Why basis of bible are so shaky?

Question

A. THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON (A.D. 100-220)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council. ("Canon of the New Testament")
There is a lot of confusion about the earliest existing texts of the Bible. The oldest extant manuscript of the Bible is believed to be the Codex Vaticanus, (preserved in the Vatican Library), which is slightly older than the Codex Sinaiticus (preserved in the British Library), both of which were transcribed in the fourth century.

As for the story of Jesus, there were at least 50 gospels written in the first and second century CE. Four of them (Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John) were included in the official canon during the fourth century CE and are found today in every Bible. All of the original copies of the gospels were lost. What we have now are handwritten copies, which are an unknown number of replications removed from the originals.
Rudolf Bultmann, a prominent 20th-century professor of New Testament studies writes about the life of Jesus:
We can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus, since the early Christian sources show no interest in either, are moreover fragmentary and often legendary; and other sources about Jesus do not exist. (Bultmann 8)

Answer 1

That's just the way it is.

So many people (perhaps the majority) think that the gospels were written by Jesus' disciples -- but they weren't! They were written long after the disciples were dead.

Answer 2

its shaky becuz ammendments were made in it in early days according to ppl perception about GOD'S verses..ppl were short of knowledge and changed them the way they thought was right.. thats why it looks shaky and incorrect..
if u read THE Quran as reference to the bible ull be able to understand it better.. cuz Quran is also a book by GOD but no ammendments are made not because muslims are better than cristians but becuz ALLAH swt himself took the responsibility of keeping it the way it was revealed

Answer 3

If you think the basis of Scripture is shaky, you haven't scratched the surface with your research.
Scripture is a firm foundation, and it's absolutely sure.

Answer 4

O Really?
Then how about yours?
even worse than that, isnt it?
Why did u learn something just to use it attack others? thats wierd

Answer 5

Because reading and studying is more productive than cut and paste.

Answer 6

You have some of the facts correct in your statements. but others of them are stated in a way that could lead to a mis-representation of the facts.

It is true that the canon of scripture took over a century to be established. But as the books of the New Testament where still be written for the majority of the time, it would have been difficult to have put together an entire "canon" before all the books were done.

The first New Testament books to appear were the early letters of Paul, starting in 48 AD. He would continue to write until his death in 64 AD. So you have at least 35 years after the death of Jesus before Paul's writings could be collected and placed into the "canon".

The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke appeared somethime between 50 and 70 AD. Quotes from these gospels appear in other works, such as the writings of Clements of Rome, by the early 90s. At that point, his writings indicate that the three gospels were already accepted as scriputre. The writings of John would not be completed until around 95-100AD. So it would be nearly a hundred years before all the books would exist and could be collected into a "New Testament".

A second thing to keep in mind is that the "book" (or codex) had not yet been invented. Nobody had come up with the idea of sewing pages together to make a "book". Everything was stored on scrolls. Because of that, there was a limit on how much material you could include and still have a scroll that was light enough to lift, and practical to "turn" to get to pages.

So you will find no collections of the entire New Testament from before the time of "books". They did not have the technology to place the entire NT into a single volume. The "books" was not invented until around 200AD. So, of course, there are no copies of entire NT from before that time.

What you will find are complete collections of the writings of Paul. Every one of the letters we have in today's NT are found in those collections. One such scroll which appears to date from around 125-150AD has been reconstructed to where 72% of the original collection is readable. The remaining "gaps" are such that they would fit perfectly with the text used today.

The same is true with early collections of the gospels. Every single one contains either the four gospels that we know today, or the four gospels with the book of Acts appended to the gospel of Luke (both books being by the same author). There is not a single expection to this.

Were there other books about Jesus? Yes. We have fragmented manuscripts for several of them. It is not "50" of them. At least not that date from the earliest centuries of the church. But there have always been people writing books about Jesus. Look at the DiVinci Code and the stir that it caused recently. But just because it is a book which claims to be about Jesus, no one would suggest adding it to the canon of the New Testament. We are aware that it is a work of fiction which dates long after the events. It should be noted that there is not a single work from the early church fathers which quotes from any of these "50" other "gospels". Yet all but eleven verses of the books of the New Testaments can be found in those same writings. So it appears that the works were not seen as scripture or important to the people alive when they are written.

The early church leaders often wrote about new "gospels" which were appearing, and condemning the material within them. They show that many of these gospels first appeared 200 or more years after the time of Jesus. None of them were ever accept at any time as scripture, or even of historical value.

The earliest listing of a "canon" is accredited to a "heretic" named Marcion. He accepted only the writings of Paul and the gospel of Luke (with Acts attached) as the entire scriptures. No Old Testament or other writings. In his writings (in the early 100s), he rejects the gospels of Matthew, Mark and John by name, and the writings of Peter, James and Jude. He makes no mention of Revelation. He also does not take the time to reject any other writings or gospels, which would seem to indicate that only the four gospels and the other letters were in common usage in the church. If any of the other gospels were well known, he would have given reasons to reject them also.

The bishop Irenaeus in 160AD refered directly to the four gospels, claiming that there could be no other true gospels besides these. He would produce a list which includes all of the books of the current New Testament, except 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John (among the last books written). He also rejected several other "gospels" and "epistles" as false. Interestingly, he places John's Revelation in both the accepted and rejected column.

A parchment refered to as the Muratorian fragment, which dates from the late 100s, includes a listing of "accepted" books that (as much as can be reconstructed) matches the canon in use today. It also rejects several gospels and epistles that had appeared at that time.

While the Roman church would not have a council on the canon of scripture until the 300s, the Syrian church (which was outside the Roman Empire and not subject to its laws - death for Christians) had a council in 150 AD which approved the writing of the four gospels, Acts and the 13 letters of Paul as their official scripture. So these books were well known and in use as scripture by this time.

Clements of Alexandria, writing about 150 AD appears to be the first to include any of the epistles, besides those of Paul, as scripture. He also recognized several "local" writings as being "inspired" for those congreations (such as The Shephard and the writings of Clements of Rome). But did not place them in the "canon" of scripture.

While you are correct in stating the Codex Vaticanus is the oldest extand manuscript of the NT, it is by no means the oldest existing. Extand means that it is in a condition where an average person would be able to look at it and read it (if they knew the language), turn the pages, etc. It means the books is in "whole" condition.

There are over 2,300 other New Testament manuscripts which predate the Codex Vaticanus. But they are not "extand". They are in fragments which have to be reconstructed like a jigsaw puzzle. Included amoung these are NT collections beginning around 225 AD (shortly after the "book" was invented). From what scholars have reconstructed, these books usually contained the same books found in the NT today. The books 2 Peter and the letter of 2 and 3 John are not included in some of the manuscripts. Others include books that were of local interest (such as the Shephard of Hermus and the letters of Clements of Rome) in the back of the book, after the standard NT books. These "extra" books are not found outside of the area or church to which they were originally addressed.

So by the time the Council of Nicene (between 325 and 400AD) took up the issue of the "canon", the majority of it had been established. The gospels were not even debated. Nor where the 13 letters of Paul. Hebrews was included, but there was discussion about who authored it. I Peter, James and Jude were included. There was debate about 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John as they were not found in some early manuscripts. (Remember that the Council members had access to manuscripts that do not exist today). 2 and 3 John are personal letters each one page in length. They contain no major doctrines or discourse. So they were questions, not for authenticity, but for importance. In the end, as they were believed to be authentic, they were accepted.

They also debated the book of Revelation, and a similar work known as the Apocalypse of Peter. Both contained fiery images of the future and the return of Christ. As the Revelation was more common, and had earlier manuscripts, it was the one selected. Of all the books, it got the most debate.

Since that time, there has been no major debate within the church on the canon of the New Testament. Most of the books had been decided within a generation of their authorship. Some of the last written took a little longer to be approved.

Of those books rejected, manuscriptes still exist today. Copies and translation have been available throughout church history. If you want to read those books, you can. No effort has been made by the church to either suppress or destroy those writings. Usually one read through of the material will show why it was not included in the canon.

Answer 7

If you are looking for an argument, you won't get it from me.


AlENeu