Website updated to include part one of Chapter Three of Revolution

Chapter Three…The Gospels & New Testament


_______________________

The Bill of Rights. You are probably familiar with this document as the ten amendments, which are a prelude to the United States Constitution. The Bill of Rights officially came into effect in 1791 and detail the immunities of individual citizens. Question: Would this document appear the same today if the earliest record had appeared in the 1960’s? If the original document had been lost and only preserved through copy after copy after copy, by various copyists, would we see the same verbiage 175 years or so later? *3-1 Would its contents have gone unchanged after the various influences of the multiple social and political movements that have swept through the United States throughout nearly two centuries? Would civil rights, women’s voting rights or any number of other issues impacted that document as it passed from copyist to copyist? The answer is obvious.

The same is true with a much more massive collection of literature: the various writings and letters that comprise the Gospels and New Testament. In the gap of time between Jesus’ death, after which these writings began, to the text we read today, much has transpired. In those early years, both professional and laymen scribes produced numerous copies of scripture. Changes from the earliest copies are evident compared to the text available now. Actually, thousands of changes have been detected when comparing current and later text to the earliest copies on record. *3-2 Unintended copying mistakes happened frequently and can easily be attributed to human inaccuracy. Those are many and are usually of little concern. However, intentional theological changes were also made to reflect the push of one religious movement or to negate the ideas of another.

At no time in history, has Christianity had one voice. Various religious movements have readily shared their views and impacted the faith. Groups such as the Adoptionists and the Docetists provide just two examples of religious movements that influenced textual change. These changes were made by orthodox copyists to counter ideas supported by those movements.

The Adoptionist group, from the second/third century, adhered to the idea that Jesus was fully flesh and blood—having been ‘adopted’ by God. This movement countered orthodox ideology and prompted mainstream copyists to make theological alterations in text which provided an anti-adoptionistic reading in certain passages (Mark 1:11; Luke 2:33 and 3:23 to name a few). *3-3

Consider Mark 1:11. In this verse, Jesus emerges from his baptism and is greeted by the voice of God. Later texts, including today’s King James Version of Mark 1:11 read: “And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” However, earlier texts provided other readings. Bart D. Ehrman showcases this in his book, Misquoting Jesus. In his discussion of Mark 1:11, we find quite a different version compared to texts found previously. Ehrman states:

“In one early Greek manuscript and several Latin ones, however, the voice says
something strikingly different: ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.’ Today
I have begotten you! Doesn’t that suggest that his day of baptism is the day on
which Jesus has become the Son of God? Couldn’t this text be used by an
adoptionist Christian to make the point that Jesus became the Son of God at this
time? Later, the text was altered to read, “And there came a voice from heaven,
saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” *3-4

Therefore, it seems that this alteration was made by orthodox copyists to address any argument potentially posed by the Adoptionists who might seek verification of their belief system through scripture.

Luke 22 provides a similar example in regard to the Docetist movement. The textual changes from Luke (22:17-19, which is a scene from the Lord’s Supper) countered the beliefs of the Docetists, who believed that Jesus was fully divine and in no part flesh-and-blood.*3-5 According to the oldest Greek manuscripts those three verses read as follows: “And taking a cup, giving thanks, he said, ‘Take this and divide it among yourselves for I say to you that I will not drink from the fruit of the vine from now on, until the kingdom of God comes.’ And taking bread, giving thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body. But behold, the hand of the one who betrays me is with me at the table.’” *3-6

Missing from this text are the words found in most modern translations, “which has been given for you; do this in remembrance of me’; as well as “this cup is the new covenant in my blood which is shed for you.” These thoughts were most likely later additions made by orthodox copyists seeking to affirm the flesh and blood humanity of Jesus. To those orthodox Christians, it was Jesus’ human sacrifice that brought salvation, ideas that greatly differed from the Docetist’s belief.

Ehrman also details that this addition also brings to light another point regarding textual change: Luke’s theological belief regarding the meaning of Jesus’ death. The emphasis of the textual alterations in Luke 22 showcase that the crucifixion is salvific and done for humanity’s benefit. In other words, it was Jesus’ death that brings salvation for all of mankind. However, that does not seem to be Luke’s own conclusion. Actually, this textual addition is the only mention made by Luke in his two books (Luke and Acts) regarding Jesus’ death being significant in regard to sin atonement. Rather, as Ehrman points out, to Luke, Jesus’ death certainly has great meaning, but not necessarily as atonement from personal sin. *3-7 Nowhere else in either of Luke’s writings does he speak of personal salvation being found through the death of Jesus. Luke (in Acts) views the crucifixion as humanity’s wake-up call. It is Jesus’ death that helps an individual recognize their own shortcomings before their Maker, prompting a call for repentance. It is this recognition and ensuing repentance then, that brings salvation; which is a very different notion from the fundamentalist teaching of my youth.

These are merely two examples that help us better understand the evolution of scripture and the great impact that man and various religious movements have had on Biblical text. With these examples in mind, and considering that they are but two of many instances of textual change, it is hard to have a legitimate discussion promoting the inerrancy of scripture, a belief known as “verbal plenary inspiration”; and one that I previously clung to for nearly three decades. After all, it is the very words that comprise the text that are said to be infallible. Since we really don’t know what those original words stated, the claim of infallibility is next to impossible. While this is what we have seen with the development of scripture, many of the more fundamentalist sects within the religious community today still cling to the idea that such scripture is inerrant and to be taken literally at every turn. Such is an interesting notion considering the evidence detailed against that idea.

