Articles
Coping with Differences in Bible Manuscripts
As can be expected, there are manifold variations across the tens of thousands of handwritten sources used to reconstruct the Bible. Critics, like Bart Ehrman, often posit between 200,000-400,000 variants, just in respect to New Testament manuscripts! Such accusations can seem daunting, given that there are only about 138,000 words in the New Testament; however, burying one’s head in the sand in order to ignore these variations is unwise for personal spirituality and interpersonal apologetics. They are there and they need to be (and can be!) dealt with by the thinking Christian. Entire books are devoted to this discipline, but for the purposes of this article, we will offer a brief illustrative analysis of New Testament variant types showing that they do not seriously affect the Bible’s historicity.
There are two basic types of variants in Bible manuscripts: unintentional and intentional changes. Unintentional changes include accidental errors of eyesight like:
- Mistaking letters that looked alike;
- Writing a letter or word once when it should be twice (known as haplography; e.g., 1 Thessalonians 2:7)
- Repeating a letter or word (known as dittography; e.g., Mark 12:27)
- Incorrectly dividing a word due to the lack of spacing in original manuscripts (e.g., 1 Timothy 3:16)
- Dropping of a word or line because of similar endings (known as homoeoteleuton; e.g., 1 John 2:23).
Unintentional changes also include errors of hearing like:
- Substituting a word that sounds alike (known as homophony; e.g., Romans 5:1);
- Accidental errors of memory (e.g., Colossians 1:14 and Ephesians 1:7);
- Change in word or letter order (e.g., Jesus Christ versus Christ Jesus).
Intentional errors most often amount to later scribes trying to “correct” earlier manuscripts from which they were copying. Examples of these emendations include:
- Updating grammar or spelling;
- Modernizing language;
- Trying to smooth out the text;
- Making a text fit another (known as harmonization; e.g., Matthew 9:11 and Luke 5:30);
- Theological changes (e.g., the “Johannine Comma” in 1 John 5:7-8);
- Liturgical additions (e.g., Matthew 6:13);
- Shifting an earlier marginal note into the text.
In addition to these basics of textual criticism, we must also note differences in copying philosophies. Some sources were composed by those who prioritized a more-literal reading, whereas others preferred a more dynamic paraphrase. When we consider the translation of the texts into thousands of languages and dialects, we also see developments in line with cultural preferences and translator bias. Translator preferences are evident today even when comparing English translations. More literal Bible translations like the King James Version and the American Standard Version will read differently than paraphrase versions like the New Living Translation and The Message. Still, these are overwhelmingly unremarkable differences and can be assessed for quality of translation based on original textual families. Textual critics also use a variety of principles to guide these assessments: the shorter reading is usually preferable (since later scribes tended to embellish and add); the harder reading is usually preferable (since later scribes try to make a text easier to read and understand); the earlier is usually preferable (since people do tend to add over time); what best fits the context is preferable (later changes tended to be made that violated the context); wider geographical distribution of the same reading is usually preferable (who would want to spread a low-quality manuscript?). Overall, timing and geographic spread are preferable to the number of times a variant is repeated; as textual critics say, we must weigh manuscripts rather than just count them!
