Introduction to the Nature of Variants

In the discipline of New Testament Textual Criticism, scholars and students alike must come to terms not only with the quantity of textual variants but more crucially with their nature. The magnitude—an estimated 400,000 textual variants—has often been cited by critics like Bart Ehrman to undermine the reliability of the New Testament text. However, when we examine these variants through a rigorous and objective lens grounded in the documentary method, the sheer number becomes less intimidating. The central question becomes: What kind of variants are these? That is, are they meaningful and viable? This article addresses the classification, nature, and impact of these discrepancies, reinforcing the stability and reliability of the New Testament text from an evangelical standpoint committed to biblical inerrancy.

Understanding the Groups of Textual Variants

In evaluating the textual integrity of the New Testament, the discussion must move beyond the sheer quantity of variants and into their qualitative nature. Again, the total number of textual variants—estimated at around 400,000—appears staggering until one considers the typology and significance of those variants. These can be classified by meaningfulness and viability. A meaningful variant alters the interpretation of a passage, whereas a viable variant possesses sufficient manuscript support to potentially reflect the original text.

For instance, in the Gospel of John, a variant involving whether the author wrote “he” or “the Lord” may seem minor at first glance. However, this change introduces theological nuance. If John used the title “the Lord” prior to Jesus’ resurrection, it would be the only such instance, suggesting a theological emphasis worth examining. This does not alter who Jesus is but can influence how one expounds the passage.

A variant is deemed viable if it appears in manuscripts that are ancient or closely aligned with early textual traditions. For example, a unique reading found only in a single 14th-century Greek manuscript would generally lack viability due to its late origin and solitary witness.

Significance / Authenticity	Not Meaningful	Meaningful

Not Viable

Spelling errors, duplicate words, or scribal omissions that do not alter meaning. Most of the 400,000+ variants fall here—over 99%—but they don’t originate from early witnesses.

Scribal additions in late manuscripts that change meaning but lack early support.

Viable but Not Meaningful

Misspellings, movable nu, rare word-order shifts, article usage, proper name variations—well-attested in early and diverse manuscripts but don’t impact sense.

Rare in this quadrant.

Grouping Textual Variants: Meaningfulness and Viability

Textual variants can be classified in various ways, but a particularly useful method for evaluating their importance involves examining two criteria: meaningfulness and viability. A variant is meaningful if it alters the sense or interpretation of the text to any degree, while it is viable if it possesses sufficient manuscript support to be considered a potential reading of the original autograph. This grid yields four logical groupings:

1. Viable but not Meaningful

2. Not Viable and Not Meaningful

3. Meaningful but not Viable

4. Meaningful and Viable

The vast majority—well over 99%—fall into the first three categories and do not impact doctrine, theology, or the message of the gospel.

Viable but Not Meaningful Variants

The most prevalent category includes those that are viable but lack meaningfulness. These include orthographic discrepancies (spelling), transpositions (word order changes), and stylistic alternations. Spelling differences account for over 70% of all textual variants. One classic example involves the name “John” in Greek, which can appear as Ἰωάνης (Ioanes) or Ἰωάννης (Ioannes). Both forms are phonetically similar and semantically identical.

Similarly, movable nu variations, such as the addition or omission of a final “ν” in certain words, are akin to the English distinction between “a” and “an.” These have no impact on meaning. Greek’s inflected nature allows for flexible word order; thus, “Jesus loves Paul” can be rendered in multiple ways without altering the sentence’s meaning. Likewise, the article “the” (ὁ, ἡ, τό) often appears with proper names in Greek, yet its presence or absence does not affect translation. A phrase like “the Joseph and the Mary were looking for the Jesus” illustrates the frequency and stylistic variance of article usage.

Furthermore, the Greek New Testament contains a vast number of postpositive conjunctions like δέ, μέν, and τε, which frequently go untranslated due to their weakened semantic force. These can be placed flexibly in a sentence, thereby exponentially increasing the number of possible Greek renderings without changing the core meaning. Theoretically, one could express “John loves Mary” in over a thousand syntactically distinct but semantically identical ways.

These sorts of variants, while plentiful, underscore the linguistic flexibility of Koine Greek and do not threaten the reliability of the textual tradition. They are detectable, classifiable, and pose no doctrinal hazard.

Not Viable and Not Meaningful Variants

Variants in this category are typically the result of scribal errors in late or isolated manuscripts. For instance, a variant that appears only in one 14th-century manuscript and is unsupported by earlier or independent witnesses is generally dismissed. These are often the product of careless mistakes, homoioteleuton (omission due to similar word endings), dittography (repetition), or nonsensical readings that are easily recognizable.

