From Originals To Today. Can We Really Trust The New Testament Transmission?

According to the evangelical tradition the biblical canon is the inerrant word of God; that tradition argues modus ponens that because the canon was divinely inspired it must also have been divinely preserved - so what we now posses (in Greek) is the perfect representation of the inspired original.
 
This tradition can be tested by examining the 5,500 ancient Greek copies we have of the New Testament (also 10,000 in Latin and another 5,000 in other languages). Although there are a lot of copies, unfortunately only a dozen fragments, the earliest being P52 reach back to the second century, sixty-four reach back to the third century, and forty eight reach back to the fourth century.

That's a total of 124 fragments from the first 300 years of transmission. Among the earliest are P104 which contains Matthew 21, P75 which contains John and Luke, P46 which contains the Pauline Corpus, P66 which contains John, and P4 which contains Luke 1-6.

 

An analysis of all these copies identifies as many as 400,000 variations. Even though that seems a very big number it still equates to better than 90% agreement. Furthermore, the vast majority of the disagreements are trivial; including spelling mistakes and different ways to use the definitive article.

When these trivial variations are removed we are left with only hundreds to thousands of variations in millions of words which attests to the reliability of the biblical transmission. But having even one error, let alone hundreds or thousands denies word for word inerrancy.

So where does that leave those of us who have found it necessary to retreat from biblical inerrancy? And worse still - how can we support a lesser, more sober position that takes the data seriously when we have no first century or early second century texts to definitively connect us to the originals?

In the absence of such discovery, we have little option but to explore the earliest documents that we do posses for clues of earlier artefacts. For example, the best reconstruction that we have from the copies of copies of the diverse books contained in the canon demonstrates a remarkably consistent theology.

 

How does this help? Well suppose a scribe intentionally modified Mark's theology in the late first century. We would then expect to find inconsistencies with the early copies we have of John - unless John was also modified in the same way also in the first century - before these traditions had a chance to establish, and certainly before the earliest records that we now posses (second, third century) were circulated.

So either (1) there was a very early conspiracy that systematically changed the theology of every biblical text that shares the same stories, themes and ideas; or (2) the theological core was not significantly impacted by later textual variations.

The first scenario is problematic on several fronts; first, how could systematic editing happen to diverse and unconnected books that would only centuries later be collected into a canon? Second, since the conspiracy had to be early it must have involved the apostles - but their martyrdom establishes beyond doubt that they sincerely believed Jesus was the Christ (not that He was - just that they believed He was) and so could not have fabricated that story.

That leaves us with the second scenario. Textual critics have identified the comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7-8, the angel stirring the waters (John 5:3-4 - missing from Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus [1] ), the pericope adulterae (John 7:53-8:11 - missing from P75, Codex Vaticanus [2] , Codex Sinaiticus), the confession by the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:37 - missing from Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) as late additions.

Similarly, in the story of Jesus' agony at Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36-46, Mark 14:32-42, Luke 22:39-46) later manuscripts add two interesting details in Luke's account. First they describe an angel strengthening Jesus, and second His sweat fell as drops of blood. Neither detail is found in P75 or Codex Vaticanus (B) and marked doubtful by the second corrector of the Codex Sinaiticus before the doubt marks were removed by an even later corrector; so on balance these were likely late insertions. 

Another example is the long ending of Mark (16:9-20) that is missing from Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus - suggesting instead that the original Mark ended with the frightened women of 16:8.

 

Yet if we omit these identified variations what have we lost? After all the doctrine of the trinity is not built on 1 John 5:7-8 alone, nor the compassion of Jesus built upon the story of the adulteress, nor the confession of the eunuch central to any central doctrine. Even the ending of Mark is not detrimental to the resurrection story as told in the other gospels.

But it seemed a reasonable hypothesis that variations should impact the theological core - so why is the impact so minimal? An important characteristic of the variations is that with the exception of the above mentioned texts fluidic loci are either single words or very short phrases.

This makes some sense if the variations represent mistakes, clean-ups or word corrections or late oral insertions acted upon by sympathetic scribes but it makes little sense if the variations are based upon late wide-scaled, systematic invention.

 

In sum small scale fluidity and large scale stability coupled with consistent theology is consistent with the thesis that the scribal tradition in the undocumented first century and early second century worked to preserve rather than to alter the original oral and later written tradition (even if their copyist skills were at times lacking).

 

As such, without any textual motivation to claim conspiracy or myth, we can have a degree of confidence that what we now have at least reflects the original material.

 

That leaves us with the integrity of the original documents that are now lost to history. Can we at least argue that these original works were inerrant? 

