More than being a fundamentalist or a liberal, I really hope to be loving…I don’t live up to it most of the time, but I hope and wish that the word loving or understanding could more often be attached to Christians. “Right” or “Arrogant” seems to be more the ticket. And although we both hold a very high view of truth…truth without love doesn’t seem to get me anywhere…my daughters help to point that out to me daily.

I am no scholar myself but I am somewhat sympathetic to this view. As it stands, 16:8 ends with ‘gar’, a conjunction; you just don’t end a story, especially long narrative-historic stories with a conjunction - even the choppiness of Mark’s Greek is not enough to overlook this glaring oddity. Also, the trajectory of Mark is clearly toward another meeting with Jesus in Galilee (14:28, 16:7), which Mark never gets to.

On the other stuff, I’d comment if I weren’t so tired, but 1 John 5:7-8 is my favorite example of church meddling in the affairs of Scriptural text.

You asked, “Who are you talking to really?” I think that a lot of the readers of this site, especially those who know me personally, are dictation-view fundamentalists. That’s what I was as a leader at Campus Christian Fellowship and as a minister in the Independent Christian Church. Wouldn’t you say that this was also the view of several people in the leadership at CCF, including Joe Belzer? I don’t think it’s strange for me to address this view. I’m happy that you and Peter have joined in the discussion. I didn’t expect either of you to find these passages surprising or concerning, but if I had seen this list during my fundamentalist days it would have made me think twice about my view of the Bible.

It’s good that you two have explained why these passages don’t cause problems for your opinion of the Bible. Some people are probably afraid that investigating the history of the Bible and asking questions will lead to a total loss of faith. I don’t think it has to and you guys are proof of that. As much as I would like to see people come to the same conclusion that I have, I still enjoy seeing people move from fundamentalism to a more moderate, reasonable Christianity.

You mentioned “divine guidance” as a factor in the formation of the early church’s theology. I find it strange that a god would give that sort of guidance to people and yet allow the supposedly inspired texts themselves express such different views. And why didn’t God provide guidance in the transmission of the text? And why such a light touch? If a god is really working in the world, then it seems to be very careful to make all those interventions undetectable. Why would a god purposely give the impression that he doesn’t interact with the world?

You’re right: Even with a manuscript written in 40 CE with all of the doctrines fully developed, I still wouldn’t find that to be convincing proof that Jesus was God. Add in the fact that the manuscripts we have came 100 years later and were being changed (and the fact that it was fairly common for people at that time to believe that one human or another was a god) and I feel even more confident rejecting the idea that Jesus was God.

What if we actually had a manuscript definitively dated from 40 AD or so (I know…it couldn’t be any book from the New Testament which was mostly written later), which claimed that Jesus rose from the dead and repeated most of the stories in the Gospels (even in John). Sure, this would mess with our ideas of textual transmission and maybe cause scholars to revise our notions of when certainly theologies became widespread, but it still wouldn’t really be incontrovertible evidence that the documents told the truth. Joseph Smith wrote his account of the encounter with the angel Moroni(sp?) within years of when he claims the event took place, but you and I still don’t believe him (I assume). I love talking about textual criticism, but it doesn’t really seem to be very strong evidence for or against the historicity of the events the text records.

I guess I’m sort of like Peter. I know most of the facts you cite above, and I wouldn’t contest them. They don’t really bother me or most of the Christians I hang out with (we actually discuss these textual questions in small group Bible study from time to time), so I guess I’m not really your audience…but then who are you talking to really? Maybe there are some hard-core dictational-view fundamentalists who read this blog or who will stumble on it, but I think they’re more likely to find ye olde Blog Cabin when they search for “Top worship songs,” and then they’ll be content to hang out back in 2004, unaware that there are any other posts on this blog, calling Sara and the rest of us deceived heathens.

I think you’d still strongly disagree, though, with my (and I assume Peter’s) view on the big issues you cite: “the identity of Jesus, the doctrine of the Trinity and the meaning of the death of Jesus.” These are understandings, I think, which one would get if you read the whole of the texts which would have been approved by the original authors (ok, maybe not a fully developed notion of the Trinity, but something sort of like it). No, not every Gospel writer had a completely developed theology…they were too close to the events and still working them out. But through evaluation by the interpretive community and (I believe) with divine guidance, the original audiences compared notes and came to an interpretation that more closely resembled the truth. This is why I’m not all that worried about (early) scribal intervention. Making a “playlist” of your favorite writings as a form of authorship was pretty common in the early days of book making. It’s clear to me that John is a collaborative book. The usual view today is that it was compiled by the “Johanian community” based on John’s teachings (as you say, the ending speaks in the third person of the one who wrote these things). Likewise, Mark has always been seen as a collaboration between, at least, Mark and Peter. Luke admits from the start that his book is a compilation of eye-witness accounts.

I think your worry is that the original intent (a very hard to decipher idea) was seriously obscured by later scribal emendation. I really don’t think this is likely given just how many copies we have and how willing most scribes were to leave the weird stuff in. A good editor would have cut out the prophesies about the end of days coming 40 years after Jesus’s death if they wanted to clean things up…or at least fixed the inconsistencies about who got to the tomb first (and made sure it wasn’t a bunch of women). But these, in most manuscripts, are allowed to stand.

2. I always try to reference Footprints. I used to annoy people by saying it was my favorite Psalm. It’s funny when people buy a Bible cover with that poem embroidered on it. At least they’re being honest that that’s the lens through which they are reading.

3. No props for “Scribe of the Gaps"? 21 is not quite a post-resurrection appearance like the others that close out 20, and it fits a different purpose (as you point out in the original post). There is a bit of a stop and start there, but I think of it more like a fade to black followed by an epilogue.

4. Could be a decent explanation if it pans out, but the point is that there isn’t evidence presented here for that yet. To be true to your epistemological values, I think judgment ought to have been reserved. Otherwise, you appear to make judgments in favor of your preexisting beliefs before sufficient evidence is considered.

5. True. I should look into that.

6. I would say that most doctrine finds its foundation, but not its full expression, in the New Testament. So the decision of various Councils and the writings of so many theologians work out the logic of the NT in faithful ways. Obviously, some doctrines are more central than others, and therefore deserve greater attention. Also, saying “the early church didn’t agree” when you’re referring to the Gnostics and other sects assigns these groups a place within the church that even some of the NT writers did not want them to have.

7. About the time between original autographs and extant manuscripts: It becomes difficult to know what we can say with certainty about the past. At some point in questioning the historical foundations of the New Testament you reach a point where you can no longer say anything meaningful about any history from that time period. The point is that disbelieving the NT because of its theological implications is not necessarily good historical work, nor is it consistent. I think NT Wright made the point once that the one unquestionable historical fact (the invasion of Rome, I believe) comes from a passage laden with tales of dreams and visions. Unless an atheist wrote, you’re not going to find the kind of theologically neutral history that you seem to seek–whether you’re considering the NT or other historical documents. Finally, why would anyone become a scribe unless they were motivated by their religious convictions? You seem to suggest that the only scribe you would trust is one who would dedicate some portion of his life to copying documents he did not believe to be true but thought it would be historically interesting to preserve for later antiquity. That’s pretty anachronistic and highly unlikely.

8. About fundamentalism: I think I see your point. I normally read your posts as if you and I are sitting across the table from one another (with one game or another in between us), so I typically imagine that you are trying to convince me. And maybe you are; after all, I may not be causing as much harm, but perhaps a little?

Thanks for weighing in.

1. We’ve had this discussion before. The Jesus Seminar probably has a more theologically conservative approach to the text than I do, so forgive me if I don’t agree with their assessment. Paul’s poetic formula probably did precede the stories that Mark used, but let’s not forget that Paul’s principal claim to knowledge about Jesus was from a vision. If Mark knew about the post-resurrection appearance stories and believed them himself, then it is very strange that he didn’t include them. Is it possible that Mark knew nothing of Paul or the appearance stories and told the version of the story that was accepted where he was writing? How do you account for the abrupt ending of Mark?

2. Fair enough.

3. I went out of my way to say that there’s no manuscript evidence for the addition of John 21. I’m not sure how the addition theory is “damaging to faith.” It’s already well established that several changes were introduced to the text. You’re not disagreeing with that, are you? Yes, #3 is speculation based on a very strange transition between chapters 20 and 21. Do you have a more plausible explanation for that transition?

4. I didn’t come up with this theory, so it’s not based in a “general lay reading of church history.” As I point out at the end of the article, most of the ideas I’m presenting are from Bart Ehrman and his book Misquoting Jesus. He agrees that there are several theories (then and now) about the death of Jesus. He’s connecting this change in the text (sorry, he doesn’t give specific manuscripts or I would give them to you) with a theological debate. I think it’s a decent explanation for the change in the text. You’re right that the scribes often changed texts to make them match other parts of the Bible. Even if that’s all that was going on here, it still ends up introducing a theological idea (Jesus died for you) that doesn’t fit in with Luke.

5. Ehrman makes this case better than I did. He notes that the passion accounts show Jesus reacting to the whole ordeal in very different ways. And if Luke was actually copying text from Mark and leaving out certain attributes, then that has to tell us something about how the author of Luke saw Jesus.

6. You’re right, that was a sloppy sentence. I changed it. It wasn’t intentional. I still think the doctrine of the Trinity is foreign to the NT. The early church didn’t even all agree whether Jesus was a god, so there wasn’t a need to dream up something as strange as the Trinity for another few centuries.

I’m not impressed with the manuscripts being within 100 years, especially when the people transmitting it were motivated more out of religious devotion than out of a desire to faithfully transmit the text. I think we should and do ask these questions about any ancient text. I do call into question other ancient documents. But the interval between the events and the oldest manuscript is not the only measure of accuracy.

Yes, Peter, I’m responding to a religious doctrine that is very important in this country, in my social circle and in my own personal experience. I can’t respond to every view of the Bible in one article. If you want to post a clear statement of your beliefs about the Bible, I’ll try to respond to that, but I won’t apologize for making it a priority to deal with the teachings that I know best and that are doing real harm in the world today.

“You can’t attack the most rigid standard that is not all that widely held among theologians and reasonably expect to convince people that the Christian faith is purely human invention.” I can and I do. As you probably know, most people in the pews of fundamentalist churches don’t give a good goddamn about what non-fundamentalist theologians think. I know that there are plenty of people like you who have a more reasonable view of the Bible and of religion in general. I don’t spend as much ink on your ilk because I don’t think you’re causing as much harm.

2. A nice story, yes. John does read much better without it, but it is hard to get rid of. Would be nice to know if it actually happened–that would be cause for keeping it. I rank it somewhere below the rest of the Gospels material, but still quite above, say, that “Footprints” poem.

3. Your hunch is that this is an addition, but there is no textual evidence. This sounds like a “Scribe of the Gaps” theory to me. Your preference for the version of the story that you deem most damaging to faith is directing your conclusions. Now at least you can admit that you’re doing what everyone else does with the texts, just in the opposite direction? At any rate, the third person allusion to the author is actually in keeping with the verse just above (21.20-23), which is similar to other passages in John’s Passion account (20.3ff, 19.26-27, 18.15ff, 13.22ff).

4. To make your point that this was added to bolster one side in a theological controversy, you would need to trace the manuscripts down, date them, and see if there is any evidence whatsoever to make this claim. Perhaps there is. But a general lay reading of church history is not nearly enough evidence for your conclusions. That Luke doesn’t make Jesus’ death out to be a sacrifice for sins is easy enough to understand, since he was writing to Gentiles and the language of sacrifice would not have been as powerful to them. But there are many other atonement theories than just the image of sacrifice, and it is incorrect to suggest that only the sacrificial understanding sees Jesus’ death as salvific. Finally, it does not seem all that uncommon for a scribe to go on “autopilot” and accidentally introduce familiar language into a passage where it does not originate. The passage from 1 Corinthians 11 seems to have been then what it is now: a formula that was often recited during communion.

5. Again, to actually make (rather and suggest) this claim, you would need to trace the manuscripts to the dates and places of these controversies. I think Luke is clear enough that Jesus was human–he is one of only two that speaks about his birth and early life, he mentions that he was hungry after fasting, he feels strongly for a widow whose sons had died, etc.

6. “All Bible scholars now recognize that this passage was inserted to improve the case for the doctrine of the Trinity, an idea which is otherwise foreign to the New Testament.” A nice way of linking scholarly consensus on a point of textual criticism to a conclusion that you, and not “all Bible scholars,” believe–that Trinitarian doctrine was invented after the NT was finished. There need to be some clearer divisions between the data and your interpretation, but we all have that problem.

You ask the question later, What else will we find out about what was changed in those first 100 years? That obscures the fact that getting manuscripts within 100 years of their originals is better than pretty much every other ancient document. If we can be sure that any document from antiquity has been faithfully preserved, the New Testament stands first in line–indeed, you can only criticize the changes by the overwhelming presence of reliable manuscripts. To call into question their reliability would call into question even more the other ancient documents we have. In terms of historical certainty, we would have to give up quite a bit of what we consider history.

It seems like you are trying to refute the dictation theory of inspiration. So what? That may be the way that you thought of inspiration while you were a Christian, but that doesn’t mean that it’s the only way to believe, and it certainly doesn’t mean that it is a widely held belief throughout the centuries and across the world. The dictation theory has a standard of faithfulness that is different from other ideas of how the NT has come to us. You can’t attack the most rigid standard that is not all that widely held among theologians and reasonably expect to convince people that the Christian faith is purely human invention.