Do any textual variants in the New Testament have the potential to make a significant doctrinal impact?
In the past, major champions of the traditional text answered that question with a simple “No.” Robert L. Dabney wrote in 1871, that the received text – the Textus Receptus, the base-text of the KJV, while “not asserted to be above emendation,” “contains undoubtedly all the essential facts and doctrines intended to be set down by the inspired writers,” and “If it were corrected with the severest hand, by the light of the most divergent various readings found in any ancient MS or version, not a single doctrine of Christianity, nor a single cardinal fact, would be thereby expunged.”
More recent writers have expressed similar sentiments. D.A. Carson, for example, has written that the Westminster Confession’s affirmation that the Biblical text has been kept pure in all ages ought to be understood to mean that “nothing we believe to be doctrinally true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants.” (from p. 56 of The KJV-Only Controversy – A Plea for Realism.)
The view of Dan Wallace, however, is better-informed and more nuanced. It amounts to this: no viable and meaningful variant jeopardizes any cardinal doctrine. The adjectives in that sentence are important, so let’s look into what they mean. A viable variant is one which textual critics regard as potentially original; it is favored by weighty (though not necessarily decisive) evidence. A meaningful variant is one which affects the meaning of the passage in which it occurs. And a cardinal doctrine is one that expresses a fundamental point of the Christian faith.
Using this nuanced approach, a question immediately arises: which doctrines are cardinal? Is inerrancy a cardinal doctrine? Looking at the website of Dallas Theological Seminary (where Dr. Wallace has taught), a statement can be seen that requires students to agree with seven beliefs; the seventh is “the authority and inerrancy of Scripture.” And looking at the requisite Statement of Faith – “requisite” in the sense that faculty members at DTS are required to affirm it annually – one sees a statement that “We believe that the whole Bible in the originals is therefore without error.”
Michael Kruger argued at the Ligonier website (in 2015) that the doctrine of inerrancy is essential, and that it supplies “the foundation for why we can trust and obey God’s Word.” Don Stewart has also proposed that “inerrancy is an essential, foundational concept and its importance should not be minimized.” Dan Wallace, meanwhile, has downplayed the centrality of inerrancy, stating in 2006 (in a post that is still online) that “inerrancy and verbal inspiration are more peripheral than core doctrines.” In other words – if I understand him correctly – Dr. Wallace does not, and has not, for some time, regarded inerrancy as a cardinal doctrine – and so his statement to the effect that no viable and meaningful variant significantly affects cardinal doctrines should not be interpreted to mean that no viable and meaningful variants affect the doctrine of inerrancy.
Some apologists have followed the example of Wallace’s nuanced approach very closely; for example, in an article at Stand To Reason’s website, Tim Barnett wrote in 2016 that “No major doctrines depend on any meaningful and viable variants.”
However, I can think of at least two variants that jeopardize the doctrine of inerrancy, both of which occur in the first book of the New Testament: in Matthew 13:35 and Matthew 27:49. Only the one in Matthew 13:35 is acknowledged by a footnote in the NLT, NASB, and ESV. (At least, this is the case in the copies that I have. So many editions of modern versions are in circulation that it would be burdensome to keep track of them all – which might make one wonder how seriously the “Standard” part of their names should be taken.) Neither of these variants is given a footnote in the CSB, nor in the NKJV, nor in the hyper-paraphrase known as The Message. And the Tyndale House Greek New Testament does not have a footnote at Matthew 13:35 or at Matthew 27:49.
Most of the English versions I have named so far are currently ranked among the ten most-popular versions of the Bible in America. So much for the idea that no one is hiding these variants.
Let’s see what those variants in Matthew 13:35 and 27:49 say.
In Matthew 13:35, the scribe of Codex Sinaiticus, rather than writing that a prophecy was spoken by “the prophet,” wrote that it was spoken by “Isaiah the prophet.” This reading collides with reality: the referred-to prophecy is from Psalm 78:2 – a composition by Asaph, and not from Isaiah. In addition to the scribe of Codex Sinaiticus, witnesses that support “Isaiah the prophet” in Mt. 13:35 include (according to the textual apparatus of UBS4) Q, f1, f13, 33, and the reading was known to Jerome; Jerome wrote (in Homily 11 on Psalm 77) that “in all the ancient copies,” the prophecy is explicitly attributed to Asaph, and Jerome offers the theory that scribes who were unfamiliar with Asaph replaced his name with Isaiah’s name. The editors of UBS4 assigned this reading a ranking of “C,” which, as they explain in their Introduction, “indicates that the Committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text.”
