New Testament Reliabity, Part 1

All right, now so the first portion was our nice easy part.

Now we get a little bit more into the teacher mode and I'm glad that I was asked to do this.

I imagine that some of you have seen this. I've done this with Wretched Radio.

I had a bow tie on that night. So some of you are disappointed. I don't always wear a bow tie.

I just, to be honest with you, I thought it might be too distracting for INC people in the Philippines.

And so since the video, I want them to be viewing it. I don't want that to be a distraction along those lines.

So I didn't wear the bow tie last night. So, but I did wear a tie that my wife gave me, which is always safe because even nobody else likes it.

As long as she likes it, that's all that matters. That's how you stay married for 35 years.

So some of you are old enough to know that that's how that works. Anyway, so this is, without a doubt, my favorite presentation.

This is the first time I've given this presentation since I last gave it at Northwest University in Pochesterum, South Africa back in May.

And for one of the very first times in my life, I was a little nervous when I gave this presentation in Pochesterum.

Why? Because my Dr. Wouter, my doctoral dissertation director who did his

PhD under Bruce Metzger at Princeton in textual criticism was sitting in the audience. And so he loved it, so that means we're fairly safe.

So we're good on that. But this is, I probably, between my

Islam presentation and this, these are probably the two most frequently given presentations. And while the reasons that I say that straight up front, because you're like, oh great, you're doing something you've done a million times before.

Yeah, it's true. But I wish I could do it a million more times because I'll be perfectly honest with you, I really think this is one of the top five and probably, in my opinion, right in the top two apologetic issues in our day.

And it is certainly one of the greatest areas of ignorance on the part of the vast majority of Christians.

If you, like me, had the blessing of being raised in a Christian family, I still have the first two

Bibles I ever owned, including the little zip -up picture Bible with the violation of the second commandment on the front.

And all throughout the pages. I still have, it still has all the little

Sunday school stickers that I got and put in there. And then my first leather Bible, a

King James reference edition that I have still. And for me, the

Bible had always had a leather cover, gold -covered, gold -edged pages and thumb indexing.

That's just, that's how the Bible always existed. And it is uncomfortable for many believers to be exposed to the real history of the

Bible. It shouldn't be, but it's just that unfamiliarity issue. And especially if you are coming from a very conservative, maybe even fundamentalistic background.

One of the problems is that very frequently, something that is different from what you're accustomed to automatically in your mind triggers something that's wrong, something that's false.

And so what happens is, we send our young people off to university, they run into Bart Ehrman clones. We're gonna see

Bart Ehrman here in a while. We run into Bart Ehrman clones and we end up having truths about the

Bible presented to us in the context of unbelief. And we wonder why the next generation is losing its faith in our universities.

Well, part of it is because we sent them off to be trained by Caesar for most of their life and we are shocked when they become

Romans. If you're taught to think like the world, then you're gonna take that, bring that same attitude into the examination of Scripture.

And once you're presented reasons to not believe in Scripture, well, there you go. So there's a lot to it.

Let me start off like I always do. Now, if you already know how I do this, please don't ruin it for me because I find that to be extremely, well,

I'll have you removed. But does someone here have an

ESV? In fact, let me ask, don't do the, I have 47 translations on my iPhone thing, okay?

But how many of you use as your normal translation if you have a paper Bible anymore, an

ESV? Man, Crossway is absolutely geniuses when it comes to marketing.

You see that? How about NASV, NIV, New King James?

How about King James? Okay, all right, interesting mixture, interesting mixture.

And there may be some, and if I didn't mention yours, it stinks, no, I'm sorry. Holman Christian Standard Bible, I don't know.

There's, look, we have so many. How about, okay, ready for this? New Living Translation.

I was just waiting for one person to go, that's my favorite! I was like, yeah, okay.

It was funny that people started laughing when he was looking for the New Living Translation. I was like, really, honestly?

Okay, would you like a children's Bible? Need a flannel graph? Okay, how many of you remember a flannel graph?

Oh, flannel graph, yeah, that was good. We were in South Dakota, okay, all right. So if you have, who has a paper

ESV with them? There is a paper ESV, you're right on the front lines there.

Okay, I don't need it, you have a paper ESV too? Okay, have you seen this presentation before?

Okay, have you? Oh, good, you're the sucker. So could you read me

John chapter five, verse four? Gospel of John chapter five, go ahead and look it up in yours. John chapter five, verse four.

Gospel of John, not first John. Because I have had people get confused about that. And then we stand here.

Yeah, you can't find it because it's not there. Because it goes from John 5 .3 to 5 .5.

And there is no John 5 .4 in the ESV. I don't think it's in the NIV. I think it may be in brackets in the

NESV, not sure. You have it in the King James and New King James. And obviously when you're in a

Bible study someplace, this can be really, really frustrating to people.

And you've all noticed those notes. Now I'm now at the age, unless I'm wearing my progressive lens glasses, the little textual footnotes down at the bottom of the page look like smudges.

And so I don't see these things anymore. In fact, somebody at the South Dakota Apologetics had this little teeny tiny, really cool looking

ESV with a sword on it and all. You know, I was looking at it yesterday. I took my glasses off. It was illegible, absolutely unreadable.

But you're in a Bible study class and you've noticed those little notes down at the bottom of the page.

Some manuscripts say this and some manuscripts say that. And sometimes you'll see, for example, if you really want to get troubled, you might notice that Mark 16, verses nine through 20, that's 12 verses, not found in the earliest manuscripts.

And then of course, there is the story that everyone loves, that ends up in every

Jesus movie. It even ended up in the Passion of the Christ and it had nothing to do with the movie.

But the woman taken in adultery and brought to Jesus and Jesus stoops down and writes in the sand and slowly everybody drops their rocks and walks away.

And it's just great story. And it's not in the original manuscripts, the earliest manuscripts of the

Gospel of John. In fact, it doesn't appear until the fifth century. That's 12 verses too. And you've seen those notes and many of you have had the thought, you know, someday

I'm gonna have to ask my pastor about that. Problem is your pastor's probably hoping that you don't ask him about that.

Because in many seminaries today, you can, even if they still have original language requirements.

And in one of the seminaries I used to teach in years ago, you can now learn Greek in Jan term.

You can fulfill your Greek requirement in Jan term. Now, if you don't know what a Jan term is, that's normally about 13 days.

Now, if you are a polymath, maybe you can learn an entire foreign language in 13 days.

I couldn't, most human beings cannot. And so what that is, is a

Greek tools class. How to use Logos or Accordance or Bible works or Olive Tree or whatever else on your phone is what that ends up being.

And that's not the same thing as actually learning the language. And if you don't learn the language, then you've probably never been exposed to the subject of what's called textual criticism.

The fact that we have over 5 ,800 manuscripts of the New Testament, no two of which are identical to any other, and therefore, what did the original say?

And when you talk about this, well, the fact of the matter is, it doesn't get talked about in the church almost at all.

Because it makes people uncomfortable. And the pastors, most pastors, were not taught textual criticism or interestingly enough, those who were, those who went to places like Dallas, where you're gonna be forced to really know the languages and learn textual criticism.

Frequently, the class is presented in such a boring fashion that you don't really learn it well and you don't really know how to communicate to somebody else.

The problem is, we are all now carrying one of these around. All right? And that means almost all of us anymore are connected.

There's still a few of you out there, a few Luddites. My fellow elder at PRBC does not even have a cell phone.

Okay, and he thinks that's a spiritual thing. That's his form of monasticism, okay? That's Reformed Baptist monasticism, is you do not have a cell phone.

So, but the vast majority of us have them. That means we are connected to the net. That means we are going to be exposed like no other generation ever has been to the information about the history of our own text.

And the more ignorant we are of it, the more susceptible we are of being incapacitated by an attack upon our faith based upon the reliability of the text of scripture.

My great -grandparents did not have to worry about this. It's not that there weren't developments going on, it's just there was no internet, and so 99 % of everybody just was unaware of what the issues were.

That's no longer the case, and that's what makes this one of the most important apologetic issues today, is the reliability of the text of scripture itself.

How can you know if, you know, last night, it did come up last night. Did you catch it last night?

What did it come, what was the one text where textual criticism came up last night? Anybody remember? I, you're right.

I did, I mentioned Matthew 24, 36 had a textual variant. We should use Mark 13, 32. That one wasn't the main one.

Where did he get around a text by appealing to a textual variant? John 1, 18.

John 1, 18. John 1, 18. Because we'll be looking at later on, but in John 1, 18, there is a difference between the two earliest manuscripts we have of John, P66 and P75, the two great unsealed texts or magisterial texts we have, called

Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus. All four of those, which are our earliest witnesses to John, have in John 1, 18, monogenes theos, the unique God.

But the vast bulk of later manuscripts have monogenes huios, the only begotten son. And so he just would not deal with the reference to Jesus as God in John 1, 18, just simply because, well, there's a variant there, so I won't deal with it.

Whether he would be consistent with it, there is no consistency. The consistency of INC interpretation is it's going to be inconsistent.

That's the only way you can put that. So anyway, so we look at John chapter five, verse four.

There's all the information you need to know. Everybody clear, ready to go on? That is actually all the information you need to know on John 5, 4.

We, what that's, why is that significant is that we, unlike my

Muslim friends, who have no critical edition of the Quran, work has begun, but nothing like this.

We have openly made all the information that we possess concerning the manuscripts of the

New Testament available to anybody who wants to look at it. And what's really neat is over the past 10, about 10 years or so now, all of that's been available.

All of this is available on my phone, on my iPad. For a while, it was just my computer, and now it's gotten onto the mobile devices.

So no matter where I am, I am able to pull up extensive textual critical resources, but you might say, none of that on the screen makes any sense to me.

That's true. I'm not going to, in this period of time, be able to explain all of that that is up there for you.

But the point is that the information is there for those who will avail themselves of it, learn how to be able to read the apparatus, so and so.

It's not hidden away someplace. You don't have to sit there and go, well, a committee said this is how we should read this.

Any decisions made by, well, just for your explanation, the

King James and the New King James version of the Bible are both translated from a Greek text called the Textus Receptus, the

Textus Receptus. I may be doing a written debate this summer, not sure yet, on the subject of whether the

TR should be the only text we use, because there are people who say that it is. And the

Textus Receptus goes back to a Dutch humanist scholar by the name of Desiderius Erasmus, who put out the first published and printed and published

Greek New Testament in 1516. And that was the one that Martin Luther used in his studies that led him to understand the doctrine of justification.

So the Textus Receptus is actually about 105 different texts with some small differences between them, but it's generally known as the, if it goes back to Erasmus, it's called the

Textus Receptus. And the King James was based upon that when it was translated between 1604 and 1611.

And the King James translators did not use original language manuscripts. They used printed editions of the

Greek New Testament. They used Erasmus's five editions. There were a number of editions from Robert Estienne, Stephanus, in the middle of the 16th century.

The first introduction, for example, of the verse divisions that you use in your

Bible today were introduced by Robert Estienne in his 1551

Greek New Testament. And I have a 1550, a real

Stephanus 1550. If you watch the dividing line, it's over my shoulder to my right on top of Codex Sinaiticus, which is not the original

Codex Sinaiticus. I want to emphasize that. And then they had

Bezos' work. He did like 11 or 12 editions of his. So those are the printed editions they used.

They worked from printed editions in translating the King James version of the Bible. When they decided to do the

New King James, there were people who didn't want to do this, but they did it anyways.

They used the textus receptus as the basis for the New King James. So the King James and New King James are based upon the same printed

Greek text, which are all based upon between six and 12 at the most manuscripts, none of which was earlier than 1 ,100 years after the birth of Christ.

That's what the TR is based on. If you have the ESV, NASB, NIV, Holman Christian Standard, even the

New Living Translation, which I really don't think should be called a translation, but anyway, if you have almost any of the modern translations, they're based upon what's called the

Nestle -Oland, it's currently the Nestle -Oland 28th edition, United Bible Society's fifth edition. The New King James will have an

NAU, a little N, which is not Northern Arizona University. It's Nestle -Oland

United Bible Society, NAU, little note in their textual notes. And that's what's used by the vast majority of seminaries, colleges, so on and so forth around the world as the standardized

Greek text today. But it's constantly undergoing revision and change.

The 28th edition just came out. And for example, the reading in Jude 5 has changed.

Now, from the Lord to Jesus. So instead of saying the Lord led them out of Egypt, now it says

Jesus led them out of Egypt, which is fascinating. Now, that doesn't mean, well, we all have to do whatever it says.

No, that's what the reading is put in the text, but then there's gonna be a little symbol, and you can go down, you can see what manuscripts say what, and you don't have to simply go, whatever the committee says, we must do.

No, it doesn't, it's not like INC, okay? It doesn't work that way. You can go, nah,

I don't think so. Here, let me. How's that? Well, I brought attention to you, didn't

I? Huh, a little embarrassed now, aren't you? Yeah, you know, we've got the photographer guy down here, and he's getting it, and I was like, ah, you know.

You know, people are sort of freaked out that I'm a human being and joke about things and stuff, you know, and they're like, we just thought you'd debate all the time.

Yeah, I'd be married for 35 years if I debated all the time, yeah. And if any of you listen to my daughter's webcast, which if you don't, it's

Sheologians, very good. That's a friend of my daughter who's laughing now because she's going to tell my daughter, please tell her

I did advertise her for her. I did afterwards a debate last night, too. But my daughter has webcasts called

Sheologians, and she was asked, she's been asked a number of times, what's it like growing up with James White as your father?

You know, in one word. And she goes, hilarious.

And they're all like, what? She says, yeah, he was a lot of fun. And then she starts telling about how

I used to sneak into their bedroom at night, you know, and really slowly army crawl in and get right underneath the bed and wait till they're just about asleep, then ha, and then they, you know, my son to this day, you know, goes to sleep watching doors.

Is that opening? I don't know. He hasn't been affected by it at all, you know.

So people are totally freaked out when I, you know, shoot laser pointers at people in the audience and do stuff like that.

So I don't know why. You can't debate all the time. I mean, if you did, you wouldn't debate well when you did debate.

So anyway, so I am wasting a lot of my time here and we've got, you all are going to be hungry here pretty soon.

We're going to start hearing untoward noises floating up from the audience. So current onslaught, naturalistic materialism rules the day in academia.

And we all know that in the various universities, doesn't matter where you are, even in South Dakota. Anything that does not presuppose an uncreated universe that can be explained solely on the basis of naturalism is rejected a priori.

So Christian beliefs, they're just relegated to the arena of myth. And so the media today is always looking for reasons to not believe.

And so what I'm going to do is I'm going to play you a little clip here and you go, how am I going to do that? I'm going to put the microphone down near the, this isn't the fancy way of doing it, but this is the easy way of doing it.

I can put the microphone down next to the speakers here. Hopefully you can listen to it. Here is the darling of the media,

Bart Ehrman. Bart Ehrman is an apostate. That is not an insult. That is an accurate description.

Bart Ehrman went to Moody Bible Institute and Princeton Seminary. He once claimed to be a

Christian, an evangelical Christian. And today he calls himself a happy agnostic, but he is the leading

English speaking critic of the New Testament today. And when the media wants the expert to go to, they go to Bart Ehrman.

He has written a number of New York Times bestsellers attacking, he would simply say, speaking the truth, but attacking every aspect of the revelation of primarily the

New Testament. And he started off with a book called Misquoting Jesus. Okay, so there you have the idea of changes taking place in the text of scripture, the idea of copies of copies of copies of copies.

By the way, Constantine did not make the Roman Empire Christian. That didn't happen to Theodosius about 70 years later, but anyway, the whole idea that scribes have inserted their beliefs.

Here's a comic that they included in the atheist clip that posts that later on.

This is what you're getting in the media. This is what our young people are exposed to. My daughter ran into just a horrifically anti -Christian bigoted professor her first semester in college.

And this was his, he was just basically Bart Ehrman without the scholarship. And so you get that from the unbelievers.

But you also get this from religious groups. And so let me play a clip for you.

It's a little bit longer from a debate that I did in 2006 with Shabir Ali on the reliability of the

New Testament. Is there any way that you can give to us this evening to explain to us how we can determine what is still inspired in the

New Testament and what is not? Well, I believe that Muslims have a simple answer to this in saying that whatever is in the

Quran, that would be a judge of whatever is there in the Bible. So whatever of the

Bible agrees with the Quran, that obviously is inspired. What is contradictory is obviously not from God.

And that which is neutral and neither in agreement nor in disagreement may be treated with some bit of silence.

Usually the classical scholars have recommended silence, but I believe that Muslims who are quite familiar with the

Gospels and familiar with the development of the text over time can make some judgments, though these judgments will be tentative.

So everything about the cross, resurrection, atonement, deity of Christ, Jesus is the son of God, the

Holy Spirit is a divine person, not an angel, Gabriel. All of that stuff is uninspired and a corruption of the original intention of the

New Testament in light of the Quran. A Muslim would say that the Quranic revelation is here now as the pristine word of God that teaches us that there is only one

God, that Jesus is his Messiah, but nevertheless a servant, a messenger of the one true

God. And so anything that is contrary to that, something that teaches, for example, that human responsibility as described in the

Quran is to be somehow evaded, that would be contrary and would be thought to be a later development.

Now, of course, that could be studied from another angle. One can look at the history and development of Christian teaching over time.

One can look at the Gospels even without Islamic presuppositions. And it seems to me that many biblical scholars are coming to conclusions which are very close to the main conclusions which

Muslims insist on, that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet like the prophets of the

Old Testament. He preached the belief in God, similar to the belief that was known from the

Jewish prophets since he himself was Jewish, he lived in a Jewish milieu. You mean people like the Jesus Seminar, John Dominic Cross and Marcus Forer.

It doesn't have to be them. The scholars are so numerous, it'll be hard for us to list them and to name them now.

So is there any New Testament book that Mark, for example, which you've referred to many times,

Mark clearly identifies Jesus as the son of God, that you would never be able to accept as a Muslim. Isn't that correct?

Well, it is clear that even Mark must have suffered from a similar sort of phenomenon that we described in the case of Matthew.

And John Bowden has made specifically that point in his book, Jesus, The Unanswered Questions. If we look at Mark chapter one, verse one, which in many

Bibles began the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God, it is noted in the NIV, for example, that the title, the son of God in this particular verse is not found in some of the most ancient and reliable manuscripts.

So I'm not saying that the gospel according to Mark does not present Jesus as the son of God, but we have to be aware of scribal changes that have affected the gospel according to Mark in places as well.

And in fact, we are working with the gospel according to Mark only as it has come down to us. Knowing the history of scribal changes, we would not be out of our grounds to wonder if in fact we do really have the original

Markan gospel. Would you admit that you do not have any hard manuscript evidence from the first or second centuries that gives to us a

New Testament that looks like a Muslim would expect it to look like? We do not have such a document. So as you can see, even in that conversation with a

Muslim, how many of you, for example, were aware that the phrase the son of God in Mark one one is not in some of the earliest manuscripts?

See, most of us don't. The Muslims do. And it's not that your Bible doesn't tell you that.

Your King James may not, but even your New King James I think does. And I think most other modern translations will have a textual footnote.

But we skip them. And so what happens is scholars spin the evidence, particularly in media appearances.

They emphasize that all we have are copies of copies of copies from hundreds of years after the originals.

Now, if we have approximately 5 ,800 manuscripts of the

New Testament today, and that number keeps changing, I think in here I might have 5 ,717, it keeps changing and there's reasons for that.

It's not that we're defining all brand new manuscripts. It's that CSNTM, the Center for the

Study of New Testament Manuscripts is taking pictures of all these ancient manuscripts, high definition digital photography all around the world.

And they'll discover that something that's in a library over here is actually part of a manuscript that's over here. So now the number goes down one.

But then they'll look at another one and it's actually got three different manuscripts put together, so now it's gone up three. And so the number keeps changing over time.

But if we have about 5 ,800 manuscripts of the New Testament, does not mean from Matthew to Revelation.

The older the manuscript is, the less material it's probably gonna have in it. Now later manuscripts generally are complete, but the earliest manuscripts are gonna be very fragmentary.

But if we have approximately 5 ,800 handwritten manuscripts, how many variants, now what's a variant?

Well you need to know what a variant actually is because there's, I was even given false information at one point in my life as to what a variant is.

There are some people that tell you that a variant is any place where if there's a difference in one manuscript and then there's a difference in another manuscript and if it's in like 500 manuscripts, that's 500 variants.

