
Norlie's Simplified New Testament - NSNT - 1961, includes Psalms
Original New Testament - ONT - 1985, described by publisher as a radical translation and reinterpretation
Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha - OJBC - 1996, an Orthodox version containing Rabbinic Hebrew terms
People's New Covenant - PNC - 1925, a version translated from the meta-physical standpoint
Phillips Revised Student Edition - PRS - 1972
Recovery Version - RcV - 1991, a reference version containing extensive notes
Reese Chronological Bible - RCB - 1980, an arrangement of the King James Version in chronological order
Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible - SNB - 1976, a version whose concern is the true name and titles of the creator and his son
Restored New Testament - PRNT - 1914, a version giving an interpretation according to ancient philosophy and psychology
Revised English Bible - REB - 1989, a revision of the New English Bible
Revised Standard Version - RSV - 1952, a revision of the American Standard Version
Riverside New Testament - RNT - 1923, written in the living English language of the time of the translation
Sacred Scriptures, Bethel Edition - SSBE - 1981, the sacred name and the sacred titles and the name of Yahshua restored to the text of the Bible
Scholars Version - SV - 1993, a.k.a. Five Gospels; contains evaluations of academics of what are, might be, and are not, the words of Jesus; contains the four gospels and the Gospel of Thomas
Scriptures (ISR) - SISR - 1998, traditional names replaced by Hebraic ones and words with pagan sources replaced
Septuagint - LXX - c. 200 BCE, the earliest version of the Old Testament scriptures, includes the Apocrypha
Shorter Bible - SBK - 1925, eliminates duplications
Spencer New Testament - SCM - 1941
Stone Edition of the Tanach - SET - 1996, side-by-side Hebrew and English
Swann New Testament - SNT - 1947, no chapters, only paragraphs, with verses numbered consecutively from Matthew to Revelation
Today's English New Testament - TENT - 1972
Today's English Version - TEV - 1976, a.k.a. Good News Bible
Twentieth Century New Testament - TCNT - 1904
Unvarnished New Testament - UNT - 1991, the principal sentence elements kept in the original order of the Greek
Versified Rendering of the Complete Gospel Story - VRGS - 1980, the gospel books written in poetic form, contains the four gospels
Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures - WVSS - 1929
Wiclif Translation - TWT - 1380, a very early version translated into English
William Tindale Newe Testament - WTNT - 1989, an early version with spelling and punctuation modernized
William Tyndale Translation - WTT - 1530, early English version, includes the Pentateuch
Williams New Testament - WNT - 1937, a translation of the thoughts of the writers with a reproduction of their diction and style
Word Made Fresh - WMF - 1988, a paraphrase with humour and familiar names and places for those who have no desire to read the Bible
Worrell New Testament - WAS - 1904
Wuest Expanded Translation - WET - 1961, intended as a comparison to, or commentary on, the standard translations
Young's Literal Translation, Revised Edition - YLR - 1898, a strictly literal translation

[Mike Cl]

Randy, this is just more food for the grist.  This may be a little long--you can skip it since it simply underlines the sillyness you call your religion and it's book.

Plenty of religions all claim that their holy books somehow came from God or are approved by God. They all are delusional and mythical, sure. But the Bible is a particularly poor work if you are looking for more than entertainment or intriguing literature. The Bible must be a terribly poor source for any reliable information about God. Even if you are tempted to take it seriously, all the contradictions and confusions are embarrassing, even by religious standards. Christianity couldn't help but remain disorganized for all these centuries, with every denomination and church trying to force the poor Bible to fit some creed or another. No wonder Christianity can conjure up a unified faith only towards an utterly mysterious God. I've long been skeptical about whether "Christianity" exists, but that's a story for another time.

It's the Bible that's at fault here. The Old Testament is bad enough, but at least that Yahweh character has a fairly clear agenda and the Jewish people figured out that it shouldn't be taken too literally. The New Testament is just a disaster no matter how you try to read it. "The Bible" that Christians refer to, that crudely assembled stew of hardly compatible gospels and letters called the New Testament, just doesn't pass any rational test. It's time to get really, really, skeptical.

Let me ask everyone this question: What "Bible" could Christians be talking about? No original New Testament texts exist now. Only shards and segments of some books are older than the third century. Christians want to believe that these fragments are somehow identical duplicates of originals from three centuries earlier. Sorry, Christians. Not only does that convenient theory utterly violate rationality, the actual fragments and early Bibles contradict that theory. The oldest fragments of the same gospel don't quite agree, and its nearly impossible to figure out which one might be "closer" to some imaginary original. The oldest complete Gospels from the fourth and fifth centuries already show how copyists were adding their own errors and interpretations while trying to "correct" what they thought were mistakes in older copies. By the time that entire complete Bibles become available to us, in copies from the fifth and sixth centuries (read the Codex Sinaiticus, for example), different Bibles contain somewhat different sets of books, and the texts of the books disagree in many crucial respects having theological significance.

Naturally, Christians want to believe in miracles all over again, that somehow genuine eyewitness accounts got perfectly passed down by word of mouth for 50 years before getting written down, and then those writings were perfectly preserved for another 250 years. But the earliest texts themselves reveal a long tale of invention, compilation, borrowing, forgery, and endless revision. All the evidence points the other way: human hands, not divine hands, composed the New Testament for utterly human purposes.

Since these early texts and complete Bibles read a little differently in many significant places (and contain minor variations adding up into the thousands), it is impossible to accurately decide which variations correctly duplicate the lost originals, if any ever existed. The Roman Catholic Church had to put a tremendous effort into deciding on one final version of the Bible after examining all the various available texts in Greek, and then transforming that production for one authoritative translation into Latin. That Latin Vulgate Bible was the collective work of thousands of scholars. Then Protestants came along and promptly rejected that Latin Bible, producing their own Bibles by the hundreds since the 1500s.

There is no original Bible to look at, and not even any early single Bible for reading. When the difficulties of translating the original Greek into Latin or English are added to the situation, it is impossible to avoid the judgment that human transcription and interpretation thoroughly pervade the many different Bibles that Christians read today. Christians have forever disagreed about their Bibles â€" many denominations have split over and over again because of arguments over the exact text and best translation of the Bible. If Christians can't even agree on what the Bible really is, nonbelievers have every right to be skeptical that we are even talking about something real.

[Randy Carson]

Randy, welcome back.  You made my point for me.  The Bible did not plop to earth, totally complete.  Why not?  Was that beyond the ability of your god?  Apparently.

Seriously? God who made the entire universe from nothing could not lay a few volumes on us? C'mon...

The Bible was delivered to us a bit at a time...as much as we could handle. Think of it like bending wood...too quickly and the wood snaps. Done slowly and under the right conditions...any shape can be formed. God did not overwhelm us with the fullness of revelation all at once. The people were not ready for it; they had to be molded slowly.

And why did that bible not plop to earth all over the earth?  Beyond the ability of your god?  Apparently.  In my eyes, the fact that there are people in the world who have not seen the bible or even heard of it. 

For the same reason as I gave above, Mike. If the Bible had suddenly appeared (and actually how could it since it is a record of history? So, when would it have appeared? After the deaths of Peter and Paul in Rome ca. AD 65?? After John's gospel in AD 95?), what context would any of it had for non-Israelites?

Yet many of your christian friends will contend they will go to hell.  That is the justice of your god?  Apparently. 

No. That is the error of Protestantism. Hey, it's not MY fault that Luther, Calvin and Henry VIII screwed up and that false interpretations have spread! I'm Catholic, remember?

The book you call the NT does indeed, mostly contain 27 books.  As that is so for those three reasons you give us, but for many more.  Power politics and control supplies the real answer to why so many of the writings have been left out of the modern NT.  But not all bibles contain 27 books--the Peshitta does not, for example.  So, for you that 'most' bibles have 27 books is enough for you to think that is what god wants.  For me it is simply proof of shoddy work of your god.  Understand there are not just different translations, but different bibles.  Once again, that is just proof of shoddy work of your god.  Which really leads me to believe that your shoddy god is simply the creation of people thousands of years ago.  Your god just simply does not exist.

Well, that sounds like shoddy reasoning to me, Mike. If you do a bit of reading, you can learn the history of the canon. We could review the gnostic gospels one by one, but in the end the result would be the same: the Church rejected them for the three reasons I already gave...not because of "politics". These books contain ideas that are contrary to the canonical gospels and were not apostolic in origin. Plain and simple.

The Peshitta NT has not gained a wide acceptance in the Christian community, has it? And why? Because the canons of scripture that pre-date it contain the same 27 books that are in the standard canon today. Luther truncated the OT, too. So, what? I view Protestantism and the Syriac churches with equal skepticism.

That said, this argument is not as strong as you might hope. After all, the Syriac churches do agree with me on most of the books (and thus the core message of the resurrection), and that is really not helpful to your cause.

But your argument fails when it comes to Islam. Yesiree, you can read the Qu'ran in Arabic just the same as Mohammed. So, if you are an atheist because the Bible seems corrupt, okay. But the Qu'ran is not. So, this argument fails to account for why you are discounting ALL theistic religions. 'Cause the lack of "shoddiness" when it comes to the preservation of the Qu'ran ought to impress the hell out of you.

(And I do reject the notion that the Bible has been given to us in shoddy fashion by God. Just in case you missed that. )

[Randy Carson]

Randy, I have found the process of the canonization of the bible to be quite interesting.  Here is a brief snippet about that:

Establishing the canon: 2nd - 4th century AD

By the middle of the 2nd century it becomes evident that a great many different and often contradictory passages of holy scripture are circulating among the various Christian churches, each claiming to offer the truth. (There is even a Gospel according to Judas Iscariot.) Which of these shall be accepted as the official canon? This becomes a subject of urgent debate among church leaders.

By the end of the century it is widely agreed that four Gospels, the Epistles of Paul and theActs of the Apostles are authentic. But it is not until 367 that a list is circulated by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, which finally establishes the content of the New Testament.

Meanwhile the texts are being ceaselessly copied and recopied onpapyrus and later onparchment. A few fragments survive from the 2nd century, but the earliest complete New Testament (the Codex Sinaiticus, in Greek, written probably in Egypt, now in the British Library) dates from the late 4th century.

By this timeJerome is working in Bethlehem on his Latin version of the Bible. The story of the New Testament evolves into the story of itstranslations.

Read more:http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=aa11#ixzz47MezBBgS

The canon of 27 NT books is simply the result of power politics--god is not evident in any of it.

Forgive me, but how is Athanasius' listing of the canon a result of or evidence for "power politics"?

[Randy Carson]

Randy, more evidence of power politics:


The New Testament of the Christian Bible is one of the most influential works of the last two millennia. As the key work of the largest religion in the western world, it has shaped our world in many subtle ways. But the list of 27 books we know today as the New Testament came together gradually through a series of councils and general usage until the books became the standard for most of Christianity.

Agreed.

This list is about 10 of the most interesting books not included in the New Testament. Some were excluded for obvious reasons, some likely never had wide readership until found in an obscure library thousands of years later and some just barely missed the cut to being included. One probably never even existed.

This makes my argument...not yours.

We know so little about the creation of the New Testament that I cannot tell you why each book was not included, only what makes them interesting. This list is not aimed to validate or discredit the value of any particular book but to provide some context to the creation of the New Testament.
*Because the New Testament is a result of the Orthodox opinion of the time I have chosen to exclude Gnostic texts from this list.

and another snippet:

The 39 books of the Old Testament form the Bible of Judaism, while the Christian Bible includes those books and also the 27 books of the New Testament. This list of books included in the Bible is known as the canon. That is, the canon refers to the books regarded as inspired by God and authoritative for faith and life. No church created the canon, but the churches and councils gradually accepted the list of books recognized by believers everywhere as inspired.
It was actually not until 367 AD that the church father Athanasius first provided the complete listing of the 66 books belonging to the canon.
ï,·
He distinguished those from other books that were widely circulated and he noted that those 66 books were the ones, and the only ones, universally accepted.
ï,·
ï,·
The point is that the formation of the canon did not come all at once like a thunderbolt, but was the product of centuries of reflection.
ï,·
Note that sentence above--not a thunderbolt but the product of centuries of reflection.  I actually understand 'reflection' to be another name for power politics.  God itself could have shortcut all that need for 'reflection' or picking and choosing and of power politics by dropping his word via the 'thunderbolt' around the world in the very beginning.  This is simply proof that your god does not exist.

Ah...so God cannot work slowly over time like He might do in the case of evolution.

No, when it comes to giving us the Bible, it had to be done all at once and everywhere at once. Kinda like a "Big Bible Bang" where it all happened in an instant.

Otherwise, it's just "shoddy".

[Randy Carson]

Randy, more for you.  His is a partial list of some of the English translations of bibles we have.  Each are different.  I find it strange that god's word changes so often--and that it is so difficult to understand.  Once again, it is proof for me that your god does not exist; no god could be so shoddy in it's work.
 
The list:
Each version has its own page where there is a brief description about that particular version, information taken from within the version itself. You can view a quote from Genesis 1: 1, 2; Wisdom (of Solomon) 1: 1; and/or John 1: 1-3 as recorded in each version to illustrate its style. Also noted is the library where the version is located.

