Who Was Jesus? Part 3

* The side piercing (Jn 19:31-37).

There are many other pericopes in John that do not appear in the others. Some of the Johannine pericopes-such as the raising of Lazarus from the dead-are so significant it is difficult to believe that the other evangelists would not record them, if they had been aware of them. It is logical to ask whether or not these episodes were added later to the story for specific purposes.

Moreover, John does not mention the transfiguration, even though he was purportedly a witness to it! In his quest to demonstrate the divinity of Jesus, it would be highly logical for John to have reported the transfiguration, if it really happened. Nor does John mention the ascension, which is equally curious in light of his desire to reveal Christ's divinity.

As concerns chronological discrepancies, John's gospel presents the clearing of the temple at the beginning, while the others place it at the end. The solution to this problem has been to suggest that there was more than one cleansing, but many critics find this proposal unsatisfactory.

Another disparity between the synoptics and John appears in Jesus's arrest: The former states he was "taken away" to the high priest (Mt 26:57; Mk 14:53; Lk 22:54), while the latter depicts Jesus first being brought to the high priest's father-in-law, Annas, and sometime later to the high priest (Jn 18:13-24).

Continuing with the discrepancies, the accounts of the resurrection differ between gospels as well. In Matthew, Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" find Jesus's tomb empty, while in Mark it is Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and someone named Salome. In Luke, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and a woman called Joanna are present, with the suggestion at Lk 24:10 that others were present as well. Meanwhile, John depicts the empty tomb as being discovered by Mary Magdalene alone, who runs off to retrieve Peter and another, unnamed disciple!

Next, we have four different accounts of whom these individuals found at the scene. First, Matthew states that the stone in front of the tomb rolled away following an earthquake after the women arrived on the scene. Mark, Luke and John report the stone was rolled away before the witnesses arrived, although Luke and John do not record any earthquake. Matthew depicts an angel sitting on the rock; Mark, a young man in a brilliant robe; Luke, two men in "dazzling apparel" somewhere inside or outside of the tomb; and, in John, Mary and company find no one at all, until after Peter and the disciple leave, at which point Mary sees two angels inside.

We also possess four separate descriptions of what happened afterwards concerning whom the discoverers told about the empty tomb: Was it the disciples, as at Matthew 28:8; no one, as at Mark 16:8; "the eleven and...all the rest," as at Luke 24:9; or Mary telling the disciples not about the empty tomb but about her seeing the risen Lord, as at John 20:18? These are only a few of the problems with the gospel accounts of this most auspicious of events in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. As another example, the time and day when the resurrection occurred are also not agreed upon; nor is when and where the risen Jesus first appeared to his followers.

Authentic or Adulterated?

As is the case with the synoptics, there is doubt as to the authenticity of several verses in John. For example, at John 5:3-4, regarding the pool of Bethsaida/Bethesda, the last half of the first sentence and the entire fourth verse are missing from the three oldest extant ma.n.u.scripts of the New Testament and are therefore omitted in several translations, including the RSV, which appends them in a footnote. For the same reason, the authenticity of the story of the "woman caught in the act of adultery" found at John 7:53-8:11 is called into question, not being found in the oldest ma.n.u.scripts and likewise omitted in some translations such as the RSV. If this episode really occurred, why would some authorities and translations omit it? Did the Holy Spirit inspire some writers and scribes to include it and some to omit it?

In When Critics Ask, apologist Geisler gives reasons for questioning the genuineness of this pericope of the adulterous woman: (1) The pa.s.sage does not appear in the oldest and most reliable Greek ma.n.u.scripts. (2) It is not found in the best ma.n.u.scripts of the earliest translations of the Bible into Old Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, and Old Latin. (3) No Greek writer commented on this pa.s.sage for the first 11 centuries of Christianity. (4) It is not cited by most of the great early church fathers, including Clement, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Cyril, and others. (5) Its style does not fit that of the rest of the Gospel of John. (6) It interrupts the flow of thought in John. John reads better if one goes right from John 7:52 to 8:12. (7) The story has been found in several different places in Bible ma.n.u.scripts-after John 7:36; after John 21:24; after John 7:44; and after Luke 21:38. (8) Many ma.n.u.scripts that include it in John 7:53-8:11 have marked it with an obelus, indicating they believe it is doubtful.1 In spite of all these reasonable and scientific facts, Geisler further relates that "many Bible scholars believe this story is authentic," reflecting more about the tenacity of religious faith than about the authenticity of the pa.s.sage in John.

