Posted on 08/15/2009 10:48:49 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
Something some people argue is that the New Testament cannot be trusted because the original text is too far in the past, or has been copied too many times. The idea that a God who inspired them can also protect them seems to slip by...
The info I've seen indicates that the text of more recent manuscripts, when compared to the earliest, indicates around 98% reliability, with most of the variation in a couple of passages a few paragraphs each. Most Bibles now mark those passages as questionable, but no doctrine is tied to any of them.
Ping for anyone interested in the reliability of the New Testament texts.
Chapters available:
# DOES IT MATTER
# THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS:THEIR DATE AND ATTESTATION
# THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
# THE GOSPELS
# THE GOSPEL MIRACLES
# THE IMPORTANCE OF PAUL’S EVIDENCE
# THE WRITINGS OF LUKE
# MORE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE
# THE EVIDENCE OF EARLY JEWISH WRITINGS
# THE EVIDENCE OF EARLY GENTILE WRITERS
Can one understand the text if one does not understand the context?
It isn’t impossible, but it reduces the probability.
Ping for reference
What a great post! Outstanding information. Thanks!
Most bible scholars reject that Timothy and Titus were written by Paul, as the author points out.
Thank you for posting; it’s an interesting read.
And yet people will argue for the accuracy of documents purported to be wriiten by Aristotle and other Greek Scholars when in fact there are hudreds of years between the earliest Manuscripts and when the person was purported to have lived.
People will beileve what they want in spite of, or contrary to the evidence when it comes to scripture because they do not wish to be subject to it!
Mel
I agree. Most of those I’ve talked to who reject Scripture do so because they don’t want their lives to change.
Sounds more like a wishful thinking of a zealot than a scientist.
This article is yet another attempt to obfuscate the facts and spin the issue. Rather than present evidence to the contrary, it either ridicules or tries to make disagreeable views appear absurd. In other words, patting onself on the back.
Of course, those who have already made the a priori assumption, who already "know" and don't need any proof, will agree with it. Those who now very little about the Bible, will be in awe. But anyone who researched this to any extent critically and without an agenda will not be impressed at all.
Here is kosta50 explaining why the NT texts are unreliable:
” All evidence shows that the Church had a myriad of beliefs up until the First Nicene Council and even beyond. And evidence also shows that either not all Gospels of Matthew were identical, and doctrinally acceptable, or that much of the New Testament had to be brought into doctrinal compliance of the post-Nicene period.
The fact that all surviving copies are “dcotrinaslly agreeable” doesn’t mean such agreement miraculously existed across the spectrum. Indirect evidence shows that not all book of the NT met doctrinal standard and that for unknown reasons such books no longer exist.”
Hmmm...who to believe? FF Bruce & Sir Frederic Kenyon, or kosta50 utilizing “Indirect evidence” & “unknown reasons”.
“Frederick Fyvie Bruce (1910 - 1990), also known as F. F. Bruce, was Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester. He was born in Elgin, Morayshire and was educated at the University of Aberdeen, Cambridge University and the University of Vienna. After teaching Greek for several years first at the University of Edinburgh and then at the University of Leeds he became head of the Department of Biblical History and Literature at the University of Sheffield in 1947. In 1959 he moved to the University of Manchester where he became professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis. In his career he wrote some thirty-three books and served as editor of The Evangelical Quarterly and the Palestine Exploration Quarterly. He retired from teaching in 1978.”
http://www.theopedia.com/F._F._Bruce
And from Wikipedia:
“Sir Frederic George Kenyon GBE KCB TD FBA FSA (15 January 1863 – 23 August 1952) was a British paleographer, biblical and classical scholar. He was the director of the British Museum. He was also the president of the British Academy from 1917 to 1921, and from 1918 to 1952 he was Gentleman Usher of the Purple Rod.
Kenyon was born in London, the son of John Robert Kenyon, Vinerian Professor of English Law at Oxford. Educated at Magdalen College, Oxford, he joined the British Museum in 1889 and rose to be its Director and Head Librarian by 1909. He was knighted for his services in 1912.
In 1891, Kenyon edited the editio princeps of the Aristotelian Constitution of Athens. In 1920, he was appointed president of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. He spent most of his retirement researching and publishing ancient papyri. He died on 23 August 1952.”
I took four years of Latin in high school, and one of the projects we did in senior year was to translate the writings of Julius Caesar from different surviving copies of his works. It was quite surprising to find so many differences between different sources, all claiming to be the accurate records of Caesar. Copies from Rome were different than copies from Spain or France (Gaul). Subtle differences, to be sure, but still different (usually in terms of numbers, timelines swapped, or colors).
I personally cannot believe that original writings from the first century AD, writings by a persecuted “cult” at the time, would be completely intact. I believe multiple sources were combined to reconstruct the New Testament, and given what I saw from just the variances in Caesar’s “preserved” writings, there must have been considerable editing to build the NT.
Great book written by Josh McDowell.
McDowell claims to have been an atheist attempting to disprove biblical text at the time of his research.
Utilizing secular writings, archeology, Jewish writings and biblical manuscripts of the time......McDowell claims he was convinced that the bible was indeed what it said that it was.
The inspired word of God handed to men through the Holy Spirit.
Very good book that does not take a theological preposition, rather lays out the evidence for the reader to decide.
A great book on the subject is, “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”.
Written by Josh McDowell.
McDowell claims to have been an athiest attempting to disprove biblical text at the time of his research.
Utilizing secular writings, archeology, Jewish writings and biblical manuscripts of the time......McDowell claims he was convinced that the bible was indeed what it said that it was.
The inspired word of God handed to men through the Holy Spirit.
Very good book that does not take a theological pre-position, rather lays out the evidence for the reader to decide.
If Scripture were no more important, and God no more powerful, than Julius Caesar, perhaps you would be right.
I think this passage in the article clarifies: “Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar’s Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 BC) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 9oo years later than Caesar’s day. Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy (59 BC-AD 17) only thirty five survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty MSS of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books iii-vi, is as old as the fourth century. Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. AD 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of has two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh.”
From “Reliability of New Testament Documents by Robert Montgomery”:
“One might say that it is nice to have a lot of manuscripts, but how different are they from one another? Is there any evidence of change over time?
When all 5,250+ manuscripts are compared, a total of about 100,000 variants are found. At first glance 100,000 seems like a large number, but this includes misspellings, changes in word order of a sentence, the omission or inclusion of the Greek definite article with proper names, and other minor variants. When all the minor variants are eliminated that do not affect the sense of meaning of a passage, we are left with only 235 variants of any significance. Of these there are only 5 which bring into question the genuineness of a part of the text. Here is a list of the 5 passages in question: Mark 16:9-20, Luke 22:20, 22:43-44, 23:34, and John 7:53-8:11. (4)”
http://www.iamnext.com/spirituality/NTrely.html
What is more important: the message of the Bible, or the actual, physical words?
If the latter, then why tolerate multiple translations? In fact, why read the Bible in any language but Hebrew and Greek?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.