The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
By Wade Stanley
In John 12:48 Jesus said, “He who rejects Me and does not receive My words has that
which judges him–the word that I have spoken will judge Him in the last day.” Jesus the Good
Shepherd was appointed the One who will separate the sheep from the goats (Matthew 25:31,
32). We will be saved or condemned based on our level of obedience to the words of Jesus. Our
eternal destiny hangs upon words which were uttered two millennia ago. How can we be sure
that a consequential collection such as this has been reliably transmitted down through the
centuries? Ravi Zacharias in his work, Can Man Live Without God?, claims the following:
In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of [1]
the sheer number of documents, [2] the time span between events and the document, and
[3] the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in
ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity.1
Such a declaration, if sustainable, should make one confident in the New Testament's accurate
transmission.
THE SHEER NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS
To date, 5,686 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament have been identified.2 In
addition, there are approximately 19,284 ancient translations of the New Testament into
vernacular languages.3 All told, nearly 25,000 ancient New Testament manuscripts have been
discovered and catalogued. The number of extant New Testament manuscripts dwarfs all other
ancient documents: Homer's Iliad places a distant second with 643.4 F. E. Peters, a textual critic,
acknowledges, “...on the basis of manuscript tradition alone, the works that make up the
Christian's New Testament were the most frequently copied and widely circulated books of
antiquity.”5
The Question of Textual Variations
With this massive volume of material, there is, through human error, variation between
manuscripts. The vast majority of manuscript variations can be attributed to the following:6
1. The evolution of the Greek language.
2. Mistakes of the hand, eye, or ear which experts easily discern.
3. Confusing words of similar sound (such as the English words, 'affect' and 'effect')
1
2
3
4
5
6
Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God?, p. 162
McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p. 34
Ibid
Ibid
Peters, The Harvest of Hellenism, p. 50
Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, pp. 95-104
4. Variation in proper names and word order also are found, but such conflicts are easily
reconciled. For instance, “In Matthew 1:18, is it 'the birth of Jesus Christ' or 'the birth of
Christ Jesus'?” (Other manuscripts have 'the birth of Jesus' while others read 'the birth of
Christ'.)”7a
However, “If the large number of manuscripts increases the total of variations, at the same time it
supplies the means of checking them.”7 Geisler and Nix write:
The integrity of the Old Testament text was established primarily by the fidelity of the
transmission process which was later confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls. The fidelity of
the New Testament text, however, rests in the multiplicity of the extant manuscripts.
Whereas the Old Testament had only a few complete manuscripts, all of which were
good, as the result of ancient rabbinical textual work the New Testament has more
copies–although of poorer quality (more variants)–which enable the present day textual
critic to establish the true text.8
The textual critic “seeks by comparison and study of the available evidence to recover the exact
words of the author's original composition. The New Testament critic seeks, in short, to weed
out the chaff of bad readings from the genuine Greek text.”9 Thus, through comparative
analysis, translators use this mountain of evidence–the sheer number of New Testament
documents–to determine, with confident accuracy, the New Testament's original text.
The Truth is Still in the Text
Although the overwhelming majority of manuscript variation is minor in nature, there are
well documented substantial variations. These are few in number and represent material that is
contained in other corroborating New Testament passages. In other words, these substantial
variations do not alter or amend the New Testament's meaning, since the truth of their message
can be confirmed by consulting other passages. Three major passages are generally disputed:
Mark 16:9ff, John 7:53-8:11, I John 5:7. Additionally, the English Standard Version of 2001
excludes the following in its translation: Matthew 12:47, 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44,
46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 17:36, 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29; and Romans
16:24. When examined individually and compared contextually, the reader will find that though
disputed, these verses are either recorded in other places or their teaching is corroborated
elsewhere. Though modern scholarship questions their inclusion, most conservative translations
continue to include these passages, leaving the reader to discern their canonicity.
Still some might question the integrity of the text. Since we possess only an
overwhelming number of copies and no originals, how can we be sure these copies transmit the
originals? Do these errors--though vastly minor in character with a few substantial variations–
give us reason to question the authenticity or accuracy of this transmission, since we possess no
originals? Edward Glenny asserts, “No one questions the authenticity of the historical books of
7a
7
8
9
Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, p. 98
Ibid, p. 96
A General Introduction to the Bible, p. 267
Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, p. 88
antiquity because we do not possess the original copies. Yet we have far fewer manuscripts of
these works than we possess of the NT.”10 If we accept the authenticity of Herodotus, Homer,
Livy, Thucydides, et al., and consider their works' transmission accurate, though based on less
manuscript evidence, why should we not consider the New Testament documents equally or
superiorly reliable on the same grounds? Therefore, the vast number of New Testament
manuscripts grants significant weight to the belief in an accurate, authentic transmission of the
original text.
THE TIME SPAN BETWEEN EVENTS AND MANUSCRIPTS
The New Testament's textual accuracy is also gauged by the time span between the
original events and the oldest discovered manuscripts. The writings of the New Testament
chronicle historical events which took place in the first century A.D. Most scholars generally
agree that the epistles (or letters) written by first century apostles and prophets were completed
by 100 A.D. In his book How We Got the Bible, Neil Lightfoot observes, “Approximately 95%
of the existing manuscripts of the New Testament are from the eighth and later centuries...”11
This represents a time gap of at least 600 years between the final events and the significant bulk
of manuscript evidence. There are, however, manuscripts whose age dates closer to the events'
occurrence and subsequent recording.
The Papyri
First of all, scholars have not discovered any original manuscripts. The original writings
of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude are–so far as we know–lost to
antiquity. Thus man has discovered only copies of these original works. The oldest copies
discovered so far are incomplete papyri fragments. These fragments, primarily from the second
and third centuries, are largely incomplete due to the intense persecution suffered by early
Christians. Beginning with Nero and concluding with Domitian, Christians endured at least ten
different periods of imperial persecution from approximately 60–300 A.D. Such tumultuous
times likely destroyed early, complete manuscript copies of the New Testament. However, some
partial copies survived the imperial onslaught. Neil Lightfoot writes:
Of the nearly one hundred New Testament papyri presently known, more than fifty are of
the fourth century or earlier, and more than thirty are of the third century or earlier.
Further, these early papyri cover in part (some in whole) every book of the New
Testament except 1 and 2 Timothy. It should be emphasized that these papyri are the
ones that just happened to survive.12
The importance of these early papyri should not be underestimated. Geisler and Nix write, “The
papyri witness to the text is invaluable, ranging chronologically from the very threshold of the
second century, within a generation of the autographs, and include the content of most of the
New Testament.”13 Though the majority of extant manuscripts date from the eighth century and
10
11
12
13
Glenny, The Bible Version Debate, p. 96
Ibid, p.
Ibid, p. 125
A General Introduction to the Bible, p. 271
beyond, the papyri evidence significantly diminishes the time gap between the actual events and
our oldest discovered copies.
Three Major Manuscripts
However, these papyri are incomplete. Are there more complete ancient manuscripts
with a shorter time gap between the events and the copy? The Vatican Manuscript (the Codex
Vaticanus) is widely acknowledged to be the most important witness to the New Testament text.
It is called the Vatican Manuscript due to its residence in the Vatican Library in Rome since at
least 1481. In fact, “it may have been one of the original volumes of the collection” when it
opened in 1448.14 It begins with Genesis 46:28; Psalms 106-138 are missing; everything in
Hebrews after 9:14 is missing; 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus and Revelation are not present; and Mark
16:9-20 is also missing, but the space to include it is on the parchment.15 The most remarkable
fact is its age: the Vatican Manuscript dates from the fourth century A.D.! Thus, we have a
nearly complete New Testament manuscript with a time gap of 200-300 years after the original
revelation. Older than the Vatican Manuscript is the Sinaitic Manuscript (Codex Sinaiticus)
which dates from the mid fourth century (somewhere between 325-350 A.D.). The Sinaitic is a
nearly complete copy of the New Testament.16 Finally, we add the Alexandrian Manuscript
(Codex Alexandrinus), a fifth century manuscript that contains the Old and New Testaments with
the exceptions of Matthew 1:1-25:6, John 6:50-8:52, and 2 Corinthians 4:13-12:6.17 These three
nearly complete New Testament manuscripts provide textual evidence that dates from less than
three centuries after the original events transpired and were recorded.
