Manuscript Evidence for Superior New Testament Reliability

5/24/2018 Manuscript Evidence for Superior New Testament Reliability

1/9

Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability

by Matt Slick

The NewTestamentis constantly under attack, and its reliability and

accuracy are often contested by critics. If the critics want to

disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other

ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the

New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other

ancient writings. Because they are so numerous, they can becross checkedfor

accuracy . . . and they are very consistent.

There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New

Testament.1If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to

other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh

the others in quantity.2

Author Date

Written

Earliest

Copy

Approximate

Time Span

between original

& copy

Number

of

Copies

Accuracy

of Copies

Lucretiusdied 55 or

53 B.C.1100 yrs 2 ----

PlinyA.D. 61-

113A.D. 850 750 yrs 7 ----

Plato427-347

B.C.A.D. 900 1200 yrs 7 ----

Demosthenes4th Cent.

B.C.

A.D.

1100800 yrs 8 ----

Herodotus480-425

B.C.A.D. 900 1300 yrs 8 ----

SuetoniusA.D. 75-

160A.D. 950 800 yrs 8 ----

Thucydides460-400

B.C.A.D. 900 1300 yrs 8 ----

Euripides480-406

B.C.

A.D.

11001300 yrs 9 ----

Aristophanes450-385

B.C.A.D. 900 1200 10 ----

Caesar100-44

B.C.A.D. 900 1000 10 ----

Livy 59 BC-AD17

---- ??? 20 ----

Tacitus circa A.D. A.D. 1000 yrs 20 ----
http://carm.org/more-stuff/about-carm/matt-slickhttp://carm.org/dictionary-testamenthttp://carm.org/dictionary-testamenthttp://carm.org/dictionary-testamenthttp://carm.org/christianity/bible/illustration-bible-text-manuscript-tree-and-variant-readingshttp://carm.org/christianity/bible/illustration-bible-text-manuscript-tree-and-variant-readingshttp://carm.org/christianity/bible/illustration-bible-text-manuscript-tree-and-variant-readingshttp://carm.org/christianity/bible/illustration-bible-text-manuscript-tree-and-variant-readingshttp://carm.org/dictionary-testamenthttp://carm.org/more-stuff/about-carm/matt-slick


2/9

100 1100

Aristotle384-322

B.C.

A.D.

11001400 49 ----

Sophocles496-406

B.C.

A.D.

10001400 yrs 193 ----

Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 95%

New

Testament

1st Cent.

A.D. (A.D.

50-100)

2nd

Cent.

A.D.

(c. A.D.

130 f.)

less than 100

years5600 99.5%

As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than

any other ancient writing. The internal consistency of the New Testament

documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In

addition, there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaiclanguages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.

Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all

written before the close of the First Century. If Jesus was crucified in A.D. 30., then

that means the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. This is

important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New

Testament documents were penned--people who could have contested the

writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were

inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no

ancient documents contemporary with the First Century that contest the NewTestament texts.

Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a

fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original

writing (John Rylands Papyri A.D. 125). This is extremely close to the original

writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing, and it

demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a First Century document.

Below is a chart with some of the oldest extant New Testament manuscripts

compared to when they were originally penned. Compare these time spans with the

next closest, which is Homer's Iliad,where the closest copy from the original is 500years later. Undoubtedly, that period of time allows for more textual corruption in

its transmission. How much less so for the New Testament documents?

Important

Manuscript

Papyri

Contents Date

Original

Written

MSS

Date

Approx.

Time

Span

Location

p52

(John

RylandsFragment)3

John 18:31-33,37-38circa

A.D. 96

circa

A.D.

125

29 yrs

John Rylands

Library,

Manchester,England

P46 Rom. 5:17-6:3,5-14; 50's-70's circa Approx. Chester Beatty
http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/John%2018.31-33http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/John%2018.31-33http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/John%2018.37-38http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/John%2018.37-38http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/John%2018.37-38http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom.%205.17-6.3http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom.%205.17-6.3http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%205.5-14http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%205.5-14http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%205.5-14http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%205.5-14http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom.%205.17-6.3http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/John%2018.37-38http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/John%2018.31-33


3/9

(Chester

Beatty

Papyrus)

8:15-25,27-35;10:1-

11,22,24-33,35;

16:1-23,25-27;Heb.;

1 & 2 Cor., Eph., Gal.,

Phil., Col.;1 Thess.

1:1,9-10;2:1-3;5:5-9,

23-28

A.D.

200

150 yrs Museum, Dublin

& Ann Arbor,

Michigan,

University of

Michigan library

P66

(Bodmer

Papyrus)

John 1:1-6:11,35-

14:26; fragment of

14:29-21:9

70's

circa

A.D.

200

Approx.

130 yrsCologne, Geneva

P67Matt. 3:9,15;5:20-22,

25-28

circa

A.D.

200

Approx.

130 yrs

Barcelona,

Fundacion San

Lucas Evangelista,

P. Barc.1

If the critics of theBible dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, thenthey must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar,

Homer, and the other authors mentioned in the chart at the beginning of the paper.

On the other hand, if the critics acknowledge the historicity and writings of those

other individuals, then they must also retain the historicity and writings of the New

Testament authors; after all, the evidence for the New Testament's reliability is far

greater than the others. The Christian has substantially superior criteria for

affirming the New Testament documents than he does for any other ancient

writing. It is good evidence on which to base the trust in the reliability of the New

Testament.

This article is also available in:Espaol,

1Norman Geisler & Peter Bocchino, Unshakeable Foundations,(Minneapolis, MN:Bethany House Publishers, 2001) p. 256.2The above chart was adapted from three sources: 1) Christian Apologetics, byNorman Geisler, 1976, p. 307; 2) the article "Archaeology and History attest to theReliability of the Bible," byRichard M. Fales, Ph.D., in The Evidence Bible, Compiled

by Ray Comfort, Bridge-Logos Publishers, Gainesville, FL, 2001, p. 163; and 3) AReady Defense, by Josh Mcdowell, 1993, p. 45.3"Deissmann was convinced that p52 was written well within the reign of Hadrian(A.D. 117-38) and perhaps even during the time of Trajan (A.D. 98-117)" (Footnote#2 found on pg. 39 of The Text of the New Testament, by Bruce M. Metzger, 2nd Ed.1968, Oxford University Press, NY, NY). Bruce Metzger has authored more than 50books. He holds two Masters Degrees, a Ph.D. and has been awarded severalhonorary doctorates. "He is past president of the Society of Biblical Literature, theInternational Society for New Testament Studies, and the North American PatristicSociety." -- From, The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel, Zondervan Publ
http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%208.15-25http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%208.15-25http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%208.27-35http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%208.27-35http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%208.27-35http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2010.1-11http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2010.1-11http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2010.1-11http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2010.1-11http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2010.22http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2010.22http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2010.22http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2010.24-33http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2010.24-33http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2010.24-33http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2010.35http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2010.35http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2010.35http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2016.1-23http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2016.1-23http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2016.25-27http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2016.25-27http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2016.25-27http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Thess.%201.1http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Thess.%201.1http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Thess.%201.1http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Thess.%201.1http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Thess%201.9-10http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Thess%201.9-10http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Thess%201.9-10http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Thess%202.1-3http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Thess%202.1-3http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Thess%202.1-3http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Thess%205.5-9http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Thess%205.5-9http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Thess%205.5-9http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Thess%205.23-28http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Thess%205.23-28http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/John%201.1-6.11http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/John%201.1-6.11http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/John%201.35-14http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/John%201.35-14http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/John%201.35-14http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/John%201.35-14http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Matt.%203.9http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Matt%203.15http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Matt%203.15http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Matt%203.15http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Matt%205.20-22http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Matt%205.20-22http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Matt%205.20-22http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Matt%205.25-28http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Matt%205.25-28http://carm.org/dictionary-biblehttp://carm.org/dictionary-biblehttp://carm.org/languages/spanish/evidencia-del-manuscrito-para-una-mayor-fiabilidad-del-nuevo-testamentohttp://carm.org/languages/spanish/evidencia-del-manuscrito-para-una-mayor-fiabilidad-del-nuevo-testamentohttp://carm.org/languages/spanish/evidencia-del-manuscrito-para-una-mayor-fiabilidad-del-nuevo-testamentohttp://carm.org/languages/chinese/%E6%96%B0%E7%BA%A6%E6%89%8B%E6%8A%84%E6%9C%AC%E7%9A%84%E4%BE%9D%E6%8D%AEhttp://carm.org/languages/chinese/%E6%96%B0%E7%BA%A6%E6%89%8B%E6%8A%84%E6%9C%AC%E7%9A%84%E4%BE%9D%E6%8D%AEhttp://carm.org/languages/chinese/%E6%96%B0%E7%BA%A6%E6%89%8B%E6%8A%84%E6%9C%AC%E7%9A%84%E4%BE%9D%E6%8D%AEhttp://carm.org/languages/chinese/%E6%96%B0%E7%BA%A6%E6%89%8B%E6%8A%84%E6%9C%AC%E7%9A%84%E4%BE%9D%E6%8D%AEhttp://carm.org/languages/spanish/evidencia-del-manuscrito-para-una-mayor-fiabilidad-del-nuevo-testamentohttp://carm.org/dictionary-biblehttp://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Matt%205.25-28http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Matt%205.20-22http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Matt%203.15http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Matt.%203.9http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/John%201.35-14http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/John%201.35-14http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/John%201.1-6.11http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Thess%205.23-28http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Thess%205.5-9http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Thess%202.1-3http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Thess%201.9-10http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Thess.%201.1http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Thess.%201.1http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2016.25-27http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2016.1-23http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2010.35http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2010.24-33http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2010.22http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2010.1-11http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2010.1-11http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%208.27-35http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%208.15-25


