The History of the Bible: Part 1 (of 3)

Is the Bible the Word of God?  That is a question that only faith can answer.  Is the Bible we have today an accurate representation of what its authors originally wrote?  That is a question that evidence can prove.  The Bible is by far the most well attested ancient document with a rich manuscript history and a fascinating story of ordinary people who rose to the occasion to protect it, or sank to the depths to try to keep it from the people.  It is a story of hand-written copies, and a story of translation efforts from the original Greek and Hebrew.  This three part series will open the door to the much larger subject of the history of the text of the Bible, its preservation and transmission from the ancient world to the plethora of English Bibles that we have available to us today.  Along the way, it will help answer questions about the reliability of our text, the affect that variants have upon our confidence in the text, as well the reasons why we have so many translations in English today.

            There are skeptics who don’t believe that we can have any confidence that our text is the same as what was originally written. Amazingly, they agree with the essential facts of history that the Bible’s manuscript tradition is rich and ancient, sadly, they draw opposite conclusion from this evidence and end up with nothing but doubt. There are “perfect” Bible zealots who have complete confidence in one particular translation of our text, made 400 years ago, who are immune to evidence because their belief in the text of the Bible is a matter of faith not facts.  Both of these groups think that ordinary Christians will have their faith destroyed if they learn the truth about the history of the Bible, they’re both wrong.  The Word of God has been handed down to each new generation throughout the history of the Church, and that story is something that every Christian should want to know.

Parts 2 & 3 to follow (previous versions already available via the History of the Bible tab at the top of the web page) next week and the week after.

Sermon Video: How does the Gospel of Mark end? - Mark 16:9-20

Aside from a sentence about snakes and the drinking of poison, the 'Long Ending' of the Gospel of Mark has parallels in Matthew and Luke. That continuity turns the question of the authenticity of the surviving ending to Mark from one of theological significance to one of educated opinions. After briefly discussing the evidence for and against the originality of vs. 9-20, the sermon shifts to look at the text itself, noting the continuity it has with other passages of scripture.

Why Christians should care about the work of CSNTM

I would imagine that most pastors, let alone most Christians, are unfamiliar with the work of CSNTM (gotta love acronyms).  The Center For The Study Of New Testament Manuscripts is an organization founded by noted New Testament manuscript expert, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace (a personal favorite) in 2002.  What does CSNTM do?  The organization's mission is to utilize emerging technologies to preserve and study Greek New Testament manuscripts. Since then, CSNTM has collaborated with more than forty institutions on four continents to produce hundreds of thousands of images of New Testament manuscripts. In the process, CSNTM has discovered dozens of New Testament manuscripts. - From the About page of the CSNTM Website
What is the importance of this work?  By cataloging surviving NT manuscripts, and digitally preserving them, CSNTM is helping to add further depth and breadth to our understanding of the original autographs of the NT. 
Why don't we just look at the originals?  Easy enough to answer, they no longer exist.  No autograph (original from the hand of the author) of any ancient document {excluding those carved in stone, not exactly an option for the entire NT) has survived to the modern age.  Time, wear and tear, natural disasters, and deliberate destruction (think marauding barbarians gleefully setting fire to libraries) have seen to that. 
What do we have then?  Around 5,800 NT manuscripts (some whole, some very fragmentary) in Greek, 10,000 in Latin and 9,300 in various other languages (the non-Greek being translations, still useful, but not as much as those in the original language, Greek).  The further beauty of CSNTM is that they have discovered, cataloged, and digitally photographed 90 previously undocumented NT manuscripts.  In other words, the surviving evidence of the original NT text is getting stronger thanks to this work.
How is the work of CSNTM utilized?  Scholars are able to remotely study individual manuscripts much easier than finding them and gaining permission to view them, without risk of damaging this delicate ancient documents.  In addition, the printed Greek text that underpins nearly all English translations (exceptions being the KJV and NKJV which use the Textus Receptus, and the Douay-Rheims based on the Latin Vulgate {the Catholic Bible, based on Jerome's 4th century translation into Latin}) is today the Nestle-Aland's 28th Edition or the United Bible Societies' 5th Edition both of which are in a continual process of being updated to take advantage of new discoveries and new scholarship (like that of CSNTM) to further refine the 99% accuracy of our current text.

For further study, check out my 6 hour lecture on the History of the English Bible (located conveniently at this blog), where I delve into the history of the copying by hand of the NT, the advent of printed editions, and the translation work that brought the Bible from its original hand copied Hebrew and Greek manuscripts to our printed English texts today.

Why the history of the Bible should matter to you.

In two weeks I will finish teaching my seminar on the history of the Bible for the sixth time in the past three years.  I am thankful for each chance that I have had to share the history of how the modern English Bible came to be, from its original Greek and Hebrew autographs to our text today.  An article on today's local newspaper (a syndicated column in the religion page) illustrated to me once again the need for an accurate understanding of the Bible based in historical fact not fantasy.  The two columnists were asked to answer the question, "Why are there so many arguments about what's in the Bible?"  An excellent question, unfortunately this particular question was put to two men who don't actually believe in the Bible, a dubious start to an answer.  The first of the two is an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; a Mormon.  Mormons believe that the canon of scripture remains open, that new revelation continues to occur.  The Elder, after referencing "errors" in the modern text, offers up the solution of instead consulting the new revelation of the Book of Mormon (among other new texts).  In the end, a non-Christian Mormon perspective advocates for turning away from the Bible instead of answering the question at hand; not overly helpful.
The second columnist is a pastor of a congregation, but in his attack on the Biblical text, which I will quote shortly, he makes error after error of outright historical falsehoods, all while positing that the Biblical text today is more/less worthless for anything other than being a "moral compass".  The pastor, whose name I will omit so as to not make this personal, claimed that the Bible "has been tweaked, touched up, added to and deleted from to fit the viewpoints of the ruling class as well as serve the personal interest of religious authorities."  There's just one problem with this oft-repeated conspiracy theory, it has no basis in history.  Manuscripts of the Bible have been uncovered, lost in the Egyptian desert since the 2nd and 3rd century, that confirm the accuracy of the hand copied manuscripts (in their thousands, over 5,000 total copies have survived) that supposedly went through this revision.  Why have there been zero new readings found in the recently uncovered manuscripts, does he really believe that the Church changed these copies as well?  And how would they have done so, when there were copies of the text being made all over the Mediterranean world by countless copyists?  Historical fantasy of conspiracies does not make them real.
The line that really made me understand that this particular pastor's education has been sorely lacking in the history of the Bible was this, "It is important to remember, when we read the Bible today we are reading a translation of a translation of a translation in a language that didn't exist when the original Bible was written."  He is absolutely right that English didn't exist when the Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew.  The rest of the sentence is so laughably inaccurate as to be akin to claiming the moon landing was faked.  The modern English Bible (and the not-so-modern KJV as well) is a direct translation from the original Greek and Hebrew with no intermediary languages involved.  The KJV is based upon Erasmus' 16th century printed Greek text, the modern translations (NIV, NASB, ESV, etc.) are all based upon the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society eclectic text which takes into consideration all of the over 5,000 surviving Greek manuscripts to determine the most accurate original reading.  If you don't understand a simple fact such as how the Bible was translated from its original languages into English, how can I take seriously anything else you say?  The line following that whopper was this, "Scholars agree there are more than 20,000 inconsistencies in the Bible as the result of different people with different viewpoints."  Another ludicrous figure pulled out of a hat to fit the pre-supposition that the Bible is a product of men not God.
When I looked up the columnist's church on the internet, I was not surprised to find that it is a Universalist Church built upon "Spiritual Principles"; Jesus is nowhere to be found on their website, evidently not a part of the equation.
Why does it matter that pastors and the laity know the history of the Bible?  If the faith of the Apostles, and the actual teaching of Christ matter to you, then so does the history of the Word of God.  The world has plenty of people willing to reject the Bible and search for answers elsewhere, we have nothing to fear from the truth, the history of the Bible is plain and clear for all to see, only ignorance.

King James (or TR) Onlyism as a logical syllogism

In order for a logical syllogism to be valid, all premises must be true, and the conclusion must be forced by the premises.  With that in mind, and knowing that many KJV (TR) Only advocates will howl at the idea that something they take on faith is evaluated on the basis of logic, I offer this:

1. The Bible promises that God will preserve his Word

2. The only possible definition of preserve is "perfection"

3. The only text that is "perfect" is the KJV (TR).

The first premise is entirely true.  God did promise to preserve his Word.
The second premise is an interpretation of Scripture, that can be debated, as all interpretations must be, it is not correct by the standards of Church history to say that it MUST be the only interpretation.
The conclusion can no longer be valid, since the 2nd premise is untrue, but even if it was, the conclusion is not a result of the first two premises.  There is nothing different about the KJV (TR) from any other text or translation that sets it apart as "perfect".  Advocates of that position will claim otherwise, will make their chosen favorite the standard by which all others are judged, but they cannot escape the clear facts of history, and must in the end retreat into saying that their position MUST be taken by faith (with all the dire consequences of apostasy heaped upon those who disagree).

