Transmission of the Text

Is today's Bible the real Bible

by Daniel Bowman

Is the Bible which I own and read today the real Bible? Or has it been distorted? How can I believe the Bible if I do not even know if it is accurate? Nowadays, there are scores of English versions of the Bible. Many people wonder how accurate these Bibles are. When people ask about the accuracy of the Bible, there are two different issues they might have in mind:

• Is the Bible really from God?
• Has the Bible been accurately preserved over the centuries?

This article examines the question of how the text of the Bible has been copied and preserved over the centuries.

This article  focuses on the second question, trying to figure out how the Bible has been passed down from the original form to the texts used for modern translations. Specifically, it’s the accuracy of the transmission, not the translation, that this article will examine.

The Problem

Why is this even an issue? Besides the fact that the original Bible and modern Bibles are in different languages, one of the major problems is that the original manuscripts don't exist anymore. So we can't compare modern Bible versions directly to the originals. Furthermore, the manuscripts which we do have are not exactly what was originally written. To explain, the oldest manuscripts of the Old Testament go back to 250 BCE. Yet, the Old Testament was being written over a period of time long before that, from 1400-400 BCE. That's a long time, especially for the earliest books – nearly 1200 years between original and copy!

Why don’t we have the original copies which were penned by the Bible writers?  A number of factors caused the disappearance or destruction of ancient manuscripts. They were normally written on papyri (ancient paper-like material) or animal skins. Over time, these materials would decay and no longer be readable. Simply being used for many years could also ruin the manuscripts.  In many areas of the world, humidity destroyed them. The only reason we have some manuscripts from as far back as 250 BCE is that they were found in desert areas with very low humidity. In times of war manuscripts were sometimes destroyed as part of the pillaging. The Bible is not unique in this aspect – the earliest copies of other ancient writings are missing for similar reasons.

What is left are copies of the original Bible manuscripts, and these do not all match each other perfectly. This fact has led many people to doubt the accuracy of the Bible's transmission. However, we shouldn’t be too hasty and conclude that an accurate biblical text is a lost cause. Let’s first look at exactly how Jewish and Christian scribes over the centuries did their job and what the scholars who study this area have learned about the surviving Bible manuscripts.

Copying the Bible

First, we need to learn a little about the copying process for the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible). The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, a language which originally did not use written vowels. Ancient Jews were able to read this vowel-less text because they knew the language intimately, especially the traditional reading. To preserve this traditional reading, a group called the Masoretes added vowels and punctuation between 500 C.E. and 1000 C.E. That means they added vowels from 1000 - 3000 years after the books were written. This version of the Hebrew Old Testament was known as the Masoretic Text.

The care with which these Jews edited the text has been described by F.F. Bruce, a well-respected biblical scholar:

[The Masoretes wrote] with the greatest imaginable reverence, and devised a complicated system of safeguards against scribal slips. They counted, for example, the number of times each letter of the alphabet occurs in each book; they pointed out the middle letter of the Pentateuch and the middle letter of the whole Hebrew Bible, and made even more detailed calculations than these.¹

In 1948, some Old Testament manuscripts (along with some non-biblical writings) were found in caves near the Dead Sea which dated as early as 250 B.C.E., about a thousand years before the Masoretic text. These are known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Instead of being anywhere from 1000-3000 years from the original, these are as close as a few hundred. In the case of one of these scrolls – a copy of the book of Isaiah – the only difference between its text and the Masoretic text, was three words, and these only differed in spelling! Though over 1000 years separate these two texts, there are only three spelling changes! This shows the care with which the Masoretes and other scribes had worked.²

The New Testament was copied more quickly, and thus less carefully, than the Old. It is likely that this happened in order to immediately spread the good news about Jesus. F.F. Bruce wrote, “The New Testament was complete, or substantially complete, about AD 100, the majority of the writings being in existence twenty to forty years before this.”³To those of us who have become accustomed to hearing today’s news about the world, 50 years between event and record may seem like a lot. However, this seems like a moment in time compared to other ancient literature.  

In philosophy and history classes, for instance, students read the works of Plato, Aristotle, and other ancient writers, assuming that the authors wrote exactly what they study. Unfortunately, much time passed between the original writing and the earliest surviving manuscripts. So we cannot know how much the text was altered in the in-between time.

Let’s compare the quality and quantity of surviving New Testament manuscripts to other literature from the ancient Near East. ⁴

Name	Number of years between original and earliest surviving manuscript	Number of existing manuscripts
Caesar’s Gallic Wars	900	10 good ones
Tacitus’ Annals	1,000	2
Thucydides’ History	1,300	8
History of Herodotus	1,300	8
New Testament	150-200	1 (entire book of John)
	250	1 (almost entire New Testament)
	Less than 300	2 (complete New Testament)
	Within first few centuries	Over 5,000 Greek fragments; 24,000 in other languages

For most ancient literature there is a thousand years or more separating the original writings and the oldest surviving copies. However, in the case of the New Testament, there are two complete copies of books that date within three hundred years of the original composition, as well as thousands of partial copies that date even earlier! Thus, the transmission of the Bible, while not perfect, is vastly more accurate than any literature from the ancient world.

Textual Criticism

There are 24,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, 5,000 of which were written in the original Greek language. Of these thousands of manuscripts, no two manuscripts are identical. These differences lead to hundreds of thousands of variations. At first impression, this fact makes the Bible sound like the most unreliable book possible! These variations, however, are surprisingly not a major concern. Rather, more manuscripts lead to a greater possibility of figuring out what the original was. F.F. Bruce explained it well:

Fortunately, if the great number of MSS [manuscripts] increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small.⁵

For instance, if I only have 2 manuscripts, I would be unable to figure out which of the following is correct: 

Manuscript #1: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Manuscript #2: In the beginning, God created the earth and the heavens.

Either of these could be correct. It’s a 50-50 chance.

However, if I have more manuscripts, it will be quite easy to figure out what was most likely the original passage, even though none of the following are exactly correct. I have marked which parts of each variant are differing from the others. By removing each of these variants, I will be able to best get at the original phrase:

Manuscript #1: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Manuscript #2: In the beginning, God created the earth and the heavens.
Manuscript #3: At the beginning, God made the heaven_ and the earth.
Manuscript #4: In the beginning, Jesus created the heavens and the earth.
Manuscript #5: In the beginning, God created the sky and the earth.

*Original: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Thus, even though none of the multiple manuscripts match up exactly, they allow us to find the most probable original. 

The process of finding the original text is called Textual Criticism, which does not mean criticizing the text! Rather, it is a systematic way to determine which text was more likely the original. Very basically, four points show how to find the preferred text: 1) The shorter text, since scribes would rather add to God’s Word than risk taking anything away, 2) the older text, for it had less time to be corrupted, 3) the harder reading, because scribes tried to smooth out the reading and make it more understandable, and 4) most importantly, the text from which the others could have come. Textual criticism is more complicated than this, but the idea is the same—in most cases, it is easy to find the original reading. 

Common Copying Errors

There are two kinds of copying errors: (1) those done accidentally, and (2) those done intentionally.

Accidental. Many of the variations in the biblical manuscripts can be easily explained in several ways. First, bad eyesight was common because the Bible was copied in places which often were poorly lit. Scribes, working with the text for many hours each day, sometimes had trouble reading the details necessary to correctly write each work and phrase.⁶

Second, a word may be replaced by a similar sounding word. Sometimes, instead of each scribe reading a manuscript and copying it, one scribe would read the manuscript aloud while others copied the words. For instance, 1 John 1:4 states, “We write these things so that ____ joy may be full.” Does this verse say that the author wrote so that “your joy may be full” or so that “our joy may be full”? Multiple manuscripts contain each reading. Just like “your” and “our” in English, the Greek words ‘υμων and ‘ημων are spelled nearly identically and they sound similar. Either of these could have been the original. Though the meaning of the sentence is slightly changed depending on which word was written, no important beliefs are challenged. This kind of mistake is merely a misspelling.⁷

A third type of unintentional mistake is caused by repeated words. In John 17:15, one manuscript⁸ is missing the following part in the bracket: “I do not pray that you should take them from the [world but that you should keep them from the] evil one.” Notice how the sentence still reads properly with the bracketed material, even though the meaning was changed.

The Greek manuscript that the scribe was copying from most likely read:

.............................. α̉υτους ε̉κ του
κοσμου........................................
.............................. α̉υτους ε̉κ του
πονηρου.......................................

After reading and copying the first line, a scribe’s eyes could easily recognize the three identical words on the third line and then begin the copying on the fourth line.⁹

Intentional. Scribes, in their earnestness to have the correct text, would try to correct the text. Sometimes scribes would combine together multiple passages that were similar, called harmonizing. When talking about Jesus on the cross, John 19:20 described a sign that "was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek." Some manuscripts of Luke have this phrase included in 23:38, as the scribes had tried to make the two passages say the same thing.

Another intentional mistake is called conflation. This is when a scribe would combine multiple readings instead of choosing one over another. An example of this is the end of Luke. Some manuscripts said that the disciples ‘were continually in the temple blessing God’ while others read ‘were continually in the temple praising God.’ Rather than discriminating between the two, later scribes decided that it was safest to put the two together, and so they invented the reading ‘were continually in the temple praising and blessing God.’¹⁰

Conclusion

The Bible, despite textual variations, has been preserved over the centuries with a remarkable degree trustworthy.  Though variations exist, the four rules of textual criticism allow us to have a Bible that is very close to what the prophets of Israel and Jesus’ followers originally wrote.

Keith E. Gephart, a professor at International Baptist College in Tempe, Arizona, summarized how these variations are actually not problems:

It is a commonly recognized fact that 80-85 percent of all the manuscript evidence is in total agreement even on such matters as spelling and punctuation. [He added in a footnote that the percentage “rises considerably” when spelling and punctuation differences are eliminated.] …. [S]ome of these variants do affect the theology of those particular verses. But even in these instances, our doctrine is not affected since there are so many other verses which teach the doctrine in question.¹¹

We have good reason to be confident that the Bible as we have it today is indeed faithful to the original.

*Daniel Bowman is a graduate student at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary.

---

 
Endnotes

¹  F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (London: Pickering & Inglis Ltc., 1963), p. 117.
²  Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable and Relevant? (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001), p. 45-46.
³  F.F. Bruce The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 6th ed. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1981), 9.
⁴ Bruce, The New Testament Documents, 11.

⁵  Bruce, The New Testament Documents, 14.

⁶  Bruce Manning Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 186-188.

⁷  Metzger, The Text, 191.

⁸  This manuscript is the Codex Vaticanus.

 ⁹  Metzger, The Text, 189.

 ¹⁰ Metzger, The Text, 200.

¹¹ Keith E. Gephart “Are Copies Reliable?” in God’s Word in Our Hands, ed. James B. Williams and Randolph Shaylor (Greenville, South Carolina: Ambassador Emerald International, 2003), 164.

The Bible: From God or Man, The Beginning of the Journey

The Bible: From God or Man
The Beginning of the Journey
   

    Consider this to be our starting point in our study of whether or not the Bible is from God.  As I previously posted this is, in my estimation, the second most important question that we can ask.  If we get the answer to it wrong, it can have tremendous consequences for us.  Of course the primary one being our eternal destiny.  But before we begin our exploration, I would like to quote from J.W. McGarvey.  In his book, Evidences for Christianity, He writes  beginning on page 3,

