3 Textual Variants Every Christian Should Know About

“No—it can’t be.” I will never forget standing in my kitchen after finishing a New Testament class, reeling a bit from what I had just learned—that one of my favorite stories in the whole Bible was something called a textual variant.

​I have always loved the Bible. I’ve studied it ever since I could read and write—but for most of my life, like many Christians, I didn’t really know how we got the Bible. I didn’t know about textual variants, how the New Testament was transmitted,

or that we don’t actually possess any of the original writings.

What is a textual variant? When scholars have many copies (manuscripts) and early copies of a particular work, they can compare them to find out what the originals actually said. The New Testament has more and earlier manuscripts than any other work of ancient literature. Because these manuscripts were copied by hand, naturally there are going to be some differences between them like spelling changes, grammar devices, and mixed up or missing words. Once in a while, a bit of text was even added or removed by a scribe after the original writing was sent out. All of these differences are called textual variants.

It is well known that the New Testament has been copied with 99.5% accuracy. Basically this means is that the vast majority of these textual variants are insignificant in that they don’t change the meaning at all. So what about the remaining .5%? Within this small percentage are variants that are significant in that they affect the meaning of the text—and in some cases, scholars can’t be sure which reading is authentic. The good news is that none of these variants affect any core Christian doctrine, and most only impact one or two verses (with a couple of exceptions). Here are 3 significant textual variants that every Christian should know about: 

1 John 5:7-8

“For there are three that testify: in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.” 

Most modern English translations don’t contain the italicized portion above, but the King James and New King James do. So which is it? Is it supposed to be in—or out? 

The majority of the earliest manuscripts do not contain the questionable section, but it found its way into the King James translation in the 17th century, which didn’t utilize the earliest manuscripts.  Most scholars, even very conservative ones, conclude that this section was not in the original writing.

Theologically, this can be perceived as a problem because these words so clearly affirm the doctrine of the Trinity. However, a case for the Trinity can be easily made without them, so no core doctrine is impacted.

Mark 16:9-20

Sometimes referred to as the “long ending of Mark,” this portion of Mark’s Gospel is not considered by most authorities to be in the original. Most English translations mark this section with brackets and note that our earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not contain it. It speaks of drinking poison and picking up snakes (which is probably a bad idea!), but it also mentions the resurrection of Jesus. Considering that the resurrection of Jesus is affirmed elsewhere in Mark’s Gospel and in the New Testament, this variant also does not impact any core doctrine. 

John 7:53—8:11

This is a difficult variant for many Christians because it is the only place in the Bible where one of the most beloved stories about Jesus’ life is recorded. (Remember me standing in my kitchen? Yep. This is the one.)  Many of us are inspired by Jesus’ words to an angry mob when a woman was caught in the act of adultery: “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” We are comforted by His words to her: “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.” 

Most scholars, including conservatives, agree that this story was not originally in John’s Gospel, yet many believe it has a good chance of being historical. (1) In other words, it most likely happened, but it wasn’t John who wrote it down. Either way, this variant doesn’t challenge any core tenet of the faith.

Why do Christians need to know about these variants?

These variants are common knowledge among scholars, skeptics, and atheists, but are virtually unknown to many Christians outside the academic world. Often this information is used to blindside believers in an attempt to sabotage their faith or undermine their confidence in the Bible. If we are already familiar with these variants, we will be much less likely to be rattled by a clever skeptic on social media.

How should Christians respond?

It can be discouraging to find out that beloved portions of our Bibles may not, in fact, be part of the original writings. However, there are some things to keep in mind about these significant textual variants: 

• We know what they are. Most modern English translations mark these variants with footnotes or brackets so the reader can easily detect them. Some translations leave them out altogether.
• They make up less than 1% of the entire New Testament. As textual criticism continues to make progress and new discoveries, the gap within that 1% is closing!​
• None of these variants impact any core doctrine—they don’t challenge or cast doubt upon any essential Christian tenet of faith. ​
• These variants do not affect Biblical authority, inspiration, or inerrancy. Those terms generally apply to the original autographs, although the transmission and translation of texts is highly accurate in most cases.

​Christians need not be troubled by these variants—their impact is almost non-existent. The fact that we have so many manuscripts, such early manuscripts, and an accurate methodology to discover these variants should give us confidence in the reliability of our New Testament.   
​

It’s worth pointing out that the well-known Biblical historian Bill Cooper has recently demonstrated conclusively that two of the so-called earliest manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, are forgeries. These two codices are responsible for many of the supposed “variant texts”, so once they are disregarded the integrity of the Bible is seen to be much more reliable than many have supposed. Cooper’s findings are published in The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus, 2016, ISBN 978-0-9931415-6-0.

Hi Kevin, the vast majority of respected text-critical scholars disagree with this view. This is a convenient conclusion for the KJV-only camp, but it is roundly rejected by most authorities in the field. If anyone wants to know more about this, here is a debate between James White and Chris Pinto on Sinaiticus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzRTuUJugSY

Thank you Kevin Tuck for your comments. We will be purchasing this book to add to our library.

We not only believe that the King James Bible IS the word of God, as opposed to “contains” the word of God. Furthermore, we also believe that God’s word far supersedes “most authorities in the field”.

God bless you Kevin. Thanks again.

You realize there were Bibles before King James had his “Authorized” version translated?

The word ‘forgery’ is a derogatory term. We better find a better neutral term. BTW do they ever define the term the use if their writing is to be scholarly? What does it mean by ‘forgery’?

If you dont know what is meant when the term forgery is used, how can you say it is deragatory? A forgery is a fake. It is something that is created to look like an original but is not.

Oun Kwon,
The elaboration on 1John 5:7 – 8 was inserted into the Greek text of Erasmus in 1522 after he was given a single manuscript containing this elaboration This was most probably a forgery inserted into the manuscript being written at that time by Froy (or Roy) in Oxford. This was done in order to have the printed Greek text correspond with the Latin Vulgate, official the Bible of the Roman Catholic Church! Only one Greek manuscript pre-dating the Erasmus’s text with something of this elaboration, is Manuscript 610- dating about 1350 CE.
An interesting fact concerning the woman caught in adultery, is that in manuscripts this paragraph was inserted in four different places the gospel of John, and even in two places in Luke. Most early manuscripts in Greek, and most ancient translations do not include this paragraph. Do see my study on this paragraph on my blog, www.bibledifferences.net where I give the direct facts concerning variations of more than 150 Scriptures.
God bless.
Herman Grobler, Pretoria South Africa.

Thank you Alisa for this post and for pointing out that the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are both authentic and highly esteemed by all true Biblical scholars. I have studied the causes behind the differences between the KJV and the NIV on all three the Scriptures you mention and posted the results on my blog together with over 100 other differences that I have already studied.
Concerning the three Scriptures you pointed out, you mention that “Some translations leave them out altogether.” Apart from the elaboration on 1 John 5:7 – 8, I know of no translation that do leave out the long ending of Mark, or the incident with the woman caught in adultery. Could you direct to such a translation. I would like to study it first hand.
Concerning the message of the Bible on Christian doctrine, I have indeed found one difference that does affect a core Christian doctrine. That is Rev.22:14 where one version states “doing His commands” as the prerequisite for entering into the New Jerusalem and have access to the Tree of Life, while the other states “washing one’s robes.” (That means in the blood of the Lamb).
Do look at how I handle this Scripture and give me your opinion please. On my blog I have links to all studies under the heading “Scriptures”
God bless on the great work you are doing.

Thank you Alisa,
What I meant concerning Rev. 22:14 is that the Textus Receptus based translations like the KJV states “…doing the commands…” as the prerequisite. But that boils down on one’s own achievements and adhering to the Law. This version causes this verse to be in opposition to the rest of Revelation and the rest of the New Testament.
God bless.

Great job Alisa. I’m teaching a NT survey class right now and I’ve covered these with the class. It has blown some of their minds, but I agree with you that Christians need to be aware of these issues. You are doing fantastic work with the blog.

Thank you James!

Alisa,
The Comma Johanneum is a forgery, developed in an early Old Latin transmission-line.

Mark 16:9-20 are part of the original text (whether added by Mark, or by someone else) — certainly not the invention of a second-century scribe. Irenaeus quoted 16:19 in Book 3 of “Against Heresies” c. 180, over a century before any of our manuscripts of Mark 16 were made. The external support for thise verses, in patristic sources as well as in manuscripts, is ancient, abundant, and widespread.

John 7:53-8:11 (not just 8:1-11!) is missing in 15% of the Greek manuscripts and is in different locations in small groups of manuscripts, but there are scribal mechanisms (related to how a nearby passage was read on Pentecost) that account for this.

Please do not get entrenched in a position after hearing just from the Metzgerian approach.

Hi James. The point of my post is to inform Christians that these passages are highly disputed and that the vast majority text critical scholars conclude that they are not original. I am not entrenched in anything—nothing would please me more than for these variants (especially the latter two) to be proven authentic to the original. But where it stands now, this isn’t the case. Of these three, the one that is most debated is the long ending of Mark, and I would encourage my readers to research the views themselves. Here is a book that gives 4 perspectives from qualified sources: https://www.amazon.com/Perspectives-Ending-Mark-Daniel-Wallace-ebook/dp/B004OR17WK

Alisha,
I have read that book already. (You may have noticed that I am cited several times in its footnotes.) Some of the claims that Wallace makes in that book are not correct. For a more accurate and more thorough review of the relevant evidence I offer my book, “Authentic: the Case for Mark 16:9-20.” And, regarding John 7:53-8:11, I offer my book, “John 7:53-8:11: A Fresh Analysis.” Visit the NT Textual Criticism group on Facebook, and I will be glad to give you free digital copies there. (Or you can purchase them on Amazon as inexpensive e-books.)

Taken from Bart Ehrman’s “Jesus Interrupted”:

In response to the assertion, made by conservative evangelicals, that not a single important Christian doctrine is affected by any textual variant, I point out:

a. It simply isn’t true that important doctrines are not involved. As a key example: the only place in the entire New Testament where the doctrine of the Trinity is explicitly taught is in a passage that made it into the King James translation (1 John 5:7–8) but is not found in the vast majority of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. I would suggest that the Trinity is a rather important Christian doctrine. A typical response to this rebuttal is that the doctrine of the Trinity can be found in Scripture without appealing to 1 John 5:7–8. My reply is that this is true of every single Christian doctrine. In my experience, theologians do not hold to a doctrine because it is found in just one verse; you can take away just about any verse and still find just about any Christian doctrine somewhere else if you look hard enough.

Alisa,
As I have pointed out previously, I have intensely studied more than 130 differences between Textus Receptus Based Bibles like the King James Version versus Nestle Aland or United Bible Societies based Bibles like the New International Version and published the results on my blog. I found Revelation 22:14 a difference that really impacts on the most important Christian doctrine! We have access to the New Jerusalem and the Tree of Life, not by our “doing of the commands” as the King James claims! This would boil down to being saved by our own efforts! We have access by the washing of our robes (in the blood of the Lamb)! This is in accordance with the rest of the New Testament, and especially with Revelation. This means being saved by grace alone through the atonement offered by Jesus! Please give me your comments on my study of this most important variation. You can find my study at http://bibledifferences.net/2012/08/10/56-robes-wash-or-commandments-do-rev-2214/
I will really appreciate your comments on this important variation.
God bless,
Herman

Hi Herman, It seems to me that this is certainly a meaningful variant that is doctrinal in nature, but I don’t necessarily agree that it would affect an essential doctrine. There are several verses, if cherry-picked from the whole of Scripture would also seem to teach that we are saved by our own efforts. Matthew 5:20 and 12:37 are good examples. Even if the TR reading of Rev. 22:14 were authentic (which I don’t think it is,) it wouldn’t change the orthodox understanding of soteriology, or tip the scales toward a works-based salvation, in my opinion.

Good day Alisa,
Thank you for your comment. But I see both Matthew 5:20 and 12:37 not as a prerequisite for salvation, but as a confirmation of the seriousness of our devotion to the Lord. The way Revelation 22:14 is written, we clearly have the prerequisite or means for our salvation. In my post I looked at the possibility of misreading the Greek Uncial letters, causing this variation. We are saved by grace alone, for if it really had been possible to fulfil the requirements and standard God requires, the offer through crucifixion by Jesus would have been unnecessary!

here is an article for us to consider: https://danielbwallace.com/tag/400000-textual-variants/

From the link posted previously: “In the opening section, the author takes on Bart Ehrman’s wildly popular book, Misquoting Jesus. In characteristic fashion, Blomberg critiques both what Ehrman does and doesn’t say, doing all with wisdom and wit. He points out, for example, that virtually nothing in Misquoting Jesus is new to biblical scholars—both liberal and evangelical, and all stripes in between. Non-scholars, especially atheists and Muslim apologists, latched onto the book and made preposterous claims that lay Christians were unprepared for. Ignorance, in this case, is not bliss. Earlier in the chapter when Blomberg mentioned that there are as many as 400,000 textual variants among the manuscripts, he bemoans: “It is depressing to see how many people, believers and unbelievers alike, discover a statistic like this number of variants and ask no further questions. The skeptics sit back with smug satisfaction, while believers are aghast and wonder if they should give up their faith. Is the level of education and analytic thinking in our world today genuinely this low?” (13).

This is just a reminder, not a point on point contribution. God Bless us with peace. Scholarship has its part in the critical study of manuscript transmissions. The Lord has used such disciplines in the preservation of His Word throughout the ages. Yet, it absolutely must be the Holy Spirit, much more so than our scholarship, that guides us into a more fruitful and accurate understanding of God’s Word – historically, textually, theologically, practically, and spiritually. Unless the Holy Spirit is our guide and influence in all aspects of biblical consideration then our debates and disagreements can easily slide into academic rubbish filled with religious pride as to who is right. So as we bow our intellects before the Lord He will be our wonderful counselor and teacher in all research and presentation; scripture will truly be a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path; and all debates and differences swallowed up in His grace. I would say that is a rewarding fulfillment.

Hi alisa, have you checked James E. Snapps work on the authenticy of the latter 2 variants you mentiond. I’m don’t disagree with the conclusion you came to at the end of this post but it think James’s arguements are worthy of consideration ,