FAQs

Standard tests of reliability the scholars use

By
  • Number of manuscripts (partial or complete): Generally, the more manuscript copies of an original work you can find, the better the reliability since the original words can be determined with greater accuracy through cross-checking the various copies. The NT, as noted previously, has over 25,000 extant (existing) manuscript copies, with over 6,000 in Greek. Compare this to most early historical manuscripts, which have somewhere between 4 to 20 copies. No other ancient writing remotely comes close to the NT.
  • Old: How old are the copies compared to the original? Generally, the closer the manuscript copies are to the original, the more reliable they tend to be. The earliest confirmed manuscript is within 25-35 years from the original; it is called the John Bodmer fragment of the Gospel of John. Currently another earlier potential manuscript, a part of Mark dated in the 60s, is being studied. There are other manuscript copies appearing in the middle of the second century (about 150 AD), and from there increase exponentially in number. This is unheard of in the study of manuscript evidence for other writings of ancient times. 
  • Time Span: The smaller the gap in time between the original writing and the events they describe, the more accurate the accounts are likely to be. The NT was likely written between late 40’s to ate 60’s AD, possibly including John’s Gospel and the Book of Revelation. Some date one or more, if not all, of John’s five books from 85-95 AD. At least 22 NT books, if not all 27, were written within the lifetimes of most of the people who witnessed Jesus’s earthly ministry. Again, this is unprecedented in ancient manuscripts.

The core message of the NT is also given in “creeds”, which are recorded throughout the NT, and are brief and easy to remember core belief statements. Scholars accept these statements originated, at the latest, within three years, and possibly within a year to months of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection.  

  • Eyewitnesses: The more eyewitness accounts included, the better—for obvious reasons. The NT was written by many eyewitnesses: Matthew, John, Peter, Paul, and Jesus’s half-brothers, James and Jude. The Gospel of Mark, written by Mark an apprentice of Peter; the Gospel of Luke written by Luke, an apprentice of Paul. These eyewitnesses account for 26 of the 27 NT books. The twenty-seventh book, the book of Hebrews, does not have an author definitely known (it was probably Barnabas, another eyewitness). And do not forget the unprecedented nature of these eyewitnesses: (a) they knew for certain whether their claims about Jesus rising from the dead and giving them many convincing proofs (Acts 1:3) were true or not, (b) made their claims in a time and place where the facts could be checked, (c) and where they would receive consistent persecution, even up to death, (d) were known for integrity and  many of the apostles were martyred, others were tortured, for proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus. This use of eyewitnesses is quite rare in ancient documents.

Metzger and Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: its transmission, corruption, and restoration, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005, p. 126.

  • Supporting Information: How well does historical, archeological, and other findings confirm the reliability of what was written. Much support could be offered here. Even if all the copies of NT books had been destroyed, we could reconstruct around 95% of the NT from the quotes of verses from the early church fathers prior to about 250 AD.

Many books have been written attesting to the historical and archeological accuracy of the Bible. What is known as “internal evidence” within the Bible of ancient language, proper nouns and cultural details matching exactly what we later find through discovery, the Bible is corroborated better than any other ancient text. In fact, countless historical and archeological studies have been initiated by trusting the Bible provides accurate information. “Undesigned coincidences” is another area of evidence, which is covered very well by Lydia McGrew in her book: Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts.

On the other hand, aside from the Bible, all other ancient writings or manuscripts (those written before the end of the Roman Empire ~476 AD) have the following typical characteristics:

  • Number: They number anywhere from 4 to 20 copies, a few are higher. The next closest are Homer with ~2000 copies and Demosthenes with ~340. Even if Homer had 30,000, then good for Homer, but it does nothing to change the fact the NT has vastly superior manuscript evidential support. 
  • Old: The earliest non-biblical manuscript copies are typically dated anywhere from 700-1500 years after the original work.
  • Time span: Non-biblical ancient manuscripts are often written a very long time after the event (for example, the earliest manuscript about Alexander the Great is about 300 years after his death).
  • Eyewitnesses: fairly rare.
  • Supporting information: scarce.

The Bible has a preponderance of more manuscript evidence than any other writing of antiquity. If you think you cannot trust the Bible is reliable to what was originally written, then you would have to throw out everything we know of ancient history (approximately 1,000 AD and earlier for our purposes), as no other ancient documents or their early copies have anywhere near the Bible’s manuscript evidence.

  The graph below shows in white numbers how many manuscript copies we have to compare against each other for each source, while the orange numbers show the gap in years between the original writing and the events they describe. Notice the comparison between the other ancient writings we learn about in school and accept as accurate. 

William F. Albright was an American archaeologist, biblical scholar, a leading theorist and practitioner of biblical archaeology, served as the W. W. Spence Professor of Semitic Languages at Johns Hopkins University and as the Director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem, and is considered “one of the twentieth century’s most influential American biblical scholars”. 

Albright affirms: “We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date[s] between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today.” The time gap between the oldest surviving copies and the first manuscript is much smaller for the New Testament than any historical works cited earlier. For Homer, the gap is 500 years (900 BC for the original writing, 400 BC for the oldest copy), Caesar, it’s 900-1000 years (circa 100-44 BC to 900 AD), Herodotus, 1300 years (circa 480-425 BC to 900 AD) and Thucydides, 1300 years (circa 400 BC to 900 AD).

Jones, Clay. “The Bibliographical Test Updated,” Christian Research Institute, article ID JAF4353, originally posted October 13, 2013, updated April 12, 2023. https://www.equip.org/articles/the-bibliographical-test-updated/

Weitzman, Steven (2022). “Chapter 9: American Biblical Scholarship and the Post-War Battle against Antisemitism”. Protestant Bible Scholarship: Antisemitism, Philosemitism, and Anti-Judaism. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism. Vol. 200. Leiden and Boston: Brill Publishers. pp. 182–199. As cited in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Albright#cite_note-Weitzman_2022-17

William Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, 136; William Albright, ‘Towards a More Conservative View,’ Christianity Today, January 18, 1963, p. 3

Recent Posts