Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read’st black where I read white.
—William Blake, The Everlasting
Gospel
Of course, Blake’s sentiment inthe quote above is nothing new. The New Testament contains enough inconsistencies to have spawned a dizzying variety of interpretations, beliefs and religions, all allegedly Bible-based. And so, we find one author offering the amusing observation:
You can and you can’t,
You shall and you shan’t,
You will and you won’t,
And you will be damned if you do,
And you will be damned if you don’t.[1]
Why such variance in viewpoints? To begin with, different theological camps disagree on which books should be included in the Bible. One camp’s apocrypha is another’s scripture. Secondly, even among those books that have been canonized, the many variant source texts lack uniformity. This lack of uniformity is so ubiquitous that The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible states, “It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS [manuscript] tradition is wholly uniform.”[2]
Not one sentence? We can’t trust a single sentence of the Bible? Hard to believe.
Maybe
The fact is that there are over 5700 Greek manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament.[3] Furthermore, “no two of these manuscripts are exactly alike in all their particulars…. And some of these differences are significant.”[4] Factor in roughly ten thousand manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, add the many other ancient variants (i.e., Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Nubian, Gothic, Slavonic), and what do we have?
A lot of manuscripts
A lot of manuscripts that fail to correspond in places and not infrequently contradict one another. Scholars estimate the number of manuscript variants in the hundreds of thousands, some estimating as high as 400,000.[5] In Bart D. Ehrman’s now famous words, “Possibly it is easiest to put the matter in comparative terms: there are more differences in our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”[6]
How did this happen?
Poor record keeping. Dishonesty. Incompetence. Doctrinal prejudice. Take your pick.
None of the original manuscripts have survived from the early Christian period.[7]/[8] The most ancient complete manuscripts (Vatican MS. No. 1209 and the Sinaitic Syriac Codex) date from the fourth century, three hundred years after Jesus’ ministry. But the originals? Lost. And the copies of the originals? Also lost. Our most ancient manuscripts, in other words, are copies of the copies of the copies of nobody-knows-just-how-many copies of the originals.
No wonder they differ
In the best of hands, copying errors would be no surprise. However, New Testament manuscripts were not in the best of hands. During the period of Christian origins, scribes were untrained, unreliable, incompetent, and in some cases illiterate.[9] Those who were visually impaired could have made errors with look-alike letters and words, while those who were hearing-impaired may have erred in recording scripture as it was read aloud. Frequently scribes were overworked, and hence inclined to the errors that accompany fatigue.
In the words of Metzger and Ehrman, “Since most, if not all, of them [the scribes] would have been amateurs in the art of copying, a relatively large number of mistakes no doubt crept into their texts as they reproduced them.”[10] Worse yet, some scribes allowed doctrinal prejudice to influence their transmission of scripture.[11] As Ehrman states, “The scribes who copied the texts changed them.”[12] More specifically, “The number of deliberate alterations made in the interest of doctrine is difficult to assess.”[13] And even more specifically, “In the technical parlance of textual criticism—which I retain for its significant ironies—these scribes ‘corrupted’ their texts for theological reasons.”[14]
Errors were introduced in the form of additions, deletions, substitutions and modifications, most commonly of words or lines, but occasionally of entire verses.[15][16] In fact, “numerous changes and accretions came into the text,”[17] with the result that “all known witnesses of the New Testament are to a greater or lesser extent mixed texts, and even several of the earliest manuscripts are not free from egregious errors.”[18]
In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman presents persuasive evidence that the story of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:12) and the last twelve verses of Mark were not in the original gospels, but added by later scribes.[19] Furthermore, these examples “represent just two out of thousands of places in which the manuscripts of the New Testament came to be changed by scribes.”[20]
In fact, entire books of the Bible were forged.[21] This doesn’t mean their content is necessarily wrong, but it certainly doesn’t mean it’s right. So which books were forged? Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 and 2 Peter, and Jude—a whopping nine of the twenty-seven New Testament books and epistles—are to one degree or another suspect.[22]
Forged books? In the Bible?
Why are we not surprised? After all, even the gospel authors are unknown. In fact, they’re anonymous.[23] Biblical scholars rarely, if ever, ascribe gospel authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. As Ehrman tells us, “Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications, and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively well-educated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first century.”[24] Graham Stanton affirms, “The gospels, unlike most Graeco-Roman writings, are anonymous. The familiar headings which give the name of an author (‘The Gospel according to …’) were not part of the original manuscripts, for they were added only early in the second century.”[25]
So what, if anything, did Jesus’ disciples have to do with authoring the gospels? Little or nothing, so far as we know. But we have no reason to believe they authored any of the books of the Bible. To begin with, let us remember Mark was a secretary to Peter, and Luke a companion to Paul. The verses of Luke 6:14-16 and Matthew 10:2-4 catalogue the twelve disciples, and although these lists differ over two names, Mark and Luke don’t make either list. So only Matthew and John were true disciples. But all the same, modern scholars pretty much disqualify them as authors anyway.
Why?
Good question. John being the more famous of the two, why should we disqualify him from having authored the Gospel of “John”?
Umm … because he was dead?
Multiple sources acknowledge there is no evidence, other than questionable testimonies of second century authors, to suggest that the disciple John was the author of the Gospel of “John.”[26][27] Perhaps the most convincing refutation is that the disciple John is believed to have died in or around 98 CE.[28] However, the Gospel of John was written circa 110 CE.[29] So whoever Luke (Paul’s companion), Mark (Peter’s secretary), and John (the unknown, but certainly not the long-dead one) were, we have no reason to believe any of the gospels were authored by Jesus’ disciples. . . .
The above excerpt is taken from Dr. Brown’s forthcoming book, MisGod’ed, which is expected to be published along with its sequel, God’ed. Both books can be viewed on Dr. Brown’s website, www.Leveltruth.com. Dr. Brown can be contacted at [email protected]
I want to take issue with several points you have raised above, but will focus on only one for the moment:
Multiple sources acknowledge there is no evidence, other than questionable testimonies of second century authors, to suggest that the disciple John was the author of the Gospel of “John.” Perhaps the most convincing refutation is that the disciple John is believed to have died in or around 98 CE. However, the Gospel of John was written circa 110 CE.
We have the testimony of Iraneous who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John that John did indeed write the Gospel. This is a chain of witnesses that, correct me if I am wrong, would be considered pretty reliable if one was seeking to establish the validity of a hadith -- the pupil of one who knew the prophet personally.
Given that, I suggest your "expert" scholars are simply wrong, at least as regards John. Many scholars that I have read date the writting of John to about 90 AD. Indeed it is only in the last 100 or so years that any one has even suggested that someone other than John might have been the author of the 4th Gospel.
As to the 4 Gospels authors' identity, tradition and most scholars give credence to the idea that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all 1st century Christians and known to their readers as who they presented themselves to be. You are not alone among those in NT studies to think otherwise, but from what I read, I believe you are in the minority. Of course, I've never taken a poll. For a detailed answer to this question I would suggest a scholarly NT survey (not just what you find on a webpage) such as you might purchase at a college, Bible school, or seminary. I suggest a scholarly one, and not just a devotional one, because only the scholarly one will present both their own research and others in any fair sort of way so that you might hear arguments from both sides before the author give his/her own opinion. Another source would be a quality commentary which will also discuss authorship. Again be sure to find one that doesn't just create a strawman of the opposing viewpoint.
I would like to take some time to develop the evidence the Gospel of John, that its author knew Jesus personally.
It is true the author never names himself -- as you have said, none of the writers of the any of the gospels name themselves in the text. However, it seems that the identity of the author of the fourth Gospel was well known to his contemporaries for the very earliest tradition of the church, credit the fourth Gospel to John, the son of Zebedee, one of the first disciples.
Your Dr. Brown admits that there are indeed testimonies from the 2nd century that the gospel was written by John. He calls them "questionable"; I'll let you judge for yourself.
One of those testimonies is found in a Vatican manuscript (Codex Regin Sueci seu Alexandrinus, 14), Bishop Papias of Hierapolis in Phrygia, an immediate disciple of the Apostle John, included in his great exegetical work an account of the composition of the Gospel by St. John during which he had been employed as scribe by the Apostle.
But the one I find most compelling is that of Iraneous, bishop of Lyons, who stated plainly that "John, the disciple of the Lord, who had also leaned upon his breast, had himself published a Gospel during his residence in Ephesus in Asia." This is important because Iraneus was a student of Polycarp who had himself been a student of the Apostle John. And in his letters, Polycarp often quoted parts of the 4th gospel, always ascribing its authorship to John. I don't find such testimony questionable at all.
