The Bible: Which one?
An essay by: Steven Carr
When somebody says that the Bible is inerrant (without error), a good reply is to ask "Which Bible?" The first task of translators of the Bible into English is to decide which verses they want to put into each of the 27 New Testament books. There are more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts, but not one has the same collection of verses as any popular English Bible. Indeed, there is no Greek manuscript before 800 CE, which has 27 books in its New Testament. The Codex Sinaiticus, from about 350 CE, comes closest, but it also contains the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.
How did this textual variety come about, and what significance does it have? The King James Version was produced based on relatively few late manuscripts. Since then, many early manuscripts have been found. The impression is often given that these early manuscripts help us get back to what the authors originally wrote. Instead, they reveal that we can only guess what was originally written and that what was written was changed within decades, often for purely doctrinal reasons.
Let me give just a few examples, from many, which could have been chosen. Take Luke 22:43-44, "And being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down upon the ground." This is not present in the very earliest Greek manuscripts p66 and p75 from the third century. (P66 stands for papyrus number 66, p75 for papyrus number 75). Will they be dropped from future printings of the King James Version because they are not in the earliest manuscripts we have? Somehow, I doubt it. These verses are also omitted by Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus (4th century), Codex Washingtonensis (5th century), etc., but are in Sinaiticus (4th century) and the great majority of later manuscripts. They are cited by the early church father Justin (c. 130 CE). Whenever these verses were added or dropped, it must have been very early.
We know that these verses were quoted, not always exactly, in the second century by the early church fathers to counter the heretical view that Jesus was not a real human being and only quoted for that doctrinal purpose.
For example, Justin said, "(I)t is recorded that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying... in order that we may perceive that the Father wished His Son really to undergo such sufferings for our sakes, and may not say that He, being the Son of God, did not feel what was happening to Him and inflicted on Him" (Dialogue with Trypho, 103). Irenaeus (c. 170 CE) wrote, "(N)or would He have wept over Lazarus, nor have sweated great drops of blood; nor have declared, `My soul is exceeding sorrowful'; nor, when His side was pierced, would there have come forth blood and water. For all these are tokens of the flesh which had been derived from the earth, which He had recapitulated in Himself, bearing salvation to His own handiwork" (Against Heresy, 3, 22, 2). Hippolytus (c. 190 CE) said, "Thus then, too, though demonstrated as God, He does not refuse the conditions proper to Him as man, since He hungers and toils and thirsts in weariness, and flees in fear, and prays in trouble. And He who as God has a sleepless nature, slumbers on a pillow. And He who for this end came into the world, begs off from the cup of suffering. And in an agony He sweats blood, and is strengthened by an angel..." (Against Noetus, 18).
These verses were cited only for doctrinal purposes and are missing from the earliest manuscripts of Luke's Gospel. What more proof is needed that Luke's Gospel was altered no more than decades after being written and that this was done for doctrinal reasons?
The biggest doctrinal issue in Christianity is whether Jesus is God and what the Trinity means. The earliest Christians held all kinds of views about the status of Jesus. Even as late as 200 CE, the majority of Christians did not believe in the Trinity, as Tertullian freely conceded: "The simple, indeed, who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own `economy'" (Against Praxeas, Chapter 3). These sorts of disputes led to many alterations of the New Testament. At the time Tertullian wrote, many Christians believed that Jesus was God the Father. Noetus based this belief on John 14:9, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." The orthodox Christian Hippolytus had to go through contortions to show that this does not mean that Jesus was the Father. Is it any surprise that just a few years later, one of the very earliest manuscripts of John's Gospel we have was altered to read, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father also"? A very useful change for doctrinal reasons. Of course, people who said that Jesus was God the Father were also altering manuscripts. The earliest manuscript of 1 and 2 Peter is called p72. It states, in 1 Peter 5:1, that Peter was a witness of the sufferings of God, not a witness of the sufferings of Christ. This is not an accidental slip. Second Peter 1:2 in English Bibles today says, "May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord." P72 removes the "and" so that it becomes "God, our Lord Jesus." P72 also alters Jude 5 to say that the person who saved the people out of the land of Egypt was "the God Christ." Christians nowadays draw back from the idea that God the Son and not God the Father led the Israelites out of Egypt. The earliest manuscript of 1 and 2 Peter and of Jude is distinctly heretical, which is why English translations often give its readings as mere footnotes, and later readings are put in the main text. Another 3rd century manuscript, which differs from what is selected to go into Bibles today, is called p46. It includes Hebrews 1:8, which today says about Jesus, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever and the righteous sceptre is the sceptre of your kingdom." P46 says about Jesus, "God is your throne forever and ever; the righteous sceptre is the sceptre of his kingdom." The earliest manuscript of Hebrews that we have says that the kingdom is God's, not Jesus’. This reading is also backed up by the earliest Great Codices, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Naturally, English Bibles prefer later manuscripts.
The evidence of the earliest manuscripts is that Christianity was split into many factions. Orthodox views did not win out until the fourth century or later. Until then, people wrote and rewrote the New Testament books, trying to put the correct spin on the texts. This happened extremely early. By about 110 CE, Polycarp was quoting, in his letter to the Philippians, a version of Acts called the "Western" version, which is about 10 percent longer than the other version.
If an omnipotent God really inspired the New Testament books, why was he unable to prevent them being changed within decades of being written, by people acting in his name?
The Text of the Old Testament
There are a number of places where the original text is uncertain and the editor or translator simply has to be guided by what is most likely. In principle, however, the Hebrew text carries most weight than the Greek, since the Greek editors took a good many liberties in translation.
The Formation of the Old Testament
The history of how the 'canon' (collection of acknowledged books) of the Old Testament came to be formed is also difficult to establish because of lack of information. But there is enough to show what the Old Testament contained during the period immediately before the Christian era. And this goes a long way towards establishing what Jesus and the apostles would have regarded as Scriptures.
The Text of the New Testament
When we turn to the New Testament text we are confronted with such a mass of evidence that the problem is to find some basic principle of editing. We possess thousands of manuscripts: a striking contrast to the very few extant manuscripts of classical Greek authors. Not only are there thousands of Greek manuscripts; there are also a great many manuscripts of translations into Latin, Syriac, Egyptian and other languages. We also have New Testament quotations in the writings of the early church fathers. But this evidence must be used with caution, since they are not all noted for their accuracy.*
The Writing of the Bible
The authorship of the Old Testament books is traditionally attributed to great leaders of the Jewish past, among them Moses, Samuel, David, Solomon and various Prophets. However, modern scholarship has concluded that many of the books are late compilations of early traditions and writing. All original manuscripts of the Old Testament are at present lost. We possess only late copies in Hebrew or in various ancient versions. The Hebrew texts are the product of generations of scribes and are sometimes quite altered and corrupted.
The books of the New Testament were written during the century after Jesus' death. They were written in Greek, although it is possible that one or two books were first written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek. But there is no proof of the existence of these. They are traditionally considered to have been written by the apostles and disciples of Jesus. Scholars, however, have questioned the apostolic authorship of several. The twenty-seven (27) books of the New Testament are a selection from a much larger body of early Christian writings [Up to 25,000 different letters]. They represent the attempt of the Christian Church to settle on the writings that most fully present the Christian message: the fulfilment and renewal of God's promises in the person of Jesus Christ. The Council of Trent (1545-1563). This council of the Roman Catholic Church defined the biblical canon, affirming the inclusion of the biblical books that the Protestants call the Apocrypha and asserted the equal importance of the Bible and tradition.
