# What percentage of variation is there in NT manuscripts?



## CalvinisticCumberland (Mar 7, 2008)

I have heard it said that on the whole there is no more than a 2 percent variance in the most accepted, authoritative manuscripts. 

Then there are site like this

http://www.geocities.com/athens/parthenon/2787/ixcthree.html


that tell a much different story. 

Thoughts and Insights?


----------



## larryjf (Mar 7, 2008)

I think it is important in a question like this to distinguish carefully what we are talking about.

The 2% divergence number would more accurately be called 2% of the biblical text is questioned by some.

There is a larger number of variations within manuscripts than 2%. With many of the variations it is fairly easy to distinguish the true reading. Think of these variations as something like...

manuscript A - "Jesus Christ"
manuscript B - "Jesus Crist"

Other variants don't really impact the meaning of the passae. Think of these variations like this....

manuscript A - "Jesus Christ"
manuscript B - "Christ Jesus"

The 2% number is not the number of variations, but the number of variations that not everybody is satisfied with ascertaining the true reading.


----------



## CalvinisticCumberland (Mar 7, 2008)

So you are saying that when we consider the actual meaning of the content, and don't consider typographical errors or differences in syntax, there is only a 2% portion of texts in which the meaning is significantly altered. 

Even at that, this is a remarkably small number. A pagan such as the one who runs the site that I hyperlinked above would lead you to believe otherwise. 





larryjf said:


> I think it is important in a question like this to distinguish carefully what we are talking about.
> 
> The 2% divergence number would more accurately be called 2% of the biblical text is questioned by some.
> 
> ...


----------



## larryjf (Mar 7, 2008)

CalvinisticCumberland said:


> So you are saying that when we consider the actual meaning of the content, and don't consider typographical errors or differences in syntax, there is only a 2% portion of texts in which the meaning is significantly altered.
> 
> Even at that, this is a remarkably small number. A pagan such as the one who runs the site that I hyperlinked above would lead you to believe otherwise.



Not exactly...there may be substantial variance between manuscripts at a certain passage, but if the true reading can still be established then it is not part of the 2%.

Basically, the 2% is where there is debate over which are the true readings.

The link that you posted is misleading. For instance they claim



> no two copies of any of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament are in complete agreement



Which in and of itself may be true, but Wilbur Pickering has discovered that if you take the manuscripts book by book some are in complete agreement. To be exact, Dr. Pickering says:


> Down with canards! In graduate school (theology) I was taught that no two MSS of the NT are identical in text. If we consider a book at a time, which I take to be the only reasonable demand, the statement is not true. Taking only the MSS that I myself have collated (copies in my possession), I have fourteen with an identical Text for Philemon, seventeen for 2 John, sixteen for 3 John, twelve for Jude, five for Titus and 2 Thessalonians, three for Galatians, Colossians and 1 Thessalonians, and two for Ephesians, Philippians, James and 2 Peter. As I collate more MSS these numbers can only go up. The shorter books have the higher scores because the copyists didn’t have time to get tired or bored. For all that, the care with which the monks did their work is impressive. I invite all who read this to join me in exposing this canard.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Mar 7, 2008)

CalvinisticCumberland said:


> I have heard it said that on the whole there is no more than a 2 percent variance in the most accepted, authoritative manuscripts.
> 
> Then there are site like this
> 
> ...



Andrew,

Since you've never studied this issue, it would probably be the best use of your time to invest it into that which directly affects you instead of the theoretical.

The crux of the issue is Authority and where is it located. Is it in existing apographs (copies that we have in our possession) or is it in the autograph (the original writing) which we don't have? Once that question is answered then principles of criticism are applied that determine the authentic texts. The two schools of thought include and exclude data based upon their presuppositions and the answer to that main question. The former school is the Received Text position, the latter is the Critical Text position.

As it may affect you then, you have essentially two choices in Bible's from these schools of thought . First, the Authorized Version or New King James that are based upon the Received Text of the historic Protestant tradition; or the second choice is the modern Bible's like the New American Standard, Revised Standard Version, New International Version, English Standard Version which is derived from the Critical texts of the modern scientific approach.

