Besides the thousands of early manuscripts of the New Testament, we also have another way by which we can confirm these texts. The early church fathers wrote frequently, and when they wrote they often quoted Scripture. From these early quotations, nearly the entire New Testament can be reconstructed. These quotes act as a second witness for the text.
This is why it can be stated that the claims of those who say that the Bible has been rewritten or edited by this or that church council are simply not supported by the evidence. While the church councils began in the fourth century, we have copies of the Bible and the writings of the church fathers beginning no later than the early part of the second century. If any changes had been made at the councils, they would be very easy to find. We would only have to compare the copies of the Bible made before the councils, to the copies made after, and any changes would instantly become apparent. There are no signs that the text of the New Testament was altered, much less altered so as to remove the teaching of reincarnation or any other doctrines.
Still some point to the lack of the originals and the gap, however small, between the originals and the earliest manuscripts as evidence of unreliability. It is claimed that without the originals, we really can never be sure the text was not changed. The problem with such claims is that we do not have just a single line of manuscripts but many parallel lines, each confirming the others.
Figure 1.1 shows an example of this. From a single original, many copies were made and distributed. From the first generation copies, second, third and forth generation manuscripts were made. For this example, say that many years later, only three manuscripts remain (mss #1, #2, & #3), all fourth generation copies. Does this mean we cannot be sure of the text before the fourth generation? Not at all. By comparing these manuscripts, we can determine how accurately the text was copied.
When two manuscripts agree, the reading they have in common must be earlier than the manuscripts themselves. In our example, when mss #2 and #3 agree, they reflect a reading found in the first generation. When all three agree they reflect the reading found in the original. This example demonstrates a very important concept: there is a difference between the date of a manuscript and the date of a reading found in the manuscript. That a particular manuscript was written in the second century does not mean that the text it contains is from the second century. This difference between the date of the reading and the date of the manuscript is very important in bridging the gap.
The books of the New Testament were copied and distributed widely during the lifetime of the apostles. Any early changes would have been resisted by them. After their death, there were already copies spread throughout the Roman world. To have changed them all so as to completely eliminate the original readings would have required a tremendous effort. As a result, those who claim that text has been change must face a major problem with their theory.
To successfully change all the texts of the Bible would have required a large organized effort, yet no such organization existed in the early church. By the time anything approaching the level of organization that would have been required was reached, this would have been well past the time of what are now our earliest manuscripts. Even if such an organized effort had been able to change the Bible used at the time, they could not have changed manuscripts that had already been lost, but would be rediscovered in the last two centuries. As such these early manuscripts show that no such editing occurred.
One final problem is the fact that early Christians did consider the Word of God to be important and many died to protect it. For example, in 303 A.D. the Roman Emperor Diocletian ordered that all Christian scripture be destroyed. While some Christians complied with the Emperor’s order, many suffered torture and martyrdom to protect God’s word. After Diocletian’s persecution failed, the reaction against those Christians who had turned over scripture to the Romans from other Christians was so strong that it caused a controversy within the church for many years after. In fact it was so strong that a new word entered into our vocabulary. Those who turned over the word of God were called ”those who delivered” which in Latin is traditores and has come into English as traitors.
The idea that roughly twenty years after the persecution of Diocletian and at the same time that the church was struggling to deal with the traditores, the church councils would have rewritten the Bible without leaving any trace and without anyone complaining is simply impossible. The simple fact is that there were too many Christians throughout the world who where willing to suffer and even die to protect Scripture, as many had so recently done.
When we consider the thousands of manuscripts and translations that have survived from these various sections of the early church, we can be sure the texts were copied accurately during the very small gap that remains between the originals and the earliest manuscripts.
This is not to say that the Bible we have today is exactly the same as when it was written down by the apostles and prophets. In some places there are still some questions concerning the text. These questions arise when there are minor differences between the various ancient manuscripts, and scholars are unsure as to which one is actually correct.
Scholars who evaluate the thousands of manuscripts, translations, and quotations and from them attempt to assemble the original text are called textual critics. For the vast majority of the Bible (probably over 95 percent) there is no doubt concerning the ancient reading of the text. In those sections about which there is still some question, the differences found among the various manuscripts are minor and have no effect on the teachings of the church, regardless of which reading is correct.
Even here there is no secrecy or attempt to deceive. Both major Greek texts of the New Testament give the reader what scholars believe is the original text of the New Testament.e Interestingly, even though these Greek New Testaments were prepared by different groups of scholars, the text of the New Testament is identical. In addition to the text they also include all of the major variations, a listing of the manuscripts in which these variations are found, plus the church fathers who quote them. This information is accessible to even those with only a limited knowledge of New Testament Greek.
Of course, when a translation is done, a choice must be made between the different (or variant) readings. Because of this, many modern translations include the alternative readings in a footnote. An example of this can be seen in Matthew 15:5-6. The New International Version translates this verse as: (Note: Superscript numbers represent the verse numbers.)
5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,” 6he is not to “honor his father” with it.
The New International Version also includes the following footnote for verse 6, which states that some manuscripts read: “he is not to ‘honor his father or his mother’ with it.” As you can see, while the reading is different, it makes no difference to the meaning of the passage as a whole, since the mother had already been mentioned in verse 5.
If you suspect that I have chosen a simple passage as an example, it is easy enough to check this for yourself. All you need do is to look through one of the many modern translations that include the variant readings and compare these to the text. It has been my experience that the vast majority of these variant readings make no difference at all, much less a difference that would affect the teachings of the Bible.
In a very small number of cases the difference is significant enough to change the meaning of the passage. Perhaps the most well known example of this is 1 John 5:7-8. The New International Version translates these verses as: (Note: Superscript numbers represent the verse numbers.)
7For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
The accompanying footnote points out that in a few very late Greek manuscripts (sixteenth