The Nazarene

But when he [i.e., Joseph] heard that Archelaus did reign in Judæa in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.[i] Matthew 2:22-23.

The historical incident

Matthew 2:23 records the historical incident of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus journeying from the land of Egypt to the city of Nazareth. After coming out of their exile of safety in Egypt, they returned to Nazareth. Because of God’s warning, they did not stop in Judæa but continued on to their former home in Galilee. There Jesus grew from boyhood to manhood (cf. Luke 2:51-52; 4:16).

Nazareth was a village in the region of Galilee, part of the land of Naphtali (Joshua 21:32; 2 Kings 15:29, et al.). Galilee bordered and was west of the Jordan River and the Sea of Galilee. Isaiah 9:1 suggests a region jutting into or surrounded by “the nations,” Gentiles, a non-Jewish population (cf. Matthew 4:15). Magdala (Matthew 15:39), Tiberias (John 6:1, 23), and Capernaum (Matthew 4:13) were on the Sea of Galilee. Nazareth and nearby Cana (John 2:1ff.) were about halfway between the Sea of Galilee and the Mediterranean Sea.

As cities go, Nazareth was small and insignificant. Neither the Hebrew Old Testament, the Apocrypha, the writings of Josephus, nor the Talmud mention the city of Nazareth. It first shows up in the Bible in the Gospels, as the town of Mary and Joseph (cf. Luke 1:26; 2:4; Matthew 2:23; 4:13).[ii] Joseph and Mary had lived in Nazareth before traveling to Bethlehem because of the taxation (cf. Luke 2:4-5), and thither they eventually return.

One commonly accepted belief about the origin of the name of the city is that it derives from the Hebrew word netzer (or nēser, netser נֵצֶר). The Old Testament Hebrew uses this word four times, including Isaiah 11:1.[iii]

“…the name, Nazareth, is from the Hebrew word netzer, which is translated ‘branch’ in the English language. Several of the Old Testament prophets predict the coming of Christ as ‘the Branch,’ or a synonymous term.”[iv]

Concerning the name of the city, John Gill writes:

A Nazarene, as David de Pomis says,{[v]}

“is one that is born in the city Netzer, which is said to be in the land of Galilee, three days journey distant from Jerusalem.”

The prophetical equivalent

The historical incident of Jesus’s family returning to Nazareth coincides with the fulfillment of prophecy. Matthew explicitly and unequivocally connects Jesus being a called “a Nazarene” with his dwelling in Nazareth.[vi] What is the prophecy? What does it mean?

In its simplest meaning, a Nazarene is a man from Nazareth.[vii] But why is “a Nazarene” significant? We cannot search the Old Testament and find the word Nazareth, much less Nazarene. Note that in verse 23 Matthew writes prophets plural, rather than citing one specific prophet. Rather than “fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet,” it is “fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets.” Compare Matthew 1:22; 2:15, 17; 3:4; 4:14; 8:17 and other places, where he is stating a specific prophecy by a specific prophet. This should shortly (or at least eventually) suggest to us that Matthew is connecting a theme of prophecy, a general sense, rather than a direct statement found in one particular place.

But what is that theme? What is the sense? Unlike Bethlehem, the town of King David where Jesus was born, Nazareth was an obscure town in a despised region of the country. Commenting on Matthew 2:23, Matthew Henry wrote:

“Thither they were sent, and there they were well known, and were among their relations; the most proper place for them to be in. There they continued, and from thence our Saviour was called Jesus of Nazareth, which was to the Jews a stumbling-block, for, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” [and “out of Galilee ariseth no prophet” they thought.]

Henry continues on this theme:

“…He shall be called a Nazarene. Which may be looked upon…As a name of reproach and contempt…Now this was not particularly foretold by any one prophet, but, in general, it was spoken by the prophets, that he should be despised and rejected of men (Isa. liii. 2, 3), a Worm, and no man (Ps. xxii. 6, 7), that he should be an Alien to his brethren, Ps. lxix. 7, 8.”

Albert Barnes put it this way.

“He does not say ‘by the prophet,’ as in Matthew 1:22; Matthew 2:5, Matthew 2:15, but ‘by the prophets,’ meaning no one prophet particularly, but the general character of the prophecies. As Jerome observes,[viii] he shows that he took not the words from the prophets, but only the sense.”[ix]

The high and holy eternal Son of God became the meek and lowly (Matthew 11:29; Zechariah 9:9), of no reputation, the reputation of a Nazarene. The prophets, plural, prophesied this theme about the Messiah to come. Jesus fulfilled it.

Prophets prophesy

• Psalm 22:6-8 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.
• Psalm 69:7-8a Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.
• Psalm 118:22  The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
• Isaiah 53:2-3 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
• Isaiah 53:12 …he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
• Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off…
• Zechariah 9:9 …behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Jesus Christ fulfills

• Matthew 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
• Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
• Luke 17:25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.
• John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
• John 1:46 And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
• John 7:52 They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.
• John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
• Acts 3:14-15 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; and killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.
• Philippians 2:6-8 …Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
• Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death…

Called a “Nazarene” i.e., Jesus of Nazareth, by:

• a multitude in Jerusalem (Jesus the prophet of Nazareth ιησους ο προφητης ο απο ναζαρεθ, Matthew 21:11)
• a maid in Jerusalem (Jesus of Nazareth ιησου του ναζωραιου, Matthew 26:71; του ναζαρηνου ιησου ησθα Mark 14:67  )
• by demons (Jesus of Nazareth ιησου ναζαρηνε, Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34)
• a crowd on the Jericho road, heard by blind Bartimæus (Jesus of Nazareth ιησους ο ναζωραιος, Mark 10:47; Luke 18:37)
• an angel (ιησουν ζητειτε τον ναζαρηνον Mark 16:16)
• disciples on the way to Emmaus (Jesus of Nazareth ιησου του ναζωραιου Luke 24:19)
• Philip (Jesus of Nazareth ιησουν τον υιον του ιωσηφ τον απο ναζαρεθ John 1:45)
• officers of the priests (Jesus of Nazareth ιησουν τον ναζωραιον, John 18:5, 7)
• someone writing by the authority of Pilate (Jesus of Nazareth ιησους ο ναζωραιος, John 19:19)

In an ingenious display of the low and humble estate of Jesus, Luke 4:28-30 shows that even the despised citizens at the synagogue of the despised city of Nazareth despise and reject Jesus the Nazarene, intending to cast him down the brow of the hill on which Nazareth was built. Oh, the power and wonder, too – “But he passing through the midst of them went his way.” See Matthew 13:54-58, another occasion where “they were offended in him” and showed him no honour – he whom they contemptuously considered the native carpenter’s son. Although the Nazarene prophet was without honour in his own country, in his own city, in his own house, yet at the name of the Nazarene carpenter’s son every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess “that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

The Lowly Nazarene (by William Henry Gardner, 1866-1932).

1. Jesus knows earth’s cares and sorrows,
Through Death’s valley has He been,
At the bench He toiled and suffered,
Christ, the “Lowly Nazarene.”
 
2. His great heart will bear our burdens,
On Him you can ever lean,
He knows all our hopes and longings,
Christ, the “Lowly Nazarene.”
 
3. Comfort gives He to the beggar,
Freely as unto a Queen,
For His love indeed is boundless,
Christ, the “Lowly Nazarene.”
 
Chorus:
Lord of earth and sky forever,
Christ, the Lord, with pow’r supreme!
Born of woman in a manger,
Once a “Lowly Nazarene.”

We see Jesus the Nazarene, the Son of God who made himself of no reputation, lower than the angels for the suffering of death – the death we deserved and his death that paid the penalty for sin. With the songwriter Charles H. Gabriel, “I stand amazed in the presence of Jesus the Nazarene.”

Amen.

---

[i] 23 και ελθων κατωκησεν εις πολιν λεγομενην ναζαρεθ οπως πληρωθη το ρηθεν δια των προφητων οτι ναζωραιος κληθησεται Matthew 1:23 in 1894 Textus Receptus.
[ii] Some mythicists (people who think that Jesus never existed) place high stock in the fact of lack of prior mention, hoping to use it to support their own myth. However, neither faith nor facts support their diversion. In 2009, Israeli archaeologists found what they believed were the remains of a dwelling in Nazareth that can be dated to the time of Jesus. Archaeologist Yardena Alexandre, excavations director at the Israel Antiquities Authority, said that their finds suggested that Nazareth was a small out-of-the-way city populated by Jews of modest means. See “Nazareth dwelling discovery may shed light on boyhood of Jesus,” as well as “Did First-Century Nazareth Exist” and “Jesus’ House? 1st-Century Structure May Be Where He Grew Up.”
[iii] For four uses of netzer (sprout, shoot, branch) in Old Testament, see Isaiah 11:1; 14:19; 60:21; Daniel 11:7.
[iv] Old Testament in Matthew, Volume I, J. W. Griffith, Pasadena, TX: White Printing, 1994, p. 28.
[v] De Pomis, 1525-after 1593, a notable Italian Jewish physician and philosopher, in Ẓemaḥ Dawid (i.e., The Offspring of David), Hebrew Lexicon, fol. 141. 2., 1587.
[vi] Nazarene – an inhabitant of the village of Nazareth. This has been often confused with Nazarite. A common misreading or misinterpretation of “Nazarene” is that it means “Nazarite.” However, Matthew does not say Nazarite, and Jesus was not a Nazarite.
[vii] Followers of the Nazarene were sometimes called Nazarenes. “For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:” (Acts 24:5). In addition, sometimes “Christians are called Notzrim by Israelis in the Middle East.” See “Jesus “the Nazarene” – what is behind the title?”
[viii] Et veniens habitavit in civitate, quae vocatur Nazareth ut adimpleretur quod dictum est per prophetas, quoniam Nazareus vocabitur. Si fixum de Scripturis posulsset exemplu, numquam diceret, quod dictum est per prophetas; sed simpliciter, quod dictum est per prophetam: nune autem pluraliter prophetas vocans, ostendit se non verba de Scripturis sumpsisse, sed sensum. Nazaraeus, sanctus interpretatur. Sanctum autem Dominum futurum, omnis Sciptura commemorat. Possumus et aliter dicere, quod etiam verbis, juxta Hebraicam veritstem in Isaia scriptum sit: Esiet virga de radice Iesse, et Nazaraeus de radice ejus conscendet (Isai. xi. i.). | English translation: And coming, he dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene. If he had asked for a fixed example from the Scriptures, he would never have said what was said through the prophets; but simply, what was said by the prophet: but now, calling the prophets in the plural, he shows that he did not take the words from the Scriptures, but the sense. A Nazarene, the Spirit interpreted. And all the Scriptures mention the coming of the Holy Lord. We can also say in another way, that even in words, according to the Hebrew truth, it is written in Isaiah: A rod shall come from the root of Jesse, and a Nazarene shall come up from his root. (Isai. xi. i.). Jerome’s Commentary on Matthew.
[ix] Barnes sums up the view of Jesus the Nazarene as one despised in four points: 1. He does not say “by the prophet,” as in Matthew 1:22; Matthew 2:5, Matthew 2:15, but “by the prophets,” meaning no one particularly, but the general character of the prophecies. 2. The leading and most prominent prophecies respecting him were, that he was to be of humble life; to be despised and rejected. 3. The phrase “he shall be called” means the same as he shall be. 4. The character of the people of Nazareth was such that they were proverbially despised and contemned, John 1:46; John 7:52. To come from Nazareth, therefore, or to be a Nazarene, was the same as to be despised, or to be esteemed of low birth; to be a root out of dry ground, having no form or comeliness. This was what had been predicted by all the prophets.

A Biblical View, and other links

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

• A Biblical View of Church History -- “I need to interject here, as the title of this article reflects, I am not talking about a Protestant view of Church History vs. a Catholic view—I am talking about a biblical view.”
• CDC knew COVID vax associated with myocarditis but left off post-vax surveys -- “Data released under court order shows 1 in 3 among earliest populations to get vaccinated reported needing medical care, missing school or work, or inability to ‘perform normal daily activities.’ CDC still fighting to keep v-safe ‘free-text field data’ secret.”
• Fredericksburg Cast Iron Co. -- “Leveraging our Texas-German heritage from the heart of the Hill Country, Fredericksburg Cast Iron Co. produces heavy duty cast-iron cookware that is 100% made in Texas.”
• Kisatchie Wold -- “A large sandstone ridge which extends from the Mississippi River floodplain to the Rio Grande valley, roughly paralleling the Gulf of Mexico.”
• Living Between Two Worlds -- “Daniel stands on the crossroads between two disparate worlds. Behind him he casts his mind’s eye to the holy city, the source of his identity and citizenship.”
• Martyn Lloyd-Jones vs. Expressive Individualism -- “The clip below is cued up to an excerpt near the end where Bakewell asks Lloyd-Jones about what we now call expressive individualism.”
• Parisa: A Medina County Delicacy -- “If it looks like raw hamburger meat to you, you are close. But you are also so, so far.”
• Responding to the Present Alarm -- “The alarm is blaring. Men hit snooze, some cover their ears, others panic, aimlessly running around with anxiety. The alarm continues.”
• The Geneva Bible and Authorised Version Compared 1 -- “...the sharp contrast drawn between the Geneva and the Authorised Version is overdrawn. Such is their close similarity that it makes more sense to compare rather than contrast them.”
• The Geneva Bible and Authorised Version Compared 2 -- “Scholarship in the Hebrew and Greek languages had come to their highest point since the recovery of this knowledge at the time of the Renaissance.”
• The Geneva Bible and Authorised Version Compared 3 -- “There is every reason to believe that the AV raised the bar for translation yet higher and, as they expressed it themselves, made a very good translation even better.”
• The Legacy of the First Revised Bible Translations -- “Several ancient Jewish revisions of the Septuagint have names associated with them. Most famous among them are “the Three”: Theodotion (post 30 AD), Aquila (ca. 130 AD), and Symmachus (ca. 200 AD).”
• The Trial of the Century -- “John Scopes was the football coach but occasionally filled in for members of the teaching staff at the local high school. He had recently substituted for the biology teacher.”
• Why do Mormons use the KJV? -- “There are two main reasons that the Mormon church utilizes and endorses only the King James Version. The first is that at the time of the organization of the church in 1830, the King James or Authorized Version was accepted as the authoritative Bible among English speaking people.”

The providential preservation of the holy Scriptures

In discussing the providential preservation of the holy Scriptures we must notice first a very important principle which accounts for the difference between Old Testament textual criticism and New Testament textual criticism. The Old Testament Church was under the care of the divinely appointed Aaronic priesthood, and for this reason the Holy Spirit preserved the Old Testament through this priesthood and the scholars that grouped themselves around it. The Holy Spirit guided these priests and scholars to gather the separate parts of the Old Testament into one Old Testament canon and to maintain the purity of the Old Testament text. In the New Testament Church, on the other hand, this special priesthood has been abolished through the sacrifice of Christ. Every believer is a priest before God, and for this reason the Holy Spirit has preserved the New Testament text not through any special priesthood but through the universal priesthood of believers, that is, through the usage of God’s people, the rank and file of all those that truly trust in Christ.

Edward F. Hills, in The King James Version Defended

Wise men still seek Jesus

“…behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.”

One of my favorite traditional Christmas carols is “Three Kings of Orient,” probably more commonly known as “We Three Kings of Orient Are.” Part of it is the minor mood of the 5 stanzas, no doubt (the chorus is in major mood). This hymn honors our Lord Jesus Christ as the Risen “King and God and Sacrifice” – ranging from his miraculous birth to his glorious resurrection.

Some folks object to its phrasing “three kings” and therefore do not to sing the song. That is fair enough, if you so choose. However, note two things. First, this error is not an error of “fact” – as the error of placing the wise men at the stable instead of a house (Matthew 2:11) – but a difference of interpretation. Second, the “offending” words may be changed.

I do not agree with the interpretation that we should identify the wise men as kings. However, this idea goes all the way back to early church writers. Circa AD 200, Tertullian argued that the wise men were considered kings. In Adversus Marcionem (or Against Marcion, Book 3, chapter 13) after referencing Zechariah 14:14 and Psalm 72:10, 15, he writes, “For the East generally regarded the magi as kings...”

Origen, writing around AD 250, mentions the same or similar spiritual meaning of the gifts as Hopkins in “Kings of Orient” (See Contra Celsum, or Against Celsus, Book 1, Chapter 60). He also appears to be the first to quantify the wise men as numbering three (Homilies on Genesis and Exodus). Commenting on Psalm 72:10 and Isaiah 60:6, Matthew Henry writes:

“This was literally fulfilled in Solomon (for all the kings of the earth sought the wisdom of Solomon, and brought every man his present, 2 Chron. ix. 23, 24), and in Christ too, when the wise men of the east, who probably were men of the first rank in their own country, came to worship him and brought him presents, Matt. ii. 11.” (Vol. 3, p. 508)

“This was in part fulfilled when the wise men of the east (perhaps some of the countries here mentioned), drawn by the brightness of the star, came to Christ, and presented to him treasures of gold, frankincense, and myrrh, Matt. ii.11.” (Vol. 4, p. 351)

Therefore, we see there is a long-standing teaching that the wise men were three, and/or that they were kings. Nevertheless, I think it likely, considering the extent to which Matthew continually refers his record back to the prophecies of the Old Testament, that the wise men would have been connected to “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet.” Regardless, I do not find this an egregious error, as some other Christmas traditions that directly disagree with what the Bible says. Simply replacing “three kings” with “wise men” will alleviate that problem (see footnote 1).

The lyrics below are as generally found in most songbooks I have used in my lifetime. There are some minor variations from the original, with a major difference in the last two lines of stanza 5.

1. We three kings of Orient are[i]

Bearing gifts, we traverse afar—

Field and fountain, Moor and mountain—

Following yonder Star.

2. Born a King on Bethlehem’s plain[ii]
Gold I bring to crown Him again,
King for ever, ceasing never,
Over us all to reign.

3. Frankincense to offer have I;
Incense owns a Deity nigh;
Prayer and praising, All men raising,
Worship Him God on high.

4. Myrrh is mine, its bitter perfume
Breathes a life of gathering gloom; —
Sorrowing, sighing, Bleeding, dying,
Sealed in the stone-cold tomb.

5. Glorious now behold Him arise;
King and God and Sacrifice;
Alleluia, Alleluia,
Peals through the earth and skies.[iii]

Refrain:
O star of wonder, star of night,
Star with royal beauty bright,
Westward leading, still proceeding,
Guide us to thy perfect light.

John Henry Hopkins, Jr. (1820-1891) wrote this hymn in 1857. He was at that time the rector of Christ Episcopal Church in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. Hopkins was the General Theological Seminary’s first music teacher (1855-57), and editor of the Church Journal (1853-68). He wrote both the words and music for a Christmas pageant of the General Theological Seminary in New York City. According to Doug Storer in Amazing But True, this was the “first widely popular American Christmas carol...” John was the son of John Henry Hopkins, Sr. and Melusina Muller. His father was the first Episcopal bishop of Vermont.

Hopkins first printed Three Kings of Orient in Carols, Hymns, and Songs (New York, NY: Church Book Depository, 1863), on page 12. Though seldom sung this way today, he originally organized the song so that stanzas 2, 3, and 4 were sung as solos by each “king.”[iv] Stanzas 1 and 5 and the chorus were sung by all. Hopkins explains in a note under the song:

“Each of the verses 2, 3, and 4, is sung as a solo, to the music of Gaspard’s part in the 1st and 5th verses, the accompaniment and chorus being the same throughout. Only verses 1 and 5 are sung as a trio. Men’s voices are best for the parts of the Three Kings, but the music is set in the G clef for the accommodation of children.”

