In the Name of God; the All-Merciful, the Very-Merciful

All praise is due to God; Lord of all the worlds And may peace and blessings be upon the most honorable of messengers and upon his family and companions, and all those who followed them in righteousness, until the Day of Judgment

Introduction The Bible is a book that billions of people use as the basis and guideline for how they view the world and how they live their life. Countless people put the fate of their eternity at stake based upon the validity of the Bible. Nonetheless, even amongst the followers of the Bible, there is great difference of opinion as to what the book is and how it should be viewed. Millions believe that it is the inerrant and literal word of God while millions of others believe it is the inerrant inspired word of God, and yet, there are many Christians that neither see it as inerrant, nor as the word of God. Despite the differences of opinions even amongst the followers of the Bible, if anyone dares to question the authenticity of the modern Bible and question historically whether the modern book we call the Bible today is actually the inerrant literal word of God, that person is said to be outright heretical to orthodox Christianity and Judaism. Actually however, many people will be surprised to know that such is anything but the case. The fact of the matter is that most Christians throughout history, the vast majority in fact, including most Christian intellectuals and scholars today, never believed that the modern bible is the inerrant word of God. Well respected Biblical scholars write: Actually, the view that the Bible is inerrant is a completely modern ideait is not the traditional Christian viewthe views of inerrancy held by evangelical and fundamentalist Christians today were developed less than a century ago...in the United States.1 If the majority of the followers of the Bible throughout history did not view the book as the inerrant literal word of God, we must be willing to reexamine our modern perception of the Bible. With these important facts in mind, before we can even consider whether the Bible is the inerrant word of God, we must critically historically and academically examine the modern Bible to see who originally wrote it and if it is indeed even an accurate reflection of the words of its alleged authors. For as people of faith we all want to follow the true teachings of our Prophets, not of transgressors and criminals who may have attempted to change the original message revealed from God to humanity. Say: "Will ye worship, besides God, something which hath no power either to harm or benefit you? But God,- He it is that heareth and knoweth all things."

Say: "O people of the Book(The Torah and Gospel)! exceed not in your religion the bounds (of what is proper), trespassing beyond the truth, nor follow the vain desires of people who went wrong in times gone by,- who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the even way. (5:76-77) Although today many Christians are taught to read the Bible as the inerrant or inspired word of God, as written by the disciples of Jesus to reflect an accurate account of his life, we must ask, how accurate is this claim? This is a particularly important question given that this view is a completely new and modern phenomenon unknown to hundreds of generations of Christians. In order to answer this question, we must discover who wrote the New Testament. For we cannot examine the claim as to whether the modern Bible is divine or not until we first know who originally wrote it and how well the original writings have been preserved over the years. Thus three separate yet vital questions must be answered: 1. Who wrote the original words and manuscripts that are said to be the inerrant word of God that the modern Bible is based upon? 2. Who selected which authors and manuscripts were to be considered divine and from God and which were not? Basically, who selected which books would make up the Bible? 3. How well have those words and manuscripts survived and been accurately preserved to this day? Does the modern Bible accurately represent what the original authors who are said to have written the divine word originally wrote? Only after answering these three questions can we even begin to consider whether the Bible is the inerrant word of God. The reason we must answer these three questions is because our beliefs are rooted in certain historical claims about what happened in the past based upon the accounts of men2. Whether those events happened or not and whether we have an accurate account of them is vital to the foundation of our faith. Thus it is vital to historically examine if what we claim happened actually happened, for if did not happened, then our faith has no foundation. Since the doctrine and teachings of religion are rooted in historical claims about what happened in the past, if we cannot support historically the accuracy of these claims, then we have what is called blind faith which has no foundation and is thus not based on reality, nor even based upon the teachings of the Prophets we claim to follow. How to Approach these Questions In examining the authenticity of the Bible as the inerrant word of God there are two approaches we may take. The first approach is to simply presuppose that it is inerrant3 without investigation or questioningi.e., blind faith. With this approach, no matter how many discrepancies and mistakes are pointed out within the Bible, one can never accept that it is not inerrant (error free) since presupposition blinds one to the objective reality. However, this approach is a modern invention of fundamentalist theologians and is not the traditional Christian view of the Bible4. It denies the importance of rationally examining a text for accuracy before accepting it, but rather insists on accepting the text at face value without first looking at or caring for evidence. However if we will simply presuppose that the Bible is inerrant, why not presuppose any other religious texts as inerrant? How do we know which religious texts (i.e like the Quran, Bible, Vedas etc) we should presuppose as being inerrant and which are inauthentic? How will we know if our presuppositions are even correct without examining evidence? What will differentiate a particular holy text as being authentic above others if we do not first look at evidence? Without examining evidence it simply means that we hold inerrant, accurate, and divine, that book which agrees with our beliefs as opposed to which book is historically and factually accurate.

It means we hold as accurate that which we presuppose is divine, instead of accept as divine that which we examine as accurate. However, are not our beliefs supposed to be based upon authentic documents, and not the authenticity of documents based on whether they agree with our beliefs? To blindly accept a document as authentic and true because it agrees with our opinions instead of looking at evidence, is like to accept a medicine as being effective because it coincides with our taste, instead of looking at scientific evidenceThis indeed can be very harmful! Many Christians condemn those who ask for evidence that the Bible is inerrant, and say evidence is not necessary, when all evidence means is a rational reason to accept the veracity of a particular document above others. To first presuppose the Bible as inerrant without first investigating it is like assuming that a necklace is made of real gold without first testing the metal, or that a check is real, without examining its signature.. Whether a book is inerrant and authentic or not, is a conclusion we can make only after fair examination and investigation, we cannot simply assume the conclusion before examining the evidence and then attempt to force the evidence to fit our conclusion, especially when the evidence is contrary to what we presupposed. Unfortunately, this is often what most people who presuppose the inerrancy of the bible do. However, we must never be afraid to ask for support and evidence for claims about God, for to question the authenticity of any book or the Bible in particular, is never to question God, but rather, to examine human claims about God. The other objective approach in examining the authenticity of the Bible, or any religious text for that matter, is not to presuppose anything, but rather look at the facts, to neutrally examine the Bible itself and see if it contains mistakes, contradictions, discrepancies, etc. and if you find them, then obviously the book is not inerrant! Is not the reason God gave us logical and intellectual capabilities simply to distinguish truth from falsehood, inerrant from errant? This will allow us to distinguish what is really Gods word from what are lies and changes made by scribes and false preachers. It is called in academia, Textual Criticism and it is a very important tool in determining the legitimacy of our beliefs which we hold true because of trust in a particular document. It is a very important tool, particularly because we do have several books which differ from another yet all claim to be from God. To presuppose any one particular book as being true will not lead us to truth, since each person will simply presuppose the book passed down to him from his parents or culture is true, and this of course not cannot and will not always be the case. We must therefore objectively look at each book and use our intellect, a blessing and invaluable gift from God, to look at the evidence, to distinguish what is really from God, and what is false or is no longer the word of God due to human tampering. By using our intellect to search for divine guidance will we be able to truly find the word of God and build a relationship with our loving creator. We had endowed them with (faculties of) hearing, seeing, heart and intellect: but of no profit to them were their (faculties of) hearing, sight, and heart and intellect, when they went on rejecting the Signs (Proofs) of God.(5:77) Thus in writing this book, we have used the second approach. And it is vital that readers also approach reading this book and examining the Bible with the second approach which simply means to follow what the rational evidence says, whatever it may be, as opposed to irrespectively sticking to beliefs which may contradict rational evidence and ignore historic and real world facts altogether. Otherwise this book will be of no use to those who wish to base their beliefs on conjectures and opinions as opposed to the historical reality of what their faith claims rest upon. They follow nothing but conjecture and what their own souls desire!- Even though there has already come to them Guidance from their Lord! (53:23).

But they have no knowledge therein. They follow nothing but conjecture; and conjecture avails nothing against Truth. (53: 28) Nor canst thou lead back the blind from their straying: only those wilt thou make to hear, who believe in Our signs and submit to the truth. (30:53) What is the Bible? The Christian Bible is composed of two sectionsThe Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament contains the Torah or the Instruction, which is composed of the first five books of the Old Testament; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. These are known as the Five Books of Moses, and many Christians as well as Jews believe they were written by the Prophet Moses. The next eight books are known as the Neviim, or the Prophets and discuss the rise and division of the Hebrew Kingdome, and the stories of the prophets sent to warn of Gods wrath, and ends with the conquests of the Jewish kingdoms by the Assyrians and Babylonians empires. The Books that compile the Neviim are: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Minor Prophets (Which contains another 9 books) The last section is known as the Ketuvim, or the Scriptures and are said to have been written when the Jews were in exile. Some of the books in the Ketuvim are attributed to the Prophet David, the King Solomon, and the Prophet Jeremiah. These books contain poetry, philosophical reflections and the stories of Jewish leaders and Prophets during the exile. These books compose of Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra (which includes Nehmiah), and Chronicles. The above three sections comprise the books of the Old Testament, written before the time of Jesus, yet accepted as scripture by Jews and Christians. The New Testament contains an additional 27 books of four different types; Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses. The Gospels or the Good News consist of four books, Mark, John, Luke, Matthew and consist of the stories of the life of Jesus and his teachings as interpreted by their respective authors .The Acts, contain details of the early Christian church and is believed to be written by the author of Luke. The next fourteen books, the Pauline Epistles, contain letters written to early Christian communities and churches outlining Pauls interpretations of the life and teachings of Jesus and have been most influential in the development of Christian doctrine and beliefs. These books consist of: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews. Although these letters are all believed to have been written by Paul, there is disagreement about the authorship of some of these books, particularly Hebrews. The next seven books are called the General Epistles, which contain letters written by various authors to Christians in general. These books include James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude. The last book, Revelations, is an Apocalypse of the end of time and other such prophecies. Some different Christian sects have additional books as well which they consider to be part of the Bible. It is important to note that none of these twenty-seven books is claimed to be the literal words of God as inspired verbatim to Jesus, Peace be Upon Him.

Question 1: Who Originally Wrote the Bible? The Old Testament If Moses was a Prophet of God and he wrote what is attributed to him, then yes we must follow and obey what he taught. However, we must not be afraid to question if the Torah we refer to today was indeed written by Moses. For if in actuality it is clear that he is not the author of what is today considered to be the Torah then we may not actually be following the teachings of a Prophet. Again to look at the authenticity of the Torah is not to question God or Moses, but rather to question what people claim about God and Moses. Nor does questioning the authorship of what we consider the Torah deny the fact that the original Torah originated through Moses. However, the Torah of Moses and what we now call the Torah, may not be the same thing, as the evidence indicates. While most Jews and Christians believe that the Torah we have today was originally written by Moses, a study of the text however shows that this is not likely. First, it is important to note that in Deuteronomy 34:05 the author of Deuteronomy talks about the death of Moses in third person and in past tense:
4

Then the LORD said to him, "This is the land I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob when I said, 'I will give it to your descendants.' I have let you see it with your eyes, but you will not cross over into it." 5 And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, as the LORD had said. 6 He buried him in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is. 7 Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone. 8 The Israelites grieved for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days, until the time of weeping and mourning was over. Clearly, this part of the Torah was not written by Moses. Some people try to say that Moses was prophesizing his death, but if read within context it is not written within nature of a Prophecy, particularly since it is written in past tense and in third person. The fact that Moses so often is referred to in the third person and that the Torah refers to events that took place after the death of Moses as well as refers to cities and places by names which did not exist until many years after the time of Moses (like in Genesis 11:28, Genesis 14:14) is clear evidence that at least some parts of the Torah were not written by Moses. Despite this being very clear, many people still insist that the Torah in its entirety was written by Moses, which is contrary to what the text of the Torah itself indicates. Furthermore, since it is clear that al least some parts of what we now consider the Torah could not have been written by Moses, then it is clear that the Torah is not a secure document. I.e., it was not protected from additions and deletions and cannot be trusted as an accurate representation of what Moses wrote. This is due to the fact that since we know for sure that some parts of the Torah were not written by Moses, although many people assume they were, we can never be certain what else was truly written by Moses and what was not. Needless to say, it is clear what we call the Torah today, is not, and could not have been, the same as what was written by Moses. Thus it is no surprise that acclaimed theologian, Robert Beckford, says, modern archeology has exploded the idea that the Old Testament is an accurate account of ancient history,5 since a study of the text itself as well as the historical study of the events described within what we know as the Torah indicate that it is not. Professor Jill Middlemas, from the University of Oxford and specializes in analyzing Biblical literature says, It is not very likely [that Moses is the sole author of what we consider the Torah] there are

actually four different literary sources.6 Biblical scholars are generally in agreement that there were four different sources by different authors that were compiled to make what we know as the Bible today. Beckford says: Whats absolutely clear is that the Bible is a big editing job. Rather than [the Torah] having one author, Moses, there are four anonyms versions, J,D, E and P, and they arise from different parts of Israelite society to top all of that, theologians and academicians have known this for some time, but the details have not filtered out into the churches, and you have got to wonder why.7 The reason the versions are referred to by letters is because it is not clear who their original authors were. What is certain, however, is that there were four distinct sources for the Torah we have today. Yair Zakovitch, of Hebrew University in Israel states that the Torah was compiled in seventh century BC, when four stories were weaved together to make first five books of the Torah8. In explaining how the Torah we have today was compiled, Beckford states, It wasnt who wrote the bible, but who rewrote the bible. The four versions were being revised, edited, and updates to fit a particular theological and political point of view.9 An example of this, is highlighted by Jonathan Tubb, of the British Museum, as he compares the Biblical account of the Jewish King, Hezekiah, and the Assyrians with what archeological findings indicate.. In the Biblical account, that Assyrians went to attack Jerusalem, but were defeated by Judah and forced to fall back. However Archeological evidence indicates that in fact, Hezekiah, had to pay tribute to the Assyrians so they would spare Judah. 10 Further proof that the Torah (And thus the whole Bible as a result) was manipulated and changed to suit the interests of those with authority is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in 1947 and which are over 2000 years old. The scripture of the Dead Sea Scrolls which contains parts of the Old Testament contradict and differ much in what is in todays Bible. It is extremely unfortunate that although it has been well known in scholarly circles that the Torah we use today does not have a single author and has many internal discrepancies, many people still believe otherwise without seriously looking into the matter. Above were mentioned only a few examples of how the Torah we have today cannot be the same Torah written by Moses and yet there are many more examples, but this should suffice for the honest seeker of truth and guidance. As for those who are not sincere in seeking truth and guidance, then no amount of examples or proofs will do them any good. Those who wish to believe blindly, using the first approach we discussed earlier, often do not want to engage in scholarship and see what the evidence has to say. Often they are quick to patronize and ignore Biblical scholars and historians, although such scholars have spent their whole lives working with and studying the text. It is therefore very unfortunate and disturbing when people do not give those learned in the matter any respect and insist in following their own assumptions which may not be rooted in historical fact, thus lacking the very foundation their faith is supposed to be based upon. Ask the people of knowledge if you know not

Note that this discussion has been limited to the Torah, which comprise only the first five books of the first part of the Bible. There is much more to say in regards to the remainder of the books in the Old Testament, many of which we are unsure who their real authors are or whether their message has accurately been preserved. If we say a book is divine because its author claimed it to be*, we should at least know the full name of the person who claimed its divinity, who he was, and be able to independently verify him as well as those who transcribed his text, which we are unable to do for much of the Biblethis alone makes the old testament untrustworthy and not credible. The New Testament When we say something is the word of God, in the traditional sense, we understand that each and every word in a document was revealed from God to a Prophet and has remained unchanged since God revealed it. Any alteration or a translation of those very same revealed words is no longer considered the word of God, as they are the words of the translator(s) who translated them or the scribes who changed them. However this is not the way most Christians view the Bible as being the word of God. Those Christians that do view the Bible as the word of God, believe the New Testament was written by many different authors as accounts of the life of Jesus and as instructions on how to follow him, but that each of those authors was inspired by the holy ghost and thus the often nameless authors wrote the message that God wanted and thus the Bible is the word of God. Since translations, often by anonymous men and councils, still contain the message of the original words (they claim), they still consider even the translation the word of God. Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham explains one Christian view of the Bible: The Bible is of course a human book constructed by men and women, but equally divinehow humans and God are responsible for the same thing at the same timethat is one of the oldest mysteries in the book11. Of course Mystery in this case simply means a claim about truth which by using our faculties of intellect, reason, and logic would not make sense. I.e., it is something which is illogical. Christians often do not have a problem admitting that such doctrinal claims (like the trinity or the idea that the Bible is both divine and human) are illogical, and they proudly say you simply must have faith in it. But as we addressed earlier, faith is based upon historical claims of what actually happened, and if what happened was illogical our faith has no foundation and is therefore likely a false invention. This is very easy to understand if we remember that illogical is a synonym for such words as unsound, unfounded, unreasonable, and irrational. Thus when we say some of our beliefs are illogical we are in essence saying they are unsound, unfounded, unreasonable, and irrational. We must remember that reason and rationality are tools God gave us to discover the truth, and thus if something goes against ration or reason, it is also likely false. Logic itself is the study between what is true or possible and what is false or impossible. If something is illogical, by definition, it is also false. Rationally, in everyday life, if the facts and claims about an occurrence do not add up to the conclusion we make, we do not call our conclusion a mystery and keep on believing it rather we conclude that the conclusion we made must be false. By the same token, if a claim about our holy books simply does not make sense, we cannot
*

Which is essentially the claim most people have for the divinity of the Bible. Many also claim that it is divine because it has brought about a positive and wonderful change in their lives, but that is not sufficient since people of all faiths claim to have this experience with their holy texts.

simply label it a mystery and accept it, but we must question then if our conclusion is correct or can even be true. The evidence Christians accept as proof that the Bible is the inerrant word of God would never be accepted in a court room, nor would a rational person make any decision about a material transaction with such week evidence, yet Christians do not mind putting their entire eternity on the line based on such week evidence. Nonetheless, even the Christians who say the Bible is the word of God, do not believe that it was the literal divine revelation from God reveled to Jesus in words specifically chosen by God, as do for example the Muslims view the Quran. Christianity in essence has no surviving equivalent of the Quran, or a literal divine inspiration revealed directly to the Prophet of the faith (in this case Jesus) and preserved to this day, normally however when you say word of God to a Muslim, that is what they will expect. It is critical to remember that the Bible is not the holy book Jesus had and taught or selected, nor did it exist for the first several hundred years after Jesuss time. Clearly then, even for the Christians that hold the Bible is the word of God, they do not believe it is the word of God according to the literal traditional definition. Nonetheless, many Christians outside of scholarly circles do believe that Bible is composed of the actual recordings of what the disciples of Jesus saw and heardwhich is what they then call the literal world of God. But even this is not the case, as scholars who have studied the Bible agree, as Beckford explains: In actual fact the business of writing down the New Testament got started, not in the holy land, but somewhere else all together, and by someone who never met Jesus. His name was Paul and 14 of the letters in the second part of the New Testament are attributed to him.12 The New Testament therefore is neither to literal words of God spoken to Jesus, nor even the writings if the apostles who lived with Jesus, as many Christians assume. Writings attributed to Paul comprise of the majority of text in the New Testament and lay the foundation for the core beliefs in Christian doctrine. With so much resting on the sayings of Paul, we must ask who was this man that Christians base much of their beliefs about the actions and teachings of Jesus and how to attain eternal salvation? Paul was the first to write about Christianity although he was never a follower of Jesus when Jesus was on Earth. When Jesus was inviting people to Christianity, Paul was persecuting those who answered the call. The reason we place Christianity in quotations is because we cannot say that Jesus was calling towards Christianity since Christianity both as a term and a faith were never taught or used as terms by Jesus. Rather it was constructed by Paul and other people long after the time of Jesus. Well respected Biblical Scholar and Chairman of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hills department of Religious Studies writes: One of the ironies of early Christianity is that Jesus himself was a Jew who worshiped the Jewish God, kept Jewish customs, interpreted the Jewish law, and acquired Jewish disciples, who accepted him as the Jewish messiah. Yet, within just a few decades of his death, Jesuss followers had formed a religion that stood over-against Judaism.Jesus was thoroughly Jewish, in every wayas were his disciples. 13 With this we must wonder that by following modern day Christianity, which was heavily influenced, constructed, and developed by Paul and others who had never seen Jesus, are we even following the

