Presupposing Perfection: Bart Ehrman and N.T. Textual Transmission

Whenever I encounter the work of a new biblical scholar who is critical of orthodox Christianity, I have to admit to feeling a twinge of anxiety. Is it because I fear that I'll be exposed to some new facts that will destroy the foundation of my beliefs? Well, I suppose that's logically possible, but I am more consciously concerned that I'll hit an objection that I am unable to engage without first dedicating years of time acquiring the background to even begin the task. Fortunately, I've found few such issues. Most can be addressed at a fairly high level before even going into the details. And I find that it's not always the details that are the problem anyway, but the presuppositions applied to the data.

This gives some background as to why I had both apprehension and enthusiasm about hearing Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's critiques. It seems that I've been hearing Ehrman's name come up quite a bit this last year and when I did some investigation I came to the conclusion that he was one of the better class of skeptics. No Dan Brown conspiricist or John Crossan stealth-atheist: Ehrman is a UNC Chapel Hill scholar and author (most recently, Misquoting Jesus) who knows his biblical history and says exactly what he believes about it without straying too far from the data itself. So, hearing him speak in his own words on the Issues, Etc. radio show turned out to be both a treat and an education, in ways he did not intend.

Todd Wilken, the host, did a wonderful job of drawing out Ehrman's position and the basis of his conclusions. It seems that Ehrman discovered at some point in his theological education that there are variants in the ancient biblical manuscripts, and this set him down a road that caused him to question the inspiration of the original text and, ultimately, his own faith. Let us review, then, this compelling data that has driven Ehrman to reject classical Christianity.

Confronting the changes

The first thing to note is his point regarding the variations in the manuscripts. Somehow this fact, or the implications of it, managed to escape his attention all those years he read his Bible, most versions of which are footnoted with the more substantial variant readings. This is no secret, and is available information to any willing to look at the widely published materials (even from conservative sources). In fact, Ehrman admits that we have an "honest record of the changes." That is to say, there are no rumors of hidden ancient manuscripts and no incriminating documents that "fundamentalists" won't admit onto the field.

Ehrman did not just learn these things from liberal scholars. Indeed, one of his mentors was Bruce Metzger, a conservative whom Ehrman calls "the world's leading New Testament scholar." When Wilken asked how he came to differ from Metzger, Ehrman admits that they are both using the same raw data, but they simply take different things away from it. And Ehrman freely offers the grounds of his own conclusions, which turn out to be dependent upon a rather problematic presupposition about the way God ought to work in inspiring and transmitting the Scriptures.

Ehrman suggests that if God didn't go to the trouble of preserving the words of Scripture, He probably didn't inspire them in the first place. To be honest, he's got a compelling point. I've even used a form of this argument against Mormons and Muslims, who depend on the idea of a radical corruption of the text to support their departure from it. If God couldn't manage to get a meaningful record of His words and deeds down for posterity, then why bother, or what kind of God is that?

Inflating the problem

So, just how bad are the damages? Is there any hope of sifting the wreckage for the surviving original? Here's where it gets interesting. Enigmatically, Ehrman admits that the New Testament is "not fundamentally unreliable," and that for approximately 95 percent of the material "we know pretty much exactly what the text said." In fact, the whole reason we know that there's been any changes at all is because we've got a raft of surviving original language copies against which we can make comparisons, and the age of some of these copies dates to within 50 years after the originals were penned. Ehrman is forced to admit that we are in far worse shape in regards to most other classical texts.

But, detectable as they may be, what are these changes in the text? Perhaps there is a conspiracy afoot to mythologize the story of Jesus and weave "orthodoxy" into the text, which Ehrman does seem to believe. Wilken invited Ehrman to give an example of a variation that affects an important doctrine of Christianity. This was his big chance to drop a bombshell on the listeners. Did he have an example to offer, like Jesus "blessed" the water rather than "turned it into wine," or the tomb was "ransacked" rather than "empty?" No. The example he did give relates to Jesus' reaction to the lepers in Mark 1:41. In most manuscripts it says He had "compassion," but in a few it says He expressed "anger."

This is an example of his faith-destroying changes? In fact, most of the variant readings in the texts turn out to be even less consequential than this — things like grammatical and copyist errors. Ehrman thinks, though, that this particular change in Mark is an example of an intentional edit in order to soften the perplexing "anger" saying, which he takes to be the original. Ehrman finds these kinds of helping-the-author-along changes incriminating, and of even more concern to him than the innocent, though more common, copyist errors. The two together are enough to make him question the whole orthodox Christian enterprise.

