The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 14, 2015 at 2:08 pm
(This post was last modified: May 14, 2015 at 2:32 pm by Randy Carson.)
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.
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:
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.
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,
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...and-wrong/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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:
Quote: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.
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,
Quote: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:
Quote:“In fact, most of the changes found in early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes pure and simple-slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort of another” (Misquoting Jesus, 55).
Famous British manuscript expert Sir Frederick Kenyon summed up the matter well when he declared that:
Quote:“The interval between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established” (Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology, 288).
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...and-wrong/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
