Overview of the Problem
We do not possess any of the original documents of the books of the Bible commonly called the autographs. All we have are copies which we call apographs. Since copies are always libel to incorporate errors, there are variations in the copies that have come down to us. A flaw in one document is passed on in all the copies made of it unless someone making the copy saw other apographs and made a correction.

One job of the student of Scripture is to take care to use the text which reflects the original inspired writings to the best of avilable evidence. The critical editions pastors and scholars use of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures usually include footnotes that indicate the variant readings of individual manuscripts and groups of manuscripts which have been discovered and published.

Since the Bible is the means by which God intended to reveal himself to his people down through the ages, there is more to the issue than mere literary analysis. The first chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it this way in the 8th section:

"The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them."

Before we deal with the information about our confidence in what we have today, it helps to have a breif overview of the study of the ancient copies of the texts of Scripture.

The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures
Transcriptional errors in the Old Testament are extremely rare. The scribes were very meticulous in making copies of what they believed were the holy words of God. They would check their work not only by careful proofreading, but also by counting the individual letters and comparing the result with carefully maintained records. This is similar to the check-sum process used in computer systems today to make sure documents accurately are copied or sent to another computer.

The majority of suggested corrections to the Hebrew text made by Bible critics are merely conjectural and should be discounted for lack of any physical evidence to support them. They are not based on real variations found in actual copies.

Most of the actual copyist errors found in the manuscriptes of the Old Testament are due to simple spelling variations, most of which are a variation of the use of the Hebrew "vav" and "yodh" (they sound like our "w" and "y"). In Hebrew they are little hooks over the line. The vav extends it down to the base line and the yodh only extends it part way down. Other spelling differences are because spelling was not as universally standardized as it is in our own age. Today writers have dictionaries, spell-checkers, and other reference works which did not exist in ancient times. When the extant copies of the books of Scripture are compared and all historic testimony is considered there is an amazing lack of doubt that what we have is essentially the same as the autographs.

Dr. John Skilton of Westminster Seminary in his paper The Transmission of the Scriptures summarizes work done by Princeton's Dr. Robert Dick Wilson in an analysis of the Hebrew Bible edited by Kennicott. He says that Kennicott's Bible included readings from over 600 surviving manuscripts. Of the 284,000,000 letters in those manuscripts there are about 900,000 variants. About 750,000 of them are trivial variations between the vav and yodh. The remaining variants only occur in one or a few manuscripts of the 600 or so he compared. He reports that, "there are hardly any variant readings in these manuscripts with the support of more than one out of the 200 to 400 manuscripts in which each book is found."

When we compare the finds of the Qumran fragments and scrolls, the famous Nash Papyrus, and other similar finds we see the same low level of variation in the text. The places where large divergence occurs give evidence that the text was from a clearly corrupted source. For example, some of the Hebrew texts of the Old Testament appear to be translations back into Hebrew from versions in another language. Some may be copied from a single line of corrupt texts upon which loose translations for foreign readers may have been made.

The Septuagint (often referred to as LXX) was a translation of the Hebrew into Greek. The variation in styles of translation show differing degrees of scholarly care in accurately representing the Hebrew text from which it was made. Many of the obvious differences in the LXX were probably more the result of the work of the translator than reflecting a different Hebrew original.

As we will show later, Jesus, the Apostles and the early church were confident in the text of the Old Testament they possessed at that time. Jesus spoke with divine authority. The writers of the New Testament books were rendered infallible as they also make reference to a reliable Old Testament text.

The Text of the Greek Scriptures
There are well over 5,000 apographs of New Testament texts available to us today. Of those containing entire books or groups of books, no two are exactly the same in every part.

Most variations are trivial having to do with spelling. Most significant deviations are isolated to single texts or groups of texts which are easily corrected when compared with the other copies.

There are several causes for transcriptural variations:
Some are accidental errors which occur when a copyist ...
... mistakes one letter for a similar one
... mistakes one word for a similar one
... substitutes a synonym without realizing it
... skips a letter, word or portion
... puts a left out portion in the margin (later mistaken as a comment)
... copies the same letter, word or portion twice
... gets letters, words or sections out of order
... copies with illegible writing
... wrongly interprets a smudge, or illegible word or letter

Some variations are made intentionally when a copyist ...
... inserts a marginal note thinking it belongs in the text
... leaves out a portion he believes shouldn't be there
... tries to harmonize differing manuscripts

Attempts have been made over the decades to divide up the 5000+ New Testament apographs into "text-types," "families," and other groups of various sorts. In recent times computers have sorted through data bases to find patterns for simplifying the problem into categories for sorting out the differences. When reading the attacks of one scholar upon another, it becomes clear even in the most recent papers on the subject, that there is still no simple formula for classifying the many types of text we have today.

Some are classified as "Alexandrian" representing some very old copies based on texts common in early Alexandria in Africa. But many attempts have been made to divide that text type into sub-groups to account for a wide discontinuity in the variant readings found in them. Those called "Byzantine" are much later copies evidently made from quite ancient texts which bear some degree of commonality. These comprise the majority of existing apographs. But even the Byzantine group have been divided by computer analysis into hard to manage sub-groups. Some have suggested text types they call "Western" and "Caesarean" but these groupings have also been discounted by some scholars.

Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort and Bishop Brooke Foss Wescott published a set if "canons" to act as rules for discovering the original text. Many of their original canons have been modified and a few totally discounted. Their work stands as a helpful foundation though for the continuing work of analysis of the variants. Some have so elevated two of the Alexandrian texts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) calling them the "Heavenly Twins" that they rather blindly accept any reading that is found in both of these valuable and ancient texts. However, a reading of those texts shows many marginal corrections and notations making them far from a divine standard.

Some have presumed that there must be a work of God preserving the text by ensuring that the majority possessed by the church must be the perfect text. One of the editions of the New Testament produced by Erasmus in the early 1500's was used by the translators of the King James Version and became known by some as the "Textus Receptus" (Received Text). There are those who consider it to be the divinely preserved text. However some parts of it were translated into Greek from Latin and have absolutely no Greek manuscript supporting them.

Many other editions of the text and suggestions by scholars pull us in one direction or another. It is wise to be cautious about extreme simplifications which have no actual biblical foundation behind them. The work of the textual scholar should not too readily dismiss entire groups of texts, nor elevate particular apographs to divine status without sound biblical reasoning and justification.

In summary, we are vary confident in the text of the New Testament we have today. Even arguing critics are quick to remind us that the variations effect no accepted doctrine of our Christian faith. Very little of the text is actually in question. Most of the variations are so trivial they don't even effect the translation of the text. Those that do are mostly isolated to very few supporting groups of texts. A few large portions or more serious variations (while not effecting our doctrines) need to be considered on their own merits by studying how the disputed reading fits the context and how well it is supported by a wide distribution of early witnesses. But even the study of context can be subjective. Someone failing to see the main point being made in a passage may think a particular reading is out of step with the other verses around it when in fact a good analysis of the author's purpose might make very good sense of its content.

Some Specially Problematic Texts
While detailed analysis goes far beyond the scope of our survey study here, it's helpful to take a brief look at a few of the more lengthy portions of the New Testament where variations occur.

1 John 5:7-8 contains a portion that has no sound Greek manuscript support. Words traced to the time of Erasmus insert the Trinity into the text. There were debates about including it since it was only found in some late Latin versions. Basically Erasmus lost the argument and reluctantly included it in his third edition of the text in 1522. Since that became the "Textus Receptus" it is included in the King James version (1611). The inserted portion was not used as a foundation for our belief in the Trinity, and presents no necessary detail in establishing the details of that doctrine.

John 7:53-8:11 is about the woman taken in adultery. Several ancient manuscripts differ about this portion. Some omit this section entirely. Those that include it are diverse in world-wide distribution which lends support for the ancient existence of the reading. Those that do not include it are mostly from one region of the world but trace back to very early apographs. Again, those who reject it and those who accept it as original agree that no teaching of Scripture is harmed either way.

Mark 16:9-20 is the longer ending of the Gospel of Mark. This is one of the most debated variations in the New Testament. It is missing from two old Alexandrian texts and a few other early apographs. It is not mentioned in early writings of the church. But it is included in the largest majority of texts of the Byzantine tradition and in Alexandrinus, a 5th century text in the Alexandrian area but which follows more the Byzantine text type. Shorter versions appears in a few others manuscripts.

This passage was the subject of a very detailed analysis of manuscript evidence by one of the most scholarly of the "Textus Receptus" supporters, Dean John Burgon. While many reject some of his assumptions about the Byzantine tradition (which by the way is not identical with what Erasmus printed) they still respect many of the well documented arguments he made for the longer reading.

Some have rejected this section because of its content. It mentions casting out demons, not being harmed by deadly snakes or poisons, and miracles of healing. If it is interpreted to mean that extraordinary miracles of power are to be normative for the whole church throughout the ages, it would be in conflict with the other inspired writings, particularly the prophets which gave a very specific purpose for supernatural wonders. But if, as its context demands, it is a promise given to those in the apostolic age just then beginning for the purpose of authenticating their message, it presents no conflicts. The miracles described were simply a part of the laying of the apostolic foundation of the church which was to be built upon by a continuing church through obedience to the gospel mandate and the commonly practiced means of grace later detailed in the Epistles (See Ephesians 2:20).

These are just brief summaries of fascinating studies worthy of the time of good scholars. But no Doctrine of the Christian Faith is presented in these questioned portions that is not clearly taught in other universally accepted portions of the Bible.

Biblical Foundations for Preservation On what biblical foundation can we say that the copies we have can be called the Word of God? The primary New Testament texts that deal with the value of the inspired Scriptures quote from and refer to copies of the text available at that time, not to the originals autographs which had been lost long before then!

2 Timothy 3:15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. Paul used the expression "the Holy Scriptures" (ta hiera grammata) which was an established expression used at the time for the Old Testament books. The same is true of his use of the word "Scriptures" (graphae). The only texts of the Holy Scriptures available to Timothy as he grew up were copies, not the originals. Yet they were the ones Paul says in this inspired text that were still authoritative for his correction and instruction in the teachings of God. A quality of "inspiredness" adhered to the copies Timothy had used then. The continuing value of this verse for the church is that what we possess is still fully authoritative and is our infallible guide into God's tuths. Our imperfect copies are so superintended by God's providence as to give us this solid foundation.

2 Peter 1:19-21 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Peter also uses the term "Scripture" (graphae) to describe the Old Testament books and the New Testament writings being inspired at that time by those chosen by God and directed to write authoritatively for the church. Peter calls these Scriptures "word confirmed," more sure even than his own eye witness account as a man. Again, he could only have been referring to the existing copies available to his readers at that time. The confidence he expresses was not limited to the original autographs. The full authority of God is extended to copies then available to the churches.

In John 10:35 Jesus quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures (graphae). He called it "your Law," "the word of God." Yet only copies were available to him, to his followers and to the Jewish scholars he corrected.

These testimonies of Scripture, and many others like them, confirm that there remains a quality of "inspiredness" that adheres to the copies of Scripture. This means they continue to be God's word for us.

Questions for Review and Thought
1. What are some of the human causes for errors in making copies of the Scriptures?
2. How important to Christian Doctrine are the portions of the Bible where the exact text is in dispute?
3. What extremes should be avoided in the study of the Biblical texts?
4. What biblical evidence shows that a quality of inspiredness remains in copies made from the original writings of Scripture?
5. What are some of the larger portions of the Greek New Testament that do not have a certain foundation in the copies that have been preserved for us?