Corgan Sow

Sam Shamoun

The historicity of the resurrection is firmly rooted in the reliability of the New Testament documents. If it can be shown that the NT documents are unreliable, then the case for the resurrection goes out the window. If, however, it can be demonstrated that the NT documents are historically accurate and were written down during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses to the life and resurrection of Jesus, then the truth claim of Christianity is affirmed.

We will examine both the external and internal evidence and see where does it lead us.


External Evidence

External evidence would include the number and dating of the available NT manuscripts as well as archaeological evidence that serves to affirm or debunk the early composition of the New Testament. The first will be the evidence furnished by the MSS themselves.


Manuscript Evidence

We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today! (taken from McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pp. 40-48; Time, January 23, 1995, p. 57). Though we do not have any originals, with such a wealth of documentation at our disposal with which to compare, we can delineate quite closely what those originals contained. No other ancient writing of antiquity has as many MSS as the New Testament.

In fact, when we compare the works of antiquity with that of the NT documents, we will then see how superior the New Testament really is in terms of dating and number of MSS.

The Time Gap And The Number Of MSS:

Author Date Written Earliest Copy Time Span Copies (extent)
Secular Manuscripts:
Herodotus (History) 480 - 425 BC 900 AD 1,300 years 8
Thucydides (History) 460 - 400 BC 900 AD 1,300 years ?
Aristotle (Philosopher) 384 - 322 BC 1,100 AD 1,400 years 5
Caesar (History) 100 - 44 BC 900 AD 1,000 years 10
Pliny (History) 61 - 113 AD 850 AD 750 years 7
Suetonius (Roman History) 70 - 140 AD 950 AD 800 years ?
Tacitus (Greek History) 100 AD 1,100 AD 1,000 years 20
In comparison, we have copies of the NT which date approximately 15-20 years after the authors of scripture originally penned the autographs.
Biblical Manuscripts: (note: these are individual manuscripts):
Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26) 1st century 50-60 AD coexistent(?)
John Rylands (John) 90 AD 130 AD 40 years
Bodmer Papyrus II (John) 90 AD 150-200 AD 60-110 years
Chester Beatty Papyri (NT) 1st cen. 200 AD 150 years
Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels) 1st cen. 200 AD 150 years
Codex Vaticanus (Bible) 1st cen. 325-350 AD 275-300 years
Codex Sinaiticus (Bible) 1st cen. 350 AD 300 years
Codex Alexandrinus (Bible) 1st cen. 400 AD 350 years

Total New Testament manuscripts = 5,300 Greek MSS, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 9,300 others = 24,000 copies. Total MSS compiled prior to 600 AD = 230. Some of the most important MSS include:

The John Ryland Papyri:

Manuscript portions of the Gospel of John, located in the John Ryland Library of Manchester, England and believed to be the oldest known fragment of the New Testament, dated AD 130, within 40 years of the original.

Lukan Papyrus:

"The Lukan papyrus, situated in a library in Paris has been dated to the late 1st century or early 2nd century, so it predates the John papyrus by 20-30 years (Time April 26, 1996, pg.8)."

Mark and Qumran:

"But of more importance are the manuscript findings of Mark and Matthew! New research which has now been uncovered by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and is published in his newly released book on the subject, the Jesus Papyrus mentions a fragment from the book of Mark found among the Qumran scrolls (fragment 7Q5) showing that it was written sometime before 68 AD It is important to remember that Christ died in 33 AD, so this manuscript could have been written, at the latest, within 35 years of His death; possibly earlier, and thus during the time that the eyewitnesses to that event were still alive!"

Magdelene Manuscript:

"The most significant find, however, is a manuscript fragment from the book of Matthew (chapt.26) called the Magdalene Manuscript which has been analyzed by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and also written up in his book The Jesus Papyrus. Using a sophisticated analysis of the handwriting of the fragment by employing a special state-of-the-art microscope, he differentiated between 20 separate micrometer layers of the papyrus, measuring the height and depth of the ink as well as the angle of the stylus used by the scribe. After this analysis Thiede was able to compare it with other papyri from that period; notably manuscripts found at Qumran (dated to 58 AD), another at Herculaneum (dated prior to 79 AD), a further one from the fortress of Masada (dated to between 73/74 AD), and finally a papyrus from the Egyptian town of Oxyrynchus. The Magdalene Manuscript fragments matches all four, and in fact is almost a twin to the papyrus found in Oxyrynchus, which bears the date of 65/66 AD Thiede concludes that these papyrus fragments of St. Matthew's Gospel were written no later than this date and probably earlier. That suggests that we either have a portion of the original gospel of Matthew, or an immediate copy, which was written while Matthew and the other disciples, and eyewitnesses to the events were still alive. This would be the oldest manuscript portion of our Bible in existence today, one which co-exists with the original writers!

"What is of even more importance is what it says. The Matthew 26 fragment uses in its text nomina sacra (holy names) such as the diminutive "IS" for Jesus and "KE" for Kurie or Lord (The Times, Saturday, December 24, 1994). This is highly significant for our discussion today, because it suggests that the godhead of Jesus was recognized centuries before it was accepted as official church doctrine at the council of Nicea in 325 AD There is still ongoing discussion concerning the exact dating of this manuscript. However, if the dates prove to be correct then this document alone completely eradicates the criticism leveled against the gospel accounts (such as the "Jesus Seminar") that the early disciples knew nothing about Christ's divinity, and that this concept was a later redaction imposed by the Christian community in the second century (AD)."

(NOTE: The preceding citations can be found at the following web page: http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm)


I would like to hear some brief comment especially the quote highlighted in bold.

Peter Kirby

For Thiede:

Media Papyri: Examining Carsten Thiede's Rediscovered Fragments

Review: Carsten Peter Thiede, Rekindling the Word: In Search of Gospel

For good resources on text criticism:

NT Gateway

best,
Peter Kirby

Ebonmuse

I'm not familiar with this, but the quote says it's a fragment. What does that mean? Is it a chapter, a few verses, a few words? Unless it's a significant portion of the Gospel of Mark as it now exists, it is of no help to us in determining whether the gospel itself existed by this date or how much it may have been subsequently altered.

(For the record: One will note that even the very earliest documents Christian apologists can point to are late first century/early second century - decades after the life of Jesus - which is fully in accord with the mainstream scholarly position that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. I see no compelling reason to doubt that the gospels have indeed come down to us as they were originally written, but the integrity of the text says nothing about the reliability of the content, or how that content may have been originally viewed.)

Peter Kirby

Oh, the two articles that I linked above concerned the papyrus of Matthew: p64 and p67.

For the fragment from Qumran alleged to be Mark, see here:

7Q5: The Earliest NT Papyrus?

best,
Peter Kirby