In the Original Manuscripts

So these last two weeks, we've been talking about how the scriptures, the words in our

Bibles are inspired by God.

And last Sunday, we talked about how they are God-breathed, word for word, every word

being written under the influence of God's Holy Spirit.

And this has been because we came to this place in 2 Timothy.

Next Sunday, we're going to continue on in 2 Timothy, but we're pausing for today for

a bit of an unusual sermon.

For those of you who are here visiting or you're going to think this is weird, but this is

not the usual sermon and I don't normally preach this long, sorry.

But we do need to tackle issues like this once in a while.

We're going to talk about Bible translations today.

So this is our BGC affirmation of faith.

We believe that the Bible is the revealed word of God, fully and verbally inspired, written

under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

We believe it is without error in the original manuscripts and is true and trustworthy in all

that it asserts.

It has supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.

And we talked about the implications a little bit last week that God's word is inspired by

him, that it comes from him word for word.

It means that his word is without error.

It means that it's true in all that it asserts.

It means that it has that place of authority over all that we believe and do.

But there's one distinction that we must make here.

However, we believe that the Bible is word for word, inspired by God and without error in

the original manuscripts.

So we do not believe that every copy that has been made ever since is word for word accurate

and without error.

Neither do we believe that the translations into other languages are word for word, inspired

by God and without error.

We believe that the original scroll that Moses wrote under the influence of God's spirit is

100% inspired by God, word for word and without error.

We believe that those original letters that the Apostle Paul wrote on the papyri were 100%

inspired by God, word for word and without error.

Now why is this distinction important, you may wonder.

First of all, it's the truth.

Second, a failure to make this distinction has resulted in all kinds of confusion.

And third, a failure to make this distinction has resulted in all kinds of conflict.

So first we make this distinction because it's the truth.

To declare that there is one particular line of biblical manuscripts that can be traced all

the way back to the originals and that in that line there isn't a single error in any

of them is simply false.

To declare that any of the translations made into other languages, whether ancient languages

languages like Latin, Syriac, Coptic, or more modern languages like German, French, or English,

to declare that any of the translations that have been made are 100% accurate and flawlessly

capture what was originally penned in Greek and Hebrew is also false.

God has not preserved his word for us today by an unbroken chain of perfectly copied manuscripts

or by supernaturally inspiring any particular translation in the same way that he inspired the scriptures

when they were first written down.

Second, a failure to make this distinction has resulted in all kinds of confusion.

Many Christians today have been confused about why there are different translations of the Bible in English.

Why do they say different things?

I thought we had God's word, word for word.

So how can there be differences?

Why are some insisting that I must only use a 400-year-old translation of the Bible

into Middle English today?

Why can't I just read one of the more modern translations?

What's wrong with them?

A failure to make this distinction has resulted also in confusion for people who don't believe in Jesus,

at least not yet.

People are trying to share the good news of Jesus still today

while quoting a book that sounds kind of like the writing of Shakespeare at times.

And what do those words even mean?

Third, a failure to make this distinction has resulted in all kinds of conflicts.

Countless arguments and fights have been had.

Relationships between Christian brothers and sisters have been destroyed.

Whole churches have been split apart over this issue of Bible translation

because of a failure to make the distinction between verbally inspired and inerrant originals

and the modern translations that we hold in our hands today.

So that's why this distinction is important,

and that's why it's going to be our main consideration for today.

I want to be clear.

We are talking this morning about the damaging misconception

that the King James Version of the Bible was divinely inspired by God 400 years ago,

and that misconception that it is the only faithful,

only accurate,

only inerrant translation of the Bible in the English language.

We're talking about that misconception,

that belief that it alone should be used for reading, teaching, Scripture memory, etc.

And we call this belief KJV-onlyism.

Now before some of you who love the King James Version run out the door and never come back again,

let me explain what I mean by KJV-onlyism.

I'm not talking about people who prefer the King James Translation of the Bible

because that's what they grew up with,

or because that's what they're most familiar with.

Maybe the verses they learned as a child were in the King James Version of the Bible,

or many songs that we still sing today, old songs,

use the words that were in the King James Translation of the Bible.

Many people still love the King James Translation because it's got rhythmic beauty to it.

It was a historical, a momentous thing in history,

the translation of the King James Bible,

and people value it and appreciate it for those reasons.

I'm not talking about that this morning.

When I say KJV-onlyism,

I'm talking about the belief held by some

that the King James Translation of the Bible was supernaturally inspired,

as in breathed out by God, word for word,

just like the original scriptures were.

I'm talking about the belief held by some

that the King James Translation is word for word, without error,

and that therefore every other translation or revision

is a corruption or perversion influenced by the devil.

When I say KJV-onlyism,

I'm talking about the belief held by some

that God supernaturally preserved

an unbroken line of flawlessly copied manuscripts

of both the Old and the New Testaments

from the time that they were written

all the way up until the translation of the KJV.

These are the beliefs of the KJV-only teachers,

and these teachings and beliefs are untrue.

They have caused all kinds of confusion and conflict.

The most radical advocates of KJV-onlyism

are often very vocal and even militant,

and at the same time, sadly,

they have been quite influential and persuasive.

Here's just one example that I came across

the other day on Twitter.

Amen.

We believe the King James Bible is the word of God,

every word of it.

Amen.

I can take this book and correct the Greek.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Say, why?

Because I'm a loser.

Amen.

And I've had Greek.

Amen.

And Hebrew.

Last class of Hebrew.

We finished the last class of D.

He says, what are you doing?

I said, I'm going out here in the backyard,

and I'm burning this Hebrew grammar book.

What?

I torched it.

I said, ah.

Had to learn Hebrew and Greek and all that mess.

Amen.

You say, what did you learn out of that?

The King James Bible is the word of God.

Thank God for the English.

Amen.

Who cares what the Greek says?

They make pretty good sandwiches.

That's about it.

Amen.

Wow.

I can take this book and correct the Greek.

Who cares what the Greek says?

This is insanely ignorant.

Many Christians, and I mean earnest, spirit-filled,

born-again believers, brothers and sisters,

have been influenced by this false teaching.

And so we're going to look today at the story of how we got our Bibles.

And with a huge topic like this,

I'm going to be laser-focused on the subject of transmission and translation.

And I'm specifically going to be focusing only on the New Testament scriptures,

because I've done a lot more study on these things in the New Testament

than with the Old Testament.

So let's go back to the beginning

and talk about how we got our Bibles.

Back in the first century,

men like the apostles John and Peter and Paul,

they wrote the scriptures,

and back then it was a different world.

They wrote in Greek.

That was the common language of the day.

And they wrote on papyrus.

And then they sent those letters by messenger

to the churches that were being established.

They didn't have email.

They didn't have Canada Post.

When the church received that letter,

they would then take it and read it out loud

for everyone in the church to hear.

And then they would make copies of that original by hand.

And they began circulating the copies in their regions.

And then copies were made of those copies,

and so on and so forth.

But everything was done by hand,

because the printing press wouldn't be invented

for another 1,300 years.

So copies were made,

and copies of those copies,

some copyists or scribes were better than others.

Some were very accurate,

and some were not as accurate.

And so over the centuries,

errors and sometimes even intentional changes

crept into some of those copies.

And then those errors were then copied

and passed on to the next copy,

and on and on down the line.

Now let me be clear.

I'm not saying that the manuscripts

became so full of mistakes and errors

that what we have today is not even close

to what God originally breathed out

through the apostles.

That's not the case.

In fact, because the early church recognized

the apostles as sent by Christ Jesus himself

to speak on his behalf,

they took extra care in copying

the words that they received from them.

For a good while,

those original letters and writings remained in existence

and copies could be checked with them.

But then eventually, as copying was done,

we see in the ancient manuscripts

that we still have today

that mistakes were made.

And the kind of mistakes is worth mentioning here.

Most of the mistakes are the kind

that are easy to identify

as unintentional copying errors.

Sometimes one person read the scriptures aloud

while a bunch of people made copies.

And so they went by what they heard.

And so we see spelling errors.

We see instances where

two identical sounding words were mistaken.

Sometimes,

if you've ever made a copy of something,

you just missed the word,

honestly, unintentionally.

This is not a hand copy.

This is from the 1631 King James Version of the Bible,

dubbed the wicked Bible,

the adulterous Bible,

because they accidentally forgot

to put the word not in the commandment,

thou shalt not commit adultery.

And so it read,

thou shalt commit adultery.

So these kinds of errors happen.

These mistakes happen.

Another kind of error,

if you've ever copied out something by hand

and there's the same word in there

at two different places,

sometimes you accidentally look back up

to the first word,

even though you'd already done everything in between,

and you start copying it,

only to realize,

hey, I think I've already written this down before.

Sometimes we catch ourselves

making mistakes like these,

and sometimes we don't.

We see those kinds of errors

in the New Testament manuscripts as well.

Or in some cases,

the copy that someone had

of a portion of scripture

may have been worn out

and faded,

difficult to read.

It's obvious in those places

that a mistake was made.

Some copyists even had multiple copies

of the scripture side by side,

and as they're making their copy,

they say,

oh, how come these aren't the same

at this spot?

And which reading is the right one?

And so they would just pick the one

that they thought was probably the right one.

Sometimes they would write it in red,

like you see on the screen,

and then put a note in the margin

about what the other reading was,

just so that in case that was the right one,

we'd have both together still.

So these kinds of copious errors and mistakes

are sprinkled through every significant manuscript portion

that we have today of the New Testament scriptures.

And the good news is that these kind of mistakes

are often easy to identify

when we simply compare all the manuscripts

that we have with each other.

There are also a few places in the New Testament

where an intentional change was made.

But these changes were almost never

to blatantly alter the words of scripture.

They were almost always changes

that were made in an effort to preserve

what the copious thought should be the correct reading.

In other words,

sometimes the copious suspected

that the copy he had

had a mistake in it from the guy who made it.

And so he would correct the grammar

or the spelling

or change the tense of the verb

to what he thought it was supposed to be all along.

Almost all of the variations

that we see between the Greek New Testament manuscripts

that we have today are of this variety.

They are things that are easy to detect and obvious.

And for centuries,

even back to the original translation

of the King James Bible,

translators have been putting notes in the margins

when they have been uncertain

about which variant is the original.

Most of the variations we see

are easily explained,

but there are a handful of places

where it is debated

and where it's less certain

which of the manuscript readings is the original.

We're pretty confident that one of them is,

but which one is?

And so those are places

that all translators must make a decision.

How do we handle this?

Even the original KJV translators

wrestled with this.

Listen to what they wrote in the foreword

to the original King James translation of the Bible

made in 1611.

They said this,

Some would have no variety of senses

to be set in the margin,

lest the authority of the scriptures

for deciding of controversies

by that show of uncertainty

should somewhat be shaken.

But we hold their judgment

not to be so sound in this point.

It hath pleased God

in his divine providence

here and there

to scatter words and sentences

of that difficulty

and doubtfulness,

not in doctrinal points

that concern salvation,

for in such it hath been vouched

that the scriptures are plain,

but in matters of less moment,

that fearfulness

would better beseem us

than confidence.

It's better to make doubt

of the things

which are secret

than to strive about

those things

that are uncertain.

There be many words

in the scriptures

which be never found there

but once.

There be many rare names

of certain birds,

beasts,

and precious stones

concerning which

the Hebrews themselves

are so divided among themselves

for judgment.

Now in such a case,

doth not a margin

do well

to admonish the reader

to seek further

and not to conclude

or dogmatize

upon this or that

peremptorily.

So the KJV translators

back in 1611

knew their translation

was not inerrant

because there were places

that they were uncertain

as to how

to translate things.

Back to the history.

Copies were made

of the originals

and then copies

of those copies

and copies

and copies

and copies

down through the centuries

but then

how the Mediterranean world

changed

over those centuries

also had a big impact

on the transmission

of the scriptures.

There came a time

when the church

divided

over regional lines.

1054 AD

was the official separation

of the western

and the eastern church

but long before that

these two regions

began to grow apart.

In fact,

it wasn't too long

after the first century

for those in the west

that Greek

kind of faded

into the background

and Latin

became the standard.

And so in the fourth century

the Greek New Testament

was translated

into Latin

and that became

the standard Bible

of the west.

Greek, however,

continued to be

the language

of the eastern church.

there were even

some Christians

down here in Egypt

and they were making copies

and so

there ended up being

what's called

families

of manuscripts

based on these

regional divides

as the copies

kept being made.

Then there was

the fall of Rome

and the dark ages

which followed.

They were days of

conquest

and upheaval

and really

it was truly

a sovereign work

of God

that the oldest

manuscripts

we have today

were preserved

through that time.

Those were days

in which libraries

were burnt to the ground

as cities were captured

and conquered

and God used monks

in scriptoriums

at the monasteries

to preserve

his word.

Now there's a whole lot

of church history

from that point

all the way up

to the Reformation

in the early 1500s

and it factors

into the story

but for this morning

it's enough to know

that up until the time

that the printing press

was invented

in the 1400s

the Latin Vulgate

the Latin Bible

was the main Bible

of the church

in the West.

And after the fall

of Rome

Latin literacy

actually fell

so badly

that it was very few

who were even

able to read it.

It was mainly

just educated priests

and bishops

who could read it

and so the people

became for centuries

very dependent

upon the church leadership

to know anything

of what was in

the Bible

of what God

had revealed

and sadly

through that time

even before

1054

the Roman Catholic Church

became so corrupt

that you weren't

even guaranteed

to have a bishop

or priest

who was a Christian.

People went after

leadership positions

in the church

for power

and for prestige

and sadly

many of the corrupt

church leaders

were all too happy

to keep the people

in the dark

so they could continue

to take advantage

of them

with things like

the sales

of indulgences.

But the invention

of the movable type

printing press

in the 1400s

changed everything.

Within about 60 years

of it being invented

a man named

Desiderius Erasmus

published the first

ever printed

Greek New Testament.

Up until this point

there had been

some attempts

to translate the Bible

into various languages

but they were

attempts to translate

the Latin Bible

into German

and French

and even English

but the Catholic Church

would have none of it

and they fiercely

opposed anyone

who tried to make

a translation

of the only

authorized version

of the Bible

which at the time

was the Latin Vulgate.

You may have heard

about John Wycliffe.

In the 1300s

he'd been working

to translate the Bible

from Latin

into English

but not only

was he met

with fierce opposition

but his translation

was just not very good

because it was

a translation

of a translation.

In order to accurately

translate the scriptures

we must go back

and we must translate

directly from

the original languages

that it was written in.

But up until this point

the Greek New Testament

only existed

in copied manuscripts

-scattered all over

the place

and not every manuscript

even had

the whole New Testament.

Some were just

the Gospels

some were the Epistles.

In fact

one codex

containing the entire

New Testament

was 450 pages

on papyri.

So this was

quite the thing

to have a whole copy

of the New Testament

back then.

Before we can have

a good

push out of the Bible

on the printing press

we need to have

a good translation

and before we

have a good translation

we can have that

we need to have

a good complete copy

of the Greek New Testament.

And so this is

where the work

of Erasmus

in 1516

was needed.

He published

his Greek New Testament

and translation

work went ahead.

A man named

William Tyndall

used Erasmus'

New Testament

to create

the first ever

published translation

of the Bible

into English.

In fact

there were several

translations of the Bible

into English

which came to be

within about

a hundred years

of Erasmus

first publishing

his Greek New Testament

in the year

1516.

And I will mention

here

I have relied

significantly

on Daniel Wallace

for a lot

of this information.

He is one of the

best Greek scholars

alive today.

He is a senior

research professor

at Dallas

Theological Seminary.

He is the

executive director

of the Center

for the Study

of New Testament

Manuscripts.

And he has

traveled all over

the world

with his team

to photograph

and catalog

ancient manuscripts

of the New Testament.

He has been published

countless times

in all kinds

of journals

magazines

you name it

and he served

as consultant

for four major

Bible translations

including the

NIV

the ESV

and the

New King James Version.

In Daniel Wallace's

words

William Tyndall's

translation of the

Bible

was superb.

Back in those days

they spoke

what we call

Middle English

and William Tyndall

was a highly

educated man.

He studied

Greek

he studied

Hebrew

he had a

bachelor's degree

and a master's

degree from Oxford

he studied

at Cambridge

he became

fluent in six

or seven languages

and he had

a fantastic

grasp

of the English

language of his

day.

Within 30

years of his

translation

another Bible

came to be

printed in English

the Geneva Bible

it was translated

of course

in Geneva

and it was

the first

English Bible

to be translated

by a whole

committee

rather than

just one

man

and it too

was translated

from Erasmus'

Greek New Testament

and from the

Hebrew Scriptures

rather than

the Latin

Vulgate.

Finally

we come to

the 1600s

King James

is on the

throne of England

and while the

Geneva Bible

is the popular

translation

that everybody's

got in their

homes

the Bishop's

Bible

is what

was being

used in

the churches.

You know

how it goes

one of the

past monarchs

had decided

that the

Bishop's

Bible

should be

the standard

translation

in England

but the

people just

didn't like

it

it never

caught on

they liked

the Geneva

Bible

better

but King

James

didn't like

the Geneva

Bible

and it seems

more than

anything

it wasn't

so much

the translation

he didn't

like

it was

the notes

in the

margins

just like

our modern

day study

Bibles

today

the Geneva

Bible

came with

all kinds

of notes

and commentary

in the

margins

and King

James

didn't like

some of

the commentary

in particular

especially the

stuff having

to do with

rising up

against authority

in certain

situations

so King

James summoned

all the

religious leaders

of England

to do some

religious

business

and a

resolution

was made

at that

conference

that a

translation

be made

of the

whole

Bible

as

consonant

as can

be

to the

original

Hebrew

and Greek

and this

to be

set out

and printed

without any

marginal notes

and only

to be used

in all

churches

of England

in time

of divine

service

King

James

himself

actually

took a

leading

role

in crafting

the rules

for who

the translators

should be

and how

they should

organize

and what

principles

to follow

he assigned

six panels

of scholars

to do

the work

three panels

of scholars

for the

Old Testament

two for

the New

Testament

and one

for the

Apocrypha

altogether

there were

47 men

who worked

on this

one new

translation

they looked

at all

the English

translations

done to

date

they looked

at the

Latin

Vulgate

and in

the New

Testament

for the

New

Testament

they used

the Greek

New

Testament

that was

largely

based off

of Erasmus'

Greek

New Testament

it had

two more

revisions

or something

since then

interestingly

enough the

translators of

the King

James Bible

ended up

going with

the wording

of the

Geneva Bible

a fair

bit

because it

was just

that good

of a

translation

even more

surprising

is how

closely

the King

James

when it

was done

resembled

William

Tyndall's

translation

from 80

years

earlier

apparently

when it

came to

the New

Testament

the wording

was actually

90% the

same

as what

Tyndall had

in the

first English

translation

ever made

a huge

testimony

to have

47 men

put their

stamp of

approval

on his

work in

so many

places

when all

was said

and done

the English

speaking

churches

had a

new

translation

of the

Bible

and not

only a

new

one

but an

excellent

translation

of God's

word

for their

day

their aim

was to

translate

the scriptures

in a way

that was

understandable

beautiful

and accurate

for the

common

English

speaker

of their

day

and by

the grace

of God

they

succeeded

it was a

fantastic

translation

the people

came to

love it

it brought

unity in

the church

and it

still shines

today

as a

beautiful

translation

for its

day

but there

was one

significant

weakness

not just

of the

King James

translation

but of

all

English

translations

made

around

this

time

they

relied

exclusively

on the

published

editions

of the

Greek

New

Testament

that

they

had

available

in

their

day

all

were

based

off

of

Erasmus'

Greek

New

Testament

which

was

published

back

in

1516

here's

the

problem

when

Erasmus

published

his

New

Testament

in

1516

first

of all

it had

been a

rushed

job

it was

a race

to see

who could

get the

first

printed

Greek

New

Testament

out

and

Erasmus

even

admitted

that

himself

which

was

why

his

first

edition

was

full

of

errors

and

typos

but

the

bigger

issue

is

that

Erasmus'

Greek

New

Testament

was

put

together

from

a

grand

total

of

only

eight

Greek

New

Testament

manuscripts

there's

only

seven

on

there

but

the

eighth

the

best

manuscript

he

had

was

a

copy

of

the

New

Testament

that

was

made

in

the

11th

century

still

a

thousand

years

from

the

time

that

the

New

Testament

was

first

written

and

he

didn't

even

realize

apparently

that

it

was

his

best

copy

and

he

used

it

the

least

that's

why

it's

not even

on

instead

he

drew

more

from

the

more

recent

manuscripts

these

manuscripts

were

copied

one

to

two

hundred

years

before

he

made

his

New

Testament

so

they

were

not

very

old

in

general

the

closer

to

the

time

of

the

original

that

a

manuscript

copy

was

made

the

more

accurate

that

copy

is

likely

to

be

and

so

these

12th

to

15th

century

manuscripts

that

he

used

to

publish

his

Greek

New

Testament

had

all

the

copyist

and

scribal

heirs

that

had

accumulated

in

them

over

the

past

thousand

to

fourteen

hundred

years

depending

on

which

one

you're

talking

about

in

addition

to

that

all

but

one

of

his

manuscripts

were

from

the

same

regional

family

and

that

that

that

is

all

he

had

access

to

in

his

day

out

of

his

eight

manuscripts

only

one

of

them

had

the

book

of

Revelation

in

it

and

unfortunately

his

one

manuscript

copy

with

Revelation

was

not

a

very

good

copy

it

had

some

significant

issues

due

to

an

earlier

archbishop

named

Andreas

in

addition

to

that

his

one

manuscript

of

Revelation

was

missing

the

last

page

which

was

actually

a

common

thing

for

ancient

manuscripts

to be

missing

the

first

or

the

last

page

they

would

get

brittle

and

fall

apart

and

so

he

didn't

have

the

last

six

verses

of

the

book

of

Revelation

and

Erasmus

cheated

instead

of delaying

his

publishing

as he

should

have

and

finding

a

Greek

manuscript

with

those

verses

in it

he

made

a

big

boo

boo

he

opened

up

the

Latin

Vulgate

and

he

of

those

last

six

verses

to

complete

his

New

Testament

but

then

uh-oh

some

eventually

some

manuscripts

of

Revelation

started

turning

up

and

he

was

looking

at

them

and

it

didn't

match

what

he

had

done

and

already

people

have

been

translating

and

publishing

off

my

first

edition

this

is

why

there

were

multiple

revisions

of

Erasmus

work

later

on

I

wish

we

had

time

to

look

at

my

favorite

example

but

resulted

in

some

major

noticeable

differences

in

wording

between

all

the

translations

that

were

based

off

of

his

work

and

later

translations

that

were

made

and

so

this

is

one

of

the

big

weaknesses

of

the

King

James

version

of

the

Bible

it

was

based

off

Erasmus

New

Testament

and

Erasmus

had

only

eight

Greek

manuscripts

all

but

one

of

them

were

from

a

single

family

of

manuscripts

only

one

copy

of

Revelation

that

was

incomplete

and

none

of

his

manuscripts

were

older

than

the

11th

century

today

in

2024

we

have

over

5,000

plus

Greek

manuscripts

of the

New

Testament

in

libraries

museums

and

collections

around

the

world

we

have

several

online

catalogs

of these

manuscripts

where you

can go

and for

free

you can

view a

high

resolution

photograph

of the

actual

manuscripts

that were

copied

long

ago

it's

amazing

not only

do we

have a

huge

number

but we

also

have

manuscripts

from

all of

the

different

families

of

manuscripts

and

the

families

by

comparing

them

with

each

other

gives

us

insight

as to

when

and

where

copying

errors

crept

in

then

beyond

that

we

have

10,000

manuscripts

of the

earliest

New Testament

translations

that were

made into

Latin

Coptic

Syriac

Armenian

and more

and then

on top

of that

we also

have the

copies

of the

writings

of the

church

fathers

who

frequently

quoted

from their

copies

of

Paul's

letters

and

Peter's

letters

and the

gospels

so all

of these

sources

we now

use

today

to identify

more easily

where those

copyist errors

and mistakes

crept in

but most

importantly

with all

these

many

manuscripts

we now

have

today

we have

many

today

which date

back

way closer

to the

time that

the New

Testament

was actually

written

than

Erasmus'

did

an earlier

date of

copy

generally

means

less

errors

we have

a dozen

manuscript

fragments

dating

all the

way back

to the

second

century

within

decades

of the

originals

being

written

who knows

possibly

some

even

copied

from

the

originals

then

in the

third

century

we have

64

manuscripts

from

the

fourth

century

we have

48

manuscripts

which is

a total

of about

125

manuscripts

from

within

the first

300

years

of the

original

writings

of the

apostles

and

collectively

within

that

125

manuscripts

the

whole

New

Testament

is

found

represented

multiple

times

over

not

only

that

but

with

technology

today

we are

able

to

analyze

these

manuscripts

in ways

never

possible

before

we have

different

types

of

imaging

today

that

can

help

us

to

better

read

old

and

faded

parchment

we

have

computers

that

are

able

to

catalog

every

manuscript

we have

and

we can

program

them

to

sift

through

and

pick

out

the

manuscripts

that

we

want

to

see

on

a

particular

passage

where

we

see

a

variation

so

that

we

can

analyze

them

and

the

computers

can

help

us

figure

out

where

did