A STUDY BY
GARY RAY BRANSCOME
Since the nineteenth century a great deal of time and
effort has been expended to determine the exact reading of the original text of
Scripture. Some men have devoted years of research to the quest, and that
research has brought many new manuscripts to light. However, even though we now
have extra-Biblical evidence that the New Testament was written in the first
century AD, when it comes to resolving the minor differences between certain
manuscripts we are not one bit closer to settling the matter than we were fifty
years ago. Furthermore, it is my contention that science will never be able to
resolve those differences, because the knowledge necessary to resolve them is
beyond the realm of science. For that reason, I am issuing a call for a new
approach to the subject, an approach that I believe is
more realistic because it recognizes the limitations of science instead of
ignoring them.
In issuing this call I do not wish
to overlook the many benefits that have come from research in the past. Such
research has done much to affirm the reliability of Scripture as we have it
today, and new manuscript finds enable us to be more certain than ever before
that Scripture has been accurately preserved. In addition, virtually all
manuscripts whether early or late agree well over ninety percent of the time.
However, in those passages where a significant difference in wording does
exist, the customary approach will never be able to tell us which version is
that of the original text.
In saying this, it should be
self-evident that the manuscripts say nothing of their own ancestry or
accuracy. For that reason, any attempt to determine the ancestry or accuracy of
a manuscript must deal with assumptions, and that is exactly where we run into
problems.
Much of the controversy over texts
stems from the fact that certain prominent men in the field of textual research
have attempted to go beyond the evidence by reasoning from assumptions. Nevertheless,
assumptions are notoriously unreliable, no matter how reasonable they may
sound. Moreover, the fact that a conclusion will sound logical if you start
from the right assumptions, does not change the fact
that the conclusion will be wrong, if the assumption is wrong. Therefore, if we
really want the truth, we need to stick to the facts and eliminate assumptions
[Note: The fact that every attempt to supplement
Scripture with assumptions leads to conclusions that contradict Scripture is a
divine testimony to the fact that reasoning from assumptions is not a reliable
methodology.]
One prominent assumption holds that
the older a manuscript is, the less likely it is to contain error. However,
even though that assumption sounds plausible, it is not always true. It would
be true if every copyist exercised the same degree of care, but they do not.
For example, in the second century Ignatius referred to corrupt manuscripts
that he had encountered, and any one of those corrupt manuscripts would be more
likely to contain error than late manuscripts that were copied from good copies
of the original (Philadelphians 2:20). Therefore, the age of a manuscript is no
guarantee of its accuracy. And, because the time period between generations
varies, age is no guarantee that a manuscript has gone through fewer
generations of copying. On the contrary, because some manuscripts were copied
from very ancient texts, while others were copied from relatively recent
copies, it would be foolhardy to simply assume that that the age of a
manuscript determines its accuracy when we have no way of knowing if it really
is more accurate.
Another prominent assumption holds that addition to the text is more
likely to occur than omission. However, we know that is not generally the case.
While it would be true if every scribe took the same precautions, and if the
same care was taken in the early centuries that was taken in later centuries,
omissions are much more common than additions (ask any secretary). Furthermore,
we know that omissions did occur, for Ignatius (in the passage referred to
above) spoke of manuscripts that omitted things from the text.
I might also point out that there
are many questions surrounding the practice of grouping texts into text types.
For example: Why should a few oddball manuscripts that disagree with each other
in many places, be called a “text type”? Why should
such “text types” be treated as if they were equal in
standing to the traditional text, when the traditional text consists of thousands
of manuscripts that are all in substantial agreement. And, why should we
overlook the fact that there are a number of very early manuscripts that do not
fit into any of the “text types”. That issue is just another reason
why I see a need for a fresh approach to manuscript evidence.
The approach I suggest is neither
unprecedented nor unrealistic. I believe that we should simply examine the
evidence, learn what we can from such an examination, and then admit the
limitations of our knowledge, instead of trying to supplement that knowledge
with assumptions. In fact, the advisability of admitting the limitations of our
knowledge can be inferred from the fact that every failure to do so when
formulating doctrine leads to error.
At the same time, we need to remind
ourselves that readings which do nothing more than restate what the Bible says
elsewhere are still the Word of God, in the same sense that any Bible quote is
the Word of God (Revelation 19:10, John 11:51). Furthermore, because God
designed the Bible to testify of Christ, it would be far more realistic for us
to expect a corruption of the text to obscure that testimony, than improve it
(John
We also need to remember that God
will preserve the words of His inspired book (Psalm 12:6,7).
He has done so in the past by preserving ancient manuscripts, and by keeping
uninspired books out of the cannon. And, He does so today by stirring
researchers to comb through ancient records, and to discover the evidence that
His words have come down to us virtually unchanged.
However, due to the assumptions
that are currently in vogue in the field of textual research, two fourth
century manuscripts (known as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) are widely promoted even though they differ
from most of the other manuscripts in over five thousand places. In saying
that, I want to emphasize the fact that most of those differences are very
minor, amounting to little more than variations in spelling or word order.
Nevertheless, significant differences do exist in over two hundred places.
Furthermore, because very early manuscripts can usually be found to support
either reading, there is no way that we can ever know which reading represents
the original, in the same sense that God knows.
Be that as it may, the fact that
the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
both omit Mark 16:9-20, even though those verses are found in every other Greek
manuscript in the world (that contains Mark), raises a serious question as to
their reliability. Those verses are also found in all Syriac
versions except the Sinatic Syriac,
and in all Old Latin manuscripts except “K”. They were also quoted
by Hippolytus in 200AD, by Irenaeus
in 180AD, by Tatian in 175AD, and by Justin martyr in
150AD. Therefore, the only reason that they are called in question at all has
to do with the prevalent assumption that Vaticanus
and Sinaiticus are more reliable simply because they
were produced at government expense (an assumption that anyone familiar with
government waste and bungling must find laughable).
I might also add that without those
verses the Gospel of Mark ends abruptly and is incomplete, and all but two of
those verses give us information that is confirmed by the other Gospels. In
addition, the two unique verses are in harmony with Mark’s emphasis on
the miraculous, with stories that occasionally come to us from the mission
field (Acts 28:3-6), and with other statements that Christ made (John
Another passage of Scripture that
is missing from the Vaticanus-Sinaiticus text, is the
story of the woman taken in adultery (John
At the same time, the way that
Jesus dealt with this woman is in perfect harmony with the way in which He
dealt with a number of similar situations (Luke 7:36-50, John 4:6-30, Matthew
9:10,11, Mark 2:16, Luke 5:30, also compare John 5:14 with 8:11). Moreover,
without those verses there is an abrupt jump in the flow of thought.
The Vaticanus-Sinaiticus
text also omits any mention of the angel stirring the water (John 5:3b-4). And,
here again an objective look at the evidence only tells us that both readings
existed at a very early time. Nevertheless, Tertullian
cited this passage in 200AD, Didymus cited it in
379AD, and the majority of Greek manuscripts preserve it intact. Furthermore,
when we look to God’s Word, we discover that the verses in question are
only a small part of the story found in John 5:2-16. And, there is no doubt
about the authenticity of that story, for it is found in all of the
manuscripts. It is also significant that the story does not make much sense
when those verses are omitted from the text. Not only is verse seven worded in
a way that assumes that the reader already has the information contained in
verse four, but verse four explains why the impotent man spoke of others
getting into the pool before him, when Jesus asked him if he wanted to be
healed.
In John 9:35, the Vaticanus-Sinaiticus text changes the words “Son of
God” to “son of man”. In this case the reading “Son of
God” is found in Tatians's Diatesseron
(180AD), as well as in most Greek manuscripts that contain John. Therefore, we
know that the reading is very old. Although both readings,
“Son of God” and “son of man,” are found
elsewhere in Scripture, no one would even question the traditional reading, if
it were not for the overblown affection some have for the Vaticanus-Sinaiticus
text. I might also point out that in this passage of Scripture Christ was
teaching the need for faith, and He tended to emphasize His deity when asking
others to believe on Him (John 3:16,35,36, John 5:25, John 6:40, John
11:4,25,26,27).
It should be clear that I am
advocating an approach to manuscript evidence that will lead to different
conclusions from those currently in vogue. However, I believe that this
approach will strengthen faith, and heal division, where the popular approach
has done just the opposite (Matthew