Debunking the myth that the New Testament is a garbled message lost in transmission.

“The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.”
—Isaiah 40:8

---

What if the Bible we read today isn’t the same Bible the apostles wrote down? What if, after centuries of copying and recopying, it’s more like a spiritual version of the telephone game—where the original message has been hopelessly mangled?

This isn’t just a theoretical question. It’s one of the most common objections I hear in conversations about faith. In fact, I heard it recently from a man who had served in the Navy.

He told me how he and his shipmates used to play the telephone game to pass the time. They’d start with a simple phrase like “extended shore leave,” whisper it from person to person, and by the time it reached the end of the line, it had somehow morphed into “something about the captain’s son.”

Then he looked at me seriously and said, “Isn’t that what happened to the New Testament? Too many hands, too many years—it’s probably nothing like the original.”

I stood there listening, then I asked, “Can I tell you why the New Testament isn’t like the telephone game?”

He said yes, so I listed several reasons why that is such a poor analogy. Here is some of what I said:

---

Why the Telephone Game Doesn’t Fit

1. It’s Designed to Distort

The telephone game isn’t about preserving a message—it’s about sabotaging it for fun. The goal is distortion. Someone along the line will intentionally change the words just to see how hilariously wrong the final version will sound.

The New Testament wasn’t transmitted by giggling children trying to twist the message. It was painstakingly copied by people who believed they were preserving sacred Scripture.¹

2. It’s Played by Children; Textual Criticism Is a Science

In the telephone game, there are no checks and balances. One person whispers to the next, and if a mistake happens, it sticks. But textual criticism—the scholarly discipline that studies ancient manuscripts—is different.

Scholars compare thousands of manuscripts from different regions to spot variations and recover the original text. It’s not about guessing; it’s about evidence.²

3. One Chain vs. Thousands of Witnesses

The telephone game has only one chain of transmission. One error early in the chain means every later version carries that error.

The New Testament? From the start, multiple copies were made and sent out across the ancient world. These copies created thousands of “chains” of transmission. Mistakes in one region didn’t spread unchecked—they were caught and corrected because other chains preserved the original wording.

We have over 5,800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, along with thousands more in Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and other ancient languages. For comparison, most classical works survive in fewer than 20 copies.³

---

But What About Textual Variants?

Critics like Bart Ehrman often point out there are roughly 400,000 textual variants in New Testament manuscripts. At first glance, that sounds alarming—more variants than words in the New Testament!⁴

But here’s the full context: those variants come from over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, plus tens of thousands more in other languages.⁵ More manuscripts mean more opportunities to notice spelling errors, accidental repetitions, or minor word order differences.

Over 99% of these variants are trivial, and less than 1% are both meaningful and viable.⁶

---

The Most Common Variants Are Insignificant

A few examples:

Movable ν (~25%)

Greek scribes often added or dropped a final ν (e.g., ἐστι → ἐστιν) to ease pronunciation. This “movable nu” makes up about 25% of all variants, yet it never changes meaning.⁷ It’s like the difference between saying “a apple” or “an apple.” We place the n on a before a word that begins with a vowel to ease pronunciation

Spelling Differences (~70%)

Roughly 70% of variants are simple spelling or orthographic differences—like how Americans write color and Brits write colour. Greek scribes had similar spelling quirks across regions.⁸

Word Order (~9%)

Unlike English, Greek allows flexible word order. About 9% of variants involve swapping phrases—e.g., “Jesus Christ” vs. “Christ Jesus.” The meaning doesn’t change.⁹

Additions or Omissions (<1%)

Occasionally scribes inadvertently left out or added words—sometimes marginal notes got copied into the text. These variants appear in under 1% of all cases and are clearly documented in modern critical editions.¹⁰

Synonymous Substitutions (<1%)

Less than 1% involve swapping synonyms (“he said” vs. “he is saying”)—words that don’t alter the core idea.

Together, these account for virtually all textual differences. None threaten any core Christian doctrine.

---

Examples of Textual Variants

Here’s how both sides of textual criticism engage with six well-known examples:

Mark 1:41 – “Moved with Compassion” or “Moved with Anger”?

In most manuscripts, Jesus is described as “moved with compassion” when He heals a leper. But a few early manuscripts, including Codex Bezae, say “moved with anger.”

Two perspectives:

• Some scholars argue “anger” is original, reflecting Jesus’ righteous indignation at sin and suffering, later softened by scribes.
• Others cite the overwhelming manuscript support for “compassion” and suggest “anger” was a scribal slip.

But does this change anything essential? Not at all. In both readings, Jesus heals. The doctrine of His mercy and power stands untouched.

