Do Variants Undermine or Confirm the New Testament?

Textual Variants and the Reliability of the New Testament: A Scholarly Defense

Introduction: Do Variants Undermine or Confirm the New Testament?

Skeptics often argue that the presence of textual variants in the New Testament manuscripts undermines its reliability. A common claim is: “With so many differences in the manuscripts, how can we trust that we have the original message?” However, a careful examination of the nature of these variants reveals the opposite: textual variations actually confirm the accuracy of the New Testament we possess today.

The early church had a decentralized transmission of the text—meaning that no single authority controlled the copying process. This led to thousands of manuscripts with minor variations, yet, remarkably, the original wording can be reconstructed with a high degree of certainty. Even more fascinating, some textual variants are reflected in Jesus’ and the apostles’ quotations from Scripture, demonstrating that textual variants existed even during their time.

This article will examine key categories of textual variants, their significance, and why they affirm rather than undermine the reliability of the New Testament.

1. Categories of Textual Variants

New Testament scholars classify textual variants into four main types:

(A) Spelling and Nonsense Variants

The vast majority of textual differences—over 75%—are simple misspellings, word order changes, or accidental repetitions/omissions that do not affect meaning.

• Example: The Greek name John (Ἰωάννης) is sometimes spelled Ιωανης (without an extra ν).

• Another example: kai (καί, meaning “and”) is sometimes written as kai kai (a simple scribal duplication).

These variants have zero impact on doctrine or meaning.

(B) Synonym Substitutions and Word Order Differences

Greek is a highly inflected language, meaning that word order is flexible. This results in variations that mean the same thing.

• Example: In some manuscripts, John 4:1 says “Jesus knew that the Pharisees had heard…” while others say “The Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard…”

• Both refer to Jesus, and the meaning is unaffected.

• Example: Matthew 1:18 –

• Some manuscripts read “the birth of Jesus Christ” (Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ)

• Others read “the birth of Christ Jesus” (Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ)

• The order changes, but the meaning is identical.

(C) Meaningful but Not Viable Variants

Some changes clearly occurred later and are not considered original because they appear in only a few manuscripts.

• Example: Luke 6:22 – A few manuscripts add “falsely” to Jesus’ statement about people speaking evil against His followers.

• These do not appear in the earliest and best manuscripts and are considered later insertions by scribes attempting to clarify meaning.

(D) Meaningful and Viable Variants

This is the category that skeptics focus on. These variants involve different wording that could affect how a passage is read, yet they do not affect core Christian doctrine.

2. Key Textual Variants in the New Testament

(A) The Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20)

One of the most well-known textual issues is the ending of Mark. The earliest and most reliable manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, 4th century) end at Mark 16:8, while later manuscripts include Mark 16:9–20.

• The shorter ending concludes with the women fleeing the tomb and saying nothing out of fear.

• The longer ending contains post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, including His command to preach the gospel and the mention of miraculous signs.

Evidence for Authenticity:

• Early church fathers Irenaeus (AD 180) and Tatian (AD 170) cite the longer ending, suggesting it was in circulation early.

• Even though early manuscripts omit it, the passage does not introduce new theology; all of its teachings are found in other parts of the New Testament.

(B) The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11)

The story of the woman caught in adultery is absent in the earliest manuscripts (P66, P75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus). However, it appears in later manuscripts, sometimes in different places (e.g., after Luke 21).

Evidence for Authenticity:

• Early church fathers like Didymus the Blind (c. 400 AD) reference the story.

• The passage has a distinct style, which suggests it may have been an independent tradition added later.

• Whether original or not, the passage aligns with Jesus’ known character and teachings.

(C) 1 John 5:7–8 (The Comma Johanneum)

One of the most controversial textual variants is 1 John 5:7–8, which in later manuscripts reads:

“For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.”

This explicit Trinitarian formula does not appear in any Greek manuscript before the 16th century and is absent from the earliest Latin and Greek texts.

Evidence for Authenticity:

• Scholars widely agree this was a later insertion and was likely added to bolster Trinitarian doctrine.

• Even if omitted, the doctrine of the Trinity is supported throughout the New Testament (Matthew 28:19, John 1:1, etc.).

3. When Jesus and the Apostles Quote Textual Variants

Interestingly, Jesus and the apostles sometimes cite Old Testament passages that reflect textual variants!

(A) Jesus’ Quotation of Isaiah 61 (Luke 4:16–21)

When Jesus reads Isaiah 61 in the synagogue, His reading includes the phrase “and recovery of sight to the blind”—a phrase missing in the Masoretic Text but present in the Septuagint (LXX).

• This suggests that Jesus (or Luke) relied on a textual tradition that differed slightly from the Hebrew text we have today.

(B) Hebrews 1:6 and Deuteronomy 32:43

Hebrews 1:6 quotes Deuteronomy 32:43, saying:

“Let all God’s angels worship Him.”

This line is missing from the Masoretic Text but appears in the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls.

• This suggests that the author of Hebrews used a textual variant that was known in the 1st century.

4. Do Variants Change Core Christian Doctrine?

The answer is a resounding NO.

Even in places where textual variants exist, no essential Christian doctrine—such as the deity of Christ, salvation by grace, or the resurrection—is affected.

Dr. Daniel Wallace, a leading textual critic, summarizes this well:

“The New Testament is the most accurately copied ancient text in the world. Even with its variants, we can reconstruct the original with over 99% certainty.”

Conclusion: Variants Strengthen Our Confidence

Rather than undermining the New Testament, textual variants confirm its accuracy by:

1. Demonstrating a reliable, well-preserved transmission process.

2. Revealing that no major doctrine has been changed or lost.

3. Showing that even Jesus and the apostles interacted with textual variants.

The existence of textual variants shows that scribes carefully preserved the text while allowing us to cross-check different manuscript traditions. Instead of a controlled, error-prone process (as in the Quran’s textual history), the New Testament’s decentralized transmission ensures we can reconstruct the original text with confidence.

In short, textual criticism does not threaten Christianity—it strengthens it.