Missing the point

But Ehrman fails to make the case that any particular copy or family of manuscripts is so riddled with errors as to affect one's ability to glean orthodox Christianity from it. Indeed, the individual manuscript differences are rather sparse and seldom alter the overall meaning of any given passage. Additionally, even if some copyists wrongly took liberties with the text to make it more palatable, understandable, or "orthodox," it does not follow that they were crafting orthodoxy in doing so, only following an existing stream of theology that can clearly be found in the rest of the text.

For example, one variant of Luke 2:33 reads, "Joseph and His mother were amazed at the things which were being said about [Jesus]," rather than "His father and mother" were amazed. Ehrman, in his writings, claims this is done to buttress the case for the virgin birth. But this seems a trivial concern in light of the fact that Luke 1:26-38, which is found in all manuscripts, explicitly tells the story of the virgin conception (not to mention Matthew's inclusion of it). While annotating and clarifying are not desirable in a formal copy of the text, it is exactly what we do with our modern paraphrase translations; and while the Luke 2:33 change may represent a liberty taken with the text, it does not represent a theological corruption given the previously established premise of the virgin birth.

The ironic thing is that in Ehrman's focus upon these textual variants he neglects the stunning claims made within the very same chapters that are not a matter of dispute. For instance, in Mark 1:41, Ehrman may not know the scope of emotions with which Jesus approached the lepers, but the remarkable thing is that all texts agree that Jesus healed them. And in Hebrews 2:9, Ehrman points out the variant of "by the grace of God," but in the very same chapter we find Jesus being attested to by miracles (v.4) and making propitiation for our sins (v.17). It would seem that Ehrman is swatting at gnats while ignoring the camel.

Surviving the ages

I think, though, that when Ehrman points out these variants he is suggesting a sort of evolutionary case for the corruption of the text. This would imply that year-by-year, copy-by-copy these little incidental changes would add up to make later manuscripts that are unrecognizable from the originals. There are at least four problems with this theory.

1) It is not just a case of scribes making copies of copies, which mutate endlessly. At various places and points in history there are intersections where manuscripts come together for comparison, which permit auditing of the text. Examples would be the Textus Receptus from around the Reformation, and the Westcott and Hort text from the late 1800's.

2) We have in our possession numerous writings from the early church fathers who quote extensively from the biblical texts. Indeed, the fact that we can clearly identify those quotes demonstrates that they closely match the surviving Scriptures.

3) If the biblical texts have indeed mutated over time beyond recognition, then we should expect that any discovered ancient manuscripts should be largely alien in nature. As it turns out, in the last century or so we have acquired numerous very old documents, none of which supports a radical corruption theory. In fact, a couple of these — the Rylands Papyrus (P52) and Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 3523 (P90) — date to the first half of the 2nd century and are mere scraps. But even with such scant text for comparison, they are so similar to later, complete works that we can easily tell the book, chapter, and verses to which they relate.

4) As mentioned above, Ehrman himself states that "we know pretty much exactly what the text said."

Imagination and presuppositions

So, where is the big disconnect from the reality of what was written to the copies we are left to investigate? Ehrman tentatively suggests that those initial copies of the originals could have been complete hack jobs. This seems improbable in light of the fact that the church for centuries has shown itself to be disinclined toward substantive revision of the text. Also, this theory evokes an image of a single individual or group of copyists who acted as gatekeepers for all of the canonical texts. However, it is far more complex than that.

The individual books that make up our New Testament were written at diverse times and places all around the Mediterranean at a period where there was no organized and centralized church. Copies were made and distributed, usually in isolation from the other manuscripts (especially so with the epistles), and it is absurd to believe that in every case only one reengineered copy was produced with the original being suppressed or destroyed. This means that there would be many copies of many different manuscripts in circulation among various autonomous groups, each seeking to add what they could to their collections. The fact that the surviving copies are so consistent both with each other and, theologically, across all other writings suggests that we either have a faithful tradition of textual transmission or there was some remarkable transcontinental conspiracy to edit all the documents and purge the field of every last trace of the originals. Ehrman does not prefer the former though he does not suggest the latter, but it seems to be his necessary conclusion.

In light of the fact that there are no grounds to assert that the substance of the New Testament documents has been lost, Ehrman must be depending upon his presupposition about God's preservation of the text to claim that it has been lost. His assumptions seem to run both ways: he thinks that the text can only be faithfully transmitted if it is inspired in the first place, and it can only be inspired if it is faithfully transmitted. But even assuming that God is not behind the text does not imply that it must have been corrupted. It only implies that the authors were wrong about what they wrote, but that is not Ehrman's starting point (though he has stated it as one of his ultimate conclusions).

