the christian new testament

8/7/2019 The Christian New Testament

1/7

The Christian New Testament

Concerning the Authenticity of the Bible

The Christian New Testament has, without question, exerted great

influence upon Western life and culture. And yet the text of no

other body of ancient literature exists in so many different

versions. This is, in the main, the result of the almost embarrassing

number of variant copies of the New Testament that have beenunearthed from ancient times and from the Middle Ages.

The New Testament is now known, in whole or in part, in over

three thousand Greek manuscripts. Each one of these hand-written

copies differs from every other one. (The Interpreters Dictionary of

the Bible, Abingdon Press, 1962 edition in 4 volumes, under the

heading 'Text, NT'. The work is a compilation of over 200

contributors, including Professors of Old Testament Literature,

Biblical Language, Church History and New Testament Language

and Literature.) In addition to these Greek manuscripts, the New

Testament is found in more than ten thousand manuscripts of the

early versions and in thousands of quotations of the Church

Fathers. These manuscripts of the early versions and quotations of

the Church Fathers differ from one another just as widely as do the

Greek manuscripts. (ibid)

It has been estimated that New Testament manuscripts differamong themselves from between a staggering 150,000 to 250,000

times. (ibid) The actual figure is perhaps much higher. A study of

150 Greek manuscripts of the Gospel according to Luke has

revealed more than 30,000 textual differences alone. (ibid) Each

manuscript studied and unearthed inevitably adds substantially to
http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?secID=MSS&subsecID=MSS03&loadpage=displaysubsection.cfmhttp://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?secID=MSS&subsecID=MSS03&loadpage=displaysubsection.cfm


2/7

the list of differences. So much so that The Interpreters Dictionary

of the Bible unavoidably concluded that: "It is safe to say that there

is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the manuscript

tradition is wholly uniform." (ibid) Many of the differences arose

at a very early stage. Prior to the invention of the printing press(15th century) all copies of Bibles show considerable textual

variations. Such differences, so much a part of the history of the

transmission of the New Testament, continue to live on in modern

day copies.

Of the manuscripts to date, only about 50 contain the entire 27

books of the New Testament. Some contain additional books and

gospels that were later expunged as fabrications. In thesedocuments, there were originally no spaces between either letters

or words, no punctuation, no accents or breathing marks on the

Greek words (there was only a continuos flow of letters) and no

chapter or verse divisions. In fact, the system of chapters in the

New Testament now in use was invented by Cardinal Hugo de S.

Caro in 1328. The Cardinal also divided each chapter into

paragraphs marked by letters but this was superseded by the verse

system introduced by Robert Stephanus in 1551. Subsequently,

where each verse was printed as a separate paragraph it led tofragmentation of the original documents and to the interpretation

of verses out of context. (ibid, and Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1983

edition in 30 volumes, under the heading 'Biblical Literature')

The original copies of the New Testament books have long since

disappeared. (ibid) Even the true identity of their authors is to a

large extent a matter of debate. The time gap between the original

accounts of the events and today's surviving manuscripts is aperiod of over 200 to 300 years. (ibid) Before this time no written

witnesses are available to establish the authenticity of Christian

claims. With the exception, that is, of tiny papyrus fragments from

the Gospel of John (three verses) and (so its is claimed) from the

Gospel of Mark. Because of their fragmentary nature, they are of


3/7

no great value in establishing the texts of even these two Gospels,

let alone the New Testament as a whole.

Fragmentary papyrus of this nature have been unearthed dating

from the second to eighth centuries, with more than half of themdating from the third and fourth centuries. No early papyrus,

however, contains any complete book of Christian scripture. The

papyrus New Testament manuscripts extant today were found in

Egypt and undoubtedly were written there. They prove

conclusively that in Egypt, particularly in the second, third and

fourth centuries, no one type of New Testament text was dominant.

In those early centuries many types of text flourished side by side.

Two early papyri, which overlap across seventy verses of John'sGospel, differ at no less than seventy places (even after obvious

scribal errors are accounted for); an average of one variation in

each verse. If texts were being changed and edited to this degree,

even a gap of a century between an original and its first survival on

a papyrus fragment is a long and potentially disastrous time. We

simply do not know what may have happened to the words at

important places. (Paragraph adapted from Robin Lane Fox, The

Unauthorized Version, 1992, pp.139-140)

In the preface to his Gospel, Luke tells us explicitly that "many

have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have

been accomplished among us." (Luke 1:1-2) His words make it

evident that by the time he wrote there were numerous other

'gospels' in circulation and none of them enjoyed such an

established position as to bar another writer from adding to their

number. Neither for them nor for himself does Luke claim any

special Divine inspiration. He writes simply as one to whom "itseemed good... to write an orderly account." (Luke 1:3) Moreover,

the way in which both he and Matthew treat their source material

(supposedly derived from Mark's work) shows clearly that neither

regarded the earlier Gospel of Mark as inspired scripture. Both of

them feel perfectly free, not only to add to Mark, but also to


4/7

subtract, to alter words, to change the order in which events were

supposed to have occurred, and even on occasion to give

contradictory information. The author of the fourth Gospel, John,

is bold enough to treat the whole tradition with infinitely greater

freedom, not holding himself bound to follow the outline of eventsthat underlies the other three, nor even to reproduce substantially

the same teaching. It cannot be doubted that the many other

gospels which were in circulation during the same period or later

claimed for themselves at least an equal freedom and status.

To conclude, hereunder are just a few examples highlighting the

differences in the text of the New Testament found in some of its

most famous modern day versions:

I John 5:7 of the King James Version (KJV) reads: 'For there are

three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the

Holy Ghost: and these three are one.' This passage, however, has

been deleted from the Revised Standard Version (RSV) as a

fabrication. In a commentary on the Authorised Version it states:

"No comment is made on this verse, as the best authorities do not

consider it to be part of the original text." (Commentary on the

Authorised Version, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,1871, Vol.2)

Acts 8:37 of the KJV reads: 'And Philip said, If thou believest with

all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe

that Jesus Christ is Son of God.' Both the New International

Version (NIV) and the RSV omit this passage completely as being

inauthentic.

John chapter 8 of the RSV and the NIV begins at verse 12,completely omitting verses 1 through to 11. The KJV, however,

includes all of these verses without comment.

The RSV omits verses 44 and 46 of Mark chapter 9. The KJV

includes both verses without comment. The NIV relegates these


5/7

verses to a footnote without any certainty as to their authenticity.

Concerning such footnotes, the NIV explains: "Footnotes call

attention to places where there was uncertainty about what the

original text was."

Mark chapter 16 in the KJV ends at verse 20. Whereas the RSV

and the NIV end the chapter at verse 8, omitting a complete 12

verses describing the ascension.

Luke 9:56 of the KJV states: 'For the Son of Man is not come to

destroy men's lives, but to save them.' This statement is deleted

from the main text of the RSV and NIV and relegated to a footnote

without any certainty as to its authenticity.

Acts 23:9 of the KJV ends: 'let us not fight against God.' The RSV

and NIV both choose to omit these words.

The KJV and NIV read at Matthew 12:47: 'Then one said unto

him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring

to speak with thee.' This verse is deleted from the main text of the

RSV and relegated to a footnote.

The KJV, RSV and NIV all contain Matthew 16 verses 2 and 3, yet

these are not found in many ancient manuscripts. The RSV

comments: "Many ancient authorities omit the following words to

the end of verse 3" and the NIV says: "Some early manuscripts do

not have the rest of verse 2 and all of verse 3."

Matthew 17:21 of the KJV reads: 'Howbeit this kind goeth not out

but by prayer and fasting.' The RSV and NIV go from verse 20

straight to verse 22, completely omitting this verse 21.

Matthew 18:11 of the KJV reads: 'For the Son of Man is come to

save that which was lost.' This verse is deleted from the main text

of the RSV and NIV and relegated to a footnote.


6/7

Both the KJV and NIV at Matthew 21:44 read: 'And whosoever

shall fall on this stone shall be broken...' This verse is deleted in

the RSV.

Mark 15:28 of the KJV reads: 'And the scripture was fulfilled,which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.' Both

the RSV and NIV delete this verse from the main text, relegating it

to a footnote.

John 3:16 of the KJV states: 'For God so loved the world, that he

gave his only begotten son...' The word 'begotten' is omitted from

the main text of the RSV and NIV.

John 9:35 of the KJV reads: 'Dost thou believe on the Son of God?'Yet the RSV and NIV read this as: 'Dost thou believe on the Son of

Man?'

The Lord's prayer in Matthew 6:13 of the KJV reads: 'And lead us

not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the

kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.' The RSV

and NIV read only 'And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us

from evil' omitting the ending 'For thine is the kingdom...'

Luke 10:1 of the NIV reads: 'After this the Lord appointed

seventy-two.' But the KJV and the RSV say that it was seventy as

opposed to seventy-two. This discrepancy is also noticeable at

Luke 10:17.

Mark 2:17 of the KJV reads: 'I came not to call the righteous, but

sinners unto repentance.' The RSV and NIV have deleted the

words 'unto repentance' as being an addition to the text. The samediscrepancy is also found at Matthew 9:13.

Revelation 4:8 reads: 'Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty.' The

Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge commentary explains:

"Holy, holy, holy - the thrice repeated attribute has ever been


7/7

understood by the Church to refer to the Blessed Trinity." It is then

interesting to note that the manuscript Codex Vaticanus repeats

this word no fewer than nine times, whilst the manuscript MS.2000

gives it thirteen repetitions. Other manuscripts range from between

four to eight times.

In respect of the popular Revised Standard Version, 1946 edition,

one should also be aware that certain passages which had initially

been deleted and relegated to footnotes following doubts about

their authenticity were subsequently reinstated to the main text in

the later New Revised Standard Version. It is thereby easy to see

how the text of Christian scripture has been manipulated over time

and passages which for centuries have been revered as the inspiredwords of God are all too easily erased and amended in the name of

correction. It is also impossible to say with certainty how long this

trend will continue, and at which point Christianity will (after

almost 2000 years) finally agree and be satisfied that no further

changes are needed to the New Testament!

Copy from www.salafipublications.com

the christian new testament

Documents