Textual Criticism and 2 Peter 3:10

Elijah noticed that his Bible has a footnote on 2 Peter 3:10 which suggests that there might be a couple of different readings. The primary translation says “burned up” but the footnote says that it's possible that it should read “discovered.” Elijah wants to know which reading is right.

The short and simple truth is that we're not 100% sure which “reading” is right. (I'll explain why that's not a problem – it's actually a strength about the Bible! – momentarily.) If I had to guess which reading is correct, I'd favor the “burned up” rendering, simply because 2 Peter 3:12 mimics that idea, doesn't it? And, you might have noticed that the footnote, the alternative reading, is absent on 2 Peter 3:12? The “burned up” idea is clearly suggested in 3:12, where there is no question, while 3:10 is still suggestive. But, again, there is some question about 3:10.

This raises a whole issue called “textual criticism,” which is an entire discipline by itself. (The discipline's goal is to produce the Bible, as it would have read in its original form. I'll try to say more about it at the end of all of this.) Here, let me try to condense and explain the basics of what we need to know/understand so that 1) we can make sense of these kinds of phenomena, 2) have a working sense of “textual criticism” and the formation of our Bibles and 3) land on a solid conclusion that the holy scriptures haven't been fabricated and are quite reliable and trustworthy.

First, we need to understand that our Bibles weren't formed in a vacuum. I mean to say that there had to be “originals.” By “originals,” we mean the documents that were initially penned by the inspired writer. So, in the case of Paul, his initial, first copy of “Romans” was the “original.” It's true that the New Testament says something about the “circular letters” and how copies were to be made (cf. Col. 4:16; 1 Thes. 5:27), but those secondary letters are known as “manuscripts” and not the “originals” or “autographs.” We can understand a little bit, then, how our Bibles (in 2022) came to be: through much transmission. The whole transmission process (for us) involved both copying and translating.

It's worth noting that none of the “originals” or “autographs” exist for us today. We haven't found any, and I don't think that we will nor that we should expect to. But, it simply doesn't follow – as some of the leading skeptics have suggested – that this means we don't know what “the Bible” says. Do a quick search about the number of the originals that we have of Julius Caesar's works; search for the number of autographs that we have for Josephus; and, check to see if we have any of the original copies of Herodotus, Livy, etc., etc., etc. You might be shocked to find that we don't have the originals for any of these ancient historians either?! But, incidentally, the history departments across the Western world have no difficulty in claiming that we can “know” what they said. Why do you think that is?! It is because there is a collection of copies (“manuscripts”) that were made from the originals; these copies reflect what the originals said.

I'm making this point: we can't assess the “originals,” so we're left to assessing the “manuscripts,” the copies. If we're to find out how “the Bible” reads, it's going to be left to an assessment of the copies, the manuscripts, which should reflect the originals. (I'm putting finishing touches on a book called “Substantive Faith” right now, which will devote two chapters to this whole sort of discussion and have more detail and support.)

Through the years, the Old Testament text moved from its original Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English. Of course, one wanting to remain as close to the “originals” as possible would want to assess Hebrew/Aramaic “manuscripts,” and the Latin or Greek texts would not be as valuable . . . Or would they? Are there any reasons that you can think of that would make Latin or Greek texts more valuable than some of the Hebrew? Can you think of any reasons why some Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts would be considered less valuable? Or, in relation to the New Testament, which was originally written in Greek, can you think of any reasons why some Greek manuscripts might be less valuable than some Latin copies? Would we necessarily assume that all Hebrew/Greek copies of the Old/New Testaments are the most valuable?! No!!!!!! Let me explain . . .

There are TWO major factors that impact the “quality” of the manuscripts: number and date. And, these two criteria really glow when we analyze them together. Let's start with the number of the manuscripts of the Greek New Testament . . .

The running number for located/found Greek manuscripts/copies is somewhere around 6,000 right now. That means that we have found 6,000 “ancient” manuscripts that contain parts of the Greek New Testament. That is overwhelming! Do a quick search of the ancient historians and see what you can find; do any of the other ancient historians have this kind of “copying” of their originals?! No. Dan Wallace puts it into perspective and reminds us that the comparison is something like having $20,000 versus having $20,000,000; in this comparison, the Greek New Testament has the equivalent of the $20,000,000 and the other ancient historians have the equivalent of the $20,000. I mean to say that the number of manuscripts that the New Testament has is overwhelming.

But, some, like Bart Ehrman, insist that this isn't really worth much. He says that the quality of the manuscripts is poor; he says that they are far too late to be valuable; he insists that the testimony is too late and could easily be a fabrication. Of course, Bart Ehrman isn't giving us substantive facts, but is simply spreading agnostic propaganda as “possibilities” to erode the reliability of the biblical text. But, even with allowing Ehrman to have his say, is he right? Is the “quality” of the 6,000 manuscripts poor? Are they “too late” to be taken seriously?

This brings us to our second criteria in assessing the manuscripts/copies of the biblical text: date. Wouldn't you agree that a manuscript of the Bible, dated around A.D. 1000 would be further from the actual events recorded in the New Testament than, say, a manuscript from around A.D. 200? That's one of Ehrman's points – and, on that point, he's right! But, he's far too general . . . I mean to say that Ehrman “generalizes” and says that the whole collection of the New Testament manuscripts are of a poor quality. But, that's just not true! Dan Wallace notes that we have found 12 manuscripts from the 2nd century A.D., 64 manuscripts from the 3rd century A.D. and 48 manuscripts from the 4th century A.D.; that's a certain amount of “early” material, which is of a far higher quality than Ehrman pretends is available to us. Dan Wallace's point, in perspective, is that if we imagine a snowball's rolling down a hill, only 2% more material is “picked up” by the snowball in the following 14 centuries! Read that again! Catch that point! 98% of “the Bible” was already in existence in the earliest stages of Christianity.

Is it true that the copyists, the scribes, made “errors” in their copying? Why, yes! But, here's where the number helps us . . . With 6,000 copies, it's not hard to spot when one of the 6,000 diverges from the intended reading! Imagine the scenario! Imagine that you make an “error” in copying the text – either for purposeful reasons or accidental! – how might your buddy locate your error? Wouldn't he be able to compare your singular copy with the other 5,999 copies?! Wouldn't the 5,999 other copies expose your erroneous reading?! And, that is precisely what the “science of textual criticism” does! It assesses the manuscripts, judges both the date and the number – and the context of the reading – and makes a very logical, fair and objective conclusion for what the reading of the New Testament is.

So, let me show you just a few possibilities that “textual criticism” faces . . . In reconstructing the reading of the New Testament, we sometimes get phenomena that create difficulties with each other. For instance, which “reading” would you prefer if 5,999 early manuscripts read one way and only one late manuscript read a complete other way? Obviously, you'd favor the one that had both number and earliness/date on its side. But, which reading might you favor when the majority (number) reads one way but that majority (number) is entirely late; in other words, which reading might you favor when all of the manuscripts that read one way are later manuscripts and the fewer-yet-earlier manuscripts read oppositely? This is where we're required to make a judgment on which reading we might prefer, and, ultimately, we have no way of knowing for sure which one reflects the original. In the case of 2 Peter 3:10, this is what is happening; the earliest-yet-fewest manuscripts are reading one way and the majority-yet-later manuscripts are reading another. In the end, we're forced to “throw our hands up” and conclude that we don't “know” but that we might have good arguments to support either reading.

Now, let me conclude a few things that suggest that this actually attests to the reliability of the Bible . . .

First, the fact that less than 2% of the entire Greek New Testament is even questionable says something about the reliability of the 98% of the Greek New Testament. Even Bart Ehrman says that we know how the original text read in 98% of cases. So, in 98% of the New Testament, the number (majority) and date (earliness) of the manuscripts is simply unquestionable. The 2%, like 2 Peter 3:10, where we're not 100% sure on which “reading” to favor, actually suggests something about the reliability of the 98% of the Bible.

Second, there is NEVER a single instance – so admits and argues Bart Ehrman, the world's leading skeptic in this arena! – where Christian doctrine would be altered or affected. Catch that again! One might get the idea that Christianity could come under an entire attack, but even the skeptics admit that these 2% of cases are “trivial” and wouldn't affect Christianity in the least. So, what if Mark 16 actually ended at verse 8 and didn't really have verses 9-20 in the original text? And, what if John 5:4, Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7 are much too late to actually belong in the originals? And, what if the story of John 8:1-11 wasn't in the original/autographic text of the Gospel of John? Those are the “big” cases!!! Would this really affect Christianity if all of that were true?!

Third, textual criticism allows us to see, in an objective way, what the “original” reading of the Bible was. By having criteria, like number and date, we aren't pushed into “blind faith” where there's only been one copy that's been “handed down” over the years and thus easily subject to corruption. The number – especially in the non-technologically-advanced era of the 1st century A.D. – protects against isolated fraud; geographically, the biblical text developed all over the Mediterranean world, so slipping fraud into the numerous collection of copies would be impossible not only because of the number but also because of how many manuscripts would need altering all over the world. A trickster would have the feat of altering manuscripts in Rome, Egypt, Palestine, Greece, etc., etc.; can you see how impossible it is?! And, the date protects the text from being some “late” fraud; again, the origins of the New Testament are contemporary with that era; this isn't some late development, sketched out by a group of frauds around the 5th century A.D.; the manuscripts pre-date that by far! So, if we can't “doubt” the transmission of the text because of number – there are too many manuscripts – and we can't “doubt” the transmission of the text because of date – not only are there too many but they're also very early – then what argument is there for doubting the transmission of the text? Is there another way/reason to doubt the text's transmission? I can't think of one.

So, let's come back to where we started . . .

“Textual criticism” does NOT assess whether or not the text's claims are factual or accurate. It only seeks to provide us with the original record. If the original record (in, say, Mark's Gospel) had said that human beings don't exist, “textual criticism” doesn't care to handle whether or not that's true. “Textual criticism” only seeks to find if Mark's Gospel recorded “human beings don't exist” or not; by assessing the manuscripts, judging by earliness and majority, “textual criticism” is able to conclude with ease in more than 98% of the New Testament exactly how the original text read. Thus, the “transmission” of the text is remarkably strong, trustworthy and reliable. (In my upcoming book, “Substantive Faith,” I also have an entire chapter devoted to whether or not the “original record” is trustworthy and reliable in its claims. I first establish [in chapter 3] that the “transmission” or the “record” is in tact; I then establish [in chapter 4] that the claims within the record are also factual and accurate. Those ARE two different issues, and “textual criticism” is only concerned with the first.)

In the case of 2 Peter 3:10, we have one of those minor instances that nags at us. We're not quite sure exactly how Peter's original text read, and we'll probably never know. The data here is one of those cases where it's “split” and we have two options. But, James White said something like this: it's not as if we're missing pieces of the text, lacking data; instead, it's like we have extra pieces – like have 102 pieces to a 100 piece puzzle – and we're having to sort out the couple of pieces that don't actually belong that got “picked up” erroneously by the copyists over the centuries. 2 Peter 3:10 is one of those cases where we've got one-too-many possibilities; one is right, but we may not ever know exactly which way Peter actually wrote it in this specific instance.