Part 8 (1/2)

Over the centuries, numerous scholars have put forth intelligent, rational and scientific arguments that the Pentateuch or first five books of the Bible could not have been written by Moses, as the Bible a.s.serts. Yet, at Luke 5:46 Jesus is depicted as a.s.serting as fact this untenable and evidently erroneous idea of Mosaic authors.h.i.+p-if Christ was truly the omniscient Lord, would he not know that Moses could not possibly have written the Pentateuch? Prior to the creation of Christianity only pious Jews would believe in the Mosaic authors.h.i.+p of the Pentateuch. Could this entire story largely represent the product of pious Jews attempting to create a messiah?

The Pre-Crucifixion Church?

At Matthew 16:18, Jesus says he will build his ”church” (Greek ekklesia) upon the ”rock” of Peter. Just a short while later, at Matthew 18:17, Jesus speaks of ”the church” as if it already were an established ent.i.ty. An honest a.s.sessment of the situation suggests these verses were written long after the facts, when there was an established church, such that the reader would understand the reference. Such being the case, can we really trust that Matthew 18:17 records an actual verbatim remark made by Jesus, since, according to the gospel story, there was no church at that time?

Judas's Blood Money.

Another anachronism occurs in the depiction of Judas receiving his blood money of silver pieces that were ”weighed out.” It is claimed that at the time of the gospel story, silver pieces had been out of circulation for some 300 years!1 Moreover, currency at that time was not ”weighed out.” Would it not be sensible to ask whether this pa.s.sage reflects not an actual, historical event but a pericope fabricated in order to ”fulfill prophecy,” specifically that of Zechariah 11:12-13? In fact, when at Matthew 27:9 the evangelist claims to be quoting Jeremiah, he appears to be conflating verses from Zechariah (11:12-13) and Jeremiah (32:6-9; 18:2-3), possibly because the evangelist used the Septuagint as the source for his quote and there is in the Septuagint no corresponding scripture to Jeremiah 32:6-10; whereas, these verses at Zechariah 11:12-13 do appear in the Septuagint. In any event, Matthew's quote is incorrect, as concerns the Old Testament texts as we have them.

The same sort of scriptural conflation occurs at Mark 1:2 and was evidently recognized in ancient times to be an error. In that scripture, Mark conflates verses at Exodus 23:20 and Malachi 3:1 with Isaiah 40:3, which altogether the evangelist quotes as being from ”the prophet Isaiah.” In later versions, however, sharp-eyed scribes removed the words ”Isaiah” and left the verse at Mark 1:2 as ”it is written in the prophets,” in general, rather than Isaiah in specific.

As a further example of an error in the New Testament portrayal of the alleged time of Jesus's advent, the evangelists make the a.s.sertion that it was a custom to release a prisoner at the Pa.s.sover, but there is no evidence that there existed any such custom, Jewish or Gentile, at any time.

A number of other specifics are also evidently incorrect, including the depiction of two robbers being crucified with Jesus-robbery was apparently not an offense that called for crucifixion-and Jesus's family and friends conversing with him while he was on the cross, as the Roman authorities did not allow people to approach the crucifixion victims.

These and other inconsistencies cast doubt as to whether or not the evangelists actually knew the area and culture they were writing about and had ever lived there at any point, much less the era in question. Knowing all these facts, it would appear to the reasonable and rational mind that the matter is settled as to the obvious errancy of the Bible, and that claims to the contrary are less than honest and scientific.

Chronological Problems.

As we have seen, there are many places where the gospels do not agree with each other on the chronology of events in Jesus's life. In fact, there exist numerous chronological discrepancies in the gospels that become reconciled only by the most extreme stretches of logic, and, instead of admitting that the evangelists or subsequent copyists may have made mistakes, terms like ”dislocations” are used and other excuses are given, in a seemingly deceptive manner.

As another example of a chronological problem, the baptism of Jesus by John-an illogical act, since Christ is sinless-is pivotal to the tale, particularly in the gospel of John. It is in this moment that John the Baptist and others present are astounded to see and hear the indescribable wonders that reveal Jesus not only as the messiah but also as the Son of G.o.d, with G.o.d's own voice booming from the heavens and identifying Christ as such. Yet, not only does Luke gloss over this entire extraordinary episode with a brief two-sentence mention (Lk 3:21-22), he places the baptism after John has been imprisoned (Lk 3:20), giving the impression that John did not baptize Jesus at all.

In addition, Jesus's temptation is depicted in different manners: At Matthew 4:5-8, for instance, the devil is portrayed as taking Christ first to the ”pinnacle of the temple” and then to the ”very high mountain.” Luke (4:5-9), on the other hand, has the devil taking him ”up” (to the mountain) first and then to the pinnacle of the temple. Which order was it, and who was there to report it? Christian apologist Dr. Geisler attempts to reconcile this problem with the justification that Matthew ”describes these temptations chronologically while Luke lists them climatically, that is, topically.”1 This a.s.sertion seems to contradict the claim by Luke that he was carefully putting the events in the narrative in order-in his prologue in fact, Luke uses two different terms to emphasize that his narrative is ”in order.” Could a simpler answer not be that one or the other evangelist made a mistake? Perhaps one evangelist's account is a correction of the other, or maybe both are based on a patently mythical event?

Matthew and Luke also disagree as to the order of the healing of the demoniacs and the meeting of Matthew/Levi. In Matthew (8:32), Christ drives the demons into the swine and then calls Matthew (9:9); whereas, in Luke (5:27), Jesus meets ”Levi” much earlier in the story than the healing of the demoniacs (8:33). Mark too is out of sync with the calling of Matthew, as at 2:14 he places it before Christ calms the storm (4:39), while Matthew depicts himself as being called by Jesus after calming the tempest (8:26). Luke and Mark also switch the order of the arrest of John the Baptist, as Luke (3:19-20) places it before the storm is quieted, while Mark puts John's arrest (6:17-18) after the tempest miracle.

One more instance of how the apologies for such problems seem deceptive occurs in the pericope of the cleansing of the temple, depicted at the beginning in John and at the end in the synoptics. The apologetic reasoning for this dichotomy is that Christ committed the aggressive act twice, with F.F. Bruce, for example, placing the first act of aggression some two years earlier than the second!1 It is difficult to believe that Jesus overturned the moneychangers' tables even once, much less twice, since this momentous occurrence turns up nowhere in the historical record. There is no indication anywhere in the synoptic gospels that Jesus had previously cleared the temple-which one would think would have been a highly noteworthy event-no recollection by an evangelist, no bitter or critical commentary by any Jewish authorities, who surely would have been incensed by Christ's behavior. This earlier act of violence is never brought up as a reason for the authorities, Jewish or Roman, to be angry with Jesus and to justify their harsh treatment of him. Nor is there any mention of this wild and highly noticeable behavior in any non-biblical doc.u.ment-one would think that the opposing Jews would have recorded such an event, especially since they were so very fanatical about the temple, and would have offered Jesus's vandalism as a reason for persecuting him early on in the gospel story, if it had happened at that point. That there were two cleansings of the temple, during both of which Christ overturned the tables of the moneychangers, seems impossible to believe. While the efforts may be sincere for those who refuse to doubt the inerrancy of the Bible, this type of conclusion appears sophistic and disingenuous to many people.

Nevertheless, this episode in the gospel story has convinced countless people that there had to be a person behind all of the fairytales they think were added to his biography, because this act of aggression does not seem to be something someone would make up. On the contrary, when Old Testament scripture is studied, it becomes evident that this part about the temple being cleared of moneychangers is a reflection of the earlier scripture at Zechariah 14:21: ”...And there shall no longer be a trader in the house of the Lord of hosts on that day.” This book, Zechariah, is the penultimate before the New Testament, followed only by Malachi. It is evident that this pericope was included in the gospel story in order to make it seem that Jesus had ”fulfilled prophecy,” which would explain it erroneously being depicted at different times in the various gospels. Apologists use such ”embarra.s.sing” moments in the gospels as to argue that the story is historical, since such episodes would not be included otherwise, as they make Christ and/or his disciples ”look bad.” A number of these ”scriptural embarra.s.sments,” however, can be explained in like manner, with such episodes reflecting the use of the Old Testament as a blueprint, rather than depicting real events.

To continue with the chronological discrepancies, in Mark (3:22), after naming the disciples, Jesus ”goes home, but the crowd is too great.” Christ's ”friends” grab him, and scribes from Jerusalem claim he's possessed by demons, because he can cast out demons. This last pericope of casting devils out appears earlier in Matthew, at 9:34, before Christ gives the disciples their missions.

