Modern evangelical textual critics hold
out a sort of “COVID-19” approach to the problem of textual variants. Like the
government, first they scare you. Then they try to establish themselves as the
answer to your problem.
Unbelievers, agnostics, atheists, and apostates, seize on the problem of textual variants to attack the Bible and the Christianity built upon it. Cue apostate textual critic Bart Ehrman:
“…how does it help to say the Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we don’t have the words that God inerrantly inspired, but only the words copied by the scribes—sometimes correctly but sometimes (many times!) incorrectly? What good is it to say that the autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don’t have the originals! We have only error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (p. 7).[i]
“There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.” Misquoting Jesus (p. 90)
In “Textual Variants: It’s the Nature, Not the Number, That Matters,” Tim Barnett states:
“Most scholars put the number of variants for the New Testament at around 400,000. This is a staggering number when coupled with the fact that there are only about 138,000 words in the Greek New Testament.”
However, he goes on to make this point:
“When it comes to the New Testament, it’s not the number of variants that’s important, it’s the nature of the variants. It’s not the quantity of the differences; it’s the quality of the differences.”
Further, Barnett explains the types of
textual variants, which “are categorized by whether or not they are viable, and
whether or not they are meaningful. A variant is viable only
if the variant has a good possibility of being part of the original wording. A
variant is meaningful only if it changes the meaning of the
text.”[ii] He describes them helpfully in this way:
- Neither Viable nor Meaningful
- Viable, but Not Meaningful
- Meaningful, but Not Viable
- Viable and Meaningful
It seems most text critics and scholars allow that the number of variants for the New Testament are somewhere around 400,000. Peter J. Gurry suggests “a reasonable estimate for the number of textual variants in the Greek New Testament (not including spelling differences) is about 500,000.”[iii]
Despite the large number of variant readings, evangelical text critics tell us that over 99% fall into a category of not being meaningful. Variants that are both meaningful and viable – those that might be authentic (according to the text critic) and change the meaning of the text – make up less than 1% of all textual variants. Textual critics (whether evangelical or not) variously agree no important biblical doctrines depend on any of the meaningful and viable variants. In Can We Still Believe the Bible (p. 27) Craig Blomberg asserts “no orthodox doctrine or ethical practice of Christianity depends solely on any disputed wording.” Dan Wallace writes, “no cardinal doctrine depends on any disputed wording” and even Bart Ehrman agrees “Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”
So here we are. The textual critics frighten the simple Bible believers. Then they step in to save them. “Just trust us.” “We know what we are doing and have recaptured most of the Bible, well, pretty much so – even though God did not preserve it intact, and our job is never finished, and we would not know it if it were.”
I suppose it is good to know that only 1% of the textual variants touch the Bible in any meaningful way. However, to assume that this 1% does not make any difference and should not concern the Bible believer is a bridge too far. James Snapp, Jr. illustrates it this way:
“It’s like telling people that there are only 6,500 stray cats in the city, and the vast majority of them are harmless. If 65 of them are rabid it is still a concern.”
It is high time to reject the mythical
mantra that these changes do not matter.[iv]
Here is an example of what some text critics mean when they say that no Bible doctrine depends on a disputed wording. They dismiss 1 John 5:7 (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one). Not to worry, we can defend the Trinity without it. We have Matthew 3:16-17, Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14, Galatians 4:6, 1 Peter 1:2, and so on. And this is true. The biblical teaching of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost does not reduce to only one verse that supports the teaching.[v] On the other hand, despite animadversions to the contrary, this verse – missing in the Greek critical text and most modern translations – deals with a cardinal Bible doctrine in a meaningful and viable way!
Deleting Mark 16:9-20 removes the account of the resurrection appearances, commission, and ascension from the Gospel of Mark. 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 is a disputed passage that addresses the role of women in the church.[vi] Yes, these things matter.
The above discussion of variant texts, their nature and quantities, is in reference to the Greek text of the New Testament. That means none of it directly addresses the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Though there may be fewer textual variants, those that exist affect the Bibles we use.[vii] For example, see Psalm 22:16 .
KJV: For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
NRSV: For dogs are all around me; a company of evildoers encircles me. My hands and feet have shriveled.
This passage is a prophecy, a preview regarding Christ’s death on the cross (cf. Matthew 27:31-32; John 20:24-27; and Zechariah
12:10). Most of the popular new translations tend to stay with the ‘they
pierced” idea. The New Revised Standard Version, however, reduces it to shriveled hands and feet of the writer, with no reference to Christ.
Textual critics and scholars of note, if you really believe that most variants are trivial, affecting nothing, and that no disputed wording affects either our faith or our practice – keep your hands off our Bibles! If you do not really believe what you are saying, stop telling lies!
[ii] In How We Got the Bible, Neil R. Lightfoot lists three and explains them this way: “1. Trivial variations which are of no consequence to the text. 2. Substantial variations which are of no consequence to the text. 3. Substantial variations that have bearing on the text.”(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003; p. 95-103)
[iii] “The Number of Variants in the Greek New Testament: A Proposed Estimate,” Peter J. Gurry. New Testament Studies 62 (1), pp. 97-121, 2016. “The present estimate is based on a clear foundation in the available data and a clear method, both of which are open to public scrutiny.”
[iv] The text critics belie their message when they attack the Traditional Texts of the Bible (Bomberg, Textus Receptus), and Reformation era Bibles like the King James Version and Reina-Valera. It really does matter to them; they only say it doesn’t when trying to smooth over things with more conservative Bible believers. It seems pretty clear to me that the textual critics speak differently among themselves than when they condescend to speak to us peons. Re “it doesn’t matter,” see also The Missing “Book” of the Bible.
[v] It is worth noting that George Vance Smith – an Unitarian who served on the English Bible Revision Committee created in 1870 – thought the variants did have theological impact and was quite pleased that the new revision muted the doctrine of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the atonement. 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.” Some claimed “that the changes of translation which the work contains are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view” but Smith countered that “any such statement 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).
[vi] Many moderns might gladly dispense with this! Though this is a disputed text, I am not aware that any Bibles have yet removed it. Some include notes about it, such as the NET Bible: “Some scholars have argued that vv. 34-35 should be excised from the text (principally G. D. Fee, First Corinthians [NICNT], 697-710; P. B. Payne, “Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34-5, ” NTS 41 [1995]: 240-262).”
[vii] “All Old Testament scholars know of the collations of several hundred thousand variant readings in texts of the Hebrew Bible...” “Textual Variants in the Hebrew Bible Significant for Critical Analysis,” by Francis S. North, in The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 47, No. 1 (1956), p. 77.
No comments:
Post a Comment