Certainly you’ve heard the threat: make someone, “Eat their own words?” Unfortunately that’s exactly what happened to too many early Christians who were attempting to pass on, by word of mouth, what was to eventually become the bible. I’m sure more than a few were eaten: words and all… believers who might have had something to add to the story of Jesus; and to the bible. My guess? The orthodox were probably privately; sometimes not so privately, grateful what they had to say didn’t become part of the bible. But, if we accept the thesis of Bart Ehrman’s book, Misquoting Jesus… if Jesus had actually said it, or did it, scribes and the orthodox might have made sure it didn’t get into the bible whether that believer was on the menu… or not.

       Guess there are other ways to devour words than by means of lion’s mouth. Scribes may have had a less messy: a more convenient, way to make sure the bible fit the intent of those who took over for Jesus long after he ascended. Let’s not forget that Crusades, the Council of Nicea and the Inquisition also helped to keep the heretical rabble in line: permanently.

      Ah, those were the merriest of times, weren’t they?

      Maybe not.

      Believers too often would like to forget all that and have us believe the bible is “the word of God.” Even if you forget the New Testament; one must wonder, who actually counted the screws in the Ark of the Covenant, and why should we care? If this is God’s word, why would he even he care if we knew there were five screws instead of six on one side? Did anyone check Moses for a well used chisel before he told us what God commanded? Or did God provide both the grammar and spell check while sternly staring over his shoulder, saying, “Moses it’s ’shall not’ not ’shall’ commit adultery. I don’t care what you think you heard me say.”

      Ah, there’s an Abbott and Costello routine in the making, since I’m sure they’re just waiting for some angel to raise them from the dead. Hopefully it’s not The Stupidest Angel: Raziel.

      From everything I have read: biblical or not, about Gnostics and outright contradictions in the bible… (Example: two separate genealogies of Jesus, each with different names in the middle when you compare one to the other… but both do include Joseph. What did Joseph have to do with it? ) …should probably give you more than just a clue that I have had my doubts about the bible being perfect, or “God’s word.” I’m sure God would be a better writer than that, and he certainly wouldn’t need some English teacher to take him to some correcting pen-based woodshed over contextual errors. Let’s not even get into scientific errors.

      My cynicism; my doubting Thomas nature, left me approaching: closer and closer to being agnostic as my rather vague theistic beliefs evaporated over time. Then I read Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus and I believed again… only not quite the way more traditional believers would insist I have to believe… usually accompanied by thinly veiled threats if I don’t agree with them.

“You had better hope your right or else…”

      Torment! Fire! Demons dancing with sharp cleats on my bare tush! A Waltz? The Rumba? Or do I have to listen to Disco? Please, no. I hate Disco. After Disco Duck, Disco Dog, Disco Moose, Disco Pig, Disco Squished Possum by that musical form of Disco road kill: Donna Summers and her back up band: The Bees Without the Gs, do I really have to listen to Disco Demon for the rest of eternity?

      Chuckle.

      Well, back to Mr. Ehrman…

      Bart doesn’t start with “the word of mouth” bible, like I started this edition of Inspection. I think I understand. There’s probably little one can say about that time except what I just typed. Hopefully we got it as right as possible: saving the most important parts of what became the bible from the grasp of multiple lion digestive tracts. Or, perhaps God did keep them all perfectly on track; the ones who finally did pass on some of what was to be the New Testament.

      Mr. Ehrman, instead, starts with an obvious fact: early copies of the bible, written by scribes, were done during a time when Guttenberg was merely a distant “glint, of a glint, of a glint” in his great, great ancestor’s genes. These scribes copied, by hand, from previous texts. Every copy of the bible was copied by hand by scribes with varying abilities. Using what text, or texts? Well, like believing that there’s some intriguing cat curling around and around your leg that you can’t prove is there because it’s invisible… there’s the rub. We don’t have them: the first; the source material. We don’t even have second copies. Intriguing they will always be: fascinating for almost two thousands years… but that is all they will ever be. We have to guess, we have to assess: it’s somewhat Sherlock Holmes-ian in nature.

      I wonder, does Mr. Ehrman smoke a pipe? Both his book and his passion certainly seem to have a logical, deductive nature.

