Skeptics and popular opinion confidently assert that no one knows for sure if what was recorded in the original texts of the New Testament has been accurately conveyed to us.
Yet, this is completely false.
There are overwhelmingly more copies and versions of the New Testament available to us than of any other classical text and we accept those texts with much less hesitation.
From Stand To Reason:
“The science of textual criticism is used to test all documents of antiquity–not just religious texts–including historical and literary writings. It’s not a theological enterprise based on haphazard hopes and guesses; it’s a linguistic exercise that follows a set of established rules. Textual criticism allows an alert critic to determine the extent of possible corruption of any work.
The ability of any scholar to do effective textual criticism depends on two factors. First, how many existing copies are there to examine and compare? Are there two copies, ten, a hundred? The more copies there are, the easier it is to make meaningful comparisons. Second, how close in time are the oldest existing documents to the original?
If the numbers are few and the time gap is wide, the original is harder to reconstruct with confidence. However, if there are many copies and the oldest existing copies are reasonably close in time to the original, the textual critic can be more confident he’s pinpointed the exact wording of the autograph.
To get an idea of the significance of the New Testament manuscript evidence, note for a moment the record for non-biblical texts. These are secular texts from antiquity that have been reconstructed with a high degree of certainty based on the available textual evidence.
The important First Century document The Jewish War, by Jewish aristocrat and historian Josephus, survives in only nine complete manuscripts dating from the 5th Century--four centuries after they were written.[3] Tacitus’ Annals of Imperial Rome is one of the chief historical sources for the Roman world of New Testament times, yet, surprisingly, it survives in partial form in only two manuscripts dating from the Middle Ages.[4] Thucydides’ History survives in eight copies. There are 10 copies of Caesar’s Gallic Wars, eight copies of Herodotus’ History, and seven copies of Plato, all dated over a millennium from the original. Homer’s Iliad has the most impressive manuscript evidence for any secular work with 647 existing copies.[5]
Bruce’s comments put the discussion in perspective: “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 which are of any use to us are over 1300 years later than the originals.”[6]
For most documents of antiquity only a handful of manuscripts exist, some facing a time gap of 800-2000 years or more. Yet scholars are confident of reconstructing the originals with some significant degree of accuracy. In fact, virtually all of our knowledge of ancient history depends on documents like these.
By comparison with secular texts, the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is stunning. The most recent count (1980) shows 5,366 separate Greek manuscripts represented by early fragments, uncial codices (manuscripts in capital Greek letters bound together in book form), and minuscules (small Greek letters in cursive style)![7]
Among the nearly 3,000 minuscule fragments are 34 complete New Testaments dating from the 9th to the 15th Centuries.[8]
Uncial manuscripts provide virtually complete codices (multiple books of the New Testament bound together into one volume) back to the 4th Century, though some are a bit younger. Codex Sinaiticus, purchased by the British government from the Soviet government at Christmas, 1933, for £100,000,[9] is dated c. 340.[10] The nearly complete Codex Vaticanus is the oldest uncial, dated c. 325-350.[11] Codex Alexandrinus contains the whole Old Testament and a nearly complete New Testament and dates from the late 4th Century to the early 5th Century.
The most fascinating evidence comes from the fragments (as opposed to the codices). The Chester Beatty Papyri contains most of the New Testament and is dated mid-3rd Century.[12] The Bodmer Papyri II collection, whose discovery was announced in 1956, includes the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John and much of the last seven chapters. It dates from A.D. 200 or earlier.[13]
The most amazing find of all, however, is a small portion of John 18:31-33, discovered in Egypt known as the John Rylands Papyri. Barely three inches square, it represents the earliest known copy of any part of the New Testament. The papyri is dated on paleographical grounds at around A.D. 117-138 (though it may even be earlier),[14] showing that the Gospel of John was circulated as far away as Egypt within 30 years of its composition.”
Why is the historical accuracy of the New Testament important? After all, wouldn’t the teachings of Jesus be valid even if he had never lived or even if his life differed from the account of it in the gospels?
I used to make this argument. In fact, I thought it was important to base any acceptance of Christian doctrine on something other than the historical evidence for Jesus, because, waylaid by the sophistries of “higher criticism” and some schools of Protestant theology, I thought the historicity of the gospels could not convincingly be demonstrated.
Hurrah for the Internet, for exposing me to Christian teachers who have busted that piece of propaganda wide apart. Not that I hadn’t been prepared for their revelations already.
Having waded through the propaganda in the daily papers and magazine, it was easy to accept that academic journals were no better. And neither was theology or history. They were all buried beneath agenda and myth-making.
But Christianity is not simply a teaching about ethics or a philosophy. It claims something else. The ethics of Christianity, after all, can be found anywhere. What is unique is the Christian claim to explain man’s spiritual destiny in terms of one sole figure – Jesus Christ:
“For the Christian gospel is not primarily a code of ethics or a metaphysical system; it is first and foremost good news, and as such it was proclaimed by its earliest preachers. True, they called Christianity ‘The Way’ and ‘The Life’; but Christianity as a way of life depends upon the acceptance of Christianity as good news. And this good news is intimately bound up with the historical order, for it tells how for the world’s redemption God entered into history, the eternal came into time, the kingdom of heaven invaded the realm of earth, in the great events of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. The first recorded words of our Lord’s public preaching in Galilee are: ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has drawn near; repent and believe the good news.”
Whatever questions one can legitimately have about Christianity, they cannot be about the authenticity of the New Testament.
Indeed there was a man called Jesus of Nazareth. Indeed, he was universally called a just and good man by even his enemies.
Indeed, he performed what were considered miracles of healing.
Indeed, he was accounted a magician, a heretic, and a seditionist.
He was indeed turned in by the High Council of Jewish elders to the Roman authorities, who at the behest of the mob, arrested, convicted, tortured, and crucified him.
There were in fact reports quite early on of his miraculous resurrection and the history and teachings of Saul, a convert who was once one of his fiercest foes, is not some later accretion in the textual record but among the earliest (prior to 100 AD).
The earliest Christian record we have today is apparently a manuscript of the Gospel of Mark dating from the first century.
That would make it a copy available during the life-time of eye witnesses to Jesus’s life.
In that case, the original of Mark was indeed written during or just after the life of Jesus.