    “ In order that our conclusions on any subject be safe and satisfying, our investigation of it must be conducted in a proper frame of mind.  Inquires into the evidence of Christianity are exposed to dangers at this point, varying according to their preconceptions on the subject.  Unbelievers are in danger of so earnestly wishing that the evidence shall appear inconclusive, as to underestimate the force of every proof, and to overestimate the force of every objection.  Such a frame of mind is inimical to the reception of the truth.  Unfortunately, many persons who are not committed to unbelief, approach this subject more or less affected by this bias; for the Bible condemns all men who are not obedient believers, and thus it arouses a degree of antagonism within them at the very time that they are investigating its claims.  He who will avoid an unjust judgement against the Bible must suppress this tendency, and be perfectly willing that the Bible shall prove itself the word of God.
    The Believer, on the other hand, is in danger of pursuing the inquiry with so fixed a determination that the Bible shall be found true, as to lead him to accept shallow sophisms for sound arguments, and to disregard the force of serious objections.  Such and inquirer, should he afterwards exercise a calmer judgement, must look back with distrust upon his former conclusions and experience a consequent weakening of his faith.
    There is a proper place and work for the zealous polemic on the subject, especially in the field of controversy where bold and often unscrupulous assailants are to be met; but the student and the teacher should assume the spirit of an inquirer or a judge, rather than that of an advocate.  By this must not be understood a spirit of indifference.  The judge before whom a man of previous good character is being tried under the charge of an infamous crime, would be unfit for his high office, if, while enforcing with impartiality the rules of evidence, he should have no wish to see the man’s innocence established.  So, in prosecution and inquiry into the evidences of Christianity, while the student must guard vigilantly against self-deception, he should most earnestly wish that a religion which confers upon men so much good in this life, and promises so much more in the life to come, may prove to be unquestionably true.
    Many persons, in studying the claims of Christianity, take up the objections that are urged against it before they learn what it is, or examine the evidences in its favor.  They hear the negative in the debate before the affirmative; they allow the witnesses for the defendant to testify before they hear the plaintiff state his case; they read books and attend lectures in opposition to the Bible, when they know little of its contents and still less of its evidences.  They often decide the question question after hearing only one side, and that the side which should be heard last, not first.  This is a reversal of the order established in all courts of justice, in all well conducted discussions, in all scientific investigation.  Common sense and the maxims of justice alike demand that we hear first the arguments in favor of a proposition, and afterward those against it.  He who reverses this order prejudges the case, and comes to the consideration of the affirmative evidence in a frame of mind unfavorable to a candid hearing or a just decision.  If we hear much evil said of a man before we form his acquaintance, we are prejudiced against him; whereas, had we known him first the evil speech that we heard might seem to be only calumny.  Unfortunately for the great majority of unbelievers, they have pursued this improper method, and then after forming their opinions, have either neglected the Bible and its evidences entirely, or have come to the study of them with an unfriendly spirit.”

    So what is Mr. McGarvey stating here?  Simply this, check our prejudices at the door.  Whatever we have heard about the Bible, whatever we have been taught, whatever we may think needs to be taken out of the way.  We need to start fresh and with the proper frame of mind, devoid of all considerations as to what the Book is and let the evidence lead us to wherever it may and to accept it no matter what it may imply.  This is the only way that we can answer this question soundly.

    With these thoughts in mind, I plan on conducting this study as follows.

1) We will look at the transmission of the texts.  It makes no sense to investigate The Bible if it has been totally corrupted and full of copyist errors.  We will look at the manuscriptal evidence, what variants or changes have occurred, how many, how significant are they, and textural criticism. 
2) We will then look at the canonicity of both the Old and New Testements.  This will include the following:
    1) Cannonicity defined
    2) Canonicity described
    3) Canonicity determined
    4) How the canon was discovered   
    5) O.T. Development
    6) An examination of the O.T. Testement apocrypha and pseudepigrapha
    7) N.T. Development
    8) An examination of the N.T. Testament apocrypha and pseudepigrapha
3) Examine the evidence for the inspiration of both the Old and New Testaments


    This will be a long study, but I pray that you continue with it and leave a comment or two to let others and myself know your thoughts on this important matter.

     

Introduction and Why it is Impotant for Us Today

In the world that we live in today, we see all sorts of things happening that give us concern.  We see the wars in the Middle East, gun violence, drug abuse, the political environment, the list goes on.  These issues seem to not have an answer to them.  Many are trying through legislation and indoctrination of our youth.  The question that has to be asked is simple, "Is there an answer or are we just spinning our wheels?".  I believe there is an answer to these and the many other issues that we face.  It is the Scriptures, the inspired writings found in the Bible.  Ask yourself this question, "What would the world be like if everyone followed the commands and principles that are set forth within it's pages?".  If everyone, say, followed the command not to commit a criminal act which would include stealing, murder, assault, abuse, etc...  We would no longer have a need for the police saving billions of tax payer dollars.  We could go on with other examples but I believe that you, the reader, get the picture.  As one stated to me when I presented this question to them, they stated, "It would be heaven on earth.".

I believe this question "Is the Bible from God?", is the second most important question that mankind must answer.  The first is the question of "Does God exist?".   In order to help us see the importance of this question I wish to discuss the oft times misrepresented "Pascal's Wager".  Pascal's Wager is what may be called a quadralema.  It consists of 2 objective truth statements and 2 subjective truth statements.  In Pascal's Wager we would see this as follows

Objective truths                                                               Subjective truths
1) God does exist                                                            1) I believe that God exists
2) God does not exist                                                      2) I believe that God does not exist

Depending upon how we combine the objective truths and subjective truths we have 4 possible conclusions.

1) God does exist and I believe that God exists
2) God does exist and I believe that God does not exist
3) God does not exist and I believe that God exists
4) God does not exist and I believe that God does not exist

4 possible conclusions with only one right answer.

Contrary to some, this is not a proof of the existence of God.  I have heard some, even from the pulpits, assert this.  What we have is a 25% chance of getting the correct answer.  Not very good odds at all.  If I were to try and sell you one of 4 cars and informed you that only one would last for the rest of your life, what would you do.  I believe that most would  do a serious investigation of the vehicles in question before we made our decision.  Pascal's wager is the same in that we should give this question a serious investigation before we make a decision since our eternal happiness or eternal torment are at stake.  We should dispel all previously held beliefs and assumptions.  The price is to high.  What if we have the incorrect conclusion?  Something that needs to be seriously comprehended in our day and age.

The same applies to the question as to whether or not the Bible is from God.  Again we can put this into the same formulation.

Objective truths                                                                  Subjective truths
1) The Bible is inspired of God                                            1) I believe that the Bible is inspired of God
2) The Bible is not inspired of God                                      2) I believe that the Bible is not inspired of God

First lets do a little defining of our words.  What I mean when I say the Bible are the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.  Inspired means that every word of those 66 books God has put there and not one word has not come from him, verbal plenary inspiration.  Just as with the existence of God so we have with this.  Again depending on how the two columns are combined we come up with 4 possible conclusions.

1) The Bible is inspired of God and I believe that the Bible is inspired of God.
2) The Bible is inspired of God and I believe that the Bible is not inspired of God.
3) The Bible is not inspired of God and I believe that the Bible is inspired of God.
4) The Bible is not inspired of God and I believe that the Bible is not inspired of God.

Again, we have a 25% chance of getting the correct answer.  A wrong answer to the question can have serious consequences and this is the main reason for this blog.  If the correct answer is #1 above then the words of Jesus are of great significance.  In John 12:48 Jesus said, "He that rejecteth me, and recieveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."
If the Bible is from God and it contains the words of Jesus then it will be by the words of the Bible that we will be judged, if #1 is the correct answer.  If the Bible is from God then there is an Eternal Heaven and an eternal hell.

Our eternal destination could depend on how we answer this question.  Dear reader, would you not consider taking a serious look, a thorough investigation, a critical analysis of whether or not the Bible is from God?  Again, this is the reason that I have started this blog.  Not to force my beliefs onto you, but to simply put forth arguments for your consideration.    I invite you to follow along as we look at this question, not only for your benefit but also for my own edification in the matter.  I plan to put forth in this blog some items for your consideration about the Bible, many you probably have not considered before.  Please follow along and give your input.  It is my pray to God, and my plea to you that we all seriously consider the question "Is the Bible from God or Man?". 

God bless