Other scholars possessed with less fervor for upholding the text's inspiration do not hesitate to call this suspect pericope an interpolation by a later scribe. As noted theologian and professor Dr. Bart Ehrman, author of Misquoting Jesus, comments: Despite the brilliance of the story, its captivating quality, and its inherent intrigue, there is one other enormous problem that it poses. As it turns out, it was not originally in the Gospel of John. In fact, it was not originally part of any of the Gospels. It was added by later scribes.... Scholars who work on the ma.n.u.script tradition have no doubts about this particular case.2 Ehrman also recounts the logical and scientific reasons for the conclusion that these verses in John are interpolations, i.e., forgeries, including that they do not appear in the earliest ma.n.u.scripts and that their terminology is different from the rest of John. As also noted, this pericope was likewise interpolated into different chapters or even different gospels in various ma.n.u.scripts, likely for a "political" purpose.

The authenticity of the entire 21st chapter of John has also been questioned, as it appears from the text itself that the 30th verse of the 20th chapter was meant to be the ending. The gospel of John currently ends with the following verse (Jn 21:25): But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

At John 20:30, however, the evangelist had already written a similar statement: Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book....

By all appearances, the 21st chapter seems to have been appended, with its author trying to wrap it all up with much the same ending as at John 20, as the fact that this pa.s.sage const.i.tutes the chosen ending at John 21:25 is a strong indication that the person who wrote John 20:30 also meant that scripture as the ending of his book.

In discussing the various strata of early Christian texts, Dr. Crossan posits a "Gospel of John II" and remarks: A second addition of the Gospel of John is indicated most clearly by the appended John 21... Many other additions, such as 1:1-18; 6:51b-58; 15-17 and the Beloved Disciple pa.s.sages, may also have been added as this late stage.1 If this 21st chapter is in fact an interpolation, it would seem to have been added in order to establish the writer, John, as "immortal," since traditionally he has been identified as the "beloved disciple" specifically discussed at the end of the gospel as "remaining until Jesus comes." It is possible that this pa.s.sage extending John's age was added because the gospel itself emerged so late as to cast doubt on the claim that it was written by the apostle. Biblical inerrantists, however, deny that there is anything unusual about this chapter being added after the seeming ending in the 20th chapter. The Catholic Encyclopedia ("Gospel of Saint John") concludes that the 21st chapter is indeed an addition, but a.s.serts that there remains no reason to believe John himself did not write it.

Another disparity between the synoptic gospels and the gospel of John is in their presentation of Jesus as either exorcising or baptizing. The synoptics depict Christ as performing exorcisms from the initial stages of his ministry but do not portray him ever as baptizing anyone. John, on the other hand, has Jesus baptizing from the beginning onward but never exorcising anyone.2 One more difficulty arises in examining the language used to recount the speeches of Jesus and other gospel characters, rendered in John's gospel in the "peculiar Johannine style," which differs considerably from that of the synoptic gospels. The solution proposed is that these speeches were originally given in Aramaic and thus the translations would be different, depending on the author. Furthermore, as may be expected of the evangelist with the most Christological orientation, in his discussion of the eucharist (6:52-57), John's language is more explicit and disturbing than the others in describing the consumption of Christ's flesh and blood: The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me."

Needless to say, a civilized person in a non-cannibalistic society may look with revulsion upon such peculiar and repulsive concepts, regardless of whether or not they are meant literally.

In addition, John's hostility towards Jewish authorities eclipses any similar sentiment found in the other gospels. At John 8:44, Jesus declares to the Jewish priests, the Pharisees: "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

Unfortunately, over the centuries since this scripture was written, such sentiment towards Jewish people has not been confined to the gospels but took root in many places the gospel story was spread, with often dire consequences.

Who Killed Jesus?

The issues of textual reconciliation and the hostility towards Jews come to a head in the discussion of Christ's death. The alleged circ.u.mstances of Jesus's demise are extremely important, because over the centuries this subject has led to the deaths of many thousands of Jews, who have been attacked and murdered as "Christ-killers." In examining the earliest Christian texts relating Jesus's death, it becomes obvious that the story was altered at various points to place the onus upon either the Romans or the Jews, depending on which faction was portraying the tale. Concerning this issue, Dr. Ehrman remarks: Whereas in the oldest available form of the text, Pilate hands Jesus over to his Roman guard for crucifixion, in some of our early ma.n.u.scripts, after hearing the Jewish crowd accept responsibility for Jesus' death, Pilate "delivered Jesus over to them, so that they might crucify him." In these ma.n.u.scripts, the Jews are fully responsible for Jesus' death.1 If the gospel story is true, how can it be changed at will in this manner? Which of these depictions is historically accurate? In reality, this point ill.u.s.trates the fact that the history of the Christian church has been rife with political infighting, dissension and splitting off, first in dozens, then hundreds, and eventually thousands of different branches. Every one of these branches has believed it has possessed the best interpretation of the truth. In the early days as Christianity began to develop, dozens of these sects had their own books, including the non-canonical gospels, and each one was convinced that theirs was sacred, holy and inspired. Each canonical gospel, in fact, has its own target audience.

These examples are some of the more obvious disparities and difficulties found in and between the four canonical gospels. When all is said and done and the evidence is examined, in order for us to accept the gospel story as "factual history," we remain with the overwhelming need for a concerted effort to reconcile these numerous discrepancies and differences between the texts. The reconciliation of these problems is complex and has been the focus of much New Testament scholars.h.i.+p, as we shall soon see in our quest to solve this "spiritual whodunnit."

Textual Harmonization.

"The Bible, at the end of the day, is a very human book."

Dr. Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus (12) "With all of the differences between Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and with numerous other gospels existing, we have an obvious problem. Each gospel has a particular way of seeing Jesus. How close to the historical facts are they?"

Dr. John Dominic Crossan, Who Is Jesus? (4) Many of the problems, disparities and differences in the canonical gospels have been known for centuries, as even several of the early Church fathers attempted to explain them. As a result, over the centuries of New Testament scholars.h.i.+p a complex process called "harmonization" has been developed within Christian apologetics by which these numerous issues may be reconciled, typically using five "principles of harmonization." The five principles of harmonization are as follows: 1. Ancient writers were not particularly interested in chronological and geographical accuracy.

2. The material was arranged topically or thematically.

3. Jesus moved about preaching, thus repeating his actions and sayings.

4. The evangelists were selective about what they included, and they compressed their accounts.

5. Jesus's deeds and words needed to be interpreted, translated and condensed.1 The difficulty of harmonization is profound, particularly when the thousands of ma.n.u.scripts of the New Testament are factored into the puzzle, with upwards of 150,000 "variant readings," including not only differences in wording but also errors. Many of these "variant readings" were composed by those whom modern translators term "ancient authorities," i.e., the writers, editors, scribes and copyists of a wide variety of Bible editions, including and especially the earliest extant ma.n.u.scripts. As books aged, they were copied by hand-frequently with mistakes and deliberate alterations. The NT is no different, as the evidence abundantly shows. Under such circ.u.mstances, the logical question is, can we really consider the gospels to represent accurate renderings of the real life and career of a historical Jesus, as they are claimed to be?

Regarding these "variant readings" in the New Testament, one conservative Christian authority, The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, remarks: The NT [New Testament] is now known, in whole or in part, in nearly five thousand Greek MSS [ma.n.u.scripts] alone. Every one of these handwritten copies differs from every other one. In addition to these Greek MSS, the NT has been preserved in more than ten thousand MSS of the early versions...and in thousands of quotations of the Church Fathers. These MSS of the versions and quotations of the Church Fathers differ from one another just as widely as do the Greek MSS. Only a fraction of this great ma.s.s of material has been fully collated and carefully studied. Until this task is completed, the uncertainty regarding the text of the NT will remain.

It has been estimated that these MSS and quotations differ among themselves between 150,000 and 250,000 times. The actual figure is, perhaps, much higher. A study of 150 Greek MSS of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings... It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS tradition is wholly uniform.

Many thousands of the variants which are found in the MSS of the NT were put there deliberately. They are not merely the result of error or of careless handling of the text. Many were created for theological or dogmatic reasons... It is because the books of the NT are religious books, sacred books, canonical books, that they were changed to conform to what the copyist believed to be the true reading.1 The Interpreter's Dictionary continues with a discussion of the more significant of the 64 papyrus fragments of New Testament ma.n.u.scripts now known, one small fragment speculatively dated to the middle of the second century (Rylands/P52) with the rest from the beginning of third to the eighth centuries. All of these pieces, which const.i.tute about 40 percent of the New Testament, were found in Egypt "and undoubtedly were written there." Concerning these fragments, the Interpreter's Dictionary states: Many of them are too small to be of much value textually. Their c.u.mulative evidence, however, is of value. They prove conclusively that in Egypt, particularly in the second, third, and fourth centuries, no one type of NT text was dominant. In those early centuries many types of text flourished side by side.1 Thus, even in early times there was no uniformity of the New Testament ma.n.u.scripts.

The editors of The Anchor Bible Dictionary are likewise explicit in their p.r.o.nouncements concerning the many "imperfections," "alterations" and "divergent nature" of New Testament texts and copies: Among our earliest ma.n.u.scripts, some show signs of being copied with workmanlike care...while others appear to have been copied by rather careless scribes... Scribal habits, including errors and alterations, need to be a.n.a.lyzed carefully. Commonly they are divided into two categories: unintentional and intentional alterations.2 Hence, as we can see, the quest for a pristine copy of the New Testament, from which we can be sure to possess the true story and words of Jesus Christ, remains a complex and seemingly impossible quest.

Inspired Originals?

These facts make abundantly clear that the ma.n.u.scripts we possess are full of variations and mistakes, such that believers in the inerrancy of the Bible have a.s.serted that it is only the originals or autographs that represent the inerrant Word of G.o.d, infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit. For example, in "Discovering and Cla.s.sifying New Testament Ma.n.u.scripts," fundamentalist writer James Arlandson remarks: The original authors were inspired, but we do not have their very originals... The original New Testament doc.u.ments were transmitted by scribes, who were not inspired.

This more recent claim regarding only the originals being inspired essentially overrides the centuries-old, widely held notion that English translations such as the King James Bible are inerrant; yet, there remain King James inerrantists.

Regarding the canonical gospels, Dr. Ehrman remarks: "We don't have the originals! We have only error-ridden copies..." Addressing the trend to a.s.sert the originals as inspired, in Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman further states: It is one thing to say that the originals were inspired, but the reality is that we don't have the originals-so saying they were inspired doesn't help me much, unless I can reconstruct the originals. Moreover, the vast majority of Christians for the entire history of the Church have not had access to the originals, making their inspiration a moot point.1 Ehrman also comments, "The mistake-ridden copies get copied; and the mistake-ridden copies of the copies get copied; and so on, down the line."2

Scribal Scalawags.

In discussing the evolution of New Testament texts, Ehrman relates an amusing anecdote concerning scribes who worked on the epistle to the Hebrews in the Codex Vatica.n.u.s, one of the oldest complete biblical ma.n.u.scripts in existence, dating to the fourth century. In response to a change made in the text of Hebrews by another scribe centuries earlier, a "medieval scribe" commented in the margin, "Fool and knave! Leave the old reading, don't change it!"3 This episode ill.u.s.trates how New Testament texts were copied, edited and interpolated by many people, some of whom unquestionably made errors-an important point, in consideration of the fact that some believers have also a.s.serted that even certain copies are "inerrant," such as the very flawed Textus Receptus upon which the King James Bible was founded in large part. As we have seen, the Catholic Encyclopedia accepts some verses as inspired that were evidently written not by the evangelist Mark but by an unknown scribe.

These scribes were frequently not particularly well educated and often consisted of members of the "common people." Their inclusion into the equation allows for us to concur with another of Ehrman's statements regarding the Bible being a "human book."4 Adding to this sentiment is the sixth principle for "understanding apparent discrepancies in the Bible," as laid out by Christian apologist Josh McDowell in The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Says McDowell, "The Bible is a human book with human characteristics."5 As such, we simply must inquire as to the Bible's sloppy history, with a number of those entrusted with its care clearly describable as "b.u.mbling." Indeed, as we have seen abundantly, the enterprise in general has been extremely disorganized, to say the least.

The fact that scriptures had been tampered with at some point is alluded to at the end of the Bible itself, in the warning at Revelation 22:18-19: "I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, G.o.d will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, G.o.d will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

The sloppiness of the scribes and the mess they had made of the texts were remarked upon also by early Church father and apologist Origen (3rd cent.), in his Commentary on Matthew (15.14): It is an obvious fact today that there is much diversity among the ma.n.u.scripts, due either to the carelessness of the scribes, or to the perverse audacity of some people in correcting the text, or again to the fact that there are those who add or delete as they please, setting themselves up as correctors.1 In fact, the earlier periods were the most error-ridden, as conservative Protestant Tenney comments: "The major divergences in the readings of the New Testament text date from the period before Constantine, and may reflect the stress and confusion prevailing in the Christian world."2 Hence, uniformity in the New Testament-and indeed in the Christian doctrine as a whole-was not achieved but for the pa.s.sage of much time, along with bitter and b.l.o.o.d.y battling between sects and denominations over a period of centuries.

New Testament scholars.h.i.+p has thus shown that the ancient texts used in the translation of the Bible vary greatly, and it has further sought to disentangle the original texts, or autographs, from the many thousands of alterations made by subsequent scribes. In other words, we do not possess the original gospels, and it is an indisputable fact that even the most ancient copies of the New Testament have been worked over repeatedly by a number of individuals and do not agree with each other in many places, making the task of determining what was in the originals extremely difficult, if not impossible. The importance of this fact needs to be emphasized, as no book in the New Testament has been untouched by numerous human hands, including those texts used by the translators of the editions still believed today to be "inerrant" and "infallibly inspired."

Error-Filled Copies.

The truth is that in many cases we are simply not dealing with the original words intended by the authors of the canonical gospels, which is to say that frequently we do not really know what they meant to convey. In such an atmosphere, it is logical to ask whether or not the Bible as we have it could possibly be considered the "inerrant word of G.o.d." One response to this dilemma a.s.serts that not only were the evangelists under the guidance of the Holy Spirit but so too were the copyists who made all these alterations. This solution creates a new problem in that it suggests the Holy Spirit made so many errors to begin with that the texts required numerous corrections by the subsequent copyists. Indeed, if the original gospels were actually recording factual events and sayings exactly as they had occurred, a testimony created not only via eyewitnesses but also with the added a.s.surance of being guided by G.o.d himself as the Holy Spirit, why would these texts ever need to be changed?

Moreover, numerous New Testament scholars have been aware of these many thousands of "variant readings," and some have blatantly called them "errors." In other words, within the higher ranks of New Testament scholars.h.i.+p, it is acknowledged that many of the scribes and copyists made errors, and this fact has in large part been a motivating factor behind the clamor to return to the original texts, devoid of these clearly erroneous revisions. Consider, for example, the words of the pious Christian scholar Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892), who, Dr. Ehrman states, was "arguably the most brilliant mind to apply himself" to the task of discerning the originals of the New Testament texts under all of the subsequent changes. Hort described his task as "nothing more than the detection and rejection of error."1 Hort further called "vile" the Greek New Testament edition deemed the Textus Receptus, again upon which the King James Version was based in large part. In such an environment of acknowledging error and striving to get back to the elusive "pristine" originals, it would appear unscientific and intellectually dishonest to a.s.sert that the Bible as we have it is "inerrant," regardless of the edition.

Perfect Harmony?

Even if we could get back to the originals, we would find it tricky to reconstruct the details of Christ's life and teachings. Indeed, the many difficulties and differences between the canonical gospels themselves alone highlight the reason why there has existed such an enormous amount of New Testament scholars.h.i.+p, and why a complex process of harmonization has been developed to deal with the numerous discrepancies in the gospel accounts of Christ's life. Some examples of harmonization have already been given, but the process is ongoing, as the divergences are profound and seemingly unsolvable in certain cases. As another example of working with the principles of harmonization to overcome these discrepancies, one explanation for the differences in chronology between the gospels is that Matthew, for example, organized his material according to subject or theme, rather than chronologically, combining "facts and precepts of a like nature."

While the thematic approach to gospel chronology is satisfying enough regarding some of the problems, still others are not so easily solved, such as the raising of Jairus's daughter. It is evident from this narrative that neither Matthew nor Luke was arranging the event thematically; yet, they depict it as having occurred at different times. Both of them cannot be correct, unless the daughter was raised twice, a scenario that some literalists have proposed. Many people, however, will not find that answer to be satisfactory, and the only logical conclusion is that one or the other of the texts is incorrect.

Concerning some of the most blatant discrepancies and the attempts at their harmonization, evangelical writers Botti, Dixon and Steinman remark: ...well-meaning Christians posit absurd theories to explain gospel phenomena that conflict with their view that the gospels are chronologically arranged. As a result, Jesus is claimed to have raised Jairus' daughter twice from the dead, was twice crowned with thorns, was denied by Peter six or more times, and so on.

Thus, within Christian apologetics we will encounter "absurd theories," a fact we must keep in mind on our quest to determine who Jesus was.

In another example of an attempt at harmonization, it is a.s.serted that the sermon on the mount (Mt 5-7) and the sermon on the plain (Lk 6) are "probably different discourses."

Moreover, in the exorcism of the demoniac, Matthew, Mark and Luke refer to the country of the "Gerasenes," "Gadarenes" and "Gergesenes," depending on which ma.n.u.script and translation are relied upon. In this regard, the KJV of Matthew 8:28 calls the people "Gergesenes," while the RSV uses much earlier Greek texts that label them "Gadarenes." Apologists claim that these names refer to the inhabitants of two different cities in that country.

One more difficulty arises when Jesus is anointed with oil by a woman in the house of someone named Simon. Matthew, Mark and John place the anointment at the end of their gospels, in Bethany, while Luke places it early in his gospel as having occurred in Galilee. The solution has been to suggest that Jesus was anointed twice in two different houses owned by two people named Simon.

Regarding the messy ordering of the temple-cleansing and fig tree-cursing pericopes found in Matthew and Mark, Tom Dixon comments, "It is not hard to imagine that Matthew would want to simplify the complexity of Mark's account by grouping the cursing and discovery of the fig tree in one pericope." That reasoning may suffice to explain the fig-tree pericope ordering, but what about the rest of the chronology? Does Jesus spend the night in Bethany before or after he cleanses the temple? The solution to this problem is both: Jesus spends the night in Bethany both before and after he cleanses the temple.

In a.n.a.lyzing attempts at harmonizing the widely diverging gospels, apologists Botti, et al., further state: The Evangelical believer needs to approach the synoptic gospels with the clear understanding that each author has intentionally omitted certain things that the other authors did not, and that each author intentionally re-arranged certain pa.s.sages for didactic purposes. As many scholars have recognized, when we approach the gospels with this understanding, many of the apparent chronological problems evaporate.

Yet what is most important is that believers in inerrancy train their eye to discern when an author is clearly making a claim to chronology and when he is not. It is not enough to wave off every issue of apparent chronological contradiction with a simple appeal to topical rearrangement, as many Evangelical scholars seem to do. We need to have sharper answers.

Sharper answers are needed indeed, as the biblical difficulties are such that ma.s.sive volumes of apologetics have been published over many centuries in order to address them all-yet, many quandaries remain, as can be inferred from the call by modern apologists Botti, et al., for "sharper answers."

Eyewitness Accounts or Compilations?

The statement that the evangelists "intentionally re-arranged certain pa.s.sages" reiterates the fact that they were working with source texts or with each other's gospels, as previously noted. This observation that the evangelists were using other texts, certain of them shared, and did not just record from scratch what they themselves had witnessed, is widely known among Christian scholars, both Catholic and Protestant. Many of the rank-and-file believers, however, are unaware that the gospels in numerous places represent a reworking of preceding texts.

As they have been taught, many Christians believe that the gospels const.i.tute translations of originals straight from the pens of eyewitnesses faithfully and infallibly recording what each had seen of the Lord's advent. Even from a conservative perspective this perception is erroneous, obviously, since Luke was never claimed to have been an eyewitness to any of the events in the gospel; nor is Mark a direct disciple or known witness to the Lord. In fact, the opening statement by the author of the Gospel of Luke indicates that he possessed a number of the many narratives in existence by his time, which would be the only way he could strive to improve upon their accuracy. Hence, his gospel was based on these texts, not on his own memories or even those of anyone close to him. This development provokes the question as to why the Holy Spirit needed these other, previous texts to record the gospel story. Wouldn't the Holy Spirit, who is G.o.d/Jesus, already know the story in perfect detail, such that he could supernaturally convey it to the evangelists pristinely and without error?

Furthermore, many of the variant readings within the gospels and in the different ancient ma.n.u.scripts of each gospel appear in the quotations of Christ's sayings. If these gospels truly const.i.tute the inerrant records of direct eyewitnesses infallibly recording the events in Jesus's life, why do Jesus's sayings vary from one source to the next? Should not the precise words of the Lord himself be quoted verbatim? Why does the Lord's Prayer, for example, differ between gospels and from one ma.n.u.script to another? Wouldn't it make sense for the Lord, as the Holy Spirit, to refresh his disciples' memories as to his exact words? If these are the precious words from the Almighty G.o.d, how could they be changed? And why? Did G.o.d make mistakes in his original statements that needed correcting? What would be the point of having the Holy Spirit infallibly guiding the all-important endeavor of recording the Lord's life, if his speeches were not to be recorded verbatim? In other words, what is the purpose of the Holy Spirit if not to correct the errors? And if these scriptures are not verbatim records, how can they be called "inerrant?"

In any event, the methodology of harmonization has been in the works for so many centuries and by so many individuals that there is practically no objection that it does not cover. Much clever thought and many machinations have been accorded to the discipline of harmonization, and euphemistic terms have been used to describe the chronological discrepancies, for example, calling them "dislocations" rather than errors. Over the centuries, millions of words have been written and numerous courses on apologetics designed specifically to overcome objections. Regardless of these proposed solutions, the question is begged as to why G.o.d would write an "infallible" and "inerrant" Word which is so full of problems and difficulties that it has required many centuries to iron them all out-a task that remains incomplete to a significant degree. It seems logical and rational to ask again, could it not be that the fallible human beings who wrote, edited and translated the gospels simply made mistakes? Naturally, this position casts doubt on the concept of biblical inerrancy, but in our quest for honesty and truthfulness-the hallmarks of religiousness-can we really afford to ignore this logic?

The Gospel Dates.

"It's important to acknowledge that, strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous."

Dr. Craig L. Blomberg, The Case for Christ (26) Because of the lack of original texts, it has been very difficult to date the canonical gospels as to when they were written or even when they first emerge in the historical record, as these two dates may differ. The gospels have been dated variously from shortly after the crucifixion, traditionally placed around 30 ad/ce, to as late as a century and a half afterwards.1 The currently accepted dates are as follows, from the earliest by conservative, believing scholars to the latest by liberal and sometimes secular scholars: Matthew: 37 to 100 ad/ce.

Mark: 40 to 73 ad/ce.

Luke: 50 to 100 ad/ce.

John: 65 to 100 ad/ce.

Many reasons have been given for these dates, from one end of the spectrum to the other, the earliest dates being based on the events recounted in the gospels themselves. The later dates are based also on this timeframe, but the difference is that they account for the mention of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, which occurred in 70 ad/ce. According to this scholars.h.i.+p, the gospels must have been written after the devastation because they refer to it. However, conservative believers maintain the early dates and a.s.sert that the destruction of the temple and Judea mentioned in the gospels const.i.tutes "prophecy," demonstrating Jesus's divine powers. The substantiation for this early, first-century range of dates, both conservative and liberal, is internal only, as there is no external evidence, whether historical or archaeological, for the existence of any gospels at that time. Nevertheless, fundamentalist Christian apologists such as Norman Geisler make misleading a.s.sertions such as that "many of the original ma.n.u.scripts date from within twenty to thirty years of the events in Jesus' life, that is, from contemporaries and eyewitnesses."2 Scrutinizing the evidence forensically, however, it is impossible honestly to make such a conclusion.

Moreover, even the latest of the accepted gospel dates are not based on evidence from the historical, literary or archaeological record, and over the centuries a more "radical" school of thought has placed the creation or emergence of the canonical gospels as we have them at a much later date, more towards the end of the second century.