A few thoughts, for your consideration, that I hope will be received for your edification as they are intended. I realize this is a little outside the scope of your question, I just feel obliged since I've spent 20 years in the field in which you are proposing a study, and wish someone would have told me this 20 years ago when I set out on a similar course.

I would suggest that one insure they were well grounded in the Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura and its historical meaning before wandering across a mine field. The gentlemen that advised you to study Elder Rafalsky's posts was good advice, he can lead you to a wealth of information. Since B.B. Warfield the Reformed community has abandoned the historic doctrine and its meaning, one needs to know this, as it can have drastic consequences to your faith if you proceed on a study of variants in possible ignorance of the underlying issues and the redefinition of the doctrine.

Romanists introduced the study of variants for one reason, to attack and undermine the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, you need to know that. I say that simply to point out that you don't enter this field of study on neutral ground, anymore than you do soteriology. Just as there are Calvinist and Arminian sides to soteriology, there is also of textual studies. The Reformed community, has almost universally adopted a "textual Arminianism," of sorts, so you will take a side once you enter the study, consciously or not. The presuppositional ground upon which you stand determines how one interprets the evidence, the same way an evolutionist examines a rock and determines it is 400 billion years old and a creationist looks at it and determines it is 7,000 years old. Any time one studies "variations of manuscripts," then you are pitting yourself as judge over the word of God, one needs to understand the gravity of what that means.

That isn't ground one needs to wander upon lightly, nor can one do so blindly as the other gentlemen advised you to beware of Bruce Metzger, that also was good advice, as he has made the faith of many souls shipwrecked. No disrespect to Todd intended who mentioned Meztger, I just say that from my personal experience, as not everyone is as strong as others.

Hence, I would strongly suggest that you consider settling which ground you stand upon in terms of what you believe about the Bible, before setting out on a study of variant texts of the Bible. You need to know if you stand with historic Reformed orthodoxy in terms of the meaning of Scripture, or if you stand with the modernists that have redefined it - and just be honest with yourself. If you believe, like many, that the Protestant Reformers were wrong for whatever reason, then just be honest with yourself, from the start, because the tendency of man is self deception.

Romans 3:4 says, "[L]et God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged." When I study these things I've learned to remember that I am just a man, a redeemed sinner that is easily deceived, when I have to judge God's words between variants. In the absence of proof, one is better off counting the advice of men between variants as liars - even yourself.

Hence, if you haven't already, it would be advisable to settle the presuppositions upon which you are entering this field of study before setting out on the journey. Our Lord tells us very plainly, "Beware of the scribes..." (Luke 20:46) and ..."a little leaven leaventh the whole lump," (Galatians 5:9) something that modern Christians seemed to have forgotten, especially when they approach the work of scribes.

In Christ's Bonds,

Thomas

__________________
Thomas Weddle
Member, Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church
Evansville, Indiana