In an earlier generation, F. J. A. Hort – who edited, with Westcott, the primary ancestor of the base-text of the New Testament used for the NIV, ESV, NLT, CSB, NASB and NRSV – argued for including “in Isaiah the prophet” in the text. His argument ran as follows: “It is difficult not to think Ἠσαίου genuine. There was a strong tendency to omit it (cf. xxvii 9; Mc 1 2); and, though its insertion might be accounted for by an impulse to supply the name of the best known prophet, the evidence of the actual operation of such an impulse is much more trifling than might have been anticipated. Out of the 5 (6) other places where the true text has simply τοῦ προφήτου, in two (Mt ii 15 [Hosea]; Acts vii 48 [Isaiah]) , besides the early interpolation in Mt xxvii 35 [Psalms], no name is inserted; in two a name is inserted on trivial evidence (Mt ii 5, Micah rightly, and Isaiah [by a] wrongly ; xxi 4, Isaiah and Zechariah both rightly [Zech by lat.vt]) ; and once (Mt i 22) Isaiah is rightly inserted on various Western evidence. Also for the perplexing Ἰερεμίου of xxvii 9, omitted by many documents, rhe has Ἠσαίου. Thus the erroneous introduction of Isaiah’s name is limited to two passages, and in each case to a single Latin MS. On the other hand the authority of rushw and aeth is lessened by the (right) insertion of Ἠσαίου by one in Mt i 22, and by both in xxi 4. The adverse testimony of B is not decisive, as it has a few widely spread wrong readings in this Gospel.”
Constantine von Tischendorf included Ἠσαίου in Matthew 13:35 in the 8th edition of his compilation of the Greek New Testament. And in 1901, Eberhard Nestle wrote (on p. 251 of his Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament) that διὰ Ἠσαίου τοῦ προφήτου “is certainly, therefore, original.” Anyone using a Greek New Testament compiled by Tischendorf or Nestle today would be rather challenged if he were to attempt to maintain the doctrine of inerrancy, inasmuch as if Matthew attributed Psalm 78:2 to Isaiah, then Matthew erred.
|Mt. 27:49 in Codex L.|
The adoption of this reading into the text would be fatal to the doctrine of inerrancy, because the Gospel of John candidly states (in 19:34) that Jesus was pierced in His side with a spear, resulting in a flow of blood and water, after He died, and this contradicts the text of Matthew if this reading – supported by the two early manuscripts (À and B) that are the primary basis for the heading and footnote that draw into question Mark 16:9-20 in the ESV, CSB, NRSV, etc. – is adopted.
In 2018, in a post at Evangelical Textual Criticism, Tyndale House GNT editor Dirk Jongkind acknowledged that this variant probably should have been mentioned in the apparatus of the Tyndale House GNT. He also acknowledged that “On external evidence, the addition has definitely a very good shout” – which – I think – is tantamount to granting that the reading is viable. But Jongkind rejects the reading, admitting that “The ‘best and earliest manuscripts’ do not always present us with the ‘best and earliest readings.’” Perhaps this statement should be printed in large letters alongside the ESV’s bracketed heading between Mark 16:8 and 16:9 (which reads, “Some of the earliest manuscripts do no include 16:9-20.”).
But this reading in the most significant manuscripts representative of the Alexandrian Text certainly was treated as viable by Westcott and Hort, who included the variant, within double brackets, in their compilation. In Westcott & Hort’s Notes on Select Readings, after analyzing the evidence pertaining to this variant, they concluded as follows: “Two suppositions alone are compatible with the whole evidence. First, the words ἄλλος δὲ κ.τ.λ. [“κ.τ.λ.” meaning “etc.”] may belong to the genuine text of the extant form of Mt, and have been early omitted (originally by the Western text) on account of the obvious difficulty. Or, secondly, they may be a very early interpolation, absent in the first instance from the Western text only, and thus resembling the Non-Western interpolations in Luke xxii xxiv except in its failure to obtain admission into the prevalent texts of the third and fourth centuries. The prima facie difficulty of the second supposition is lightened by the absence of the words from all the earlier versions, though the defectiveness of African Latin, Old Syriac, and Thebaic evidence somewhat weakens the force of this consideration. We have thought it on the whole right to give expression to this view by including the words within double brackets, though we did not feel justified in removing them from the text, and are not prepared to reject altogether the alternative supposition.”
Competent textual critics – including some who laid the foundation for the compilations of the ESV, CSB, NLT, and NRSV – have treated one or two readings that convey erroneous statements as if they are viable and meaningful. Therefore, the notion that there are no viable and meaningful textual variants in the New Testament that jeopardize any cardinal doctrine can only be maintained by those who do not consider the doctrine of inerrancy to be a “cardinal doctrine.”
So: do any textual variants in the New Testament have the potential to make a significant doctrinal impact? If you consider the doctrine of inerrancy a significant doctrine (which most evangelical Christians do), the answer is yes.
“We believe that the whole Bible in the originals is therefore without error.” I am trying to find out where this doctrine of "inerrancy in the original manuscripts" came from. I was taught this at mission college, but it always seemed to me to be a very weak position to take, given that no-one except God has the originals. As a result, those who mock scriptural inerrancy are given more ammunition. I would very much appreciate it if you could outline the genesis of this theory, which seems to be almost universal in seminaries.
It was a longstanding premise in evangelical Christianity before being definitively and systematically expressed in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:
Thanks James, I found the Chicago statement in my research. It seems to be a losing position to take. Can you tell me what the early church said? The first mention of the word Scripture in the Bible is Daniel 10, and seems to refer to the whole counsel of God. Its a little like the Mormon golden plates or the Koran story, which is a counterfeit of the real. Perhaps that is a far more secure foundation of inerrancy. Btw what is your view on Psalms 12:6-7 (KJV) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Does the grammar say what the KJV says? Thanks.
I believe there was a shift towards original autographs around the time of B. B. Warfield who lived 1851-1921. Haven’t done a exhaustive research on this may need to fact check me.
Thanks, I looked up BB Warfield and read the to and fro on a discussion board about him. This is a long-standing argument, but a crucial one. One interesting comment was that science can only provide probability, not certainty. Does the science of textual criticism bring faith or unbelief? I don't know enough on the subject to be sure, but when I was in mission college my tutors, who had PHD's, seemed to be burdened with doubt. My impression was that their education was to blame.
The falling away that Paul predicted is happening, and before you can have an unfaithful church, you need an unfaithful Bible. The fruit of the Westcott-Hort text is everywhere to see.
Unfortunately some form of textual criticism is unavoidable, any serious student of the Word or anyone involved in compiling or translating scripture is faced with such things as textual variants, choices must be made at those points as to what should or should not be included, or which particular reading etc. Such small percentage of discrepancies and difficulties among manuscripts should not affect or diminish our faith in the whole of scripture. Higher criticism or any type of criticism that starts on a foundation of doubt, questioning or unbelief with regards to the Word or God should be avoided like the plague. One of the rules used and taught by Dean Burgon to determine what was a true reading or not was “catholic antiquity “ or to put it in my own words, whatever was universally and historically accepted by the Christian church as scripture, is scripture. I wonder if the landscape of Bible versions and textual criticism would look much different today if such a rule was followed for the last 150 years or so. I am still learning and have not done a exhaustive research on these things, I probably need to be fact checked, may need to be corrected. Blessings on your studies, these types of of studies should only be a means to an end and not an end in itself, may we ever be increasing in the knowledge of God as Paul prayed for the Colossians in the first chapter, not just increasing in facts about God but also and maybe more importantly increasing in fellowship and communion with God.
Thanks brother for your reply, I like that idea of catholic antiquity better than the "oldest and best manuscripts". It really is the spirit of the inquiry, or the spirit of the translation that is crucial. The spirit of the KJV translation committee and that of the modern translation committees are very different. The word of God is a two-edged sword, if one approaches it with pride and judgement, it will cut you!
<< Can you tell me what the early church said? >>
I could, but it would be unrelated to this post.
Appreciate this article. This is probably the right place to start. With this platform established, we can quickly expand the number of textual variants that clearly affect doctrine. A few examples I can think of are:
The omission of a negation "μὴ" in Colossians 2:18 (comparing NA28 against TR).
The similar and more widely adopted variant in Mark 1:2 that has been widely adopted by modern translations, attributing a quotation of Malachi 3:1 to the book of the prophet Isaiah (note: the Alexandrian text in Mark 1:2 says "written" in Isaiah; whereas a possible counterexample like Matthew 27:9 in the TR only says "spoken" by Jeremiah, and not "written," thereby more similar to something like Jude vv. 14-15)
The difference in numerical values that cannot both be true, for example, replacing one person with two people ("son of Aram" being replaced by "son of Admin, son of Arni" in Luke 3:33 [ESV, NLT, NET]); or replacing one number of days with a mutually exclusive number ("more than ten" being replaced by "not more than eight or ten" in Acts 25:6). These variants cannot both be true. And they matter, or else they would not be present in Scripture (see 2 Timothy 3:16-17).
I think you've mentioned this one before, but the identification of Herod's daughter in Mark 6:22 is another clear example. The NLT and other translations change "the daughter of said Herodias," to the phrase, "his daughter Herodias." So in the NLT it's no longer the daughter of Herodias but rather his daughter Herodias. (based on Aleph, B and D) Or alternatively, something like replacing "Galilee" (Textus Receptus) with "Judea" (Alexandrian) in Luke 4:44. Likewise, replacing "son of Jonas" with "son of John" in John 21:15,16,17 (comp. Matthew 16:17).
This is before getting into doctrinal impacts surrounding interpretive translations, which is another issue related to this, such as omission of the rooster crowing in Mark 14:68, as seen in translations such as NIV and NASB-2020 (and NASB 1977 edition, but not 1995 edition). Or, reversing the meaning from "went up against" to "went to the aid of," in 2 Kings 23:29 in the NKJV (comp. 2 Chron. 35:20 in the same translation). Or changing the numerical value from "ninth day" to "fifth day," in Jeremiah 39:2 the DRB (comp. 2 Kings 25:3 + Jeremiah 52:6).
Post a Comment