Printer Friendly Version

Foundations for Christianity:
201 Bible Translations
and Manuscripts


A Brief Examination of Manuscript Variation Issues

Are Translations Unreliable? (Part 1)
Are Translations Unreliable? (Part 2)
A Brief Examination of Manuscript Variation Issues



Our Purpose and Course of Study

The purpose of this article is twofold, to address important issues regarding the reliability of the Biblical texts and to clarify our position regarding the existing textual traditions, in part, by comparing them. The course that we will take in our examination of these issues is as follows.

First, we will discuss the reliability of the Judeo-Christian scriptures and clarify some fundamental issues that are relevant to this topic. Second, we will present some basic information about textual variations that are present in the surviving Biblical manuscripts and texts. Third, we will discuss text types or families and how Biblical translations are made from them. Fourth, we will compare and assess the value of the antiquity of the surviving text and text types. Fifth, we will identify the key issues at stake concerning the existence of textual variations. Sixth, we will then cover the common arguments for preferring the readings of one text or text type over the others. Seventh, we will compare and assess the significance of textual alteration by heretical groups in the Alexandrian region. Eighth, we will assess the causes and implications of textual variation. Ninth, we will clarify our own position through comparison and contrast with the views of others on this subject. Tenth, we will spend some time discussing the textual variation present in John 1:18 and the relevance of the early church writings as exemplified by this passage. Eleventh, we will discuss a few other prominent, significant passages where textual variation exists. And finally, we will close with a conclusion and summary of reliability and text type preferences.


Introduction: Clarification and the Reliability of the Judeo-Christian Scripture

As we begin, the most important point that needs to be addressed up front pertains to the general question of the reliability of the Biblical documents.

It must be said that as a set of ancient documents the Biblical texts are second to none and are, in fact, head and shoulders above any other ancient text in terms of historical reliability. There can be no serious or scholarly question on the historical value of the Bible. The superiority of the Biblical texts to all other ancient documents is established by several criteria: the early writing of the original documents in relation to the figures and events they record, the close proximity of the authors to the persons and events they record, the number of existing copies of the documents, and the proximity in time of the copies both to the originals and to the actual figures and events they describe.

For more information on the Biblical textual tradition and its reliability in comparison to other ancient documents please read the following articles in the Why Christianity study series: The Introduction to the Criteria of Assessment and The Criteria for Assessing Evidence and Reaching Conclusions sections (at the beginning of the Introduction to Why Christianity Study article); the article entitled, "Judaism and Christianity Introduction and History;" and the article entitled, "History of Judaism Continued."

In the articles mentioned above we establish from the secular, academic, historical standards for ancient documents that both the Old and New Testament texts are very highly reliable documents. More specifically, we can be certain, in light of these facts, that the New Testament is clearly and indisputably a faithful record of the teachings of Jesus Christ as passed on to the church through His apostles. Any suggestion to the contrary is either uninformed of the facts, based upon prejudicial or philosophically biased standards, is intellectually irresponsible, or worse yet, is intentionally misleading.

The reason we have taken the time to affirm the general reliability and historical value of the Biblical texts at the start is so that no one can be confused regarding the discussion that follows.


Basic Information about Textual Variation in Biblical Manuscripts

The 5,000 or so existing copies and fragments of copies of the New Testament can be grouped into families. There are three or four main groupings total and some manuscripts apparently incorporate aspects of several of the text traditions. The groupings themselves are made in recognition of variations in the readings of some verses and passages of the New Testament texts. The two most prominent text types (or families) are the Byzantine and the Alexandrian.

When we state that variations occur between various copies and textual traditions we must be clear. In no way does the presence of such variation infringe upon or call into question the reliability of the Biblical texts. In no way can the existence of variation between different copies be taken to indicate that the words and events that are written in the New Testament are not a faithful record of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ or that of his apostles or the early church. The faithfulness and historical reliability of the Bible is not in question. There are several reasons for this.

First, of all of the verses in the New Testament, only a very small proportion have variant readings in different textual traditions. The vast majority of the New Testament text is the same in every verse no matter what copy or text type (or family) we look at. So, the relevance of New Testament textual variation pertains only to a very, very small amount leaving the large bulk of the text unaffected and in unanimous consent.

Second, the nature of the variations that do occur is, in the large majority of the cases, not of any doctrinal significance. A great many of the variations are due to simple copyist errors. Such copyist errors are understandable phenomena that remain unavoidable even after the onset of modern technology.

There are several different types of copyist errors. There are spelling errors due to poor light, poor vision, or poor hearing (when the scribe was being dictated to). There are instances, when a scribe would accidentally skip a line or two while copying and omit part of a verse, a sentence, or a paragraph. There are times, when a scribe may perhaps have accidentally incorporated a few familiar words from a different passage into a very similar verse that they were currently copying. In other cases, where a copyist was being dictated to, a word might have been misheard or confused with a similar sounding word, and the wrong word mistakenly written instead of what was in the original. And in some cases, a copyist may have compounded a title for Jesus Christ from a shorter to a longer version of the title due to familiarity and frequent contact with longer titles in other passages. Another type of copyist error would include what is called harmonizing. This type of error pertains mostly to the gospels and occurs when something written by one gospel author may have incidentally incorporated by a scribe into a parallel account of the same events in another gospel.

It is these types of variations (erroneous spellings, additional words, skipped lines, compounded titles, harmonization, etc.) that constitute most of the textual differences in the New Testament texts. They are obvious to the trained eyes of Greek scholars and linguists. They are easily identified and corrected through comparison to the vast amount of other existing texts. And, most importantly, they have no substantive doctrinal significance, which is to say they have no bearing whatsoever on Judeo-Christian teaching.


Text Types (or Families) and Bible Translations

These types of variations do exist. And the development and compounding of such errors into various regional copying traditions can for the most part be traced and identified. Later copies may repeat any errors that existed in the source document that was copied from. In other cases, copyists using more than one source document may have been able to correct these errors and remove them by comparing the parent documents. Often scribes (or copyists) wrote notes in the margin concerning these things. And ultimately as a result of these trends, such scribal errors accumulated over time into the various text types (or families) that we have today. A text type is the categorizing of surviving texts into groups with other texts that have the same readings where variation occurs in the text.

The Byzantine text type or family is a great example of this. Of the 5,000 surviving Greek manuscripts of the New Testament the majority of them (95 percent or so) are considered to be of the Byzantine text type or family. For this reason, the Byzantine texts are sometimes collectively referred to as the Majority Text. As a family of texts, the Byzantine manuscripts are very consistent with one another in terms of how they read from passage to passage and how they differ from the readings of other families of texts. As such, the Byzantine text tradition is quite an amazing testament to the efficiency and faithfulness of the copyists in accurately preserving ancient and authentic Christian teaching and manuscript content with consistency and without alteration.

By contrast, the Alexandrian text type tends to have less agreement with one another. It is also true that the Alexandrian family is a much smaller set of texts.

The relevance of these two text types to modern Bible translations is significant. This can be seen in the example of the King James Bible, which has been dominant in the English speaking world for several centuries going back to the 1600's. The King James Bible is based on the work of scholarly men who utilized Byzantine type manuscripts to create a single composite Greek document of the New Testament in order to translate into the English language. This composite is known as the Received Text or Textus Receptus. It was a very scholarly undertaking and produced a very fine result. However, several important aspects about the King James Version must be acknowledged.

First, the Textus Receptus is not itself an ancient Greek manuscript copy. Instead, is a composite created from existing Byzantine manuscripts. Second, while the Textus Receptus (or TR) was based on and is very close to the Byzantine text type, it is not identical with the Byzantine text tradition. There are places where the TR differs from the Byzantine text tradition (Majority Text). Third, the TR was itself altered over the course of several editions.