Ehrman's rejection of the documented resurrection and divinity of Jesus doesn't seem to be based on his unwillingness to accept this as possible truth (if we are to believe his former claim to faith), and it doesn't seem to be based on any evidence we have that the Scriptures are forged or fictional manuscripts. It seems to be based, as evidenced by his own personal reflections, on his presupposition that God must perfectly preserve His words if He is to offer them at all. Let's take a minute to think through the implications of this requirement.

Kevlar^® Gospels

What would it look like for God to superintend the textual transmission process in the simple and straightforward way that Ehrman demands? Well, first of all, there would be no copying mistakes. Every resulting manuscript, some taking days or weeks to complete, would be flawless reproductions. Any manuscripts slated for reproduction would be immune to stain or damage. The words "I intend to copy this" would be like a magical incantation, turning any document into Kevlar^®, at least until copies were completed.

There would never be any liberties taken with the material by well intentioned, misguided, or malicious scribes. Such persons would either be mysteriously barred from scribal duties or would often find their pens acting on their own behalves. Scribal training and quality control would become superfluous because of every person's uncanny ability to reproduce Scripture without error. In fact, the selection of the canon would have been automatic for the church fathers, since they could merely identify which texts were being flawlessly reproduced and which not. Copying the text blindfolded would be a popular party trick, and letting atheists try their best to make a flawed reproduction would be an evangelism tactic.

But possession of a flawless text would be only half the battle for Ehrman's God. After all, what's the point of having perfect revelation in a book if it can't be perfectly transmitted into the eyes, ears, and minds of the people? For this reason, these perfect Bibles must make it into the hands of perfectly literate people who would perfectly comprehend it with the acumen of a master theologian. Either that or the evangelists and preachers must have photographic memories and flawless presentations. Language barriers would be no problem either, as every foreign encounter would be a guaranteed occasion to repeat the miracle of Pentecost. And leaving anything out, embellishing, or paraphrasing would be divinely prohibited. A commission to preach would instantly make one a walking Bible.

If this seems ridiculous, then at least some localized imperfections in the copies must be tolerated. But it does not mean that God cannot divinely preserve the content through history in more broad and subtle ways, or that the essential messages cannot be found in some of the worst reproductions.

Conclusion

How important is it to have absolute precision in the miscellaneous areas that Ehrman points out as containing variants? There are Christians who have lived and died without knowledge even of the passages themselves. In the earliest church not all manuscripts were completed or widely circulated during the lives of some Christians, and in the medieval church a copy of the Bible was a rare commodity. But the central message of Christ was preached, and through it all the canonical documents were copied and spread by, and in spite of, fallible men, giving naysayers like Ehrman both the cause and privilege to spot the inaccuracies and improve future editions.

Has God preserved His message to us? Effectively, yes, in spite of the fallibility of men and even with the unwitting participation of some like Ehrman. It is ironic that at a time, two thousand years after the events, when we have more documents than ever before, and more global community among scholars to share, analyze, and reconcile these documents, that "Christian" scholars like Bart Ehrman can raise the protest that God hasn't done His job in preserving His revelation. Bart Ehrman may have other grounds for rejecting Christianity, but it would seem that his initial cause for doubt is ill-conceived and neglects the valuable contribution that his own area of scholarship has offered to the church.

Reflections on the Authority of Scripture

In recent dialog with a pastor involved in the Emergent Church movement, it soon became clear that he had a limited view of scriptural authority. This was revealed in subtle (and not so subtle) ways by making various statements about its "cultural context," its authors and "editors," its containing "some truth," its lack of concern for "factual accuracy," and God giving us "new understanding." But as with most theological liberals, he was not willing to reject it as meaningless, or deny that God was to be found in it in some way.

The most common point of departure from full biblical inerrancy is to say that Scripture is only inerrant in matter of "faith and practice." And this fellow granted that it "contained all things necessary for salvation." Now, I am not going to argue here the larger issue of biblical inerrancy in all matters in which it speaks, though I do not wish to suggest that a hearty defense cannot be made for this position. I only now want to comment on the problems faced by those courting a liberal view of the authority of the Bible.

The first thing to acknowledge is that a minimalist view of the Bible is a license to discard any difficult, divisive, or distasteful passages of Scripture. This is demonstrated by the fact that so many of those who profess the Bible's authority in matters of faith a practice do not, in practice, hold to some of those plain things it does teach in these areas. Doctrines such as hell, the exclusivity of Christ in salvation, and matters of sexual purity are like the molting skin of a snake ready to be sloughed away by any friction with the culture.

Even if there were some sorts of historical, scientific, or cultural flaws in Scripture my question is, "How do you know what to throw out and what to keep?" The answer to this question, in my experience, is usually some combination of reason, human experience, and the leading of the Spirit. But now comes the problem of knowing when you've got your reason and leading right, and when you've done violence to the word of God.

It seems to me that any subjective interpretive method would be just as "fallible" as the Bible that biblical minimalists wish to amend. The only difference is that they seem willing to assume for themselves the responsibility for any potential theological errors rather than leaving it with the authors of Scripture (and, dare I say, the Holy Spirit).

And what does it say about us when we supersede those things we find in Scripture with our own better judgment or new understanding? If it is not the hubris of substituting our own rules for those of the playbook we claim to follow, then what is it? Do we imagine we are helping God along by fixing the pesky errors in Scripture that those fallible authors might have allowed in or that might have been introduced by some possible editor along the way? Are we afraid we might be getting God's truth fouled up because we've taken that corrupted and outdated Book too literally? What do we fear that God will say to us at the pearly gates?

"I am disappointed in you my flawed and faulty servant. You took the words of my Son too far. You had too much confidence in the memory and objectivity of my scribes. You failed to realize that I was just speaking to a primitive people and not your modern and enlightened society. You failed to hear your own inner voice and your clamoring culture in order to amend my revelation."

Is it so unreasonable to think that in the face of possible doubt, God will forgive us for erring on the side of the Scriptures?

Even if some portion of Scripture is merely "Paul's understanding" or "John's interpretation," this is still no warrant for departure; for these men were "witnesses to His majesty" and surely had a greater helping of the Spirit than do we. If I could sit down with the average pastor and St. Paul and ask them about evangelistic outreach to the local community, or coordinating a multi-media Christmas Eve extravaganza, perhaps I would find the pastor of more use to me. But if I had questions on matters of theology, morality, and end-times prophecy, I would take St. Paul every time. Surely even Paul and company's most strained "opinions" are better than our most brilliant guesses.

If God is anything near like He is portrayed in Scripture, then I have great fear and trembling at the thought of shrugging off biblical doctrines. And if He is not very much like the portrait of Scripture, then He/She/It is either an impotent dispenser of revelation or is not even behind the Bible at all. In either case, it renders Scripture of little more value than a repository of interesting ideas and bed-time stories. We may just as well put Aesop's Fables in our pews.

Answering the Cults: A Common Defense

Is it really necessary to understand the cults of Christianity in order to refute them? Do we need to have an exhaustive knowledge of their books and doctrines before we are qualified to offer a critique? I submit that it is not. There are certain claims and issues common to most of them that allow a categorical response to be made.

There is at least one thing common to the derivative religions of Christianity, like Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, the Shakers, and even Islam. Each of them similarly claim that the historic church has gotten things mucked up, and that they, through the illumination of their own founder, have recovered the true teachings of Christ. What this means is that a successful response to this charge would serve equally well against any of these groups, and would undermine their most foundational claim to legitimacy.

I propose a two-stage approach that might look something like the following.

1) Jesus' immediate followers should be considered the highest authority for what Jesus actually taught and meant by His teachings. If this were not so, then Jesus was in reality a poor teacher and a failure in His mission. And if that were the case, I'm not sure why we should be impressed enough with Him to waste our lives serving His cause. This first-generation group authored documents (the New Testament) and mentored the subsequent apostolic fathers, many of whose writings we have access to. The bottom line is that we have adequate materials to consult in order to arbitrate disputes over historical and theological matters regarding Jesus.

2) Unless one has a grudge against the contents of the Bible, there is no good reason to believe that it has been corrupted. The historical and manuscript evidence is on the side of orthodoxy, and support for any conspiracy theories that skeptics might have is so scant that most non-Christian scholars are willing to concede many of the church's claims, e.g., Jesus was really crucified and the tomb was empty, Paul really wrote most of the letters attributed to him, the 4 Gospels are from the first century, the followers of Jesus were dying for their supernatural beliefs in the generation of Jesus, etc. For a more detailed exploration of this point you can refer to one of my recent blog posts: On The Defense of Scripture

If these premises hold, then any group that is based on a challenge to these facts is automatically discredited — we don't really even need to get into the detailed theology of the group. The only thing relevant to the discussion would be any new data that the cult may have to contribute that might shed light on how the early church went wrong in their theology or at what point some corruption of the manuscripts was introduced. But in the absence of that (which is generally the case), we are forced to take the word of a human who arrives on the scene hundreds of years after the fact — someone not trained by Christ (the Author) and whose credentials for making such divine revisionist claims is far inferior to His. For example, Jesus backed his claims with the bullion of a perfect life, miracles, and a resurrection. There is no one else who has held a candle to this, and who should shake our confidence that Jesus' words were authoritative, and that He had the power to get them clearly transmitted for posterity.

