![](https://i.imgur.com/CLvY2jA.png")
Yesterday, 10:23 AM
**Scholars and Historians Who Have Recognized the Reliability of the NT Texts:**
1. **F.F. Bruce (1910–1990)**
A renowned biblical scholar and historian, Bruce argued for the general reliability of the NT manuscripts based on textual criticism and historical evidence.
2. **Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939)**
An archaeologist and New Testament historian, Ramsay initially approached the NT skeptically but became convinced of its historical reliability through archaeological and textual evidence.
3. **N.T. Wright (b. 1948)**
A contemporary New Testament scholar and theologian, Wright affirms the historical credibility of the resurrection accounts and the general reliability of the NT.
4. **Craig Blomberg (b. 1953)**
A biblical scholar who defends the historical reliability of the NT, especially the Gospels.
5. **Bart D. Ehrman (b. 1955)**
While Ehrman is skeptical about the inerrancy of the NT, he recognizes that the majority of the New Testament manuscripts are reliable texts, based on extensive textual criticism.
**Historians and Scholars Who Have Commented on the Manuscript Evidence:**
- **John A. T. Robinson**
In his book *"Redating the New Testament"*, he discusses the early dating and textual transmission of NT manuscripts.
- **Henry H. Hittell**
An older scholar who examined the textual transmission of biblical manuscripts.
**Important Notes:**
- Many scholars agree that the NT manuscripts are among the earliest and most well-attested texts in history, with thousands of copies and fragments dating from within a century of the original writings.
- While some scholars question the theological claims or interpret certain passages differently, many acknowledge that the textual transmission and historical core of the NT are well-supported by manuscript evidence.
**In Summary:**
- **Scholars like F.F. Bruce, William Ramsay, and Craig Blomberg** affirm the general reliability of the NT texts based on historical and textual evidence.
- **Historians like Bart Ehrman** recognize the textual transmission's robustness but may have different views on theological interpretations.
1. **F.F. Bruce (1910–1990)**
A renowned biblical scholar and historian, Bruce argued for the general reliability of the NT manuscripts based on textual criticism and historical evidence.
2. **Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939)**
An archaeologist and New Testament historian, Ramsay initially approached the NT skeptically but became convinced of its historical reliability through archaeological and textual evidence.
3. **N.T. Wright (b. 1948)**
A contemporary New Testament scholar and theologian, Wright affirms the historical credibility of the resurrection accounts and the general reliability of the NT.
4. **Craig Blomberg (b. 1953)**
A biblical scholar who defends the historical reliability of the NT, especially the Gospels.
5. **Bart D. Ehrman (b. 1955)**
While Ehrman is skeptical about the inerrancy of the NT, he recognizes that the majority of the New Testament manuscripts are reliable texts, based on extensive textual criticism.
**Historians and Scholars Who Have Commented on the Manuscript Evidence:**
- **John A. T. Robinson**
In his book *"Redating the New Testament"*, he discusses the early dating and textual transmission of NT manuscripts.
- **Henry H. Hittell**
An older scholar who examined the textual transmission of biblical manuscripts.
**Important Notes:**
- Many scholars agree that the NT manuscripts are among the earliest and most well-attested texts in history, with thousands of copies and fragments dating from within a century of the original writings.
- While some scholars question the theological claims or interpret certain passages differently, many acknowledge that the textual transmission and historical core of the NT are well-supported by manuscript evidence.
**In Summary:**
- **Scholars like F.F. Bruce, William Ramsay, and Craig Blomberg** affirm the general reliability of the NT texts based on historical and textual evidence.
- **Historians like Bart Ehrman** recognize the textual transmission's robustness but may have different views on theological interpretations.
