In this thread I am discussing why it matters that there are so many variants in our surviving manuscripts of the New Testament. It does not matter because there are any “fundamental Christian doctrines” at stake, per se, but for other reasons. As I sketched in my previous post, it should matter for anyone who believes that God gave the very words of the Bible, since the facts that we don’t *have* the original words in some cases and that in many other cases the words themselves are in doubt, should call that belief into question. (I should point out that with the Hebrew Bible we are in MUCH worse shape in knowing what anything like the “original” — whatever that might be – was. The textual situation there is really quite dire.)
The second group that the variants should interest would include just about anyone — whether scholar, student, or general reader – who is interested in knowing what the various authors of the Bible had to say about this, that, or the other subject. I would assume that this group would include almost every member of this blog.
One of the fundamental insights of modern scholarship is that the different authors of the Bible all have different points of view, perspectives, theological investments, opinions, ways of looking at things. The Bible is not ONE thing. It is lots of different things. Just sticking with the New Testament: Matthew’s understanding of Jesus is very different from John’s; John’s is very different from Luke’s; Luke’s from Paul; and so on. The understanding of the ongoing importance of the Jewish law and the relationship of Christians and Jews is different, depending on whether you are reading Matthew, John, or Paul. The understanding of how one is put into a right relationship with God (be saved”) differs significantly between Matthew, Luke, Paul, and James. And so on and on.
And so the differences of these books matter. You can’t simply lump them all together and derive “the” teaching of the New Testament – on many, many issues.
But that means that it really matters what each individual author has to say. If it WERE the case that the “lumped-together” view was all that mattered, then textual variants would be far less interesting and important. If Mark can be shown to say one thing in a particular passage that is at odds with Luke and Matthew, then a “lumped-together” view would smooth over the differences. But letting each author have his own perspective, point of view, and theology means that if textual variants are taken seriously, the *differences* among the authors actually become more profound and significant.
Here are just some examples of places that it matters. For purposes of illustration, I’ll stick with the Gospels, where the majority of my own work has been. I’m giving these more or less at random:
- Surely it matters whether in Mark’s Gospel Jesus, after his resurrection, told his disciples that those who were baptized in his name would speak in foreign tongues, handle venomous snakes, and drink poison without being harmed. But if he did or not (not historically, but in Mark) all depends on a textual variant
- Even more, it matters whether, in Mark, Jesus even *appeared” to his disciples after his death. Again, it depends on a variant. (And you can’t say “it doesn’t matter – because he *does* appear to them in Matthew, Luke, and John – unless you really want to go for the “lumped-together approach)
- It matters if in the Gospel of John Jesus forgave a woman for adultery simply by telling her not to do it again (no penance – let alone death by stoning!)
- It matters if Matthew and Luke occasionally refer to Joseph as Jesus’ actual father (as in some variants).
- It matters if in Luke Jesus was said to have become the Son of God when he was baptized (as in what is probably the oldest form of the text).
- It matters if in Mark Jesus gets angry with a poor leper who somewhat pathetically asks him to heal him.
- It matters if in the Gospel of Luke – this is a big one, for my money – Jesus does *not* understand his upcoming death as an atonement for sin. In fact, it matters whether Luke even *has* a doctrine of the atonement, or if he understood the importance of Jesus’ death in a completely different way.
- It matters, also in Luke, if Jesus was calm and in control the entire time going up to his death (in contrast to Mark), or whether he was in such deep agony that he began “sweating blood” (well, literally, sweating “great drops as if of blood.”)
- It matters if in Luke Jesus was said to have ascended on the very day of his resurrection – since the same author, in the book of Acts, indicates that the ascension was in fact forty days later.
- It matters if the Gospel of John ever called Jesus “the unique God” (ο μονογενης Θεος), a title that would seem to apply to God the Father but not to the Son of God Jesus, who, to be sure, is divine in John, but is decidedly NOT the “one and only, unique God” himself.
Well, these are some examples. And I will be the first to say, they are some of the really significant and outstanding ones. There are ten of them that I’ve given here. These should be put in perspective: if there are hundreds of thousands of differences in the NT, here are ten that matter. The vast majority carry nothing like this significance. But the differences these ten make are huge. They have to do (since we’re dealing with Gospels) with Jesus identity, his divinity, the point at which he became the son of God, his resurrection, his ascension, and the theological meaning of his death. Pretty important stuff. At least for anyone interested in knowing what the authors of the Bible had to say.
Got a weird question. What is the polite way to refer to scholars from the parallel universe of fundamentalism & biblical inerrancy? I’m talking about, like, the Talbot School of Theology types. They can be called “traditionalist Christian”, I suppose, except A) The Scoville Reference Bible types aren’t really THAT traditional, being an invention of the past two centuries, and B) This sorta “discredits” the vanilla Christian scholars who are more attuned to reality as if they’re not Christian or not traditionalist enough (your Bruce Metzgers).
