In his book,
The Bible and Archaeology, Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, stated about the New Testament, "
The interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."
Sir Fredric Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1940), 288ff. (bold and underline emphasis mine)
The following is from ‘The New Testament Documents and the Historicity of the Resurrection’ by Sam Shamoun
answering-islam.org/Shamoun/documents.htm (some bold and underline emphsis mine)
’ “
Of the four gospels alone there are 19,368 citations by the church fathers from the late first century on. This includes 268 by Justin Martyr (100-165), 1038 by Ireneaus (active in the late second century), 1017 by Clement of Alexandria (ca. 155-ca. 220), 9231 by Origen (ca. 185-ca. 254), 3822 by Tertullian (ca. 160s-ca. 220), 734 by Hippolytus (d. ca. 236) and 325 by Eusebius (ca. 265-ca. 339…) Earlier,
Clement of Rome cited Matthew, John, 1 Corinthians in 95 to 97. Ignatius referred to six Pauline Epistles in about 110, and between 110 and 150 Polycarp quoted from all four Gospels, Acts and most of Paul’s Epistles. Shepherd of Hermas (115-140) cited Matthew, Mark, Acts, I Corinthians, and other books. Didache (120-150) referred to Matthew, Luke, 1 Corinthians, and other books. Papias, companion of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John, quoted John. This argues powerfully that the Gospels were in existence before the end of the first century, while some eyewitnesses (including John) were still alive.” (Norman Geisler, Encyclopedia, pp. 529-530)
Some critics have tried to debunk the NT documents due to the variant readings that exist between the MSS. Geisler responds:
"There is widespread misunderstanding among critics about ‘errors’ in the biblical manuscripts. Some have estimated there are about 200,000 of them.
First of all, these are not ‘errors’ but variant readings, the vast majority of which are strictly grammatical. Second, these readings are spread throughout the more than 5300 manuscripts, so that a variant spelling of one letter in one verse in 2000 manuscripts is counted as 2000 ‘errors.’ Textual scholars Westcott and Hort estimated that only one in sixty of these variants have significance.
This would leave a text 98.33 percent pure. Philip Schaff calculated that, of the 150,000 variants known in his day, only 400 changed the meaning of the passage, **only fifty were of real significance, and not even one affected ‘an article of faith or a precept of duty which is not abundantly sustained by other and undoubted passages, or by the whole tenor of Scripture teaching’ ** (Schaff, 177).
“Most other ancient books are not so well authenticated.
New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger estimated that the Mahabharata of Hinduism is copied with only about 90 percent accuracy and Homer’s Illiad with about 95 percent. By comparison, HE ESTIMATED THE NEW TESTAMENT IS ABOUT 99.5 PERCENT …” (Geisler, Encyclopedia, pp. 532-533)
B. F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, the editors of The New Testament in Original Greek, also commented:
“If comparative trivialities such as changes of order, the insertion or omission of the article with proper names, and the like are set aside, the works in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly mount to more than a thousandth part of the whole New Testament.” (B.F. Westcott, and F.J.A. Hort, eds., New Testament in Original Greek, 1881, vol. II, 2.)
Sir Frederick Kenyon states:
“…
no unbiased scholar would deny that the text that has come down to us is substantially sound.” (Kenyon, The Bible, as cited in McDowell, Evidence, p. 49)
Kenyon rightly concludes:
“
It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain: Especially is this the case with the New Testament.” (Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts [New York: Harper and Brothers, 1941], 23 as cited in McDowell, Evidence, p. 45)
F. F. Bruce comments:
The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical author, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as
beyond all doubt. (F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 5th rev. ed. [Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988], p. 15) ’
