Home » Thomas Ross » Patristics Quote All New Testament Except for 11 Verses?

Patristics Quote All New Testament Except for 11 Verses?

In evangelistic Bible study #1, “What is the Bible?” (see also the PDF here), I (currently) have the statement:

[A]ll but 11 of the 7,957 verses of the New Testament could be reproduced without a single manuscript from the 36,289 quotes made by early writers in Christendom from the second to the fourth century.

I also have this statement in my pamphlet The Testimony of the Quran to the Bible.

I cite this statement from what is usually a highly reliable and scholarly source, Norman Geisler’s Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics:

“[I]f we compile the 36,289 quotations by the early church Fathers of the second to fourth centuries we can reconstruct the entire New Testament minus 11 verses.” (Norman L. Geisler, “New Testament Manuscripts,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999], 532).

However, Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry, eds., in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2019), 228-238 have presented a strong case that this oft-repeated statement is not accurate. On the other hand, the following less specific statement is defensible:

Besides the textual evidence derived from New Testament Greek manuscripts and from early versions, the textual critic has available the numerous scriptural quotations included in the commentaries, sermons, and other treatises written by early church fathers. Indeed, so extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament. (Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. [New York: Oxford University Press, 2005], 126)

While Metzger and Ehrman’s statement is defensible, unless new evidence comes to light to overturn Hixson and Gurry’s case, the more specific statement in Geisler’s book, which I reproduced in my evangelistic Bible study, is not defensible or accurate.  The “11 verses” claim is too specific, and the 36,289 quotations is also too specific.  Sometimes it is hard to distinguish a quotation from an allusion, a summarization, or other less specific types of reference.  I intend to remove the 11 verses statement derived from Geisler’s fine encyclopedia (still a great book, despite this one mistake) from Bible study #1 and from The Testimony of the Quran to the Bible and replace it with the less-specific statement.  (I have not gotten around to doing it yet, but that is on the agenda.)

I was wrong to (unintentionally) reproduce inaccurate information.  God is a God of truth.  Also, please do not use the inaccurate statement yourself, but the accurate one, in the future, and if you are using these Bible studies in your church, please start using the updated and accurate ones once they are available; if you have extra copies already printed that contain the inaccurate statement, you might want to clarify that it is not technically correct.

The overall case for the accuracy of the New Testament remains infallibly certain from God’s promises and overwhelmingly strong from a historical perspective.

TDR


2 Comments

  1. Thanks for these details, Brother Ross. I have heard comments and references like that through the years — even the more effusive claim that you could reproduce the entire New Testament from quotes of the early church writers.

    Biblical references made by early church writers are important early witnesses to the text of the New Testament. On the other hand, if God had not preserved his inspired words we would not know that some (many?) of them are quotations, since some at least do not use a quotation formula. I.e., if we did not have a New Testament to compare them to, we would not know we could use them to “reconstruct” the NT.

  2. Thanks, Bro Vaughn!

    It is not impossible to figure out whether a patristic is quoting, referencing, alluding, etc. to a text, even without a “thus saith the Lord” or “the Scripture says” or something like that, but it is not quite as easy as the inaccurate quotation makes it seem.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives