{"id":913,"date":"2012-07-21T13:37:52","date_gmt":"2012-07-21T11:37:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/web\/?p=913"},"modified":"2012-07-21T13:37:52","modified_gmt":"2012-07-21T11:37:52","slug":"the-new-testament","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/?p=913","title":{"rendered":"The New Testament"},"content":{"rendered":"

Both read the Bible day and night,<\/span>
\nBut thou read\u2019st black where I read white.<\/span>
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2014William Blake, The Everlasting Gospel<\/span><\/p>\n

 
\nOf course, Blake\u2019s sentiment in the quote above is nothing new.\u00a0 The New Testament contains enough inconsistencies to have spawned a dizzying variety of interpretations, beliefs and religions, all allegedly Bible-based.\u00a0 And so, we find one author offering the amusing observation:<\/span>
\nYou can and you can\u2019t,<\/span>
\nYou shall and you shan\u2019t,<\/span>
\nYou will and you won\u2019t,<\/span>
\nAnd you will be damned if you do,<\/span>
\nAnd you will be damned if you don\u2019t.[1]<\/span>
\nWhy such variance in viewpoints?\u00a0 To begin with, different theological camps disagree on which books should be included in the Bible.\u00a0 One camp\u2019s apocrypha is another\u2019s scripture.\u00a0 Secondly, even among those books that have been canonized, the many variant source texts lack uniformity.\u00a0 This lack of uniformity is so ubiquitous that The Interpreter\u2019s Dictionary of the Bible states, \u201cIt is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS [manuscript] tradition is wholly uniform.\u201d[2]<\/span>
\nNot one sentence?\u00a0 We can\u2019t trust a single sentence of the Bible?\u00a0 Hard to believe.<\/span>
\nMaybe<\/span>
\nThe fact is that there are over 5700 Greek manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament.[3]\u00a0 Furthermore, \u201cno two of these manuscripts are exactly alike in all their particulars\u2026.\u00a0 And some of these differences are significant.\u201d[4]\u00a0 Factor in roughly ten thousand manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, add the many other ancient variants (i.e., Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Nubian, Gothic, Slavonic), and what do we have?<\/span>
\nA lot of manuscripts<\/span>
\nA lot of manuscripts that fail to correspond in places and not infrequently contradict one another.\u00a0 Scholars estimate the number of manuscript variants in the hundreds of thousands, some estimating as high as 400,000.[5]\u00a0 In Bart D.\u00a0 Ehrman\u2019s now famous words, \u201cPossibly it is easiest to put the matter in comparative terms: there are more differences in our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.\u201d[6]<\/span>
\nHow did this happen?<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span>
\nPoor record keeping.\u00a0 Dishonesty.\u00a0 Incompetence.\u00a0 Doctrinal prejudice.\u00a0 Take your pick.<\/span>
\nNone of the original manuscripts have survived from the early Christian period.[7]\/[8]\u00a0 The most ancient complete manuscripts (Vatican MS. No. 1209 and the Sinaitic Syriac Codex) date from the fourth century, three hundred years after Jesus\u2019 ministry.\u00a0 But the originals?\u00a0 Lost.\u00a0 And the copies of the originals?\u00a0 Also lost.\u00a0 Our most ancient manuscripts, in other words, are copies of the copies of the copies of nobody-knows-just-how-many copies of the originals.<\/span>
\nNo wonder they differ<\/span>
\nIn the best of hands, copying errors would be no surprise.\u00a0 However, New Testament manuscripts were not in the best of hands.\u00a0 During the period of Christian origins, scribes were untrained, unreliable, incompetent, and in some cases illiterate.[9]\u00a0 Those who were visually impaired could have made errors with look-alike letters and words, while those who were hearing-impaired may have erred in recording scripture as it was read aloud.\u00a0 Frequently scribes were overworked, and hence inclined to the errors that accompany fatigue.<\/span>
\nIn the words of Metzger and Ehrman, \u201cSince most, if not all, of them [the scribes] would have been amateurs in the art of copying, a relatively large number of mistakes no doubt crept into their texts as they reproduced them.\u201d[10]\u00a0 Worse yet, some scribes allowed doctrinal prejudice to influence their transmission of scripture.[11]\u00a0 As Ehrman states, \u201cThe scribes who copied the texts changed them.\u201d[12]\u00a0 More specifically, \u201cThe number of deliberate alterations made in the interest of doctrine is difficult to assess.\u201d[13]\u00a0 And even more specifically, \u201cIn the technical parlance of textual criticism\u2014which I retain for its significant ironies\u2014these scribes \u2018corrupted\u2019 their texts for theological reasons.\u201d[14]<\/span>
