There are a number of biblical texts that have been rejected by scholars as later additions to the text. This seems to be a legitimate attitude when there is a strong basis for it, such as that the passage is missing from the earliest manuscripts. It's also personally convenient if the passage is theologically controversial or politically incorrect, such as Paul's supposed writings against women speaking in church, or the famous [Johannine Comma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma) . But what if it is a beloved scripture, such as the story of the [Woman Taken in Adultery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery) , which apparently does not start appearing into relatively late in the manuscript tradition. Or, in the case of 1 Cor. 13, what if one becomes convinced that it is not actually a writing of Paul but that a later editor has inserted it. (See [this question](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/99098/is-i-cor-13-an-insertion-by-a-later-editor) for details.) Does the fact that a beloved scripture was not part of the original text mean that it is not holy scripture?

I'm curious how, in the context of spiritual teaching and leveraging scripture, religious leaders are balancing the value of the text with questions that scholarship has raised as to the authenticity and originality of various texts such as the Johannine comma, the woman caught in adultery, the end of Mark, etc. Thank you in advance for your thoughts!

In John 8:1-11, Jesus forgives the women who was taken in adultery, but critical scholars, such as Dr. Bart Erhman, claim that no early or reliable manuscripts contain John 8:1-11, and that, thus, it was probably a later addition. How would you respond to this claim? I have included quotes from Erhman below: > "The story of the woman caught in adultery is not found in the > earliest and most reliable manuscripts of the Gospel of John, nor in > many of the important versions of the text... It appears to have been > added later, perhaps to fill in a gap in the narrative." (Misquoting Jesus) > > "The story, even though it may have been part of the oral tradition, > is not originally part of the Gospel of John, but rather was added > later by a scribe, perhaps because the story was well known in > Christian tradition and fit well with the themes of the Gospel." (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture) > > "The story was eventually included in some versions of the Gospel, > likely because it was seen as a powerful teaching of Jesus’ mercy, but > its late inclusion suggests it was not part of the original Gospel." (A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings)

## Introduction From early church fathers such as 2nd Century Justin Martyr (*Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, ch 73*) to the 16th Century Reformer John Calvin (*Commentary on the Book of Psalms, 1:373*), accusations that Jewish scribes "tampered" with the Masoretic Text (the authoritative Hebrew Bible text) to obscure messianic prophecies have circulated for centuries. ## Question Is this belief still held by Christians? Do Christians who believe this provide evidence for this belief? What evidence is there for this accusation?

It's interesting that a person will claim passages were added at a later date without considering the textual evidence. A fragment of the Gospel of John dates in the first half of the second century. We have complete copies of John in the fourth century codices. My concern is answering arguments for parts of John being later additions before the fourth century. An example of evidence, Irenaeus of Lyons, in the late second century, quotes parts of the prolegomena that some question it being part of the original Gospel. >But what John really does say is this: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." *Irenaeus - Against Heresies book 1* http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book1.html >John, however, does himself put this matter beyond all controversy on our part, when he says, "He was in this world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own [things], and His own [people] received Him not." ... For when he had spoken of the Word of God as having been in the Father, he added, "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made." ... For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Irenaeus - *Against Heresies book 3* http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html I'm not concerned with John 7:53–8:11, which is not in the earliest manuscripts. The rest of the Gospel is consistent in language and subject matter. It does appear that John added chapter 21 as a postscript. Has someone already compiled this information for the Gospel of John?

While researching for [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/60491/16938) and reading different posts on this site over the past few days, I've come across some criticisms of the NIV I'd never heard before. I've seen articles claiming that it changes the Bible to make it more friendly to homosexuality, but these claims were more general and more significant. For example, the one that stuck out to me the most was where someone said that the NIV translators knew no Koine Greek, just modern Greek, and that they used two secular translators to translate the NT into modern Greek. These are some pretty serious claims. I've never liked the NIV myself, but that’s never been anything but my personal preference. I'd link to the places I saw these claims if I could remember. What arguments exist against the NIV? I'd like to find reliable references if at all possible. I’m not looking for small, minor issues like [a few missing verses](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/13962/niv-hidden-bible-verses) . I’m looking for larger, more significant problems that could conceivably affect the integrity of the text as a whole. I'm not just looking for valid arguments; I'd also love to hear about any well-refuted claims against the NIV, so long as they had some intelligent basis in the first place. I know this question seems a bit open, but if any of these claims are true, I want be sure to avoid using an unreliable translation of God's words. I’m sure the same goes for others on this site and across the Internet.

Simple question: What are the best arguments for the divine inspiration of the longer ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), according to believers in its inspiration? These are examples of articles presenting arguments *against* Mark 16:9-20's inspiration: - [Why I Will Not Be Preaching the Longer Ending of Mark](https://g3min.org/longer-ending-mark/) - [Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?](https://www.gotquestions.org/Mark-16-9-20.html) Answers rebutting these articles will be highly appreciated. ____ A related question illustrating why the question about inspiration is important: [Are the signs mentioned in Mark 16:17-18 universally expected of all true believers?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/59009/38524)

How could the writers of the Byzantine text type add to the text of the Bible with a pure heart? I understand there are almost no New Testament Byzantine texts before the year 300 A.D. The earliest Bible texts we have are the Alexandrian text type, each more minimalistic than the Byzantine. Why did the writers of Byzantine (or rather the Editors) add text even though it wasn't inspired, unlike the original text? Wouldn't God have Protected the original text?

Among many (good) arguments against KJV-onlyism, I have heard the following argument: > The idea that “preservation” requires us to have 100% accurate knowledge of the original words of scripture is a standard that was not demanded by Christ or the Apostles. To bolster this argument, it is suggested that Christ or the NT authors will occasionally base an argument on a textual variant from the OT (probably from the Septuagint) where the original reading actually says something different. Thus, the argument goes, it is possible to acknowledge that we do not have 100% perfect accuracy in our copies while still holding to a doctrine of preservation... one defined by the belief that the message of the Bible is perfectly clear, even though some meaningful and viable textual variants exist. I do not remember any specific **passages** cited where Christ or the NT authors did this sort of thing (made applications based on textual variants). Does anyone know of any?

Based on a comment from @AndrewThompson, >'the' Bible (any one you care to name) is no more evidence of anything than the BOM is. You might take the numerous discrepancies between versions of 'the' Bible as the proof of that statement. there is a belief out there that "versions" of the Bible apparently have "numerous discrepancies". I'd like to know what these are. What is the most egregious textual variant measured in terms of its impact on theology? P.S. If you are going to cite the game of "telephone" please be prepared to cite a specific example, demonstrably showing manuscript evidence. If there are so many "discrepancies" this should be an easy exercise. The Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Sinaiticus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls are all online. Additionally, there are several "[Critical Apparatuses"](http://www.ericlevy.com/Revel/Cosmogony/Guide%20to%20BHS%20Critical%20Aparatus.PDF) , the best are by [Bruce Metzger](http://www.amazon.com/Text-New-Testament-Transmission-Restoration/dp/0195072979) , that will catalog every known variation. These things can be checked, I'd just like a good example of something significant.

Wotcher! Luther is perhaps the most prolific German thinker. Kant, Hegel, Marx… their corpus pales in the face of Luther. Also, unlike Luther, they weren't concerned with the canon-texts of Western Christianity as received. Nehemiah seems a problematic and deeply engaging "half-book" to me. The crux of the first exile and the second temple. The crux of empire versus refoundation of the Temple. Nehemiah's complex relationship with the state, and his inability to enter the temple. The significance of the text emphasised by name lists. It seems like a link between Kings/Chronicles and second temple texts. As someone without faith, who has only the text, when I read Nehemiah I **know** that my reading is deficient from lack of study and context. But I also assume that major critics of the text have said something awesome. And Luther is just such an expansive critic who was deeply dedicated to the value of the text. What does Luther himself in his works expound in exegesis of Nehemiah, or, if he does not conduct an exegesis, where does Nehemiah fit in within Luther's side comments? Luther is a major reader whose impressions of a central text I find critically interesting. And sadly, given my lack of scholarly training, I can't conduct an adequate search myself.

Hans-Joachim Kraus’s monumental work on the Psalms often refers to Hermann Gunkel’s commentary on the Psalms. In his commentary on Psalm 28,2, Kraus writes the following: “H. Gunkel suggests that we supply הביטה: ‘Look up when I lift up my hands. . . . !’” (Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalm 1-59 (Minneapolis, MN: Crossway, 1993), p. 339). This is suggested to ‘force fit’ a certain meter for verse 2 (“two five-pulse meters”). I couldn’t find a reference anywhere regarding the inclusion of the verb ‘נבט’ (look, consider: (Hiphil)), and the Massoretic Text does not indicate any such variant reading: Basically, I’m looking for any reference of Gunkel’s to his suggested modification to this particular verse in Psalm 28. I believe there are also others examples.

Does a Christian apologist aiming to uphold the accuracy and reliability of modern Bibles require a strong understanding of textual criticism? Put differently, when making a comprehensive argument supporting the truthfulness of various claims within the Bible—such as the Genesis creation story or the historical account of Jesus's resurrection in the Gospels and Acts—would the Christian apologist need to rely on arguments from textual criticism to substantiate the claim that the content in our contemporary Bibles is indeed accurate and reliable, despite thousands of years of transcription, translation, and potential manipulation since the writing of the original manuscripts? If possible, I would appreciate answers referencing books that have been published at the intersection of Christian apologetics and textual criticism. --- *Food for thought for those who think apologetics is an irrelevant or unnecessary discipline* These are some of my previous questions on this topic. Some of the answers are quite insightful and worth the read: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99924/61679 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100436/61679 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100928/61679

The Westminster Confession says the following: > [WCF 1.8](https://www.presbyterian.org.au/index.php/index-for-wcf/chapter-1-holy-scripture) : The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and **by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages**, are therefore authentical; Robert Estienne's [*Editio Regia*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editio_Regia) , the first edition of the Greek New Testament with a critical apparatus, had been published almost a century before the Westminster Assembly. By that time it would have been well known across Europe that there were substantial variants in Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. What did the Westminster divines (ie, theologians attending the assembly) mean by saying that the New Testament has been "kept pure" by God? Does this phrase express a rejection of the task of textual criticism? If so, what was the text that they considered to have been "kept pure", and what did they make of all the variants?

Numerous skeptics assert that modern Bibles are the result of a succession of copies of copies of copies of copies, implying that across centuries of transcription, translation, and interpretation, or possibly due to motivations to promote certain narratives, the original text might have been altered, distorted, or even lost. This skepticism arises from concerns regarding the reliability and accuracy of ancient manuscripts, as well as the methodologies employed in their preservation and transmission over time. In the context of defending the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, particularly focusing on the gospels, are there any renowned books that challenge this skepticism? Do they provide arguments for the faithful preservation of the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) in our modern Bibles compared to the manuscripts originally penned by the gospel authors? --- **Note**. This question follows up on previous questions I have recently asked: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101169/61679 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101109/61679

When Dr Vance Smith , a Unitarian, was appointed to the Committee to revise the Authorised Version, public opinion objected to the appointment and Drs Westcott and Hort (Hort, also, leaning towards Unitarianism) said that if Dr Smith was not allowed then neither would they be involved in the revision. All three were permitted to contribute to the revision and during that revision Drs Westcott and Hort approached other members of the committee, singly, seeking to influence them in regard to the Greek text being translated - the Received Text, also called the *Textus Receptus*. The ensuing revision resulted in the imposition of a new Greek text (that of Drs Westcott and Hort) in 1881, something not envisaged by the purpose of the revision. Many objected to this, among them Dean John Burgon who, in his book ‘*Revision Revised*’, pointed out that between the two manuscripts upon which the W&H text strongly depended, Codex Aleph (*Sinaiticus*) and Codex B (*Vaticanus*), there was disagreement in over three thousand places *in just the four gospels*. Hermon Hoskier , in his book ‘*Codex B and its Allies*’ demonstrated that there had been a recension (a supposed ‘reversion’ to the original) in the fifth century, based on Egyptian and Coptic influence, resulting in a corrupted text. The *correction* of this recension, of the fifth century, resulted in the Received Text . Hermon Hoskier further demonstrated that the two manuscripts upon which Drs Westcott and Hort so much relied were, in fact, *proof of the corrupt recension*. The reason they survived, say Dean John Burgon and Hermon Hoskier, is that they were recognised for their fault and were little used, just retained as reference. The resulting Greek text of Westcott and Hort can be seen to be weakened, compared to the Received Text, in many places where the Deity of Christ and where the relationship of Father and Son are in view. (See below for just a few of those places.) Overall, about 9,000 alterations, additions and deletions were made to the Received Text (see Dr Scrivener’s comparative text of 1881) amounting to about 7% of the text. And it is noticeable to anyone who studies these changes in detail that there is a definite bias appearing in regard to the deliberate favouring of Codices Aleph and B on these particular occasions. What is the response of those who favour the so-called ‘Critical Text’ above the Received Text to the overall changes in emphasis seen in these texts - the bias evidently towards Unitarianism ? ---------------------------------------------- A full explanation of the following texts and the effect of changing them is available here . (See the PDF version for a much better display of the Greek letters.) - ... and they **worshipped him** ... Luke 24:52 - ... the **only begotten Son** ... John 1:18 - ... the Son of man, **which is in heaven** ... John 3:13 - ... purchased **with his own blood** ... Acts 20:28 - ... Christ came, **who is over all, God blessed for ever** ... Romans 9:5 - ... neither let us tempt **Christ** ... 1 Corinthians 10:9 - ... singing to the **Lord** ... Colossians 3:16 - ... **God** was manifest in flesh ... 1 Timothy 3:16 - ... the dead ... stand **before God** ... Revelation 20:12 ----------------------------- Note (edit) I have used the word 'bias' in its second meaning as listed by the Oxford English Dictionary - 'to exert an influence unduly'. This is exactly, precisely, a description (as demonstrated in detail by Herman Hoskier in '*Codex B and its Allies*' and Dean John Burgon in his book '*Revision Revised'*) of placing undue preponderance on just two manuscripts against the vast weight of evidence contained in over 5,000 other Uncials and miniscules, the Patristic Citations, the Versions and the Lectionary quotations. It results in a bias introduced in the fifth century and reproduced in the Critical Text as the above examples clearly indicate.

Based upon answers and comments to this question it appears that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that the Bible translations in use by all other Christian traditions have suffered some unspecified level of degradation (in accuracy) over time. Thus it was necessary for *an inspired translator, seer and revelator appointed by God to the task of recovering what was lost*. It is claimed that the Joseph Smith Translation (also called the Inspired Translation) corrects many of the errors in the degraded translations of the Bible. There is massive amounts of research (far too much to enumerate) in areas of biblical manuscript scholarship, textual criticism, etc. which stand in defense of the Scripture's accurate preservation and descent to us through time. A simple google search will turn up an almost unreadable volume of material demonstrating the near impossibility of Scriptural corruption such as this from the City Bible Forum . It seems characteristic of religions which proffer an alternative Scripture, such as Islam, to declare that the Bible is esteemed but only insofar as it's discrepancies are corrected by the alternative text. What is the scholarly evidence upon which Church of Jesus Christ bases its claim that the Bible has been degraded and that the truths it once contained need to be recovered?

[An old CSE question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/91994/how-do-biblical-unitarians-explain-1-timothy-316-which-says-god-was-manifest) which has recently attracted a bounty has an answer that criticises the King James Version translation of 1 Timothy 3:16. This question is not about that specific Bible verse but is about the claim that the KJV is biased when it comes to Scriptures that support the Trinity, that it is peppered with error and is not a true translation but an adaptation of previously released translations with selective interpretation. The King James Version used the Received Text (the Textus Receptus) in the compilation of the New Testament. In 1881 Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort printed their New Testament in Greek, later known as the Critical Text. Dismissing the Textus Receptus as an inferior text rife with errors, Westcott and Hort compiled a new Greek text, with special focus on two fourth-century manuscripts, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. The Critical Text has become the standard Greek text used for modern interpretation and translation for nearly two generations. The Critical Text was the one chiefly used for the English Revised Version and the later American Standard Version. Today, the updated and revised Critical Text is the Greek manuscript basis for the New International Version, the New American Standard Bible, the English Standard Version, and virtually every other modern English translation of the Bible. My question is whether there is any evidence to suggest that the Critical Text is less biased when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity or if the Received Text is a more reliable and authentic rendition of New Testament Greek. See this question about the Unitarian influence with Westcott and Hort: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/90360/how-do-proponents-of-the-critical-text-respond-to-the-claim-that-it-preserves

I have browsed the Internet quite a bit but could not find the scribal abbreviation for the Diatessaron (maybe an established siglum for it does not exist).

I was wondering where I can find the actual simple online reasons for the removal of the "accepted" verses in the KJV, in the ESV bible version listed on this site, because I have not found them so far, Thanks. https://www.scionofzion.com/esv_exposed.htm