![]() They are quick to find fault and criticize the NT more easily than they are to support it. Most liberal scholars would not argue over the accuracy or content of ancient classical works, but their perspective in regards to the NT is quite different. There is an interesting phenomenon about this. If we were to examine the dating of Plato and Aristotle's writings, the gap between the original autographs and subsequent copies is significant - 1000 years. If a person contends that we have a reliable text of the classics, then he would be forced to admit we have a reliable text of the New Testament" (24). Moreover, "If one will judge the New Testament documents with the same standards or tests applied to any one of the Greek classics, the evidence overwhelmingly favors the New Testament. We may rest assured that what we have today is a correct representation of what was originally given" (McDowell, 24). In fact, there is more evidence of the reliability of the text of the Newt Testament as an accurate reflection of what was initially written than there is for any ten pieces of classical literature put together. It can be empirically verified that, "the text of the Bible has been transmitted accurately. The phenomenon occurs in that, the total number of NT manuscripts as well as the historicity behind the text is by far, much greater and weightier than any ancient classical piece of literature that has come down to us through the ages. It's interesting that whereas the New Testament receives much criticism from critical scholarship, the Iliad and many similar works receive virtually no criticism whatsoever. The way the Ancient Greek's treated the Iliad is comparable to the way Christians treat the Bible today - with reverential respect. Moreover, the Iliad was considered by many in its day to be the equivalent to our bible today. That's a 1000 year gap between the original's and their copies. Furthermore, Homer's Iliad, has by far the most extreme spatial distance between its original autograph (850 B.C.) and its subsequent extant copies, which presently date to the second and third century A.D. ![]() There is a Latin translation from the fourth century and medieval Russian materials from the eleventh or twelfth century." (p.60). Josephus' The Jewish War, were written in the "tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries. In addition, only approximately half of Tacitus' Histories and Annals remain today. Books eleven through sixteen are in another manuscript dating from the eleventh century" (p.60). Thus, no other ancient texts are as well preserved as the New Testament.įor instance, Tacitus' Annals of Imperial Rome, the "first six books exist today in only one manuscript, and it was copied about A.D. Whereas, the length of time between the original New Testament writings or autograph's, and extant copies is approximately 200 years. In contrast, concerning the classical works of antiquity, the length of time between the originals' and their subsequent copies' is roughly 500 - 1000 years. In sum, the number of extant partial or complete manuscripts at our disposal total approximately 24,000 (Strobel, 1998, p63). According to NT scholars, there are well over 5300 partial and complete New Testaments Manuscripts, which includes approximately 10,000 Latin translations 9000Įthiopian, Slavic, and Armenian translations. Josephus' The Jewish War and Homer's Iliad. The number of extant New Testament manuscripts far out-weighs the number of classical ancient manuscripts available to us today, such as Tacitus' Annals of Imperial Rome With that said, it will, then, be my attempt to provide a thorough presentation of the evidence that is with us today, while juxtaposing, adding, and infusing the book's original content with the scholarly research that has gone before us. ![]() We cannot establish whether he was God, what he taught, or what his followers did and taught" (Geisler, 1999, p527). According to Norman Geisler, professor of theology and apologetics at Southern Evangelical Seminary, "without a reliable New Testament, we have no objective, historical way to know what Jesus said or did. My contention is that without establishing historical credibility for the New Testament, we have no grounds to postulate any sort of belief in it as a reliable source. Undeniably, the vast amount of material, in the form of manuscripts, archaeology, and authorial phenomenon provides an invaluable glance into the depths of events surrounding the historicity as well as the development of the New Testament. Significant scholarly attention has been devoted to the historical examination of the New Testament, specifically with respect to establishing it as a reliable historical document. The American Journal of Biblical Theology The Historical Reliability of the New Testament Rich Martinez ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |