Bethel Grove Bible Church

Spiritual Growth

Adult Education

Small Groups

Prayer

Institute of Biblical Studies

Seminars

Resources

Study Questions

Questions about Christianity

The New Testament

1. “How historically reliable is the New Testament?”

2. “The New Testament has numerous textual errors, has been translated hundreds of times, and most of the early copyists were non-professionals scribes. Also, there are between 200,000-400,000 variant readings in the New Testament.”

3. “The Church councils voted on which books were to be regarded as the Word of God (the process of canonization). Does this not suggest some political motivation behind the canonization of the New Testament?"

4. “What about Gnosticism? Do recent findings of the Gnostic Gospels demonstrate that the Christian Church has been hiding historical/theological information? Why should we trust the traditional picture of Jesus if we now have the Gnostic Gospels? Don’t the Gnostic Gospels claim inspiration as well?”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. “How historically reliable is the New Testament?”

The number of Greek manuscripts for the New Testament (over 5,000) is superior in manuscript evidence when compared to other ancient documents (Homer’s Iliad is second with 643).
The “time gap” between the original document and the copies of the New Testament is far less than all other ancient documents in both partial and complete copies.
If we “lost” all of the written copies of the New Testament in our Bibles, we would still be able to reconstruct it via the early church father’s (ca. 100-350 CE) citations, allusions, and quotes. One scholar estimated all but 11 verses are contained in their writings. Does this not suggest that we have the “real” New Testament?
The “Jesus” story was first committed to memory (oral tradition). Within two to three years after Jesus’ resurrection, Paul is converted. Paul receives the “Jesus” tradition from Jesus himself (Galatians 1.16-17), Peter (Galatians 1.18-19), and the Jerusalem church (Acts 9.26-30). Disciples, eyewitnesses, and other leaders/guarantors of the “oral” Jesus tradition are the primary sources of the Gospels; a general “consensus” of Jesus’ life and teaching, affirmed and taught.
As the disciples, eyewitnesses and other leaders/guarantors of the Jesus tradition begin to “pass away”, the “oral” Jesus tradition is written down in the Gospels (Matthew: 70-80 CE; Mark 60-70 CE; Luke 70-80 CE; John 90-100).

(top)

Through the work of textual criticism (restoring the original text), we have good reasons for maintaining that the New Testament we have, is the New Testament the early Christians employed.
Variant readings can be misleading (e.g., one misspelled word in 3,000 different manuscripts would be counted as 3,000 different readings when in reality is it only one misspelled word).
There are 10,000 places where 200,000+ variants occur. From these variants, some scholars estimate 0% - 1.67% possess any significance. No major doctrine, for instance, is based on these variant readings. If no major doctrine is based on a variant reading, then how would variant readings be problematic to the historical Christian faith?
We should expect a high number of variant readings in the New Testament because of the overwhelming manuscript evidence of the New Testament (over 5,000). Taken in another way, to assert that we only have a handful of variant readings for Pliny’s Natural History does not necessarily mean the text is better copied or more reliable than the New Testament. Rather, it’s probably due to the limited amount of manuscript copies (seven) for Pliny’s Natural History.
The great number of variants of the New Testament actually provides “checks and balances” against the variants themselves. Due to a small number of manuscripts, other ancient documents lack the ability to offer a system of “checks and balances.”
Regarding copyist errors found in the New Testament critics note how “ill-equipped” (untrained) they were. However, how can these critics be confident in the use of sources that critique these copyists? Isn’t it possible that the very sources critics cite, are also full of “errors” and have been altered as well?
Even though we may have up to 400,000 variant readings, it is important to note that present-day critics themselves are confident that we possess an accurate New Testament. If this is not true, how can they identify which Bible verses possess variant readings, unless they know which variant reading is the more likely to be correct?

(top)

In general, there are three tests for canonicity including (1) rule of faith, (2) apostolicity, and (3) universality. The rule of faith refers to teachings and doctrines that are recognized as standard, in congruity and harmony within the Christian community. Apostolicity means that an apostle had to be the author or directly associated with the books in question. Concerning universality the books in question had to have continuous acceptance and usage in the Church (not merely temporary or limited acceptance and usage).
Although the New Testament Canon was affirmed in 393, 397, and 419 it does not follow that it took 300 years to identify works as “canonical.” The Gospels and some of Paul’s letters (1 Timothy 5.18; Luke 10.7), for instance, were internally cited as Scripture in the first century and later received as Scripture by the early second century.
Concerning canonization an important issue is one of “content” and not of political control. The New Testament Canon began to form as the church established its identity (doctrine/practice) and responded to false teachings (during the second through fourth century CE). The Early Christian Church has every right to exclude teachings and practices that are false or not consistent with its identity.
In short, canonization refers to the collection of authoritative books rather than the authoritative collection of books (the Church identifies, recognizes, and testifies to the New Testament Canon). This means that the twenty-seven books possess intrinsic authority as God’s Word rather than receiving its authority from church councils.

(top)

Gnosticism was an early second century movement that combined mystical knowledge with religious and philosophical traditions in order to proclaim an enlightened knowledge and way of living. This is fundamentally different than the New Testament’s view of what constituted “Christian doctrine.” (The primary and key doctrines concerning Jesus Christ, for instance, were “becoming” established during the mid-first century.)
Because Gnostic teachings concerning God, creation, Jesus’ nature, salvation, and Jesus’ death are different than Christianity’s beliefs, Christianity has every right to exclude them from the canon since the Gnostic Gospels contradict Christianity’s primary doctrines.
Critics of the New Testament Canon who believe that Gnosticism and other works should be included in an expanded New Testament, undermine their own position when they accuse “traditional” Christianity with “voting” books into the New Testament Canon. Are not scholars who want the Gnostic Gospels “canonized” participating in the same process that they are condemning?
While it is true that some Gnostic Gospels claim inspiration or apostolic authorship, it does not mean they should be included in the New Testament Canon because we must discover if these claims are genuine. (See above:the three general “tests” for canonization.) Even those who support the inclusion of the Gnostic Gospels into an “expanded” New Testament, do not believe that these “gospels” represent the work of the first-century apostles.

(top)