|
The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
“The New Testament has been changed many times by many people.”
“The New Testament is not a reliable historical document.”
Sound familiar? Familiar, yes. True, no! Perhaps it may even shock you to find out that the New Testament is the most reliable document of its period. Note that we are not saying, at this point, that it is inspired by God. We are simply stating a measurable fact. The New Testament is the most trustworthy historical document of its period.
We can make this assertion based on facts, not on common presuppositions handed down from ignorance. If you are going to read this tract please put aside all the prejudicial views. The prevailing attitude toward the New Testament is simply wrong.
An important test of historical reliability is called the bibliographical test. This test is necessary when we do not have the original document. Scholars must determine how reliable are the copies that we do have. First, they must determine how many copies of the original document exist. Obviously, the more copies of the document that are available, the more we can compare the manuscripts and determine if changes were ever made to alter the content of the document. Furthermore, they must determine how far removed (in time) are these copies from the original. The shorter the time span between the original document and the available copy, the more we can expect the copy to be accurate.
So how reliable is the New Testament? Let's make a comparison between the New Testament and other famous literature from history. We will apply the bibliographical test to each document.
Ever read Caesar's Gallic War? It was written between 58 and 50 B.C.. Scholars possess nine or ten copies, the oldest of which was written 900 years after the original. \"
Are you familiar with the Roman history of Livy, written between 59 B.C. and 17 A.D.? Today we have twenty manuscript copies of portions of this work. The oldest copy in our possession (and that only fragments) was written in the fourth century A.D.
We have all heard of Plato's writings. Seven copies of Plato's works, written between 427-347 B.C., are available to us. The earliest copy we have is from 900 A. D.
Furthermore, we possess approximately 100 copies of Sophocles' works, written between 496-406 B.C. But the earliest manuscript is from the eleventh century A. D.
So what do these facts and figures mean? Nothing yet, except to note that no classical scholar would question the authenticity and reliability of these documents even though we only have copies of the original. These copies are considered to be an accurate version of the original document.
So using the same test, how does the New Testament compare? Please read carefully. There are 8000 manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, and 1000 manuscripts for the other earlier versions. There are between 4000 and 5000 Greek manuscripts and over 13,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament. The earliest copies of the Greek manuscripts date to the second and third centuries. That means the interval of time between the original and the copies we possess was within 200 years. Furthermore, nearly all of the New Testament can be reconstructed from quotations of early Christian writers.
Concerning the New Testament's credibility, Benjamin Warfield writes, "[The great majority of the
New Testament] has been transmitted to us with no, or next to no, variation-the real text of the sacred writers is competently exact…” (Introduction to Textual Criticism of the New Testament)
You have to be impressed. How could the New Testament have been changed when so many different manuscripts exist? It would be pretty hard to add or delete verses when there are thousands of other copies of the same book and chapter being held in other hands in other places. For example, if 4999 copies say that a particular verse is not in the Bible, then it would be pretty tough for some near-sighted monk, toiling under the light of a candle, to sneak in any personal thoughts or memos into the Bible. The sheer volume of New Testament copies not only prohibits the possibility of many errors or purposeful changes, but it also can assure us that the Bible, as it has come to us, is the most reliable historical document on our shelves.
What are the implications for us? It is simple. The New Testament which you possess (you really should have one) can be trusted to be an accurate account of the original writings which documented the events concerning the life of Jesus Christ. The facts have not been changed. They have not been altered. There is no folklore or myth.
So certainly if the classical documents listed above are considered reliable then how much more can we assume the trustworthiness of the Bible.
“To be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament." (John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity). C Debelak
Return to:
|