the reliability of the new testament_part one

I will post my comments about the accuracy of the NT in four posts. The first is on the transmission of the texts. The second is on the reliability of the NT; the third will be on the formation of the NT cannon; and the fourth will be on the topic of the Gnostic gospels and why we don't have them in the NT as many are suggesting that we ought.Here are some quotes to get us started.

Teabing cleared his throat and declared, “The Bible did not arrive by fax from heaven.”“I beg your pardon?”"Bible is a product of man, my dear, Not of God. The Bible did not magically fall from the clouds. Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book.Conversation between Sophia and Teabing in chapter 55 of The Da Vinci Code, 250.

…the earliest period of textual transmission was also the least controlled. This is when nonprofessional scribes, for the most part, were copying our text—and making lots of mistakes in their copies.
My contention is that Christian scribes who opposed adoptionistic views of Jesus modified their texts in places in order to stress their view that Jesus was not human but also divine." Quotes from Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus: the Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why,129 and 155.

These quotes represent what is becoming the popular belief about the Bible. However, they have no more basis in fact than the belief that there is a treasure map on the back of the Declaration of Independence [perhaps if you believed what you saw in National Treasure, you will also believe the Da Vinci Code]. There are two questions I hope to answer in this post. First, how did we get the Bible? Second, can we trust it?
We begin the story of the N.T with the life of Christ coming to an end around 30 A.D. Following Christ's death the text went through a period of oral transmission. The first and most obvious objection would be on the question of if we can trust these accounts. After all, we have all heard a pseudo-intellectual attempt to make the case that the stories in the Bible were expounded around the campfire much like fishing stories and thus one can explain away anything miraculous. This sort of arm-chair critique of the Bible only betrays the ignorance of those peddling this rubbish. That person knows nothing of the concept of oral traditions or of cultures that use this method as their primary means of preserving history.
First, one must know that oral accounts would have taken on fixed forms. This is what happens in cultures today when still bound by oral means of communications. There are fixed forms of the stories that are memorized by all. Once everyone knows of them there can be no changing them. This is a strategy currently being used by missionaries in non literate societies to do evangelism. They will take several of the leaders and will teach them all the same stories. As these men begin to learn the stories of the Bible it is time for them to demonstrate their command of the material. They each take turns stepping in a circle and telling the stories. If they make a mistake, then one of the other men will push him out of the circle, and tell the story correctly. In this way, messages can be accurately transmitted orally. Furthermore, cultures that are not accustomed to the many technological reminders that we have--ranging from PDA's computers,tape recorders to even things that we often over look such as a written language [as opposed to tribal languages which are not normally written down] not to mention the means with which to write our thoughts--do not have the same struggles in remembering details. Have you ever been around a blind person? One thing you will inevitably notice is that they have great ability remember things. The reason we doubt oral tradition is because of our own memories which are accustomed to the crutch of technology.
Second, one must realize that the disciples couldn't falsify their accounts during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. If they would lie, particularly in Jerusalem and the surrounding area, then they would certainly be corrected. Third, according to traditional writings all of the disciples, with the exception of John, were persecuted severely and finally murdered for what they believed. Sane persons don't die for a lie Fourth, extra biblical records support biblical account it a majority of their details. Here is a list of the details. These come from about a dozen different sources; most of these are not sympathetic to the cause of Christ:

• Jesus’ Brother was James
• He was a wise man had large following
• Reported to have appeared three days after his crucifixion
• Falsely accused
• Suffered excruciating punishment
• Christians were hated
• Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius
• Christianity broke out again in both Judea and Rome
• There was darkness at the time of crucifixion
• Jesus was killed at Passover time
• That he was accused of being a sorcerer (CF Mark 3:22; John 8:41)

Finally, there is the Principle of embarrassment. That is to say that if someone writes something embarrassing about themselves, then it is probably true. Consider a few of the disciples dumb moments:

• Thomas doubted that Christ had risen from the grave
• Peter sank after going out on the water with Christ
• Peter was called Satan by Christ Peter denied Christ three times
• The women were the first to discover the resurrected Christ The women were the first to really "get it" when it came to who Christ was and what he was there to do.
• No one was smart enough to know that Judas was the betrayer even though Jesus told them the betrayer was at the table.