In addition to these testimonies, a deduction from the internal evidence of the Gospel of John is that the author personally witnessed the events he described, or else he must have had contemporary informants who were themselves eyewitnesses. He spoke easily and familiarly of the disciples and associates of Jesus (6:5-7; 12:21; 13:36; 14:5, 8, 22) and knew the background of those Jeus had only casual contact with, such as Nicodemus (3:1) or Annas (18:13). Small details appear frequently, such as the barley bread used at the feeding of the five thousand (6:9), the fragrance of the ointment Mary poured on Jesus (12:3), or the time at which Jesus left the Last Supper (13:30). These are not the creation of literary imagination, but they are the natural touches that come from personal memory.
Not only must the writer have been an eyewitness, but he also was closely aquainted with the personal career of Jesus from beginning to end. The author was aware of the thinking of the disciples, and apparently shared their interests and hopes. He reports the private discourses of Jesus at some length. Also, he shows knowledge of Jesus' inner consciousness that would have been possible only to a close associate.
All of the gospels make it clear that there was an inner circle of three disciples who were closest to Jesus: Simon Peter the fisherman, James the son of Zebedee and John the son of Zebedee. Peter did not write the fourth Gospel because it mentions him repeatedly, by name, in the third person. James the son of Zebedee did not write it for he was executed by Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:2) prior to the year 44. This leave John as our only possibility among the disciples. And this is the same person that Iraneous says wrote it.
According to 21:22 the disciple who wrote the Gospel is the same disciple Peter asked about while having breakfast with by the shore of Galilee sometime after the Resurrection. The text identifies this disciple as "the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper" and is also identified as "the disciple whom Jesus loved". This likewise fits with Iraneous testimony. And within the text the writer states:
This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.(21:24)
Assuming that the author of the letters attributed to John is the same person, and I do, we also find this testimony there:
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. (1 John 1:1,2)
Thus we are told that he was physically present, and eye-witness to Jesus' life, even going so far as to touch his hands (presumably examining the nail marks as the disciples were invited to do in John 20:27).
Now, Muslims may counter that it can't be so, because the Qu'ran teaches something different. Well, honestly, that isn't my problem. You may choose to believe what the Qu'ran teaches regarding Jesus' crucifixion. And in doing so, you will have to find reasons to dismiss the obvious teaching of the Christian scriptures. The easiest of those is simply to say it is corrupted. Then accept what you like and reject what you don't and who can say different. Do that if you want. But in doing so, I only ask you to recognize that such statements are statements of faith, not necessarily fact.
[5.46] And We sent after them in their footsteps Isa, son of Marium, verifying what was before him of the Taurat and We gave him the Injeel in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard (against evil).
The Qu'ran says the Injeel was given to Jesus. It doesn't make sense to me God would send such an important prophet, born of a virgin, etc. with such an important things as His word, only to allow men to change it so the message can't get across.
The whole idea of corruption makes no sense to me. If Allah is the greatest of deceivers to make it appear Jesus did not die, surely he must be a great enough communicator to get across his message through Jesus without humans stopping him by corrupting the message. Corruption would also imply God's greatest prophet failed in His mission. I do not accept that.
lol, guys it's funny cuz whenever there's a topic about Christianity, you just spot these type of threads like sensors loll...but It's good that we have a discussion .
Scholars estimate the number of manuscript variants in the hundreds of thousands, some estimating as high as 400,000. In Bart D. Ehrman’s now famous words, “Possibly it is easiest to put the matter in comparative terms: there are more differences in our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”
As Ehrman knows perfectly well, being a Greek scholar of some repute, the vast majority of those are where somebody got the case ending of a word wrong. As anyone who has studied Greek will know that is ludicrously easy to do - Greek is a highly inflected language, and even those skilled at it have trouble getting every single case ending right.
Something else on John, to follow up Grace Seeker's post. It is written in a very poetic style, but importantly it is poetry in typically Hebraic pattern combinations. Whoever its author was, they were almost certainly as literate in Hebrew as they were in Greek.
The last comment I find a bit odd;
Perhaps the most convincing refutation is that the disciple John is believed to have died in or around 98 CE. However, the Gospel of John was written circa 110 CE.
Circa 110 CE?! Circa means it is an approximate date when the actual one is not known, and this instance is highly speculative anyway. Surely 98 CE (in or around!), or even 78 CE is 'circa' 110 CE, unless there is good reason to pin it down to a year or two? Hardly a "convincing refutation".
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
*!* The New Testament *!*
.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks