Do textual variants in Greek manuscripts of the New Testament affect doctrine? No, we are told, – at least by many evangelical scholars – “Textual variants do not affect any Christian doctrine.” “No fundamental tenet of the Christian faith is affected or disturbed by textual variants.” Theodore Letis calls this the ideology of harmless engagement – the argument that “The doctrine of it is plain in other places” or that no Christian doctrine is affected by a variant or omission. (See From Sacred Text to Religious Text, p. 257.)
Textual variants
We presently have knowledge of the existence of some possible 5000 to 6000 extant Greek manuscript testimonies of the New Testament (according to whose count we accept). Jacob W.
Peterson writes, “It is best to say that there are about 5,300 Greek New
Testament manuscripts in existence, although 5,100 might be the safer estimate.”[i] This number includes manuscripts
of all or parts of the New Testament, books, parts of books, and small
fragments (even mere parts of verses).
The 5000 to 6000 extant Greek manuscripts, according
to whose estimate you are willing to abide, contain some 400,000 variant
readings (i.e., a word, letter, etc. in a manuscript that is different from
that word, letter, etc. in another manuscript) – again, according to whose
estimate you are willing to abide. Peter Gurry explains, “The estimated number
of variants in just our Greek manuscripts is around half a million, not
including spelling differences.”[ii]
About 500,000 variants in about 5000 manuscripts of a
Testament that contains about 139,000 words is a frightening prospect for many
readers.[iii] What to do?
Ostrich
in the sand
The ostrich approach accepts the variants and denies their importance. Do textual variants affect doctrine?
“And so it is with the Sacred Text; make your 30000 [variations] as many more, if Numbers of Copies can ever reach that sum: all the better to a knowing and a serious Reader, who is thereby more richly furnish’d to select what he sees Genuine. But even put them into the hands of a Knave or a Fool; and yet with the most sinistrous and absurd Choice, he shall not extinguish the Light of any one Chapter; nor so disguise Christianity but that every Feature of it will still be the same.” – Richard Bentley, Remarks upon a Late Discourse of Free Thinking, in a Letter to F.H., D.D., by Phileleutherus Lipsiensis (London, 1713, Quote copied from the 8th edition, 1743, pp. 107-108.)
“...no point of orthodox truth is weakened, even though supports, which some have thought sustained it, are found to differ from such supposed use and bearing. There are undoubted passages enough which speak of the proper Godhead of Christ, without our wishing to press into the same cause others for which we have no sufficient evidence, and which were not required to establish that necessary truth in the early controversies.” – Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1854, p. 234.)
“...the critic...does not explain that the vast majority of these variant readings are of little importance, and that in no instance is any vital Christian doctrine involved.” – Alva J. McClain, The “Problems” of Verbal Inspiration (Winona Lake, IN: Brethren Missionary Herald Co., n.d. but at least by 1947, pp. 17-18.)
“A careful study of the variants (or different readings) of the various earliest manuscripts reveals that none of them affects a single doctrine of Scripture.” – Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1964, pp. 18-19.)
“And even when viewed separately and individually, variants recognized as significant cast no doubt on any Bible principle or doctrine. In actuality the number of textual variants validates God’s providential preservation of His Word.” – Charles E. McLain, “Variants: Villainous or Validating?” (Calvary Baptist Theological Journal, Volume 12, Spring/Fall 1996, p. 104.)
“…nothing we believe to be doctrinally true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants…The interpretation of individual passages may well be called in question; but never is a doctrine affected.” – D. A. Carson, The KJV-Only Controversy – A Plea for Realism) Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979, p. 56.)
“The simple fact of the matter is that no textual variants in either the Old or New Testament in any way, shape, or form materially disrupt or destroy any essential doctrine of the Christian faith.” – James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009, p. 67.)
“...where there are inclusions of highly questionable variants, none contradict the harmony of the doctrines taught in Scripture...” – Preaching Variants, August 31, 2021, by Nicholas Batzig
Do textual variants affect doctrine? “No, not really,” say they. Don’t you worry about it.
Affect doctrine generally
Here we might consider it a generalizing thing – that is, by destroying a person’s confidence in the Scriptures, it affects bibliology itself, for example the doctrines of inspiration and preservation. For example, removing 1 John 5:7 or revising 1 Timothy 3:16 does not demolish the deity of Christ or untangle the Trinity. However, it does remove support for these doctrines. It does raises questions – for example, has the inspired word been preserved or corrupted in these cases? Do you know the mind of God at this point?
Catholic Priest Richard Simon, a chief opponent of the Protestant Reformers concerning the Bible, considered the variants in the manuscripts an important and decisive matter – a defeater of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which required the authority of the Roman Catholic Church to settle the matter. See his book A Critical History of the Text of the New Testament: Wherein is firmly Establish’d the Truth of those Acts on which the Foundation of Christian Religion is laid, (London: R. Taylor, 1689).
After the issuing of the revision of the English New Testament in 1881, Catholic editors rejoiced because the work diminished the principle of sola scriptura. They wrote:
“One thing at least is certain, the Catholic Church will gain by the New Revision…indirectly, because the ‘Bible-only’ principle is proved to be false. It is now at length too evident that Scripture is powerless without the Church as the witness to its inspiration, the safeguard of its integrity, and the exponent of its meaning. And it will now be clear to all men which is the true Church, the real Mother to whom the Bible of right belongs.”
“And we think one of the certain effects of this acceptance of the revised version will be the increase of more rational views about the Bible. A book that can be amended cannot be infallible. Yet thousands of readers of the King James version have read it in the firm belief that they were reading an infallible book. They will now begin to see that that belief, at least, was a mistake. But, since no claim is made that the new revising committee have been inspired, and their process of working with the instrumentalities of human scholarship is even frankly described, have these readers an infallible book now? Have all mistakes been corrected? And these ‘manuscripts’ that are talked about,—on what authority do they rest? And so, the question of infallibility having once been started among readers who never raised it before, it may not rest until it reach the question of original authorship, and the popular theories of the Bible be reconstructed on a more rational basis. From this point of view, therefore, the revised New Testament has a special interest for Liberals. That the revision, on points where any doctrinal change is involved, favors liberal Christian rather than orthodox interpretation is also apparent.” – “The New New-Testament,” Free Religious Index, May 26, 1881, in Free Religious Index, Volume I (New Series), Boston, MA: Free Religious Association, p. 570 [This organization opposed organized religion and favored natural or rational religion.]
Do textual variants affect doctrine? “Yes,” some say. Variants and changes support liberal Christianity, free-thinking – or whatever the position is that someone thinks it favors. So stated, it protests providential preservation and knocks the shine of inspiration.
Affect
doctrines specifically
Do textual variants affect doctrine? The brilliant Christian Isaac Newton, scientist and scholar, thought so. He was neither a knave nor a fool. In An Historical Account of the Two Notable Corruptions of the Scriptures, in a Letter to a Friend, Isaac Newton shows that he thought the (supposed) spuriousness of both I John 5:7 and the “orthodox variant” in 1 Timothy 3:16 supported the Unitarian cause.
In An History of Early Opinions Concerning Jesus Christ, Compiled From Original Writers; Proving that the Christian Church was at First Unitarian, Volume IV (Birmingham: Pearson and Rollason, 1786, p. 105), Unitarian Joseph Priestley sees the problem of 1 John 5:7 as a victory for Unitarianism, writing in one place,
“and the famous verse, I John, v. 7. concerning the three that bear record in heaven, has been sufficiently proved to have come into the epistle in this unauthorized manner; and had it been done in an early period, there would have appeared no more reason to have suspected the genuineness of it, than there now does that of the introductions to the gospels of Matthew and Luke.”
George Vance Smith – an Unitarian who served on the English Bible Revision Committee created in 1870 – believed that variants have theological impact. He felt that the new revision muted the doctrine of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the atonement. He was quite pleased with those results. In the conclusion of his book, Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed, he summarizes the “Doctrinal Results of the Revision.” Smith asserted that “any such statement [that the changes of translation are of little doctrinal importance] appears to be in the most substantial sense contrary to the facts of the case...The changes just enumerated are manifestly of great importance, and are they not wholly unfavourable to the popular theology? Many persons will deny this, but it is hard to see on what grounds they do so. Or, if it be true that the popular orthodoxy remains unaffected by such changes, the inference is unavoidable that popular orthodoxy must be very indifferent as to the nature of the foundation on which it stands.” – Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed, by George Vance Smith (London: 37 Norfolk Street, 1881, pp. 45, 47).
In more modern times, text critic Bart Ehrman seems to play both sides against the middle. On the one hand, Ehrman agrees, “Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.” On the other hand, he also writes:
Most textual variants (Prof. Metzger and I agree on this) have no bearing at all on what a passage means. But there are other textual variants (we agree on this as well) that are crucial to the meaning of a passage. And the theology of entire books of the New Testament are sometimes affected by the meaning of individual passages.
From my point of view, the stakes are rather high: Does Luke’s Gospel teach a doctrine of atonement (that Christ’s death atones for sins)? Does John’s Gospel teach that Christ is the “unique God” himself? Is the doctrine of the Trinity ever explicitly stated in the New Testament? These and other key theological issues are at stake, depending on which textual variants you think are original and which you think are creations of early scribes who were modifying the text.” – Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, (New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005, pp. 252-253)
Despite being told “Textual variants do not affect any Christian doctrine,” experts often disagree (and sometimes the same expert seems to with himself). In One Bible Only, W. Edward Glenny disagrees, writing, “His last statement that no variants affect any doctrine is too
strong. Some variants do affect the doctrinal content of individual passages.” – One Bible Only?: Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible (Roy E. Beacham, Kevin T. Bauder , editors. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2001, p. 133.)
Peter Gurry finesses the answer, writing, “We should not give the impression that New Testament variants do not matter at all for Christian theology or practice; we can and should, however, recognize that no doctrine is in jeopardy because of a serious variant.”[iv]
Hear Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart. They claim the Greek text behind the King James Version was filled with mistakes. They say “few” copying errors – but not zero – affect doctrine, “but they often do make a difference in the meaning of certain specific texts.” Based on this, they conclude, “This is why for study you should use almost any modern translation rather than the KJV.” (Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2014, p. 34.) It is hard to conclude, based on their recommendation, that the variants do not matter to them!
James Snapp, Jr., in Do Any Textual Variants Impact Doctrine?, points out how Dan Wallace nuances the statement mentioned in our first paragraph, “no viable and meaningful variant jeopardizes any cardinal doctrine.” Nevertheless, contra the supposed authorities, Snapp says he “can think of at least two variants that jeopardize the doctrine of inerrancy, both of which occur in the first book of the New Testament: in Matthew 13:35 and Matthew 27:49.” Why? These variants are factual errors, contradicting the truth of the Scriptures in other places.
[ii] Gurry goes on to say, “Nearly half of these are meaningless mistakes.” (“Myths About Variants: Why Most Variants Are Insignificant and Why Some Can’t Be Ignored,” by Peter J. Gurry in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry, editors. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2019, p. 210.)
[iii] There are roughly 5000 different or unique words that are used about 139,000 times total.
[iv] “Myths About Variants: Why Most Variants Are Insignificant and Why Some Can’t Be Ignored,” by Peter J. Gurry in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry, editors. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2019, p. 210.
No comments:
Post a Comment