The New Testament
The New Testament
I do indeed think that we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus, since the early Christian sources show no interest in either, are moreover fragmentary and often legendary.
Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976), Jesus and the Word
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/ab0_nt.htm
Christian Churches have generally been successful in fostering the impression that the New Testament represents a divinely inspired, consistent, authoritative, factual account of historical events, dating from the earliest days of the Church and written by those most closely connected with the life of Jesus. In the following sections we shall look at how well these ideas match up with modern scholarship. We shall also look at the books of the New Testament. Has the present selection of books (the "canon") always been accepted? Alternatively, is the idea of a canon a later and arbitrary concept? Does the canon include questionable material? Does it exclude material that has a better claim to inclusion? Does it contain errors, contradictions or inconsistencies? Does it contain additions or amendments to the original text? Does it contain errors of translation?
The New Testament consists of 27 books: four gospels, The Acts of the Apostles (which is really a sequel to the Gospel of Luke), 21 letters, and the book of Revelation. This much is agreed by all. Hardly anything else is. The following attempts to present the views of the majority of Christian scholars.
For the first century AD there was no New Testament. Authority rested solely in the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) and in oral tradition about Jesus. When early Christians referred to scripture they were talking about the Jewish scriptures, not to the writings that we now know as the New Testament. The earliest known fragments of New Testament books date from the second century AD, although these are scraps. The earliest substantial texts are fourth century copies. The originals were probably written towards the end of the first century AD. All of the books were written in Greek, not the everyday language of Jesus and his immediate followers, which would have been Aramaic. The quality of the Greek is frequently poor.
None of the New Testament gospels is believed by modern scholars to have been written by the man to whom it was traditionally ascribed and whose name it bears. Neither is it likely that any of the authors were eyewitnesses to the events described. Modern scholars are agreed that the gospels were written at different times, in different places and for different audiences, and that they are not attempts at an historically true record, but vehicles for impressing potential converts. They are propaganda to assist in proselytising, often citing supernatural events in an attempt to vindicate their claims. Some of the differences between the gospels may be attributed to the Jewish tradition of free interpretation, others to a simple marketing strategy, tailoring the product to look like what potential converts might want to hear. The John gospel in particular is drama rather than reporting.
Not a single original manuscript of any book of the New Testament survives. In the various copies that exist there are numerous disagreements, and later copies have new chunks of text added by editors. Of the 5,000 or so early manuscripts now known, no two agree exactly. They can however be arranged into families since each copy naturally incorporates all of the changes made to the version from which it was itself copied, as well as the new changes peculiar to itself. Changes can thus be traced through all later copying of the first manuscript to be tampered with. Modern translations are not translations of a single reliable manuscript but composites of a number of different manuscripts, enabling translators to select variant readings (which, cynics claim, frequently happen to agree with the translator's own theology). As the preface to the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible says:
The Greek text used in translating the New Testament was an eclectic one. No other piece of ancient literature has such an abundance of manuscript witnesses as does the New Testament.
As another authority says1:
Reconstructing Christian origins from the New Testament depends on establishing a reliable text. None of the original documents is extant, and the oldest existing copies, made by hand before the invention of printing, differ at some points. We know from apocryphal gospels, as well as from statements of orthodox and heretical Christians, that in the second century gospel texts were altered and combined. This was particularly likely to occur in those early days, when the documents were not regarded as authoritative and definitive, and when there was no central organisation to secure and enforce uniformity.
Until the nineteenth century the textus receptus (received or accepted authoritative text) was in essence a Byzantine text based on manuscripts whose origins probably date from the third century. Two other families of manuscripts, the Alexandrian and the Western, are earlier than the Byzantine and arguably therefore more authoritative.
The Canon of the New Testament
It is reported in the supplement of the Council of Nicæa that the Fathers, being very perplexed to know which were the cryphal or apocryphal books of the Old and New Testaments, put them pell-mell on an altar, and the books to be rejected fell to the ground. It is a pity that this elegant procedure has not survived.
Voltaire (1694-1778), Philosophical Dictionary
If the canon of the New Testament were divinely sanctioned then we might expect that it would have been established at an early date, by a competent authority, and have always been universally accepted. The canon would be internally consistent and comprise books "whose authority was never in doubt in the Church" as Article 6 of the Anglican 39 Articles puts it. On the other hand, without divine sanction, people might well disagree about the canon, and it could take a long time for rival interested parties to reach a compromise. Moreover, the compromise could well incorporate mistakes — for example including books that do not really meet the stated criteria for acceptance, or excluding those that do. We might also expect the original manuscripts to have been lost — not being divinely authorised there would be no reason to take special care of them. We might also expect a certain degree of editorialising in texts, for example tailoring the story to the potential audience, or adding supernatural detail to make the story more impressive. Which pattern best matches the known facts: divine sanction, or human compromise?
The first thing to say is that the current books of the New Testament were not the only contenders for inclusion in the canon when a canon was first proposed (by a man now considered heretical) around 150 years after the crucifixion. There were many contenders, even among the gospels. Indeed the author of the Luke gospel indicates that there were "many" accounts already in existence before he wrote his (Luke 1:1). It is now known that more than 80 such works existed.
When various writings eventually came to be collected together to decide which were canonical, the existence of numerous incompatible gospels posed uncomfortable problems. Why were there a number of gospels, not just one definitive one? Or if there was one true gospel, which one was it? God could easily have arranged for there to be a single authoritative gospel for the benefit of Christians, but he had not done so. Christians had to select the versions they thought most reliable or that best suited their own beliefs. The Church Fathers who first attempted to assemble the canon of the New Testament soon discovered that the numerous gospels available did not agree with each other. No attempt had been made to ensure consistency between them since each was written for a different audience, and that audience was intended to regard their gospel as the gospel.
The four familiar gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were the specific gospels of specific factions. For example we know that the Ebionites used Matthew, certain Gnostics used Mark, the Marcionites used a form of Luke, and the Valentinians used John2. In some cases gospels may well have been written by and for such factions.
Accepting two or more gospels invited problems because any two of them would contradict each other. The obvious solution was to accept only one gospel into any "canonical" body of writings. When Marcion had first proposed a version of the New Testament in the second century, he had solved the problem in exactly this way, by adopting the Luke gospel and rejecting the others. Different people adopted different canons. A list called the "Muratorian Canon", dating from around AD 170, includes some texts now "lost" and omits a number of books that are now included in the canon3. The Church Father Irenaeus of Lyons produced an alternative list soon after, around AD 180, but individual Churches continued to use whichever books they happened to like. For example, some included a gospel attributed to St Thomas, and some excluded the John gospel. In a pastoral letter of AD 367, Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria specified 27 books to be read in churches. This list eventually came to be generally accepted as the canon of the New Testament, although the matter was not finally settled until the fifth or sixth century, and even then was not accepted by all.
The basic problem was to find a selection that contained all details church leaders wanted to include, while omitting everything they wanted to exclude. But no one gospel contained all the material that was considered acceptable, yet as soon as two or more were brought together they started contradicting each other. The more gospels were accepted, the easier it was to include all the teachings currently approved of, but the more difficult it was to justify the mutual contradictions. Even with four gospels, it was still not possible to include all of the teachings currently approved of. For example, the doctrine of Christ's descent into Hell is not to be found in any of the four canonical gospels. It comes from the non-canonical Gospel of Nicodemus. So too, the perpetual virginity of Jesus' mother cannot be established from the canonical gospels, only from apocryphal ones.
In practice there must have been numerous competing pressures affecting the choice of what was and what was not to be regarded as canonical. Writers of later gospels clearly used earlier ones as sources and had few qualms about embellishing them, so that stories became more and more impressive, and events acquired an increasingly supernatural nature. As a result of this trend, some of the later gospels were far too fantastic to be included in the canon. Others were apparently excluded because rival Christian groups, such as the Ebionites or Gnostics, favoured them. Each Christian group had its own favourites. One famous early Christian, the Carthaginian theologian Tertullian, observed that scripture would never convince heretics because they have their own canon4. He is himself now considered a heretic.
Here is how an acknowledged authority on the subject, Elaine Pagels puts it in her book, The Gnostic Gospels:
.... what we call Christianity — and what we identify as Christian tradition — actually represents only a small selection of specific sources, chosen from among dozens of others. Who made that selection, and for what reasons? Why were these other writings excluded and banned as “heresy”? What made them so dangerous?
A brief account of some of the gospel contenders for inclusion in the Christian canon follows, starting with the candidates that proved successful:
The Gospel of St Matthew
This gospel was written, probably between AD 70 and AD 80, in koine, a form of Greek. The work is traditionally attributed to Matthew, or Levi, a disciple of Jesus who had previously been a tax collector. There is no evidence for this, and almost all biblical scholars now discount it. It is now widely recognised that for centuries Christians were in the habit of attributing their favourite texts to people they believed to have been close to Jesus, in order to give these works an air of spurious authority. As in this case such attributions were often first made generations after the work was first circulated.
According to tradition the Matthew gospel is the oldest, but most scholars accept that its author used the Mark gospel as a source, which implies that the traditional dating must be reversed (the order of the gospels — Matthew, Mark, Luke, John — represents ancient ideas about their relative ages)5. The rhyme and rhythm of the Sermon on the Mount shows that at least some of the Matthew gospel was originally phrased in Aramaic. This gospel may well have been adopted from a list of sayings written in a Semitic language and then fitted into a narrative framework6. The Jerusalem Bible describes this gospel as a "dramatic account" in seven acts. It is essentially propaganda for Jewish Christians. Its author may well have been a Palestinian Jew, perhaps representing the views of Jesus' followers in Jerusalem. He repeatedly mentions that Jesus was sent only to the Jews, not to the gentiles, and emphasises Jewish Law. He represents Jesus as a majestic sovereign, descended from an ancient royal line, who comes "not to bring peace, but a sword". The author also makes much of Old Testament prophecies and their fulfilment.
