The New Testament Documents: Who is Copying Whom
Lesson 1: Introduction
For as long as there has been biblical textual criticism there have been charges of copying laid against the Biblical authors. It has happened against the Old Testament writers as secularists have assumed that the writers of the Old Testament books took ancient myths from other lands and adapted them to their religious agenda.
“It has seemed obvious that the Biblical stories- whatever actual events may have prompted them…” {Dever 2005:32} Then there is the idea that the Bible is a human produced book solely by men for a male objective” “The male chauvinist approach of the whole history of theology, indeed of the Hebrew Bible itself, raises the intriguing question of whether women would have produced a different, and in some way a better, version of Israel’s history, faith and religious practice.” {Dever 2005:61}
It is this type of mentality that the true Christian must do battle with as many scholars and archaeologists continue to put their own beliefs, prejudices and opinions upon the Biblical authorship and record. Their charges of copying rarely come with any real proof, in fact their musings only have conjecture behind them as nothing they accuse the Biblical authors has any concrete evidence to support the charges.
For the Old Testament, it is said by many, many scholars that the Israelites became aware of the many ancient secular myths during their captivity in Babylon yet not one of them can provide one shred of legitimate, credible proof that this was so. In fact, the copying reputation was held by the Babylonians.
“The scribes of the Old Babylonian period were very zealous copyists and went to great lengths to preserve the literature that came down to them from the past…” {Younger & Chavalas 2002:163} We could assume that the Babylonians copied from the stories they heard from the Israelites but we would not have any proof to hang that assumption upon. It would just be common sense to make such a conclusion since the Babylonians were known to be copyists not originators.
But that is the Old Testament though the New is not free of such charges simply because of the ancient roots of some of the false religions that preceded the life of Jesus and the writing of the New Testament.
One such ancient belief is called Zoroastrianism whose religious writings reflect similar teachings to that of the 4 Gospels but whose religious texts were written some 600 to 1000 years before the birth of Christ. That study will be in the second lesson. In the third the document ‘Q’ will be examined as it is reported by some scholars, Drs. Robinson, Hoffman and Kloppenborg, that it is the source document for 2 if not 3 of the original New Testament gospels.
At this time, these and other scholars are trying to reconstruct the ‘Q; document and glean from the Gospels and other works its original words. They hope to show that New Testament writers used other sources.
In the fourth lesson, the Gnostic literature will be looked at for some scholars say that their writings were in competition with Christ’s disciples work and that it was a big conspiracy which made the great councils reject the Gnostic works and canonize the works of the Christian church which held to the disciples gospels and the other New Testament books.
The fifth lesson will look at the time gap between the writings of the ancient beliefs, and other classical authors, in comparison to the time gap between the life of Christ and the Biblical books, along with a look at some glaring absence of evidence.
In the final lesson concluding remarks will be made concerning the charge of copying and the pointing out the difference between the Biblical texts and those ancient works many secularist scholars and archaeologists claim are Christian writings.
There is a big difference between the biblical books and those written by other religious people and there is a very big error or two being made by the secular scholars, which will also be dealt with in the final lesson. These errors play a vital role in misleading secular scholars and archaeologists who in turn mislead those who are unwary as they champion the cause of these ancient forgotten works.
There are other organizations out there, like the Jesus Seminar, who make all sorts of charges concerning Jesus and the New Testament books, but there just isn’t time nor space to deal with them all. Suffice it to say that The Jesus Seminar is famous for its voting system and its ability to put modern day scholars in the seat of judgment over words spoken about 2000 years ago. Their audacity is astounding as is their clairvoyance.
Yet this is the struggle all Christians have had to face over the centuries as unbelievers continually look for some excuse, some fallacy to justify their unbelief and to dismiss the Bible as some sort of fictional work with a religious agenda. The attacks on the Bible and its credibility will never cease until Jesus returns and the devil is finally imprisoned thus the Christian must be aware of the facts, pursue the truth and stand firm in their belief as they and the Bible face all manners of accusations.
