Module review

It is true that the autographs are lost and that estimates of variants run to around 500,000, but the number is large because we have so many manuscripts: more than 5,800 Greek copies plus over ten thousand Latin ones, early translations and abundant quotations in the church fathers. Early witnesses include P52, a fragment of John 18 usually dated in the second century, and P66 and P75, traditionally dated around AD 200, while P75's text closely matches Codex Vaticanus from the fourth century, showing careful copying. Daniel Wallace sorts variants into spelling and nonsense errors (the largest group), minor changes that do not affect meaning, meaningful but not viable readings, and a small fraction, often estimated at under one per cent, that are both meaningful and viable, such as Mark 16:9-20, which no doctrine depends on. Transmission was not like Chinese whispers: it spread in many written branches that can be compared, with early copies close to the source, and modern Bibles are translated directly from the Greek and Hebrew, not from earlier translations. Ehrman argues that scribes sometimes changed the text and that some original wording may be uncertain, but he concedes that most variants are immaterial and says that, for the most part, he agrees with Metzger that essential Christian beliefs are not affected. So the dispute is about how much uncertainty to emphasise, not the data. As the Westminster Confession says, God has kept his word pure in all ages by his providence, and he did so through this very abundance of witnesses.

• Accurate figures and at least two named manuscripts with honest dates
• Explains why the raw number of variants is misleading and gives Wallace's categories
• Refutes the telephone analogy and the translation-chain myth
• Represents Ehrman fairly, neither overstating nor understating his concession
• Links preservation to God's providence (WCF 1.8)

Nicaea (325) dealt with Arius' denial of Christ's deity and with the date of Easter; it issued no list of biblical books. The Old Testament canon was already received by Jesus, who spoke of the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms (Luke 24:44). The core of the New Testament was recognised very early: Peter places Paul's letters among the Scriptures (2 Pet 3:16), Irenaeus around 180 defended exactly four Gospels, and the Muratorian fragment, usually dated to the late second century, lists most of our New Testament. A few shorter books such as James, Jude and 2 Peter took longer to be received everywhere, as Eusebius records, which shows care rather than carelessness. The first list of exactly our 27 books comes from Athanasius in 367, decades after Nicaea, and councils at Hippo and Carthage affirmed it. The Gospel of Thomas is usually dated to the second century and reflects a different, often Gnostic theology, so it was not an equal rival but a later work lacking apostolic origin. The church looked for apostolicity, orthodoxy and wide use, and Reformed believers add that the books bear divine qualities through which the Spirit testifies. Like a jeweller who recognises gold but does not make it valuable, the church recognised books that already had God's authority, for Christ's sheep hear his voice (John 10:27).

• Corrects the Nicaea myth (Arius, Easter, no list)
• Gives at least two milestones (Irenaeus, Muratorian fragment, Eusebius, Athanasius 367, Hippo/Carthage)
• Explains why Thomas and similar works were rejected
• States the criteria and the recognition-not-creation model (jeweller, John 10:27)

The Catholic Church teaches that Scripture and Tradition flow from the same divine wellspring and are to be honoured with equal devotion (CCC 80-82), and that the Magisterium is their authentic interpreter (CCC 85). Sola Scriptura does not deny other authorities; it says Scripture is the only infallible and final authority, with creeds, councils and church officers as real but subordinate guides, which is different from the caricature of 'solo Scriptura'. On 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul's oral and written teaching were both authoritative because both came from an apostle, but Paul does not describe a separate body of doctrine, and no one can show that a later dogma such as the bodily Assumption of Mary (defined in 1950) was part of his oral teaching; the only apostolic teaching we can identify today is the written New Testament. Scripture alone is said to be God-breathed and sufficient to equip the believer (2 Tim 3:16-17), Jesus judged tradition by the word of God (Mark 7:13), and the Bereans tested even Paul by the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). On the canon, Israel recognised its Scriptures without an infallible magisterium, and Jesus held people responsible for knowing them (Matt 22:29-31), so recognising Scripture does not require an infallible church. The church is a witness that recognises God's word, as WCF 1.4 says Scripture's authority depends wholly on God, its author, and full assurance comes from the Spirit (WCF 1.5). I would say this warmly, as to someone who also loves the Bible, and ask, 'How do you know which traditions are apostolic?'

• States the Catholic position accurately with CCC citations
• Defines sola Scriptura and distinguishes it from solo Scriptura
• Answers 2 Thess 2:15 (apostolic oral teaching not identifiable beyond the NT)
• Builds the biblical case (2 Tim 3:16-17; Mark 7:13; Acts 17:11) and answers the canon point (Israel; WCF 1.4-1.5)
• Gracious tone and a good question

Inerrancy means that, because God never lies (Titus 1:2), Scripture in its original writings is without error in all that it affirms, while still using ordinary language, round numbers and summaries. The original writings are lost, but that does not make inerrancy empty: the Chicago Statement affirms that the original text can be ascertained from the manuscripts with great accuracy, and textual criticism shows where the remaining uncertainty lies, none of which affects a core doctrine. A contradiction means two statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense, so the claim is testable; it is falsified only if no reasonable resolution exists. Matthew 27:5 says Judas hanged himself and Acts 1:18 says he fell headlong and burst open; a body that hung for some time and then fell when the rope or branch gave way fits both, a solution suggested as early as Augustine. On the field, the priests bought it with Judas' money, so Acts can say he acquired it, and both accounts call it the Field of Blood. I would admit that harmonisation can be forced and that some difficulties are still debated, so where I do not know, I will say so and keep studying. But a difficulty is not a demonstrated error, and my confidence rests on God's truthfulness and on Scripture's proven reliability. I would also gently acknowledge Rachel's story and invite her to look again at the Christ the text so reliably presents.

• Defines inerrancy accurately (original writings, all it affirms, ordinary language allowed)
• Answers the autographs point (Chicago Article X; recoverable text; textual criticism)
• Defines contradiction and resolves Judas (hanging/falling; the field; Augustine)
• Shows honesty: harmonisation can be forced; difficulty is not demonstrated error
• Pastoral empathy for Rachel