The Reliability Of The New Testament Manuscripts

In fact, the presence and identification of errors within the texts of Scripture do not serve to weaken the doctrine of preservation; rather it serves to strengthen preservation by the recognition and elimination of textual error. DEVELOPING THE NEED FOR A CANON

The process by which Scripture has been preserved and compiled is one whose history is worth noting. The early church had many opportunities to share the Good News of Christ via word of mouth, but from the time of Christ’s resurrection until the mid-second century, there had not been a single culmination of writings considered to be essential for the purposes of

Some scholars argue that evidence of Jesus of Nazareth 's existence can only be found within the writings of the New Testament. They believe that the New Testament is a biased and unreliable source for the existence of Jesus. They therefore claim that Jesus did not exist. The historical existence of Jesus is necessary to demonstrate the truth of Christianity. While Christian scholars do not discount the reliability of the New Testament as a historical document, they are also able to point to other historical documents and consider non-Christian writings which support the existence of Jesus. In this paper I will argue that Jesus the Nazarene was an actual, historical person and that this can be demonstrated through extra-Biblical resources.

In Examining the Record section, Strobel supports the historical reliability of the New Testament. He examines the eyewitness evidence, the documentary evidence, the corroborating evidence, the scientific evidence, and the rebuttal evidence. Strobel writes about his first interview with Craig Blomberg regarding the four gospels. Blomberg proposes that the four gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. A hypothesis was made that Matthew and Luke are constructed on Mark which means it’s not likely that Matthew and Luke fully

126). Next, Strobel writes about his interview with Bruce Metzger concerning the reliability of the text in the New Testament. Since the original books of the New Testament was lost, how do we know that the copied text is identical to the memo? According to Metzger, "the more often you have copies that agree with each other, especially if they emerge from different geographical areas, the more you can cross-check them to figure out what the original document was like" (p. 76). Also, Strobel asked Metzger why some books weren’t included in the New Testament and his response was that the church did want to portray such pictures of Jesus in the canon, that the church only wanted the New Testament to contain only the best historical stories of Jesus. The next scholar interviewed was Edwin Yamauchi. He was asked about additional biblical proof that confirms the New Testament but he was not very convincing. The question for Strobel’s fourth interview was whether archeology increased or decreased the New Testaments reliability. Three New Testament statements are entirely unsupported by archaeology. First, the three hours of worldwide darkness during the crucifixion (Mark 15:33). Second, the resurrection of the saints, and their following appearance to many in Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52-53). Finally third, Jesus ' burial in the tomb.

It can be argued that the similarities and differences of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke can cause the reader to either see both of these accounts to complement one another with their different perspectives or that they contradict one another by certain events being mentioned in one birth narrative but not the other. Different aspects of both of these birth narratives such as the way Matthew and Luke treat Mary, the extent to which they use the Old Testament and the audience to whom they are writing to reveals the authors’ agenda as they allow their culture and own personal beliefs to influence what they write. These factors could be argued to have an effect on the historical authenticity of these texts as it could be possible that they could have caused the authors to twist the truth to fit in with their own beliefs.

Machen stated that the New Testament books “are regarded by all serious historians as genuine products of the first Christian generation.” (PAGE 18) The statement merely could be false without Machen’s willingness to terminate as un-serious all historians who ignore the validity and authority of the New Testament. The argument of the New Testament authenticity is still conflicted between in liberalism and typical denominations. A weakness in Machen’s argument on Doctrine was while Machen indicates that the New testament could be understood through the perspective of the “primitive Jerusalem church” (PAGE 22), no supportive agreement was found what the primitive church looked

The revelation of the Dead Sea confirmed that the Jewish and Christian researchers who for hundreds of years duplicated, transcribed and passed along the documents that we call the Bible did so devotedly with care and intention. It remains true that we almost definitely do not have any documents or fragments of a manuscript that is the original writing of the document in question. However, it is equally true that

This was arguably Professor Albright’s greatest achievement in verifying the authenticity of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Professor Albright, “There is no doubt in my mind that the script is more archaic than that of the Nash papyrus (a very small portion of the Old Testament dated between the second century b.c. and first century a.d.)… I would prefer a date around 100 b.c.…” Inside the archaeological community and the general public, Albright received critical acclaim.

When new information if supposedly remembered years after it occurred, and is brought to trial, the legal system and those involved with it are tested with whether or not the testaments should be believed. If the information is cast off as inaccurate, justice could not be served on deserving criminals. If it is believed when it shouldn’t be, innocent people could be condemned.

When judging the historical reliability of the gospels many factors come into paly. In judging the historical reliability of the Gospels the kind of the gospels is important in understanding the intentions of the writers concerning the historical value of the text. When ranking the following sayings of Jesus:

In this term paper we know this study is an important topic, as it remains a great controversy to the world for many thousands of years – is the bible reliable, more importantly, is the spiritual author of the bible reliable to the world? We will convince them that indeed the Bible is reliable. This paper plays an important role in convincing many people, including the researchers themselves to the truth.

The process by which the English Bible, as it is known to the English culture today, was compiled is an extraordinary thing to see. The Bible consists of two parts: the Old Testament and the New Testament. The process by which both Testaments were written and then canonized into one book transpired over a period of many years. Once the canonization of the Bible officially came to an end, it was translated into English. Since then, many versions of the modern Bible have been made. Since the individual books of the Bible became scattered as they were written, people set forth to preserve God’s Word by compiling them into one

Deuteronomy 32:8 and Genesis 49:10 are two examples of textual critical problems in the Old Testament. The phrase “sons of God” will be examined in Deuteronomy 32:8, and the word “Shiloh” in Genesis 49:10. These issues have caused much debate as to how one should interpret these verses in light of the textual critical problems. This paper will examine both passages and provide solutions to each of the textual critical issues.

During the early history of the church, there was no such thing as a New Testament “canon.” The selection of books that were to be included or excluded from the texts used by the church was the responsibility of each individual church body, and thus varied greatly from location to location. Because there was no canon – (books considered