Of course, a religious group can bypass these issues by declaring themselves a separate religion from Christianity (i.e., that Jesus, Himself, was off base), but, curiously, this is almost never done. The preferred route is to hijack Christianity and repurpose the name of Jesus. But if a religion chooses to affiliate itself with Christ, then it must be judged by the standard of what is best known about Him. And if it can be established that we do have clear knowledge about what He taught and meant by His teachings, then any group that takes issue with that record is ipso facto disqualified.

For this reason, and others, it is far more important to have a good knowledge of things like scriptural authority, the making of the canon, textual transmission, and Bible translations than it is to have a detailed knowledge of the many cults that you may chance to encounter. With this knowledge in hand, if you encounter a radical group claiming to be the "true" or "restored" church, then you will have a good starting point in your discussion.

Here are some books that may be useful to any who are interested in equipping themselves in this area.

---

Note: feel free to post any recommendations for books that are worthy of being included in this list. Assuming they are available through LifeWaystores.com, I can have the list modified.

On the Defense of Scripture

Question:
I find it hard to place my absolute trust in the bible because I thought it was highly edited 100+ yrs after Christ and translated too and that there were meetings of the Roman Catholic Church where they purposely omitted certain sections and things. Also, what about those hidden gospels that were found? Like the gospel of Thomas? Now maybe to a Christian insider all these things have obvious explanations, but you must understand to the outside observer like me, its all information, who should I choose to believe?

Answer:
I can't blame you for having some confusion here; there are so many books, TV specials, and liberal professors who have worked very hard to undermine confidence in the Bible. In fact, I'm going to predict by the content of your question that you have read the Da Vinci Code. But in spite of what Dan Brown and his fans may believe, his depiction of history is not even respectable by (even rabidly) non-Christian scholarly standards — there is such a thing as "good" and "fair" critical analysis, but that isn't it.

The problem that critics of the Bible have is that they do not have much to go on. It's not like they've found old copies of the four gospels that are radically different from what we have today. There are no old manuscripts in our possession that say things like, "Jesus showed compassion to the leper" rather than, "Jesus healed the leper" or, "I show you one way to the Father" rather than, "no one comes to the Father except through Me." And there are no "other gospel" manuscripts found that have been demonstrated to be from the first century or to be copies of something that existed at that time. Claims that the Bible has been tampered with are without empirical backing; they are simply assumptions based on "conspiracy theory" type thinking. The way it works is this: it is first assumed that the stories of Jesus couldn't possibly be true because of all the miracle talk, then an attempt is made to weave a tale as to how such miracles could have gotten in the text. And if any fairly old books, like the Gospel of Thomas, are found that have a less orthodox portrait of Jesus, then these are assumed to be earlier works. The fact that there is no time-tested and consistent story from the critics regarding what "really happened" in that first century (their story changes about every 25 years) is testimony that they are simply grappling with theory and not hard data.

There was a time in the past when critical scholars suspected that the New Testament (N.T.) documents were largely authored in the second or third century, but today most admit that they originate in the first century. I've even recently heard John Dominic Crossan (of the Jesus Seminar {a group of radically liberal "scholars"}) admit on TV that the gospels were written within decades after Jesus' death! And there is even less debate over the letters of Paul, most of which are taken to be from his own hand and are the earliest writings of all. This is a real problem, because Paul's writings contain the clearest of all presentations of classical Christian theology (the book of Romans is a theological masterpiece), which were not supposed to have "developed" until decades later. This is why modern critical scholarship is trying to find a way to drive a wedge between Paul and the other Apostles — his testimony is just too...Christian like.

Some of the reasons why scholars have been forced to admit that the N.T. materials are first century works are the following:

1) Manuscript evidence. There is, by far, better and older manuscript support for the N.T. than for any other work of antiquity. If we considered other secular writers of the same era (e.g., Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, Plutarch) we would discover that the most ancient copies of their writings that we possess are from more than 800 years after they were authored. In contrast, if we looked at something like the Gospel of John, we would discover that we have fragments of it from within 30 years after it was authored (presumably the late first century). And the Gospel of John is considered to be the last N.T. document written, so this dates the other writings even earlier! It is said that we have around 5000 ancient copies of the N.T. from around the Mediterranean in its source language — Greek (that is to say, not translations but direct copies). Most of these documents vary only in syntax or due to common copyist errors.