The actual differences are significant and roughly there are about 9,900 words in the Received Text Bibles that are not in the Critical Text Bibles. If you put them all together it would be about as many words as in the book of Romans.

Critical text proponents would generally disagree with me that the changes are significant and claim that nothing they have removed affects any Christian doctrine. The problem with that is they stand upon a Confession derived from the Received Text and never actually exegete and interpret the Critical text for themselves independent of the Confessions which was already done upon the Received Text.

There are a lot of threads on this on Puritan Board where the matter has been discussed that are quite lengthy and you can learn a lot from them. A good book to read on the subject would be The King James Version Defended by Edward Hills and I believe you can find it online as a free download.

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## CalvinisticCumberland (Mar 7, 2008)

Although I do not have time to study this issue in the depth that many of you have, I still desire a greater knowledge, than, forgive the expression, the average layman. 

As it is important to me, what I want to know is how the very basic doctrines of the (reformed) church are affected. Can we be reasonably assured that through the centuries of copying, the variations in different strands of passage (i.e. the TR/CT), and the influence of copyists with an agenda, that the doctrine of Christ as preached and written down in the first century is readily available today as I read my (Geneva) bible. 






Thomas2007 said:


> CalvinisticCumberland said:
> 
> 
> > I have heard it said that on the whole there is no more than a 2 percent variance in the most accepted, authoritative manuscripts.
> ...


----------



## larryjf (Mar 7, 2008)

I would add to the recommendation of Thomas that if you can get any Theodore Letis writings to read him as well.

Especially "The Ecclesiastical Text..."

Here is an online pdf article by Dr. Letis...
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/resources/letis_KJBible.pdf


----------



## Thomas2007 (Mar 7, 2008)

CalvinisticCumberland said:


> Although I do not have time to study this issue in the depth that many of you have, I still desire a greater knowledge, than, forgive the expression, the average layman.
> 
> As it is important to me, what I want to know is how the very basic doctrines of the (reformed) church are affected. Can we be reasonably assured that through the centuries of copying, the variations in different strands of passage (i.e. the TR/CT), and the influence of copyists with an agenda, that the doctrine of Christ as preached and written down in the first century is readily available today as I read my (Geneva) bible.



Generally speaking - it was the position of historic Protestant orthodoxy that the Western textual base in which the Latin Vulgate was based was altered in the fourth century by Arians and Origenists - thus those texts are not considered authentic. The two main texts that the critical schools call the "oldest and best," or "most reliable" are the Vaticanus designated B and Sinaiticus designated Aleph (first letter of the Hebrew alphabet). Hence, the orthodox held that these were the most depraved and that the Eastern textual base was authentic. The Reformation Bibles such as Tyndale, Great Bible, Bishops Bible, Geneva Bible, Authorized Version and many other languages such as Luther's German Bible and the Dutch Staten Bible are all based on the Byzantine text.

In the critical schools that rose up after Simons, Semler & Griesbach it was the contention that the orthodox had altered the text in favor of orthodoxy. The Critical text and thus modern Bible translations are missing readings that in the main support orthodox teachings, generally these are regarding texts that clearly teach the Deity of Christ or other essential attributes, such as the Resurrection and Ascension.

The Baptists many years ago used to put out a little tract called the Eye Opener that was quite good, it was a list of 200 verses that are different in the modern Bibles. You can probably find it in on the internet and just sit down with your Geneva and RSV and compare them for yourself. That should give you a good sampling.


----------



## larryjf (Mar 8, 2008)

Something else that should be brought to light regarding texts like the Sinaiticus, they contain books that are not part of the canon.

It is a bit of a strange position to say that one can have the text of the Bible constantly open to critical changes, but not have the books themselves open to critical changes.

In other words, if the Sinaiticus is one of the best manuscripts, why not consider adding the books that it includes (eg: The Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas)


----------



## CalvinisticCumberland (Mar 8, 2008)

Would you say that this webpage is an good summation of the case for the TR?

King James Version Bible Translation Errors - Part 1


----------



## larryjf (Mar 8, 2008)

CalvinisticCumberland said:


> Would you say that this webpage is an good summation of the case for the TR?
> 
> King James Version Bible Translation Errors - Part 1



I would recommend the following summations...
Original Manuscripts, the Majority Text, and Translations
The Received Text

I would recommend the book by Hills for a more thorough treatment...
The King James Verison Defended by Edward F. Hills

And maybe this one as well...
The Received Text


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 8, 2008)

Without revealing a preference for any text or version, let me say this:

Assuming you understand the underlying questions, you may dispute over the quality of the translation, the choice of a rendition, the reliability of an original reading, and a number of other issues. However, if you don't think that you have God's _authoritative_ Word in your hand when holding any one of these substantially similar and commonly available translations, *you have deeper problems than a question over which translation to use.*

Some people get taken into this whole debate, and their faith is shaken or stripped from them completely (Mark 4:25)--BartEhrman comes to mind--because their trust in the Word of God was founded precariously on an immature and naive confidence in a single infallible transmission. Long before I ever heard of James White, when I was still in High School (half a lifetime ago now), I realized that Protestant advocates of a single "inspired-English-version" were no different from RCC advocates of the Vulgate. If the latter were wrong, so were the former.

"Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority" in God's Word comes, in the final analysis, from "the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts" (WCF1.5). Jesus said: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" (Jn 10:227). If you don't hear the Word speaking to you, even if the translation is poor and contains excess "static", whatever the problems with the "transmission" are, the bigger problems are likely with your hearing. 

In other words, improving the quality of your "receiver" (read: version) is not likely to help much.


----------



## CalvinisticCumberland (Mar 8, 2008)

What then would you say about available paraphrases such as "The Living Bible" and "The Message"? 





Contra_Mundum said:


> Without revealing a preference for any text or version, let me say this:
> 
> Assuming you understand the underlying questions, you may dispute over the quality of the translation, the choice of a rendition, the reliability of an original reading, and a number of other issues. However, if you don't think that you have God's _authoritative_ Word in your hand when holding any one of these substantially similar and commonly available translations, *you have deeper problems than a question over which translation to use.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 8, 2008)

CalvinisticCumberland said:


> What then would you say about available paraphrases such as "The Living Bible" and "The Message"?


Let me begin by stating clearly that there are garbage versions out there--just as there are radio receivers of such poor quality they cannot receive a clear signal from a nearby station.

I don't like paraphrases, and don't recommend them. I am totally committed to the superiority of verbatim translation. Paraphrases are completely "idiomatic", as if it were possible (or desirable!) to make the biblical writers speak in our lingo. No way; we have a *duty* to access _their_ age, not the other way around. God has already brought them to us, now we must meet them.

The NIV (pre-gender-neutral) attempts to mediate between the paraphrase and word-for-word translations. Oddly, its attempt is very uneven, precisely because the "principles" of translation used (termed _dynamic equivalence_) are so loose. Some of the NIV is almost startlingly literal, and powerfully rendered, while other parts show the modern tendency to water down the NT's own self-conscious "theological language" for a modern, dumbed-down audience. Personally, I wouldn't recommend the (old) NIV for a "first" Bible. And the newer, *neutered* renditions not at all.

Not that we never encounter "dynamic equivalence" in the KJV, for instance. The Pauline phrase, "me genoito" (e.g. Rom 3:4, & etc.), literally "may it never be," is rendered by the KJV "God forbid!" to give it the "equivalent" _maximum_ force of negation in the English language. We can argue about the merits of that translation, but its a far cry from a phrase here and there, to raising that approach to the level of "first-principle" of translation.

On the other end of the spectrum, I wouldn't recommend that everyone get an untranslated Greek Bible, or interlinear, or "Young's Literal". There are serious drawbacks to promoting these non-mainstream Bibles as the "gold-standard" in Bibles, perhaps chiefly in that their sheer difficulty for reading would take away the very comprehension in reading so desirable in a good translation.

So, if the true mediating position is a verbatim translation, in a "known tongue," then we are back to the textual question. Personally, I think its a tempest in a teapot. But there are strongly held opinions on both sides, and I respect that. As long as the discussion is conducted civilly; and toward those with disagreement, accusations of rank "infidelity" (usually reserved to tar-and feather the non-TR proponents) are eschewed, I think the discussion should continue until a more complete consensus is reached. I am not so negative as to think there may never be a reconciliation between the main camps.


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 8, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Something else that should be brought to light regarding texts like the Sinaiticus, they contain books that are not part of the canon.
> 
> It is a bit of a strange position to say that one can have the text of the Bible constantly open to critical changes, but not have the books themselves open to critical changes.
> 
> In other words, if the Sinaiticus is one of the best manuscripts, why not consider adding the books that it includes (eg: The Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas)



Firstly, Sinaiticus was not available to the Reformers, contra the implication of Thomas. Secondly, the KJV translators also translated the Apocrypha. Just because they translated those works does not mean they should be included in the canon. I would think this, your argument, could be turned around and directed at the KJV folk. However, the answer for both sides is simple: God determined the canon through providence in the church, the church only receiving those books that were inspired.


----------



## larryjf (Mar 8, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > Something else that should be brought to light regarding texts like the Sinaiticus, they contain books that are not part of the canon.
> ...



Lane,

You are comparing the Sinaiticus, an original language text, with the KJV, a translation.

It would be more appropriate to compare the Greek NT of the Sinaiticus with the Greek NT of the Textus Receptus. That's why i didn't bring up any of the OT apocryphal books, but only the NT books that were included in the Sinaiticus.


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 8, 2008)

larryjf said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > larryjf said:
> ...



We are talking about the text of the Bible. Therefore, one can legitimately compare the Sinaiticus with the KJV. The question can be put this way: if the Apocrypha was not in the TR (which all agree it is not), then why did the KJV translators translate the Apocrypha as well as the Bible? Why is that so much more noble or biblical than translators of the CT today when they do *not* translate the Apocrypha, even though some of those books are included in Sinaiticus. My point here is that one cannot use the mere fact of the Apocrypha being in Sinaiticus to discredit that manuscript.


----------



## larryjf (Mar 8, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> We are talking about the text of the Bible. Therefore, one can legitimately compare the Sinaiticus with the KJV.


I was actually talking about the Greek NT text that can be translated into English. I was not talking about English translations.



greenbaggins said:


> The question can be put this way: if the Apocrypha was not in the TR (which all agree it is not), then why did the KJV translators translate the Apocrypha as well as the Bible?


I don't think there is anything wrong in and of itself in translating books other than the Bible...including the apocrypha. And if i'm not mistaken, the KJV translators did not translate the apocrypha as Scripture, but was rather considered as having historical importance.
I think they were wrong in including the apocrypha in the KJV, but this problem with the KJV does not carry back to the TR.

Certainly the NKJV doesn't translate the apocrypha, but they do use the TR.



greenbaggins said:


> Why is that so much more noble or biblical than translators of the CT today when they do *not* translate the Apocrypha, even though some of those books are included in Sinaiticus.


The Greek NT text is our final authority, not the English translation.
The KJV didn't do anything more noble, but the editors of the TR did...they didn't include those extraneous books.



greenbaggins said:


> My point here is that one cannot use the mere fact of the Apocrypha being in Sinaiticus to discredit that manuscript.


The KJV translators did not understand the apocrypha to be Scripture. There is no evidence that the Sinaiticus editors held the same understanding. Quite frankly, just the way that the books are found in the KJV (between the testaments) and the Sinaiticus (in the actual testaments themselves) shows the authority that each document gives the books.

Besides that, i don't think that the KJV translators included the books that i mentioned anyway, so the argument doesn't stand anyway.

I was not speaking at all about the OT canon, but only the NT. The KJV did not include The Epistle of Barnabas or The Shepherd of Hermas.

Since the Sinaiticus is in Greek, it can only be an authority in NT matters, as we look to the Hebrew as our OT authority.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Mar 10, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> We are talking about the text of the Bible. Therefore, one can legitimately compare the Sinaiticus with the KJV. The question can be put this way: if the Apocrypha was not in the TR (which all agree it is not), then why did the KJV translators translate the Apocrypha as well as the Bible?



Because it is literature from the biblical era that is good to know because their primary enemy at that time was Rome, and to Roman Catholic's these books are not Apocrypha but canonical since the council of Trent on April 8, 1546. One cannot battle an enemy in ignorance of the source of his doctrines. An organic connection with where you are and where you were is necessary to keep alive the meaning of the Reformation and be able to demonstrate the reasons for this change.

You should know that the term "Apocrypha" is a term that defines in its very meaning that the books it is applied to are not canonical. Calvin, Luther, and other Protestant orthodox all approached and argued against the Apocrypha on theological ground, and then turned around and recognized it on historical ground as ancient literature with literary value, especially polemical value in refuting Romanists. At this time the Reformers experienced humanism and its emphasis on the sources in their original languages as a ally against Rome, not turned back on themselves strangling the baby in the cradle, as it were, which is what autonomous critical thought does today.

This is self evidencing in their rejection of the theological doctrines that these books taught. For example, Maccabees teach both purgatory and worship of saints, Tobit teaches works of penance &c. They were rejecting all of these things on theological and then textual grounds once the Received Text was made available to them.

So when we look at Erasmus Latin Translation of the Received Text and the Latin Vulgate reading of Matthew 4:17 as "Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand;" we recognize that this translation is actually hermeneutically influenced by the teaching of Maccabees & Tobit. And from this arose the treasuries of merit and indulgences. Erasmus argued that the correct translation was independent of this influence and was "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Of course, Martin Luther picks this up and the very first of his 95 Theses is:

“Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said “Poenitentiam agite”, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.”

But it doesn't make a lot of sense to most people without understanding the textual, exegetical, hermeneutical, and canonical issues all synergistically coming together with the publication of Erasmus' New Testament in both Latin and Greek. But any good Protestant at this time would want to have the Apocrapha available to him to be able to show a Romanist why 2 Maccabees 12:43 has no connection to Matthew 4:17 and the Latin Vulgate is in error because the greek word is "Repent", not "Do Penance."





greenbaggins said:


> Why is that so much more noble or biblical than translators of the CT today when they do *not* translate the Apocrypha, even though some of those books are included in Sinaiticus. My point here is that one cannot use the mere fact of the Apocrypha being in Sinaiticus to discredit that manuscript.



Because the New Testament is a continuation of the Old Testament and must be held in continuity. The Byzantine textual tradition of the New Testament was received with the Masoretic Hebrew which has never been coupled to the greek Apocrypha, that is a unique insertion derived from the philosophical schools of Alexandria. To the Protestant orthodox the mythology surrounding an "inspired" translation of the Old Testament into greek is the foundational error which led to the mythology surrounding an "inspired" translation into Latin. Hence, the theological errors of the Roman Catholic Church has textual, exegetical, hermeneutical, and canonical issues all synergistically coming together in the Latin Vulgate.

The problem is that the critical schools are attempting to straddle a fence that cannot be straddled. To hold that the Alexandrian codices are the "most reliable" yet dismiss the canonical standing of Apocraphyl books can only be done on Reformed Protestant grounds which can only be done by rejecting that Alexandrian textual base on *theological*, not historical, grounds.

Yet, the critical schools you hold to emphatically hold that these are the best and most reliable texts on explicitly non-theological historical grounds. If you are going to hold to that, then you must consider the theological validity of the Apocrapha as canonical, for on what other grounds can one reject entire books from the "best and most reliable manuscripts?" If you are going to hold that they are the best and most reliable manuscripts on theological grounds, then on what basis do you support eliminating thousands of explicitly orthodox and theologically consistent readings from the Received Text tradition while claiming their rejection does not affect any central doctrine?

To hold that these Alexandrian greek new testament texts have not been influenced by the body in which they are found is explicitly refuted in the translation of them into the Latin Vulgate, which clearly indicates their continuity. How do you know, then, that these rescensions are not a result of creating theological continuity with the greek Old Testament in which they are found? What are your older proof texts whereby you can have epistemological certainty? John Owen showed that many of the greek Old Testament readings are in fact taken from the New Testament, not the other way around.

Just as you are comparing the Sinaiticus to the Authorized Version and rejecting it, so did the Reformers and Protestant orthodox compare the Received Text to the Latin Vulgate and rejected it and necessarily the Alexandrian texts it is based upon. The difference is that the critical schools are claiming to be neutral in their rejection based upon hypothetical texts they create in their own imagination to claim epistemological certainty, while the Protestants claimed to be explicitly theological in theirs receiving a greek textual tradition in actual use for centuries by faith.


----------

