Case for Christ Chapter 3: Documentary "Evidence"

1. Having read the interview with Dr. Metzger, how would you rate the reliability of the process by which the New Testament was transmitted to us?

Not very highly.

What are some reasons you find this process trustworthy or not?

The process seems highly subjective and riddled with opportunity for errors, censorship of dissent and addition of later insertions.

2. Scan a copy of the New Testament and examine some of the notes in the margins that talk about variant readings.  What are some examples you find?

“The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not contain Mark 16:9-20”

“The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not contain John 7:53-8:11.”

How does the presence of these notations affect your understanding of the passages?

It only raises more questions.  Who added these passages? When were they added (they were not included in the first compiled copies of the New Testament: the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, which Metzger dates at 350 AD)?

3. Does the criteria for determining whether a document should be included in the New Testament seem reasonable?

The criteria:

1. Apostolic authority. Must have been written by an apostle or a follower of an apostle.  We have already established that this is damn near impossible to determine empirically, and is therefore ultimately determined by Church tradition.

2. Conformity to the rule of faith: congruent with the basic Christian tradition that the church recognized as normative.  Second verse, same as the first.  Basically, Church tradition formally  recognized as Church tradition.

3. Continuous acceptance and usage by the church at large.  So, basically an argumentum ad populum.

Based on these three criteria, it seems that Church tradition and the “vox populi” basically determined what became the New Testament.  This is not an objective process where we are interested in finding the truth of the matter.  The fact that neither Strobel nor Metzger addresses any critiques or alternative arguments other than a passive dismissal shows a blatant dishonesty on the part of both men.