|
|
| |
|
| by Erik Wait |
| |
 |
| |
Having established our basic views regarding the inspiration, infallibility, inerrancy, and authority of the Bible, we now want to examine the actual composition of the original manuscripts and early copies of the Bible. This doctrine generally concerns itself with the genuineness, authenticity, credibility, and reliability of the Bible based upon the ancient manuscripts. This is important, for it establishes the foundation upon which we develop further understanding of the transmission of the Bible and its translation into additional languages. As a necessary corollary, the study of the composition of the Bible often includes an examination of the books that were not considered to be genuine or authentic (e.g. the apocrypha and pseudapigraphic literature of both the Old and New Testaments).
It is important to identify both the distinctions and the relationships between the terms associated with the composition of the Bible. There is a great deal of similarity in the terms employed, and yet each one expresses a specific concept that is critical to the overall development of the doctrine.
There is a distinction / relationship between genuiness and authenticity. As used in relation to this doctrine, genuineness refers to the truth of the origin of a document. In other words, we are primarily concerned with authorship. Is the work under consideration genuinely written by the stated author? Although he freely interchanges the various terms, William Shedd illustrates this point:
“The authenticity of a book is its genuiness. A written composition is authentic, if it is the product of the person to whom it was attributed. The Apostle’s Creed lacks authenticity, because it was not composed by the Apostles, to whom it was attributed; the Epistle to the Romans is authentic because it can be proved to be the composition of St. Paul.” [59])
As used in relation to this doctrine, authenticity refers to the truth of the facts and content of the documents of the Bible. In other words, authenticity deals with the integrity (trustworthiness) and credibility (truthfulness) of the divine record of Scripture. Again, Shedd illustrates the point:
“The credibility of the book is distinguishable from its authenticity [genuineness]. Gulliver’s travels is authentic [genuine] being the genuine product of Swift, but its contents are fictitious. In the case of human products, there may be authenticity [genuineness] without credibility. But in the case of a Divine product, the fact of authenticity [genuineness] establishes the fact of the credibility. If it be proved that God is the author of the Bible, the Bible must be credible.” [60]
There is a distinction between “genuineness” and “authenticity”, for a book may be genuine without being authentic, if the professed writer is the real one, even if the document is untrue. Likewise, a document may be authentic without being genuine, if the content is true but the name given of the writer is not the actual one and thus would be considered a “forgery” regardless of the truthfulness of its content. There is a relationship between “genuineness” and “authenticity”, for they are inseparable for a book claiming God as its author. All Biblical books must be both genuine and authentic or they cannot be inspired, for in either case there would be pretense and falsehood. Therefore, they must be genuine in terms of their origin (authorship) and they must be authentic in terms of their content (credibility).
The Authenticity Of Scripture Defended
There are a variety of ways in which we can prove and guarantee the authenticity of Scripture. The following three arguments are the most common presented as evidence in favor of absolute authenticity. In offering the three methods I shall point out their flaws after which I shall offer an alternative, presuppositional, argument which I believe does not fall into the rationalistic or empirical fallacies of the traditional arguments:
One common argument is the “bibliology” argument. [61] This argument establishes an unbreakable chain from revelation to the finished product of the Bible, thereby guaranteeing both its genuineness and authenticity. The first link is that of “Deity” This is the first link in the chain for the Biblical revelation issues forth from the person of God. The first step in this argument is valid, except most evidentialists (Thomas Aquinas, R. C. Sproul, John Gerstner, Normon Geisler, J.P. Moreland, Walter Martin & Hank Hanegraaff of the Christian Research Institute etc.) begin by arguing for “God” in the abstract, a generic Creator, usually using teleological (the necessity of a Designer because of the complexity of nature) and cosmological arguments (the impossibility of an infinite regression of first causes) and thus do not begin specifically with the Triune God of the Bible. But once they have established (through rationalist arguments which place the autonomous mind as the final authority to determine the existence of God), the impossibility of order from chaos and the eternality of matter, they then argue for the God of the Bible. Thus the foundation of their arguments in not inherently Christian (for Muslims could use the same arguments) and thus I believe this incremental approach is flawed in the least and is actually in opposition to Biblical Christianity at the worst. In order for an argument to be truly valid one must BEGIN with the Biblical doctrine of God in order to gain true knowledge (Proverbs 1:7: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge.”)
The second link in the evidentialist chain is that of “Apostolicity.” This is the next link in the chain, for the revelation came forth through divinely selected prophets and apostles (the revelation is perfect because of the nature of inspiration.)
The third link is that of “Canonicity” which recognizes which writings were truly inspired, and therefore authoritative, and which were not. However, it is absolutely crucial to distinguish between a Roman Catholic and Protestant doctrine of Canonicity! Rome places the magisterium over the books and declares that the church created the canon of Scripture. Thus the church is the final authority as defined by Rome. The Historical Protestant doctrine of Canonicity asserts that the church DID NOT create the cannon but rather discovered the cannon as it distinguished between inspired and non-inspired books. Thus it is like Rome asserting that the church invented gold while Historical Protestants assert that the church merely discovered gold and distinguished it from iron pirate (fool’s gold).
The fourth link is that of “Authority” which declares that the writings are authoritative as a logical progression from the authority of God. In other words, the teaching of the apostles and prophets are divinely accredited. The next logical link in the chain is that of “Authenticity” thus whatever the writings say must be true (truthful content) for they come directly from the God who cannot possibly lie.
The final link in the chain is that of “Integrity.” If the writings are truly authentic (as defined in relation to Biblical composition) then they must also express integrity. Anything established as being authentic (truthful content) is credible, and expresses integrity.
The Internal Evidence Argument [62]
This argument develops from the previous one, for it begins with the assumption of a historically reliable Bible, especially as evidenced by the New Testament documents.
Thus this argument is that the Bible is basically a reliable and trustworthy piece of literature and therefore ought to be trusted in all that is states. However, there is a very first line in this argument gives away the farm! If you assert that the Bible is only “ basically” reliable then you leave open the possibility of error. The Encyclopedia Brittanica is “basically” reliable but in no way can it be said to be guaranteed to be without error. Thus the critic may allow that the Bible is “ basically” reliable in many matters such as historical events concerning battles, kings, the Exodus etc. but that it also contains myth which was used to explain dramatic events. In fact, this is one of the main tenants of liberalism (particularly as influenced by Rudolph Bultmann) in which the goal is to weed out the myths from the otherwise “ basically” reliable Bible. In addition, this first premise relies heavily on the rationalist argument developed by Aristotle, “the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic himself.” [63] But those who argue in such a manner have yet to prove with the presumption of “benefit of the doubt” as asserted by Aristotle and not the “presumption of doubt” as asserted by Rene De Cartes. Both are equally rationalistic and lack a valid foundation for epistemology. If one is too use an argument that one’s position is to be given the “ benefit of the doubt” one must justify why the opposition has the burden of proof and not merely assert such a mandate. However, the “benefit of the doubt” is usually given to the historical view of any position which has a long history of being the standard. Thus any minority view which comes along which challenges the majority is usually said to have the burden of proof. For example, during the Reformation the Reformers (particularly Luther) had the burden of proof to make his case for Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura because the dominant position was that of Rome. Thus it was Luther who was on trial at the Diet of Worms and not the Pope. But just because a position is older and held to by the majority does not make it correct for the standard position still has the requirement to defend its position against the new rival position. [64]
This argument goes on to state that on the basis of this reliable document we have sufficient evidence to believe confidently that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Therefore, Jesus Christ being the Son of God is an infallible authority.
However, notice how this methodology does not start with the authority of Christ! Rather, it begins with a human authority’s (a pagan philosopher) assertion of the “the benefit of the doubt.”
The nest step of this argument is that Jesus taught that the Bible was actually the very Word of God and therefore the Word, in that it comes from God, is completely genuine and authentic, for God is absolutely trustworthy. Consequently, on the basis of the infallible authority of Jesus Christ, the church believes that the Bible is both genuine and authentic.
The External Evidence Argument [65]
This argument develops from external factors from outside of the Bible. The first evidence that the writings of the New Testament are genuine / authentic is found in the language. The Hellenistic Greek employs a dialect that is modified by Hebrew thought and the use of Hebraic idioms. If the New Testament were written in the classical Greek of Plato, we would have sufficient doubt as to its genuiness and authenticity. Why? Because most liberals and higher criticism “scholars” assert that the New Testament was not written by eyewitnesses, thus it was not written by the Apostles, but they are the myths of the late church of the second century which was primarily made up of gentiles rather than Jews. Why is the existence of Hebrew thought and the use of Hebraic idioms so important then? Because, if it were developed by a primarily gentile church, as was the second century church, then it would not have these Jewish components.
The second evidence that the writings of the New Testament are genuine / authentic is found in the testimony of the early church fathers as indicated in their writings. The unanimous testimony of the early church was that the New Testament was authored by the apostles and were willing to give testimony to the fact with martyrdom.
However, there is a problem with this argument. Truth is not to be proven by consensus, by taking polls, or by sheer numbers. Likewise many of the early church fathers had notions and doctrines which we would not want to assert as many of them were influenced heavily by Greek thought and thought many books we consider to be noncanonical to be written by the apostles.
A third argument is found in the testimony of heretical writers who opposed the church, especially in the first three centuries. It is argued that though they opposed the church and taught heretical doctrines they did concede that the New Testament was authentically apostolic.
The problem with this argument is obvious. Truth is not to be determined by heretics! While it may be tempting to say “Well, even our enemies agree with us on this point!” Christ Himself refused to allow demons to testify to His messiahship even though they were asserting the truth (Mark 1:25)
A fourth argument the New Testament are genuine / authentic is found in the testimony of pagan skeptics, especially in the first three centuries. It is argued that there were many pagans who opposed the early church but they never raised an argument against the validity of the New Testament’ authorship as being from eyewitnesses. The problem with this argument is the same as the previous argument.
A fifth argument is found in the early versions of the New Testament. It is amazing that by the year 350 A.D., even before the New Testament was completely canonized, there were already Syriac, Latin, and Egyptian translations of the New Testament. It is contended that these translations were made because of the universal belief that the Biblical writings were genuine and authentic. Usually translations of works, particularly ancient writings, have not been done until long after they have been in existence (such as Dante’s Divine Comedy which was not translated until 400 years after its composition) whereas the N.T. was translated early due to the church’s high view of its authenticity and a perceived necessity for it to be widely published.
A sixth argument is found in the doubts that were expressed by some portions of the church regarding certain parts of the New Testament. Certain books of the New Testament were in strong dispute as to whether their apostolic authorship was authentic such as James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2nd & 3rd John, Hebrews, and Revelation. [66] These books were cryptically examined to determine their inspiration, revealing that there was a high degree of investigation in the early church in regard to their authenticity. How does this support Biblical authenticity? The fact that the church did not rush into accepting every working claiming apostolic authorship demonstrates that a high degree of care was taken to assure authenticity.
The argument for the genuiness and authenticity of the Old Testament is based primarily upon the strong testimony of both Jesus Christ and His chosen apostles as it is given in the New Testament. While the Old Testament is validated by the testimony of Israel and its meticulous methodology for copying manuscripts [67] there is virtually little remaining manuscripts that are sufficiently dated close to its origin due to the original autographs antiquity. Therefore, it is validated based on the authority of Christ.
The Reliability Of The Autographs And Manuscripts Defended
It is critically important to establish the reliability of the Biblical manuscripts, for if they are doubtful then there is no solid link between the original autographs and the modern translations you use on a daily basis. Fortunately, there is more abundant and accurate manuscript representation for the Bible than for any other ancient writings. We will briefly examine both the Old and New Testament manuscript record. However, it must be remembered that the facts of this issue will always be interpreted in light of one’s ultimate authority. Thus this argument cannot stand on its own without first establishing a justifiable epistemology.
One of the first issues regarding reliability of the Bible is that of the manuscript evidence and reliability of the Old Testament. One importance evidence is that of the work of the Talmudists. These are catalogs of Hebrew civil and ceremonial law that were compiled from 1000 - 500 AD. They were put on special scrolls and safeguarded in the synagogues. Extreme detail and care was used in transcribing the scrolls, guaranteeing their precise accuracy. [68]
A second is that of the Massoretic Text (500 - 900 AD.) This was a group of people who were headquartered in Tiberias and assumed the laborious task of editing and standardizing the Hebrew text of Scripture. They too were well disciplined and expressed the inmost reverence for the sacred text.
In addition, there are a variety of Hebrew Texts. For example, the “Cairo Codex” (895 AD, located in the British Museum); the “Codex of the Prophets of Leningrad” (916 AD) - both of these texts containing primarily the works of the prophets. In addition, there is the “Aleppo Codex” (900+ - once thought to be lost, but rediscovered in 1958); the “British Museum Codex” (950 AD, containing most of Genesis through Deuteronomy); and finally, the “Reuchlin Codex of the Prophets” (1105 AD, prepared by a Massoretic scribe).
If you notice, there is a gap between the time period of the Massoretic texts, the Hebrew texts and the original writings (the gap is generally considered to be extensive, for it represents the 900s AD back to the time of the writings in BC). The question asked by critics for centuries was, “do the texts we have faithfully represent the Hebrew text as originally written?” The only way to answer the question would be to discover manuscripts much more ancient than anything we possessed at that time. The Dead Sea Scrolls provide us with the necessary documentation for an answer that is favorable to the original Hebrew texts. The Dead Sea Scrolls were made up of some 40,000 fragments, from which more than 500 books have been reconstructed (both Biblical and extra-Biblical). The important point is that the dating of these scrolls goes back as early as 100 AD, with one scroll of the Hebrew text of Isaiah being dated as early as 125 BC. Thus we pick up 1,000 years in our gap, and the exactness of the accuracy between the scrolls of both time periods is remarkable.
Another textual issue is that of the Septuagint Text (LXX). This is the Greek translation of the Hebrew text, a work accomplished around 250 BC. This became the most widely used and quoted Old Testament Scripture. Again, this ancient text is virtually completely similar to the best Massoretic of the 900s, although there is almost a 1,300 year time span between the two.
Then there are the Targums. These are paraphrases of the Old Testament Scripture, and appeared in written form around 500 AD. The Mishnah is also significant as these are a collection of Jewish teachings and exposition of the “oral law” written about 200 AD. It is these Jewish traditions Jesus probably referred to in Mark 7:8. Then there is the Midrash were doctrinal studies of the Old Testament text, written as early as 100 BC, but from 100 - 300 AD for the most part.
The Manuscript Evidence And Reliability Of The New Testament
There are various types of manuscripts. The Papyrus Manuscripts are the most ancient manuscripts to date. For example, the so - called “Chester Beatty Papyrus” is dated back to the third century. In addition there are Uncial Manuscripts of which here are the approximately 240 of these manuscripts, all of which are identified by their use of capital letters and punctuation.
Some of the most important manuscripts are “Codex Sinaiticus” which is dated about 331 AD and contains the entire New Testament Another is “Codex Vaticanus” dated approximately 325 - 350 AD and contain most of the New Testament. “Codex Alexandrinus” is dated about 400 AD and contains the New Testament except part of Matthew. Others include “Codex Ephraemi” (400 AD); “Codex Bezae” (5th to 6th century); “Washington Codex” (4th to 5th century).
Then there are the Miniscule Manuscripts. There are some 2,800 of these manuscripts that were written in lower case letters. These are not usually as ancient as the Uncial Manuscripts, but thy are extremely valuable nonetheless.
There are several early versions such as the Syriac versions (Tatians diatessaron, 170 AD; Old Syriac, 200 AD; Palestinian, 5th century). The Latin Vulgate is another. This was translated by Jerome around the year 400 AD. The Coptic translations of the third century were influential in Egypt during that time period.
Then there are Lectionaries which are a greatly neglected area and yet it is the second largest group of New Testament manuscripts. These represented the Bible readings of the early church, following in the manner of the Jewish synagogue readings. There have been over 2,135 of these readings cataloged thus far.
Conclusion
The total account of Greek Manuscripts numbers over 5,000 at this point in time. The New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger, writing some time ago, compiled the following totals:
Papyri = 76
Uncials = 250
Miniscules = 2,646
Lectionaries = 1,997
Total = 4,969
There is no other book from ancient history that in any way approaches anything like this abundance of manuscript support.
|
| | |
| End Notes |
| |
[59] William Shedd "Dogmatic Theology" Vol. 1 , page 111. Note: While Shedd’s comparison of the Apostle’s Creed is valid I’m not sure the creed is called “The Apostle’s Creed” because it was ever thought of as having been composed by an Apostle. Rather, it has been called, and we still refer to it as, “The Apostle’s Creed” because it accurately reflects and summarizes the apostolic faith.
[60] William Shedd Dogmatic Theology Vol. 1 , page 111 - 112.
[61] The progression of the chain is adapted from Norman Geisler A General Introduction to the Bible Revised & Expanded Edition, pages 344-345. However, the detailed explanation of each link in the chain is my own.
[62] Adapted from "Reason to Believe", “The case for the infallibility of the Bible” by R.C. Sproul pg. 30-31.
[63] John Warwick Montgomery "History and Christianity" pg 29.
[64] For further information on “Burden of Proof” see “APPENDIX B”
[65] William Shedd "Dogmatic Theology" Vol. 1 , page 112 - 114.
[66] The reasons these books were in dispute vary. For example, 2 Peter was in question due to a perceived radical difference in writing style from 1 Peter. However, most likely Peter in his old age used a secretary for this epistle much like Paul (cf. Romans 16:22) for his second epistle. The Epistle to the Hebrews was questioned because the author is not identified in the epistle. For an excellent discussion on the authorship of Hebrews see "A commentary on The Epistle to the Hebrews" by Philip E. Hughes.
[67] For example, only scribes were allowed to make copies of the Scriptures. These scribes were required (1) to go through a 7 year school before being allowed to make their first copy, (2) destroy the entire manuscript if they made a single error, (3) a numerical value was given to each letter and the numerical value of each sentence was totaled. Thus if the number did not add up correctly after copying a sentence an error was detected and consequently the manuscript was destroyed.
[68] See Josh Mc Dowell "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" Vol. 1 pg 56-57 for details. |
| |
|