Lesson 2: Zoroastrianism
A little background is needed to get a grasp of what is being talked about in this course as too often students will read an article or paper on this ancient belief but and then assume certain details which throws them into confusion about Christ and the Bible. Two quotes from religiousfacts.com:
“Zoroastrianism is the ancient, pre-Islamic religion of Persia (modern Iran). It survives there in isolated areas but more prosperously in India, where the descendants of Zoroastrian Persian immigrants are known as Parsis, or Parsees. In India the religion is called Parsiism.
Founded by the Iranian prophet and reformer Zoroaster in the 6th century BC, Zoroastrianism contains both monotheistic and dualistic features. Its concepts of one God, judgment, heaven and hell likely influenced the major Western religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Now in this quote we see that this belief was originated in the 6th century B.C. though other articles place the date back to 1000 B.C. but we cannot be sure of the exact date due to lost records and other obscure practices. Now the second quote:
The Zoroastrian sacred text is the Avesta ("Book of the Law"), a fragmentary collection of sacred writings. Compiled over many centuries, the Avesta was not completed until Persia's Sassanid dynasty (226-641 AD). It consists of: liturgical works with hymns ascribed to Zarathustra (the Gathas); invocations and rituals to be used at festivals; hymns of praise; and spells against demons and prescriptions for purification.
Most students will read over this or any other article on Zoroastrianism and assume that because the founding date was before Christ so must the religious writings, no thought of copying comes into their minds. Notice the date of completion of the religious writings of the Zoroastrianism cult- they were not completed until the 3rd to 7th centuries A.D.
This means that the followers of this belief had ample time to install Christian teachings into their own belief system. We have no idea what their original religious writings taught for they have obviously been edited and changed over time and as they saw the popularity of the New Testament gospels and desired the same response to their beliefs.
This idea is underscored and supported by Edwin Yamauchi in an interview with Lee Strobel who said: “ when people begin religious movements, its often not until many generations later that people record things about them..But the fact is that we have better historical documentation for Jesus than for the founder of any other religion…For example, although the Gathas of Zoroaster, about 1000B.C. are believed to be authentic, most of the Zoroastrian scriptures was not put into writing until after the third century A.D. The most popular Parsi biography of Zoroaster was written in A.D. 1278 {Strobel 1998:86-7}
So it stands to reason that the New Testament authors could not have copied their ideas from this faith because its religious writings were in constant flux and editing till long after the disciples died out. But we here no charge being laid against the authors of the Gathas, in fact their writings are accepted as authentic, as stated by Dr. Yamauchi, even though there is no legitimate proof their scriptures were written prior to the first century A.D.
The initial quote states that this false religious belief ‘most likely influenced’ 3 other beliefs and it so happens that those beliefs are all monotheistic and two of them originate with God. Notice that not one shred of credible or legitimate evidence is offered to substantiate that empty charge. And that is all it is, an empty charge because the opponents of the Bible have nothing to stand upon as the seek to demote the Bible to just another human work whose words can be ignored and dismissed.
Yamauchi’s assessment of the belief is supported by the following statement made by the New World Encyclopedia:
“As accounts of religious life in ancient Persia are limited and conflicting, it is difficult to describe ancient Zoroastrianism in detail. However, it is clear that the original teachings of Zarathushtra were modified significantly by the prophet's disciples,” (bold mine)
So it would be fair to say that the ‘disciples’ of Zoroaster easily incorporated the New Testament teachings into their religious works. In fact according to the same source:
“The Avesta, the primary collection of sacred texts of Zoroastrianism, illustrates the fact that post-Zarathushtra Zoroastrianism incorporated older beliefs and traditions from earlier Iranian religions, while simultaneously synthesizing the new ideas Zarathrustra developed in the Gathas.”{bold mine}
Again we see that the reputation for copying is owned by those of false beliefs and not by those who wrote the New Testament. Even the ancient historians, who wrote in and close to the first century A.D. do not bring the charge of copying against the disciples, not one of their works even remotely mention such accusations. Yet as we see in the above quote, other works clearly state with authority that the ‘disciples’ of the false religion did in fact copy and adapt from other beliefs.
In regards to Zoroastrianism, it is very clear that the disciples did not get their ideas of monotheism, Jesus’ birth, angels, and other New Testament staples from the ‘disciples’ of Zoroaster or their religious writings. With the constant modifying of their religious writings and the date of completion long after the completion of scripture, it makes it impossible for those who preach the truth to take from those who do not.
But a good case can be made for the copying of the teachings of the New Testament by the ‘disciples’ of Zoroaster. Not only do we have record of their efforts but we have no denials by their followers as well. So in this instance we can safely say that the New Testament authors are clear of charges and now attention must be turned to another charge of copying but its source is from scholars who believe in a document no one has ever seen.
Lesson 3: ‘Q’
The next source that is said to be a source for the New Testament writers is ‘Q’, and it is called this as it is short for the German word, ‘quelle’ which means ‘source’ {Robinson 2002:23} and it is theorized that this is an early document upon which Matthew and Luke based their Gospels.
“Throughout the 19th century, the study of ‘Q’ was facilitated by a cluster of factors that succeeded in accrediting ‘Q’ as the most viable solution to the so called “synoptic problem”…Matthew and Luke used the same two sources, Mark and a no longer extant collection of sayings, commonly called ‘Q’” {Robinson 2002:11}
Robinson is not the only scholar who accepts this document as source material for the disciple Matthew and for Luke as well, this idea is quite common in the academic world. Even F.F. Bruce weighs n on the subject as he says: “Now it is striking that the greater part of the non-Markian material common to Matthew and Luke consists of sayings of Jesus. This has led to the conjecture of another early document on which both Matthew and Luke drew for their common non-Markian material, the document usually referred to as ‘Q’…” {Bruce 1981:34}
With this thinking many scholars set out to ‘reconstruct’ this ‘Q’ document even though as Robinson says, “On these terms, Q would never be more than a hypothesis. One could never quote Q itself.” {Op Cit Robinson}. He also says that ‘The Sayings of Gospel Q (his book) presented here in Greek and English is based on the collaboration of a team of scholars who, since 1985, have been working together…” (Ibid 12)
So here we have a group of educated and intelligent people trying to reconstruct a book they have never seen and could not hope to quote. There are other problems that come with this thinking. First, to quote an interview with Dr. Blomberg, “‘What exactly is Q?’ …’It’s nothing more than a hypothesis.’ He replied.” {Strobel 1998:26}
That is the whole crux of the issue. Here we have these intelligent men studying sayings and trying to reconstruct them based solely upon a figment of someone’s imagination and all because some of the Gospels’ have similar wording.
There is not one shred of evidence that the document called ’Q’ ever existed and there is no ancient record referring to this document or anything similar.
Second, Where is the proof that Matthew and Luke actually copied from these sources? How can these scholars make such accusations when they cannot back them up with credible evidence that such copying took place? Matthew was an eye-witness to almost all of the events that transpired during his physical time with Christ, he would not need to have a ‘source’ document to base his book.
We know that Luke had accounts from eye-witnesses as he says so in the first chapter verses 1-4, he also wrote when many or most of those eye-witnesses were alive and could easily check his work if he had a problem. But he says in verse three: ‘it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account…’ {bold mine}
So if we are to take these words as Luke meant them, he did not need a source book, for he too seems to have knowledge of ‘all things’ and ‘from the very first’ so nothing was withheld from him and a source book like ‘Q’ would have been useless to him.
Third, this is also a very major problem, as these scholars ‘reconstruct’ this imaginary ‘Q’ document how will they know they got it right? They have nothing to compare their work with, so how would they know they did not error, did not include something that was not originally there and exclude something that was?
This is a glaring oversight by these scholars and opens the door to allow the scholars or just about anyone, the opportunity to alter Jesus’ words and make Him say something He did not say. This is a very dangerous project, as is the unsubstantiated charge of copying, for it basically removes the message of God and make it subject to fallible humans who may not like what they read and would want to make changes so it fit their sensibilities or desires.
Fourth, There is no way to determine, when this ‘reconstruction’ is complete to know if they got it right and the ‘reconstruction’ itself would be open to editing from other scholars who think errors were made by the original scholars. All we have is another human book subject to the opinions of other humans who may disagree with what was included or excluded and the fight for content would be endless.
Fifth, if the Gospels writers quoted or used an earlier work, then the ancient historians would have discovered it and called into question the accounts as written in the Gospels. With the many opposing eye-witnesses as their source, it would be easy to discredit the Biblical authors but we do not hear any word from them. There is nothing from the opposing eye-witnesses, nothing from the secular historians, and nothing from Josephus which calls into question the Gospel writer’s work.
It would be logical to conclude, from the textual information we have, that the Gospel writers did not need nor used alternative source material. They did not have to, there is no reason for them to do so and the ramifications if they did, would be immense, which we will see in the conclusion.
As to the similar material which started all this opposition to the Gospel writers writing on their own accord, it is simple common sense. People writing about the same historical events or life will say the same things from time to time because that was what was said and it cannot be changed.
If the Biblical authors wrote the exact same material, then they would be subject to charges that only one person wrote the 4 books or that they plagiarized or copied exactly from someone else. The Christian cannot win when it comes to the secular world for if the Gospels are different then the accounts aren’t true. If they are exactly the same then the accounts are not true, if they contain similar material, they must have copied and it is possible that the accounts are not true.
The believer needs to learn to dismiss such complaints and look at the reality. The accounts will contain similar material for Christ did things only once, said things only once, He was tried and crucified only once thus it stands to reason that the gospels would have similar material.
These charges of copying, by the secular scholars, are not extended to works that write about the Civil War or other historical events as historians writing on the same events include similar material and conversations; thus their hypocrisy is exposed by their application of a double standard to the gospels.
It is quite clear that the Gospel writers did not use ‘Q’ as their source, they did not need to. The scholars making these charges first need to prove the document actually existed first before they make these charges or waste time reconstructing something that they can’t prove is the correct version of the document. This is why the believer is not supposed to ‘walk in the counsel of the ungodly’, they do not have the truth at heart and they cannot substantiate their false accusations.
One final word, these scholars are looking back 1800-2000 years, how could they presume to think that they know what Matthew and Luke did when they were alive? They can’t but they try.
Lesson 4: Other Gospels
This lesson is not so much on copying as it is on the competition. There are scholars out there, like Elaine Pagels, who think that all Christians are Christians and it doesn’t matter about right and wrong or truth and error, as long as they claim to be ‘Christian’, then their views need to be accepted.
“The claims to apostolic authorship…belonged to second century battles over whose views would dominate the nascent Christian religion. Certainly those who wrote and circulated the gospels Irenaeus denounced did not think of themselves as heretics but as Christian. Now that we possess not only Irenaeus’s refutation but copies of some of the works he wrote against…we can see how one-sided his presentation was.”{Pagels 2007:7}
So here we have the complaint that those who defended the New Testament gospels and denounced the works of those which came much later are bullies, unfair in their attacks against the heretical works and fought hard to suppress them so their own views would rule the church.
These works in question belong to the Nag Hammadi Library discovered in Egypt in about 1945.Some of their titles are, The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, The Gospel of Truth, The Gospel of Mary and the Act of Peter, to name a few. These books tell a different story than the New Testament Gospels and it is not hard to see why they were rejected by the Christian Church and the councils which set the Canon of scriptures.
Yet support for these works is not weak: “Few New Testament scholars today would agree with Irenaeus’s reasoning, much less with what he says about those who wrote these gospels…It is highly unlikely that any of them were written by disciples who personally knew Jesus, but we do not actually know who wrote them. Furthermore, many of the gospels that Irenaeus dismisses as illegitimate…also claim to be written by members of the same inner circle of disciples; but we have no independent evidence to verify who actually wrote any of them.” {Pagels 2007:6,7}
But there are problems with this point of view, first, the author makes a generalization about the New testament scholars, whereby giving off a false impression that even true Christian scholars side with her against Iranaeus. That is just not so. Then, second, She leaves the dooropen for authorship to be from someone who may have known Jesus, yet we know that these works date to the middle or late second century A.D. onward to the 4th century A.D. so it is very apparent that they were written by those who sought to deceive others.