Yet another chronological problem between the gospels occurs with the depiction of the Last Supper. In the synoptics, the Last Supper coincides with the Pa.s.sover meal; in John, Pa.s.sover begins after Jesus has already been crucified. Moreover, the events of the Last Supper become less gripping when it is realized that this type of sacred meal occurred in other legends and myths. Concerning the eucharist, the Catholic Encyclopedia states that ”the idea of a sacred banquet is as old as the human race and existed at all ages and amongst all peoples.”1 Moreover, the sayings supposedly uttered by Jesus at the Last Supper are depicted differently by all of the synoptists.

The reconciliation of the gospel narratives as concerns the crucifixion and resurrection is so problematic that some people have issued an ”Easter challenge” to put the events in a proper and logical order.2 How can we claim, then, that we know the order of the events of Christ's Pa.s.sion? Or even that it really happened? Again, is it not possible that, instead of an account based on a factual resurrection, the evangelists were reworking such ”prophecies” as found at Isaiah 26:19, Daniel 12:2 and others?

As an example of the difficulties in the Pa.s.sion account, in Mark (15:25) Jesus is depicted as being crucified during the ”third hour,” while in John (19:14), it is around the ”sixth hour.” Which is it? The apology for this discrepancy is that ”John follows the Roman time system while Mark follows the Jewish time system.”1 There is no evidence for this extraordinary claim, however, and a more logical a.s.sessment may be that one or the other of the evangelists made an error, particularly in consideration of the other facts regarding the genesis of the gospel story and the seemingly fictional nature of many elements therein, including and especially the pa.s.sion narrative.

Moreover, early ma.n.u.scripts of Matthew 27:49-50 depict Jesus as having a spear stuck in his side before he dies; whereas, in John (19:33-34) Christ is already dead when he is side-wounded. The phrase regarding the spear and the water and blood in Matthew is omitted from the RSV and other editions. Could there be a political reason for its inclusion?

In Matthew, Jesus says he will be dead for three days; yet, he dies on Friday afternoon and rises on Sunday morning, const.i.tuting fewer than two days. The apologist argument that Friday, Sat.u.r.day and Sunday can be counted as whole days does not account for the ”sign of Jonah,” which puts the messiah in the tomb for three nights as well. Clearly, Christ was not in the tomb for three nights. (Jonah 1:17; Mt 12:40) Nevertheless, the apologists feel the need to provide a highly convoluted and illogical argument in order to demonstrate that Christ did in fact remain for three nights in the tomb, despite what the texts state.2 Based on all these factors, it is reasonable to suggest that the gospels are not chronologically accurate because their writers were not infallibly inspired, and that the Bible is not the inerrant Word of G.o.d or a reliable ”history book” but, rather, significantly consists of traditions, fables and myths.

Translation Errors and Language Problems.

The fact that some pa.s.sages are omitted in certain versions and translations of the New Testament demonstrates that the book has been interpolated and altered, again leading to the reasonable and scientific conclusion that the Bible as we have it could not possibly be the inerrant Word of G.o.d infallibly recorded by inspired scribes. One apologetic solution to this dilemma is to a.s.sert that all individuals involved in the construction and preservation of the New Testament texts were ”filled and guided by the Holy Spirit.” According to this belief, even the translators-modern day included-have been working under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As Orthodox Christian Bishop Alexander remarks: ”And since the ultimate author of Sacred Scripture is the Holy Spirit, the translator needs His illumination and inspiration to correctly convey His message.”

Because such a position appears untenable, many Christian scholars and apologists today no longer adhere to this notion that translations themselves are inspired, claiming instead that only the ”originals” are inspired. The rank-and-file believers, however, still frequently maintain-as they have been taught-that the King James translation, for one, is inerrant and its translators inspired. Regardless of whether or not trained apologists believe this claim anymore, the average Christian may not be aware of the debate regarding various translations and may indeed receive the impression that the Bible favored in his or her church is inerrant. In the words of evangelical Christian Gary Amirault: At an early point in my walk with Jesus, I was strongly under the influence of men and women who believed in the ”Inerrant Bible” doctrine. They believed the King James Bible was the only one Christians should use because it was inspired of G.o.d and without errors. They believed other translations were inspired of Satan, the ”Alexandrian cult,” and the Roman Catholic Church.1 The reality is that even today many pastors continue to promote the purported inerrancy of the King James Bible. In fact, there remain ministries fervently dedicated to ”defending and promoting the KJV.” Within these organizations, the King James Bible continues to be held up as ”inerrant,” despite the scholars.h.i.+p that has revealed the Textus Receptus at its basis to be flawed. One fundamentalist KJV defender, Brandon Staggs, comments on the debate thus: Almost every ”fundamental” statement of faith reads that G.o.d's word is perfect and inspired in the original autographs.

But isn't that a statement of unbelief? What good is G.o.d's word if it only exists in ma.n.u.scripts which no longer exist? Why would G.o.d inspire Scripture just to let it wither to dust?

Many modern scholars believe that the real ending of the Gospel of Mark has been lost and that we can not be certain how Mark concluded his Gospel. And yet these same scholars will boldly declare belief in G.o.d's preservation of Scripture.1 Evangelicals like David Sorenson, in fact, go so far as to deem ”apostates” those who follow the ”critical text,” such as the RSV, as opposed to those who maintain the inerrancy of the ”Received Text,” i.e., the basis for the KJV.2 Continuing with his apology for the KJV, Staggs states: It is my belief that the King James Bible, originally known as the Authorized Version, first published in the year 1611, is G.o.d's word in the English language without admixture of error.

Despite this indoctrination of inerrancy, an investigation of the translations of the New Testament into English reveals much as to whether or not they could possibly be considered ”inerrant” works by ”infallibly” inspired scribes.

The Kings James Bible.

Prior to the discovery of the most complete, ancient Greek ma.n.u.scripts of the New Testament-the Codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Vatica.n.u.s-we possessed only much later copies in Greek. One of the most important translations of the Bible, the King James Version, was based not on these earliest ma.n.u.scripts but on the later Greek texts, as well as on the preceding English editions such as the Tyndale, Great, Geneva and Catholic Bibles, the latter of which was in turn founded upon Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

Claimed by many Christian fundamentalists to be the only inspired and inerrant translation of the Bible into English, the King James Version, also called the ”Authorized Version,” possesses an interesting history, in that it was composed over several years from 1604 to 1609 by six groups comprising upwards of 40 translators. Each translator's section was edited by the other members of the group, then pa.s.sed around to the other groups, and so on, until a finalized version was accepted and was subsequently published in 1611. This complex history provokes several questions, including why the Holy Spirit needed so many minds and hands to work on G.o.d's Word. Wouldn't it have been much faster and less fraught with the chance for error if only one person infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit had translated the texts? Common sense indicates that only if the individuals involved were relying on their own intellectual faculties and erudition would there need to be a committee of the sort used in the translation of the King James Bible.

Concerning the KJV, Dr. Ehrman remarks: ...The King James Version is filled with places in which the translators rendered a Greek text derived ultimately from Erasmus's edition, which was based on a single twelfth-century ma.n.u.script that is one of the worst of the ma.n.u.scripts that we now have available to us!...

...The King James was not given by G.o.d but was a translation by a group of scholars in the early seventeenth century who based their rendition on a faulty Greek text.1 Centuries after the KJV became the ”n.o.blest monument of English prose,” in fact, there arose a clear need for a new, updated translation. As the ”Preface” to the Revised Standard Version relates: ...the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many ma.n.u.scripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation....2 Hence, despite the esteem by evangelical Christians, it is understood by various scholars that the King James Bible was not ”given by G.o.d” and possesses ”grave defects.” In fact, the Greek text that the KJV largely followed is now considered a seriously flawed composition, ”hastily compiled” by Dutch theologian Desiderius Erasmus (c. 1466-1536), who pieced it together using a single Greek text from the 12th century and a few other ma.n.u.script portions, producing the ”Textus Receptus” or ”Received Text.” Not finding the last six verses of the New Testament, from the book of Revelation, Erasmus used the Latin Vulgate to translate the pertinent verses back into Greek. Hence, these particular scriptures were not rendered from the original or even early Greek texts but are the retranslations from a Latin translation of a Greek copy of the New Testament. It is upon this defective translation that the King James Bible is based in large part, further demonstrating the tenuousness and frailty of maintaining that the KJV was infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit.