Week 4: The Reliability of the New Testament

Week 4: The Reliability of the New Testament Documents – Can We Trust the Record?

Main Teaching

Having established a rational foundation for belief in a personal, moral Creator, we now turn to the specific claims of Christianity. These claims are not abstract philosophical ideas; they are rooted in history—in the life, death, and resurrection of a man named Jesus of Nazareth. But how can we trust the documents that tell us this story? This week, we confront the common charge that the New Testament has been hopelessly corrupted over centuries of copying, like a game of "telephone. " We will see that when judged by the standards of historical and textual analysis, the New Testament is the most reliable and best-attested collection of documents from the entire ancient world.

Part 1: The Bibliographical Test – Counting the Copies and Closing the Gap

When historians evaluate the reliability of any ancient text for which the original document (the "autograph") is lost, they use a science called textual criticism. The primary goal of this discipline is to reconstruct the original text by meticulously comparing the surviving handwritten copies, or manuscripts. To do this, they ask two primary questions : 1. How many manuscript copies exist? A greater number of copies from various geographical locations allows scholars to cross-reference them, identify errors, and determine the original wording with much higher confidence. 2. What is the time gap between the original writing and the earliest surviving copies? A shorter time gap means less time for errors and legendary embellishments to accumulate, giving us a clearer window into the original text. When we apply this "bibliographical test" to the New Testament, the results are simply staggering. The Sheer Number of Manuscripts We possess an unparalleled wealth of manuscript evidence for the New Testament. The numbers are in a class of their own: • There are approximately 5,800 surviving manuscript copies in the original Greek language.

• When we include copies in other ancient languages like Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Aramaic, that number swells to over 24,000. • Additionally, we can find over a million quotations of the New Testament in the writings of the early church fathers, so many that we could reconstruct virtually the entire New Testament from these quotations alone.

The Short Time Gap The time gap between the original writings (composed between roughly 50-100 AD) and our earliest copies is remarkably short. • Our earliest undisputed fragment is the John Rylands Papyrus (P52). This credit-card- sized piece of a codex (an early form of book) contains a portion of John's Gospel and is dated by paleographers to the first half of the second century, around 125-175 AD. This tiny fragment is a historical bombshell. Its discovery in Egypt proved that the Gospel of John was already written and had circulated hundreds of miles from its origin within just a few decades of its composition, demolishing earlier skeptical theories that it was a late, second- century invention. • We have more substantial manuscripts, like the Chester Beatty Papyri (P46) and the Bodmer Papyri (P66, P75), which contain large portions of the Gospels and Paul's letters and date to around 200 AD. • We have complete codices (books) of the New Testament, like the famous Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, from the 4th century (300s AD).

Putting It in Perspective: A Comparison with Other Ancient Works To appreciate how significant this evidence is, we must compare it to other classical works that are accepted without question by historians. Author/Work Date Written Earliest Copy Time Gap (Years) Number of Copies New Testament 50-100 AD ~125 AD < 100 ~24,000+ Homer (Iliad) 900 BC ~400 BC ~500 ~2,000 Plato (Tetralogies) 427-347 BC ~900 AD ~1,200 200+ Aristotle 384-322 BC ~1100 AD ~1,400 ~49 Caesar (Gallic Wars) 100-44 BC ~900 AD ~1,000 ~10 Tacitus (Annals) ~100 AD ~900 AD ~1,000 ~3 Data compiled from sources. No one seriously suggests we cannot know what Caesar or Plato wrote because of these gaps, yet the New Testament is sometimes held to an unfair, inconsistent standard. The great New Testament scholar F .F . Bruce concluded, "there is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament. "

Part 2: The Science of Textual Criticism – What About All the "Errors"?

