Board index ‹ Bible

[Black Like Me]

How would we account for the errors of the scribes in the New Testament since those documents were handed down from one person to the next?

I wonder if those errors aren't just simple and will interfere with the teachings of the scriptures?"

[jimwalton]

Of what errors are you speaking? Everybody makes mistakes, but since we have SO many manuscripts and fragments of of the NT, we have a very reliable grasp on what the original said.

> I wonder those errors aren't just simple and will interfere with the teachings of the scriptures?"

Not a single textual discrepancy includes anything major nor any doctrine. They are mostly misspellings or slightly changed letters. They're all minor.
But let's talk. Which errors in particular are you wondering about?

[Shaking 'n Baking]

I'm not the OP but some examples are 1 John 5-7 where it talks about the Trinity, the ending to Mark and the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8. All of these are not in the earliest manuscripts and were apparently added later on by scribes.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for jumping in to the conversation. The Trinitarian alternate reading of 1 Jn. 5.7-8 ("the Johannine Comma") has weak attestation. No one establishes any doctrine or dogma off of these verses. We get our understanding of the Trinity from elsewhere in the NT. We don't need these verses for that establishment or understanding; these verses don't give us some piece of information that we wouldn't have otherwise. They don't add to our doctrinal understanding or alter it in any way.

I'll stick with what I said, that no discrepancy threatens or changes any Christian doctrine. John 8 and Mark 16.9-20 are not what we'd call scribal errors. They are well-known later additions, and again, they don't include any essential doctrine. Anything doctrine in them, if any, we also see elsewhere. You could completely toss out these two rogue texts and it wouldn't change a thing in Christian theology.

As far as "How do we account for them," we follow the manuscript evidence and chain of custody. We can see where in history these additions were placed, so we know they are not authentic. They aren't errors, so to speak, but obvious later amendments. In answer to the original poster's question, none of them interfere with the teachings of Scripture.

[Warsaw]

> Not a single textual discrepancy includes anything major nor any doctrine. They are mostly misspellings or slightly changed letters. They're all minor.

This is a bit of an exaggeration. Some of the changes are quite significant. Three of them that I can remember off the top of my head from Ehrman's Forged:

• The Long Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) changes the resurrection story and specifies some strange signs that are supposed to accompany believers.
• The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11, the story of the woman taken in adultery) is one of the most popular, oft-quoted, oft-portrayed stories in the entire Bible.
• The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8) is one of the few Biblical passages that clearly describes the Trinity and was a major point of conflict among early Christians trying to decide on the nature of Christ. Modern scholars all recognize it as fake.

You're right that none of this disproves any Christian doctrine, but you're wrong that "they're all minor."

[jimwalton]

Thanks for the comment. I don't think it's an exaggeration at all. The Trinitarian alternate reading of 1 Jn. 5.7-8 ("the Johannine Comma") has very weak attestation. No one establishes any doctrine or dogma off of these verses. We get our understanding of the Trinity from elsewhere in the NT. We don't need these verses for that establishment or understanding; these verses don't give us some piece of information that we wouldn't have otherwise. They don't add to our doctrinal understanding or alter it in any way.

I'll stick with what I said, that no discrepancy threatens or changes any Christian doctrine. John 8 and Mark 16.9-20 are not what we'd call scribal errors. They are well-known later additions that change nothing of our essential doctrine. The strange signs in Mark 16 are exactly that: strange signs,. They are insignificant (and rather bizarre), minor claims. John 8 is often quoted, but shows an attitude of Jesus, not anything major and certainly not doctrinal. Anything doctrine in these texts, if any, we also see elsewhere. You could completely toss out these two rogue texts and it wouldn't change a thing in Christian theology.

I disagree that they're not minor. We could throw these texts out, and many often do (as I do), and absolutely nothing is lost.

As far as "How do we account for them," we follow the manuscript evidence and chain of custody. We can see where in history these additions were placed, so we know they are not authentic. They aren't errors, so to speak, but obvious later amendments. In answer to the original poster's question, none of them interfere with the teachings of Scripture.