Pastor Luther Walker continues the Bibliology series by examining the transmission of Scripture and methods for identifying the original readings. He recaps strong New Testament manuscript evidence (over 99% accuracy in the core text), far surpassing ancient works like Homer’s Iliad, with three main textual families: Alexandrian (older due to dry climate), Byzantine (more numerous but later copies due to decay in wetter areas), and Western (some older but prone to expansions/harmonizations). He contrasts the critic’s text (e.g., Nestle-Aland, basis for ESV) with the majority text (closer to Textus Receptus, basis for KJV), noting high agreement (upper 80-90%) but differences in key spots. He criticizes Textus Receptus origins (Erasmus, with Latin Vulgate influences retrofitted into Greek) and ESV for ignoring majority readings.
For the Old Testament, he highlights Jewish scribal precision (destroying flawed manuscripts) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ca. 250 BC–70 AD) confirming stunning accuracy against later Masoretic Text (7th–11th century, with vowel points added for pronunciation). He dismisses Septuagint preference as favoring a translation over Hebrew originals, similar to prioritizing KJV over Greek.
Key textual criticism terms include uncials (capital letters, no spaces, early), minuscules (lowercase, later), codex (book form), manuscripts (handwritten portions), papyrus (plant material), and vellum/parchment (animal skin, more durable). Principles for determining the most plausible original reading: evaluate manuscripts by quality/age (not just quantity), internal evidence (author style, consistency across books), external evidence (church fathers’ quotes, non-biblical uses of words/phrases), grammar/spelling, avoiding harmonization (adding details from parallel passages), conflated readings, theological changes, and scribal errors (e.g., skipping/duplicating lines). Prefer difficult/shorter readings (easier ones often expanded for clarity) and those explaining other variants’ origins.
Examples include:
Romans 8:1 – Majority text includes longer addition (”who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit”), likely from verse 4/Vulgate influence; shorter reading preferred as original.
Revelation 5:1 (”washed us” vs. “loosed us”) – One-letter difference; “washed” fits John’s usage (e.g., John 13:10, 1 Cor. 6:11) and context better, likely scribal error dropping a letter.
1 Peter 1:1 – Older versions (KJV/NKJV) place “elect according to foreknowledge”; modern ones (ESV, NIV, CSB) correctly render as “elect exiles” or similar, avoiding awkward phrasing.
Romans 10:10 – NASB’s “resulting in” (belief results in righteousness, confession in salvation) supports lordship salvation views; original Greek preposition (eis) better as “because of” (belief because of Christ’s righteousness, confession because of salvation already received), aligning with 1 Cor. 15’s gospel (faith alone in Christ’s death/burial/resurrection).
He warns against harmonizing Gospels into one narrative (losing unique details) and theological biases (e.g., NASB subtle Reformed-leaning changes).
On English translations: Literal (word-for-word, e.g., KJV from Textus Receptus/Masoretic, including idioms); dynamic equivalence (thought-for-thought, e.g., NIV, risking loss of precision like “Lamb of God” becoming “goat” in sheep-less cultures); essential literal (stilted word-for-word). KJV (1611, from Bishop’s Bible revisions, literal but archaic language; e.g., “repent” meant “change mind,” not modern emotional sorrow). Modern versions (NKJV, ESV, NASB, CSB) often update from KJV base but vary in source texts and theology (e.g., NASB criticized for Reformed biases like Romans 10:10 preposition shift). He advises caution with dynamic versions (NIV/CEV) for potentially altering nuances.
Overall, Scripture’s transmission shows remarkable preservation through diverse manuscripts, careful evaluation, and avoidance of biases, unlike Quran’s deliberate destruction of variants.
