Haran

Several stated that they didn't know where this came from. It seems to come from Josh McDowell's "Evidence..." (or one of the sources for the book).

Before you quit reading on because of Josh McDowell, I'd just like to say that I think he gets a real bum rap... His books were compiled by a team of researchers who sifted through mounds of reputable scholars and books. Some of the information (or at least the way it is put together) is debatable. However, theist and atheist alike would do very well to read the bibliographies that are sprinkled throughout the book, for they contain many excellent scholars (not just conservative ones).

That said, the claim is in Chapter 4 "The Reliability of the Bible", section 1C:

"There are now more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions (MSS) and we have more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today."

According to the book, these numbers (broken down in a table on the following page) were obtained from extrememly reputable sources such as Kurt Aland, Bruce Metzger, Merrill Parvis and Allen Wikgren, Eroll Rhodes, and J. Phillip Hyatt. If you don't recognize these names as excellent scholars, then you probably shouldn't be debating the issue.

The second part of the claim I find to be a bit more debatable:

"No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the Iliad by Homer is second with only 643 manuscripts that still survive. The first complete preserved text of Homer dates from the 13th century." (Note: This is a quoted source, not McDowell's own words.)

I think the "no other document of antiquity" may be pushing it and was possibly wrong (in light of what Vorkosigan presented about China, though I'd like to see some better methodology in the comparisons). I think this claim originally began as "no other document of classical, western antiquity", though I have no proof of this. It is a more reasonable claim and the evidence does seem stacked in favor of the NT over the writings of "classical antiquity" (i.e. classical Greek authors, etc.). The other problem that I have with this second claim is that I can't tell whether the number of manuscripts for the Iliad (i.e. 643) reflects versional evidence or just Greek fragments. Surely the Iliad was translated into other languages as well. Does anyone know? If this number does not also contain versional evidence, then the comparison is not a good one.

Another methodological problem that I have with the whole thing is that I can't find a cut-off date for the manscripts used for these numbers.

Regardless of the problems, I believe that the NT would still blow most, if not all, works of classical antiquity out of the water in numbers.

Finally, to defend McDowell a little bit from those who have never even cracked his book... He states in this particular section of his book that "What we are establishing here is the historical reliability of the Scripture, not its inspiration. The historical reliability of the Scripture should be tested by the same criteria that all historical documents are tested." (Personally, I think he's quite right on this point.)

To test them, he draws on 3 criteria: the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test, and the external evidence test.

The 24,000 number falls under the bibliographical test. As stated in the book, "The bibliographical test is an examination of the textual transmission by which documents reach us. In other words, since we do not have the original documents, how reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts (MSS) and the time interval between the original and extant copy?".

I'll let you read about the other two criteria.

Hope that explains a little more about where the number came from and how it is actually used.

MortalWombat

Take a look at this thread started by CX: Manuscript evidence and the New Testament, where he addresses in detail the earliest dates that the NT manuscripts are attested. Basically only three manuscripts (or rather fragments thereof, containing a few dozen verses) are attested to prior to about 200 CE. A few more around the turn of the 3rd century, and it isn't until the 3rd century is in full swing that we start to see more manuscript attestation.

His conclusion:

Vinnie

I don't find the overall integrity of the text to be suspect.

I would have liked if Mcdowell listed a chronological stratification of sources. In such a list I want to know what the source is (parital, full copy etc). I would also really want a listing of attestation by work for each book up until the fourth century rather than the sweeping "whole NT". The NT should not be treated as a single work here. Some works are better attested than others.

Matthew Manuscript attestation:

1st century
2nd century
3rd century
4th century
5th century

We should look at the works individually and also evaluate the willingness of them being edited by Christians.

