~*~ TEXTUALLY SOUND: GETTING THE

GIST OF WHY BIBLE

TRANSLATIONS DIFFER~*~
Since the age of the printing press and the more modern internet, people have been able to
investigate a wide range of topics regarding the Bible. In my opinion, one of the more
prominent issues, textual criticism, often gets misconstrued due to popular utilization For
example, Dr Bart Ehrmans book, Misquoting Jesus, focuses its attention on New Testament
textual criticism. The great thing about this work is that it was done by an expert on the New
Testament Manuscripts. The bad thing is that the work often gets used as a text that shows
that we DO NOT KNOW AND CANNOT KNOW WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN by the these
authors. This happens when people take portions of seemingly shocking FACTS about the New
Testament Manuscript tradition in a very redundant and rhetorical manner. Though these
arguments are often used by non-believers, (Dr Ehrman is a happy agnostic leaning toward
atheism and hence has an underpinning theological reason for some of his conclusions), the
arguments are often misunderstood and often just dont fit with textual data itself. Today, I will
attempt to give a brief outline on some of the more positive outlooks in the field of New
Testament textual criticism in light of some of the more modern skeptical conclusions of the
text.
About 400,000 Textual Variants
More Differences than Words?
In Misquoting Jesus, Dr Ehrman makes some very TRUE points to attempt to show that we are
not able to know what the original authors wrote due to the fact that we have none of the their
original documents. Additionally, every New Testament artifact we have seemingly contains
thousands of textual variants within the tradition itself.
It has been estimated by Ehrman and others that there are about 400,000 textual variants in the
New Testament manuscripts. Therefore, we should not be dismayed by the sheer volume of
differences in our copies of the New Testament. In fact, the overwhelming amount of the
variants are fairly insignificant in relationship to the type of readings in the textual tradition.
For example, according to Greek scholar and textual critic Daniel B Wallace, there should be
three vital considerations to the number of variants:
1) What is the number of variants HOW MANY SCRIBAL CHANGES ARE THERE,
2) What is the Nature of the variants WHAT KIND OF ISSUES ARE IN QUESTION,
3) Are any Theological Issues at Stake?
There are two major issues that must place some of these general statistics into their proper
historical context.
1) The reason why we have so many variants is because we have more than 5,800
manuscripts (in Greek alone). See, if there were only one copy of the New Testament,
there would be zero textual variants (places where comparatively speaking, obvious
misspellings, title expansion, word orders, and other normative copyist errors are
evident) within the manuscript tradition. Therefore, we should take pride in having an
abundance of evidence at our disposal for critical investigation of what were most likely
the original words of the author of a given Book/Letter.
2) The age of the manuscripts in question is also a very important issue to consider. For
example, P52 (a papyri fragment of Johns Gospel dating from the early to mid-second
century) is the oldest cataloged document of the New Testament. This data is not
normative for ancient works. Normally, the written remnants of ancient documents are
too far removed from its original casting more doubt on the knowledge of the original
work.
Now, if the modern dating of Johns Gospel as being in the 90s reigns true, that would make
P52 about 35 years removed from its original compassion. We must also remember that the
original manuscripts of the New Testament were compiled prior to the invention of the printing
press without utilizing dictionaries or lexicons for spelling issues in the text.
With some of this data outlined, we should consider some of the more complicated issues in the
text.
Did the Author Really Say X?
Outlining Some Major Translational Differences
When I first got into Textual Criticism, it was via translation. Growing up in the Bible Belt in a
Christian family, I first began to read the King James Version of the Bible. To this day I still use
this version but not as often due to my knowledge of the textual issues within the textual
tradition and transmission of the Bible. For example, one of the earliest narratives that always
stuck with me was the story of the Woman Caught in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11). When I
graduated from elementary school, my church gave me a new Bible. Unlike the Bible I grew up
with thee and thou expressed on every page, I was able to get a better grasp on the content
of the Bible by way of my New International Version. I vividly recall when I first received it and
opened it to John 8 during a Sunday School Class. The footnote at the bottom of the page had
written, This story isnt found in our earliest manuscripts. Now, I was up for a doozy because
in the midst of the class, I was called to read the passage, and all I remember doing was asking
the teacher, Why was the text footnoted as not being reliable and grounded in the text?
This type of data, to the untrained eye, may have one to question whether-or-not significant
parts of the Gospel have been changed? To elaborate on this I appeal to a recent blog that was
expressed by Dr. Larry Hurtados Word Press page. It was here that he posted an examination
of some recent studies in the field regarding the evolution, per say, of the Text. To be sure, as
Holmes freely notes, there are many textual variants evidenced in the early manuscripts of the
New Testament Gospels, many indeed. But these, he points out rightly, are typically variations
in such things as word-order (e.g., in phrases, tenses of verbs, individual words, etc.).
Whereas, in the comparison texts, we have much larger textual variation, such as
rearrangement of material (as reflected, e.g., in comparing the Greek fragments of Thomas with
the later Coptic text), the compilation of composite texts (again, Hermas and Didache are
examples of the latter), and such. That is, with the Gospels we appear to have lots of small
variations, but not much in the way of the larger types of variation reflected in some other
writings.
This leads him to propose that the Gospels seem to display what one may term microlevel
fluidity and macrolevel stability (p. 674). I find this handy terminology and a helpful distinction
very much worth testing and using in considering the textual transmission of early Christian
writings.
The closest that we get to any macrolevel variants in the Gospels are the long ending to the
Gospel of Mark (i.e., Mark 16:9-20 in the King James Version) and the Pericope of the
Adulterous Woman (i.e., John 7:538:11). But the latter does not appear in any extant
witnesses earlier than ca. 400 CE. As for the Markan long ending (and the other alternative
endings), this too isnt evidenced in our earliest witnesses of Mark, and, in any case, the main
body of Mark doesnt show any disturbance or re-arrangement of material.
(See:http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/02/05/originals-for-nt-gospels/)
How is this principle legitimate? Well, according to the husband and wife textual critics Kurt and
Barbara Aland, the text of the New Testament is TENACIOUS within its VARSITY OF READINGS.
Or to put another way, once a variant reading comes into the text, it doesnt simply go away. In
fact, what happens is the text gets copied and ends up in other manuscripts. Why is this a
needed point to understand? Simply put, if we have a reading like one found in John1:18 (where
it reads either UNIQUE GOD OR UNIQUE SON) there is no need for conjecture in light of the
abundance of witnesses to asserting either only God or only Son as the original reading to most
text in question.
Another important fact regarding the general reliability of the Writings being accurately
transmitted throughout time is the fact that we are referring to documents found from all over
the world attesting to the same text, which begs the question of who was in control of
transmitting the New Testament in the early periods anyway.
Multifocality
Transmission of Multiple Lines
When we look at the enormous volume of manuscripts for the New Testament having over
5,800 copies (from partial fragments to full Bibles), one may wonder why we have so many
different ancient artifacts, and yet the same work being produced each time? Well, as another
means of understanding variants in the New Testament, we must consider how we know there
is no wholesale change to the Bibles textual tradition knowing if there can be wholesale
alterations to the New Testament. In short, it should be understood that in the New Testament
tradition, we have multiple authors writing to multiple congregations at different times in
history as evidence by the well-attested accounts of multiple lines of transmission found in the
manuscript tradition.

