Who changed the Bible?

 

This post will be in response to a book a friend of mine recently sent me. It is by Bart Ehrman who is an excellent Biblical scholar. It seems the premise of the book is detailing how Ehrman, through the study of the ancient text of the Bible was moved from being Christian to an Atheist. 

What he discovered, according to Ehrman, is that we apparently do not know or have any possible way to determine what the actual Christian writings were. He suggests that there have been so many changes over the centuries by the scribes that it is impossible to know exactly what was in the original text. It will be interesting to follow him through his scholastic endeavor and examine his work for our own personal satisfaction. Personally, I do not have the skill or expertise to criticize or praise his scholarship. Fortunately, he is not the only excellent scholar in the field of Biblical criticism, so we are not left at the mercy of his work alone. 

The very first challenge we find in his thinking is the same challenge we find in the first book of the Bible, Genesis 3:1 ESV (1)  Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” The serpent came to the woman and asked her, are you sure God actually said that? I find it interesting that Ehrman is now coming to us and asking us, are you sure God actually said that? Of course, it is perfectly fine for him to ask, as a non-believer that is a very legitimate question. I would only hope our response will be somewhat better than that of Eve.

He begins his journey with a discussion of the Jewish roots from which the Christian faith sprang. From what I can see he gives a fairly accurate assessment of the subject as it is generally understood and accepted. However, when he began to move into the Christian writings themselves it didn't take him very long to begin to cast the doubt, "Did God actually say?" Ehrman stated, "It is not clear how much Paul used scripture [meaning the Jewish scriptures] in trying to persuade his potential converts of the truth of his message;" Being familiar with Paul's writings and the Biblical text myself, I knew this sounded somewhat of an understatement. I had never stopped to recount how often, but it sounded like Paul was constantly referring to the Scriptures, so I did a little research and discovered Romans contains quotes or paraphrases of 84 Old Testament passages. Hebrews which many scholars think could have been written by Paul has 83 references.

Paul's other books with references to Old Testament passages are 1 Corinthians, which contains (26); 2 Corinthians (18); Galatians (14); Ephesians (12); Philippians (6); Colossians (3); 1 Thessalonians (1); 2 Thessalonians (7); 1 Timothy (4) and 2 Timothy (9). Only Paul's two shortest epistles, Titus and Philemon, contain no quotes from the Old Testament. 

It's obvious from these figures that Paul overwhelmingly used the Hebrew Scriptures to support his teaching. In fact, he constantly used the Old Testament as the authority for his teaching! I find it surprising that Ehrman, being the excellent scholar he is would suggest otherwise. My first thought was that he simply doesn't accept the text itself as sufficient evidence, but then he does turn to the scriptures to support his synopsis. He cites 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 ESV (3)  For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, (4)  that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He kind of leaves it as if that was the sum total of his Old Testament reference. That would seem a bit misleading on his part, but it does demonstrate he does recognize Paul's statement in 1st Corinthians as supportive evidence, therefore, I would think all the other references should have equal value.

Another area of interest is concerning the Gospels, Ehrman suggests there were many gospels at first with only four becoming widely read. Those four of course are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Ehrman's point here seems to be that the only distinction between the four Gospels we have in our Bibles and the other so-called many gospels is that these four became the most popular. He then cites the fact we still have some of the other gospels and lists some of them. Such writings of antiquity as the Gospel of Phillip, Judas, Thomas, and Mary Magdalene. 

I don't want to be too critical here, because he is correct concerning the existence of other pseudo-gospels. However, he is silent on the great chasm between the so-called gospels and the actual four we have in the New Testament. It was not as he seems to suggest a popularity contest, it was a truth contest and the New Testament Gospels won. It really was not a contest at all, you had the Gospels of the New Testament Church and then you had a bunch of writings from Gnostic teachers who were presenting a different Gospel message. None of the Gnostic's writings can be understood as Christian for they veered too far from Christian teaching. We know what the Christian church considered as Christian writings from the early Church Fathers. When they were quoting from writings considered to be authoritative it was from the New Testament and not from the Gnostic writings. If the church had considered these other gospels as Christian material they would have been quoting from them. I'm sure someone with Ehrman's credentials knows this, but we must understand, that the purpose of his book is not to lend support to the Scriptures but to discredit them. All of this information is readily available online, you can read the writings of the church fathers yourself, and you will find them referring to the Gospels and epistles we have in our New Testament, not the Gnostic writings.

This is so prevalent among the patristic writers that it has been said you could reconstruct the entire New Testament from their writings. That would seem to be quite an overstatement, however, even Ehrman states that he along with some help from a few others was able to reconstruct a huge chunk of the Gospel of John using only the writings of Origin (185AD-253AD). Nevertheless, Ehrman explains it would be impossible to reconstruct a New Testament from the patristic writers alone because you would not be able to tell when they were actually speaking from a New Testament text. Ehrman was able to reconstruct that huge portion of John because they had a Greek copy of John as a template.

The point from my perspective is not whether we could reconstruct a New Testament from their writings alone, but that if you can identify the reference of the New Testament text they were reading to the New Testament text we have today, does that not affirm we are reading the same text they were reading in the 2nd century? In support of Ehrman's statement, it seems no one can validate the case of being able to reproduce a New Testament from the patristic writers. However, what has been validated is the Early Church Fathers did confirm enough of the New Testament claims to authenticate the writings of the apostles. From the non-canonical works of Ignatius (35AD-108AD) and Polycarp (AD69-155) who were students of John, and the non-canonical work of Clement (35AD-99AD) who was a student of the Apostle Paul we can determine the following:

Jesus was predicted by the Old Testament as described in the New Testament

Jesus is divine as described in the New Testament

Jesus taught His disciples as described in the New Testament

Jesus worked miracles as described in the New Testament

Jesus was born of a virgin as described in the New Testament

Jesus lived, ministered, was crucified, and died as described in the New Testament

Jesus rose from the dead and demonstrated His deity as described in the New Testament

The early disciples of the apostles confirm the content of the apostolic teaching. If Ehrman is looking to prove the New Testament text we have today is less divine, less miraculous, and less supernatural, he isn’t going to find it in the writings of the first generation that followed the apostles. Instead, he going to find the very same Gospel that you and I know from the writings of the New Testament. The Scriptures didn’t evolve over the centuries and become what we have today. We don’t need to reconstruct the entire New Testament to have great confidence that the writings of the New Testament have been delivered to us accurately. The Early Church Fathers confirm this for us, even if they don’t repeat every line of the canonical narrative.

In "First Clement to the Corinthians," Clement (35AD-99AD) quotes Matthew 18:6 & 7 "Remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, how He said, 'Woe to that man [by whom offenses come]! It were better for him that he had never been born, than that he should cast a stumbling block before one of my elect. Yea, it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about [his neck], and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea, than that he should cast a stumbling block before one of my little ones.'"

Matthew 18:6-7 ESV (6)  but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. (7)  “Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes!

It is to be understood what Clement is quoting is of course not from the ESV translation, he would be quoting from an ancient Greek manuscript without chapter and verse division, punctuation, letter spacing, or word divisions. However, the portion of Scripture he is quoting is unmistakable. This is an example of what is available to us within the patristic writings that help us affirm the Scriptures we are reading today are the Scriptures they were reading in the 1st and 2nd centuries. 

Another element to consider is the continuity of Christian doctrine and the Old Testament. Ehrman himself points to the fact that Paul used Old Testament authority for his teaching. The data I previously mentioned demonstrates the wide use of the Hebrew Scriptures in the New Testament writings. However, when you look at the Gnostic writings you lose the Old Testament continuity which you must have in Christianity. 

