A Reframing of Hypothetical Q in Christian Creedal Conversation

A Reframing of Hypothetical Q

in Christian Creedal Conversation

From Prophetic Voice to Divine Presence

How Early Christianity Learned to Speak About Jesus

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT

Language grows where experience

presses hardest without resolve.

The deepest truths are not invented.

They are learned when older grammars

can no longer bear their weight.

- R.E. Slater

The Q source (from German Quelle, "source") is a hypothetical, earlier written document, likely initially composed of Jesus' sayings, used by Matthew and Luke alongside Mark to construct their Gospels. Believed to have originated around 50–70 CE, Q contains material common to Matthew and Luke but absent from Mark, such as the Sermon on the Mount/Plain or the Birth of Jesus.

What Q Does Not Include (but Matthew and Luke do):

• Birth Narratives: The stories of the Wise Men/Herod (Matthew) and the Shepherds/Census (Luke) are not in Q.
• Passion/Resurrection Narratives: The detailed accounts of Jesus's final days.
• Contextual Framing: Q is widely considered a "sayings gospel" lacking the narrative, chronological structure provided in the Gospels.
• Specific Miracles: While Q has some, many unique miracles are in Matthew/Luke's independent sources (M or L).

What Q Does Include (shared by Matthew and Luke):

• The Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9–13, Luke 11:2–4).
• The Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3–12, Luke 6:20–23).
• The Temptation of Jesus by the devil (Matthew 4:1–11, Luke 4:1–13).
• Sayings on judgment and the coming Kingdom.

In essence, the hypothetical Q focuses on the teachings and sayings of Jesus, excluding the biographical narratives that Matthew and Luke otherwise share or independently include.

---

Preface

Modern discussions of Christian origins often polarize around two competing instincts. One seeks to defend traditional doctrinal conclusions as timeless and complete from Christianity’s inception. The other attempts to peel back later theological developments in order to recover a supposedly simpler and more authentic Jesus. Both approaches, in different ways, flatten the historical texture of early Christianity.

This essay proceeds from a different assumption.

Early Christianity was not born with a finished Christology. It was born with an experience. That experience was gradually interpreted, narrated, theologized, and articulated across multiple conceptual registers. The earliest followers of Jesus did not begin by asking who Jesus was in himself. They began by asking what had happened among them and what God had done through Jesus.

Only later did ontological language emerge.

The purpose of this essay is not to adjudicate between competing source theories, nor to construct a systematic Christology. Its aim is more modest and more foundational. It seeks to trace the developmental movement from Jesus experienced as a prophetic voice to Jesus understood as more than a prophetic voice, the Son of God, God Incarnate. In doing so, it offers a historical and theological framework in which debates about Q, early Christology, and later incarnation language can be understood as stages within a single unfolding process of recognition.

---

Introduction

Scholars frequently describe research into early Christian sources as technical, specialized, and remote from contemporary theological concerns. Yet beneath discussions of textual relationships, hypothetical documents, and redactional layers lies a persistent human question.

What did the earliest followers of Jesus believe they had encountered?

This question does not arise first at the level of metaphysical speculation. It arises at the level of experience. The earliest Jesus-movements encountered a figure whose words, actions, and fate generated a profound sense that God had acted decisively within history. That conviction preceded doctrinal clarity. It preceded metaphysical precision. It even preceded agreed-upon narrative forms.

The question, therefore, is not whether early Christianity began with high Christology or low Christology. The more accurate question is how early communities gradually learned to speak about an encounter that exceeded their inherited categories, their prophetic grammars, their ideas about God.

This essay argues that early Christianity moved along a developmental arc: Jesus was first remembered and transmitted as a prophetic mediator of God’s reign. Following experiences interpreted as resurrection with ongoing presence, early communities increasingly found prophetic categories insufficient. Language expanded. Titles multiplied. Conceptual pressure grew. Divinity became a conclusion rather than an initial premise.

Recognized presence preceded recognized divinity.

The language of the early church had no language for Jesus' singularity. After reflection on Jesus' life, ministry, death, and resurrection, it expanded its language, its concepts, its theology, and its ontology.

This took decades....

And it is seen in the language of its earliest supposed hypothetical sources which began with Jesus' sayings (30-60 CE) then expanded under Paul (50-65 CE) and settled into the synoptics (65-90 CE) and later New Testament tracts (John et al, 90-110 CE).

---

I. The Developmental Arc (200 BCE → 160 CE)

Here is a compressed historical map:

 
A. Jewish Conceptual World (200–30 BCE)

Second Temple Judaism already had categories for:

• Prophets
• Spirit-filled teachers
• Wisdom personified
• Angelic mediators
• Messiah (royal, priestly, prophetic)

But not:

• Incarnation in a Greek metaphysical sense
• A divine-human hypostatic union

So Jesus’ earliest followers inevitably interpreted him using Jewish categories first.

 
B. Earliest Jesus-Movements (30–60 CE)

Jesus remembered as:

• Spirit-anointed prophet
• Teacher of God’s reign
• Healer and exorcist
• Eschatological herald

Language used:

• “Son of Man” (apocalyptic figure)
• “Servant”
• “Prophet like Moses”

Language not used yet:

• Pre-existent Logos
• Eternal Son in ontological sense

This is the world that Q-style sayings fit into.

 
C. Pauline Expansion (50–65 CE)

Paul the Apostle - Paul’s letters show a major step forward:

• Jesus is exalted by God
• Jesus participates in divine activity
• Jesus shares in God’s name and glory

But Paul still speaks dynamically:

• God exalted Jesus.
• God gave him the name above every name.

This is functional divinity before fully articulated ontological divinity.

 
D. Narrative Christology (65–90 CE)

Gospel of Mark

• Jesus as suffering Messiah
• Son of God declared at baptism and transfiguration
• Identity unveiled through the cross

Still relatively low metaphysics.

Gospel of Matthew
Gospel of Luke

• Virgin conception
• Jesus as Son from birth

Stronger sense of divine initiative is developing in the church's language.

Divinity is being understood as moving earlier in Jesus’ story than it had in the early church.

 
E. High Christology (90–110 CE)

Gospel of John

• Pre-existent Logos
• “The Word was God”
• Jesus consciously speaks from divine identity

This is the first clear, sustained ontological incarnation theology.

 
F. Second-Century Consolidation (110–160 CE)

Church Fathers begin:

• Defending Jesus’ divinity against critics
• Clarifying relation between Father and Son
• Using Greek metaphysical vocabulary

Ontological Divine concepts are still fluid in the church's language.

It's Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds are centuries away.

---

II. The Question Beneath Q

The hypothetical Q source is typically defined as a collection of sayings shared by Matthew and Luke but absent from Mark. While debates about its existence-and-form continue, its significance does not rest primarily in its hypothetical status. Its significance lies in what the material attributed to it emphasizes.

The sayings of Jesus which are commonly associated with Q focus on ethical instruction, prophetic warning, and wisdom discourse. They present Jesus as announcing the nearness of God’s reign, calling for repentance, demanding radical love, and pronouncing blessing and woe. Narrative elements are sparse. Passion narratives are absent. Birth stories do not appear. Resurrection accounts are lacking.

This profile has often been interpreted as evidence of an early Jesus tradition unconcerned with Jesus’ divine identity. That conclusion, however, overreaches.

The more restrained inference is that the earliest recoverable layer of tradition reflects what communities first remembered as most urgent. They remembered what Jesus said and how he spoke. They remembered a voice that confronted, comforted, and summoned.

Q scholarship, at its best, is not asking whether Jesus was divine. It is asking what mode of remembrance came first.

The answer suggested by the material is that Jesus was first remembered as a voice speaking God’s will into concrete historical circumstances.

---

III. Jesus as Prophetic Voice

Within the Jewish tradition, prophets do not function primarily as predictors of distant futures. They function as bearers of divine message. They speak from within God’s concern for the covenantal life of the community. Their authority does not derive from philosophical argument but from perceived divine commission.

The earliest Jesus traditions portray him squarely within this prophetic stream. He announces God’s reign. He confronts injustice. He calls Israel back to covenantal fidelity. He speaks in parables, aphorisms, and warnings. He addresses everyday life while invoking ultimate accountability.

To describe Jesus as a prophet is not to reduce his significance. In Israel’s symbolic world, prophets stand at the boundary between heaven and earth. They mediate divine concern. They embody God’s pathos.

What is striking in the earliest sayings traditions is the intensity of Jesus’ authority. He does not merely interpret earlier prophets. He speaks as one who assumes direct access to God’s purposes. Yet no explanation is offered for this authority. It is simply encountered.

Presence is experienced before it is explained. In fact, this was the Jewish expectation. It was what they knew and knew how to identify with. They had not language for incarnation, divine birth, or global redemptive expiation.

---

IV. The Shock of Easter and the Expansion of Meaning

The execution of Jesus created a crisis. If Jesus were only a prophetic teacher, his death could be interpreted as tragic but final. Yet the earliest communities did not interpret it that way. In hindsight, they saw what they hadn't seen before while Jesus was living. This is all too clearly portrayed at Jesus' Last Supper with his disciples. When written of in the synoptic gospels it was the early church's language for saying, "We didn't understand who Jesus was until afterwards...."

Experiences interpreted as resurrection did not function primarily as proofs in an evidentiary sense. They functioned as catalysts for reinterpretation. They convinced early followers that Jesus’ significance had not ended with his death. God had vindicated him.

This conviction generated new questions.

• If God has vindicated Jesus, what does that imply about who Jesus was?
• Why does his presence feel ongoing and not concluded?
• Why does devotion to Jesus seem inseparable from devotion to God?

These questions did not arise in the abstract. They arose because experience exerted pressure on inherited categories.

Prophetic language, while still valid, began to feel insufficient. The followers of Jesus needed a new grammar.

---

V. From Voice to Presence

A subtle but decisive shift occurs in early Christian language.

Jesus is no longer only one who speaks God’s word. He is increasingly spoken of as one in whom God’s presence is somehow concentrated. Not "a voice of God" but "THE Voice of God"!

Early Christian texts begin to attribute to Jesus' activities as associated with God alone as seen in the later developed Gospel texts:

• Forgiveness of sins.
• Authority over ultimate destiny.
• Mediation of salvation.
• Participation in divine glory.

This stage is best described as functional Christology. Jesus does what God does. Jesus exercises divine prerogatives. Yet these affirmations remain largely relational rather than metaphysical. They describe what Jesus does and how Jesus functions within God’s saving activity. They do not yet specify what Jesus' Person is in ontological terms.

Function precedes essence.

---

VI. Why Divinity Language Emerges

Divinity language emerges not from speculative curiosity but from conceptual necessity.

Early communities discover that prophetic categories cannot carry the full weight of their experience. Exalted human (sic, supra-human) categories strain. Angelic categories strain. Wisdom language stretches but still does not fully suffice.

The question becomes unavoidable.

What kind of reality must Jesus participate in if God’s own life is disclosed through him?

Incarnated Divinity becomes the strongest available language capable of naming that depth of participation. It is not introduced to elevate Jesus artificially. It is introduced because weaker language collapses under the pressure of experience.

Divinity is a theological conclusion.

---

VII. "Q" Reconsidered

Seen within this framework, Q does not represent a community that denied Jesus’ significance. It represents a community living closest to the earliest register of Jesus's reframed-recognition.

• Jesus as prophetic mediator of God’s reign.
• Jesus as bearer of Divine authority.
• Jesus as God's Voice.

Later traditions live closer to subsequent, conclusding/summarizing registers.

• Jesus as exalted presence.
• Jesus as participant in divine identity.
• Jesus as incarnate Logos.

These are not competing Jesuses. They are successive interpretive stages responding to the same encounter but across differing eras. The earliest eras were trying to understand Jesus... the later eras centuries later were summarizing all those newly birthed grammars they had inherited.

---

VIII. Development Without Contradiction

Early Christianity did not face a binary choice between Jesus the prophet and Jesus the divine. Its actual movement can be traced as a continuum.

1. Prophetic voice.
2. Transparent mediator.
3. Exalted Lord.
4. Participant in divine identity.
5. Incarnate Word.

Each stage presupposes the earlier one. None cancels out the ones previous to it. Development does not equal invention. It equals better, more eloquent articulation according to the era that it is speaking within.

---

Conclusion

The earliest followers of Jesus did not begin by asking who Jesus was in himself. They began by asking what God had done among them. Their language grew as their reflection deepened. Their categories expanded as experience demanded more adequate expression.

Recognized presence preceded recognized divinity.

This historical pattern does not weaken Christian faith. It clarifies it. It locates Christology not in speculative abstraction but in lived encounter. It shows doctrine arising from devotion, theology emerging from experience, and metaphysics following worship.

Early Christianity learned to speak about Jesus because it first learned TO LISTEN, THEN EXAMINE,  what had happened through him.

---

Christ as Becoming

Heard first as a Voice in the wilderness

that became a Fire in the bones.

Then a Presence that would not leave

and Name too great for silence.
Those who heard spoke

because they had to....
They named what was loved -

which was Love misunderstood.

These early pioneers reached

for God's presence only to find

this named God reaching back.

Through a singular human life

crying, "Follow Me," urging

more to follow Love's Cross.

R.E. Slater

February 5, 2026

@copyright R.E. Slater Publications

all rights reserved

---

Bibliography

---

Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

Borg, Marcus J. Conflict, Holiness, and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus. New York: Continuum, 1998.

Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Ehrman, Bart D. How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee. New York: HarperOne, 2014.

Horsley, Richard A. Jesus and the Spiral of Violence. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Kloppenborg, John S. Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.

Mack, Burton L. The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993.

Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.

---

Appendix A

The chart above is a historical revision of actual history as explained in the essay. Here, the formal creeds: Old Roman, Apostles’, Nicene, Nicene-Constantinopolitan, Latin Nicene, each are presented 

as if they are:

• Ancient, original, and directly continuous with apostolic belief.

But historically, what they actually represent is something different:

• Later theological syntheses projected backward as summaries of earlier faith.

That does not mean they are dishonest.

It means they are retrospective constructions.

They are interpretive lenses, not stenographic transcripts.

Creeds as Retrospective Theological Syntheses

Early Christian creeds are often treated as if they offer direct access to the beliefs of the earliest Jesus-movements. Their antiquity, liturgical use, and authoritative status can create the impression that they function as transparent windows into first-century Christian consciousness. Historically, however, creeds operate in a different register.

Creeds are not origin documents.

They are boundary-setting, after-the-fact, summaries.

They arise at moments of doctrinal contestation in order to stabilize communal identity, exclude interpretations judged unacceptable, and provide shared language for worship.

As such, creeds preserve later theological conclusions, not the full developmental pathways by which those conclusions emerged.

---

The historical sequence traced in this essay moves:

from Experience --> Interpretation --> Ontological articulation

from Encounter with Jesus → Recognition of divine presence → Functional language → Ontological language.

Creeds reverse this order rhetorically. They begin with settled metaphysical claims about God and Christ and present these claims as the grammar of faith itself. This rhetorical reversal can obscure the earlier, more fluid stages of Christian reflection in which Jesus was first encountered as prophetic voice and only gradually interpreted as more-than-prophetic presence.

This does not render creeds false or illegitimate. Rather, it situates them properly as compressed theological crystallizations. They function like final paragraphs of a long argument. But when mistaken for the entire historical argument, distortion occurs. However, when creedal development is read as historic summaries, or conclusions, drawn from centuries of reflection, their purpose becomes clearer.

Seen in this light, historic creeds may be understood as retrospective syntheses. They gather together multiple streams of earlier interpretation and present them in stabilized form. They speak from the vantage point of theological maturity, not from the vantage point of initial encounter.

Recognizing this historical dynamic allows contemporary readers to honor the creeds without confusing them with the earliest layers of Christian experience. It also restores visibility to the developmental process by which early communities learned to speak about Jesus. That process moves not from doctrine to experience, but from experience to doctrine.

Creeds preserve where Christianity arrived.

They do not narrate how Christianity first began.

- r.e. slater

From Scroll to Scripture: Bible Versions, Variants & their Histories (SM 11)

Supplementary Materials

Part VI, SM 11

From Scroll to Scripture:

Bible Versions, Variants & their Histories

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT-5.2

Scripture did not survive

by escaping history,

but by being faithfully carried

through every history

by its sacred faithful.

What has endured of Scripture

is not a single manuscript,

but a sacred line of traditions

trusted enough to be carried forwards.

Scripture's authority is not preserved

by stillness, nor by rigidity,

but by translational continuity.

Its sacred words continue to live

because communities have kept

its intents and mindfulness alive.

Between scroll and scripture,

codex and page,

many hearts and minds

have participated.

From one inheritance

has come many forms,

many creeds and compassions.

Why? Because continuity never

required sameness but

loving, faithful translation -

into contemporary contexts

lived out era by era,

community by community,

soul by soul.

R.E. Slater

December 31, 2025

@copyright R.E. Slater Publications

all rights reserved

---

Preface: After the Evolution of Worship

The preceding 30-essay series, Evolution of Worship & Religion, traced the development of religious imagination, ritual practice, and theological understanding across cultures and centuries. That work examined how communities perceived the sacred, how symbols and narratives shifted over time, and how worship adapted to changing historical circumstances. Implicit throughout that series was a quieter but foundational assumption: religious meaning does not persist apart from the media that carry it.

This essay turns directly to that medium - Scripture itself. We began one essay ago, discussing the composition of Isaiah in its variants and textual transmission; today we'll look at the modern versions of the bible (c. 2025) as our final, year-end, discussion.

We should mindfully note that before the Bible could function as theology, doctrine, or moral guide, it had to survive as text. It had to be spoken, remembered, written, copied, translated, and taught.

Long before modern debates about authority or inerrancy arose, biblical writings were already traveling across linguistic, cultural, and political boundaries. What modern readers encounter as “the Bible” is therefore not a single artifact preserved intact, but the cumulative result of centuries of transmission.

This study does not seek to adjudicate between competing versions of the Bible, nor to rank translations by fidelity or purity. Instead, it asks a more basic historical question: how did Scripture come to exist in multiple forms, and what does that plurality tell us about the nature of biblical authority itself?

---

I. Scripture Does Not Travel Alone

Texts, Communities, and Time

No sacred text survives by virtue of its words alone. Texts endure only when communities recognize their value and take responsibility for their preservation. In the ancient world, this meant copying by hand, memorization, public reading, teaching, and translation. Every stage of this process was labor-intensive, interpretive, and human.

The biblical writings emerged gradually within specific historical settings: ancient Israel and Judah, the Jewish diaspora of the Hellenistic world, and the early Christian movement within the Roman Empire, etc. These writings were first oral, then written, and eventually collected. At no point did they exist as a single bound volume. Scripture lived as scrolls, fragments, and collections - often incomplete, sometimes overlapping, always embedded in practice.

Authority in such a world did not depend on verbal uniformity. It depended on community recognition. A text was authoritative because a community received it as such, read it publicly, shaped its life around it, and transmitted it to the next generation. Minor differences between copies did not undermine this authority; they were expected.

As Scripture crossed linguistic boundaries, translation became unavoidable. Hebrew gave way to Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, and Latin. Each translation required judgment: how to convey idioms, poetry, metaphor, and theology across cultures with different conceptual frameworks. Translation did not merely transmit meaning - it reshaped how meaning would be heard.

What resulted was not the fragmentation of Scripture, but its multiplication into forms capable of surviving in new worlds.

---

II. Many Bibles Before “the Bible”

The Ancient Textual World

Modern readers often imagine an original, pristine Bible from which all later versions diverged. Historically, no such object existed. From the earliest stages, biblical texts circulated in multiple textual forms.

In the Hebrew Bible (sic, the Christian Old/Jewish/First Testament) alone, this plurality is unmistakable. Manuscripts discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) reveal that, during the Second Temple period, different versions of the same books circulated side by side. Some align closely with what later became the Masoretic Text; others reflect alternative readings or structural differences. The Septuagint, produced by Greek-speaking Jews, often reflects Hebrew source texts that differ from later Jewish standard forms. The Samaritan Pentateuch preserves an independent Israelite tradition with its own theological emphases.

These were not marginal anomalies. They were living textual streams, used by real communities. Only gradually - through rabbinic consolidation in Judaism and later canonical processes in Christianity - did narrower standards emerge.

The New Testament exhibits a similar pattern. Written in Greek and circulated rapidly across the Mediterranean, early Christian texts were copied in multiple regions almost simultaneously. Variants arose naturally through this diffusion. No single manuscript ever functioned as a universal reference point.

Textual plurality, therefore, is not a late problem introduced by scholars. It is an original condition of Scripture’s existence.

---

II.a. What Readers Mean When They Ask, “Which Bible?”

When modern readers ask, “Which Bible is the right one?” they are rarely asking a historical question. They are asking a question about trust.

Behind the question lies a modern assumption: that authority requires uniformity, and that difference implies loss or corruption. This assumption is largely a byproduct of print culture, in which identical copies can be reproduced indefinitely. Ancient readers did not share this expectation.

For them, Scripture was authoritative not because every copy matched perfectly, but because the text remained recognizable, meaningful, and effective within the community’s life. Variation did not signal instability; it signaled receptive use, imagination, hope, and help.

Understanding this shift - from manuscript culture to print culture - helps explain why modern readers often experience textual variation as unsettling. The anxiety is not rooted in the biblical world itself, but in modern expectations imposed upon it.

---

Illustration by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT

III. Variants, Versions, and What They Mean

When readers encounter differences between Bible versions - missing verses, alternate wording, explanatory footnotes - it is often experienced as unsettling. Yet these differences arise not from carelessness, but from careful comparison of ancient sources.

Textual variants fall into recognizable categories:

• orthographic differences (spelling)
• grammatical and morphological shifts
• word-order adjustments
• scribal phenomena such as omission or repetition
• occasional lexical differences
• rare expansions or omissions

Textual variants are an unavoidable feature of hand-copied texts. In the Bible, these variants fall into well-understood categories: spelling differences, grammatical adjustments, shifts in word order, scribal errors, and occasional lexical alternatives. Most are minor. A small number affect how passages are translated. Very few alter the theological thrust of a text.

Crucially, textual variants are not the same as translation differences. Variants exist within the manuscript tradition; translations exist between languages. Confusing these two areas leads to unnecessary alarm. When English Bibles differ, the cause is often translation philosophy rather than underlying textual disagreement. For example, differences between translations such as the RSV and NIV reflect distinct translation philosophies and stylistic aims, not competing manuscript bases.

Modern critical editions - such as BHS, BHQ, and the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament - exist precisely to document and evaluate this evidence transparently. They do not invent Scripture. They make its history visible.

---

IV. Ancient Textual Traditions (Anchor Table)

Major Ancient Textual Traditions of the Bible

Tradition	Date	Language(s)	Community of Use	Why It Matters
Masoretic Text (MT)	7th–10th c. CE	Hebrew	Rabbinic Judaism	Standard Jewish text; base for modern Hebrew Bibles
Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS)	250 BCE–70 CE	Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek	Second Temple Judaism	Shows early textual plurality
Septuagint (LXX)	3rd–1st c. BCE	Greek	Hellenistic Jews; early Christians	Primary Bible of early Christianity
Samaritan Pentateuch	2nd c. BCE	Hebrew (Samaritan script)	Samaritan community	Independent Israelite tradition
Targums	1st c. BCE–5th c. CE	Aramaic	Synagogue teaching	Interpretive, explanatory Scripture
Peshitta	2nd–5th c. CE	Syriac	Syriac Jews & Christians	Semitic translation tradition
Vulgate	4th–5th c. CE	Latin	Western Christianity	Preserved Hebrew-based OT in Latin

This table makes one point unmistakable: textual plurality precedes modern debate.

---

V. Why Modern English Bibles Differ

And Why That Is Not a Problem

Modern Bible translations differ because they serve different purposes. Some aim for close formal correspondence to Hebrew and Greek syntax. Others prioritize clarity and readability in contemporary language. All must make decisions where ancient texts are ambiguous.

Behind every reputable translation stands the same scholarly discipline: careful comparison of ancient witnesses, informed judgment, and transparency about uncertainty. Footnotes acknowledging alternate readings are not confessions of ignorance. They are signs of intellectual integrity.

Translation diversity reflects not confusion, but stewardship.

---

VI. Modern English Translations and Their Textual Bases

The presence of multiple translations does not indicate that Scripture is unstable. It indicates that translators recognize the complexity of the evidence and refuse to oversimplify it.

Modern English Bible Translations: Textual Foundations

Translation	OT Base	NT Base	Translation Philosophy
KJV (1611)	Masoretic Text	Textus Receptus	Formal, early modern English
NKJV	Masoretic Text	Textus Receptus (notes critical)	Formal
NRSVue	MT + DSS + LXX	NA/UBS	Ecumenical, critical
ESV	MT (primary)	NA/UBS	Formal
NIV (2011)	MT + DSS + LXX	NA/UBS	Balanced
NASB (2020)	MT (primary)	NA/UBS	Very literal
NET Bible	MT + DSS + LXX	NA/UBS	Transparent, heavily footnoted
NJPS (Jewish)	Masoretic Text	—	Jewish tradition centered

No serious modern translation relies on a single manuscript in isolation.

---

Illustration by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT

VII. How Scripture Actually Travels

This model replaces the myth of a single unbroken textual line with a historically accurate picture of continuity through transmission.

Conceptual Diagram

Local Composition
(Hebrew / Greek)
        ↓
Manuscript Transmission
(multiple copies)
        ↓
Textual Streams
(MT / DSS / LXX / others)
        ↓
Translation Traditions
(Greek, Aramaic, Latin, Syriac)
        ↓
Critical Editions
(BHS / BHQ / NA / UBS)
        ↓
Modern Bible Versions

---

VIII. Scripture After the Autograph

Authority Without Fixation

No original biblical manuscripts survive. Nor did any original manuscript ever function as a final or controlling authority in the ancient world. From its earliest existence, Scripture was known through copies, collections, translations, and public use. What later generations would call “the Bible” was always encountered as a living textual tradition rather than as a single, fixed artifact.

By authority without fixation, this essay means that Scripture’s authority has never depended on one frozen textual form, one perfect manuscript, or one verbally identical wording preserved across time. Instead, biblical authority emerged through faithful transmission, communal recognition, and enduring use. Texts were authoritative because communities trusted them, read them aloud, shaped their lives around them, and handed them on - even while recognizing that no two copies were entirely identical.

Historically, this is simply how Scripture functioned. Ancient Jewish and Christian communities were aware that textual differences existed. They lived with them. Variants did not undermine authority because authority was not located in microscopic precision. Sacred authority was located in continuity of meaning, stability of tradition, and the shared recognition that these texts mediated the sacred.

The fixation on a single, exact textual state is a much later development, shaped largely by the rise of print culture and modern expectations of uniformity. Once identical copies became technologically possible, it became tempting to project that expectation backward and assume that divine authority must always have operated in the same way. The historical evidence does not support this assumption.

At the same time, authority without fixation does not imply relativism or instability. Scripture did not dissolve into endless variation. The textual tradition shows remarkable consistency across centuries, even as it allowed for limited and intelligible diversity. Stability was achieved not through rigidity, but through resilience - the capacity of the text to endure copying, translation, and reinterpretation without losing its identity.

In this sense, Scripture’s authority is relational rather than mechanical. It is grounded not in exemption from history, but in absorption within it. The Bible speaks today because it first survived being spoken in many voices, written in many hands, and carried across many worlds.

---

Conclusion: A Living Inheritance

The history of Bible versions is not a narrative of decline from purity to corruption. It is a story of expansion - of texts moving outward from local origins into global circulation.

Scripture endures because communities believed it mattered enough to preserve, translate, and trust across difference. Its variations are not failures. They are evidence of life.

To read the Bible today is to receive not a fragile relic, but a living inheritance - durable, adaptable, and historically grounded.

---

~ Continue to Part VI, SM 12 ~

Evolution of Worship & Religion

• Introduction
• Maps, Tables & Data
• A Proposed Outline
• Resources

• Part I - Foundations: The Birth of the Sacred
• Essay 1 - Animism and the Living Cosmos
• Essay 2 - From Tribe to Totem

• Part II - The Age of Gods
• Essay 3 - The Mesopotamian Fertile Crescent
• Essay 4 - Egypt, Indus, and Minoa Sacred Cultures
• Essay 5 - From Polytheism to Henotheism

• Part III - Axial Awakenings
• Essay 6 - Ancient Israel, Persia, and Monotheism
• Essay 7 - India's Axial Age
• Essay 8 - Greece and the Birth of Reason

• Part IV - The Sacred Made Universal
• Essay 9 - The Age of Universal Religions
• Essay 10 - Modernity and the Eclipse of the Sacred
• Essay 11 - The Rebirth of the Sacred

• Part V - Conclusion of Series
• Essay 12 - A Processual Summation of Worship and Religion
• Essay 13 - The Way of Cruciformity: When God Refused Power
• Essay 14 - Messiah: From Anointed Saviour to Suffering Sacred
• Essay 15 - Becoming Aligned with the Sacred

• Part VI - Supplementary Materials
• SM 1 - The Ancient History of Mesopotamia
• SM 2 - The History of Language in Ancient Mesopotamia
• SM 3 - The Ancient History of the Hebrew Language
• SM 4 - How the Ancient Near East Gave Shape to Israel's God:
• Why the ANE is Essential for Israel's Received Theology (I-II)
• Affecting Cultic Syncretism Across the Ancient Near East (III-V)
• Cultural Identity Formation & the Rejection of Syncretism (VI-IX)
• SM 5 - The History & Compilation of the Hebrew Bible:
• From Oral Memory to Proto-Canon (I-II)
• Exile, Redaction, and the Birth of Scripture (III)
• Second Temple Scribalization to Canonization (IV-V)
• SM 6 - The Unhelpful Oxymorons of "Biblical Authority" & "Inerrancy"
• SM 7 - The Evolution of Inerrancy: From Ancient Plurality to Modern Certainty
• SM 8 - A Historical-Theological Study of "Son of Man" vs "Son of God"
• SM 9 - The Song of Gilgamesh & Other Ancient Flood Stories
• SM 10 - Isaiah as a Living Textual Tradition: Manuscripts, Variants &Transmission
• SM 11 - From Scroll to Scripture: Bible Versions, Variants & their Histories
• SM 12 - The Gnostic Mysterion: the Crisis of Sacred Becoming

---

BIBLIOGRAPHY

---

Primary Texts & Critical Editions

• Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS). Edited by Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997.

• Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, ongoing.

• Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Edited by Alfred Rahlfs and Robert Hanhart. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006.

• The Greek New Testament. 5th ed. (UBS5). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014.

• Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th ed. (NA28). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012.

• The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. Translated and edited by Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich. New York: HarperOne, 1999.

---

Textual Criticism & Transmission

• Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012.

• Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

• Flint, Peter W. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2013.

• Parker, D. C. An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

• Metzger, Bruce M., and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

---

Septuagint & Translation Studies

• Jobes, Karen H., and Moisés Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015.

• Law, Timothy Michael. When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

• Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright, eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

---

Canon, Authority, and Interpretation

• Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985.

• Kugel, James L. How to Read the Bible. New York: Free Press, 2007.

• Sanders, James A. Torah and Canon. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972.

• Childs, Brevard S. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.

---

Manuscript Traditions & Versions

• VanderKam, James C. The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.

• Cross, Frank Moore. The Ancient Library of Qumran. 3rd ed. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.

• Würthwein, Ernst. The Text of the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

---

Digital & Reference Resources

• Israel Museum – Digital Dead Sea Scrolls
  https://dss.collections.imj.org.il

• Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft (BHS, BHQ, NA28)
  https://www.die-bibel.de

• Brill Online Reference Works (Isaiah, DSS, textual history)
  https://referenceworks.brillonline.com

• CJ Conroy – Biblical Textual Criticism Bibliography
  https://cjconroy.net/biblical-textual-criticism/

• Wikipedia (technical overviews; manuscript images)
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript