Part 3 (2/2)
This more recent claim regarding only the originals being inspired essentially overrides the centuries-old, widely held notion that English translations such as the King James Bible are inerrant; yet, there remain King James inerrantists.
Regarding the canonical gospels, Dr. Ehrman remarks: ”We don't have the originals! We have only error-ridden copies...” Addressing the trend to a.s.sert the originals as inspired, in Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman further states: It is one thing to say that the originals were inspired, but the reality is that we don't have the originals-so saying they were inspired doesn't help me much, unless I can reconstruct the originals. Moreover, the vast majority of Christians for the entire history of the Church have not had access to the originals, making their inspiration a moot point.1 Ehrman also comments, ”The mistake-ridden copies get copied; and the mistake-ridden copies of the copies get copied; and so on, down the line.”2
Scribal Scalawags.
In discussing the evolution of New Testament texts, Ehrman relates an amusing anecdote concerning scribes who worked on the epistle to the Hebrews in the Codex Vatica.n.u.s, one of the oldest complete biblical ma.n.u.scripts in existence, dating to the fourth century. In response to a change made in the text of Hebrews by another scribe centuries earlier, a ”medieval scribe” commented in the margin, ”Fool and knave! Leave the old reading, don't change it!”3 This episode ill.u.s.trates how New Testament texts were copied, edited and interpolated by many people, some of whom unquestionably made errors-an important point, in consideration of the fact that some believers have also a.s.serted that even certain copies are ”inerrant,” such as the very flawed Textus Receptus upon which the King James Bible was founded in large part. As we have seen, the Catholic Encyclopedia accepts some verses as inspired that were evidently written not by the evangelist Mark but by an unknown scribe.
These scribes were frequently not particularly well educated and often consisted of members of the ”common people.” Their inclusion into the equation allows for us to concur with another of Ehrman's statements regarding the Bible being a ”human book.”4 Adding to this sentiment is the sixth principle for ”understanding apparent discrepancies in the Bible,” as laid out by Christian apologist Josh McDowell in The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Says McDowell, ”The Bible is a human book with human characteristics.”5 As such, we simply must inquire as to the Bible's sloppy history, with a number of those entrusted with its care clearly describable as ”b.u.mbling.” Indeed, as we have seen abundantly, the enterprise in general has been extremely disorganized, to say the least.
The fact that scriptures had been tampered with at some point is alluded to at the end of the Bible itself, in the warning at Revelation 22:18-19: ”I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, G.o.d will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, G.o.d will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”
The sloppiness of the scribes and the mess they had made of the texts were remarked upon also by early Church father and apologist Origen (3rd cent.), in his Commentary on Matthew (15.14): It is an obvious fact today that there is much diversity among the ma.n.u.scripts, due either to the carelessness of the scribes, or to the perverse audacity of some people in correcting the text, or again to the fact that there are those who add or delete as they please, setting themselves up as correctors.1 In fact, the earlier periods were the most error-ridden, as conservative Protestant Tenney comments: ”The major divergences in the readings of the New Testament text date from the period before Constantine, and may reflect the stress and confusion prevailing in the Christian world.”2 Hence, uniformity in the New Testament-and indeed in the Christian doctrine as a whole-was not achieved but for the pa.s.sage of much time, along with bitter and b.l.o.o.d.y battling between sects and denominations over a period of centuries.
New Testament scholars.h.i.+p has thus shown that the ancient texts used in the translation of the Bible vary greatly, and it has further sought to disentangle the original texts, or autographs, from the many thousands of alterations made by subsequent scribes. In other words, we do not possess the original gospels, and it is an indisputable fact that even the most ancient copies of the New Testament have been worked over repeatedly by a number of individuals and do not agree with each other in many places, making the task of determining what was in the originals extremely difficult, if not impossible. The importance of this fact needs to be emphasized, as no book in the New Testament has been untouched by numerous human hands, including those texts used by the translators of the editions still believed today to be ”inerrant” and ”infallibly inspired.”
Error-Filled Copies.
The truth is that in many cases we are simply not dealing with the original words intended by the authors of the canonical gospels, which is to say that frequently we do not really know what they meant to convey. In such an atmosphere, it is logical to ask whether or not the Bible as we have it could possibly be considered the ”inerrant word of G.o.d.” One response to this dilemma a.s.serts that not only were the evangelists under the guidance of the Holy Spirit but so too were the copyists who made all these alterations. This solution creates a new problem in that it suggests the Holy Spirit made so many errors to begin with that the texts required numerous corrections by the subsequent copyists. Indeed, if the original gospels were actually recording factual events and sayings exactly as they had occurred, a testimony created not only via eyewitnesses but also with the added a.s.surance of being guided by G.o.d himself as the Holy Spirit, why would these texts ever need to be changed?
