We’ve Never Found the Original Bible Manuscripts

We’ve Never Found the Original Bible Manuscripts ![rw-book-cover](https://d34adp677peecb.cloudfront.net/static/images/article3.5c705a01b476.png) 🔗 **Source:** [We’ve Never Found the Original Bible Manuscripts](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5so_9VVLEA#transcript) > [!note]+ Document Notes > # 🏷️ Title: We've Never Found the Original Bible Manuscripts > > > **Current-agent capture.** The transcript is saved, but the full deep-read analysis is still pending (current-agent mode). The active Codex task must add the notes, topic tags, master highlights, and Reader-native inline highlights before this document is complete. > > > --- >  ## Full Transcript [00:00] [music] [00:02] >> Hey everybody, I'm Dan McClellan. [00:04] >> And I'm Dan Beecher. [00:05] >> And this is Data Over Dogma, where we [00:08] increase public access to the academic [00:09] study of the Bible and religion, and we [00:12] combat the spread of misinformation [00:14] about the same. How are things today, [00:16] Dan? [00:17] >> Things are good. It's uh it's it's a [00:19] good time here uh here in the world. Uh [00:22] I mean, not all the things are good, but [00:25] my stuff is good. [00:26] >> the world's on fire. Um but yeah, and [00:29] it's 80° [00:31] uh from what I can tell right now. So, [00:33] it's it's a warm day, but we're inside [00:36] for some reason. [00:37] >> We're doing all right. We're doing all [00:38] right. Uh and we have a really fun and [00:41] interesting topic to go over today. I'm [00:44] looking forward to it. [00:45] >> Mhm. [00:45] >> Uh it is something that we have [00:48] discussed quite a bit on the show or [00:50] we've touched on. It has something it's [00:52] something that looms over much of what [00:55] we do here on the show. [00:56] >> Yeah. [00:57] >> Uh it's a what's that? And we're talking [00:59] about textual criticism, [01:02] which is something I I think you know, [01:05] this is one of those things where [01:07] a lot of people [01:09] uh [01:10] raise an eyebrow about it, but I think, [01:13] you know, if your friends and family, if [01:14] you tell them about stuff that that [01:16] we've talked about on this show and they [01:18] get [01:19] where did that come from? This might be [01:22] the episode to share around and let [01:24] people know uh what [01:27] what's going on. [01:28] >> Yeah, this this is something that is uh [01:31] does not have a a particularly [01:34] ideological bent to it. This is this is [01:36] something [laughter] that is used [01:38] well, [01:40] this is uh used across the board. Like [01:43] everybody engages in textual criticism. [01:46] And then they go and they engage in that [01:48] textual healing. [01:49] >> Yes, it is. [01:50] >> That is is so important [01:51] >> All right. Well, let's let's let's just [01:54] dive into it with what's that? [01:57] >> [music] [01:59] >> So, [02:00] textual criticism. Now, not everybody is [02:04] thrilled about textual criticism. I can [02:06] tell you. I When I was looking at it, [02:09] when I was looking it up, I did find at [02:12] least one place, Way of Life Literature [02:16] at Way of Life Bible College, has has a [02:19] little thing and they and in in their [02:22] thing on textual criticism, um this is [02:26] this is excerpted from Faith versus the [02:30] Modern Bible Versions, a course on Bible [02:33] Texts and Versions of a Tenfold Defense [02:36] of the King James Bible. [02:38] >> Okay. [02:39] >> And they start with the words, "We [02:42] further reject modern textual criticism [02:45] because of its terrible fruit, [02:48] increasing uncertainty and skepticism, a [02:52] weakening of the authority of scripture, [02:54] and the promotion of ecumenical of the [02:57] ecumenical movement." [02:59] And so, [03:01] what their claim is is that modern [03:04] textual criticism [03:06] has resulted in uncertainty in the [03:09] biblical text. [03:10] >> Mhm. [03:11] >> Uh [03:12] and what I say to that is, [03:15] "If that's your main concern and your [03:17] main concern isn't [03:19] trying to really understand what the [03:20] text is trying to say and what the text [03:23] is and what it means and stuff, you may [03:26] be [03:26] you're not really searching for truth. [03:28] You're just searching for certainty and [03:30] that can be a problem." [03:32] >> Yeah, I'm a little curious that Way of [03:34] Life Bible College just sounds [03:37] >> [laughter] [03:37] >> sounds kind of silly just [03:40] just off the bat. I'm trying to find [03:42] some information on this, but like their [03:44] blog, the the they have a post that they [03:47] just reposted first from 2008, they just [03:50] reposted it today and the the title is [03:52] just "Beware of Tony Campolo." [03:55] >> [laughter] [03:55] >> Um [03:56] so [03:57] >> know who that is, but I'm sure [03:58] >> I don't know, but they're doing personal [03:59] attacks on the blog of this [04:01] quote-unquote Bible college, so um [04:03] forgive me if I don't have a lot of [04:05] confidence in anything that they do or [04:07] say. [04:08] >> Right. [04:08] >> Uh but they they I see there's a book [04:10] available, "Why We Hold to the King [04:13] James Bible." And here's the thing, King [04:15] James Onlyism [04:17] is you're basically required to hate [04:20] textual criticism, at least modern [04:22] textual criticism, because [04:24] textual criticism, like immediately [04:27] you're like, "Okay, well, the King James [04:28] Bible is out." Um because [04:32] >> And so, if you want to hold on to the [04:34] King James Bible, you have to be like, [04:36] "Well, wait a minute, wait a minute, [04:37] maybe the problem is with all of the [04:39] experts." Um and you have to uh hate on [04:43] modern textual criticism. But, the King [04:45] James Bible is a product of textual [04:47] criticism as well. Like, the the process [04:50] itself is is in the background. It's [04:53] it's baked into the foundation of the [04:56] King James Bible as well. You just [04:58] don't like the outcomes of of more [05:01] developed textual criticism. But, [05:02] textual criticism goes all the way back [05:04] to um prior to the life of Jesus. Uh and [05:08] it actually uh originates outside of the [05:11] Bible. [05:13] >> Okay. [05:13] >> It's actually we got to go back to like [05:15] the librarians at Alexandria [05:18] and people who were were bringing [05:20] together the the main canons of [05:25] Greek literature and things like that. [05:27] And so, specifically Homer and the Iliad [05:30] and these other things, where you have a [05:32] variety of different manuscripts. [05:35] They're different versions of it. And if [05:37] you are bringing them together and you [05:39] happen to be comparing them, you're [05:41] like, "Wait a minute, [05:42] >> [laughter] [05:42] >> are different. Why are they different?" [05:45] >> Where's my favorite story? Why isn't it [05:47] in here? [05:47] >> Yeah. Um and so [05:50] all the way back over 2,000 years ago, [05:53] they started asking, "Why do these [05:54] manuscripts differ from one another? And [05:57] which one is correct?" [05:59] >> Yeah. [06:00] >> And that is the main question of textual [06:04] criticism. Correct is is, you know, more [06:06] of a value judgment. But textual [06:08] criticism it we used to think of it as [06:11] trying to recover the original text, the [06:15] Urtext. We don't really talk about it [06:17] that much anymore because [06:20] there might not be an Urtext for an [06:22] awful lot of the text we're talking [06:23] about. Like it gets really complicated [06:25] if a given book of the Bible [06:28] like was compiled from a bunch of [06:31] different texts, and then those texts [06:33] came together from different traditions, [06:35] and some of them were written, and some [06:36] of them were oral, and then later [06:38] traditions alter like you can't go back [06:41] to an original text a lot of the time. [06:43] And so now really what textual [06:45] criticism, at least textual criticism of [06:47] the Bible, is mainly concerned with is [06:50] trying to [06:52] uh reconstruct the earliest recoverable [06:55] form of a given text. And [06:59] unfortunately for the biblical text, the [07:01] earliest recoverable form is not all the [07:04] way back to the autographs. It's not all [07:06] the way back to what was [07:08] written by the authors. Again, [07:10] >> Because we don't have those. I I [07:12] >> We don't have those. [07:13] >> I I think there's a lot of people that [07:14] would be surprised to learn that there's [07:16] we don't have access to any original [07:19] text for any of the books of the Bible, [07:21] including the the uh the New Testament. [07:24] >> Right. The The closest we have is [07:26] there's a little fragment of uh [07:30] of papyrus, uh P52, which contains like [07:33] 35 or 36 words, [07:36] half on one side, half on the other of [07:38] the fragment. It's about the size of a [07:39] credit card that preserves parts of the [07:42] Gospel of John. 35 or 36 words that [07:46] really eager [07:48] enthusiastic [07:49] textual critics would say might date to [07:51] around 120, 125 CE, which would be maybe [07:56] 20, 30 years after the Gospel of John [07:59] was written. [08:00] >> Right. [08:00] >> Other There are others who would be [08:02] like, [08:03] "Maybe it's around 150, but it could be [08:06] as late as like 200." [08:08] >> But even even that's not going to be in [08:10] the handwriting of the original author. [08:13] >> No, it's going to be It's It's going to [08:15] be at least a copy of a copy of a copy. [08:17] >> Right. [08:18] >> Um [08:19] And but the you know, that's not the [08:21] entire Gospel of John. We don't know [08:22] what's going on with a lot of the parts [08:24] of John that are open to text critical [08:27] debate. Uh so, yeah, we don't we don't [08:31] even get close. When it comes to the [08:32] Hebrew Bible, our earliest copies for [08:36] the overwhelming majority of the verses [08:39] in Hebrew come from couple thousand year [08:42] No. [08:44] About a 1,500-ish years after they were [08:47] probably originally written. [08:48] >> Right. [08:49] >> Now, we do have less than half of the [08:52] verses of many books of the Hebrew Bible [08:56] preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls. When [08:58] it comes to the Book of Isaiah, we [08:59] happen to have almost the entire thing, [09:01] the overwhelming majority of it [09:03] preserved in the Great Isaiah Scroll. Uh [09:06] And so, there is a you have this window [09:09] from maybe as close as 20 to 30 years [09:13] away from the the original composition [09:15] all the way to 1,500 years or more [09:19] >> Mhm. [09:19] >> uh for any [09:21] for given verses. And so, what can [09:25] happen within those those decades and [09:27] those centuries? A lot. Um [09:29] >> Right. And that's that's the problem [09:31] that I guess textual criticism is facing [09:34] is just, [09:36] you know, [09:37] there [09:38] there over those over the the the this [09:41] long period of time, this has been [09:44] transmitted and transmitted and recopied [09:46] and recopied and recopied and there are [09:48] scribal errors as we've talked about on [09:51] the show. There's scribal additions, [09:54] there's emendations, all sorts of stuff [09:57] and you got to figure out what's what. [09:59] You got to figure out what So, uh so [10:02] obviously that's impossible and we [10:03] should all just give up. [10:04] >> [laughter] [10:05] >> Well, it's it's not an exact science. We [10:07] can't rub a special piece of paper on [10:10] the manuscript to see if it turns pink [10:12] meaning this is the original, you know, [10:14] this matches the original uh text. [10:16] Uh but over the centuries we've [10:18] developed some observations about how [10:21] things tend to happen. And you know, [10:23] again, some kind of textual criticism [10:26] goes back over 2,000 years. But we have [10:29] when people are collecting manuscripts [10:32] of the the Bible at at Qumran, the Dead [10:35] Sea Scrolls, there's a degree to which [10:37] there would have been some textual [10:38] criticism going on as these people [10:40] gathered these different manuscripts and [10:42] a lot of the manuscripts differ. Some in [10:45] in very significant ways from each [10:46] other, but they still held on to them. [10:49] Uh you go a few centuries down the road, [10:51] you get to Origen in the 3rd century CE [10:54] an early Christian who put together uh [10:56] the Hexapla which is like a six-column [11:01] side-by-side comparison of uh the [11:04] Hebrew, a transliterated version of the [11:06] Hebrew, the Septuagint, like a bunch of [11:09] different versions and compared things [11:11] and started using little symbols and [11:13] signs to indicate [11:15] here's where this version has extra [11:17] text. Here's where this version is [11:19] missing text. Here's where this version [11:20] has a different text. Here's where this [11:22] version has a different word order. And [11:25] and we started kind of cataloging the [11:27] different kinds of variants and the [11:30] different kinds of differences that can [11:31] occur between manuscripts [11:33] and then we have to go we have to go [11:36] many many years down the road before it [11:38] starts to become what we might call [11:41] something approaching a science in [11:45] in the Reformation the Renaissance when [11:49] comparative literature begins to [11:52] kind of become a thing you have a lot [11:54] more comparison of text translators who [11:57] are putting together [11:59] translations of the Bible for instance [12:01] Desiderius Erasmus in the early 16th [12:03] century what did he do when he wanted to [12:06] put together the the first printed [12:09] edition of the Greek New Testament he [12:12] went to his library in in Switzerland [12:14] and he said give me all the manuscripts [12:17] the Greek New Testament manuscripts you [12:19] got and they they put they threw seven [12:22] of them on the on the counter and said [12:24] this is this is everything and he then [12:26] had to decide okay what I'm going to do [12:28] is I'm going to take two of them [12:30] as my base text and then the other five [12:33] I'm going to compare to the base text [12:36] and I'll make changes where I think a a [12:39] certain reading is probably better [12:42] now Erasmus was not a a textual critic [12:46] in in the sense that we use the the [12:49] label today and so some of his decisions [12:51] were better than others [12:53] and then for the the last chapter of [12:56] Revelation he didn't have they didn't [12:58] have that chapter covered in any of the [13:00] seven manuscripts and so he just took [13:02] the Latin Vulgate and just translated [13:04] the Latin back into Greek and then and [13:06] then just wrote that down but [13:09] he did multiple editions of that with [13:12] each new edition he had access to more [13:14] manuscripts and made changes regarding [13:18] the text critical decisions he made so [13:20] so here's where you have kind of the the [13:23] collision of a concern for original text [13:27] uh along with [13:29] professional printing concerns and [13:32] publishing concerns. It's like, "Okay, [13:33] well, we want another edition. We want [13:35] to make changes. We also want to sell [13:37] books." So, um you know, this [13:39] turns this into something that people [13:41] are taking more seriously. Uh and we get [13:44] into the the [13:45] 1551 is when a guy named Stephanus [13:49] decided he was going to uh divide [13:51] everything in the New Testament out into [13:53] individual verses. [13:55] Division into chapters and verses had [13:58] had happened earlier with the Hebrew [14:00] Bible. We talked about that in in a [14:02] recent episode. [14:03] >> That's right. [14:04] >> Uh and then we get to it's really in the [14:07] 18th and 19th century that textual [14:09] criticism turns into something we might [14:11] call a science. Something where where [14:14] people started [14:16] methodologically kind of figuring out [14:18] what are our standards, what are our [14:21] rules, how are we doing things. And we [14:24] we adopted a number of observations. So, [14:26] for instance, and and [14:29] we still like to use these Latin titles, [14:31] lectio difficilior [14:34] potior, which which means the more [14:37] difficult reading is preferred. Um [14:40] and the idea there is, "Look, when [14:41] scribes make changes, [14:44] more often than not, those changes are [14:46] to make the text easier to understand or [14:49] comprehend or accept, not harder." [14:52] >> Right. [14:52] >> And so, the more difficult reading it [14:55] when we're comparing two manuscripts, [14:57] the one that makes less sense [15:00] is probably the earlier one. Not a hard [15:03] and fast rule, but just a trend. [15:06] >> Just a yeah, just just a guidepost. [15:08] >> Yes, a tendency. [15:09] >> it's a when you say when you ended that [15:10] phrase with is preferred, you just mean [15:14] if we're guessing at older. [15:15] >> Yeah. All other things being [15:17] >> to as it may not be a better message or [15:19] whatever. It may not be but it is but it [15:22] is more than likely to get to [15:25] originality. [15:26] >> Yeah, more likely to be earlier. In in [15:29] the sense of the reading that preceded [15:32] the other one. [15:34] >> Do we have some examples we should give [15:36] like concrete examples of some of these [15:39] things? [15:40] >> Yeah, I I suppose I I could have pulled [15:42] some examples up. [15:44] >> [laughter] [15:44] >> But there there are some there are some [15:46] famous ones. And here's why it's just uh [15:49] you know, a tendency and not a hard and [15:51] fast rule because let's take a look at [15:55] the Gospel of John. Chapter 1 verse 18 [15:57] has an incredibly famous text critical [16:01] problem. And here is the [16:05] John 1:18 in the according to the NRSV [16:08] UE says no one has ever seen God. It is [16:11] only It is the only son himself God who [16:14] is close to the Father's heart who has [16:16] made him known. And this is actually [16:20] a very problematic attempt to eat one's [16:23] cake and have it, too. Because in the [16:25] Greek you have [16:27] the manuscripts say the the main [16:30] preferred manuscripts say one of two [16:31] different things. Monogenes [16:34] huios or monogenes theos. [16:38] Monogenes means you know, in the King [16:40] James version it's translated only [16:42] begotten. But really it it means one of [16:44] a kind or unique. [16:45] >> Okay. [16:46] >> And so is it the one of a kind or unique [16:49] son or is it the one of a kind or unique [16:52] God? And we have manuscripts that say [16:55] each. [16:56] The ones that say God actually come from [16:59] earlier. [17:00] The ones that say son come from a little [17:02] later. However, once you get that [17:05] reading, that is like almost every other [17:08] manuscript that we have. And then you [17:10] know, you have little differences when [17:11] it comes to whether or not it has a [17:12] definite article or something like that. [17:14] >> Okay. [17:15] >> But lectio difficilior [17:18] would come into play because monogenes [17:21] theos is not anything that has ever that [17:24] is you know that phrase doesn't occur [17:25] anywhere else in the in the New [17:27] Testament. Monogenes huios does occur in [17:31] the Gospel of John. And so, it would be [17:34] more difficult because it doesn't match [17:36] what we have elsewhere, and so it [17:38] doesn't make as much sense. And so, the [17:40] argument is [17:43] does this mean monogenes or monogenes [17:46] theos if it was more early, somebody [17:48] would have a scribe would have been [17:50] like, uh why does it say that? I'm [17:52] changing it to what I know it says [17:54] elsewhere. [17:55] >> Right. [17:55] >> So, that that's [17:56] uh sounds like a more reasonable change. [18:00] How did the change happen? Why did the [18:02] change happen? [18:03] At the same time, however, [18:05] one could push back and say, well, [18:08] it's actually the easier reading if this [18:10] change occurred in the period of these [18:13] Christological debates over the divinity [18:16] of of Jesus. During during Nicaea, [18:20] somebody um might have been like, oops, [18:23] I changed it to monogenes theos or it it [18:26] could have accidentally been changed. Uh [18:28] in the earliest manuscripts, we have [18:30] what are called nomina sacra, which are [18:33] abbreviations of words and titles for [18:36] divinity. And so, in the Greek, it [18:39] actually just says it actually just uh [18:42] has a theta and a sigma. [18:45] And the difference between theos and [18:47] huios in the using nomina sacra would [18:50] have just been one letter. [18:52] So, one letter, if it was transcribed [18:54] sloppily, [18:55] could have resulted in the confusion. [18:58] >> Okay. [18:59] >> you have to you have to bring all that [19:02] into consideration to weigh [19:04] which reading you think is more likely [19:07] because it's not impossible and and it's [19:09] not incredibly uncommon for scribes to [19:13] correct something they know to be an [19:15] error, in which case lectio difficilior [19:19] might mislead you. [19:20] >> Right. [19:21] >> Because if if huios is original and [19:23] somebody oops, I changed it to the os [19:26] because I find that theologically [19:28] helpful and then other scribes came [19:29] through later went stop doing that and [19:31] change it back to huios. [19:33] >> Uh you know, that's that's also [19:35] something that could have happened. So [19:36] so this is what makes textual criticism [19:39] in in many ways just as much an art as a [19:42] science because we're weighing [19:43] probabilities. We have to consider all [19:45] different kinds of ways to contextualize [19:48] what's going on to get inside the heads [19:51] of the scribes who may have been [19:52] transcribing this to figure out when it [19:54] may have been transcribed uh to when it [19:56] dates and things like that. So that [19:58] that's one example. There another [20:00] example is um [20:02] lectio brevior, which would mean the [20:05] shorter reading [20:06] >> Right. [20:06] >> is the preferred reading. Now, we had uh [20:09] Lincoln Blumell, a friend of mine, on [20:11] the show and I don't know if you recall, [20:13] but he mentioned that there were a [20:14] number of textual critics these days who [20:17] are actually saying sometimes the [20:19] shorter reading is [20:21] actually not preferred. In fact, the to [20:23] the degree that we may have to overturn [20:27] that standard in textual criticism. [20:29] Maybe lectio brevior is false. [20:32] >> Mhm. [20:32] >> Maybe it is the longer reading or it is [20:34] the [20:35] um the longer reading that is preferred. [20:37] Now, I I have not followed up with that [20:39] particular debate, but you know, we we [20:43] saw an example of that with our passage [20:46] in John with uh the elect lady. Um and I [20:50] don't remember what episode that was, [20:51] but maybe in the the show notes we can [20:53] refer to that episode if somebody wants [20:55] to go [20:56] check out uh the discussion there. Um so [20:59] the so those are a couple of the most [21:00] common text critical uh considerations [21:03] that that go into this. Interestingly [21:06] enough, when we [21:07] look at um [21:09] Hebrew Bible in the New Testament, [21:11] the the text critical industries are are [21:14] quite a bit different between the two of [21:16] them. Although, we're we're trying to [21:18] kind of coordinate them and bring them [21:20] closer together so they're not operating [21:23] under different standards, but [21:25] when we get into it's really the New [21:28] Testament that kind of leads the way for [21:30] uh textual criticism of the Bible, you [21:33] have a guy named Johann uh Johann [21:35] Griesbach who put together his own [21:39] critical edition of the Greek New [21:40] Testament. It was based on This was in [21:44] uh 18th century, 17 like 1772 to 1775, I [21:49] think was uh or 1777, something like [21:52] that, was his first edition. And he was [21:54] based on the Textus Receptus, so the [21:56] tradition that was started by Erasmus, [21:59] but he had access to even more [22:01] manuscripts because in the 17 and 1800s, [22:04] we discovered a lot of manuscripts of [22:06] the New Testament, a lot more became [22:08] available for scholarly consultation. [22:11] And so, he was like, "Okay, there are a [22:13] lot of problems with the Textus [22:15] Receptus. So, I'm going to use the [22:17] Textus Receptus as my base text, but I'm [22:19] going to go through and make a bunch of [22:21] notes and talk about why I think this [22:23] reading is better and that reading is is [22:25] better over there." So, his critical [22:26] edition was a bit of a departure from [22:28] the Textus Receptus, which was kind of [22:30] dominated. And that's the what is [22:31] underlying the King James Version. So, [22:34] when people don't talk about how textual [22:36] criticism is the devil, um [laughter] [22:40] and the King James Version uh is is the [22:44] only version of the Bible that is the [22:46] very word of God, they are champions of [22:49] the Textus Receptus. [22:50] >> Right. [22:50] >> And then in the uh 1800s, we had uh [22:55] 1831, Karl Lachmann, [22:58] published his critical edition. And [23:00] instead of like Griesbach using the [23:03] Textus Receptus as a base text and [23:05] editing it, he just threw it out the [23:07] window and said, "I'm creating my own [23:10] critical text based on the manuscripts [23:12] that are now available to us." [23:14] >> Yeah. [23:14] >> And so, this this is the the first [23:16] iteration of the critical text as as we [23:19] understand it today, which is not tied [23:22] to the Textus Receptus. And this is this [23:24] is basically, [23:26] um, you know, the the kingdom of Satan, [23:29] uh, coming home to roost, according to [23:32] the King James Onlyists. [23:34] >> Right. [23:35] >> And that led to, uh, in 50 year 50 [23:39] 50 or 51 years later, I can't I think [23:42] it's 1881. [23:43] It might be 1882, but I 1881 is in my [23:46] head, is when we have the first English [23:49] translation of the New Testament that is [23:51] actually based on the critical text [23:53] rather than the Textus Receptus. And [23:55] that's the RV, the Revised Version, [23:57] which basically took the King James [23:59] Version's New Testament [24:01] and then, [24:02] tr- uh, edited it according to a [24:05] critical, uh, edition of the New [24:07] Testament that was available in that [24:09] time. And I have that big old Bible [24:12] that, uh, that I pulled out to take our [24:14] pictures with for YouTube thumbnails. [24:16] >> Yes. [24:17] >> That is an 1882, [24:21] I think, Bible. 1881 or 1882. [24:24] It is the the first publication where [24:28] they actually put the RV and the King [24:31] James Version side by side. So, they [24:33] published the two of them together, so [24:34] you could compare the the Revised [24:38] Version to the King James Version. And [24:40] that's where they actually have, you [24:42] know, if you go look in Matthew 17:21, [24:45] or any one of a number of other about 16 [24:47] other passages, [24:49] they just omit the verse altogether, [24:51] because [24:53] through the process of examining all the [24:56] manuscripts, comparing them, and making [24:58] judgment calls about which readings are [25:00] better, [25:02] we arrived at the conclusion that there [25:03] are over a dozen full verses in the New [25:06] Testament that [25:09] are secondary additions to the text, [25:11] that were not written by the authors of [25:13] these texts. We have manuscripts where [25:17] they are absent, and we can and it's the [25:20] explanation that they were added later [25:23] is [25:24] a far stronger conclusion than the [25:27] explanation that they somehow fell out [25:29] >> Right. [25:30] >> prior to our earlier earliest [25:32] manuscripts. And this [25:33] >> This and the funny thing is that some of [25:35] these things, you know, I obviously the [25:37] the glaring example is the woman taken [25:39] in adultery. We've talked about that. [25:41] >> there are two glaring examples. That one [25:43] and then the what we call the long [25:45] ending of Mark, uh, [25:47] verses 9 through 20 of Mark 16, which [25:50] are not in our earliest manuscripts. [25:53] >> And [25:53] the And the point that I was going to [25:55] make is that like the woman taken the [25:56] story of the woman taken in adultery [25:59] is great. [26:00] >> Yeah. [26:00] >> Like it's a good like it's a good [26:02] addition to the book. I like it. But it [26:05] But like so So I I [26:08] I think it's important to clarify that [26:11] when we say [26:12] uh this is a good translation or this is [26:14] a, you know, textually [26:16] accurate thing, [26:18] it's not That's not actually a a value [26:21] judgment on what's good and what's not [26:23] good in the Bible so much as it is just [26:26] try like the the the the project here is [26:29] to get at [26:31] some level of accuracy or some level of [26:34] uh of understanding of what the original [26:36] text may have said. [26:38] >> Yeah. And um I know we don't have a lot [26:40] of time left, but um this is I I [26:44] mentioned that in New Testament and and [26:46] uh Old Testament Hebrew Bible textual [26:48] criticism is is different, and much of [26:51] that has to do with uh [26:53] the fact that we're usually aimed at [26:55] producing different kinds of results. [26:57] Like critical editions of the Hebrew [26:59] Bible have historically gone at it a [27:02] little differently from critical [27:03] editions of the New Testament. And the [27:04] main difference is that when it comes to [27:06] the Hebrew Bible [27:08] almost all of our critical editions have [27:10] always been what are called diplomatic [27:11] editions. So now we'll get into some of [27:14] the glossary things. Diplomatic edition [27:16] is a critical edition that is based on a [27:18] single manuscript. [27:20] And then [27:21] >> Right. Right. [27:22] >> and and so our critical editions of the [27:23] Hebrew Bible are the Leningrad Codex for [27:26] the most part. And then in the critical [27:28] apparatus we might say, "Okay, there are [27:30] Qumran manuscripts that say this or the [27:32] Septuagint says this or something like [27:34] that." And that allows a translator to [27:37] make text critical decisions about what [27:39] they're actually going to translate. The [27:42] New Testament, there is no single [27:44] manuscript that is considered as [27:46] authoritative as the Leningrad Codex, [27:48] which is the Masoretic text. So we have [27:51] always used what we call eclectic [27:52] editions. So diplomatic is based on one [27:55] manuscript. Eclectic editions are based [27:58] on an edition of the source text that [28:01] has been cobbled together from a bunch [28:03] of different manuscripts. So [28:04] that's the Textus Receptus and that's [28:07] all the critical editions that have been [28:09] published ever since unless you have [28:10] like [28:12] a critical edition of the Codex [28:14] Sinaiticus [28:15] or something like that. But those are [28:18] are very rarely used for translations [28:20] into English. [28:21] Uh that might be used for [28:24] a translation into modern Greek, [28:26] Demotikos, for uh you know, the Greek [28:28] Orthodox Church or something like that. [28:30] Uh so that's one of the the main [28:32] differences. Uh some other glossary [28:35] things that would be helpful for you. I [28:37] use these words sometimes in my videos. [28:39] I usually try to explain them, but when [28:40] I don't they just go scorching by over [28:42] people's heads. But um [28:44] you you'll hear about two different [28:46] kinds of changes. One is haplography, [28:49] one is dittography. Haplography is when [28:52] something has [28:54] accidentally been omitted. There's been [28:56] a transcription error that results in [28:58] text being lost. And frequently, and [29:01] there are two different reasons that [29:02] that happens mostly. One of them is [29:05] called homoeoarcton, one of them is [29:07] called homoeoteleuton. So, I promised I [29:10] would get to these words, but [29:11] homoeoarcton means same beginning. And [29:14] so, if you've ever ever transcribed a [29:17] text, you go to your your exemplar, your [29:20] source text, you read as many words as [29:22] you can exactly remember, and then you [29:25] go over to your blank manuscript page, [29:27] and you write down the words exactly as [29:29] you remember them. And then you have to [29:31] return back to your source text. Now, [29:34] usually what you do is you either keep [29:36] in your head [29:38] how the word the last word you wrote [29:40] down ended, or you take note of how the [29:43] next word coming up in the source text [29:45] begins. [29:46] >> Right. [29:46] >> So, you go back, and then when you come [29:48] back to your source text, you go back to [29:50] what you recall the word ended with, or [29:52] what you recall the next word began with [29:54] with, and you pick back up there. [29:57] And if [29:59] words that either end or begin the same [30:01] occur multiple times within a line or [30:04] within a couple lines or even a few [30:06] lines of each other, sometimes you [30:08] accidentally go back to the wrong word, [30:10] and you pick up either where you have [30:13] already transcribed or you skip over [30:16] stuff to pick up again. And so, if you [30:19] uh you know, if homoeoarcton, two words [30:21] that begin the same, you accidentally go [30:24] back and record a word or multiple words [30:27] all over again, that's called [30:28] dittography. Dittography is where you [30:31] have repeated or added material. [30:34] And then if you skip lines or words [30:36] because of the way a word ended or [30:38] because of the way a word began, that is [30:41] haplography. That's where you have [30:42] omitted material. So in textual [30:44] criticism, if you listen to a [30:46] presentation given by a textual critic, [30:48] they'll they they might push their [30:49] glasses up on their nose and go, "And [30:52] this was omitted because this is [30:54] haplography as a result of [30:56] homoioarcton." And it all sounds very [31:00] fancy and and we are very proud of our [31:02] ability to remember these these Latin [31:05] and Greek words and use them to try to [31:07] help us figure out what reading was [31:10] likely original. But it is it is a fun [31:13] exercise to actually look at a text and [31:17] be like, [31:18] "Oh, wow, I can see now exactly how [31:22] the scribe went about doing this." And [31:25] they went from that word and skipped [31:27] over these words and picked back up on [31:31] this other line. And that's why in the [31:34] the the manuscript that I have, it skips [31:36] over those things and you know, it [31:39] either does or doesn't make much sense [31:41] the resulting text. [31:43] >> Right. [31:43] >> There are a lot of examples of of that [31:45] going on. We can even see in the Dead [31:47] Sea Scrolls, the largest [31:50] correction that the Dead Sea Scrolls [31:52] have helped biblical scholars make to [31:55] biblical manuscripts in terms of just [31:57] number of words is a part in Book of [32:00] Samuel where there is a whole paragraph [32:05] that got omitted because of haplography [32:08] cuz the scribe skipped from from one [32:11] word to another. [32:12] >> Yeah. [32:12] >> And and we we found a manuscript of the [32:15] Dead Sea Scrolls where it has that [32:18] paragraph. But what's funny [32:21] is you can even see in the Dead Sea [32:23] Scroll manuscript that part of the [32:25] paragraph had to be written into the [32:27] margins by a different scribe because [32:30] even within that Dead Sea Scroll [32:32] manuscript, they accidentally omitted [32:35] some of the paragraph. Yeah, yeah. So [32:37] they did it within that manuscript and [32:39] then later on the Masoretic text and and [32:42] that that omission goes all the way back [32:44] to the Septuagint. Like that happened [32:45] very, very early on in the transmission [32:48] of the book of Samuel. So, and and then [32:51] the last thing I'll point out is [32:53] what we call conjectural emendations [32:56] because sometimes we're pretty sure this [32:59] manuscript reading is not right, but we [33:01] don't have an extant manuscript that [33:04] preserves a different reading. And [33:06] sometimes we'll be like, [33:07] we really, really, really think we know [33:09] what happened here. And so, you might [33:12] have if if a critical edition or a [33:14] translation is open to what are called [33:17] conjectural emendations, they might just [33:19] say, you know what, we're just going to [33:21] we're going to [33:22] call an audible, we're going to make an [33:24] executive decision here. I'm changing [33:26] this to what we're pretty darn sure it [33:28] originally read even though we don't [33:30] have a manuscript that directly attest [33:32] to that. There are textual critics who [33:34] be like, that is anathema. You can never [33:36] do that. That is not allowed. You'll [33:38] have other textual critics who say, [33:39] yeah, we we're pretty darn sure. We [33:42] don't need to worry about this. We can [33:44] make this change. So, conjectural [33:46] emendations are a somewhat controversial [33:49] aspect of textual criticism today as [33:52] well. [33:53] >> Well, there you go. [33:53] >> lot more to get to that we're we don't [33:55] get to talk about. [33:56] >> Out out there [33:57] all these all these [33:59] textual textual critics out there just [34:02] causing uncertainty in the biblical [34:04] text, ruining it for everybody. [34:07] Well, that's it for today. [34:09] If you would like to become a part of [34:10] making this happen and maybe just help [34:14] us out just a tick, you can go over to [34:16] patreon.com and become patreon.com [34:20] specifically {slash} dataoverdogma where [34:23] you can become one of our patrons and in [34:27] so doing [34:28] depending on what level you do, you can [34:30] get access to an early and ad-free [34:32] version of every episode. You can get [34:34] access to what we are now calling the [34:37] pre-game. [34:39] Um, maybe. We'll see how [34:40] if that sticks. [34:41] >> We're going to workshop that one, yeah. [34:43] >> There's There's a There's bonus content [34:45] every single week. Uh, so head on over [34:47] there if you can. We'd sure appreciate [34:49] it. [34:50] Uh, and share this, as we said before, [34:52] with with someone that you think might [34:54] be interested in it. [34:56] Uh, also like, comment, subscribe, do [34:58] all of those things, please. [35:00] >> Yeah. [35:00] >> Uh, thank you so much to Roger Goudy for [35:02] editing the show. Thanks to Sam, our [35:03] right-hand man. And thanks to all of you [35:06] for tuning in. We'll talk to you again [35:07] next time. [35:08] >> Bye, everybody. [35:09] >> [music]  📄 **Full text:** [[Full Document Contents/Articles/We’ve Never Found the Original Bible Manuscripts.md|We’ve Never Found the Original Bible Manuscripts by Dan McClellan and Dan Beecher]] ## Highlights - And so now really what textual criticism at least textual criticism in the Bible is mainly concerned with is trying to uh reconstruct the earliest recoverable form of a given text. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kz6ht9wfhy1scf5a09s5pffr)) - Note: The cautious target is the earliest form that surviving evidence can support. - Tags: biblical-textual-criticism, atom/literature/h1 - Not a hard and fast rule, but just a trend. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kz6ht7y9t53exjwsdmnk5f0a)) - Note: Text-critical principles describe tendencies, not automatic verdicts. - Tags: manuscript-variants, atom/literature/h2 - But it is it is a fun exercise to actually look at a text and be like, "Oh, wow. I can see now exactly how the scribe went about doing this." ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kz6ht8m78e638g9hepn21tps)) - Note: Comparing witnesses can expose a plausible copying mechanism behind a variant. - Tags: atom/literature/h3, scribal-practices ## Links - [[3. Resources/Permanent Notes/The Earliest Stage of a Record Is Usually Its Least Auditable]] — supports: textual criticism reaches the earliest recoverable form supported by surviving witnesses, not an unavailable original. - [[3. Resources/MOCs/Faith & Theology MOC]] — belongs-to: biblical manuscripts and textual criticism.