OT Reading: Deuteronomy 11-13
NT Reading: Mark 13:1-13
We're right now in process of reading through the entire Bible. But how do we know we can trust anything that we're reading? I mean...we're giving the Bible a lot of credit to say that we're going to guide our lives by what it says. So how do we know the Bible is reliable? These may be questions that you have, or may be questions that someone close to you has. So over the course of the next few days I'm planning to do a multi-part series answering the question, can I trust the Bible?
Part 1 -- How reliable is the Bible?
The Bible is in fact the work of over 40 different authors and was written between three different continents over the course of over 1500 years. It is the most read, most quoted from, most loved and hated book in the whole of human history. It has been translated into more language than any other document. The Bible stands as the most influential book in the history of mankind.
But is it reliable? With all that time how accurate is it? What if we examine it the same way we'd examine say the Epic of Gilgamesh, Homer's Iliad or any other classical work? How would it stand up to the same textual criticisms we use to determine the accuracy of those?
In regard to TEXTUAL accuracy there are a couple tests that scholars typically use to make their determinations:
1. What is the span of time between when the document was originally written, and the earliest manuscript that we have?
2. Over the life of this document, how much variation can we see in the manuscripts? What impact do those variations have on the meaning of the text?
The importance of the first question lays in the fact that the smaller the window between original writing and our earliest manuscript, the less likelihood there is for significant variation from the author's original intent.
A great example of this is Homer's Iliad. In terms of classical literature, The Iliad is considered a reliable work. In fact regarding the number of copies in existence, The Iliad is second with 643 (Thiele), with the earliest of those manuscripts being dated around 500 years after the original writing. That may seem like a long time to us, but in terms of classical literature that's a pretty narrow margin.
But compare that to the New Testament. The number of copies and fragments is almost embarrassing as there are over 24,000 in existence. Add to that the fact that the earliest full copies we have were written only 125 years after the originals (a.k.a "the autographs) and you see that the New Testament stands out quite differently from other classical works.
But what about the second question? I mean, how much variation exists in those 24,000 manuscripts and how much impact does that have on the overall meaning?
In the 1960's two men, Geisler and Nix, compared the variant readings of the Iliad to those of the Bible. They wanted to see what percent of the lines and words were disputed, and how much impact that had on the meanings of each. They found that out of the Iliad's 15,600 lines, 764 lines were in doubt. In other words, five percent of the manuscript was uncertain. But compare that to the New Testament and we see that out of the New Testament's 20,000 lines, only 40 lines, or 400 words are in doubt. This means less than one-half of one percent is disputed or contains any variants. The other 99.5% is considered accurate. (Giesler & Nix, 366-367). And of those disputed readings, not one represents a challenge to Christian doctrine or Biblical moral precepts. Instead the disputes are primarily regarding spelling style or what we would consider typographical errors.
But is it reliable? With all that time how accurate is it? What if we examine it the same way we'd examine say the Epic of Gilgamesh, Homer's Iliad or any other classical work? How would it stand up to the same textual criticisms we use to determine the accuracy of those?
In regard to TEXTUAL accuracy there are a couple tests that scholars typically use to make their determinations:
1. What is the span of time between when the document was originally written, and the earliest manuscript that we have?
2. Over the life of this document, how much variation can we see in the manuscripts? What impact do those variations have on the meaning of the text?
The importance of the first question lays in the fact that the smaller the window between original writing and our earliest manuscript, the less likelihood there is for significant variation from the author's original intent.
A great example of this is Homer's Iliad. In terms of classical literature, The Iliad is considered a reliable work. In fact regarding the number of copies in existence, The Iliad is second with 643 (Thiele), with the earliest of those manuscripts being dated around 500 years after the original writing. That may seem like a long time to us, but in terms of classical literature that's a pretty narrow margin.
But compare that to the New Testament. The number of copies and fragments is almost embarrassing as there are over 24,000 in existence. Add to that the fact that the earliest full copies we have were written only 125 years after the originals (a.k.a "the autographs) and you see that the New Testament stands out quite differently from other classical works.
But what about the second question? I mean, how much variation exists in those 24,000 manuscripts and how much impact does that have on the overall meaning?
In the 1960's two men, Geisler and Nix, compared the variant readings of the Iliad to those of the Bible. They wanted to see what percent of the lines and words were disputed, and how much impact that had on the meanings of each. They found that out of the Iliad's 15,600 lines, 764 lines were in doubt. In other words, five percent of the manuscript was uncertain. But compare that to the New Testament and we see that out of the New Testament's 20,000 lines, only 40 lines, or 400 words are in doubt. This means less than one-half of one percent is disputed or contains any variants. The other 99.5% is considered accurate. (Giesler & Nix, 366-367). And of those disputed readings, not one represents a challenge to Christian doctrine or Biblical moral precepts. Instead the disputes are primarily regarding spelling style or what we would consider typographical errors.
So is the Bible reliable? Examine the facts, then come to your own conclusion.
The following sources were used in this post:
Geisler, Norman L., and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Chicago:
Moody Press, 1968, p 366,367.
Moody Press, 1968, p 366,367.
Thile, Scott E. "The Authorship and Reliability of the Bible." Accessed here on July 31, 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave your name and please be kind. Inappropriate or rude comments will be removed.