It’s like two witnesses in court agreeing they saw the suspect fire at police but differing on the color of his getaway car. Was it dark blue or dark green? The core testimony remains solid.

---

John 1:18 – “Only Begotten Son” vs. “Only Begotten God”

Some manuscripts call Jesus the “only begotten Son”. Others say “only begotten God”.

Two perspectives:

• “Only begotten God” appears in some early manuscripts (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus) and is favored by some scholars.
• “Only begotten Son” has broader manuscript support and was quoted by early Church Fathers like Irenaeus.

Either way, John’s message of Christ’s unique divine nature is unshaken.

Think of a courtroom: one witness calls the suspect “the perpetrator,” another “the thief.” Different wording, same reality.

---

Revelation 13:18 – 666 vs. 616

Most manuscripts say the number of the beast is 666, but a few early ones read 616.

Why the difference?

• In Greek, “Nero Caesar” transliterated into Hebrew letters equals 666.
• In Latin, the same name produces 616 when converted.¹³

This reflects linguistic differences, not contradiction. Both point to the same historical figure—Nero Caesar.

It’s like two witnesses describing the suspect by his full name (“Jonathan”) and nickname (“Jon”).

---

Mark 1:2 – “In Isaiah the Prophet” vs. “In the Prophets”

Some manuscripts say: “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet…” Others say: “As it is written in the prophets…”

Why?

• “Isaiah” reflects his prominence as the quoted prophet.
• “The prophets” acknowledges Malachi’s contribution.

Either way, the prophecy points to Christ. Like saying “Toyota” or “Corolla”—one more specific, but both true.

---

Matthew 5:22 – “Without Cause” Added or Original?

Some manuscripts include “without cause”:

“Whoever is angry with his brother without cause will be liable to judgment.”

Others omit it:

“Whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment.”

The discussion:

• Some argue scribes softened Jesus’ words.
• Others say it was part of the original text, later omitted accidentally.

The call to radical forgiveness remains unchanged.

---

1 John 5:7–8 – The Comma Johanneum

In a few late manuscripts, 1 John 5:7 includes:

“For there are three that bear record in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.”

Absent from early Greek manuscripts but present in some Latin ones, it was quoted by later Fathers like Cyprian.

Modern critics consider it a later addition. But the Trinity is affirmed elsewhere (Matthew 28:19).

Would a judge dismiss multiple witnesses identifying the same suspect because one remembered “navy jacket” and another “midnight blue”? Not likely.

---

The Bottom Line

Even Bart Ehrman—one of the most well-known critics of the New Testament’s textual integrity—acknowledges the remarkable preservation of its text. In Misquoting Jesus, he concedes, “The New Testament is preserved in far more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity.”¹⁷ Elsewhere, he affirms that “Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”¹⁸ These admissions, coming from a skeptical scholar, only reinforce what many textual critics—both Christian and non-Christian—have long maintained: that the textual foundation of the New Testament is exceptionally well-supported and remarkably stable.

So, is the New Testament a fragile game of telephone? No.

The telephone game is designed to twist a message for laughs. The New Testament was copied and preserved by communities who revered it as sacred. The telephone game relies on one unbroken chain—prone to error and distortion. The New Testament, from the very beginning, had multiple lines of transmission. If an error crept in here or there, it didn’t spread unchecked.

And textual variants? They’re not the threat skeptics make them out to be. Over 99% are trivial, and even the rare meaningful differences don’t touch any core Christian teaching. Scholars aren’t guessing at the original text—they’re reconstructing it with extraordinary precision.

The New Testament isn’t a relic corrupted by time. It’s a robust, well-preserved record of real people, real places, and real events.

So when skepticism calls, truth answers—not with guesses or myths, but with evidence. The New Testament message rings through loud and clear.

---

Notes

1. Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 41.
2. Daniel B. Wallace, “The Basics of New Testament Textual Criticism,” Bible.org, accessed July 2025, https://bible.org/article/basics-new-testament-textual-criticism.
3. F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 16–17.
4. Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2005), 89.
5. Norman Geisler and William Nix, From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible (Chicago: Moody, 2012), 213.
6. Philip Comfort, Encountering the Manuscripts (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2005), 108.
7. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 65.
8. Ibid., 266–267.
9. J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 58.
10. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 284.
11. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 65.
12. Comfort, Encountering the Manuscripts, 212–214.
13. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 1247.
14. Greenlee, Introduction, 73.
15. Wallace, “Basics of Textual Criticism.”
16. Bruce, Are They Reliable?, 34–36.
17. Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (New York: HarperOne, 2005), 10.
18. Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 252.