2) Early Church Fathers. Besides the biblical documents, we also have the writings of the early leaders of the church from all corners of the Roman Empire. It has been observed that if one took all the biblical quotes in these documents, one could reconstruct most of the verses of the NT. And their quotes compare well against the N.T. documents themselves.

3) Accuracy of the documents. There are stories of critical scholars who set out to prove the falsity of the N.T. documents, and eventually became believers themselves, by comparing them against the archaeology, cultural history, and literary styles of the first century era. It was thought that surely, if they were written in a later era, there would be technical slip-ups. Even those things that seemed to have been discrepancies have one-by-one, over time, come to be conceded as accurate. Wherever scripture can be tested, it usually comes out the victor. There are very few open issues remaining to be settled at this time.

4) Extra-biblical references. The Bible and the Christian community are not the only sources of information about the early church. Over time other Jewish, Roman, and Greek manuscript finds have been uncovered to support many points of data contained in the scriptures. For example: that Jesus existed, that He was tried and executed, that His followers continued after Him and claimed He was deity and resurrected, that they were dying for their beliefs, that Jesus' brother was the head of the Jerusalem church and was also executed, etc.

This deals (well enough for now) with the issue of those books we know as our New Testament, but what about those "other gospels," like Thomas, that were "left out" of the canon by the church? First of all, the idea that there was a council of the church that sat down with some 80 available gospels (as Dan Brown claims in his Da Vinci Code) and arbitrarily voted on which ones to include is a fiction. The closest thing to this are the various regional councils — most notably the Council of Carthage (397) — that simply "recognized" the commonly accepted list of books that had already been identified. The way that the "inspired" books came to be acknowledged was by perfectly reasonable and natural criteria, by which the other gospels that some people would like to squeeze in there (primarily Gnostic texts) fail to measure up. Here are some of the primary factors involved:

1) The book had to be a product of the first century church, and from those who were authoritative eyewitnesses to the action. If a book was from the hand of an Apostle, it was an automatic candidate. If it was from a sidekick of an Apostle (like Luke or Mark), or from those of the inner circle (like Jude or James), then it was a solid candidate as well. This is why the Gnostic books were so often written under the names of Apostles: to attempt to foster a sense of credibility.

2) The pedigree of the book had to be good. That is, there had to be high confidence that the book was actually from the time and author that it was claimed to be. We have various writings of the Church Fathers as a window into this dialog if we care to review their defenses. The backers of the Gnostic books failed to demonstrate a lineage back to the Apostles. And these books cannot be shown to be authored any earlier than the second or third century. Mention of such books in the writings of the Church Fathers (mostly critiques) does not even begin until later in church history. However, we do see some discussion about a few more reasonable candidates.

3) There were certain books that no one called into question, like the four Gospels, Acts, and most of the Pauline letters. Of those that were the subject of some debate, one standard of measure was that these should be consistent in theological content and quality with those having been already accepted. In comparison to the harmony of the four universally recognized gospels (which even the Gnostics didn't challenge) the others often sound like a tone-deaf choirboy. Here's one example from the Gospel of Thomas:

"Simon Peter said to them: Let Mary go forth from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Behold, I shall lead her, that I may make her male, in order that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who makes herself male shall enter into the kingdom of heaven."

4) Another more subjective criteria would be what I might call the staying power of the book. An inspired book would be expected to have a certain popular following among the clergy and be profitable in the lives of believers and the history of the church. Perhaps I could use the analogy of pop music, in that decades later it is only the best-in-class that tends to get playtime on the oldies stations. The Gnostic texts were not so much pushed and stamped out of existence as they were neglected and abandon. The wheat survived over the chaff. And when the Roman persecutors came a-knockin' in search of contraband Christian materials, the priests and bishops were less than grieved to hand over certain texts as decoys.

For more information on Gnosticism, you can see my related post here: Regarding Gnosticism

Long before those councils that formally recognized the canon listings we find writings of the Church Fathers that include each of their A-lists as well as their habit of quoting only certain books as authoritative. And the selections of these writers line up very well with the modern Bible. In addition, I would point out the Muratorian Canon from the second century, which is an official catalog of accepted texts along with their historical setting. It was probably compiled to counter a fellow named Marcion, who was making an effort to discard and edit books that didn't fit into his theology (he didn't like the O.T. and any N.T. books that made positive reference to it). In fact, as it turns out, almost all the "disputed" books were ones that eventually DID make it in to the canon; the church eventually did more including rather than the often imagined excluding. The few that were seriously debated, yet not chosen for inclusion (like the epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas), are available to review today, and it's fairly plain to any who read them why they were bypassed (not that they contain contradictory theology, but simply don't fit well within the 4 criteria I mention above). Of Thomas and the other "hidden gospels" — never even considered.