I searched for some a cappella renditions to link here. Apparently, to many now a cappella means not using musical instructions, but allowing for vocal sounds that sound similar to musical instruments. That is interesting, requires a lot of talent, and often sounds good. However, that is not what I was looking for. Here are a couple, by A Cappella Hymns and the Central Dauphin High School A Cappella Group. I like to sing all five stanzas, then sing the chorus once afterward; I realize this is not so common to sing it that way.

---

[i] For those who find “three kings” objectionable, I suggest substituting either “We wise men from in the east are” or “We wise men of Orient are.” Orient in this context simply means east.
[ii] The original has “Bethlehem plain.”
[iii] Hopkins’s original words are “Heav’n sings Hallelujah, Hallelujah the earth replies.”
[iv] The traditional (not biblical_ names of the wise men derive from at least two sources, the 6th-century Armenian Gospel of the Infancy (Melchior, Gaspar, and Balthazar) and the 8th-century Excerpta Latina Barbari, or, A Barbarian’s Latin Excerpts (Melchior, Gathaspa, and Bithisarea). Melchior, Gaspar, and Balthasar are also mentioned in the 8th-century Collectanea et Flores. These particular names mostly circulate in the West.

What is sin?

What is sin?

• It is the glory of God not honored.
• The holiness of God not reverenced.
• The greatness of God not admired.
• The power of God not praised.
• The truth of God not sought.
• The wisdom of God not esteemed.
• The beauty of God not treasured.
• The goodness of God not savored.
• The faithfulness of God not trusted.
• The commandments of God not obeyed.
• The justice of God not respected.
• The wrath of God not feared.
• The grace of God not cherished.
• The presence of God not prized.
• The person of God not loved.
• That is sin.

Attributed to John Piper in an e-mail I received.

Combs: we do not now possess the words of the autographs

William W. Combs of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, in an essay titled “The Preservation of Scripture” states:

...it is an incontrovertible fact, obvious to anyone who has examined the manuscript evidence, that we do not now possess the words of the autographs in an absolutely inerrant state. (“The Preservation of Scripture,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 5, Fall 2000: p. 22)

When I read that statement, it struck me how similar this is to Dan Wallace’s now infamous “We do not have now—in our critical Greek texts or any translations—exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote” statement. Perhaps it has not been taken as egregiously, since Wallace added, “Even if we did, we would not know it.” It seems to me that so many of these Critical Text supporters are on “the same page” regarding the Bible, whether they are regarded as moderate, conservative, or fundamental.

Combs quotes R. A. Torrey on whether translations are the word of God. Torrey, as these moderns, follows the Warfieldian reasoning about the original autographs, concluding, “The answer is simple; they are the inerrant Word of God just to that extent that they are an accurate rendering of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as originally given, and to all practical intents and purposes they are a thoroughly accurate rendering of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as originally given.” (R. A. Torrey, The Fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith, New York, NY: George H. Doran, 1918, pp. 36–37). Nevertheless, it is striking that Torrey seems much more willing to regard them as thoroughly accurate renderings of the originals for all practical intents and purposes. It seems that many with whom we engage today do not see translations as the word of God for all practical practices.

The TCC, church fathers, and Variants

In the sixth iteration of the Textual Confidence Collective, the four TCC members discuss two early church fathers and happily insert both Irenaeus and Chrysostom as proponents of their “Textual Confidence” view of Scripture (as opposed to the “Textual Absolutism” of those who support either the TR and/or KJV).[i] However, they seem to miss the fact that these two men were “absolutists” on the variants they mention. Yes, both Irenaeus and Chrysostom acknowledged a textual variant. So do we. However, these men did not admit, in concert with the TCC and modern text critics, that: (1) it is does not matter which reading you choose (Chrysostom, “it is rather this latter [reading]”) or (2) it does not affect any doctrine (Irenaeus, “it is loss to wander from the truth, and to imagine that as being the case which is not”).