By contrast, a few words should be said about the Alexandrian text family. Through a process of textual criticism, Alexandrian type texts are used to create a Greek manuscript compilation (or Critical Text) that is then used as a basis for modern Bible translations such as the NIV, NASB, RSB, etc. It is important to understand several factors about the process of how the Alexandrian manuscripts are utilized to produce these modern translations.

First, the Alexandrian text family's strength is in the early dates of its documents. (It should be noted that although dating earlier, the Alexandrian documents are still copies not originals, just as the Byzantine texts are copies.) And yet, one of the Alexandrian family's weaknesses is perhaps due to this earliness. This weakness is that we simply don't have as many Alexandrian texts remaining in existence today. As we said earlier, they are by far the minority of surviving texts. As such, when the Alexandrian text reading is preferred over other readings such as the reading in the Byzantine (or Majority Text) type, we must be aware that we are basing our reading of a New Testament passage in favor of a very small fraction of the existing manuscripts against a much larger majority. However, though it is important to be aware of this, it must be stated that in and of itself, this fact does not discredit the use of the Alexandrian texts for producing a reliable New Testament translation. There may, after all be very good reason for going with such a preference.

Second, as a family the Alexandrian texts do not have as much agreement or consistency as the Byzantine (or Majority) text type. When scholars use the Byzantine texts to produce a New Testament translation, by and large, they do not have to make selections as to which Byzantine text or texts they are going to use for how a particular passage reads. Since the Byzantine texts have so much agreement with one another they tend to collectively point to the same reading with much consistency. This is especially relevant where there is textual variation between the surviving texts and text types. The result is that the translations based upon the Byzantine or Majority texts reproduce the collective consistency and agreement of the readings of the Byzantine or Majority text group.

Where there is variation present in a verse among different text traditions, the decision is whether or not to follow the Byzantine (or Majority Text) type and exclude the other options presented by other traditions or to exclude the reading of the Byzantine texts in favor of another reading. The point being that the Byzantine or Majority Text type possesses a consistency by which they are used collectively rather than selectively. We can make this point clearer by a comparison with the Alexandrian texts.

When scholars use Alexandrian texts to produce a translation of the New Testament they have to select which specific texts from the Alexandrian family they are going to follow when rendering the reading of any verse or passage because there is a variety of options within the Alexandrian texts themselves. Where there is variation present in a verse among different text traditions, the question isn't just whether or not to follow the Alexandrian texts and exclude the other text traditions. Instead, the question often is which of the Alexandrian versions should be followed and which Alexandrian texts should be excluded along with the rest of the surviving texts and text types.

In particular, there are a handful of prominent Alexandrian texts that are used the most often to create a composite Greek Critical Text from which to translate a modern translation such as the NIV, NASB, or RSV. These documents include: Papyrus 66, containing sections of John's Gospel; Papyrus 75, containing sections of Luke and John; Codex Sinaiticus (or Aleph as it is referred to), containing most of the Old and New Testaments; and Codex Vaticanus (also referred to as B).

On some occasions, these prominent texts may agree with each other. When they do agree, the reading they share is typically concluded to be the most reliable reading as it is typically representative of the oldest surviving texts. However, on other occasions, the prominent Alexandrian texts do not have the same reading of a passage, but instead they vary among themselves as to what the Greek wording is. When this occurs, each individual text must be weighed by scholars against the others and a determination for the best reading of the New Testament is made based solely on the readings of a very few texts. This disagreement is a characteristic of the Alexandrian text type and must be kept in mind when making selections between the Byzantine and Alexandrian versions where variations appear in the surviving texts.

The bottom line is that composite Greek texts compiled from Alexandrian texts are not consistent with the readings of any single surviving Alexandrian manuscript. Instead, critical texts that are used to create modern English translations of the Bible are an assortment of selected readings from one or more Alexandrian texts in some passages and readings from other Alexandrian texts in other passages.


Valuing the Antiquity of the Surviving Texts and Text Types

The last point of clarification that should be made has to do with comparing the antiquity and proportion of these two important text traditions. It has been noted that the Byzantine Text is the Majority Text. And it has been noted that the surviving Alexandrian texts are earlier, meaning more ancient than the surviving Byzantine texts.

However, we must keep in mind that when we are discussing such things we can only draw conclusions about the surviving manuscripts, the situation as is exists for us today. We are prohibited from drawing conclusions about the antiquity of each tradition or the proportion of either tradition in the first few centuries of Christendom.

For instance, while the Byzantine texts are the majority of the texts surviving into modern times, they are also later dating texts. This means that the majority of the manuscripts that we have surviving from the first 8 centuries of Christian history are not Byzantine, but of the Alexandrian text type or family. However, the great majority of the manuscripts we have surviving from after the 9th century or later are after the Byzantine tradition.

Notice how careful we are when making these statements. We cannot say that the Byzantine texts were the majority text type of the early church. We don't know that information. It might be reasonable to conclude this based on the sheer amount of surviving Byzantine texts from later times. But the fact remains that all we know for sure is that we have more Byzantine texts surviving from the 9th century through the 16th century than we do Alexandrian texts surviving from that same period.

And likewise, we cannot say that the Alexandrian texts were the majority text of the early church. Again, we simply don't have that information. It may be reasonable to conclude that this was the case due to the fact that we have more Alexandrian texts surviving from this earlier period, but their survival could also be due to other factors besides a predominance at that time. For instance, it is quite reasonable to suppose that the arid climate of Egypt helped to preserve the Alexandrian texts while texts in other regions deteriorated. Again, all we can say for sure is that we have more Alexandrian texts surviving from before the 9th century than we do Byzantine texts surviving from that same period. But we simply do not know the proportion of either text in comparison to the other during the earlier periods.

The main point is that that survivability into modern times does not necessarily provide any indication of prevalence or proportion of distribution in the early church.

Likewise, it should be noted that the surviving documents of both text types (Alexandrian and Byzantine) come from centuries after the original documents were penned. The original New Testament works were penned between 40 and 100 A.D. The oldest surviving Alexandrian papyri are fragments of John and Luke, which at the earliest date to the beginning of the third century. The important Alexandrian codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus date to about the year 300 A.D. or so. The earliest surviving Byzantine texts come about a hundred years after these. The important fact is that while the Alexandrian texts may be closer in proximity to the originals than the Byzantine texts, the difference in time between surviving texts from these two traditions is far less significant than the amount of time between either group and the originals. The reason for this is the fact that all the surviving texts date after the main period when textual variation is thought to have occurred. Because this is the case, neither text type can claim synchronicity with the earliest texts based on their relative proximity in time.


Identifying the Key Issues at Stake Concerning Textual Variation

The issue brought up by this comparison is an important one. It deals with the central aspect of the ongoing discussion over the reliability and relative value of the surviving text traditions. The key question is this: in the few passages where truly significant variations are presented in the surviving texts, which text's reading do we regard as most likely to reflect the original wording of New Testament scripture?

Where doctrinally significant variations occur the need to clarify which reading is most likely the original reading is less important than in the few places where doctrinally significant variation exists. Where theologically substantive variations exist between the surviving manuscripts, it is crucial to the study, preservation, and proclamation of sound Christian teaching that we identify which version is an alteration from the original scriptural reading and which version accurately preserves the original scriptural reading. This identification should be aided and accompanied by an explanation for how and why the alternate version first diverged from the original reading in the first place.

Later on we will take a look at some of the critical passages where this process of identifying the original and the divergent readings is most important. For now, we will continue to discuss the type of textual variations where making such an identification is of the utmost importance.

Earlier on in this article we discussed the existence of what we deemed to be scribal or copyist errors. These errors included such things as misspellings, transposing words, omitting lines or parts of lines of text, misheard words replaced with similar sounding words, compounded titles, and the incorporation of phrases from other passages to a passage with a similar phrase or description. A common characteristic of these types of copyist errors is their unintentional or incidental nature.

The variations created by these types of processes are typically understood as accidentally or incidentally resulting from the nature and imperfections inherent to the process of copying large amounts of text familiar to the copyist. In no case was the scribe intentionally attempting to alter the meaning or wording of the text. And, for the most part, variations created in this manner are apparent to the trained eye of persons studied in Christian teaching, Christian history, and Biblical languages and who have access to other scriptural and ancient Christian texts for comparison.

Additionally, variations created along these lines are doctrinally insignificant and have no bearing on Christian teaching. In some cases a word or phrase included in one text or text family is not present in another, but due to the surpassing amount of material contained in the New Testament no serious loss or change of doctrinally significant material occurs. In other cases a word or phrase from one location may be added to a passage discussing a similar topic. Any absence from a particular verse usually appears elsewhere within the nearby verses, the larger context of the passage or book, or at the very least somewhere else in the New Testament. Any additional statements added to a passage are not novel to the New Testament, but are imported from other passages. The result of these types of variations is that nothing of importance to Christian teaching is lost or left unclear and nothing of a novel or contradictory theological nature is added.

Regarding these types of copyist errors, there can be no real disagreement with the idea of correcting misspellings, misheard words, or inadvertent omissions. Of course, such correcting measures are conducted through comparison to other existing New Testament texts as a part of competent translational procedures for all modern versions of the Bible. Likewise, we have no principle disagreement with the removal of added words that result from compounding titles or the insertion of phrases from similar passages. As we said, we feel that in cases such as these, nothing of doctrinal importance is really at stake. And we do not feel that the inclusion or exclusion of such added phrases really poses any significant issue for understanding Christian teaching.

Similarly, let us clear up any confusion that may exist on a related issue. The above descriptions of variations resulting from unintentional or doctrinally insignificant scribal or copyist "errors" can be categorized as "textual variations."

Textual variations are essentially different wordings of the Greek language in the surviving New Testament texts. We must distinguish these types of actual textual differences that occur in the Greek texts, with another type of difference that becomes present when comparing the various modern English translations that are available today.

In contrast to textual differences in the Greek texts, modern English versions of the Bible all have some degree of what might be called "translational variation." Translational variation deals with the various English words and phrases that are used to translate the original Greek language from the surviving text traditions. Some modern English versions may more consistently or adequately convey the meaning of the Greek language. Some may use more up-to-date language. In most cases, variation in the English does not correspond to the Greek text itself. Different English words are used by different modern translations based on the exact same wording of the Greek text. As students of the Bible we can and should ask whether our English translation satisfactorily translates and communicates the meaning conveyed by the original Greek. But, such translational questions do not deal with and should not be confused with the key question of which Greek textual tradition preserves (or diverges) from the original wording of scripture in such places where textual variation occurs.

To summarize, textual variation deals with the critical issues of different versions present in the Greek texts. Translational variation deals with the less important issue of the particular selection of English words and phrases to convey the meaning of the Greek. Since a student of the Bible should not and would not base a doctrinal position merely upon the particular English wording without a study of how the underlying Greek is used, translational variations between modern English versions are not really an issue that affects the all important matter of doctrinally relevant divergence in the wording of a few passages of the surviving Greek texts.

By discussing these issues we can appropriately focus on the real issue at hand. The real issue at hand is not the doctrinally insignificant, textual variations that arise as a result of unintentional or incidentally copyist errors (or alterations) that have no doctrinal insignificance. The real issue is not the translational variation that is present between modern English Bibles. The real issue that needs to be addressed is the few occasions where doctrinally significant textual variation exists between the surviving Greek texts (and text types.)

When doctrinally significant textual variation exists between the surviving Greek texts (and text types) it is necessary to identify which text (or which text type or tradition) has preserved the original scriptural reading and which text has diverged from the original reading. This identification requires some understanding of how divergences could have occurred in the first place. It is this question, how textual variations or divergences of doctrinal significance occurred, that separates the two main schools of Biblical text scholars. It is this question that causes many modern scholars to prefer selected readings present in particular and prominent Alexandrian texts where variations exist. It is this question that causes other modern scholars and many scholars of the past to prefer the readings present in the Byzantine or Majority Text tradition where variations exist.

What is not at issue between the Christian scholars who support either the Alexandrian or Byzantine texts types is the idea of intentional additions and alteration by pious scribes. While it is true that some fringe groups, such as the Jesus Seminar, might be willing to assert that pious scribes intentionally added and altered scripture texts, this is a view that should not and need not be ascribed to pro-Alexandrian text supporters.

Neither Alexandrian text supporters nor Byzantine text supporters explain the textual variations that exist between surviving copies of the New Testament as the result of intentional additions or alterations by pious scribes. Both of these groups of scholars discard that idea as untenable for several reasons.

First, pious scribes had the utmost reverence for the sacred texts and for the authority of the apostles' teaching. They believed very firmly that the words they were copying were written by men of greater understanding and wisdom than themselves. They were deeply convinced that the text they were handling was the Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, penned by the apostles of Jesus Christ, and preserved by divine providence.

Second, the abiding faithfulness of the scribes in reproducing thousands of copies of the scriptural texts with consistency and with only very minimal variation over thousands of years clearly demonstrates both the high degree of diligence with which the scribes approached their task and the reverence that they held for sacred text itself. This consistency that we have in the body of surviving New Testament texts indicates that as a rule scribes did not intentionally alter or add to sacred texts.

These facts together lead Christian scholars of both the pro-Alexandrian and pro-Byzantine text types to doubt the suggestion that at any point a truly pious scribe would have looked at a New Testament document and said "I don't think that's right, I think it should say this instead."


The Grounds for Preferring the Readings of One Text or Text Type over Others

Where Christian scholars truly differ in their assessment of how divergence occurred in the first place is really an issue of whether or not they see any doctrinal issues are at stake when selecting from the available text variations. Scholars who support the use of selected Alexandrian readings do not typically view any textual variations as having real doctrinal consequence. As a result of this conclusion, pro-Alexandrian text scholars do not consider the intentional alteration of scriptural texts by heretics to be a serious potential cause of doctrinally significant divergences in the surviving New Testament texts. And consequently, pro-Alexandrian text scholars typically conclude that all textual variation must be understood solely as the result of incidental and unintentional copyist errors.

It is this view that separates the pro-Alexandrian text scholars from those who support the Byzantine or Majority Text. Like the supporters of the Alexandrian texts, supporters of the Majority (or Byzantine) Text acknowledge that the unintentional and incidental copyist errors described above can and did result in doctrinally insignificant textual variations. However, unlike the pro-Alexandrian text scholars, pro-Byzantine (or Majority) text scholars view some textual variations as having serious doctrinally significant consequences. As a corollary, pro-Byzantine (or Majority) text scholars insist that the historically documented text tampering of Alexandrian heretics is a serious potential cause of textual variation that must be considered when determining which reading has diverged from the original.

By comparing the approaches of these two scholarly camps, we arrive at two additional critical questions of this discussion. First, do some textual variations perhaps have serious doctrinal implications? And second, should heretical text tampering be considered a serious potential cause for the textual variation that exists in surviving New Testament copies? Obviously, these two questions are related. In answering them the first point to establish is the historical fact that heretics in Alexandria were intentionally altering Biblical texts.

There are many non-canonical writings that have survived to us from the early church period. The men who wrote during this time recorded the history of this very important period spanning the first few centuries A.D. As works documenting historical information, the writings of such men as Tertullian and Eusebius provide a great deal of information about the activities of the prominent heretical groups of these early centuries. And what we find is not only what these heretical groups believed and taught, but most importantly, what we are told by these early church historians is that the heretics did most certainly alter sacred texts to better fit with their deviant teachings.

More specifically, we can learn from the early church where the heretics who were altering the text were based geographically and the language they used to spread their false doctrine. When we study early church history we find that although Gnostic heretics did spread to other parts of the Roman (or Byzantine Roman) world, their origination and epicenter was Alexandria, Egypt Ð the very source location of the Alexandrian text type and of the most prominent Alexandrian texts. Early prominent Gnostic heretical leaders like Valentinus and Basilides were first active in Alexandria during the middle of the second century A.D.

In the twenty seventh chapter of his work Against Heresies, Book I, Irenaeus, a second century apologist, recorded the beliefs of the Gnostic heretic Marcion. In the fifth chapter of his third book, Tertullian, a Christian apologist who lived and wrote between approximately 160-230 A.D., records that Marcion tampered with the Biblical texts. As such Tertullian's testimony that Marcion deliberately altered the scriptural texts in a theologically consequential manner is informative of this practice among heretical leaders. Notice from the quote below that Marcion is not an isolated incident, but his followers are said to be "daily retouching" the New Testament texts.

"For if the (Gospels) of the apostles have come down to us in their integrity, whilst Luke's, which is received amongst us, so far accords with their rule as to be on a par with them in permanency of reception in the churches, it clearly follows that Luke's Gospel also has come down to us in like integrity until the sacrilegious treatment of Marcion. In short, when Marcion laid hands on it, it then became diverse and hostile to the Gospels of the apostles. I will therefore advise his followers, that they either change these Gospels, however late to do so, into a conformity with their own, whereby they may seem to be in agreement with the apostolic writings (for they are daily retouching their work, as daily they are convicted by us); or else that they blush for their master, who stands self-condemned either way - when once he hands on the truth of the gospel conscience smitten, or again subverts it by shameless tampering." - Tertullian, Book III Ch. V

(NOTE: The above passage from Tertullian is quoted from Tim Warner's article "Demise of the Westcott-Hort Theory.")

Similar accounts are provided by two the fourth century writers, Eusebius and Theodoret, concering the heretic Tatian. In the twenty eighth chapter of his work Against Heresies, Book I, Irenaeus, relates followed after the Gnostic beliefs of men like Marcion. And like his predecessor Marcion, Eusebius and Theodoret record that Tatian also altered the Biblical texts. Again, this information demonstrates clearly the practice of early heretics to deliberately alter the scriptural texts in a doctrinally significant fashion.

"But their chief and founder, Tatianus, having formed a certain body and collection of Gospels, I know not how, has given this the title Diatessaron, that is the gospel by the four, or the gospel formed of the four; which is in the possession of some even now. It is also said that he dared to alter certain expressions of the Apostles, in order to correct the composition of the phrase." - Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History. pg. 166

"Tatian the Syrian...also composed the gospel which is called 'Diatessaron,' cutting out the geneologies and whatever other passages show that the Lord was born of the seed of David according to the flesh." - Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus, Ante Nicene Fathers, Vol. IX, p. 37, 38

(NOTE: The above passages from Eusebius and Theodoret are quoted from Tim Warner's article "Demise of the Westcott-Hort Theory.")

In the quote below, Eusebius records that doctrinally significant text tampering was common practice of the Gnostic heretics. One of the men, Theodotus, was a disciple of the prominent second century Gnostic heretic Valentinus who founded the Gnostic school at Alexandria. Notice again from the quote below that Theodotus is not an isolated incident, but his followers are said to be "daily retouching" the New Testament texts.

"...Theodotus, the leader and father of this God-denying apostasy, as the first one that asserted that Christ was a mere man...The sacred Scriptures...have been boldly perverted by them; the rule of the ancient faith they have set aside, Christ they have renounced, not inquiring what the Holy Scriptures declared, but zealously laboring what form of reasoning may be devised to establish their impiety...But as to these men who abuse the acts of the unbelievers, to their own heretical views, and who adulterate the simplicity of that faith contained in the Holy Scriptures,...For this purpose they fearlessly lay their hands on the Holy Scriptures , saying that they have corrected them. And that I do not say this against them without foundation, whoever wishes may learn; for should any one collect and compare their copies one with another, he would find them greatly at variance among themselves. For the copies of Asclepiodotus will be found to differ from those of Theodotus. Copies of many you may find in abundance, altered, by the eagerness of their disciples to insert each one his own corrections, as they call them, i.e. their corruptions. Again the copies of Hermophilus do not agree with these, for those of Appollonius are not consistent with themselves. For one may compare those which were prepared before by them, with those which they afterwards perverted for their own objects, and you will find them widely differing....For either they do not believe that the Holy Scriptures were uttered by the Holy Spirit, and they are thus infidels, or they deem themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and what alternative is there but to pronounce them daemoniacs? For neither can they deny that they have been guilty of the daring act, when the copies were written with their own hand, nor did they receive such Scriptures from those by whom they were instructed in the elements of the faith; nor can they show copies from which they were transcribed." - Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Reprinted 1991. pp. 214-216

(NOTE: The above passage from Eusebius is quoted from Tim Warner's article "Demise of the Westcott-Hort Theory.")

From the available historical records we have of the early church period we can see clearly that it was the common practice of the Alexandrian Gnostic heretics to alter the scriptural texts. We must also note from the quote from Eusebius that having no two copies alike is a hallmark of the Gnostic tampering. The fact that this inconsistency is also a hallmark of the Alexandrian text tradition is yet another indication that the variation present in the Alexandrian texts may be the result of Gnostic tampering.

This historical information is an important factor for considering how textual variation of doctrinal significance occurred that cannot responsibly be left out of our discussion. The very fact that heretics in Alexandria were intentionally altering sacred text in the century or so before the copies that survive to us today were made is itself enough to give serious pause when considering how and why doctrinally significant textual variation occurred. Once such a fact is understood it is difficult to overlook and, therefore, impossible to conceive of ruling out the possibility that textual variation has resulted from heretical alteration. Heretical alteration was certainly a real, historic phenomenon occurring the very region from which the earliest surviving New Testament texts originate.

In light of such information, heretical tampering cannot be so completely or easily dismissed as a serious potential cause of the textual variation that exists between Alexandrian and other surviving New Testament texts. This is especially the case when considering textual variations that may have significant theological implications. The willingness of Alexandrian text supporters to throw out such a serious possibility seems to us to perhaps be historically irresponsible and potentially reckless considering what is at times at stake.


Assessing the Significance of Textual Alteration by the Heretics in Alexandria

The presence of heretical groups in Alexandria and their potential influence upon the Alexandrian texts may at times be characterized as an insignificant factor due to the fact that heresy was present in Byzantium as well. This comparison deserves further discussion because simply stating that both Alexandria and Byzantium had heretical groups creates the impression of equity between the two regions regarding the issue of potential heretical tampering with sacred texts.

It is true that heretical ideas were present in Byzantium in the period of the fourth century before the texts from that region that survive today were made. However, several key points must be noted regarding the heresy of fourth century Byzantium and that of Alexandria.