The key to remember about these later works is that although secular scholars may accept them as Christian works, they do not read like Christian works and often contradict who Jesus is and His views. {Strobel 1998:123}
As noted earlier, the supporters of these alternatives feel that a great battle was going on inside the church. Whose views would rule and determine the path it was to follow. Many charges of conspiracies, many accusations of changes to the text to avoid problems, then still more of making sure the copyists copied the texts the traditionalists wanted and so on. {Ehrman 2007:171ff}
But like the previous lessons’ examples these accusers cannot provide any concrete or legitimate evidence to prove what they say is true. They all rely on empty statements and hearsay along with their own assumptions or conjectures.
These scholars also forget that the ‘gospels’ they champion were buried for over 1800 years. It was not coincidence that this was done and if these advocates for the Nag Hammadi Library stopped to think, they would see that these books were not buried because of some great conspiracy, or loss of a battle for control of the church but that they were lost because they were false.
Because these secular scholars do not apply any form of sophistication to their studies, they lose sight of right and wrong and true and false and by doing so allow themselves to be deceived. They cannot see the difference between the works and feel that they have missed out on works that should be counted as scripture even though their words are far different than the New Testament writers.
Their constant grouping of all ‘religious’ people who claim to be Christian or part of a form of ‘Christianity’, distorts their perception so that they cannot see how far off these alternative books are. They do not see that they are advocating that the church let in not scriptural non-infallible works as the words of God, which would ruin the message of the Bible and destroy the church.
For the believer, we can see that the fact that these books were buried for so long indicates that they are not God’s word and that they need to be ignored in spite of all the calls by secular scholars to include them as ‘Christian’. We can also see the Biblical teachings of false teachers in action whereas the secular scholar does not nor would accept such an idea.
There are other works out there from ancient times, that people claim to be scripture, yet their works are lost, set aside and forgotten, and so on and the advocates for these as well as the above example ignore the passage of scriptures which talks about God’s promise to preserve His word till the end of time. Preservation does not include being lost, forgotten or buried in the sands for 1800 years for such action would benefit no one and generations of people would be lost and without a chance to hear the good news of salvation.
It is not hard to see the clues God has left us to help us determine what is true or false teachings. Paul mentions cursing those who ‘bring a gospel different than the ones Jesus and His disciples brought’ which is another clue to help the believer determine what they are reading or hearing is true or not.
If it disagrees with the 4 Gospels of the New Testament, which has not been lost, forgotten or buried so no one had access to them over the centuries, then those works are false and it is okay to dismiss or ignore them.
One final word, The honest scholars date the works of the Nag Hammadi library to the second to fourth centuries A.D., long AFTER the deaths of the final eye-witnesses to Christ and His life and resurrection. That is the prime opportunity to strike when one wants to deceive those who believe or will believe if they hear the truth. There is no one left who had first-hand knowledge to refute the alternative and those who have sat under their teaching can only rely on what they have heard or read.
Those believers of the second century onward, can only rely on the change in their lives God made in their lives and their faith. If the deceiver can take those people’s eyes off Christ and make them doubt their faith and experience then the door is open for them to be lead astray and lose what they have gained. What better way to do that than to have alternatives written in names similar to the disciples who wrote the true books of the Bible and have them called Christian as well.
Lesson 5: Dating the Gospels
In looking at these false charges of copying laid against the New Testament authors, it is prudent and wise to take time to look at when the gospels and other New Testament books were actually written. The examination of the dating of the gospels helps keep everything in perspective and allows one to see how ridiculous the accusations are.
First we need to establish a couple points to form a boundary for a timeline. Jesus died approx. 30-33 A.D. after a 3 year ministry, so that will be the bottom marker and it is accepted that John wrote his gospel roughly about 100A.D. so that will be the upper marker.
Here we have a time span of about 70 years between resurrection and the last book of the Bible yet ‘some scholars say the gospels were written so far after the events that legend developed and distorted what was finally written down…’ (Strobel 1998:32} But as we can see, 70 years is not that long after the fact considering that ‘the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after Alexander’s death in 323 B.C., yet historians consider them to be generally trustworthy.’ {Ibid 33}
Again we see that double standard being applied to the Biblical authors when it is convenient for them. Now let’s look at some of the other books of the New Testament, with the help of two Christian scholars, Dr. Craig Blomberg and the late F.F. Bruce. Dr. Blomberg will be first:
1. Luke and Acts: First Acts ends unfinished and Paul is under house arrest, which puts the writing of Acts around or before 62 A.D. as Paul was martyred approx. 64-5 A.D. Since Acts is the second part of a two part work, that makes the writing of the Gospel much earlier.
2. Mark: Since Blomberg and other scholars believe Luke incorporates the book of Mark in his work, that means that the Markian gospel had to be written far earlier, possibly late 50’s.
3. The Letters of Paul: It is said that Paul began his writing ministry before the gospels were written and since these epistles appeared in the 50’s, he must have begun writing in the 40’s and since he met the disciples not long after his conversion that means he was introduced to creeds and other information as early as approx 35 A.D. {all information taken from Strobel 1998:33-35}
Now for F.F. Bruce:
1. The Gospels: he mentions other scholars who late date these works, Mark about 65, Matthew and Luke in the 80’s and John at 100 A.D. but Bruce does not agree and puts them at 64/5 for Mark, Luke and Matthew about the 70’s
2. The Pauline Epistles: Here Bruce says; Galations 48 A.D; 1 & 2 Thess. 50; 1 & 2 Cor. 54-56; Romans 57; Phil., Col., Eph., Philemon all at 60 with the rest nearer to his death in 64-5.
{all information taken from Bruce 1981:7-8}
What is the purpose of all this? If one makes a comparison they will see that the New Testament was basically written within 30-40 years after Christ’s resurrection, hardly enough time for legend to develop and hardly enough time for the disciples to copy from any other source. It should be noted that there would be plenty, if not scores, of hostile eye-witnesses still alive who would have applied opposition if the disciples and other New Testament writers added in legend or copied form alternative sources.
Yet the historical and ancient record is silent on this issue. We have the writings (or copies) of those secular historians who mention Christians and Jesus in or near the first century and not one of them refer to, allude to or mention any opposition or any charges of fraud, copying or misinformation by the New testament authors.
The charges of copying come long after the second century A.D. by those who do not want to accept the Bible as true and who do not wish to live by its teachings. They also come from those who have no way of proving their accusations true. These charges come from safety, as the acts of writing are so long back in history it is impossible to bring definitive testimony to refute and to provide evidence to substantiate them.
Thus the charges remain in spite of the fact that all the evidence points to the New testament being authored close to the time of Christ’s resurrection. Another point in the favor of the New Testament authors is the following:
“It is evident from the recently discovered writings of the Gnostic school of Valentinus that before the middle of the second century most of the New Testament books were as well known and as fully venerated in that heretical circle as they were in the Catholic Church (not RCC).” {Bruce 1981:14}
So here we have acceptance of the New Testament authors’ works by those who disagreed with them long before these charges of copying were laid. If the ancient heretics knew that they were valid, then we in the modern age should not lay false charges against the works.
I close this lesson with one more quote:
“To sum up, we may quote the verdict of the late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make pronouncements on ancient mss was second to none: ‘The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the scripture have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the Books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.’”
In other words, the charges of copying, forgery, misinformation, etc., are all false and a waste of the believer’s time. There is no credibility to such claims and nothing historical can be found to provide any support for them either.
The believer can be at peace knowing they are reading the real words of the real disciples about the real events concerning Jesus.
Lesson 6: Conclusion- God’s Promise
As was stated in the beginning of this course, the Israelites never had a reputation for copying other people’s works, nor did the Biblical authors but we know that the secular civilizations and many false religions edited their works and copied from other people and beliefs.
There is no question that the Biblical authors did not copy, or that would be an end to their purpose if they did and their words would hold no value. This is something that the secular scholars either do not see or hope to see take place. If the latter was achieved then they could live their lives as they please without feeling they are doing something wrong. Unfortunately, they would open the door and throw all morality out the window and anarchy would set in as each person strived to be ‘the strongest’ and set their wills over others.
This isn’t the only danger that comes if the Biblical authors copied and relayed false information, there are others but that is not the purpose of this lesson. Being aware of this important ramification is enough for now.
Another major error the secular scholars and archaeologists make is that they ignore what the Bible teaches about true and false beliefs and teachers. In their quest to side step the Biblical message, they lump a majority of ancient people into one group and call them all Christian. Their only real criteria is whether or not the ancient heretics used parts of the Bible or not.