Abbreviated Bible - TAB - 1971, eliminates duplications, includes the Apocrypha
American Standard Version - ASV - 1901, a.k.a. Standard American Edition, Revised Version, the American version of the Holy Bible, Revised Version
American Translation (Beck) - AAT - 1976
American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed) - SGAT - 1931
Amplified Bible - AB - 1965, includes explanation of words within text
Aramaic Bible (Targums) - ABT - 1987, originally translated from the Hebrew into the Aramaic
Aramaic New Covenant - ANCJ - 1996, a translation and transliteration of the New Covenant
Authentic New Testament - ANT - 1958
Barclay New Testament - BNT - 1969
Basic Bible - TBB - 1950, based upon a vocabulary of 850 words
Bible Designed to Be Read as Literature - BDRL - 1930, stresses literary qualities of the Bible, includes the Apocrypha
Bible Reader - TBR - 1969, an interfaith version, includes the Apocrypha
Cassirer New Testament - CNT - 1989
Centenary Translation of the New Testament - CTNT - 1924, one of the few versions translated solely by a woman
Common English New Testament - CENT - 1865
Complete Jewish Bible - CJB - 1989, a Messianic Jewish translation
Concordant Literal New Testament - CLNT - 1926
Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Translation - CCDT - 1953, includes the Apocrypha
Contemporary English Version - CEV - 1992, includes Psalms and Proverbs
Coptic Version of the New Testament - CVNT - 1898, based on translations from northern Egypt
Cotton Patch Version - CPV - 1968, based on American ideas and Southern US culture, only contains Paul's writings
Coverdale Bible - TCB - 1540, includes the Apocrypha
Darby Holy Bible - DHB - 1923
Dartmouth Bible - TDB - 1961, an abridgment of the King James Version, includes the Apocrypha
De Nyew Testament in Gullah - NTG - 2005
Dead Sea Scrolls Bible - DSSB - 1997, translated from Dead Sea Scrolls documents, includes the Apocrypha
Documents of the New Testament - DNT - 1934
Douay-Rheims Bible - DRB - 1899
Emphasized Bible - EBR - 1959, contains signs of emphasis for reading
Emphatic Diaglott - EDW - 1942
English Standard Version - ESV - 2001, a revision of the Revised Standard Version
English Version for the Deaf - EVD - 1989, a.k.a. Easy-to-Read Version, designed to meet the special needs of the deaf
English Version of the Polyglott Bible - EVPB - 1858, the English portion of an early Bible having translations into several languages
Geneva Bible - TGB - 1560, the popular version just prior to the translation of the King James Version, includes the Apocrypha
Godbey Translation of the New Testament - GTNT - 1905
God's Word - GW - 1995, a.k.a Today's Bible Translation
Holy Bible in Modern English - HBME - 1900
Holy Bible, Revised Version - HBRV - 1885, an official revision of the King James Version which was not accepted at the time
Holy Scriptures (Harkavy) - HSH - 1951
Holy Scriptures (Leeser) - HSL - 1905
Holy Scriptures (Menorah) - HSM - 1973, a.k.a. Jewish Family Bible
Inclusive Version - AIV - 1995, stresses equality of the sexes and physically handicapped, includes Psalms
Inspired Version - IV - 1867, a revision of the King James Version
Interlinear Bible (Green) - IB - 1976, side-by-side Hebrew/Greek and English
International Standard Version - ISV - 1998
Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) - TJB - 1966, includes the Apocrypha
Jerusalem Bible (Koren) - JBK - 1962, side-by-side Hebrew and English
Jewish Bible for Family Reading - JBFR - 1957, includes the Apocrypha
John Wesley New Testament - JWNT - 1755, a correction of the King James Version
King James Version - KJV - 1611, a.k.a. Authorized Version, originally included the Apocrypha
Kleist-Lilly New Testament - KLNT - 1956
Knox Translation - KTC - 1956, includes the Apocrypha
Lamsa Bible - LBP - 1957, based on Peshitta manuscripts
Lattimore New Testament - LNT - 1962, a literal translation
Letchworth Version in Modern English - LVME - 1948
Living Bible - LB - 1971, a paraphrase version
McCord's New Testament Translation of the Everlasting Gospel - MCT - 1989
Message - TM - 1993, a.k.a. New Testament in Contemporary English, a translation in the street language of the day, includes Psalms and Proverbs
Modern Reader's Bible - MRB - 1923, stresses literary qualities, includes the Apocrypha
Modern Speech New Testament - MSNT - 1902, an attempt to present the Bible in effective, intelligible English
Moffatt New Translation - MNT - 1922
New American Bible - NAB - 1987, includes the Apocrypha
New American Standard Version - NAS - 1977
New Berkeley Version in Modern English - NBV - 1967
New Century Version - NCV - 1987
New English Bible - NEB - 1970, includes the Apocrypha
New Evangelical Translation - NET - 1992, a translation aimed at missionary activity
New International Version - NIV - 1978
New Jerusalem Bible - NJB - 1985, includes the Apocrypha
New JPS Version - NJPS - 1988
New King James Version - NKJ - 1990
New Life Version - NLV - 1969, a translation designed to be useful wherever English is used as a second language
New Living Translation - NLT - 1996, a dynamic-equivalence translation
New Millenium Bible - NMB - 1999, a contemporary English translation
New Revised Standard Version - NRS - 1989, the authorized revision of the Revised Standard Version
New Testament in Plain English - WPE - 1963, a version using common words only
New Testament: An Understandable Version - NTUV - 1995, a limited edition version
New Translation (Jewish) - NTJ - 1917
New World Translation - NWT - 1984
Noli New Testament - NNT - 1961, the first and only book of its kind by an Eastern Orthodox translator at the time of its publication
Norlie's Simplified New Testament - NSNT - 1961, includes Psalms
Original New Testament - ONT - 1985, described by publisher as a radical translation and reinterpretation
Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha - OJBC - 1996, an Orthodox version containing Rabbinic Hebrew terms
People's New Covenant - PNC - 1925, a version translated from the meta-physical standpoint
Phillips Revised Student Edition - PRS - 1972
Recovery Version - RcV - 1991, a reference version containing extensive notes
Reese Chronological Bible - RCB - 1980, an arrangement of the King James Version in chronological order
Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible - SNB - 1976, a version whose concern is the true name and titles of the creator and his son
Restored New Testament - PRNT - 1914, a version giving an interpretation according to ancient philosophy and psychology
Revised English Bible - REB - 1989, a revision of the New English Bible
Revised Standard Version - RSV - 1952, a revision of the American Standard Version
Riverside New Testament - RNT - 1923, written in the living English language of the time of the translation
Sacred Scriptures, Bethel Edition - SSBE - 1981, the sacred name and the sacred titles and the name of Yahshua restored to the text of the Bible
Scholars Version - SV - 1993, a.k.a. Five Gospels; contains evaluations of academics of what are, might be, and are not, the words of Jesus; contains the four gospels and the Gospel of Thomas
Scriptures (ISR) - SISR - 1998, traditional names replaced by Hebraic ones and words with pagan sources replaced
Septuagint - LXX - c. 200 BCE, the earliest version of the Old Testament scriptures, includes the Apocrypha
Shorter Bible - SBK - 1925, eliminates duplications
Spencer New Testament - SCM - 1941
Stone Edition of the Tanach - SET - 1996, side-by-side Hebrew and English
Swann New Testament - SNT - 1947, no chapters, only paragraphs, with verses numbered consecutively from Matthew to Revelation
Today's English New Testament - TENT - 1972
Today's English Version - TEV - 1976, a.k.a. Good News Bible
Twentieth Century New Testament - TCNT - 1904
Unvarnished New Testament - UNT - 1991, the principal sentence elements kept in the original order of the Greek
Versified Rendering of the Complete Gospel Story - VRGS - 1980, the gospel books written in poetic form, contains the four gospels
Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures - WVSS - 1929
Wiclif Translation - TWT - 1380, a very early version translated into English
William Tindale Newe Testament - WTNT - 1989, an early version with spelling and punctuation modernized
William Tyndale Translation - WTT - 1530, early English version, includes the Pentateuch
Williams New Testament - WNT - 1937, a translation of the thoughts of the writers with a reproduction of their diction and style
Word Made Fresh - WMF - 1988, a paraphrase with humour and familiar names and places for those who have no desire to read the Bible
Worrell New Testament - WAS - 1904
Wuest Expanded Translation - WET - 1961, intended as a comparison to, or commentary on, the standard translations
Young's Literal Translation, Revised Edition - YLR - 1898, a strictly literal translation

