http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=5196
3 Good Reasons to Believe the Bible Has Not Been Corrupted
[EDITOR’S NOTE: The image on the front cover of this month’s R&R is St. Catherine’s Monastery where Codex Sinaiticus was discovered by Constantin von Tischendorf in 1844.]
Many are those who insist that the Bible has been corrupted over time,
that we do not really know which verses belong in the Bible, and that
translation errors are so plentiful that we do not have the original
message. Yet these allegations have been confronted and refuted time and
time again. Apart from the Old Testament (which has been fully
verified), a myriad of books over the years have masterfully
demonstrated the integrity of the New Testament text, including such
volumes as J.W. McGarvey’s
Evidences of Christianity, Kurt and Barbara Aland’s
The Text of the New Testament, F.F. Bruce’s
The Canon of Scripture, Bruce Metzger’s
The Text of the New Testament, F.H.A. Scrivener’s
A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Sir Frederic Kenyon’s
Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Benjamin Warfield’s
An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament,
and many others. Those who cast aspersions upon the integrity of the
biblical text manifest either abysmal, inexcusable ignorance of the long
established facts of the matter or deliberate bias. If the reader
desires the truth regarding the authenticity and integrity of the Bible,
the evidence is available—if the individual is willing
to spend the time and effort to weigh that evidence and arrive at the
proper conclusion (1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1). Do we have the
message that the original authors penned? The fact is that the books of
the New Testament are the most extensively verified books of ancient
history. The facts completely undermine and discredit any attack on the
integrity and transmission of the Bible.
reason #1: The new testament greek text has been authenticated
We know how the original New Testament books read because
we have three surviving classes of evidence by which to reconstruct the original New Testament:
Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, and patristic citations. The
current number of Greek manuscript copies containing all or part of the
New Testament now stands at 5,795. This amount of manuscript evidence
for the text of the New Testament is
far greater than that available for any ancient classical author. The time between the writing of the original books of the New Testament and the earliest surviving copies is
relatively brief. Although no two manuscript copies agree in every detail, the degree of accuracy achieved by most scribes was
remarkably high. The vast majority of textual variants involve
minor matters that do not alter any basic teaching of the New Testament.
No feature of Christian doctrine is at stake. Suitable solutions to these differences are detectable. Even if they weren’t, manuscript evidence is so prolific that
the original reading is one of the extant options.
Even those variants that some might deem “doctrinally significant”
(e.g., Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11) pertain to matters that are treated
elsewhere in the Bible where the question of genuineness/certainty is
unquestioned. We can confidently affirm that we have 999/1000
ths of the original Greek New Testament intact. The remaining 1/1000
th pertains to inconsequential details.
Additionally, a wealth of ancient versions provides further
verification of the purity of the biblical text, including Latin,
Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Old Slavonic, and
others. Textual critics through history have steadfastly affirmed the
value of these ancient versions in reconstructing the New Testament
text. For example, Vaganay observed: “After the Greek manuscripts of the
New Testament, the versions constitute the most valuable source for
writing the history of this text” (1934, p. 28; cf. Vogels, 1923, p.
84—“The versions are very valuable for establishing the original text of
the Bible.”). Though noting the limitations, the Alands admitted:
“[T]he importance of the versions is substantial” (1987, p. 182).
The same may be said for the wealth of textual materials available via
the so-called “Church Fathers,” i.e., early Christian writers who
quoted, paraphrased, and otherwise alluded to passages from Scripture in
their letters, commentaries, and correspondence. This latter source of
information is so prolific that Metzger affirmed: “Indeed, so extensive
are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the
text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone
for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament” (1968,
p. 86).
These contentions have been verified by the greatest textual critics
and linguistic scholars of the past two centuries. Their conclusions
have not become outdated, but remain as valid today as when first
formulated. If the integrity of the text of the Bible was fully
authenticated in their day,
it remains so today. Consider the following statements by some of these world class authorities.
Scholarly Verification of the Purity of the New Testament Text
F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) was a biblical scholar who
taught Greek at the University of Edinburgh and the University of Leeds,
chaired the Department of Biblical History and Literature at the
University of Sheffield, received an honorary Doctor of Divinity from
Aberdeen University, and served as the Rylands Professor of Biblical
Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester. He wrote over 40
books and served as Editor of
The Evangelical Quarterly and
Palestine Exploration Quarterly. Bruce declared: “The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the N.T.
affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice” (1975, pp. 19-20, emp. added). He also stated:
In view of the inevitable accumulation of such errors over so many
centuries, it may be thought that the original texts of the New
Testament documents have been corrupted beyond restoration. Some
writers, indeed, insist on the likelihood of this to such a degree that
one sometimes suspects they would be glad if it were so. But they are mistaken.
There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a
wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament (1963, p. 178,
emp. added).
Bruce further insisted:
Something more ought to be said, and said with emphasis. We have been
discussing various textual types, and reviewing their comparative claims
to be regarded as best representatives of the original New Testament. But
there are not wide divergencies between these types, of a kind that
could make any difference to the Church’s responsibility to be a witness
and guardian of Holy Writ…. If the variant readings are so
numerous, it is because the witnesses are so numerous. But all the
witnesses, and all the types which they represent, agree on every article of Christian belief and practice (1963, p. 189, emp. added).
Bruce Metzger (1914-2007) was also a scholar of Greek,
the New Testament, and New Testament Textual Criticism, serving as
professor at Princeton Theological Seminary for 46 years. Described by
prominent biblical scholar Raymond Brown as “probably the greatest
textual specialist that America has produced” (as quoted in Ehrman and
Holmes, 1995, p. xi), Metzger was a recognized authority on the Greek
text of the New Testament. He served on the board of the American Bible
Society, was the driving force of the United Bible Societies’ series of
Greek Texts, and served as Chairperson of the NRSV Bible Committee. He
is widely considered one of the most influential New Testament scholars
of the 20
th century. Concerning ancient versions, Metzger stated:
…even if we had no Greek manuscripts today, by piecing together the
information from these translations from a relatively early date, we
could actually reproduce the contents of the New Testament. In addition
to that, even if we lost all the Greek manuscripts and the early
translations, we could still reproduce the contents of the New Testament
from the multiplicity of quotations in commentaries, sermons, letters,
and so forth of the early church fathers (as quoted in Strobel, 1998, p.
59).
Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) was a British bishop,
biblical scholar and theologian, serving as Bishop of Durham and
holding the Regius Professorship of Divinity at Cambridge. His
colleague,
Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892), was an
Irish theologian who served as a Professor at Cambridge. Together, they
pioneered the widely recognized Greek text
The New Testament in the Original Greek in 1881. They are still considered to be renowned textual critics. They forthrightly asserted:
With regard to the great bulk of the words of the New Testament…there
is no variation or other ground of doubt…. [T]he amount of what can in
any sense be called substantial variation is but a small fraction of the
whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text.
Since there is reason to suspect that an exaggerated impression
prevails as to the extent of possible textual corruption in the New
Testament…we desire to make it clearly understood beforehand how much of the New Testament stands in no need of a textual critic’s labours (1882, pp. 2-3, emp. added).
These peerless scholars also insisted: “[I]n the variety and fullness of the evidence on which it rests
the text of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachably alone
among ancient prose writing” (p. 278, emp. added). They add: “The books
of the New Testament as preserved in extant documents assuredly speak
to us in every important respect in language identical with that in
which they spoke to those for whom they were originally written” (p.
284).
Benjamin Warfield (1851-1921) was a Professor of
Theology at Princeton Seminary from 1887 to 1921. He is considered to be
the last of the great Princeton theologians. In his
Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Warfield insightfully observed:
[S]uch has been the providence of God in preserving for His Church in each and every age a competently exact text of the Scriptures, that not only is the New Testament unrivalled among ancient writings in the purity of its text as actually transmitted and kept in use, but also in the abundance of testimony which has come down to us for castigating its comparatively infrequent blemishes…. The great mass of the New Testament, in other words, has been transmitted to us with no, or next to no, variation (1886, pp. 12-13,14, emp. added).
Richard Bentley (1662-1742) was an English classical
scholar, critic, and theologian who served as Master of Trinity College,
Cambridge and was the first Englishman to be ranked with the great
heroes of classical learning. He was well-known for his literary and
textual criticism, even called the “Founder of Historical Philology,”
and credited with the creation of the English school of Hellenism. Here
are his comments on the integrity of the New Testament text:
[T]he real text of the sacred writers does not now (since the
originals have been so long lost) lie in any single manuscript or
edition, but is dispersed in them all. ‘Tis competently exact indeed even in the worst manuscript now extant; nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost in them (1725, pp. 68-69, emp. added).
Marvin Vincent (1834-1922) graduated from Columbia
University and became professor of New Testament Exegesis and Criticism
at Union Theological Seminary in New York City in the late 19
th century. He is best known for his Greek analysis of the words of the New Testament in his
Word Studies in the New Testament. Regarding the integrity of the text, he observed:
The vast number of variations furnishes no cause for alarm to the
devout reader of the New Testament. It is the natural result of the
great number of documentary sources. A very small proportion of the
variations materially affects the sense, a much smaller proportion is
really important, and no variation affects an article of faith or a moral precept (1899, p. 7, emp. added).
Sir Frederic George Kenyon (1863-1952) was a widely
respected, eminent British paleographer and biblical and classical
scholar who occupied a series of posts at the British Museum. He served
as President of the British Academy from 1917 to 1921 and President of
the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. He made a lifelong study
of the Bible as an historical text. In his masterful
Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Kenyon affirmed:
One word of warning…must be emphasized in conclusion. No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading.
Constant references to mistakes and divergencies of reading…might give
rise to the doubt whether the substance, as well as the language, of the
Bible is not open to question. It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain.
Especially is this the case with the New Testament. The number of
manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of
quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church is so large, that
it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world (1895, pp. 10-11, emp. added).
In his monumental
The Bible and Archaeology, Kenyon further stated:
The interval then between the dates of original composition and the
earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible,
and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established (1940, pp. 288-289, emp. added).
Indeed, “the Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say
without fear of hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God,
faithfully handed down from generation to generation throughout the
centuries” (1895, pp. 10-11).
Samuel Davidson (1806-1898) was an Irish biblical
scholar who served as Professor of Biblical Criticism at Royal College
of Belfast and Professor of Biblical Criticism in the Lancashire
Independent College at Manchester. He authored many books on the text of
the Bible. Referring to the work of textual criticism, Davidson
concluded:
The effect of it has been to establish the genuineness of the New Testament text
in all important particulars. No new doctrines have been elicited by
its aid; nor have any historical facts been summoned by it from their
obscurity. All the doctrines and duties of Christianity remain unaffected.… [I]n the records of inspiration there is no material corruption.... [D]uring the lapse of many centuries the text of Scripture has been preserved with great care…. Empowered by the fruits of criticism, we may well say that the Scriptures continue essentially the same as when they proceeded from the writers themselves (1853, 2:147, emp. added).
Frederick H.A. Scrivener (1813-1891) was a prominent and important New Testament textual critic of the 19
th
century. Having graduated from Trinity College, Cambridge, he taught
classics at several schools in southern England. His expertise in
textual criticism is self-evident in that he served as a member of the
English New Testament Revision Committee (Revised Version), edited the
Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis and several editions of the Greek New
Testament, collated the Codex Sinaiticus with the
Textus Receptus, and was the first to distinguish the
Textus Receptus from the Byzantine text. In his
A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Scrivener admitted:
[O]ne great truth is admitted on all hands—the almost complete freedom of Holy Scripture from the bare suspicion of wilful [sic]
corruption; the absolute identity of the testimony of every known copy
in respect to doctrine, and spirit, and the main drift of every argument
and every narrative through the entire volume of Inspiration…. Thus hath God’s Providence kept from harm the treasure of His written word, so far as is needful for the quiet assurance of His church and people (1861, pp. 6-7, emp. added).
