Before we begin to quote or use any piece of ancient literature as a reference, we must carefully examine the claims and credentials of each. This especially holds true to the Bible. Now before approaching the matter of "Is the Bible we have today substantially the same as the ones of first century?", we must first clear our minds of all presuppositions and assumptions. The error of many skeptics is that they assume from the outset that the Bible is not a consistent and reliable do*****ent. If you approach the Bible assuming that error and contradiction exist within it's pages, you will use whatever you first come across as a supposed "contradiction" to support your point. If you approach the Bible objectively (that is, taking each one of its' claims at face value until disproven), you will find the truth.

Before we get into a deep doctrinal discussion as far as what the Bible teaches, the reliability of the scriptures must be established. After all, it would be ludicrous to quote from a book which is unreliable. First, we will examine the Old and New Testaments do*****ents for their authenticity. Are these all first-century do*****ents? And if so, have they been handed down without essential loss to this day? And if loss has occurred, to what degree has it occurred? Is there an extensive loss of truth? C. Sanders in Introduction to Research in English Literary History, lists and explains the three basic principles of historiography [the study of establishing the reliability of a do*****ent]. They are the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test and the external evidence test.{1} The bibliographical test is an examination of the textual transmission by which do*****ents reach us. In other words, since we do not have the original do*****ents, how reliable are the copies we have in regard to number of manuscripts (MSS) and the time interval between the original and the extant copy?{2}

Manuscript Evidence for the Bible
There are in existence today, over 12,000 manuscripts for the Old Testament and over 24,000 copies of the New Testament which include everything from fragments to full books to the entire Bible. The age of these do*****ents plays a very important factor? Why? It has been demonstrated throughout history that the closer a do*****ent is to the time that it was written, the less likely it is to have deviated from it's original form. The reason for this is because the closer the time to the original, the less hand-copying there was and the less likely for human error to seep in. If you had a note which read

"YOU HAVE JUST LOST ALL OF YOUR MONEY. PLEASE GO TO THE COURTHOUSE AND PICK UP A SLIP VERIFYING HOW MUCH YOU HAVE LOST"

and you gave it to five people to copy and they in turn gave it to five more people to copy and so forth, pretty soon you'd end up with a lot of copies. Observe this diagram:

In the above diagram, you have the original do*****ent being copied by five different people. Their copies are then passed on to five people who each make five more copies- and so forth. By the fifth generation of copies you now have 3125 copies of the do*****ent floating around. Now let's say that one of these first five people leaves off the word "please" in the second generation of copies. Every copy after that would leave off the word "please." In another set of copies, someone in the third generation of copies leaves off the word "verifying", whereas the remaining 20-24 third generation copies don't. One copyist in the first of the fourth generation copies picks up on this and knows that these slips are used at the courthouse to verify or or confirm how much money was lost. So this copyist inserts the word "confirm" into the text. In the third set of copies in the fifth generation, the words "Just" and "Please" are missing and after the word "courthouse", "immediately" is added into the text by a copyist who knows that this is an urgent matter and that the person getting the message needs to get to the courthouse ASAP.

Finally, the text comes down to us in it's fifteenth generation and no more hand copying is needed. Here's some of the variations we find:

1. "YOU HAVE JUST LOST ALL OF YOUR MONEY. PLEASE GO TO THE COURTHOUSE AND PICK UP A SLIP VERIFYING HOW MUCH YOU HAVE LOST"

2. "YOU HAVE JUST LOST ALL OF YOUR MONEY. GO TO THE COURTHOUSE AND PICK UP A SLIP VERIFYING HOW MUCH YOU HAVE LOST"

3. "YOU HAVE JUST LOST ALL OF YOUR MONEY. PLEASE GO TO THE COURTHOUSE IMMEDIATELY AND PICK UP A SLIP VERIFYING HOW MUCH YOU HAVE LOST"

4. "YOU HAVE JUST LOST ALL OF YOUR MONEY. PLEASE GO TO THE COURTHOUSE AND PICK UP A SLIP CONFIRMING HOW MUCH YOU HAVE LOST"

5. "YOU HAVE JUST LOST ALL OF YOUR MONEY. PLEASE GO TO THE COURTHOUSE AND PICK UP A SLIP VERIFYING HOW MUCH MONEY YOU HAVE LOST"

6. "YOU HAVE LOST ALL OF YOUR MONEY. GO TO THE COURTHOUSE IMMEDIATELY AND PICK UP A SLIP TELLING HOW MUCH YOU HAVE LOST"

7. "YOU HAVE JUST LOST ALL OF YOUR MONEY. PLEASE GO TO THE COURTHOUSE IMMEDIATELY AND PICK UP A SLIP VERIFYING AND CONFIRMING HOW MUCH YOU HAVE LOST. THANK YOU."

In the above example, there has been a rearrangement of words, but the basic message of the text remains the same. Now taking into account the wear and tear of people handling these copies, letters may be missing in some, and some sentences may be incomplete because the paper is torn. But using all of these messages together and assuming that the oldest one has the least errors (because of less hand copying), we compile a text which reads like this:

"YOU HAVE JUSTa LOST ALL OF YOUR MONEY. PLEASEb GO TO THE COURTHOUSEc AND PICK UP A SLIP VERIFYINGd HOW MUCH MONEYe YOU HAVE LOST.f"

On your copy of the note, you see footnotes at the bottom:

a#6 omits just. b#2&6 omits please. c#7,6&3 add immediately. d#1, 2,3 &5 read verifying, #4 reads confirming, #6 reads telling, #7 reads verifying and confirming.e#5 adds money although most other texts omit this word. f#7 adds Thank you.

This is the science known today as Textual Criticism. This is the sequence of methods that Bible scholars go through to determine the original text of the Old and New Testaments. It is also used of all ancient do*****ents. Notice two things about this example: although certain texts have certain words added and taken away, the basic message remains the same. The truth of the message is preserved 100%. This same type of example demonstrates how our Bible got to us today. Also, in the above example, 41.666666667% of the text (10 words out of 24) are in question because of the variant readings. The message of the text has still been preserved and ALL OF THE ORIGINAL WORDS still exist throughout the various manuscripts. In the New Testament, only 400 words (5% of the text) are variant readings and most of these do not change the meanings of the text. This leaves a text 99.5 percent pure.{3} What's more, NONE OF THESE VARIANT READINGS AFFECT ONE SINGLE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. The great majority of them are grammatical, such as stating one thing a different way. Historical citations of contemporaries of these do*****ents help to establish it's authenticity. So 100% of the truth of the Bible has been preserved.

Now in the process of re-creating the text of the New Testament, what factors determine whether or not a specific text will be used? First, the age of a manuscript is of grave importance. For what reason, you ask? Well, as stated earlier, the less time between copies, the less amount of error is likely to seep into the text. In General Introduction to the Bible, Norman Geisler and William Nix state the following:

Although there were many early copies of the autographs, they are not all of the same quality, for as soon as a manuscript was copied misprints began to creep into the text. Some of the early copies were highly accurate and quite expensive, as they were copied by professional scribes. Manuscript copies made by less capable scribes were less expensive, but they were of a generally poorer quality and wider distribution. Still other copies made in this early period were quite poor in quality, as they were often copied by nonprofessionals and were often all that an individual or group could afford to have made. {4}

Schools of Thought in Textual Criticism and Methodology

In New Testament Textual Criticism, there are two schools of thought (primarily) - The Majority/Byzantine position and the Ecclectic/Alexandrian position. Most translations in print today rely on manuscripts compiled under the ecclectic viewpoint. The Ecclectic viewpoint is represented by men such as Bruce Metzger, James R. White, Kurt and Barbara Aland and many others. Since the majority of translations in print today come from an ecclectic/alexandrian based greek text, we shall examine this viewpoint more closely.

The other viewpoint, gaining a new hearing in the late 20th century and early 21st is the Byzantine/Majority Text viewpoint. Men such as Arthur Farstad and Zane Hodges (The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, Thomas Nelson, 1985), Wilbur Pickering (The Identity of the New Testament), and Maurice Robinson and William G. Pierpont (The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Majority/Byzantine Textform, Original Word, 1991) represent the Byzantine priority viewpoint and have published greek new testaments and/or works defending their viewpoint. In their work, Robinson and Pierpont raise serious issues with the school of ecclecticism. The introduction to their work has been reprinted online.

