Restoring Apostolic Faith

Why the questions around versions, manuscripts, and preservation matter — and what they don’t mean.

Introduction

It’s common today to hear questions like: “If the Bible has so many manuscripts and translations, can we really trust it?” or “Is the Bible still infallible, or did errors creep in?” These are good questions. The goal here is not to undermine the authority of Scripture—far from it—but rather to ground our confidence in a historically honest way. When we talk about how the Scriptures were transmitted, we do so in the spirit of our shared commitment to the earliest (1st–2nd century) apostolic witness and the chain of the church, before later theological overlays clouded things.

The Human Side of the Scriptures

From the outset, the Scriptures were transmitted by human hands: prophets, apostles, scribes, copyists. It must not surprise us that variations exist. For instance:

• In the Hebrew Bible (the Tanakh) we find that textual variants appear in the “dead” and “silent” centuries: e.g., the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls showed multiple textual strands in the second temple period.  

• In the New Testament period, we do not have the original autographs (the manuscripts the authors wrote) surviving. We have copies of copies. Scholars admit that scribes made mistakes, omissions, additions.  

• Even among early Church Fathers, their quotations of “the same verse” often differ—suggesting they were working with different manuscript traditions or quoting more freely.  

In short: the transmission of Scripture is human in form, divine in origin. That distinction is key.

The “Textus Receptus” and the “Majority Text” — Why They Keep Coming Up

Since we’re working with this large monograph project and you’ll encounter these terms frequently, let’s set them out clearly.

• Textus Receptus (TR): This is the Greek New Testament text (and its print-editions) derived in the early 16th century by Erasmus and others. It was the basis for the King James Version New Testament (1611). The manuscripts behind TR were relatively few, mostly late-medieval Byzantine type, and Erasmus even filled some gaps by back-translating from Latin.  

• Majority Text (MT): The idea here is: look at the majority of Greek manuscripts (most depict the Byzantine tradition) and assume the reading found most often is likely original. Advocates like John William Burgon argued this strongly in the 19th century.

• They matter because they shape how one treats translation, doctrine and preservation. If you believe that the TR must be the only “true” text of the New Testament, you will interpret variants differently (and sometimes fight over every comma, participle, or translational nuance). If you believe the MT is the only safe text, likewise. If you adopt a “critical text” (older manuscripts + wider evidence) view, you interpret differently again.

The bottom line: these textual bases are not about peripheral trivia—they affect what you read as “the Word of God,” how you preach it, how you defend doctrine, how you understand preservation.

What “Infallibility” Means—and What It Doesn’t

Here’s where your anticipated question comes in: “Are you saying the Bible isn’t perfect?”

Yes—I am saying the Bible isn’t infallible in the modern sense of: “every letter, punctuation, word in every translation is exactly what the original author wrote and God preserved unchanged in transmission.”

Here’s what we can say:

• The original autographs (the very first manuscripts) were inspired and infallible in the sense that God-breathed them.

• What has come down to us is a chain of custody—human copies, translations, manuscripts with variants. That doesn’t mean God failed—rather that human copying is fallible. Yet God’s purpose for Scripture has been fulfilled. See:

“We will … maintain that the God who gave the Scriptures … has exercised a remarkable care over his ‘Word’ … and has enabled it to accomplish the purpose for which he gave it.”  

• What matters most is the message, the gospel truth, the covenant-story, the meaning—rather than worship of a particular edition or translation.

• The early Jewish scribal tradition itself recognised variants: in the Masoretic Text, the scribes added marginal notes (masora) because they knew human copying had risks.  

So: trusting the Bible does not demand ignoring or denying variants or scribal imperfections. Trusting the Bible means trusting that God has preserved His Word in such a way that the gospel remains clear, effective and authoritative, even as we navigate human transmission.

Why All This Arguing Over Words, Commas, Participles Happens

I feel like I have to explain often that many disputes fixate on one word, a punctuation mark, a verbal participle. Why?

• Because some doctrines hinge on “how we read it exactly.” If your theological system depends on “this word must mean X,” you’ll fight for that word.

• Because when people treat one edition of the Bible (say the KJV) as the only perfectly preserved Word of God, they feel any variant is a threat.

• Because human habits: we like certainty, we like easily defined proof-texts, we like to claim “we’ve got the true text.” But often we overlook the complex history of manuscripts.

The better posture: recognise the mess and stay humble. Be vigorous in truth, but suspicious of making entire doctrines rest on disputed textual minutiae alone.

Final Thought

You don’t need to be a textual scholar to be a Christian. You need to be a follower of Christ. But because we are independent researchers, and theologians, we owe a little intellectual honesty. We owe the early church this much: they grappled with Scripture not as perfect print editions but as sacred texts handled through time. We enter into their intellectual humility—and we can trust the Bible boldly, but not naïvely.

Q & A Section

Q1. “Are you saying I shouldn’t trust the Bible?”

A1. No. I’m saying you can trust the Bible—but you ought to trust it by the rules of its own history, not by a myth of perfect transmission. The Word is infallible in its origin and purpose; our manuscripts are reliable enough that we can know what God has said in essentials—but not so perfect that human copying never erred.

Q2. “If the manuscripts differ, how can the message be unchanged?”

A2. Because the variants are overwhelmingly minor (spelling, word order, synonyms). The core gospel message, the cross, resurrection, salvation, the kingdom—those remain clear and constant. Scholars of textual criticism say that in “practically every detail” the text has been transmitted in a reliable form.  

Q3. “Does this mean doctrine is unreliable because of variants?”

A3. Not if you approach doctrine wisely. Problems arise when you build a doctrinal fortress on a particular alleged “perfect word‐in‐Greek” or assume a particular printed edition is God’s inerrant mold. Instead: build doctrine on the message of Christ, tested by Scripture, aware of transmission history.

Q4. “What about comma placement, verb participles, word usage—aren’t these crucial?”

A4. Yes—they can matter. But they shouldn’t be the ground of church divisions. For instance: deciding the entire soteriology of the church because of one Greek participle is risky if that participle is a variant reading. It’s far better to say: “Here’s a preferred reading, here’s why, here’s how it affects meaning” rather than “this word must be preserved perfectly or the doctrine fails.”

Q5. “Does this view compromise ‘inspiration’ or ‘authority’ of Scripture?”

A5. No—not if you keep your categories right. Inspiration pertains to the original authors and God’s sovereign purpose. Transmission pertains to human copying. Authority pertains to the Word’s capacity to speak truth, shape faith and life. We maintain all three, but distinguish them clearly: inspired originals, faithful transmission, authoritative consequence