When I mention the manuscript evidence, initially it may not be of any significance to you, but I hope that after this discussion one would appreciate what this adds to the defense of the Bible.
Many people may have a problem with the fact that the Bible was written by man. Some may claim that since man had something to do with it, it must contain error. I must admit that, that is a plausible reason. Yet, a query that comes to mind is that if one believes in a supernatural God, it should be possible that he could write a book to communicate with man, and use man to write it, yet allow it to remain inerrant, or error free, is it not? But, that's delving into the area of the doctrine of Inspiration. I'll try to make it a point to write about that after all is said and done.
But, I digressed from my point and before returning, it is interesting to point out that the way God deals with man, is usually using a man. He used man to speak for him, he used man to write the Bible, he uses a man to preach the gospel so that other men could be saved, and he used a man to save man. Of course, the man that was used to save man, was him, himself, whom we know as Jesus Christ. That's why the Bible teaches that the only mediator, or the only bridge, between God and man, is the God man, Jesus Christ (1 Tim 2:5).
Another point, is that God says that he considers man his fellow workers to accomplish his will (1 Cor 3:9). I believe that understanding this is key in grasping the truth that he used man to write the Bible, who allowed them to express their personalities through their writings, while conserving it's infallibility since it's originally from God.
Alright, now I'll return to my point, the manuscript evidence. So the Bible was written by man and if you are still unsettled with the truth that God wrote the Bible using man and yet it still remained inerrant and infallible, you're just going to have to wait for the post on the Doctrine of Inspiration (or leave a comment and I'll provide you with a reliable link on it).
The manuscript evidence involves the amount of manuscripts that we have. Since we do not possess the originals, dating is usually based upon the content of the writings themselves and on the dating of the earliest manuscript that we occupy.
We shouldn't be troubled by the fact that we do not possess the original documents. It would be practically impossible for them to even last this long. Most of them were written on papyrus leaves. The way they were passed down was by the process of transmission, or the diligent copying of them. Unfortunately, the printing press wasn't invented by Johann Gutenberg until the 1400's, so prior to that the Jewish scribes were committed to replicating the manuscripts.
Beating skeptics to the punch, some would say, "A ha! In that lies the proof that we don't have a reliable Bible today." But, taking further research into the topic, we can discover that the process of transmission was actually a very reliable one. The Scribes considered that what they were copying was actually the word of God and would be terrified in committing any errors. They were extremely ritualistic about the task and if they found any discrepancies in what they copied, they would trash the entire work and partake in a cleansing ritual before they proceeded to start over. The proof of this diligence could be seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) discovery. Included in the DSS was the book of Isaiah and though it was dated to approximately 100 BC, the version of Isaiah that we have in today's Bible is said to be 99.9% accurate to that one, with differences only due to translation.
The strongest point of the manuscript evidence is yet to be discussed and, as stated, includes the massive amount of manuscripts that we have compared to any other work of it's time.
2 comments:
But, taking further research into the topic, we can discover that the process of transmission was actually a very reliable one. The Scribes considered that what they were copying was actually the word of God and would be terrified in committing any errors.
Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of the manuscript evidence for the New Testament comes from the period after Constantine when orthodox Christianity had become the official religion of the Roman Empire. We have very little manuscript evidence from the earlier period when Christianity was a persecuted minority religion composed of a number of competing sects. There are a number of reasons to doubt that the process was as reliable in the earlier period as it was in the later one including Origen’s complaint: “The differences among the manuscripts have become great either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; the neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.”
Textual critics are aware of the variants, or the differences in the manuscripts, yet they are confident in the Bible that we possess today. One of the proofs, as stated in the post, are the DSS which show little to no differences to our present documents. Also, the variants that we have can be discovered and corrected through the process of textual criticism. Finally, despite this all, none of the variants dispute any foundational Christian belief. For example, even if we do have some differences in manuscripts, they are insignificant to what really matters in what we believe. The variants never dispute the fact that Christ is the only way or that he has commanded us to trust in his word, which leads to life.
Post a Comment