Skeptics often point out that among our thousands of manuscripts, there are hundreds of thousands of differences, or "textual variants. " This sounds alarming, but it's actually a sign of the evidence's strength. The primary aim of textual criticism is to compare these variants to reconstruct the original text. The vast majority of these variants (over 99%) are completely insignificant and fall into a few simple categories : • Spelling and Nonsense Errors: Just like we might misspell a word when copying something by hand, so did ancient scribes. These are easily identified and corrected. • Changes in Word Order: The flexible grammar of Greek means that word order can often be changed without altering the meaning at all (e.g., "Jesus loves Paul" vs. "Paul, Jesus loves"). • Accidental Omissions/Repetitions: A scribe's eye might skip a line or repeat a word. The sheer number of manuscripts allows scholars to see where these minor errors occurred and confidently weed them out. Far from being a weakness, the thousands of variants are the very data that allow us to reconstruct the original with incredible precision. What about the remaining variants that are meaningful? Even here, the situation is not what skeptics often portray. The late Bruce Metzger, one of the most respected textual critics of the 20th century, was mentor to the now-famous skeptic Bart Ehrman. Both agree that no essential Christian belief is affected by any viable textual variant in the manuscript tradition. The deity of Christ, his resurrection, and the doctrine of salvation by faith are not in doubt. The variants in question relate to secondary issues, such as whether the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) or the longer ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) were part of the original manuscripts. While interesting, these do not change the core message of the New Testament.

Part 3: Corroborating External Evidence

The reliability of the New Testament is not just based on manuscripts. It is continually corroborated by external evidence from other fields.

Archaeology: Time and again, archaeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of the New Testament writers. • The Pilate Stone: Discovered in 1961, this stone slab bears an inscription with the name "Pontius Pilatus, Prefect of Judea, " confirming the existence and title of the Roman governor who crucified Jesus. • The Caiaphas Ossuary: In 1990, a first-century burial box was discovered inscribed with the name "Joseph son of Caiaphas. " Inside were the bones of a 60-year-old man, believed to be the high priest who presided over Jesus' trial. • Luke's Accuracy: The author of Luke and Acts has been repeatedly vindicated as a first- rate historian. He correctly uses obscure and specific titles for local rulers, such as "proconsul" for Sergius Paulus in Cyprus, a detail confirmed by inscriptions. The conclusion is clear: if we are to be consistent in our historical standards, we must afford the New Testament at least the same level of trust we give to other ancient documents. When we do, we find that the evidence for its reliability is overwhelmingly superior. We can be confident that the New Testament we read today is a faithful representation of what was originally written.

Extra Notes & Resources for Deeper Study

This is a deep and fascinating topic. For those who want to explore further, here are some excellent resources.

Key Thinkers to Know:

• F .F . Bruce (1910-1990): A renowned British biblical scholar, his classic book The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? is considered a foundational and highly accessible work in this field. • Bruce Metzger (1914-2007): One of the most important New Testament textual critics of the 20th century. His scholarly work demonstrates that the essential truths of Christianity are unaffected by textual variants.

• Bart Ehrman (1955-Present): A former student of Metzger, he is now a well-known agnostic scholar. While he uses textual variants to challenge the inerrancy of the Bible, he agrees with Metzger that core Christian doctrines are not affected by them. • Daniel B. Wallace (1952-Present): A contemporary scholar and founder of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM), which works to digitize and preserve ancient manuscripts. Recommended Reading: • For a clear and accessible introduction: o F .F . Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? This is the single best starting point. It is short, scholarly, and very readable. o Don Stewart, The Reliability of the New Testament Text. A good overview of the different lines of evidence. • For a more in-depth academic treatment: o Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. This is the standard university textbook on the subject. o Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, edited by Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry. This book addresses many of the common misconceptions promoted by skeptics. Online Resources: • The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM): (csntm.org) An incredible resource with high-resolution digital images of many of the manuscripts discussed. • The Bible Archaeology Report: (biblearchaeologyreport.com) A great source for keeping up with new discoveries that relate to the biblical text.

Discussion Questions

1. Before this session, what was your impression of the Bible's reliability? How has the bibliographical evidence changed or reinforced your view? 2. How does the evidence of thousands of manuscript copies from different geographical regions challenge the idea that the New Testament story was like a game of "telephone"? 3. Does learning that there are hundreds of thousands of "variants" in the manuscripts initially shake your confidence or strengthen it? After understanding what these variants are, how does your perspective change? 4. How would you use the comparison table to explain to a skeptical friend why we can be confident that the New Testament we have today is what was originally written? 5. Does the fact that archaeology confirms specific people, places, and events in the Bible increase your confidence in its spiritual claims? Why or why not?

Further Study Worksheet: "What About the 'Lost Books' of the Bible?"

Popular books and movies like The Da Vinci Code often refer to so-called "lost books" of the Bible, such as the "Gospel of Thomas" or the "Gospel of Judas. " This creates the impression that a group of powerful men in the 4th century arbitrarily decided which books to include in the Bible and suppressed others that told a different story about Jesus. This narrative is historically false. The books that make up our New Testament are called the "canon, " from a Greek word meaning "rule" or "standard. " The early church used three main criteria to recognize which books were authoritative and belonged in the canon: 1. Apostolic Origin: Was the book written by an apostle or a close associate of an apostle? The authors needed to have a direct connection to the eyewitnesses of Jesus's life. 2. Conformity to the Rule of Faith: Did the book's teaching align with the core Christian faith that was already established and being taught in churches across the empire? 3. Continuous Acceptance and Use by the Church: Was the book widely accepted and used by churches from the beginning? The so-called "lost gospels, " also known as the Gnostic gospels, failed these tests. Here's why they were never considered canonical: • They are late. The canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) were all written in the 1st century. The Gnostic gospels were written much later, in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries. They are not eyewitness accounts. • They have false authorship. They were written by anonymous authors who attached the names of famous apostles (like Thomas or Philip) to their work to give them false authority. • They teach a different theology. Gnosticism taught that the physical world was evil, created by a lesser god, and that salvation came through secret knowledge (gnosis), not through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus. This is completely at odds with the apostolic teaching found in the canonical New Testament. These books were not "lost" and then rediscovered; they were known by the early church fathers and were rejected precisely because they were recognized as later forgeries that did not represent the true, historical Christian faith.

Supplemental Study

Week 4: The Testimony of the Early Church Fathers

One of the most powerful lines of evidence for the reliability and early circulation of the New Testament comes from the writings of the early church leaders who lived in the generations immediately following the apostles. These men are known as the "Church Fathers. " Their letters and sermons are filled with direct quotations and allusions to the New Testament books. Why is this important? The sheer volume of these quotations is staggering. Scholars have cataloged over a million quotations of the New Testament from the Church Fathers. In fact, even if every single manuscript of the New Testament had been destroyed, we could reconstruct virtually the entire New Testament from their writings alone. This demonstrates that the New Testament text was stable, widely distributed, and considered authoritative from a very early period. A Few Early Examples: • Clement of Rome (c. 95 AD): Writing from Rome to the church in Corinth, Clement quotes from or alludes to numerous New Testament books, including Matthew, Luke, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. His letter was written before the Apostle John had even died. • Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD): On his way to martyrdom in Rome, Ignatius wrote seven letters to various churches. In these letters, he quotes from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and 1 & 2 Timothy. He clearly treats these apostolic writings as Scripture. • Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 110 AD): A direct disciple of the Apostle John, Polycarp wrote a letter to the Philippian church in which he quotes from a vast array of New Testament books, including Matthew, Acts, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and 1 John.

The Unbroken Chain: These men were not writing centuries after the fact. They were part of an unbroken chain of testimony. Polycarp was taught by John the Apostle. Irenaeus (c. 180 AD), another prolific writer, was taught by Polycarp. Irenaeus wrote, "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. " The writings of the Church Fathers provide a powerful external check on the New Testament text. They show us what the earliest Christians were reading and teaching, confirming that the Gospels and letters we have today are the same ones that were circulating in the churches within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses themselves.