\nErrors were introduced in the form of additions, deletions, substitutions and modifications, most commonly of words or lines, but occasionally of entire verses.[15] [16]\u00a0 In fact, \u201cnumerous changes and accretions came into the text,\u201d[17] with the result that \u201call known witnesses of the New Testament are to a greater or lesser extent mixed texts, and even several of the earliest manuscripts are not free from egregious errors.\u201d[18]<\/span>
\nIn Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman presents persuasive evidence that the story of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:12) and the last twelve verses of Mark were not in the original gospels, but added by later scribes.[19]\u00a0 Furthermore, these examples \u201crepresent just two out of thousands of places in which the manuscripts of the New Testament came to be changed by scribes.\u201d[20]<\/span>
\nIn fact, entire books of the Bible were forged.[21]\u00a0 This doesn\u2019t mean their content is necessarily wrong, but it certainly doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s right.\u00a0 So which books were forged?\u00a0 Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 and 2 Peter, and Jude\u2014a whopping nine of the twenty-seven New Testament books and epistles\u2014are to one degree or another suspect.[22]<\/span>
\nForged books? In the Bible?<\/span>
\nWhy are we not surprised?\u00a0 After all, even the gospel authors are unknown.\u00a0 In fact, they\u2019re anonymous.[23]\u00a0 Biblical scholars rarely, if ever, ascribe gospel authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.\u00a0 As Ehrman tells us, \u201cMost scholars today have abandoned these identifications, and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively well-educated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first century.\u201d[24]\u00a0 Graham Stanton affirms, \u201cThe gospels, unlike most Graeco-Roman writings, are anonymous.\u00a0 The familiar headings which give the name of an author (\u2018The Gospel according to \u2026\u2019) were not part of the original manuscripts, for they were added only early in the second century.\u201d[25]<\/span>
\nSo what, if anything, did Jesus\u2019 disciples have to do with authoring the gospels?\u00a0 Little or nothing, so far as we know.\u00a0 But we have no reason to believe they authored any of the books of the Bible.\u00a0 To begin with, let us remember Mark was a secretary to Peter, and Luke a companion to Paul.\u00a0 The verses of Luke 6:14-16 and Matthew 10:2-4 catalogue the twelve disciples, and although these lists differ over two names, Mark and Luke don\u2019t make either list.\u00a0 So only Matthew and John were true disciples.\u00a0 But all the same, modern scholars pretty much disqualify them as authors anyway.<\/span>
\nWhy?<\/span>
\nGood question.\u00a0 John being the more famous of the two, why should we disqualify him from having authored the Gospel of \u201cJohn\u201d?<\/span>
\nUmm \u2026 because he was dead?<\/span>
\nMultiple sources acknowledge there is no evidence, other than questionable testimonies of second century authors, to suggest that the disciple John was the author of the Gospel of \u201cJohn.\u201d[26] [27]\u00a0 Perhaps the most convincing refutation is that the disciple John is believed to have died in or around 98 CE.[28]\u00a0 However, the Gospel of John was written circa 110 CE.[29]\u00a0 So whoever Luke (Paul\u2019s companion), Mark (Peter\u2019s secretary), and John (the unknown, but certainly not the long-dead one) were, we have no reason to believe any of the gospels were authored by Jesus\u2019 disciples. . . .<\/span>
\n\u00a0<\/span>
\nCopyright \u00a9 2007 Laurence B. Brown<\/span>
\nPermission granted for free and unrestricted reproduction if reproduced in entirety without omissions, additions or alterations.<\/span>
\nA graduate of Cornell University, Brown University Medical School and George Washington University Hospital residency program, Laurence B. Brown is an ophthalmic surgeon, a retired Air Force officer, and the medical director and chief ophthalmologist of a major eye center. He is also an ordained interfaith minister with a doctorate in divinity and a PhD in religion, and the author of a number of books of comparative religion and reality-based fiction. His works can be found on his website, www.LevelTruth.com.<\/span><\/p>\n

________________________________________<\/span>
\nFootnotes: <\/span>
\n[1] Dow, Lorenzo. Reflections on the Love of God. <\/span>
\n[2] Buttrick, George Arthur (Ed.). 1962 (1996 Print). The Interpreter\u2019s Dictionary of the Bible. Volume 4. Nashville: Abingdon Press. pp. 594-595 (Under Text, NT).<\/span>
\n[3] Ehrman, Bart D. 2005. Misquoting Jesus. HarperCollins. P. 88.<\/span>
\n[4] Ehrman, Bart D. 2003. Lost Christianities. Oxford University Press. P. 78.<\/span>
\n[5] Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus. P. 89.<\/span>
\n[6] Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. 2004. Oxford University Press. P. 12.<\/span>
\n[7] Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities. P. 49.<\/span>
\n[8] Metzger, Bruce M. 2005. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, D\u2014Stuttgart. Introduction, p. 1.<\/span>
\n[9] Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities and Misquoting Jesus.<\/span>
\n[10] Metzger, Bruce M. and Ehrman, Bart D. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. P. 275.<\/span>
\n[11] Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities. Pp. 49, 217, 219-220.<\/span>
\n[12] Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities. P. 219.<\/span>
\n[13] Metzger, Bruce M. and Ehrman, Bart D. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. P. 265. See also Ehrman, Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.<\/span>
\n[14] Ehrman, Bart D. 1993. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. Oxford University Press. P. xii.<\/span>
\n[15] Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities. P. 220.<\/span>
\n[16] Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Introduction, p. 3<\/span>
\n[17] Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Introduction, p. 10.<\/span>
\n[18] Metzger, Bruce M. and Ehrman, Bart D. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. P. 343.<\/span>
\n[19] Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus. Pp. 62-69.<\/span>
\n[20] Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus. P. 68.<\/span>
\n[21] Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities. Pp. 9-11, 30, 235-6.<\/span>
\n[22] Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities. P. 235.<\/span>
\n[23] Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities. P. 3, 235. Also, see Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. P. 49.<\/span>
\n[24] Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities. P. 235.<\/span>
\n[25] Stanton, Graham N. 1989. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press. p. 19.<\/span>
\n[26] Kee, Howard Clark (Notes and References by). 1993. The Cambridge Annotated Study Bible, New Revised Standard Version. Cambridge University Press. Introduction to gospel of \u2018John.\u2019<\/span>
\n[27] Butler, Trent C. (General Editor). Holman Bible Dictionary. Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers. Under \u2018John, the Gospel of\u2019<\/span>
\n[28] Easton, M. G., M.A., D.D. Easton\u2019s Bible Dictionary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers. Under \u2018John the Apostle.\u2019<\/span>
\n[29] Goodspeed, Edgar J. 1946. How to Read the Bible. The John C. Winston Company. p. 227<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read\u2019st black where I read white. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2014William Blake, The Everlasting Gospel   Of course, Blake\u2019s sentiment in the quote above is nothing new.\u00a0 The...<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[119],"tags":[129,102,281,130],"class_list":["post-913","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-comparative-religion","tag-bible","tag-christianity","tag-comparative-religion","tag-new-testament"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/913","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=913"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/913\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":914,"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/913\/revisions\/914"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=913"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=913"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=913"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}