Initially, the collectors focused on Irenaeus’s looking for the old and good copies – setting this up as the same method as the modern text critics’ talking point about the “oldest and best manuscripts.” In my opinion, “approved” is likely a better English translation than “best” (which gives a little different flavor to the statement). Irenaeus writes that 666 is “found in all the most approved and ancient copies.” This suggests the copies received by the churches.

The collectors refer to the dissertation “Explicit References to New Testament Variant Readings among Greek and Latin Church Fathers,” by Amy M. Donaldson.[ii] Concerning Irenaeus, Donaldson writes:

Within a century of the composition of the NT, the writings had begun to be widely disseminated enough that discrepancies between the copies required commentary. In his work addressing heresies, Irenaeus makes note of the fact that in some copies of Revelation the number of the beast is 616 rather than 666 (Rev 13:18; §190).[iii] The latter he deems to be the correct reading, based on its presence in the best and oldest copies (ἐν πᾶσι δὲ τοῖς σπουδαίοις καὶ ἀρχαίοις ἀντιγράφοις), the witness of John’s contemporaries, and the logic that the number of the beast would contain three identical digits (since “six” represents apostasy, and three sixes shows the fullness of the beast’s apostasy). Here, we see Irenaeus use a combination of external and internal evidence. His first appeal is to the character of the MSS that read 666. Later in the passage, he follows this up with an explanation of how the variant could have occurred in the inferior copies: a scribe, either intentionally or unintentionally, replaced the character x (60) with i (10).[iv]

According to the TCC, the earliest known discussion of a variant in the New Testament Greek is this of Irenaeus, which occurs in Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 30.[v] Regarding the text of Revelation 13:18, Irenaeus argues for one reading (666) against another (616). He calls 616 an “erroneous and spurious number.” The error causes readers “to wander from the truth,” and it is “by no means trifling.” He believes it is essential to have a proper understanding of this passage. He does not attribute the variant to heretics, necessarily, but allows that it may have been an honest mistake by the scribes. However, he warns there will be a harsher judgment for those who may have altered the text intentionally. “[T]here shall be no light punishment inflicted upon him who either adds or subtracts anything from the Scripture.” Irenaeus believes the textual variant does matter, that it affects doctrine, and that both readings cannot be right!

John Chrysostom, in his Homily 18 on Ephesians, mentions a variant in Ephesians 5:14, explaining, “By the sleeper and the dead, he means the man that is in sin; for he both exhales noisome odors like the dead, and is inactive like one that is asleep, and like him he sees nothing, but is dreaming, and forming fancies and illusions. Some indeed read, And you shall touch Christ; but others, And Christ shall shine upon you; and it is rather this latter. Depart from sin, and you shall be able to behold Christ. For every one that does ill, hates the light, and comes not to the light. John 3:20 He therefore that does it not, comes to the light.”[vi] Notably, Chrysostom quickly dismisses the variant by saying one is the right reading – “you shall touch Christ” is in some copies, but “And Christ shall shine upon you” is the correct reading. As Irenaeus, Chrysostom believes the textual variant does matter, that it affects doctrine, and that both readings cannot be right. Concerning Chrysostom, Amy Donaldson writes:

At Eph 5:14 (§152), Chrysostom uses for the lemma and discussion the reading “Christ will shine upon you.” As he begins the discussion, he first notes the variant “you will touch Christ” as found in some copies, but then after repeating the lemma, he declares that the text is the latter reading (μᾶλλον δὲ τοῦτο ἐστε). Without further comment on the variant or the basis for his decision, he carries on with the exegesis and does not return to the variant. Similarly, at John 1:28 (§78), Chrysostom merely mentions a variant with limited comment and only in passing. The lemma reads “Bethany”; when coming to this part of the text, he cites this version but then adds that the more correct manuscripts (τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἀκριβέστερον ἔχει) read “Bethabara.” Here, he does include his criterion for determining the better reading: geography. For, Bethany is not beyond the Jordan, as John states, but closer to Jerusalem.

At John 1:28 Chrysostom also believes the textual variant matters, and that both readings cannot be right.

[In the TCC discussion, Elijah Hixson brings up a third person, Basil of Caesarea, regarding John 1:18. However, it appears to me that Basil did not discuss variants so much as use two different phrases when discussing John 1:18, “only begotten Son” and “only begotten God” in De Spiritu Sanctu.[vii] Amy Donaldson does not include any mention of John 1:18 in her anthology of textual variants mentioned by church fathers.[viii]]

Bringing up Irenaeus and Chrysostom as witnesses, the TCC nevertheless avoids witnessing that these two discussed the variant as “absolutists” – that is, they believed there was a right reading and a wrong reading, and that they knew which was which!

Irenaeus shows charity toward those “who have done this in simplicity, and without evil intent” but that other “such persons shall not come forth without loss, because they have led into error both themselves and those who confided in them. Now, in the first place, it is loss to wander from the truth, and to imagine that as being the case which is not; then again, as there shall be no light punishment inflicted upon him who either adds or subtracts anything from the Scripture, under that such a person must necessarily fall.” He urges “these men…ought to go back to the true number of the name, that they be not reckoned among false prophets.” Chrysostom explicitly and without equivocation states of the two readings he mentions – “it is rather this latter.” He is absolute. The approach of Irenaeus and Chrysostom blunts the barb and mutes the message that the Textual Confidence Collective was trying to make.

The discussion of variants by early Christian writers provides an interesting historical resource. This, however, likely will not serve well as grand “proof texts” for whatever slant one has on textual variants.

---

[i] Starts about 12:40 (and lasts about 8 or 10 minutes). The TCC discusses church fathers making comments about differences in manuscripts. The four members are Timothy Berg, Elijah Hixson, Peter Montoro, and Mark Ward.
[ii] Doctoral Dissertation, University of Notre Dame, 2009.
[iii] Revelation 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. (KJV) ωδε η σοφια εστιν ο εχων τον νουν ψηφισατω τον αριθμον του θηριου αριθμος γαρ ανθρωπου εστιν και ο αριθμος αυτου χξς (1894 Scrivener NT).
[iv] Is it not odd that in a dissertation submitted toward a Doctor of Philosophy degree that the author would never cite where in Against Heresies Irenaeus writes about this?
[v] The estimated range of dating of Against Heresies, Book V is AD 175-185.
[vi] Ephesians 5:14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. (KJV) διο λεγει εγειραι ο καθευδων και αναστα εκ των νεκρων και επιφαυσει σοι ο χριστος  (1894 Scrivener NT).
[vii] The estimated range of dating of De Spiritu Sancto (On the Holy Spirit) is the mid-4th century AD.
[viii] Donaldson examines Basil in regard to Luke 22:36. In addition, she mentions others – such as Didymus, Diodore, Epiphanius, Eusebius, and Origen – regarding discussion of variants.

Do textual variants affect doctrine?

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.”

Free thinkers reacted similarly, though obviously for different reasons.

“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)

Experts disagree

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.

Concluding thoughts

Though evangelical text critics and their supporters in academia labor hard to satisfy their followers that “no textual variant affects any Christian doctrine,” we find that is not the case, even when fine nuances are applied to the discussion. The variants may not destroy one’s faith (according to how one relates to them), but concluders on all sides, with heads out of the sand, realize that a variant can certainly change the meaning of a particular text, and that change in meaning can certainly affect its relationship to the doctrine taught therein.

Truly, as some have tongue-in-cheeked, “Variants don’t affect our beliefs – except when they do!”

---

[i] “Math Myths: How Many Manuscripts We Have and Why More Isn’t Always Better,” by Jacob W. Peterson in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry, editors. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2019, p. 69. On the other hand, in a 2012 interview, Daniel B. Wallace (who wrote the foreword for Myths and Mistakes) said that “As far as Greek manuscripts, over 5800 have been catalogued.” (See An Interview with Daniel B. Wallace on the New Testament Manuscripts.)
[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.