The Study of Texts
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).
NPR recently posted an article on-line that was titled, "How Bible Stories Evolved Over the Centuries." The article was credited to the NPR Staff. Needless to say, the emphasis of the article is designed to undermine those who believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Consider the title itself. It implies that the Bible underwent a process of evolution—just like mankind did, according to the predominant theory in science, which is also false.
Now, what comes to most people's minds when they see that the Bible evolved? Probably, most people will imagine that someone wrote down some basic facts, but then another person came along and added to it, changed it, or took something away from it he did not like. Of course, this is nothing more than what modernists have been theorizing for centuries. They did this with the five books of Moses, stating that there must have been at least four different writers of those books, named J (for the one who used the name Jehovah for God), E (for the writer who used the name Elohim for God), D (for the writer of the book of Deuteronomy), and P (for the writer who contributed the material dealing with the priests). This JEDP analysis was based on no facts at all and was nothing more than speculation. The initial theory has been modified several times over—almost ad infinitum—but it remains nothing more than the fanciful interpretations of men who do not for a moment believe that the Bible is a revelation from God to man.
Of course, "scholars" could not leave the New Testament intact, either; so they developed the wondrous theory of Q (not to be confused with the James Bond wizard of gadgetry). Q stands for quelle, a German word, meaning "source." The theory is that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all copied from an earlier source document—which has mysteriously disappeared and never been seen by any human being! In other words, the entire hypothesis is based on no tangible evidence whatsoever. It too remains only a theory in the minds of those who do not believe that the Bible is inspired of God.
The New Threat
The suggested "evolution" in this new effort to undermine the Scriptures may have credibility with some, however, because it involves scholars at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. It further involves the examination of Biblical texts. Presumably, then, we are dealing with those who respect the Scriptures and those who are dealing with actual data. However, while the information from the texts cannot be questioned, there may be several unknowns, such as, "Who copied the text?" and "How reliable is the text?" Also, one may wonder about pronouncements and judgments made concerning the texts as well as the biases the Seminary might have.
According to the second edition of Bruce Metzger's The Text of the New Testament (eighth printing, 1981), there are about 5,000 manuscripts containing part or all of the New Testament (36). There are three different types of manuscripts: the papyri, which consist of 81 portions of the New Testament that are written on a papyrus (247-255). Most of these are fragments that contain some sections of some books. Second are the uncials, which are manuscripts written in capital letters on leaves that are bound together like books. This style is often referred to as a codex. Codex Sinaiticus (the only complete uncial) is written in a book format rather than upon a papyrus scroll. The third source consists of minuscules, which is a modified form of cursive that was developed in the ninth century (8). These various manuscripts are all there are to work with, and many only contain portions of texts. Also, it may be difficult to date some of them with precision, since they are 1,500 to 1,800 years old. How accurate can this "evolution" be?
17,000 Pages?
According to the on-line article, the Baptist scholars in New Orleans have been combing through the manuscripts of New Testament books for changes, and thus far they have found 17,000 pages of variations! Wow! 17,000 pages! It sounds as though there's been a lot of evolving goin' on out there. But what does this figure mean, and how was it derived? For starters, how many variations appear on each page? Furthermore, how is a variation defined? Is it one letter's difference, an entire word's difference, or are we talking about full scale rewrites? This writer has in his possession, for example, the sixth chapter of F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby as he originally penned it. The final version, which appeared in the novel, bears little similarity to the original. Paragraphs were moved or deleted entirely, and additional material was included. Is this what the New Orleans Baptists are referring to?
Or is it something insignificant that is repeating several times? Before looking at an example, the reader should be aware that most anyone who has studied the Bible very long knows that there are variations in the 5,000 texts that have been preserved. This fact does not mean that the Scriptures have evolved over a period of time. Reasons exist for the variations, such as miscopying part of a word or an entire word. The fact that something was miscopied does not detract from the fact that the original was inspired. If the Baptists working on this project believe that truth, the NPR article did not mention it. Those who have studied the Bible for many years also know that the variations do not matter one iota as it pertains to any Bible doctrine. Present the greatest alternate text imaginable, and nothing is changed regarding the character of God or His plan for redeeming mankind.
