More and more people today are asserting that the Bible was either composed or altered by mere men; they refuse to believe that it is Divinely inspired. Anyone has the right to believe anything; however, the day shall arrive when all shall believe, know, and confess the truth. Yes, “every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:11). No one will have an excuse not to know that God exists—because the natural world declares it (Ps. 19:1-6; Rom. 1:18-20). The evidence for Jesus being His Son is abundant (John 20:30-31).
So what do critics complain of? To boil it down, the main criticism involves uncertainty. If God actually did in-spire the words first recorded on parchment, nevertheless, we do not have those originals; we have only copies of copies of copies of the ancient manuscripts. We have variations (thousands of them) in those manuscripts; so we know that sometimes a scribe added something to it or deleted something from it (whether intentional or accidental). At best, we have an altered original text. And then there is the problem of translation; some verses just may not be the equivalent of what the author intended. Furthermore, if the original texts have been altered by men, how do we know they were inspired in the first place?
These are challenging questions, but they do have honest and satisfactory answers. Do translations from the original languages vary? Sure, a few problems will always exist when going from one language to another. We have idioms in the English language that do not translate well into other languages. Imagine reading a translation of the English into some other language when one performer tells another who is about to go out on stage, “Break a leg.” What? How cruel! No one would have a reason to know that this is a phrase meaning, “Good luck.”
Jesus may have spoken in Hebrew at times or the more popular Aramaic to the Jews. But His words were writ-ten down in Greek and eventually translated into several other languages. So there probably will be variations. How-ever, these do not prove that the Bible is false. The very fact that we have differences simply throws more light on a given verse. A different shade of meaning may enrich our understanding; it does not change that which is true into something false.
One would think that one translation said that man was created on the sixth day while another translation had it a month later. No one disagrees on crucial in-formation that readers need which is vital to salvation. The fact is, however, that some translations are just not done very well, but when we study them, we find out the truth about them and quit using them.
For example, nearly every modern translation renders Exodus 20:7 this way: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain…” (KJV, NKJ, ASV, NAS, RSV, ESV). But the NIV has, “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God….” Although that is a similar thought, it probably leaves a question in the mind of the reader: “What does it mean to misuse the Lord’s name?” But even with such a poor choice of words, no contradiction arises.
However, there are plenty of situations when violence is done to the text, and for that reason a person needs to be careful about which translation to use. With most reliable translations, sometimes an inferior rendering surfaces, but the more paraphrase-y one becomes, the worse it gets. In John 2:10, the master of the feast mentions that the guests had “well drunk” (KJV, NKJ), meaning that they had had their fill of the wine when they desired to. The ASV, NAS, RSV, and ESV say correctly they had drunk freely. The NIV erroneously chose to say: “after the guests have had too much to drink.” How shameful! This description makes it sound as though the guests had grown tipsy on alcoholic wine—something for which there is no basis in the text.
When unfortunate word choices do find their way into translations, they usually stand out, and those familiar with the Scriptures recognize them and protest against them. The RSV chose to replace virgin (as used by the KJV and the ASV) in Isaiah 7:14 with young woman. They were immediately called out on this aberration, and no legitimate translation (NAS, NKJ—even the NIV) since then has used anything but the proper word—virgin.
So even though some really bad translations occasionally make it into a major version, we have enough of them to discern what is right, and we also have word studies and a multitude of commentaries, all of which examine everything very closely. Thus, the claim that we are merely using translations and not the Greek text lacks sufficiency as a criticism.
Did God not know that Greek would not always be a universal language? God is the One who confused the languages at the Tower of Babel. Did He not know that eventually His Word would need to be in every language? Was not the Holy Spirit the One Who had the apostles speak in all the languages of those pre-sent on Pentecost? God knows all about languages and translations; even flawed versions contain enough truth to save people from their sins.
The problem with variations in manuscripts is a larger—but not an insurmountable—one. It is a fact that we do not have any of the original gospel accounts of Jesus’ life or any of the letters written by the apostles. Copy machines did not exist in the first century or for hundreds of years afterward. The printing press did not make mass reproduction available for nearly 1500 years. So, when an original was about worn out, one or more copies were made in order to preserve God’s Word.
This process does not sound like it would cause a huge problem, but now let’s look at the situation from the other end of the spectrum—from 2016. Some-where along the way, some individuals did not copy a manuscript correctly because we have variant readings. For example, in Revelation 1:5, there are two verbs that are very similar which show up in different manuscripts. One verb is lousanti, and the other is lusanti. Both verbs have the accent over the u; only the o is missing from the second word. It is not difficult to see how someone copying the text omitted an o.
The first word (lousanti) means “to wash.” Did Jesus wash us from our sins in His own blood? Yes; the concept is found in Acts 22:16, where Saul was told to arise and be baptized, and wash away his sins. The word translated “wash” there is the same verb but with the preposition apo in front of it. The second verb, lusanti, means “to loose.” Did Jesus loose us from the sins that had bound us? Yes. The word is not commonly used in that way, but it would be entirely appropriate to do so. So this variation is actually of no con-sequence. And the same is true of many others.
