The Telephone Game
A third objection is that the New Testament documents (and early oral traditions) have been passed on so many times over hundreds of years that errors have inevitably crept in and corrupted the text. The example of the "telephone game" illustrates this objection: a message is whispered to the first person in a chain, who whispers it to the person beside them, and so on, until by the end of the game the message the last person hears is nothing like the original (to comedic effect). For example, Shirley McLean, a popular new-age teacher, was speaking on the Larry King show when she offhandedly brushed aside the Bible, saying it had been changed and retranslated so many times that it is impossible to be confident in its accuracy. King agreed, affirming that "Everyone knows that."34
34 Gregory Koukl, "Is the New Testament Text Reliable?," n.p. Cited 12 March 2007. Online: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6068
It should first be made clear that the New Testament, while of course copied and recopied many times, has not gone through a process of multiple translations. The modern English versions that we read today (such as the NIV, NRSV, ESV, etc) have all been translated directly from the original Hebrew and Greek (and occasionally Aramaic) into English by teams of trained and knowledgeable scholars.35
35 Groothuis, On Jesus, 13.
For example, the NIV (the most popular modern translation36)
36 "More than 65 percent of the participating leaders named the NIV as their preferred Bible in a survey conducted by the National Association of Evangelicals." Jennifer Riley, "NIV Bible Tops List by Evangelical Leaders," The Christian Post, n.p. Cited 17 May 2008. Online: http://www.christianpost.com/article...l_Leaders_.htm
was translated directly from the original languages by a team of over 100 scholars spanning six countries and over 20 different denominations.37
37 International Bible Society, "Background of the New International Version (NIV) Bible," n.p. Cited 25 September 2007. Online: http://www.ibs.org/niv/background.php
Before it even began to be translated, in the earliest times the Christian message was indeed transmitted orally. Beyond that basic fact, the telephone game analogy quickly breaks down. First, we should keep in mind that unlike modern times, the culture in which Jesus lived and preached was primarily an oral culture.38
38 Mark D. Roberts, Can We Trust the Gospels? (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2007), 72-73.
Most people at that time could not read or write.39
39 Only 2-3% of people in agrarian societies were literate. John J. Pilich & Bruce J. Malina (Eds), Handbook of Biblical Social Values (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc, 1998), 5.
Therefore, having a good memory was an important and necessary skill (see the later section Eyewitness Testimony for more on this point). Having a good memory was especially important for Jewish teachers (although it was of course important for everyone).
Early Christian beliefs were publicly preached and taught among large groups of people40,
40 For example, Peter in Acts 2:14-41; Stephen in Acts 6:8-10, 7:2-53; Paul in Acts 9:20-22, 13:16-41, etc.
which shows how the transmission of the New Testament differs from the telephone game, since in the game the message is passed down linearly and secretly from one person to another. The participants in the game never have the chance to converse with each-other to clarify the message, nor do they have the opportunity to have the message repeated.41
41 Daniel B. Wallace in Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus, 81.
The message itself being passed along in a game setting is often obscure and lacking in context, whereas the New Testament message would be transmitted in context. Evans agrees with this analysis, commenting: "Unlike the telephone game, this is a community effort … This was a living tradition that the community discussed and was constantly remembered because it was normative, it was precious, they lived by it."42
42 Evans in Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus, 58.
Also unlike the telephone game, early Christian scribes (many of whom, including the twelve disciples, were Jewish and thus would have been aware of the long history and importance of accurately copying Scripture) were also writing down the messages, not whispering them. The Old Testament prophets were instructed to not just hear and recite God's word but to write it down.43
43 Ex. Jeremiah 30:2, Isaiah 30:8, Exodus 34:27; Steven Masood, The Bible and the Qur'an: A Question of Integrity (Atlanta: Authentic Media, 2007 (Originally published by OM Publishing, India, 2001)), 60-62.
Furthermore, since such high value was placed on community in the early church, there was plenty of opportunity for others to correct mistakes in written manuscripts. The Gospel message was publicly proclaimed among many people including other eyewitnesses who could intervene to correct faulty messages44,
44 Ibid.
including the disciples themselves, some of whom would later pen some of the New Testament documents themselves. (See Eyewitness Testimony below for elaboration of this point.) The information was passed down through "multiple streams," not just a single stream, and thus the chances for corruption are minimized.45
45 Wallace in Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus, 81.
Here’s the way that stories are orally transmitted in Middle Eastern culture:
The setting is informal, not that of a school or academy. But the traditions are carefully controlled. For one thing, while any member of the village community should be capable of telling the stories correctly, there are generally recognized reciters for each story, usually more prominent men in the village. Further, only those who have grown up in the village hearing the stories are entitled to recite them. Stories are recited in public, and so are subject to the corrective scrutiny of the whole community.4646 France, The Evidence for Jesus, 110.
Then, once the text was written down, the transmission of the text was in written form, not verbal, and a trail of manuscripts allows us to refute the theory that corruption occurred during its written transmission.4747 Koukl, "Is the New Testament Text Reliable?," n.p.
We have the manuscript evidence to see that, while there are variations between the copies, the general message (and in most cases each specific word) which they present has not been lost. (See Manuscript Evidence: A Mountain of Manuscripts below for elaboration of these topics.)