No, that's not the case. If there's any change in any manuscripts whatsoever in how a word is spelled, word order, whether a word is there, isn't there, a verse is there, isn't there, a phrase is there, whatever it is, that is a variant.

How many variants in the handwritten manuscripts of the New Testament do you think we might have? If you've watched this before, you put your hand up.

Again, I will escort you out personally after embarrassing you, taking pictures of you and putting you on Facebook.

So, how many variants do you think we would have in the handwritten manuscripts of the

New Testament? 600, 600 going one, 600 going two,

I hear seven, that's 700, 700 going, no. 5 ,000, there's a little difference between 600 and 5 ,000.

You really want to go that high? 75, we're going down now. See, it's all over the map, isn't it?

And let's be honest, most of us who've not seen this presentation before, we go, I don't know. I'd never even thought about it before.

In fact, I don't want to think about it. I don't want to think about there being variations because then you have to figure out how you can tell what the original was and stuff like that, and that sounds like way too much work and I just want everything to be black and white.

I just want one manuscript. Let's just have one manuscript so we have absolute certainty, right? That's what a lot of people want. What would be the problem if we only had one manuscript of the

New Testament? If we only had one manuscript of the New Testament, then what you have to trust is that whoever produced that one manuscript got it exactly right because you've got no way of checking their work.

So it's sort of like, you know, Indiana Jones, you know? He's looking for the Holy Grail, and you go into this cave after you walk across the thing that looks like you're going to fall, but you don't, and yeah,

I saw it, and you find this guy who doesn't die, except when he's shot by a

Nazi, which doesn't make any sense, but, and you find the one manuscript.

There it is. Wow, now we have certainty. No, you don't. What's that guy been doing in there for the past thousand years?

How do you know what he's been doing? What you want for a document from antiquity is to have as many copies as you possibly can from as widely a dispersed area as possible.

Now, 1 ,000 copies from one place, what you want is from all over the place because that gives you the greatest certainty that you still possess the original text.

The one text thing, my Muslim friends love that. They think that's great. Go watch my debates with Adnan Rashid and Yusuf Ismail, one from Potterstown, South Africa, one from London on this issue, and watch as the

Muslims say, hey, we've got the Uthmanic revision. We know what was given to Muhammad, and we're happy with that, even though he did do a revision, so how do you know what he changed?

Don't know. People want to have, folks, listen to me. We can never trade truth for certainty.

We can never trade truth for certainty. I've met so many people that are absolutely certain of a lie.

They've got certainty. They don't have truth. You can't trade truth for certainty, and so we have to deal with the facts before we can then put them in the proper context.

About how many variants do we have in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament? Oh, why did this disappear? Oh, I'm gonna just skip past this.

We'll talk about him later. About 400 ,000. About 400 ,000.

So there are, now this is the Nessean 27th edition. I need to update it to 28th, but there were 138 ,162 words in the

New Testament. That's nearly three variants per word, we are told, and so we're confidently told, no one can have any confidence that the text they read today accurately reflects what was originally written, and they can show you a nice little graph like this.

This is the number of words. There is the number of variants. Wow, that looks terrible.

And that's what Bart Ehrman is, he's perfectly happy if you stop there. That's not all he says. If you read his scholarly works, then he'll have a context, but the fact of the matter is he makes most money off of his non -scholarly works, and those are the ones that get read.

His scholarly works don't get read nearly as much. And my Muslim friends will present this. See, there's no way we can trust the

New Testament. There you go. And let me just ask you right now, if I stopped right here, how many of you feel like you've got a really good response to offer to this?

Again, those of you who've watched this presentation, hopefully you would, but let's get to what they don't tell you.

99 % of all variants do not impact the meaning of the text. Variations in spelling and order make up the vast bulk of variations, and in fact,

Dan Wallace at Dallas Seminar, who's really our leading textual critical scholar today, he's the head of CSNTM.

When you get to go around the entire world photographing all these manuscripts, that's pretty cool to get to do.

He's sort of Konstantin von Tischendorf and Indiana Jones all rolled into one guy from Dallas, and so he gets to do all this stuff.

He actually would say that it's 99 .75. He'd actually take it down to one quarter of 1%.

But I don't wanna get into all the little teeny tiny numbers, but hence 1 % of 400 ,000 is about 4 ,000, he would say that number's smaller.

Meaningful textual variants out of 138 ,162 words is 2 .9%, or one meaningful variant every three pages.

But only half of these are viable. What does viable mean? Well, not every variant is a viable variant, which means if you have a reading in a 13th century manuscript, and the manuscript otherwise is unremarkable, it doesn't show any evidence of having been copied from a particularly ancient manuscript itself, and you come across a reading, it's singular, no other translation in the past has contained it, no other manuscripts have contained it, that's not a viable reading.

In other words, it does not have any chance of going back to the original. It's just that scribe had a bad day that day and came up with a weird reading and it happened.

So only about half, a little bit half of these are viable. So the number is about 1 ,500 to 2 ,000 viable, meaningful

New Testament textual variants. In other words, the vast majority of them, I couldn't even explain to you what they mean if you can't read

Greek. And so as far as a variant that actually impacts the ability of the manuscript or the ability of the text to transmit its meaning, you have about 1 ,500 to 2 ,000.

That's quite a different picture. In fact, if you look at it now, here's the number of words, there's the number of variants that are meaningful in comparison to simply non -meaningful variants.

Very, very different picture than what you get from what I presented to you before. Now, I already explained this, but the more manuscripts you have for a particular work, the more textual variants you're gonna have.

If you only have one manuscript, you have how many textual variants? None, because you don't have anything to compare it with.

As soon as you have two manuscripts, there could be textual variants. And I've never gotten a chance to actually do this because we never had the time to do it, but it is a fascinating thought experiment to start with the front row and hand out a couple paragraphs of some type of book and ask the front row to copy it, hand it to the next row, and then to the next row, and the next row.

We finally get back to the back, compare what we have in the back with what was originally handed out to the people in the front.

Are all of them gonna read identical to one another? No, of course not. There are gonna be differences.

When we compare all of them in the back, we'll be able to figure out what I gave to the group in the front.

I'm not sure, looking at this front row, it could be sort of rough, but yeah.

Especially if what we have is we have one from this row, one from that row, and two from this row, and a few from there, and then all the ones in the back.

Once we can compare all of them together, that's the process of textual criticism. And so, if you have 10 manuscripts, you're only gonna have a certain number of variants.

If you have 5 ,800, you're gonna have a lot more. But what you want is the lot more, not the lot less.

And a lot of people just don't get that. They're like, no, I don't want more variants, but it's because you have more manuscripts. And the more manuscripts you have, the better.

The vast majority of other scholars that work in textual criticism and other works of antiquity, contemporaneous to the

New Testament, look at us like, what are you people complaining about? We would love to have the manuscript evidence you guys have, but it's because, obviously, of the importance of the text.

Here I have 5 ,700, I need to change this. I was listening to Dan Wallace lecturing. I think he said 5 ,823.

Before that, it was 5 ,717. Like I said, the number keeps changing. It'll eventually get to 6 ,000,

I would imagine. But there are 5 ,700 plus catalog manuscripts in New Testament books, the average of which is about 350 pages long.

That's over two million pages of text grand total that is available to us. So 1 ,500 to 2 ,000 meaningful and viable variants, over two million pages of hand -copied text, spanning approximately 1 ,500 years prior to the invention of printing, is an amazingly small percentage of the text, reflecting an amazingly accurate history of transmission.

One might say it is downright miraculous. Let me give you some graphical examples. A number of years ago,

I asked my computer program to compare the two most dissimilar printed editions of the

Greek New Testament. This would be the Westcott and Hurt text of 1881 and the

Textus Receptus, the Byzantine form of the text. I may have even used the

Byzantine platform. I don't remember which one it was now, but anyways. And what I did is I had the computer mark the differences in green.

So you've got one there, one there, one there. So here's Ephesians 1, 1 through 14. You can see that for the vast majority of the

Greek text, there is no difference between the two most dissimilar printed editions of the

Greek New Testament. Where you do have differences, there is one that's rather interesting. For example, if you read

Greek, you know that here's a preposition. Well, that can normally be figured out from the form of the words themselves. En auto may have been lost because of the next sentence beginning with en ho.

But there's one interesting, really interesting textual variant here. It's right there, you can barely see it. Beginning of 1, 14, and that's the word ha, single word, ha.

Ha est in arabon, who is the down payment of our inheritance. Ha is the neuter form.

Has would be the masculine form. This is in reference to the Holy Spirit. And ha matches the neuter gender of spirit.

So that would be the proper grammatical form, but there are other manuscripts that say has, the masculine form.

And we do have places in the Gospel of John where a masculine form is used for the spirit to emphasize the personality of the spirit.

So there is a theologically significant textual variant there. But you can see for the vast majority of the text, it's all the same.

Now, which book of the New Testament do you think we would have the fewest manuscripts for?

Book of Revelation. Why? Not because it's the last.

It's order in the canons irrelevant. Because it's about the end times.

Are you sure it's about the end times? Written on an island, that's why you only have a few manuscripts, right?

Because it couldn't get off the island. Why was it controversial?

I mean, everybody knows what Revelation means. No, historically, the

Book of Revelation fought to be included in the canon of the New Testament. There are many people near the church did not think it was canonical.

They didn't really like books that had seven headed monsters and all sorts of stuff like that. And so it really fought for inclusion in the canon.

And there were people who said, are we sure John had something to do with this? And that's good. I mean, it's better than the church going, hey, you know what?

We do not have enough books with seven headed monsters. Anybody else wanna discuss something else? Anyone, anyone?

No, okay, all right. So there was a process. And so because it was not included for a long time, we have the smallest number of manuscripts of it.

It has the most unique textual history behind it of any other book in the

New Testament. So it's not surprising then that when we look at it, there's a little more green in the book of Revelation than you have in some of the others.

But still, the vast majority of the text, you can see, for example, verse five, and from Jesus Christ, the marcher, the witness, the faithful one, there's

Protodocos from Colossians 1 .15, the firstborn from the dead, the archon, the leader.

How do you translate archon? That's really interesting. The head, the leader of the kings of the earth, et cetera, et cetera.