Bart D. Ehrman, in his book, Misquoting Jesus, argues that manuscript variations prove the Bible is from man and not God. He writes:
The more I studied the manuscript tradition of the New Testament, the more I realized just how radically the text had been altered over the years at the hands of the scribes, who were not only conserving scripture but also changing (207).
“Wow!” one wonders. “How many super blunders there must be in the Bible to have caused such a conclusion!” In the next sentence, however, he basically says that there wasn’t much:
To be sure, of all the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among our manuscripts, most of them are completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance for anything other than showing that scribes could not spell or keep focused any better than the rest of us (emph. GWS, 207).
Then why all the fuss?
Previously Ehrman had said that most of the changes in manuscripts were “the result of mistakes, pure and simple—slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words…” (55). Yet one would think there were gigantic plots to alter the Scriptures the way he writes the remainder of the book. To be sure, those copying the New Testament had disadvantages that we have never experienced. Early manuscripts were written without any punctuation marks, without any distinction between capital or small letters, and without any spaces between the words (48). Probably they did not include pictures, either; so a copyist would be staring at a page full of letters.
An example of one word being mistaken for another is in 1 Corinthians 5:8, where Paul talks about the old leaven of wickedness (or evil). The Greek word is poneras, but a few manuscripts have porneias, which would be “sexual immorality” (90). The point is that we know that this second reading is inaccurate (not only because of the context) but because so many manuscripts have it correctly. Ehrman relates that the here-tic Marcion made changes in eleven books of the Bible, taking out references to the Creation. But the fact is, due to the 5,700 manuscripts that we have (88), we know what he did and do not trust his corrupted text.
The author of Misquoting Jesus quotes Origen, whose works date from the first half of the third century, as lamenting already the variations of the text in manuscripts. He accused some of making “additions or deletions as they please” (52). The point, however, is that men like him knew of the changes and thus could warn others and use their influence to preserve the best manuscripts.
According to Ehrman, there were all kinds of plots to change the New Testament text, but most of his claims are poorly substantiated and involve a great deal of supposition. One example will suffice—one he claims involved a “deliberate” attempt to make Jesus God. The text, 1 Timothy 3:16, reads as follows:
God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by Angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.
The big controversy revolves around if the first word above should be God or Who, with the implication that God replaced the original who to emphasize the Deity of Jesus. There is one such text (1 John 5:7-8), but we know that because of the abundance of manuscripts where those words were omitted. But here no evidence exists that any such attempt occurred. The two words look alike (when theos is abbreviated).
So which word belongs? Better manuscript evidence exists for who, but God fits the text better. But the choice of the word there essentially makes no difference since Jesus is God, and He was manifested in the flesh (John 1:1-3, 14).
Textual critics, however, should stick to the facts and quit trying to assign motives to those who copied manuscripts. Instead of assuming that an honest mistake was made, Ehrman feels obligated to charge, “Conspiracy,.” asserting that “the New Testament rarely, if ever, actually calls Jesus God” (114). Seriously? What does he think John 1:14 does, if not call Jesus God in the flesh? Has he never read Peter’s confession of Jesus’ Deity, the rock upon which the church is built (Matt. 16:16-19)? Did he somehow overlook Jesus identifying Himself as the “I AM” of Exodus 3:14 (John 8:58)? Is he unaware that Paul referenced Jesus’ equality with God (Phil. 2:5-8)? Has he somehow overlooked that Jesus was crucified for confessing His Deity (Mark 14:61-62)? These are just a few. References to the Deity of Jesus in the New Testament would fill up the rest of this column. No one needs 1 Timothy 3:16 to prove Jesus is God. Ehrman makes a baseless and frivolous accusation.
Another groundless assertion is that one or more scribes omitted Luke 23:34 (“Father, forgive them…”) because it was obvious (from the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70) that God had not forgiven the Jews. So they removed the verse. First, if that were the case, why did they leave in Stephen’s petition, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin” (Acts 7:60)? Second, Jesus’ prayer was answered. Three thousand repented and were baptized on Pentecost. Naturally, those who never repented were not forgiven, since repentance is always a condition. Stephen’s prayer was answered, also, when Saul of Tarsus, who held the garments of those who stoned him, was forgiven of his sins. No conspiracy amongst copiers of texts can be proven; the verse could have been omitted by accident. But, again, we have so many manuscripts that we know it belongs.
Is Ehrman’s conclusion valid? He writes:
Given the circumstance that he [God, GWS] didn’t preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable to me that he [God, GWS] hadn’t gone to the trouble of inspiring them (211).
Basically, this statement argues that God does not know what He is doing. Perhaps He should have waited until the invention of the printing press to begin the New Testament era. However, we know Jesus came in the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4). Did God not know uninspired copyists would make errors? Of course, but the abundance of preserved manuscripts allows us to see them and compile a reasonable facsimile to the originals. But even if a word or two is under dispute, no contradictions occur. If someone added a verse that agrees with the remainder of the New Testament, it was unauthorized but still true. If someone removed a verse (even intentionally), plenty of others teach the same truth. One does not find adultery both accepted and condemned. Nowhere is the Deity of Jesus denied. Christians can be assured that the Bible we have is the truth.