same teachings Jesus taught? At the same time, however, it would not be right to say Jesus was following Judaism since that term is not found in the Bible either. The name of the faith Jesus taught and practiced is no where to be found in the Bible, although interestingly enough, it is found within the Quran*. At any rate, Paul, whose teachings and claims about Jesus are the basis for Christianity, was in the years after Jesus departed earth, a Jewish establishment hardliner who persecuted early Christians.14 He was an open enemy to Jesus and was violently opposing Jesus and his followers. He was so for many years until one day he claimed to have had a personal vision of what appeared to him as Jesus, asking him to spread the message of Jesus. Paul, a life long enemy to Jesus and the disciples, was the lone witness to this vision and yet founded the Christian church and faith, claiming that whatever he wrote was the word of the Lord. His writings are responsible for more of the New Testament than any other personand it is based upon these teachings of a man who never was a disciple of Jesus, but rather an open enemy, that the Christian faith is primarily based upon. Paul began his preaching in the city of Ephesus, in Modern day Turkey, and not Palestine where Jesus lived, and it is there that much of Pauls writing originated through unknown scribes. The first letter written by Paul is dated to the year 49 C.E., written over twenty years after the time of Jesus and twenty years before any of the Gospels were written.15 Christians today are actually following the teachings of Paul whom they believe was sincerely reflecting the true teachings of Jesus, but what proof do we have that what Paul said is an accurate unadulterated reflection of Jesuss message? What proof or at least signs do we have that Pauls vision was true and divine? What unique evidence is there that his words were inspired by God? By unique evidence we mean that which would separate his writings from all others that his must be divine, through unique criteria which no other book which contradicts his message could claim. For surely God would not reveal inspiration and require us to believe and follow it and hold us accountable for ignoring it, if it did not contain something unique that showed that it must be uniquely divine. What may be startling is that an examination of what actually happened shows that Pauls teachings actually contradict the very core of the message of Jesus and what other prominent Christians of the time believed. An examination of the Bible itself reveals this! For example: James 2:9 says You will be doing the right thing if you obey the law of the kingdom which is found in scripture However, Paul writes: No longer do we serve in the old ways of a written law, but in the new way of the spirit (Romans 7:5) Again, James says, It is by his actions that a person is put right with God and not by his faith alone (James 2:24) And Matthew says "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he [Jesus] said unto him . . . keep the commandments. . . . The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him,

See the article Islam and Christianity - Two Faiths, One God under the section Muslim-Christian Dialog from: http://muslimdatabase.com/kuftaro/english/

If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven." (Matthew 19:16-21) Yet Paul says, For we conclude that a person is put right with God, only through faith and not by doing what the law commands (Romans 3:28) Further James mentions nothing of salvations through Jesuss resurrection, but only Salvation through belief in God, following Jesus, and good action*. Yet Pauls teachings say salvation is only through the resurrection and basis the whole of the faith on this point. How can we trust a life long enemy to a Teacher, who after the Teachers departure then claims to be spreading the Teachers message based upon a vision he alone saw, while contradicting the message of those who actually were witnesses to the Teacher? Paul in effect, used his vision as a mandate to introduce completely new teachings regarding the nature, history and message of Jesus to make him more appealing to the powerful Pagan Romans at the time. He himself said, I shall be all things to all man, and he was not afraid to change his message to attract more people. In order to compete with the Pagan Roman religion, Paul made Jesus appear to have the same pagan attributes that the Romans venerated. Amongst the most important of these claims made by Paul to attract the pagan Romans, is that Jesus was a sacrifice for sin, like the Roman god Mithra. A close study of one of the Pagan gods, Mithra and the image of Jesus as presented by Paul and his supporters shows this without a doubt. In fact there are over 16 key similarities between Mithras and the Jesus which Paul described which include: 1. Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds. 2. He was considered a great traveling teacher and master. 3. He had 12 companions or disciples. 4. Mithra's followers were promised immortality. 5. He performed miracles. 6. As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace. 7. He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again. 8. His resurrection was celebrated every year. 9. He was called "the Good Shepherd" and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion. 10. He was considered the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos," "Redeemer," "Savior" and "Messiah." 11. His sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ. 12. Mithra had his principal festival of what was later to become Easter. 13. His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which Mithra said, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved." 14. "His annual sacrifice is the Passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement or pledge of moral and physical regeneration." 15. Shmuel Golding is quoted as saying that 1 Cor. 10:4 is "identical words to those found in the Mithraic scriptures, except that the name Mithra is used instead of Christ."

It is important to note that this is exactly what the Quran said the key to salvation was at the time of Jesus.

16. The Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted as saying that Mithraic services were conduced by "fathers" and that the "chief of the fathers, a sort of pope, who always lived at Rome, was called 'Pater Patratus.'" 16 Further more, Paul made Jesus to be the son of God like the Roman Emperor and Hercules. However, in the Didache, an early and accepted Christian text from the first century and recognized by early church fathers as canonical, describes Jesus as only a servant of God, not the son of God. In addition, the Christianity which Paul spread did not require circumcision or giving up pork which made it even more appealing to the Romans. The Romans thus eventually accepted Pauls teachings and established the new Church in Rome, which replaced the Church in Jerusalem as the center of Christianity, and Pauls teachings were taken as the standard of Christianity replacing all other teachings and modern day Christianity was born. Pauls teachings contain over 50% of the New Testament, and were also the standard which created Christian Doctrine, by which other texts which were to be included in the New Testament were judged by. Although Paul was not a witness to Jesuss life, but it his interpretations of Jesuss life that was used to shape the thinking of Christianity and determine the dogma used to select the gospels based on his interpretation. What may be most shocking is that Paul himself admits to lying to spread his vision of Christianity: Philippians 1:18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Romans 3:7 Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 - Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings." If he needs to lie to spread his message, how can he or his message be trusted? Of the other texts in the New Testament, the Gospels are among the most important. The Gospels as well, however, were not the words or saying of Jesus which were gathered in a book by himself or his disciples. The Gospels were essentially the result of Christian leaders writing down their own interpretations of the oral traditions they heard for their own community. Over time some interpretations became more popular than others, and these became the Gospels. There is no independently verifiable historical evidence which indicates that the four Gospels particularly chosen are the true accounts of what happened. As Christian Bible Historian Mark Goodacre, Professor at Duke University says: When you are looking the gospels, we do not know that they are true. There are no independent archeological records where you can check things upthere wasnt even anyone taking notes as far as we know, so a lot if we are being asked to take on trust.17

