| [Email This Page To A Friend] |
|
How reliable are the Biblical manuscripts? The very backbone of the reliability and authenticity of the Bible rests in the manuscript evidence. Since no original writings by the prophets and apostles of old exist, we have to rely on the copies. These copies, some critics claim, are full of errors. The reasoning is that these errors (either by punctuation, spelling or translation) have compounded of the centuries to such and extent that the Bible is no longer reliable. The fact is that these criticisms are without merit and are used to perpetuate, either intentionally or unwittingly, mistrust in the Word of God. First lets begin by looking at the manuscript evidence of the Bible compared with other ancient texts.
Christian apologist and scholar Norman Geisler notes about the table above three important facts. "Several observations are pertinent to the above chart. (1) No other book is even a close second to the Bible on either the number or early dating of the copies. The average secular work from antiquity survives on only a handful of manuscripts; the New Testament boasts thousands. (2) The average gap between the original composition and the earliest copy is over 1,000 years for other books. The New Testament has a fragment within one generation from its original composition, whole books within about 100 years from the time of the autograph [original copy], most of the New Testament in less than 200 years, and the entire New Testament within 250 years from the date of its completion. (3) The degree of accuracy of the copies is greater for the New Testament than for any other books that can be compared….The records for the New Testament are vastly more abundant, clearly more ancient, and considerably more accurate in their text." (See Christian Apologetics by Norman Geisler p307-308, emphasis original, ellipses added) There are two main rules we use to know how accurate the copies are. First, scholars do a critique of all available copies to compare what is written on each manuscript. This is known as textual criticism. It works like this, suppose there are five copies of a manuscript where the original does not exist. Each one reads a little different, but a comparison to each other shows that basic reason and logic can tell us what was originally said. These five copies read as follows: 1) Jesus Christ was crucified for the sins of the world. 2) Christ Jesus was crucified for the sins of the world. 3) Jesus Christ ws crucified for the sins of the world. 4) Jesus was crucified for the sins of the world. 5) Christ Jesus was crucified for the sins of the whole world. By comparing these we see that the probability of getting the correct meaning and even the correct wording is quite easy. God, in His providence, has used this to ensure accuracy. He has also used it to protect from corruption. For example, if a sixth manuscript appeared and read "Jesus Christ was stabbed for the sins of His father-in-law." we would quickly know that this manuscript had been tampered with in this area. By comparing manuscripts with one another we can ensure the accuracy of scripture. The second fact to consider is what is called the tenacity of scripture. There are a few places in Scripture where verses appear in some younger manuscripts that are not found in some older manuscripts. While none of these affect Christian doctrine, they have caused critics to raise their hands and cry 'foul'. The logic is that the older manuscripts are more accurate since they are more closely dated to the originals; hence later manuscripts were tampered with. While older manuscripts are more reliable in accuracy, this argument overlooks two key facts. First, none of the verses in question change any essential Christian doctrine. Verses like 1 John 5:7-8 and John 7:53-8:11 may not have been part of the original manuscripts (there is no proof they were not). However, they certainly do not detract or alter the message of the gospel of Christ. Secondly, while these verses are not found in some of the older manuscripts, they are consistently found in later ones. The idea is that while copying the manuscripts, if a scribe came across a verse or phrase he may not have thought was originally there, he did not remove it. Instead he would make a footnote regarding the passage at hand. The scribes and scholars of old had such respect and reverence for the Word of God that they did not dare remove anything, even if they though a verse or phrase was added. This is what is meant by the tenacity of scripture. Because of textual criticism (comparing manuscripts) and the tenacity of scripture (consistency within variants of manuscripts), we can be certain of the integrity of God's Word. Another common objection by critics deals with variants between manuscripts. A variation occurs when a typo, punctuation, grammatical or spelling difference is noticed between two or more manuscripts. An example would be if the words 'Jesus Christ' were used in one manuscript and 'Christ Jesus' were used in the same verse of another manuscript. There are about 5300 New Testament manuscripts surviving from the second (possibly the first) century. Among these are roughly 200, 000 variants. While this number may seem large at first glance, it is remarkably small when we understand what variants are and how they are counted. Remember that all these copies are by hand and no doubt took hours to complete by dim candlelight. Because of this small spelling errors and such occurred. These minor slips of the pen make up about 99% of all variants among the earliest manuscripts. Of the 1% that doesn't fall into this category, none change the meaning of the passage or alter any doctrine of the Christian faith.1 The Old Testament, while not boasting as many manuscripts, has a great deal of evidence to support its integrity as well. The scribes of ancient Israel were very cautious in copying the Old Testament texts. They said a prayer before writing the name of God and if a spelling error or slip of the pen was made, the text was destroyed and they would start over again. Counting was done of every letter to insure that there was nothing added or taken away. Worn and damaged scrolls were buried in clay jars that were sealed with wax. Amazingly, it is a jar similar to this in which the Dead Sea scrolls were first found. In 1947 an Arab Shepard boy discovered the pots when he accidentally hit one after throwing a rock. Among the scrolls are some biblical texts that date back to around 150 B.C. This precedes previous Old Testament manuscripts by a thousand years! Even more amazing is that when you compare the scrolls found at the Dead Sea with those which are a thousand years older, they are nearly identical! This is clearly seen when we look at the copy Isaiah found in the Dead Sea scrolls. When compared to the next earliest text (980 A.D.), they are more than 95% identical. The remaining 5% are minor variation like spelling, punctuation, etc.2 Indeed, the evidence supporting the reliability and the integrity of the Bible is matched by no other ancient text on Earth. Footnotes 1) Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 'New Testament Manuscripts' p531-537 Back to No Comparison or The Bible |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|