(31-05-2025, 08:48 PM)Ali Imran Wrote: Yes, he said it is not 100% reliable.
And today, you agree that it is not 100% reliable. We have made progress.
The question is: how unreliable is it?
Yes, New Testament scholar Daniel B. Wallace is well-known for advocating the reliability of the New Testament text. He argues that the New Testament text is reliable due to several factors, including the large number of extant manuscripts, their early dates, and the nature of textual variants.
Here's a more detailed look at his perspective:
Extant Manuscripts:
Wallace emphasizes the sheer number of New Testament manuscripts discovered, including over 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 5,000 in other languages. These manuscripts, along with patristic quotations, provide ample evidence for the text's authenticity.
Early Dates:
Many Greek manuscripts date to the second, third, and fourth centuries, which is within a relatively short timeframe after the New Testament's composition.
Nature of Textual Variants:
Wallace acknowledges the existence of textual variants (minor differences between manuscripts), but he argues that the vast majority (99%) are insignificant and don't alter the meaning of the text. He points out that these variants are often related to spelling or word order, which doesn't affect the underlying message.
Patristic Quotations:
Wallace highlights the importance of quotations from ancient Christian leaders (the Church Fathers) in their writings, which can be used to reconstruct the text even if the original manuscripts were lost.
Historicity and Reliability:
Wallace emphasizes that Christianity is based on historical events, and the New Testament's reliability is crucial for the faith's foundation.
In essence, Wallace's position is that the New Testament text is highly reliable due to the extensive evidence supporting its authenticity, early transmission, and the insignificant nature of most
textual variants.