The Gospel of St Mark
The Mark gospel is the shortest and almost certainly the oldest of the canonical gospels. It was written in poor koine, probably between AD 60 and 70. The gospel stresses Jesus' humanity — he gets tired and fed up, disappointed and even desperate. It even says explicitly that those close to him tried to take control of him, believing him to be out of his mind (Mark 3:21). The authors of the other gospels used Mark as a principal source, but increasingly toned down Jesus' human weaknesses and developed an increasingly divine persona for him.
According to tradition this gospel was written in Rome by Mark, a companion of the disciple Peter, from Peter's own verbal account. Although it may have been written in Rome, the tradition is otherwise discounted by most biblical scholars. Whoever the author was he seems to have known little of Jewish life or culture, or of Palestinian geography. He often attributes Roman customs and artefacts to Jesus and his followers. He was writing for a Roman audience, and his narrative is tailored accordingly. He takes pains to explain Jewish customs (e.g. Mark 7:3-4) where he knows about them.
The gospel may have been written as a protest by gentile Christians against the influence of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. The author consistently denigrates the Jews. Jesus' Jewish followers are made out to be dull, quarrelsome and cowardly. They desert him at the first sign of trouble. The Jewish establishment is presented as trying to trick him and kill him. By contrast the Romans are presented as models of civility and justice. Pontius Pilate, for example, makes every effort not to condemn Jesus, despite Jewish demands. This was a politically correct account during a period when thousands of Jews were being crucified for rebelling against Rome, and it helped earn Pilate his sainthood in the Coptic Church.
The Gospel of St Luke
The author of this gospel is traditionally identified with a Greek physician who accompanied Paul on his travels, though there is no evidence for this, just the customary late attribution. This gospel may have been written at Antioch some time around AD 85. Unlike the other canonical gospels, which were written in koine, this gospel was written in literary Greek. The author, whoever he was, was much more urbane than the authors of the other gospels and other early writers, so it is sometimes possible to see in the original Greek where he has incorporated the writing of others. The text contains some parables that are not mentioned by other gospel writers7, and the nativity story, added later, may have been translated from an earlier Hebrew text. When translated back into Hebrew it is claimed to resemble typically alliterative Jewish poetry.
This gospel was written for, and angled at, an Hellenic gentile audience. It represents the views of Paul, on his mission to the gentiles, and so omits much of the specifically Jewish material. Here Jesus is represented as a gentle lamb-like teacher of modest birth — the "Gentle Jesus meek and mild" of childhood prayers. This author has humble shepherds visiting the baby Jesus where the Matthew author has high dignitaries bringing gifts to a new-born king.
The gospel is really only the first volume; the second volume is called The Acts of the Apostles. One of the author's chief motivations for writing Luke and Acts was clearly to represent Christianity as a movement that carried all before it. Another important motivation was to stress that it did not constitute a threat to the State.
The Gospel of St John
This gospel is substantially different from the other three canonical gospels. Indeed apart from the passion story (thought to be a late addition), its presentation bears no relationship at all to them. The few incidents that are common to the other gospels occur at different times, or in different places, and in different circumstances. The other three gospels are together known as the synoptic gospels. (The word synoptic means "seen-together" and is applied to Matthew, Mark and Luke because they share a common point of view.)
The John gospel purports to be an eyewitness account, although most scholars agree that it was the latest of the four canonical gospels, having been written, in koine, between AD 90 and AD 100, several generations after Jesus lived. The author is not identified and there is no reason to believe that he was the apostle John, or even that his name was John at all. The traditional ascriptions seem to have been based on ambiguous passages such as John 19:35 and 21:24 (part of a late addition ).
For centuries there was controversy as to whether this gospel should be admitted to the list of canonical books. The Church Father Irenaeus of Lyons stated that the book had been written to refute the arguments of Cerinthus, a well-known Gnostic who had lived a few years earlier. On the other hand the gospel was itself used by Gnostics — one reason why "orthodox" Christians wanted to reject it from the canon. Most biblical scholars accept it represents an interpretation of Jesus that developed late in the first century AD, probably in Ephesus. Its opening verses express ancient Middle Eastern views, personifying the Word (logos), but they are adapted to a new emerging theology.
The gospel's target audience appears to be educated, middle-class and Hellenic. The author, like the author of the Mark gospel, takes trouble to explain Jewish words, names and attitudes (e.g. 1:41-2 and 4:9). As in other late documents, the gospel is consistently anti-Semitic (the Jewishness of Jesus and his followers is underplayed, even implicitly denied8 — while his enemies are referred to about sixty times as "the Jews").
Of the four canonical gospels John stresses Jesus' divinity most strongly and also plays down his human weaknesses most strongly. The miracles are consistently more impressive, and may have been taken from a source in which they served simply as demonstrations of Jesus' power9. This gospel has been described as a meditation in dramatic form.
Non-canonical Gospels
Buy the Book from Amazon.com
Buy the Book from Amazon.co.uk
It seems natural to us that there should be four gospels, but it was not at all obvious in early times. It took a long time for the four described above to be accepted. One problem was that they contradicted each other on many points. A solution to this problem, adopted by Tatian in the 170s, had been to create a new comprehensive gospel, which harmonised them (and reflected the editor's hatred of women). This gospel (the Diatessaron, literally “Fourfold”) was widely accepted in the East but did not gain acceptance in the long term.
Incidentally, it was only when the four well-known gospels were considered for acceptance into a New Testament canon that they were ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These second century guesses sound more homely than say anonymous names like 1, 2, 3 and 4 or A, B, C and D, and give the impression that the authors were known, which they were not.
Today, it is not commonly realised that there were more than just four candidates for inclusion in the canon. There were many others, each of them purporting to be the one true gospel and contending for primacy. The decision to select the four that are now so familiar was largely arbitrary. One of the reasons given by Irenaeus of Lyons for his selection is that four is a natural number. He cited the four winds and four corners of the Earth as evidence for this10.
Other contenders enjoyed various degrees of acceptance in early times, but they ultimately failed to win a place in the orthodox canon. The following are a few of the more interesting failed candidates:
The Gospel of St Thomas
Although manuscripts of this gospel have been in circulation for centuries, their authenticity was doubted until 1946. In that year a fourth century Coptic manuscript of the gospel was discovered at Nag Hammadi in Egypt.
This gospel is simply a collection of Jesus' sayings. Most, but not all, of these agree with the canonical gospels. The text includes additional storyteller's details omitted from the later gospels but lacks their later allegorical interpretations. Some of the sayings that appear here, but not in the canonical gospels, had been attributed to Jesus by some sections of the early Church. Although the Coptic manuscript of this gospel dates from the fourth century, the text is known to be older, since fragments of a second century manuscript have also been discovered. It is possible that the canonical gospels were partially created from the Thomas gospel with a generous padding of background detail to make the story more interesting and convincing.
The Thomas gospel was probably omitted from the canon because it was used by Gnostics. Significantly, the gospel gives no special titles to Jesus and is silent about the Resurrection. It was known to the earliest Church Fathers, accepted by the Valentinians, and arguably has a much better claim for inclusion in the canon than the gospel attributed to St John.
The Secret Book of James
This gospel stresses the prime position among the apostles of Jesus' brother, James the Just. James led the Jewish Christians based in Jerusalem, which made him unpopular amongst Pauline Christians. In the canon of the New Testament, James's role is generally played down and Peter's played up, which may well explain why this book was not included. It was allowed by the orthodox to become "lost", possibly deliberately destroyed, though a copy of the gospel survived in a Coptic text.
The Gospel according to the Hebrews (or the Gospel of the Nazarenes)
This is a work used by Jewish Christians, followers of James the Just, who fled to Syria. It is known only from fragments. It apparently contained material similar to that in the synoptic gospels. St Jerome noted that it was believed by some to have been the original version of what we now know as the Matthew gospel. This may be the same as The Gospel of the Ebionites, according to which it was Jesus' principal aim to stop all sacrificial practices at the Temple at Jerusalem.
The Book of James (or The Protevangelium)
This book is mainly concerned with the life of Mary and birth of Jesus. It is sometimes called the Infancy Gospel of James. Its account of the birth of Jesus embellishes the account in the Luke gospel. The gospel was accepted as genuine by many of the Church Fathers. It gives an account of Mary remaining virgo intacta, after the birth of Jesus, and it is from this source, not the canonical gospels, that the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity developed. Indeed this book was largely responsible for the development of Mariology, and for providing such incidental details as the names of Mary's own parents: Joachim and Anna. This book explained away Jesus' brothers as step-brothers, Joseph's children by an earlier marriage. Among Western Christians, this ensured that the work would be rejected from the canon as the Roman Church was trying to justify the explanation that the brothers were really cousins.
The Secret Gospel of Mark
This was a fuller version of the conventional Mark gospel. No copy of it has survived, though it is referred to in a letter from Clement of Alexandria (AD c.150-c.215). In 1958 Professor Morton Smith of Columbia University discovered in a monastery near Jerusalem a copy of a letter from Clement, one of the most venerated of the Church Fathers. The letter admitted that the author of the Mark gospel had written material that did not appear in the usual version of the gospel. Clement's correspondent is instructed to lie about the existence of this missing material, even on oath11. The letter quotes passages from this lost gospel, including an account of Jesus raising a dead youth. The youth "loved him and beseeched him that he might be with him". Wearing nothing but a linen cloth, the youth visited Jesus in the evening, and spent the night with him. The letter reveals that there were rumours current at the time that Jesus and the youth had been naked together. It appears that one group of Christians (the Carpocratians — regarded as heretics by Clement) knew about this secret information and deduced from it that Christians were granted permission to engage liberally in sexual activity.
The canonical Mark gospel is an expurgated version of this longer gospel12. It is not difficult to see why people like Clement might want to promote the edited version as the true one: the fuller version was powerful ammunition not only to Carpocratians but also to a range of Gnostics13. Whatever the reasons for its exclusion, the fact is that The Secret Gospel of Mark had a strong claim to be in the canon in place of the expurgated version.
