More Than a Carpenter (9 page)

Bibliographical Test

The bibliographical test is an examination of the textual transmission by which ancient documents reach us from the past. In other words, since we don’t have the original manuscripts, we have to ask the questions: How reliable are the copies we have? How many manuscripts have survived? How consistent are they? What is the time interval between the original and the extant copies?

We can appreciate the tremendous wealth of manuscript authority for the New Testament by comparing it to textual material available to support other notable ancient writings.

The history of Thucydides (460–400
BC
) is available to us from only eight manuscripts dated about
AD
900, almost thirteen hundred years after he wrote. The manuscripts of the history of Herodotus are likewise late and scarce. And yet, as F. F. Bruce, Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, concludes,

No classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscripts of their works which are of use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.
¹⁵

Aristotle wrote his poetics around 343
BC
, and yet the earliest copy we have is dated
AD
1100 (a gap of almost fourteen hundred years), and only forty-nine manuscripts exist.

Caesar composed his history of the Gallic Wars between 58 and 50
BC
, and its manuscript authority rests on nine or ten copies dating one thousand years after his death.

Bruce Metzger, author or editor of fifty books on the manuscript authority of the New Testament looks at other first-century notables:

Consider Tacitus, the Roman historian who wrote his
Annals of Imperial Rome
in about
AD
116. His first six books exist today in only one manuscript, and it was copied about
AD
850. Books eleven through sixteen are in another manuscript dating from the eleventh century. Books seven through ten are lost. So there is a long gap between the time that Tacitus sought his information and wrote it down and the only existing copies.

With regard to the first-century historian Josephus, we have nine Greek manuscripts of his work
The Jewish War,
and these copies were written in the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries. There is a Latin translation from the fourth century and medieval Russian materials from the eleventh or twelfth century.

“The quantity of New Testament material,” confesses Metzger, ‘is almost embarrassing in comparison with other works of antiquity.”
¹⁶

When I first wrote this book in 1977, I was able to document forty-six hundred Greek manuscripts of the Bible, abundantly more source material than exists for any other book written in antiquity. As of this writing, even more Greek manuscripts have been found, and I can now document more than fifty-six hundred of them.

Daniel Wallace, professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and one of the world’s leading authorities on the Greek text and New Testament manuscripts, states,

Well over 200 biblical manuscripts (90 of which are New Testament) were discovered in the Sinai in 1975 when a hidden compartment of St. George’s Tower was uncovered. Some of these manuscripts are quite ancient. They [the recent manuscript discoveries] all confirm that the transmission of the New Testament has been accomplished in relative purity and that God knows how to preserve the text from destruction. In addition to the manuscripts, there are 50,000 fragments sealed in boxes. About 30 separate New Testament manuscripts have been identified in the fragments, and scholars believe there may be many more.
¹⁷

What Do You Think?

Do you—or someone you know—believe that because the Bible text is ancient it can’t be trusted? Are there other nonbiblical ancient texts that you have no problem trusting?

When it comes to the manuscript authority of the New Testament, the abundance of material is truly remarkable in contrast to the manuscript availability of other classic texts. After the early papyri manuscript discoveries that bridged the gap between the times of Christ and the second century, a profusion of other manuscripts came to light. More than twenty thousand copies of New Testament manuscripts are in existence as of 2009. The
Iliad,
which is second to the New Testament in manuscript authority, has only 643 manuscripts in existence.

Jewish scholar Jacob Klausner says, “If we had ancient sources like those in the Gospels for the history of Alexander or Caesar, we should not cast any doubt upon them whatsoever.”
¹⁸

Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director and principal librarian at the British Museum and whose authority on ancient manuscripts is second to none, concludes:

The interval then 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 to us 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.
¹⁹

Others agree. Anglican bishop and New Testament historian Stephen Neill argues that “we have a far better and more reliable text of the New Testament than of any other ancient work whatever.”
²⁰

Craig Blomberg, former senior research fellow at Cambridge University in England and now professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary, explains that the texts of the New Testament “have been preserved in far greater number and with much more care than have any other ancient documents.” Blomberg concludes that “97–99% of the New Testament can be reconstructed beyond any reasonable doubt.”
²¹

New Testament Greek scholar J. Harold Greenlee adds:

Since scholars accept as generally trustworthy the writings of the ancient classics even though the earliest manuscripts were written so long after the original writings and the number of extant manuscripts is in many instances so small, it is clear that the reliability of the text of the New Testament is likewise assured.
²²

The application of the bibliographical test to the New Testament assures us that it has more manuscript authority than any other piece of literature from antiquity. If we add to that authority the more than 130 years of intensive New Testament textual criticism, we can conclude that an authentic New Testament text has been established.

