The Bible’s Dark Ages

Parchment and whether Jesus is divineWe’re taking a trip through time, from our English New Testament, back through the translations and various copies (Part 1), back through the textual variants to our best guess at the original Greek manuscripts (Part 2). We’ve arrived at our best reconstruction of the canon determined by the Council of Nicaea (325 CE).

The novel The Da Vinci Code portrayed the Council as the stereotypical politicians’ smoky back room where the features of Christianity and the books that represented it (the canon) were haggled over. Many Christian sources have argued against this characterization, saying that the canon had largely been decided by the early churches by that point, but this doesn’t avoid the problem. Selecting the canon would’ve been a popularity contest either way. If the bishops at Nicaea didn’t vote it into existence, then the weeding-out process in the early church created a de facto canon that the bishops accepted with minimal change. Either way grounds the canon on the imperfect shoulders of ordinary people.

Let’s take the next step. We have a big gulf to cross from 325 CE to roughly 70–90 CE, when the originals were written down.

Suppose that Mark was written in Rome in the year 70. Copies are made and it gradually makes its way to Alexandria, where it is copied over and over until it finds its way into the Codex Sinaiticus in about 350. What happened to it in those 280 years? How does the version that we have vary from the original manuscript, now lost to history? That’s a lot of time for hanky-panky.

The issue isn’t that I’m certain that the books were changed significantly; rather, we aren’t certain that they weren’t. This period from Nicaea back to the originals is the Bible’s Dark Ages, a period with very little documentation. We have just a few dozen Greek manuscripts that precede the complete codices. The papyrus manuscripts are all fragments, containing at most a chapter or two of one book. These manuscripts are remarkable finds, but that does nothing to change the fact that we’re bridging a large gap with little information. We can’t say that our copies differ little from the originals because we don’t have the originals.

This biblical Dark Ages was a period of much turmoil in the Christian community. The divisions in early Christianity were much bigger than the modern Lutheranism vs. Presbyterianism distinction, say. Instead of French vs. Spanish, think French vs. pre-Columbian Mayan. And these divisions were all fighting for survival, fighting for their place in the canon.

Historians know of four primary divisions in the early Christian church.

Proto-Orthodox. This is Bart Ehrman’s term for the early Christian sect that would become Christianity as we know it today. Paul’s writings (which changed Jewish law to reject circumcision, the kosher laws, and so on) form the heart of this division.

Ebionites. These may have been the first Christians, because they saw Jesus as a Jew. This was the Jesus who said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets” (Matt. 5:17). The New Testament documents the struggles between the James/Peter sect and Paul in Galatians 2:11–21. Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus says,

According to the Ebionites, then, Jesus did not preexist; he was not born of a virgin; he was not himself divine. He was a special, righteous man, whom God had chosen and placed in a special relationship to himself.1

Marcionites. This Christian variant was put forward by Marcion in about 144 CE. The Marcionites had no use for the Old Testament, since it documented the Jews’ god, who was different from the (unnamed) father of Jesus. Marcion argued that you could answer to Yahweh if you wanted, but Jesus offered a much better option. This Jesus was divine and only appeared to be human. Consider John 20:26: “Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them.” Marcion considered only Paul’s writings to be canonical.

Gnostics. The Gnostics rationalized the evil in the world by saying that the world was created by a demiurge (craftsman) who didn’t intend to or wasn’t able to create a perfect world. While most people on the earth were just animals, some held a divine spark. For that special few, Jesus’s hidden knowledge would be necessary after death to see them safely back to heaven. We see this in Luke 8:10: “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, ‘though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.’”

Biblical redaction is the deliberate change or concatenation by a later editor, and the Bible is full of examples. For example, the Old Testament has two creation stories, two flood stories, two contradictory Ten Commandments (Exodus 20 vs. 34), and even two David and Goliath stories.

The New Testament holds clues to this kind of change as well. For example, John ends with chapter 20 and then again with chapter 21.2 The authorship of Peter’s two epistles is unclear. Jesus says, “But about that day or hour [of the end] no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Matt. 24:36), but some scribes omitted the startling phrase “nor the Son” from their copies.

The Ebionite, Marcionite, and Gnostic passages above suggest that our Bible is a conglomeration of different traditions, with verses or chapters added as necessary to dull the edge of an unwanted concept.

This isn’t meant to be a thorough discussion of New Testament redaction. Rather, I want to show just a few places where it is suspected and to suggest that it could have been even more widespread. Claims as remarkable as those of the gospels must be built on more than “Well, they might not have been changed.”

The message of James differs from the message of Paul; the message of Paul differs from the message of Acts; the message of the Revelation of John differs from the message of the Gospel of John; and so forth. Each of these authors was human, each of them had a different message, each of them was putting the tradition he inherited into his own words.3

Would writings be deliberately changed? The author of Revelation apparently knew it was widespread enough to end with a curse against anyone who would modify his book. The famous Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus (“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man …”) is almost universally said to have been added by later copyists. With the pull of competing Christianities, the urge to “improve” a book might have been irresistible.

Would competing writings be destroyed? It happened in Islam. The “Uthmanic recension” was the process through which one version of the Koran was accepted and all competing versions destroyed. The Nag Hammadi library seems to have been buried. Why hide these books unless there was reason to fear destruction? Perhaps, like the Koran, the Bible has been modified through destruction.

While historians have told us a remarkable amount about the societies from which Christianity arose, our understanding is changing even in our time. For example, consider “Gabriel’s Revelation,” a recently discovered first century BCE writing that talks about a suffering messiah, not Jesus but Simon of Peraea. “In three days you will know that evil will be defeated by justice.” Do we conclude from this that resurrection after three days wasn’t a new concept to the Jesus-era Jews? In this revelation, the messiah sheds blood, not for the benefit of sinners but for the redemption of Israel.

Of course we don’t discard the clues we have about the original New Testament documents, but let’s proceed with humility about how little we can say with confidence.

Read the first post in the series here: What Did the Original Books of the Bible Say?

Next time: the last post in the series will take the step from gospel originals to the figure of Jesus.

1 Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus (HarperOne, 2005), p. 156.
2 Ehrman, 61.
3 Ehrman, 215.

Photo credit: Walter Noel

"If logic is valid, and we see its objective imprint on the empirical world, we ..."

God Is Love—Does That Make Any ..."
"That was when Christian prayer was apart of the classroom and most Americans went to ..."

Responding to the Minimal Facts Argument ..."
"About 20 percent today and in 1950 it was about 3 percentLet's accept those reports ..."

Responding to the Minimal Facts Argument ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • YemiO

    Jesus prepared us for the confusion of multiple Messiahs and corrupted texts.
    The consolation and anchor of Christians that cannot be defeated is the Holy Spirit. There is an inner testimony to the true revelation of God in the Holy Scriptures. Through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, God says “this is mine and this is not mine.” It is no surprise that that there is much confusion and that those without the Holy Spirit cannot come to faith in Christ on the basis of what is written. If they are sufficient God would not have sent a teacher, comforter and witness to the truth. Irrespective of it all, the Bible remains the medium through which God speaks by His Spirit. Remove the Holy Spirit and you remove the inerrancy. Language is not just about what is said, it’s more about what is interpreted and what is heard.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      It is no surprise that that there is much confusion

      It’s actually a great surprise. A real god would give us a complete and unambiguous message. There wouldn’t be a bazillion splinter sects within Christianity. The evidence points to Christianity being just one more invented religion.

      • MR

        And the different sects claim to have the Holy Spirit, yet no one can demonstrate they actually do. The messages change from one to the other. They can’t all be right, but they could all be wrong. The obvious explanation is that there is no Holy Spirit and they just run with the traditions of their church and with their own gut feelings. Human nature explains this far better than the claims of a Holy Spirit that can’t be demonstrated beyond their own imaginings.

        • YemiO

          If you have experienced the teaching, guidance and empowerment of the Holy Spirit you will not doubt His presence. I ask questions and get prompt answers. He leads people and creates circumstances to explain and teach…too much to tell! Open your mind, bury your doubt and humbly ask. The Holy Spirit is God’s Wi-Fi (pneuma) and you can connect to Him anywhere, anytime. Faith is the password.

        • MR

          You can’t demonstrate that it’s anything beyond your own imagining. My point stands.

        • adam
        • YemiO

          Victor rather. I know how faith in Christ has transformed me and set me free.

        • adam

          ” I know how faith in Christ has transformed me and set me free.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8b598571f4bd7f5b61e891132b8ee0da5dd875b77674a7e19a2b719b3119cc5b.jpg

        • MR

          Yet you can’t demonstrate that it is anything but your own imaginings. My point stands.

        • YemiO

          I can demonstrate to you if you will first accept the glasses you need to see Him. Just the way I can help the deaf hear if they will accept hearing aids. Without faith it is impossible to please(or even see) God.

        • MR

          Exactly the answer I would expect from someone who is brainwashed or a charlatan. You claim you can ask questions and get prompt answers, but I guarantee you that your imagined Holy Spirit can’t answer the simplest question put to it that isn’t already in your head or that you can’t imagine. Ask him what I had for lunch, ask him for the answers to mathematic’s unsolved problems, or what the headline on page 10 of the Kansas City Star will be in three days. Your claims are empty.

        • adam

          “I can demonstrate to you if you will first accept the glasses you need to see Him. ”

          Using the same method, I can demonstrate Flying Invisible Pink Unicorns.

          So what?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          “You gotta use faith” is the dead giveaway that the thing doesn’t exist. Of course, it might indeed exist, but it’s a bad sign that it looks precisely like something that doesn’t.

        • YemiO

          Many have come to faith and have come to see and they daily testify.

        • MR

          It’s not difficult to brainwash gullible people into such things.

        • adam

          “Many have come to faith and have come to see and they daily testify.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/98d6f0128b8af0c7099d981d0028fdce9cf890c7b4e1a4e7b8c1d16db7e1572d.jpg

        • adam

          “He leads people and creates circumstances to explain and teach…too much to tell! ”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c95e927c4e95d2cffdd3ef1e9366cb46bfed529f568bfad72911e50e30e88468.jpg

        • Greg G.

          If you have experienced the teaching, guidance and empowerment of the Holy Spirit you will not doubt His presence.

          It is also known as “brainwashing”. Once you realize you have been brainwashed by faith, you no longer pretend there is a presence.

        • YemiO

          Sorry you got scammed. The real thing exists.

        • MR

          You’re as much of a scammer as any of them.

        • adam

          Then quit bragging and demonstrate.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Do you ever give evidence to back up your unbelievable claims? I think you’d make more progress if you did.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          What a coincidence! Faith is the password for understanding that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists as well.

          I bid you welcome, my Pastafarian brother.

        • adam

          “If you have experienced the teaching, guidance and empowerment of the Holy Spirit you will not doubt His presence”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1fbd8b0b77116e25863711be48c1cc50266f926bf18ca4f8f1f398a88c2b69b1.jpg

      • YemiO

        Then it would be by fact not by faith. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. How much you reveal and how you reveal it depends on what you want to achieve. It’s not an election or a popularity contest, it’s a selection, deep calling unto deep.

        • Michael Neville

          Then it would be by fact not by faith.

          What’s wrong with facts?

          If Christians had actual facts then they’d dump faith. But since you know that you don’t have facts then you have to go with faith.

          Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.

          How can you tell the difference between spiritual things and imaginary things?

        • YemiO

          You cannot perceive light by your ears, you cannot perceive spiritual truth by physical senses. Through constant exercise of faith you grow to know and separate truth from error.

        • adam

          ” Through constant exercise of faith you grow to know and separate truth from error.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9d134665ed0517a1f26d646a9aca0769ab8888ea98b22ac830fc9c881177381a.jpg

        • YemiO

          Yes, they were men of faith. Who ever said faith only sees God? Those who serve the devil best are also men of faith. Don’t mistake the misuse of faith to mean its not real.

        • adam

          “Who ever said faith only sees God?”

          All this demonstrates is how USELESS faith is, or rather how dangerous faith is.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/af4da94ea3dbede938e0cc5cab649de86f5db9e263385706b5497b642aca96ca.jpg

          “Don’t mistake the misuse of faith to mean its not real.”

          Of course ‘faith’ is real, delusion is real.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7be189b43a8d6da24f528e28fd9c3b3c6b7911182fff825bc06b4beeb99b4e6a.png

        • Greg G.

          You cannot perceive spiritual truth by imagination either, but you can convince yourself of that. You can separate that which can be disproved from that which is contrived to be undisproveable and pretend you have found truth. Different religions find different “truths” that are incompatible so we know they are not all true. It shows that the method of exercising faith is the problem. It is not a reliable method to arrive at truth.

        • Michael Neville

          So you perceive “spiritual truth” through your imagination.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          My goal is to believe true things and disbelieve false things. If that’s not how you roll, let me know. But if it is, then believing by faith is useless. You should instead believe for good reasons. Said another way, you should follow the evidence where it leads.

          A corollary is that you shouldn’t believe things for which there is insufficient evidence.

        • YemiO

          This is not a new problem. Pilate asked Jesus “What is truth?” How do you discern what is true and what is not? Facts are things you deduce by the physical senses. Faith is the deduction done through spiritual senses. Now, a blind man will argue with you that there is no such thing as sight. He will even go ahead and tell you that those who talk about sight are believing imaginary things. He will not agree that he is blind, especially if his type are in the majority. There is a realm of truth that is indiscernible with normal senses. You must be born again: have your spiritual sense restored and then you will see. That is faith. So we both believe in ascertainable truth, but we differ on how truth is ascertained.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          What spiritual sense? You assume the spirit world before you begin. I’d rather get there by evidence–if there is any.

        • YemiO

          No, you assume you are complete and that you possess all necessary senses to perceive all things. Faith is the evidence acquired through a sense that is dormant in many people, only restored through rebirth.

        • adam
        • YemiO

          Being born again is growing up spiritually. The evolution of our age is spiritual, into the stature of the Son of God.

        • adam

          “Being born again is growing up spiritually. ”

          Nope, it is believing in fairy tales and myths as real, the most childish thing.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/be9ad80377d2f7d542c39315a6b70be646984bfd3420248a29eceac035f8b7f2.jpg

        • adam

          “The evolution of our age is spiritual, into the stature of the Son of God.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ae1afb4336eb43eac4eb6542320889b4c9068fa20364f91b3a3a3b8f6e3a0f88.png

        • Michael Neville

          So what’s your evidence that your god exists?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I assume that the natural is all there is because I see no evidence otherwise.

          You’re sharing with us your worldview. OK, thanks for that. But your stating it doesn’t make it true. These are bold claims with zero evidence.

        • adam

          “Faith is the evidence acquired through a sense that is dormant in many people, ”

          So IMAGINATION is dormant in many people, why believe bullshit?

        • adam
        • YemiO

          Again, another review by someone who has not read the book, or another another prescription by someone who has not tried the medicine.

        • adam
        • adam
        • epeeist

          This is not a new problem. Pilate asked Jesus “What is truth?”

          And Aristotle had solved that problem hundreds of years before Jesus came onto the scene:

          To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.

        • YemiO

          What is and what is not? That is the question that must first be answered. To then actually know what is not and call it what is, is false. I speak of what I know and daily experience . The Holy Spirit is real and so is God.

        • Michael Neville

          So what’s your evidence that your imaginary Holy Spirit and your fictitious god are real?

        • epeeist

          What is and what is not? That is the question that must first be answered.

          Indeed, and the person making the ontological claim has the burden to justify it.

          I speak of what I know and daily experience . The Holy Spirit is real and so is God.

          And given the above then you are of course able to justify your second sentence.

        • adam
        • adam
    • TheNuszAbides

      Remove the Holy Spirit and you remove the inerrancy.

      quite elegant — it’s like a one-way mirror of deepity!

    • adam

      ” There is an inner testimony to the true revelation of God in the Holy Scriptures.”

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13282502375d3da24cf6b663f813609c25b2ff6c1bdd9b750a6d095cf6c73c07.jpg

      • YemiO

        Where do I begin with you? You have the dispensations of the Covenants and the progressive revelation of God’s will mixed up. Some things were not forbidden because over time illumination by what has been revealed will lead man to understand them. You cannot “do unto others as you want others to do unto you” and enslave them. So you see right there that Jesus actually spoke against slavery and it was the interpretation of that law that eventually led to the abolition of slavery.

        • adam

          “Where do I begin with you?”

          Quit the bullshit

          “So you see right there that Jesus actually spoke against slavery ”

          Nope, NOWHERE does Jesus actually speak against slavery

          In fact he uses slavery to demonstrate why innocent people should be beaten.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ae1afb4336eb43eac4eb6542320889b4c9068fa20364f91b3a3a3b8f6e3a0f88.png

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Huh? Jesus says something and 1800 years later, it leads to the abolition of slavery? You paint Jesus as very inept.

          I think seeing things as they really are–that Jesus had no problem at all with slavery–might actually make Jesus look better.

  • TheNuszAbides

    so, apples and unicorns, really.