Is the New Testament Text Reliable?

The phrase, “The Bible’s been translated and recopied so many times…” introduces one of the most frequent canards tossed at Christians quoting the Bible. Can we know for certain that the New Testament has been handed down accurately? Yes, we can.

By Gregory Koukl

In the spring of 1989 syndicated talk show host Larry King interviewed Shirley MacLaine on the New Age. When a Christian caller contested her view with an appeal to the New Testament, MacLaine brushed him off with the objection that the Bible has been changed and translated so many times over the last 2000 years that it’s impossible to have any confidence in its accuracy. King was quick to endorse her “facts.” “Everyone knows that,” he grunted.[1]

This appeal to common knowledge is enough to satisfy the ordinary, man-on-the-street critic of the New Testament. An appeal to the game “telephone” to demonstrate how reasonable this objection is. Whisper a message to one person and transfer it from person to person, ear to ear, in a circle. Then compare the message’s final form with the original. The radical transformation of the original phrase in so short a period of time is always good for a few laughs. This comparison is enough to convince the casual skeptic that the New Testament documents are equally unreliable.

The argument against the reliability of the New Testament texts can be stated very simply. How can we know that the documents we have in our possession accurately reflect originals destroyed almost two millennia ago? Communication is never perfect; people make mistakes. Errors are compounded with each successive generation, just like the message in the telephone game. By the time 2000 years pass, it’s anyone’s guess what the original said.

It’s easy to state the problem, and some may think merely raising the objection makes the argument itself compelling. Yet offering evidence on its behalf is a bit more difficult.

Usually the complaint is raised by people who have little understanding of the real issues. In cases like this, an appeal to common knowledge is more often than not an appeal to common ignorance. Like many questions about Christianity, this objection is voiced by people who haven’t been given reliable information.
Continue reading

The Lunatic Fringe of The Jesus Seminar

In the political spectrum, there are folk on the left and the right (and in the middle of course). Then there is the LUNATIC fringe – SO FAR to the left or SO FAR to the right that they are just waaaay ouuuutttt theerrrre in wacko land.

When it comes to experts in the fields of textual criticism, there are liberals on the left and conservatives on the right, and then there is the LUNATIC fringe.

On the right, the lunatic fringe is probably identified by the King James Only advocates who believe God re-inspired the text of the 1611 King James Version of the Bible in English. It is hard, if not impossible to reason with such people, and the miltancy and venom with which they express their misguided views has wrought havoc in local Churches both here in the USA and elsewhere.

The lunatic fringe on the left are the Jesus Seminar people, who are often portrayed as “experts” by the media, while those who know something of the field are stunned that these people are even listened to.

Dr. R. C. Sproul commented, “In my opinion, from an academic since, I believe the Jesus Seminar is a lunatic fringe of scholarship.”

Dr. James White says, “The Jesus Seminar is an organization of ultra left, I’m not talking about liberal scholarship, they are outside the pale of liberal scholarship. They are so far out there that you can’t even get a radar fix on them… they’ve started with their conclusions, and they’re now working on establishing what they started with their conclusions. It’s the exact opposite of meaningful scholarship….”

For more on the Jesus Seminar see this article here by Timothy D. Oliver.