Considering how many New Testament copies exist

Imagine you’re mistakenly put on trial for shoplifting at a luxury clothing store in Hollywood. Although you claim innocence, the store manager is intent on setting an example and wants you locked away for good. During this trial, you have a single eyewitness who testifies that the shoplifter wasn’t you, but was actually a well-known film actress. The statement may help your case, but reality bites, and a lone witness may not be enough to convince the jury. But suppose your lawyer brings to the stand several thousand witnesses all proclaiming your innocence. In this scenario, you’d have the jury deciding in your favour quicker than you can say “Beetlejuice.” Clearly, then, the more witnesses you have testifying on your behalf, the more credible you sound. 

This principle carries over when you examine ancient manuscripts. If you have just two copies of an original document that are quite different, then it’s hard to know which was transcribed by Mr. Xerox and which was written by a John Grisham wannabe who simply wanted a creative outlet. However, if you have thousands of copies, all of which are consistent with each other, then you have a very strong indicator of what was in the original manuscript. Therefore, the general rule is that the more copies of an ancient manuscript you have, the more you’re able to check them against each other to determine their accuracy. 

More than 5,600 Greek manuscripts contain parts or all of the New Testament, an amount far beyond that of any other ancient book. In comparison, only 600 copies of Homer’s Iliad and a mere 7 copies of Plato’s writings exist. What’s more, when you cross-check these New Testament manuscripts and compare the results with other ancient writings, the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts is nearly perfect, word for word – much more accurate than the copies of these other writings. For example, Bible scholar Bruce Metzger compared the New Testament to Homer’s Iliad and the Mahabharata, a Hindu scripture that’s sometimes referred to as the Hindu Bible. Check out his findings in Table 2-1. As you see from this investigation, only 40 lines of the entire 20,000-line New Testament are questionable. The only passages in doubt are John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20. Therefore, if you leave those two passages out, then all the New Testament manuscripts are in total harmony. 

Comparing the Accuracy of Ancient Manuscripts

Book: Hindu Mahabharata

Total lines: Approx. 260,000

Conflicting lines: 26,000

Accuracy: 90%

 

Homer’s Iliad

15,600

764

95%

 
New Testament

20,000

40

99.98% 

Source: Bruce Metzger, Chapters in New Testament Textual Criticism (E.J. Brill, 1963) 

Measuring the gap between original manuscripts and copies

A second critical issue when exploring the reliability of the New Testament is the time gap between when a document was originally written and when the first known copy was made. Obviously, the shorter the gap, the more reliable a manuscript is. 

Before the Internet existed: Communication in the ancient days

I’m admittedly spoiled by the wealth of information that’s available all around me. I’ve got a library of books in my study, the Internet at my fingertips, an MP3 player on my belt, and a television and DVD player in the next room. If you need any type of written, visual, or audio information, give me a sec and I’ll get it for you. Consequently, it’s hard for me to fully appreciate the struggles that people had for nearly all of history over the seemingly trivial matter of recording and distributing information. 

For much of the ancient past, people communicated history primarily by word of mouth, passed down through generations. Oral history may sound haphazard, but when you don’t have a laptop to store information, you’d be surprised at how much stuff your brain can retain when it has to. Still, although oral history is a valid form of sharing information and was ideal for master storytellers, people soon found that the written word proved to be more reliable and more convenient should the storyteller get laryngitis or get hit by a speeding donkey. 

By historical standards, the New Testament time gap is relatively small – all first copies of the books date within 250 years, nearly all within 200 years, many within 100 years. And one fragment of the Gospel of John was written around A.D. 95 – a mere 15 to 30 years before the first copy was dated between A.D. 110 and A.D. 125. 

As Table 2-2 shows, the New Testament time gap is much more favourable compared to the gap in the writings of Homer (500 years), Plato (1,200 years), and Aristotle (1,400 years). 

Comparing the Time Gap of Ancient Manuscripts

Author: Aristotle

Date Written: 384-322 B.C.

Earliest Copy: A.D. 1100

Time Gap: 1,400 years

 

Plato

427-347 B.C.

A.D. 900

1,200 years 

Homer

900 B.C.

400 B.C.

500 years 

 

New Testament

A.D. 50-100

A.D. 100-300

30-250 years 

Source: Based on Norman Geisler’s Christian Apologetics (Baker Book House, 1976).

 

Overall, more manuscript evidence supports the reliability of the New Testament writings than it does for any other ancient book. Therefore, if one wants to throw out the New Testament on grounds of the manuscripts themselves, then you’d first have to throw out every other ancient historical document, from Plato to Caesar.