A Seminary Professor Defends the Truthfulness of the New TestamentRoundup: Talking About History
From the Baptist Press News (March 31, 2004):
Should the Bible be categorized with fads and fallacies? Or, is the Bible the inerrant Word of God?
Robert Stewart, assistant professor of philosophy and theology at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, defended Scriptures reliability March 22 during an event at the University of New Orleans.
Jointly sponsored by the Baptist Collegiate Ministry and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship at the university, the event was organized in response to questions raised by two course offerings at the university that raise questions about biblical inerrancy. The title for the event, Fads and Fallacies or Truth and Conviction? played off the name of one of the courses.
Beginning with the question of the purity of the text, Stewart posed four tests for the trustworthiness of Scripture: How many manuscripts do we have? What is the time lapse between the original manuscripts and existing manuscripts? How complete are the available manuscripts? How much variance between manuscripts is there?
The reliability of the New Testament manuscripts far exceeds that of other books of antiquity, Stewart said. He added that the number and completeness of the New Testaments manuscripts, the early dating of the manuscripts and the small, mostly inconsequential variance between the manuscripts is a solid foundation for confidence in the transmission of the text.
He then charted the differences between the New Testament and the works of authors such as Homer, Plato and Tacitus. Nearly 5,000 complete manuscripts of the New Testament are in existence, and the earliest partial manuscript -- the John Ryland fragment -- is thought to be within 70 years or so from the original, he said.
But Homers Iliad comes in a distant second to the New Testament, having only 643 complete or partial manuscripts with a time gap of 500 years from the original, Stewart noted.
Critics sometimes disparage the trustworthiness of Scripture by pointing to 150,000-200,000 points of variance between manuscripts, Stewart said, adding that the number is somewhat misleading. For example, one misspelled word in 3,000 copies would be considered 3,000 variants. Philip Schaff, a biblical scholar from the 19th century, said that of these only 400 are truly variants, with only 50 of these being of any significance, and none endangering a tenet of the faith, Stewart said.
Those considered outside the conservative evangelical camp also acknowledge the wealth of New Testament manuscripts, he said.
Textual reliability is a must for the Bible to be historically reliable but in and of itself does not ensure that the biblical authors actually wrote the truth, Stewart said.
Unanimous acceptance of the authorship of the gospels by the early church and the early dating for the original manuscripts strengthen the case for reliability, he said. The gospels and the book of Acts were affirmed as being written by apostles or close associates of apostles, he said.
Eyewitness accounts were an important commodity for the early church and signify historicity, Stewart said. He noted that Judas replacement was required to be an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ.
Pauls defense of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 is built on the testimony of eyewitnesses, Stewart said
Pauls reference to the 500 who saw the resurrected Jesus has the ring of truth when he identifies the witnesses by stating that most of whom are alive today, Stewart said.
Another indicator of historical reliability is the gospel writers use of writing style consistent with the historians of their day, Stewart said. Luke prefaced his works stating his intention to use earlier sources, eyewitness interviews and oral tradition, all of which were tools of the trade for ancient historians, such as Josephus and Herodotus, he said.
comments powered by Disqus
- Trump Holds Wide Lead in South Carolina
- An All-or-Nothing Fight for the Supreme Court
- Did Trump Really Lose the Debate?
- Scalia’s Death Sets Off Epic Battle
- Democrats See Gift in GOP Blocking Court Nominee
- Quote of the Day
- The Nastiest GOP Debate
- Reaction to the Republican Debate
- The GOP Presidential Debate
- How Clinton Could Respond on Supreme Court Vacancy
- Trump and Clinton Way Ahead in South Carolina
- McConnell Says Senate Will Wait to Replace Scalia
- Antonin Scalia Is Dead
- Clinton Says Sanders Would Be Threat to Obama Legacy
- Internal Tracker Shows Trump Leading in South Carolina
- Ben Carson used an apparently fake Joseph Stalin quote — and the Internet loved it
- Rubio exaggerates in saying it's been 80 years since a 'lame duck' made a Supreme Court nomination
- Humans Hard-Wired to Teach, Anthropologist Says
- Parents outraged after students shown ‘white guilt’ cartoon for Black History Month
- Maryland is once again considering retiring its state song
- Historian at the center of Sanders-Clinton debate
- James Loewen Says Additional Baltimore Confederate Statues Should be Removed
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- A historian’s advice to students thinking of getting a PhD in a tough economic climate
- German historian Heinz Richter cleared of charges