Do you honestly believe that the existence of different translations of the Bible is problematic?

Given that the English language has undergone significant changes, do you think that the Wiclif Translation of 1380 is going to read the same way as the New International Version (1978)?

And more to the point, Mike, how many of these translations contain the account of the resurrection of Jesus?

[Randy Carson]

Randy, this is just more food for the grist.  This may be a little long--you can skip it since it simply underlines the sillyness you call your religion and it's book.

Plenty of religions all claim that their holy books somehow came from God or are approved by God. They all are delusional and mythical, sure. But the Bible is a particularly poor work if you are looking for more than entertainment or intriguing literature. The Bible must be a terribly poor source for any reliable information about God. Even if you are tempted to take it seriously, all the contradictions and confusions are embarrassing, even by religious standards.

The contradictions are overstated. It would take us quite awhile to iron out all the wrinkles that you think exist, but it CAN be done.

Christianity couldn't help but remain disorganized for all these centuries, with every denomination and church trying to force the poor Bible to fit some creed or another. No wonder Christianity can conjure up a unified faith only towards an utterly mysterious God. I've long been skeptical about whether "Christianity" exists, but that's a story for another time.

But Mike, this is not a reflection on the Bible itself, but upon the people who attempt to interpret it. God did not simply give us a book. He gave us a Church, and the Church later wrote the book. Some folks rejected the Church and sought to live according to the Bible alone, and that is why you see the fragmentation. Without an infallible interpreter, an inerrant book is useless.

It's the Bible that's at fault here. The Old Testament is bad enough, but at least that Yahweh character has a fairly clear agenda and the Jewish people figured out that it shouldn't be taken too literally. The New Testament is just a disaster no matter how you try to read it. "The Bible" that Christians refer to, that crudely assembled stew of hardly compatible gospels and letters called the New Testament, just doesn't pass any rational test. It's time to get really, really, skeptical.

By all means, show me the "disaster".

Let me ask everyone this question: What "Bible" could Christians be talking about? No original New Testament texts exist now. Only shards and segments of some books are older than the third century. Christians want to believe that these fragments are somehow identical duplicates of originals from three centuries earlier. Sorry, Christians. Not only does that convenient theory utterly violate rationality, the actual fragments and early Bibles contradict that theory. The oldest fragments of the same gospel don't quite agree, and its nearly impossible to figure out which one might be "closer" to some imaginary original. The oldest complete Gospels from the fourth and fifth centuries already show how copyists were adding their own errors and interpretations while trying to "correct" what they thought were mistakes in older copies. By the time that entire complete Bibles become available to us, in copies from the fifth and sixth centuries (read the Codex Sinaiticus, for example), different Bibles contain somewhat different sets of books, and the texts of the books disagree in many crucial respects having theological significance.

You are not familiar with textual criticism, are you? Hey, why would you be? But there is NO question that we know with certainty what the autographs of the NT books contained. This is as close to being scientific fact as you could possibly ask for.

Naturally, Christians want to believe in miracles all over again, that somehow genuine eyewitness accounts got perfectly passed down by word of mouth for 50 years before getting written down, and then those writings were perfectly preserved for another 250 years. But the earliest texts themselves reveal a long tale of invention, compilation, borrowing, forgery, and endless revision. All the evidence points the other way: human hands, not divine hands, composed the New Testament for utterly human purposes.

You are mistaken, Mike, and now, you're throwing out objections more rapidly than can possibly be answered adequately in a single post. The gospels are not mere tales of invention, they are are eyewitness accounts that passed the muster of living witnesses who were able to distinguish between books that told the truth (canonical gospels) and the false gnostic gospels which came later.

One key point which blows a giant whole in your paragraph: 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 contains a passage which is clearly a proto-creed of the Early Church. Even Bart Ehrman dates this creed VERY early...like 1-3 years after the death of Jesus.

1-3 years, Mike. That is jaw-droppingly early. No other ancient figure in all of human history has documented source material written so close to the actual events themselves.

Since these early texts and complete Bibles read a little differently in many significant places (and contain minor variations adding up into the thousands), it is impossible to accurately decide which variations correctly duplicate the lost originals, if any ever existed.

And yet, what you fail to understand is that while these variations to exist, not one of them jeopardizes a single Christian doctrine. Not. One.

Most are spelling variations, btw.

The Roman Catholic Church had to put a tremendous effort into deciding on one final version of the Bible after examining all the various available texts in Greek, and then transforming that production for one authoritative translation into Latin. That Latin Vulgate Bible was the collective work of thousands of scholars. Then Protestants came along and promptly rejected that Latin Bible, producing their own Bibles by the hundreds since the 1500s.

Luther had theological reasons for dropping seven books from the OT, but this doesn't help you, because the resurrection of Jesus is proclaimed in ALL of these Bibles even if the accounts of the Maccabees is not.

There is no original Bible to look at, and not even any early single Bible for reading. When the difficulties of translating the original Greek into Latin or English are added to the situation, it is impossible to avoid the judgment that human transcription and interpretation thoroughly pervade the many different Bibles that Christians read today. Christians have forever disagreed about their Bibles â€" many denominations have split over and over again because of arguments over the exact text and best translation of the Bible. If Christians can't even agree on what the Bible really is, nonbelievers have every right to be skeptical that we are even talking about something real.