J.W. McGarvey (1829-1911) was a minister, author,
educator, and biblical scholar. He taught 46 years in the College of the
Bible in Lexington, Kentucky, serving as President from 1895 to 1911.
He summarized the point: “All the authority and value possessed by these
books when they were first written belong to them still” (1974, p. 17).
Elias Boudinot (1740-1821) was a prominent Founding
Father of America. He served in the Continental Congress (1778-1779,
1781-1784), as its President in 1782-1783, and was the founding
president of the American Bible Society. In his refutation of Thomas
Paine’s
Age of Reason, Boudinot explained: “[T]he facts upon
which the Christian religion is founded, have a stronger proof, than any
facts at such a distance of time; and that the books which convey them
down to us,
may be proved to be uncorrupted and authentic,
with greater strength than any other writings of equal antiquity”
(1801, p. 239, emp. added). This Founding Father’s view of the purity of
the text of the New Testament was the view of the vast majority of the
Founders.
With all the kindness one can muster, these eminent, well-studied,
competent, peerless scholars, whose expertise in the field of Textual
Criticism is unsurpassed, are far more qualified and accurate in their
assessment of the credibility, integrity, and authenticity of the
biblical text than any alleged scholar or skeptic living today.
Truthfully, God knew that the original autographs would not survive, and
that His Word would have to be transmitted through the centuries via
copies.
The transmission process is sufficiently flexible for God’s Word to be conveyed adequately by uninspired, imperfect copyists. Indeed, the original text of the New Testament has been thoroughly and sufficiently authenticated.
reason #2: the translation process works
God knew that the vast majority of the human race could not learn Greek or Hebrew. He knew that His Word would have to be read
in translation
in the language of the common people. The translation process is
sufficiently flexible for God’s Word to be conveyed adequately by
uninspired, imperfect translators. While some English translations may
well seek to advance a theological agenda, generally speaking, most
translations do not differ on the
essentials. Most
English versions convey these essentials: (1) what one must do to be
saved and (2) what one must do to stay saved. As imperfect as
translations might be, most still convey this basic information. This
fact is verified by Jesus and the apostles’ own use of the Septuagint,
the Greek translation of the Hebrew text
en vogue in
first-century Palestine. Some think this translation was achieved by 72
Jewish scholars who were invited to Alexandria, Egypt roughly two and a
half centuries before Christ. Though considered by scholars as an
imperfect translation of the Hebrew, most of the direct quotations from
the Old Testament in the New Testament are taken from the Septuagint.
Hence, the Bible gives implicit divine endorsement to the use of
imperfect, manmade translations, further implying that God’s Word has
been adequately transmitted down through the centuries via translation.
A host of books have been published over the years that discuss
principles of Bible translation (e.g., Nida, 1964; Beekman and Callow,
1974; Ryken, 2009; Grant, 1961; et al.). All human languages share in
common a variety of linguistic features that may be suitably utilized to
transmit God’s meanings. The United Nations stands as an indisputable
testimony to the fact that meaning can be conveyed from one language to
another. Indeed, messages all over the world are effectively translated
into different languages every day. Likewise, the meanings of the words,
grammar, and syntax of the biblical (parent) languages of Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Greek have been amply transferred to English Bible
translations. Even when English translations differ with each other on
any given passage, further study will enable the Bible student to
ascertain the meaning(s) intended. As with the transmission of the Greek
text, the translation process provides the individual with the
possibilities when more than one meaning is possible. When all is said
and done, one may confidently say that God’s message has been suitably
transferred from the original biblical languages into English.
reason #3: The history of English translation demonstrates preservation
All languages are in a constant state of flux. Thus new translations
are inevitable and necessary. But though the Greek text has been
verified, and though we know that translation can be done accurately,
how do we know that today we have God’s Word available since the
translating has been done by many different people over several
centuries? Answer: Because the history of English translation has been
traced and verified. We know that the Hebrew and Greek texts were
translated into Latin early on, and eventually began to be transferred
to English in the 14
th century. The hall of fame of great Bible translators in the English-speaking world
verifies the accomplishment of this transference of God’s Word to the present:
John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers (the
Matthew’s Bible), Richard Taverner, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible,
Matthew Parker (the Bishop’s Bible), the King James Bible (1611), the
English Revised Version (ERV—1888) and its American counterpart, the
American Standard Version (ASV—1901), and the host of English
translations that have appeared in the 20
th and now 21
st
centuries (cf. Lewis, 1991). We know the Bible has not been corrupted
because we have the English translations generated through the centuries
that enable us to examine and verify the text of the Bible.
Coincidentally, even if we did not know English translation history, we
can take the authenticated Greek text and make a completely new
translation in English.
conclusion
The evidence is available and it is decisive. Currently circulating
copies of the Bible do not differ substantially from the original. Those
who reject the Bible’s divine authority must do so for reasons other
than their ability to know what God intended to communicate to the human
race.
All human beings can know the truth and be saved. All can know that God
exists and that the Bible is His Word. All can know that Christianity
is the only true religion and that all must obey the Gospel of Christ in
order to be forgiven of sin and saved. All can know that we must live
the Christian life, worshipping God correctly, and living faithfully to
God in daily behavior.
REFERENCES
Aland, Kurt and Barbara Aland (1987),
The Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Beekman, John and John Callow (1974),
Translating the Word of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Bentley, Richard (1725),
Remarks Upon a Late Discourse of Free Thinking (Cambridge: Cornelius Crownfield).
Boudinot, Elias (1801),
The Age of Revelation (Philadelphia, PA: Asbury Dickins),
http://www.google.com/books?id=XpcPAAAAIAAJ.
Bruce, F.F. (1963),
The Books and the Parchments (Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell).
Bruce, F.F. (1975 reprint),
The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Bruce, F.F. (1988),
The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Davidson, Samuel (1853),
A Treatise on Biblical Criticism (Boston: Gould & Lincoln).
Ehrman, Bart and Michael Holmes (1995),
The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Grant, Frederick (1961),
Translating the Bible (New York: Seabury Press).
Kenyon, Sir Frederic (1895),
Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode).
Kenyon, Sir Frederic (1940),
The Bible and Archaeology (New York: Harper & Row).
Lewis, Jack (1991),
The English Bible from KJV to NIV (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), second edition.
McGarvey, J.W. (1974 reprint),
Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
Metzger, Bruce (1968),
The Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press).
Nida, Eugene (1964),
Toward a Science of Translating (Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Ryken, Leland (2009),
Understanding English Bible Translations (Wheaton, IL: Crossway).
Scrivener, F.H.A. (1861),
A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, & Co.).
Strobel, Lee (1998),
The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Vaganay, Léon (1934),
Initiation à la critique textuelle néotestamentaire (Paris: Blond & Gay).
Vincent, Marvin (1899),
A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (New York: MacMillan).
Vogels, H.J. (1923),
Handbuch der neutestamentlichen Textkritik (Munster: Aschendorff).
Warfield, Benjamin B. (1886),
An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton).
Westcott, B.F. and F.J.A. Hort (1882),
The New Testament in the Original Greek (New York: Harper & Brothers).
If
a hundred atheists, agnostics, or unbelievers were asked why they do
not believe in God, they might give a hundred different reasons.
Certainly, no single reason has emerged as the quintessential answer for
unbelief. The problem of evil, pain, and suffering would rank at the
top of the list, as well as the claim that “religion” is unscientific.
The
rapid rate of moral decay that blankets America is shocking and
frightening. Americans who lived for the first 150 years of the Republic
would find it difficult and appalling if they were here to witness what
is happening. Abortion, homosexuality, gambling, sexual promiscuity,
greed—and the list goes on and on. The incredible level of prosperity
and technological achievement has lulled many Americans into thinking
that America is invincible and well able to sustain its standing among
the nations of the world.
