Textual Discrepancies & How They Could Impact Christianity

Whenever textual criticisms of the New Testament are brought up in a discussion, the classic response is that the discrepancies don’t impact the basic tenets of Christianity. The purpose of this thread is to take an objective look at some of the verses that scholars consider to be later additions to some of the New Testament manuscripts and see whether they actually impact any or all of the basic tenets of Christianity.Realistically, the early Christian writings reflect the development of the basic Christian beliefs. So odds are the writings were chosen for the canon because they supported or could be used to support the tenets of the religion that became orthodox. IOW, the writings came after the beliefs. For that reason I would also like to look at how these discrepancies could also impact general Christian layperson beliefs, practices, and traditions that may or may not be the same across the sects of Christianity.Here are 12 Basic Tenets of Christianity that I found on the internet.1. Jesus Christ is the Only Way to Eternal Salvation With God the Father
2. We Are Saved by Grace Through Faith — Not by Works
3. Jesus Christ is the Son of God
4. The Incarnation of Jesus Christ
5. The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ From the Grave
6. The Ascension of Jesus Christ
7. The Doctrine of the Trinity
8. The Holy Bible is the Inspired and Infallible Word of God
9. We Are Baptized With the Holy Spirit at the Moment of Salvation
10. Regeneration by the Holy Spirit
11. The Doctrine of Hell
12. The 2nd Coming of Jesus Back to our EarthFrom the research of Bart D. Ehrman, these are from the top ten most familiar verses that weren't originally in the New Testament. (Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, Bart D. Ehrman, 2005, Pgs 265-266)I feel these verses could have an impact on certain tenets, beliefs and practices of Christianity. IMO, this impacts the Doctrine of the TrinityUnfortunately, that verse isn’t in the earliest Greek manuscripts. With the sure thing gone, apologists have to pull together a lot more verses from various writings to seemingly support this tenet. 1 John was supposedly written about 90-120 CE. Verses in the KJV which do not appear in the NIV & other contemporary translations. This site allows a nice side by side comparision.So instead of: The early Greeks manuscript actually had: Luke is the only gospel that said new covenant. This can impact the belief that Jesus ushered in the new covenant spoken of in Jeremiah. I feel this is the primary verse that Christian Scientists use to support faith healing.This is also part of the larger missing section of Mark 16:9-20:1. This section adds a resurrection narrative to the story in Mark and gives the directive to He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.It’s the basis for door to door Christian proselytizing and missionary work abroad.I do feel that these added portions have impacted Christianity and the fact that they aren’t in the earlier manuscripts can impact basic tenets, practices, and beliefs. I have not said that they disprove the validity of Christianity altogether or impact all tenets, practices, and beliefs.This discussion is about verses or sections of the New Testament that aren’t in the earlier Greek manuscripts and how they could impact basic Christian tenets, beliefs, traditions, and practices.I've brought up a few, if anyone knows of any other verses that aren't in the earlier manuscripts, please share them and how you feel they could impact Christian tenets, beliefs, traditions, or practices.This discussion is not about whether the Christian tenets are right or wrong, morality issues, or whether God exists or is good or bad.Bible Study or A&I please. Thanks

Ehrman's book is simply the source for the top ten most familiar verses that weren't "originally" in the New Testament. Whether one agrees with Ehrman's conclusions or not, either these verses were in the oldest manuscripts or they weren't. This discussion is about verses that aren't in the oldest manuscripts and how they impact Christianity. Address my arguments, not Ehrman's.

quote:

---

This verse is a late addition to the text. It is not original. It is not included in most modern translations. But its absence does NOT impact the doctrine of the Trinity. There are plenty of other verses that attribute deity to Jesus and to the Holy Spirit.

---

Didn't really read my argument did you or the links I provided? The Doctrine of the Trinity is: As this link showed, yes there are many verses used to show that Jesus is a god, but that isn't the issue here. Since the Bible states that there is only one God, the orthodox group of Christianity had to find a way to counter the claims that they were polytheistic. The idea of one god in three persons is really only supported by 1 John 5:7. There are two other verses in the Gospel of John that could be construed to support the Trinity, but they are weak. (John 14:10 & John 10:30)

quote:

---

How does this relate to the 12 "basic tenets of Christianity" that you quoted above? I don't see this as any of them.

---

Again, didn't read my arguments. From Message 1: For that reason I would also like to look at how these discrepancies could also impact general Christian layperson beliefs, practices, and traditions that may or may not be the same across the sects of Christianity.

quote:

---

1) Again, I don't see how this relates to any of the "basic tenets of Christianity" that you quoted above.
2) Essentially all of the information in the last part of Mark (which I agree is non-original) can be found at the end of Matthew, the end of Luke, or the beginning of Acts, all of which ARE original.

---

Mark and Matthew are different. Luke and Acts don't really address the same thing. I'd appreciate it if you would provide the verse numbers when referring to other verses. Then I know we are looking at the same verses.The Matthew version of the Great Commission is the most familiar, but it isn't the same as Mark.The task in Mark is to proclaim the "good news", not teach. The door to door Christians aren't trying to teach anyone to obey what Jesus had commanded, they are spreading the "good news" and telling people they are condemned if they don't believe and become a Christian.The addition to Mark also brings up the idea that these signs accompany those who believe: driving out demons, speaking in tongues, handling snakes, drinking poison, and healing people.I still feel that the commission in Mark impacts the layperson differently than the commission in Matthew. The churches that handle snakes and drink poison probably wouldn't be doing those rituals if the text wasn't added or preachers stopped using it.There's a difference between teaching (mathteu) and preaching (kruss). So in Matthew, they were to gain students and teach them the commands that Jesus had taught his own students, not preach the "good news".Edited by purpledawn, : Forgot Subtitle

quote:

---

Historically, the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated to resolve the biblical claims that 1) God is one, 2) the Father is God, 3) Jesus is God, 4) the Holy Spirit is God. Each of these claims is based on undisputedly original passages of Scripture. The historical doctrine of the Trinity almost certainly did not derive from 1 John 5:7, since the Trinitarian phrase in this passage almost certainly did not exist at the time.

---

I didn't say that it did. Are you just going to rephrase what I say or make a point concerning my responses? 1 John 5:7 was the cleanest path and is used by some to support the Doctrine of the Trinity. The other path takes a lot more work and squinting to make the case.Some people are KJV only and do use 1 John 5:7 to support the Trinity. Have all groups opted out?

quote:

---

Mk 16:1-8 is probably original. Mk 16:9-20 is probably a later addition, based largely on other biblical accounts.

​

Mk 16:9-11 speaks of Jesus' resurrection and post-resurrection appearance to Mary, and her reporting to the disciples. This seems to be based largely on Lk 24:10-11, and partly on Mt 28:9-10 and Jn 20:14-18.

​

Mk 16:12-13 speaks of Jesus' appearance to two men on the road to Emmaus. It seems to be a very brief summary of Lk 24:13-35.

​

Mk 16:14-18 contains the Great Commission and comments about handling serpents and miraculous healing. The Great Commission is similar (but not identical) to Mt 28:16-20 and Acts 1:1-11. The comments about miraculous healing and handling serpents are not at the end of any of the other gospels, but may be based on Acts 28:1-6.

​

Mk 16:19-20 appears to be a very brief summary of the book of Acts.

---

Again rephrasing. So we agree the commission expressed in Mark is a different task than in Matthew.

quote:

---

I don't see the relevance of this to your case. 1 John 5:7 was NOT the path used in the original historical formulation of the Doctrine of the Trinity. It is NOT the path used by Evangelical scholars today. Its in-authenticity does NOT impact Christianity. So why is it relevant?

---

Scholars have known about these discrepancies for centuries, but the layperson hasn't and doesn't know about them depending on how and if they actually study the Bible.I didn't say that 1 John 5:7 was used to formulate the Doctrine of the Trinity. I very clearly stated that the orthodox group of Christianity had to find a way to counter the claims that they were polytheistic, which you also supported in Message 12.In general, these discrepancies are relevant because they show that Christian Tenets and Doctrines are not based on the Bible. The New Testament writings are based on the various Christian beliefs that started developing in the first century and were adjusted at times to support the culture and orthodox group as they developed.These discrepancies also show us that early Christians had no problem changing the texts when needed and that the church gave authority to the writings in the Bible. The Bible is not the source of authority.As I showed with the Johannine Comma, the support for the Doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament is very soft without it. Does that mean that Christians are going to drop the doctrine? Of course not, because the Bible isn't the basis for the belief. That's why we have apologetics. I'm not really addressing what scholars teach and don't teach. Churches I've belonged to don't address half the stuff we do here at EvC. The arguments that are presented here at EvC are what inspired the topic.

quote:

---

Yes, a different verb is used, and it has a slightly different focus. The in-authentic end of Mark seems to combine themes from other Scriptures which ARE authentic. So again, I don't see how the in-authenticity of the end of Mark impacts Christianity.