There is a lot of confusion, name calling, tangents that have nothing to do with the main issue, and outright lies being spread about this issue within the Church.  It is enough to make the head of an ordinary lay person spin, and not a few pastors as well.  But, in the end, everything comes back to premise #2 and the desperate attempt to prove that the KJV (or TR) satisfies that standard.

The sad thing is, none of this is necessary, we have an amazingly, providentially, preserved Word of God, living and active, powerful and mighty, available to us in English in an array of sound and beneficial choices.  Not only that, but this entire discussion relegates God's work through his Word among the other peoples of the world to sideshow, when in reality God's work among the English speaking peoples, and the Western cultures is but one part of his amazing work all over the world.  Everyday the percentage of Christians reading the Bible in English shrinks because the number of Christians reading it in other languages is growing by leaps and bounds!

An evaluation of the TR (and/or KJV) Only position's presuppositions

The presuppositions of the TR Only position, which for the most part match up with those of the KJV Only position seem to be as follows: (1) That the Bible’s passages on the preservation of Scripture require a “perfect” Bible, anything less makes God a liar and is thus a perversion of Scripture. (2) That the definition of “perfect” envisioned by this viewpoint can allow for no textual criticism, no revisions, no corrections of the text.  {Some of the KJV Only would add “no variants” to this list}(3) That other than the original autographs, this “perfect” example of Scripture exists only in the TR (or KJV). 

Let us for a moment assume each proposition to be true and see what the results would be. (1) If the passages of Scripture about preservation require a “perfect” Bible, they do not in any way indicate which text that would be.  Since it must be available in every generation, it must have first existed in the Hebrew manuscripts (aside from the Dead Sea Scrolls, all of which were lost prior to the Middle Ages), then in the Greek manuscripts, although it could only be in one text type, but without the original autographs there is no basis for choosing one and only one text type as the “perfect” text when the only thing we have to compare them to is each other. (2) If no textual criticism is to be allowed, and how can it be when the text is “perfect”, there is no ability to answer the clear evidence of a text which changed over time, with additions and corrections, throughout its history (NT in particular given the wealth of manuscripts we have of it).  If the text was already “perfect” and needed to remain “perfect” each and every generation, it could not change, at all, not even a single word.  Yet that is not the history of the manuscripts.  By comparing one generation of them to another, in any text type, this becomes clear, copyists made mistakes, both intentional and accidental that became accepted (for at least a time, by an unsuspecting Church).  But if God’s power and veracity stands or falls based upon an unchanging text, the only possible explanation is to ignore history and evidence and claim that the text must be taken on faith no matter what (that’s Sam Gipp’s stated position, any fault in the KJV, even typographical mistakes of the printer, are to be ignored and the result taken on faith). (3)  Who is the authority, Scripture is certainly silent about which future text will be the “perfect” one and which will be the corrupted ones, that determines that the TR, and only the TR (and hence the KJV) are to be deemed perfect over and against the Byzantine text, the Alexandrian, the Majority (which will always represent the Byzantine as the number of those manuscripts is such a clear majority), or the Eclectic blending of all sources?  Who designated Erasmus as the final authority on the preservation of Scripture, who sanctified his work and declared it without error?  Keep in mind, that Erasmus himself made significant changes to his printed editions with each new one, as did Stephanus and Beza after him.

In the end, I see no compelling reason to belief that we MUST believe any of those suppositions, if a TR Only (or KJV Only) advocate wishes to tweak them somewhat, fine, but the primary issues remain.  The Scriptures do promise preservation, but are silent as to how that will occur and by what agency, The text tradition does include many variants, all of them do, there are no perfect manuscript traditions, even within Erasmus’ exceedingly limited number of manuscripts representing one text tradition, there were variants that he had to sort out by doing textual criticism.  Lastly, the only way that the TR, and only the TR, can be elevated to such a status is an appeal to tradition or authority, both of which were supposed to be rejected by the Reformers, to resurrect them now would be a disservice to the ideals of men like Tyndale, Luther, and Calvin.

