The Gospel of Matthew was written anonymously, but was universally attributed to Jesus apostle Matthew, until the 1800’s. Today, most scholars, and skeptics and critics no longer believe this. Instead, they claim the Gospel of Matthew is based largely on the Gospel of Mark, which they assert was written first, and also on the totally speculative “Q” source. They claim, therefore, that Matthew is unlikely to have been written by one of Jesus closest followers, namely the former tax collector, and apostle of Jesus, Matthew Levi, but instead was written in the 80’s or 90’s CE by one or more second generation disciples. What does the evidence actually show as to when the Gospel of Matthew was written?read more
“The original of the letter (autograph) is not known to survive. Papyrus 46, the earliest reasonably complete version available to scholars today, dates to approximately AD 200, around 150 years after the original was drafted. Biblical scholars agree that Galatians is a true example of Paul’s writing. The main arguments in favor of the authenticity of Galatians include its style and themes, which are common to the core letters of the Pauline corpus. George S. Duncan described its authenticity as “unquestioned. In every line it betrays its origin as a genuine letter of Paul. A majority of scholars agree that Galatians was written between the late 40s and early 50s, although some date the original composition to c. 50–60.”—Wikipediaread more
Who wrote Colossians? Google AI says this about Colossians:
“According to Bart Ehrman, the book of Colossians claims to be written by Paul the Apostle, but he argues that it is not genuinely Pauline; meaning he believes Paul did not actually write it. Ehrman, along with many other critical scholars, suggests that the letter was written by someone else, possibly a later follower of Paul, using Paul’s name.”
Let’s examine the relevant facts, to find out who wrote Colossians. Critics, such as Ehrman and others, have only their own speculative ideas from which they postulate. Compelling grounds for questioning the letter’s authenticity are lacking. Colossians contains autobiographical statements from Paul, and even opens with a salutation from Paul. read more
The Fixed New Testament Text – a Huge Problem for Trinitarianism!
Critics of the Bible often say there are no eyewitness accounts recorded in the Bible of Jesus’ death and resurrection. This article examines the facts of the issue of whether there are eyewitnesses of Jesus’ death and resurrection.
“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus.”(Luke 1:1-3 NIV)
New Testament writers, especially in the Gospels and Acts, were very careful to record that they were relaying the testimony of eyewitnesses, many of whom were still alive when the most of the Testament was written. Their accounts were not fabrications or hallucinations or legends. They were real!
Let’s look at some of the testimony about eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus.:
“Then he appeared to more than =&0=&
“For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” (2 Peter 1:16 NIV)
“God exalted him at his own right hand as leader and savior to grant Israel to repentance and forgiveness of sins.We are witnesses of these things, as is the holy Spirit, that God has given to those who obey him.” (Acts 5:31,32 NAB)
The importance of being actual eyewitnesses of Christ cannot be overstated. Notice the following proof texts concerning witnesses of his death and after his resurrection.
His death:
“Many women who had followed Jesus from Galilee and ministered to Him were there, looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.” (Matthew 27:55,56 HCSB)
“Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were seated there, facing the tomb.” (Matthew 27:61 HCSB)
“There were also women looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.” (Mark 15:40 HCSB)
“Now Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses were watching where He was placed.” (Mark 15:47 HCSB)
“All the crowds that had gathered for this spectacle, when they saw what had taken place, went home, striking their chests. But all who knew Him, including the women who had followed Him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things.” (Luke 23:48,49 HCSB)
Where does the gospel of Mark end? Modern day snake handlers derive their practice from Mark 16:17-18 (KJV)
Where does the gospel of Mark end?
“I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book”—Revelation 22:18 NKJVread more
The woman caught in adultery story is well known today among Christians, and even in popular Western culture, but there are questions about it’s authenticity.
THE INSPIRED SCRIPTURES ARE FLAWLESS AND CANNOT BE IMPROVED
“Yahweh’s promises are promises unalloyed; natural silver which comes from the earth seven times refined”—-Psalm 12:6 NJB
“Every word of God is flawless . . . Do not add to his words or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar”—Proverbs 30:5,6 NIVread more
History says Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the books with those titles. People seem to have a highly variable standard in their assessment of what ancient writings are genuine, especially the Bible. What do we mean? Here is an example:
Did Matthew, Mark, Luke and John really write the Gospels, or were these names attributed later?
Most people accept Alexander the Great as a real historical figure. Yet, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after the Great One’s death 323 BCE. Legends about him developed centuries after these two writers. Yet, Alexander’s true, accurate history is viewed as being preserved for hundreds of years prior to these legends.
Let’s clear up a misunderstanding about the titles of the Gospels by considering the manuscript evidence: True, there was no “uniformity of the titles.” Yes, there were many variances. But, the one thing that is 100% consistent about the titles is that in the reservoir of several thousand manuscripts of the gospels, they all attribute writership to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John respectively. The exact wording of the titles in various early manuscripts were different, not the same, but they all list Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the writers. None of the titles indicates anonymity..
In every single instance, the names included Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John respectively. While there was not uniformity of the titles, there was 100% agreement on writership.
The popular agnostic Bible scholar Bart Ehrman claims that the titles of the Gospels were added by later scribes. But, as is well known, even experts can be wrong. Ehrman’s theory about the titles contradicts the facts.
An interesting point to note here is that while there are four gospel accounts, there is in reality only one gospel that runs through the entire New Testament – the Gospel of, and about, Jesus Christ. As Mark opens his account:
“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” (Mark 1:1LSB; NASB)
The Gospel is the theme of the four accounts of Jesus’ life, ministry, death and resurrection. Hence, the titles were drawn from this. Notice:
“Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.” (Matthew 4:23)
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free” (Luke 4:18)read more
What is Textual Criticism? Has the Bible Been Changed?
Textual Criticism collates and compares the many ancient extant Bible manuscripts for the various Biblical texts to determine the original reading for each scripture?
Is Textual Criticism something that is critical of the Bible’s text, something that shows the Biblical text is unreliable? Or, is Textual Criticism something positive, even favorable, toward authenticating the Bible’s text as being genuine, reliable, and trustworthy?
It is popularly believed today that the Bible has been copied and re-copied so many times over the centuries that is text is unreliable, and no one can be sure of what was in the originals. Is there any truth to this?
“All people are like grass, and all their glory is like that of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord endures forever” (1 Peter 1:24-25 NIV). In this text, the thought is conveyed that “the Word of the Lord endures forever”, which implies that the scriptures would be faithfully preserved over time. If we believe that, “in the beginning God created the heavens and earth” (Genesis 1:1), and also empowered men to write the 66 books of the Bible over a period of about 1,500 years, then he would surely have the power to accurately preserve his word forever. But what are the facts in more detail?
PROBLEM? – DO WE HAVE THE ORIGINALS? – ARE THEY NECESSARY?
Not surprisingly, there are copyists’ errors (called textual or scribal errors) in ancient Biblical manuscripts. The original copies of the books were lost long ago.
It is true, we don’t have the originals, and sometimes we hear this objection as to the validity of the Biblical text. Why don’t we have the originals? They were written on perishable materials, and handmade copies were meticulously and accurately made and distributed.
If we had the originals and no copies, suppose one or more of the originals was lost, destroyed, stolen, or deviously, but cleverly altered? Then what?
If we had the originals written by Moses, David, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, etc., they may likely would have become idols, or objects of worship, the way “the bronze serpent . . . Nehushtan” was (2 Kings 18:4 LSB).
The New Testament books were written in various places and quickly copied and distributed all over the Roman Empire, long before there was any controlling body with the power to gather up these copies and have them deliberately altered. The very rapid copying and distribution also made it impossible for any authority to gather up and alter all the copies to make them say the same thing. By the time such powerful authority in or over Christianity emerged in the 4th century, extremely valuable manuscripts that are extant today, were long since buried in the sands of Egypt or tucked away in obscure places in Palestine and the Roman Empire.
So not having the originals solves these potential problems, rendering having the originals unnecessary, but it does mean that we have textual variants among the thousands of ancient Biblical manuscripts.
WHAT ABOUT THE MANUY THOUSANDS OF TEXTUAL VARIANTS
Any book copied by hand thousands of times over a period of a thousand plus years is likely to contain errors. The term textual variant derives from this fact. Thus, our sources for the Biblical materials are limited to handwritten copies (of copies) of the originals. We do also have access to copies of ancient translations of the Bible into other languages, as well as citations of the Bible by early rabbis and church fathers. Thus Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible, together with early translations and citations of Scripture, witness to the correct reading of a particular text.
How did scribal errors arise? Poor memory, impaired judgment, mishearing and errors of sight or misunderstanding often caused the best-intentioned scribes to omit, substitute or repeat letters or entire words. Sometimes scribes made matters worse when they deliberately altered the text in an attempt to rectify something they perceived as a problem (deliberate alterations are probably very rare, however). In time, the result was a series of accidental corruptions or intended “improvements” that departed from the original text.
Is this a problem? No. Why not?
In fact, scribal errors are actually one of the many proofs that the Bible is not a work of fiction, nor is it the a result of collusion among conspirators to make it seem to be the word of God , when it actually is of human origin. Once variants appeared among the many copies of the Bible, they didn’t just go away. They were copied and recopied many times. But it also means that we still have the original readings of the New Testament texts.
How can we sure of this? How do we know what the original reading was?
WHAT IS TEXTUAL CRITICISM?
Textual criticism is the attempt to restore the Biblical authors’ original words by comparing and contrasting the various copies and translations of the Bible. Here “criticism” does not mean “finding fault with”, but “evaluating” the existing copies of the text. Significantly, while textual errors do exist among the ancient Biblical witnesses, they do not destroy the Bible’s credibility or message. Just as an alert reader can understand a book or newspaper article that has typographical errors in it, so too God’s Word is able to speak for itself in spite of the minor corruptions that have arisen through scribal transmission. The vast majority of the Biblical text is certain, and where variations do occur among existing copies, the original wording can usually be determined with a good degree of certainty by a thorough acquaintance with the available manuscripts. Most modern translations use footnotes to let readers know where the text is difficult or where scribal errors may exist.
HOW DOES TEXTUAL CRITICISM WORK?
A simple modern day hypothetical example can help to understand the nature of Textual Criticism. Suppose a school teacher taught 200 students each day, and required all of them one day to copy an essay of about 300 words using pen and paper. When they were collected, collated, and comparatively analyzed, there likely would be a few variations. Suppose 198 wrote a word identically and 2 of the copies of this word were different. A grader who analyzed this without even having the original would know that the 198 had the word correct, while 2 were mistaken.
How does Textual Criticism work regarding the Bible? The Old Testament (OT) has about 1700 ancient manuscripts of the original Hebrew-Aramaic Scripture text, and the New Testament (NT) has about 5,800 ancient manuscripts in the original Koine’ Greek text. Both the OT and the NT have thousands of ancient manuscripts in other languages. The vast majority of these ancient manuscripts are fragmentary, or partial, with only a few being complete or fairly complete.
All extant manuscripts are compared by experts in this field, revealing variants. These expert scholars then decide on the composition of Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Master Texts, and also alternates, and explanatory footnotes.
The presence of scribal errors is not a reason to consider the Bible untrustworthy, because refined Hebrew-Aramaic, and Koine’ Greek Master Texts use a compilation and collation of thousands of ancient manuscripts to derive a Biblical text that faithfully represents the originals.
The two most prominent New Testament Refined Master Texts, the Nestle-Aland (N-A) 28th edition, and the United Bible Societies (UBS( 5th edition, have had independent teams of scholars working on them for many years now. By the time of about the N-A 26th edition and the UBS 3rd edition, the two texts were identical except for footnotes. No other work from the ancient world has a text with such a high degree of integrity.
New Testament Greek scholars consider the current Master Text to be 99.5% pure. The other 0.5% questionable text is of inconsequential matters, primarily spelling and syntax differences.
HOW BIBLE TRANSLATORS USE THE RESULTS OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM
Bible Translators make use of these Master Texts in translating the scriptures into modern languages, such as English, Spanish, French, Japanese, Chinese, etc.
An example of a textual problem is found in the last sentence of Isaiah 51:19. The New American Standard Bible translates the question “How shall I comfort you?” while the NIV words it “Who can console you?” (emphasis added for both translations). These different renderings reflect a difference of opinion over which manuscripts preserve the best reading. The NIV follows a reading that is found in a Hebrew manuscript from the Dead Sea Scrolls. This translation is also supported by the Greek (Septuagint), Latin (Vulgate) and Syriac (Peshitta) translations of the Old Testament. On the other hand, the standard edition of the Hebrew Old Testament (the Masoretic Text) reads “How can I comfort you?”and was followed by the NASB translators.
The above example ofIsaiah 51:19 also makes the point that virtually all scribal questions involve minor points in the text. We have good reason to be confident that the translations now available faithfully, albeit never perfectly, reflect what the prophets and other Biblical authors originally wrote. The presence of scribal errors is not a reason to consider the Bible untrustworthy, because refined Hebrew-Aramaic, and Koine’ Greek Master Texts use a compilation and collation of thousands of ancient manuscripts to derive a Biblical text that faithfully represents the originals.
CONCLUSION
“Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished” (Matthew 5:18 HCSB). read more
The end of Mark 15 (excluding verse 47), along with Mark 16:1 in Codex Sinaiticus (c. 350 AD)
What is the true ending of Mark?
The ending of Mark is controversial with some groups. There are several different endings to the Gospel of Mark found in the various Greek manuscripts. Most Greek texts and several ancient translations conclude with the ending familiar to us asMark 16:9-20. However, the earliest Greek manuscript with that ending is from the fifth century, although evidence from the church fathers suggests that the longer ending was already in existence during the second century. Many scholars feel, however, that, in addition the manuscript evidence, the vocabulary and themes of the traditional ending are inconsistent with the rest of the Gospel.read more
