Was the New Testament Text Accurately Transmitted?
by Harry Osborne
February 1, 2009

Having examined the Bible claims of verbal and plenary inspiration over the past two weeks, we have seen that God’s control over the original speakers and writers insured an accurate delivery of His message. But can we be sure that those inspired words were accurately transmitted to be the words found in our Bibles today? Skeptics often point out the fact that we have none of the autograph books making up the Bible. So, how can we have confidence that our Bible today has the same inspired message that was delivered to the original writers? The short answer is that we must examine the Bible the same way we examine other books regarding the accuracy of transmission. In this article, we will begin to examine the New Testament books for evidence regarding the accuracy of their transmission.

Consider the fact that we have none of the autograph works of William Shakespeare, yet his plays are taught in schools without question as to the authenticity of their textual transmission. Those works are about 400 years old, much less than the age of the New Testament books. Yet, of the 37 surviving plays of Shakespeare, there are about 100 or more texts in each of those plays still disputed by scholars as to the original words used – many of those cases materially affecting the meaning of each passage.  However, more than 1900 years after the original writing of the New Testament, there is a general consensus of scholarship on the original text of all but 10 to 20 verses. Of that number, none of the differences related to textual content would affect even one doctrine or critical fact of the gospel.

How can we be so sure of the accurate transmission of the New Testament text? A major factor has to do with the number of pieces of evidence to help establish that text. When one considers the evidence for the New Testament text in contrast to the text for other works on antiquity, the difference is striking. The chart below gives the facts comparing the number of extant manuscripts and the time gap between the original writers and the oldest manuscripts for these ancient works:

Taken from The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell (p. 38)

In his excellent work, The New Testament Document, F. F. Bruce made these observations based on the above evidence:

Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar's Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 BC) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar's day. Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy (59 BC-AD 17) only thirty five survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty MSS of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books iii-vi, is as old as the fourth century. Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. AD 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. The extant MSS of his minor works (Dialogue dc Oratoribus, Agricola, Gcrmania) all descend from a codex of the tenth century The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to c. AD 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428 BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals (pp. 16-17).

While the manuscript evidence of the New Testament text is daunting considered alone, it does not come close to exhausting the evidence for that text. Below is a chart showing the number of quotations of the New Testament text contained in the works of a few early “patristic writers” further attesting to the content, distribution and availability of the New Testament text:

Edited from The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell (p. 43) with added material by HRO

Based on the evidence from these Anti-Nicean (pre-AD 325) patristic writings, Sir David Dalrymple embarked upon an extensive search of these works and found that all but 11 verses in the New Testament are quoted in them (see citation by Charles Leach in Our Bible: How We Got It, pp. 35-36). Furthermore, the above list of early patristic writings does not exhaust the New Testament citations from this period. Ignatius (A.D. 70-110) quoted extensively from Matthew, John, Acts, Romans, 1st Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1st & 2nd Thessalonians, 1st & 2nd Timothy, James and 1st Peter. Polycarp (70-156), a disciple of the apostle John, also referred to New Testament passages in his known works.  Cyprian, who died in A.D. 258, cited New Testament passages about 1030 times in his writings.

The facts are compelling! No document from antiquity to modern times has even close to the evidence for its accurate transmission to the present as does the New Testament. If we cannot have confidence in the reliability of its transmission, we cannot establish the text of any work in history. Yes, we can have a firm assurance that we have the message delivered to the inspired writers of the New Testament! There can be no reasonable doubt about it.

< Back to Article List