Gospel of Philip
The Gospel of Philip is one of the Gnostic Gospels, dating back to around the 3rd century but lost to modern researchers until an Egyptian peasant rediscovered it, buried in a cave near Nag Hammadi, in 1945. The text is not related to the Canonical Gospels. It is a collection of gnostic teachings and reflections, a "gnostic anthology,". The text is perhaps most famous as an early source for the popular theory that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. The Ancient Greek manuscript describes Jesus as Mary's "koinonos," meaning spouse, partner, or "companion," which may imply an intimate sexual relationship.
The PhilipGospel contains a memorable line about Jesus and Mary Magdelene, saying that "he kissed her often on the ....". We do not know where Jesus kissed her because the word is missing (see damaged page, right). The line is often cited as "he kissed her often on the mouth", but that is no more than a guess.
One of the charges lvelled at the Cathars in the thirteenth century was that they taught that Mary Magdelen had been been the wife or concubine of Jesus. Since they claimed a long Gnostic tradition, they might well have retained this belief from the earliest Christian times.
Other Books
Other gospels, many of which were known to the Church Fathers, include the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Matthias (lost), the Gospel of Basilides(lost), the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, the Gospel of Nicodemus, incorporating the Acts of Pontius Pilate, the Gospel of the Egyptians, and the Gospel of Truth. In addition there are known to have been a number of other Gnostic gospels, but these were sought out and destroyed by upholders of the Pauline line. According to the Secret Book of James 1:7 the 12 disciples each recorded their recollections and organised them into books, yet not a single one seems to have survived14.
Gospels were not the only problem. Disagreements raged over other books as well. Different Church leaders favoured different books, and their selection seems to have been largely a matter of personal taste. A number of Churches, for example, admitted the anti-Semitic Epistle of Barnabas. Many of the early Church Fathers regarded the Teaching of the (Twelve) Apostles, or Didache, as scriptural, though it was later omitted from the canon. Likewise, Clement of Alexandria and others admitted the Apocalypse of Peter, which was also later omitted from the canon. Well into the fourth century an influential churchman could include the Wisdom of Solomon amongst the books of the New Testament. On the other hand some books were later admitted that had previously been regarded as non-scriptural. Irenaeus of Lyons himself had excluded the third Epistle of John, the Epistle of James and the Second Epistle of Peter, all of which are now included in the canon. Eusebius of Caesarea also declined to classify them with his "recognised" books and described them as disputed — along with the Second Epistle of Johnand the Epistle of Jude15.
One of the main criteria for acceptance was a direct link with the apostles. So out went the Shepherd of Hermas and an Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, which had previously been counted as scriptural. The Mark gospel stayed in because of Mark's supposed link with Peter, and the Luke gospel because of Luke's supposed link with Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrewspresented a problem. As Eusebius said "Who wrote the epistle is known to God alone"16. Some Church Fathers, notably Clement of Alexandria and Origen of Alexandria (AD c.185-254) had known on stylistic grounds that this letter could not have been written by Paul but were prepared to pretend that it was apostolic in order to allow it into the canon. By the terms of a deal done at the Council of Carthage in 419, it was accepted as being Paul's work. Eastern Churches accepted this conceit, but the Church at Rome refused to, and rejected the epistle on the grounds that it was not apostolic. Rome relented some time in the fifth or sixth century and fell back into line with the Eastern Churches. Modern scholars agree with the original Roman view that the work was not written by Paul.
Many works hung in the balance. The epistles of James and Jude, the Second Epistle of Peter, the second and third Epistles of John, and the book of Revelation were disputed but were eventually successful. The book of Revelation, which early Christians had considered the work of a known heretic17, was admitted on the grounds that its author was St John the apostle, though later the story was changed and it was attributed to a mysterious St John the Divine.
A number of letters purportedly written by St Paul were excluded from the canon at an early stage — for example the fake Third Epistle to the Corinthians. Fourteen letters were eventually accepted. Of these, it is now widely accepted by scholars that at least four (including Hebrews) were not written by Paul. Some scholars hold that as many as seven of these letters are not his. A comparison of writing styles shows that the three pastoral letters (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) were all written by the same hand, however that hand was not the one responsible for the other letters18. Conversely, textual critics have evidence that at least three genuine letters by St Paul never made it into the canon and have since been lost19. Of the letters that did make it into the canon, it is widely accepted that some of them are not original works but edited versions of selected passages from two or three separate writings, fused together20.
When we turn to the seven catholic (or general) letters the position is even worse. Not one was written by its supposed author. Furthermore, the Church Fathers excluded a number of similar letters from the canon, although their claim to be included is at least as good as those that were successful. The second letter of Peter is generally accepted to have been written by someone other than the author of the first letter of Peter. Much of it is a reworking of Jude, probably attributed to Peter in order to enhance its status.
Other writings rejected from the canon include Acts of individual apostles: the Acts of John, Acts of Paul, Acts of Peter, Acts of Andrew, and Acts of Thomas ; various apocalypses: the Apocalypses of Peter, of Paul, and of Thomas ; the Infancy Gospel of James already referred to; and the Epistles of the Apostles, also called the Testament of Our Lord in Galilee. Some well-known "Bible stories" are not from our present canon, but from these works21. Another indication of how uncertain the canon really was may be seen from the Codex Sinaiticus, one of the earliest and most authoritative copies of the books of the New Testament. It includes the Epistle of Barnabas and part of the Shepherd of Hermas.
The works that have been admitted into the canon are not presented in chronological order, though it is still sometimes assumed that they are. The order — gospels, Acts, letters, Revelation — is often taken to mean that the gospels are the earliest documents, though in fact some of the letters were the earliest documents. This is significant because many ideas now considered characteristically Christian were unknown to the authors of these early letters, a fact that is concealed by the failure to list the works in chronological order. The arbitrariness is demonstrated by the order in which the letters are presented. First are those supposedly written by Paul, then those written by others. Those ascribed to Paul are divided into those addressed to Churches (in descending order of length) followed by those addressed to individuals.
Errors
No god was ever in advance of the nation that created him.
Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899), Oration on the Gods
Even in mainstream churches, congregations still chant "This is the word of the Lord" after Bible readings. This view, that God was involved in the production of the New Testament, is undermined by numerous errors in the text. Some are simple errors of fact; others look like interpolations designed to make the text understandable to audiences unfamiliar with the Middle East. Yet others apparently stem from linguistic confusion.
First, simple geographical errors. The original text of Matthew (2:6) speaks of " Bethlehem, the land of Juda". The error was corrected by the translators of early English versions who knew that Bethlehem was a town, not a land, so that it reads " Bethlehem, in the land of Juda". The word inis italicised to show that it is an interpolation. The more honest German translation retained the error up to the latter half of the twentieth century. Again, the writer of the Mark gospel is apparently ignorant of Palestinian geography. He says that Gerasa was on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee22; but Gerasa (modern Jerash) is more than 30 miles away to the south east. The Matthew author must have known that this location was not feasible, so he changed it to Gadara (Matthew 8:28), which was a mere eight miles from the lake. Mark also suggests that Jesus passed through Sidon on his way to the Sea of Galilee from Tyre (Mark 7:31). In fact Sidon is in the opposite direction, and at the time there was no road from Sidon to the Sea of Galilee anyway, though there was one from Tyre.
As in the Old Testament, many errors reflect the author's limited perception of the world. It might have been possible to see all kingdoms on Earth from a great height if the world really was flat, but climbing a mountain doesn't help much on a spherical planet. Cosmology too reflected contemporary ideas. The third heaven referred to by Paul (2 Corinthians 12:2) only made sense when concentric crystal orbs were believed to circumscribe seven physical heavens. Again, it was not unreasonable for someone to hold seven stars in his hand (Revelation 1:10-16) when the nature of stars was not understood — and gods or angels were thought to steer stars around their appointed courses.
Biblical natural history is also fallible. Paul calls someone a fool for not knowing that a seed must die before it can come to life (1 Corinthians 15:36). Paul is apparently party to a contemporary misunderstanding about seeds, despite his divine inspiration23. Throughout the New Testament it is assumed that illness is caused by unclean spirits, prompted by sin. Cures can therefore be effected by forgiving sin and ejecting the unclean spirit. Such beliefs were common in biblical times and remained a central Christian belief well into the nineteenth century, but only a few sects espouse such ideas now, and Churches are ever more embarrassed by their traditional attachment to the practice of exorcism. Again, biblical characters like Simon Magus could be credited with magical powers in early times that now seem more than a little unlikely to most mainstream Christians. Even a person's shadow was believed capable of working miracles (Acts 5:14-16), since shadows were thought to be part of their owner's being in ancient times.
As in the Old Testament there are anachronisms. In Acts 5:36 a famous Jewish teacher called Gamaliel refers to events as though they occurred in the past, when in fact they happened after his death. Again the Jewish Council described in the gospels matches the council after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, not the council of Jesus' time. This suggests not merely that the gospels were written after AD 70, but that they were written a sufficiently long time after AD 70 for people to have forgotten that it had ever been different. Sometimes the authors have doctored the text to make it accessible to their target audience. Mark (10:12) quotes Jesus as saying:
And if a woman shall put away [divorce] her husband, and be married to another, she commiteth adultery.
But the idea of a woman divorcing her husband was unknown to the Jews. The concept simply did not exist. The author of Mark has apparently found it necessary to allow for this eventuality when speaking to his Roman audience. Without it the text would appear to prohibit men divorcing their wives, but not wives divorcing their husbands. One might sympathise with the author's dilemma, but the fact remains that he must have added his own words. Again, Luke 5:19 refers to a tiled roof. Such roofs would be familiar to Luke's Hellenic audience, but in Galilee where the story is set the houses would have had thatched roofs.
Sometimes the text disagrees with what is known about Jewish Law24. For example, the story of Jesus' trial is flawed in a number of respects. The Sanhedrin is said in the three synoptic gospels to have met during the Passover, but this was not permitted under Judaic law. It is said to have met at night, but again this was not permitted. It was said to have met in a private house, yet it was forbidden to meet outside the precincts of the Temple. Also, it is claimed that the Jews were not permitted to pass the death sentence (John 18:31), but this cannot be true. Earlier, the chief priests had considered putting Lazarus to death (John 12:10) and Jews were responsible for other killings — both formally and informally25. The Jews appear to have regarded blasphemy as a capital offence, but only if it involved worshipping idols or using a name of God (and Jesus had not been accused of either). Again, the custom of allowing the people to have a prisoner of their choice released for the Passover festival appears to be a fiction. No such custom existed 26.
