Feed on
Posts
Comments

Have the Gospels Survived?

Have the Gospels Survived?(By Nathan Busenitz)

Today’s post is Part 10 of our ten-part series on why we can trust the reliability of the New Testament Gospels. Earlier parts of the series can be found here: Parts 1-6; Part 7; Part 8; Part 9.

Tenth, we believe the New Testament Gospels are reliable because they have been faithfully preserved throughout church history.

Up to this point, we have considered various reasons why the New Testament Gospels can be rightly considered to be historically reliable documents. But all of this is predicated on the fact that those Gospels have been adequately preserved throughout history, such that the copies we have today accurately reflect the originals. If the Gospels had been irrevocably corrupted at some point in church history, we would not be able to trust the copies we now possess.

In point of fact, the New Testament documents (including the Gospels) have been preserved remarkably well. This, of course, is not true of all ancient documents. Caesar’s Gallic Wars can boast only ten extant manuscripts, the oldest of which is dated 1,000 years after the original. Only eight surviving manuscripts have been found of Herodotus’ History, the earliest of which is 1,300 years newer than the original. Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War is similarly attested to by only eight extant manuscripts, again dating from about 1300 years after the work was first penned. And these are just a few examples. [1]

In contrast to secular texts, the New Testament documents (including the Gospels) are very well attested, and from only a short period of time after the originals were penned.

Approximately 5,000 Greek manuscripts, containing all or part of the New Testament, exist. There are 8,000 manuscript copies of the Vulgate (a Latin translation of the Bible done by Jerome from 382–405) and more than 350 copies of Syriac (Christian Aramaic) versions of the New Testament (these originated from 150–250; most of the copies are from the 400s). Besides this, virtually the entire New Testament could be reproduced from citations contained in the works of the early church fathers. There are some thirty-two thousand citations in the writings of the Fathers prior to the Council of Nicea (325).[2]

Among the ancient manuscripts are the Chester Beatty Papyri (a group of early Christian manuscripts written on papyrus) most of which are dated in the 200s. Three of these codices (or books) of papyri contain portions of the New Testament. The first (known as “p45”) originally consisted of about 220 leaves and contained all four Gospels and Acts. The second (“p46”) had 104 leaves and included ten of Paul’s epistles. And the third (“p47”) is thought to have had 32 leaves, and contained the Book of Revelation. Today only a portion of those codices remain (around 126 leaves altogether), yet it is enough to serve as a valuable witness to the reliability of our modern Bibles.

Another important papyrus is “p52.” It is one of the oldest copies of any portion of the New Testament yet found, and contains a few verses from the Gospel of John (dated to between 100-150).[3]  Its significance lies in the fact that it “proves the existence and use of the Fourth Gospel during the first half of the second century in a provincial town along the Nile, far removed from its traditional place of composition (Ephesus in Asia Minor).”[4] The finding of this fragment shattered liberal theories about a late second-century date for the composition of John’s gospel.

The Bodmer Papyri also warrant mentioning. One of them, “p66” contains a large portion of the Gospel of John (of which John 1:1–6:11 and 6:35b–14:15 are still in tact) and dates from around 200. Another Bodmer papyrus “p77” includes Luke and John (of the original 144 pages, 102 have survived) and dates to between 175 and 225. It is the earliest known copy of the Gospel of Luke. In 1994, one other early papyrus was discovered by a German scholar named Carsten Peter Thiede. Though only fragments remained, it contained the Gospel of Matthew and may date to as early as A.D. 70.

That any manuscripts survived from the few centuries of church history is remarkable, since it was a time of such intense persecution for Christians. From the fourth century on, however, the number of surviving manuscripts becomes much more plentiful. The earliest and most important of these include Codex Sinaiticus (350, which contains almost all of the New Testament), and Codex Vaticanus (325–50), which contains virtually the entire Bible).

Along with these manuscripts and other ancient translations, the records left by the church fathers also confirm that the Gospels have been faithfully preserved. In fact, there are over 19,000 quotations of the New Testament Gospels in the extant writings of the early church fathers.[5] Their testimony bears witness to the fact that the Jesus they worshipped is the same Jesus we worship today.

Of course, there are sometimes discrepancies among the manuscripts that have survived. This is to be expected, given the thousands of copies that were handwritten throughout history. Such discrepancies, then, are due to scribal errors that were made (at various points in church history) as the manuscripts were being manually reproduced. 

But Christians need not worry too much about them. For starters, the vast majority of them are very minor (such as a word added here, or a word missing there). Most have been readily explained and corrected, through the science of textual criticism. And none of them pose a serious threat to any major Christian doctrine. The fact that there are so many manuscripts available to examine, some of which are very early, has enabled “textual scholars to accurately reconstruct the original text with more than 99 percent accuracy. [One] noted Greek scholar, A. T. Robertson, said the real concerns of textual criticism is on ‘a thousandth part of the entire text’ (making the New Testament 99.9 percent pure).”[6]

We can have confidence, then, in knowing that the Gospels we read today are faithful representations of the original Gospels, though we are separated by 2,000 years and by translation from Greek to English. Thus, we can trust the historical reliability not only of the original Gospel accounts—but more significantly (to us), of our own English copies. In the words of Frederic Kenyon:

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 throughout the centuries.[7]

* * * * *

Notes:

[1] Cf. F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (Old Tappan, N. J.: Fleming H. Revell Col, 1963), 180. Bruce notes, “There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament” (p. 178). See also the chart by Josh McDowell in The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 38.