First, the heresy that became present in Byzantium at the time of the fourth century was Arianism. Arianism held that Jesus Christ, the Word of God, was a divine being, but that He was a created being of a lower level than God the Father rather than the orthodox, historic Trinitarian position that Jesus Christ, the Word of God, is uncreated and is of the same being as the Father.

Furthermore, this fourth century heresy was an offshoot of the second century Gnostic teachings centered in Alexandria. After all, Arius himself began teaching this heresy in Alexandria, Egypt before later spreading it to Constantinople (or Byzantium). Among those who opposed Arian doctrine we find Athanasius, who later became bishop of Alexandria. Among those who supported Arius we find Emperor Constantine, other members of the imperial household, as well as Eusebius of Caesarea the court historian. The eventual result of the conflict was that a council was held to decide the matter at a city not far from Byzantium (or Constantinople) called Nicaea. In its decrees the council of Nicaea soundly upheld orthodoxy and condemned Arianism.

The point of this historical information regarding the Arian heresy in Byzantium is to contrast that heresy with those of Alexandria in regards to potential heretical influence upon sacred text transmission. First, it has been historically documented that the followers of the Gnostic heresy that came out of Alexandria were altering sacred texts in that region. Alexandria was the epicenter of their early leaders and their teachings. And it is from Alexandria that their influence later spread. These false doctrines and heretical activities first developed there long before Arius spread his own blend of Gnostic heresy from Alexandria to Byzantium. So, from this comparison we can see that the potential heretical influence over textual transmission is not equally attributable to both Byzantium and Alexandria. If Byzantium became infected with heresy, we must contend that Alexandria, the source of the heresy that later spread to Byzantium, would be even more corrupted and more suspect.

Second, the text alteration and heretical influence in Alexandria had been festering in that region for over a century and a half before it reached Byzantium through the ideas of Arius. Where Alexandria had a long exposure to the heretical ideas beginning in the second century, the Gnostic ideas brought to Byzantium by Arius had only begun to find a place there in the fourth century.

This means that the Alexandria texts that survive to this day were created in an environment when Gnostic tradition had been developing for over a century and a half or more and included the practice of deliberate alteration of scriptural texts. On the other hand the existing Byzantine texts that survive were created in an environment where orthodoxy was upheld against newly arriving Alexandrian heresies. This then is a second factor in which Byzantium and Alexandria cannot be regarded as equivalent in terms of potential heretical influence upon the transmission of sacred text. If Byzantine texts are suspect of potential influence by heresy, then Alexandria with a much longer exposure to the same heretical influences would be even more suspect.

Third, we might note that textual variation is largely a second century phenomenon. The differences that we see between surviving Alexandrian and Byzantine texts are simply the continuation and accumulation of the variations that occurred over a hundred years or more before the surviving copies themselves were made. As such, variations present in surviving texts are not the result of new alteration occurring in the fourth century when heresy first came to Byzantium through Arius. Rather, the differences present in the surviving texts are the result of divergences that took place much earlier, at the same time that heretics in Alexandria we deliberately altering sacred text and seeking to deceive people into thinking that their false religion was the true teaching of Jesus Christ and his apostles. Thus, the more important factor is where the heresies were present when the textual variation was initially occurring, not where heresies later appeared long after most of the initial textual variation had emerged. This factor again points to Alexandria as having a greater potential for heretical text alterations.

A fourth factor distinguishing Byzantium from Alexandria regarding any potential heretical influencing of sacred text transmission should be noted. This fourth factor regards the question of what evidence we might have for suggesting heretical tampering in either region.

As a matter of historical information, we know that heretics centered in Alexandria were actually practicing text alteration in accordance with their own doctrine. But what about Byzantium? Is there any historical testimony that heretics in Byzantium altered the sacred texts? No information to this affect is found in the early church writings of the period. So, our concern that heretical text tampering in Alexandria may be the cause of the divergence between Alexandrian and Byzantine texts is based upon historical documentation. However, we do not have such a cause for concern from the historical record regarding any tampering of Byzantine texts.

Beyond historical attestation what reason is there to suspect the surviving New Testament texts from either region of having potentially been influenced by heretical text tampering?

The readings presented in the Alexandrian text in particular passages seem to follow the pattern described by the historical documentation of the early church concerning such alteration. At times the Alexandrian versions seem to reflect the Gnostic teachings or even seem to outright state them (as may be the case in John 1:18 for example). So, the cause of suspecting heretical text tampering in Alexandrian texts is made based on the correlation of the Alexandrian readings with the language and pattern of Gnostic alteration that was historically occurring in that region at the time of and prior to the creation of the documents that survive from that area today.

But what about the Byzantine texts? Are the Byzantine text readings charged with reflecting heretical views of either the Gnostics or the Arians? No, they are not.

Unlike, the Alexandrian texts the Byzantine texts cannot be said to contain indications or reflections of heretical doctrine. Instead, the variation present in the Byzantine texts are confirmed to be very orthodox in nature, so much so that the Byzantine variations are often viewed by pro-Alexandrian text scholars as the result of pious scribes seeking to strengthen church teaching against the heretics.

So, historical documentation and correspondence with heretical teaching leads to a cautious concern that Alexandrian text variations may, in fact, be the result of the incorporation of heretically altered texts. On the other hand, no such historical basis exists for a similar concern regarding the Byzantine texts. There is no historical documentation that heretics in Byzantium were altering sacred texts. Furthermore, it is not contended by either group of scholars (pro-Alexandrian or pro-Byzantine) that the variations present in the Byzantine text bear any resemblance at all to heretical doctrine. Instead, the orthodoxy of the Byzantine readings is affirmed in all cases even if it is contended not to be a reflection of the original text.


Fair-mindedness and Caution in Assessing the Causes and Implications of Textual Variations

However important this historical information is concerning the heretical text alteration that was occurring in Alexandria, it must be said that this information is not in and of itself grounds for dismissing the Alexandrian texts in favor of the Majority or Byzantine texts. On the other hand, it is most certainly enough to cause us to be cautious as we consider where and how Alexandrian texts and Majority (or Byzantine) texts differ from one another and as consider which reading preserves the original and which diverges from it, particularly with regard to any doctrinally significant variations. Likewise, in our opinion, some damage is certainly done to the credibility of scholars involved in this field who do not acknowledge or consider the real potential that heretical alteration has occurred in the Alexandrian tradition and that such heretical alteration is a serious potential cause for the variation present in the texts of some important New Testament passages.

By contrast, while it is true that the Byzantine (or Majority) Text may itself have accumulated alterations, as we have said these alterations are not doctrinally significant and are not considered by any side to conflict with clear orthodox, Biblical teaching. It is also very unlikely and unreasonable to suppose that pious scribes could or would have intentionally or unintentionally introduced doctrinally conflicting material into the New Testament. And in fact, pro-Alexandrian text supporters do not assert that alterations or additions by pious scribes introduce unorthodox or conflicting doctrinal statements into the New Testament or that pious scribes intentionally altered the text at all. Instead, as we have said, Alexandrian text supporters simply view all textual variation as the result of unintentional or incidental scribal error with no doctrinal significance in any case.

So, a distinction must be made between the Alexandrian and Byzantine (or Majority) texts in this category as well. The Alexandrian texts present at least a few passages with readings, which may with good reason be seen as containing heretical statements and implications reflecting Gnostic concepts and conflicting with the whole of Biblical teaching. On the other hand, the readings of the Byzantine or Majority Text, while perhaps containing doctrinally insignificant and incidental errors or alterations by pious scribes, are not theologically conflicting with the whole of orthodox, Biblical teaching.


Clarifying Our Own Position through Comparison and Contrast to the Views of Others

Much work has been done in this field by others. So, we will not expound on or repeat their important work in this article. Instead, we will now take the time to clarify our position on the matter in comparison to two scholars whose work we appreciate on the subject, but who disagree with one another.

The particular authors we are referring to are Tim Warner and Dr. James R. White. For a more thorough discussion of the historical and grammatical issues involved in this subject we recommend reading their works on the matter and researching the issues they discuss in them. Dr. White is fairly well published and his book, The King James Only Controversy is not hard to find. Tim Warner's works may be a little more difficult to get a hold of, but are available online at pfrs.org, lasttrumpet.com, or by request from biblestudying.net.

Dr. White is a supporter of the Alexandrian text traditions, and though he prefers their reading in many cases over the reading offered by the Textus Receptus, he does not devalue the Byzantine or Majority Text. Dr. White's book The King James Only Controversy is useful in this regard, but it must be noted that the evaluation and comparison of the competing text traditions is peripheral to the main topic of the book, which is the much deserved refutation of those who believe that the King James Version of the Bible is itself inspired and the only God-sanctioned Bible worthy of studying. In this book, Dr. White mentions several other works on the subject of text traditions by both sides of the debate, which are worth checking out for anyone who seeks to study this topic more fully. Perhaps most importantly however, typically White does not present heretical alteration as a viable or likely explanation of textual variation and he does not seem to consider textual variation to present any real doctrinal issues.

On the other hand, Tim Warner is a supporter of the King James Version of the Bible as the best translation to date. He is not a King James Only advocate, but he does hold to the superiority of the Byzantine or Majority Text due to the historical likelihood that the existing Alexandrian texts have incorporated some heretical alterations. Warner recognizes the historic practice of Gnostic heretics deliberately altering scriptural texts and does contend that at least some readings of passages in the Alexandrian texts have doctrinally significant consequences. In his material Warner offers solid arguments for preferring the Byzantine reading over the Alexandrian in specific places of doctrinally significant variation including and especially John 1:18. Although Warner does not completely devalue any usefulness of the Alexandrian texts, he does as a general rule go with the reading provided by the Textus Receptus where the two traditions differ.

Our own assessment is somewhere between the positions of these two men.

We agree with Dr. White in some areas, agreeing that the Alexandrian texts, being earlier and of a different line of copies, may tend not to possess the doctrinally insignificant and unintentional type of copyist errors discussed earlier, which may be more prevalent in the Byzantine or Majority Text family. As such we feel that it is entirely acceptable in principle to eliminate variations that accrued in later texts by comparison to the Alexandrian text. However, we are aware and cautious of the tenuous nature of preferring an Alexandrian reading over a Majority Text reading given that in doing so we may be siding with only a handful of texts against thousands, which disagree (including other Alexandrian texts).

But, unlike Dr. White, we do believe that some textual variations have doctrinal significance. And we recognize two facts that we believe strongly indicate that the Alexandrian texts have at some point inadvertently incorporated heretical alterations. First, there is the fact that the Alexandrian texts do not agree among themselves. This factor was one of the observations made by Eusebius concerning heretically altered texts.

"For this purpose they fearlessly lay their hands on the Holy Scriptures , saying that they have corrected them. And that I do not say this against them without foundation, whoever wishes may learn; for should any one collect and compare their copies one with another, he would find them greatly at variance among themselves. For the copies of Asclepiodotus will be found to differ from those of Theodotus. Copies of many you may find in abundance, altered, by the eagerness of their disciples to insert each one his own corrections, as they call them, i.e. their corruptions. Again the copies of Hermophilus do not agree with these, for those of Appollonius are not consistent with themselves. For one may compare those which were prepared before by them, with those which they afterwards perverted for their own objects, and you will find them widely differing." - Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Reprinted 1991. pp. 214-216

(NOTE: The above passage from Eusebius is quoted from Tim Warner's article "Demise of the Westcott-Hort Theory.")

Second, there is the fact that they contain corrective marks by other scribes. Nonetheless, in principle, where doctrinal issues are not at stake we do not object to Dr. White's approach of preferring the readings of the Alexandrian texts.

Likewise, we acknowledge along with Dr. White that there are passages where the English translation found in modern versions is, in fact, superior for conveying the clear meaning of Christian teaching than that of the King James Bible. And, we acknowledge that for the most part there is little if anything lost doctrinally where modern translations rely upon Alexandrian text readings or where they do not include aspects of passages found in the King James.

We would also like to state clearly our agreement with Dr. White's refutation and objection to the tactics and views of the King James Only camp. Tim Warner himself criticizes the extreme positions and actions of the King James Only camp and so we find harmony with him on this as well. Similarly, while the motives of all persons involved in modern translations cannot be known, there is no need to go about suggesting a "satanic conspiracy" on the part of pro-Alexandrian text scholars or modern Bible translations.

On the other side, we do have some additional disagreements with Dr. White that bring us closer to the position of Tim Warner. We are more comfortable utilizing the Textus Receptus because of its great conformity to and basis in the Majority or Byzantine Text. While the Byzantine Text may perhaps have accumulated a larger proportion of scribal errors and incidental alterations, these variations are not doctrinally significant to Christian teaching. It is good to acknowledge, identify, and be aware of where they may occur, but it does not threaten or affect the doctrinal soundness or historical reliability of the Biblical texts to include these variations.


Textual Variation in John 1:18 and the Historic Relevance of Early Church Writings

Lastly, we must mention that we disagree with Dr. White on his preference for the Alexandrian readings of some important New Testament passages and we disagree with his failure to conclude that some of these passages have serious doctrinal significance. For instance, we believe that there is serious and strong historical reason to conclude that the Alexandrian reading of John 1:18 is a derivative of Gnostic alterations. It is our opinion, that in such cases as John 1:18, scribes in Alexandria may have inadvertently incorporated these heretically altered readings into their copies without realizing it. We believe that the hypothesis that pious scribes unintentionally incorporated heretically altered texts without realizing it is at least as historically valid and reasonable as suggesting that pious scribes intentionally "corrected," altered, or added to the texts of their own accord.

For more information on John 1:18 please see Tim Warner's articles on the subject. In them, Warner examines the historical information presented by the early church and demonstrates that the Alexandrian reading "only begotten God" very likely reflects the incorporation of the Gnostic alteration in accordance with the Gnostic language and belief that Jesus was a created being, but none the less a divine emanation from the fullness of the ultimate God. Thus, the phrasing "only begotten God" seems to employ Gnostic language reflecting their belief that the Word is begotten in regard to his deity rather than the clear New Testament teaching that Christ was begotten solely in regard to his humanity and incarnation.

Warner presents early documents to this affect, demonstrating both the language of the Gnostic heretical teaching on this matter and practice of altering this very passage. He includes a portion of a commentary on John's Gospel by Ptolemy who was a disciple of the Alexandrian Gnostic Valentinus. Below is the quote excerpted from Warner's article on the subject.

"John, the disciple of the Lord, intentionally spoke of the origination of the entirety, by which the Father emitted all things. And he assumes that the First Being engendered by God is a kind of beginning; he has called it "Son" and "Only-Begotten God." In this (the Only-Begotten) the Father emitted all things in a process involving posterity." - Layton, Bently, The Gnostic Scriptures, p. 316

(NOTE: The above passage is quoted from Tim Warner's article "The Gnostic Connection.")

On this point we also feel that it is important to describe Dr. White's position on John 1:18 because it exemplifies the oversight we feel is often committed by Alexandrian text supporters. Dr. White concludes that no doctrinal difficulties are present in the Alexandrian reading of this passage. As a result, he sees no reason to conclude that heretical tampering could or should be considered as a possible cause of the textual variation. As such, Dr. White concludes that the variation must simply be a result of incidental scribal alteration. Specifically, because it is difficult to see how "theos" ("God") would have accidentally been inserted by a scribe if the Greek word for "son" was originally present, Dr. White concludes that the alternative ("Theos") must be the original wording. The result is Dr. White's conclusion that at some point a scribe accidentally replaced the Greek word "theos" with the Greek word for "son" due to the coupling of "son" with "monogenes" elsewhere in the New Testament in reference to Jesus Christ.

In his book, Dr. White seeks to defend the Alexandrian "monogenes Theos" rendering against the accusation that it implies that Jesus was not eternally God. Dr. White argues that "monogenes" does not mean "only begotten." He asserts instead that "monogenes" means "one of a kind." From this understanding, Dr. White suggests that the translation "one of a kind" or "unique" is actually more accurate than "only begotten."

It is our assessment that Dr. White's position has two problems. First, he under-appreciates the potential doctrinal significance of the conjunction of the Greek word "monogenes" with the Greek word "Theos" as it occurs in the Alexandrian readings of John 1:18. Second, as a result he fails to see the real potential that the Alexandrian reading of this passage may be the result of heretical tampering.

Concerning White's under-appreciation of the potential doctrinal significance of "monogenes Theos," the usage of the Greek word "monogenes" in other New Testament passages where Jesus is not in view clearly establishes that "monogenes" refers to the relationship of a parent to their child, especially an only child. In cases where a child is not an only child "monogenes" is used to refer to a unique relationship that the child has to the parent, such as in Isaac's relationship to Abraham, as his heir and child by God's promise. In any case, such passages inarguably convey the uniqueness of the child, but they also inherently convey the relationship of the child to the parent, as an offspring to its progenitor. Therefore, when we see this word applied to Jesus, we cannot remove this inherent feature of the vocabulary. To remove this meaning is not consistent with the inherent meaning of the language or the whole of the New Testament usage.

This consistent usage of "monogenes" in the rest of the New Testament informs us as regard to its meaning in John 1:18 when it is used to refer to Jesus. Contrary to White's position, since "monogenes" does refer to the relationship between a parent and child it does have potential doctrinal significance if it is applied here in John 1:18 to a divine person. Consequently, since when "monogenes" is used to refer to Jesus, it refers specifically to His being begotten as a man at His incarnation. It is not used scripturally to discuss the Second Person of the Trinity in any other aspect than His sonship to the Father through His incarnation. Therefore, when "monogenes" is used to refer to Jesus, the orthodox expectation, established through the New Testament, is to find it coupled with the Greek word for "son." In comparison, the coupling of "monogenes" with the word "Theos" is at least potentially more in line with the Gnostic idea that the Second Person of the Trinity is a created divine being. As such, this is definitely a doctrinally significant variation and certainly warrants the consideration that the Alexandrian reading may have been tampered with by the Gnostics.

Furthermore, in part Dr. White's conclusion that "monogenes" indicates "one of a kind" is based upon his interpretation of the Greek word "genos" (Strong's No. 1085) to mean "kind." "Genos" is related to or perhaps one of the root words that are compounded to form "monogenes." The other root word is the Greek word "monos" (Strong's No. 3441), which means "alone, or only." When we put the two together we arrive at Dr. White's interpretation of the compound word "monogenes" as "one of a kind" or "unique."

"Genos" certainly does refer to a "kind" as Dr. White asserts. However, the meaning that "genos" conveys as a "kind" speaks of common descent from a single ancestor. Again, the relationship of parent to offspring is in view. This is further supported by the fact that the related Greek verb "ginomai" (Strong's No. 1096), which the noun "genos" is derived from, speaks of coming into existence or being made.

With these facts about Greek language in mind it is clear that the Alexandrian phrasing "monogenes Theos" should correctly be translated as "only begotten God." As such, it clearly may contain the doctrinal implication that the divine nature of the Second Person of the Trinity was a created, generated, or begotten God that was not an eternal being. The fact that this is the exact wording and teaching of the Gnostic heretics, which were centered in Alexandria and altering scriptural texts, gives us strong reason to reject Dr. White's position on this passage.

In addition, we feel that the fact that the rendering "only begotten God" appears nowhere else in the New Testament is itself informative. In all other cases the New Testament phrasing is "only begotten Son". Likewise, while the phrasing "only begotten God" is present among heretical writings it is not known to the early church except for a few authors in Alexandria. However, even in these exceptions, "monogenes Theos" only appears a few times in a few authors' later works. In all other works from the first few centuries the church writers overwhelmingly and exclusively use "only begotten Son" in reference to the incarnation of the Word. In his articles on this subject, Tim Warner provides additional historical documents surviving from the early church period demonstrating the fact that Gnostic teachers in Alexandria were altering this very text from this very passage including John 1:18.

From this investigation we can see a survey of the early church is also a useful tool in helping to determine which textual version is the preservation of the original and which is divergent from the original. In fairness, both Warner and Dr. White acknowledge this fact, but often disagree regarding the implications of early church readings. In any case, it is clear that the writings of the early church do serve to inform us which reading of the texts the early church writers themselves were familiar with. Certainly, there are passages where the early church supports the Byzantine reading over the Alexandrian text. Thus, such instances demonstrate at the least that the Byzantine text tradition was known in the early church period before the fourth century and existed elsewhere in the church alongside the Alexandrian traditions in Egypt. This is important, especially in cases such as Irenaeus, who conceivably as a disciple of John the Apostle's disciple Polycarp, may himself have had in his possession a second or third hand edition of John's works.

At this point it is worth mentioning that the usage of Byzantine type readings in the early centuries of the church across a larger geographic area by prominent church leaders, especially those with apostolic connections, would go far toward demonstrating that the Byzantine or Majority Text type was itself the prevalent text type even in early times. However, from the discussion of both camps, whether the early church heavily supports the Alexandrian or Byzantine tradition over the other is not agreed upon. Both sides argue that, in general, the early church usage supports their own view. While this lack of clarity may persist regarding the text traditions in general, it is clear that in some specific important passages the early church clearly exhibits a familiarity with one text type over the other. Whether this fact can be further taken to indicate or imply a clear dominance of that text type in all other cases has not been concluded with certainty.

On Other Prominent Passages and Textual Variations

Before we close we might take some time to mention a few of the more prominent passages where doctrinally significant textual variation occurs been different text traditions.

The first passage we will mention is 1 Timothy 3:16. In the Textus Receptus, which is based on the Byzantine (or Majority) text tradition, this passage states that "God was manifest in the flesh." In versions based upon Alexandrian texts the passage states simply "He appeared in a body."

Here we can happily declare that we find agreement with both Dr. White and Tim Warner in preferring the reading presented in the Byzantine (or Majority) text. The phrasing in the Greek, from which we obtain the English phrase "God was manifest in the flesh," is more consistent with apostolic and scriptural teaching, which proclaim that the Word became flesh.

By contrast, the alternative reading offered by Alexandrian texts ("He appeared in a body") is more in concert with a Gnostic concept that the Christ did not become incarnate and was not actually human, but merely appeared human though he did not have a corporeal body. This reason, in cooperation with the historical concerns mentioned earlier, leads us easily to the conclusion that the variation present in the two traditions is reasonably understood to be the result of inadvertent incorporation of heretical alteration into the Alexandrian copies.