In all fairness, we need to note that the Majority/Byzantine advocates are NOT to be confused with the 'KJV Only' advocates (D.A. Waite, Gail Ripplinger, Peter Ruckman, Jack T. Chick and others) or 'Theological Preservationists' (Theodore Letis, the late Edward F. Hills). The former base their choice for the KJV (whose text is poor representation of the Byzantine text, but unfortunately, the only 'major' translation which uses ANY Byzantine text today) on some alledged conspiracy to 'corrupt' the Word of God- the latter base it on circular reasoning (i.e.- the Majority Text best preserves the truth of the Christian faith, therefore it is correct).

Robinson and Pierpont make the following observation, in regard to modern translations (which I believe all believers worried about a Bible translation should take note of):

Christians who use a translation based upon the Alexandrian (or even the Western) texttype are only somewhat disadvantaged from a Byzantine-priority perspective, specifically in the study of details. The best-selling NIV, the NASV, and most other modern translations are themselves based upon a generally-Alexandrian text, and Christians seem to suffer no devastating effects from their use (one must remember that, regardless of texttype, over 85% of the text found in all manuscripts is identical). (p. xlii)

There are certain exegetical and theological problems found within the manuscripts of the Alexandrian and Western text-types. Many readings are plainly erroneous or contradict other passages of scripture. However, the primary doctrinal emphases of Scripture remain sufficient and clear throughout even the worst of these manuscripts. Their textual errors are in now way endorsed by the present editors, however, even though some of these erroneous readings appear in various modern English translations and critical Greek editions. (p. xliii)

The reader is directed to Robinson and Pierpont's work on the subject at this point. We will now examine the general principles used to determine a text reading in the New Testament.

For those following the ecclectic school of thought, these are the general rules of texual criticism- they are generally held to and are used a guidelines:

1. The older reading is preferred because it is closer to the original.

2. The more difficult reading is to be preferred since scribes were more apt to smooth out difficult readings.

3. The shorter reading is to be preferred because copyists were more thought apt to insert new material than omit part of the sacred text.

4. The reading that best explains the other variants is to be preferred.

5. The reading with the widest geographical support is to be preferred, because such manuscripts or versions are less likely to have influenced each other.

6. The reading that is most like the author's usual style is to be preferred.

7. The reading that does not reflect a doctrinal bias is to be preferred.{5}

It should also be noted that when a letter or book was copied, it's distribution was so widespread that any attempt to gather ALL existing manuscripts up and "corrupt them" would have been impossible. It assumes that the person who wanted to 'corrupt' the NT letters knew information like:

• that the letter being written was going to be eventually considered 'scripture' (remember, most of the time, the NT writers did not know that their words would eventually be considered scripture).
  
• the time- the exact time - the letter would be in transit, the name of the carrier of the letter and its' destination.
  
  
• had intimate knowledge of the church the letter was being written to, knew the content of the Christian faith and the problems there and which 'doctrines' to alter.
  
  
• knew enough of the Christian community and considered them a threat to have them monitored constantly (remember the community of believers in the empire were not heavily persecuted until the late 40's-early 50's).
  
• and a host of other problematic occurrences related.

During persecutions under the reign of Emperor Trajan (98-117 A.D.) and other subsequent Roman Emperors, books of scripture were destroyed and burned wherever found. In an effort to preserve scripture, books were buried and hidden- many of which have been discovered today (see codex listings for the New Testament below). Thus if any ONE person had attempted to corrupt the text or insert his/her own particular point of view into scripture throughout the length of the Roman Empire and into Northern Africa, these new codexes would have revealed such a distortion. But none exists- on the contrary, these newfound papyruses testify that the text we've been using is essentially the same as that used by the early church. Furthermore, in instances where local cultists did attempt to corrupt the text of scripture (like Marcion), their texts were destroyed wherever found.

The Bibliographical Test For the Old and New Testaments

The bibliographical test is an evaluation of the transmission of the text of a do*****ent down throughout the ages until it reaches us. We will examine these manuscripts to see how well they have been transmitted and the interval of time between the original and the copies since we no longer have the originals.

Old Testament Manuscripts
Because of limited space, we will I will concentrate only on the major Old Testament Manuscripts. There are in existence roughly over 12,000 plus Hebrew Manuscripts excluding ancient translations. These include the following:

Nash Papyrus. (2nd century B.C. and 1st century A.D.) Contains Deut. 6:4-9 and some fragments from the Decalouge Exodus 20:2, Deut. 5:6). This text is 1000 years older than the Hebrew text which our Old Testament is based on. There are very few differences between the reading of this text and that of 1000 years later.