Another sort of error is the misquotation of the Jewish scriptures. Luke 3:36 refers to Sala "which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad", but in Genesis 11:12 Sala was the son, not the grandson, of Arphaxad27. As we shall see, Old Testament passages were selectively quoted, taken out of context and amended to meet the needs of the New Testament (for example 1 Corinthians 2:9 misquoting Isaiah 64:4)28. Occasionally it is possible to deduce that an error was made in interpreting an original Aramaic term. Luke 11:39-41 contains a curious injunction by Jesus:
...Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness. Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also? But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.
This is saying that one can become clean by giving alms. Interestingly in Aramaic the word meaning to give alms (zakkau) is easily confused with the word meaning to cleanse (dakkau). Although the New Testament is mainly written in a type of Greek, Jesus himself would have spoken Aramaic so it is apparent that the wrong word has been used. This explanation is supported by a parallel passage in Matthew (23:25-26), which does not mention alms at all, but states that one must clean the inside in order to clean the outside.
As we shall see later, there are many examples of the New Testament misquoting passages from the Old, especially in relation to supposed prophecies. St Paul engaged in some deliberate manipulation, for example substituting the word "Lord" (i.e. Jesus) for "Lord" (i.e. God), in order to give the impression that the Old Testament had been talking about Jesus.
Contradictions and Inconsistencies
If Matthew speaks truth, Luke speaks falsehood, and if Luke speaks truth, Matthew speaks falsehood; and as there is no authority for believing one more than the other, there is no authority for believing either.... Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, Part II
The traditional Christian claim is that the books of the New Testament complement each other to give a unified narrative. In particular the gospels are represented as giving four consistent views of the same events. In this section we shall see how valid this view is. In general, we shall restrict ourselves to the four canonical gospels plus Acts and see if they agree or disagree with each other in describing Jesus' birth, life, death and teachings.
It is now generally accepted that the authors of both Matthew and Luke used the Mark gospel as a primary source. They include many of the same incidents, but change the words to suit their own needs. For example Mark suggests that believers should be prepared to sacrifice their lives for their beliefs "let him .... take up his cross, and follow me"29, but the urbane author of Luke adapts this to suggest that believers should suffer something different "let him .... take up his cross daily, and follow me" (Luke 9:23). The insertion of the word daily has completely changed the meaning from a nasty death to a persistent inconvenience.
The Matthew and Luke authors give conflicting versions of Jesus' ancestry (Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38). These versions bear virtually no relationship to each other and are irreconcilable. According to the Luke gospel, Jesus had 41 ancestors since David, according to the Matthew gospel only 26. Nearly all the names in the two lists are different. Even the name of Jesus' paternal grandfather is different. According to Matthew he was called Jacob, while according to Luke he was called Heli.
The rest of the nativity stories in the two gospels bear virtually no resemblance to each other, and contradict each other on a number of points. According to Luke, Jesus' family had to travel to Bethlehem for a tax census that took place when Quirinius or Cyrenius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:1-3). This census is stated to have been the first during his governorship (Luke 2:2). Such a census is an historical reality and is known to have been carried out in AD 6 or 7. Furthermore, we may accept that the census was carried out for taxation purposes, since the Romans carried out such censuses for taxation and conscription, and the Jews were exempt from military service30. But now the problems start. Luke says that the census was the result of a decree from Caesar Augustus to the whole world, but this must be an error. The real census affected Roman Judæa only. Galilee was not part of Roman Judæa, so Joseph, a Galilaean, would not have been affected. Even if he had been affected, he would not have had to travel to another town. Like the tax it was related to, the census was based on property, so people registered where they lived. The Romans did not care about genealogies, and neither did they require mass migrations. Furthermore, such taxes would have required only Joseph to register — even if a census had been carried out in Nazareth, Mary would not have been required to stir herself, heavily pregnant or not. Luke's story does not hold water. Worse, it cannot be squared with that of Matthew. Matthew does not mention the census at all. According to him Jesus was born before the death of Herod. The only possible Herod is Herod I (Herod the Great) and he died in 4 BC31. Thus there is a discrepancy of some ten years between the two stories.
According to the gospels Jesus often contradicted himself. He claimed to uphold the traditional laws unreservedly (Matthew 5:17-19, cf. Luke 16:17). He then addressed a number of questions and in each case overturned the traditional law. These questions concern subjects such as murder, adultery, divorce, swearing, punishment (an eye for an eye), and loving one's enemies. On the question of divorce the accounts in both the Matthew and Mark gospels contradict the traditional laws, under which divorce was a simple matter for men32. Not only that, the two gospels are incompatible with each other. Mark 10:9 forbids divorce in any circumstances. Speaking of man and wife Jesus says:
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
These words are familiar from their use in Christian marriage ceremonies (cf. Luke 16:18). Matthew 19:9 however puts a rather different slant on the matter:
...Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry commiteth adultery ...
This clearly sanctions divorce and remarriage for men whose wives have been unfaithful. But these are not the only versions. Paul had his own quite different ideas. A plain reading of the text shows that he allowed men to divorce ("put away") unbelieving wives and women to leave their unbelieving husbands. The text in question (1 Corinthians 7:10-17) was later to justify the so-called Pauline Privilege, allowing the Church to grant divorces.
God insisted on the death penalty even for such minor misdemeanours as collecting sticks on the Sabbath, but Jesus abrogated this law when his own followers picked ears of wheat on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23-27). According to a passage inserted in later manuscripts at John 8:3-11, he abrogated the law requiring an adulteress to be stoned.
On some occasions Jesus tells his disciples that his message is only for the Jews, on others he says it is also for the gentiles. In Matthew 10:5-6 Jesus tells his disciples not to go among the gentiles, and at Matthew 15:24 he says: " ...I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel". In the next two verses he likens the gentiles to dogs eating crumbs at their master's table. To call anyone a dog in the Middle East at that time was as grave an insult then as it is now. On the other hand at Matthew 28:19 Jesus takes a contradictory view and tells the disciples to "teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy ghost". (The explanation may well be later tampering. Many scholars regard the end of Mark as a later addition made to the original gospel, which apart from this passage is clearly written by a Jew for a Jewish audience.)
The sermon on the mount related by Matthew differs substantially from its counterpart given in Luke. The one in Luke is similar to that in Matthew, but its text differs in a number of respects. Furthermore it occurs later in the story than it does in Matthew, and is reported as having been given not on a mount, but a plain (see Matthew 5:1-7:27 and Luke 6:17-49). There are other cases where the same story is told more than once, with minor alterations. The story of the feeding of the four thousand (Mark 8:1-10, Matthew 15:29-39) varies only slightly from the same story told elsewhere, when five thousand were fed (Mark 6:30-44, Matthew 14:13-21, Luke 9:10-17, cf. John 6:1-15). That it is really the same story told twice over is confirmed by the fact that on both occasions the disciples cannot imagine how the crowd is going to be fed. If the disciples had already seen the miracle once, then they would hardly be at a complete loss to work out how the second (smaller) crowd might be nourished.
When he lists the commandments, Jesus mentions rather fewer than ten. According to Luke he cites only five. According to Matthew and Mark he cites six, but the extra commandments cited are different and include one (do not defraud) that is not one of the Ten Commandments at all. In summary they are:
There are even disagreements over the wording of the Lord's Prayer. Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4 give different versions (neither of which match the version in common use today).
Again, lists of the 12 apostles are not consistent (see Appendix B). Matthew 10:2-4 and Mark 3:16-19 give a list including Thaddaeus, Luke 6:14-16 and Acts 1:13 give a similar list except that it excludes Thaddaeus, and includes a second Judas — Judas son (or brother) of James. Many inconsistencies like this have traditionally been explained by the suggestion that the same person might be known by more than one name. So it is that the Matthew mentioned in the Matthew gospel is traditionally identified with the Levi mentioned in the Mark gospel. Bartholomew is identified with Nathanael in the same way. There remains, however, a suspicion that up to 16 disciples (not counting Judas Iscariot's replacement) may have been condensed in order to arrive at a number with an appropriate Old Testament resonance. It could be mentioned also that the names of individual disciples are mentioned remarkably infrequently; that Jesus is generally seen appointing only four or five disciples; that only those four or five play any significant role; and that the lists of 12 given in the gospels, for example at Matthew 10:2-4 and Luke 6:14-16, are not in the earliest texts.
When he sent out the Twelve (or Sixteen, or however many) Jesus gave contradictory instructions to them according to the gospels. According to Mark 6:8 they were told to take a staff, but according to Matthew 10:10 they were instructed not to take a staff. The gospels frequently disagree about the order of events. According to the Mark gospel Jesus cured Simon's mother-in-law after he called the first disciples at Galilee, but according to the Luke author he did so before he called the disciples. Other minor details are also inconsistent. The John author manages to contradict himself within a chapter. First he claims that Jesus baptises people (John 3:22) then, when Jesus is accused of baptising people, the author of the gospel says that although his disciples do, Jesus himself does not baptise people (John 4:1-2).
When it comes to accounts of Jesus' arrest, trial and death, it is clear that a great deal of creativity has been employed. According to the synoptic gospels Jesus was identified to his captors by a kiss. According to John he simply owned up33. The gospels also disagree about the trial — to such an extent that some apologists have been obliged to conclude that there were at least five hearings: before Annas, Caiaphas, Pilate, Herod Antipas, and then Pilate again34, but even this is impossible to square with all the gospel details. According to the synoptics a crowd of Jews were there at the main trial before Pilate, according to John they waited outside. Matthew 27:12-14 asserts that Jesus was silent when accused, but John 18:19-37 quotes the words that he used to answer his accusers.
