Print this article
Email this article
|
|
BIBLE ACCURACY:
How are Bible "errors" counted?
|
|
SERIES—Part 2
As mentioned in
part 1 of this series,
the Bible has been proved to easily be the most well-attested book of antiquity.
There are many more surviving manuscripts of the New Testament than there are of any other piece of ancient literature.
Outside of Homer's Iliad which has less than 700 surviving manuscripts, no other ancient Greek or Latin work has more than 200
surviving manuscripts, and very few have more than 20.
But—since the original 27 New Testament books are probably not in existence, how did textual critics go about reconstructing
the original text from all those 24,000 manuscript copies?
A quick explanation of what "textual reconstruction" is
Textual reconstruction is actually a simple concept.
Older copies, unless sloppily copied, are clearly more valuable since
there is less likelihood they possess accidental mistakes (misspelled words, missing lines, skipped words, etc)—and more of a
chance they are first / second / third generation copies of the original. With 24,000 manuscripts, it would be normal to expect
insignificant, unintentional mistakes to creep into the text—they would also be extremely easy to identify.
Specialists in manuscript analysis indicate that copyists were prone to making two types of scribal blunders:
First, slightly
modifying proper names (especially unfamiliar foreign names), and second, using contemporary numbering systems (instead of using
the numbering system of the age in which the original was penned).
In other words,
the vast majority of so-called errors we hear about today were harmless and deliberate scribal modifications of names
(e.g., today the Russian name "Katya" might be translated into English as "Kate" or "Katherine") and conversions of ancient weights
and measures to more easily understandable contemporary systems.
Yet, in keeping with the rules of textual reconstruction science, textual critics call any modification a "variation" or "variant reading."
Although such variations are clearly not Bible "errors," misunderstanding the concept of "variations" has misled some into this notion.
How do textual experts count "errors?"
Since the purpose is to recreate the original text as accurately as possible, textual critics keep track of the number of
variations among the manuscripts. It is the manner in which they count these variations that has led to all the modern confusion
and misinformation about so-called "Bible errors."
How then do textual critics count variations?
Each variation in every copy is added up by experts. Thus, if a single word was misspelled in an early copy, and 5,000
copies had been made of that one copy, textual specialists would consider this as 5,000 variations, even though the variations
would not change their ability to accurately reconstruct the original whatsoever.
Thousands of "errors"—or no known Bible teachings missing?
Some scholars believe there are perhaps from 150,000 to 200,000 variant readings among the 24,000 New Testament manuscripts. (12)
That sounds like an enormous number, but 150,000 divided among 24,000 averages to a meager 6 variant readings per manuscript.
While this is only an average, it showcases the astonishing accuracy of Bible manuscripts, particularly when one realizes the New
Testament contains roughly 250,000 words and well over 1,000,000 letters (although not all manuscripts contained all New Testament
books). When one factors into this the intentional modification of proper names and numbers, the incredible accuracy of the New
Testament comes into irrefutably sharp focus.
Thus, the allegations of "thousands of errors in the Bible" leaves a grossly exaggerated impression. Those who make such statements
are either purposely attempting to mislead their unsuspecting listeners or are honestly ignorant of the concept of textual reconstruction.
It is extremely unlikely modern reconstructed texts contain any significant differences to the original text. Even the staunchest of
skeptics have yet to identify a single modified Biblical doctrine attributable to scribal error—or anything else.
Ironically, as each new manuscript is discovered, more validation is given to existing manuscripts—but the total number of
variations also increases. That's because a high number of Bible variations is far more indicative of the great number of
Biblical manuscripts (24,000) than it is of any Biblical textual corruption.
(As stated, specific charges of so-called Bible contradictions will be investigated in a another article.)
Now—what are the true odds there are significant errors in the Bible?
Some people have suggested that, in spite of the incredible accuracy of our modern Bibles by virtue of the many manuscripts
we have to work with, there still exists the mathematical possibility, albeit tiny, that an error may have somehow crept into the
final text of what we call "the Bible."
Does that mean we should no longer take seriously the Bible's message?
Consider the following illustration. Imagine for a moment that you somehow locate an ancient, hand-written scroll containing
a map with instructions to the location of what you believe will be priceless treasures on a sunken ship in the Gulf of Mexico.
With joyful anticipation you make travel arrangements to locate the treasure—when you get a phone call from an expert you've confided
in.
He has bad news: your map may be a 3rd generation copy of the original, which means there is the tiny possibility it could contain
errors.
Would you suddenly rush out and cancel your plane reservations?
Most sensible people probably wouldn't.
Yet too many today, when it comes to their only valid spiritual map from earth to heaven, are only too eager to flippantly
lay aside this priceless Guide for fear of a rare misspelled word. Unfortunately, the consequences for making this erroneous
decision could be disastrous. More on this in another article.
But what about Bible translations—are they accurate?
Since the reconstructed Greek texts have accurately transmitted God's message to us, another important question now
rears its head: What about the translations (into English, Russian, Spanish, etc)
made from those texts—are they accurate too?
By and large, the answer is a resounding "yes." As far as English Bible translations are concerned, many translators have
done an absolutely phenomenal job of paying meticulous attention to detail to ensure that our English Bibles are as close to the
original thought as is humanly possible.
Of course, there are various types of translations on the market. Some define themselves to be mere paraphrases, others have
attempted to construct word-for-word translations, and others fall somewhere in between.
The bottom line is—in the absence of a working knowledge of Greek and Hebrew—serious Bible students
would be well advised to have on hand multiple Bible translations of their native language,
since comparing translations—just like comparing manuscripts—gives one the greatest
opportunity for not "losing anything in the translation."
Additional recommended reading:
How to interpret the Bible accurately: 12 critical tips
If modernists re-wrote the Bible, how big would it be?
|
|
|
|
|
