Sophocles430-406 B.C.1,000 A.D.1,400 yrs.100
LucretiusDied 55 or 53 B.C .2Catullus54 B.C.1,550 A.D.1,600 yrs.3
Euripedes480-406 B.C.1,100 A.D.1,500 yrs.9
Demosthenes383-322 B.C.1,100 A.D.1,300
yrs.200*Aristotle384-322 B.C.1,100 A.D.1,400 yrs.5**
Aristophanes450-385 B .C.900 A. D.1,200 yrs.10
*All from one copy. **Of any one work.From Josh McDowell,
Evidence That Demands a Verdict, rev ed.
(San Bernardino, Calif.: Here'sLife,1979), p. 42.</center>A brief perusal of the table indicates that for arepresentative sample of ancient historical works,we possess only a handful of manuscripts whichare, on the average, one thousand years removedfrom their originals.In contrast to this, the New Testament documentshave a staggering quantity of manuscriptattestation. [6] Approximately 5,000 Greekmanuscripts, containing all or part of the NewTestament, exist. There are 8,000 manuscriptcopies of the Vulgate (a Latin translation of theBible done by Jerome from 382-405) and morethan 350 copies of Syriac (Christian Aramaic)versions of the New Testament (these originatedfrom 150-250; most of the copies are from the400x). Besides this, virtually the entire NewTestament could be reproduced from citationscontained in the works of the early church fathers.There are some thirty-two thousand citations inthe writings of the Fathers prior to the Council ofNicea (325).The dates of the manuscript copies range fromearly in the second century to the time of theReformation. Many of the manuscripts are early-for example, the John Rylands manuscript (about120; it was found in Egypt and contains a fewverses from the Gospel of John), the ChesterBeatty Papyri (200; it contains major portions ofthe New Testament), Codex Sinaiticus (350; itcontains virtually all of the New Testament), andCodex Vaticanus (325-50; it contains almost theentire Bible).Too much can be made of this evidence, whichalone does not establish the trustworthiness ofthe New Testament. All it shows is that the textwe currently possess is an accuraterepresentation of the original New Testamentdocuments. Most historians accept the textualaccuracy of other ancient works on far lessadequate manuscript grounds than is available forthe New Testament.In this regard, the following statement about theNew Testament by R. Joseph Hoffmann is naive:"What we possess are copies of copies, so farremoved from anything that might be called a'primary' account that it is useless to speculateabout what an original version of the gospel wouldhave included.'' [7]As I have shown, the copies of the NewTestament are not far removed from the originals.Furthermore, Hoffmann is using the wrong senseof the term original as it is employed in historicalinvestigation. As Louis Gottschalk points out, "[Aprimary source] does not, however, need to beoriginal in the legal sense of the word original-thatis, the very document (usually the first writtendraft) whose contents are the subject ofdiscussion-for quite often a later copy or a printededition will do just as well; and in the case of theGreek and Roman classics seldom are any butlater copies available." [8]Other tests for historicity have been formulated,some of which are these: a document has a highprobability of reliability if it is a personal letter, isintended for small audiences, is written inunpolished style, [9] and contains trivia and listsof details. [10] The absence of these featuresdoes not necessarily mean the document isunreliable; but their presence makes the primafacie acceptance of the document stronger. Muchof the New Testament, especially the apostolicletters and some of the sources behind theGospels, is made up of personal letters originallyintended for individuals and small groups. Inaddition, much of the New Testament is inunpolished style, and there are several examplesof inconsequential detail in the Gospels (see Mark14:51-52; John 21:2, 11). Further, in 2 Corinthians12:11-12, Paul writes to a church which isquestioning his apostolic authority. To defendhimself, he reminds the believers that while hehad been with them (approximately four yearsearlier) he had performed miracles and wonders.If this had not been the case, then Paul wouldhave been a fool to use what everyone knew wasa lie to defend himself.
© JP MorelandSource:http://www.bethinking.org/resources/the-historicity-of-the-new-testament.htm
Leave a Comment