We know Christians wrote some letters in Paul's name.
We know Christians invented four different endings for Mark's gospel very early on.
We know a Christian interpolated Josephus.
We know they inserted stuff in GJohn (pericope de adultera)
We know that John was redacted. I mean, even if we have good attestation of GJohn the fact that it was redacted prevents us from obtaining the original text unless it can be reconstructed.
Q probably underwent several redactions and possibly GThomas as well.
Two-source proponents sometimes argue that Matthew and Luke were using different versions of Mark and Q.
People were accused of corrupting the scriptures and the total number of changes in light of doctrinal views is hard to asess.
Numrous differences exist by 200 ad showing there wasn't a slavish devotion to the wording of some of the texts.
As far as the gospels go, gospel formation was a continuous and ongoing process. We cannot assume a Gentile-non-Palestinian Christian sat down and wrote Mark as we now have. This was not a one time process. Many two source proponents pose different "marks" for Matthew and Luke.

So I propose we add to Mcdowell's tests.

The first thing to do is to stratify manuscript and outside attestation (citations from church fathers) for each individual book of the NT in a chronological order.

Next, we must list all the known alterations (minor and larger including redactions of documents). We must list gospel presuppositions. Was gospel composition fluid? I would say so. How can we reconstruct the original Mark when Matthew and Luke might have used different versions? We must also assess the possibility of whoesale editing here in light of what we know. Mcdowell didn't do any of these as far as I know? To say that the NT is widely attested is to do apologetics. I would hope that a real scholar would treat each work individually pointing out attestation for each.

The fact is that we don't know for sure what happened to Paul's letter to the Corinthians when he wrote it. It could have been heavily edited and copied and then again, it might not have. This may be able to be ontested on the basis of a low literacy rate and looking at Pauline style and vocabulary.

I think reading Mcdowell on this is very misleading. He is engaging in apologetics rather than serious historical research. He would have us believe that there were hardly any alterations when the redactions of John, Q, Thomas, proposed versions of Mark and a fluid gospel composition process and so many other items rule against this.

I don't find the text of the various NT books to be highly suspect or unreliable though. its just that some apologists, like their skeptic counterparts on this, seem to overstep the evidence. The problem as I see it is that the level of textual corruption has to be toned down to be compatible with the views of verbal plenary inspiration advocates. After all, they are commonly heard peddling the notion of "all or nothing" for inerrancy. Joshy goes in this camp, IMO.

Vinnie

Haran

Thanks MW, but I already know this. Textual Criticism is one of my interests.

The problem is in the comparison. How late are the copies of the Iliad that are included in the number 643. Does this number include copies up until the same cut-off as with the 24,000 of the NT? Do both numbers include copies after the invention of the printing press. There is lacking (or at least unexplained) methodology here, unfortunately.

As far as the slim early MSS attestation, I have explained this here many times before. We would probably have many more ancient witnesses if it were not for the destruction of manuscripts by the Roman emperor Diocletian. After his reign was over, Constantine took the throne, and Christianity became the religion of the empire, the number manuscripts sky-rocketed.

Besides, the distance of the manuscripts of the NT from the originals as compared with classical works is, I believe, in most cases much shorter.

So, by the reasonable critera that McDowell chose, the Bible does pretty well when compared with other ancient classical works.

MortalWombat

Yes, but how many of those classical works had the benefit of a church making sure that they were perpetuated at the expense of other competing works?

Haran

All of this is good. But, if comparing with other ancient texts (which was the point), then the tests would have to be similar for the other ancient documents. If we limit the number of manuscripts for the NT to only those written before 300 years after the originals, then we would have to do the same for the ancient work to which it was compared. However, one might be hard-pressed to find other ancient works with attestation so close to the originals.

Also, we would have to compare the differences between the ancient manuscripts of different works. According to McDowell's sources, many of the other ancient works have many more textual problems than the NT does.

So, McDowell's point was that the Bible deserves the same respect and lack of doubt that these other ancient texts deserve.

The differences are mainly spelling. There are some significant changes, but nothing truly earth-shattering.

To quote Textual Critic David Alan Black (whose thoughts are similar to those of other textual critics I've read), "No biblical doctrine would go unsupported if a favorite reading was abandoned in favor of a more valid variant. This does not mean, as is sometimes said, that no doctrine of Scripture is affected by textual variation. Rather, a doctrine that is affected by textual variation will always be adequately supported by other passages."

I believe, substantially, we probably could say that he could have written it. What exactly is your impression of the level of modification in the texts?

You have some excellent suggestions, but you do realize that it took nearly 5000 man hours to compile the quotes and sources that McDowell and his team put together the way it is? I think he made a pretty good presentation, considering that no one can cover everything.

Then you have just called the esteemed textual critic, Bruce Metzger, an apologist... It is not necessarily apologetics. It is a comparison which many others have made to lend perspective.

This is sort of true. However, he makes excellent points (though some of the methodology could be better). At least his team lists their many sources. So, anyone if they so desire can go check out what he is saying. As I mentioned before, theists and atheists alike would do well to read his bibliographical sources. He includes the works of major and reputable scholars (not just conservative ones).

I'd have to check this claim. I have not read the whole thing. However, many have misrepresented the claims that McDowell and his team make. Much of the time McDowell is only presenting quotes from scholars. Do you have the book? Where does he make the claims you are referring to?

It is true that he is doing apologetics. But he may honestly believe what he writes, and he may believe it because he has gleaned it from reputable sources.

By the way, Q is hypothetical. You know that Vinnie... Thomas is not a Biblical book, it is probably a gnostic one. You know that too. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Also, what are the "proposed variations versions of Mark"? You mean the few verses of the ending of Mark?

[quote]
I don't find the text of the various NT books to be highly suspect or unreliable though.

Ok. This seems contrary to all you've mentioned so far, though...

This does happen with some, some of the time. I think it happens most, when they are confronted with a difficulty they can't explain. Some will heavily twist data. It would be better to simply say, "I don't know", and trust that there is an answer that they just don't know or understand. However, just about anyone who is backed into a corner can make questionable claims at times.

It seems that you have something of a bone to pick with apologists... My own feelings are that you've swung back a little to far in the liberal direction. However, I'm pretty conservative, so it's probably just my perspective.

I don't know exactly what kind of inerrancy claim McDowell makes, but I don't go for the claim that the Bible has no errors. The "adultery bible" pretty much shot that claim if there wasn't something before it!

MortalWombat

I want to also add an analogy to illustrate my point above. If you do a search on the web for information about operating systems, the majority of what you come up with is about Microsoft Windows. Does that say anything about the validity or soundness of Windows vs other operating systems like Linux or BeOS or MacOSX, or does it just refer to the dominance of Microsoft as a PC operatign system manufacturer?

Haran

Well, Homer's works were considered religious works, I believe, so they were transmitted religiously.

As far as many of the other works, you are correct. However, what difference does that make to the claim made by McDowell?

MortalWombat

Inasmuch as his book is apologetic rather than investigative, his claim is used to make these points:

and
What he doesn't mention is that historians look for independent corroborating testimonies from proximal witnesses, not mulitple copies of the same manuscript, as a means for determining whether a source is credible or not.

Haran

The anology, like any, has holes.

However, Bart Ehrman makes a claim similar to what I think you are trying to get across. In other words, the texts of Christian Orthodoxy won out.

Well, I'd have to say this might be a possibility. I would think Constantinian times would be the turning point. This is when Orthodoxy really took hold and began to sometimes standardize and harmonize the text. However! We have found manuscripts from ealier times which seem to be substantially the same as the latter texts. Most of the earliest Papyri came from Egypt, a hotbed of Gnosticism. It seems to me that we might actually have a conglomeration of early Christian thought rather than purely Orthodox.

Other heterodox texts have survived. Personally, having read some of this literature, I find the NT books the least legendary and the most likely.