The fact of the matter is, we do not even really who wrote the Gospels. There is nothing that indicates that those four Gospels were true and accurate representations of the life and teachings of Jesus. Why is it that we are to accept the Gospels on trust but not other scriptures? Scholars as well as Church leaders are unsure of the gospel authors real names, do not know their full names, nor in most cases where they were born, lived, or died. Very little, in fact, near nothing, is known about the authors of the Gospels and other Letters, and yet we are asked to believe that they were divinely inspired. How can anyone believe that a book is from God when we do not even know who wrote it and thus cannot test the credibility and veracity of those who claimed the books were from God? From reading the Gospels, It is clear however that the authors of the Gospels were not eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus and thus were not disciples, but ordinary men who wrote what they believed about Jesus. Mark, history shows, is the first to write a Gospel. Goodacer explains: Mark is the creative genius that gets this whole process of writing gospels going. In a way it was quite an arrogant, quite a conceded thing to do, to say, I am going to a do an authoritative version of this story, it has a kind of propaganda purpose I think18 Goodacer continues to says that even the identity of Mark is not really known, We dont know precisely who mark isI dont think Mark himself is a eyewitnesshe doesnt even claim to be eyewitness, these oral traditions have found their way to Mark.19 Beckford explains: That the first Gospel writer was relying on hearsay is a bit of a thunderbolt, then you realize that lots of Jesus story isnt even there in the earliest Mark manuscriptsno nativity, no long sermons, no resurrection experience, in the end, its less a record of events, than a self help guide that says suffering and persecution are the best way to God.20 It is extremely important to note that the most important story taught by Paul, the resurrection story, and which is used as the basis for the core of Christian beliefs, is not present in any of the earliest manuscripts of Mark and were added later on21. The first Gospel to be written, and the one which all other Gospels were based upon originally contained no mention of the resurrection, on which the modern Christian faith rests on! If the first gospel had no mention of the resurrection, and then Paul who was not an eyewitness speaks of the resurrections, and then the resurrection story is later added on to Marks gospel and then is adopted from Mark by the other Gospel writers, it is quite possible the resurrection as we know it did not happen. This makes it really difficult to discover from Christian sources what really happened to Jesus with any certainty. This also highlights the influence Paul had on Christian beliefs and the difficulty we have in knowing who the original author of the words we read today is. Unfortunately, because of how emotional the story of the resurrection is, many Christians are not willing to give it up, although it is not authentically part of Mark or many other early manuscripts. It is also important to remember, that although Mark was the first Gospel writer, he did not begin writing until the year 70ad, seventy years after the time of Jesus! All the other Gospels were written even later than that! The next of the four Gospels chosen to be in the Bible was written over a decade later in what is now modern day Syria, and is attributed to Matthew. Again those who have never deeply studied the Bible or its history assume that Matthew is also one of the disciples of Jesus, however the facts indicate otherwise:

Most people might think first off that Matthews Gospel was written by Matthew the tax collector, one of the 12 disciples. When you look at the document carefully, you see that the Gospel doesnt look like the product of an eye witness. So who is this character? Well the most important thing about Matthew is that this is clearly a Jewish writer who knows all about the habits and the ways and the laws of Judaism. 22 Matthew, in fact takes much of his information for writing the gospel from what Mark already wrote. Professor Goodacer explains: Rather than go back to the drawing board, Matthew stared by coping large chunks of Marks gospel, then rewriting or adding his own bits...In the ancient world, there is no copy right laws, and you can just copy stuff out, and Matthew does, sometimes word for wordif Matthew was writing today, you could take him to court for Plagiarism, theres no question about it23 In fact, the reason Matthew writes a new gospel based upon Marks work is because he had a different opinion of who Jesus was and what his message was. Even amongst the gospel writers there was not unanimity as to the reality of Jesus, as Professor Goodacer highlights: Matthew thinks that Marks painting of Jesus isnt quite right, he knows Jesus was a Jew and he knows that Jesus was more Jewish than Mark was inclined to paint himHe tries to re-judeaise Jesus and makes him more Jewish Matthew adds the Christmas story, the sermon on the mount, and the Lords prayer all pointing to Jesus as the fulfillment of the old testament prophesies 24 The author of Luke, like Matthew, also uses Marks Gospel as the basis for his gospel. Professor Ehrman writes: It has been clear to most scholars since the nineteenth century that Mark was the first Gospel written, and that Matthew and Luke both used Mark as one of the sources for their stories about JesusLuke himself indicates that he had read and used earlier accounts in coming up with his own (1:1-4) one can see how Mark was changed by these authorsFor these later authors sometimes borrowed Marks sentences wholesale, but on other occasions they changed what he had to say, sometimes radically. In this sense, they like the scribes, were changing scripture [significantly].25 Like Matthew, Luke too, did not live in Palestine where Jesus lived and taught. He lived in Greece and worked to integrate Christianity into Rome, as Beckford explains: Luke, an educated man based in Greece, focuses on taking the bible into the mainstream of the Roman Empire, writing not just the gospel but the book of Acts 2, describing the spread of Christianity form Jerusalem to Rome Professor Goodacer explains Lukes important role in the development of Christianity by saying, Luke really paves the way for Christianity becoming a roman imperial religion. Considering the facts, it is very clear that the authors of the Gospels were not first hand witnesses, but rather people who decades later took their accounts from earlier accounts and changed it according to their own personal opinions of what Jesus would have been like. It is very disturbing that the story of the resurrection which was propagated by Paul and which Matthew and Luke did not witness first hand but adopted, was never

written by the original author of Mark. Where did they adopt this story from? From Paul who was not an eyewitness himself? Or from the person who changed Marks words? Either way they could not have received it from a reliable and credible source. If the resurrection happened as Paul claims and it is so vital to the message of Jesus to the extent that the entire faith of Christianity is based upon it, why did the original author of Mark make absolutely no mention in it? Also since scholars know without doubt that the last twelve verses of Mark which speak of the resurrection were never written by the original author but added by others who also were definitely not eyewitnesses and came at later dates, why are these verses in the Gospel of Mark still in modern Bibles? The last Gospel, the one attributed to a John, was also not written by a disciple of Jesus or an eyewitness of Jesuss life. Rather, the Gospel of John was also written at a later date, and by someone who, although was not a companion of Jesus, was dissatisfied with the image of Jesus portrayed by the earlier Gospels. There is no doubt however that the John who authored the Gospel of John was not the John the disciple; especially since Acts 4:13 clearly says that both the apostles John and Peter were both illiterate. Beckford explains the consensus on who John was: The spin of the last gospel is the most obvious. It was written by a Jew called John who is kicked out of the synagogue in Pauls old city, Ephesus, and by writing extra, slightly unreal speeches for Jesus; John is peddling a specific new angle. 26 Although John was not an eyewitness, he was deeply influenced by Pauls teachings of the story of Jesus, and yet many Christians believe his account was a first hand testimony, confusing him with John the disciple of Jesus. What was this new angle John wanted to paint? And since it was indeed a new angle, could it be trusted? Professor Goodacer explains: He must have been dissatisfied with the others in some way. I suspect that the thing he didnt like about them is that they didnt quite get that vision of Jesus right (According to Johns view). That Jesus in the other gospels is not quite, if you like divine enough.is he actually making things up? I think he would see it as being inspired by the holy spirit 27 It is very troubling to see that none of the authors of the Gospels themselves were eyewitnesses and yet each made deletions and additions to the story they knew of Jesus as they saw fit. John wanted to make Jesus appear even more divine than how the author Gospel writers portrayed him. The excuse to counter the claim that he is simply making things up is that John claimed to be inspired by the holy ghost. Yet how can we be sure it was the holy ghost guiding him and not his own passions and opinions based on misinformation? Especially when he is presenting an image of Jesus very different than what Mark, the first author of the Gospels originally wrote! What is it that leads us to believe that Johns Gospel was true and inspired by the holy ghost and not, say, the Gospel of Barnabas, which was written earlier and yet portrayed Jesus as a prophet of God, and not in and of himself divine, but which is not included in the modern Bible? How can Christians be sure they are following the true message of Jesus, instead of the opinions of a man who lived in a later date in a different place who wanted to present a message which was not presented by those before him? If that is the case, as a study of history shows us, then the understanding of Jesus Christians have today may indeed be highly mistaken, based upon an innovator of the faith. Is it not more likely that if the authors of the earlier gospels did not make Jesus divine enough according to Johns view that it was because he never was as divine as John wanted to portray him, and that John, not those before him, was astray from the true image of Jesus? Perhaps this is why Beckford says:

