I would highly recommend you read a couple of blog posts (1 and 2) from Daniel Wallace at Parchment and Pen on the topic of textual criticism. Few are better equipped to address the issue than Wallace. He is very involved in the study of the Greek manuscripts, and very knowledgeable in the field of textual criticism.
Wallace notes that many Christians falsely define what a textual variant is, and misunderstand how textual critics have arrived at the conclusion that the NT text contains 300-400K variants. It is commonly believed that this number is so large because any given textual variant, when it appears in multiple manuscripts, is counted multiple times. So if a single variant in Romans 5:1 appears in 10 different manuscripts, it is counted as 10 variants. Not so. Read Wallace’s posts to uncover the truth about how textual variants are counted.
Thinking to Believe 
November 17, 2007 at 11:04 am
Although this may leave us feeling uneasy, we absolutely must be honest with the data. I would urge those of you who have used Lightfoot’s errant definition to abandon it. It’s demonstrably wrong, and citing it reveals an ignorance about textual criticism. I would hope that the publishers of numerous apologetics books would get the data right. The last thing that Christians need to do is to latch on to some spurious ‘fact’ in defense of the faith. Instead, we should pursue truth at all costs, even at the risk of making us feel uncomfortable.
Do you believe that this mistake is accidental or a “pious fraud”? If accidental, it’s very convenient.
LikeLike
November 18, 2007 at 11:32 am
I agree Arthur. We should be more concerned with the truth of the matter, than with that which gives us a comfortable sense of certainty. Besides, when you examine the textual variants, 99% have no effect on the meaning of the passage, and the remaining 1% do not change any Christian doctrine. The Bible remains the best preserved ancient literary work, bar none. It has no close competitors.
I don’t think those who advance a definition like Lightfoot’s do so to deceive. I think it is an honest mistake, due to an unfamiliarity with the field of textual criticism. Think about it: there are only about 20 textual critics in the entire world. Their discipline is not widely known to the public.
Jason
LikeLike
November 19, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Those are great posts. I enjoy Parchment and Pen quite a bit and have followed them for some time. Their layout and format, including the Theology Program website, is simply excellent.
I like Wallace’s posts generally. He forces the reader to the facts. One take-away from these posts is that the Apologist must always be honest with the data and not force data to corroborate. This is fairly easy to do at every level-you know, read the entry for justification from 15 different bible dictionaries and quote the ones which agree. As if finding someone which agreed with your position proved it. That is the danger of second-hand study, i.e. studying the work of someone who studied the real thing. Though we are often forced to do that (second-hand study) we should always be careful and attempt to go back to the sources themselves and re-consider when possible. Of course, in some areas we are have no recourse but those resources because of time and distance from the sources. But apologists should do better…
LikeLike
November 28, 2007 at 4:47 pm
I agree. We must never be afraid of the facts. And we should try to study the facts for ourselves since those whom we read who have studied them, can be biased or simply wrong. But often this is not possible. Either we lack the time and resources, or the field is too specialized. I think that is the case with textual criticism. According to Wallace there are only about 20 textual critics in the entire world! Talk about a lonely discipline! Yet still, Lightfoot and Geisler could have done more fact checking. That’s the danger with relying on authorities.
Jason
LikeLike