Let me end this point with a lengthy quote from the church historian Eusebius who wrote in his Ecclesiastical History (325 AD) the following assessment. I include it because it is an early writing from a highly respected source that well summarizes much of what I have been saying here (not that it is the only or earliest such text).

First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels [Matthew, Mark, Luke, John]; following them the Acts of the Apostles. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul; next in order the first former epistle of John, and likewise the epistle of Peter, must be maintained. After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings. Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John ... Among the rejected writings must be reckoned the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews ... all these may be reckoned among the disputed books. But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, from those others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers — we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings. And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics.

So far I've dealt with the origin of the text, the reliability of its transmission, and the selection of the canon, but what about our modern translations? Did the contents of the original writings get accidentally or intentionally corrupted during "all those translations and retranslations?"

First, remember that I mentioned that we have numerous very old texts in their original language. This means that if anyone happens to know the Greek language of the time (or Hebrew, in the case of the O.T.), then they do not even need to concern themselves with the various translations. The skeptical Greek scholar may compare these source materials against your average Bible translation for himself to see how faithful the translators have been. The translation issue is not one of the objections raised by informed critics; they are more concerned with the integrity of the early source language materials. There may have been times and places where translations were problematic, as in Martin Luther's case where the only available text for his German translation was the Latin Vulgate, but modern translators have a wealth of source language materials from which to work. And most modern translations DO begin with such materials; they are not simply translating translations of translations.

Our present translations are better than at any time in the past. Some target a style that is more technically accurate (like the NASB) and some attempt to be more readable and conversational (like the NIV), but harmony of meaning is rarely compromised in any (the "paraphrase" translations being the farthest from the mark). The bottom line is, there is good reason to be confident that what we read today in our modern Bibles accurately mirrors what the authors actually wrote. Of course, one can always argue that these authors were liars or mythmakers, but then some answer must be given as to why they would be inclined to invent a fiction that gained them no material advantage (unlike Muhammad or Joseph Smith) and cost them their lives to defend.

Gospel Contradictions?

It is both a blessing and a burden to us that we have 4 separate and recognized accounts of the life of Jesus – the Gospels. This is a blessing in that we have all the more detail of the single most important event in history (and collaboration for its historicity), and a burden because critics have something against which to compare the testimony for consistency and credibility.

Inerrant or not, 4 separate accounts of any event will necessarily differ in perspective, detail, and intent. This is no different with the Gospels, which were written for different audiences and for different purposes. For example, Matthew seems to be targeting the Jewish community, while Mark is aimed at the Gentiles. Such unique perspectives will naturally lead to variations that can easily be perceived as discrepancies by casual (or hostile) observers.

Contributing to this confusion are such things as the arrangement of events sometimes being topical vs. sequential, different persons, dialog, or details being emphasized, and the original documents being composed in Greek vs. Hebrew or Aramaic, which can result in cultural variations in names and measures. Additionally, the claim is not that any one translation is inerrant, but it is the originally authored manuscripts (the "autographs") that are being esteemed. While we do not have these in our possession, we do have a large enough and ancient enough body of descendant materials that we have reason for great confidence in our modern translations. For more information on this, see this article: "Are the Biblical Documents Reliable?"

While it is well beyond the scope of this article to address all the related Gospel difficulties, let's look at a sampling in order to demonstrate how some of these may be answered.

1) The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke differ, particularly in the later lineage. Matthew seems to start from Joseph and go back through his father, Jacob, while Luke also appears to trace through Joseph yet names Heli as the next ancestor. How can this be? The answer is plain when we understand Luke to be actually tracing the ancestry through Mary (who provides the true, human bloodline). This is both hinted at by Luke's comment, "[Jesus] was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph", and explicit in the fact that the Jerusalem Talmud records that Mary was the daughter of Heli. This can even further be reconciled when we understand that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli. Luke could rightfully call Joseph the "son of Heli" because this was in compliance with use of the word "son" at that time.

2) Mark states that Jesus was crucified at the "third" hour on Good Friday, and John indicates that the trial of Jesus was still going on at the "sixth" hour, indicating that the time of His crucifixion was later still. There are a several responses to this, but the most probable is as follows.

The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) used a different method to number the hours of the day than John. Matthew, Mark, and Luke used the traditional Hebrew system, in which the hours of the day were numbered from sunrise (approximately 6:00 AM), which places the crucifixion at about 9:00 AM, or the third hour by this system. John, did not employ the Hebrew system, he used the Roman civil day. The Roman system defined a day from midnight to midnight, as we do today. Pliny the Elder (in Natural History 2.77) and Macrobius (Saturnalia 1.3) provide historical confirmation of this fact. Therefore, using the Roman system, which was used by John, the trial of Jesus ended around the sixth hour (6:00 AM), which was the first hour of the Hebrew system used by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Between this time and the time of crucifixion, Jesus was flogged, mocked, and beaten by the Roman soldiers in the Praetorium (Mark 15:16-20). The crucifixion itself occurred at the third hour in the Hebrew system, which is the ninth in the Roman system, or 9:00 AM to us.

Why did John use a different numbering system? The Gospel of John was written after the other three (as late as 90 AD) while he resided in Ephesus, the capital of the Roman province of Asia. John, by this time, was probably most comfortable with the Roman system. John used the Roman system in John 21:19: "On the evening of that first day of the week." This was Sunday evening, which in the Hebrew system was actually the second day, because each day began at sunset.

Now, while I am not suggesting the need to surrender inerrancy, as an interesting thought experiment let's assume for the moment that the Gospels do contain irreconcilable discrepancies. What conclusions might be drawn from this?

Many skeptics seem to argue as though the existence of contradictions invalidates the Scriptures as a whole. But this conclusion doesn't follow; at best, all this would do is defeat our common understanding of Biblical inerrancy. Isolated errors would not automatically turn the essential claims of Christianity into mythology.

At minimum, we can view the Gospels as a case of 4 independent testimonies, much like we do with witnesses at the scene of a crime. Accounts may vary in detail, but the general events are easily discerned if the testimonies are genuine. For example, the precise time, colors of clothing, or exact sequence of events may vary, but the crucial details may be gleaned, such as that it was Tuesday, the location was the library, Mr. White was the aggressor, and a knife was used. It is in the foundational details that variation is lethal to the credibility of a witness. Now, if witness B says the murder was on Monday, that Mr. Green was the aggressor, and the weapon was a pipe, then we know that somebody, or possibly all parties, are not giving credible testimony.

Even if it could be proved that there were irreconcilable contradictions in Scripture, we still have to account for the vast consistencies. It should be noted that none of the passages in question happen to relate to anything such as claims that Jesus was just a man, or did not do miracles, or did not rise from the dead, or exhibited questionable moral character – nothing that affects any of the fundamental doctrines of classical Christianity. It is presumptuous to simply dismiss the uniform portrait of Jesus and his earthly ministry that is painted by the four distinct brushes of the Gospels.

Many of those who attack Scripture also advocate the idea that it is just mythology or deception authored by the early church, and that these founding fathers made a practice of enhancing, expanding, or adapting the manuscripts as needed. But if this were the case then we'd expect all these "issues" to be long since worked out of the text. Surely those so intimate with the Scriptures would not perpetually overlook such "obvious" discrepancies. The existence of these "issues" surely tells us something about the early church's unwillingness to meddle with these texts.

We should also not be so naïve as to imagine that the lack of inconsistencies would be taken as proof for the events in the Gospels. In fact, it would surely be looked on as evidence of complicity. As it turns out, discrepancies (or at least notable differences) disaffirm collusion; it is what one would expect to find in independent testimonies. In the criminal justice system, witness testimonies that parallel too closely are held in suspicion, while radical divergence is a sign of fraud. There must be an appropriate balance between independence and collaboration. Could it be that God's sovereign hand is found even in a permissive use of diversity?

In the end, it is probably fruitless to attempt to defend inerrancy against those who do not even take Scripture to be generally reliable. While there is certainly much to say in defense of inerrancy, it is more productive to begin the dialog with such things as the historical, textual, archaeological, and prophetic evidences for the overall veracity of the Bible. It is only when one is first surrendered to the authority of Scripture that one would be genuinely inclined to entertain explanations for the alleged discrepancies.

For anyone truly interested in hearing out the various Christian responses, ample resources are available to address all of the scriptural difficulties. Some of the more approachable treatments include the following.

• Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, by Gleason Archer
• The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, by Craig Blomberg
• When Critics Ask, by Norm Geisler
• Hard Sayings of the Bible, by Walter Kaiser & F.F. Bruce