New Testament Time Gap vs. Other Ancient Literature
How does this time gap compare with other works of ancient literature? Using the Codex
Sinaiticus as our example, we observe a time gap of 225-250 years based on the New Testament's
completion date of 100 A.D. Once again, the New Testament compares favorably with other
ancient works. Homer's Iliad comes in second once again with a time gap of 400 years between
the date of composition and the oldest manuscript.18 Sir Fredric Kenyon, former director and
principal librarian of the British Museum, says, “In no other case is the interval between the
composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscripts so short as in the New
Testament.”19 This favorable comparison between the New Testament and other ancient
documents must factor into its reliability. In his, Introduction to New Testament Textual
Criticism, Harold Greenlee argues:
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 NT is likewise assured.20
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, p. 36
Ibid, p. 38
Ibid, p. 51
Ibid, p. 40
McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p. 43
Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p. 4
Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 16
Thus, textual evidence once again confirms Ravi Zacharias' assertion, that the New Testament is
the “best attested ancient writing in terms of...the time span between events and the document.”21
OTHER DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE TO SUSTAIN OR CONTRADICT
The Bible testifies very clearly that the gift of divine inspiration which moved the New
Testament writers ceased by the early second century A.D. Though God-ordained inspiration
and communication concluded, religious writers composed many Christian-oriented works in the
second, third, and early fourth centuries. Dubbed by historians “The Ante-Nicene Fathers”
(hereafter referred to as the “Ante-Nicene Writers”), these prolific writers authored numerous
apologia (defenses of their beliefs), theological treatises, and inter-congregational letters in the
two centuries following the New Testament's completion. In terms of textual criticism, their
work holds special significance: since their writings were Christian-oriented, they frequently
and extensively quoted from New Testament documents. In fact, their quotations are so prolific,
textual critics believe that the entire New Testament could be reconstructed based on their
writings without the use of manuscripts! Bruce Metzger in his book, The Text of the New
Testament, writes, “...so extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge
of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the
reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament.”22 Sir David Dalrymple posed this very
question: what if all the ancient manuscripts were destroyed? Could the NT be reconstructed
from the writings of these Ante-Nicene authors? He writes, “...as I possessed all the existing
works of [these writers from] the second and third centuries, I commenced to search, and up to
this time I have found the entire New Testament, except 11 verses.”23 Such corroborative
evidence apart from the manuscripts themselves gives one great reason to accept the authenticity
and accuracy of New Testament transmission.
CONCLUSION
Are the New Testament documents reliable? Based on the aforementioned evidence, the
answer must be yes. Although the tide of time, the fallibility of man, and the cruelty of
persecutors have worked against it, man has discovered sufficient evidence whose testimony
cannot be ignored. The nearly 25,000 ancient manuscripts plus papyri offer a voluminous
resource for the textual critic to determine the original revelation's content. The time gap
between the recording of events and the oldest copies is shorter than any other ancient document.
If all the New Testament manuscripts suddenly disappeared, these documents could be
reconstructed from the quotations of Ante-Nicene writers. In short, the New Testament was
accurately transmitted down through the centuries. To close, Geisler and Nix offer the following:
The abundance of Biblical evidence would lead one to conclude that, 'the Christian can
take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the
true word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation
21
22
23
Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God?, p. 162
Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, (p. 86)
McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p. 44
throughout the centuries.' Or, in other words, 'The number of manuscripts of the New
Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers...is
so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is
preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other
ancient book in the world.' 24
CHART #1: ANTE-NICENE NEW TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS
AUTHOR
GOSPEL
ACTS
S
PAUL'S
EPISTLES
GENERAL
EPISTLES
REVELATION
TOTAL
Justin
Martyr
268
10
43
6
3
330
Irenaeus
1,038
194
499
23
65
1,819
Clement
1,107
44
1,127
207
11
2,406
Origen
9,231
349
7,778
399
165
17,992
Tertullian
3,822
502
2,609
120
205
7,258
Hippolytus
734
42
387
27
188
1,378
Eusebius
3,258
211
1,592
88
27
5,176
TOTALS
19,368
1,352
14,035
870
664
36,289
Source: McDowell, “The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict”, p. 43
CHART #2: MANUSCRIPT COMPARISON IN TIME GAP AND COPIES
AUTHOR
BOOK
DATE
WRITTEN
EARLIEST COPY
+ TIME
GAP
* NO. OF
COPIES
Homer
Iliad
800 B.C.
c. 400 B.C.
400 years
643
Herodotus
History
480-425 B.C.
c. 900 A.D.
1350 years
8
Thucydides
History
460-400 B.C.
c. 900 A.D.
1300 years
8
Plato
400 B.C.
c. 900 A.D.
1300 years
7
Demosthenes
300 B.C.
c. 1100 A.D.
1400 years
200
Livy
History of Rome
59 B.C. - 17
A.D.
4th century partial, mostly 10th
century
400 -1000
years
19
Tacitus
Annals
100 A.D.
c. 1100 A.D.
1000 years
20
Pliny Secundus
Natural History
61-113 A.D.
c. 850 A.D.
750 years
7
50-100 A.D.
325 A.D.
225 years
5366
New Testament
Source: McDowell, “The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict”, p. 38
24
Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, p. 248
+ Time Gap Comparison
* Manuscript Comparison
Time Gap
(in years)
New Testament
Homer
Livy
Livy
Tacitus
Tacitus
Demosthenes
Caesar
Homer
Demosthenes
Number of
Manuscripts
Caesar
New Testament
0
200
400
600
800 1000 1200 1400 1600
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000