Here again the answer appears to be no - for there are a great number of texts that do not appear to have been adversely impacted by late textual variations (and as such are assumed to be relatively untouched) that still do not cohere. For example, in Mark 11:12-21 the fig tree is cursed but it is not discovered withered till the next day. According to Matthew 21:19-20 the fig tree withered at once.

 

Also in Mark 11 Jesus entered Jerusalem, left the city, then returned the next day to protest in the precincts. In Matthew 21 this all happened on the same day while in John 2:13-21 this demonstration seems to have happened near the beginning of Christ's ministry; not in His final week.

 

Similarly the synoptic gospels give the impression that the last supper was the Passover meal (Matthew 26:17-29, Mark 14:12-25, Luke 22:7-23) while John places it on the day before Passover (John 13:21-30, 18:28, 19:14,31,42).

Because these discrepancies resist harmonisation - and we have no reason to believe that they arose through textual variations - each tentatively stands against the view that the biblical material was even originally inerrant.

Nevertheless, even if there were tensions in the original documents, which was further complicated by textual variations, that does not in itself mean today's New Testament is wholly unreliable.

Why? Because regardless of the numerous small scale tensions that arise either through textual variations, oral tradition or original theological interpretation - the large scale narrative across multiple sources still manages to cohere. That is to say all agree that Jesus lived, worked miracles, was crucified and rose from the dead (which proved he was the messiah).

Of import then, is how we moderns approach this rich, dynamic biblical history. Unfortunately the most common approach for modern Christians is to ignore it entirely. Rather than take the data seriously, many Christians read the biblical texts as if they were written as a constitution. Just as Lawyers quote articles, sections, and paragraphs so too many Christians quote books, chapter and verse to defend a particular point of view.

 

But if the history of the biblical data teaches us anything - it should at least teach us that the bible is not a constitution. Rather, the diverseness of the texts points us to the conclusion that the biblical data constitutes a library [3].

 

While a constitution purports to be self-consistent, a library by its very definition is messy; full of tension. It is a vital discussion by a group of people who approach the same questions in very different ways.

 

This is a pivotal point - for ‘we judge internal tension and debate as flaws or failures in the components of a constitution, but we see them as a sign of vitality and vigour in the literature of a culture_[4].’

According to McLaren this then is how we should approach the biblical data. He cites the book of Job as an example[5]. In the introduction God and Satan discuss faithful Job. By the end of the introduction Satan has killed Job’s children, destroyed his farm, and covered his body with festering sores.

 

The middle section covers Job’s lament over what has unfairly befallen him. His friends Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, Zophar the Naamathite, and later Elihu the Buzite also contribute to the narrative through their own pious speeches that blame Job for his own misfortune - for why else would God punish him?

Then we get to the surprising ending where God says Job did not wrong Him, and the platitudes of his pious friends were utter nonsense. This twist raises an interesting point - namely God himself tells us a large section of the book of Job is nonsense!

Biblical accuracy cannot exist in chapter and verse; it can only emerge through the course of conversation, through the nuanced tension of argument - through the interplay of statement and counter statement. To snatch a verse from the middle of Job would be fine if Job was written and preserved as a constitution, but in this type of story which balances statement against counter-statement, verse snatching does violence to the text.

‘Does the bible alone provide enough clarity to resolve all the questions as a good constitution should? ' asks McLaren_[6]. 'No. We have no reason to believe it was ever meant to do that, as much as we’ve tried to force it to do so. From all sides it becomes clear that the Bible, if it is truly inspired by God, wasn’t meant to end conversation and give the final word on controversies. If this were its purpose, it has failed miserably. But if instead it was inspired and intended to stimulate conversation, to keep people thinking and talking and arguing and seeking, across continents and centuries, it has succeeded and is succeeding in a truly remarkable way’.

This then is how we should approach the biblical data. As a complex, dynamic conversation. This approach in no way minimises the historical reliability of the claims made by the text, but rather superimposes a theological discourse that brings out deeper theological detail.

As it turns out this is not a lesser claim as if the biblical data has been found wanting - but rather it is a greater claim as if something else hidden has been discovered.

Granted it often takes more effort to get to the crux of a theological matter when we approach the biblical data this way - but for me at least, the rich conversation, the tension, the messiness rightfully challenges my neat and tidy, black and white, set of beliefs that I use to make sense of the world - and that, I suspect, was the point. 

[1]The codex could not have been written before 325 because it contains the Eusebian Canons, a terminus post quem. It could not have been written after 360 because it refers to Church fathers in the margins, a terminus ad quem.

[2] Usually dated to slightly earlier than Codex Sinaiticus because it does not have the Eusbian Canons.

 

[3] A New Kind of Christianity McLaren B 2010 Hodder &Stoughton

[4] ibid

[5] ibid

[6] ibid