If you need a good laugh, watch Sam Gipp's, "What the big deal about the KJV?" video

I needed a macabre laugh today so I re-watched "Dr." Sam Gipp's "What's the Big Deal about the KJV?" video.  From the very first scene, this 40 minute video is one ridiculous example after another of the worst KJV Onlyism set in a fake college setting where "professor" Gipp enlightens his students about the "perfect" Word of God.  Straw Men abound, as per usual, as well as illogical argument like this: The KJV is from Antioch through the TR (not actually true, the 6 manuscripts Erasmus had were medieval Byzantine copies, but let that go for a minute), the Eclectic Critical text ("you should know that there's a problem right there when they say their text is critical", as if the term Biblical Criticism was somehow an evil practice, forget that Erasmus, the father of the TR engaged in Biblical Criticism, as did the translation team utilizing Tyndale, the Bishop's Bible, and Erasmus to put together the KJV and every other copyists or translator) is from Alexandria (Of course this too isn't true, the Modern Critical text utilizes all of the manuscripts Western, Alexandrian, and Byzantine, far more of them {5,500+ vs. 6} than the TR, plus Church Fathers, and other early translations).  Gipp then explains that Antioch is where the followers of Jesus were first called Christians, that must mean it is a holy place of all goodness and its manuscripts are perfect (forget that heresies also came from Antioch, such as Monothelitism and Nestorianism), and Egypt is always called a bad place in the Bible (forget for a moment, "Out of Egypt I called my son"), thus Alexandria is written off as a place full of heretics whose manuscripts must therefore be 100% corrupt.  FYI, Guilt by Association, even weak association, is a favorite KJV Only tactic.  (Such as labeling anything they don't like "Catholic" as if that somehow ruins and taints whatever person or manuscript they need to discredit).

Everything goes downhill from there, including a hilarious scene where Gipp has a Bible study group read Psalm 23 in half a dozen different translations to show them the "confusion" that results, as if unison reading not lining up somehow proves anything.  Another favorite "proof" of Gipp is that the Modern Critical Text omits verses from the Bible, thus throwing off the numbering system of the 16th century (What, those guys can't even count, he says).  Don't stop and wonder why those verses are in the margins in the modern text, don't ask why scholars know for certain that they were added later, just go along as Gipp tells you that they're taking things out of the Bible because he has already set up the KJV as the only standard, therefore any "change" in the text from the KJV is what counts, and don't worry about what the original Greek text says regarding the "changes" he points out, he doesn't say so in this particular video but he's said elsewhere that he wouldn't care if original autographs were found, he already has a perfect KJV.

The proof text of any KJV Only fanatic is I John 5:7, a verse that has zero manuscript evidence in Greek before the 16th century, which by the way Gipp accuses the Alexandrians of removing from the Bible because they hate the Trinity (something they couldn't have done, of course because it didn't appear until later Latin copies of the Vulgate), sad for him that none of the Byzantine manuscripts have it either, and that none of the Church Fathers quote the verse despite their blood feud with the Arians.  Thus in this one instance, Gipp is accusing other Christians of denying the Trinity by relying upon an verse addition that comes from the Latin Vulgate, the Bible of the Catholic Church (which Gipp and those like him hate with white hot fury).  Forget for a moment that the trinity is found elsewhere in the NT (in the modern texts as well), forget for a moment the horror if such an important verse could be expunged from the manuscript tradition for 1,600 years, all of this isn't supposed to matter as you feel anger toward those who deny the trinity by changing God's perfectly preserved Bible, the KJV.

In the end, "Dr." Sam Gipp, along with Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, and those who follow in their wake, have faith in a perfect Bible, the same blind faith of the world's Muslims who also allow no variants in their text, and treat any questions as those of heretics, and they have a skeptics doubts about the Early Church, the manuscript copying process, and the preservation of the original text, just like that of Dr. Bart Ehrman who has no faith because the text isn't "perfect".

Keep making your propaganda movies, they're good for a laugh, at least they would be if you weren't trying to destroy Christian fellowship, the reputations of devout men of God whose work as scholars has only increased our knowledge of the real reason why our Bible can be trusted, and making things up as you go to fit a conclusion that you reached long before you started making up your conspiracy theory.  While you're at it, say hi to Dan Brown, he enjoys a good conspiracy theory.

The unexpected agreement between Dr. Bart Ehrman's skepticism and the KJV Only fanatics