Orientales 4445. (Circa 820-850 A.D.). Contains Genesis 39:20-Deuteronomy 1:33 (excluding Numbers 7:47-73 and Numbers 9:12-10:18).

Codex Cairensis. (A.D. 895). A codex is a manuscript in book form with pages. This codex contains Joshua, Judges, 1&2 Samuel , 1&2 Kings and the Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve [Joel through Malachi]). It was written and vowel pointed [the original Heberew did not have vowel points until the eight century] by Moses ben Asher in that same year.

Aleppo Codex of the Whole Old Testament. This codex was compiled and vowel pointed by Moses ben Asher some time prior to or in the year 930 A.D. It is presently in the Hebrew University in Israel.

The Leningrad Codex of the Prophets. [Also called the Babylonial codex of the Latter prophets](A.D. 916) containing Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Twelve.

The Leningrad Codex (A.D. 1008-09). Contains the entire Old Testament text, it is one of the oldest codexes containing the entire Old Testament. It was copied by Aaron ben Moses ben Asher. {6}

The Dead Sea Scrolls. (DSS) In 1947, an Arab shepherd boy was pursuing a lost goat seven and one-half miles south of Jericho and a mile west of the Dead Sea. Here in a cave he found some jars containing several leather scrolls. Later explorations in this and nearby caves produced thousands of manuscript fragments which had once constituted about four hundred books thought to belong to the library of the Essenes. The Essenes were a Jewish religious sect dating from about the time of Christ. They had broken away from the Temple-centered worship at Jerusalem and had established their own monastic and messianic community in the Judean desert near Qumran.{7} In these findings, three groups of scrolls were found:

• Those fragments and scrolls dating from as early as 250 B.C.
  
• Those fragments and scrolls dating around 100 B.C. to 3 B.C.
  
• Fragments and scrolls which date to around 68 A.D.
  

Of the older scrolls, the Isaiah A Scroll (IQIsa) is the oldest known copy of any complete book of the Bible dating around 125-130 B.C.(probably older). The Isaiah B scroll (IQIsb) dates close to the same time (about 125 B.C.). Both of these texts bear close affinity (98%) to the Masoretic text (895-1000 A.D.) which is the standard text used today for all Bible translations.


The Samaritan Pentateuch. This came into existence around the fourth or fifth centuries B.C. as a result of the split of the Jewish nation and their marrying into some of the gentile (non-Jewish) nations surrounding them. Contains the five books of Moses and is written in an older, more archaic form of the Hebrew text. The oldest existing script is dated about eleventh century A.D. although in the author's opinion, it's probably much older than that.

The Septuagint. (LXX) In the year 285 B.C. in Alexandria, Egypt a Koine greek (common greek) translation of the Old Testament done for the greek-speaking Jews in Alexandria during the reign of Ptolmey Philadelphia IV of Egypt. It was quoted from by many of the New Testament writers including Jesus. The oldest portions were found in the DSS discovery (Book of Deuteronomy). Extant copies exist from first century onward.

The Targums. (appear in written form around 500 A.D.). After the Jews were taken into captivity by the Chaldeans, they needed a version in that language (since the Chaldean language took over the Hebrew). The oldest of the two date to 30 B.C. and 60 B.C.

The Mishna. (A.D. 200). An exposition of Jewish Law using quotations from the Scriptures.

The Gemaras. (Palestinean, 200 A.D. ; Babylonian, 500 A.D.). These were commentaries written in "Aramaic" which quoted from the scriptures.

The Midrash. (100 B.C. -300 A.D.). Doctrinal studies made of quotations from the scriptures.

The Hexapla. [sixfold]. African church father Origen's(A.D. 185-254) harmony of the gospels in six columns in Hebrew and Greek. His Old Testament text is from the LXX and a text similar to the Masoretic Text.

