From a "devotion to God" standpoint, "close enough" should be sufficient, but there are still those that want to hold to biblical inerrancy. OP wants to have it both ways thinking that close enough can be rounded up to 100%
My friend, do you mean to say that your ancestors are not your grandparents since there is no proof that your parents are their descendants because there are no manuscripts to prove it? More often than not, it's clear that you're not going to believe it, whether you're given proof or not. You want books written on papyrus to be preserved as if they were made of "stones, iron or je ne sais quoi...." You're funny... Check out what it cost to write stuff back then.... They don't write to meet your modern standards, otherwise you'd have to tell us how you did it back then. The manuscripts of great figures like Plato, Pliny the Younger... are not comparable to those of the NT, and yet you accept them and give them the names of those they're supposed to be about... I wonder why your point of view is so skeptical.... The so-called changes don't affect the teachings that are there, but you scream as if it's something very detrimental that causes you not to believe. The fact is, you had never believed before you evaluated anything, but you evaluated the content to support your unbelief. We've checked the accuracy of the teachings and their main purpose, and we've discovered that the message is the same: Salvation is in JESUS. The church fathers wrote a lot about the same thing, and it was even obvious when you see the opposition between the positions of many people before Nicaea. I drop my pen 🖊️.
Bart Ehrman said he doesn't like to deal with percentages because if you a 100 word statement, and one copy says "They like the following" and the other says, "They don't like the following", percentage-wise that's a small change, but meaning-wise it's a huge change.
The famous one being where Jesus turned in anger or compassion, at the woman who touched his robe. Makes a huge difference in the story, but is a single word
When that estimate pops up, I always want to ask "...accurate as compared to what? The autographs? Do we have those? The originals? What even is the original, and how would we know that we found one?"
You always provide helpful insights, Dan. Sadly during my evangelical years, I quoted many of the errors you cite. I didn't know better. Bible contradictions opened me up to scholarly criticism that helped me understand what the Bible is and isn't.
The word "manuscript" is used very carelessly. In modern use it means the work of an author before it's submitted for printing. When referring to ancient texts, it means a hand-written document. So when people claim that there are thousands of manuscripts, they conjure up an idea of piles of documents composed by ancient author. In reality, these are hand-written copies that were never subjected to any kind of quality control.
It also sounds, at least to me, when they say 'we have a manuscript of the Gospel of John' like they have a copy of the book of John, but in actuality, it often means that they have a tiny fragment of single page with a few words on it.
I will add that at some point the Jews got very serious about copying things accurately by hand, but I am not precisely sure when this occurred. After 70AD, for sure.
@@PrometheanRising Yes! I think that's why Dr Mcclellan uses the phrase "witness to the text". It might also be that we have fragments that contains text that was part of the Gospel of John, but never made it to the version we have today.
Black hole 1 is the gap between the first writings and the earliest surviving manuscripts. Black hole 2 is the gap between the oral traditions and the first writings.
@@rainbowkrampus Without a time machine we can’t and don’t know for sure. It's likely the current gospels are a mix of oral traditions, written traditions like the hypothetical Q document, total fabrications, midrash of OT stories, etc. But any potential oral traditions could all be totally fictional.
@@jon4574 Paul straight up says that we know Jesus from scripture. The gospel writers were pretty clearly using Greco Roman literature as foundations for their stories. The more likely scenario is that the writers used Paul's letters, some assortment of jewish scripture and Greco Roman literature to invent the gospels. That is, we can explain the gospel with a textual tradition. There's no room for an oral tradition. So, during your proposed black hole, they were using jewish scripture and pesher to demonstrate the messiah. We have no evidence for oral tradition informing the gospels and we have no evidence for oral tradition from the one source we have during the black hole. So asserting an oral tradition as more likely is erroneous.
@@rainbowkrampus Definitely are threads of Greco Roman influence. Most scholars must be wrong if you're correct, which they could be. Ehrman and Allison are solid and argue for oral tradition, such as in Bart's, "Jesus Before the Gospels".
I took a couple Calvary Chapel associated seminary courses that were unfortunately taught by Geisler. I left evangelicalism since, but remember hiw everyone held him in such high regard, but in addition to his terrible and boring lectures (just reading from PowerPoint slides verbatim) it was easy to see how much of a faux intellect and scholar he was. His insights were no more informed than any other average conservative pastor who just works backwards from their conclusion that the bible is inerrant as a dogma. Don't get me started on his laughable approach to apologetics! It's crazy how so many see him as a legitimate scholar.
For me, the biggest problem with the claim that "The New Testament is 99.5% textually accurate" is, so what if it is? I mean, so what if it were 100% textually accurate? We have lots of versions of the Wizard of Oz in print these days. We also have the original first edition written by Baum. And? This has no bearing on whether any of it is true. It all seems to be based on the assumption that the first edition is somehow more true. We wouldn't make that assumption for any other book. Whether it is true or not has to be based on how it correlates to reality.
It's responding to the claim that atheists very often make, "The Bible has been rewritten and translated dozens of times". I'm sure you've seen someone say that before. As for Dan's assessment, the simple fact is that the NT is a very stable text. It's not true that we can't have a reasonable level of assurance about what 99% of it says. We can. To posit that the black hole would reveal some sort of fundamental rewrite is just lunacy.
1:25 Wikipedia has a "list of new testament papyri" that covers the same ground as the excellent chart you posted. The ancient "manuscripts" of the first few centuries consist of little more than a few sentences to a few pages, and there are only a few dozen of them.
@MichaelTHEARKGEESTATHE1Wikipedia isn't government-funded. And do you really think that Dan got most of his considerable knowledge from Wikipedia? Or are you simply being deliberately obtuse for some misguided attempt at trolling?
@MichaelTHEARKGEESTATHE1Obviously only fundagelical dark money isn't dirty, on account of how much they've laundered it, correct? Surely those terrorist-funders in the Hobby Lobby have the right of it? 😂🤡
@MichaelTHEARKGEESTATHE1And you have a list of the oldest extant papyri that differs from this one, and can produce links to them? Because you're not making a case here other than you don't know what you're talking about.
