Who Changed our Bible? (Part III)

 

Let's take one more look a Bart Ehrman's book, "Misquoting Jesus". One verse Ehrman points to as an issue is Mark 1:41. The larger context reads, Mark 1:40-44 ESV

(40)  And a leper came to him, imploring him, and kneeling said to him, “If you will, you can make me clean.”

(41)  Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him and said to him, “I will; be clean.”

(42)  And immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean.

(43)  And Jesus sternly charged him and sent him away at once,

(44)  and said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to them.”

The issue is found in verse (41), most manuscripts use (σπλαγχνισθει) translated as "moved with compassion" or as the ESV above reads, "moved with pity". However, Ehrman points out that one of our oldest manuscripts, Codex Bezae, and three other Latin manuscripts read using (ὀργισθείς) which is translated as "becoming angry". Ehrman states, "It is obviously important to know whether Jesus was said to feel compassion or anger . . ."Misquoting Jesus (Page 149). 

Ehrman suggests that if Mark originally wrote about Jesus’ anger in this passage, it would change our picture of Jesus that Mark presents significantly. There is no doubt there are two different readings of the text in some manuscripts, but keep in mind, an accumulation of things such as this is what Ehrman is presenting as evidence the Bible has changed over time as well as his defection from the Christian faith. Really? We are looking at handwritten manuscripts some of which are a thousand years old and we are supposed to be surprised that they don't read exactly the same? We also should remember we are talking about thousands of manuscripts and this is the best he can offer as a reason to doubt the inerrancy of the Bible?

So how does this affect the passage? The passage in question is a revelation of the passion that motivated Jesus to perform the healing of the leper. Was it anger or Compassion? Only the author of the original autograph knows for sure since we obviously have two readings now. Our Bibles render it as Compassion simply because the majority of the known evidence lends to that reading. It is simply the most likely reading, but if most scribes got it wrong and he was really angry, has the Gospel been changed? Do we have a different Jesus than the one that is presented in the scriptures? 

The answer to all is absolutely not, the intent and purpose of the text in question are not the particular passion Jesus was feeling at the time but an acknowledgment of the almighty power of Jesus, and an appeal to his benevolence. If he was angry it would be in character with the Jesus that Mark has presented elsewhere in Scripture, for we see in Mark 3:5 ESV

(5)  And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.

One could also speculate the possibility of both passions being present as a motivating factor, compassion for the leper and anger for similar reasons as we read about later in Mark 3:5. Are we to assume because it is not mentioned in Mark 3:5 Jesus was not compassionate toward to man with the withered hand? It appears for Ehrman to have confidence in the Scriptures he requires a perfect flawless copy from thousands of handwritten manuscripts. Obviously, that is realistically impossible and one would appear foolish to suggest otherwise. 

Another point of interest for Ehrman is Matthew 24:36, Jesus speaks about the time of his own return. Remarkably, he confesses that he does not know exactly when that will be. In most modern translations of Matt 24.36, the text basically says, “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.  However, many manuscripts, including some early ones, lack (οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός.)  “nor the Son”  so it can be disputed wither it was in the original reading or not. However, what is not disputed is the wording in the parallel passage in Mark 13.32 “But as for that day or hour no one knows it, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, except the Father.” Thus, we know that even if the phrase was not in the original autograph it is nonetheless a true statement confirmed for us in a non-disputed parallel text. In his book, Ehrman lists several examples such as those mentioned above, had he had a desire to he could have listed a seemingly endless collection. What he is presenting is nothing new and anyone who has studied the process of Biblical translation knows it's no easy task. But they also know that because of the meticulous work that has been exerted we can have great confidence not only in our English Bibles but in the Scriptures overall. That is not to say all English translations are equal, but that is another subject altogether.

And of course, Ehrman points out in 1 John 5.7, that virtually no modern translation of the Bible includes the “Trinitarian formula,” since scholars for centuries have recognized it as added later. Only a few very late manuscripts have the verses. The passage made its way into our Bibles appearing for the first time in 1522, even though scholars then and now knew that it was not authentic. 

The KJV reads, 1 John 5:7 KJV

(7)  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 

And the ESV reads, 1 John 5:7 ESV

(7)  For there are three that testify:

The early church did not know of this text, yet the Council of Constantinople in AD 381 explicitly affirmed the Trinity! So the presence or absence of the verse changes nothing concerning the text. They affirmed the doctrine of the Trinity without the benefit of a text that didn’t get into the Greek NT for another thousand years. The early church simply put into a theological formulation what they got out of the New Testament when defining the doctrine of the Trinity in 381. The addition of the extended phraseology of verse 7 by some scribes in the 14th Century changes no understanding concerning the Biblical text. Sure we would feel better about it all if we had a perfect text, but what we do have makes it possible to obtain a very highly reliable text.

Anyone with an understanding of the patristic debates over the Godhead knows that the early church arrived at their understanding from an examination of the New Testament text. The Trinitarian formula found in late manuscripts as well as being included in our KJV of 1 John 5.7 only summarized what they found; it did not add or change any new information. Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus" as well as others he has since published is very well done and sufficient to cause many Christians concern and perhaps even doubt the Bible they have trusted for so long. One positive aspect of his work is hopefully those who read his books will continue to investigate and study the source of our Scriptures. In doing so, they will strengthen their understanding of what they are reading as well as their confidence in the accuracy of the Scriptural text. A full scholarly review of "Misquoting Jesus" by Daniel B. Wallace can be found at Bible.org

Ehrman seems to suggest the Scriptures available to us today are producing some evolved form of Christianity. What we must understand is all the variations in our doctrinal views, divisions, and debates are not because our Bibles are reading differently, it is because we are simply coming to different conclusions as to what is read. The weakness is not in the text to communicate but in our understanding and interpretative methods. There were disagreements in the Second Century when there was access to the original autographs, this is nothing new. However, as we read the commentary and sermons from the patristic era, they may be viewing the text in different ways, but the text they are commenting on is the text we are reading. As we read their writings we recognize the text and realize they are reading the same Scripture we are reading nearly two thousand years later. Yes, Ehrman can point out all the variant readings in the ancient manuscripts, but he cannot point to a different Gospel, a different church, or a different Jesus in the second century. We still have the same Gospel and the same Jesus they were writing, preaching, and commenting upon. The Gospel still stands as the same Gospel!

God bless,

David

Who changed the Bible? (Part II)

 

As we continue to examine Bart Ehrman's book, "Misquoting Jesus" and his explanation of the development of the Christian Scriptures. While recognizing his scholarship is excellent, our quest will be not so much to question his scholarship, but his conclusion.

As he is building his thesis, he instructs his readers that the Christian religion is a written religion with the Apostles and followers of Jesus studying the Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament, and not long afterward the Chruch viewing the writings of the Apostles themselves as Scripture.

Ehrman reminds us again that many books were being written, competing accounts of the Gospels, and other letters claiming to have been written by the Apostles and early Church leaders. He suggests the average Christian was illiterate and not able to read and the question he says we must ask is, who is reading the books? Ehrman continues to build his thesis chapter after chapter on the difficulty of producing a written work and the great effort in producing copies at this time in history. Every copy would have to be handwritten, of course, the result of that would be no copy would be exactly alike. Different people with different skills and techniques would produce copies which varied, sometimes greatly. 

All of what Ehrman describes is an accurate assessment of the facts as we know them. What we must determine is whether those facts and difficulties actually lead us to the conclusion he has arrived at. His conclusion it seems is that the Bible we have is a product of many rewritings and changes over the centuries resulting in manuscripts nothing like the original autographs. I have written several articles addressing various questions concerning textual criticism, you can review them at the following links.

Dead Sea Scrolls

Reading Horizontally

Contradictions The Genealogy of Jesus

Contradictions The Crucifixion

God Breathed

Ehrman correctly establishes the fact the first copies of the scriptures were likely produced by unskilled scribes, at least for the most part. He even suggests some may have been produced by scribes who could not read. He gives the example of an Egyptian scribe named Petaus, who apparently had learned to sign his name, although he could not read what he had written. In other words, they learned to copy the characters without learning to read and understand them. Of course, there is no way to know if this was ever done with the scriptures, it is really not relevant anyway, we have so many ancient copies to compare and study, that any inaccuracy would be discernable. It does add a colorful addition to his synopsis nevertheless.  

