Home » Manuscripts
Category Archives: Manuscripts
Title: The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration Author(s): Bruce M. Metzger, Bart D. Ehrman
Next to Hebrews 1:3, the text contains an interesting marginal note, “Fool and knave, can’t you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!”—”ἀμαθέστατε καὶ κακέ, ἄφες τὸν παλαιόν, μὴ μεταποίει”
In my debate with Bart, I mentioned that I had it on good authority that this was definitely a first-century fragment of Mark. A representative for who I understood was the owner of FCM urged me to make the announcement at the debate, which they realized would make this go viral. However, the information I received and was assured to have been vetted was incorrect. It was my fault for being naïve enough to trust that the data I got was unquestionable, as it was presented to me. So, I must first apologize to Bart Ehrman, and to everyone else, for giving misleading information about this discovery. While I am sorry for publicly announcing inaccurate facts, at no time in the public statements (either in the debate or on my blogsite) did I knowingly do this. But I should have been more careful about trusting any sources without my personal verification, a lesson I have since learned.
This really puts his so-called scholarship into question.
Title: The Challenge of Bible Translation Volume:
Author(s): Glen G. Scorgie, Mark L. Strauss, Steven M. Voth, Kenneth L. Barker, D. A. Carson, Charles H. Cosgrove, Kent Eaton, R. T. France, Andreas J. Kostenberger, Douglas J. Moo, Moises Silva, James D. Smith III, John H. Stek, Ronald Veenker, Larry L. Walker, Bruce K. Waltke, Walter W. Wessel, Herbert M. Wolf
-“. In all, we have over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the NT, though the majority of these are later and of lesser value”
Taken from : Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, 1896
Just an interesting find…..
Smith, W A. A study of the Gospels in Codex Alexandrinus : codicology, palaeography, and scribal hands. Boston: Brill, 2014. Print.
On the back of the first leaf of the codex, an Arabic inscription, followed by a Latin translation, reads:
Memorant hunc Librum scriptum fuisse manu Theclae Martyris.
Translation: they say this book was written by the hand of Thecla the Martyr.
Taken from :
Codex Sinaiticvs Petropolitanvs: The New Testament, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas preserved in the Imperial Library of St. Petersburg, now reproduced in facsimile from photographs by Helen and Kirsopp Lake, with a description and introduction to the history of the Codex by Kirsopp Lake. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911.
Refuting John Wansbrough on Qur’anic Manuscripts from the 1st Century AH / 7th Century BCE …”simply do not exist”
“…the manuscripts for the Qur’an within the century in which it was purported to have been compiled, the seventh century, simply do not exist”
The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition Of Islamic Salvation History (Oxford, 1978)
The deceased “doctor” , has made an interesting claim. Perhaps he did not have access to or was not aware of the numerous Qur’anic Manuscripts that come from within the FIRST CENTURY AH or Seventh Century CE.
I will endeavour to make a list of some of the manuscripts available. To make the task even more rigorous, I will restrict myself to manuscripts which have been radiocarbon-dated and are from Western Universities/Institutions . Let us begin:
(Note: THIS BY NO MEANS IS AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST.)
(Verses from Leningrad Codex) SUBTRACT (Verses from Dead Sea Scrolls) EQUALS “Verses of the Old Testament that come AFTER the revelation of the Qur’an”
Jews and Christians alike, make the argument that the complete Bible (as we know it today) was available before the revelation of the Qur’an. That is, the Qur’an has no choice but to SPECIFICALLY refer to their books, and no other versions of the Tawrah(Torah) or the Injeel(Gospel) existed. In essence, their books are the AUTHORITATIVE and the CORRECT ones
I find this particularly hard to believe for what they think is the “Old Testament”. Naturally, I would ask for some manuscript evidence to back up their claim?
In reality, the Oldest COMPLETE Hebrew Bible is the Leningrad Codex, which is dated to 1008 CE (or possibly 1009) . That is MORE THAN 400 years after the revelation of the Qur’an confirmed by manuscripts .And 600 years after the Christian’s “so-called” complete manuscripts in the 4th Century; so-called, because their manuscripts are not radiocarbon-dated as we have previously mentioned. (The fact that an older revelation’s manuscript tradition, seems to come after a newer revelation’s manuscript tradition, is an interesting oddity, that needs to be researched more……..)
But back to our discussion; the Counter-Argument is that the Dead Sea Scrolls(DSS) confirm the Hebrew of the Leningrad Codex. Now let’s assume for the sake of argument, that :
– Leningrad Codex’s dating based off of Paleography is correct, and we will not ask for Radiocarbon-Dating
-there are no major and/or minor variants between the two manuscripts.
-let us FURTHER ASSUME that they are exact word for word, letter for letter, dot for dot
Now based off of those assumptions, let us do some simple math:
(Verses from Leningrad Codex) SUBTRACT (Verses from DSS)
“Verses that are not accounted from the time period of ~300 BC to ~1000 CE“
Therefore the argument that THEIR version of the Old Testament was available and being referred to by the Qur’an, can not be backed up by the manuscript evidence.
Of the approximately five thousand Greek manuscripts of all or parts of the New Testament that are known today, no two agree exactly in all particulars."
(Metzger, Bruce. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. New York: United Bible Societies, 1975, p.xxiv