TEXTUAL CRITICISM TEXTUAL CRITICISM • Some people say "Well, the Bible was written a long time ago. How do we know that what they wrote has not been changed over the years?" • The answer is that we do know. We can know very accurately through a science called `textual criticism'. We can be confident about what the New Testament writers actually sat down and wrote. • Professor F.F. Bruce from the University of Manchester [in the UK], wrote a book called The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? • In it he shows just how rich the NT is in sheer weight of manuscripts by comparing it to the texts of other historical works. • Basically, the idea behind textual criticism is this: as you sit and read a book that is a copy of an ancient manuscript, of any kind, the way you know what you are reading is what the original author/s wrote is by asking two questions: •1. How quickly after the original was written was the earliest copy made? •2. How many copies are there? • Essentially, the shorter the time span between the date the manuscript was written and the earliest available copy, the more texts we have, and the higher the quality of the existing texts, the less doubt there is about the original. • Herodotus and Thucydides were both written in the 5th century BC. The earliest copy that we have is around AD 900 so there's a 1300 year gap. For each of these works we have 8 copies........And yet no classical scholar would doubt their authenticity. • Tacitus: a thousand year gap between original and first copy — total of 20 copies. • Caesar's Gallic War: 950 year gap between original and first copy — total of 9 or 10 copies. • Livy's Roman History: 900 year gap between original and first copy — total of 20 copies. • The New Testament, written between 40 and 100 AD, the earliest copy we have is AD 130. And we have full manuscripts AD 350. So, at most, there's a 300 year gap. And not just 8 or 20 manuscripts: we have, 5,309 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts, 9,300 others. • “In the variety and fullness of the evidence on which it rests, the text of the New Testament stands absolutely and You look at this and you see it: the New Testament unapproachably alone amongst stands absolutely and unapproachably alone ancient prose writings.” (Textual amongst ancient prose writings ........and no secular Critic F.J.A Hort) historian would disagree with that conclusion. • F. F. Bruce summarises the evidence by quoting Sir Frederic Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology (Harper and Row, 1940), a leading scholar in this area: • 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. Can We Trust The Bible Written 2000 Years Ago? https://youtu.be/reYBCz_kf1c Would Extrabiblical Sources About Jesus be Better? Is the New Testament just a single, unreliable piece of Christian propaganda? Dr. Craig explains why the New Testament is the best collection of information that we have about Jesus of Nazareth! https://youtu.be/tzP0Kz9eT_U Luke 1:1 Dear Theophilus: Many people have done their best to write a report of the things that have taken place among us. 2 They wrote what we have been told by those who saw these things from the beginning and who proclaimed the message. 3 And so, Your Excellency, because I have carefully studied all these matters from their beginning, I thought it would be good to write an orderly account for you. 4 I do this so that you will know the full truth about everything which you have been taught. Although Luke was not an eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry, he attempts to gather his information from those who were witnesses of the works and teachings of Jesus to faithfully transmit his life and mission to his community. • What does Luke want to tell us in these first four verses of his Gospel? In the first place, he does not want to tell fables, legends, visions, but he wants to relate real events that happened among us. He immediately adds, 'I was not an eyewitness to what I am writing; I did not personally know Jesus of Nazareth. He was introduced to me by those who were witnesses from the beginning. Those who lived with Jesus of Nazareth, heard his message and saw his actions, what he did.’ • We wonder: Are these eyewitnesses who introduced Jesus of Nazareth to Luke reliable? Luke, like us, did not adhere to Christ because he knew him directly but because he received the message from those who had known him, from reliable witnesses. Indeed, says Luke, these witnesses were not storytellers, charlatans, greedy for money, who swarmed throughout the empire, but people who risked their lives to proclaim the Gospel that the Master had entrusted to them. They are not the owners who want to announce their ideas, NO. They are the ministers of a message entrusted to them. • Luke also says, ‘I was not the first to write these things; many before me wrote something about Jesus of Nazareth.’ Certainly, the Gospel according to Mark, had already been circulating in the Christian communities for 15 years and many little books and stories that spoke of Jesus of Nazareth. • What did Luke decide to do then? He let himself be involved in this announcement and set out to present the facts in an orderly manner, with extreme care, starting from the beginning. The characteristic that Luke wanted to give to his Gospel is that, from the beginning, with order, he presents facts that really happened. • Then there is the dedication of the book to the illustrious Theophilus, probably a well-to-do Christian of the wealthy community of Philippi, who offered to help Luke financially. At that time, there were no royalties, Luke had to live, and this Christian offered to give what was necessary to help for Luke to complete his work. • What is Luke's purpose for writing the Gospel? To give a solid foundation to the faith of the Christians. He did not write it, therefore, to convert the pagans, but he for those who are already believers and wish to lay a solid foundation for their faith. If someone asks them the reason for the choice they have made, they should justify it. • The truths of the faith cannot be demonstrated by incontrovertible scientific proofs. No, but adherence to Christ has nothing to do with credulity/gullability. It is not about a certain naivety of the ignorant who are willing to accept all fables uncritically. No, there are very good reasons to believe, and Luke wants to explain them here. Here Luke has clearly laid out the path for us today if we want to base our faith choice authentically and maturely. Jesus Mythicist Finds No Evidence Jesus Existed AFTER EXCLUDING Evidence He Existed https://youtu.be/h5rm4Zt2Jtk Is There Historical Proof of The Incarnation? https://fb.watch/95_9DY9x9u/ The Reliability of the Gospels Read: The Reliability of the Gospels https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/the-reliability-of-the-gospels
