Articles
How Do We Reconstruct the Biblical Text?
There is an obvious double standard when it comes to concerns over the reconstruction of the biblical text. Rarely is the same question asked in respect to any other work. Parents do not ask if their copy of Madeleine is authentically preserved from Ludwig Bemelmans’s original manuscript. Nor do people reading a copy of Plato’s Five Dialogues question its trustworthy preservation. Yet, when it comes to the Bible, skepticism and critics abound. Despite this patent and ludicrous double standard, an analysis of how we reconstruct the text can and does benefit believers. This is true on at least two accounts: 1) Believers can learn to adequately respond to those with sincere questions and challenges regarding this subject; and 2) Believers can deepen their conviction that the Word of God is imperishable and enduring. Christians should have this confidence, “for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.” (1 Peter 1:23)
So, how do we faithfully reconstruct the biblical text if we do not possess the original autographs? The answer is obvious; yet, the logistics are profoundly complex. We do it in the same way all ancient works are preserved—by using copies of the original and methodically eliminating any errors that have arisen in copying. This process is referred to as textual criticism. It should be said that this process is not exclusive to Bible reconstruction; in fact, it is commonly used for all ancient works. For the sake of comparison, as we unfold the evidence for the text of the Bible, consider these broadly-accepted ancient works and their textual basis. Greek historian Herodotus’ Histories is reconstructed from just over 100 manuscripts dated 1,350 years after the original autograph. Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus’ Annals is reconstructed from 33 manuscripts dated 750 years after the original composition. Livy’s History of Rome has 150 manuscripts dated 400 years or more after Livy’s pen.
So, how does the Bible compare? Broadly speaking, there are tens of thousands of manuscripts of the Bible, containing anywhere from a few lines to numerous complete copies of the Bible. For the New Testament alone, the typical amount of manuscripts cited is around 25,000; however, Josh McDowell (author of Evidence that Demands a Verdict) suggests there are as many as 66,000 manuscripts. Note also that these numbers are ever-increasing as archaeologists sometimes uncover entire libraries of manuscripts (e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls and the library at Nag Hammadi). Approximately 6,000 of these date to within 30-150 years of the autographs. Against the backdrop of the abundant evidence, the jabs of jaded scholars are exposed as folly.
In preparation for a more thorough examination of principal resources used to reconstruct the Bible in our next few articles, let us briefly define some technical lingo. Manuscripts, or MSS, are a broad reference to any handwritten copies of Scripture. Manuscripts may be written on vellum (i.e., dried animal skins) or papyrus (i.e., ancient paper developed from the papyrus reeds of Egypt). In addition to these, there are also pottery shards (i.e., ostraca) and wall motifs bearing portions of Scripture. Large bindings of manuscripts are referred to as codices (singular: codex) and may be comparable to our modern term “books.” Text types or text families refer to manuscript styles grouped by certain copyist philosophies. For example, there are four New Testament text types: Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine. The Alexandrian text type is generally considered the favored text type of those attempting to faithfully reconstruct the New Testament. This favor results from the early presence of these manuscripts as well as their brevity and more difficult readings. Since later copyists of other text types generally try to “enhance” (read: add to) and “simplify” complexities, the Alexandrian text type manuscripts are generally preferred. Of these manuscripts, some are referred to as Ancient Versions or VSS, which are simply early translations of the Bible into other languages. These include VSS like the Latin Vulgate or the Syriac Peshitta and were considered THE acceptable Bibles in early cultural pockets of the church. One last reference to introduce is patristic quotations. This term refers to early writers, especially those before the Nicene Creed of 325 AD, who quote Scripture in their writings. Some estimates suggest that over one-million quotations of the Bible are found in these writings.
Commenting on the abundance of resources with which to reconstruct the Bible, Bruce Metzger says, “The textual critic … is embarrassed by the wealth of material… Besides textual evidence derived from the … manuscripts and from early versions, the textual critic has available the numerous scriptural quotations included in the commentaries, sermons, and other treatises written by early Church fathers. Indeed, 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.”
Starting in our next article, we will consider primary sources for reconstructing the Old Testament.