The Transmission of the Old Testament Text: The Talmudists and the Masoretes

The tradition of the Jewish scribes in copying the Old Testament was that of extreme care and adoration for the scriptures. Samuel Davidson, lists the following rules that the Talmudists followed:

#1 A synagogue roll must be written on the skins of clean animals, #2 prepared for the particular use of the synagogue by a Jew, #3 These must be fastened together with strings taken from clean animals, #4 Every skin must contain a certain number of columns, equal throughout the entire codex. #5 the length of each column must not extend over less than 48 nor more than 60 lines; and the breadth must consist of thirty letters. #6 the whole copy must be first-lined; and if three words should be written without a line, it is worthless. #7 the ink should be black, neither red, green, nor any other color, and be prepared according to a definite recipe,#8 An authentic copy must be the exemplar, from which the transcriber ought not in the least deviate. #9 No word or letter, not even a yod, must be written from memory, the scribe not having looked at the codex before him......#10 Between every consonant the space of a hair or thread must intervene; #11 between every new parashah, or section, the breadth of nine consonants; #12 between every book, three lines, #13 The fifth book of Moses must terminate exactly with a line; but the rest need not do so. #14 besides this, the copyist must be in full Jewish dress,#15 wash his whole body,#16 not begin to write the name of God with a pen newly dipped in ink, #17 and should a king address him while writing that name he must take no notice of him.{8}

From the above rules and regulations, it is certain that the text which we have today is the true Hebrew Text of the Old Testament. The Talmudists (100 A.D. -500 A.D.) were responsible for compiling the Talmuds, which consisted of the Germana, the Mishna and the Midrash. A lot of Jewish tradition, scriptural interpretation and practice were recorded by these men. The next group of men whose job it was to preserve the scriptures were the Masoretes (A.D. 500-900). The name "Masorete" comes from the hebrew word massora which means tradition. Their job was to standardize and edit the text of the scriptures. They were also responsible for the addition of vowel points to the text around the year 895 A.D. Their text is the standard text for all Hebrew Bibles today. They handled the scriptures with the greatest amount of reverence. To guard against scribal slips, they added (in addition to the Talmudical rules concerning the transcription of the scriptures) mnemonic systems which calculated the number of times a letter appeared in a book, the middle letter of each line, the middle letter of each book, the middle letter of the Pentateuch, and the middle letter of the whole Bible (Old Testament). These systems also concluded that if even the slightest variation from the text happened, the text was to be discarded. Furthermore, once one scroll or codex was copied, it was regarded as equal in status to it's exemplar and the original was placed in a jar and put aside as waste. The older a copy got, the more likely it was to fall into decay and become more mutilated as time went on. So old copies were destroyed by either burial or burning. The very fact that more manuscripts of the Old Testament do not exist is an affirmation of the fact that transmission of the text which we have today has not been corrupted, as some would have you be misled.

Even with all of these practices, there is a chance for error. So the big question is how faithfully has the text been brought down to us ? Does the accurately reflect a text which was in existence even before the time of Christ? The answer was a resounding yes when the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered in 1947. The Dead sea scrolls, as mentioned earlier, are over 1000 years older than any text (Nash Papyrus excluded) which were in existence up to that time. The Isaiah A scroll (125 B.C.) shows exactness down to the minutest detail. In fact:

Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only seventeen letters in question. Ten of these letters are simply a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense. Four more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions. The remaining three letters comprise the word "light" in verse 11, and does not affect the meaning greatly. Furthermore, this word is supported by the LXX and the Isaiah B scroll. Thus, in one chapter of 166 words, there is only one word (three letters) in question after a thousand years of transmission- and this word does not significantly change the meaning of this passage.{9}

Other variations from the Masoretic text are:

1. Heb. 1:6 (KJV)-"And let all the angels of God worship Him" is a quote from Deuteronomy 32:43. This quotation is not in agreement with the Masoretic text, but the Septuagint has it. A discovery of this verse on a Deuteronmy scroll in Hebrew tends to confirm the LXX reading.

2. Exodus 1:5 reads "seventy-souls" in the Masoretic text, whereas Stephen quoted this verse in Acts 7:14 and said "seventy-five souls" . The LXX also carries this reading. A fragment of Exodus 1:5 from the Qumran scrolls reads "seventy-five souls" in agreement with the LXX.

3. Isaiah 7:14 in the Masoretic text reads "she shall call His name" whereas the LXX and the DSS read "His name shall be called". All this is a matter of one less letter in the Hebrew language. And the text still says the same thing.