You cant read the gospels literally. They are not meant to be read as eye witness accounts. We dont know what really happenedif you read the Gospels as straight forward historical facts it is just as dangerous as reading the Old Testament that way, because you are going to miss the point of what they are really about.28 It is thus no surprise that Porphry, an early opponent of Christianity wrote the following strong attack against Christianity, which remains unanswered: The evangelists were fiction-writersnot observers or eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus. Each of the four contradicts the other in writing his account of the events of his suffering and crucifixion.29 Many other books in the New Testament also have critical problems relating to identifying their authorship. 2 Peter for example, is believed by most scholars, to have been written years after Peter lived.30 So because the Gospels and letters were not written until over seventy years since the time of Jesus and were not written by eyewitnesses, but by different authors who contradicted another and portrayed Jesus in different ways* and we are not 100% sure who wrote what within the Gospels nor can independently verify their veracity, Beckford says that we cannot trust them as historically true accounts of what happened and if we read them that way, we miss the point of the message they are trying to convey of how the powerful people of the time in which the gospels were written wanted to view Jesus. Nonetheless even if we take them within the proper context we still cannot know who the true Jesus was, and to base our beliefs on what we assume to be historical accounts, but what are in reality not, of events which in reality may have happened very differently, means our faith has no real foundation to stand upon. For we can have all the faith we want, but if the resurrection did not happen as portrayed or Jesus did not teach the same message Paul and John, who never met him, taught, or Mark never believed in the resurrection, then Jesus may be completely free of what Christians claim about him. Christians may be following a completely different faith than that advocated by Jesus. Instead of being the followers of
*

For further discussion and proofs for this, please see the next chapter or read Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman who explains that first of all the original Mark had no mention at all of the resurrection, which the entire Christian faith rests upon. Nonetheless however in regards to the crucifixion, in reading Marks gospel, you will see that the modern Mark portrays Jesus in deep agony in the face of death even saying he was sorrow, asking God to remove his suffering and he makes no statements on his way to the crucifixion and calls out to God in the end My god, my god, why have you forsaken me. Luke however gives a very different image of the crucifixion, he takes out any comments about Jesus being highly distraught and the statement that Jesus was in sorrow. Neither does he fall on his face praying to God for help, as he did in Mark, but only kneeled and asked God only once for help instead of 3 time, nor is he silent on the way to the crucifixion nor while being crucified and in the end instead of crying in despair as he did in Mark, rather he confidently says Father, into your hands I commend My spirit. Now both of these books convey a very different image of what happened and they in fact could not even both be true! Mark tried to emphasize that Jesus was utterly forsaken and in despair, while Jesus was calm and in control according to Luke. For the sake of brevity, other examples will not be mentioned here, but suffice it to say that the gospels very often not only show a different message and lessons but very often contradict each other both in the general theme and in details, thus there is nothing wrong with saying each human author of the Gospel tried to convey what he thought was important and accurate about Jesus according to his own belief, making the Gospels the view of humans, not God. Otherwise had they all been inspired by God you would not find them contradicting another.

Christ, they may be in fact the followers of Paul, the real founder of Christianity as we know it. We know for a fact that the New Testament was not the book taught and preached by Jesus, but even if the books of the New Testament were properly selected and preserved, they still may not be proper reflections of the teachings of the real Jesus. However to make things worse, we see in the next two sections that the New Testament books were arbitrarily selected based on peoples opinions and were not even accurately preserved making them even more doubtful. As Professor Ehrman explains: Just as human scribes had copied, and changed, the texts of scripture, so too had human authors originally written the texts of scripture. This was a human book from beginning to end. It was written by different human authors at different times and in different places to address different needsthey had their own perspectives, their own beliefs, their own views, their own needs, their own desires, their own understandings, their own theologies; and these perspectives, beliefs, views, needs, desires, understandings, and theologies informed everything they said. In all these ways they differed from another. Among other things, it meant that Mark did not say the same thing that Luke said because he didnt mean the same thing as Luke. John is different from Matthewnot the same. Paul is different from Acts. And James is different from Paul. Each author is a human author and needs to be read for what he (Assuming they were all men) has to say, not assuming that what he says is the same, or conformable to, or consistent with what every other author has to say. The Bible at the end of the day is a very human book.31 We end this section with a quote by Robert Green Ingersoll, who put it succinctly:
The question is, were the authors of these four gospels inspired? If they were inspired, then the four gospels must be true. If they are true, they must agree. The four gospels do not agree.32

Question 2: Process of Selection as to Which Books Are Holy and Thus are to comprise the New Testament What is perhaps even more troubling than the issues relating to the authorship of the Gospels and their accuracy, is the process by which, which books were to be selected as canonical or divine and influenced from the holy ghost, and should thus be included in the New Testament as the holy scripture of the Christian faith. Ehrman explains: The decisions about which books should finally be considered canonical were not automatic or problem-free; the debates were long and drawn out, and sometimes harsh. Many Christians today may think that the canon of the New Testament simply appeared on the scene one day, soon after the death of Jesus, but nothing could be farther from the truth.33 Unlike the Quran, a book taught directly by the Prophet of the Islamic faith and was revealed and taught by the Prophet in his life time to his companions, in Christianity we have no remaining book that was taught to his disciples by Jesus or selected by him. Christianity in fact had no officially Holy Scripture

of the faith until the year 312 (over three centuries and a decade since the time of Jesus) under the order of a former pagan convert and recent convert to Christianity, Constantine*.In essence, the holy book of Christianity was produced hundreds of years after its prophet and under the leadership of a Pagan convert. Even then, the books chosen to be in the New Testament were not the only books used as scripture by Christians. As Beckford explains, the Bible doesnt just appear as a book. Two hundred years after Jesus there are not just four gospels, but literally dozens of gospels and letters.34 So the question that then arises is which books were to be included in or excluded from the New Testament and why? Remember that Jesus himself never selected these particular books nor does the Bible itself anywhere say which books it is supposed to be made up of. No where does it say in the Bible that God selects or decrees these books to be part of the cannon. So we have to ask ourselves, what made it into the New Testament and why? And if God decided which books are to compose the New Testament why does he not declare it anywhere? As Professor Karen King, of Harvard University puts it; History is always told by the winners, the New Testament is certainly that compilation of books that won out in the battle for orthodoxy.35In other words there was not just one version of Christianity and one holy book, but many different understandings of who Jesus was and what was to be considered as scripture and of course only one of those won out and that is what became the basis for the bible and modern day Christianity and its various denominations. Professor Ehrman writes that: These two centuries [the 2nd and 3rd] were particularly rich in theological diversity among the early Christians. In fact, the theological diversity was so extensive that groups calling themselves Christians adhered to beliefs and practices that most Christians today would insist were not Christian at all. 36 To make matters more complicated, all these various groups insisted that their views were the true teachings of Jesus and his apostles.37 Professor Ehrman continues to answer an important question: Why didnt these other groups (whose theology differed from the modern New Testaments) simply read their New Testaments to see that their views were wrong? It is because there was no New Testament. To be sure, all the books of the New Testament
*

This raises some very important questions: If Christians could draw near to God for over three hundred years without a bible, then naturally they should be able to continue to do so today and the Bible is unnecessary since had it been needed it would have been revealed to Jesus himself. If however, the Bible was needed and necessary to know and draw near to God, then it would have been given to Christians from the very beginning, and certainly us following a book as the basis of our faith which the first six or seven of generations of Christians did not have will not lead us any closer to God. If the Christians in those three hundred could not draw near to God without a holy book, then certainly a holy book created after six or seven generations of Christians had lived and died will not be of use to them nor to us. The only rational solution therefore is that those six or seven did indeed have a holy book, but it of course, was not the Bible, but the gospel of Jesus himself, or that book which was directly revealed to Jesus himself from God and taught to his disciples and referred to as the Gospel of Jesus or the Injeel (good news) in the Quran. However since no remaining record of the gospel of Jesus remains it was clearly lost, so the only rational solution would not have been to invent a new set of books as being divine, but that God would send another prophet with another holy book which would remain unchanged. Knowing the history of the Bible Christians should therefore at least open themselves up to the possibility and not be afraid to examine the Quran and Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)

had been written by this time, but there were lots of other books as well, also claiming to be by Jesuss own apostlesother gospels, acts, epistles, and apocalypses having very different perspectives from those found in the books that eventually came to be called the New Testament.38 So how did the New Testament as we know it come to be the standard Christian text with its selected books? Professor Ehrman writes: The New Testament itself emerged out of these conflicts over God (or gods), as one group of believers acquired more converts than the others and decided which books should be included in the canon of scripture. During the second and third centuries, however, there was no agreed-upon canonand no agreed-upon theology. Instead, there was a wide range of diversity: diverse groups asserting diverse theologies based on diverse written texts, all claiming to be written by the apostles of Jesus.39 In other words the Scripture and Doctrine of Christianity we have today is just one of many contradictory scriptures and doctrines about the teachings of Jesus that existed several hundred years after his time. It is not necessarily the right one, but simply the one that won out. Had another group gained more power, Christians today could have totally different beliefs about Jesus and what Christianity is. For the first three hundred years of Christianity, there was no set theology defining what the faith taught by Jesus really was. That was not invented and established until over three centuries later. As Ehrman writes, From the earliest times, Christians were aware that variety of interpretations of the truth of the religion existed within their own ranks.40Each of these truths contradicted another and most were very different from the Christianity practiced today. Eventually, however, over three hundreds years after Jesus, Christianity became more uniform. Beckford explains Cannon formation is all about a group of rich and powerful people putting a text together and deciding who they want to include in orthodoxy and who they want to exclude, now where is the spirit in this? The spirit is at work today, the spirit gives you the ability to see the ignorance, the bias, and the prejudice that was involved and raise questions about the legitimacy and accuracy of what took place, that is the work of the spirit for me, the power to read through what was going on.41 In other words we cannot take it for granted that the right and true books were chosen and for the right reasons, we have to use our intellect to see what the real message may have been. The spirit will show us what the truth is, but we have to use the mind God gave us to discern what is true from what is false and reject what is false and follow the truth, even if the truth goes against what we have been raised to believe by our family and society. The spirit will show us, but it will be of no use to us if we reject clear proofs and follow our desires or customs. Nonetheless, the Bible as we know it is not the book of Jesus, it is a book about Jesus written by those who did not see him, contradicting those who had seen himA book, whose constituent documents had been later on edited. A book involving the suppression of other accounts, perhaps more authentic accounts, of Jesus. Just in the same way, whenever We sent a Warner before thee to any people, the wealthy ones among them said: "We found our fathers following a certain religion, and we will certainly follow in their footsteps."

He said: "What! Even if I brought you better guidance than that which ye found your fathers following?" This is especially important to remember since there were many Christians at the time that held beliefs exactly like those taught in Islam in regards to Jesus, God, and Salvation. Ehrman writes how there were significant groups of Christians at the time who also claimed to be following the apostles of Jesus who insisted that Christ was completely human and not at all divine,42 or a Prophet. They also insisted, as Islam teaches, that Christ never actually died.43 These teachings which totally contradict modern Christian theology were held by many followers of Jesus in the first two hundred years since his message. There was great confusion and debate as to what the real message of Jesus was, but in the end, only one group won out in these debates.44 This was the group the advocated Jesus being both fully divine and human, both God, and Gods son, and that salvation is through accepting his crucifixion and resurrection. This was also the group that decided which books would be included in the canon of scripture.45 This is a very important point that must be highlighted. It is not the case in Christianity that there was a divine scripture from Jesus, by which Christians based their creed and doctrine upon its teachings as is the case in Islam. It is the exact opposite! Different groups claiming to be the true followers of Jesus already had their opinions based on their past, as to what the Christian creed and doctrine should be, and then they selected whichever scripture agreed with their opinions! Professor Ehrman writes, The group that established itself as orthodox (meaning that it held what is considered to be the right belief) then determined what future Christian generations would believe and read as scripture.46 In other words, the doctrine of the trinity did not come from the scripture, rather, scripture was selected and changed to include the innovation of the doctrine of the trinity. It is therefore clear that Christians today may not necessarily be following the creed and doctrine taught by Jesus and his apostles, but following the creed of only one of many groups who had their opinions as to what Jesus taught and then selected and standardized the Christian scriptures based on those opinions. What is more disturbing however, is that the group which won-out these debates not only selected the scripture to be considered as canonical, but also changed the scriptures they selected to better suit their opinions of what the scripture should say to better coincide with their beliefs. Again Christian creeds and belief were not based on the scripture, rather, what is considered to be scripture and what is supposed to reflect the true teachings of Jesus, was based on the beliefs and assumptions the most powerful group of Christians had in regards to Jesus. Professor Ehrman writes: The texts of the books of the New Testament came to be changed by (no doubt) wellmeaning scribes, who intentionally altered their texts in order to make them more amenable to their own theological views and less amenable to the views of their theological opponents. The first area I will consider involved the claim made by some Christians that Jesus was so fully human that he could not be divine. This was the view of a group of Christians that scholars today call the adoptionists. My contention is that Christian scribes who opposed adoptionistic views of Jesus modified their texts in places in order to stress their view that Jesus was not just human, but also divine.47 [underline added] This is an extremely critical point, again emphasizing how scripture was selected and changed based on opinion and not that beliefs were based on the scripture. If the scribes had to change the text to make Jesus more divine is it not more likely that he never was divine in the first place and the scribes merely changed the story of his reality according to their own wishes. Should we not be following the true message of Jesus, as opposed to the changes brought about by the scribes? These are very critical