Such a belief certainly brings one question to mind: if scripture is inerrant, why then, do those who hold to that opinion have such disagreements regarding the meaning of that scripture? Why are there so many different interpretations of the same scripture? In other words, if these texts are so ‘cut-and-dried’…‘black and white’, shouldn’t there be one voice speaking for the community instead of a garbled many? Yet even those who uphold verbal plenary inspiration do not agree on interpretation. For example, if you and I agree on the meaning of the two numbers one and three, then how could we look at the equation of (1 + 3 = ?) and disagree on the final answer? Nevertheless, much disagreement emerges surrounding the texts of the Holy Bible.

For the purposes of this writing, scripture will be examined with one eye on historical responsibility and another on the Christian tradition. Each will be duly noted. It is important to separate lore, which emerged from the evolving faith, from accounts considered to be more historically credible. The goal is, quite simply, get to the heart of the message. Distinguishing the genuine voice of Jesus from the influences of the various religious movements, including the mainstream, is essentially the focus of The Five Gospels. The book is produced by the Jesus Seminar, a group comprised of Biblical Scholars who gather to discuss the authenticity of the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels of Thomas, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. This is done in order to examine these texts under a more authentic and insightful lens.



The Five Gospels: Thomas…Mark…Matthew…Luke and John

The earliest copies available of the canonical Gospels, as well as other books in the New Testament, date back to the late second century. However, they were originally written much earlier. The Gospel of Thomas, considered by most scholars to be the earliest Gospel written, is thought to have originated around 50 CE. That would date its origin back to around twenty years after the crucifixion. Thomas was not discovered until 1945, and was part of the Nag Hammadi discovery in Egypt. *3-8 Of the four gospels of the New Testament, John is the most recent, thought to have been written shortly after 90 CE. Whereas, Mark is thought to be the oldest, scribed around 70 CE. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written around 80-90 CE.

Both Matthew and Luke draw much information from Mark. According to The Five Gospels, Matthew replicates ninety percent of Mark’s writing, while Luke reproduces fifty percent. Where Matthew and Luke disagree, in terms of sequence, both support the order presented by Mark. In common segments, verbal agreement occurs about half the time. Further, in text that does not ‘match-up’, Matthew and Mark often disagree against Luke; Luke and Mark often disagree against Matthew, but Matthew and Luke rarely disagree against Mark. For these reasons, it is thought that Matthew and Luke drew much from Mark in writing their versions. *3-9

The synoptic gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke provide a start-to-finish summary of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Whereas, the Gospel of Thomas is a sayings gospel. In other words, it does not attempt to tell the life story of Jesus, but rather imparts his various radical wisdom teachings. Meanwhile, John’s version is thought by most scholars to be a faith-based description, an account used by those in the early Christian movement to be their beacon of hope and light while under the strain of religious change, and at times, persecution. In other words, many of the events detailed in John are not typically believed to be a matter of historical fact. They present an idea of what Jesus’ earthly walk and message represented to those involved in the early Christian movement. While I am confident that many of the events detailed in John’s Gospel actually did occur in some manner, I am equally certain that many of those happenings are faith-based accounts that did not take place as depicted, or occur at all. This does not render those thoughts useless. Nor does it discredit those thoughts from the early Christians who developed them. On the contrary, it provides an even stronger connection to Jesus. After all, if your trusted friend tells you what a great guy I am, those ideas would have much stronger credibility than if I told you that I was a great guy. The same is true here. The fact the Jesus did not go around first century Palestine actually saying, “Believe in me…I am the way!” makes far more sense to me. The thought that those ideas emerged from the early Christian movement do make sense. The notion that they held Jesus’ ideas with such high esteem that they equated them with the Father and that believing in those thoughts would bring about a sense of salvation—that is a very calming and championing ideology. Unfortunately, many in the religious community have taken those thoughts literally for centuries. As a result, they have hardened with the calloused shell of legalism. Christianity has often used those words to create some type of monopolistic hold on God. After all, the message that can be taken from such a literal and legalistic reading of John is that there is only one path to be followed—the Christian path. In other words, all others paths are false. With a new understanding of John and how the book formed, it becomes far easier to embrace the religious paths of those who experience God through various Faiths.

In addition, many scholars feel that the synoptic gospels have been layered to provide the early Christian cause with a strategic platform for growth as the movement formed and advanced. For example, some Christian scholars would argue that the account of Jesus’ birth is not necessarily factual as detailed in Matthew and Luke, but rather a story created to affirm the needs that each author’s gospel addresses. In light of this, Marcus Borg, himself a member of the Jesus Seminar, states that by tracing Jesus’ lineage back to the kings of Israel and with his story of the wise men seeking the one born “King of the Jews,” Matthew is emphasizing Jesus’ kingship to his Jewish audience. Meanwhile, Luke follows Jesus’ genealogy back to the prophets and with his account of the shepherds, it is a story that emphasizes Jesus’ role as a radical social prophet. *3-10 Luke’s intended audience was the Gentiles. Borg also states that these stories do not necessarily have to be believed historically to benefit from their symbolic affirmations. I agree. Factual or not is essentially irrelevant because the information bears great meaning regardless. A specific story need not to have truly taken place exactly as it is told in order for it to display great relevance to an audience.

(To be continued...)