Just how do we know about ancient history? In particular how do we know about the history of our world 2,000 years ago? Historians have to rely on copies of documents since originals from that time frame no longer exist. It goes without saying that the more documents we have and the closer to the actual time when an event happened allows us to be more comfortable that what happened actually did. Köstenberger & Kruger sum up the situation in regards to documents copied during times of antiquity well when they say: “Unfortunately, these two components of every textural critic’s wish list – numerous copies and also some with an early date – are relatively rare in the study of most documents of antiquity.”1
It is common knowledge that the works written around the time of the New Testament from the works of Caesar, Plato, Tacitus, Thucydides, and Aristotle, as well as many others, only have from about 5 to 50 manuscripts left and the earliest of these manuscripts are from 1,000 to 1,400 years after the time when the event or works took place. Yet no historian of today doubts their veracity. Yet with respect to the New Testament, we have an embarrassment of riches in regards to the number of early extant manuscripts. According to Köstenberger & Kruger: “By contrast, the New Testament manuscripts stand out as entirely unique in this regard. Although the exact count is always changing, currently we possess over 5,500 manuscripts (in whole or in part) of the New Testament in Greek alone. No other document of antiquity even comes close. Moreover, we possess thousands more manuscripts in other languages.”2 And as far as the time frame, we possess fragments and partial New Testament portions within 100 years of the original autographs; and complete New Testaments within 350 years of the original autographs.
What can we conclude about the nature of the New Testament? First, this situation is truly unique as far as ancient documents go. Second, because scribes did the copying we should expect the documents to be much closer to the originals than that of historians since this was the sole profession of the scribes. Third, since the New Testament was copied (and we have these copies) much closer to the time of the originals there is much less chance of corruption of the text, Fourth, as Köstenberger & Kruger share: “In addition to all these manuscripts, there are also a countless number of citations of the New Testament preserved in the early church fathers, so many, in fact, that Metzger has famously declared, ‘So extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament.’”3 And finally, since the New Testament is in reality a supernatural book, we should expect it to have withstood the test of time in every way – and so far it has, just as we read in (Isaiah 40:8): “The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”
1 Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2010), pp. 206-207.
2 Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2010), pp. 207-208.
3 Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2010), p. 208.