The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Ravenshire]

This makes me wonder if you're at all interested in challenging your beliefs and considering if you could be wrong; or are just looking to persuade others and affirm what you already believe.

Of course he's not interested in honestly questioning his beliefs. If he were this whole thread would have taken a far different direction. He's here to convince and convert others.

[Lemonvariable72]

Note to mods: This is original material written this morning - except where noted, of course. Thanks. 

---

I. A. 0. – An Accurate Text

Many people believe that the Bible which we have today has been corrupted over time and no longer accurately reflects what the original authors wrote or intended. It is also argued that the oldest known copies of the New Testament are far too young to be of value and that they are just copies of copies of copies into which variations and errors have been mixed. The party game known as “Telephone” is cited as the classic example of how this corruption occurs.

But is this really true? Or does the modern text accurately reflect what the authors originally wrote? We’ll begin by looking at the number of texts available for study and the method scholars use to evaluate their accuracy.

We have multiple recorded instances of the bible being actively edited. Ex the council of Nicaea.

---

I.A.1. – An Embarrassment of Riches

Due to the passage of time and the fragility of the materials upon which ancient books were written, scholars today are limited to studying copies of ancient works because the originals simply no longer exist.  For example, Homer’s Illiad was written around 800 BC, and there are 643 copies of this illustrious work still in existence. The earliest of these copies is dated from around 400 BC. In other words, the time gap between Homer’s writing to the oldest existing copy is a gap of 400 years.

The Roman historian, Tacitus, wrote his 16-volume work, Annals of Imperial Rome, around AD 116, but only one copy of the first six volumes is still in existence; volumes seven through ten have been lost altogether, and volumes eleven through sixteen are found in a single manuscript dated from the eleventh century. In other words, the time gap between Tacitus and the oldest manuscript of those volumes is almost 1,000 years.

Similarly, there are nine extant Greek copies of the works of the Jewish historian, Josephus, and these are dated from the tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries. There is also a fourth-century Latin translation and a Russian translation from the eleventh century.

This pattern could be repeated for all of the ancient authors and texts: a relatively small number of copies of the work in question exist and the oldest of these is dated centuries after the work was written. Yet, despite these challenges, serious historians have little doubt as to the accuracy of the ancient texts themselves.

So, how does the New Testament compare with these other ancient writings? Quite well. In fact, today there are 5,686 Greek New Testament manuscripts – almost ten times the number of manuscript copies of the second-most copied work, Homer's Illiad. Additionally, there are more than 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts and well over 8,000 manuscripts in other languages still in existence which brings the grand total to nearly 25,000 manuscripts dating from the second to the fifteenth centuries. Just as significant is the age of the oldest Greek New Testament manuscripts many of which can be dated to the middle of the second century. Researchers have also announced the existence of a fragment of the gospel of Mark which is believed to date from the first century – though details of this fragment may not be available until 2017. The size and quality of these manuscripts is also significant; while some of these are mere fragments of papyrus containing only a few verses, others contain whole chapters of the gospels, the Book of Acts and various letters of Paul.

Dr. Harold Greenlee wrote:

The oldest known MSS of most of the Greek classical authors are dated a thousand years or more after the author’s death. The time interval for the Latin authors is somewhat less, varying down to a minimum of three centuries in the case of Virgil. In the case of the NT, however, two of the most important MSS were written within 300 years after the NT was completed and some virtually complete NT books as well as extensive fragmentary MSS of many parts of the NT date back to one century from the original writings….Since scholars accept as generally trustworthy the writings of the ancient classics even though the earliest MSS were written so long after the original writings and the number of extant MSS is in many instances so small, it is clear that the reliability of the text of the NT is likewise assured. (Harold Greenlee, Introduction to the New Testament Textual Criticism, 16)

With thousands of manuscripts available for study – an embarrassment of riches, Dr. Greenlee, among countless New Testament scholars, concludes that the text of the New Testament itself is accurate and reliable. To understand why, it is important to consider the next step in the process:  textual criticism.

Except that those copies disagree with each other. For example the story of let he who is without sin throw the first stone is not in copies older then the 9th century.

---

I. A. 2. – Textual Criticism Explained

Each author of a NT book wrote an original manuscript which I'll call "M". Using M, copies were made and sent to various Churches in the NT era. I'll call these second-generation copies, C1, C2 & C3. The number of copies is not important for this illustration. Now, imagine that copies of the copies were made as the Christian Church expanded since every local congregation wanted to have a copy of these important texts. I'll call the copies of C1, C1a, C1b & C1c. There would also be C2a, C2b, and so forth. In the following diagram, each column represents a generation. For example, M is the original, C1 a copy of M, C1a is a copy of C1, and C1a1 is a copy of C1a. Like this:

M > C1 > C1a > C1a1

Over the course of history, some copies are lost or destroyed. The copies which have not been lost are portrayed in red.

M---C1---C1a---C1a1
-----------C1b---C1b1
-------------------C1b2
-----------C1c---C1c1
-------------------C1c2
-----C2---C2a---C2a1
-----------C2b---C2b1
-----C3---C3a---C3a1
-------------------C3a2
-----------C3b---C3b1
-----------C3c---C3c1
-------------------C3c2
-------------------C3c3

Now, imagine further that M, C1, C2 & C3 along with C1a, C2a, C3a & C3b have all been lost, but that C1b, C1c, C2b & C3c are all in museums scattered around the world - Moscow, London, the Vatican, etc. Additionally, all of the copies of those copies still exist (I'm simplifying, of course).

We know that M must have existed, and logic dictates that C1, C2 & C3 must have existed (though we may be unsure of the number of first-generation copies). We can learn that both C1 & C2 must have existed by comparing the extant copies C1b & C2b and discovering subtle variations in the texts - copyists glosses or "typos", if you will. If C1 was slightly different from C2, then those differences will be reflected in C1a and C2a along with all of the subsequent copies of those copies. Variations were passed on from generation to generation. Make sense?

So, how can we know with certainty what the Bible actually said if we don't have the original autograph (M) or if errors (variations) crept into the text? By comparing the existing texts, scholars can work backwards to determine what M actually said. This process, called Textual Criticism provides a high degree of confidence that the Bible we have today contains the message that the original authors intended to convey.

---

I. A. 3. – An Accurate Text – Estimates of Accuracy

Norman Geisler notes in his book A General Introduction to the Bible that the late Bruce Metzer (who taught Bart Ehrman) said that the NT is copied with 99.5 percent accuracy. Geisler goes on to say,  

NT textual authorities Westcott and Hort estimated that only about one-sixtieth rise above “trivialities” and can be called “substantial variations.” In short, the NT is 98.33 percent pure. Second, Greek expert Ezra Abbott said about 19/20 (95 percent) of the readings are “various” rather than “rival” readings, and about 19/20 (95 percent) of the rest make no appreciable difference in the sense of the passage. Thus the text is 99.75 percent accurate. Third, noted NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson said the real concern is with about a “thousandth part of the entire text.” So, the reconstructed text of the New Testament is 99.9% free from real concern.
 
Philip Schaff estimated that of the thousands of variations in all the manuscripts known in his day, only 50 were of real significance and of these not one affected “an article of faith.” Even agnostic NT critic Bart Ehrman admits that:



 
Famous British manuscript expert Sir Frederick Kenyon summed up the matter well when he declared that:




Consider the following message: Y#U HAVE WON TEN MILLION. DOLLARS. Notice that even with the error in the text, 100% of the message comes through.
 
Consider also this message with two lines and two errors.
 
• Y#U HAVE WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS
• YO# HAVE WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS
 
Here we are even more sure of the message with two errors in it. In fact, the more errors like this, the more sure one is of the message since every new line brings a confirmation of every letter except one. As noted earlier, there are about 5700 New Testament manuscripts in existence which provide hundreds, in some cases even thousands, of confirmations of every line in the NT.
 
As a matter of fact, there can be a high percent of divergence in letters and yet a 100% identity of message. Consider the following lines:
 
1. YOU HAVE WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS
2. THOU HAST WON 10 MILLION DOLLARS
3. Y’ALL HAVE WON $10,000,000
 
Notice that of the 27 letters and numbers in line two only 7 in line three are the same. That is little more than 25% identity of letters and numbers, yet the message is 100% the same. They differ in form, but they are identical in content. The same is true of all the basic teachings of the NT.”

 
Taken from:
 
A Look at Bart Ehrman: Agreements and Disagreements
By Eric Chabot
M.A. Southern Evangelical Seminary, Religious Studies.
https://chab123.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/what-bart-ehrman-gets-right-and-wrong/

Who ever told you those number is lying to you. There are multiple examples of of large textual changes when the copies are compared. for example the oldest of luke do not contain chapters one and two and the oldest copies of mark end at mark 16:3.

---

I. A. 4. – Debunking the Telephone Game Analogy

What do you suppose happened to the stories [about Jesus] over the years, as they were told and retold, not as disinterested news stories reported by eyewitnesses but as propaganda meant to convert people to faith, told by people who had themselves heard them fifth- or sixth- or nineteenth-hand? Did you or your kids ever play the telephone game at a birthday party? (Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, pp. 146-147)
 
Many non-Christians object to the reliability of the New Testament, and they often reference the children’s party activity known as the “Telephone Game” as an example of how oral transmission of a message can become distorted. But is this really the principle at work in the writing of the gospels? Let’s examine the rules of the game to see how closely the game may compare with the composing of the scriptures.
 
Rules of the Telephone Game:
 
1.       To play Telephone, you'll need a group of players. More is better.  
 
2.       Choose a phrase for the team to use or let them select one themselves. Phrases should be complicated, with plenty of detail and unfamiliar words -- for instance, try using a phrase such as "Mahogany tables don't look good painted fuchsia." The phrase should never be a familiar expression; these are too easy to remember.
 
3.       Only one player should know what the phrase is.
 
4.       The player who created or received the phrase starts the game by whispering it into the ear of another player.
 
5.       She cannot repeat the phrase, so the second player needs to listen carefully. The second player then whispers the phrase to the third player, who whispers it to the fourth, and so on until the last player.
 
6.       Once all players have spoken, the last player repeats the phrase. Unless everyone on the team is a very clear speaker and a very attentive listener, the phrase will have changed.
 
7.       What began as "Mahogany tables don't look good painted fuchsia" might end up as "Behold, any stables look good waiting on blue sand." If you have time, go back through the players, asking each one what the original phrase was and pinpointing where the various changes occurred.
 

And by studying biblical texts in the koine Greek we can pinpoint exactly where and when the changes happen such as the example i provided before.
Why the Telephone Game Analogy Fails:

 
1.       The rules of the game recommend that a group of players is needed. The reason for this is that in order for the game to be entertaining, deviation from the original phrase is desirable. In contrast, the gospel writers were not playing a game nor were they the last in a long chain of children; they were either eyewitnesses or they relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses who were still alive.

Partially true but a group of people is needed to simulate the real world conditions.

2.       The rules of the game suggest that the phrases should be complicated and contain unfamiliar words. In contrast, the gospel writers conveyed Jesus’ words in plain, simple language using names, places, prophetic writings and history that were familiar to their readers.
 

Yes except they wrote it in a language that few people in jesus's home country would have been able to understand. The 2 common languages in Palestine in the time of jesus were mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic. Legal administration memebers may have known latin, but only the top tier educated people would have read in Greek and the gospels are written in koine Greek. Its like trying to get a message to Americans and writing it in french.

3.       The rules suggest that only one player should know the original phrase. In contrast, the gospel writers had access to many eyewitnesses who could corroborate the written accounts.
 

My first question here is which timeline do you adhere to? the one list in matthew that puts the birth of jesus in 4bc or the book of luke that places it in 6 ad? If we go by the first timeline then we get a day of death around 29 ad. Now most scholars place mark as the earliest gospel at around 70 ad. Now couple this fact with the fact that the average estimated life expectancy in that time and area wouldve been about 50-60 when the infant mortality rate is accounted for. That means that any that was over the age of 18 wouldve been dead. You also have to account for the fact that the eye witnesses would not have read in koine greek and thus would have no idea what the gospel writers were actually writing.

4.       The game begins with a single whisper. In contrast, the proclamation of the gospel began with Peter preaching openly to thousands on the day of Pentecost.
 

Extra biblical citation need

5.       The game limits each player to hearing and repeating the phrase once and from one source only. In contrast, the gospel of Luke states that “many have undertaken to draw up an account” of the events he also recorded in his gospel. Additionally, many eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus were still alive and both Luke and Paul make reference to this fact in their writings. Thus, the gospel writers were recording history that both they and their audiences knew well.

Got any names for these witnesses? Or any of those other writing referred to? If there were so many witnesses we are there no writings in aramaic, the main language of 1st century Palestine?

 
6.       The rules assume that not all players will speak clearly or listen attentively. In contrast, the gospel writers took great pains to reproduce what they had seen and heard faithfully and with great clarity.

And you know this how? What if the gospel writers intentionally perpetuated misinformation? 

 
7.       The rules of the game suggest that it would be fun to go back to see exactly where all the changes took place. In contrast, if the gospel writers had changed or added to the accounts of Jesus’ life or to His parables that were known by oral tradition, the living witnesses would have objected strenuously to such novelties as mere fabrications.
 

Um actually no they couldnt because the gospels were written in another language. Also I have give numerous examples where we can do just that.

In conclusion, the gospel writers were not children being entertained by a party game. They saw themselves as passing on the very words of God just as they had received them, and the presence of many living witnesses would ensure that each author was held accountable for reproducing the facts accurately.

I think I have already addressed this but as I said, most of the eyewitness would've been dead, and the gospels were written in a different language and circulated in a different country.  Also I would like to know how you feel justified making declarative statements on the motives of anonymous authors.
 

[Randy Carson]

So, you're changing your own scenario. Just being reliable and being in court isn't enough now. So say they did whatever thing was needed to "get your attention" and then said Islam was true, and that you should convert. Would you believe them?

Not really changing anything, Rob. I'm simply explaining - poorly, I guess - how circumstantial evidence works in a court of law. Now, what you demand is direct empirical evidence. You'll have to get that from God. Unfortunately, you'll be the butt of endless jokes if you do.

As you may or may not recall, Timothy McVeigh was convicted of the Oklahoma City bombing (which took place in 1995). The evidence against McVeigh was largely circumstantial, but prosecutors won the conviction. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht stated, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence."

The only record we have of God doing anything is in the bible, which is the claim. So until we've established any of it is true, you can't assume it actually happened in order to justify your claim and say "God killed false prophets". That is begging the question, again.

Well, duh. That's why I started this thread in the first place. To demonstrate that, claims from skeptics to the contrary, the NT is historically reliable. All the evidence points to this, and the general reliability of authors suggests that they should be given the benefit of the doubt since there is nothing in their character or motives suggesting that they lied.

No, there isn't any credible historian who would say that if you can demonstrate most of an account is true, you should believe all the rest of it no matter how wild the claims. Only those who already believe in the story would take this approach. It's not intellectually honest or consistent.

This happens in courtrooms every day. The defense attorney tries to destroy the character of the witnesses against his client while other people are brought in to testify that he was a Boy Scout, a model citizen, a great father, employee of the year, etc. Why?

Because we make judgement calls about someone's credibility based on other things we learn about them.

---

There is evidence.

What you call evidence obviously isn't since it isn't evident to all. Are you really this thick or are you just so lost to reason because you've taken such an unreasonable position?!?

Sure there is. Lots of it.

It's indirect or circumstantial, but it's sufficient. See my post above regarding Timothy McVeigh.

---

We have multiple recorded instances of the bible being actively edited. Ex the council of Nicaea.

Please cite your sources.

Except that those copies disagree with each other. For example the story of let he who is without sin throw the first stone is not in copies older then the 9th century.

For simplicity, see the Wiki article which cites the earliest copy from the fourth or fifth century. In brief, in 1941, a large collection of writings by Didymus the Blind was discovered, and several copies contain the pericope adulterae. Jerome speaks of this passage, also. Therefore, the pericope was contained in manuscripts from at least the fourth century.

And this is a pattern: archaeological research always confirms and pushes back the dating of the NT, doesn't it? Not bad for a 2,000 year-old document.

So, while atheists are confident that eventually science will sort it all out and be able to explain everything (a sort of "science of the gaps" argument), perhaps what is REALLY going to happen is that eventually, Christianity will have filled in the missing pieces in its history. Seems reasonable given that it is true...

Who ever told you those number is lying to you. There are multiple examples of of large textual changes when the copies are compared. for example the oldest of luke do not contain chapters one and two and the oldest copies of mark end at mark 16:3.

Sources please. And I have noted that while there are over 400,000 variants (mostly spelling variations, etc.), not one of these variants calls into question a single doctrine of Christianity.

Partially true but a group of people is needed to simulate the real world conditions.

Fair enough. But remember: The apostles didn't slink out of town under cover of darkness after the crucifixion in order to begin proclaiming the resurrection in some distant village. No, on Pentecost, they preached openly in Jerusalem to a crowd that was very familiar with the facts of the case. If anyone in that crowd had wanted to dispute the preaching of Peter, that was the time to do it. But instead, God showed up, and 3,000 people were added to the Church in single day.

Kinda hard to play telephone when there are so many witnesses constantly verifying and confirming the original message the apostles preached.

Yes except they wrote it in a language that few people in jesus's home country would have been able to understand. The 2 common languages in Palestine in the time of jesus were mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic. Legal administration memebers may have known latin, but only the top tier educated people would have read in Greek and the gospels are written in koine Greek. Its like trying to get a message to Americans and writing it in french.

It was written in Greek eventually. Matthew may have written originally in Hebrew or Aramaic. Further, Luke says that "many have undertaken to write an account" and while these accounts are lost today, Luke was obviously familiar with them in his own day.

But perhaps most importantly, you are not accounting for the fact that Christianity began by preaching - not by reading a book. And I think we can both agree that the Apostles preached in Aramaic - at least in Judea.

More later.

Oh, and let me    you for being one of a very small number who have actually attempted any interaction with my OP at all. I had expected stiff opposition from the home crowd, but little of it has been substantive.

[Mudhammam]

On which account it appears to me that all men who are not utterly uneducated would choose to be mutilated and to be come blind, rather than to see what is not fitting to be seen, to become deaf rather than to hear pernicious discourses, and to have their tongues cut out if that were the only way to prevent their speaking things, which ought not to be spoken.

- Philo of Alexandria (25 BC - 50 AD)

If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

- words attributed to Jesus by supposed eyewitness "Matthew" in late first century

It's too bad that when God allegedly came to earth he couldn't spend more time dispensing original ideas instead of restating what many others already were (and more eloquently).

[rexbeccarox]

What you call evidence obviously isn't since it isn't evident to all. Are you really this thick or are you just so lost to reason because you've taken such an unreasonable position?!?

Sure there is. Lots of it.

It's indirect or circumstantial, but it's sufficient. See my post above regarding Timothy McVeigh.

Sufficient for what?  For convincing you, maybe, but I would venture a guess that you haven't converted anyone here, so, sufficient?  Not really.

[Randy Carson]

On which account it appears to me that all men who are not utterly uneducated would choose to be mutilated and to be come blind, rather than to see what is not fitting to be seen, to become deaf rather than to hear pernicious discourses, and to have their tongues cut out if that were the only way to prevent their speaking things, which ought not to be spoken.

- Philo of Alexandria (25 BC - 50 AD)

If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

- words attributed to Jesus by supposed eyewitness "Matthew" in late first century

It's too bad that when God allegedly came to earth he couldn't spend more time dispensing original ideas instead of restating what many others already were (and more eloquently).

But Nestor, why would God have to restrict Himself to entirely NEW material when there was plenty of really good OLD material that could be re-emphasized? 

Of course, you are also familiar with the "You have heard it said...but I say..." passages, so you know Jesus offered new material, also.

[Ravenshire]

What you call evidence obviously isn't since it isn't evident to all. Are you really this thick or are you just so lost to reason because you've taken such an unreasonable position?!?

Sure there is. Lots of it.

You calling it evidence doesn't make it so.

It's indirect or circumstantial, but it's sufficient. See my post above regarding Timothy McVeigh.

(emphasis is mine)

Clearly. That's why there are billions who fail to believe in your particular brand of fairy tales despite all your "evidence."

You've been going on about the faithfulness of the NT to the originals and completely ignoring the meat of the argument. Is the new testament factually accurate. How 'bout you move on to that?!?

---

Sure there is. Lots of it.

It's indirect or circumstantial, but it's sufficient. See my post above regarding Timothy McVeigh.

Sufficient for what?  For convincing you, maybe, but I would venture a guess that you haven't converted anyone here, so, sufficient?  Not really.

Sufficient to a presupposed belief perhaps...

[Randy Carson]

Sure there is. Lots of it.

It's indirect or circumstantial, but it's sufficient. See my post above regarding Timothy McVeigh.

Sufficient for what?  For convincing you, maybe, but I would venture a guess that you haven't converted anyone here, so, sufficient?  Not really.

We shall see, becca. We shall see.

---

You calling it evidence doesn't make it so.

And vice versa.

It's indirect or circumstantial, but it's sufficient. See my post above regarding Timothy McVeigh.

(emphasis is mine)

Clearly. That's why there are billions who fail to believe in your particular brand of fairy tales despite all your "evidence."

Gee, if I had appealed to the 2 billion + Christians, the 1.2 billion Muslims, and the 1+ billion Hindus who do believe in a god, you would have accused me of a logical fallacy.

You've been going on about the faithfulness of the NT to the originals and completely ignoring the meat of the argument. Is the new testament factually accurate. How 'bout you move on to that?!?

Sounds like you want a thread on the Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  

Sufficient to a presupposed belief perhaps...

Which doesn't exactly account for the conversions of Jews, Muslims and Atheists who are converted BY reading the Bible, but whatever.

[Ravenshire]

Sounds like you want a thread on the Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

How 'bout a discussion on the historical accuracy of the NT before you get to the flat out impossible.

Which doesn't exactly account for the conversions of Jews, Muslims and Atheists who are converted BY reading the Bible, but whatever.

So, how do you explain those who have lost their faith after studying the buy-bull?!?

[Mudhammam]

Of course, you are also familiar with the "You have heard it said...but I say..." passages, so you know Jesus offered new material, also.

Maybe, though having read most of the OT, Plato, a great deal of Aristotle, and now going through Philo's complete works, after of which I plan to read some Stoics, and eventually a behemoth, two volume set of Jewish and Christian pseudographa (some predating Jesus) that I plan to crack open next year, I'd be surprised if there was anything original in the NT with the exception of a few kernels here and there, as much as I'm already finding it shocking that anyone could truly believe the that NT contains *divine* wisdom, much less innovative thought. You know as well as I do that, at least for the most part, when an author using Jesus as their mouthpiece writes, "You have heard it said... but I say," he's not saying stuff that hadn't been taught by others, Jewish or Gentile, before.