Christians like to think of the Bible as perfect.

The issue is, when we think of “the Bible” we are often primarily thinking about the particular translation we read; not the thousands of manuscripts from which that translation was made. The motivation, however, to think of it as perfect isn’t altogether misplaced, though, because the Scriptures effectively testify to just that truth in 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is θεόπνευστος” (theopneustos—God-breathed or inspired by God).

We take that testimony to heart (as we should) and so don’t wonder—somewhere in the back of our heads—if Jesus really said this, if Paul really wrote that, or if Moses really spoke to God through a burning bush. We trust that the words we’re reading are the words Jesus spoke, or Paul wrote. That is, until someone (like me) comes along and points out places within the Scriptures where there is uncertainty with the text itself.

We may actually run into someone who asks something like: What about that ending to the Lord’s prayer—“for yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever”? Why is there a difference between the King James Version and the New International Version or New American Standard Bible? Have the modern translations done something to the word of God?

What do we do with questions like those? And, what do we do when those questions are asked not by those who are outside and hostile, but who are inside and friendly to the church; by those who trust the Scriptures, believe them to be θεόπνευστος (wholly and completely trustworthy) and want to hold even more firmly to their truthfulness?

The options are plentiful but, as far as I can see, two main ones make their way to the top.

A person could ignore the question, seeing it as little more than an attempt to sow doubt into God’s word, either intentionally or unintentionally. In other words, little good if any can come from recognizing uncertainty within the biblical text.
A person could press into the history of the composition of the biblical text, believing that historical study is not antithetical to the Christian faith. In other words, we are better off knowing even the uncomfortable uncertainty within the biblical text.

For a consistently growing portion of my life, I’ve found myself—although, most certainly starting with a tight grasp on option 1—laying it aside, and now holding tightly to option 2. I want to do whatever I can to help those around me to have increased trust in what God has said through his written word and, because of my conviction about the uncertainties in the biblical text, I believe one of the ways to do that is to look at these issues head-on, not seeing this sort of investigation as doubting God or what he’s said, but seeing it as an actual bit of devotion directed to him for his glory and our good.

Even with that, because this is such a tricky and loaded issue, I’ve also found it’s helpful not to tackle it (the textual uncertainty in the text of Scripture) all at once, but to break it off into smaller and, thus, much more manageable bite-size portions. Portions that are easy to see all at once and much easier to digest. As tempting as it is to try to lay a massive textual history feast on the table and simply dig in, the risk of getting sick and choosing not to eat is much greater. An entire cake looks great until you’re three pieces in with more than half a cake to go.

Here's my plan: I’d like to look (with you) at a handful of verses—one at a time on a monthly basis, over the next several months—that have a questionable textual history, with the hope that looking at those histories will help us trust what God has said better than ever. Knowing this information doesn’t automatically make super-Christians, nor does it automatically make militant-atheists. What it does do is give us information we can use to make choices; choices that can affect our lives in a very meaningful way.

So, please join me as we start next week by taking a look at Luke 23:34!