“According to the Divine Myth…There were a great many different varieties of early Christianity, and they produced a large number of different ‘gospels’, all of which circulated in early Christian circles more or less unchecked.” {Wright2006:121}
This is a problem because it is based upon an assumption and a failure to compare the ancient world with the modern and with scriptures. The ancient world was just like the modern one where people could not bring themselves to believe or accept the truth, and started their own faiths with their own scriptures. Calling them Christian would be like calling the Jehovah witness Christians (and other cults of today) Christian, simply because they used their version of the Bible and not the accepted Christian translations.
The ignoring of the teaching of true and false doctrines is a key ingredient to these secular scholars being led astray from the truth and allows them to pursue whatever ‘gospel’ suits their fancy. It also allows confusion in to the ranks of the church as the unwary do not know what to believe or which scripture to accept. The often bow to the conclusions of the ‘experts’ even though those ‘experts’ are not believers in God.
Another error made by the secular scholars is the attempt to make the Bible a human book demoting it so they can remove words, teachings, dismiss or declare passages as pure fancy and ignore what the Bible says. They need to do so, so they can replace the Bible with false teachings they accept.
By making the Bible a human book these scholars now feel no pang of wrong doing for they ,in their minds, are not attacking or removing God’s words, but a fellow human’s. They feel they are just as qualified or more so and by reducing the divine pages to human status, they then are free to alter, through their own translational skills, the text to fit their own sensibilities.
They also can make all the false charges against the church and the biblical authors as they want, without worry and without concern for proof. They stand upon their expert status to provide the weight they need to get their theories and conspiracies across to the public. One such charge:
“And the reason for this choice, it is suggested again and again by the proponents of the new myth, is because the church was interested all along in political power and control, and so was eager to prioritize books that would provide it…” {Wright 2006:121}
For true Christians political power and control was the furthest things from their minds and only unscrupulous men saw an opportunity to achieve that goal when they looked at the church.
The final error, that will be looked at here, these secular scholars make is that they either forget or ignore what I call the God factor. They ignore God’s promises of keeping His word till the end of time and make it seem that God is incompetent because He cannot keep His word from being altered by those who do not believe as Jesus taught.
We know that God keeps His promises and we need to use faith that He has kept His word intact despite all the false accusations that the Bible has been edited or copied and in spite of all the false translations in the world today.
The second thing that the secular scholars and archaeologists either forget or ignore, are the words of Paul and Peter, who both said that scriptures were given by God (2 Tim. 3:16) and spoken as moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 2:21). The words of the Bible are not written by men, not invented by them but have divine origin.
If the Bible was a human production, the secular scholars would be at a loss to explain how a whole nation of people have adopted it as their national identity and have done so for over 2,000 years. Nor can they explain how this book attracts all manner of people from all around the world, from every different culture, and thinking.
If the Bible was false or copied, then it should not have had such long lasting effect on humans and lives would not be changed by the simple act of repentance. This is where all the arguments of the secular world fail, as they have no answer and nothing to replace the Bible.
You will notice that all the scholars are good with presenting accusations but none of them can present an alternative that stands alongside of what the Bible offers. Their alternatives have been buried in the sand for thousands of years, lost over time or ignored for they have been found out that they do not provide anything that people need or want and quickly cast aside, with only a minute number clinging desperately to their false words.
I close this course with the following words:
“One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect.
The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa- at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397- but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities.” {Bruce 1981:22}
The believer can be at peace knowing that they do not follow empty words copied form some secular myth or false religion but that they follow the true words of God, kept over time through all sorts of attacks and mistakes so that all have the chance to be saved and live with Christ for eternity.
The Bible was not copied from secular people or false religions; it was the secular people who altered their own works from the Bible hoping to siphon off some of the popularity enjoyed by the Christian church and to deceive others. How do we know we have the correct and original words—by faith and by the help of the Holy Spirit.
We do not need to be afraid that we have the wrong words, if we did then the secular scholars and world would not be attacking the Bible and making all these false accusations against it. There would be no need for them to do so, for the followers of the Bible, if it was false, would be just like them, lost and blind and no threat to their lives.
We have the correct Bible, let’s live like we do and follow it humbly.