Another often talked about passage is the long ending of Mark 16, specifically verses 9-20. Regarding whether this set of verses was included in the original text written by Mark, we are uncertain. Including the passage seems quite reasonable as some version of it appears in nearly all the ancient manuscripts (with the exception of the early Alexandrian codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). Likewise, there is nothing in the passage, which would indicate heretical tampering. Nor is there anything in the passage that is not presented in some other New Testament passage. On the other hand, if this portion of the passage is not included, we lose nothing that isn't presented to us elsewhere in the New Testament record. It may very well be that these 11 verses were included in Mark as a summary of events that followed the resurrection and were contained elsewhere in New Testament teaching.

Lastly, we mention perhaps the most frequently discussed textual variation presented in the surviving manuscript traditions, which is 1 John 5:7, also known as the Johannine Comma. The fact that this verse does not appear in Byzantine or Alexandrian texts is a strong reason for supposing that it might originally have been a scribal note in the margin that was later incorporated as part of the passage. However, internal evidence does provide some reason to conclude that the verse was part of John's original writing.

The strongest reason for concluding that John did originally write this verse is the use of the peculiar identifier for the Second Person of the trinity that is unique to John's writing. In his gospel, John begins his description of Jesus Christ as the Word of God who became incarnate. The Greek word translated as "Word" is "Logos." This use of the Greek word "Logos" throughout John 1 and in John's other works as a descriptor for Christ is distinctly characteristic of John and the language he used for identifying Jesus Christ, particularly when not referring to Jesus' unique son-ship to the Father through his incarnation as a man. In fact, the term "Son of God" has a particular technical meaning and is only used in New Testament, apostolic teaching to speak of the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity, whereby in becoming man, for the first time He Himself became part of creation and therefore a son to God, our Father and Creator.

However, 1 John 5:7 is not discussing the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity in relation to the First Person of the Trinity or Jesus' life or ministry on earth. By contrast, 1 John 5:7 is a reference to all three Persons of the Trinity in relationship to each other in the context of their work in heaven. As such, the use of descriptor Logos (rather than "Son") for the Second Person of the Trinity is uniquely fitting to the context and is very consistent with and particularly characteristic of both John's understanding of the Trinity as well as his writing about the Trinity.

This use of the Greek word "Logos" in this verse, rather than "Son," is an important trait that must be addressed. If this verse is a later scribal addition we have to wonder why the standard Trinitarian formula (Father, Son, and Spirit) was not used instead as was common practice. Nowhere in the New Testament or the earliest church writings do we see a coupling of the Father and the Word. Rather, Father and Son coincide as a reference to the special aspect of their relationship that was initiated for the first time as a result of the incarnation. And the standard mode of Trinitarian reference is always "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." With this in mind, it becomes more reasonable to suggest that the verse was written by John and not a later scribe. Of course, the difficulty is that if John did originally pen this verse, how do we explain the equally important alternative question that then emerges. That question concerns how an authentic New Testament verse became so universally absent from the surviving texts?

On this point, it should also be noted that the fact that verse 8 begins with a similar phrasing could explain how this passage, if authentically Johannine, did come to be omitted in the later copies. As mentioned earlier, one scribal error, which is known to have commonly occurred, is the omission of a verse or part of a verse due to the presence of similar phrasing in a nearby verse. When this occurs it is usually the second line that is omitted based upon the similar endings in the lines. Perhaps in this case, a very early copyist accidentally skipped the initial verse and proceeded to the second line due to the presence of similar initial phrasing, thereby, omitting the first verse entirely. Such a suggestion would not at all be out of sync with the types of scribal error that are acknowledged by both sides to have occurred at times in the process of textual transmission.

Additional relevant points have been made by other scholars in support of the conclusion that this verse was authentically written by John. They include appeals that the Greek grammatical structure dealing with gender agreement would require the inclusion of this verse in order to function correctly. However, Greek scholars disagree on this matter and we have not come across a satisfactory or thorough discussion of the issue on which to base a conclusion.

Likewise, it is asserted that the phrasing of verse 8 anticipates or rather indicates that a parallel statement was originally included in this passage. And, in our opinion, a survey of the early church writers on this point leaves the issue unsettled. Simply put, it is difficult to assess whether a writer is quoting this passage and thus, attesting to its presence in early texts, or is merely expressing the common Trinitarian formula without indicating a familiarity with this verse.

Furthermore, as an addition this verse would certainly not be categorized as a heretical type of variation. Instead, it exhibits a considerably astute grasp of the orthodox Christian teaching expressed repeatedly elsewhere throughout the New Testament. Our conclusion at this point is threefold. The inclusion of the verse as authentically Johannine (authored by John the Apostle) may be compelling on linguistic grounds, especially concerning the usage of the Greek word "Logos." If such is the case, it does not seem unreasonable to us to suggest that the widespread omission of this verse by the surviving texts is the result of an accidental scribal oversight not altogether very different from other commonly occurring unintentional omissions.

On the other hand, it may very well be the case that a very astute scribe wrote this statement in the margin as he reflected on the text he was copying only to have later scribes perhaps assume that it was part of the original, which had accidentally been omitted in the parent document. In either case, no doctrinal information is lost if it is not included given the fact that the concept of the Trinity is supported clearly throughout the scripture. And likewise, no harm is by any means done by including it since it reflects a sound Christian teaching of the Trinity already contained elsewhere in the New Testament and does possess some uniquely Johannine features.


Conclusions on Biblical Reliability and Text Type Preferences

What we can safely conclude from all of our discussion is that the Biblical texts have faithfully preserved the teachings of the Judeo-Christian faith as handed on in both the Old and New Testaments, by the ancient patriarchs to Israel and by Jesus Christ and His apostles to the church. Through our discussion of manuscript issues the importance of thorough and informed scriptural and historical study on the part of the Christian disciple is stressed. What we can affirm with all confidence is that God's truth has been preserved for us, but that it does take effort and diligence on our part in our pursuit of understanding it. That is not to say that understanding the Bible is an elusive endeavor only that it is not without the effort, thought, and study that cultivate our personal growth in Christ. Without such personal efforts growth in Christ is often and easily stifled or non-existent.

Ultimately, a thorough analysis of the scripture with an awareness of textual issues will eliminate any difficulties or chances of forming a poor understanding of Christian teaching based upon textually related matters. In this sense, the remarkable and undeniable historical preservation of the Biblical texts has resulted in a robust document that is not so fragile or frail as to leave important Judeo-Christian teaching unclear due to textual variation and preservation issues.

And as we have said, we believe that a serious and sound doctrinal study on any issue will include and be based upon an analysis of the Biblical languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) and will not be founded solely upon English word choices. That is not to say that we believe one must be fluent in the Biblical languages in order to properly or adequately study the Bible or understand Christian teaching. All one needs is a sufficient set of resource materials including concordances, historical reference dictionaries, and perhaps (for the sake of speed) computer software allowing the quick cross-referencing of Biblical languages and passages. In addition, a general understanding of church history and manuscript related issues and a few English Bible translations for comparison (including, but not necessarily limited to the King James) are helpful.

Regarding the text types themselves, we do not rule out the value of consulting the wording of the Alexandrian texts where variations exist, but we do feel that there are passages where Alexandrian readings do contain potential doctrinal difficulties. As such, we are uncomfortable with and strongly hesitant about siding with Alexandrian texts against the Byzantine texts in cases where theologically consequential issues are at stake. This preference for Byzantine readings is due to the fact that preferring the Alexandrian reading would in such cases mean siding with a very small handful of documents that are not consistent among themselves, that are at times suspiciously reflective of heretical teachings, and that are from a region where heretical alteration is historically known to have occurred. By contrast, in cases where textual variation involves doctrinal issues, we prefer to go with the Byzantine texts, which are the vast majority of the surviving texts, which are consistent among themselves, and for which there is no known historical or theological reason for suspecting heretical alteration.