The author of John disagrees with the other three gospel writers about the day on which Jesus was crucified. The John author says that the crucifixion took place on the day of the preparation of the Passover (John 19:14); the others say that the Last Supper was a Passover meal (Matthew 26:17-20; Mark 14:12-17; Luke 22:7-14), which means that the crucifixion must have occurred after the start of Passover. The gospel writers disagree about the time of day that Jesus was crucified. Mark 15:25 says that the crucifixion occurred at the third hour (9 am), while John 19:14 says that sentence was not passed until the sixth hour (12 noon), so that the execution must have taken place in the afternoon. According to Matthew 27:44 both of the malefactors crucified with Jesus reviled him, but according to Luke 23:39-43 only one of them did so, and the second malefactor rebuked the first. According to the synoptic gospels (Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26) Simon of Cyrene was forced to carry Jesus' cross, but according to John 19:17 Jesus carried it himself. All four gospel writers have a different version of what was written on the titulus above it:
The King of the Jews Mark 15:26
This is Jesus, the King of the Jews Matthew 27:37
This is the King of the Jews Luke 23:38
Jesus of Nazareth, The King of the Jews John 19:19
According to the Mark author, the veil of the Temple was torn after Jesus died. According to the Luke author it was torn before he died. There are also inconsistencies between the various accounts of Jesus' last words. The Mark and Matthew authors favour a quotation from the beginning of Psalm 22:
My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34
The Luke author prefers these words, which appear to be derived from verse 5 in Psalm 31:
Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. Luke 23:46
The John author is more prosaic:
It is finished. John 19:30
Two different accounts are given of the death of Judas. According to Matthew 27:5 he hanged himself, but according to Acts 1:18 he fell headlong, burst asunder in the midst of a field, and all his bowels gushed out. Again, the authors of the gospels give contradictory accounts of the discovery of Jesus' open tomb.
According to Mark 16:1-9 three women visit the tomb just after sunrise: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome. They go to anoint the body. There is no mention of any earthquake. The stone has already been rolled away from the entrance to the tomb. No one sees Jesus, but sitting in the tomb the women see a young man in a white robe. He says that Jesus is going on ahead to Galilee (as predicted by Mark 14:28). Terrified, the women say nothing to anyone about what they have seen at the tomb, despite having been instructed to do so by the young man. Of the three Mary Magdalene alone subsequently sees Jesus.
According to Luke 24:1-10 Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and some other women visit the tomb early in the morning, with spices and ointments. There is no mention of any earthquake. The stone has already been rolled away from the tomb. Two men in shining garments suddenly appear (standing). No one sees Jesus. No one mentions that Jesus has gone on to Galilee. The women go off to tell the disciples what they have seen.
According to John (20:1-14) Mary Magdalene visits the tomb alone while it is still dark, for no stated purpose. The stone has been removed from the entrance. There is no mention of any earthquake. She sees no one, but when she returns to the tomb later she sees two angels in white (seated) as well as Jesus (standing). No one mentions Galilee.
According to Matthew (28:1-9) Mary Magdalene and another Mary visit the tomb at dawn. Their purpose is not to anoint the body but to see the tomb. There is a great earthquake. An angel descends from Heaven, rolls back the stone from the tomb, and sits on it. The guards (not mentioned by the others) are badly shaken. No one is seen inside the tomb. The angel tells the women to tell the disciples to go to Galilee. In awe and joy the two women, following the angel's instructions, run to tell the disciples what has happened. Both women encounter Jesus, apparently while on their way back to the disciples.
The four gospels then go on to disagree about who the resurrected Jesus appeared to subsequently — all of them also disagreeing with another account in 1 Corinthians, which does not mention any women at all. Even when the accounts agree about who Jesus appeared to, they disagree about the order in which the appearances happened or where they happened. Did he first appear to the Eleven in Galilee (Matthew) or Jerusalem (John) — or did he appear to Twelve rather than Eleven (1 Corinthians)? Curiously, one of the appearances recounted by the John author is a reworking of the miraculous fishing incident, which according to the Luke author occurred before Jesus' death35. Again the Luke author claims that Jesus ascended into Heaven on the day of the Resurrection, but the same author has him appearing to his disciples for 40 days (Acts 1:3).
Whatever mental gymnastics are performed, these contradictory accounts cannot be reconciled (To rub in the point, some websites critical of Christianity offer substantial cash prizes for anyone who succeeds in reconciling them). It is clear that a few basic facts have been added to in order to make a good story. Significantly the earliest report, the one in Mark, is the most straightforward. The Luke and John authors have introduced suggestions of the supernatural, but the author of Matthew has added a heavy dose of the supernatural. Thus Mark refers to a man dressed in a white garment. Luke refers to two men in glowing garments who appear suddenly. According to John the two are not men but angels. Matthew has only one angel, but he is seen to descend from Heaven and roll away the stone. The story is becoming more impressive with the retelling.
This sort of progressive improvement is common in the gospels, although it is usually John with the trump hand. Miracles for example generally become more impressive in the later gospels. To take an example, Jesus' healing ability improves in later accounts. The Mark author has all the sick brought to Jesus and many of them cured (Mark 1:32-34). Matthew 8:16 has many brought and all of them cured. Luke 4:40 has all brought, and all of them cured. The tale is becoming more impressive all the time. The story of the feeding of the five thousand is similarly an improved version of the feeding of the four thousand. The four thousand were fed with seven loaves and a few fishes, with seven baskets full of left-overs: but the five thousand were fed with only five loaves and two fishes, yet there were 12 baskets full of left-overs. What seems to have happened is that a more modest Old Testament miracle (the feeding of the one hundred with twenty loaves) has been inflated over time: ever fewer loaves, ever more people, ever more leftovers, and the gospels have recorded the story at different stages of its development36. (Incidentally, the error of incorporating different instances of the same story provides one of many pieces of evidence that the author cannot have been an eyewitness, since an eyewitness could not have made this sort of mistake.)
In Acts, we find the same stories are frequently told about both Peter and Paul. Some of them are repeated with different details. There are no fewer than three versions of the story of Paul's conversion. In one, Paul's companions see a heavenly light but hear nothing (Acts 22:9). In the second, they hear a voice but see no one (Acts 9:7). In the third (Acts 26:12-14), there is no specific mention of what his companions hear or see, only that they fall to the ground along with Paul. And did Paul take Trophimus with him when he left Miletus for Jerusalem? Acts says he did (Acts 21:29), but this flatly contradicts one of the last few verses of Paul's second Epistle to Timothy, which claims that Paul had left Trophimus at Miletus because he was ill.
Paul's letters (if they are his) also contradict each other. In 1 Corinthians 3:11 Paul says the Church has no foundation other than Christ himself, but in another purported letter (Ephesians 2:20) the apostles and prophets provide the foundation, and Jesus is the cornerstone. Another example concerns the end of the world. According to different accounts, will this come soon, during a period of peace and security "like a thief in the night" (1 Thessalonians 5:2) or will it come at some later time after, following a rebellion and revelation, and other spectacular signs and wonders (2 Thessalonians 2) ?
Amendments to the Original Text
The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.
Note in the New International Version of the Bible
The evidence that early Christians tampered with their holy texts is overwhelming. We have every sort of evidence that it took place.
First, we have the evidence of non-Christians such as Celsus who observed in the second century that the Christians were perpetually correcting and altering their gospels. We also have supporting testimony from influential Christians themselves: the scholar Origen of Alexandriaremarks that both Jews and gentiles reject Christianity on the grounds that it was impossible to determine which faction was telling the truth. Origen mentioned explicitly that the factions disagreed not only on minor questions "but also in the most significant matters of great consequence"37.
Second, we have the evidence of Christian sects, who routinely accused each other of such tampering. Each sect, including the one we now regard as orthodox, was inclined to "correct" existing texts to confirm the orthodoxy of their own views. Christians are known to have rewritten works to suit their own beliefs and prejudices (e.g. Marcion's dislike of Jews and Tatian's dislike of women ). We have no reason to believe that the texts favoured by the group now regarded as orthodox were any more reliable than others. It is known, for example, that the Matthew gospel was attacked as unreliable38. We know that people saw the need to correct the versions that are now regarded as orthodox39. All in all we have ample evidence from early Christians of texts being edited, added to, otherwise manipulated, and in many cases "lost". In some cases we know that the "orthodox" faction accused an "heretical" faction of tampering with the text, when it was in fact the "orthodox" faction who had been guilty of tampering40.
Third, we have circumstantial evidence concerning the state of mind of early Church leaders. They believed that Jesus was the Messiah, and they believed that the Messiah would satisfy a number of prophecies. It followed that Jesus must have satisfied these prophecies. If there was no evidence of his having done so, it was of little consequence, because the writers knew, or thought they knew, that he must have fulfilled these prophecies. If this meant that gaps had to be filled in, then true believers would happily fill them in. Christians were not exactly lying. In their own minds they were merely supplying missing details. As we shall see, it is sometimes possible to see where the gaps have been filled, for example where the authors were mistaken about the meaning of supposed prophecies. Gospel writers were remarkably free with the concept of truth. Stories could be amended to make them more convincing or more impressive. The John author makes it absolutely clear: "But these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; ..." (John 20:31). So were other New Testament writers. Paul admits lying quite openly and wonders why people criticise him for it: "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?" (Romans 3:7). What he is suggesting is that it is perfectly acceptable to make up lies if the effect is to make people believe what he believes. Church Fathers shared his views. One of them, Origen of Alexandria, believed that the prime purpose of scripture was to convey spiritual truth, and that the recording of historical events was secondary to this. It was quite acceptable for intelligent Christians to tell white lies to less intelligent Christians. After all, as Origen of Alexandria noted, God had caused the prophet Jeremiah is known to have lied41. As we have seen, Clement of Alexandria is known to have suppressed material that he knew to be authentic, and we have no reason to believe that he was less trustworthy than other Church Fathers. Both he and Origen of Alexandria were prepared to pretend that Hebrews was written by St Paul, when they knew that it was not. Texts were frequently edited to bring them into line with current requirements. As doctrines developed, texts were amended to make them comply unambiguously with the latest version of "orthodoxy"42. Biblical writers were clearly aware of the likelihood of their work being tampered with and often took the trouble to give warnings about doing so (e.g. at Revelation 22:18-19).
Fourth, we have the opinion of scholars. Even Christian scholars overwhelmingly accept that there is evidence of editing throughout the texts. Introductions and conclusions were added to existing stories, passages were excised, other passages were inserted, text was added to cover up the joins, key words were altered, and so on. They may be reluctant to advertise the fact, but almost no academic biblical scholars would now dispute any of this. It is often admitted in a roundabout way. Here for example is part of the Introduction to the John gospel in the Jerusalem Bible, skirting around the issue of its authorship:
It was published not by John himself but by his disciples after his death, and it is possible that in this gospel we have the end-stage of a slow process that has brought together not only component parts of different ages but also corrections, additions and sometimes more than one revision of the same discourse.
Fifth, there is the circumstantial evidence of stories not making sense. Time and again people are surprised at events, even though they ought to be expecting them. As we have seen the disciples are at a loss to imagine how a crowd of four thousand is to be fed, just a short time after a similar crowd of five thousand has been fed with a few loaves and fishes. Again, Peter is mystified when in a vision God tells him that all foods are clean (Acts 10:13-16), even though Jesus has already told him the same thing (Mark 7:18-19). Later, the disciples are thrown into confusion by the arrest of Jesus, yet they have previously been told several times quite specifically that this will happen. The Mark author spells out the prediction clearly:
...Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles. Mark 10:33, cf. Matthew 20:18-19 and Luke 18:31-33
In each case it appears that editors have inserted a passage, but failed to adapt it to its new environment.
Sixth, there are the many cases where the biblical account ought to be confirmed by independent testimony, but is not. This is particularly common for the nativity and crucifixion stories, which, as we shall see, there are good reasons for regarding as being of dubious provenance. Why should the Romans introduce a bizarre, novel, and inferior method of taking a census, involving mass migrations, without leaving a record of it? Why did no astronomer note the wondrous star in the East, when there were a number who could have done so? Why is there no independent record of such a monstrous act as Herod's massacre of the innocents, especially since the historian Josephus was a keen recorder of Herod's atrocities ? Again, why is there no record of the darkness over all the land for three hours on the day of the crucifixion (Matthew 27:45), and why no mention of the earthquake during the crucifixion or the one when the women visited Jesus' tomb (Matthew 27:51 and 28:2)? Also, why is there no independent record of such a wondrous thing as the dead rising from their graves as many supposedly did (Matthew 27:52-53)? Pliny the Elder (AD 23-79) was fascinated by events such as these, yet he seems to have remained entirely ignorant of them, as did Seneca (c. 4 BC-AD 65) who was also interested in unusual phenomena. Thomas Paine found it odd that only Matthew mentioned fantastic events like these, especially since the other gospel writers were apparently as ignorant of them as Pliny and Seneca. This was his comment on the dead rising from their graves, given by the Matthew author:
It is an easy thing to tell a lie, but it is difficult to support the lie after it is told. The writer of the book of Matthew should have told us who the saints were that came to life again, and went into the city, and what became of them afterward, and who it was that saw them — for he is not hardy enough to say he saw them himself; whether they came out naked, and all in natural buff, he-saints and she-saints; or whether they came full dressed, and where they got their dresses, whether they went to their former habitations, and reclaimed their wives, their husbands, and their property, and how they were received; whether they entered ejectments for the recovery of their possessions, or brought actions of crim. con. [adultery] against the rival interlopers; whether they remained on earth, and followed their former occupation of preaching or working; or whether they died again, or went back to their graves alive, and buried themselves43.
His point is that the story is impressive only if one does not think about it too deeply. As soon as one does think about it, it becomes implausible. Also under this heading we might include incidents that simply do not stack up. They smack of fiction that has not been properly thought through. How were the gospel writers able to quote Jesus' prayer in the garden of Gethsemane, when according to them he was alone? (His followers deserted him before he could have reported his words to them himself. Again, could the chief priests have been so stupid as to bribe guards to say that they had slept while Jesus' body had been stolen by his disciples (Matthew 28:11-15)? Wouldn't someone have seen the flaw in this — that if the guards had been asleep they would not have known who stole the body? Again, if the priests were so annoyed about Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, why would they plan to kill him again and provide Jesus with the opportunity to repeat his miracle (John 12:10)?
Seventh, we have both circumstantial and hard textual evidence that alterations took place. When early writers quote New Testament texts they rarely use the exact words with which we are familiar. Sometimes the meaning is significantly different. Sometimes passages have been removed altogether. Worse still, extant early manuscripts simply do not agree with each other, and later manuscripts display more and more alterations. For example Acts exists in two different early versions — one about 10 per cent longer than the other44.
Early editors attempted to cover up some of the contradictions between the gospels. For example how could Jesus have been born of the house of David if Joseph were not his father? One not very satisfactory solution was to try to make Mary a member of the house of David too. Luke 2:4 reports that Joseph went to Bethlehem "because he was of the house and lineage of David", but a few manuscripts were altered to "because they were of the house and lineage of David". It was a clumsy attempt, and has long since been abandoned, but it illustrates the sort of technique adopted.
Accounts of the Resurrection are especially suspect. The earliest known manuscripts of the gospel attributed to Mark finish before the account of the Resurrection. The Resurrection story is thus the work of a later writer. The important Codex Sinaiticus in the British Museum and the Codex Vaticanus in the Vatican, both dating from the fourth century, lack these passages. Some modern versions of the Bible acknowledge that they are additions — these passages are the ones referred to in the quotation at the head of this section. As well as confirming that the text included in the Bible contained additions, this particular example supports the theory that the story of the Resurrection was invented some time after Jesus' death. Additions appear to have been made to the end of the John gospel as well. Many scholars believe that the original finished at the end of chapter 20, which certainly has the ring of a final paragraph. Also, the Greek of the final chapter is in a noticeably different style from the rest of the text. To clinch matters, the final chapter is missing from a surviving Syriac manuscript.
The story of the woman taken in adultery in John 8:1-11 is also missing from the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. It too is the work of a later editor and breaks the flow of the text. In some other manuscripts it occurs not only in the John gospel, but also in the Luke gospel at the end of chapter 21, and may have been plagiarised from the "lost" Gospel of the Hebrews45.
In at least some early manuscripts it was Elisabeth, not Mary, who spoke the words of what is now known as the Magnificat. The manuscripts are lost but Irenaeus of Lyons himself confirms them, and he is not the only one to do so46. Incidentally, the Magnificat (see Luke 1:46-55) is obviously based on the song of Hannah in the Old Testament47 }. That Jesus had 12 disciples might seem clear enough, but the question is not at all clear cut. In the first place they are mentioned remarkably infrequently. Also, Jesus is generally seen appointing only four or five disciples, and only they play any significant role. On the other hand at least 16 different disciples' names are listed in different places. The lists of 12 given in the gospels, for example at Matthew 10:2-4 and Luke 6:14-16, are not in the earliest texts, and their mention in 1 Corinthians is also an interpolation. Why it should have been thought appropriate at some late date to give Jesus exactly 12 disciples is not obvious, though the number does have a satisfying Old Testament resonance
When the idea of the Trinity was being developed, Church leaders must have been curious as to why the concept did not clearly exist in the Bible. No matter, the omission could be remedied. In the Authorised Version, 1 John 5:7 refers to the Holy Trinity:
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
These words come from the Vulgate, but are not in any early Greek text. The passage is now universally accepted to be an addition. Along with a few other words added to disguise the insertion it is known as the Johannine comma.The Holy Office declared it to be genuine scripture in 1897 and forbade Roman Catholic scholars to say otherwise. Nevertheless it has been quietly dropped from modern translations. It does not warrant so much as a note in the Jerusalem Bible. The reason for its introduction is clear: it confirms the doctrine of the Trinity. Indeed it was once regarded as an essential part of the Church's case against Unitarians. Biblical passages "proving" Christian doctrine are called prooftexts, and the Johannine comma is still the most frequently cited prooftext for the doctrine of the Trinity, despite the fact that it is universally acknowledged to be bogus.
It is clear that passages from the Old Testament were sometimes used to bolster the story being told in the New. For example the account of Jesus' baptism in Luke 3:22 contains the line " ... Thou art my beloved Son ...", which is taken from Psalm 2:7. The psalm continues "this day I have begotten thee", and sure enough, so do some manuscripts of Luke. As in Mark 1:11, Jesus was not born a son of God in the original text of Luke, but was adopted at his baptism. But his adoption was no longer needed once the nativity story had been added to the gospel, so the phrase "this day I have begotten thee" was no longer needed, and was duly dropped from later versions of the Luke text.
Manuscripts betray a consistent pattern of amending the text to make Jesus less human and more divine. His miraculous birth is played up, while evidence of a normal birth is played down. Passages that claim that Jesus was God are inserted: passages that show him to have human weaknesses are amended. Orthodoxy is affirmed: heterodoxy is eliminated48. In many places it is also easy to see why additions or deletions have been made. Sometimes it is to confirm Jesus' status by calling him God (e.g. 1 Timothy 3:16 ), or by bracketing him with God49 or to identify him as the son of God50. Sometimes angels are introduced to make events more impressive than the original writer had made them51. Occasionally we catch someone in the act of matching up events to scripture52, or casting the Jews in a bad light (Acts 28:29, which is an addition to the earlier text), or enhancing the status of the apostles (Mark 3:14-15). Uncomfortable uncertainty is removed. The original text of 1 John 2:28, for example, was somewhat vague about the Second Coming "if he should appear", but later manuscripts are much more positive "when he shall appear". Other changes explain Jesus' purpose (Matthew 18:11), or improve the details of a miracle (Luke 8:43), or reduce signs of Jesus' human weakness (Mark 15:39), or make him less dismissive of his mother and family (Matthew 12:47). Sometimes the changes have been made to bring different gospel accounts into line*. These and many other discrepancies between manuscripts are confirmed by the NIV, which mentions them in footnotes*.
Finally, hard scientific evidence exists of alterations. Infrared photography has revealed numerous examples of the text being changed after it had been first set down. Including simple corrections, there are about 14,500 such changes in the Codex Sinaiticus alone. This is not untypical. And it is therefore not surprising that of the thousands of Greek manuscripts that have survived, no two are identical55.
The oldest texts of the gospels date from the fourth century. Christians had already had over 200 years to doctor them and there is currently no way of establishing all the additions, deletions and amendments made. Whatever the original writers set down, probably towards the end of the first century, is irretrievable. What we do have is encrusted with additions designed to make Jesus, his birth, life and death more impressive. All that can be said for certain is that we do not possess a single reliable version of any book of the New Testament.
Errors of Translation
Priests and conjurers are of the same trade.
Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, Part II
Despite their divine inspiration, the versions of the New Testament used by the mainstream Western Churches have always contained errors of translation, sometimes accidental, sometimes not. The Eastern Church does not have this problem because it remains loyal to the original Greek. Yet there is still scope for error. The everyday language of Jesus and his followers was Aramaic, so there is also the possibility of errors of translation between the oral Aramaic and the written Greek, but of course, the evidence for these errors must be circumstantial. For example we have already noted that the Luke gospel appears to reflect someone's confusion over the Aramaic zakkau (to give alms) and dakkau (to cleanse). Even the Greek is not always straightforward. For example the familiar line from the Lord's Prayer: "Give us this day our daily bread" is only a guess. The Greek word epiousion has been translated as "daily", but this may not be its real meaning (another guess is "Give us this day tomorrow's bread", and another possibility is "extra bread" or “additional (spiritual) bread”)56. There are literally thousands of words and passages in the Greek text that are uncertain.
The Vulgate
When St Jerome was asked to prepare a new translation of the Bible he was worried about how to reconcile the many different texts that already existed. As he anticipated he was widely and heavily criticised for his work. How much Jerome changed the previously existing texts may be judged by the fact that cultured pagans regarded his translation as readable, whereas the numerous versions before it were regarded as crude and barbarous — a view shared by St Augustine (354-430) and indeed St Jerome himself. Jerome had been criticised for tampering with existing texts, which though flawed had already acquired a gloss of respectability and indeed sacredness. In time the Vulgate acquired a better gloss. For centuries it was held by western Christians to be the only valid translation of the Bible.
Unfortunately St Jerome had sometimes preferred his own preconceptions to the New Testament Greek. We have already seen how he amended the text of Old Testament passages, and he did the same with the text of the New Testament. For example, Jerome did not care much for the idea that believers could be "sons of God .... born not of the blood, nor the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God". He therefore followed an unreliable tradition for the text of John 1:12-1357. He thus made the "born not of the blood, but of God" description fit not just any believer but only Jesus — as it still does in the Jerusalem Bible.
Some mistranslations have had profound consequences, often influencing doctrine. For example the idea that Mary was "full of grace" (gratia plena) has been developed into a vast body of doctrine, yet it is an error. Gratia plena is a mistranslation of kecharitomene, a Greek word indicating merely that Mary was pleasing to God, as Erasmus knew58, and as modern translations of Luke 1:28 confirm.
Worse still, Jerome's text was altered, either deliberately or by mistake. Various errors and tamperings crept into copies of the Vulgate, so that soon the position was little better than it had been before St Jerome. There were numerous conflicting versions of his work, all purporting to be divinely inspired. The lack of a single authoritative text was a constant problem during the Middle Ages, as copyists multiplied textual variations by a combination of honest error and deliberate tampering.
In the sixteenth century Pope Sixtus V authorised the production of a version of the Vulgate. He grew impatient with progress and took over the work himself, claiming to be the only proper person to do so. His version issued in 1590 was riddled with errors. It contained whimsical additions to the text and omitted entire verses. The Roman Church then had to try to buy back all copies of the pope's disastrous effort. To the delight of Protestants his successors were obliged to issue a corrected edition.
English Versions
God does not seem to have been excessively concerned about ensuring that his divine word was delivered free from error. As well as allowing scribes to add, change and delete text, he allowed printers to make mistakes. Printers responsible for even the most minor errors were fined heavily, and occasionally bankrupted. The following all seem to have been accidental. The so-called Placemakers' Bible of 1562 (the Second Edition of the Geneva Bible) says "Blessed are the placemakers ..." instead of "Blessed are the peacemakers ..." (Matthew 5:9). The Judas Bible of 1611 refers to Judas instead of Jesus in Matthew 26:36. In the Printers' Bible (King James' Version of 1612) David complains that printers have persecuted him, when he should have been complaining about princes (Psalm 119:161). In the Wicked or Adulterous Bible (The King James' Version of 1631), the word not was omitted from one of the commandments making it say "Thou shalt commit adultery" (Exodus 20:14).
Highlighted text from the Wicked Bible
The Sin On Bible of 1716 instructs a sick man to "sin on more", instead of to sin no more (John 5:14). In the Fool Bible printed during the reign of Charles I, Psalm 14:1 claims that the fool hath said in his heart there is a God, instead of no God. The Lions Bible (King James' Version of 1804) referred to "thy son that shall come forth out of thy lions", instead of out of thy loins (1 Kings 8:19). In the Camels Bible (King James' Version of 1823), Rebekah arose with her camels rather than with her damsels (Genesis 24:61). Neither was God much exercised by the divine law appended to Bibles. The Affinity Bible of 1923 contains a table of affinity, which asserts that a man may not marry his grandmother's wife. Occasionally errors were made deliberately, for doctrinal reasons. For example, in the Bad Bible of 1653 the ordination of deacons was ascribed to the disciples, not to the apostles (Acts 6:6).
Translations often incorporated political as well as doctrinal spin to suit those who commissioned them. For example Calvin's Geneva Bible of 1560 justified disobedience of an unjust ruler, even though this contradicted the biblical text. Romans 13:5 says that one must obey a ruler, but a marginal note adds a caveat that "So far as lawfull we may: for it if unlawful things be commanded of us, we must answer as Peter teacheth us, It is better to obey God than men". Catholics commissioned another English version, the Reims-Douay Bible, more sympathetic to Catholic doctrine and in England, King James I commissioned a version suited to Anglican ideas. James had considered the Geneva Bible the worst of the various English translations. He called it "very partiall, vntrue, seditious and savouring, too much, of dangerous, and trayterous conceipts".59. The earliest complete translation into English had been made by John Wycliffe from the Vulgate around 1384, but the best known is undoubtedly the Authorised Version, so called because it was authorised by King James I of England (VI of Scotland). For this reason it is sometimes called the King James Bible. It was produced by 47 scholars at the command of the King and published in 1611. It was not based on the Vulgate, but on the original Hebrew and Greek, although the translators drew heavily upon a translation by William Tyndale, as well as other existing English translations including Coverdale's Bible (first printed 1535), Matthew's Bible (1537), and the Bishop's Bible (1568). It is adapted to the needs of the time. For example the passages that describe kings and their courts are consistently made grander and more impressive, just like God the King and his heavenly court.
Other changes were made to conform to current fashions. Luke relates a story of a woman of Capernaum who washed Jesus' feet as he "sat at meat" according to the Authorised Version (Luke 7:37). "Sitting at meat" is a medieval expression meaning "sitting down to eat". The original text actually says that he "lay down at table", which is how people ate meals in the Hellenic world. This sort of editing goes on in the Bible all the time to make things intelligible. Women's nose rings, for example, were routinely converted into earrings before nose rings became fashionable in the West. Other errors are genuine mistakes. In the original Greek, Simon the Zealot (one of Jesus' disciples) is called kananaios, a title derived from a Hebrew word qana meaning "zealous". In the Authorised Version (Matthew 10:4 and Mark 3:18) this is mistakenly translated as Simon the Canaanite60. Again, such errors are not very important, except for those who believe that the translations are divinely inspired and thus infallible.
Translations provide the opportunity to take the most orthodox option when there is a choice. It sounds slightly less impressive for the centurion at the crucifixion to say that Jesus was surely ason of God, so translators prefer the option the Son of God (Matthew 27:54). The change of article, along with a capital s, makes a considerable difference. Names are not always translated consistently. Jephthah in Judges 11 is the same as Jephthae in Hebrews 11:32, and one of Jesus' brothers is sometimes Juda (Mark 6:3) and sometimes Judas (Matthew 13:55). All this is innocent enough, but sometimes there is an obvious reason for name changes, for example a judicious name change can be used to disguise inconvenient facts. It was inconvenient to have a woman called Junia being of note among the apostles (Romans 16:7) so she has became a man called Junias in later translations61. Again, Christian ideas can be reinforced by appropriate translations. Protestant versions of the Bible seem to suggest that saints existed in Old Testament times, as implied by the sentence "Precious in the sight of the L ord is the death of his saints" (Psalm 116:15, Authorised Version). However, according to Roman Catholics only the Pope can create saints. In some Roman Catholic versions of the Bible it is not saints but the devout or faithful whose death is precious.
Modern translations continue to be selective about how particular words are translated. For example the NIV, written largely for sects that do not have bishops, avoids the word for a bishop. For example Philippians 1:1 addresses "overseers and deacons" rather than "bishops and deacons". Protestants have no problem about married clergy, so in Protestant versions of the Bible the apostles have "wives", while in Roman Catholic ones they have female helpers. So too, the Roman Church holds that Mary and Joseph never had sexual intercourse, so instead of Joseph and Mary coming together they merely "came to live together" (Matthew 1:18). Again, the fact that Jesus and his followers clearly held some Gnostic views that Paul did not share can easily be disguised by translating the word gnosis as knowledge, instead of rendering it as Gnosis (e.g. 1 Corinthians 8ff, 13:2).
Apart from translating words to suit the Church's needs, meanings can be manipulated in numerous ways, as we have already seen. For example when terms are applied to Jesus they are rendered Christ and Son of man, but when the same terms are applied to other people they are rendered as anointed and son of man (without capitalisation). Again, capital letters can be used to indicate whether the text is referring to Jesus' father (Joseph) or his Father (God), as in Luke 2:48-9. By translating a word as Father instead of father, translators can completely change the sense of the text.
Notes
1 Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, p 1.
2 Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus Omnes Haereses, III, xi, 7.
3 Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John are all missing from the Muratorian Canon, although Wisdom and the Apocalypse of Peter are included. The Muratorian Canon is an eighth century Latin translation of the second century list, first published by L. A. Muratori, in 1740.
4 Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum, pp 17-20.
5 Eusebius, The History of the Church, on the relative datings quotes Irenaeus of Lyons (5:8 ) and Origen of Alexandria(6:25 ).
6 Papias is quoted as saying that "Matthew compiled the Sayings in the Aramaic [i.e. Hebrew] language, and everyone translated them as well as he could". Eusebius, The History of the Church, 3:39:15, cf. 5:8 and 6:25.
7 Examples of parables peculiar to the Luke author may be found at Luke 10:30-37; 13:6-9; 15:3-10 and 16:19-31.
8 Jesus tells Pilate that he (Jesus) has been delivered to the Jews — as though he was not a Jew himself (John 18:36) — and says to his disciples "as I said unto the Jews.... " — as though they were not themselves all Jews (John 13:33).
9 Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, p 133.
10 Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus Omnes Haereses, III, xi, 7-8.
11 Morton Smith, The Secret Gospel ( London, 1974), pp 14-16.
12 For example Mark (10:46) relates that: ".... they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho ...", which rather looks as though someone has edited out the events in Jericho. Sure enough, according to Clement's letter the Secret Gospel of Mark related that in Jericho " ...the sister of the young man whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus received them not". That the fuller secret gospel is the more reliable is supported by incidental facts. First the author of the John gospel also mentions a man "whom Jesus loved" (John 19:26-27). Second, the story of a man whom Jesus raised from the dead is otherwise recorded in the John gospel, where the man is named as Lazarus. Also, there is an otherwise inexplicable passage in Mark (14:51-52): "And there followed him [Jesus] a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him: And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.". This fits in with the activities described in the Secret Gospel, but makes no sense in the canonical version.
13 The suppressed material referred to gnosis — the secret knowledge that distinguished Gnostic beliefs. It also referred to "that truth hidden by seven [veils?]", and Clement admitted that it was "read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries". Distinctly Gnostic ideas are also to be found in the canonical Mark gospel, notably at Mark 4:11-12.
14 St Justin Martyr also refers to the memoirs of the apostles: First Apology 66.3, and Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, 101.3, 103.8 and 105.5.
15 Eusebius, The History of the Church, 3:25.
16 Eusebius, The History of the Church, 6:25.
17 Dionysius, an early bishop of Alexandria, knew of a tradition that the Book of Revelation was the work of Cerinthus, the head of a rival sect. Eusebius, The History of the Church, 7:25.
18 Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, pp 89ff.
19 2 Corinthians 2:4 for example refers to another letter to the Corinthians, written with many tears, which is unknown to us.
20 For evidence of tampering see Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, pp 8ff.
21 For example the following stories come from these works: Acts of John — Raising of Drusiana; Acts of Paul — story of Thecla; Acts of Peter — Simon Magus and "Domine, quo vadis?"; Acts of Andrew — his crucifixion; and Acts of Thomas— King Gudaphorus.
22 Mark 5:1. The Authorised Version refers to the country of the Gadarenes.
23; Clement of Alexandria shared a similar, erroneous, view. He offers as "proof" of the resurrection the fact that seeds decay before somehow multiplying themselves and bringing forth fruit. First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 24.
24 There is no reason to suppose that Jewish practices had changed by the time that rabbis wrote about them in AD c. 200. See Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorised Version, p 289.
25 Stephen was executed (or perhaps lynched) by the Jews (Acts 7:59-60). James, Jesus" brother was tried, though this time it cost the high priest his job. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, xx, ix, 1. See also Eusebius, The History of the Church, 2:23. Other indications are given by the fact that Herod Antipas (a Jew) executed hundreds of Jews, including John the Baptist. According to the Gospels Jesus had run the risk of being stoned by the Jews on several occasions. The famous adulteress who was about to be stoned by the Jews survived thanks to Jesus when he said: " ...He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her ..." (it was the custom for the accuser to cast the first stone). Again, after Jesus' death the Sanhedrin had threatened the apostles with death.
26 H. Cohn, Trial and Death of Jesus, pp 97ff and 166ff.
27 Some manuscripts have variant spellings of Sala, possibly attempts to cover up the error. The Authorised Version translates the name in Luke as Sala, the NIV and Jerusalem Bible prefer Shelah, which appears in later manuscripts.
28 Another example of an Old Testament passage taken out of context and amended to meet the needs of the New Testament is John 7:38, either misquoting Zechariah 14:8 or an unknown scripture or making one up.
29 Mark 8:34, cf. Matthew 10:38 and Luke 14:27.
30 For a more detailed account of the conflicts between the Matthew and Luke stories, see Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorised Version, pp 27ff.
31 Luke cannot be confusing Herod I, King of Judæa (Luke 1:5), also known as Herod the Great, with his son Herod Antipas, because later he correctly identifies the son as tetrarch of Galilee not King of Judæa (Luke 3:1).
32 Tthe existence (and ease) of divorce is confirmed in the Old Testament at Deuteronomy 24:1, Leviticus 21:7, 21:14 and 22:13, and Numbers 30:9.
33 Matthew 26:47-56, Mark 14:43-52, Luke 22:47-53 and John 18:1-12.
34 The hearings were before Annas (John 18:12-23), before Caiaphas (Matthew 26:57-68, Mark 14:53-65, Luke 22:66-71 and John 18:24-28), before Pilate (Luke 23:1-8), before Herod Antipas (Luke 23:8-12), and then before Pilate again (Matthew 27:11-26, Mark 15:2-15, Luke 23:13-25 and John 18:28-40).
35 John 21:1-14, cf. Luke 5:1-11.
36 Elisha fed 100 men with 20 barley loaves and some grain, leaving some leftovers (2 Kings 4:42-44). For a number of other interesting points about the New Testament story see Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, pp 131ff.
37 Joachim Kahl, The Misery of Christianity (English translation by N. D. Smith), Penguin Books, pp 128-9.
38 Eusebius, The History of the Church, 6:17.
39 Those who denied the divinity of Jesus for example felt the need to correct the "orthodox" scriptures: Eusebius, The History of the Church, 5:28.
40 A good example is the changing of a key text to refer to Jesus instead of all believers (John 1:13). Tertullian accused the Valentinian Gnostics of having tampered with it to refer to all believers, but the truth was that Tertullian himself, or an "orthodox" scribe before him, had altered the text to refer to Jesus. See Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, pp 27 and 59.
41 Origen of Alexandria cited Jeremiah 20:7-12.
42 That texts were amended to make them comply unambiguously with the latest version of "orthodoxy" is convincingly detailed by Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.
43 Paine, Age of Reason, Pt II, p 154.
44 The Western text is almost 10 per cent longer than the Alexandrian text. It smoothed out a number of difficulties and slanted the text to the detriment of the Jews and in favour of the gentiles. See Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, pp 3ff.
45 Could this story be the one referred to in Eusebius, The History of the Church, 3:39 ? If so, it would not be the only story lifted from the Gospel of the Hebrews and inserted into manuscripts of Luke.
46 Nicetas of Remesiana provides independent evidence that Elisabeth spoke the Magnificat. (Giovanni Miegge, The Virgin Mary (London, 1955), p 33 ).
47 1 Samuel 2:1-10, but with other quotations and allusions. See footnote Luke 1i in the Jerusalem Bible.
48 For numerous examples see Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, pp 82-99.
49 In Colossians 1:2 Jesus is bracketed with God by an insertion, and in Matthew 24:36 by an omission. In John 13:31-32 God is glorified in Jesus, as Jesus is glorified by God. See the footnotes in the NIV.
50 Mark 1:1 and Acts 8:37 both contain additions referring to the son of God. See the footnotes in the NIV.
51 Luke 22:43-44 and John 5:4 are both additions introducing angels. See the footnotes in the NIV.
52 Matthew 27:35 and Mark 15:27. See the footnotes in the NIV.
53 For example several amendments were made to the Lord's Prayer in Luke 11:2-4 to bring it into line with the version in Matthew 6:9-13. Also, the Matthew version was also added to. The ending "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever" is found only in late manuscripts. Using it was once considered evidence of heresy. It is not included in most versions of the Bible, although it is almost invariably added to the prayer as popularly used. (See footnotes in the NIV for both Matthew and Luke.)
54 For further examples see (in the NIV) Matthew 16:2, 17:21 and 21:44; Mark 10:7 and 14:72; Luke 3:33 and 23:17; and notes.
55 Some 5,366 Greek witnesses are known up to the sixteenth century. Some are more complete than others. The assertion that of the thousands of Greek manuscripts that have survived, no two are identical excludes those witnesses that are tiny fragments. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, p 27.
56 The Cathar form of the prayer was, in French translation, "Donnez-nous notre pain supersubstantiel". Roquebert, Les Cathares, vol. 5, p 361.
57 Cf.: Different translations of John 1:12-13:.
But to all who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to all who believe in the name of him who was born not out of human stock or urge of the flesh or will of man but of God himself (Jerusalem Bible, author's bold text).
Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God — children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God (New International Version, author's bold text).
The Jerusalem Bible is undoubtedly better poetry, but the text means something completely different.
The Vulgate (Jerome's translation of the Bible into Latin) gives a similar version to that in the Jerusalem Bible. No Greek manuscript supports Jerome's choice. The only support comes in a single Latin translation.
58 In his commentary on Luke, Erasmus translated the Greek kecharitomene into Latin as gratiosa "being in favour"
59 David Daitches, The King James Version of the English Bible, Cicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941.
60 Both of the Matthew and Mark authors refer to Simon the Canaanite in the Authorised Version (Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18). Luke has Simon Zelotes (Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13). In the NIV all are translated as Simon the Zealot.
61 Junia in the Authorised Version becomes Junius in the NIV (and The Jerusalem Bible). No one seems to have been in any doubt that Junia was a woman until the late Middle Ages. See Uta Ranke-Heinemann, Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven, p 109.
• © • Further Resources • Link to Us •
• Contact •