Some claim that the Gospels were corrupted. The argument goes that, originally, the gospels were very different, and then people came along and formulated a version of Jesus in the Gospels that we have now based on what they believed about Jesus.
The claim is often made by biblical critics that we don’t have the original writings so we can’t know anything about the original writings. This just isn’t true. In fact, those same biblical critics will often betray their logic when they claim that certain passages weren’t in the original writing. How do they know, if we can know nothing about the originals? Of course, we can know what was written in the originals and when it comes to the Bible we can know with remarkable accuracy.
First, the strong oral tradition would have guarded against the corruption of the events. Also, nothing except the story told in the Gospels we have today can explain the rise and spread of the church.
However, there is additional evidence to suggest that the Gospels were accurate from the beginning and not corrupted or changed by advocates of orthodoxy as biblical critics and many Muslims suggest. For example, early church father Origen writes in the 3rd century about his frustration with corrupted copies of Gospels in which copyists made mistakes either intentionally or unintentionally. Bart Ehrman claims this is proof that the Gospels were corrupted. Yet his argument backfires. Though there are variants among New Testament manuscripts, it’s important to realize that 99.9% are inconsequential to the meaning of the passage. Yet, still Origen was frustrated and desired to see the Gospels preserved perfectly. Even tiny mistakes were evidently noticed and rectified in the years after the Gospels were written.[1] This perfectionism should give us great confidence in the accuracy of the texts we have today.
Though we don’t have the original texts of the New Testament, the scribes who wrote the manuscripts we have had them. In ancient times, books were made to last. For example, a copy of the New Testament named Codex Vaticanus was made in the fourth century, but was re-inked in the 10th century. That means that particular copy of the New Testament was in use for 600 years! Therefore, it’s likely that we have copies of manuscripts that were copied from the originals, and if not, the originals were still around.[2]
Apart from this, even biblical critics acknowledge that the more copies you have the better you can uncover the original text. The number of biblical manuscripts far exceeds any other work of antiquity, not by hundreds or thousands, but by tens of thousands.
Some biblical scholars have drawn attention to certain passages that might not have been included in the original New Testament texts. It’s significant that the biblical texts that are often said to have been added later do not change any Christian doctrine. For example, Bart Ehrman lists his top passages that “weren’t in the Bible originally” in the appendix of his book Misquoting Jesus. First of all, it’s likely many of those verses actually are authentic, but even if they aren’t it is inconsequential doctrinally. There are other passages that teach the same doctrine. The claim that certain passages might not be authentic can seem serious. But if Jesus really lived and died and rose again, then can we not trust he preserved his Word? Further, the authenticity of 99.9% of biblical texts aren’t debated, which comprise the main historical claims of Christianity as well as its core doctrines. So, why would we walk away from Christ and his Word over some obscure passages that have little or no bearing on Christian doctrine?
Imagine you wanted to buy a car and you found the perfect one. It was the exact model you wanted and year. It looked perfect when you looked it over it had low mileage, a great engine, and no accidents on its record. Then the salesmen pulls you aside and tells you there are two minor scratches inside the glove box. If you responded, “so what?” you’d be exactly right. Who walks away from a buy like that because of something so minuscule. I’d say it’s a similar situation with God’s Word. Why would we walk away from the avalanche of reasons to trust God’s Word for a few passages that make no doctrinal difference that some people think might not have been original? Especially when it is far from conclusive that those verses in question aren’t original.
The truth is nothing can make sense of the rise of the church except the story told in the New Testament as we have it. Beyond that, we have very good reason to believe that what was inspired by the Holy Spirit and written by the authors of the New Testament is precisely what we have preserved in our Bible’s today.
[1] Jones, Misquoting Truth. 40, 50.
[2] Greg Gilbert, Why Trust the Bible? (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2015). 48.
Mike McGregor
Mike McGregor (MDiv, Reformed Theological Seminary) is Director of College Ministry at First Baptist Church in Durham, N.C. You can follow him on Twitter at @m5mcgregor.