[2] J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 135–36.

[3] Cf. Carsten Peter Thiede, The Jesus Papyrus (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1996).

[4] Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 39. Metzger’s work was the primary source consulted for information on these papyri.

[5] Josh McDowell, Evidence, 43.

[6] Ravi Zacharias and Norman L. Geisler, Who Made God? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 127.

[7] Frederic G. Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1958), 23.

6 Responses to “Have the Gospels Survived?”

  1. on 16 Oct 2007 at 6:13 am art

    What would you say about Mark 16.8b-20, Luke 22.43-44, and John 7.53-8.11?

    How does this, or any textual variant, affect your view of inspiration?

  2. on 16 Oct 2007 at 10:08 am Nate B.

    Art,

    Thanks for your question. I appreciate the interaction.

    I hope my article didn’t come across as completely ignoring textual variants. Perhaps it seemed to treat them too glibly, but I don’t think so — at least not for the average churchgoer (or blog reader). That textual variants exist is openly acknowledged by every evangelical scholar. But those variants do not undermine our confidence in the New Testament text. If anything, the massive number of manuscripts that exist (even if they bring textual variants with them) only strengthens our confidence in the Bibles we have today.

    But now I’m digressing… sorry.

    Getting back to your actual question, I believe inspiration applies to the autographa, and that the copies have “derived inspiration” insofar as they accurately reflect the originals. So I would approach each textual variant on a case-by-case basis, examining the textual evidence for that particular variant. (Obviously, for most minor variants, I would simply trust the work of much smarter men who have given their lives to the study of such things.)

    In the case of Mark 16 and John 7-8, I do not believe that either was part of the original Gospels. However, I do think they represent a valuable part of early church history that we can appreciate, even if we do not see it as equal to the other parts of those Gospels.

    Anyway, I guess that’s the short answer. Am I answering your question?

    - NB

  3. on 16 Oct 2007 at 10:24 am art

    Nate,

    I didn’t mean to imply that your article was insufficient in dealing with textual variants. I just asked those questions out of some things I was thinking of and was curious about when I read the article.

    When I asked about inspiration, I had in mind the A.T. Robertson quote in the article and some of the “D-level” variants found in the GNT. These are variants that teams of distinguished scholars are still unsure about. Sure, they only make up .01%, but those .01% are still the words of God. I know they don’t affect doctrine, but I think they should, in some way, play an role on how we view the OT and NT as Scripture (i.e. authoritative).

    Bart Ehrman would put it like this: “What is the use of saying that the autographa were inspired if we don’t have them? And if God was going to go through the trouble of inspiring his word, wouldn’t he go through the trouble of preserving it?”

    Now, I don’t agree with Ehrman’s assessment of the situation, but I believe that he brings up some valid points that have not been answered by evangelical theology: namely, how can we claim to have the Word of God if, in certain places, we are unsure about the words of God?

    I’m not looking for you for a comprehensive answer; these are just some of the things that I have been both thinking about and reading about for the past few years and am still struggling with many of the seemingly ‘pat’ answers are given in evangelical circles (I’m not accusing you of presenting or swallowing ‘pat’ answers, its just a generalization).

    Anyway, I enjoy reading what you write and always enjoy interacting.

  4. on 16 Oct 2007 at 10:28 am RickB

    They are included in every bible, and noted in every bible to err on the side of caution. We know that we have every word of God preserved and none is withheld from us.

  5. on 16 Oct 2007 at 10:43 am Nate B.

    Art,

    Thanks for that response; very helpful. I’m with you on not wanting to give artificial answers for genuine questions. And I really, honestly, enjoy the fact that you are bringing these things up. They are helping me think through the issues more carefully, which has been very constructive.

    Bart Ehrman’s objection, I believe, must ultimately be answered on theological grounds rather than textual ones. We believe in inspiration because that is how Scripture describes its own composition. We believe in inerrancy because God tells us that He is a God of truth.

    The fact that God did not choose to miraculously preserve the Scriptures throughout history (though He did providentially preserve them in the sense that the essential message of the Bible is still in tact), is His decision. But it does not change what Scripture reveals about God and about itself.

    Nor does it ultimately weaken our confidence in our Bibles (especially since textual criticism allows us to know exactly where different points of variance are to be found).

    As Daniel Wallace said of Ehrman’s ‘Misquoting Jesus’:

    * * *

    Scholars bear a sacred duty not to alarm lay readers on issues that they have little understanding of. Unfortunately, the average layperson will leave this book with far greater doubts about the wording and teachings of the NT than any textual critic would ever entertain. A good teacher doesn’t hold back on telling his students what’s what, but he also knows how to package the material so they don’t let emotion get in the way of reason. A good teacher does not create Chicken Littles

    * * *

    Anyway, that’s my knee-jerk response. What are your thoughts on the whole thing?

    - NB

  6. on 16 Oct 2007 at 2:36 pm John

    I read through Aland and Aland’s “The Text of the New Testament” which was quite an excellent read.

    I can’t find the quote, but I know they said that b/c of the abundance of the manuscript tradition, there is no doubt they have the original reading of the NT (assuming that at least one of .01% variants that don’t make much difference are correct).

    B/c they we can have such a high confidence that we have the original reading of the Greek NT, it is now only up to us to accept whether it is truly God’s word or not.

    I’d say we should be cautious on those variants, but since they don’t change any theology, I can rest more than assured for the rest of it.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply