Someone earlier was talking about "common sense", amazing how that works- or doesn't, sometimes.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why We Use The KJV
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
- Status
Someone earlier was talking about "common sense", amazing how that works- or doesn't, sometimes.
And in the Providence of God the building of the roads of the Roman Empire:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_roads
HankD
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Oh c'mon, you are placing yourself into the ridiculous position that if you cannot "know" something (like the 1st century churches did NOT have a complete canonical NT) drawn from available facts, then you cannot "know" anything (for example, you can't "know" that there wasn't a flying pig with wings in the 1st century either).
Last edited by a moderator:
franklinmonroe
Active Member
You and I have been very clear that we were questioning a "complete" NT.
BTW, does anyone appreciate how impractical a complete NT codex would have been in the 1st century? At that time the Greek alphabet consisted of only 'capital' letters (minuscules would come much later); when handwritten they are quite large (using a lot of page space). Paper was not yet available at this time (although papyrus was) so most pages of codicies where made with more durable parchment (animal hide) making them thick and heavy. A complete canonical NT would have been huge!
Last edited by a moderator:
dwmoeller1
New Member
I am just not buying it. I can find no evidence to suggest that the earliest copies of the NT writings were on parchment.
In fact, 2 John 12 indicates that papyrus was used. In fact, from what I can find, the earliest copies of the NT that have been found are on papyrus.
Come on, guys, get with the program. The Dead Sea Scrolls predate the New Testament era by as much as 100 years and several of them are on papyrus. Not to mention the two oldest NT manuscripts, P66 and P46 (the "P" stands for "papyrus").
Last edited by a moderator:
No, I'm saying that nobody can sit here and say that NT churches didn't have a complete copy of the NT. You can "draw" many things from available facts, but you certainly cannot know with any degree of certainty that NT churches didn't have a complete copy of the NT.
My position is, I don't know if they did or not. I haven't seen anything definitive on the subject. You have no idea either. Claiming you know they didn't have a complete copy is ridiculous. Do you have an eyewitness? No. Ok, thank you.
Well,I can sit over here and say that. When you say NT churches -- what time period are you referencing? Are you saying from 70-100 AD for instance? Revelation may not even have been written or at least perhaps copies were not even made and distributed at that point.
Maybe you can you the more general term of Early Church Period. That will give you more latitude and you can move into the following century.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Yes, but I didn't say that the NT was never written on papyrus. In fact, the earliest copies were likely on papyrus. These were typically scrolls of a single work; but there are some surviving papyrus codices (but none that would have had the complete NT). Most early MSS are the remains of either Gospel collections, or collections of Pauline letters, or collections of the General Epsitles. Papyrus began falling out of favor at the time Christianity was beginning to spread. Remember what is under debate here: the possiblity of a 1st Century complete canonical NT (not just pieces of scripture).
Last edited by a moderator:
dwmoeller1
New Member
I understand what is under debate. My point is that your argument that is it unlikely that they had the complete NT because it would be so unwieldy is based the fact that parchment was used. However, if papyrus was in common use (which seems to be the case by all evidence I can see), the unwieldiness argument is unsound. That, of course, does not prove that they did have the complete NT, merely that one can't use the unwieldiness argument to try and argue that they didn't.
Of course, no one can say with certainty that they did have complete copies, but thats a far cry from asserting that they did not.
Really though, none of your points add up to the conclusion you come to...at least not as firmly as you seem to make it. I think you underestimate the ability of the written word to propagate when a group of people value it highly and are motivated to spread it as broadly as possible. That it would have been very difficult given the conditions of the time is w/o dispute. That it would have been impossible or even unlikely given their strong motivation to overcome these difficulties is not clear at all.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
The time period under discussion was the 1st century (originally stated by Mexdeaf: "None of them possessed a complete copy of the New Testament..."). I expanded the argument that a complete canonical NT in a single volume was probably not accomplished until sometime after 200AD (and even then it would have been a rarity).
Last edited by a moderator:
franklinmonroe
Active Member
My position is certainly not completely based upon the use of parchment or vellum. But even a complete papyrus NT would have been quite large; notice I previously mentioned that they were hand written (generally much larger lettering than modern 'large print') in only capital letters. In addition, papyrus was usually only written on one side (the side with the vertical strands being more difficult to write upon, and used primarily for scrolls); parchment was virtually always written on both sides.
Last edited by a moderator:
It would have been quite costly I would imagine as well as unwieldy.
If some few local gatherings of believers had the resources to have the whole New Testament -- certainly even less individuals had that capability.
I think that most Christians in the first 1300 hundred years did not have an entire New Testament.
Last edited by a moderator:
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Agreed. They were still chaining the Bible to the church podium in the 16th century because most folks didn't have a personal one.
Last edited by a moderator:
How plentiful were the various Vugate editions? I doubt that many families had copies.
Yes,a majority of the priests could barely read Latin in the last few centuries before the Reformation (aside from those living in Italy and Spain perhaps).
Interesting convo so far. I'd add to the point about the lack of availability of a biblical copy in most homes until the mid-1600s.
Particularly given the immense illiteracy until near the Enlightenment this would add to lack of need in most Christian homes. The printing press added a tremendous push towards getting lower cost copies to the people, but the costs were still very high until last century.
Anyone who suggests most or even more than a quarter of Christians had access to personal copies of the biblical text prior to the Reformation is missing the point.
Particularly given the immense illiteracy until near the Enlightenment this would add to lack of need in most Christian homes. The printing press added a tremendous push towards getting lower cost copies to the people, but the costs were still very high until last century.
Anyone who suggests most or even more than a quarter of Christians had access to personal copies of the biblical text prior to the Reformation is missing the point.
It falls apart with the very first statement:
The VERSION is the Word of God????
This means that God inspired the translators to the same degree that he inspired Moses, Paul, etc... This is heresy.
And the confusion is not wrought by the one's who believe other versions are valid. You KJVO people are the ones who have introduced this new heresy which causes confusion.
N
NE IN THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF ANY REPUTABLE STANDING HAS EVER PURPORTED THIS STUFF YOU GUYS TEACH ABOUT A PARTICULAR VERSION OF SCRIPTURE.You guys are the ones who introduced this new, liberal doctrine of KJVO.
About 100 years earlier. It was William Tyndale who produced the first mass printed/distributed bible in English. After his death in 1536 John Rogers, in an attempt to keep the bible, printed in Holland, from being confiscated by English authorities changed the name of Tyndale's bible to "Matthews Bible." The ruse worked for a while then the English authorities caught on and started confiscating the "Matthews Bible" also. The printers clandestinely approached the English authorities and offered to "sell out" those who were distributing the bibles and let the authorities know when a shipment was to land in England. In return the printers were given large bribes. They used those bribes to print many, many more bibles, and the bibles turned over to the English authorities were tare copies that were unfit for distribution anyway.
Also the Geneva Bible of 1557/1560 contributed greatly to the availability of English bibles.
So, England was flooded with English bibles starting in 1536 and extending through 1575.
I also believe that the "King James Version is the inspired, inerrant, preserved word of God."
It, like all other translations, is vested with derivative inspiration due to the fact that the Hebrew and Greek textforms from which it was translated were the preserved word of God, preserving the inspired nature of the autographs all down through the ages of ecclesiastical history.
It is not heresy to believe that translated versions are inspired in the derivative sense. It is only heresy if you append the word "only" to the statement.
- Status