of the New Testament give the reader what scholars believe is the original text of the New Testament.e Interestingly, even though these Greek New Testaments were prepared by different groups of scholars, the text of the New Testament is identical. In addition to the text they also include all of the major variations, a listing of the manuscripts in which these variations are found, plus the church fathers who quote them. This information is accessible to even those with only a limited knowledge of New Testament Greek.
Of course, when a translation is done, a choice must be made between the different (or variant) readings. Because of this, many modern translations include the alternative readings in a footnote. An example of this can be seen in Matthew 15:5-6. The New International Version translates this verse as: (Note: Superscript numbers represent the verse numbers.)
5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,” 6he is not to “honor his father” with it.
The New International Version also includes the following footnote for verse 6, which states that some manuscripts read: “he is not to ‘honor his father or his mother’ with it.” As you can see, while the reading is different, it makes no difference to the meaning of the passage as a whole, since the mother had already been mentioned in verse 5.
If you suspect that I have chosen a simple passage as an example, it is easy enough to check this for yourself. All you need do is to look through one of the many modern translations that include the variant readings and compare these to the text. It has been my experience that the vast majority of these variant readings make no difference at all, much less a difference that would affect the teachings of the Bible.
In a very small number of cases the difference is significant enough to change the meaning of the passage. Perhaps the most well known example of this is 1 John 5:7-8. The New International Version translates these verses as: (Note: Superscript numbers represent the verse numbers.)
7For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
The accompanying footnote points out that in a few very late Greek manuscripts (sixteenth century or later) the verse reads as follows:
7For there are three that testify in heaven: The Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth: 8the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. (Added text is in Italics)
This is a significant change. Still the difference should not be exaggerated. The additional words are a clear reference to the Trinity, but the shorter reading cannot be taken as a denial of the Trinity. Rather it simply lacks a reference to it. More importantly, regardless of which reading was the original (and it is certainly the shorter reading) this variant does not alter the overall teachings of the Bible in any way. The doctrine of the Trinity is taught throughout the New Testament, and to some extent in the Old Testament, and does not depend on a single verse. No major teaching of the church depends on a single verse, much less a verse in which there is a variant reading.
The recent discoveries of archaeology, and the work of textual critics, have shown that the text of the Bible is thoroughly reliable. They have shown that, despite claims to the contrary, the text of the Bible has not been changed or altered so as to distort the original message. While the ancient manuscripts did reveal a limited number of minor problems, which have since been corrected, they mainly have served to confirm the accuracy of the overall text. As a result, the text of the New Testament we have today is, for all practical purposes, the same as it was when it was written by the apostles.
The Canon of the Old Testament
This still leaves the question as to why the particular books that now appear in the Bible are in there, while others are not. Once again, charges are made that it was at one of those infamous councils that the leaders of the church got together and put in all the books they liked while rejecting all the books they didn’t agree with. As with the other charges, these also lack evidence to support them.
When Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, he did not base his arguments on the strength of a council’s decision. It is very clear from the way that Jesus spoke of the books of the Old Testament that he considered them to be the inspired words of God.11 As the inspired words of God, they were authoritative, and belonged to the canon of Scripture the moment they were written. While this may explain why these books belong in the Old Testament, it still leaves the question of how these books were determined to be inspired.
In their book, A General Introduction to the Bible,12 Norman Geisler and William Nix cite five principles that were used to test whether or not a book was inspired by God. To be considered inspired, a book must have been written by a man of God. It should be confirmed by an act of God, by a miracle or prophecy. It should be in agreement with other writings of God in its teachings. It should have the power of God, that is, it should have an impact on people’s lives. And lastly, it should be accepted and used by God’s people.
As for the Old Testament, the canon was determined by the Jewish people themselves. While the exact time at which the canon became settled is unknown, it seems to have been early and done by consensus. The five books of Moses were certainly considered to be Scripture from the time they were written, and references to them as authoritative can be found throughout the Old Testament.13 Most of the prophets were probably accepted at the time they were written or shortly thereafter. The prophet Jeremiah, writing before the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C., speaks of prophets that God had sent earlier (Jeremiah 7:25). Daniel, who wrote during the exile,f states that he “understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet” (Daniel 9:2).
By the time of Christ, the canon of the Old Testament was settled. This can be seen in the works of Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian who wrote in the later part of the first century. Josephus wrote that:
. . . every one is not permitted of his own accord to be a writer, nor is there any disagreement in what is written; they being only prophets that have written the original and earliest accounts of things as they learned them from God himself by inspiration; and others have written what hath happened in their own times, and that in a very distinct manner also. For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have], but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine.14
The 22 books mentioned by Josephus are the same as the 39 books we have in the Old Testament today. The reason for the difference in the two numbers is that Josephus counted some books as a single book, whereas today we count them as two or more. For example, the twelve minor prophets were counted as one book since they were kept together on a single scroll. The books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles were also counted by Josephus as single books, whereas in our modern Bibles each of these have been divided into two books.
After the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70, a need was seen by many Jewish leaders to formally establish the canon of the Old Testament. With the temple gone, the Hebrew Scriptures were to become the center of the Jewish faith. So the Jewish leaders met in the city of Jamnia in A.D. 90. The books that they choose were the same as those mentioned earlier by Josephus, and the same that we have in our Bibles today. The discussions at Jamnia centered around just a few books such as Esther and the Song of Songs. Most of the books of the Old Testament were accepted without any question. Rather than pick and choose those books that best suited them, the Jewish leaders simply ratified those books that were already accepted by the Jewish people as the Word of God. They did not add or remove any books.
