In vellum manuscripts of the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were commonly divided into lections —
sections to be read weekly throughout the year. One such table of lections appears above, highly colorful and ornate,
as part of the introduction.
|
10th Century, Greek Manuscript
Tenth-century Greek manuscript of the four gospels in the possession of the Ambassador College Library. This vellum copy was made in Calabria, the "toe" of the Italian "boot." Calabria anciently possessed a Greek colony and, though Roman after 268 B.C., was retaken in the ninth century A.D. by the Greek-speaking Byzantine empire. Hence the Bible was read in Greek, rather than in Latin translation, during the period as also during the early centuries of the Roman empire.
The binding is a 14th-century traditional green Irish silk cover, with gold and silver threads, over wood. The manuscript came onto the market in the mid-1950s. It was purchased by Herbert W. Armstrong from John Howell, noted antiquarian book dealer in San Francisco, Calif., for the Ambassador College Library collection of Bibles.
|
Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix report:
"In one chapter of 166 words (Isa. 53) there is only one word (three letters) in question after a thousand years of transmission — and this word does not significantly change the meaning of the passage" (General Introduction to the Bible, p. 263).
Minor stylistic and spelling variations pale before the fact that the Isaiah scroll "proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text" (Archer, A Survey of the Old Testament, p. 19).
In the words of Mr. Geisler and Mr. Nix, "the King James Bible is 98.33 percent pure" when compared with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Yet, as the accuracy of the Talmudists and Masoretes should demonstrate, the sectarians' Dead Sea Scrolls need to be evaluated by the Masoretic text, not vice versa.
Sound external evidence attests the accuracy of the transmitters of the Old Testament. It is also consistent in its doctrinal harmony and texture. Josephus put the case very well:
"It becomes natural to all Jews to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them [rather than] to say one word against our laws and the records that contain them . . . whereas there are none at all among the Greeks who would undergo the least harm on that account."
How true! The lives of Abraham, Moses and David have the force and weight of reality; the traditions and fictions of Homer and Virgil — while valuable as support material — lack that ring of truth.
The New Testament documents
How reliable are the New Testament books we possess, and can we cross-check them for accuracy?
Here again we possess no original writings. Here we must depend on the total manuscript material available.
"Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar's Gallic Wars (composed between 58 and 50 B.C.) only nine or 10 [manuscripts] are good, and the oldest is some 900years later than Caesar's day. Of the 142 books of Livy (59 B.C. - A.D. 17) only 35 survive known to us from no more than 20 manuscripts . . . only one of which is as old as the fourth century. Of the 14 books of Tacitus (c. A.D. 100) . . . the text of these historical works depends entirely on two manuscripts, one of the ninth century and one of the 11th. The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 B.C.) is known to us from eight manuscripts, the earliest belonging to A.D. 900. . . . The same is true of the history of Herodotus (488-428 B.C.). Yet 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 of any use to us are over 1,000 years later than the originals" (Bruce, The New Testament Documents, pp. 1617).
How much manuscript evidence is there to support and verify the 27 New Testament books?
"There are some 8,000 manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate and at least 1,000 for other early versions. Add over 4,000 Greek manuscripts (some say 5,000), and we have 13,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament" (Robertson, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p. 29).
Thirteen thousand New Testament manuscripts compared to 10 good copies for Caesar's Gallic Wars! The verification of the 27 New Testament books is easier than for any other piece of classical writing. The overwhelming manuscript data makes it much simpler to reconstruct the original reading for disputed or unclear passages.
How close are these manuscripts to the time when the New Testament writings were completed? Near-contemporary support material is a crucial test of authenticity.
John Rylands Library in Manchester, England, owns a papyrus fragment of John 18:31-33, which they date to about A.D. 130. This is within 40 years of John's autograph. The Chester Beatty Museum in Dublin, Ireland, holds papyrus copies of the gospels, Acts, Paul's epistles. The date? Around A.D. 200. The Bodmer Papyrus (A.D. 150-200) contains most of John's gospel.
No other ancient writing has such sterling verification from near-contemporary sources.
The great codices such as Codex Sinaiticus (composed about A.D. 350 and discovered in the Mt. Sinai Monastery in 1844 — containing the entire New Testament except Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53 - 8:11) — and Codex Alexandrinus (composed about A.D. 325-350) — containing virtually the whole Bible in Greek — are other valuable sources of documentary evidence for the 27 New Testament books.
These large rolls of Greek writing held by the British Museum, with the Codex Vaticanus (A.D. 325-350) in the Vatican Library, aid in verifying the integrity of our New Testament.
Indeed, no other body of literature can be so well attested by such a wealth of documentary evidence. None has been so scrutinized and cross-checked by almost coexistent manuscripts as the New Testament.
External and internal evidence
The first centuries after Christ and the apostles abounded in religious literature.
Numerous theologians like Iraeneus, Tertullian and Augustine argued their doctrines by quoting the extant writings and/or copies of the New Testament books. The gospels, Acts, epistles and Revelation were appealed to as the final authority.
Sir David Dalrymple thus reconstructed our entire New Testament except for 11 verses from the writings of those prolific theologians. This is an amazing corroboration and verification of our New Testament, for if every Bible were to disappear overnight, we could virtually reconstruct it from other sources!
Even with textual errors or disputed readings in centuries of production, it is good to remember that no fundamental doctrine rests upon a questionable scripture.
Doctrine is revealed to God's apostles (Acts 10:17-20) "here a little, and there a little" (Isa. 28:10) as they search the entire context of God's will revealed from Genesis to Revelation.
The Bible's nobility and balance bespeaks one Author. A book that begins with a garden, a river, a tree of life and an invitation to enjoy it and man and God in intimate relationship and then ends developing the same theme possesses an obvious unity and structure (Gen. 2-3, Rev. 22). Only a prejudiced observer would fail to be struck by it!
The New Testament, in particular, boldly claims to be the work of eyewitnesses (II Pet. 1:16). Its authoritative tone and vivid immediacy trumpet accurate transmission: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life" (I John 1:1).
Literature of such dramatic force and power does not survive for millennia without the convincing weight of sincerity and authenticity! Only a simpleton could confuse the fanciful tales of "Sinbad the Sailor" with the authentic historicity of the book of Acts.
Some stumble at the obvious supernatural thread woven throughout the fabric of Scripture. Yet biblical miracles and allegories are obviously not of the same fictional caliber and texture as Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Surely the drama of the raising of Lazarus in John 11 is not of the same literary quality as Gulliver's Travels. To claim the opposite runs the danger of willful ignorance (II Pet. 3:5).
The apostles spoke their truths in the laboratory of experience — live audiences composed of fanatical enemies eager to refute their testimonies (Acts 2:22, 26:24). Their appeal was always to literal, demonstrable fact (Acts 4:10, 7:52), often at their peril.
Consider this: Who in 1980 could write a biography of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and claim that the late American president rose from the dead in 1945? Who would believe such a hoax and stick to it for a lifetime? The allegation could easily be refuted by relatives and witnesses, still living, who knew the truth. Who would die for such a fraud?
Yet the apostles suffered and finally were martyred for their beliefs (I Cor. 15:3-8)!
Christ's resurrection, plus the direct manifestation of God's Spirit, inspired unswerving loyalty. Events in the spring of A.D. 31 welded 12 wavering apostles into a formidable force that "turned the world upside down" (Acts 17:6).
To believe that the New Testament Church rests on a pious fiction, a "cunningly devised fable" (II Pet. 1:16) is, in light of these considerations, more incredible than the doubts of Thomas.
Why did no hostile author ever succeed in explaining away Christ's empty tomb? The best excuse enemies could dredge up is recorded in Matthew 28:13.
Why was no serious attempt made to refute — point by point — the claims made in the gospels? If such attempts were made why haven't they survived?
Why have the so-called idle tales (Luke 24:11) been sent to the ends of the earth (Matt. 24:14), just as the Bible predicted they would be? As one scholar said, "The silence of the Jews is as significant as the speeches of the apostles."
No other conclusion
Philosophical skepticism makes a nice intellectual game, but one cannot live by it. Doubting the strength of historical evidence means one cannot be sure that a marriage certificate documents one's own wedding!
Would a clever editor bent on perpetrating literary fraud retain the seemingly extraneous Levitical laws, the census rolls in the book of Numbers, the stereotyped repetition of the parables? The arcane or so-called redundant parts of Scripture are only another evidence of the purity of each separate document composing the Bible.
Do not the presence of problems, difficulties and apparent "contradictions" in the Bible demonstrate that the text was not doctored to have it turn out right? (See the article Can God's Word Contain Errors?). Unsolved questions are only incentives to deeper study (Prov. 25:2).
The accuracy of Scripture, its infallible transmission through the centuries, is verifiable by its internal thrust alone. The great truths of the human potential — the purpose of human life, that the Bible shouts from its pages — bespeaks inspiration!
Add to this the evidence of the care taken by the transmitters and the wealth of attestation from near-contemporary manuscripts, and we can conclude that no council of men, no synod, no committee of scholars ever conferred upon the Bible any authority it did not already possess!
"The sayings of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings which are given by one Shepherd" (Eccl. 12:11, Revised Standard Version).