I can’t find the quote, but I know they said that b/c of the abundance of the manuscript tradition, there is no doubt they have the original reading of the NT (assuming that at least one of .01% variants that don’t make much difference are correct).

B/c they we can have such a high confidence that we have the original reading of the Greek NT, it is now only up to us to accept whether it is truly God’s word or not.

I’d say we should be cautious on those variants, but since they don’t change any theology, I can rest more than assured for the rest of it.

Thanks for that response; very helpful. I’m with you on not wanting to give artificial answers for genuine questions. And I really, honestly, enjoy the fact that you are bringing these things up. They are helping me think through the issues more carefully, which has been very constructive.

Bart Ehrman’s objection, I believe, must ultimately be answered on theological grounds rather than textual ones. We believe in inspiration because that is how Scripture describes its own composition. We believe in inerrancy because God tells us that He is a God of truth.

The fact that God did not choose to miraculously preserve the Scriptures throughout history (though He did providentially preserve them in the sense that the essential message of the Bible is still in tact), is His decision. But it does not change what Scripture reveals about God and about itself.

Nor does it ultimately weaken our confidence in our Bibles (especially since textual criticism allows us to know exactly where different points of variance are to be found).

As Daniel Wallace said of Ehrman’s ‘Misquoting Jesus’:

* * *

Scholars bear a sacred duty not to alarm lay readers on issues that they have little understanding of. Unfortunately, the average layperson will leave this book with far greater doubts about the wording and teachings of the NT than any textual critic would ever entertain. A good teacher doesn’t hold back on telling his students what’s what, but he also knows how to package the material so they don’t let emotion get in the way of reason. A good teacher does not create Chicken Littles

* * *

Anyway, that’s my knee-jerk response. What are your thoughts on the whole thing?

- NB

I didn’t mean to imply that your article was insufficient in dealing with textual variants. I just asked those questions out of some things I was thinking of and was curious about when I read the article.

When I asked about inspiration, I had in mind the A.T. Robertson quote in the article and some of the “D-level” variants found in the GNT. These are variants that teams of distinguished scholars are still unsure about. Sure, they only make up .01%, but those .01% are still the words of God. I know they don’t affect doctrine, but I think they should, in some way, play an role on how we view the OT and NT as Scripture (i.e. authoritative).

Bart Ehrman would put it like this: “What is the use of saying that the autographa were inspired if we don’t have them? And if God was going to go through the trouble of inspiring his word, wouldn’t he go through the trouble of preserving it?”

Now, I don’t agree with Ehrman’s assessment of the situation, but I believe that he brings up some valid points that have not been answered by evangelical theology: namely, how can we claim to have the Word of God if, in certain places, we are unsure about the words of God?

I’m not looking for you for a comprehensive answer; these are just some of the things that I have been both thinking about and reading about for the past few years and am still struggling with many of the seemingly ‘pat’ answers are given in evangelical circles (I’m not accusing you of presenting or swallowing ‘pat’ answers, its just a generalization).

Anyway, I enjoy reading what you write and always enjoy interacting.

Thanks for your question. I appreciate the interaction.

I hope my article didn’t come across as completely ignoring textual variants. Perhaps it seemed to treat them too glibly, but I don’t think so — at least not for the average churchgoer (or blog reader). That textual variants exist is openly acknowledged by every evangelical scholar. But those variants do not undermine our confidence in the New Testament text. If anything, the massive number of manuscripts that exist (even if they bring textual variants with them) only strengthens our confidence in the Bibles we have today.

But now I’m digressing… sorry.

Getting back to your actual question, I believe inspiration applies to the autographa, and that the copies have “derived inspiration” insofar as they accurately reflect the originals. So I would approach each textual variant on a case-by-case basis, examining the textual evidence for that particular variant. (Obviously, for most minor variants, I would simply trust the work of much smarter men who have given their lives to the study of such things.)

In the case of Mark 16 and John 7-8, I do not believe that either was part of the original Gospels. However, I do think they represent a valuable part of early church history that we can appreciate, even if we do not see it as equal to the other parts of those Gospels.

Anyway, I guess that’s the short answer. Am I answering your question?

- NB

How does this, or any textual variant, affect your view of inspiration?