New Biblical manuscript evidence since 2000?

[acts5_29]

Hi,

I have a very specific question; worth a shot to try here: most of my research into the oldest Biblical manuscripts derives from sources pre-dating Y2K. Generally speaking, when researching the Bible, older is better; but that definitely is not always the case. Our translations of the Bible tend to get BETTER as time goes by--a fact which I find myself having to prove to non-Christians over and over again.

Does anyone know of any media (periodicals, publications, professors) which regularly publish about newly-uncovered findings into the original New Testament manuscripts? Such as new uncials, miniscules, etc. which may have come to light post-year-2000? i tried to Google this, but am not finding much of value that way.

Of particular interest, I'm trying to get to the bottom of what exactly this recent "discovery" is that happened with the Dead Sea Scrolls? I know it was determined that certain OT passages were written on cow and lamb parchment instead of camel (where cows and sheep were not present in the region...), but a) how do they know? And b) how do some people jump from that to "The Dead Sea Scrolls are a hoax"? The oldest manuscript of the Diatessaron was discovered in Persia but written in Greek (where Greek was not spoken in Persia in 5th century AD), yet no one has tried to call the Diatessaron a hoax for about 400 years now.

 

[Scribe]

Hi,

I have a very specific question; worth a shot to try here: most of my research into the oldest Biblical manuscripts derives from sources pre-dating Y2K. Generally speaking, when researching the Bible, older is better; but that definitely is not always the case. Our translations of the Bible tend to get BETTER as time goes by--a fact which I find myself having to prove to non-Christians over and over again.

Does anyone know of any media (periodicals, publications, professors) which regularly publish about newly-uncovered findings into the original New Testament manuscripts? Such as new uncials, miniscules, etc. which may have come to light post-year-2000? i tried to Google this, but am not finding much of value that way.

Of particular interest, I'm trying to get to the bottom of what exactly this recent "discovery" is that happened with the Dead Sea Scrolls? I know it was determined that certain OT passages were written on cow and lamb parchment instead of camel (where cows and sheep were not present in the region...), but a) how do they know? And b) how do some people jump from that to "The Dead Sea Scrolls are a hoax"? The oldest manuscript of the Diatessaron was discovered in Persia but written in Greek (where Greek was not spoken in Persia in 5th century AD), yet no one has tried to call the Diatessaron a hoax for about 400 years now.

Research what Wayne Grudem might know. He was chief editor for the ESV study bible and would probably have his finger on the pulse of any late discoveries of fragments or copies. The ESV version itself was the latest attempt at a literal translation from original text. A functional equivalent attempt.

 

[Dino246]

Dan Wallace is also likely to be aware of recent findings. He's working on digitizing all the manuscripts.

 

[acts5_29]

Wayne Grudem has 2 interesting works dated 2005 and 2012. I was hoping for more of a treasure trove (there's got to be one out there?). However, when I looked into Wayne Grudem, that pointed me to this professor Jack Collins. Now this guy's fascinating: an MIT postgrad in Computer Science, who went on to get an MDiv and is now a theology professor. There is a SLIGHT pay difference between an MS in CompSci from MIT vs. being a theology professor. His specialty seems to be more in Old Testament studies, so he might have some information on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I thought pretty much all of the major manuscripts were digitized already? Nonetheless, Wallace has a 2011 book that seems right up my alley: Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence.

(Speaking of apocryphal evidence: I'm wondering about the Epistle of Barnabas right now, as was in the Codex Sinaiticus. This was included in some churches' canon at the time, but I have a theory that it is not in the canon now simply because Barnabas was not a direct Apostle. This may actually be a useful Christian writing--albeit perhaps not inerrantly inspired)

 

[Scribe]

Wayne Grudem has 2 interesting works dated 2005 and 2012. I was hoping for more of a treasure trove (there's got to be one out there?). However, when I looked into Wayne Grudem, that pointed me to this professor Jack Collins. Now this guy's fascinating: an MIT postgrad in Computer Science, who went on to get an MDiv and is now a theology professor. There is a SLIGHT pay difference between an MS in CompSci from MIT vs. being a theology professor. His specialty seems to be more in Old Testament studies, so he might have some information on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I thought pretty much all of the major manuscripts were digitized already? Nonetheless, Wallace has a 2011 book that seems right up my alley: Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence.

(Speaking of apocryphal evidence: I'm wondering about the Epistle of Barnabas right now, as was in the Codex Sinaiticus. This was included in some churches' canon at the time, but I have a theory that it is not in the canon now simply because Barnabas was not a direct Apostle. This may actually be a useful Christian writing--albeit perhaps not inerrantly inspired)

or perhaps as it has always been considered, not by Barnabas. A pseudonymous work.

 

[Scribe]

Wayne Grudem has 2 interesting works dated 2005 and 2012. I was hoping for more of a treasure trove (there's got to be one out there?). However, when I looked into Wayne Grudem, that pointed me to this professor Jack Collins. Now this guy's fascinating: an MIT postgrad in Computer Science, who went on to get an MDiv and is now a theology professor. There is a SLIGHT pay difference between an MS in CompSci from MIT vs. being a theology professor. His specialty seems to be more in Old Testament studies, so he might have some information on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I thought pretty much all of the major manuscripts were digitized already? Nonetheless, Wallace has a 2011 book that seems right up my alley: Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence.

(Speaking of apocryphal evidence: I'm wondering about the Epistle of Barnabas right now, as was in the Codex Sinaiticus. This was included in some churches' canon at the time, but I have a theory that it is not in the canon now simply because Barnabas was not a direct Apostle. This may actually be a useful Christian writing--albeit perhaps not inerrantly inspired)

Jerome said..
As a matter of fact, the Letter of Barnabas cannot be the work of the Barnabas who figures in Acts and in the Pauline epistles; it belongs to the later part of the first century and is probably of Alexandrian origin.

F. F. Bruce. The Canon of Scripture (Kindle Locations 2245-2246). Kindle Edition.

 

[acts5_29]

My understanding is the majority opinion is that it was written by a different Barnabas. Hippolytus mentioned two Barnabas' in his list of original disciples. Nonetheless, I'm not seeing very heretical teachings in the text, I'm not seeing any Gnosticism, it was written around the same time as Revelation, and some churches treated it as full-blown canon. The book is just so loooooooong!

 

[acts5_29]

Jerome said..
As a matter of fact, the Letter of Barnabas cannot be the work of the Barnabas who figures in Acts and in the Pauline epistles; it belongs to the later part of the first century and is probably of Alexandrian origin.

F. F. Bruce. The Canon of Scripture (Kindle Locations 2245-2246). Kindle Edition.

Right. And Alexandrian type text is considered the most reliable. Is that all the reason you saw that Jerome excluded it? I don't believe Jerome had access to any precursor to the Codex Sinaiticus at the time of the Vulgate. He might have had access to the Vaticanus (which did not have Barnabas in it...). I see that some of the disputed books got in (such as Revelation), and Barnabas got left out, but I haven't seen a lot of the reasoning behind it. Today, the #1 reason I see it is not in our modern canon is because it was not in the Vulgate. Surely there has got to be more than that.

 

[Scribe]

My understanding is the majority opinion is that it was written by a different Barnabas. Hippolytus mentioned two Barnabas' in his list of original disciples. Nonetheless, I'm not seeing very heretical teachings in the text, I'm not seeing any Gnosticism, it was written around the same time as Revelation, and some churches treated it as full-blown canon. The book is just so loooooooong!

Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas were never fully embraced as canon though they were read in churches for edification.

Origen thus mentions all twenty-seven books of our New Testament; twenty-one, he says, are acknowledged, and six are doubtful. But among doubtful books he also reckons some which in the end did not secure a place in the canon. Like Clement of Alexandria before him he treats the Didache as scripture, and he calls the Letter of Barnabas a `catholic epistle"'-a term which he also applies to 1 Peter.60 R. M. Grant suggests that while he lived at Alexandria he accepted the more comprehensive
tradition of the church there and acknowledged the Didache and the Letter of Barnabas, together with the Shepherd of Hermas, as scripture, but that after he moved to Caesarea and found that these books were not accepted there he manifested greater reserve towards them.61 He knew 1 Clement but does not indicate if he regarded it as scripture. He had doubts about the Preaching of Peter, which Clement of Alexandria regarded highly.62 He refers to the Gospel according to the Hebrews63 and the Acts of Paul64 without at first either admitting or disputing their status as scripture; later, however, he had doubts about the Acts of Paul. 6s

F. F. Bruce. The Canon of Scripture (Kindle Locations 1900-1903). Kindle Edition.

 

[Scribe]

Right. And Alexandrian type text is considered the most reliable. Is that all the reason you saw that Jerome excluded it? I don't believe Jerome had access to any precursor to the Codex Sinaiticus at the time of the Vulgate. He might have had access to the Vaticanus (which did not have Barnabas in it...). I see that some of the disputed books got in (such as Revelation), and Barnabas got left out, but I haven't seen a lot of the reasoning behind it. Today, the #1 reason I see it is not in our modern canon is because it was not in the Vulgate. Surely there has got to be more than that.

If you don't already have a copy I highly recommend F.F. Bruce The Canon of Scripture. It will not answer your original question as it was written in the 80s but I think you will enjoy it. It was an award winning book on the subject.

 

[Truth7t7]

Hi,

I have a very specific question; worth a shot to try here: most of my research into the oldest Biblical manuscripts derives from sources pre-dating Y2K. Generally speaking, when researching the Bible, older is better; but that definitely is not always the case. Our translations of the Bible tend to get BETTER as time goes by--a fact which I find myself having to prove to non-Christians over and over again.

Does anyone know of any media (periodicals, publications, professors) which regularly publish about newly-uncovered findings into the original New Testament manuscripts? Such as new uncials, miniscules, etc. which may have come to light post-year-2000? i tried to Google this, but am not finding much of value that way.

Of particular interest, I'm trying to get to the bottom of what exactly this recent "discovery" is that happened with the Dead Sea Scrolls? I know it was determined that certain OT passages were written on cow and lamb parchment instead of camel (where cows and sheep were not present in the region...), but a) how do they know? And b) how do some people jump from that to "The Dead Sea Scrolls are a hoax"? The oldest manuscript of the Diatessaron was discovered in Persia but written in Greek (where Greek was not spoken in Persia in 5th century AD), yet no one has tried to call the Diatessaron a hoax for about 400 years now.

The modern so called scholars and discovery is are nothing but a deception of man.

Do you think a world that's killing 60 million unborn (Abortion) and same sex marriages, homosexulas standing behind pulpits, proclaiming to be God's servants?

Do you really believe man today is going to bring God's truth?

 

[Truth7t7]

Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas were never fully embraced as canon though they were read in churches for edification.

Origen thus mentions all twenty-seven books of our New Testament; twenty-one, he says, are acknowledged, and six are doubtful. But among doubtful books he also reckons some which in the end did not secure a place in the canon. Like Clement of Alexandria before him he treats the Didache as scripture, and he calls the Letter of Barnabas a `catholic epistle"'-a term which he also applies to 1 Peter.60 R. M. Grant suggests that while he lived at Alexandria he accepted the more comprehensive
tradition of the church there and acknowledged the Didache and the Letter of Barnabas, together with the Shepherd of Hermas, as scripture, but that after he moved to Caesarea and found that these books were not accepted there he manifested greater reserve towards them.61 He knew 1 Clement but does not indicate if he regarded it as scripture. He had doubts about the Preaching of Peter, which Clement of Alexandria regarded highly.62 He refers to the Gospel according to the Hebrews63 and the Acts of Paul64 without at first either admitting or disputing their status as scripture; later, however, he had doubts about the Acts of Paul. 6s

F. F. Bruce. The Canon of Scripture (Kindle Locations 1900-1903). Kindle Edition.

Origen was a heretic from Alexandria Egypt, he believed Jesus was a created being, that influenced (Arius) in the Arian heresy, he also taught the pre-existence of souls.

The heretic Clement was the teacher of Origen.

Their teachings would be the foundation for and very much the same as modern day Jehovah's Witnesses

 

[Nehemiah6]

Such as new uncials, miniscules, etc. which may have come to light post-year-2000?

No. There have been no Bible manuscripts uncovered since the year 2,000. And even if they came to light, it would not make a whit of difference. In fact the majority of existing manuscripts in the thousands have not even been properly collated.

But the travesty of the matter is that textual scholars since 1881 have decided that five manuscripts -- actually two out of five -- trump 5,000 manuscripts. They may be ancient but they are extremely corrupt. Yet they are idolized only because they are old.

 

[acts5_29]

I trust what the forefathers did. We all do, although most without knowing it. I just want to know what it is they did and why.

Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas were never fully embraced as canon though they were read in churches for edification.

That's actually how I'm starting to view it. Barnabas chapter 5 actually abolishes sacrifices--nowhere in canonical Scripture do I ever see sacrifices explicitly getting abolished. Yet here we are today, and sacrifices are abolished. I'm interested to know the reasons why Barnabas and Hermas were left out. I can speculate: the Epistle of Barnabas is too long, and even if they did have printing presses back then, we still don't want a bookshelf of Laws to follow, just like the Jewish teachings we were trying to get away from. Plus, who is going to do something as significant as abolish sacrifices--on the authority of some Barnabas we never heard about? But if those are the only reasons, then Barnabas is still a good book; maybe even timeless. It's just not canon.

The Dead Sea Scrolls developments interest me, because it seems they were made by Israeli archaeologists who have always had a bone to pick with Christianity. They have always wanted to discredit the OT passages foretelling of Jesus.

 

[acts5_29]

The modern so called scholars and discovery is are nothing but a deception of man.

Do you think a world that's killing 60 million unborn (Abortion) and same sex marriages, homosexulas standing behind pulpits, proclaiming to be God's servants?

Do you really believe man today is going to bring God's truth?

How about this? Did you know that Emmaus is the same town where David first kept the Ark of the Covenant, before he moved it? Because only in 2019 did we find out.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/n...-archaeologys-top-10-discoveries-of-2019.html

 

[Truth7t7]

How about this? Did you know that Emmaus is the same town where David first kept the Ark of the Covenant, before he moved it? Because only in 2019 did we find out.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/n...-archaeologys-top-10-discoveries-of-2019.html

The ark of the covenant has absolutely no concern in forwarding biblical Christianity.

You quote Christianity Today?

Big Smiles!

 

[Truth7t7]

I trust what the forefathers did. We all do, although most without knowing it. I just want to know what it is they did and why.



That's actually how I'm starting to view it. Barnabas chapter 5 actually abolishes sacrifices--nowhere in canonical Scripture do I ever see sacrifices explicitly getting abolished. Yet here we are today, and sacrifices are abolished. I'm interested to know the reasons why Barnabas and Hermas were left out. I can speculate: the Epistle of Barnabas is too long, and even if they did have printing presses back then, we still don't want a bookshelf of Laws to follow, just like the Jewish teachings we were trying to get away from. Plus, who is going to do something as significant as abolish sacrifices--on the authority of some Barnabas we never heard about? But if those are the only reasons, then Barnabas is still a good book; maybe even timeless. It's just not canon.

The Dead Sea Scrolls developments interest me, because it seems they were made by Israeli archaeologists who have always had a bone to pick with Christianity. They have always wanted to discredit the OT passages foretelling of Jesus.

Barnabas & Hermas were written by the (Alexandria Schools) many believe Origen the author?

Alexandria Egypt and the schools run by Clement, Origen, Arius, were Heretical, teaching Jesus was a created being, pre-existence of souls, Arianism, philosophy, etc

The Church was well aware of the corruptions from these authors and school.

The corrupt Dead Sea scrolls are the product if the (Cult) of the Essenes

 

[Blik]

The Church was well aware of the corruptions from these authors and school.

The corrupt Dead Sea scrolls are the product if the (Cult) of the Essenes

Lots of the material found in the Dead Sea Scrolls are scripture, and scripture that is mostly the same as we have today. You are judging this scripture as corrupt?

When they were first found newspapers all over the world announced it. The news they announced was that it was ancient scripture and showed the world that scripture copies were the same without changes in over 2,000 years.

 

[Dino246]

The modern so called scholars and discovery is are nothing but a deception of man.

"Modern" as compared with what? On what evidence do you make this grand assertion?

 

[Truth7t7]

Lots of the material found in the Dead Sea Scrolls are scripture, and scripture that is mostly the same as we have today. You are judging this scripture as corrupt?

When they were first found newspapers all over the world announced it. The news they announced was that it was ancient scripture and showed the world that scripture copies were the same without changes in over 2,000 years.

The (Essenes) were a cult group of their day, they removed many parts of the old testament, that surrounded (Animal Sacrifice) Leviticus

They shunned animal sacrifice, and separated themselves in the caves of Qumran, they didn't use the temple in Jerusalem, nor animal sacrifice for sin.

Women weren't allowed in their cave dwellings, they were monastic, and didn't marry.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were created and maintained by this group.

Orthodox Judaism surrounded the temple in Jerusalem, and animal sacrifice for sin.