4/9

The Bibles Manuscript Evidence

Print PDF

Unlike the Quran, when we consider the New Testament manuscripts (MSS) we are

astounded by the sheer numbers of extent copies which are in existence. Muslimscontend, however, that since we do not have the original documents, the reliabilityof the copies we do have is thus in doubt. Yet is this assumption correct?(1) New Testament Manuscript Copies:Because the Bible is a book, it was initially made up of manuscripts. Consequently aprimary means for ascertaining its credibility today are the number of copies fromthose manuscripts which are currently in ones possession. The more copies we havethe better we can compare between them and thus know if the document we nowread corresponds with the original. It is much like a witness to an event. If we haveonly one witness to the event, there is the possibility that the witnesss agenda or even an exaggeration of the event has crept in and we would never know the full

truth. But if we have many witnesses, the probability that they all got it wrongbecomes minute.Because of time and wear many of the historical documents from the ancient worldhave few manuscripts to which we can refer. This is specially true when we considerthe secular historians and philosophers. For instance, we only have eight copies ofHerodotuss historical works, whose originals were written in 480-425 BC. Likewise,only 5 copies of Aristotles writings have found their way to the 20th century, whileonly 10 copies of the writings of Caesar, along with another 20 copies of thehistorian Tacitus, and 7 copies from the historian Pliny, who all originally wrote inthe first century, are available today1.These are indeed very few.

When we consider the New Testament, however, we find a completely differentscenario. We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of theNew Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions(MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the NewTestament in existence today!2.Though we do not have any originals, with such awealth of documentation at our disposal with which to compare, we can delineatequite closely what those originals contained.Whats more, a substantial number were written well before the compilation of theQuran. In fact, according to research done by Kurt and Barbara Aland, a total of230 manuscript portions are currently in existence which pre-date 600 AD! Thesecan be broken down into 192 Greek New Testament manuscripts, 5 Greek

lectionaries containing scripture, and 33 translations of the Greek New Testament3.Muslims assert that we have similar problems concerning the large number of yearswhich separate the manuscripts from the events which they speak about. Yet, unlikethe Quran which was compiled much more recently, we do not find with the Biblesuch an enormous gap of time between that which the Bible speaks about and whenit was written down. In fact, outside of the book of Revelation and the three letters ofJohn considered to have been written later, when we look at the rest of the NewTestament books, there is no longer any solid basis for dating them later than 80AD, or 50 years after the death of Jesus Christ4.Most of the New Testament waslikely written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and perhaps before the fire of

Rome (64 AD), and the subsequent persecution of Christians, since none of theseevents, which would have had an enormous impact on the nascent Christiancommunity are mentioned in any of the New Testament writings. Had the
http://www.printfriendly.com/print?url=http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/http://www.printfriendly.com/print?url=http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-1http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-1http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-1http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-2http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-2http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-2http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-3http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-3http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-3http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-4http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-4http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-4http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-4http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-3http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-2http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-1http://www.printfriendly.com/print?url=http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/


5/9

documents been compiled in the second century as Muslims claim, then certainlythey would have mentioned these very important events.This same logic can be taken a step further. Take for instance the martyrdoms ofJames in 62 AD, Paul in 64 AD, and Peter in 65 AD. All were leaders in the nascentchurch. Thus their deaths were momentous events for the early Christiancommunity. Yet we find none of the deaths referred to in any of the 27 canonizedbooks of the New Testament (and significantly not in Acts, the most comprehensivehistorical record we have of the early church). The only explanation can be that theywere all written prior to these events, and thus likely before 62 AD, or a mere 30years after the death of Jesus, of whose life they primarily refer.(2) Available Manuscripts:A further criticism concerns whether the copies we possess are credible. Since we donot possess the originals, people ask, how can we be sure they are identical tothem? The initial answer is that we will never be completely certain, for there is nomeans at our disposal to reproduce the originals. This has always been a problemwith all known ancient documents. Yet this same question is rarely asked of other

historical manuscripts which we refer to constantly. If they are held to be credible,lets then see how the New Testament compares with them. Lets compare below thetime gaps for the New Testament documents with other credible secular documents.There were several historians of the ancient world whose works are quite popular.Thucydides, who wrote History of the Peloponnesian War, lived from 460 BC to 400BC. Virtually everything we know about the war comes from his history. Yet, theearliest copy of any manuscripts of Thucydides work dates around 900 AD, a full1,300 years later! The Roman historian Suetonius lived between AD 70 to 140 AD.Yet the earliest copy of his book The Twelve Caesars is dated around AD 950, a full800 years later. The chart below reveals the time gaps of these and other works fromthe ancient world and compares them to the earliest New Testament manuscripts5.

AuthorDateWritten

EarliestCopy

Time SpanCopies(extent)

Secular Manuscripts:

Herodotus (History)480425BC

900 AD 1,300 years 8

Thucydides (History)460400BC

900 AD 1,300 years ?

ristotle (Philosopher)384322BC

1,100 AD 1,400 years 5

Caesar (History) 10044 BC 900 AD 1,000 years 10

Pliny (History) 61113 AD 850 AD 750 years 7Suetonius (Roman History) 70140 AD 950 AD 800 years ?Tacitus (Greek History) 100 AD 1,100 AD 1,000 years 20Biblical Manuscripts:(note: these are individual manuscripts)

Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26) 1st century 50-60 ADco-existant(?)

John Rylands (John) 90 AD 130 AD 40 yearsBodmer Papyrus II (John) 90 AD 150-200 AD 60-110 yearsChester Beatty Papyri (N.T.) 1st century 200 AD 150 yearsDiatessaron by Tatian(Gospels)

1st century 200 AD 150 years

Codex Vaticanus (Bible) 1st century 325-350 AD275-300years

Codex Sinaiticus (Bible) 1st century 350 AD 300 years
http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-5http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-5http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-5http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-5


6/9

Codex Alexandrinus (Bible) 1st century 400 AD 350 years(Total New Testament manuscripts = 5,300 Greek MSS, 10,000 Latin Vulgates,9,300 others = 24,000 copies)(Total MSS compiled prior to 600 AD = 230)What one notices almost immediately from the table is that the New Testamentmanuscript copies which we possess today were compiled very early, a number ofthem hundreds of years before the earliest copy of a secular manuscript. This notonly shows the importance the early Christians gave to preserving their scriptures,but the enormous wealth we have today for early Biblical documentation.What is even more significant however, are the differences in time spans between theoriginal manuscripts and the copies of both the biblical and secular manuscripts. Itis well known in historical circles that the closer a document can be found to theevent it describes the more credible it is. The time span for the biblical manuscriptcopies listed above are all within 350 years of the originals, some as early as 130-250 years and one even purporting to coexist with the original (i.e. the MagdaleneManuscript fragments of Matthew 26), while the time span for the secular

manuscript copies are much greater, between 750-1,400 years! This indeed givesenormous authority to the biblical manuscript copies, as no other ancient piece ofliterature can make such close time comparisons.Because of its importance to our discussion here a special note needs to be given tothe Magdalene Manuscript mentioned above. Until two years ago, the oldestassumed manuscript which we possessed was the St. John papyrus (P52), housedin the John Rylands museum in Manchester, and dated at 120 AD6.Thus, it wasthought that the earliest New Testament manuscript could not be corroborated byeyewitnesses to the events. That assumption has now changed, for three even oldermanuscripts, one each from the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke have now beendated earlier than the Johannine account. It is two of these three findings which Ibelieve will completely change the entire focus of the critical debate on theauthenticity of the Bible. Let me explain.The Lukan papyrus, situated in a library in Paris has been dated to the late 1stcentury or early 2nd century, so it predates the John papyrus by 20-30 years7.Butof more importance are the manuscript findings of Mark and Matthew! New researchwhich has now been uncovered by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and is published in his newlyreleased book on the subject, the Jesus Papyrus mentions a fragment from the bookof Mark found among the Qumran scrolls (fragment 7Q5) showing that it waswritten sometime before 68 AD It is important to remember that Christ died in 33AD, so this manuscript could have been written, at the latest, within 35 years of His

death; possibly earlier, and thus during the time that the eyewitnesses to that eventwere still alive!The most significant find, however, is a manuscript fragment from the book ofMatthew (chapt.26) called the Magdalene Manuscript which has been analysed byDr. Carsten Thiede, and also written up in his book The Jesus Papyrus. Using asophisticated analysis of the handwriting of the fragment by employing a specialstate-of-the-art microscope, he differentiated between 20 separate micrometer layersof the papyrus, measuring the height and depth of the ink as well as the angle of thestylus used by the scribe. After this analysis Thiede was able to compare it withother papyri from that period; notably manuscripts found at Qumran (dated to 58AD), another at Herculaneum (dated prior to 79 AD), a further one from the fortressof Masada (dated to between 73/74 AD), and finally a papyrus from the Egyptiantown of Oxyrynchus. The Magdalene Manuscript fragments matches all four, and infact is almost a twin to the papyrus found in Oxyrynchus, which bears the date of
http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-6http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-6http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-6http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-7http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-7http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-7http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-7http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-6


7/9

65/66 AD Thiede concludes that these papyrus fragments of St. Matthews Gospelwere written no later than this date and probably earlier. That suggests that weeither have a portion of the original gospel of Matthew, or an immediate copy whichwas written while Matthew and the other disciples and eyewitnesses to the eventswere still alive. This would be the oldest manuscript portion of our Bible in existencetoday, one which co-exists with the original writers!What is of even more importance is what it says. The Matthew 26 fragment uses inits text nomina sacra (holy names) such as the diminutive IS for Jesus and KEfor Kurie or Lord8.This is highly significant for our discussion today, because itsuggests that the godhead of Jesus was recognised centuries before it was acceptedas official church doctrine at the council of Nicea in 325 AD There is still ongoingdiscussion concerning the exact dating of this manuscript. However, if the datesprove to be correct then this document alone completely eradicates the criticismlevelled against the gospel accounts (such as the Jesus Seminar) that the earlydisciples knew nothing about Christs divinity, and that this concept was a laterredaction imposed by the Christian community in the second century (AD).

We have other manuscript evidence for the New Testament as well:(3) Versions or Translations:Besides the 24,000 manuscripts we have more than 15,000existing copies of thevarious versions written in the Latinand Syriac(Christian Aramaic), some of whichwere written as early as 150 A.D., such as the Syriac Peshitta (150-250 A.D.)9.Because Christianity was a missionary faith from its very inception (Matthew 28:19-20), the scriptures were immediately translated into the known languages of thatperiod. For that reason other written translations appeared soon after, such asCoptictranslations (early 3rd and 4th centuries), Armenian(400 A.D.), Gothic(4th century), Georgian(5th century), Ethiopic (6th century),and Nubian(6th century)10.The fact that we have so many translations of the NewTestament points to its authenticity, as it would have been almost impossible, hadthe disciples or later followers wanted to corrupt or forge its contents, for them tohave amassed all of the translations from the outlying areas and changed each oneso that there would have been the uniformity which we find witnessed in thesetranslations today.(4) Lectionaries:The practice of reading passages from the New Testament books at worship servicesbegan from the 6th century, so that today we have 2,135lectionarieswhich have been catalogued from this period11.If there had been a forgery, they toowould have all had to have been changed.

(5) Early Church Fathers Letters:But possibly the greatest attestation for the authority of our New Testament are themasses of quotations taken from its pages by the early church fathers.Dean Burgon in his research found in all 86,489quotes from the early churchfathers12.In fact, there are 32,000quotations from the New Testament found inwritings from before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D.13.J. Harold Greenlee pointsout that the quotations of the scripture in the works of the early church writers areso extensive that the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from themwithout the use of New Testament manuscripts.Sir David Dalrymple sought to do this, and from the second and third centurywritings of the church fathers he found the entire New Testament quotedexcept for eleven verses14!Thus, we could throw the New Testament manuscriptsaway and still reconstruct it withthe simple help of these letters. Some examples of these are15:
http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-8http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-8http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-8http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-9http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-9http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-9http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-10http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-10http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-10http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-11http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-11http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-11http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-12http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-12http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-12http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-13http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-13http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-13http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-14http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-14http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-14http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-15http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-15http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-15http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-15http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-14http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-13http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-12http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-11http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-10http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-9http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-8


8/9

Clement(30- 95 A.D.) quotes from various sections of the New Testament. Ignatius(70-110 A.D.) knew the apostles and quoted directly from 15 of the

27 books. Polycarp(70-156 A.D.) was a disciple of John and quoted from the New

Testament.Thus the manuscript evidence at our disposal today gives us over 24,000manuscripts with which to corroborate our current New Testament. The earliestof these manuscripts have now been dated earlier than 60-70 A.D., so within thelifetime of the original writers, and with an outside possibility that they are theoriginals themselves. On top of that we have 15,000 early translations of the NewTestament, and over 2,000 lectionaries. And finally we have scriptural quotations inthe letters of the early Church fathers with which we could almost reproduce theNew Testament if we so wished. This indeed is substantial manuscript evidence forthe New Testament.

So what comparisons are there between the manuscript evidence for the Quran and

the Bible? We know from the historical record that by the end of theseventh century the Arabs had expanded right across North Africa and up intoSpain, and east as far as India. The Quran (according to later Islamic tradition) wasthe centrepiece of their faith and practice at that time. Certainly within thatenormous sphere of influence there should therefore be some Quranic manuscriptswhich still exist till this day. Yet, there is nothing from that period at all. The onlymanuscripts which Islam provides turn out to have been compiled in the ninthcentury, while the earliest corroborated manuscript is dated 790 A.D., written not1400 years ago as Muslims claim but a mere 1,200 years ago.While Christianity can claim more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the NewTestament, 10,000 Latin Vulgates and at least 9,300 other early versions,adding up to over 24,000 corroborated New Testament manuscripts still in existence16,most of which were written between 25-400years after the death of Christ (or between the 1st and 5th centuries)17,Islamcannot provide a single manuscript until well into the eighth century18.If theChristians could retain so many thousands of ancient manuscripts, all of whichwere written long before the Quran, at a time when paper had not yet beenintroduced, forcing the dependency on papyrus which disintegrated with age, thenone wonders why the Muslims are not able to forward a single manuscript from thismuch later period, during which the Quran was supposedlyrevealed? This indeed gives the Bible a much stronger claim for reliability than the

Quran.Furthermore, while the earliest New Testament manuscripts as well as the earliestletters from the church fathers correspond with the New Testament which we havein our hands, providing us with some certainty that they have not been undulyadded to or tampered with, the Quranic material which we have inour possession abounds with stories whose origins we can now trace to secondcentury Jewish and Christian apocryphal literature. We know in some caseswho wrote them, when exactly they were written and at times even why they werewritten; and that none of them were from a divine source, as theywere written by the most human of Rabbis and storytellers over the interveningcenturies after the Bible had been canonized.We now turn our attention to the documentary evidence for both the Quran and theBible.

1. McDowell 1972:42
http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-16http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-16http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-17http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-17http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-17http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-18http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-18http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-18http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-18http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-17http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/historical/the-bible-and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/#fn-808-16


9/9

2. taken from McDowells Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-

48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.573. Aland 1987:82-834. Robinson 1976:795. taken from McDowell 1972:42, & Bruce 1943:16-176.Time April 26, 1996, pg.87.Time April 26, 1996, pg.88.The Times, Saturday, December 24, 19949. McDowell 1972:49; 1990:4710. McDowell 1972:48-5011. McDowell 1972:5212. McDowell 1990:47-48; 1991:5213. Mcdowell Evidence, 1972:5214. McDowell 1972:50-51; 1990:4815. from McDowells Evidence, 1972 pg. 5116. McDowell 1990:43-5517. McDowell 1972:39-4918. Lings & Safadi 1976:17; Schimmel 1984:4-6

Manuscript Evidence for Superior New Testament Reliability

Documents

Transcript of Manuscript Evidence for Superior New Testament Reliability