The New Testament evidence
But what about the New Testament ? What proof do we have that the text we have today is has been accurately transmitted ? The following is a breakdown of the manuscripts which we have today for the New Testament{10}:

Greek

Unicals 274
Minuscules 2,795
Lectionaries 2,209
Papyri 88

TOTAL 5,366{11}

Latin Vulgate 10,000 plus
Ethiopic 2,000 plus
Slavic 4,101
Armenian 2,587
Syriac Pashetta 350 plus
Bohairic 100
Arabic 75
Old Latin 50
Anglo Saxon 7
Gothic 6
Sogdian 3
Old Syriac 2
Persian 2
Frankish 1

TOTAL 24,650 plus

Of these the most noteworthy greek manuscripts are as follows (manuscripts are designated 'Pwhatever' meaning papyrus and the number designation):

P 52,The John Rylands Fragment. 21/2 by 3 1/2 inches, this papyrus fragment from a codex dating within a generation of when John wrote his account of the gospel, dates to about 110-138 A.D. It contains small sections of John 18:31-33 and 37-38. More recent re-dating brings this within a decade of when John wrote it.{12} It is possibly a copy of the original.

P45, P46 and P47, The Chester Beatty Papyri. P45 is made up of pieces of thirty leaves of a papyrus codex: two from Matthew, two from John, six from Mark, seven from Luke, and thirteen from Acts. These all date around 200-250 A.D. They are the most reliable witnesses which we have to date on the Gospels as originally penned. P46, originally dated around the same time, has been revised by some scholars to late first century{13}. This would put it within 25-30 years of the date which Paul wrote it. P46 contains eighty-six leaves which have Romans, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Portions of 1 & 2 Thessalonians and Romans are missing. P47 dates to around 250 A.D. and contains Revelations 9:10-17:2.

P66, P72, P75. The Bodmer Papyri. P66 dates around 200 A.D. or earlier and contains John 1:1-6:11, 6:35b-14:26 and fragments of 40 other pages of John 14-21. P72 is the earliest known copies of Jude, and 1 &2 Peter. It also contains many apocryphal books such as the Nativity of Mary, the Eleventh Ode of Solomon, the Epistle of Jude, Melito's Homily on the Passover and others.{14} P75 (c.200 A.D.) is a codex containing most of Luke and John.

The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Discovered in 1898 in the rubbish heaps of Oxyrhynchus, Egypt , this discovery yielded over thirty-five manuscripts fragments for the New Testament. Noteworthy of these are P1 (containing Matthew 1-dated 200 A.D.), P5 (containing John 1, 16-dated 200 A.D.), P13 (containing Hebrews 2-5, 10-12-dated 250 A.D.-300 A.D.) and P22 (John 15-16; 225 A.D.).

Codex Vaticanus (325 A.D.). Written on vellum, an early form of leather, it is a manuscript copy of the Old and New Testaments with the Apocrypha and is an important witness to the entire text which we have today. Most of your newer translations will tend to have readings which agree with this codex. Missing are Genesis 1:1-46:28, sections from 2 Kings and Psalms, 1 Timothy-Philemon and Heb. 9:14-the end of the New Testament, probably lost through wear and tear.

Codex Sinaiticus (340 A.D.). This fourth-century copy of the New Testament is an excellent witness to the text of the New Testament which we have in possession today. It contains the entire New Testament.

Codex Alexandrinus (450 A.D.). Codex Alexandrinus ranks only second to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as a representative of the New Testament text. Had it not arrived in England 20 years too late, it would have been one of the prime manuscripts used in the translation of our 1611 King James Version.

Codex Ephraemi Rescripticus (345 A.D.). It was originated out of Alexandria, Egypt. It was written over by the sermons of St. Ephraem but restored by a chemical activation process during the 1800's . Located in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, it contains most of the New Testament.

Codex Bezae (450-550 A.D.). This fifth-sixth century manuscript contains the Gospels and Acts (with some omissions) and contains a different text (in a significant portion) than what we have. Possibly, it was an attempt at a paraphrase, because despite the deviations, the basic teaching remains the same.

Codex Washingtonianus I & II. (Fifth century) Also called the Freer Codex, contains the gospels and portions of all of Paul's letters except Hebrews and Romans. It is housed at the Freer Gallery in the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C.{15}

The New Testament At Qumran?