---

From Message 1Realistically, these discrepancies can only impact individuals. These discrepancies have been known about for centuries by scholars and some Bibles have been changed accordingly. I guess it is lucky for the religion that most Christians don't actually read the Bible as a whole. Even the Trinitarian phrase in Matthew is a little suspect to some scholars, but since it is in the oldest manuscripts, the doubts are based on the actual baptizing practices found in the New Testament writings. In Acts (Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5, Acts 22:16), people were baptized in the name of Jesus. We don't read of anyone being baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. In Paul's writings, people were baptized in the name of Jesus, not the triune. (1Cor 1:12-15, 1Cor 6:11, Rom 6:3, Gal 3:27)The writings of Eusebius also cast some doubt. That doesn't mean that Christianity as a whole is going to change, but these discrepancies can impact individuals and their beliefs depending on where they have their faith invested.

---

The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin. --Gospel of Mary

quote:

---

No, the Doctrine of the Trinity is based on the Bible, as the participants in the Council of Nicea would strongly affirm! The Bible teaches that God is one. The Bible also teaches that three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are God. The Doctrine of the Trinity is the simultaneous affirmation of both biblical truths, stating that God is one substance or essence in three persons.

---

In Message 12 you stated: The idea that the three are one substance is not in the texts. As you noted the idea was formulated to resolve the problem of three gods since Christianity was supposedly monotheist.The idea of one God in three persons argument is not supported by the text. It is derived more from Plato than the writings in the New Testament. If you want to debate it in more depth you can start another thread, but the obvious verses are questionable. As I've said earlier, not all early Christian groups believed Jesus was a god. Not all the Gospels proclaim Jesus to be a god. So the group that became mainstream had to resolve the appearace of worshiping more than one god if they claim to be monotheistic.

This thread isn't about prophecy, please don't continue to take it down that path.The thread is about textual discrepancies and how they could impact Christianity.

quote:

---

Actually, the variant readings which significantly affect the sense of a passage are less than one-half of 1 percent of the New Testament, and none of these affect any basic doctrine of the Christian faith.

---

I know that's the line, I said it in Message 1. That is what this discussion is about. To discuss or debate whether the discrepancies individually or as a whole could impact the basic tenets, doctrines, traditions, or beliefs.

quote:

---

The textural critic has given a studied judgment on many of these significant variants, so that for all practical purposes the modern critical editions of the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible represent, with their footnotes, exactly what the autographs contained - line for line, word for word, and even letter for letter.

---

They have discerned what the originals probably said. In reality, they can only take them back to the earliest copies. As I mentioned in Message 16, the Trinitarian phrase in Matthew is also suspect, but is still in published Bibles.Since Christianity doesn't look at the writings within the Bible as having individual purposes that may differ, there will always be a verse somewhere that can be pulled away from the context of the culture and the intent of the author to give the illusion of support.I want to look at this objectively. Getting away from the emotional devotional baggage that sways our thoughts.The basic tenet that the Bible is inspired and infallible could be impacted by these discrepancies. Since we don't have the original autographs, no one can prove whether they are true or not. These discrepancies do show us that changing what was written was not uncommon no matter the reason.Margin notes in 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 has been conveniently thrown in women's faces when it suited the institutions needs. Having women keep silent was not a practice of Paul's. It may have been a later practice due to cultural laws, which I have no problem with. Religion does change with the civilization, otherwise Christians would all be dressed like first century Jews. The problem is they aren't consistent.The scholars also try to discern why a text was changed such as the verses concerning Christ's agony at Gethsemane. (Luke 22:43—44) The author of Luke didn't present Jesus as suffering and was accepted by Marcion as canonical scripture.The author of Luke doesn't really present a suffering servant.

---

The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin. --Gospel of Mary

quote:

---

Present your statistics which lead you to another view of the proportion of variant texts to the whole, which you find serious or devastating to major orthodox Christian teachings.

---

I'm not looking at statistics. I'm looking at the actual discrepancies and how they could impact Christian tenets, beliefs, traditions, practices, etc.

quote:

---

I think there is a difference in the abuse of a passage and the mistake in the text.

​

An accurate text is not free from twisting, abuse, exageration. Practically any text, even one more favorable to Christian sisters, might be somehow made to argue someone's spiritually destructive agenda.

​

All things considered, it is hard to fault Paul for male chauvinism of the bigotted and oppressive type, ie. Moslem style.

---

But it is a discrepancy that has impacted women in Christianity. If the verse wasn't there it couldn't be abused.Galatians 3:28 simply says that all are equal in Christ, which is consistent with what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians. The "margin note" doesn't fit.

quote:

---

Let's consider this word of Paul along with, his practice of not letting a woman exercise authority over a man. I would note that it is perhaps a personal matter because Paul says - "I do not allow ..."

---

I assume you're referring to 1 Timothy. 1 Timothy is not considered to be written by Paul. It was written about 100-150CE. Early Christian Writings

quote:

---

Before Luke wrote of Gethsemene we have the writer of Hebrews (probably Paul) telling us that Christ offered up tearful cries and petitions to the Father for Him to be saved out of death.

---

It doesn't matter what another writer says. The author's story in Luke was changed to support one view of Christ and not be used by another view of Christ. Luke does not present Jesus as suffering. That's why the gospel was favored by the Marcion group.Like I said earlier, there were many beliefs concerning whether Jesus was human, divine, or half and half.

quote:

---

What would you call His experience of resisting temptation in the wilderness in Luke 4:1-13 ?

---

My comment was concerning Gethsemane; but the in the verses you present, the author doesn't depict suffering.

quote:

---

As for the wilderness temptation ? I don't know what kind of bias would enfluence a reader to understand that to go without food for 40 days in a desert did not involve some suffering.

---

You're not listening. The author didn't depict Jesus as suffering. He just says Jesus was tempted by the devil and he ate nothing during those days, and at the end of them he was hungry. No words described suffering.Jar already commented on how fasting was carried out in ancient Judaism.

---

The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin. --Gospel of Mary

quote:

---

A simple person can see two things in every Gospel.

​

1.) Jesus was a servant.

​

2.) Jesus suffered.

​

So Jesus was a suffering servant.

​

It is not a complicated theological treatise. The simple and opened minded can see it.

---

We aren't talking about every gospel. We're talking about Luke. In the verses you shared the author did not depict suffering. By suffering I assume you mean issues like physical pain and/or mental anguish. If it is otherwise, please explain. The added text concerning Gethsemane depicts mental anguish. Without it, no mental anguish is perceived.Yes, Christians today conflate the gospels to create yet another gospel.It would make an interesting thread to see if each gospel does actually depict Jesus as a servant and if each gospel does depict Jesus a suffering depending on what one feels suffering means.

quote:

---

You are putting your emphasis on how much the suffering is discribed, whether mental or physical, what have you. That is beside the point. As long as you have a teaching from Jesus of a REJECTED King of Israel, you have the classic "Suffering Servant" paradoxical view of the Messianic promise.

---

Although the author of Luke calls the story a parable it isn't. There is no moral teaching. The story is an allegory and if it was a teaching by Jesus it was probably nodding back to Isa 5:1-7. The characters may not represent what Christians think they do since Jesus had a different view of what was coming than later Christians. If you want to get into that in more detail, you may want to take it up in the Parables 101 thread.What suffering actually is, is very much the point. Being rejected doesn't automatically mean one suffers (physical pain or mental anguish). Yes, it is important whether the author depicts someone as actually suffering or not. It was important to what the author was trying to tell his audience.We can see why these textual criticisms don't actually impact the religion as a whole. Catch phrases have no actual meaning and stories are conflated to present a new overall view. You've implied it yourself by your responses. It doesn't matter what the author actually says. We can interpret the stories to fit our beliefs. Interesting.

quote:

---

By all means, put the goal post back then. Specifically, you have no grounds to contradict the details given by Luke about Jesus wilderness fast.

---

The wilderness fast story doesn't really fit in this thread. I haven't found information stating that later manuscripts differ from earlier ones concerning that story and neither you nor jar are arguing that issue.Please take interpretation issues not dealing with any missing text to another thread.Thanks
PurpleDawn

quote:

---

It is rather esoteric and obscure. And if that were the ONLY verse on the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit I doubt that it would have been the cause of a trinitarian view of God.

---

Didn't imply it was the cause. The later trinitarian view that developed was the cause of the addition.It was translated into Greek from the Latin and added to the texts. Below is a comment by Dr. Bruce M. Metzger on 1 John 5:7-8, from his book, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart, 1993). The Johannine CommaThe idea of the trinity was not one of the beliefs of the very early Christians. It was a later development influenced by the pagan philosopher Plato. IOW, the Doctrine of the Trinity was inspired by Plato.Here is a comment from the well-known trnitarian historian, Mosheim, a Lutheran; concerning the Council of Nice (352AD) where the Doctrine of the Trinity was first officially formulated. The History of the Doctrine of the TrinityThe trinity was inspired by the pagans and philosophy. The Johannine Comma was added as a means to give authority to the belief. It was in the Latin but not the Greek. It was then translated from the Latin and added to the later Greek manuscripts to give authority to the Latin manuscripts.These discrepancies show us that man would change what other's had written to preserve traditions and beliefs.Adding lines from one gospel to another to make them complement each other. Adding lines to combat opposing Christian views.These discrepancies have impacted what Christians are taught, what they believe, and what they practice. Obviously these vary between the sects.

---

The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin. --Gospel of Mary