The gospels were written very early. (Before AD 70)
The gospels were written by eyewitnesses (Matthew, John) or by those who had access to them (Mark, Luke).
The gospels were written by men who intended to write accurate history.
The gospels were written by former skeptics who had become convinced that Jesus was God. (This is not bias...this is conviction.)
The gospels were judged to be accurate by living witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus.
The gospels have been preserved to an astonishingly high degree of accuracy which can be demonstrated by textual criticism. (We KNOW what the authors wrote.)

I understand why it is important for you to maintain these points of view; you can't allow the integrity of the NT if you want to maintain your atheism.

But you are just swinging wildly and wishfully out of complete ignorance of the facts.

Moreover, pick up a KJV, NIV or RSVCE or any translation of your choosing, Mike.

I'll still be able to show you the resurrection of Jesus in its pages.

[reasonist]

The 'gospels' were written about 5,000 years ago by Babylonians, Sumerians, then Romans and Greeks. Later on the Jews copied much of it and later yet, the Christians plagiarized the whole shabang, and finally Mohammad did as well. Anything from the flood, ark, virgin birth, resurrection, Adam and Eve, the snake, the tree and sooo much more is all there to read. Mostly copyright infringement by...who knows by whom. We have no originals, only copies of copies of copies, translated and changed a thousand times. We have no idea who wrote the gospels, probably mostly unlettered scribes who worked for food and just copied letter for letter. There are 30,000 contradictions in the NT and over 300,000 in the Torah.
Maybe Baruch can correct me here, but the Apostles were all Jews like Jesus (if he existed) and spoke Hebrew and some Aramaic. But none of them spoke Greek, the language the Bible was written. Should have been written in cuneiform, it would be more credible.

[Randy Carson]

The 'gospels' were written about 5,000 years ago by Babylonians, Sumerians, then Romans and Greeks. Later on the Jews copied much of it and later yet, the Christians plagiarized the whole shabang, and finally Mohammad did as well. Anything from the flood, ark, virgin birth, resurrection, Adam and Eve, the snake, the tree and sooo much more is all there to read. Mostly copyright infringement by...who knows by whom.

Is that what professional scholars believe to be true?

Nope. This is Internet crap...repeated endlessly by people who don't have the education to discern what is real and what is fiction.

We have no originals, only copies of copies of copies, translated and changed a thousand times. We have no idea who wrote the gospels, probably mostly unlettered scribes who worked for food and just copied letter for letter. There are 30,000 contradictions in the NT and over 300,000 in the Torah.

And how many of these variants actually affect Christian doctrine?

None.

Maybe Baruch can correct me here, but the Apostles were all Jews like Jesus (if he existed) and spoke Hebrew and some Aramaic. But none of them spoke Greek, the language the Bible was written. Should have been written in cuneiform, it would be more credible.

Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire. Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew, but later his gospel was written in Greek. Luke, Mark and Paul were all Roman citizens...they knew Greek.

As for whether Jesus existed, why do you doubt that he did? Because that's easier than having to deal with the reality of his existence, isn't it?

And you'd rather not think about that too hard.

[reasonist]

Is that what professional scholars believe to be true?

Nope. This is Internet crap...repeated endlessly by people who don't have the education to discern what is real and what is fiction.

And how many of these variants actually affect Christian doctrine?

None.



Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire. Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew, but later his gospel was written in Greek. Luke, Mark and Paul were all Roman citizens...they knew Greek.

As for whether Jesus existed, why do you doubt that he did? Because that's easier than having to deal with the reality of his existence, isn't it?

And you'd rather not think about that too hard.

Oh geez, internet crap huh? Ever heard of the Epic of Gilgamesh (I have the book WITH PICTURES of the clay tablets in cuneiform)??? How about Horus or the Pandora Fable? The Royal Museum in Cambridge has them displayed for perusal. So please get real.

As to Jesus' existence, well his time was one of the most extensively written eras ever. Writers such as Aulus Perseus, Columella, Dio Chrisostome, Justus of Tiberius, Livy, Lucanus, Lucius Florus, Petronius, Phaedrus, Philo Judaeus, Phlegon, Pany the Elder, Plutarch, Pomponius Mola, Rufus Curteus, Quintillian, Seneca, Silius Italius, Statius Caelicius, Theon of Smyrna, Valerius Flaccus, Valerius Maximus, kept meticulous records of the time. Not one single word about a Jesus. The guy who had people coming from as far away as Syria to see him or get healed and performed miracles did not get any mention at all? If he existed, and that's a definite IF, he certainly wasn't divine. One of many preachers who gave encouragement to the oppressed Jews. The time was ripe with magic and miracles, all laws of nature were suspended.
And what about the crucifixion? God couldn't forgive directly, he had to send his son, who is also himself, into certain death? What did that accomplish? What is the connection to our sins? As Doug Stanhope said: "I'll hit my foot with a shovel for your mortgage". That's about the gist of it all.

[/quote]

[reasonist]

And how many of these variants actually affect Christian doctrine?

None.

You missed the point entirely to my utter surprise! A omnipotent deity wouldn't make such clumsy humanoid contradictions. It has nothing to do with doctrine.

But let me ask you a question or two: Is the Earth a disk or a sphere? Why don't you kill people who work on a Sunday? Why don't you kill homosexuals and adulterers? You wouldn't be cherry picking, right? Nuhh

[Randy Carson]

NOTE: The following article was written by me based upon my own reading and research. However, I do not claim to be the scholar who has done original research; I am just a student who has read some of what the real scholars have written, and I have made every effort to provide attribution to the original authors when known. I am grateful for any assistance in documenting material for which I may not have provided adequate documentation. Another point, I have posted this compilation previously in other forums.

A final word: The goal of these posts is NOT to spam the board; if that were my intent, I would have created multiple threads. Instead, my goal is to provide a single point of reference or repository for this information in direct response to questions about the reliability of the New Testament which were asked of me in another thread. I hope that these posts will answer those questions adequately. - Randy

ON THE ACCURACY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS

Many people believe that the Bible which we have today has been corrupted over time and no longer accurately reflects what the original authors wrote or intended. It is also argued that the oldest known copies of the New Testament are far too young to be of value and that they are just copies of copies of copies into which variations and errors have been mixed. The party game known as “Telephone” is cited as the classic example of how this corruption occurs.

But is this really true? Or does the modern text accurately reflect what the authors originally wrote? We’ll begin by looking at the number of texts available for study and the method scholars use to evaluate their accuracy.

I. A. - An Embarrassment of Riches

Due to the passage of time and the fragility of the materials upon which ancient books were written, scholars today are limited to studying copies of ancient works because the originals simply no longer exist.  For example, Homer’s Illiad was written around 800 BC, and there are 643 copies of this illustrious work still in existence. The earliest of these copies is dated from around 400 BC. In other words, the time gap between Homer’s writing to the oldest existing copy is a gap of 400 years.

The Roman historian, Tacitus, wrote his 16-volume work, Annals of Imperial Rome, around AD 116, but only one copy of the first six volumes is still in existence; volumes seven through ten have been lost altogether, and volumes eleven through sixteen are found in a single manuscript dated from the eleventh century. In other words, the time gap between Tacitus and the oldest manuscript of those volumes is almost 1,000 years.

Similarly, there are nine Greek copies of the works of the Jewish historian, Josephus, and these copies are dated from the tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries. There is also a fourth-century Latin translation and a Russian translation from the eleventh century.

This pattern could be repeated for all of the ancient authors and texts: a relatively small number of copies of the work in question exist and the oldest of these is dated centuries after the work was written. Yet, despite these challenges, serious historians have little doubt as to the accuracy of the ancient texts themselves.

So, how does the New Testament compare with these other ancient writings? Quite well. In fact, today there are 5,686 Greek New Testament manuscripts â€" almost ten times the number of manuscript copies of the Illiad. Additionally, there are more than 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts and well over 8,000 manuscripts in other languages still in existence which brings the grand total to nearly 25,000 manuscripts dating from the second to the fifteenth centuries. Just as significant is the age of the oldest Greek New Testament manuscripts many of which can be dated to the middle of the second century. Researchers have also announced the existence of a fragment of the gospel of Mark which is believed to date from the first century â€" though details of this fragment may not be available until 2017. The size and quality of these manuscripts is also significant; while some of these are mere fragments of papyrus containing only a few verses, others contain whole chapters of the gospels, the Book of Acts and various letters of Paul.

Dr. Harold Greenlee wrote:

The oldest known MSS of most of the Greek classical authors are dated a thousand years or more after the author’s death. The time interval for the Latin authors is somewhat less, varying down to a minimum of three centuries in the case of Virgil. In the case of the NT, however, two of the most important MSS were written within 300 years after the NT was completed and some virtually complete NT books as well as extensive fragmentary MSS of many parts of the NT date back to one century from the original writings….Since scholars accept as generally trustworthy the writings of the ancient classics even though the earliest MSS were written so long after the original writings and the number of extant MSS is in many instances so small, it is clear that the reliability of the text of the NT is likewise assured. (Harold Greenlee, Introduction to the New Testament Textual Criticism, 16)

With thousands of manuscripts available for study â€" an embarrassment of riches â€" Dr. Greenlee concludes that the text of the New Testament itself is reliable. To understand why, it is important to consider the next step in the process:  textual criticism.