The problems with the handwritten texts that Ehrman is highlighting aren't something that scholars are just now discovering.  The systematic study and practice of the subject he is addressing originated in the 3rd century with the Greek scholars of Alexandria. There was an awareness that many texts had suffered damage because precise textual accuracy and reproduction had not been practiced in the culture. The aim of the librarians of Alexandria was to collect and catalog every extant Greek book and to produce critical editions of the most important together with textual and interpretative commentaries. Many such editions and commentaries did in fact appear. Alexandrian editing was distinguished above all by respect for the tradition; the text was constituted from the oldest and best copies available in the 3rd Century, and the conjectural practice of removing errors was rigidly confined to the commentary, which was contained in a separate volume. Although this precise textual accuracy was for some time not an area of academics, it does not mean there were not good copies available.

 

Fidelity to tradition was the legacy of ancient textual scholarship; the copyist was expected to reproduce his copy as exactly as he could, and the corrections were based on comparison with other copies, a practice that is continued today. A fact not mentioned by Ehrman, of the grouping of manuscripts originating from Alexandria, is that they have a textual accuracy of around 85% among that textual grouping. An explanation concerning the different textual groupings used in our Bible translations and why can be found at this link. Alexandrian Manuscripts vs. Textus Receptus

The majority of these variants are inconsequential differences involving spelling differences, articles with proper nouns, and word order changes. Only a very small minority of the variants alter the meaning of the text, when this is brought into consideration the whole picture begins to come into focus. Indeed, only about 1% of the textual variants are both meaningful and viable. The impression Ehrman sometimes gives throughout his book is that of wholesale uncertainty about the original wording, this is certainly not the view of the vast majority of textual critics. It is difficult to imagine that 1% of questionable variants warrant a defection from the Christian faith!

An illustration of this is given by scholar Daniel B. Wallace who gives the following example. [There are approximately 138,000 words in the Greek NT. The variants in the manuscripts, versions, and Fathers constitute almost three times this number. At first blush, that is a striking amount. But in light of the possibilities, it actually is rather trivial. For example, consider how the Greek can say “Jesus loves Paul”:

᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ Παῦλον

᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ τὸν Παῦλον

ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ Παῦλον

ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ τὸν Παῦλον

Παῦλον ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ

τὸν Παῦλον ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ

Παῦλον ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ

τὸν Παῦλον ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ

ἀγαπᾷ ᾿Ιησοῦς Παῦλον

ἀγαπᾷ ᾿Ιησοῦς τὸν Παῦλον

ἀγαπᾷ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς Παῦλον

ἀγαπᾷ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς τὸν Παῦλον

ἀγαπᾷ Παῦλον ᾿Ιησοῦς

ἀγαπᾷ τὸν Παῦλον ᾿Ιησοῦς

ἀγαπᾷ Παῦλον ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς

ἀγαπᾷ τὸν Παῦλον ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς

These variations only represent a small fraction of the possibilities. If the sentence used φιλεῖ instead of ἀγαπᾷ, for example, or if it began with a conjunction such as δεv, καιv, or μέν, the potential variations would grow exponentially. Factor in synonyms (such as κύριος for ᾿Ιησοῦς), spelling differences, and additional words (such as Χριστός, or ἅγιος with Παῦλος) and the list of potential variants that do not affect the essence of the statement increases to the hundreds. If such a simple sentence as “Jesus loves Paul” could have so many insignificant variations, a mere 400,000 variants among the NT manuscripts seems like an almost negligible amount.] 

You can readily see how the omission of such factual information can be both misleading and harmful to the reader. Especially if the data you have presented was done with such scholarly expertise. It is something we all must be aware of when considering any subject. A person skilled in his field can present statements of truth, whether scripture or otherwise, and present them in such a way as to load the scale on one side.  

However, the issues he presents deserve our attention. Is it not a serious matter if our Bibles contain these uninspired and bogus statements? And if they do and it is known by our Biblical scholars, why are they still in our newer translations? 

According to what Ehrman discovered concerning the text, and remember, he is an excellent scholar, it was so earth-shaking it has fractured and dismantled his Christian faith. I will assume since he wrote the book to expose the issue, the examples he gives are the ones most responsible for his defection. So what are these earth-shaking discoveries that are to change the way we read our Bibles?

One he mentions is John 7:53-8:11, this whole section of scripture is thought by many to almost certainly not be a part of the original text but has been added sometime between the 3rd and 5th Centuries. My ESV Bible contains the texts, but insert in brackets [THE EARLIEST MANUSCRIPTS DO NOT INCLUDE 7:53-8:11] then adds a foot not stating, "Some manuscripts do not include 7:53-8:11; others add the passage here, or after 7:36 or 21:25 or after Luke 21:38, with variations in the text." No Biblical manuscripts before the 3rd Century contain these verses. The KJV version and earlier English translations have no such notes identifying the reader of these facts. The reason for this is the material used in the early English translation process originated from source material of the 12th century. The older manuscripts had not been discovered yet and were not available to the translators. However, this verse is referred to as early as 100AD by some of the Paristic writers. So there still remains the possibility of its authenticity, so the inclusion of it with footnotes seems appropriate. Even if the exact location or even the exact book it was written in is not known, it seems the Patristic writers were aware of it and referred to it. 

The question is, does its presence warrant a defection from the faith or place the authenticity of our Biblical texts into question? It seems, except for Ehrman, it doesn't seem to have affected the Christian faith at all. As to the Biblical text, the discovery of the older manuscripts not only revealed this possible scribal addition but has served to solidify the accuracy of the rest of the text. We are more certain now of its accuracy than we were before.

Another text of reference Ehrman mentions is what is called the long ending of Mark. Mark 16:9-20 is also missing from all the earlier manuscripts. David Guzik's commentary has this to say concerning this portion of the text: 

a. The two oldest existing Greek manuscripts (dated from 325 and 340 A.D.) do not contain this section and neither do about 100 other ancient manuscripts translated into other languages. A few ancient manuscripts put asterisks next to Mar_16:9-20 to indicate that it is an addition to the original text.

b. According to their writings, almost all the Greek manuscripts known to Eusebius (who died in 339) and Jerome (who died in 419) did not have these verses.

c. In a few other manuscripts there are two other endings - one shorter, one with some additions.

d. About one-third of the vocabulary is totally different from the rest of the Gospel of Mark and there is a very awkward grammatical transition between Mar_16:8-9.

e. Most contemporary scholars reject these verses as original.

However, like the verses referred to in John, many very early Christian writers refer to this passage in their writings. So they were at least aware of its existence in some form and deemed it quotable.

Papias refers to Mar_16:18. He wrote around A.D. 100, Justin Martyr’s first Apology quoted Mar_16:20 (A.D. 151), and Irenaeus in Against Heresies quoted Mar_16:13 and remarked on it (A.D. 180). 

Unlike the verses we discussed in John, there has been some confusion caused by the inclusion of these verses in the Biblical text. This is the section of Mark that contains the verses (16)  Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (17)  And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name, they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; (18)  they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

Because of these verses, some confusion has arisen over the nature of baptism and a whole sect of Christianity arose promoting the practice of snake handling and the drinking of strychnine. One could argue that even that could have been avoided by good hermeneutical practice in interpretation, nevertheless, the problems do exist. However, these unbiblical practices don't seem to have existed till the emergence of the Pentecostal movement of the last Century. So the inclusion of these passages does not seem to have had any effect on the Christian faith until recent times. As mentioned before, the discovery of the older text not only revealed the possible issue with these texts but also strengthened the authenticity of the Scriptures as a whole.

Still, it seems Ehrman suggests these variants change what we believe as Christians, in effect change Christianity. Supposedly, if we had the original autographs, we would have a different Christianity. However, the variants he has offered here in discussion whether they were original or later added do not induce any new doctrinal belief or if removed alter a single Christian doctrine. Again, the discovery of these variants which has occurred in the last 100 years or so has only increased our confidence in the accuracy of the Scriptures. 

Next time we will continue the examine some interesting variants in the textual reading and see what we can make of them. Hopefully, we can also take a look at a new technology that is developing that very well may deliver the most accurate reading we have had of the Scriptures since the Patristic age.

Until then,

David