Moreover, numerous New Testament scholars have been aware of these many thousands of ”variant readings,” and some have blatantly called them ”errors.” In other words, within the higher ranks of New Testament scholars.h.i.+p, it is acknowledged that many of the scribes and copyists made errors, and this fact has in large part been a motivating factor behind the clamor to return to the original texts, devoid of these clearly erroneous revisions. Consider, for example, the words of the pious Christian scholar Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892), who, Dr. Ehrman states, was ”arguably the most brilliant mind to apply himself” to the task of discerning the originals of the New Testament texts under all of the subsequent changes. Hort described his task as ”nothing more than the detection and rejection of error.”1 Hort further called ”vile” the Greek New Testament edition deemed the Textus Receptus, again upon which the King James Version was based in large part. In such an environment of acknowledging error and striving to get back to the elusive ”pristine” originals, it would appear unscientific and intellectually dishonest to a.s.sert that the Bible as we have it is ”inerrant,” regardless of the edition.
Perfect Harmony?
Even if we could get back to the originals, we would find it tricky to reconstruct the details of Christ's life and teachings. Indeed, the many difficulties and differences between the canonical gospels themselves alone highlight the reason why there has existed such an enormous amount of New Testament scholars.h.i.+p, and why a complex process of harmonization has been developed to deal with the numerous discrepancies in the gospel accounts of Christ's life. Some examples of harmonization have already been given, but the process is ongoing, as the divergences are profound and seemingly unsolvable in certain cases. As another example of working with the principles of harmonization to overcome these discrepancies, one explanation for the differences in chronology between the gospels is that Matthew, for example, organized his material according to subject or theme, rather than chronologically, combining ”facts and precepts of a like nature.”
While the thematic approach to gospel chronology is satisfying enough regarding some of the problems, still others are not so easily solved, such as the raising of Jairus's daughter. It is evident from this narrative that neither Matthew nor Luke was arranging the event thematically; yet, they depict it as having occurred at different times. Both of them cannot be correct, unless the daughter was raised twice, a scenario that some literalists have proposed. Many people, however, will not find that answer to be satisfactory, and the only logical conclusion is that one or the other of the texts is incorrect.
Concerning some of the most blatant discrepancies and the attempts at their harmonization, evangelical writers Botti, Dixon and Steinman remark: ...well-meaning Christians posit absurd theories to explain gospel phenomena that conflict with their view that the gospels are chronologically arranged. As a result, Jesus is claimed to have raised Jairus' daughter twice from the dead, was twice crowned with thorns, was denied by Peter six or more times, and so on.
Thus, within Christian apologetics we will encounter ”absurd theories,” a fact we must keep in mind on our quest to determine who Jesus was.
In another example of an attempt at harmonization, it is a.s.serted that the sermon on the mount (Mt 5-7) and the sermon on the plain (Lk 6) are ”probably different discourses.”
Moreover, in the exorcism of the demoniac, Matthew, Mark and Luke refer to the country of the ”Gerasenes,” ”Gadarenes” and ”Gergesenes,” depending on which ma.n.u.script and translation are relied upon. In this regard, the KJV of Matthew 8:28 calls the people ”Gergesenes,” while the RSV uses much earlier Greek texts that label them ”Gadarenes.” Apologists claim that these names refer to the inhabitants of two different cities in that country.
One more difficulty arises when Jesus is anointed with oil by a woman in the house of someone named Simon. Matthew, Mark and John place the anointment at the end of their gospels, in Bethany, while Luke places it early in his gospel as having occurred in Galilee. The solution has been to suggest that Jesus was anointed twice in two different houses owned by two people named Simon.
Regarding the messy ordering of the temple-cleansing and fig tree-cursing pericopes found in Matthew and Mark, Tom Dixon comments, ”It is not hard to imagine that Matthew would want to simplify the complexity of Mark's account by grouping the cursing and discovery of the fig tree in one pericope.” That reasoning may suffice to explain the fig-tree pericope ordering, but what about the rest of the chronology? Does Jesus spend the night in Bethany before or after he cleanses the temple? The solution to this problem is both: Jesus spends the night in Bethany both before and after he cleanses the temple.
In a.n.a.lyzing attempts at harmonizing the widely diverging gospels, apologists Botti, et al., further state: The Evangelical believer needs to approach the synoptic gospels with the clear understanding that each author has intentionally omitted certain things that the other authors did not, and that each author intentionally re-arranged certain pa.s.sages for didactic purposes. As many scholars have recognized, when we approach the gospels with this understanding, many of the apparent chronological problems evaporate.
Yet what is most important is that believers in inerrancy train their eye to discern when an author is clearly making a claim to chronology and when he is not. It is not enough to wave off every issue of apparent chronological contradiction with a simple appeal to topical rearrangement, as many Evangelical scholars seem to do. We need to have sharper answers.
Sharper answers are needed indeed, as the biblical difficulties are such that ma.s.sive volumes of apologetics have been published over many centuries in order to address them all-yet, many quandaries remain, as can be inferred from the call by modern apologists Botti, et al., for ”sharper answers.”
Eyewitness Accounts or Compilations?
