#41 The Gospels as History Post #5

Not so fast! I said I was going to begin with talking about the manuscript evidence before I moved on to the other issues. Your post demonstrates that you think the manuscript evidence is weak. In reality, there's more and better manuscript evidence for the New Testament than for any other work of antiquity. We have more copies, with more copies dated closer to the events described, than any other ancient work I'm aware of. In 1971 fragments were identified from Mark, Acts, and a few epistles that dated from between 70-90 AD! It follows from this that Luke is also early, since Luke pre-dates Acts.

Another issue is geographic distribution. Copies were made from the originals and distributed accross a broad geographic region. New generations of copies were made from these copies after distribution. A common objection to the reliability of these texts references the multitude of textual variants that exist in all these copies. While it is very true that such variants exist, many people fail to realize the significance that geographic distribution has on our ability to recognize and correct errors.

For example, let's say that an original author in 60AD wrote:
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."

Let's say 10 copies of this were made.
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little sheep whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."

Note that the 8th copy contains a variant.

Now suppose that these copies are distributed accross Asia Minor, Greece, Rome, Egypt, and other parts of northern Africa. Once distributed other copies are made. Also suppose that the copy containing the error winds up in Egypt. The next generation of copies will very likely reproduce this error. But those copies containing this particular variant will be geographically centered around a particular region.

Years later, most of the manuscripts have been lost, but a few remain. Some are complete. Some are only fragments.

In Greece we find:
125 AD - MARY          A               LAMB                              WAS WHITE    SNO
250 AD - MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB WHOSE FLEECE WAS WHITE AS SNOW

In Italy we find:
90 AD - Mary had a lamb whose fleece was white like snow.
150 AD - Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white like snow.

In Egypt we find:
125 AD -          had            sheep          fleece                  as
250 AD - Mary had a little sheep whose fleece was white as snow.

Now there are all kinds of variants in these extant manuscripts and fragments.
1) Sometimes lettering is all caps, sometimes not.
2) Sometimes we have "sheep" and sometimes "lamb".
3) Sometimes the adjective "little" is missing.
4) Sometimes there's punctuation, sometimes not.
5) Sometimes becuase we have only a fragment, words are missing entirely.
6) Sometimes "as" and "like" are exchanged.

But, by taking the various manuscripts and fragments we have from various regions and placing them side by side for comparison, Textual Criticism allows us to be reasonably certain what the original autographs contained. And we have more than 5,000 manuscripts and fragments to compare.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that the above examples are exactly the kinds of variants that actually exist in the extant New Testament manuscripts. No central Christian belief, assumption, or doctrine is in any way at risk due to the nature of these variants. The very end of Mark's gospel might seem an exception, for early manuscripts do not contain the final bit about handling snakes and such. While there are some very small segments of Pentacostalism in Tennessee and Kentucky that are bothered by this, nothing of orthodox faith hinges on it.

So, the reality is that we have enough copies and fragments dated early enough and spread over a wide enough geographic area to be very confident that the content we currently possess matches the content originally recorded. We know that what was written was presented as eye-witness testimony of events in history. We know we have an accurate record of that testimony. We must now determine whether we can believe that testimony or not. The texts are reliable. Are the writers? I will attempt to address that next.