Take for example the Gospel of Philip which Ehrman mentions. This pseudo gospel states: "There's one name that isn't uttered in the world: the name which the Father gave to the Son. It's exalted over everything; it's the Father's name, because the Son wouldn't have become father unless he had taken the name of the Father. Those who have this name know it, but don't say it; and those who don't have it, don't know it. But Truth brought names into the world for us, because it's impossible for us to learn it (Truth) without these names. There's only one Truth, but it's many things for us, to teach this one thing in love through many things."  In Bible hermeneutics, one means of obtaining a correct understanding of a difficult text is to consider the context in which it rests and look at other texts of Scripture that address the same issue in more detail. It is sometimes referred to as "Scripture interprets Scripture". Christian doctrine is not built upon a single text but upon the context of the whole of Scripture. This is not possible when reading the pseudo-gospels, they have no relation to the Biblical text at all. These pseudo books were not just simply left out of the Bible, it is impossible to put them in the Bible with any continuity or clarity at all. It's like having a bowl of red marbles with one blue nail in the mix, you immediately know it does not belong. 

To understand this pseud-Gnostic writing you would need to be familiar with Gnosticism, for it makes no sense whatsoever within a Christian context. The same is true of the gospel of Judas that Ehrman mentions where it is said to be stated by Jesus, "This is how it is. God commanded Michael to loan spirits to people so that they might serve. Then the Great One commanded Gabriel to give spirits to the great generation with no king – the spirit along with the soul. So the [rest] of the souls […] light [… the] Chaos […] seek [the] spirit within you which you've made to live in this flesh from the angelic generations. Then God caused knowledge to be brought to Adam and those with him so that the kings of Chaos and Hades might not rule over them." 

The same is true of the gospel of Thomas which states, "Jesus said to his disciples, "If you were to compare me to someone, who would you say I'm like?" Simon Peter said to him, "You're like a just angel." Matthew said to him, "You're like a wise philosopher." Thomas said to him, "Teacher, I'm completely unable to say whom you're like." Jesus said, "I'm not your teacher. Because you've drunk, you've become intoxicated by the bubbling spring I've measured out." He took him aside and told him three things. When Thomas returned to his companions, they asked, "What did Jesus say to you?" Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the things he said to me, you'll pick up stones and cast them at me, and fire will come out of the stones and burn you up."

Then you have the gospel of Mary, "The Savior said, "Sin doesn't exist, but you're the ones who make sin when you act in accordance with the nature of adultery, which is called 'sin.' That's why the Good came among you, up to the things of every nature in order to restore it within its root." Then he continued and said, "That's why you get sick and die, because [you love what tricks you. Anyone who] can understand should understand! "Matter [gave birth to] a passion that has no image because it comes from what's contrary to nature. Then confusion arises in the whole body. That's why I told you to be content at heart. If you're discontented, find contentment in the presence of the various images of nature. Anyone who has ears to hear should hear!"

It doesn't take a Bible Scholar to discern between pseudo-gospels and the Christian Gospels. However, as Christianity was growing in its early stages, these pseudo-gospels were being spread under the guise of Christianity. It was no small task for the Church to confront these false teachings. When a Church had been affected by these pseudo-writings, as you can imagine, it caused great confusion. We find this kind of thing infecting Christian Churches from the very beginning.   

2 John 1:7-11 ESV

(7)  For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

(8)  Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward.

(9)  Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.

(10)  If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting,

(11)  for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

John is already having to address a Gnostic teaching concerning the nature of Jesus. It seems someone was teaching that Jesus had not really come in the flesh but only appeared to be human. Whoever was bringing this teaching was causing great confusion among the Churches. It was necessary for the Apostle to instruct them in the true understanding of the nature of Christ. Sadly, this continued to be a problem throughout Church history and the only defense against these false teachings was a continual appeal to the apostolic writings as the only authority. These things may have troubled Mr. Ehrman and caused him to stumble in his faith, but they need not have. We will continue to look at the difficulties Mr. Ehrman sees concerning the Biblical text because we need to be aware of these things and why they exist. 

Until then, God bless,

David