Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus are the earliest (essentially) complete Bibles we have, are also some of the best textual exemplars we have, and they're from the 4th century. The earlier the manuscript, the better the witness (in general). We have a fragment of the Gospel of John that may come from the late 1st or early 2nd century, and many more fragments from the 2nd or early 3rd centuries. (The Chester Beatty papyri and the Bodleian Library collections are online if you'd like to look at them!) We also have the biblical quotations from the Greek and Latin fathers, which taken together would duplicate about 90% of the Bible even without direct manuscript evidence of it. We have large parts of OT books preserved from the discoveries in Qumran (the so-called "Dead Sea Scrolls") -- some go back to 200 BC or thereabouts. So yes, we rely on historical preservation and transmission of scripture, but I wouldn't call this "tradition" in the same sense you're using it. In general, the later the manuscript the more likely it is to have mistakes or corruptions in it. I believe that preservation of early manuscripts is providential, and outside the power of human beings to control. God gave us his Word, and God preserves it. Even the Apostles and evangelists who wrote the NT books were using a version of the OT called the Septuagint, a Greek translation that goes far back to the 3rd century BC (until the Qumran discovery, the Greek translation was actually older than any extant Hebrew version by hundreds of years). Academic arguments will continue about whether the Alexandrian or Byzantine textform (of which the Textus Receptus is a subtype) is the better exemplar. I myself think the Editio Critico Maior is the best exemplar for translation because it most closely follows early manuscript evidence. However, whichever Greek/Hebrew textform you follow, you'll get essentially the same Bible every time -- and in translation, there's often literally no difference since most of the textual variances between manuscripts rests in grammar and syntax idiosyncracies of Greek and Hebrew that disappear when translated into English. If you're using a good modern translation, then rejoice: you have in your hands the best and most accurate example of Scripture there has ever been. There is an astonishingly huge number of early manuscripts attesting to its reliability and textual fidelity. (Far more manuscripts are available for books of the Bible than for most other classical literature. We literally have thousands of NT manuscripts; for Cicero, Herodotus, and other classical authors, we might only have one or two (or none -- many classical works came down to us in translation from Arabic or Latin).
I'm sorry but monks and scholars preserving the Scriptures isn't tradition but men moved by the HS to preserve the Gods word. Tradition is the Catholic churchs tradition of all priests being male and celibate
Yes, but how did they know which books to preserve, given that there was no master copy to compare it to? Who made those decisions, and how and why was the authority to make them recognized? The liturgy dictated what was read, and the bishop controlled the liturgy. Both the liturgy and the episcopal office (as well as ordination and succession to the latter) were products of tradition. It was church councils that decided what was in the canon; the Bible itself contains no such list, obviously. Even the titles of the most important books - like the four canonical Gospels - were supplied by tradition. The Gospel of Matthew never claims to have been written by the apostle Matthew, nor that of Mark by Mark, and so on. Those ascriptions are from the 2nd century. They are part of tradition. (And this isn’t even getting into the role of tradition in the reconstructed pre-history of the NT, or ‘higher criticism’; we’re just talking about the complete texts at this point.) The point is that it is impossible to neatly separate some core called “scripture” from something wholly other called “tradition.” The two are inextricably intertwined, and it is impossible to denigrate one without either destroying the other, or elevating it to the status of something divine in its own right.
It’s not my intention to be mean here but it’s pretty clear from your remarks that you have no idea what I’m talking about. I strongly recommend educating yourself on the early Church, and the history of how the New Testament as we know it came to exist within it. Tradition is very important in Anglicanism, and is the source of much of why things are done the way they are in Anglicanism. It’s not something to be denigrated or disrespected. Discussed and critiqued, yes, but not dispensed with or discarded. Even the example you cited - celibate priests - has a biblical warrant, as any Roman Catholic priest or Eastern Orthodox bishop will tell you. It’s not something they just made up. Please educate yourself.
Divine providence. Ultimately, God did. He preserves his Holy Word for the Church. We do not accept the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament as being Scripture because caretaking of that Scripture was given to the Jews and even they reject them as being Divinely inspired. (And with good reason.) We accept the books of the law in the same way that the Jews and Hebrews of old did -- as the inspired Word of God. The last book that met than standard in the OT was Daniel. New Testament works are judged by apostolic authority: they must be grounded either directly or indirectly in the word of Christ himself or of an apostle of Christ. The Gospels contain two Gospels written directly by apostles (Matthew and John), one directly related to an apostle's memoirs (Mark, based on the memoirs of Peter), and Luke, who interviewed apostles and other eyewitnesses for his account (in fact he participated himself in the ministry described in Acts, so he relates direct personal experience). No book was accepted into the NT without having apostolic authority behind it -- including the anonymous book of Hebrews, which was accepted very early by the church as an authentic apostolically-grounded book. Many dozens of non-canonical Gospels and apocalypses were written in the early years of the Christian church, but they were all rejected for the simple reason that they had no apostolic witness. The Bible was preserved within the church by God, but the church was simply the vehicle for God's will. Had the Church entirely thrown out the Bible back in the 400's, we still would have had many copies of it through extant manuscripts and early writings of the fathers. The Church was one avenue of transmission, but there were others. God preserves His Word for His people. Scripture dictates and controls "tradition" -- that's something you cannot seem to wrap your head around. Scripture comes before "tradition", encompasses it, and supercedes it. "Tradition" does not interpret Scripture because Scripture interprets itself. "Tradition" is only valid insofar as it is governed by Scripture, something Anglicans have always affirmed (until recently, anyway). We say "Scripture, tradition, reason" in that specific order on purpose.
So tradition can’t be part of providence, and if it’s providence it can’t be tradition? This is circular nonsense. Acknowledging that the process had a history, and identifying what the elements of that history were, is not somehow a denial of divine providence. The point is that there are elements of what we today call “scripture” that were clearly and indisputably supplied by tradition. The only motive for denying this obvious fact is the intent to treat the Bible itself as somehow divine and preexistent of the process that created it. This should not be a controversial point among Anglicans, for whom tradition holds an important place.
Much of church "tradition" is wrong. The Roman Catholics believe the Magisterium has the sole remit to interpret scripture, that priests must be celibate, and that Mary in an eternal virgin and co-Advocate with Jesus. None of these doctrines are Biblical, yet the RC church teaches them as authoritative because they come from "tradition". Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley died by being burnt alive in service to "tradition" but in violation of actual Christian doctrine. Tradition comes from men, and is inherently subject to corruption. God's Word is, well, God's Word and thus is above such corruption. To the extent that Scripture guides and controls "tradition", then tradition is good -- but when tradition diverges from Scriptural teaching, it loses its authority and becomes useless and even harmful. This is the point of Article VI of the 39 Articles and it exists as a caution against the very idea you seem to advocating. God gave his Word, and God is eternal. Thus God's Word is eternal. The Word existed in God's mind before it was ever written down. EDIT: There is an interesting discussion of this very issue in chapter 2 of J. N. D. Kelly's book Early Christian Doctrines. If you read this, you'll understand why "tradition" meant something very different in the early church than it does today. They were usually speaking of apostolic tradition, not ecclesial tradition (and no, the two are not the same). EDIT 2: Sorry to keep adding to this, but I keep thinking of more things. If you look at Matt. 23:1-12, you'll get a teaching from the Lord Jesus on Scripture vs "tradition". The Pharisees came up with all sorts of new rules from their "tradition" that were not from Scripture, yet they bound believers to these new rules nontheless.
To say that God Almighty can't find a way to protect his Word without the help of us mere mortals is ludicrous.
We were created to be God's agents in the world. That is why we are called "image bearers" of God. It's not that we look like him (God is spirit though he did take on a human body in the Incarnation); it's that we bear (in the sense of carrying by permission) his name and works in the world. When we confess Christ, we accept responsibility for helping in the work of God in Creation (this is part of the Great Commission). Could God do this stuff himself? Sure. But he chooses to work through his created beings. From Melchizedek to Moses to David to the apostles, God works through mankind as well as directly to achieve his ends. God even works through the wicked on occasion to achieve his goals (as with Pharaoh during the time of Moses). God doesn't need our help. But he wants it -- in fact he insists upon it. Consider James 22-25:
Then why did it need to be copied? And why were there errors in transmission that had to be corrected? It wasn’t preserved in the sky for all to see. Why aren’t talking about what could have happened; we’re talking about what did happen. Please educate yourself.
Of course. God has always used men to assist Him in his own plan to redeem mankind. But it's His plan, not man's plan. Or man's own fake traditions, like the Pope, Gods vicar on Earth
King James the Ist is quoted by Izaak Walton, Hooker's biographer, as saying, "I observe there is in Mr Hooker no affected language; but a grave, comprehensive, clear manifestation of reason, and that backed with the authority of the Scriptures, the fathers and schoolmen, and with all law both sacred and civil." Hooker's emphasis on Scripture, reason, and tradition considerably influenced the development of Anglicanism and many political philosophers, including John Locke. Locke quoted Hooker numerous times in the Second Treatise of Civil Government and was greatly influenced by Hooker's natural-law ethics and his staunch defence of human reason. As Frederick Copleston notes, Hooker's moderation and civil style of argument were remarkable in the religious atmosphere of his time.
I understand what you mean, and technically you're correct. But the New Testament did exist in the mind and plan of God. The same Holy Spirit who moved upon men to take up their quills and record the lasting truths the church holds dear is the same Holy Spirit who indwelt and guided the new believers from Pentecost onward. The Holy Spirit was able to bring the necessary truths to them even before they were put down in ink on parchment. We today are truly fortunate to have the reinforcement of the written word of God, but to those whom more knowledge is given, more is required (Luke 12:48). We have an obligation to learn from the scriptures what God's will is for our lives, and to amend our lives so as to comport with the revelation He so graciously provided to us. But that is not the issue facing us today. The issue is: do we strive to preserve the truths given to us by God, or do we allow corruption to pervert those truths through "modern" intellectualist revisionism?
God is Almighty, and He could have chosen a different way to preserve His word. But He chose us, His disciples (despite our fallibility), to be the light-bearers and the preserving influences (salt). It's a job we have been entrusted by God to do: protect His word.
Today I heard about a Barna survey of 20-somethings who'd been raised in the church but had left. They were asked why. 11% indicated hypocrisy in the church. When asked in a follow-up to determine specifically what they meant by hypocrisy, they replied that the churches would teach, "We believe the Bible," but then the church would turn around and say, but we don't really believe the creation story in Genesis, we don't believe that part over here, etc, etc. I thought that was interesting. The young people recognized a double standard when they saw one. Survey shows: modern Bible interpretation methods undermine faith. (Not that I needed a survey; I already knew this.)
Actually it doesn't show that. It shows that the church has not educated its children in the faith properly, and their children are still ignorant of what the church believes. The church, (if it's believing properly as it should), believes in the teaching and deeds of Jesus Christ. So much does it believe this that it follows his instruction to "baptize the nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that he has commanded." Jesus NEVER taught that Adam was made in a single 24 hour day or that his followers MUST believe in the Bible to be saved. There is no Gospel evidence that Jesus of Nazareth ever even ONCE taught EITHER of those possibly untrue requirements of 'saving faith'. Those are taught by some biblical literalist fundamentalists out of ignorance of the nature of the inspired truths of scripture. The evidence of scientific research is truthful and the Bible does not contradict anything that is TRUE. Only incorrect or erronious interpretations of what is written in scripture can be proven to be mistaken or possibly untrue. Jesus taught this: Matthew Chapter 5:1-48. And this: Matthew Chapter 6:1-34. and this: Matthew Chapter 7:1-27. And many other things like it, which many in the church don't actually think are very practical advice, so they don't actually do it. They carry guns intending to use them to even kill, to preserve their own lives. They hoard wealth, they deny truth, they despise their neighbour if he is Hindu, Muslim, Atheist or Jew. Especially they often ignore the command Jesus gave the church that they should "Love one another, as he has loved THEM". Which the church hipocritically often denies the truth of by NOT doing it, and thereby betrays Christ by its double standards when measured against what HE actually DID teach that his disciples SHOULD do. .
Yesterday and today I happened to be re-reading Why I Believe, by Dr. D. James Kennedy. I enjoyed this book in the 1990s and despite it being a bit dated I enjoyed reading it again. In Chapter 4, entitled "Why I Believe in Creation," the author quotes a number of evolutionists. Prof. Louis T. More, then 'one of the most vocal evolutionists: "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone."' The British evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith, said: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable." Dr. Duane Gish, a noted biologist, said, "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults." The author commented: "I believe that is exactly what it is. In Grimm's Fairy Tales someone kisses a frog and in two seconds it becomes a prince. That is a fairy tale. In evolution, someone kisses a frog and in two million years it becomes a prince. "As Arthur Field has pointed out, evolution is based 'upon belief in the reality of the unseen; belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in embryological evidence that does not exist, belief in the breeding experiments that refuse to come off.' It is faith -- faith in the substance of things unseen. It is a religion. It is the religion of the unbeliever...what many Christians don't realize is the incompatibility and the hostility of evolution toward the Bible and Christianity. Jacque Monod, Nobel prize-winning scientist from France who is an evolutionist and not a Christian, says he is appalled that any Christian would try to embrace evolution. Evolution is the cruelest and most wasteful method of creating man. Instead of God creating us by fiat as the scripture tells us He did, God, if He used evolution, would have used billions of years and billions of trillions of quadrillions of creatures living and bleeding and dying in order that man might finally appear. So man would have been created on the surface of a gigantic graveyard. That is totally out of sync with any Christian view of God." Thomas Huxley (evolutionist) stated, "It is clear that the doctrine of evolution is directly antagonistic to that of Creation...Evolution, if consistently accepted, makes it impossible to believe the Bible." The author then points out that evolution formed the basis for Hitler's concept of a 'master race,' and that Mussolini (who frequently quoted Charles Darwin) said that war was essential to ensure the survival of the fittest (a fundamental Darwinian/evolutionary concept). "Karl Marx asked Darwin to write the introduction to Das Kapital since he felt that Darwin had provided a scientific foundation for communism," Kennedy wrote. I must include this final quote: "In the first chapter of Genesis, the Hebrew term bara, indicating the direct creation of God, is used three times. It is used, first of all, for the creation of matter -- the material cosmos. Second, it is used for the creation of life, and third, for the creation of man." I actually bought a new copy of this book so I can give it to a very likable friend of mine who, I found out last week, is an atheist because, as he put it, he has "seen no evidence" for the God of the Bible. His first and middle initials happen to be D. J., and this book (authored by another D. J.) immediately sprang into my mind. I hope you will join me in praying that our Lord will open DJ's spiritual eyes and ears and will soften his heart of stone. I would dearly like to bring him along to heaven.