As Dr James White, a textual critic has noted in his work, We do not have a single line of
transmission, or two, or three, but many, coming from different places, crossing with each
other, producing new lines, compilations of books (i.e., Pauls works and P46) and so forth.
While these multiple lines create difficulties for textual scholars who seek to unscramble then
so as to identify the relationship of one manuscript to another; on the positive side they make
the real danger -wholesale corruption- an impossibility (2009, Baker/Bethany House The King
James Only Controversy).
This is a very important fact regarding the early transmission of the text. What it tells us is that
unlike other works (i.e., Quran) in the earliest period of its transmission, there never was a
single person, group, or leader in who authorized and made an official standardized text, and
hence, the New Testament was transmitted fairly loosely.\
Again, I dont think this is a major issue in light of the fact that from the earliest period of
Christianity (starting at 30AD until 313AD Edict of Milan was decreed by Emperors Constantine
the Great and Licinius), when Christians were being persecuted by the Romans. This shows that
unlike Islam, the text of the New Testament could not have become standardized later or earlier
for 1 text to be the text but the tradition was being rapidly spread with the same basic
narrations in each text.
Theologically Problematic or Within Orthodoxy
Jumping Into Some of the Weird Readings
Quite often, those of whom only are King James users, accuse the modern translations of
changing the theology in a text. I think that these issues are misunderstood become
extremely sensitive issues to some fundamentalist King James Only guys. For the sake of
argument, many of the types of variants the King James person appeals to as being legitimate,
while often the modern text critic disagrees strongly.
Before I go into some of the more popular, yet anachronistic claims of modern changing to the
text, we need to get a gist of what textual base is used for the King James vs. modern
translations.
The Textuas Receptus is a critical Greek text that was originally made from a handful of
manuscripts that all date from the 11
th
and 12
th
centuries. This Greek text was first collated by
Desiderius Erasmus. After his original publishing of the text, he made a few revisions as to
please his contemporary Roman Catholic base, but due to some textual decisions that differ
from the Latin Vulgate (the Bible of the Roman Catholics) Erasmus text was disavowed by the
Catholics due to the omission of text like 1 John5:7-8.

Why is this text so important today? Well, these verses are probably one of the greatest
evidence why modern scholars dont use the work for 1 John5:7-8, and it contains the only
Explicit Biblical reference to the Trinity. The text reads, There are three that bear record in
Heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.
Now, the more complicated issue here is, more or less, when did this language get applied to
the Bible? Was it pre or post Nicea (the ecumenical council that discussed the diety of Jesus).
What we do know in light of this is that when we go into history and look at the readings used
by all parties at Nicea, we find NO reference by anyone that they even knew this verse.

Another issue that could be pointed out is one of a different type like the textual issue found in
passages like Jude 5. In Jude 4-5, we have a very telling theological statement made by the
author that I believe is best understood in translations like the New English Translation and the
English Standard Version. In order to make this point as-clear-as possible, I will post a few
translations of the text in question.
Jude 1:4-5 (King James Version):
For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this
condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the
only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having
saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
Jude 1:4-5 (New International Version):
For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in
among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for
immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord at one time delivered his
people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.
Jude 1:4-5 (New English Translation):
For certain men have secretly slipped in among you men who long ago were marked out for
the condemnation I am about to describe ungodly men who have turned the grace of our God
into a license for evil and who deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
Now I desire to remind you (even though you have been fully informed of these facts once for
all) that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, later destroyed those who did
not believe.
Jude 1:4-5 (English Standard Version):
For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this
condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our
only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out
of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
Did you see the two issues in verses 4 and 5?
In verse 4 of Jude in the King James Version, we find a weird construction denying the only
Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. Now, in short, this rendering is based upon inferior
manuscripts because God is not found in any early witnesses plus, in light of the next verse,
you may have problems seeing that according to Jude, Jesus is our only Sovereign Owner.
In light of that, if we accept the phrase the Lord over Jesus in verse 5, it can easily be
misunderstood and confuse the context of identifying Who Jesus is in relation to the community
of believers. If the King James Version is correct here, we have a Lord God and Lord Jesus that
we can deny and yet still Lord is the main term within the Bible for identifying who Jesus was.
In my opinion, the modern translations (English Standard Version and New English Translation)
are more consistent with early high Christology topics (See high Christology in Philippians 2:5-
11, Mark 1:1-11 or John 1:1-18 where either YHWH/The Lord/God is explained in/as Messiah
Jesus).
Conclusion:
Well, I know that I still have a lot to learn, but I have often found these issues as some of my
favorite types of issues in Biblical Studies. The reasons why I love textual criticism are
numerous. This field of research is full of historical content behind what one may believe is
investigable due to the abundance of literature we have in our text. It is often amazingly
wonderful how all these loose ends tie together to create a collection of 27 books that contain
the wonderful story of Jesus the Messiah/Son of God/Savior yet with one consistent message of
the Gospel being transmitted by many different hands.








~*~FOR MORE READING ON THE TOPIC SEE~*~
NET Bible
*I recommend this translation for English readers that want to know more about textual
variations. This translation is also FULL of more than 60,000 translational and textual notes that
are all free online.*
https://bible.org/netbible/
The King James Only Controversy: Can you Trust Modern Translations?
by James R. White (2009, Bethany House/Baker)
LOGOS BIBLE APP SALES BOOK UNDER BAKER PUBLISHING HOUSE
How We Got the NEW TESTAMENT?: TEXT, TRANSMISSION, TRANSLATION
Stanley E. Porter (2013, Baker)
Larry Hurtado Blog
larryhurtado.wordpress.com
Early Christianity Studies from former Professor Emeritus of University of Edinburgh
The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origin
(Eerdmans, 2006)
Misquoting Jesus
(2005, HarperCollins/Harper One)
Bart D. Ehrman
Reinventing Jesus How Contemporary Skeptics Miss The Real Jesus And Mislead Popular Culture
(2006, Kregel)
J. Ed Komoszwski
M. James Sawyer
Daniel B Wallace
Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscripts, Patristic, and Apocryphal
Evidence
(2011, Kregel)
Daniel B. Wallace
The Text of the New Testament
(1987, Eerdmans)
Kurt and Barbara Aland
*These scholars are the ones who made the tenacity of textual tradition the main form of
understanding the variants readings. These scholars have the intro to text criticism book
available.*
http://libgen.org/get?md5=e768b22f9d683cbe8d14ca3928e14585

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Ancient Greek Edition)
(2005, Hendrickson Publishers)
Bruce M Metzger