So you have Revelation, and you have a number of those. Mark, the Gospels were copied over and over and over and over again, so there's a little bit more here in Mark 1, 1 through 14.

The Gospels obviously being the first books to really be distributed widely. We'll talk a little bit more about that later on.

But guess which book of the New Testament has the cleanest transmission without, as far as number of variants concern?

This one doesn't surprise me a lot. Hebrews. And that's because, unfortunately,

Hebrews sort of became a closed book in the history of the church early on. The division between the church and the synagogue, and then the rise of what's called allegorical interpretation thanks to a dude named

Origen, really, unfortunately, closed off understanding of the book of Hebrews.

Well, first of all, it closed off understanding of the Old Testament as scripture. And if you don't understand the Old Testament, you're never gonna understand

Hebrews. And so Hebrews has a really clean transmission history, but I don't think it was really, mainly it's because it was not understood very well.

And here you have Hebrews 6, 8 through 20. I've got one there, one there, one there, that's it. That's all you got.

Everything else, absolutely no. No differences between the two most dissimilar printed editions of the

Greek New Testament. Now, even that 1 ,500 to 2 ,000 number needs to be understood. We got about 15 minutes before y 'all get to go eat all those wonderful, yummy sandwiches and chocolate chip cookies, of which

I already had one. Ha ha ha. What's that? Drawer of death.

You have a drawer of death? My wife and I have a drawer of death in the refrigerator. That's where you store all of the

Ghirardelli chocolate squares. And when you're on a diet, that's called the drawer of death.

But you get the mini ones, they're only 35 calories. Come on, they're worth it. Okay, I have a sweet tooth.

Sorry, it's terrible, it's horrible. That's why last Tuesday I did 100 miles on the bike with 5 ,400 feet of climbing, because now

I can eat all the Ghirardelli I want. All right, even the 1 ,500 to 2 ,000 number needs to be understood.

Even when the variant does impact the reading, in the large majority of instances, the careful student of the text can see which reading is original.

We only had one careful student of the text last night in the debate on that issue. Many of these errors involve common scribal errors, mistakes we continue to make to this very day when copying from one text to another.

Here's an important example from the history of the New Testament. And if you want to look up in your translation, 1

John 3 .1, the King James Version says, behold, what manner of love the

Father has bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God. Therefore, the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

All right, and then we compare that with the New American Standard, or you might well look at the ESV, NIV, whatever.

Modern translation, see how great a love the Father has bestowed on us that we would be called children of God, and such we are.

For this reason, the world does not know us because it did not know him. Now, I don't make this,

I don't mention this to make fun of anyone, but there's always men in the audience who are colorblind, and especially might have red -green color deficiency.

And so the phrase, and such we are, gentlemen, is in red. That's marked off so that you know that that is the textual variant.

Now, that's a very important textual variant. It is emphasizing the fact that we are the children of God.

It is an emphasis of our adoption into the family of God. So the modern text contained an important phrase affirming our adoption as children of God through Christ.

This is not found in the King James, why? Because the Greek text from which the KJV was translated lacked the phrase.

It's not because all the KJV translators were a bunch of liberal Anglicans and they didn't like adoption, nothing about that at all.

Now, you look at most of the Anglican church today, and that's what would end up happening. It's gotten pretty weird, except for the conservative

Sydney Anglicans down in Australia that are still good evangelicals. I've got some good friends down there at Moore College and places like that.

But Church of England in England, it's pretty bad. But the

Greek text from which the KJV was translated lacked the phrase, but why? This is a glowing example of what's called homoiteleuton.

Now, if you wanna get your sandwiches for lunch today, you have to be able to tell the person hanging them out the word, the key word, the password is homoiteleuton.

Okay, so you're ready for that? You all written it down? Homoiteleuton, which means similar endings.

Think how many times, and this is funny, this shows how long I've been doing this presentation, because this no longer works for the younger generation.

Think how many times you have been copying a word ending with such combinations as ing, tion, or es, and when looking back at what you were copying, have mistakenly started with a different word that had the same ending.

Unfortunately, in talking to young people today, they go, what are you talking about? Because they've never copied out of a printed book.

They've never sat at a typewriter, like I did, doing my work when

I was in high school and college and seminary. Well, actually in seminary, I did have a computer by then. But in high school and beginning of college,

I had an IBM Selectric, ooh. And you would actually have to take a print book, and sometimes you'd stack stuff on it or whatever it is, so it'd stay open to where you want it, and you're copying out of that book.

Now everybody just cuts and pastes out of Google. That's how scholarship's done these days. But even when copying and pasting, you sometimes lose the beginning and the end, because you don't start at the right place or whatever else it might be.

But if you can think of what it was like to do that back in the dark ages when I was young, it's very easy to see that when you would write the word education, which ends with tion, you look back, you see tion, you continue.

The problem is education was at the end of elucidation, which is on the next line. And as a result, you've inadvertently deleted all the material between education and elucidation.

You didn't do it purposefully. It was just an error of sight. You would just finish tion, you go back, see tion, you continue on from there.

This is what Homo Eteleuton is about, similar endings. And we see it a lot in the manuscripts.

And so if you look at the evidence, here is the Greek New Testament. You have here, in order that children of God we might be called, and we are, for this reason the world is not knowing us because it did not know him.