Meaningful but Not Viable Variants

This group contains readings that are meaningful but lack sufficient manuscript support to be considered viable. These are often intriguing for illustrative purposes but are not candidates for inclusion in the critical text. For example, in 1 Thessalonians 2:7, a well-known textual problem involves whether Paul wrote ἤπιοι (“gentle”) or νήπιοι (“infants”). The difference is one Greek letter (ν vs η), and due to its placement next to the previous word ending in nu, the potential for auditory confusion during dictation is high. This kind of error would have been easily corrected by Paul before dispatching the letter.

Some readings, while formally “real words,” are clearly spurious. A humorous example involves a late manuscript reading ἵπποι (“horses”) instead of either ἤπιοι or νήπιοι, yielding the absurd translation: “we became horses among you.” Another notable illustration is found in Codex L (8th century), where John 1:30 reads ἀήρ (“air”) instead of ἀνήρ (“man”), rendering “after me comes air,” which is contextually indefensible.

These kinds of variants are linguistically possible but fail both contextual and external support tests, disqualifying them from serious consideration.

Meaningful and Viable Variants

These are the only variants that merit significant scholarly attention. They are rare—less than 1% of all textual variants, possibly only 0.25% by more conservative estimates—and yet they are the ones that can influence interpretation. Crucially, none of them compromise essential doctrines.

Romans 8:2 presents a strong example. The textual variant involves whether Paul wrote “me,” “you,” or “us.” Each reading is supported by early and diverse manuscripts, but the difference hinges on a single Greek letter (μ, σ, or η). While the pronoun alters the subject of liberation (whether it is Paul himself, the readers, or all believers), the theological thrust remains unchanged: the liberating power of the Spirit.

In Philippians 1:14, the phrase “speak the word” appears with several variants: some manuscripts add “of God,” others “of the Lord,” and a few omit the phrase altogether. Alexandrian manuscripts—generally the most reliable, including Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus—prefer “of God.” The Western manuscripts, often known for paraphrastic tendencies, insert “of the Lord.” The absence of a definitive reading emphasizes the necessity of applying sound external and internal criteria.

However, the differences are not doctrinally disruptive. Whether the word is “of God” or “of the Lord,” the object of proclamation is consistent with the context of apostolic preaching and the message of Christ.

Evaluating Ehrman’s Argument

Bart Ehrman’s use of the raw count of textual variants is misleading and rhetorically manipulative. When he states that there are “more variants than there are words in the New Testament,” the assertion, though factually correct, omits the essential qualifier: most of these are trivial. His argument fails to account for the linguistic nature of Koine Greek and the demonstrable stability of the textual tradition. Moreover, early manuscripts like P75 (circa 175–225 C.E.) and Codex Vaticanus (early 4th century C.E.) exhibit remarkable agreement—over 80%—suggesting that the Alexandrian tradition preserves a form of the text remarkably close to the autographs.

The supposed “unprofessional” nature of early scribes is a mischaracterization. While it is true that some early copies were not produced by trained scribes, the types of mistakes made are largely orthographic and easily rectifiable. In contrast, later scribes working in more stable environments introduced harmonizations and doctrinal glosses—types of intentional changes that can be more difficult to detect.

Final Clarification

It must be emphasized that not all textual variants are created equal. The overwhelming majority are not only benign but predictable, explainable, and categorically insignificant. Less than one percent—perhaps as few as a thousand variants—warrant meaningful discussion. Among these, none call into question the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith. The inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture are not compromised by minor orthographic differences or textual ambiguities, especially when the textual critic has access to nearly 6,000 Greek manuscripts and over 19,000 manuscripts in other languages to triangulate the original reading.

Thus, the real issue is not how many variants exist, but how they are weighed. Through the lens of sound methodology—prioritizing early Alexandrian witnesses, applying consistent documentary criteria, and using internal evidence judiciously—we can have high confidence in the text of the New Testament as it has been handed down to us.

The Essential Focus on the Nature of Variants

The overwhelming majority of the 400,000 textual variants in the New Testament manuscripts are inconsequential in terms of theology, doctrine, or even translation. The essential question is not how many variants exist, but rather, what kind of variants they are. A reasoned, documentary approach—emphasizing the external evidence of manuscripts like P75 and Codex Vaticanus—demonstrates a remarkably stable textual tradition. The text of the New Testament remains not only the most thoroughly attested in ancient literature but also the most reliable.

You May Also Enjoy

Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS