The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Randy Carson]

Didja notice the outline numbering? I.A.0....I.A.1., etc?

We're just getting started. 

Uh-huh, lovely

I sense an unjustified leap in your reasoning in the nearest future...

I'm sure you'll let me know when we get to it, right? 

---

Either the text that you can read today is an accurate translation of what the original author wrote or it isn't.

So, yes or no? 

Oh, and some "why" would be nice if you have anything. 

It is not so easy. There are parts that are accurate to the original, and parts that aren't.

For example, the oldest and most reliable copies of Mark end at verse 16:8. 16:9 - 20 are almost assuredly a later addition by apologists. So, we have at least one example of the current Bible that is not accurate to the original. 

But why should we care? An accurate copy or translation of the original only means that we have a accurate copy or translation of a fictional, mythological text. Textual accounts of supernatural events are not valid forms of evidence. 

There are some variants such as the one you have highlighted, and I appreciate your illustration of the work that can be done by scholars in comparing manuscripts.

There are two OLDER (fourth century) manuscripts that do not contain Mark 16:9-20, but there are MORE manuscripts which do.

As for whether the gospels are fiction, that will be covered in future posts.