“What we have are copies of these writings, made many years later- in most cases, many years later. Moreover, none of these copies is completely accurate, since the scribes who produced them inadvertently/or intentionally changed them in places. All scribes did this.”

Page 5, Misquoting Jesus, Bart Ehrman

      The problem: changing the bible, became so obnoxious that scribes would berate each other: even writing their own criticisms of the work of another scribe into the margins of the text they were copying from…

“Fool, knave, leave the old reading: don’t change it!”

-a note written in the margins of the fourth-century Codex Vaticanus, a copy of which hangs in Bart Ehrman’s office

      Who is this “uninformed” cretin who dares to challenge literalist dogma?

Chair of the Religious Department at University of North Carolina; Chapel Hill
Former “born again Christian” and graduate of Moody Bible Institute
Graduate of Wheaton College
Biblical Scholar who as a Ph.D and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary

      Other than copying mistakes, and copying mistakes made by others that added even more textual inaccuracies to previous errors, there are several obvious changes that lead one to realize that the bible has been altered many times… intentionally. For instance, Paul gives specific instructions about what women should wear in church, and when they should speak. Elsewhere he supposedly says they should remain silent. The rules for when, and how, they should speak seem very much a part of the original text. Then we find another claiming that they should never speak right smack dab in the middle of a totally unrelated topic, and the phrasing is quite different, and very much unlike what is attributed to Paul… as if someone had simply, though sloppily, inserted it.

      Note: one of the big debates in the first few centuries had to do with the proper role of women in the church. Mr. Ehrman says that most biblical scholars believe that the “remain silent” verses were added much later, by a different scribe who believed women should be totally silent.

      Be aware that I am intentionally not giving specific verses because I have no desire to get in some bible quoting war with anyone who reads this column. You can read this book and make up your own mind… or not. You also need to understand that no one has to change their opinion about the nature of Jesus: not one iota, if you accept Mr. Ehrman’s claims about the bible. This book literally says nothing about the nature of Jesus, his divinity or any miracles he may have performed. Misquoting Jesus, however, says a lot about the nature of the bible and claims that have been made about it like: as in, “word of God.” That’s fine with me. I noticed a long time ago that neither Jesus nor any portion of what some refer to as “the Trinity” wrote one word of the bible. It’s not in the first person. At best the bible is what some one said Jesus, or God, or Pilate said. In fact much of the bible may be “what someone said that someone said, that someone said, that…” even if you just consider those rather hungry lions.

      Mr. Ehrman lists different factions in Christianity who had put out biblical tracts that eventually became part of the bible, or were rejected, or had to be hidden to prevent them from being burned… both the books and those burying them. Some tracts were lost entirely and we only know of their existence because more orthodox Christians wrote tracts to counter them.

      Here’s a short; incomplete, list: vastly over simplified from Mr. Ehrman’s book…

      Separationists: where they understood Jesus to be of two beings; one divine and one human. Hence: “why have you forsaken me” was eliminated from many past versions of the bible, then reintroduced. He includes Gnostics in this group.

      Doetists: Jesus wasn’t really human.

      Adoptionists: an evil God created this world. Jesus was the Son of the one true God who either brought the salvation of the world, or he didn’t really die. (Of course there’s always disagreement within sects, or groups considered heretical, as well as between them and the more orthodox.)

       Mr. Ehrman provides evidence that throughout the bible texts had been altered to combat what were considered heresies: most of whom had their own tracts that were competing with what eventually became the bible. There were also others that needed to be “put in their place.” Several past versions of the bible do not include “forgive them; they know not what they do.” Why? Well, for those who blamed the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus, the possibility that Jesus might forgive them was probably quite unforgivable. One thing is sure: those who have power, whether it be political, social or religious, usually do all they can to keep power.

      The third variation I will mention are those made by scribes to keep the text flowing well and consistent with other parts of the bible. Some of this may seem benign, unless you are a literalist. The attempt was sometimes just to make it seem more poetic, or to have less of a startling end like Mark may have had: a common literacy device used in those days.

       So how did Mr. Erhman make me more of a believer? He’s confirmed many of my suspicions and certainly you might think that would make me more of an agnostic… more of a person who might eventually consider all of the bible a “croc,” right?

       Wrong.

       Towards the end of Misquoting Jesus Mr. Ehrman explains how the authors: whomever they may really be (That’s my add: not his), used Mark: the oldest of the books, and the one most like to have been written by Mark himself, as a source. But then they went off the theological party barge, and built their own myths. In one book Jesus is described as most frequently distraught, in another most often angry, in another firm, calm and resolute. Some of this can be described by the fact that observers often have difference of opinion when it comes to such assessments. How does anyone really know what’s going on inside another person, emotionally? The words, his actions and the mood the author attributes to Jesus in each of the different gospels confirms each author’s quite different perspective. But how can they be all right, if the bible is the perfect word of God? No, like all humans, they were imperfect witnesses: at best… or intentionally altered what happened to suit their needs. We most likely will never know the definitive truth in regard to either.

       Here is what Mr. Ehrman wrote…

“Each of these authors was human, each of them had a different message, each of them put the tradition he inherited into his own words. Each of them, in a sense, was changing the ‘texts’ he inherited.”

-from Misquoting Jesus, Page 215

       Most faiths, I assume, would agree that the following statements are part of the New Testament: the disciples slept when they should have stayed awake, sometimes didn’t understand what was being taught, and many shamed themselves as Jesus was led to the cross. Yet, after he died, they suddenly all became perfect oracles, writing down exactly what Jesus would have wanted them to? These writings have been passed on, unaltered and perfect, to us?

        Why do you think so many people find how the bible: not Jesus, is accepted is unbelievable and absurd?

        Santa Claus.

        The Tooth Fairy.

        Super Jesus.

        Super Disciples.

        Thousands of scribes and lion threatened Christians: all perfectly pushed unto perfection by a micromanaging deity.

       That’s less believable than some fairy tales. I find it absurd that some who go to great lengths to debunk evolution accept such assumptions on face value. Some fundamentalists often like to claim that secular humanism worships humans. Yet despite all of humanities failings, they somehow managed to catch these divinely tossed footballs: without fumbles. All this has been carried without any errors to perfect touch downs, over and over again, through many, many, many centuries by humans. For there is no doubt: neither God or Jesus wrote the bible. Divinely inspired or not, who wrote the bible? The cover would have to at least read…

“Written by human beings.”

       So believing the bible to be the inerrant word of “God” sounds more like humanity worshiping itself to me: bestowing the theologically correct with super powers.

        But to accept that there have been many errors and changes?

       To continue to attempt to ascertain what Jesus may have meant; what he may have actually said, and to understand how the story, and the words, may or may not have been changed?

       To consider and search for what may have been added, what has been ripped out and what may have been lost forever?

       To realize despite errors and intentional changes of scribes that their perspectives are still oh, so, important too?

       Then to also accept that these stories, these words: true or not, that surround Jesus are so powerful that we are still debating, studying and trying to understand them: and that this is only marvelous and wonderful as long as we respect each individual’s unique perspective?

       That’s makes this not only a human story; but a human story that reaches beyond just common human experience. Perhaps a human story where humanity continues to better itself instead of turning on those who dare to disagree to devour them.

      …and also, perhaps, the story of the divine trying to reach out to us, again and again, in hope we will continue to learn: to continue to grow. And Jesus: one person, somehow has managed to fascinate and intrigue believers and unbelievers for two thousand years. If he wasn’t “God,” then he was probably as close to the divine as one can get. And maybe all faiths have a little bit of insight into who this man was: some a lot; some a little. Could it be that if we learn, listen and respect each other more, instead of treating “the other” sometimes worse than lepers were in his day, we can actual get to know who Jesus was, and maybe who he is, even more? …using all the various books in the bible, banned from the bible and other theistic texts used by other faiths?

“Turn over a stone, and I am there.”

-a quote, supposedly from Jesus, often used by Gnostics to explain that God is everywhere, and in everything: we just need to look

     In that? I can believe: even more than I did before. Whatever Jesus may, or may not, have said… I can’t help but think this was more like what he envisioned: what he wanted.

      So…

Forgive us Lord; we know who you are. But please help even the hardest of hearts and minds to learn, grow and reach beyond their own limited understanding.

      That “prayer” goes for all of you out there.

      Me too.

                      -30-

      Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over thirty years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.