God’s Truth
How did the Bible come to us?
Abstract
© Dr M D Magee
Contents Updated: Sunday, July 25, 1999
Jewish Copyists
Dr Ernest Phibber wants to persuade us that the copying of the original texts of the bible, if not perfect, is so good that it might as well be perfect. The trouble with this argument is that if only one error is conceded by our believers in the infallible bible then it is not infallible. So it does not matter how good the copyists were unless they were perfect. No doubt our mentor will have an answer to this, so to his arguments…
The earliest Old Testament text was only 1000 years old so over a thousand years had gone by—well over a thousand years if you believe Phibber—since the last book of the Old Testament had been written. But soon after the Second World War the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, including copies of the Book of Isaiah, and dating from before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
Immediately, we are struck by the confession of our tutor that one of the two copies of Isaiah found was a better quality product than the other. He has just spent two pages, which I ignored, explaining how meticulous Jewish copyists were, then speaks of copies of different qualities. The reason is, he tells us, that the good one was for a rich synagogue but the poor one for some unimportant people. So God’s truth seems to depend upon relative wealth, proving—if true—that much of what Jesus taught is false since he despised riches.
Nevertheless, the differences between the good and the poor scrolls, Phibber insists, were negligible so that the Hebrew bible is “very, very close indeed to the words that were first written”. Well it is indeed true that the scribes took painstaking care to copy exactly the texts at their disposal but nevertheless there are differences between the good Isaiah text and the Masoretic text now in use by Jews.
What is more, some of the differences in the Dead Sea Scroll are, in fact, in agreement with the Septuagint, the Greek translation which essentially provides the Christian Old Testament. This means that the translators of the Septuagint were translating a variant text of the Hebrew bible proving that there were already differences in the Hebrew texts extant when the Septuagint was made in the couple of centuries before Christ was born.
This is true not only of the Isaiah text which our teacher chooses as an example but also of all the books of the Old Testament which were found at Qumran. Thus in Deuteronomy 32:8 the Masoretic text is:
according to the number of the sons of Israel.
The Christian Revised Version gives it as:
according to the number of the Children of Israel;
but the original Greek has:
according to the number of the angels of God;
or even:
according to the number of the sons of God.
A copy of Deuteronomy at Qumran supports the reading “sons of God” showing that men could be regarded as sons of God, and all men, in this context, not just the Chosen People. This, of course, adds to the possibility that Jesus simply regarded himself as a son of God as any man could—all men were—and not in any sense special to himself. In other words, when he called God his father he was not claiming divinity as Christians have always believed but simply membership of the human race.
Another important difference shown by the Scrolls occurs in Jeremiah. The Jewish version of Jeremiah is much longer than the Christian version. Both versions occur at Qumran. Plainly even 2000 years ago there were two traditional texts of Jeremiah which differed substantially, and not merely as errors of copying.
Yet another example is the story of David and Goliath in Samuel. Again the Masoretic text is much longer than the Christian text but here the Qumran document supports the longer version. The actual story itself is lost but its length can be calculated from the remaining pieces and match the Jewish version. Here it is also that the height of Goliath is given as a mere four cubits and a span (81 inches) compared with the six cubits and a span (117 inches) normally accepted, though even some old Greek texts give the shorter and more reasonable height.
Finally, if our mentor were to look in the New Revised Standard version of the bible he will find at the end of 1 Samuel 10 a verse with no verse number. The reason is that this verse was found in a Scroll but did not occur in any modern version of the bible. If the Holy Ghost inspired the precise words of the biblical books he clearly shirked his follow-up work of ensuring that no parts of the “inspired” writings which emerged were later lost.
Christian Copyists
So much for Jewish copyists but what of Christian copyists. They were not “in the same street as their Jewish colleagues”. But there are a large number of surviving Greek manuscripts and fragments, not to mention thousands of quotations in early Christian non-biblical works. Our guide assures us that by comparing them it is possible to recover a nearly accurate text. Some of the errors were deliberate, our tutor blithely remarks, citing the addition of a reference to the Trinity in 1 John 5:8 now omitted from all modern bibles because it is considered spurious! Accidental errors might be caused by an accidental repetition of a word or passage and its opposite, the eye skipping form a word to the same word elsewhere or a similar word leading to omission of a passage.
Once an error is made, it will be copied by subsequent copyists leading to a family of copies with the same error. The modern scholar can therefore trace these back to the original mistake and correct it. Nevertheless, variant readings still remain and are indicated in good modern bibles by footnotes. “How do these small uncertainties affect the question of inspiration?” asks Phibber in his rhetorical mode. He’ll deal with that later!
First, our guide will explain to us how the canon of biblical books came to be. One school believes that holy books accumulated and then at some juncture the most suitable ones were voted into the set of acceptable ones. Another school believes that the holy writers of the holy books knew they were holy from the start and told all their friends that they were, so the friends also knew they were holy. Eventually, a complete set of holy books accumulated which people knew were holy from the beginning. There were a few dissenters, however, who did not know the whole history of the holy books so, to explain it to them, meetings had to be arranged where it was agreed that they were indeed all holy!
Many people, Phibber tells us, consider only the first of these two theories because they do not believe in miracles. They are “hopelessly prejudiced” against the second theory, and have to cling to the first like drowning men because they have left themselves no alternative. We might add, because it is unsaid, that instead they should be hopelessly prejudiced in favour of the second theory as is our scientifically trained teacher who promises that he will soon be telling us why it is unscientific not to believe in miracles.
Meanwhile, Phibber invites us to consider the historical facts regarding first the Apocrypha. Neither Josephus nor Philo, Ernest tells us, regarded the apocryphal books of the Old Testament as part of the canon. Nor evidently did the writers of the New Testament volumes. By the intertestamental period, some Jews considered the canon to be closed and the books of the Apocrypha, though considered important, were not included in the canon of the Rabbis. Even Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 considers the martyrdom of Zechariah in 2 Chronicles 24:22 as the last of the Old Testament martyrs.
Despite this, the Roman Catholic Church in 1546 AD at the Council of Trent confirmed the Latin Vulgate, which included the Apocrypha, to be the word of God and so the apocryphal works remain in Catholic bibles. Phibber knows that this was a wrong decision, because the apostle Paul in Romans 3:1-2 writes that the Jews were entrusted by God with his oracles (the scriptures) and so only those considered by the Jews to be canonical should be so considered. No Christian Church has any say in the matter. All interesting stuff, one might say, and seemingly arguable. What though of the New Testament?
Oracles of God
Christians consider the New Testament to be no less the oracles of God than the Old. Indeed, they are more important to the Christian because they tell of God’s ultimate sacrifice for the sins of men. Yet when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, if it is in fact a single letter, or even a letter, there was no New Testament. Does the apostle’s declaration apply then to the oracles written afterwards or only to the old oracles. Obviously the Christian who accepts the authority of the Church to alter scripture will say only to the old oracles even though Paul does not say “only to the old oracles”. One would have to conclude that if Paul is speaking authoritatively of the oracles of God then only the Jews have the right to define what they are and therefore the whole of the New Testament is bogus including the letter of Paul to the Romans itself, since they are not accepted by the Jews.
A Christian might argue that Paul writes “they [the Jews] were intrusted with the oracles…” putting the intrusting in the past tense so that they were, but no longer are. The trouble with this is that, if they were no longer entrusted with the oracles when Paul wrote, they were no longer entrusted with them at the Council of Trent blowing Phibber’s argument. If the Jews were not entrusted with the guardianship of God’s infallible words then who else could be but the Christians and who among them but the Church of Rome. Since our guide is a great believer in explaining anything by the intervention of the Holy Ghost why should the Holy Ghost not be at work here? It’s all getting very tortuous again, isn’t it?
Anyway, let us move on with Phibber to the canon of the New Testament. He explains that, of the 27 New Testament books, all but Hebrews, Revelation, the letters of James and Jude, the second letters of Peter and John and the third letter of John were all accepted as canonical by Christians at an early date—before 150 AD. As if to play down the problem of the omitted books, our guide tells us that they are only small books—oh! er! except the first two!
Then, continuing to play down the problem, he points out that the Church in those days was not a close knit community and communications were poor, so some marginal churches might have taken the wrong line. Even the Roman Church, he tells us, accepted Hebrews as canonical at an early date, then rejected it, then re-admitted it into the canon. Finally, we know only what the views of the church leadership were. The views of the rank-and-file, which might have been correct, are not known. So true! It is, however, not convincing to this skeptical critic that the Holy Ghost was doing a very efficient job of safeguarding God’s Holy word to allow it to be tossed around in this unseemly way. No doubt Phibber has an answer.
He now invites us to consider what the bible has to say on the matter. It is that the original testament was given by God to Moses and since then additions have been made each of which was considered to be the word of God until Malachi ended it. Our teacher does not explain why books which were considered important enough to be quoted by some of these writers were not good enough to be included in the canon.
Anyway, he goes on again to consider the New Testament evidence for the New Testament canon. (Puzzled?) Jesus taught his Twelve and after many years they suddenly realised that God was opening his book again. A New Testament was to be added! Proof was that Paul in 1 Timothy 5:18 refers to Deuteronomy 25:4 and a passage which seems to be a quotation from Luke (Lk 10:7) both as “scripture”. Reference to Paul’s epistles and “other scriptures” in 2 Peter is also cited as evidence that the writings of the apostles were accepted by each other as new scripture.
In 1 Corinthians 14:37, Paul claims directly that his own writings are the commandments of the Lord. It goes without saying that Paul always claimed to have a direct line to God in his aspect of Jesus at any rate. So the latter claim would not surprise any disbeliever.
Direct Line to God
A former Chief Constable of Manchester claimed to have a direct line to God not too many years ago. Most people considered him deluded—he had a mission to clear up wickedness. So too did the notorious prostitute murderer, the Yorkshire Ripper, whose direct line from God told him to rid the world of loose women. As a consequence a lot of women, loose or respectable, had their heads stove in by a pein-hammer. Today people have a healthy skepticism toward those claiming to speak for God. It is much safer when those with the direct line are dead and deified or canonised!
The example from Timothy could only come from someone who needs no evidence to believe the canon of the New Testament is God given. Many, perhaps most, scholars doubt that 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus were even written by Paul. Paul is considered to have died under the persecutions of Nero before Luke had even written his gospel. Both references—to a labourer being worthy of his hire—have the air of a common saying, and this is probably the origin of both references.
The other reference is to 2 Peter which, again, anyone other than someone who is besotted by his beliefs would consider to be an example of Christian pseudepigraphy. In other words, someone wrote it as if it were a letter of Peter’s to give it more kudos. In any case, we are arguing the evidence for the choice of the Christian canon so how can we admit as evidence for it mutual backslapping by these early Christian authors.
“Christians do not reason they believe”, said Celsus. The whole of these arguments prove it. They are not, in general, arguments. They say:
The bible says it is the inspired word of God, so it is!
Our tutor explains that the Holy Ghost endowed some men with the ability to distinguish between true apostles and imposters. Implicitly our guide is one of the able ones, as was Peter, Paul and John in the bible. John, if he is the author of Revelation, called the others liars and Paul complained (2 Thess 2:2) that they were writing bogus letters in his name! There was evidently a dispute between different factions within the early church, but how do we know the right faction won?
Phibber will insist that the Holy Ghost would make sure of it. But these bible thumpers also tell us that we must resist the power of the Devil which is very strong. How do they know that the Devil did not win and has had control of us all for the last 2000 years because honest folk have been deceived?
Our guide has a simplistic faith that somehow, presumably the work of the Holy Ghost, “detectors” could distinguish true gospels from false ones. Smashing! But what if our “scientist” is mistaken in his believe in a miraculous “Holy Ghost” controlling everything? What indeed if the “Holy Ghost” turns out to be the Devil himself pulling the wool over the eyes of the innocent as is his wont? And all these years Christians have believed it!
There was an early heresy of Christianity called Gnosticism which taught that the world was actually controlled by the Devil and the good among the inhabitants of earth had to learn how to appeal to a higher being, the True God, to obtain deliverance. Surely that ties in better with the events in the world in the last 2000 years than the kingdom of God.
Anyway, having convinced us that the canon was God inspired, Phibber now returns to the problem of the introduction of errors subsequent to acceptance in the canon. But first we must endure yet another homely homily about science. This takes about a page and amounts to this. Mathematics is an exact science. We may make simplifying assumptions but we remain confident that the underlying principles are correct. So it is with the bible.
Absolutely Correct
Phibber assures us that as long as we are sure the original bible is absolutely correct because God wrote it through his aspect of the Holy Ghost then a few subsequent copying errors should not trouble us. If in Luke 24:42 some manuscripts tell us that Jesus ate fish and other manuscripts tell us that Jesus ate fish and honeycomb, the difference does not matter. The vital fact is, apparently, that he ate something. You must believe the original was the inspired word of God but it does not matter that now we are not sure what he ate.
The same applies to minor uncertainties of translation. When we read “testament” in the New Testament we are reading a rendering of a word which could also be rendered “covenant”. The word “covenant” is commonly used in the Old Testament leading one to believe that it might be the better word to use. But our guide maintains it does not matter. Both are solemn legal promises. The only difference is that a covenant applies both ways whereas a testament is bequeathed one way. That is an entirely appropriate difference since Paul has taught us that the salvation of God is His own gift which cannot be earned, whereas the Jews have always believed that their covenant with God was a contract which required them to be righteous to earn salvation.
In truth, the correct word is “covenant”, the word used by the Essenes—from whom sprang Christianity—who had a New Covenant with God not a New Testament. “Testament” has been universally chosen in English translations to distinguish Christianity from its Jewish origins.
Now Phibber moves on to the thorny question of interpretation. “Is it really true that you can interpret the bible to mean anything you like?” he asks. Unfortunately he does not really answer it but we can assume that he means the answer to be “No” both from the manner of the question and from common sense. In fact, Dr Ernest Phibber concedes that some parts of the bible need to be interpreted. If it did not people would regard it as “shallow”, he believes. But most of the bible does not need interpretation—no more at any rate than the average non-fiction book. So when misinterpretation occurs and leads to terrible things it is because the “Devil can quote scripture to serve his own ends”! Ha! Isn’t that what I said a few paragraphs above, and that believers that it is the infallible word of God ignore at their peril?
But, our teacher tells us, anyone who deliberately distorts scripture for his own ends risks the loss of their hope for eternal life! Well, despite most of the bible being unambiguous and these awful threats of the loss of eternal life, our tutor knows that often the bible has been used—to Phibber, misinterpreted—to justify the most unbelievably cruel practices. “Not the fault of the bible”, he says. “Put the blame where it belongs”. He doesn’t say where. It can only be the users of it.
The torturing of heretics during the inquisition was justified by the scriptures, but that was wrong. The perpetuation of the slave system was justified by scripture, but that too was wrong. It was all because these people, including the bishops and prelates who supported them, did not know their bible! “Scripture-quoting devils do not deceive people who are well acquainted with the scripture. That is why the devil who quoted scripture at Jesus got nowhere”.
But surely, you might argue, the many Christian denominations prove that there is a huge problem of interpretation. Phibber is ready for that one. It is because none of them have ever sat down and decided which denomination comes closest to the teaching of scripture. Most people are born into a religion and others join one or other religion for pragmatic reasons rather than ones of belief. Our mentor does not tell us how he came to his own decision, but he recommends us to read the bible diligently, believe what it tells us and live up to its high standards. Sounds simple enough but I have met an immediate problem. Is it a high standard to be rude?
The mother of Jesus is anxious because he is missing and eventually finds him in the Temple (Lk 2:49). His response to her is, “Why are you looking for me? You should have known where I would be”. By my standards that is rude, though I know that by modern standards it is normal behaviour for children. My guess, however, would be that by Jewish standards, parents having to be respected, it was rude. Christians have never seen anything in it, but the boy Jesus is not obeying God’s commandments—he is not honouring his father and his mother (Deut 5:16); his heavenly father maybe but not his mother or his surrogate or practical father, Joseph. No doubt, Christians believe that God in his guise of the Son of God can do whatever he likes, including breaking his own commandments. After all, who will punish him?
In Luke 11:28, Jesus is again disdainful of his mother when someone in a crowd calls out, “Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the breasts which thou didst suck”, and Jesus replied, “On the contrary, blessed are they that hear the word of the Lord, and keep it”. This is an echo of Luke 8:19-21 when Jesus is told that his mother and brethren are outside and, showing a total lack of interest, he replies, “My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God and do it”. In Luke 14:26, Jesus urges his disciples to hate their fathers and mothers, wives and children, brethren and sisters. Similar sentiments are expressed in Luke 12:53. These are only the examples from Luke. It seems that Jesus did not think much of his family and did not disguise it, if the gospels are to be believed. Are these high standards?
Our analytical scientific tutor fails to see that there are many things in the bible that need interpretation and it is no good saying that correct interpretation can be obtained by a thoroughgoing knowledge of the scriptures. He seems to be calling for a miraculous knowledge of them.
I have just been taught from several passages of Luke to disdain my parents and siblings. No doubt our teacher would be able to explain that the meaning, suitably interpreted, is quite different. But most people, including Christians, are not academics. They do not have the time to examining every verse of the bible to decide whether it contradicts the conclusion they have arrived at or God’s words written somewhere else. Even if they did, they would have to balance the one against the other and come to a conclusion. That, professor Phibber, is what interpretation is! Our professor cannot see this despite his qualifications whether genuine or purchased, because, for him, the interpretation is clear. It is bound to be—it is his interpretation, and that is the correct one. Dr Ernest Phibber is about as scientific as Marx—Groucho Marx.
