\documentstyle[11pt,fullpage]{article}
\title{Textual Variation of the New Testament}
\author{Matthew Gray}
\begin{document}
\maketitle

\section*{Introduction}

Many documents, such as the works of Shakespeare, have had histories
of questions as to their textual consistency from one version to
another.  Questions have been raised as to which version is the
``original'' or ``true'' version, whether the accepted author is the
true author, and whether these questions are meaningful on their own.

\par

While this sort of debate is common regarding literature and
historical documents, it is somewhat more taboo when discussing
religious documents, such as the New Testament of the Bible.  It
becomes a particularly difficult issue in the case of religious
documents which claim to be the infallible word of a god.

\par

The question remains: How much variation exists in the texts of the
New Testament?

\section*{Types of Variations}

There are three primary types of variations, two of which will be
discussed here.  These types are internal variation, manuscript
variation, and translation variation.

\par

Internal variation, or so-called ``Bible Contradictions'' are the type
that are not to be discussed here.  While it is apparent that these
exist plentifully from the obvious such as Jesus' lineage in Matthew
and Luke, to the substantially more debatable and subtle, they are in
a seperate class and should be discussed seperately.

\par

Manuscript variation, or variation from one copy of the New Testament
to another is substantially more akin to the kinds of issues often
associated with literary or historical documents.  This type of
variation will be the focus of this paper.

\par

Translation variation, or variations between translations of the same
source document, is also relevent.  Additionally, issues of manuscript
variation come into this, as individual translations may use different
source manuscripts.

\section*{Manuscript variation}

There are no manuscripts of the New Testament, allegedly a first
century document, dating from the first century.  Thousands of Greek
manuscripts exist, dating from the 7th century, and a few dozen from
before that.  Substantial variations exist between these manuscripts,
ranging from obvious copyist errors to genuine changes in content.
Analysis and organization of these variations
abounds.\footnote{http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/Examples.html} More so, what
documents are included in the ``New Testament'' varies quite a bit
among these, often excluding some books, or sections of books, or
including books that are no longer considered part of the New
Testament.  One theory is that all of these manuscripts originated
from some first century document dubbed ``Documenta
Q'',\footnote{http://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/issues/96dec/jesus/jesus.htm}
though no versions of this document have been found.

\par

Four manuscripts from the fourth century are among the most widely
used sources.  Only one of these, Codex Sinaiticus, contains the
entire New Testament, and it includes additional material other than
the New Testament.  The other three manuscripts are: Codex Vaticanus,
which is missing the end of the New Testament, Codex Alexandrinus,
which is missing much of Matthew and some of John, and Codex Bezae,
which contains Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, and
Acts.\footnote{http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli0001.htm}

\par

Though there is extensive specific variation in content of these
manuscripts the general content remains impressively consistent for a
roughly 2 millenia old document.  Which specific books were included
in the New Testament, however, seems to be a more careful selection of
medieval and later scholars, rather than any first or even second
century intent.

\section*{Translation variation}

A great many translations of the New Testament exist, in English and
other languages.  Popular English versions include the King James
Version, the New International Version, the American Standard Version,
the Revised Standard Version and
others.\footnote{http://www.gospelcom.net/bg/translations.html}.

\par

Among these translations, different interpretations have been made of
many parts, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to know the
original meaning.  Though old manuscripts do exist, languages change
over centuries and the sense of words, or use of idiom drastically
affects a translation.

\section*{Technological Impact}

With the advent of the printing press, the consistency of the New
Testament increased dramatically.  No longer were manuscripts subject
to the errors or editorial whims of the copyists, as they had been
previously.  This substantially decreased, if not altogether stopped
manuscript variations, but it left the issue of which manuscript to
use as source.

\par

Presently, the near total ubiquity of printed versions of the New
Testament creates a perception of a textually invariant Bible, with
the possible exception of translation variation.  Popularly, however,
translation variations are perceived to be primarily in style of
language (``was the father of'' v. ``begat''), rather than actual
content.  This, combined with social taboos against questioning
textual reliability of the Bible, have created the illusion of a
perfect, unchanging text.

\par

On the other hand, electronic versions of the
Bible\footnote{http://www.gospelcom.net/bible} have made contrasting
translations substantially easier.  Similar work has been done for
comparison of
manuscripts.\footnote{http://www.entmp.org/entmp/papers/coll.html}


\section*{Conclusion}

The New Testament, like many literary and historical documents, has
undergone substantial textual variation.  Though, like the plays of
Shakespeare, there may be substantial variation in specifics, for the
most part, the broad message is fairly consistent across manuscripts
and translations.

\par

Recent technologies, including the printing press, have both created a
facade of constancy, as well as enabled analysis of the variations
that do exist.

\end{document}
