News1 min ago
Where is the 'original' Bible?
11 Answers
Who produced the 'original' Christian Bible? That is, the first version which collected all the books, legends and histories together as a single book.
Where is the original Bible? If there is no original version, then how can Christians settle disputes over their beliefs?
Where is the original Bible? If there is no original version, then how can Christians settle disputes over their beliefs?
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by plowter. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The compilation of what we, today, call "The Bible" was a long journey. The Old Testament (Genesis to Malachi) was written or a period of around 1,000 years, the last compilation occurred around 420 B.C., when the nation of Israel had been subjugated by the Babylonians and later the Persians. They had been deported by their captors; first Nebuchadnezzar and later King Artaxerxes. Thier documents were also brought back to the respective captor countries. In 420 B.C., Artaxerxes permitted some of the captives, led my Ezra the Priest and Nehemiah and appointed governor to return to Jerusalem. Several intervening historical elements occurred, but the fear by the returning Jews that they were losing their Hebrew identity and a list of the Books (Torah and other laws and history) accepted as given by Elohim Adonai were given approved status. Several books had been written in the intervening years, such as 1 & 2 Maccabees as well as the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus all testify to the acceptance of the inspired Books by the end of the 4th century B.C.
In the New Testament, when Yeshua or others utter the words "it is written", they are referring to the Old Testament (or 'Old Covenant'). The New Testament was not actually completed until the Book of Revelations, written by the Apostle John... probably about the year 95 A.D. Many of the books (The Synoptic Gospels) and the letters to newly established churches, in Asia Minor as well as elsewhere were in use and circulation by at least the next two decades following the resurrection of Yeshua. Prior to this the oral tradition so prevalent even today in the middle east transmitted the information.
Contd.
In the New Testament, when Yeshua or others utter the words "it is written", they are referring to the Old Testament (or 'Old Covenant'). The New Testament was not actually completed until the Book of Revelations, written by the Apostle John... probably about the year 95 A.D. Many of the books (The Synoptic Gospels) and the letters to newly established churches, in Asia Minor as well as elsewhere were in use and circulation by at least the next two decades following the resurrection of Yeshua. Prior to this the oral tradition so prevalent even today in the middle east transmitted the information.
Contd.
Contd
The Roman Catholic church has one version of the canonical approval of the New Testament, but it doesn't square with the testimony of the Scripture itself.
In 2 Peter 1:12�21. The Apostle Peter explained to his readers that his death was imminent, and that he wished to ensure that after he was gone there would be an authoritative record of Jesus� real teachings. There were already, in the late 60s ad, "cunningly devised fables" (v. 16) circulating. Peter explained that the young Christian community should look to him, and to his fellow Apostle, John, for the "sure word of prophecy."
This becomes clear when we read Peter�s words carefully. Beginning in verse 12, Peter writes in the first person singular about his approaching death, and his desire to leave a permanent record. In verse 16, he abruptly switches from "I" to "we." Who is the "we?" The answer becomes plain in verses 16 through 18. The "we" are those who accompanied Jesus to the mountain where they saw His transfiguration, and heard the voice from heaven (Matthew 17:1�6). These were Peter, John, and James the brother of John.
By the time Peter was writing 1 Peter, James had died�the first of the Apostles to be martyred (Acts 12:1�2)�so Peter�s "we" had to refer to him and to John. Before his death in the late winter of 68AD, Peter put together the very first "canon" of the New Testament, consisting of 22 books. Near the end of the first century, John added the five books that he wrote, bringing to 27 the number of books in the New Testament that we have today. (Source: Thiel B., Ph.D. The New Testament Canon).
Actually, fragments of one of the first copies of the New Testament is the John Ryland's Fragment of the Gospel of John, dated between 100AD and 150AD and is in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, UK.
Thanks for your question, by the way...
The Roman Catholic church has one version of the canonical approval of the New Testament, but it doesn't square with the testimony of the Scripture itself.
In 2 Peter 1:12�21. The Apostle Peter explained to his readers that his death was imminent, and that he wished to ensure that after he was gone there would be an authoritative record of Jesus� real teachings. There were already, in the late 60s ad, "cunningly devised fables" (v. 16) circulating. Peter explained that the young Christian community should look to him, and to his fellow Apostle, John, for the "sure word of prophecy."
This becomes clear when we read Peter�s words carefully. Beginning in verse 12, Peter writes in the first person singular about his approaching death, and his desire to leave a permanent record. In verse 16, he abruptly switches from "I" to "we." Who is the "we?" The answer becomes plain in verses 16 through 18. The "we" are those who accompanied Jesus to the mountain where they saw His transfiguration, and heard the voice from heaven (Matthew 17:1�6). These were Peter, John, and James the brother of John.
By the time Peter was writing 1 Peter, James had died�the first of the Apostles to be martyred (Acts 12:1�2)�so Peter�s "we" had to refer to him and to John. Before his death in the late winter of 68AD, Peter put together the very first "canon" of the New Testament, consisting of 22 books. Near the end of the first century, John added the five books that he wrote, bringing to 27 the number of books in the New Testament that we have today. (Source: Thiel B., Ph.D. The New Testament Canon).
Actually, fragments of one of the first copies of the New Testament is the John Ryland's Fragment of the Gospel of John, dated between 100AD and 150AD and is in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, UK.
Thanks for your question, by the way...
Interesting answer Clanad - not sure how many mainstream academics would agree with Dr Thiel.
Mind you his PhD is in Biology isn't it?
http://www.cogwriter.com/cogwriter.htm
I think many would refer to the Synod of Hippo in 393 CE (AD) which approved the cannon of accepted books and then St. Jerome's definative 'Vulgate' a few years later.
This from the Catholic enclycopedia:
There are no indications in the New Testament of a systematic plan for the distribution of the Apostolic compositions, any more than there is of a definite new Canon bequeathed by the Apostles to the Church, or of a strong self-witness to Divine inspiration.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
Some books were very contraversial, the Orthadox church were very resistant to the book of revelations and even today the Ethiopian Church does not accept it.
Mind you his PhD is in Biology isn't it?
http://www.cogwriter.com/cogwriter.htm
I think many would refer to the Synod of Hippo in 393 CE (AD) which approved the cannon of accepted books and then St. Jerome's definative 'Vulgate' a few years later.
This from the Catholic enclycopedia:
There are no indications in the New Testament of a systematic plan for the distribution of the Apostolic compositions, any more than there is of a definite new Canon bequeathed by the Apostles to the Church, or of a strong self-witness to Divine inspiration.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
Some books were very contraversial, the Orthadox church were very resistant to the book of revelations and even today the Ethiopian Church does not accept it.
Gee, jake, I find it kind of odd that, often times in this Forum, someone dedicates their life to a given line of inquiry after having spent a large part of that life achieving academic awards, obviously based on their ability to study, collate organize and draw reasonable conclusions on a subject, only to have people say, off-handidly, "your Phd. is in basket weaving, isn't it?" I just don't see how that's germain to the discussion. Besides, there's an encylopedia of acadamecians that support Dr. Thiel's positions. He just happened to be the author of the article that I used for research. Obviously, there's equally long lists of those who disagree in one way or another. (I do commend you, however, on a civilized tone, and respect your views).
I think there's a great gulf between the Roman Catholic Church's view of canonical orthodoxy and that of the more, shall we say Protestant inquiries. For one thing, it's self evident that the Canon as recognized today contain massive gaps of any supporting basis for much of the Catholic dogma. No where, for example, is there basis for such things as clergical celibacy, the doctrine of Purgatory or salvation by works alone. What's the point, I hear you say? If the Roman church had been the sole arbiter of canonicity, why would they have accepted so much that contained so little support? They couldn't and didn't and were saddled with documents that had been in use for many, many years before Laodicea or Hippo. A close examination of the records of those Synods clearly, in my opinion, indicate a concurrence with the already established basis for canonical approval. You're right, though regarding Revelation. It was included in the 27 canonized Books by the Council of Carthage (AD 397) but hasn't been without it's detractors almost ever since...
I think there's a great gulf between the Roman Catholic Church's view of canonical orthodoxy and that of the more, shall we say Protestant inquiries. For one thing, it's self evident that the Canon as recognized today contain massive gaps of any supporting basis for much of the Catholic dogma. No where, for example, is there basis for such things as clergical celibacy, the doctrine of Purgatory or salvation by works alone. What's the point, I hear you say? If the Roman church had been the sole arbiter of canonicity, why would they have accepted so much that contained so little support? They couldn't and didn't and were saddled with documents that had been in use for many, many years before Laodicea or Hippo. A close examination of the records of those Synods clearly, in my opinion, indicate a concurrence with the already established basis for canonical approval. You're right, though regarding Revelation. It was included in the 27 canonized Books by the Council of Carthage (AD 397) but hasn't been without it's detractors almost ever since...
The fact that you may have an unrelated degree in a field does not invalidate your opinoins but it does rather mislead people into thinking your qualification to speak on a subject is greater than it is.
That's patricularly an issue when you come up with a contraversial view.
I'd be most interested to see the evidence that the first cannon of hte new testament 22 books I think was compiled by St. Peter
That's patricularly an issue when you come up with a contraversial view.
I'd be most interested to see the evidence that the first cannon of hte new testament 22 books I think was compiled by St. Peter
Thanks for that, but I think you've missed the point of the question.
The Bible is, by definition, the collection of writings that forms the basis of Christianity. There must, therefore, be an original version on which all Christian faith is based. This assumes there is a single version of Christianity.
So who collated the first Bible? What made it different from the existing Jewish texts? What made it Christian?
Surely the conclusion must be that there are different versions, depending upon who collated and edited them?
The Bible is, by definition, the collection of writings that forms the basis of Christianity. There must, therefore, be an original version on which all Christian faith is based. This assumes there is a single version of Christianity.
So who collated the first Bible? What made it different from the existing Jewish texts? What made it Christian?
Surely the conclusion must be that there are different versions, depending upon who collated and edited them?
But that's the point, plowter... until perhaps 100 years ago or so, the oldest verifiable copy of the New Testament was known to have been copied (by hand, of course) about the year 350AD or so. Those copies are word for word what you read in the New Testament today. Then, The Chester Beatty Papyrus and the Bodmer Papyrus were discovered and verified to have been copied around 180AD... again, they matched almost exactly the later copies. Then came the aforementioned Rylands fragments... again the same as succeeding copies. In addition to the actual Greek manuscripts, there are more than 1,000 copies and fragments of the New Testament in Syria, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, and Ethiopic, as well as 8,000 copies of the Latin Vulgate, some of which date back almost to Jerome's original translation in 384-400 AD (Source: Dr. Lane Burgland, et al) The care given to copying exists in the Old Testament as well extending back to almost 100AD with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Other ancient texts, such as Tacitus, Herodotus, Pliny and others all have more than 800 to 1,000 years between the original manuscripts and the fist know copies, with only a handful of examples. The New Testament alone has nearly 25,000 copies or parts of copies to compare.
Contd.
Contd.
Contd.
We certainly accept Titus' Annals and other examples of ancient texts as authentic and the same scholarship is used for the religious texts.
The early Christians saw themselves, as Yeshua certainly taught, as the logical outworking of God's plan through his chosen people, the Jews. Yeshua was certainly Ha Massiach as He proclaimed and on which the Apostles and other followers certainly rested their faith. The Pharisees, Saducees and Scribes, for various reasons, could not accept the claims (and proofs). However, today, worldwide and especially in Israel, the movement to accept Yeshua as Messiah is widespread and growing rapidly and the believers are usually known as Messianic Jews. There was never meant to be an independant, seperate, different religion from the Old Testament writings... only a fulfillment... Within many Christian denominations, the effort to return to its roots of Jewishness is well under way. A five day conference in Washington D.C., recently made efforts to seek forgiveness from our Jewish brothers for the actions of the Christian "Church" over the centuries and to begin building bridges to them without evangelizing. There were nearly 10,000 in attendance... many from my church...
I understand and appreciate what your saying, jake, but I think a trained, educated mind can be just as effective in other fields. Many believers hold multiple degrees, just as do secular academicians, no?
We certainly accept Titus' Annals and other examples of ancient texts as authentic and the same scholarship is used for the religious texts.
The early Christians saw themselves, as Yeshua certainly taught, as the logical outworking of God's plan through his chosen people, the Jews. Yeshua was certainly Ha Massiach as He proclaimed and on which the Apostles and other followers certainly rested their faith. The Pharisees, Saducees and Scribes, for various reasons, could not accept the claims (and proofs). However, today, worldwide and especially in Israel, the movement to accept Yeshua as Messiah is widespread and growing rapidly and the believers are usually known as Messianic Jews. There was never meant to be an independant, seperate, different religion from the Old Testament writings... only a fulfillment... Within many Christian denominations, the effort to return to its roots of Jewishness is well under way. A five day conference in Washington D.C., recently made efforts to seek forgiveness from our Jewish brothers for the actions of the Christian "Church" over the centuries and to begin building bridges to them without evangelizing. There were nearly 10,000 in attendance... many from my church...
I understand and appreciate what your saying, jake, but I think a trained, educated mind can be just as effective in other fields. Many believers hold multiple degrees, just as do secular academicians, no?
1 to 11 of 11
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Crosswords2 mins ago
Science5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
