This post continues the series we began yesterday. Why do we believe that an ancient book has real relevance for today? Yesterday, we took a look at the witness of internal consistency. Today…
The witness of manuscript reliability
The reliability of the Bible is often challenged by critics. But if you see the Bible as unreliable, then you also have to disregard other ancient writings by people like Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. Why? The Biblical documents are better preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writing.
Take Plato’s writings. The time span between the original and the earliest copies we have? 1,200 years. How many copies? 7. Take Aristotle’s writings. The time span between the original and the earliest copies we have? 1,400 years. How many copies? 49. Take Homer’s writings. The time span between the original and the earliest copies we have? 500 years. How many copies? 643. Take the New Testament. The time span between the original and the earliest copies we have? About 70 years. How many copies? 5,600.
There are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing. And scholars tell us that the New Testament documents are about 99.5% textually pure.
If you dismiss the New Testament as reliable, then you must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. We have more reason to trust the New Testament than to trust any other ancient writing.