Basically the goal is to be able to cite someone’s opinion but add a gigantic grain of salt for readers paying attention that the source has a huge interest in upholding American evangelical theology. But just calling them “fundamentalists” makes the call-out a little too obvious and ad hominem, right?
I just call them conservative evangelicals. They are definitely not “traditionalist” in any meaningful sense of the term, since the long standing traaditions of Christianity are precisely ones they reject (think: Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox theological views, etc.); theyhave only been around for less than 200 years. But I don’t think I’d call Metzger a vanilla scholar!!! I usually just speak of critical scholars who are willing to accept the same kinds of critical assumptions/forms of analyusis for the Bible as for any other book from antiquity vs. others who have special criteria,assumptions, and perspectives for the Bible vs. everything else because of their religious views.
“call them conservative evangelicals” SWEET! :>)
What role and challenges does digital technology play and present in managing and analyzing textual variants?
Quite significant. If you’re interested in a methodological development, look up Coherence Based Genealogical Method!
Dr. Ehrman,
As a textual critic of the New Testament, have you had to use the Brown-Driver-Briggs (Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament)?
On what topics have it been helpful? Any other comments about it?
Thank you.
Sure, when I learned Hebrew it was the most important lexicon. Still is. But it’s a Hebrew lexicon, not Greek, so not used much when it comes to studying Greek mss of the NT.
Is the study of Textual Variants important?
Of course it’s important., The study of textual variants can restore the development and changes of the New Testament text, which is not part of the purpose of historical research on the New Testament? Isn’t this exactly what a serious and genuine scholar should do? So the study of textual variants is equally important as a serious academic attitude.
But is there something missing?
The study of textual variants can only reflect the subsequent development and changes of the New Testament, such as the process from 1 to 10, but what is the starting point of the New Testament? What is the process from 0 to 1? Why did the New Testament emerge? Is it a group of cult scammers who created the New Testament, or is it a religious figure with ideals and morals who created the New Testament? This is a more fundamental question: the opposite answer to this question will lead to opposite interpretations of the same New Testament scripture. So in the study of the New Testament, this is clearly a more important issue than textual variations.
If the truth about the starting point of the New Testament is not thoroughly studied, all research on the New Testament will ultimately be superficial.
The starting point of the New Testament is the first important issue, and the textual variants is the second important issue.
I find question 9 perplexing in a peculiar way. Do scholars believe that there was a gap between the publications of the gospel of Luke and acts? If there is a gap, could the explanation be that Luke did not remember clearly what he himself had written a few years before? Did he not care to check? Or did he perhaps change his mind?
It’s debated if there was a gap. But it’s certainly possible he didn’t remember or that id didn’t matter to him. You might think that’s weird to the point of being almost impossible, but it happens all the time, even among authors today. My students write term papers like that, and professional editors of major presses will tell you they seen contradictions with some regularity, within a single book (If you sait *THIS* how can you now be saying *THAT*??)
In the story of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 of the King James version, after the eunuch requested baptism, verse 37 follows:
“And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
This seems like a rather important interchange, but it’s not included in many later translations, including the NRSV. In those, Phillip just goes ahead and baptizes him upon request. Was this verse added by the King James translators, or are textual variants in the manuscripts involved, or something else?
It’s missing in the best manuscripts and so appears to be a scribal addition made later.
What an excellent post! Thank you so much for that! The major significance of the second point, if Jesus appeared to his disciples after his death, just struck me, even though I’ve known this issue with Mark’s ending for years. It’s so amazing to ponder over these things. It’s amazing to think someone sat down, for the first time after Jesus’s death 40 years ago, to write about him and his life and resurrection, and he just forgot the part where Jesus appears to his disciples after he died! I can’t believe how lightly people take huge problems like that!
Hi, Bart,
1) What are some verses to support point [7]?
*”It matters if in the Gospel of Luke – this is a big one, for my money – Jesus does *not* understand his upcoming death as an atonement for sin.”*
2) Do you think Luke wrote the gospel with the same name and Acts? If yes, then how did the person who named it (since gospels were anonymous) knew that?
1. Look up Atonement in Luke on the blog and you’ll see posts from a couple of years ago: here’s the first: https://ehrmanblog.org/31763-2/
2. Luke up Author of Luke and you’ll see some posts. Luke is not named in either book as the author (or named at all!)
Hi Bart
Doesn’t the focus on the existence of textual variants in some way diminish more significant problems… like: how did textual variants arise, how certain can we be that the existing gospels accurately reflect events whose retellings would have suffered decades of erosion , events that certainly reflect differing perspectives of the individual authors, stories that display evidences of “improvement”, the reality that there were wide divergences of beliefs among isolated Churches spread across vast cultural and geographic distances. In my opinion, these factors would have resulted in much more substantive, and less identifiable changes than the textual variants.
Yes. I deal with these issues in my books Misquoting Jesus and Jesus Interrupted. But I don’t think problems of lesser significance should ever be ignored on the grounds that there are others of greater significance.