"When you subjugate it to the human laboratory for testing and twisting and probing, it takes on a different nature.  If it isn't preserved perfectly, then it lacks in authority, something less than full authority."  This is a quote about the Bible from Kent Brandenburg, and it has something that he might not be happy to hear about in common with the leading agnostic critic of Biblical accuracy alive today, Bart Ehrman.  Bart is a well known critic, with best selling books like Misquoting Jesus and How Jesus Became God to his name.  One of the most crucial conclusions that Dr. Ehrman makes in his rejection of the Bible that we have today is that it isn't the same as the original as penned by the Apostles.  If we don't have the original, God must not have preserved it, if God didn't perfectly preserve it, he must not have given it in the first place.  If the modern Bible isn't a perfect copy of the original autographs, if it has any errors (despite its historically unheard of 97% accuracy), it is no longer the Word of God.  KJV Only fanatics take this same view of the preservation of Scripture.  Their answer to Bart's dilemma is to posit a new revelation from God that occurred in 1611 (don't mention to them the typographical/spelling/printing mistakes of that edition, it won't be welcome).  The King James Bible to them is a perfectly preserved English version of what the Apostles wrote, so much so that many of them have dismissed the relevance of an original autograph should one be found in some cave like the Dead Sea Scrolls, and so much so that some of them (Sam Gipp for example) contend that the only way to hear the Word of God today is for the people of the world to learn English to read the KJV (Don't point out the obvious racist white superiority behind this line of thinking, just because God treats all men equally doesn't mean they have to).  How do we know that the KJV is a perfect edition in every way, especially since in their view that's the only way it will be God's Word?  You'll have to take that on faith.
  Dr. Ehrman yearns for a perfect Bible, doesn't have one, and has lost his faith, the KJV Only crowd yearn for a perfect Bible, so they've pretended they have one.
The sad thing is, we have an amazing Biblical text today.  All of the original readings have been preserved within the manuscript tradition, none of what the Apostles wrote has been lost.  The Bible is more readily available and accessible than ever before all over the world in hundreds of languages with new ones being translated every year.  The Word of God has never been closer to ordinary people, too bad the skeptics and the fanatics can't see it.

* Note * Kent Brandenburg should not be identified with the KJV Only crowd of Ruckman/Gipp/Riplinger (which he rightly dismisses as an untenable position), both groups believe in "perfect preservation", the first as found in the KJV, Kent's group as found in the Textus Receptus (TR definition).  To prefer the TR is a defensible position, just as it is defensible to prefer the KJV, the TR was the Greek text basis for Tyndale, the Bishop's Bible, the KJV, the Geneva Bible, Luther's German NT, and the New King James, but to be TR ONLY is almost as erroneous as the KJV Only position in that it posits a perfect moment in Church history when the text of God's Word needs to be frozen, when all scholarship and textual criticism needs to cease.  The problem with that, is that there is no one TR (it isn't a manuscript, but a published collation of a few late Byzantine texts that were available to Erasmus), there are many published additions of Erasmus/Stephanus/Beza that were the result of their efforts at textual criticism, so why must these men be the only authorities that can offer God's people his Word?  The TR is a good text, but the Majority text is better, and the Critical Eclectic text is better still.  Christians in the 16th century like Erasmus did a great job considering the manuscripts they had available to them at the time, but we have no need to limit ourselves to what they knew then.  God has indeed preserved his Word, in EACH generation, that effort continues to this day through the work of Godly men who continue the work of their ancestors in the faith. 

The purposeful exaggeration of Bart Ehrman on Textual Variants

I'm in the process of reading Darrell Bock and Daniel Wallace's excellent book, Dethroning Jesus: Exposing Popular Culture's Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ, and their first chapter confirms something I've noticed (not uniquely) about the writings and interviews of Biblical scholar, skeptic, and former evangelical, Bart Ehrman who is most famous for his book, Misquoting Jesus.  Dr. Ehrman routinely lists facts about the text of the N.T. that are not disputed by believing Biblical scholars, in fact most of what he says is very educational and helpful, but then he ends his recitation of the facts with a conclusion that is hardly necessary and in fact a rather significant amount of hyperbole.  For example, when listing off the most important textual variants that affect our ability to know the original text, Ehrman begins with Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 (the longer ending of Mark and the woman caught in adultery), as if these two texts are somehow not already well known for having been late additions to the text.  Those two additions, thirteen and twelve verses, are by far the most significant "changes" to the text, but neither passage has anything to do with Christian Orthodoxy, neither proclaims an exclusive doctrine, and concluding that both are not original doesn't hurt the Christian faith one bit.  How are these examples of significant changes that will destroy our faith?  The other passages listed by Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus (p. 208) as being a danger to the accepted Biblical text are: Mark 1:41, Hebrews 2:8-9, John 1:18, I John 5:7-8, and Matthew 24:36.  In Dethroning Jesus, Bock and Wallace look at each reference in turn, only to uncover that whether or not Jesus is "angry" in Mark 1:41 is not going to shake the foundations of the Church, nor will it harm us to have to see the Trinity in the totality of the N.T. instead of relying upon the late addition of I John 5:7-8, something that Erasmus knew was inauthentic over 500 years ago.  In the end, Ehrman is much sound and fury, eloquently stated with passion to be sure, but rest assured, his earth shattering revelations are far from it.