We can appreciate the tremendous wealth of manuscript authority of the New Testament by comparing it with textual material from other notable ancient sources.
The history of Thucydides (460-400 B.C.) is available to us from just 8 manuscripts dated about A.D. 900, almost 1,300 years after he wrote. The manuscripts of the history of Herodotus are like wise late and scarce, and yet, as F.F. Bruce 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.”
If a person discards the Bible as unreliable in this sense, then he or she must discard almost all the literature of antiquity. A problem that constantly occurs is the desire on the part of many to apply one standard or test to secular literature and another to the Bible. We need to apply the same test, whether the literature under investigation is secular or religious.
Aristotle wrote his poetics around 343 B.C. and yet the earliest copy we have is dated A.D. 1100, nearly a 1,400 year gap, and only five manuscripts are in existence. Caesar composed his history of the Gallic Wars between 58 and 50 B.C. and its manuscript authority rest on 9 or 10 copies dating 1,000 years after his death. When it comes to the manuscript authority of the New Testament, the abundance of material is embarrassing in contrast. After the early papyri manuscript discoveries that bridged the gap between the times of Christ and the 2nd century, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light. Over 20,000 copies of the New Testament manuscripts are in existence today. The book that Homer wrote entitled Iliad has 643 manuscripts and is second in manuscript authority after the New Testament. Since scholars accept as generally trustworthy the writings of the ancient classics even though the earliest manuscript were written so long after the original writings and the number of existing manuscripts is in many instances so small, it is clear that the reliability of the text of the New Testament is likewise assured.
The application of the bibliographical test to the New Testament assures us that it has more manuscript authority than any piece of literature from antiquity. Adding to that authority the more than 100 years of intensive New Testament textual criticism, one can conclude that an authentic New Testament has been established. There exist no documents from the ancient world witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies, and offering so superb an array of historical data on which an intelligent decision can be made. An honest person cannot dismiss a source of this kind. Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based on an irrational bias.
The history of Thucydides (460-400 B.C.) is available to us from just 8 manuscripts dated about A.D. 900, almost 1,300 years after he wrote. The manuscripts of the history of Herodotus are like wise late and scarce, and yet, as F.F. Bruce 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.”
If a person discards the Bible as unreliable in this sense, then he or she must discard almost all the literature of antiquity. A problem that constantly occurs is the desire on the part of many to apply one standard or test to secular literature and another to the Bible. We need to apply the same test, whether the literature under investigation is secular or religious.
Aristotle wrote his poetics around 343 B.C. and yet the earliest copy we have is dated A.D. 1100, nearly a 1,400 year gap, and only five manuscripts are in existence. Caesar composed his history of the Gallic Wars between 58 and 50 B.C. and its manuscript authority rest on 9 or 10 copies dating 1,000 years after his death. When it comes to the manuscript authority of the New Testament, the abundance of material is embarrassing in contrast. After the early papyri manuscript discoveries that bridged the gap between the times of Christ and the 2nd century, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light. Over 20,000 copies of the New Testament manuscripts are in existence today. The book that Homer wrote entitled Iliad has 643 manuscripts and is second in manuscript authority after the New Testament. Since scholars accept as generally trustworthy the writings of the ancient classics even though the earliest manuscript were written so long after the original writings and the number of existing manuscripts is in many instances so small, it is clear that the reliability of the text of the New Testament is likewise assured.
The application of the bibliographical test to the New Testament assures us that it has more manuscript authority than any piece of literature from antiquity. Adding to that authority the more than 100 years of intensive New Testament textual criticism, one can conclude that an authentic New Testament has been established. There exist no documents from the ancient world witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies, and offering so superb an array of historical data on which an intelligent decision can be made. An honest person cannot dismiss a source of this kind. Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based on an irrational bias.