So you see a little square right there next to Chi. You get on here, there's a list of manuscripts.

These are the manuscripts that do not contain Chi, Esmen, and we are, KL04969. That funny looking

Fraktur M, that's the German form of, well, old German form of M, means majority text.

The majority of Greek manuscripts do not contain this phrase. VGMS means Vulgate Manuscript, certain manuscripts of the

Vulgate. All the other earliest manuscripts of 1 John contain this. Now that doesn't explain why it happened, however.

We know that ancient writers made the same kind of error. Here is what 1 John would have looked like.

What you need to understand, and this is hard for people to understand, is that for the first 900 years of the history of the transmission of the text of the

New Testament, all the manuscripts we possess of the New Testament are written in what's called maguscule or unseal text.

Used to be everybody called them unseals, now we call them maguscules. I think unseal sounds better, but anyways. All capital forms, no spaces between words, and almost no punctuation.

It's just a long line of capital letters. And so even seminary students who've taken two, three years of Greek, you show them an ancient manuscript, you show them, you know,

I've mentioned I'm working on a PhD down in South Africa. It's on manuscript P45. And P45, of course, is written in all unseal text, maguscule text.

Vast majority of students, even if they had two, three years of Greek, cannot read it. Because it's just not what you're taught when you're in seminary or Bible college.

And so it's just a long line of capital letters. And you can imagine how difficult that is to copy.

So I'll use color again to show you the difference. And here you have clathomen, we might be called, and we are chi -s -men, dia -tuta, for this reason, and it goes on from there.

You notice that clathomen ends with what looks to us as m -e -n, mu -epsilon -nu. Chi -s -men ends with mu -epsilon -nu.

So what happens is a scribe writes clathomen, his eyes go back to what he's copying, sees mu -epsilon -nu in the line of letters, continues on, and inadvertently has deleted the phrase, and we are.

And that ends up becoming the majority reading. You see why it's good to have many manuscripts?

Because if we only had a few, then something like this might not be able to be caught, but it is because we have such a rich manuscript tradition.

Now, the majority of the 5700 plus Greek manuscripts date from after 1000 AD, comprising that majority text.

The earlier texts are called papyri, written in unseal or majuscule text, as I mentioned, all unsealed text, all capital forms, no spacing, almost no punctuation.

Here is, this is actually, if they're, actually if they're ready for us back there, this screen would be a good one to stop with.

So I'll just explain what it is and then we'll take a break because we go into another section after this. But here is a graph of our

New Testament manuscripts, and the blue are our papyri manuscripts, and the unseals are our, well, this is sort of weird why we would call them this, but these are all up until this point written in the same form.

The blue are written on papyrus, which is made by taking the leaves of a papyrus plant, putting them at 90 degree angles and pressing them together.

On the one side, you get a nice smooth surface that you can write along this way. The backside's much rougher because the fibers are going this way, but this is called the recto and verso sides of the papyrus.

But then starting around here, you start getting what are called the unseals or the vellum parchment manuscripts.

So they're written on vellum or animal skins, and they're much nicer, and we'll explain why it happened historically.

And then right around here, someone got the real bright idea, you know, it'd be easier to read this if we use large letters, small letters, and put spaces between words, and use punctuation.

And so you get minuscule text developing in the ninth century, and very quickly, everybody goes, yeah, it's a good idea.

And then you see the vast majority of these manuscripts come from after the 10th century, which makes sense.

I mean, once we start looking at some of these manuscripts, as I like to tell audiences, when you see how bad these manuscripts look, what are you gonna look like 1800 years from now?

So, you know, keep that in mind before you criticize them too much. It makes sense that the vast majority of manuscripts come closer to, you know, the closer you get to the modern period, the more of them that you have.

But there's also another reason, and that is something historically happened.

In the West, people stopped using Greek in the third century and switched over to Latin, especially in the church for theology and things like that.

So we have many more Latin manuscripts. Greek manuscript production goes down. And then in the

East, in places like Palestine, Egypt, North Africa, vital places of Christian learning for many, many years,

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, North Africa. North Africa was extremely what we consider today, you know,

Libya, places like that, were Christian nations for many, many centuries.

But then what happened? Something historically happened between 632 and 732. Need to know our church history.

Need to know world history. Muhammad dies in 632. Between 632 and 732 is the century of Muslim expansion.

And so Islam expands out of Arabia all the way up into Asia Minor, all the way out into Iraq, all the way across North Africa, across into Europe itself, up through Spain and Portugal, and into France itself, where finally in 732 at the

Battle of Tours, they're turned back by Charles Martel. And the slow process of driving them back out, you end up with the

Moors, so on and so forth, there in Spain. That's what takes place. Well, obviously when Islam takes over those nations, which had once been the primary area of the production of Greek manuscripts, that's not good for the production of Greek manuscripts.

And so historically, there is a reason for why we see what we see in even a graph of the history of the manuscripts of the

New Testament. All right? I know, that's a lot. And we're not even done yet.

But you all need sustenance and some sugar. Maybe some of you might need, because you're caffeine addicts, some of that stuff going on, except for the one guy who keeps clapping.

No caffeine for him, okay? The one guy needs to, no, no caffeine.