Of the hundreds of fragments and books found in the caves, papyrus 5 of Qumran cave 7 (7q5) has caused a bit of controversy over the past decade. In 1972, Spannish papyrologist Jose O'Callaghan posited the identity of the tiny scrap as a portion of Mark 6:53-54, but gained little more than strange looks from most of his colleagues. O'Callaghan stood by his convictions, noting that no other known extant greek text had the same combination of letters. O'Callaghan's thesis gained new support and publicity in 1982 when German papryologist Carsten Thiede joined O'Callaghan in his cause. Many established NT critics, such as Graham Stanton, have come out with works attempting to refute Thiede, but with the aid of technology (an analysis of 7Q5 in the foresnsic laboratory of the Department of Investigations at the Israel National Police in Jerusalem){16}, he has successfully and positively identified the scrap as matching the text of Mark 6:53-54. One of Thiede's articles is linked here on-site.

Why is 7Q5 important? The implications are numerous. First, it would establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that the gospel accounts were written before 70 A.D. If the material found in cave 7 was deposited there around 66-68 A.D. (assuming a late date), we must give around 10-12 years time for general circulation time, which would place Mark as being written somewhere around 52-56 AD - only ten years or so from the traditional date of 42 AD {17}.

Thiede's views have not been allowed to stand uncritically. Both conservative and liberal scholars have criticised Thiede's views, although it is my observation (from viewing a variety of reviews from 'both' sides), that no one has addressed the forensic evidence and most of them seem bent on providing every opportunity to maintain the 'status quo' of NT studies, with all of its' faulty assumptions of late origins and literary dependence.

The New Testament Compared with other Ancient works

Some of these figures may seem like a long time between the copies, but one thing needs to be taken into consideration: The New Testament is the most widely authenticated book in the world. It is also the most extant book in the world. While thousands of copies of the New Testament are in existence even before fourth century, there exists no other book which can boast of such a short time between copy and original. The only book that comes close in terms of number is Homer's Iliad of which only 650 copies are extant and the time-span between the original and the earliest copy is about 1800 years. Observe the following:

Author	When written	Earliest Copy	No. of copies and book & time gap
Caesar (Gallic Wars)	100-44 B.C.	900 A.D.	10 (1000 yr. gap)
Homer (Iliad)	800 B.C.	900 A.D.	650 (1800 yr. gap)
Herodotus (History)	480-425 B.C.	900 A.D.	8 (1400 yr. gap)
Thucydides (History)	460-400 B.C.	900 A.D.	8 (1300 yr. gap)
Plato (any work)	400 B.C.	900 A.D.	7 (1300 yr. gap)
Tacitus (Annals)	A.D. 100	1100 A.D.	20 (1000 yr. gap)
Pliny the Younger (Natural History)	61-113 A.D.	850 A.D.	7 (750 yr. gap)
Sophocles (Oedipus trilogy)	496-406 B.C.	1000 A.D.	193 (1400 yr. gap)
Aristotle (any work)	384-322 B.C.	1100 A.D.	49 (1400 yr. gap)
New Testament	50-95 A.D.	fragment	110 A.D. (10-30 year gap)
		books	200 A.D.{18} (100 year gap)
		most of the N.T.	250 A.D. (150 year gap)
		complete N.T.	325 A.D. (225 years)

Total 5366 copies

No other book in ancient history can boast such numbers or do*****entation.{19}

Furthermore, the existence of early versions supports the text which we have not only in the ancient greek manuscripts, but also in the present day Bible which we have. By the year 200, the cannon of scripture was extant in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. The Old Latin Versions date from second to fourth centuries. The Latin Vulgate was completed by St. Jerome in the year 405 A.D. There are Syriac Versions dating between fourth and seventh centuries. These include the Peshetta, Palestinian, Philoxenian and Harclean, all of which are greek dialects which differ from the koine dialektos (common language greek) in which the New Testament were written in. There are also Coptic versions (third and fourth centuries), Gothic (fourth), Armenian & Georgian (fifth), Ethiopic (sixth) and others. The oldest church in existence today is the Ethiopian Coptic Church, which although dated around sixth century, probably got it's start with the Ethiopian eunuch mentioned in Acts chapter 8.

