# If I may, I do believe I'll vent...Why so many textual variants?



## blakerussell (Sep 24, 2009)

So I've been reading up on the past couple days (for the most part I've been reading here) on textual criticism, textual variants, KJV vs various translation debates, and Bart Erhman's statements regarding inspiration/preservation/and inerrancy of the text. 

If I'm being frank and honest, I'll be quick to admit that all of this is really throwing me for a loop. I'm not looking to stir the pot here anymore than it already has been. I'm simply stating that this wealth of information i've recently stumbled upon is really causing me to question the Lord and His word.

Particularly this question has been ringing through my head, and I've not been able to drop it. If God, through history, has been about preserving His word, then why is there nearly (as stated by many) 400,000 textual variants in the copies of the new testament we have? 

Wrestling with this issue has snagged me up and rung me up in knots, and has even lent a hand in my digging up things i dealt with in the past that I thought I was done with for good. 

It hasn't been healthy. I open up my bible, read, and the first thing that pops in my mind is- "How do you know this is God's word? Think of the 400,000 textual variants. Think of all the uncertainty and argumentation shrouding the issue even inside of evangelical circles. You believe in a sovereign God. If He cares about His revealed word, then why hasn't he perfectly preserved it?" 

It hasn't been devotional reading. I feel faithless because of it, and it's honestly making me wonder if faith had ever been granted me by the Lord to begin with.

I know I'm probably making a mountain out of a molehill, but this is really tearing me to shreds. I've read ehrman's story about how he graduated from moody and wheaten, and this very issue is what tangled Him up and this same issue is tangling me up. I fear I'm going to apostatize or something. 

For these past two years I've never been able to turn anywhere for an answer but scripture, and now I'm having trouble turning there because of this mental assault. I'm a mess. 

Anyway. There's my vent. God help me.
-Blake.


----------



## OPC'n (Sep 24, 2009)

Did someone open the vents around here? Air is blowing up my pant leg!


----------



## AThornquist (Sep 24, 2009)

Thank you for the post, Blake. I hope someone much wiser than I will respond to it.


----------



## ewenlin (Sep 24, 2009)

Someone wiser like... Rev Keister?



> As many are probably aware, I am a rather strong advocate of the critical text. However, I am equally adamant that my KJV/TR/MT brothers are just that: brothers. Both positions can be well within the boundaries of confessional orthodoxy. Critical text advocates err outside of orthodoxy when they enthrone human judgment as king, and when they ascribe cultic status to a group of people which includes the Reformed orthodox of the 16-17th centuries. TR advocates err when they claim that all CT advocates are outside the pale. Come on, folks! Don't you realize how small the differences are between the two manuscript traditions?! Don't you realize that precisely zero doctrines hang in the balance on this issue?! Can we not both agree that the CT and the TR can both be called the Word of God? That the KJV and the ESV are both God's Word? Is anyone's soul in danger because they read the KJV instead of the ESV or vice versa? Let's get some perspective on this one, folks.



See http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/manuscript-traditions-within-orthodoxy-48024/


----------



## Contra Marcion (Sep 24, 2009)

Blake - 

It is precisely because of those textual variants that you may be assured you are, in fact, reading God's word. 

Let me explain: God, in His providence, had given us thousands of extant manuscript copies of the New Testament, far more copies than any other ancient piece of literature. Because of all the copies that were made so early in the life of the text, there never was a time when anyone could gather up all the copies and make wholesale changes. (Unlike the Uthmanian revision of the Koran, for instance.) 
It is then a simple matter of comparing copies and determining which readings are original. (Even this is easier than it sounds - if four thousand people were locked in a gymnasium and asked to copy a letter, they would produce four thousand slightly different copies - they would all make a copying mistake. What they wouldn't do, however, is all make the SAME mistake. It would therefore be rather simple to piece together the original contents of the letter by comparing the four thousand copies.) 
This does not diminish God's preservation of His word at all. Even if you take the two largest textual variants in the New Testament - the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) and the longer ending of Mark (Mk. 16:9-20), there is still not one doctrine established or nullified with the presence or absence of such texts. When you pick up your Bible, you can be sure that you are reading the preserved Word, whether yours has John 5:4, or other similar passages, or not. 

I would also like to point out that running to the KVJ-only side of things doesn't get you out of the responsibility of textual criticism. The KVJ itself is translated from eclectic manuscripts, especially the Textus Receptus, a compilation of multiple Greek manuscripts, itself revised and updated several times. (Even the KJV you can buy today is not the 1611 KVJ, but the 1769 Blaney revision - and there are differing Oxford and Cambridge editions of that!) 

Dr. Ehrman doesn't mention that most of the textual variants amount to little more than minor spelling and grammar differences, and have no bearing on the message of the text itself. 

We would also do well to remember that our Lord and His apostles quoted from a translation of the Scriptures that was rife with textual variants - the Greek Septuagint, apparently without violating their consciences. 

God preserves his word, but He does so by means of scribes and and faithful men and women who diligently labor at the task of preserving it. 

My two cents would be this: pick a faithful translation - ESV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, etc., and just enjoy reading the Word. God want's us to absorb and apply the CONTENT of the Bible, much more so than He wants us to quibble over each jot or tittle.


----------



## MW (Sep 24, 2009)

Dear friend,

Upon reading your concerns I immediately thought of Jeremiah 23:28, "The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord." Let the textual critics dream all the different readings they please. What should that be to a man who hath the word of God? Continue to faithfully read and meditate upon it, and I am sure God will continue to reveal Himself to you and fully persuade you that this is the very word of God.


----------



## Bookworm (Sep 24, 2009)

Hi Blake,



blakerussell said:


> Particularly this question has been ringing through my head, and I've not been able to drop it. If God, through history, has been about preserving His word, then why is there nearly (as stated by many) 400,000 textual variants in the copies of the new testament we have?



Here are three resources that might help you.

Dr Pete Williams debates Dr Bart Ehrman on Premier Christian Radio

Audio of Dr Peter Williams' analysis of Bart Ehrman's _Misquoting Jesus _and links to other resources

Evangelical Textual Criticism Blog

Praying for you in your struggles, my friend.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Sep 24, 2009)

Keep in mind that "400,000" textual variants is the same as Papists saying there are "30,000" protestant denominations - if one text has "Christ Jesus" and another "Jesus Christ", that is a textual variant. If one spells Jesus "Iesoun" and another "Iesous", that is a textual variant. To say nothing about the Hebrew OT (Dead Sea scrolls, Massoretic, other texts) and ancient translations.

None of the variants changes or even alters the message of Scripture. We have the Word of God preserves in the Alexandrian, Byzantine, and Western Manuscripts. It is in the Received, Majority, and Critical Texts of the NT.


----------



## larryjf (Sep 24, 2009)

blakerussell said:


> If I'm being frank and honest, I'll be quick to admit that all of this is really throwing me for a loop. I'm not looking to stir the pot here anymore than it already has been. I'm simply stating that this wealth of information i've recently stumbled upon is really causing me to question the Lord and His word.
> 
> It hasn't been healthy. I open up my bible, read, and the first thing that pops in my mind is- "How do you know this is God's word? Think of the 400,000 textual variants. Think of all the uncertainty and argumentation shrouding the issue even inside of evangelical circles. You believe in a sovereign God. If He cares about His revealed word, then why hasn't he perfectly preserved it?"
> 
> It hasn't been devotional reading. I feel faithless because of it, and it's honestly making me wonder if faith had ever been granted me by the Lord to begin with.



I don't think that you're making too much of this...anything that damages your faith is important to deal with.

I would like to know who you've read on the subject so that i can perhaps recommend some other readings for you that would shore up your faith.

What version are you reading now?


----------



## ThomasCartwright (Sep 24, 2009)

Blake

There is at least one position on this Board that will deal with your uncertainties. I have put two papers on the issue here

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/re-transmission-text-paper-51867/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/historic-reformed-position-preservation-48332/

The Bible certainly promises there will be certainty as to the Words of God not just His "message" or "thoughts" (2 Peter 1:19; Luke 1:4; Prov 1:23; Prov 22:20-1; Dan12:9-10; 1 John 2:20). When I read of the perpetual uncertainty of those wedded to the evolutionary Greek Text of UBS, I am always minded of the words of AW Pink,



> Man craves for certainty. Speculations and hypotheses are insufficient where eternal issues are at stake. When I come to lay my head upon my dying pillow, I want something surer than a “perhaps” to rest it upon. And thank God I have it. Where? In the Holy Scriptures. I know that my Redeemer liveth. I know that I have passed from death unto life. I know that I shall be made like Christ and dwell with Him in glory throughout the endless ages of eternity. How do I know? Because God’s Word says so, and I want nothing more.



I also like Douglas Wilson's view,



> But when we consider the facts carefully, nothing is more apparent than that this is actually a battle of the paradigms. In some respects, this is very much like the reconstruction of the evolutionary fossil tree, 98 percent of which is missing. When we consider all the manuscripts we possess, we must still compare them to the number of all the manuscripts ever written—which we do not have. This is a scholarly task outside the competence of science, and any attempt to submit the task to scientific canons will only result in increasing confusion. A process of scholarly reconstruction here makes sense only when undergirded with faith in the living God who controls the flow of all historical events. If, in order to be “scientific,” we eliminate this God from our considerations, the end of the road will be no text at all, or radical confusion about the text. The autonomous text critic is someone who believes that this problem of the original text is one which admits of a scientific solution. But the real solution to this problem is faith in God, and in His providential care for His Word.


----------



## rpavich (Sep 24, 2009)

Contra Marcion said:


> Blake -
> 
> It is precisely because of those textual variants that you may be assured you are, in fact, reading God's word.
> 
> ...



Very nicely put.

I would only also recommend a book called "The King James only controversy" which has a lot of textual info in it.

There is also an audio debate available, between Daniel Wallace and Bart Ehrman that is fascinating.
Here is the link (on sale for 10.00)
Shop Watchman!: 2008 - The Textual Reliability of the New Testament<br/>Full Conference MP3 FILES DOWNLOAD


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 24, 2009)

Hi Blake,

Thanks for baring your heart. I feel for you, as I was in the same boat once. Having come out of the sixties counterculture with all the satanic influences therein, I needed a _sure_ word of God. I wasn't aware of the textual variants and related issues for a number of years, but I was very aware that if I did not have a trustworthy Scripture I was dead meat in the warfare.

I was mostly backslid for a good while (I'm writing a book about the snares and the rescue, etc), and when I was set on my feet once and for all by the Lord I had already settled the issue in my mind about the King James, and for these following 27 years have held to it. It is the only Bible I can defend. You'll see that my view is far more nuanced than "King James only", for I hold that other Bibles are _adequately_ preserved albeit not in the _minutiae_. I just recently spoke about that in the KJV / Byz / TR Resources thread, and also in the http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/responding-james-white-aomin-44382/ thread (and elsewhere).

I see you have been hit hard by Ehrman. Of such as he, John says, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us" (1 John 2:19). Apparently he got caught up in a group of Christians and was never converted, and when confronted with apparent discrepancies in the Bible, what "faith" he thought he had collapsed. But I have been confronted with the very same things (I am even going through Ehrman's _Misquoting Jesus_ to follow his trail and answer those things that threw him, plus answer his own work on seeking to tear down faith in the Scripture) — and when so confronted studied and searched to find answers. For I *knew* my Lord, or rather was known of Him, and being so rooted in Him went instead (instead of apostatizing) to find the truth regarding His word and apparent discrepancies. Where folks buy cars and houses and lands, I bought books (I did have cars in my life — to get to work, to get money to live, and to get books).

Ehrman makes good points about the variants issue. I haven't finished going through him, but my defense will be based on the KJV and its underlying Ben Chayyim Masoretic Hebrew text and the Textus Receptus (equivalent to the TR 1894 of Scrivener), not on the Critical or Byzantine texttypes.

If I could recommend any one book for you to read it would be: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Crowned-Glory-Ancient-Authorized-Version/dp/0595146171/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253796130&sr=8-1]Crowned With Glory : The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version (9780595146178): Dr. Thomas Holland: Books[/ame]

as it is simply explained, scholarly, irenic, and with a profoundly strong defense of the Authorized Version. You can also see some of my posts on this issue, if you opt for the King James priority (not "only") view.

I'm sorry, but you have been thrown into this warfare, and you will have to stand or fall. This versions issue is coming to a head due to the immensely growing popularity of Ehrman, the keenness of his insight into the vulnerable underbelly of the Bible industry and its many versions, and his strong mentoring / teaching influence over a growing cadre of adversaries to the Christian faith.

If you belong to the Lord, that is, if you know Him — are intimately united to His heart — you will not fall away, _whatever_ troubles and afflictions come upon you.

I have been warning my friends here at PB of _exactly_ this result from Ehrman's attack. As with all the rest of demonic activity loosed upon the world in the trumpet judgments (cf. Revelation), deception, confusion, and anguish are spreading wider and wider across the globe as the age nears it end, and this *delusion* pertaining to a faulty and unreliable Scripture will catch many souls in its web. Even if God's people are caught in it they will not be ultimately harmed, for they are sealed and protected by Him.

Those of you PBers who don't like my point of view, and counsel to Blake, I suggest you don't aim your cannon at me, but at Ehrman, who is our common adversary. Of course it is easier to tangle with me (the counter-arguments, flawed though they are, are readily available on the web), while it takes original research, thought, prayer, and _work_ to mount a defense to Ehrman's assault. Nobody game for it?

Blake, God did indeed preserve His word according to numerous promises. From His sovereign throne He decreed the providences to ensure His people would have it in their hands. In the Reformation this was the common understanding and faith. The only opponents then were Rome (with the variants as their weapon) and the Enlightenment rationalists (not mentioning the fiery dragon behind the scenes). I have a Reformation Bible, and no one can show it to be false.

*Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. —Jesus, Matt 24:35*​
I'll be praying for you, Blake.

Steve

P.S. I'll send you my email in a PM if you should want to continue this conversation privately.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 24, 2009)

John 6:63-69 
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." 66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. 67 "You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve. *68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God*.


I've been praying for you since I read your post. 

When I was in college, and confronted for the first time with liberalism of this kind, I was shaken up quite a bit, simply because I had never heard it before. This Scripture above held me through the trial until the Lord providentially led me to good resources to refute the error. 

Just ask a few simple questions. Where are the critics coming from? What grounds (if any) do they provide to move from the presence of textual variants to an unreliable Bible? Second, ask what their alternative is. It's one thing to cast stones at Christ, quite another to offer an alternative which can answer the ultimate questions of life with a sure hope. How do I then inherit eternal life if Christianity is not true? How will I stand before God and pass the judgment? How will evil ultimately be resolved in the world? How do I know if God loves me? Only Jesus has the words of life. Only the Bible teaches a gospel of free grace. No amount of criticism will change that fact.


----------



## larryjf (Sep 24, 2009)

"The Ecclesiastical Text" by Theodore Letis is an excellent treatment of the issue at hand.

If you like, i can PM you a contact to get this book from.


----------



## steven-nemes (Sep 24, 2009)

The way they count textual variances is a bit misleading. If 2000 manuscripts contain a misspelling of any old world, then it is counted as 2000 variants. But clearly that is inconsequential.

And furthermore, 99% of the variants are those inconsequential types, like a misspelling of a word or a misplaced word in the order of a sentence (which, in English, can be a big deal--but it is not so with written Greek, so they do not pose a translation problem).


----------



## blakerussell (Sep 24, 2009)

I do suppose I have several responses to make. 

Firstly, thanks for all of the kind responses and your prayers. I'm not sure why, but I did wake up this morning thinking how silly this whole thing probably is and had a peace I've not had in a while.

I still need to process and think through some of your responses. I hope to go through some of the resources you all listed soon.

I recently spent _way_ too much on books, and i have several coming in soon related to this subject. These books include-

Scripture alone by James White
Fabricating Jesus: how modern scholars distort the gospels by Craig Evans
Christianity and Liberalism by Machen
One Bible only?: Examining exclusive claims for the king james bible by Roy Beachem

I feel as if all four books apply one way or another to the subject.
I currently read (nearly exclusively) the ESV.

I would like to make some things clear. I do believe the bible we have today in our hands, is historically reliable and trustworthy. There isn't any doubt in my mind about that. What confuses me most, is primarily the teaching of God's preservation of scripture and what all of those textual variants mean and say about our God. 

I do suppose my logic has looked like this. God does not error. God preserves His word. There are copyist errors in the preserved copies of scripture. What does that say about our God?

Did God ordain copyist errors creep in His word to showcase human responsibility? Did He allow them so that we wouldn't worship the bible instead of Him? Did He allow them so we might exercise discernment? Why did He allow them?

In the midst of this struggle (and yes it's a struggle), I have realized I have no where else to go. Scripture has taught me I'm a vile sinner, that sits before a holy God. I deserve the deepest, darkest hell and nothing can change that. I'm without excuse. My conscience will not allow me to say otherwise. I also realize without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of my sin. I can't tip the scales. 

I have nowhere to turn but to Christ. Where else can I go? I've tasted and seen that He is good. I can't look anywhere else. My conscience won't allow me to.

And that's what I miss most. This "struggle" is hampering my fellowship with Christ, because of the doubt it's casting on His word. My soul needs food. Quite frankly, I'm starving. I want to eat His word, but like I said above, everytime I go to His word, these questions and observations flood my mind and seemingly prevent fellowship.

More to come soon, I'm sure.
thanks again.
-blake


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 24, 2009)

blakerussell said:


> Christianity and Liberalism by Machen



I'm glad to hear you are reading this book. That was the one book which helped me the most to recover from the attack of liberalism I faced in college.


----------



## Zenas (Sep 24, 2009)

Blake,

Lt. Mearse is correct. As I understand, Mr. Ehrman is attempting to conceal the fact that the thousands of textual variants he cites amounts to nuances as simplistic as substituting the word "a" for "an" in a certain sentence. Mr. Ehrman hides the ball in order to look like he has a point. I can say this ant not give him the benefit of the doubt because he's been told this time and time again. He's not ignorant. He knows he's being dishonest.


----------



## blakerussell (Sep 24, 2009)

I will also add this to the discussion as well. Aside the reading i've done on puritanboards regarding this issue, i've also read many of the articles that I'm linking here. Monergism :: Has the Bible Been Corrupted?

The articles I've read by Mr. Spry include-
The transmission of the new testament, textual variants, and a critical review of bart ehrman's misquoting Jesus.

I do believe I'll continue reading his articles on textual criticism as they themselves have been helpful. I hope to wade through some of the material you all presented me as well.

-Blake.


----------



## rbcbob (Sep 24, 2009)

> I do suppose my logic has looked like this. God does not error. God preserves His word. There are copyist errors in the preserved copies of scripture. What does that say about our God?
> 
> Did God ordain copyist errors creep in His word to showcase human responsibility? Did He allow them so that we wouldn't worship the bible instead of Him? Did He allow them so we might exercise discernment? Why did He allow them?



Blake, I would suggest several things for balance:

*1.* God's Word, as given to His "holy men of old" was given in inspired, infallible, and inerrant form.

*2.* That Word was perfectly inscripturated in the original languages.

*3.* God has providentially preserved the Word that He gave.

*4.* That Word has been copied and recopied thousands of times over the centuries.

*5.* God made no promise to preserve every word in these many copies. (Certainly Marcion's "bible" is not representative of the original)

*6.* Textual Variants notwithstanding, the exact words given by God are scattered throughout the thousands of extant manuscripts.

*7.* The minimal unit for conveying truth is not a word in isolation; rather the minimal unit of truth is a sentence, containing both subject and predicate.

*8.* Thousands of the textual variants in the NT are spelling differences. Spelling is not chiseled in granite. It is, in every language, in a state of flux. Compare the English spellings of words in the 1600's 1700's, 1800's, etc. If a scribe misspelled the Greek word for _useless, worthless, unprofitable_ in Romans 3:12 is it critical whether he penned ηχρειωθησαν or ηχερωθησαν? The truth of the verse carries through, and God has not left unfulfilled any promise to us relative to His Word.

I hope this is of some help.


----------



## rbcbob (Sep 24, 2009)

blakerussell said:


> I do suppose my logic has looked like this. God does not error. God preserves His word. There are copyist errors in the preserved copies of scripture. What does that say about our God?
> 
> Did God ordain copyist errors creep in His word to showcase human responsibility? Did He allow them so that we wouldn't worship the bible instead of Him? Did He allow them so we might exercise discernment? Why did He allow them?
> 
> ...




Blake, I would suggest several things for balance:

*1*. God's Word, as given to His "holy men of old" was given in inspired, infallible, and inerrant form.

*2*. That Word was perfectly inscripturated in the original languages.

*3*. God has providentially preserved the Word that He gave.

*4*. That Word has been copied and recopied thousands of times over the centuries.

*5*. God made no promise to preserve every word in these many copies. (Certainly Marcion's "bible" is not representative of the original)

*6*. Textual Variants notwithstanding, the exact words given by God are preserved in the scattered thousands of extant copies.

*7*. Among the thousands of textual variants many are spelling differences. Spelling in every language is a fluid discipline; ever changing. If Paul, in Romans 3:12 used the word ηχρειωθησαν for “useless” and some careless copyist spelled it ηχερωθησαν is our faith shaken? The truth of the proposition carries through in either case.

*8*. The minimal unit of conveying truth is not a word in isolation; it is a sentence or proposition. It contains both subject and predicate. The misspelling (or modernized spelling) of a word does not affect the truth of the proposition.

Sorry for the double post. I had some navigational issues!


Hope this helps


----------



## PointingToChrist (Sep 24, 2009)

Blake,

I'm glad you are reading up on the subject of inerrancy and transmission and are reading the posts of the saints here.

One comment to add is this:
There is no Holy Ghost Greek. I mean two things by this. One, that koine itself was the common Greek language and not a high-class language. Furthermore, the Lord did not ordain that the manuscripts be written in a "perfect" grammar.

Two, the Lord has not seen it fit to preserve every single Greek copy of the books of the Bible. Should the Holy Spirit grip the hand of each scribe or typist every time he is copying the Bible so that a mistake is never made?

If you're interested, PM me your email and I can send you a copy of a Sunday school class outline I did on the authority of Scripture. I am by no means an expert, but I was affirmed by scripture and the wisdom of Biblical scholars on the authenticity of the Bible.

Mitch


----------