What about Biblical Variants?

In 2005, textual critic Bart Ehrman created a firestorm of controversy with the release of his best-selling book,
Misquoting Jesus.
His claim was simple: the biblical manuscripts have so many errors that we cannot recover the original text. Some of these mistakes were accidental, claims Ehrman, while others were intentional. Either way, the New Testament as we know it today cannot be trusted.

A key point Ehrman raises is the 300,000 to 400,000 variants among New Testament manuscripts. A textual variant is any time the New Testament manuscripts have alternative wordings. Given that the Greek New Testament of today has roughly 138,000 words, the idea that there are two to three times as many variants as words is quite disturbing. Yet one needs to realize that the large number of variants is a direct result of the extremely large number of New Testament manuscripts that we have. There are no other works of antiquity that come close to the wealth of New Testament manuscripts available. The more manuscripts you possess, the more variants; the fewer the manuscripts, the fewer variants. But this is not the whole picture. When the variants are looked at more closely, a very different story emerges.

By far the most significant category of variants is spelling differences. The name John, for example, may be spelled with one n or with two. Clearly, a variation of this sort in no way jeopardizes the meaning of the text. Spelling differences account for roughly 75 percent of all variants.
²³
That’s between 225,000 and 300,000 of all the variants! Another large category of variants consists of the synonyms used across manuscripts. For instance, some manuscripts may refer to Jesus by his proper name, while others may say “Lord” or “he.” Such differences hardly call the meaning of the text into question.

When all variations are considered, roughly one percent involve the meaning of the text. But even this fact can be overstated. For instance, there is disagreement about whether 1 John 1:4 should be translated, “Thus we are writing these things so that
our
joy may be complete” or “Thus we are writing these things so that
your
joy may be complete.” While this disagreement does involve the meaning of the passage, it in no way jeopardizes a central doctrine of the Christian faith. This is why the authors of
Reinventing Jesus
conclude, “The short answer to the question of what theological truths are at stake in these variants is—none.”
²⁴
As we’ve seen in this chapter, we can have a high degree of confidence in the New Testament writings.

Internal Evidence Test

The bibliographical test determines only that the text we have now is what was originally recorded. One has still to determine not only whether that original written record is credible but also to what extent it is credible. That is the task of internal criticism, which is the second test of historicity cited by Chauncey Sanders.

Apologist John W. Montgomery reminds us that

historical and literary scholarship continues to follow Aristotle’s eminently just dictum that the benefit of doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself.

Montgomery continues:

This means that one must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualifies himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies.
²⁵

Louis Gottschalk, former professor of history at the University of Chicago, outlines his historical method in a guide used by many for historical investigation. Gottschalk points out that the ability of the writer or the witness to tell the truth is helpful to historians in their effort to determine credibility, “even if it is contained in a document obtained by force or fraud, or is otherwise impeachable, or is based on hearsay evidence, or is from an interested witness.”
²⁶

This ability to tell the truth is closely related to the witness’s nearness both geographically and chronologically to the events recorded. The New Testament accounts of the life and teaching of Jesus were recorded by men who had either been eyewitnesses themselves or who related the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events or teachings of Christ. Consider these statements from the New Testament:

Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught. (L
UKE
1:1-4)

Scholars acknowledge Luke’s historical accuracy. “The general consensus of both liberal and conservative scholars is that Luke is very accurate as a historian,” explains John McRay, professor of New Testament and archaeology at Wheaton College.

He’s erudite, he’s eloquent, his Greek approaches classical quality, he writes as an educated man, and archaeological discoveries are showing over and over again that Luke is accurate in what he has to say.
²⁷

Luke is not the only biblical writer concerned with accurate reporting. Consider some other accounts:

We were not making up clever stories when we told you about the powerful coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. We saw his majestic splendor with our own eyes. (2 P
ETER
1:16)

We proclaim to you what we ourselves have actually seen and heard so that you may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. (1 J
OHN
1:3)

This report is from an eyewitness giving an accurate account. He speaks the truth so that you also can believe. (J
OHN
19:35)

During the forty days after his crucifixion, he appeared to the apostles from time to time, and he proved to them in many ways that he was actually alive. And he talked to them about the Kingdom of God. (A
CTS
1:3)

We cannot stop telling about everything we have seen and heard. (A
CTS
4:20)

After examining just six eyewitness testimonies (Matthew, John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude), apologetics professor Lynn Gardner concludes that in comparison to the evidence of other literature of antiquity, “we have far better sources for our knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth.”
²⁸