These do*****ents were carbon 14 dated as well as the use of paleography (the study of the language of that period) to obtain a precise date. On top of this, a large portion of the Bible's information is historical. To this date, archaeologists still use the Bible as their guide to excavating middle east lands which the Bible mentions. The Bible has been 100% percent correct in all that it says in the area of it's historical recordings (unlike other so-called 'Holy Books' like the Book of Mormon).

Now in light of all of this evidence (and this is the SHORT ANSWER!)-who still has objections about the reliability of the text of scripture which we have today? I could always write another 50K file

***********Footnotes

{1} McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict,p.39.

{2} ibid.

{3} Geisler & Saleeb Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross, p. 234.

{4} Geisler & Nix, General Introduction to the Bible, p. 445.

{5} Based on Geisler & Nix, p. 370. These rules are generally followed in the ecclectic text tradition, but each variant reading is decided upon individually. This is called reasoned ecclecticism and is the viewpoint advocated by most NT Text critics such as Bruce Metzger, the late F.F. Bruce, James White and others. For a good view of the arguments against the Alexandrian viewpoint, see The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Majority/Byzantine Textform by Maurice Robinson and William Peirpont.

{6} These are by no means all of the witnesses to the Old Testament. For a complete list, consult A General Introduction to the Bible by Norman Geisler and William Nix, chapter 21.

{7} Geisler & Nix,p. 361.

{8} Samuel Davidson, The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, p. 89.

{9} Geisler & Nix, General Introduction to the Bible, 1965 ed. page 263.

{10} These numbers are taken from Evidence That Demands a Verdict Vol. 1 by Josh McDowell p. 40 (Non-greek MSS) and from Bruce Metzger's book Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, pp. 54-56 for Greek MSS as of 1976.

{11} According to Philip W. Comfort there are close to 6000 greek manuscripts in existence today. Consult Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, 1990). Bruce Metzger, in the 1998 book by Lee Strobel, the Case For Christ (pp.61-63), lists the following figures:

Unicals 306
Minuscules 2,856
Lectionaries 2,403
Papyri 99
Total 5664

{12} See Philip W. Comfort, The Complete Guide to Bible Versions.

{13} See Young-Kyu Kim's article, The Paleographic Dating of P46 to the Later First Century in Biblica 1988, 248-257 (also linked on this site).

{14} Consult Geisler & Nix, 1986 ed. p. 390 for the full list.

{15} Consult the Bibliography for a complete list of references and consult Geisler & Nix as well as Metzger and Comfort for a complete list of greek biblical manuscripts of the New Testament.

{16} See C.P. Thiede -"Fragement 7Q5: A Forensic Analysis in Jerusalem" in Christen und Christliches in Qumran? (Regensburg, F. Pustet 1992, pp. 239-245)

{17} In "The Origin and Tradition of Mark's Gospel in the Light of Recent Investigations" (Renconditi, Parte Generale e Atti Ufficiali, Isituto Lombardo/Accademia di scienze e lettere, Milano vol. 126 1992, pp. 129-147 for full article), Thiede writes " Since palaeographical comparison has shown that fragment 7Q5 was written in about AD 50 (at one stage C.H. Roberts had even stated that AD 50 was the latest possible date) a surpisingly early date for the origin of the complete gospel of Mark was brought into focus from a different perspective. I say from a different perspective because there had always been serious new Testament Scholars and historians who had dated Mark to the 40s of the first century - for different reasons, but with weighty arguments."

"The most influential of these may have been John A.T. Robinson, with his Redating the New Testament, first published in 1976. John Wenham, in his Redating the Synoptic Gospels [sic], continued this line of thought in 1991. Most of the reasoning for such a date can be and was based on a re-evaluation of evidence from church history. An important ingredient is to be seen in the reliability of the tradition of a first visit of St. Peter to Rome in AD 42, i.e. in the second year of the reign of Claudius, a visit which lasted for only about two years, until the apostle was free to return to Jerusalem after the death of Herod Agrippa in AD 44. After several stopovers, he was certainly back in Jerusalem in time for the so-called Apostolic Council in AD 48."

Also see Chapter 7 "The Date of Peter's Going to Rome" in Wenham's Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke (IVP, 1991).

{18} with the exception of P46. See note 13.

{19} For more information, see Geisler & Nix, as well as Josh McDowell's books. Their books have similar charts which add more books than the ones listed here. Current information via Bruce Metzger in The Case For Christ puts the number at over 5664 manuscripts as of 1998.