The Narrow Path Ministries

There are in existence over 25,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament. No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, Homer's "Iliad" is second, with only 643 manuscripts that still survive. Josh McDowell in The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict page 34 2nd paragraph

Josh also quotes John Warwick Montgomery on page 36 "To be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament."

dwight92070 wrote:John Warwick Montgomery on page 36 "To be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament."

What does he mean by "skeptical." Who are these "skeptics?"

I would assume anyone who doubts the validity of the New Testament as it has been handed down to us.

I'm still unsure about who these people are. What do you mean "validity." I can't think of anyone who treats the bible less than other books of antiquity. They treat them the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The original manuscripts of the New Testament do not exist.

The New Testament that has been "handed down to me" is the current "King James Version" translated from the Textus Receptus.
Textus Receptus varies considerably from earlier texts, and the King James Version translates even Textus Receptus incorrectly in several places.
Many of the "King James Only" people think they have the 1611 King James. Not so. The 1611 manuscript is quite different from the current King James Version.

It is true that virtually any edition of the New Testament, regardless of which manuscripts from which they were translated, is much more reliable than other classical works.
We are very blessed to have available so many extant manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament.

My most precious book is one entitled "The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts." This book contains copies of ALL New Testament Greek manuscripts that were copied before the year 300. Every time I remember how close I came to not buying it, I thank God that I did. I think it must have been He who prompted me to do so.

By the way, here is a page from the 1611 King James Bible. Notice that on it there are two forms of "s". One, a normal "s" found at the end of a word. The other is called "esh" and looks like an elongated "f".It is placed elsewhere in a word instead of a regular "s".

If any of us were to go around our neighborhood and knock on doors or go to a downtown street and do a "man on the street" interview, asking them if they think the Bible or more specifically, the story of Jesus, is valid and accurate, I'm sure we would find many people who are skeptics. So they are all around us. They are in schools, colleges, universities, Bible colleges, and even seminaries. They are in our families and workplaces and even our churches.

Hey Morbo,

He means people who would deny that the Christian scriptures as we have them today can even be trusted to be close to the forms the writings took when they were first written down. Unbelieving skeptics mainly who would scoff at the idea of the modern new testament's fidelity to the manuscripts which bore it. In doing this he is saying they unwittingly cut off the branch on which they sit to know anything historically.

jeremiah wrote:He means people who would deny that the Christian scriptures as we have them today can even be trusted to be close to the forms the writings took when they were first written down. Unbelieving skeptics mainly who would scoff at the idea of the modern new testament's fidelity to the manuscripts which bore it. In doing this he is saying they unwittingly cut off the branch on which they sit to know anything historically.

I don't know who these unbelieving skeptics are. Perhaps you could point me to some.

The vast majority of critical scholars, believe that the new testament is true to the original manuscripts. Whatever condition we find the gospel of Matthew in, it appears to be consistent with the original author. Same with Paul's letters.

I should clarify and acknowledge that critical scholarship does reveal some additions and subtractions. But this is not the same thing as throwing out the validity of the whole.

This is a good article on the topic. Unfortunately, I don't like his tone.

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/that ... 94018.html

Good morning Morbo,

I don't know who these unbelieving skeptics are. Perhaps you could point me to some.

The vast majority of critical scholars, believe that the new testament is true to the original manuscripts. Whatever condition we find the gospel of Matthew in, it appears to be consistent with the original author. Same with Paul's letters.

Why are you being coy? And why are you continuing this drum beat of what textual scholars believe? I know and agree that they do. The OP's title agrees with that—nobody has challenged what scholars, unbeleiving or not, say about this. Surely you're aware of the massive effect the tiny minority of textual scholars questioning the reliability of the NT, most notably Bart Erhman's brand, has had on popular opinion of the NT's veracity. Thanks to his popular works (and no, I don't imagine his popular books are the only reason for this) mistrust does indeed abound regarding the Hebrew and Christian scriptures—among other things.