If they were lying then why would they leave these foolish and embarrassing details intact?
Oral tradition carried the burden of the gospel for quite a few years. Written accounts begin to surface around 50-70 A.D. Why so long till written accounts? First hand witnesses were still alive prior to this. Eyewitnesses were beginning to grow old and near death. Prior to this oral tradition was sufficient. Why written accounts? Impending death of eyewitnesses (due to age and persecution). They would not live forever. As the church spread, oral tradition was insufficient. To supply the spread of the church then, there must be written accounts that the missionaries can take with them. Furthermore, heresy was beginning to crop up. Written accounts would give official and accurate accounts of the events. As a part of this writing process distribution is a natural side effect. Even the scriptures themselves indicate that the writings of the apostles were to be distributed:

I put you under oath before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers. 1 Thes 5:27
Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. 1 Tim 4:13
And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea. Col 4:16

To supply distribution, transmission was necessary. Contrary to Bart Ehrman [see 2nd and 3rd opening quote], there were in fact professional scribes during this time period and, by implication, in the early church . The Masoretic text was being copied in its earlier forms by professional scribes as early as AD 20. These men were Jews. Who were the first converts to Christianity? Jews! Is it possible that some of these scribes were among these early converts? His premise that there were no professional scribes is completely untenable and irresponsible for a man of his academic stature to assert. One must also understand that the Jews have historically been an educated people. Even in Nazi Germany, when they were pushed from their homes into the shanty towns, one of the first things they did was start schools. Illiterate? I think not. One thing that does happen when anything is copied by hand is that differences creep into the texts. There is in fact a 10% difference between all of the texts--from best to worst, mind you. While folks like Ehrman and Dan Brown would like to expose a grand conspiracy the vast majority of differences can be explained by the following [in order from most occurrences to fewest]:

1. Variant spellings
2. Varied word orders: Christ Jesus –Jesus Christ; The Good man –the man, the good one [both of these take the legitimate translation of "the good man" in English]
3. Slips of the pen [this example isn't obvious in English, but fruit and speck are very similar words in Greek] Luke 6:41 “Why do you look at the fruit in your brother’s eye.” [error] “Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye.” [correct]

These differences are, for the most part, somewhat easy to sort through--although there are some that require a great deal more effort. Here is an example of how one can sort through differences to find the original meaning:

Christ Jesus is the saviour of the whole world

Jesus Christ s the savior savior of the whole world

Jesus Christ is th savior of the whole world

Jesus Christ is the savor of the whole world

Which one is right? Can you tell. Is it too hard to realize that the original sentence looked like this? Jesus Christ is the savior of the whole world
These differences began to be copied to the point that there are actual "Families of Texts" These families are as follows: Alexandrian, Caesarean, Western, Byzantine . If you really want to know the differences between those families of texts then you will have to read a book on textual criticism.
Was There a Conspiracy then to corrupt the texts? Consider these facts:

1. The Writers left difficult passages intact. Rather than harmonizing their accounts, they left the differences intact. They can be corroborated , mind you, in much the same way that one can take eye witness accounts in a court of law to establish facts.
2. The writers did a poor job of covering Jesus humanity. if they were trying to make him out to be god, they sure forgot a lot of stuff that makes Jesus look human as well as divine.
3. The writers left in incriminating evidence. This is the same as the principle of embarrassment In conclusion, if this was a conspiracy, then it was worst execution of a conspiracy in all history!

Is the number of texts and the differences therein a strength or a liability? Let us consider the Quran in answering. The Quran was delivered directly to Muhammad. All of the writings of his scribes were complied into the book. As it began to be translated differences crept in. Later, one man decided to fix the problem. He collected all of the texts and compiled an official version, the current one. He then burned the rest of the texts. This, in my opinion, presents a big problem. We are left trusting this one man! At best the Quran is this man's opinion of what the Quran ought to be. Without any other text, there is nothing for comparison. By analogy, if the Catholics were the ones who had the only biblical text, then we would be forced to trust that what they said the bible said it did in fact say. Fortunately there are thousands of Greek manuscripts for comparison. Consider also the Book of Mormon. It was translated by Joseph Smith off of Gold plates delivered by the angel Moroni. Later the plates were taken back and once again there is nothing whereby to check the work of young Joseph. What is the problem with this? There are four thousand differences from the first edition to the current edition! Which Book of Mormon is right? We don't know and can't even check.Since there are many Greek NT texts, we can go back and verify things and do not succumb to blind trust in a human mediator.
Continue on and read about the Reliability of the NT in the next post.

historical references to Jesus

I was recently reading through a special edition of US News and World Report. The issue was about the Da Vinci Code--it was released the same time the movie first showed. There were a spattering of"experts" from all sorts of backgrounds. Perhaps most objectionable was the interview with Timothy Freke (a rather unfortunate name...). He was asked, "In your opinion, is there any evidence that Jesus lived?" He replied, "None at all. The only evidence we have is fake. There is no evidence at all for the historical Jesus...." If he were to say that he did not believe in the Jesus portrayed in the NT, that would be one thing. He is denying the existence of any historical Jesus whatsoever. One does not have to believe the NT account of Jesus in order to believe in the historical Jesus. Here are some external sources that attest to the historical person of Jesus.

These quotes also affirm a number of details from the Gospel accounts:

"the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ, whose name was James..."
Josephus Antiquities XX 9:1

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus…Pilate condemned him to be condemned and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship, They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders"
Josephus Antquities XVIII 33

“Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also.”
Tacitus (A.D. 55), Annals XV .44

“…the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world…. Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws.”
Lucian (2nd cent.), On the Death of Peregrine Suetonius (A.D. 120), Life of Claudius 24.5

“As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigations of Christus.”
Thallus (A.D. 52), according to Africanus (A.D. 221)

“Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness [at the time of the crucifixion] as an eclipse of the sun—unreasonably,as it seems to me.”

"On the eve of Passover, they hanged Yeshu [Jesus] and the herald went before him for forty days saying (Yeshu of Nazareth) is going to be stoned in that he hath practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel. Let everyone knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover.”
The Talmud (A.D.500), Sanhedrin 43a

"What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished... But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."
Letter of Mara Bar-Serapion (after AD 73), British Museum.

Not only do these references show that a person by the name of Jesus,of Jewish origin, living in 1cent AD, in Israel actually existed, but these references also confirm these details from the gospel accounts(Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and early church history.
1. Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate at Passover
2. He was believed by his disciples to have risen from the dead three days later
3. Jewish leaders charged Christ with sorcery (cf. Mark 3:22; John 8:41)
4. The Christians could not be contained in Judea but spread to Rome
5. Nero persecuted early Christians
6. These Christians denied polytheism, lived dedicated lives according to Christ’s teachings

dumb accountants

Have you ever received a bill for less than a postage stamp? I received one once for .26 from sprint. This was stupid since the postage cost more than the bill. So, I sent them .30 so that their books would be off. If only I could be as smart as this guy:

the philosophical room

Suppose for a moment that you have grown up in a sealed room, no windows, no doors. You have never been outside this room and have no recollection of how you managed to get into the room in the first place. With you in this room are several other people who have also been there all of their lives with no recollection of their origins.

As you grow and live you and your friends begin to think and form theories about your situation. You all talk and decide that the four things around you are called walls and above and below you are called ceiling and floor. On this you all agree. Where you do not agree is on what is outside the room and how you got inside the room. Some say that you have always been there and there is nothing outside of the walls, pure void. Some say that the have no clue how you got there, but whatever the hard stuff is that makes the walls must extend indefinitely. Theory after theory is posited about your present situation, how you got there, and what must be done to get out, if there is an "out" at all.

One day, while you are discussing the ups and downs of your favorite theories something happens. You hear something on the ceiling. This provides no small amount of consternation for those who have said that there is no outside. There is a large cracking sound and suddenly a man falls though the new hole in through the roof hitting the floor with a thud. This man lived with you for a while and joined in your philosophical discussions. He began to contradict some of the theories and teach his own. Some of the best known and most widely accepted theories he didn't like. What to do?

At this point, there is only one thing you must decide. Do you trust him and believe what he is saying, or not?

common errors in interpreting the bible

This list is a very good list concerning Bible difficulties and the common errors that folks make when considering the Bible. These come from a book by Norman Geisler [When Critics Ask].

1. Assuming that the unexplained is not explainable
2. Presuming the Bible guilty until proven innocent
3. Confusing our fallible interpretations with God's infallible revelation
4. Failing to understand the context of the passage
5. Neglecting to interpret difficult passages in light of clear ones
6. Basing a teaching on an obscure passage
7. Forgetting that the Bible is a human book with human characteristics
8. Assuming that a partial report is a false report
9. Demanding that NT citations of the OT always be exact quotations
10. Assuming that divergent accounts are false ones.
11. Presuming that the Bible approves of all it records
12. Forgetting that the Bible uses non-technical, everyday language
13. Assuming that round numbers are false
14. Neglecting to note that the Bible uses different literary devices
15. Forgetting that only the original text, not every copy of scripture is without error.
16. Confusing general statements with universal ones.
17. Forgetting that later revelation supersedes previous revelation

christian wealth

Although I cannot endorse all of Rob Bells stuff [he is a pantheist--perhaps inadvertently].  However, as I have been researching Christian finances, I am struck by how little kingdom priority we have as a church.  Southern Baptists, often hailed as one of the most missional denominations, gave on average $9.00 to international missions.  That is $.75 a month.  Most people waste more than that on vending machines...

miniature earth

In 1800 3% of people lived in cities.  That figure had doubled by 1900 to 6%. In 1950 less that 30% of the word lived in cities.  In 2006 50% lived in cities.  By 2025, 60% will live in cities.