Can We Rely On the Bible? (Part 2)

“Errors” in the Manuscript Evidence?

One who is trying to discredit the reliability of the Bible might make the following argument (or one similar to it): We don’t possess any of the original New Testament documents today; and of the thousands of copies that we do have, there are no two which agree with one another in all particulars. There are literally hundreds of thousands of errors contained within these copies, and there is therefore no way that we can know for sure what was originally written in the 1^st Century. One Biblical scholar and skeptic who makes this kind of argument is Bart Ehrman. He asserts that there are over 400,000 “errors” contained within the manuscript evidence for the New Testament. Further, he points out that since the New Testament is comprised of only 138,162 words, there are more “errors” in the manuscripts than words in the New Testament! And because there are so many “errors” he, and others, would conclude (and would like for you to conclude as well) that the record preserved for us today is entirely unreliable; essentially suggesting that the original text of the New Testament is entirely lost to us, with no way to recover it[1].

These may seem like startling figures upon first glance, and it must be acknowledged that there is some validity to some of these assertions. For example, let’s note some facts that cannot and should not be denied:  1) We do not have any of the originals (called “autographs”) of any of the New Testament books. If we did possess them, it would be easy to refute many of the allegations and assumptions which are intended to impugn the reliability and accuracy of our current text and ultimately undermine and cast doubt on the authenticity of the New Testament itself. However, it is more than likely that the “autographs” have long ago disintegrated to dust. 2) There are no two copies (called “manuscripts”) of the originals that are identical to one another. 3) Among the manuscripts that we possess today (which number greater than 5,800), there are indeed more variances than words (400,000 variants is not an unrealistic estimation). Nevertheless, let me suggest that we can still have complete confidence in the accuracy and authority of our Bibles today.

The first step is in understanding how these “errors,” which are commonly referred to as “variances” by textual critics, are counted. Essentially a “variance” is any difference, or “variation,” between any of the more than 5,800 known manuscripts. As suggested previously, the estimated variances between our manuscripts is somewhere in excess of 400,000. This may seem at first to be a very big problem and reason for concern. However, it should be noted that though it may be a true statement to say that there are “400,000 scribal errors in the extant manuscripts,” it is entirely misleading—and in fact untrue—to say that there are “400,000 errors in the text of the New Testament.” “This large number is gained by counting all the variations in all the manuscripts. This means that if, for example, one word is misspelled in 4,000 different manuscripts, it amounts to 4,000 ‘errors’. Actually in a case of this kind only one slight error has been made and it has been copied 4,000 times.”[2] The reality is that the vast majority of these variances are no more than trivial differences and none bear any effect on any doctrinal issues. Therefore, there is no credible reason to question the authenticity of the text we have today. Let’s examine briefly each kind of variance in the manuscript evidence to illustrate this point. There are essentially four different types of variants. 

Changes in Spelling and Nonsense Readings

More than 300,000 of the 400,000 variants fall into this category, making it the largest of the four. These variants are composed primarily of spelling differences and the addition or omission of conjunctions and articles (e.g. the, for, but, and). When considering differences in spelling there are several reasonable explanations.

The most common “spelling error” is what is called the “moveable nu,” the equivalent of this in English is the difference in the indefinite article “a book” vs. “an apple.” If we said, “a apple” (omitting the “n”) this would technically be incorrect grammar, even though the meaning is not effected one bit.  Another explanation regarding spelling differences is that a scribe would sometimes alter the spelling of a certain word in keeping with the accepted spelling of his day. Greek was not a dead language when the majority of our manuscripts were being transcribed. It was constantly undergoing change, much like the English language is still doing today. To illustrate this type of change in language consider the following “variances” in two popular English translations of the same text:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16, KJV)

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” (John 3:16, NASB). 

Most would agree that these two versions say the same thing, one using archaic English while the other uses a more contemporary, modern English. If these were Greek manuscripts there would be at least four variances considered between the two. These types of variants are abundant; and without any standardized dictionaries or spellings, this is to be expected. But these kinds of variants are so easy to detect that they have no real effect on the reliability or accuracy of the text.

Changes That Cannot Be Translated

This is the second largest category of variants, and primarily consists of differences in word order and the employment of synonyms. When considering variances in word order it is important to know that these differences cannot even be translated into English and are therefore of no concern. The reason for this is because the Greek language, unlike English, is highly inflected. This means that word order is not nearly as important in Greek as it is in English. In English, we determine the function of nouns primarily by their order in the sentence. Consider, for example, the following sentence: “The dog bit John.” We know that “dog” is the subject of the verb (i.e. the noun performing the action) while “John” is the object of the verb (i.e. the one being acted upon) based on where each word occurs in the sentence. Greek is not this way. It does not rely on word order to determine the function of a noun. Rather, it relies on special case endings to designate the different parts of speech. This is called inflection. The best way to illustrate this in English is by looking at the English 1^st person pronoun, as it is one of the few English words that is inflected: I, my, me, we, our, us. We would never say, “The dog bit I.” “I” is the subjective case of the pronoun, meaning that it functions as the subject of the sentence. For our sentence to be correct, we would need to use the objective case of the pronoun: “me”; and so our sentence should read: “The dog bit me.” As we have already suggested, inflection is rare in English, and more often than not, word order is more important in determining the meaning and function of the words. For example, in English it makes a world of difference if we say “God created man” vs. “Man created God”. The change in word order drastically changes the meaning of the sentence. However, in Greek, if ‘God’ has the case ending signifying that it is the subject of the sentence (i.e. nominative case) and ‘man’ has the case ending designating it as the object of the sentence (i.e. accusative case), then word order is irrelevant. Both phrases would be interpreted and translated as “God created man,” regardless of the order of the words in the Greek sentence. So, we see that these kinds of variances make no difference in the reliability and accuracy of the text either.

Meaningful Variants Which Are Non-Viable

This category is comprised of variant readings that involve more than simply misspelled words, varying word order, substitution of synonyms, or the like. Rather they represent significant differences in the text. Perhaps it is a word or phrase that has been either added or omitted that would change the way we would interpret that specific passage. They are however inconsequential, because they don’t bear any weight on what we are confident the autographs stated. Let me give a couple of examples.

In Luke 6:22, we read, “Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man” (NASB). There is one manuscript (designated Codex2882) from the late 10^th/early 11^th Century, which lacks this last phrase in the verse – “for the sake of the Son of Man.” This is a meaningful variant, in that it represents a significant difference—several words, indeed a whole phrase is missing. When omitted, it changes the meaning of the passage. Without this phrase it would appear that Jesus is saying that ALL people who are hated, ostracized, insulted, or scorned are blessed, not just those who suffer for Christ. “Yet it is only in one manuscript, and a relatively late one at that. It has no chance of reflecting the wording of the original text, since all the other manuscripts are against it, including quite a few that are much, much earlier” (Daniel B. Wallace)[3].

Another example of this type of variant can be found in the account of the conversion of the Ethiopian Eunuch recorded in Acts 8.  Verse 37, which reads, “And Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he answered and said, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,’” was most likely not in the original text written by Luke, but was added sometime afterward (probably by a scribe who felt that the eunuch’s question in vs. 36 deserved an appropriate answer in the narrative). We say this because there is no manuscript dating prior to the 7^th Century (including the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus) that contains this portion of text. This teaching about expressing faith in Christ, however, is reflected in other passages of Scripture and is in fact a true Biblical principle (cf. John 8:24; Romans 10:8-13, etc.). So, even if it was simply not contained in the original letter written by Luke, this doesn’t mean that it is a false statement, and its presence or absence in no way compromises any doctrine.

Meaningful Variants Which Are Viable

Variants of this category are of the same nature of those discussed in the previous section, in that they too represent significant changes in the text that could affect the meaning of the passage. The major difference, however, is that the textual evidence is not as “one-sided” either for or against a particular reading. That is, the evidence, when all weighed and considered, equally supports more than one reading. These types of variants make up less than 1% of all textual variants! So, this is the smallest, by far, of all the categories of variants, and really the only category that impacts the text. But, it is incredibly noteworthy that none of these variants bear any impact on any matters of doctrine or faith.

For example, Mark 16:9-20 is not contained in the oldest manuscripts that we have today, suggesting that it may not be original to the text[4]. And yet there are many compelling reasons to think that perhaps it was original[5]. The evidence, when all weighed, is almost equally split. This is a pretty significant portion of Scripture and initially could cause one to have some questions. But again, the fact is that there is nothing taught or conveyed in this “questionable” text that is not recorded somewhere else in Scripture in a text whose originality and authenticity is beyond doubt. Whether this passage was or was not originally in the gospel of Mark, the principles and teachings that it provides are entirely Scriptural.

Conclusion

Though there may be a large number of variances, we can rest assured that they do not bear any effect on the authenticity of the words passed down from God to man. This is where the vast number of manuscripts comes into play again. Not only does it account for the high number of variants—that is to say, the number of variant readings in ancient documents is directly proportional to the number of extant manuscripts, and if there are fewer manuscripts, there will naturally be fewer variants—but, when there is a variant, the number of manuscripts provide us with adequate means of determining the true reading. If, for example, there is a variant reading in one, or even a handful, of manuscripts that are of a relatively late date, and the rest agree on another reading, the answer is clear. If however, there were only two manuscripts available to us, and they disagree in a particular point, there would be virtually no way of knowing which is the authentic or better reading. So, you see, with such a great number of manuscripts it makes sense that there is going to be a great number of variants, and yet there should be no lack of confidence in the integrity of our text. We can have full confidence in the text of the Bible that we possess today. No other historical document can boast anywhere close to the number of witnesses and manuscripts that the Bible has. Many variances can be easily dismissed and those that are not as easily dismissed have no effect on any doctrinal issue contained in the Bible. We can rely on the Bible!