New Testament Textual Criticisms

[txag007]

The following recently came up in the third "inventing a religion" thread:

[ QUOTE ]
You can learn a lot about the history of the Bible and how its been changed and edited.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO the bible is a giant storybook collection that has been exaggerated over time due to the chinese whisper effect of many translations and much editing

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If the bible was made into a film it would need the caption in the opening credits "based on a true story"

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
somewhat akin to an old wives tale it contains some kernels of truth - but also a healthy dose of fiction and exaggeration to make it a better read.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, there is plenty of evidence [that Biblical stories have been edited]. The existence of all the books of the Bible that were rejected is plenty. The works of numerous Biblical scholars tracing the changes made in various versions is further evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]
There seems to be a strong belief among many on these boards that the Bible we have today nowhere near resembles the orginal texts from long ago. The implication seems to be that these texts were edited for political reasons or in an effort to exaggerate or embellish its claims.

Here is an article from tektonics that does a great job explaining what we know about textual criticism and how many of the beliefs regarding how the Bible has been edited simply are not true.

Someone asked me for proof of how I know today's Bible is accurate, so I thought I would provide some quotes and general points from the article as an introduction to it:

24000+ copies of New Testament documents are still in existence today. The copies match the "current" Bible to 99% accuracy.

"Among the textual variants in the Gospels, there are only two which throw doubt on more than a verse or two of the traditional text -- the ending of Mark and the adultery story in John (with other variants bearing only on details of sentimental value.)"

"No doctrine of Christianity is in the least dependent on any textual variant."

"Textual conspiracies such as often suggested would be quite impossible -- there is no way that the Church could have eliminated all known readings of a given text."

"95% of the errors found in the New Testament text are recognized as unintentional. These include confusion of similar letters, repitition of words or sentences, and just plain bad copying."

"The remaining 5% of errors includes revised spelling and grammar, harmonization of similar passages, elimination of textual difficulties, and, indeed, theological or doctrinal changes."

"There is evidence textual criticism was already in process as early as the 2nd and 3rd century."

"Even Ehrman, though he has found only a few dozen corruptions -- which he was able to find because original readings are still preserved! -- cannot resist speculating that there are actually 'hundreds' of uncovered corruptions...The evidence is far better that we do have the 'original text' -- it is simply mixed up with 'unoriginal variants' and it is speculative to believe we have lost any real parts."

I do not think that the "corruption" of Scripture means that scribes changed everything in the text, or even most things. The original texts certainly spoke at great length about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. The issues involved in the corruption of the text usually entail nuances of interpretation. These are important nuances; but most of the New Testament can be reconstructed by scholars with reasonable certainty -- as much certainty as we can reconstruct *any* book of the ancient world. -Bart Ehrman