@MichaelTHEARKGEESTATHE1 Conspiracy Theory much? In that case, try this on for size: From the very start of the brewing $#!t$t0rm of W-T-F'ery that later became known as "Christianity, governments had-and-maintained an active hand of influence (forces of push and pull) in the development of Xianity's stories, texts, and dogmas. When it comes, more specifically, to the money trail, ... Quite often, along the way, funding sources carried direct conflicts of interests. And it wasn't rare for those sources to be directly or indirectly governmental. Even when it comes to the "gospels", each "book" in order they were written carried greater and greater hints of direct governmental involvement. This becomes very obvious with the book we now call "Luke"; as demonstrated in the NonStampCollector video "Luke. The Alternative Facts Gospel". NonStampCollector doesn't mention government. But he does make a solid case for an unknown figure with a pro-Roman agenda wielding direct influence over the anonymous writer. It's equally obvious when we consider that the writers were very well educated (per that time-and-place's educational standards). That means they had money. And that means they probably had close ties to local Government. Money Is Power. Power seeks more power. Most monetary power originated with close ties to government. Government was also where quest for power was more readily facilitated. Christianity didn't develop on an isolated island or in a vacuum, Organized religion is itself a "power structure". Authoritarian religions are power-focused. They are, in all actuality, forms of government. And to the extent their organized functions are unethical and/or criminal, they are (also) a form of mafia. Power corrupts. Governments inevitably take on the form and function of mafias. Rome was extra-especially a mafia. Mafias do not tolerate rivals operating on their own turf. But they'd tolerate a lesser "family" if that family pays tribute and indulges quid-pro-quo deals off-book. Starting off, Christianity came FROM a sect of Judaism. Judaic sects had an established (public) reputation as being bitter rivals to the Ruling Powers they found themselves under; Rome included. In order to thrive out in the open, organized authoritarian religions must establish a symbiotic relationship with the crown power of any land in which it operates. Quite often, over these 2000 years, Christianity actually became the formal governments of the lands in which they thrived. Whenever they couldn't climb that high in a society's larger power structure, they'd settle for as much power within that system as they could leverage. So if we say that any ties to government power (even funding, as power) means that everything a source says is automatically suspect (especially to the point of being instantly dismissible), then we should throw out everything in bibles. Even the modern KJV (a cult favorite among modern Evangelicals) was named after that King specifically because he "authorized" that project; to help with his own interests. But when it comes to Dan's work, the government has no motivated interest in seeing him decry any brand of fundamentalism. And that really is the only situation to watch for. Although, if I personally ever saw any government actively trying to help their society overcome the grips of radically dangerous fundamentalist religiosity, I'd cheer openly for that. IMHO, governments are recklessly irresponsible in how much the 'turn a blind eye' to the societal-cancer of Abrahamic fundamentalism. But to set that point aside, ... There is also nothing in the Dan's contract (a contact of employment with a university; not with his government) and nothing in his region's political happenings that would influence his his work (neither directly nor indirectly). -UNLIKE Christian-specific schools that require a "Statement of faith" that obligates professors to always agree with their employer's religious beliefs.
Outstanding work, as always sir. You are a shining beacon on a hill, if you’ll forgive the metaphor, for other religious folks to show how data should be more important than dogma.
I'd say that dating P52 to 125 CE is extremely generous, given the range of 125-175 on its dating. I'm annoyed by this because some apologists like to make the false claim that we have 6,000 manuscripts from 125 CE. We don't, and I know you know their claim is false, but I'm always going to bring up the range when I discuss it because it more accurately shows how big that black hole is.
I believe a form of carbon dating is used. Because it makes perfect sense that the date a text was written can be determined by looking at the dates written on the atoms in the paper. No possible problems with that idea.
@@KnuttyEntertainment It's dated with palaeography, not carbon 14 dating. It was dated by Christian experts in ancient texts. And you have no clue how carbon 14 dating works.
@@VulcanLogic I know how carbon 14 dating works. When plants undergo photosynthesis there's a disproportionate amount of carbon 14 atoms that makes up their biomass, we can use the half life of the decay of carbon 14 to carbon 12 to calculate how long ago a sample was formed. And while I don't know about this particular manuscript, radiometric dating is used as a method for dating biblical manuscripts. Of course both radiometric and paleographic dating have serious flaws when used to determine the dating of manuscripts, particularly in these contexts.
In the black hole that exists after this video fragment which has been recovered is the part where he says, "the only source more reliable than the data itself is Marcilla Smith's interpretation, and anything else is just a renegotiation of her undeniably accurate understanding," probably, according to 100% of professors in the Department of New Testament Studies at the University of My Own Mind.
Likely biblical interpolations: “Matthew” 17:21 “Mark” 16:9-20 “Luke” 1-2, 3:23-38, 22:43-44 “John” 7:53-8:11, 21 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, 14:34-35 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, 9 That’s more than 40 verses. Also, that’s not counting the word choices used to render certain verses (“Mark” 1:41, Hebrews 2:9, etc.). Likely New Testament forgeries: the acts of the apostles colossians ephesians 2 thessalonians 1 timothy 2 timothy titus 1 peter 2 peter That’s a third of the New Testament.
The intention is not to undermine belief in Jesus. Belief in Jesus is a good thing. The intention is not to show that the entire New Testament is untrustworthy and that Jesus was actually a spirit-alien crucified in outer space. Good scholarship can sift through what is authentic and what is not. The intention is simply to show that the New Testament is simply not “99.5%” accurate.
Can you do a video about the bible and witchcraft? More specifically, how does the bible define a witch and what does GOD and JESUS say about witches and witchcraft.
The original Hebrew word that was translated into virgin is mistranslated from the word almah, which means young woman. But the misogynistic male couldn't handle that so they accept the word virgin.
Yet there are hundreds of variant versions of the Christian bibles none used match the original koine Greek new testament or Hebrew Scripture sources.. Bizarre 1John 5:7-8, John 7:53,8:11,Mark 16:9-20. Insertion s not in original koine Greek new testament. I mentioned this on Inspiring Philosophy channel and was blocked.... Typical Excellent 👍
The point that he was making is the we don't have the originals. There is a possibility that the modern Bible matches the originals 100%. It is unlikely because of all of the textual variation that has been found. But it is just as unlikely that the modern Bible is a 0% match.
@@Stepi01 True. I just mentioned the known very significant insertions modifications by church fathers. 1John 5:7-8 father son ghost admitted insertion by church to back up new Trinity theology. Erasmus and Luther refused to add 1 John. Then they modified Hebrew Scripture such as Isaiah 7:14 "virgin in future tense" along with dozens more . 👍
Luke 4:18 verse has two words the blind in it from the Septuagint and Luke 22:37 verse isn't repeated the same way as Isaiah 53:12 verse is written in the Hebrew language
When they mention the total number of manuscripts, what is the cutoff date or the final year that is counted? Because obviously modern bibles aren’t being counted among those manuscripts so I’m just curious if anyone knows
The author of the Gospel of Luke added words onto the Luke 4:18 verse then the author of the book of Luke added more onto the verse 6:9 by not writing every word in it
I'm not sure that to say you shouldn't propose a reading for which you don't have a source document is assuming no words from the lost originals have been changed. It sounds more like an agnostic approach, that they are saying you should not make conjectures about things in the "black hole". But perhaps I misunderstood or Dan is leaving out some detail that connects the one assertion to the other.
@@superiorbeing8805Search youtube for this phrase "Exposing the Greek New Testament Lies (Part 4 of 8) - Historians Expose Lies" and the first video would be the one to watch. Then come back with your thoughts.
Statistically the assumption that the earliest known text is identical to the earliest text is invalid. One could calculate the probability but conservative scholars don't want to go there.
Accuracy of the NT, *PLEASE* Matthew 17 17 Six days later, Jesus took Peter, James, and John, the brother of James, up on a high mountain by themselves. 2 While they watched, Jesus’ appearance was changed; his face became bright like the sun, and his clothes became white as light. 3 Then Moses and Elijah[a] appeared to them, talking with Jesus. *Wouldn't an all knowing all powerful god know Moses is a myth* Jesus had a seance with his imaginary friend? Moses has been proven to be a myth by mountains of evidence that shows the Israelites were just another Canaanite tribe that rose to the top after the bronze age collapse. That was the 10th century *BCE* Not a shred of evidence has ever been found support Exodus or Moses or Joshua. Or the NT Jesus also speaks of Adam and Noah and Jonah, complete fairy tales.
When I hear the actual facts of the composition of the Bible by critical scholars in the field, it makes me wonder what do conservative theologians mean when they say they are "conservative?" With all the assumptions and hermeneutical leaps they make to support their made-up conclusions, they sound like they are the actual liberals.
You are leaving out the text quotations made by early Christian leaders. We may not have the texts in total but we have their quotes by many early Christian leaders
You just debunked so many of the things I believed about the New Testaments while in my Evangelical church and I always considered Norman Geisler to be a top tier scholar...oops!
Bruce Metzger did not give the exact 99.5% estimate, however he did say that less than 0.2% if I remember correctly actually impact the meaning of the text, and Bart Ehrman himself admitted that he does not dispute that claim. At best you could say it’s not accurate but they say it’s fabrication I think it’s a little bit much, I agree that how Geisler comes to his conclusion though, is based on speculation mostly, and a lot of conjecture. But Bruce Metzger himself did not believe the original autographs to be completely inerrant. I will say though Dan I feel like you’re speculating way too much on what we don’t know the reason we focus on the manuscripts we have is because they are the ones we have. We can theorize and we can give a guesses about what the other manuscripts might be or if we had better evidence but that won’t really get us far.
You're arguing for grotesque guess work by saying the exacting methods used to debunk said guess work is .. speculation? You and your kind, fake "christians", have an evil, terribly twisted view of the New Testament.
@ramadadiver8112 No, that's not what he said. What he said was that any mistakes won't change a Christian mind because they can turn to other verses in support of their position. He never said there's no mistakes that does not effect doctrine . Here's the example of mistakes that Bart uses that deals with major doctrine. 1 John 5:For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
So the "black hole" argument is since we have no extant originals from the 1st century, and only fragments in the 2nd, and the earliest complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus, dates to the 4th century we cannot have any confidence was written? The original author's words could have been changed prior to the 4th century. Is that the argument?
That's the argument and I doubt Dan would use this exact same argument for any other sources around the same time as the new testament And he knows rightly why he doesn't because he's special pleading
@@ramadadiver8112 Okay, I just wanted to know if I got the gist of the argument correct. My next question would be, if one looks at the graphic [starting at 1:18] you'll see that it's 5 different families or lines; so if there were these changes in the texts, why would all four families of texts, excepting for spelling differences and other minor changes, be basically be the same? Note that these families are from geographically diverse areas; Egypt, Italy, Turkey, Palestine, Iraq. That's a lot of ground to cover travelling by foot. What explanation best explains the essential agreement of all the NT extant manuscripts? 1) the copyists were very careful not to make changes [except for minor slips of the pen] from the start, or 2) copyists did make changes to the text including core doctrines up until the 2nd to 4th century and then stopped. For 2 - I'd ask what was the catalyst for the stoppage? Seems to me the simplest explanation of the data is that those who took the time, effort, and expense to produce a copy were careful from the original authors down through the centuries.
I think that's the argument and it's ridiculous, because if Dan were consistent, he's just destroyed all history. I can no longer trust any Roman history because of the black hole between our earliest copies of Tacitus and when he wrote.
Hmmmm Dan do you use this same " rational " with other sources ? In the discipline of philosophy: Aristotle’s work has 5 manuscripts dated 1400 years from the events. Updated: 1000 manuscripts dated 1200 years from the events, written 384-322 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 850 Plato’s work (Tetralogies) has 210 (previously 7) manuscripts dated 1200 years from the events, written 427-347 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 900. In the discipline of history: Pliny the younger’s work (Letters) has 7 (unconfirmed) manuscripts dated 750 years from the events, written A.D. 61-113, with the earliest copy dated A.D. 850. Pliny the Elder (Natural History) has 200 (previously 7) manuscripts, dated 900 years from the events, written A.D. 23-79, with the earliest copy dated A.D. 1000. Herodotus’ work has 8 manuscripts dated 1300 years from the events. Updated: 109 manuscripts dated 1350 years from the events, written 480-425 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 900. Caesar’s firsthand account of the Gallic Wars has 10 manuscripts, dated 1000 years from the events. Updated: 251 manuscripts, dated 900 years from the events, written 10-44 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 1000. Tacitus’ Greek history (Annals) has 20 manuscripts, dated 1000 years from the events. Updated: 33 manuscripts, dated 750 years from the events, written in A.D. 100, with the earliest copy dated A.D. 850. Thucydides’ work has 50 manuscripts, dated 1300 years from the events, written 460-400 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 900. Sophocles’ work (Tragedies) has 193 manuscripts (previously 100), dated 1200 years from the events, written 496-406 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 900. Livy’s work (History of Rome) has 150 manuscripts (previously 19), dated 400 years from the events, written 59 B.C.- A.D. 17, with the earliest copy dated A.D. 400. Demosthenes’ Speeches has 340 manuscripts (previously 200), dated 1400 years from the events, written 300 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 1100... In second place is Homer’s Iliad, the history of the Trojan War, has 900 manuscripts, dated 950 years from the events. Updated: 1757 manuscripts, dated 400 years from the events, written 800 B.C., with the earliest copy dated 400 B.C. We dont even have any manuacripts of josephus prior to the 11th centuary
I can't speak for Dan, and I don't know what a "rarional" is, but I would say that all historians/textual critics understand that this is generally true. Any manuscript that we only have later surviving copies of, where the copies were made by hand, almost surely has lost, added, and changed text. I would say that this is an uncontroversial as the idea that any translation of a document cannot capture the exact meaning of the original, and that later interpreters of meaning from an ancient text are missing important cultural context when trying to suss out the meaning of the author. We can only work with what we have, and what we have does have important historical significance, even if we are confident that we are only getting part of the whole picture from any one copy of a document. In the case of the writings of the Bible, however, there is an important difference. The Bible contains the claim that there is a powerful being that wants this information preserved and its meaning accurately transmitted. I don't think that any of the other works that you cite has that same claim. If there was such a being, then that being is doing a really crappy job of the preservation, little better than other ancient documents, and vastly inferior to modern transmission/recording/preservation methods. Why did man get so much better at doing this than a god?
@@ramadadiver8112 Better, but I think you mean "rationale" as in "an explanation of the fundamental reasons", not "rational", which is generally an adjective, unless used to mean a rational number.
The fact that many manuscripts are also written in other languages such as Greek helps to raise the reliability of the text. Because it is more difficult to widely corrupt a text in five languages than in one. Moreover, we have the quotations of the early Christian authors, which also help to reconstruct the text. That to all the Greek manuscripts we have is certainly not a 100% guarantee that the text has been perfectly transmitted (there is no such thing) but it is still really impressive how well the New Testament has been transmitted.
Geez. Can you not understand? You have almost NOTHING for hundreds of years. Mark was written around 70 CE. 1st complete copy around 300 CE. What could have changed in 230 years? Plenty. And that doesn't count that original Mark was after 40 years of oral traditions or some other unknown manuscripts.
@@wheat3226 Geez. Can you not understand? Just because the originals and the first copies have naturally decayed doesn't mean we have nothing. This is much too primitive and one-sided thinking. Early wide distribution of the writings and their frequent citation and translation into various languages is not nothing. It is a whole lot! Since the writings were early widely spread and also translated into many languages, it is very difficult for an error in place A to become accepted in place B and C as well. That's why it's easy to find and eliminate errors (which is the purpose of textual critism). Therefore the textual transmission is very good. Name me a book from the antiquity which is better transmitted!
