Authenticity of the NT

BrianCalgary

The question has been raised a few times on the Authenticity of the NT. The following response from Josh McDowell says it all quite nicely:

Q. Hasn't the New Testament been changed since it has been copied and recopied throughout history?

A. A common misconception is that the text of the Bible has not come down to us the way in which it was originally written. Accusations abound of zealous monks changing the biblical text throughout Church history. This issue is of the utmost importance, since an altered text would do grave damage to the credibility of the story.

As F. F. Bruce says, "The historical 'once-and-for-all-ness' of Christianity which distinguishes it from those religious and philosophical systems, which are not specially related to any particular time, makes the reliability of the writings which purport to record this revelation a question of first-rate importance." (The New Testimony Documents: Are They Reliable? p.8).

Fortunately, the problem is not lack of evidence. There are three different types of evidence that are to be used in evaluating the New Testament text. These are the Greek manuscripts, the various versions in which the New Testament is translated, and the writings of the Church fathers.

The New Testament was originally composed in the Greek language. There are approximately 5,500 copies in existence that contain all or part of the New Testament. Although we do not possess the originals, copies exist from a very early date.

The New Testament was written from about A. D. 50 to A. D. 90. The earliest fragment dates about A. D. 120, with about 50 other fragments dating within 150-200 years from the time of composition.

Two major manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus (A. D. 325) and Codex Sinaiticus (A. D. 350), a complete copy, date within 250 years of the time of composition. This may seem like a long time span, but it is minimal compared to the most ancient works.

The earliest copy of Caesar's The Gallic Wars dates 1,000 years after it was written, and the first complete copy of the Odyssey by Homer dates 2,200 years after it was written. When the interval between the writing of the New Testament and earliest copies is compared to other ancient works, the New Testament proves to be much closer to the time of the original.

The 5,500 copies are far and away the most we have of any ancient work. Many ancient writings have been transmitted to us by only a handful of manuscripts (Catullus - three copies, earliest one is 1,600 years after he wrote; Herodotus - eight copies and 1,300 years).

Not only do the New Testament documents have more manuscript evidence and close time interval between the writing and earliest copy, but they were also translated into several other languages at an early date. Translation of a document into another language was rare in the ancient world, so this is an added plus for the New Testament.

The number of copies of the versions is in excess of 18,000, with possibly as many as 25,000. This is further evidence that helps us establish the New Testament text.

Even if we did not possess the 5,500 Greek manuscripts or the 18,000 copies of the versions, the text of the New Testament could still be reproduced within 250 years from its composition. How? By the writings of early Christians. In commentaries, letters, etc., these ancient writers quote the biblical text, thus giving us another witness to the text of the New Testament.

John Burgon has catalogued more than 86,000 citations by the early Church fathers who cite different parts of the New Testament. Thus we observe that there is so much more evidence for the reliability of the New Testament text than any other comparable writings in the ancient world.

F. F. Bruce makes the following observation: "The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning."

He also states, "And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded beyond all doubt" (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? p. 15).

Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, was one of the foremost experts on ancient manuscripts and their authority. Shortly before his death, he wrote this concerning the New Testament:



"The interval between the dates of the original composition (of the New Testament) 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." (The Bible and Archeology, pp. 288-89).

http://www.josh.org/apologetics/prev_quest.asp?Subject=The%20Bible

MeditationMom

BrianCalvary wrote:

The New Testament was originally composed in the Greek language.
The New Testament was written from about A. D. 50 to A. D. 90.

How did the Greeks get into this? From Aramaic, by word of mouth, over two generations, and all of a sudden in Greece, by way of Rhome, too? You would think a few little details here and there could have slipped through the cracks, or others added, for story telling value.

BrianCalvary wrote:

The earliest copy of Caesar's The Gallic Wars dates 1,000 years after it was written, and the first complete copy of the Odyssey by Homer dates 2,200 years after it was written. When the interval between the writing of the New Testament and earliest copies is compared to other ancient works, the New Testament proves to be much closer to the time of the original.

BrianCalvary wrote:

John Burgon has catalogued more than 86,000 citations by the early Church fathers who cite different parts of the New Testament. Thus we observe that there is so much more evidence for the reliability of the New Testament text than any other comparable writings in the ancient world.

That is like arguing: Compared to the bank robber the car thief was a valuable member of the community.

BrianCalvary wrote:

F. F. Bruce makes the following observation: "The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning."

I do. Nothing like 2000 year old war stories to make me suspicious. :rolleyes:

BrianCalvary wrote:

He also states, "And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded beyond all doubt" (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? p. 15).

Maybe I am missing the point here. Is the authenticity of the documents, or the content of the documents in question? I wouldn't doubt the authenticity of the documents. The details of the passed down history in the documents, on the other hand - any day. They can't even get today's facts right in the newspapers.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

The question has been raised a few times on the Authenticity of the NT. The following response from Josh McDowell says it all quite nicely

Not sure if this relatest to some of my early posts, but as I said in them, the question isn't really if the New Testement has been changed since it was original written, the question is if what was originally written accurately recorded the events it attempted to.

The F.F. Bruce observation misses out one important point, that the writtings of classical authors didn't include fantastical events, and those that did include fantastical events are questioned repeatably (Plato's Atlantis for example).

Sapien

The question is not whether the texts upon which we rely today have been altered since they first were penned, rather how much they relate to the actual pronouncements and escapades of an historical Jesus of Nazarus: what of his ipsissima verba do they contain; and what of the events they record were real.

The question of what happened to the gospel stories between the time of supposed occurrence and the commitment to text from oral transmission leaves an enormously unaccountable lacuna, within which any degree of distortion of the record could have (inevitably did) taken place.

Furthermore, the question of which texts ultimately came to be included in the Canon and which not, and according to which criteria, is completely unaddressed by such defenses of the textual continuity of the New Testament, convincing as they may be.

Perhaps rather than picking holes, I should ask: what do you imagine this analysis of the history of the New Testament to suggest? What do you mean by the "authenticity" of the New Testament? Do you mean historicity, or something else?

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

The New Testament was originally composed in the Greek language. There are approximately 5,500 copies in existence that contain all or part of the New Testament. Although we do not possess the originals, copies exist from a very early date.

No "New Testament" was ever "composed" as one work - it consists of several Gospels and other "books" assembled into one work. As far as I remember, the canonical form of the NT was assembled at the Council of Chalcedon. Books that did not make the cut are well-known, the "Gospel of Judas" being the most currently talked-about.

Either (a) all such works, whether canonical or not, are inspired and inerrant, or (b) the Council of Chalcedon, in picking which works to include, was also inspired and inerrant. Which one do you prefer yourself?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Two major manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus (A. D. 325) and Codex Sinaiticus (A. D. 350), a complete copy, date within 250 years of the time of composition. This may seem like a long time span, but it is minimal compared to the most ancient works.

The earliest copy of Caesar's The Gallic Wars dates 1,000 years after it was written, and the first complete copy of the Odyssey by Homer dates 2,200 years after it was written. When the interval between the writing of the New Testament and earliest copies is compared to other ancient works, the New Testament proves to be much closer to the time of the original.

None of the other works are claimed to be the inerrant word of God, so I can't really see the relevance.

BrianCalgary wrote:

F. F. Bruce makes the following observation: "The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning."

He also states, "And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded beyond all doubt"

Authentically what? Authentically early works? So? Few people doubt that Shakespeare is authentically Elizabethan/Jacobean, but virtually everything else about his works has been challenged repeatedly, including single authorship, the author's identity, and the author's existence. That's for extremely well-known work only 400 years old!

cordially,
Scofflaw