The reason there are so many variations in the New Test. manuscripts is
because there are so many manuscripts as well as many private and
unofficial copies.
Every time a new manuscript is discovered, the gross number of variants
increases. This is seen, as you have pointed out, by comparing the
approx. 30,000 variants that Mill estimated in 1907, the nearly 150,000
counted by Scrivener in 1874, and the more than 200,000 known variants
today. However, to say that there are 200,000 variants is a little
misleading, since these only represent 10,000 places in the New
Testament.
CARR
Well, 10,000 is not many is it :-)
Nusbaum
For example, if a single word were misspelled in 3000 different
manuscripts, they are counted as 3000 variants. Once this counting
procedure is understood Helen, and once the mechanical variants have
been eliminated, the remaining significant variants are surprisingly
few. Variants due to misspellings or other errors of the eye count for
an extremely high percentage of these "errors."
CARR
It is quite true that about 99% of the variations are spelling mistakes
or slips of the pen.
Nusbaum
In fact, when a comparison is made between the variants of the New
Testament and with those of other books of antiquity, the results are
staggering Helen.
CARR
Another true statement! I find the variations staggering.
There were many kinds of Christians in the first few centuries after
Jesus died. What is called "Orthodoxy" nowadays is just one strand
of Christianity that happened to prevail. Just as their "heretical"
opponents did, Orthodox scribes would alter the texts to better reflect
Orthodox views, views which are what we call Christianity nowadays.
The orthodox said that Joseph was not really Jesus's biological
father. Some heretics said that Jesus was an ordinary man until he
became Son of God and so was born in the normal way. Sadly for the
orthodox, the Gospels did say that Jesus's father was Joseph. So some of
them simply eliminated those places which said that Joseph was the
father of Jesus. For example, Luke 2:33 says that Jesus's "father and
mother began to marvel". Many Greek manuscripts changed the text to read
"Joseph and his mother began to marvel". Luke 2:48 says "Look, your
father and I have been grieved". Some manuscripts were altered to
read "Your relatives and I..." or "We have been grieved". In Luke 2:43
"his parents" was often changed to "Joseph and his mother".
Look also at Matthew 27:49
In "Evidence that Demands a Verdict", Josh McDowell, the million
selling Christian evangelist, has a nice story about the discovery of
the very important document, Codex Sinaiticus, in a monastery in 1859.
He also makes much of John 19:34-35, where Jesus's body is pierced by a
sword *after* he died. He cites much medical opinion that only
eyewitnesses could have observed that. "The 'blood and water' from the
spear-thrust is proof positive that Jesus was already dead."
Surprisingly, he forgets to inform us that Codex Sinaiticus says , in
Matthew 27:49, that the spear was thrust into Jesus *before* he died.
Codex Vaticanus (mid 4th century), Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (5th cent),
and other manuscripts back that up. It seems that an orthodox scribe
added that detail to Matthew. The issue of the spear-thrust became a
major point of controversy between orthodox and heretic. The heretical
'Acts of John' denied that Jesus suffered on the cross - "You heard that
I was pierced , yet I was not wounded, that blood flowed from me , yet
it did not flow". What could be more natural for an orthodox scribe to
alter the Gospels to make clear that Jesus suffered on the cross and
shed real blood, as Church Fathers like Irenaeus maintained?
Although *very* ancient and valuable manuscripts maintain in Matthew
27:49 that blood and water came out of Jesus's side before he died,
most translations of today drop the statement, probably because it
clashes so horribly with John's Gospel. It is clear that the account of
the spear-thrust in the Gospels was not written by eye-witnesses
but by scribes, who wanted to show , in Matthew's Gospel, that Jesus
really did suffer on the cross, or, in John's Gospel, that Jesus was
definitely dead.
Nusbaum
For instance, although there are about 200,000 "errors" among the N.T.
manuscripts, these appear in only about 10,000 places, and ONLY ABOUT
ONE SIXTIETH rise above the level of the trivial. F.F. Bruce, one of
the foremost textual critics, says that "Westcott and Hort, Ezra Abbot,
Philip Schaff, and A.T. Robertson have carefully evaluated the evidence
and have concluded that the N.T. text is over 99% pure."
CARR
Bruce was a member of the Plymouth Brethren and was a little biased.
His conclusion is not true. There are 5 very important verses in Luke's
account of the resurrection alone which are dubious.
Even if you are right, 1/60 of the NT is about 3 pages. If being wrong
by 3 pages does not matter, which 3 pages of the NT would you like to
rip out? After all it would still be highly reliable.
Nusbaum
So, though there are certainly some problematic passages, that
tremendous number of variations that you through out was simply
misguided. In effect, the N.T. is a highly reliable transmitted text.
CARR
The trouble is that the problematic passages are the important ones for
Christianity (the crucifxion, resurrection and last supper etc)