Nah, no reason to replace one fiction with another. Although mythologies are interesting in themselves, so long as we understand they aren't real. They can reveal much about the culture that created them. Even abandoned mythologies usually had a reason their culture finally rejects them.
Imagine being one of Harold Camping's victims and realizing you lost everything because 1600 years ago some guy named Athanasius talked everyone into including Revelation in the Bible at the last second.
@@Gdwmartin Oh? Cliff and Dan are both dishonest. In this video, one way they show their dishonesty is dazzling the audience with numbers without thinking about them statistcally. The truth is that Dan is overstating his case for significant variants before the late 2nd century. He is ignoring how textual criticism deduces the correct text for a reading even without ever having seen it on a manuscript. It is the method, for example, of finding out that though our eariest manuscript for Oedipus Rex is tenth century, textual criticism has restored the text quite a bit earlier, to the time of Maecenas. That is, our copy is as good as what he included in his library.
Jerry Jones wanted to know if the Cowboys were really America's Team, so he gathered the presidents of all the local fan clubs around the state and reviewed the writings of all the various members. Since the term "America's Team" was universally used to describe his team, Jerry concluded it was canon.
There are few things Cliffe said here that are undeniable. 1. Bart Ehrman is a head of religion department at UNC 2. He wrote books 3. 15,700 is a number
To use Cliffe's own words: he is intellectually dishonest. It's such a shame he has so much influence by preaching at colleges (while he always loses in professional debates).
@Bible-ChristianDefine "winning a debate". Is it providing the best evidence and logic, or simply essentially putting on a better show, and being better able to convince an audience not sufficiently acquainted with either the actual evidence, or what makes a valid argument? Or is it being able to present ideas or arguments to an audience who already accepts those ideas and arguments (ie, preaching to the choir)? As one who actually prefers and advocates for data over dogma, I'm pretty sure your concept of "winning a debate" is vastly different than mine. 🤔
@@therealsmalkYou are so right about this poster. They still haven't responded to a very simple and direct question I asked them in a previous video. It's amazing to me how religious apologists waste their time, energy, brain cells and peace of mind following Dan's channels. Their arguments always begin with begging the question/circular logic, and usually end with lobbing ad homineems/insults. BTW, "apologist scholar" is an oxymoron. 😄
@@Noneya5555Note that he responded to you by cut-and-pasting from ChatGPT. Even the most execrable apologists wouldn't engage in something this flat-out bizarre. I suspect "Bible-Christian" is a sincere believer (who really hates Islam) but is deliberately trying to provoke the atheists (and genuinely curious theists!) here. He claims not to care about Dr. McLellan and still obsessively stalks his comment sections.
No kidding! I'm getting ads from the Mormon Church, at the beginning of this very video, with beautiful young ladies telling me I should go to the Mormon Church and convert.
Questions. Why can't they tolerate criticism and skepticism? Is their faith so weak? Why do they lack so much courage and humility? Why do they cling to dogmas instead of living their faith?
Most Christian’s have never really thought through the early church and how crazy it really was. The early churches throughout the Roman Empire, were all run by formerly “pagan” recent converts -and these new guys were reading whatever random early writings circulated in that time period-many of which are no longer considered biblical canon today. Can you actually picture the religious chaotic Wild West that this was? Imagine Christians nowadays allowing former Wiccans or Muslims, or Buddhists, to run their churches and read and circulate any books they think are inspired, after having been converted recently…a few years or less. Christians haven’t thought what a joke that would be-welcome to early Christianity the first couple of centuries.
It's more chaotic than western buddhism's relationship with eastern buddhism - how zen and tibetan buddhism came to Europe and America and was received.
glad to see other people using the wild west analogy. that's been my go to for years, because it really was like that - almost an 'anything goes' basis until one group kinda banded up and inevitably "won". Sadly, some people believe that christians were with Jesus... and/or Jesus was "christian". I think if every church started off with "Jesus, a Jew..." I'd be willing to bet most people wouldn't be attending, unfortunately. For some reason we've come as far as some denominations / congregations antisemitic while worshiping a jewish man. Christianity has so much identity tied and made up into, it's not easy and won't ever be easy for people to accept even just the first few hundred years of the common era.
There wasnt even a single unified church in the first century. Jewish Christians split with Paul and his followers. And after the apostles were not more alive, people started claiming apostolic authority and gospels were written and attributed to them and the theology changed. The religion of Jesus became a religion about Jesus.
@@Ejaezy It IS wrong. I speak out against those modernist evangelicals just as much as do I against Catholicism just as much as I do against progressive "Christianity".
Thank you so much for the clarification regarding the acceptance of Revelation. Bart Ehrman certainly goes into a lot of detail in one of his podcasts regarding the fondness for the book that Chiliasts had and the role the book played in the Aryan Heresy, but the link with Athanasius was not mentioned. Great stuff!
My favorite part about the Bible coming together is the fact that God himself wasn’t a part of the process. So I’m suppose to believe that when it came to writing the Bible God couldn’t shut up but when it came time to decide which books are the spoken word of God and which ones weren’t he’s all of sudden a mute who is absent 🤣
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. In the modern sense of the word, we don't have manuscripts of the Bible at all. We simply don't have the originals. What we do have are a fair number of handwritten copies, which are loosely called "manuscripts", but are definitely not the versions first produced by the authors.
I never cease to be amazed at the sight of so many young people like in the video being critiqued here. In the UK where secularity is now so strong I think it would raise an eyebrow. I’m guessing that they’re all gathered at some religious centre however to find young British people (or politicians) so engaged is so, so rare.
So basically, the reality of the new testament is that: We don't know that what the original, mostly anonymous authors wrote was true; We don't know whether the books that were accepted were the best or most accurate writings; And, we don't know if the books as we have them today bear any resemblance to the original writings. So, we have the original writings that have no evidence of truth, that were chosen by a very partisan, very small group, and that may not be anything like the original writings. And there is no external evidence to support any of the major claims of christianity outside the bible. Sounds like the prefect basis to form your life and purpose around.
Expect that isn't how it actually works at all. When we say we have faith in God we are saying that we believe him, not that we have faith that he is real, we know for a fact he is real. That is the part you are missing. When you stop running from God and actually accept him then he makes it abundantly clear to you that he is real. Then the only question left is whether to trust God or to trust people, whom A LOT of know God is very real and just decided not to like him. The Bible is very clear on all of this actually.
@@willernst2721 You "KNOW" that god is real based on what? Your personal experience? Every fundamentalist in every religion has had exactly as reliable a personal experience. And if you have to have "faith" - "the conviction of things not seen" - then you are describing every cult in history. Sorry, but your entire certainty is based on "cause we feel it." That is not what I, or any rational person, would base their life on.
@@petercollins7730 you base every day of your life on what you see and feel don't you? So by your logic you are not a rational human being. I can tell you of God miraculously saving my life on more then one occasion but would that change your mind? I can tell you how to talk with God, would you try? I can tell you of every good thing God has done for me, would you listen? Out of curiosity, what would it take from God, if he were willing to do anything just so you would know he is real, what would you ask him to do? Just out of curiosity.
@@willernst2721 I base my life every day on evidence - things that I can see and hear and measure. I determine whether or not these things I see and hear and measure are actually occurring, in part by reference to other people also seeing and hearing and measuring them. I also use these objective facts and events to make accurate, actionable predictions about the future. You claim that god saved your life. How do you know this? Did you see your god come and perform some act that changed a life-threatening situation into a life-saving situation? Is there any actual empirical evidence of this? Are there other people who also saw your god perform this life-saving act? Or are you simply claiming that your faith, or some prayer, saved your life? What evidence do you have that it was your god, and not some other god? I have never heard any christian actually provide empirical evidence that their god did anything. If you have such evidence, please provide it. In general, when a person talks with, and gets answers from, an invisible, non-corporeal thing, it is consider a sign of serious mental illness. Unless you can show empirically that you are actually talking to, and receiving answers from, your god, then I am not interested. I cannot, honestly, tell you what evidence would convince me of your god's existence. But since you claim your god is all knowing and all powerful, then by definition your god knows what evidence would convince me. And since your god is claimed to want a relationship with every person, your god, if it existed, would provide this evidence, that it knows, to me. Your god has never provided any evidence whatsoever to me; therefore, I have no reason to believe in your god.
@@petercollins7730 This is false: "In general, when a person talks with, and gets answers from, an invisible, non-corporeal thing, it is consider a sign of serious mental illness." You are repeating claims about modern psychiatry that are invalid and based on bigotry over truth. Realist, correct thyself and go look up what the DSM-5 has to say about prayer versus delusional behavior.
The suggestion that a definite or indefinite article makes no difference, or a singular or plural makes no difference - just look at the translations of John 1 to see the difference the article makes: is it "the word was God," or "the word was a god?" He is really minimising how big a significance a small difference can be.
That does not vitiate his point. The variant "the word was a god" does not exist in any manuscript" And the variant "the word was God" could mean something distinct from the former -- or not. Greek did not then have an indefinite article. His point was that the *overwhelming majority* of textual difficulties are spelling errors tne the like. One of the first things a textual critic has to do is eliminate all of these, most of which are 'itacisms', use of one of the several ways to write the sound 'eeee' in Greek. Once these are cast aside, now we can look a variants that might turn out to be very interesting. But these variants are far fewer than Dan admits. Oh: both are ignoring the way the 'versions' (ancient translaations from Greek) are used in textual criticism.
@@SpectatorAlius the idea that whether something is an indefinite or definite article is significant in the example of John 1 - the Jehovah's Witnesses use the indefinite in the New World Translation because it supports their theology that there isn't a trinity in the way that the majority of Christians believe.
Good thing Revelation was eventually accepted because it's highly relevant today, especially how a significant part of the church has taken on the role of the false prophet.
They always cut off Bart’s quote about the variants. He almost always follows this up saying that most changes are inconsequential spelling changes that, as he puts it, shows the scribes couldn’t spell any better than his students. His point is not that there are huge variants (though there are some whoppers), but that it proves the text was absolutely not perfectly transferred.
There are over 500 to 600 thousand changes. Even if lets say 90% are "small" changes, we have 50 to 60.000 big changes. And a small change, can mean Jesus is God or not in a verse. E.g. In John 1 18 it says "the only begotten god vs only begotten son". This is by your defitnion a small change, because only one letter is different. But it has a big impact. Ehrman also says that we have no/ only a few early manuscripts and that most books were not written by the disciples or eyewitnesses. And for the Ot its maybe even more worse.
@@JopJio don’t put definitions in my mouth. “Small” in this context is something inconsequential like a spelling error or word transposition that doesn’t affect meaning. I said in my comment (if you even read the whole thing) that there are some major changes. The Textus Receptus shows there are some huge additions, including a blatant reference to the Trinity, that are not in the critical text. I commented because evangelicals try to make it seem like Ehrman is dishonestly representing changes to the manuscript. They never include the part where he himself says most are inconsequential, they make that claim themselves, thereby downplaying the significance of the big ones.
Cliffs Knechtle is still out there doing his thing? I remember him being asked around 40 years ago if he had a tomato in his sneaker as a lead in to a snarky question about belief. He may or may not have removed his sneaker to provide proof of no tomato, but that is lost to the mists of time.
The other important gap that's often overlooked is the one between the events and the first writing down of said events. We have absolutely no way of exactly verifying how the stories changed in that time, while they were passed on orally.
I agree with many of Dan's points. However, I would point out that Ehrman wrote on page 252 of the American version of Misquoting Jesus, "On page 252 in the US version of his book “Misquoting Jesus” he writes (speaking of Bruce Metzger, the Christian scholar who was his mentor and collaborator in at least one scholarly book), “Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times… If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement - maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in Misquoting Jesus does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament. What he means by that (I think) is that even if one or two passages that are used to argue for a belief have a different textual reading, there are still other passages that could be used to argue for the same belief. For the most part, I think that is true.”
I'm curious why is there no mention here of the early patristic preaching as an evidence of the accuracy of the NT? In evangelical thought, the gap that is talked about in this video (ie what happened between the time of the original writings and the appearance of the first manuscripts) is filled in somewhat by the patristic preaching. Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp refer to or sometimes quote directly from the NT by around 100 AD and this gives us reason to say that the NT was definitely in circulation before the end of the first century
First, what you call the NT didn't exist until the Bible was canonized. What existed in 100 CE are various writings that ended up in the NT. Second, no one doubts that writings existed. Dan is making the point that we don't have any examples from that era, and thus no direct evidence of what those writings contained.
@@avishevin3353judging by all the variants we have to Deal with in the earliest Copy’s of the NT writings cause none of them match. Plus like he said the gap between the writing and composition makes it very impossible to say that what we have now is what the original said.
@avishevin3353 When I say NT I am referring more specifically to the basic story of Jesus, his alleged life, death and resurrection. What is taught in evangelical seminaries is that the early patristic preaching, which is starting to appear as early as 96, has the same basic information as the gospels do. So the apologetic is that the information went from the apostles to the church fathers and this was before any canonization. So Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 (again this is taught in evangelical seminaries worldwide) is writing pre-gospels about information that was passed down to him within less than two decades of the alleged resurrection of Jesus. And so, the idea is that this information was being circulated, preached, transcribed within the lifetime of the contemporaries of the events themselves. This is what is taught, I am therefore curious to hear a rebuttal
@@josephfriedland4192 As I understand it, that's not the real issue. The issue is the too polite word "redaction". In other words, there is widespread agreement (except by the most fundamentalist crowd and even many of them) that the NT was _edited_. So, the issue becomes "how do we know what was added, subtracted, or altered?" even granting that there was (for instance) some original epistle by Paul. (Of course, scholars do not grant that _every_ epistle bearing his name came from Paul, but there is a subset that is widely agreed to even by "liberals" as coming from Paul).
"significant editorial changes to these texts" Not a scholar myself, but I've consistently read that there are some pretty major passages in Josephus that we know pretty surely to be later, possibly even medieval, introductions.
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1) idk how legit this is but this is something i found
apparently this was evidence that manuscripts other than greek probably existed but so far we only have the greek ones. I did also read up that there is a problem that the greek manuscripts were likely not translated from another language like aramaic or hebrew due to the reason that Matthew frequently quotes the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) rather than directly translating from the Hebrew Scriptures. These quotes often align with the Greek phrasing found in the Septuagint, which indicates a Greek-speaking audience and a Greek composition.
He said he isn't. So I really don't believe he is getting paid. This isn't just blind faith in his honesty. If he accepts payment after saying he doesn't he would be in violation of advertising laws. That isn't worth it. Either for the money, or the loss of credibility.
There is a degree of exclusivity inevitably tied to the production and consumption of these manuscripts, it was only those who were literate who could copy these texts or read them. The interests of that more educated strata of the Christian community must have had a particular influence on what texts were proliferated, and so it is not unreasonable to suppose that even in that earliest period there was an element of conscious selection by those in authority (although we cannot be certain of their criteria for selection). And whilst there wouldn't have been an organised effort by a closed room of VIPs, there would have been some cross-influence between the innumerable prominent local voices and leaders that made up the Early Christian community.
not trying to argue with Dan, but i did feel the more congregational picture he presents could have a bit of extra colour to it. Im sorry if i came across as rude at all.
do people like this every offer to debate? I'd love to see Dan have a debate with these guys, it would be interesting to see them go against someone other than a random student in a group on a campus.
I do think it is worth noting that 'accuracy' may have a couple of meanings here. Are the manuscripts consistent with each other? Do the manuscripts accurately depict the stories that were recorded? Do the manuscripts accurately reflect reality? If they do not - what parts are 'history' and what parts are allegory or metaphor? Of course - as you often point out - what is data and what is dogma? Does the accuracy in _any_ sense matter for dogma?
2:47 “Is the word singular, or plural? Is it a definite or an indefinite article?” Is the ending long, or short? Is the story in John, or Luke? Does it require prayer and fasting, or did an angel stir the waters? Can women speak in church or not?
he literally provided the sources. evangelicaltextualcriticism or something. google something like "early manuscripts evangelical textual criticism blog"
There's still no agreement to this day as to what should be included in the bible. Catholic bible = 73 books, Protestant bible = 66 books, Orthodox bible = 79 books etc. That's over a dozen books of variation between them, not a small amount by any stretch. And that's before you get to trying to pick a translation, try to decide what is literal verse metaphor and then try to figure out the interpretation that you want to believe.
In fact, the Slavonic Eastern Orthodox Churches (which is the majority) include 39 canonical and 11 non-canonical books in the composition of the Bible. The Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 decreed the Greek Orthodox canon which is similar to the one decided by the Council of Trent. However, because the Jerusalem Council was a neither ecumenical nor pan-Orthodox, its decrees were not obligatory unless accepted by all Orthodox Churches. So the Slavonic churches decided to follow the legacy of the greatest authorities such as Melito, Origen, Jerome, and especially Athanasius, who believed that books not included in the Hebrew canon could not have the same authority and were for reading and teaching only and not to be used for determination of doctrine (although the lists of books they mention do not completely match the Hebrew canon as we know it)
Am I the only one who thinks this setting is extraordinarily strange with people wearing military-style camouflage? And the speaker is just weird. And not just because he doesn't know how to buy a shirt that actually fits him.
can someone please give me an example of a variant that is significant in any way that would change the overall message of the gospel, or any of the following: Jesus is the Son of God, second person in Trinity, died for our sins, born of virgin, resurrected on 3rd day, etc? Also, should we just not consider all the 1st and 2nd century witnesses to the gospel such as: Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc.?
However, we do have a large number of very early lectures-sermons that quote from then existing manuscripts. The question is does these variants affect any significant Christian core beliefs
This is why I despise "Apologists" Truth is NEVER their concern, only coming up with questionably plausible explanations for inconsistencies that ANYONE reading the Bible can plainly see. No religion can withstand close scrutiny, that's why it's based on faith.
It's actually an accepted historical standard. There is an understanding they are less good, but still better than those farther removed. So, it's "eyewitness" as the best standard then "someone who directly talked to an eyewitness and reported what they were told" and below that, "anything else, start to worry it is rumor or legend." A lot of our history is, in fact, people who reported on an eyewitness. So are today's newspaper accounts which are treated as "the first draft of history". Obviously, the original speaker is better, but we don't always have one. And, we don't have modern ideas on reporting for many centuries after any ancient documents so "knew an eyewitness" is no different that "reported by an eyewitness" as far as veracity goes. Jesus himself, rather famously, wrote nothing, for instance. So, even here, "eyewitness" can be one step removed, at least when it comes to what Jesus said.
@@Andre.W96 Thanks heaps. I have been turning brightness to the minimum to save my eyes, though the video still looks overexposed. Was hoping there'd be a way to disable the auto brightening (on UA-cam) but it seems there isn't.
Hey @maklelan, I seem to recall that the early Church changed the order of the Hebrew Scriptures to make it work better as lead-up to the coming of the Messiah. Is that accurate?
I don't know the motivation, but the order in the Jewish ordering is, roughly, the Torah, the prophets, and the writings and the books ordered within the class they belong to. The Christians seem to be more interested in making it a more historical document and so reorder in what is meant to be the correct historical order and the books appear without regard to the three part distinction above.
No, it is not so for the gospels in particular - the four gospels were very early perceived as the most authoritative and authentic. Тhe churches have gone from less to 4 gospels. Most churches used only 1 gospel - most often John's in the East, and one of the Synoptics (or all 3) in the West. All the non-canonical gospels that we know of appeared later. All Christian writings from the first half of the 2nd century (The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, Justin Martyr' writings, Polycarp's epistels, etc.) quote some of the 4 Gospels. Tatian even wrote The Diatessaron (160-175 AD) by combining all the textual material he found in the four gospels - which is the most prominent early gospel harmony. The Muratorian Canon is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of most of the books of the New Testament. It was written in the late 2nd century (c. 170-200). The author accepts four Gospels, the last two of which are Luke and John, but the names of the first two at the beginning of the list are missing (scholars find it highly likely that the missing two gospels are Matthew and Mark).
@@vvalchanov like only your comment about the muratorian canon actually adresses the concern in my question my question: Lets say that we can prove that Pseudo Dionysius the Areopagite is from between year 500 and 600 given the referencial assumptions he make in his text - this doesn't mean that all the text comes from 500-600 a monk at 1000 might had had a disagreement with him which made the monk change the text. If the only copies we have of the text is from much later we might never know that the text has been changed. If Dionysius fx. only mentioned three gospels many monks likely must have thought it was a mistake.
@Dan McClellan, can you please clarify--when you say 100% correct after he says that the Council of Nicea did not put the New Testament together, do you mean that he is 100% correct in that they Council did not put the NT together?
The Council of Nicea did *not* put the NT together Ironically, it was onlly after the growth of the Web that this fake factoid became so common. Back in the 60s and 70s, *never* herd this. I think the rumor is based on the historical fact that the Emperor gave the Church about 60 copies of the Bible. But that is all it was: a a gift of a few copies, too few to have any effect on the transmission of the text.
1 john 5:7-8, John 7:53, John 8:11, Mark 16:9-20 , Mathew 17:21 just a few insertions deletions not found in original koine Greek new testament. Dan is 100% accurate. They also modified the hebrew Tanakh such as Isaiah 7:14 Virgin in future tense modification.
@@OrdoMallius no where in Hebrew scripture sources does God say he would send a man God idol trinity born of a virgin and become a human sacrifice calvary to die for world sins .. No where else in earli st original koine Greek New testament is Trinity found.. These are all later insertions. Amazingburger 🍔
@@Nudnik1but yet the Jewish nation and its people were obliterated and judged after than “man idol” said they would be. In the same generation actually. Explain that
@@TLW412 Actually not..We are still here if you did not notice And Israel 🇮🇱 . We are a nation of people even without land. Fact: There is no mention of Jesus or miracles apostles etc found anywhere in any historical record from any historian from that era. Everything written in your new testament came long after Temple was destroyed and Jesus supposably died being second third hand accounts. Also ,we do not believe HaShem G-d made a mistake and changed mind about eternal covenant made and promises to preserve Jews and instead sends a man God idol trinity human sacrifice calvary to die for world sins and replace Torah laws and Jews with a Greek new testament which curses Torah laws and Jews. Ps: Christianity was our longest persecutor in history in Europe and Russia and tried to exterminate us for centuries and failed . So G-d kept his promise obviously.
94% of all manuscripts are 800+ years later than the Nt itself and we have over +500.000 differences and Even forgeries. On top of that those books don't even go back to Jesus or the 12 apostles. Then we have lost books, lost gospels and a split within the early church, within Jewish and Pauline/hellenised Christianity. Jewish Christians had only one gospel in hebrew or Aramaic and didnt follow Paul. The next problem: for the Ot its even more worse. there is no accuracy at all.
Yeah, with the OT it's hard to even define what the "original version" would be. We know that most of those texts have layers of composition and editing.
What's funny is that the speaker Dr. McClellan is critiquing says that things like singular and definiteness are insignificant. Really? "He is The son of God" vs. "He is The son of Gods" vs. "He is A son of God" vs. "He is A son of Gods." Yeah, all those read the same.
I'm not sure anyone quite does it like Dan for the Bible, but UsefulCharts has some interesting breakdowns of other religious texts (and their histories in general). www.youtube.com/@UsefulCharts
The Young’s Literal Translation is translated from the original languages. There is a big difference between that translation and the others. The others have had changes made to them to suit the narrative of the powers that be. If people would study THAT version, they would see a totally different picture than the English to English translations.
@@ratamacue0320 He was an eyewitness to his own career and thus to both the early spread of the church and to the earliest debates within it. But I think the preacher actually said he knew eyewitnesses, not that he was one.
The variations between manuscripts really are small though. Differences in spelling make up around 70% of the variants. Alot of these are mispellings in the original text, and can’t even be replicated in English. Some of these can be replicated in English. As you point out, alot of the manuscripts are dated to after the 10th century A.D. Variations in these later manuscripts are not viable, even if they are meaningful. That’s another chunk of manuscript variants. When it comes to variations that are meaningful and viable, the total number comes to around less than 1% of manuscripts. I’m not a huge fan of Cliff, but there’s better areas (which are addressed in your response, to be fair) for doubt and questions to spring up. There’s evidence that reassures the accuracy of the NT.
You mean using copies of copies of copies of copies from an anonymous author and selecting only 4 gospels in the NT because there are 4 corners of the earth to spread it to? Ya, totally reliable.😂
What happened in the 10th Century CE that left so many more manuscripts? Is it just that it’s closer to the present day? The chart of manuscript counts is a nice looking bell curve, by the way.
Just think how much less nonsense we'd have to deal with if early majority opinion that Revelation is a load of hooey had prevailed.
@Bible-Christianor just dont stone children and women to death in the name of man made gods kthx
Nah, no reason to replace one fiction with another. Although mythologies are interesting in themselves, so long as we understand they aren't real. They can reveal much about the culture that created them. Even abandoned mythologies usually had a reason their culture finally rejects them.
Imagine being one of Harold Camping's victims and realizing you lost everything because 1600 years ago some guy named Athanasius talked everyone into including Revelation in the Bible at the last second.
Just think of how much less nonsense we’d have to deal with if people weren’t dumb enough to believe any religion.
@@MichaelDeHavenBingo!
"Misleading" is a polite characterization of what he's doing.
It's Cliff, "dishonest interlocutor" should be his middle name
@@Gdwmartin Oh? Cliff and Dan are both dishonest. In this video, one way they show their dishonesty is dazzling the audience with numbers without thinking about them statistcally. The truth is that Dan is overstating his case for significant variants before the late 2nd century. He is ignoring how textual criticism deduces the correct text for a reading even without ever having seen it on a manuscript. It is the method, for example, of finding out that though our eariest manuscript for Oedipus Rex is tenth century, textual criticism has restored the text quite a bit earlier, to the time of Maecenas. That is, our copy is as good as what he included in his library.
Jerry Jones wanted to know if the Cowboys were really America's Team, so he gathered the presidents of all the local fan clubs around the state and reviewed the writings of all the various members.
Since the term "America's Team" was universally used to describe his team, Jerry concluded it was canon.
Cue the screaming evangelicals. Cue the special pleading.
cue the 'victim' card . .
@@williamtomkiel8215 Evangelicals are too liberal. They hate the King James Bible and stick to their modern perversions.
@@williamtomkiel8215 ua-cam.com/video/4IApmqJYJGE/v-deo.htmlsi=30CVrEYa4uTzHamz
There are few things Cliffe said here that are undeniable.
1. Bart Ehrman is a head of religion department at UNC
2. He wrote books
3. 15,700 is a number
Hahahaha, I laughed out loud on that, got the flu as well so thank you, wonderfully put, I'm still smiling
The relief when Dan could point to *something* and say “100% correct.”
To use Cliffe's own words: he is intellectually dishonest.
It's such a shame he has so much influence by preaching at colleges (while he always loses in professional debates).
Um, no. Peter Ruckman was a kook. He thought the KJV was advanced revelation and even more accurate than any Greek text. That’s just crazy.
@Bible-ChristianDefine "winning a debate". Is it providing the best evidence and logic, or simply essentially putting on a better show, and being better able to convince an audience not sufficiently acquainted with either the actual evidence, or what makes a valid argument?
Or is it being able to present ideas or arguments to an audience who already accepts those ideas and arguments (ie, preaching to the choir)? As one who actually prefers and advocates for data over dogma, I'm pretty sure your concept of "winning a debate" is vastly different than mine. 🤔
@@Noneya5555 Don't interact with this guy, his whole schtick is making absurd, inflammatory claims and then running.
@@therealsmalkYou are so right about this poster. They still haven't responded to a very simple and direct question I asked them in a previous video.
It's amazing to me how religious apologists waste their time, energy, brain cells and peace of mind following Dan's channels. Their arguments always begin with begging the question/circular logic, and usually end with lobbing ad homineems/insults.
BTW, "apologist scholar" is an oxymoron. 😄
@@Noneya5555Note that he responded to you by cut-and-pasting from ChatGPT. Even the most execrable apologists wouldn't engage in something this flat-out bizarre. I suspect "Bible-Christian" is a sincere believer (who really hates Islam) but is deliberately trying to provoke the atheists (and genuinely curious theists!) here. He claims not to care about Dr. McLellan and still obsessively stalks his comment sections.
Please do not punch the pilot. He's trying to fly the plane
Lmao
I love your channel but WOW has it ever messed up my algorithm! 😂
No kidding! I'm getting ads from the Mormon Church, at the beginning of this very video, with beautiful young ladies telling me I should go to the Mormon Church and convert.
I love it when a UA-camr deals with this guy. I don't have the patience and his mannerisms make me nervous.
Cliff is very condescending
“Punches Pilot” 😂
The violent version of the Palm Pilot. Excuse me, Palm Pilate.
I saw that and it made me laugh, too.
Questions. Why can't they tolerate criticism and skepticism? Is their faith so weak? Why do they lack so much courage and humility? Why do they cling to dogmas instead of living their faith?
Most Christian’s have never really thought through the early church and how crazy it really was.
The early churches throughout the Roman Empire, were all run by formerly “pagan” recent converts -and these new guys were reading whatever random early writings circulated in that time period-many of which are no longer considered biblical canon today.
Can you actually picture the religious chaotic Wild West that this was?
Imagine Christians nowadays allowing former Wiccans or Muslims, or Buddhists, to run their churches and read and circulate any books they think are inspired, after having been converted recently…a few years or less.
Christians haven’t thought what a joke that would be-welcome to early Christianity the first couple of centuries.
It's more chaotic than western buddhism's relationship with eastern buddhism - how zen and tibetan buddhism came to Europe and America and was received.
Those hellenised Xtians on top of that rejected Jewish Christianity and vice versa. Today's Christianity is hellenised, not Jewish.
glad to see other people using the wild west analogy. that's been my go to for years, because it really was like that - almost an 'anything goes' basis until one group kinda banded up and inevitably "won".
Sadly, some people believe that christians were with Jesus... and/or Jesus was "christian". I think if every church started off with "Jesus, a Jew..." I'd be willing to bet most people wouldn't be attending, unfortunately. For some reason we've come as far as some denominations / congregations antisemitic while worshiping a jewish man. Christianity has so much identity tied and made up into, it's not easy and won't ever be easy for people to accept even just the first few hundred years of the common era.
There wasnt even a single unified church in the first century. Jewish Christians split with Paul and his followers. And after the apostles were not more alive, people started claiming apostolic authority and gospels were written and attributed to them and the theology changed. The religion of Jesus became a religion about Jesus.
@@JopJio exactly. And it’s clear from the writings of the“early church fathers” that the situation was worrisome.
The 9th commandment doesn’t seem to bother these guys
It’s not wrong if it’s lying for God I guess
@@Ejaezy Actually, I was told that directly by more than one preacher, who quoted Paul about doing whatever it takes to get converts.
@@andrewfrennier3494 Nothing surprises me anymore…
@@Ejaezy It IS wrong. I speak out against those modernist evangelicals just as much as do I against Catholicism just as much as I do against progressive "Christianity".
Thanks for being candid!!!!
Cliff walks like two miles during this session.
Thank you so much for the clarification regarding the acceptance of Revelation. Bart Ehrman certainly goes into a lot of detail in one of his podcasts regarding the fondness for the book that Chiliasts had and the role the book played in the Aryan Heresy, but the link with Athanasius was not mentioned. Great stuff!
My favorite part about the Bible coming together is the fact that God himself wasn’t a part of the process.
So I’m suppose to believe that when it came to writing the Bible God couldn’t shut up but when it came time to decide which books are the spoken word of God and which ones weren’t he’s all of sudden a mute who is absent 🤣
Yeah, it’s pretty convenient.
But it was _inspired!_
Thank you for your work
Sounds like Audience Approval was the biggest thing
about what writings made the grade to be included,
sort of like Marketing Focus Groups
I really appreciate your work here. 🙏 🌎
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. In the modern sense of the word, we don't have manuscripts of the Bible at all. We simply don't have the originals. What we do have are a fair number of handwritten copies, which are loosely called "manuscripts", but are definitely not the versions first produced by the authors.
Now I suppose Dan is going to argue that Genesis wasn’t written by a first hand witness! 😂
It became oral tradition after the serpent was cursed, lost his little serpent arms and legs and could not longer take notes.
@@toritori5835 😂
@@toritori5835😂
I never cease to be amazed at the sight of so many young people like in the video being critiqued here. In the UK where secularity is now so strong I think it would raise an eyebrow. I’m guessing that they’re all gathered at some religious centre however to find young British people (or politicians) so engaged is so, so rare.
They're standing in the middle of Mississippi State University (not a Christian school).
Paid extras.
Jk😅
Trust me in the US those evangelists sound totally nuts talking about demonic attack, ghosts, angels like it's normal!!!
So basically, the reality of the new testament is that:
We don't know that what the original, mostly anonymous authors wrote was true;
We don't know whether the books that were accepted were the best or most accurate writings;
And, we don't know if the books as we have them today bear any resemblance to the original writings.
So, we have the original writings that have no evidence of truth, that were chosen by a very partisan, very small group, and that may not be anything like the original writings. And there is no external evidence to support any of the major claims of christianity outside the bible.
Sounds like the prefect basis to form your life and purpose around.
Expect that isn't how it actually works at all. When we say we have faith in God we are saying that we believe him, not that we have faith that he is real, we know for a fact he is real. That is the part you are missing. When you stop running from God and actually accept him then he makes it abundantly clear to you that he is real. Then the only question left is whether to trust God or to trust people, whom A LOT of know God is very real and just decided not to like him. The Bible is very clear on all of this actually.
@@willernst2721 You "KNOW" that god is real based on what? Your personal experience? Every fundamentalist in every religion has had exactly as reliable a personal experience. And if you have to have "faith" - "the conviction of things not seen" - then you are describing every cult in history.
Sorry, but your entire certainty is based on "cause we feel it." That is not what I, or any rational person, would base their life on.
@@petercollins7730 you base every day of your life on what you see and feel don't you? So by your logic you are not a rational human being. I can tell you of God miraculously saving my life on more then one occasion but would that change your mind? I can tell you how to talk with God, would you try? I can tell you of every good thing God has done for me, would you listen? Out of curiosity, what would it take from God, if he were willing to do anything just so you would know he is real, what would you ask him to do? Just out of curiosity.
@@willernst2721 I base my life every day on evidence - things that I can see and hear and measure. I determine whether or not these things I see and hear and measure are actually occurring, in part by reference to other people also seeing and hearing and measuring them. I also use these objective facts and events to make accurate, actionable predictions about the future.
You claim that god saved your life. How do you know this? Did you see your god come and perform some act that changed a life-threatening situation into a life-saving situation? Is there any actual empirical evidence of this? Are there other people who also saw your god perform this life-saving act? Or are you simply claiming that your faith, or some prayer, saved your life? What evidence do you have that it was your god, and not some other god? I have never heard any christian actually provide empirical evidence that their god did anything. If you have such evidence, please provide it.
In general, when a person talks with, and gets answers from, an invisible, non-corporeal thing, it is consider a sign of serious mental illness. Unless you can show empirically that you are actually talking to, and receiving answers from, your god, then I am not interested.
I cannot, honestly, tell you what evidence would convince me of your god's existence. But since you claim your god is all knowing and all powerful, then by definition your god knows what evidence would convince me. And since your god is claimed to want a relationship with every person, your god, if it existed, would provide this evidence, that it knows, to me. Your god has never provided any evidence whatsoever to me; therefore, I have no reason to believe in your god.
@@petercollins7730 This is false: "In general, when a person talks with, and gets answers from, an invisible, non-corporeal thing, it is consider a sign of serious mental illness." You are repeating claims about modern psychiatry that are invalid and based on bigotry over truth. Realist, correct thyself and go look up what the DSM-5 has to say about prayer versus delusional behavior.
😅😅😅 8:30 - 8:32 The captions: " the Gospel of punches Pilot " 😂😂😂
I know I’m gonna be an outlier here but I love the Bible even more as I learn about it from a scholarly perspective with data! It’s amazing!
The Bible is an excellent book for promoting racism
I know, I really love Exodus 21:20. It's OK to own other human beings as property! Now I can sit back while my slaves work for me and make me rich!
If by "amazing" you mean "xenophobic batshit crazy rantings barely held together with chewing gum," then I'm right there with you.
The suggestion that a definite or indefinite article makes no difference, or a singular or plural makes no difference - just look at the translations of John 1 to see the difference the article makes: is it "the word was God," or "the word was a god?" He is really minimising how big a significance a small difference can be.
I remember Ehrman giving a simple example in English in the first chapter of _Misquoting Jesus_ about this too.
That does not vitiate his point. The variant "the word was a god" does not exist in any manuscript" And the variant "the word was God" could mean something distinct from the former -- or not. Greek did not then have an indefinite article.
His point was that the *overwhelming majority* of textual difficulties are spelling errors tne the like. One of the first things a textual critic has to do is eliminate all of these, most of which are 'itacisms', use of one of the several ways to write the sound 'eeee' in Greek. Once these are cast aside, now we can look a variants that might turn out to be very interesting. But these variants are far fewer than Dan admits.
Oh: both are ignoring the way the 'versions' (ancient translaations from Greek) are used in textual criticism.
@@SpectatorAlius the idea that whether something is an indefinite or definite article is significant in the example of John 1 - the Jehovah's Witnesses use the indefinite in the New World Translation because it supports their theology that there isn't a trinity in the way that the majority of Christians believe.
Punches Pilot slayed me.
Good thing Revelation was eventually accepted because it's highly relevant today, especially how a significant part of the church has taken on the role of the false prophet.
As usual, great video. Was wondering if there is any Bible software that you recommend? Currently using Logos but it's a bit complicated. Thanks!
Was waiting for you to get to Revelation. Wish you'd expanded more on the subject.
They always cut off Bart’s quote about the variants. He almost always follows this up saying that most changes are inconsequential spelling changes that, as he puts it, shows the scribes couldn’t spell any better than his students. His point is not that there are huge variants (though there are some whoppers), but that it proves the text was absolutely not perfectly transferred.
There are over 500 to 600 thousand changes. Even if lets say 90% are "small" changes, we have 50 to 60.000 big changes. And a small change, can mean Jesus is God or not in a verse. E.g. In John 1 18 it says "the only begotten god vs only begotten son". This is by your defitnion a small change, because only one letter is different. But it has a big impact.
Ehrman also says that we have no/ only a few early manuscripts and that most books were not written by the disciples or eyewitnesses. And for the Ot its maybe even more worse.
Misquoting Ehrman
@@JopJio don’t put definitions in my mouth. “Small” in this context is something inconsequential like a spelling error or word transposition that doesn’t affect meaning. I said in my comment (if you even read the whole thing) that there are some major changes. The Textus Receptus shows there are some huge additions, including a blatant reference to the Trinity, that are not in the critical text.
I commented because evangelicals try to make it seem like Ehrman is dishonestly representing changes to the manuscript. They never include the part where he himself says most are inconsequential, they make that claim themselves, thereby downplaying the significance of the big ones.
@@Rhewin sorry, i thought you was one of those evangelicals. My bad👍
@@JopJiohmmm
Hey Dan, have you a video on nah Hammadi texts and the gnostics?
Cliffs Knechtle is still out there doing his thing? I remember him being asked around 40 years ago if he had a tomato in his sneaker as a lead in to a snarky question about belief. He may or may not have removed his sneaker to provide proof of no tomato, but that is lost to the mists of time.
Just finished John Barton's "A History of the Bible" based on Dan's recommendation. Great book if you want to dive into this topic mre deeply.
The other important gap that's often overlooked is the one between the events and the first writing down of said events. We have absolutely no way of exactly verifying how the stories changed in that time, while they were passed on orally.
Which also makes all these scholarships moot. Nice we have no way of knowing them it doesn’t matter
I agree with many of Dan's points. However, I would point out that Ehrman wrote on page 252 of the American version of Misquoting Jesus, "On page 252 in the US version of his book “Misquoting Jesus” he writes (speaking of Bruce Metzger, the Christian scholar who was his mentor and collaborator in at least one scholarly book), “Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times… If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement - maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in Misquoting Jesus does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament. What he means by that (I think) is that even if one or two passages that are used to argue for a belief have a different textual reading, there are still other passages that could be used to argue for the same belief. For the most part, I think that is true.”
I would like to see this type of study for Quranic manuscripts.
why
@@clearskybluewaters why not
i would too, except that it'll have a significant mortality rate
@@EnemyOfEldar Check out the Journal for Islamic Law and Culture.
@@EnemyOfEldar Try Shady Nassir and Marijn van Putten. Probably two of two best academic Quranic scholars.
Very informative.
👍 New lighting
Thank you.
I'm curious why is there no mention here of the early patristic preaching as an evidence of the accuracy of the NT? In evangelical thought, the gap that is talked about in this video (ie what happened between the time of the original writings and the appearance of the first manuscripts) is filled in somewhat by the patristic preaching. Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp refer to or sometimes quote directly from the NT by around 100 AD and this gives us reason to say that the NT was definitely in circulation before the end of the first century
First, what you call the NT didn't exist until the Bible was canonized. What existed in 100 CE are various writings that ended up in the NT. Second, no one doubts that writings existed. Dan is making the point that we don't have any examples from that era, and thus no direct evidence of what those writings contained.
@@avishevin3353judging by all the variants we have to
Deal with in the earliest Copy’s of the NT writings cause none of them match. Plus like he said the gap between the writing and composition makes it very impossible to say that what we have now is what the original said.
@avishevin3353 When I say NT I am referring more specifically to the basic story of Jesus, his alleged life, death and resurrection. What is taught in evangelical seminaries is that the early patristic preaching, which is starting to appear as early as 96, has the same basic information as the gospels do. So the apologetic is that the information went from the apostles to the church fathers and this was before any canonization. So Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 (again this is taught in evangelical seminaries worldwide) is writing pre-gospels about information that was passed down to him within less than two decades of the alleged resurrection of Jesus. And so, the idea is that this information was being circulated, preached, transcribed within the lifetime of the contemporaries of the events themselves. This is what is taught, I am therefore curious to hear a rebuttal
@@josephfriedland4192 As I understand it, that's not the real issue. The issue is the too polite word "redaction". In other words, there is widespread agreement (except by the most fundamentalist crowd and even many of them) that the NT was _edited_.
So, the issue becomes "how do we know what was added, subtracted, or altered?" even granting that there was (for instance) some original epistle by Paul. (Of course, scholars do not grant that _every_ epistle bearing his name came from Paul, but there is a subset that is widely agreed to even by "liberals" as coming from Paul).
"significant editorial changes to these texts" Not a scholar myself, but I've consistently read that there are some pretty major passages in Josephus that we know pretty surely to be later, possibly even medieval, introductions.
I love that the graph appears on his face. It m akes it look like he is "letting the data speak", which all great scholars should do.
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1) idk how legit this is but this is something i found
apparently this was evidence that manuscripts other than greek probably existed but so far we only have the greek ones. I did also read up that there is a problem that the greek manuscripts were likely not translated from another language like aramaic or hebrew due to the reason that Matthew frequently quotes the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) rather than directly translating from the Hebrew Scriptures. These quotes often align with the Greek phrasing found in the Septuagint, which indicates a Greek-speaking audience and a Greek composition.
Just downloaded biblingo because of this
... So maybe he should be getting paid?
@@azurejesterI approve this message
@@azurejesterhe probably is
He said he isn't. So I really don't believe he is getting paid. This isn't just blind faith in his honesty. If he accepts payment after saying he doesn't he would be in violation of advertising laws. That isn't worth it. Either for the money, or the loss of credibility.
hmm. pt 2 to this one I'm guessing since it abruptly ended.
There is a degree of exclusivity inevitably tied to the production and consumption of these manuscripts, it was only those who were literate who could copy these texts or read them. The interests of that more educated strata of the Christian community must have had a particular influence on what texts were proliferated, and so it is not unreasonable to suppose that even in that earliest period there was an element of conscious selection by those in authority (although we cannot be certain of their criteria for selection). And whilst there wouldn't have been an organised effort by a closed room of VIPs, there would have been some cross-influence between the innumerable prominent local voices and leaders that made up the Early Christian community.
not trying to argue with Dan, but i did feel the more congregational picture he presents could have a bit of extra colour to it. Im sorry if i came across as rude at all.
do people like this every offer to debate? I'd love to see Dan have a debate with these guys, it would be interesting to see them go against someone other than a random student in a group on a campus.
I do think it is worth noting that 'accuracy' may have a couple of meanings here.
Are the manuscripts consistent with each other?
Do the manuscripts accurately depict the stories that were recorded?
Do the manuscripts accurately reflect reality? If they do not - what parts are 'history' and what parts are allegory or metaphor?
Of course - as you often point out - what is data and what is dogma? Does the accuracy in _any_ sense matter for dogma?
2:47 “Is the word singular, or plural? Is it a definite or an indefinite article?”
Is the ending long, or short?
Is the story in John, or Luke?
Does it require prayer and fasting, or did an angel stir the waters?
Can women speak in church or not?
Thanks!
I love the indifference of the bystanding teens.
"THE COUNCIL OF NICER"
*nicer bishops' hats and robes
*nicer singing voices and dance moves
*nicer theology
*nicer canon
😀👍
If only it had led to a nicer religion.
Your comment is nicer than most. Lol
Dan: Can you please provide a link to the Peter Gurry graph?
he literally provided the sources. evangelicaltextualcriticism or something. google something like "early manuscripts evangelical textual criticism blog"
There's still no agreement to this day as to what should be included in the bible. Catholic bible = 73 books, Protestant bible = 66 books, Orthodox bible = 79 books etc. That's over a dozen books of variation between them, not a small amount by any stretch. And that's before you get to trying to pick a translation, try to decide what is literal verse metaphor and then try to figure out the interpretation that you want to believe.
More books is better books.
Kinda shows that the Orthodox will believe ANYTHING.
In fact, the Slavonic Eastern Orthodox Churches (which is the majority) include 39 canonical and 11 non-canonical books in the composition of the Bible.
The Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 decreed the Greek Orthodox canon which is similar to the one decided by the Council of Trent. However, because the Jerusalem Council was a neither ecumenical nor pan-Orthodox, its decrees were not obligatory unless accepted by all Orthodox Churches.
So the Slavonic churches decided to follow the legacy of the greatest authorities such as Melito, Origen, Jerome, and especially Athanasius, who believed that books not included in the Hebrew canon could not have the same authority and were for reading and teaching only and not to be used for determination of doctrine (although the lists of books they mention do not completely match the Hebrew canon as we know it)
Then you have the "King James only" crowd. They're always a lot of fun.
Am I the only one who thinks this setting is extraordinarily strange with people wearing military-style camouflage? And the speaker is just weird. And not just because he doesn't know how to buy a shirt that actually fits him.
they're wearing camo to hide from the guy, but it doesn't work because he has predator heat vision
can someone please give me an example of a variant that is significant in any way that would change the overall message of the gospel, or any of the following: Jesus is the Son of God, second person in Trinity, died for our sins, born of virgin, resurrected on 3rd day, etc?
Also, should we just not consider all the 1st and 2nd century witnesses to the gospel such as: Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc.?
What about someone's cousin claimed to have spent a night with an eye-witness?
However, we do have a large number of very early lectures-sermons that quote from then existing manuscripts. The question is does these variants affect any significant Christian core beliefs
This is why I despise "Apologists" Truth is NEVER their concern, only coming up with questionably plausible explanations for inconsistencies that ANYONE reading the Bible can plainly see. No religion can withstand close scrutiny, that's why it's based on faith.
“Somebody who knew an eyewitness…”, worries me as criteria.
It's actually an accepted historical standard. There is an understanding they are less good, but still better than those farther removed.
So, it's "eyewitness" as the best standard then "someone who directly talked to an eyewitness and reported what they were told" and below that, "anything else, start to worry it is rumor or legend."
A lot of our history is, in fact, people who reported on an eyewitness. So are today's newspaper accounts which are treated as "the first draft of history". Obviously, the original speaker is better, but we don't always have one. And, we don't have modern ideas on reporting for many centuries after any ancient documents so "knew an eyewitness" is no different that "reported by an eyewitness" as far as veracity goes.
Jesus himself, rather famously, wrote nothing, for instance. So, even here, "eyewitness" can be one step removed, at least when it comes to what Jesus said.
Thank you for that viewpoint.
Can you make a video with actual evidence showing many of these major textual variants?
Does anyone know why some of Dan's videos increase the screen brightness? Is it just me this is happening to? It hurts my eyes :(
His videos are in hdr which is a brighter more colorful format put your phone in power saving mode to turn it off
@@Andre.W96 Thanks heaps. I have been turning brightness to the minimum to save my eyes, though the video still looks overexposed. Was hoping there'd be a way to disable the auto brightening (on UA-cam) but it seems there isn't.
Hey @maklelan, I seem to recall that the early Church changed the order of the Hebrew Scriptures to make it work better as lead-up to the coming of the Messiah. Is that accurate?
I don't know the motivation, but the order in the Jewish ordering is, roughly, the Torah, the prophets, and the writings and the books ordered within the class they belong to. The Christians seem to be more interested in making it a more historical document and so reorder in what is meant to be the correct historical order and the books appear without regard to the three part distinction above.
This comment was written by a man called Henry, who had a wooden leg.
Writing it over and over again will make it true.
Thanks Hank.
What are the manuscript history of the church fathers? I imagine that their lists of important gospels could have been changed as well.
No, it is not so for the gospels in particular - the four gospels were very early perceived as the most authoritative and authentic.
Тhe churches have gone from less to 4 gospels. Most churches used only 1 gospel - most often John's in the East, and one of the Synoptics (or all 3) in the West. All the non-canonical gospels that we know of appeared later.
All Christian writings from the first half of the 2nd century (The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, Justin Martyr' writings, Polycarp's epistels, etc.) quote some of the 4 Gospels.
Tatian even wrote The Diatessaron (160-175 AD) by combining all the textual material he found in the four gospels - which is the most prominent early gospel harmony.
The Muratorian Canon is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of most of the books of the New Testament. It was written in the late 2nd century (c. 170-200). The author accepts four Gospels, the last two of which are Luke and John, but the names of the first two at the beginning of the list are missing (scholars find it highly likely that the missing two gospels are Matthew and Mark).
@@vvalchanov like only your comment about the muratorian canon actually adresses the concern in my question my question: Lets say that we can prove that Pseudo Dionysius the Areopagite is from between year 500 and 600 given the referencial assumptions he make in his text - this doesn't mean that all the text comes from 500-600 a monk at 1000 might had had a disagreement with him which made the monk change the text. If the only copies we have of the text is from much later we might never know that the text has been changed. If Dionysius fx. only mentioned three gospels many monks likely must have thought it was a mistake.
I was at the edge of sleep when i wrote that, sorry about the grammar
@Dan McClellan, can you please clarify--when you say 100% correct after he says that the Council of Nicea did not put the New Testament together, do you mean that he is 100% correct in that they Council did not put the NT together?
The Council of Nicea did *not* put the NT together
Ironically, it was onlly after the growth of the Web that this fake factoid became so common. Back in the 60s and 70s, *never* herd this.
I think the rumor is based on the historical fact that the Emperor gave the Church about 60 copies of the Bible. But that is all it was: a a gift of a few copies, too few to have any effect on the transmission of the text.
What is 100% correct, Cliffe's statement or the idea that Nicea was where they put together the New Testament?
Cliffe’s statement. The Council of Nicaea (or Nicer, if you will) did not put the NT together as many will claim.
Dan can u do this one?
ua-cam.com/users/shortsG_NzbDEZyf4?si=GWC8Tz4vFUdZJyTE
1 john 5:7-8, John 7:53, John 8:11, Mark 16:9-20 , Mathew 17:21 just a few insertions deletions not found in original koine Greek new testament.
Dan is 100% accurate.
They also modified the hebrew Tanakh such as Isaiah 7:14 Virgin in future tense modification.
And every single one of those phrases or ideas can be found often in multiple places in the bible. Aka nothingburger
@@OrdoMallius no where in Hebrew scripture sources does God say he would send a man God idol trinity born of a virgin and become a human sacrifice calvary to die for world sins ..
No where else in earli st original koine Greek New testament is Trinity found..
These are all later insertions.
Amazingburger 🍔
@@Nudnik1but yet the Jewish nation and its people were obliterated and judged after than “man idol” said they would be. In the same generation actually. Explain that
@@TLW412 Actually not..We are still here if you did not notice And Israel 🇮🇱 .
We are a nation of people even without land.
Fact: There is no mention of Jesus or miracles apostles etc found anywhere in any historical record from any historian from that era.
Everything written in your new testament came long after Temple was destroyed and Jesus supposably died being second third hand accounts.
Also ,we do not believe HaShem G-d made a mistake and changed mind about eternal covenant made and promises to preserve Jews and instead sends a man God idol trinity human sacrifice calvary to die for world sins and replace Torah laws and Jews with a Greek new testament which curses Torah laws and Jews.
Ps: Christianity was our longest persecutor in history in Europe and Russia and tried to exterminate us for centuries and failed .
So G-d kept his promise obviously.
Infinitesimal.
The question was about the church changing scripture to further their agenda.
He didn't come close to answering the question.
I thought it was the council of Hippo that decided on the canon and Nicea just discussed the trinity.
I think basing things from the critics, of course they are critics what do you expect? So we are confident that new testament is true
Answer no. Next question.
Even if we one day found the original manuscript penned by the author of Mark himself, how would we know? The simple answer is, we wouldn't.
The Gospel of Pilate is a modern novel. Maybe we should be generous and assume he meant the Acts of Pilate.
Do you think that the Cinderella, Harry Potter, and king Arthur texts are accurate? Just asking!
Non eye witnesses and anonymous. How crappy can the evidence get?
How much of the new testament can be pieced together from the church father correspondence from the 1st century?
94% of all manuscripts are 800+ years later than the Nt itself and we have over +500.000 differences and Even forgeries. On top of that those books don't even go back to Jesus or the 12 apostles. Then we have lost books, lost gospels and a split within the early church, within Jewish and Pauline/hellenised Christianity. Jewish Christians had only one gospel in hebrew or Aramaic and didnt follow Paul.
The next problem: for the Ot its even more worse. there is no accuracy at all.
Yeah, with the OT it's hard to even define what the "original version" would be. We know that most of those texts have layers of composition and editing.
Dan whats the earliest .manuscript of josephus ? Lol.
He's making the mistake of presupposing univicality.
Please do one for Quran as well. Thanks
He isn't a Quranic scholar. Please go ask someone who is.
@@lysanamcmillan7972 It's always nice to see how the Western Scholarship approaches it.
Betteridge's law of headlines says: no.
What's funny is that the speaker Dr. McClellan is critiquing says that things like singular and definiteness are insignificant. Really? "He is The son of God" vs. "He is The son of Gods" vs. "He is A son of God" vs. "He is A son of Gods." Yeah, all those read the same.
This is such an interesting channel. Can anyone point me to a content creator doing similar posts about the Koran or other religious texts?
I'm not sure anyone quite does it like Dan for the Bible, but UsefulCharts has some interesting breakdowns of other religious texts (and their histories in general). www.youtube.com/@UsefulCharts
@@reaurt Thank you!
Before the Reformation,
The Young’s Literal Translation is translated from the original languages. There is a big difference between that translation and the others. The others have had changes made to them to suit the narrative of the powers that be. If people would study THAT version, they would see a totally different picture than the English to English translations.
What is the big difference if you don't happen to mind sharing?
Cliffe being misleading? Amazing.
Is the claim not that we could see possible changes over time and that there is no significant difference.
I just learned that Paul was an eye witness.
To what?
Presumably you're being facetious. But I would be inclined to pose that question to anyone seriously making the claim.
@@ratamacue0320 He was an eyewitness to his own career and thus to both the early spread of the church and to the earliest debates within it.
But I think the preacher actually said he knew eyewitnesses, not that he was one.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 IMO the relevant event is witnessing a supposedly corporeal resurrected Jesus - not any of the things you mentioned.
The variations between manuscripts really are small though. Differences in spelling make up around 70% of the variants. Alot of these are mispellings in the original text, and can’t even be replicated in English. Some of these can be replicated in English.
As you point out, alot of the manuscripts are dated to after the 10th century A.D. Variations in these later manuscripts are not viable, even if they are meaningful. That’s another chunk of manuscript variants.
When it comes to variations that are meaningful and viable, the total number comes to around less than 1% of manuscripts.
I’m not a huge fan of Cliff, but there’s better areas (which are addressed in your response, to be fair) for doubt and questions to spring up. There’s evidence that reassures the accuracy of the NT.
You mean using copies of copies of copies of copies from an anonymous author and selecting only 4 gospels in the NT because there are 4 corners of the earth to spread it to? Ya, totally reliable.😂
"How can we defend against
Preacher: Lie
What happened in the 10th Century CE that left so many more manuscripts? Is it just that it’s closer to the present day? The chart of manuscript counts is a nice looking bell curve, by the way.
The music in the original video clearly picked to manipulate you
3:00 - Gotta like his example. Imagine it if there was one, or many messiah? Or one or many gods? One or many donkeys? Such small changes...