The statement that the evangelists ”intentionally re-arranged certain pa.s.sages” reiterates the fact that they were working with source texts or with each other's gospels, as previously noted. This observation that the evangelists were using other texts, certain of them shared, and did not just record from scratch what they themselves had witnessed, is widely known among Christian scholars, both Catholic and Protestant. Many of the rank-and-file believers, however, are unaware that the gospels in numerous places represent a reworking of preceding texts.
As they have been taught, many Christians believe that the gospels const.i.tute translations of originals straight from the pens of eyewitnesses faithfully and infallibly recording what each had seen of the Lord's advent. Even from a conservative perspective this perception is erroneous, obviously, since Luke was never claimed to have been an eyewitness to any of the events in the gospel; nor is Mark a direct disciple or known witness to the Lord. In fact, the opening statement by the author of the Gospel of Luke indicates that he possessed a number of the many narratives in existence by his time, which would be the only way he could strive to improve upon their accuracy. Hence, his gospel was based on these texts, not on his own memories or even those of anyone close to him. This development provokes the question as to why the Holy Spirit needed these other, previous texts to record the gospel story. Wouldn't the Holy Spirit, who is G.o.d/Jesus, already know the story in perfect detail, such that he could supernaturally convey it to the evangelists pristinely and without error?
Furthermore, many of the variant readings within the gospels and in the different ancient ma.n.u.scripts of each gospel appear in the quotations of Christ's sayings. If these gospels truly const.i.tute the inerrant records of direct eyewitnesses infallibly recording the events in Jesus's life, why do Jesus's sayings vary from one source to the next? Should not the precise words of the Lord himself be quoted verbatim? Why does the Lord's Prayer, for example, differ between gospels and from one ma.n.u.script to another? Wouldn't it make sense for the Lord, as the Holy Spirit, to refresh his disciples' memories as to his exact words? If these are the precious words from the Almighty G.o.d, how could they be changed? And why? Did G.o.d make mistakes in his original statements that needed correcting? What would be the point of having the Holy Spirit infallibly guiding the all-important endeavor of recording the Lord's life, if his speeches were not to be recorded verbatim? In other words, what is the purpose of the Holy Spirit if not to correct the errors? And if these scriptures are not verbatim records, how can they be called ”inerrant?”
In any event, the methodology of harmonization has been in the works for so many centuries and by so many individuals that there is practically no objection that it does not cover. Much clever thought and many machinations have been accorded to the discipline of harmonization, and euphemistic terms have been used to describe the chronological discrepancies, for example, calling them ”dislocations” rather than errors. Over the centuries, millions of words have been written and numerous courses on apologetics designed specifically to overcome objections. Regardless of these proposed solutions, the question is begged as to why G.o.d would write an ”infallible” and ”inerrant” Word which is so full of problems and difficulties that it has required many centuries to iron them all out-a task that remains incomplete to a significant degree. It seems logical and rational to ask again, could it not be that the fallible human beings who wrote, edited and translated the gospels simply made mistakes? Naturally, this position casts doubt on the concept of biblical inerrancy, but in our quest for honesty and truthfulness-the hallmarks of religiousness-can we really afford to ignore this logic?
The Gospel Dates.
”It's important to acknowledge that, strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous.”
Dr. Craig L. Blomberg, The Case for Christ (26) Because of the lack of original texts, it has been very difficult to date the canonical gospels as to when they were written or even when they first emerge in the historical record, as these two dates may differ. The gospels have been dated variously from shortly after the crucifixion, traditionally placed around 30 ad/ce, to as late as a century and a half afterwards.1 The currently accepted dates are as follows, from the earliest by conservative, believing scholars to the latest by liberal and sometimes secular scholars: Matthew: 37 to 100 ad/ce.
Mark: 40 to 73 ad/ce.
Luke: 50 to 100 ad/ce.
John: 65 to 100 ad/ce.
Many reasons have been given for these dates, from one end of the spectrum to the other, the earliest dates being based on the events recounted in the gospels themselves. The later dates are based also on this timeframe, but the difference is that they account for the mention of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, which occurred in 70 ad/ce. According to this scholars.h.i.+p, the gospels must have been written after the devastation because they refer to it. However, conservative believers maintain the early dates and a.s.sert that the destruction of the temple and Judea mentioned in the gospels const.i.tutes ”prophecy,” demonstrating Jesus's divine powers. The substantiation for this early, first-century range of dates, both conservative and liberal, is internal only, as there is no external evidence, whether historical or archaeological, for the existence of any gospels at that time. Nevertheless, fundamentalist Christian apologists such as Norman Geisler make misleading a.s.sertions such as that ”many of the original ma.n.u.scripts date from within twenty to thirty years of the events in Jesus' life, that is, from contemporaries and eyewitnesses.”2 Scrutinizing the evidence forensically, however, it is impossible honestly to make such a conclusion.
Moreover, even the latest of the accepted gospel dates are not based on evidence from the historical, literary or archaeological record, and over the centuries a more ”radical” school of thought has placed the creation or emergence of the canonical gospels as we have them at a much later date, more towards the end of the second century.
<script>