@@wheat3226 In the discipline of philosophy: Aristotle’s work has 5 manuscripts dated 1400 years from the events. Updated: 1000 manuscripts dated 1200 years from the events, written 384-322 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 850 Plato’s work (Tetralogies) has 210 (previously 7) manuscripts dated 1200 years from the events, written 427-347 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 900. In the discipline of history: Pliny the younger’s work (Letters) has 7 (unconfirmed) manuscripts dated 750 years from the events, written A.D. 61-113, with the earliest copy dated A.D. 850. Pliny the Elder (Natural History) has 200 (previously 7) manuscripts, dated 900 years from the events, written A.D. 23-79, with the earliest copy dated A.D. 1000. Herodotus’ work has 8 manuscripts dated 1300 years from the events. Updated: 109 manuscripts dated 1350 years from the events, written 480-425 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 900. Caesar’s firsthand account of the Gallic Wars has 10 manuscripts, dated 1000 years from the events. Updated: 251 manuscripts, dated 900 years from the events, written 10-44 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 1000. Tacitus’ Greek history (Annals) has 20 manuscripts, dated 1000 years from the events. Updated: 33 manuscripts, dated 750 years from the events, written in A.D. 100, with the earliest copy dated A.D. 850. Thucydides’ work has 50 manuscripts, dated 1300 years from the events, written 460-400 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 900. Sophocles’ work (Tragedies) has 193 manuscripts (previously 100), dated 1200 years from the events, written 496-406 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 900. Livy’s work (History of Rome) has 150 manuscripts (previously 19), dated 400 years from the events, written 59 B.C.- A.D. 17, with the earliest copy dated A.D. 400. Demosthenes’ Speeches has 340 manuscripts (previously 200), dated 1400 years from the events, written 300 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 1100. In second place is Homer’s Iliad, the history of the Trojan War, has 900 manuscripts, dated 950 years from the events. Updated: 1757 manuscripts, dated 400 years from the events, written 800 B.C., with the earliest copy dated 400 B.C.
@@thomasburkard7553 What is the earliest known citation of a Gospel author? What is the earliest known translation of any Gospel to another language than Greek? Please be specific.
You said assumptions, right? How are you sure your view about the New Testament is true? The point is that you're just gonna make hypotheses to prove NT is not this or that since you too can't provide us with the original texts... However, the overwhelming truth is there and if all you wanted was kept as you wanted it, you wouldn't believe it (if you don't believe it either). It's not a matter of accuracy but will to accept or deny no matter what.
@twistedblood234 Have you not noticed that you have displayed your laziness and ignorance to everyone here? You've got to learn things like Grammar Syntaxes, Logical reasoning, Figure of Speech and some little tricks concerning context. Ezekiel 4:12-15 has nothing to do with your assumption 😕, sorry. Check the context. Isaiah 7:20, Learn "turn of phrase" or "figure of speech". Judges 1:19, Learn Grammar and go back to read it in context. Genesis 9:14, Your assumption doesn't solve your misunderstanding of what's conveyed. When I say 'go down the street until the school,' does it imply that the street is a hill or mountain that you're descending? Please, use your braaaainns.
@twistedblood234 Have you not noticed that you have displayed your laziness and ignorance to everyone here? You've got to learn things like Grammar Syntaxes, Logical reasoning, Figure of Speech and some little tricks concerning context. Ezekiel 4:12-15 has nothing to do with your assumption 😕, sorry. Check the context. Isaiah 7:20, Learn "turn of phrase" or "figure of speech". Judges 1:19, Learn Grammar and go back to read it in context. Genesis 9:14, Your assumption doesn't solve your misunderstanding of what's conveyed. When I say 'go down the street until the school,' does it imply that the street is a hill or mountain that you're descending? Please, use your braaaainns.
@twistedblood234 Have you not noticed that you have displayed your laziness and ignorance to everyone here? You've got to learn things like Grammar Syntaxes, Logical reasoning, Figure of Speech and some little tricks concerning context.
@twistedblood234 Ezekiel 4:12-15 has nothing to do with your assumption 😕, sorry. Check the context. Isaiah 7:20, Learn "turn of phrase" or "figure of speech". Judges 1:19, Learn Grammar and go back to read it in context. Genesis 9:14, Your assumption doesn't solve your misunderstanding of what's conveyed. When I say 'go down the street until the school,' does it imply that the street is a hill or mountain that you're descending? Use your cognitive ability please.
I have always viewed religious literature as entertainment, satire, tragic drama, and tools to judge mental disorders and dysfunctions against humanity. Not ever should it be something we live our lives with. Quite the opposite.
Boil it all down and the only thing that matters is that Jesus was raised and he is Lord. Everything else is not relevant because that's what all the quibbling is about.
@@JustADudeGamer Jesus didn't say a thing that was not already revealed in the OT. He taught that he was truth. He came to fix a fallen world and the only sign would be of Jonah. He came to die, then would return when the Jews turned to him.
@@JustADudeGamer most denominations argue "what must I do to be saved" which are traditions of men and make void the word of God. What the world and the confused denominations need to know is Jesus is God incarnate and the only such revelation in history.
@@JustADudeGamer A Christian is a new creation in Christ. Period. The gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus saves plus nothing. We are in Christ when he is in us. Christ is formed in our heart by faith. Faith what? God raised Christ and Jesus Christ is Lord. (ie, JC is God) Paul's entire mission was to open the gospel to gentiles.
This subject is the least understood aspect of intellectual debate about History Religion and the Structure of societies in Ancient Times- by interested non scholars ! For some crazy reason I always felt that all Ancient manuscripts were as reliable as modern historical printed documents - just a bit more fragile and dusty 🫢 ??
What's even funnier is arguing for the book's inerrantness while admitting it's not 100% accurate.
From a "devotion to God" standpoint, "close enough" should be sufficient, but there are still those that want to hold to biblical inerrancy. OP wants to have it both ways thinking that close enough can be rounded up to 100%
My friend, do you mean to say that your ancestors are not your grandparents since there is no proof that your parents are their descendants because there are no manuscripts to prove it?
More often than not, it's clear that you're not going to believe it, whether you're given proof or not.
You want books written on papyrus to be preserved as if they were made of "stones, iron or je ne sais quoi...." You're funny... Check out what it cost to write stuff back then.... They don't write to meet your modern standards, otherwise you'd have to tell us how you did it back then.
The manuscripts of great figures like Plato, Pliny the Younger... are not comparable to those of the NT, and yet you accept them and give them the names of those they're supposed to be about... I wonder why your point of view is so skeptical....
The so-called changes don't affect the teachings that are there, but you scream as if it's something very detrimental that causes you not to believe.
The fact is, you had never believed before you evaluated anything, but you evaluated the content to support your unbelief. We've checked the accuracy of the teachings and their main purpose, and we've discovered that the message is the same: Salvation is in JESUS.
The church fathers wrote a lot about the same thing, and it was even obvious when you see the opposition between the positions of many people before Nicaea.
I drop my pen 🖊️.
They don't worship God they worship the Bible
@danbreeden8738 They don’t even worship the Bible. The Bible is just a mascot for their true religion, which is the worship of hierarchical power.
Yes and that was the point of Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus: It can't be error free if the manuscripts have thousand of errors
Bart Ehrman said he doesn't like to deal with percentages because if you a 100 word statement, and one copy says "They like the following" and the other says, "They don't like the following", percentage-wise that's a small change, but meaning-wise it's a huge change.
The famous one being where Jesus turned in anger or compassion, at the woman who touched his robe.
Makes a huge difference in the story, but is a single word
When that estimate pops up, I always want to ask "...accurate as compared to what? The autographs? Do we have those? The originals? What even is the original, and how would we know that we found one?"
You always provide helpful insights, Dan. Sadly during my evangelical years, I quoted many of the errors you cite. I didn't know better. Bible contradictions opened me up to scholarly criticism that helped me understand what the Bible is and isn't.
The word "manuscript" is used very carelessly. In modern use it means the work of an author before it's submitted for printing. When referring to ancient texts, it means a hand-written document. So when people claim that there are thousands of manuscripts, they conjure up an idea of piles of documents composed by ancient author. In reality, these are hand-written copies that were never subjected to any kind of quality control.
It also sounds, at least to me, when they say 'we have a manuscript of the Gospel of John' like they have a copy of the book of John, but in actuality, it often means that they have a tiny fragment of single page with a few words on it.
I will add that at some point the Jews got very serious about copying things accurately by hand, but I am not precisely sure when this occurred. After 70AD, for sure.
@@PrometheanRising Yes! I think that's why Dr Mcclellan uses the phrase "witness to the text".
It might also be that we have fragments that contains text that was part of the Gospel of John, but never made it to the version we have today.
Does the tiny manuscrip matches later manuscrips? That should present some sort of evidence about that 'hole'
Black hole 1 is the gap between the first writings and the earliest surviving manuscripts. Black hole 2 is the gap between the oral traditions and the first writings.
Oral tradition is an assumption not a reality.
@@rainbowkrampus Without a time machine we can’t and don’t know for sure. It's likely the current gospels are a mix of oral traditions, written traditions like the hypothetical Q document, total fabrications, midrash of OT stories, etc. But any potential oral traditions could all be totally fictional.
@@jon4574 Paul straight up says that we know Jesus from scripture. The gospel writers were pretty clearly using Greco Roman literature as foundations for their stories.
The more likely scenario is that the writers used Paul's letters, some assortment of jewish scripture and Greco Roman literature to invent the gospels. That is, we can explain the gospel with a textual tradition. There's no room for an oral tradition.
So, during your proposed black hole, they were using jewish scripture and pesher to demonstrate the messiah. We have no evidence for oral tradition informing the gospels and we have no evidence for oral tradition from the one source we have during the black hole. So asserting an oral tradition as more likely is erroneous.
@@rainbowkrampusproof
@@rainbowkrampus Definitely are threads of Greco Roman influence. Most scholars must be wrong if you're correct, which they could be. Ehrman and Allison are solid and argue for oral tradition, such as in Bart's, "Jesus Before the Gospels".
This seems to cut off at the end unfortunately, but I always love your videos! Tons of great info 😃
That’s the black hole between the original recording and the uploaded version.
I took a couple Calvary Chapel associated seminary courses that were unfortunately taught by Geisler. I left evangelicalism since, but remember hiw everyone held him in such high regard, but in addition to his terrible and boring lectures (just reading from PowerPoint slides verbatim) it was easy to see how much of a faux intellect and scholar he was. His insights were no more informed than any other average conservative pastor who just works backwards from their conclusion that the bible is inerrant as a dogma. Don't get me started on his laughable approach to apologetics! It's crazy how so many see him as a legitimate scholar.
Despite the black hole between what was in your head and what was typed, I'm going to conjecture that you meant "remember HOW everyone held him". ;-)
For me, the biggest problem with the claim that "The New Testament is 99.5% textually accurate" is, so what if it is? I mean, so what if it were 100% textually accurate?
We have lots of versions of the Wizard of Oz in print these days. We also have the original first edition written by Baum. And? This has no bearing on whether any of it is true.
It all seems to be based on the assumption that the first edition is somehow more true. We wouldn't make that assumption for any other book. Whether it is true or not has to be based on how it correlates to reality.
It's responding to the claim that atheists very often make, "The Bible has been rewritten and translated dozens of times". I'm sure you've seen someone say that before.
As for Dan's assessment, the simple fact is that the NT is a very stable text. It's not true that we can't have a reasonable level of assurance about what 99% of it says. We can. To posit that the black hole would reveal some sort of fundamental rewrite is just lunacy.
1:25 Wikipedia has a "list of new testament papyri" that covers the same ground as the excellent chart you posted. The ancient "manuscripts" of the first few centuries consist of little more than a few sentences to a few pages, and there are only a few dozen of them.
@MichaelTHEARKGEESTATHE1Wikipedia is publicly funded and unlike these fundamentalists, it cites it's sources.
@MichaelTHEARKGEESTATHE1Wikipedia isn't government-funded. And do you really think that Dan got most of his considerable knowledge from Wikipedia? Or are you simply being deliberately obtuse for some misguided attempt at trolling?
@MichaelTHEARKGEESTATHE1Obviously only fundagelical dark money isn't dirty, on account of how much they've laundered it, correct? Surely those terrorist-funders in the Hobby Lobby have the right of it? 😂🤡
@MichaelTHEARKGEESTATHE1And you have a list of the oldest extant papyri that differs from this one, and can produce links to them? Because you're not making a case here other than you don't know what you're talking about.
@MichaelTHEARKGEESTATHE1 Conspiracy Theory much?
In that case, try this on for size:
From the very start of the brewing $#!t$t0rm of W-T-F'ery that later became known as "Christianity, governments had-and-maintained an active hand of influence (forces of push and pull) in the development of Xianity's stories, texts, and dogmas.
When it comes, more specifically, to the money trail, ...
Quite often, along the way, funding sources carried direct conflicts of interests. And it wasn't rare for those sources to be directly or indirectly governmental.
Even when it comes to the "gospels", each "book" in order they were written carried greater and greater hints of direct governmental involvement.
This becomes very obvious with the book we now call "Luke";
as demonstrated in the NonStampCollector video "Luke. The Alternative Facts Gospel".
NonStampCollector doesn't mention government. But he does make a solid case for an unknown figure with a pro-Roman agenda wielding direct influence over the anonymous writer.
It's equally obvious when we consider that the writers were very well educated (per that time-and-place's educational standards).
That means they had money. And that means they probably had close ties to local Government.
Money Is Power.
Power seeks more power.
Most monetary power originated with close ties to government.
Government was also where quest for power was more readily facilitated.
Christianity didn't develop on an isolated island or in a vacuum,
Organized religion is itself a "power structure".
Authoritarian religions are power-focused.
They are, in all actuality, forms of government.
And to the extent their organized functions are unethical and/or criminal,
they are (also) a form of mafia.
Power corrupts.
Governments inevitably take on the form and function of mafias.
Rome was extra-especially a mafia.
Mafias do not tolerate rivals operating on their own turf. But they'd tolerate a lesser "family" if that family pays tribute and indulges quid-pro-quo deals off-book.
Starting off, Christianity came FROM a sect of Judaism.
Judaic sects had an established (public) reputation as being bitter rivals to the Ruling Powers they found themselves under; Rome included.
In order to thrive out in the open, organized authoritarian religions must establish a symbiotic relationship with the crown power of any land in which it operates.
Quite often, over these 2000 years, Christianity actually became the formal governments of the lands in which they thrived.
Whenever they couldn't climb that high in a society's larger power structure, they'd settle for as much power within that system as they could leverage.
So if we say that any ties to government power (even funding, as power) means that everything a source says is automatically suspect (especially to the point of being instantly dismissible), then we should throw out everything in bibles.
Even the modern KJV (a cult favorite among modern Evangelicals) was named after that King specifically because he "authorized" that project; to help with his own interests.
But when it comes to Dan's work, the government has no motivated interest in seeing him decry any brand of fundamentalism.
And that really is the only situation to watch for.
Although, if I personally ever saw any government actively trying to help their society overcome the grips of radically dangerous fundamentalist religiosity, I'd cheer openly for that.
IMHO, governments are recklessly irresponsible in how much the 'turn a blind eye' to the societal-cancer of Abrahamic fundamentalism.
But to set that point aside, ...
There is also nothing in the Dan's contract (a contact of employment with a university; not with his government) and nothing in his region's political happenings that would influence his his work (neither directly nor indirectly).
-UNLIKE Christian-specific schools that require a "Statement of faith" that obligates professors to always agree with their employer's religious beliefs.
Great as always but the last two videos seem to cut off at the end while Dan is still speaking. Is it me?
Outstanding work, as always sir. You are a shining beacon on a hill, if you’ll forgive the metaphor, for other religious folks to show how data should be more important than dogma.
Least the guy picked a good song though the irony is it is a song by the band Godsmack. Their lead singer, Sully, is Wiccan. 😅😅😅😅😅😅
I'd say that dating P52 to 125 CE is extremely generous, given the range of 125-175 on its dating. I'm annoyed by this because some apologists like to make the false claim that we have 6,000 manuscripts from 125 CE. We don't, and I know you know their claim is false, but I'm always going to bring up the range when I discuss it because it more accurately shows how big that black hole is.
Evidence for dating?
I believe a form of carbon dating is used.
Because it makes perfect sense that the date a text was written can be determined by looking at the dates written on the atoms in the paper. No possible problems with that idea.
@@KnuttyEntertainment It's dated with palaeography, not carbon 14 dating. It was dated by Christian experts in ancient texts. And you have no clue how carbon 14 dating works.
@@VulcanLogic I know how carbon 14 dating works. When plants undergo photosynthesis there's a disproportionate amount of carbon 14 atoms that makes up their biomass, we can use the half life of the decay of carbon 14 to carbon 12 to calculate how long ago a sample was formed.
And while I don't know about this particular manuscript, radiometric dating is used as a method for dating biblical manuscripts. Of course both radiometric and paleographic dating have serious flaws when used to determine the dating of manuscripts, particularly in these contexts.
@@KnuttyEntertainment Well then I apologize.
Well, that's it for Dan McClellan. He finally annoyed God enough to get smited while he was still talking.
Technology smote him. Way more power than God.
In the black hole that exists after this video fragment which has been recovered is the part where he says, "the only source more reliable than the data itself is Marcilla Smith's interpretation, and anything else is just a renegotiation of her undeniably accurate understanding," probably, according to 100% of professors in the Department of New Testament Studies at the University of My Own Mind.
RIP Dan
Well said, about the gap between the autographs and the earliest surviving manuscripts. That point may not be being acknowledged enough, generally.
Great information, thanks!
Love the chart, any chance of getting a pdf of it?
I'm also curious where I can find it. That looks super helpful.
One more vote for that.
Likely biblical interpolations:
“Matthew” 17:21
“Mark” 16:9-20
“Luke” 1-2, 3:23-38, 22:43-44
“John” 7:53-8:11, 21
1 Corinthians 11:2-16, 14:34-35
2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, 9
That’s more than 40 verses. Also, that’s not counting the word choices used to render certain verses (“Mark” 1:41, Hebrews 2:9, etc.).
Likely New Testament forgeries:
the acts of the apostles
colossians
ephesians
2 thessalonians
1 timothy
2 timothy
titus
1 peter
2 peter
That’s a third of the New Testament.
The intention is not to undermine belief in Jesus. Belief in Jesus is a good thing. The intention is not to show that the entire New Testament is untrustworthy and that Jesus was actually a spirit-alien crucified in outer space. Good scholarship can sift through what is authentic and what is not. The intention is simply to show that the New Testament is simply not “99.5%” accurate.
Dan: do you assume that the older a manuscript is, the more accurate text it contains?
I love these videos, but it always seems like there was supposed to be at least one more sentence you cut off at the end.
Can you do a video about the bible and witchcraft? More specifically, how does the bible define a witch and what does GOD and JESUS say about witches and witchcraft.
I like your shirt
Thank you
The original Hebrew word that was translated into virgin is mistranslated from the word almah, which means young woman.
But the misogynistic male couldn't handle that so they accept the word virgin.
There’s a fragment of a manuscript from about 70 years post resurrection
Yet there are hundreds of variant versions of the Christian bibles none used match the original koine Greek new testament or Hebrew Scripture sources..
Bizarre 1John 5:7-8, John 7:53,8:11,Mark 16:9-20. Insertion s not in original koine Greek new testament.
I mentioned this on Inspiring Philosophy channel and was blocked....
Typical
Excellent 👍
The point that he was making is the we don't have the originals. There is a possibility that the modern Bible matches the originals 100%. It is unlikely because of all of the textual variation that has been found. But it is just as unlikely that the modern Bible is a 0% match.
@@Stepi01 True.
I just mentioned the known very significant insertions modifications by church fathers.
1John 5:7-8 father son ghost admitted insertion by church to back up new Trinity theology.
Erasmus and Luther refused to add 1 John.
Then they modified Hebrew Scripture such as Isaiah 7:14 "virgin in future tense" along with dozens more .
👍
I hate the word "guestimate", but I love these videos.
Stop copying my editorial style !!
Early cut off used to be my signature - I'm dropping it now.
Interesting video, which is no surprise.
Fascinating facts
Luke 4:18 verse has two words the blind in it from the Septuagint and Luke 22:37 verse isn't repeated the same way as Isaiah 53:12 verse is written in the Hebrew language
When they mention the total number of manuscripts, what is the cutoff date or the final year that is counted? Because obviously modern bibles aren’t being counted among those manuscripts so I’m just curious if anyone knows
He implied the answer in the video.
Well our earliest manuscripts of Josephus are after the 11th century . So why not use that standard ?
@@PrometheanRising I must’ve missed it somehow I’ll have to rewatch
@@thescoobymike he references up to the time that the printing press was invented. I should have just said that. Sorry.
@@PrometheanRising ah okay thank you
Hebrew scripture sources? Which ones would those be?
The earliest witnesses to the Hebrew text would have been the ones from Qumran discovered in 1946 and date to the 3rd through 1st century BCE.
I never looked at the question like that until he broke down the math on the guesstimates .. makes it a pointless question to even ask
Dan McClellan swims with Tony Soprano.
The author of the Gospel of Luke added words onto the Luke 4:18 verse then the author of the book of Luke added more onto the verse 6:9 by not writing every word in it
The ongoing horrible record of my former professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, Norman Geisler. Shameful.
I'm not sure that to say you shouldn't propose a reading for which you don't have a source document is assuming no words from the lost originals have been changed. It sounds more like an agnostic approach, that they are saying you should not make conjectures about things in the "black hole". But perhaps I misunderstood or Dan is leaving out some detail that connects the one assertion to the other.
Question: Were the New Testament text originally written in Greek or Aramaic and Hebrew?
the new testament was written in greek
@@superiorbeing8805Search youtube for this phrase "Exposing the Greek New Testament Lies (Part 4 of 8) - Historians Expose Lies" and the first video would be the one to watch. Then come back with your thoughts.
How many pre 1829 texts exist for the Book of Mormon ?
Lost, or worse, added.
Nothing demonstrates that even 1% is true
I can recommend UsefulCharts' videos on this topic
Statistically the assumption that the earliest known text is identical to the earliest text is invalid. One could calculate the probability but conservative scholars don't want to go there.
Accuracy of the NT, *PLEASE*
Matthew 17
17 Six days later, Jesus took Peter, James, and John, the brother of James, up on a high mountain by themselves. 2 While they watched, Jesus’ appearance was changed; his face became bright like the sun, and his clothes became white as light. 3 Then Moses and Elijah[a] appeared to them, talking with Jesus.
*Wouldn't an all knowing all powerful god know Moses is a myth*
Jesus had a seance with his imaginary friend?
Moses has been proven to be a myth by mountains of evidence that shows the Israelites were just another Canaanite tribe that rose to the top after the bronze age collapse. That was the 10th century *BCE*
Not a shred of evidence has ever been found support Exodus or Moses or Joshua.
Or the NT
Jesus also speaks of Adam and Noah and Jonah, complete fairy tales.
emendations
Didn’t Simon the 1500s find 30k difference in the different version of the bible
I believe you're thinking of John Mill. His book was published in the early 1700's
The video ended before your sentence ended.
The irony of promoting Christianity in a video using Godsmack music
When I hear the actual facts of the composition of the Bible by critical scholars in the field, it makes me wonder what do conservative theologians mean when they say they are "conservative?" With all the assumptions and hermeneutical leaps they make to support their made-up conclusions, they sound like they are the actual liberals.
"Conservative" is a synonym for "stupid and wrong".
You are leaving out the text quotations made by early Christian leaders. We may not have the texts in total but we have their quotes by many early Christian leaders
But Dan.... God watches over his word in order to perform it. The Bible says so. 😜
You just debunked so many of the things I believed about the New Testaments while in my Evangelical church and I always considered Norman Geisler to be a top tier scholar...oops!
"gin up" is a real phrase but is "guesstimate" a real word?
Yes.
Unfortunately, all words are made up, so once it catches on you're done for. Same with "irregardless" *shudder*. Next it'll be "skellington".
Bruce Metzger did not give the exact 99.5% estimate, however he did say that less than 0.2% if I remember correctly actually impact the meaning of the text, and Bart Ehrman himself admitted that he does not dispute that claim. At best you could say it’s not accurate but they say it’s fabrication I think it’s a little bit much, I agree that how Geisler comes to his conclusion though, is based on speculation mostly, and a lot of conjecture. But Bruce Metzger himself did not believe the original autographs to be completely inerrant.
I will say though Dan I feel like you’re speculating way too much on what we don’t know the reason we focus on the manuscripts we have is because they are the ones we have. We can theorize and we can give a guesses about what the other manuscripts might be or if we had better evidence but that won’t really get us far.
You're arguing for grotesque guess work by saying the exacting methods used to debunk said guess work is .. speculation?
You and your kind, fake "christians", have an evil, terribly twisted view of the New Testament.
Bart also claims that not a single change in the new testament affects any Christian beliefs .
@ramadadiver8112
No, that's not what he said. What he said was that any mistakes won't change a Christian mind because they can turn to other verses in support of their position.
He never said there's no mistakes that does not effect doctrine .
Here's the example of mistakes that Bart uses that deals with major doctrine.
1 John 5:For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
@@jwjbros7926
Bart in an interview with a Muslim discussing the trinity .
Said . The doctrine of the trinity is not reliant on a single passage
@@jwjbros7926
Btw he specifically discussed that passage .
Look in UA-cam for
" Bart Erhman shocks Muslim about the trinity "
So the "black hole" argument is since we have no extant originals from the 1st century, and only fragments in the 2nd, and the earliest complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus, dates to the 4th century we cannot have any confidence was written? The original author's words could have been changed prior to the 4th century. Is that the argument?
That's the argument and I doubt Dan would use this exact same argument for any other sources around the same time as the new testament
And he knows rightly why he doesn't because he's special pleading
@@ramadadiver8112 Okay, I just wanted to know if I got the gist of the argument correct. My next question would be, if one looks at the graphic [starting at 1:18] you'll see that it's 5 different families or lines; so if there were these changes in the texts, why would all four families of texts, excepting for spelling differences and other minor changes, be basically be the same? Note that these families are from geographically diverse areas; Egypt, Italy, Turkey, Palestine, Iraq. That's a lot of ground to cover travelling by foot.
What explanation best explains the essential agreement of all the NT extant manuscripts? 1) the copyists were very careful not to make changes [except for minor slips of the pen] from the start, or 2) copyists did make changes to the text including core doctrines up until the 2nd to 4th century and then stopped. For 2 - I'd ask what was the catalyst for the stoppage? Seems to me the simplest explanation of the data is that those who took the time, effort, and expense to produce a copy were careful from the original authors down through the centuries.
@@SES06484 100% agree
@@SES06484 I would also be interested in some answering your questions because I want to know also
I think that's the argument and it's ridiculous, because if Dan were consistent, he's just destroyed all history. I can no longer trust any Roman history because of the black hole between our earliest copies of Tacitus and when he wrote.
Hmmmm Dan do you use this same " rational " with other sources ?
In the discipline of philosophy:
Aristotle’s work has 5 manuscripts dated 1400 years from the events. Updated: 1000 manuscripts dated 1200 years from the events, written 384-322 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 850
Plato’s work (Tetralogies) has 210 (previously 7) manuscripts dated 1200 years from the events, written 427-347 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 900.
In the discipline of history:
Pliny the younger’s work (Letters) has 7 (unconfirmed) manuscripts dated 750 years from the events, written A.D. 61-113, with the earliest copy dated A.D. 850.
Pliny the Elder (Natural History) has 200 (previously 7) manuscripts, dated 900 years from the events, written A.D. 23-79, with the earliest copy dated A.D. 1000.
Herodotus’ work has 8 manuscripts dated 1300 years from the events. Updated: 109 manuscripts dated 1350 years from the events, written 480-425 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 900.
Caesar’s firsthand account of the Gallic Wars has 10 manuscripts, dated 1000 years from the events. Updated: 251 manuscripts, dated 900 years from the events, written 10-44 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 1000.
Tacitus’ Greek history (Annals) has 20 manuscripts, dated 1000 years from the events. Updated: 33 manuscripts, dated 750 years from the events, written in A.D. 100, with the earliest copy dated A.D. 850.
Thucydides’ work has 50 manuscripts, dated 1300 years from the events, written 460-400 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 900.
Sophocles’ work (Tragedies) has 193 manuscripts (previously 100), dated 1200 years from the events, written 496-406 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 900.
Livy’s work (History of Rome) has 150 manuscripts (previously 19), dated 400 years from the events, written 59 B.C.- A.D. 17, with the earliest copy dated A.D. 400.
Demosthenes’ Speeches has 340 manuscripts (previously 200), dated 1400 years from the events, written 300 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 1100...
In second place is Homer’s Iliad, the history of the Trojan War, has 900 manuscripts, dated 950 years from the events. Updated: 1757 manuscripts, dated 400 years from the events, written 800 B.C., with the earliest copy dated 400 B.C.
We dont even have any manuacripts of josephus prior to the 11th centuary
I can't speak for Dan, and I don't know what a "rarional" is, but I would say that all historians/textual critics understand that this is generally true. Any manuscript that we only have later surviving copies of, where the copies were made by hand, almost surely has lost, added, and changed text. I would say that this is an uncontroversial as the idea that any translation of a document cannot capture the exact meaning of the original, and that later interpreters of meaning from an ancient text are missing important cultural context when trying to suss out the meaning of the author.
We can only work with what we have, and what we have does have important historical significance, even if we are confident that we are only getting part of the whole picture from any one copy of a document.
In the case of the writings of the Bible, however, there is an important difference. The Bible contains the claim that there is a powerful being that wants this information preserved and its meaning accurately transmitted. I don't think that any of the other works that you cite has that same claim. If there was such a being, then that being is doing a really crappy job of the preservation, little better than other ancient documents, and vastly inferior to modern transmission/recording/preservation methods. Why did man get so much better at doing this than a god?
@@joeyangtree1862
Where does the Bible claim
" There is a powerful being that wants this information preserved "
@@joeyangtree1862 I corrected my type also.
* Rational *
@@ramadadiver8112 Better, but I think you mean "rationale" as in "an explanation of the fundamental reasons", not "rational", which is generally an adjective, unless used to mean a rational number.
@@joeyangtree1862 I think you are getting distracted by what is not important
The fact that many manuscripts are also written in other languages such as Greek helps to raise the reliability of the text. Because it is more difficult to widely corrupt a text in five languages than in one.
Moreover, we have the quotations of the early Christian authors, which also help to reconstruct the text.
That to all the Greek manuscripts we have is certainly not a 100% guarantee that the text has been perfectly transmitted (there is no such thing) but it is still really impressive how well the New Testament has been transmitted.
Geez. Can you not understand? You have almost NOTHING for hundreds of years. Mark was written around 70 CE. 1st complete copy around 300 CE. What could have changed in 230 years? Plenty. And that doesn't count that original Mark was after 40 years of oral traditions or some other unknown manuscripts.
@@wheat3226 Geez. Can you not understand?
Just because the originals and the first copies have naturally decayed doesn't mean we have nothing. This is much too primitive and one-sided thinking. Early wide distribution of the writings and their frequent citation and translation into various languages is not nothing. It is a whole lot! Since the writings were early widely spread and also translated into many languages, it is very difficult for an error in place A to become accepted in place B and C as well. That's why it's easy to find and eliminate errors (which is the purpose of textual critism). Therefore the textual transmission is very good. Name me a book from the antiquity which is better transmitted!
@@wheat3226
In the discipline of philosophy:
Aristotle’s work has 5 manuscripts dated 1400 years from the events. Updated: 1000 manuscripts dated 1200 years from the events, written 384-322 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 850
Plato’s work (Tetralogies) has 210 (previously 7) manuscripts dated 1200 years from the events, written 427-347 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 900.
In the discipline of history:
Pliny the younger’s work (Letters) has 7 (unconfirmed) manuscripts dated 750 years from the events, written A.D. 61-113, with the earliest copy dated A.D. 850.
Pliny the Elder (Natural History) has 200 (previously 7) manuscripts, dated 900 years from the events, written A.D. 23-79, with the earliest copy dated A.D. 1000.
Herodotus’ work has 8 manuscripts dated 1300 years from the events. Updated: 109 manuscripts dated 1350 years from the events, written 480-425 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 900.
Caesar’s firsthand account of the Gallic Wars has 10 manuscripts, dated 1000 years from the events. Updated: 251 manuscripts, dated 900 years from the events, written 10-44 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 1000.
Tacitus’ Greek history (Annals) has 20 manuscripts, dated 1000 years from the events. Updated: 33 manuscripts, dated 750 years from the events, written in A.D. 100, with the earliest copy dated A.D. 850.
Thucydides’ work has 50 manuscripts, dated 1300 years from the events, written 460-400 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 900.
Sophocles’ work (Tragedies) has 193 manuscripts (previously 100), dated 1200 years from the events, written 496-406 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 900.
Livy’s work (History of Rome) has 150 manuscripts (previously 19), dated 400 years from the events, written 59 B.C.- A.D. 17, with the earliest copy dated A.D. 400.
Demosthenes’ Speeches has 340 manuscripts (previously 200), dated 1400 years from the events, written 300 B.C., with the earliest copy dated A.D. 1100.
In second place is Homer’s Iliad, the history of the Trojan War, has 900 manuscripts, dated 950 years from the events. Updated: 1757 manuscripts, dated 400 years from the events, written 800 B.C., with the earliest copy dated 400 B.C.
@@wheat3226
We have 0 copies of of Josephus that date prior too the 11th century
@@thomasburkard7553 What is the earliest known citation of a Gospel author? What is the earliest known translation of any Gospel to another language than Greek? Please be specific.
You said assumptions, right? How are you sure your view about the New Testament is true?
The point is that you're just gonna make hypotheses to prove NT is not this or that since you too can't provide us with the original texts... However, the overwhelming truth is there and if all you wanted was kept as you wanted it, you wouldn't believe it (if you don't believe it either). It's not a matter of accuracy but will to accept or deny no matter what.
The bible implies that dragons exist
@twistedblood234 Have you not noticed that you have displayed your laziness and ignorance to everyone here?
You've got to learn things like Grammar Syntaxes, Logical reasoning, Figure of Speech and some little tricks concerning context.
Ezekiel 4:12-15 has nothing to do with your assumption 😕, sorry. Check the context.
Isaiah 7:20, Learn "turn of phrase" or "figure of speech".
Judges 1:19, Learn Grammar and go back to read it in context.
Genesis 9:14, Your assumption doesn't solve your misunderstanding of what's conveyed.
When I say 'go down the street until the school,' does it imply that the street is a hill or mountain that you're descending? Please, use your braaaainns.
@twistedblood234 Have you not noticed that you have displayed your laziness and ignorance to everyone here?
You've got to learn things like Grammar Syntaxes, Logical reasoning, Figure of Speech and some little tricks concerning context.
Ezekiel 4:12-15 has nothing to do with your assumption 😕, sorry. Check the context.
Isaiah 7:20, Learn "turn of phrase" or "figure of speech".
Judges 1:19, Learn Grammar and go back to read it in context.
Genesis 9:14, Your assumption doesn't solve your misunderstanding of what's conveyed.
When I say 'go down the street until the school,' does it imply that the street is a hill or mountain that you're descending? Please, use your braaaainns.
@twistedblood234 Have you not noticed that you have displayed your laziness and ignorance to everyone here?
You've got to learn things like Grammar Syntaxes, Logical reasoning, Figure of Speech and some little tricks concerning context.
@twistedblood234 Ezekiel 4:12-15 has nothing to do with your assumption 😕, sorry. Check the context.
Isaiah 7:20, Learn "turn of phrase" or "figure of speech".
Judges 1:19, Learn Grammar and go back to read it in context.
Genesis 9:14, Your assumption doesn't solve your misunderstanding of what's conveyed.
When I say 'go down the street until the school,' does it imply that the street is a hill or mountain that you're descending? Use your cognitive ability please.
I have always viewed religious literature as entertainment, satire, tragic drama, and tools to judge mental disorders and dysfunctions against humanity.
Not ever should it be something we live our lives with.
Quite the opposite.
Boil it all down and the only thing that matters is that Jesus was raised and he is Lord.
Everything else is not relevant because that's what all the quibbling is about.
@@JustADudeGamer Jesus didn't say a thing that was not already revealed in the OT. He taught that he was truth. He came to fix a fallen world and the only sign would be of Jonah. He came to die, then would return when the Jews turned to him.
@@JustADudeGamer most denominations argue "what must I do to be saved" which are traditions of men and make void the word of God.
What the world and the confused denominations need to know is Jesus is God incarnate and the only such revelation in history.
@@JustADudeGamer
A Christian is a new creation in Christ. Period.
The gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.
Jesus saves plus nothing.
We are in Christ when he is in us. Christ is formed in our heart by faith.
Faith what?
God raised Christ and Jesus Christ is Lord. (ie, JC is God)
Paul's entire mission was to open the gospel to gentiles.
The KJV Bible is mathematically encoded
‘Guesstimates’ = not a word.
Guess, or estimate. Pick a lane.
Guesstimate is a portmanteau. Language isn't static.
Obamacare isn't a word either and conservatives tout that one like candy
According to Wikipedia, “guesstimate” has been used by statisticians since 1935. I would think it could be called a word by now.
Language is a virus.
This subject is the least understood aspect of intellectual debate about History Religion and the Structure of societies in Ancient Times- by interested non scholars !
For some crazy reason I always felt that all Ancient manuscripts were as reliable as modern historical printed documents - just a bit more fragile and dusty 🫢 ??