The earliest copies we have are from the 2nd and 3rd Centuries? And what kind of 'alterations' are you talking about? Any that are actually substantive in nature, or are the scribal errors that do exist essentially the equivalent of our modern typos? The manuscript evidence for any other ancient literature pales in comparison to that of the extent and quality of N.T. manuscript evidence:
There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament.1 If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.2
Author | Date Written |
Earliest Copy | Approximate Time Span between original & copy | Number of Copies | Accuracy of Copies |
Lucretius | died 55 or 53 B.C. | 1100 yrs | 2 | ---- | |
Pliny | 61-113 A.D. | 850 A.D. | 750 yrs | 7 | ---- |
Plato | 427-347 B.C. | 900 A.D. | 1200 yrs | 7 | ---- |
Demosthenes | 4th Cent. B.C. | 1100 A.D. | 800 yrs | 8 | ---- |
Herodotus | 480-425 B.C. | 900 A.D. | 1300 yrs | 8 | ---- |
Suetonius | 75-160 A.D. | 950 A.D. | 800 yrs | 8 | ---- |
Thucydides | 460-400 B.C. | 900 A.D. | 1300 yrs | 8 | ---- |
Euripides | 480-406 B.C. | 1100 A.D. | 1300 yrs | 9 | ---- |
Aristophanes | 450-385 B.C. | 900 A.D. | 1200 | 10 | ---- |
Caesar | 100-44 B.C. | 900 A.D. | 1000 | 10 | ---- |
Livy | 59 BC-AD 17 | ---- | ??? | 20 | ---- |
Tacitus | circa 100 A.D. | 1100 A.D. | 1000 yrs | 20 | ---- |
Aristotle | 384-322 B.C. | 1100 A.D. | 1400 | 49 | ---- |
Sophocles | 496-406 B.C. | 1000 A.D. | 1400 yrs | 193 | ---- |
Homer (Iliad) | 900 B.C. | 400 B.C. | 500 yrs | 643 | 95% |
New Testament |
1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D. | 2nd Cent. A.D. (c. 130 A.D. f.) |
less than 100 years | 5600 | 99.5% |
As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.
Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the First Century. If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the First Century that contest the New Testament texts.
Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing (John Rylands Papyri 125 A.D.). This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a First Century document.
Below is a chart with some of the oldest extant New Testament manuscripts compared to when they were originally penned. Compare these time spans with the next closest which is Homer's Iliad where the closest copy from the original is 500 years later. Undoubtedly, that period of time allows for more textual corruption in its transmission. How much less so for the New Testament documents?
Important
Manuscript
PapyriContents Date
Original WrittenMSS
DateApprox.
Time SpanLocation p52
(John Rylands
Fragment)3John 18:31-33,37-38 circa
96 A.D.circa
125
A.D.29 yrs John Rylands Library, Manchester, England P46
(Chester Beatty Papyrus)Rom. 5:17-6:3,5-14; 8:15-25, 27-35; 10:1-11,22,24-33,35; 16:1-23, 25-27; Heb.; 1 & 2 Cor., Eph., Gal., Phil., Col.; 1 Thess. 1:1,9-10; 2:1-3; 5:5-9, 23-28 50's-70's circa
200
A.D.Approx.
150 yrsChester Beatty Museum, Dublin & Ann Arbor, Michigan, University of Michigan library P66
(Bodmer Papyrus)John 1:1-6:11,35-14:26; fragment of 14:29-21:9 70's
circa
200
A.D.Approx.
130 yrsCologne, Geneva P67 Matt. 3:9,15; 5:20-22, 25-28 circa
200
A.D.Approx.
130 yrsBarcelona, Fundacion San Lucas Evangelista, P. Barc.1 If the critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer, and the other authors mentioned in the chart at the beginning of the paper. On the other hand, if the critics acknowledge the historicity and writings of those other individuals, then they must also retain the historicity and writings of the New Testament authors; after all, the evidence for the New Testament's reliability is far greater than the others. The Christian has substantially superior criteria for affirming the New Testament documents than he does for any other ancient writing. It is good evidence on which to base the trust in the reliability of the New Testament.
http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence
Cordially,
Thanks for a great resource! Amazing stuff.
Yes, that is well known. We do not have anything close to an original copy of any of the books of the Bible.
And what kind of 'alterations' are you talking about? Any that are actually substantive in nature, or are the scribal errors that do exist essentially the equivalent of our modern typos?
We don't know, although in some cases we can piece together a reasonably good idea of what the original probably said and thus get an idea of the alterations. However, the likelihood is that it's both. Throughout the copies we have, for centuries while they were being copied by hand, we see numerous examples of both kinds of alterations. (Translation sometimes alters the meaning, too.) Thus, it is reasonably safe to assume that we see both kinds in the period between the original writings and the earliest copies we have.