Was the Bible Doctored by the Church?

 

There is a wide-spread belief amidst both professional scholars and laymen that the Bible now used by Christians is significantly altered from the historical documents upon which it was based. This, they say, is because of the Church’s agenda to make Jesus a divine figure. Understandably, the claim that God came to earth in the form of a man is a tough pill to swallow. So it could also be argued that those scholars who work so hard to discredit the authenticity of scripture are pursuing an agenda as well. The question becomes, which claim has the better support? 

Much of the current controversy over the accuracy of the Bible can be linked to the recent popularity of Dan Brown’s novel, The Da Vinci Code. 

Brown is not the only person discrediting the authenticity of the Bible, however. In his book Misquoting Jesus, author and Bible scholar Bart Ehrman makes the claim that the scribes that copied the Bible for 1,500 years altered the text to fit an agenda. 

Ehrman, however also wrote a book entitled The Da Vinci Code: Fact and Fiction. In an interview on the book, Ehrman makes the statement 

“The problem I have with the Da Vinci Code is that it gets so much of its information about these matters wrong.” 

Clearly Ehrman is no believer in biblical accuracy, but even he cannot embrace the outlandish claims Dan Brown makes in his fictional novel. 

Church Historian Dr. John Hannah, in his book Our Legacy gives a detailed look at the history and development of scriptural authority within the church. In brief, Hannah divides the church age up into stages: “The Apostolic Period,” in the first century A.D. during which the New Testament was written; and the second century, “The Church Fathers Period,” is detailed by writings of the direct successors to the Apostles.  

Hannah says that during the “Church Father” period there was general agreement on doctrines. While they cited as many as 19 out of the 27 currently accepted New Testament books, they lived in an age of vast illiteracy, and so the oral tradition was held as equally authoritative to scripture.  

The next period of the Church that Hannah describes he calls the age of “The Apologists.” During this time overt hostility toward Christianity from the culture and governing powers was on the rise. Worse, disagreements and challenges were coming from within the Church itself.  

These challenges forced the Church leaders of the time to have to define what their source of authority was so that they could address the many conflicting opinions regarding doctrine and beliefs. In defining their authority, the oral tradition became marginalized largely because the Gnostic sect was claiming a different oral tradition to support their views. Church Fathers began to look to the writings of the Apostles as alone being authoritative and the idea of a cannon of scripture began to emerge.  

The cannons of the day varied. The entire Old Testament, and all 27 books of the currently accepted New Testament were held as sacred in one or another of the churches, but few if any had access to all of them. 

Even if all of the books that were disputed at the time were removed, the core doctrines of the current Church are still affirmed by the remaining books including the Gospels and the epistles of Paul. This, then cannot be regarded as a change made to scriptures in order to advance an agenda. 

The books of the current Bible were canonized officially in 397 AD. But the current cannon of scripture was unofficially recognized long before that.  

Of the claim made by Bart Ehrman that scribes changed the Bible as they copied it, Wheaton College New Testament professor, Gary M. Burge writes: 

"What Ehrman fails to tell us is that most of the scribal errors he likes to list are incidental. And when they do have substance, the thousands of Greek manuscripts we possess permit us to reconstruct the original by making minute comparisons of their discrepancies …but none of these variants jeopardizes a single major teaching of the New Testament." 

As Burge points out, by comparing the thousands upon thousands of sources, Bible Scholars can spot minor textual errors and have a very accurate idea about what the originals said. 

There is more evidence supporting the authenticity of scripture than there is against it. The real issue becomes, not the documents themselves, but rather the claims that they make. Agendas are not always conspiracies to support lies. If the Church has the “agenda” of supporting the claim that Jesus was God, it might be because that claim is true. 

Wolf Blitzer and the Atheist

In the wake of the Oklahoma tornados of May, 2013, media personality Wolf Blitzer was embarrassed as he interviewed a survivor and her toddler son, asking her repeatedly, “I guess you got to thank the Lord, right?” until she was forced to confront him with her atheism. 

In a political cartoon caricaturing the event, the woman tells Blitzer that a God who would destroy a neighborhood and claim a number of lives, sparing her, is not exactly worthy of gratitude. 

A frequent complaint of the atheist community is that the God of the Bible is immoral. As Richard Dawkins put it in The God Delusion: 

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving, control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” 

Of course Dawkins would himself have to establish some kind of basis for morality against which this God could be judged, but for the sake of argument, assume the standard of the Ten Commandments: the commandments say “don't murder,” and yet God kills. Or take the law of Christ: “Judge not, that you be not judged,” and yet God judges. Is God a “do as I say, not as I do” kind of parent? 

To answer this question, it is instructive to examine a parable of Jesus: 

“Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii, and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay what you owe.’ So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’ He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt. When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place. Then his master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt.” 

In this illustration, the relationship of the master to his servant and the relationship of the servant to his fellow servant are fundamentally different. The Master owes nothing to the servants, whereas the servants are all accountable to the Master. It is within the Master’s rights, in fact it is an exercise of justice, if the Master punishes the servant who owes and who cannot pay. 

In the Old Testament law, injury was paid with injury: the famous “eye for an eye” law. This establishes a system wherein one treats others the way they are treated. This is the essence of justice: good behavior is met with reward, and bad behavior is met with punishment. 

In the New Testament, Christ contradicts this system by saying: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. 

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” 

In so commanding, Christ establishes a system of super-morality. Rather than a person treating others as they are treated, which is only just, he commands that they treat others as they would wish to be treated. 

Like the Master in the parable, God sits in a position of authority and perfection. If he chooses to judge imperfection, to take life from those to whom life was given and who then failed to meet his standards, he is only just in doing so. 

On the other hand, if one human is judgmental of another, or takes the life of another, they are superseding their authority by doing what only God has the right to do. 

The atheist who complains that God does not meet a certain moral standard assumes that God and humans are entirely equal in terms of quality and morality, and that he has as much right to judge God as God has to judge him. Moreover, he assumes that all people deserve to be treated gregariously, regardless of their merits or failings. 

To this degree, the atheist has received what he has asked for. All humans die. To complain that God allowed a great number of humans to die in some natural disaster while sparing some, ignores the fact that those who were spared will eventually die as well. They have not escaped their fate, they have simply delayed it. 

But there is another way in which all humans are treated equally by God: all are extended the opportunity for forgiveness. 

In the parable, the Master says to the servant: “I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.” Indeed, all who plead with God for forgiveness receive exactly what they ask for. 

All human beings are imperfect. This being so, none of them are justified in condemning the other. God is perfect. This being so, he is justified in condemning all, and he owes humans nothing. 

However, God adheres to a standard of super-morality. Transcending what is just, he offers undeserved forgiveness to all humans which they are free to receive or deny as they choose. Like the Master in the parable, who did not simply give the servant more time to pay the debt, but entirely forgave it, God has offered unqualified forgiveness to all. 

The human being who condemns the actions of God would do well to heed the words of Christ: “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone.” 

While it is likely that this quote was not in the original text of John, the point remains valid: only a perfect person may rightly accuse God of abuse. 

If God does not exist, as the atheist woman who survived the tornado believes, then she has no complaint. The universe is uncaring. If God does exist, and this woman has turned her back on him, she has no complaint. She has willingly denied the only source of hope. 

On the other hand, as the law of Christ commands, this woman and the other survivors of the tornado are owed the help and generosity of the human community.