Now consider this example. John 8:48 is translated, "Then the Jews answered and said to Him…." Two variations are cited in Berry's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. The word translated "then" is from the Greek oun, a particle which is translated correctly. However, at least one manuscript has ouk, which is an adverb of negation that is usually rendered "no" or "not." This variation does not really make any sense, and it is likely that it was miscopied. The word said in this same sentence is from the Greek eipon, but a variation in several texts is eipan. Regardless of whatever tense the word is, all translations still have "said." Now how are these two insignificant discrepancies counted? Is it just a single variation, or is it counted in every manuscript it is found in? There must be some way to fill up 17,000 pages.
"How Mark's and John's Stories Changed"
The two most questioned texts are brought up next. Students of the Bible have been aware of these for centuries, but NPR presents it as though it were a new discovery. They first cast a cloud of suspicion over Mark 16:9-20. Quoted is Bill Warren, the professor leading the manuscript project. He had the temerity to say that Mark 16:9-20 is nowhere to be found "in the original manuscripts for Mark." Really? How many original manuscripts did Mark write, professor? And how many of them have you personally seen and examined? Don't bother to reply; we both know that the answer is none. Anybody ought to be able to figure out that, if we had any original manuscript, then no variations would exist! This is really a shoddy and prejudicial statement for someone posing as a scholar.
New Orleans Baptist Seminary's Professor Warren's shallowness continues with the following paragraph from the on-line article:
"We actually have more than one ending in the manuscripts, and then we have some with no ending," Warren explains. "So what we think probably happened there is that as soon as you see the other Gospels with the resurrection stories, early in the 2nd century at least, someone says, 'You know, we need to put some of this material into Mark to round it off better'" (emph. GWS).
The first sentence anyone would know who had ever read the New American Standard Bible. It mentions the lack of Mark 16:9-20 in some manuscripts and also provides the shorter alternative ending. Most newer translations mention this fact; so, it is scarcely a new revelation. His second two sentences consist of nothing but theory. First of all, he does not know that the manuscripts that omit the passage are older. Codex Sinaiticus is usually cited, along with Codex Vaticanus, but Irenaeus quoted from Mark 16:19 more than 200 years before those manuscripts. We could just as easily speculate, concerning Mark 16:9-20, that someone did not like the teaching about the necessity of baptism being so plainly taught; therefore, they omitted the last twelve verses. That would be totally a guess; it is interesting, however, to note that today's Baptists always seem to be at the forefront of trying to undermine the passage. The project professor provides no information that would reveal that new and startling information has been found. His factual comment presents nothing more than we have already known.
John 7:53-8:11
The complaint against this passage, which contains the account of the woman taken in adultery, stands upon an equally shaky foundation. As the article states: "The professor says that the story was probably inserted into the book of John somewhere around the 2nd or 3rd centuries" (emph. GWS). Does that description sound like ironclad manuscript evidence? Someone needs to ask the professor, "How many manuscripts do you have from the first century so that we can see when it was added?" Of course, there are none. Once again he is relying on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, although he does not say so. Some other old manuscripts likewise do not include it, but others do. The professor theorizes that this was an early story that circulated, and the church inserted it into the text.
He does say that the story is authentic, but no explanation is given for how he arrives at that knowledge, either. Many authentic occurrences were not included in the New Testament (John 21:35). If the Holy Spirit did not see fit to inspire a writer to include this important event, what right did the church have to include it? But there is no evidence that the text wound up in the Bible in that fashion. John Burgon researched this passage and wrote at length on it as far back as 1896. Below are a few excerpts (quoted by David Otis Fuller, D.D., in Counterfeit or Genuine? Mark 16? John 8?).
The Pericope [referring to John 7:53-8:11, GWS] is observed to stand in situ in Codices b c e ff g h j. Jerome (A.D. 385), after a careful survey of older copies, did not hesitate to retain it in the Vulgate. It is freely referred to and commented on by himself in Palestine; whereas Ambrose at Milan (374) quotes it at least nine times, as well as Augustine in North Africa (396) about twice as often (145).
But even this is not all. Jerome, who was familiar with Greek MSS (and handled none of later date than B and Aleph), expressly related that the Pericope de Adultera is found in many copies both Greek and Latin (146).
Burgon is referring to Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus when he mentions B and Aleph. These are the abbreviations by which those manuscripts (MSS) are known. Thus, manuscripts older than those two (which omit the passage in John) included it.
How the Changes Came About
Finally, Baptist Professor Warren has some theories as to how some of these changes came about.
"We actually have different qualities of copies among the manuscripts. Some are very careful not to change anything of what they're copying, and some, probably more or less at the service of the church, are trying to clarify the text," he explains. "And then, very early on, some of these scribes are just Christians who during the daytime have other jobs and they're trying to make copies of the text. And so they don't have the same sense of how to make a professional copy."
He firsts asserts that some changes occurred when Christians attempted to clarify the text. Although this allegation is theoretically possible, we do not know that such is the case. Do we have any reason to believe that Christians had no respect for Biblical inspiration? The admonitions against adding to or taking away from the book of Revelation are serious enough to give anyone pause about changing the text even for clarification purposes (Rev. 22:18-19). Having one's name removed from the Book of Life would surely be a deterrent. No one in his right mind wants the plagues described in this book to come upon him.
Even stranger is Warren's comment that copyists were probably at the service of the church. What does that mean? Even if some churches did commission copies of the New Testament (proof?), where is the evidence that they wanted passages clarified? This is simply another unsupported hypothesis.
It is far more likely that some copies were made hastily during times of persecution. If copies were being destroyed, the important thing would to be to get copies made to pass them on. This possibility at least offers an adequate explanation for words being changed or omitted. Some of the later "professional" copies may have been produced from some of the inferior ones. Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B) are from the late fourth century (it is estimated), which is long after the Edict of Toleration and many earlier manuscript fragments. They may not be the standard that some have exalted them to be.
Since the original manuscripts were written in Greek, and most of the Roman world spoke Latin, Jerome translated the entire New Testament into Latin in the late fourth century. As already explained, he used the manuscripts that were available to him—some of which were Latin and some of which were Greek. His Latin translation is referred to as the Vulgate, and it was the most known and used translation for more than a thousand years—until the 1500s when the Bible began to be translated into German, English, and other languages. Jerome included both Mark 16 and John 8—even though some manuscripts in his day did not have the texts.
Looking at All the Evidence
The on-line article concludes with Professor Warren saying that we should look at all the evidence and then "figure out what is the best wording for the text…." Is that not what translators have been doing for centuries? Again, this is not some new concept. We do need to be careful of drawing conclusions, however, when there is a lack of evidence to support it. We need to stay away from, "Probably this or that happened."
Besides the two large passages of 12 verses each, nothing else is challenged more than a verse in length. By far, most variations just involve a word or a phrase. But even if all those that were challenged were removed, we would not lose a single doctrine. We know that Jesus had compassion on sinners and told them to give up sin. Baptism as a requirement for salvation is taught in numerous other passages. If Mark 16:16 did not belong in the sacred text, we would by no means even come close to losing a vital teaching of the New Testament.
The study of texts and early versions into which the Greek was translated is a fascinating study (for some of us), and certainly we all want the most accurate text possible. Possibly, those at the New Orleans Baptist Seminary will even make a contribution toward that end, but excuse us if we pass up their speculations. As Sergeant Joe Friday used to say, "Just the facts."