Where did my Bible come from and how do I know it’s reliable? We’ll take the first question first.
The best translations available today were made by committees of Bible scholars at the behest of a publishing house. And those scholars translated an agreed Greek text developed by a method called “textual criticism” or “lower criticism.”
Many people confuse textual criticism with higher criticism, which is quite a different thing. Lower or textual critics take the thousands of ancient manuscripts of the Bible and seek to determine which variations are errors the crept in, typically by copyist mistake, and which variations actually reflect the original.
Textual criticism is a process that cannot be avoided because the thousands of ancient biblical manuscripts we have slight differences, forcing us to decide which is correct.
Higher criticism is the very different study of how the original texts came into being. It is a highly speculative process that is not very reliable, largely because most of the conclusions reached are reached without any evidence at all other than the text itself. I have very little interest in higher criticism, find no real benefit in their conclusions, and will not be discussing that particular field any further.
On the other hand, lower criticism is actually evidence based and very principled, as I’ll try to explain. The first step is to understand the process by which the books of the Bible were passed to this generation. We’ll start with the New Testament.
The original epistle or book is called an “autograph,” and we have no autographs and don’t expect to find any. The original books were likely written on papyrus, and papyrus does not age well. That is, in most circumstances, it rots and is destroyed. A few papyrus texts have been preserved, for example, in an Egyptian grave or other location where there is little humidity or sun.
Papyrus Codex
The earliest texts were likely written as scrolls. It wasn’t until a few centuries later that the codex or book form was invented.
Moreover, by the time of Constantine, the church was well enough respected and had the resources to begin copying books of the Bible onto vellum — carefully prepared sheepskin that was very expensive but would produce a codex that would last for centuries. (Diplomas were once always on vellum, and hence called “sheepskins.”)
Torah scroll on vellum
In fact, vellum was so expensive that it was sometimes reused. Some of the oldest manuscripts found are palimpsests, where the original Bible verses had been erased by scraping and a new text written over the old. The original text is often recoverable by various scientific techniques.
Palimpsest with more recent text covering older text by Archimedes
Until the printing press was invented, every manuscript was made by hand. A copyist would copy from an original and prepare a new version.
As a result, errors frequently crept into the text. For example, a copyist might misspell a word or skip an entire line. He might attempt to correct what he considers an error.
For instance, if one Gospel quotes Jesus in a certain way and another gospel has a different quote in what is evidently the same story, a devout copyist might “correct” the text to match whichever he considers original.
There may be marginal notes in an original, made by a previous owner, which the copyist assumes is apostolic and includes in the copy. To be more careful, a copyist may work from two original manuscripts and, when he notes a difference, correct the error based on his own theology or preference.
Over time, a practice developed of making certain marks in the text to indicate that a reading was in doubt because the manuscripts available to the copyist were inconsistent or because the text appeared to have been altered.
Now, the Roman Empire was a big place and communications were often very poor. A copyist in, say, Antioch might prepare 8 manuscripts, and these might be distributed to 8 churches around the Empire. Each manuscript would surely have some slight differences, because of occasional errors by the copyist.
Some of the 8 churches might lose their copy because of persecution, fire, or flood. Other churches might make additional copies and distribute these to other churches, repeating the errors made in the first set of copies and adding a few errors of their own.
Over the centuries, a single manuscript might produce hundreds or even thousands of copies scattered across the Empire. Therefore, textual critics like to speak of “families” of manuscripts. In comparing manuscripts, it’s easy to discover which ones share a common original because they would all include a certain common set of errors. Some manuscripts might wind up in a monastery where they are cared for and preserved for centuries. Other might be kept in a church that frequently floods, so that the manuscripts are quickly destroyed.
Obviously, manuscript copies of Bible books are the most important source of what the Bible really says. However, there are other very important sources.
Nearly as quickly as the apostles penned their books and letters, the early church began making translations. There are very early translations of certain books into Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and other ancient languages.
Translations are always less precise than a letter-for-letter copy, but they can often provide invaluable information. Imagine that the church in Alexandria makes a 110 AD translation of John’s Gospel in Coptic. This book gets copied 20 times, and most are destroyed by war or fire. The oldest surviving copy is dated 1100 AD, a thousand years older than the original.
Although all sorts of errors may have crept in over a 1,000 years, this particular family of manuscripts separated from all others in 110 AD. Therefore, if it includes or excludes a controverted passage, it gives very strong support for what the passage was like shortly after the apostolic age.
By itself, it may not be that persuasive, since the text in question might have changed over the years. But if the Syriac translation that was first made around 150 AD and copies many, many times agrees, the text of the two translations seems very likely correct.
It’s fair to ask how we know when the translation was first made, and this decision is usually made by experts in the language who recognize the form of Coptic or Syriac used in the translation. Just as is true of English, the way the language is spoken and its vocabulary changes over time, allowing an expert to give an approximate date of origin.
In additional to translations, we also have quotes from the scriptures included in the Early Church Fathers (ECFs). The ECFs are uninspired Christian leaders who frequently quoted from the scriptures. In fact, if we had no manuscripts or translations at all, we could reconstruct nearly the entire New Testament just from the ECFs.
Hence, if Justin Martyr, who wrote in the late Second Century, quotes a scripture, we know that form of the text is at least that old, even if we have no manuscripts that old.
There are other important sources. Ancient Christian graves sometimes have an engraved scripture, and some scriptures were written on church and other walls.
As a result, we have an enormous collection of materials from which to discern the likely text of the original New Testament scriptures. To simplify the study of these scriptures, scholars have prepared Greek Bibles with extensive footnotes of variations and the manuscripts supporting or opposing a particular reading.
Wait, are you saying that God did NOT deliver the Bible on golden plates shipped direct from the apostle Paul to King James? How distressing! But on further reflection, since God only speaks Greek, it would probably have been difficult to address the package to an English post office box.
Textual Criticism, on the other hand, is a very healthy study that too many church members have not had the opportunity engage in. And it is for that reason that we do have the “dropped out of heaven” view by quite a few Christians, still. It stifles the human element of the scriptures, which, I believe is partly responsible for causing a pretense of being “more than human” within the church.
Also, it makes us intellectually honest, which means we are going to have to acknowledge that there are difficult passages in the Bible that are not easliy explained. Two examples are the two demoniacs Mentioned by Matthew in chapter 8, as opposed to the one mentioned by Mark and Luke. Also, Matthew’s mention of Jesus riding the donkey and colt in Matt 21; whereas the others mention only the donkey. I know some, Jimmy Allen was one, who believed (while I was at Harding during the seventies) that the “donkey and colt problem” was due to a copyist error. He said he had no other way to explain it. There is also the explaination that there were actually two demoniacs; that Mark and Luke only mention one. Well, if that argument was used for any other religion’s book of scripture we would be all over that with “How convenient”.
However, I for one, believe that Matthew had his reasons for the mention of the two demoniacs and for the donkey and colt. My best guess is for prophecy’s sake. And we should keep in mind that being literall was not seen as necessary by the New Testement writers to be correct in the teaching of the lilfe of Christ and the gospel.
Please forgive my copying error. The following paragraph was meant to be the first one of my comment above.
As far as Higher Criticism is concerned, my interest is mostly out of curiosity; however I do leave room to think about what a particular scholar has to say regarding the text. Sometimes a person can be right about one thing or another even if the discipline is slanted.
My view is that the variations in some stories within the NT Text makes the case against verbatim inspiration. If God was “dictating”, it seems less likely there would be such factual variations.
But that does not take away anything from the Text.
Way to go Charles!
What a sense of humor, very appreciated. That’s exactly what we need more of.
David H. said “But that does not take away anything from the Text.”
However it does furnish a small crack , for doubt to creep through. and people don’t like any doubt in their religion. Then is when I tell them, It is called faith, or belief for a reason.
I agree Laymond. It seems we are afraid to admit that faith is at the core, not proof.
I wonder what the latest thinking is in regard to Jeremiah. The LXX version may be at least 1/8 shorter than the Masoretic. Some say more, if I recall correctly. Which should we go with?
This also means the Bible was not written by the church of Christ. Does it make sense that those who preserved the scriptures what ever their beliefs would find themselves in hell? I say thank God for copyist I know God will find a way for them to be with him regardless of their religious views.
“Among known Christian manuscripts, all but four are written in codex form (the four exceptions, P12, P13, P18, and P22, are all written on reused scrolls; there is thus no known instance of a scroll being deliberately prepared for use in Christian literature).” ~From http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/~ Apparently, though the Christians didn’t invent codices, they did use them almost exclusively…
I have saidf this before but it made an impression on me.
When I was younger, all the Folks way back in the hills and on the reservation I knew only had the red small book of John that was given them at schools.
I got one given me in the first grade.
God will judge them differently as He will many through out time based on the ability of the person as well as the knowledge of God available to them in their lifetime.
We have a loving God, not one wanting to send everyone but a few to hell. The God some present, I would not want to be with.
I agree with Alabama that God loves everyone and wants everyone to be saved. If HE wants to make exceptions to what we know is required, that’s surely no concern of ours. But we do well to instruct seekers as best we understand what is required based on Acts 2:38. That verse is clear as to what seekers are invited to do in order to be saved and receive God’s Spirit. Should we give a different answer? I think not.
Thanks Ray, We should of course do all we can to follow acts 2:38.
When that is impossible, to preach that person hindered for some reason is gone to hell is wrong yet that is exactly what is being preached and taught around here every Sunday. Its the LAW!!!
That teaching about our God is very disrespectful and when you break it down it is teaching error and a terribly wrong picture of what God is really like. Its not the God that would send His son to die for us. It must be a sin somewhere, somehow, to teach that about God.I say again, we sing about a much better, loving God than we preach.
The most accurate teaching I feel today is that we teach to those below the age of 12. Ask them about God and get their perspective and see what we adults are missing.
Instead of bringing people to God, that image of “God will get you” above all else has run more away than anything else and is really doing so today as the numbers show.
If we were willing to preach, “God will get you” the way he “got” the lost sheep… The lost coin… The lost sons… rather than the other kind of “getting,” I think people might take notice.
Arkie,
That’s right. Christians quickly adopted the codex form while nearly everyone else was using scrolls.
SteveA,
There are indeed discrepancies between the Massoretic text and the LXX of Jeremiah equal to about 15% or so of the text. Some differences are purely a matter of the translators being a bit briefer than the original, but that’s not the whole of it.
Here’s a very detailed discussion of the problem https://www.academia.edu/2476942/MT_and_the_Oldest_Text_of_Jeremiah. This is the only canonical book of the OT with this problem.
In many places, even all over America, the drawings on caves and carved in rocks of a man or being coming from above that was worshipped in many ways that the people of that area thought was right just might of been Jesus. Some writings of that type go back further than the scrolls.
I don’t know of a place in the bible where it says exactly what He was doing for the first 30 years of His life here on earth much less ALL He did on this earth before being born of Mary. Just might of been busier than we think. Could walk through walls, so who would think if Gods son was sent to earth to save man, that He would only be concerned for the men of the Jews or Isreal, ever how you want to call them? So many things about God and Jesus we only get a glimpse.
Remember the bible is the good news of God and Jesus love for and toward man and so many more things were done that if they were written down that the world couldn’t hold them.
One thing I think is important is that if someone is going to base their entire life and existence on an ancient writing you should know from where it really came. Then just because there are historical evidences, that is not an automatic implication of spiritual truth. Many of the ancient religious writings of Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism have historical evidences and claim to be inspired spiritual truth just like the Bible.
Probably the most important criticism of the Bible that separates it from other claims to spiritual truth is textual or contextual criticism. These are the ideas that outline the nature of God. A devout atheist once asked C.S. Lewis how the God of the Bible was different than any other claim to spiritual truth. He said grace. This was a simplification but essentially Christianity is the only claim to spiritual truth where God comes to man and there is not a set of works to earn a way or relationship with God.
There are many other contextual ideas that differentiate the God of the Bible from other claims to spiritual truth. I suggest two things one is the average Christian in the pews today doesn’t really know where the Bible came from and if they do they really don’t why they believe what they believe.
Here is the application to engaging our temporary culture. Study after study suggests that people even skeptics who are antagonistically opposed to Christianity want to have conversations about spiritual truth. But the run of mill church is not equipped to engage in these conversations because they really don’t know why they believe what they believe.