questions each Christian must consider. This issue will be more deeply examined in the next section. But before it can be discussed, we still need to examine what the criteria were for which scriptures were to be considered as part of the Canon. When Christianity attainted state support, scriptures became picked and supported by the Church for the doctrines they carried. The gospels that were supported by the church faction in power were taken and favored by that church faction. When a specific faction, the Trinitarian Catholics gained control and given state backing, their doctrine became the doctrine which was used to pick which gospels were the True gospels And since then Christians have been following the books chosen by them. The Church admits that they picked the books they felt appropriatethe books were never selected by Jesus or his apostles. They claimed the sprit was there to counter bias and ignorance and prejudice in selecting the works. However, in reality, there was no criterion in selecting the works, besides whether the books agreed with the opinions of the most powerful Christian faction. What they failed to realize is that we cannot judge scripture based upon our creed, but we must judge our creed based on authentic scripture. One of the strongest evidences that there were no objective criteria for selecting the gospels is that very little is known about the authors of the gospels selected. Had there really been objective criteria, much would be known about the authors of the Gospels since their information would have come up while examining if the scripture was authentic and whether the authors met the criteria of being credible. The case is, however, we know very little about most of the authors, and often are not even completely sure who wrote what in the New Testament. The conference where the books that would make up the New Testament were decided is called the, Nicene Conference in the year 325. Constantine a pagan, commissioned this conference because he wanted to establish a standardized faith to unite Rome. As we saw earlier, many at the time believed Jesus was not to divine, but a prophet of God. 318 bishops were present at the conference. Scholars explain the historical eyewitness accounts of how the books of the Bible were selected: By the fourth century it became necessary for the Church to decide which of the many Gospels then in circulation were to be accepted as authentic. The question came up in the Council of Nicea. Fortunately the testimonies of two eye-witnesses have been preserved, so there can be little doubt as to the method used in the selection of the Gospels. There were 318 Bishops present in this Council, and one of the two eye-witnesses, Sabinus, Bishop of Heraclea, left a description of their mental capacities. "With the exception of the Emperor (Constantine)" he said, "and Eusebius Pamphilus, these Bishops were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing." About forty Gospels were submitted to these Bishops. As they differed widely in their contents, the decision was difficult. At last it was determined to resort to "miraculous intervention." The method used was known as the Sortes Sanctorum, or "the holy casting of lots for purposes of divination." Its use in the Council of Nicea was described by another eye-witness, Pappus, in his Synodicon to that Council. He says: "Having promiscuously put all the books referred to the Council for determination under a communion table in a church, they (the Bishops) besought the Lord that the inspired writings might get upon the table, while the spurious ones remained underneath. And it happened accordingly."

"When the Bishops returned to the Council room on the following morning, the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were resting on the communion table. Their presence in the New Testament is due to the art of divination, for practicing which the Church subsequently condemned men and women as sorcerers, enchanters and witches, and burned them by the thousands."48 Nonetheless, this council decided the fate of Christian doctrine for the next 1700 years and they submitted the issue of the divinity of Jesus to a vote. Unbelievably, the fate of Christian doctrine and what was to be considered the reality of Jesus, was not settled by undisputable evidence, but by a vote of ignorant yet powerful bishops! If Christianity was to be the final fate revealed to humanity, would not issues like the nature of God and his prophet have been clearly established at the time of Jesus and not left to be settled by an arbitrary vote? Orthodoxy of Christianity was not established by the Prophet but by arguments generations later. The books of bible as well, were selected by the powerful men ages later. What gave men the right to decide which books should be considered the word of God? Nonetheless the Bishops of the Council of Nicea believed they had a right to do so. What did they base their judgments on as to which books should be included as the Gospels? As Pappus explians, the Bishops simply left the books they were considering under a table in a church, locked the church, and came back the next day where day Church Fathers found the four gospels, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John on top of the table, and thus it was decided that those books would make up the Gospels. The decision of which Gospels to be used and to be considered the word of God was made by divination! What proof is there however that no one tampered with this process and simply entered the church over night and placed those four pre-selected books? Further, can we really trust the process of divination to determine the word of God? The Bible itself admits that the Church Fathers used this process saying in Proverbs 16:3 says men cast lots to learn Gods will, but God himself determines the answer, yet at the same time the church condemned and killed thousands of people who practiced divination. Besides arbitrarily selecting books that were closest in message to the creed of the most powerful group of Church Fathers, the Council also rejected many books that many Christians held as canonical, but that did not portray the same divine image of Jesus which the Church Fathers supported. The Council rejected works that did not agree with arbitrary theory developed on Jesus. Again it is important to remember that the Creed of belief about the teachings of Jesus was not developed based on what the Gospels said, but rather, the Gospels were picked based on whether they agreed with the arbitrary selected creed of only one of the many Christian factions in the fourth century. Despite the selection of books made during the Nicene Council, many followers of Jesus continued to follow books that they sincerely believed were written by the very disciples of Jesus himself, many of these books, like the Gospel of Barnabas, did not teach the divinity of Jesus, only that he was a Prophet, who would be soon followed by another Prophet. This Gospel was actually written by a cousin of one the four Gospel writers and there is no reason to believe that it is any less accurate than the gospels chosen for the New Testament, yet the creed it supports is very different from the creed of modern day Christians. So afraid was the Church of these other books which were credibly authentic and very likely accurate reflections of the actual disciples of Jesus, but which contradicted the theology advocated by the church, that the Church issued decrees forbidding them and punished anyone caught with them.

Many other gospels that could have been equally true49 as the Gospels selected by the Church Fathers and that were written at the same time if not earlier, were not selected and in fact burned. Bishop Athanasius orders in his Easter Letter the burning of all other texts which did not agree with the theology of the Trinitarian sect. Thus many monks were forced to burry manuscripts in order to save them. In the 19th century the Oxyrrhynchus manuscripts as well as the Gospel of Thomas were rediscovered near the monastery of St. Pachomius in Egypt. The Gospel of Thomas contained no mention of the crucifixion of Jesus. Furthermore, 1n 496 ad the Galsian decree was issued by the Church banning any gospel the church deemed rebellious to its creed. This decree was reaffirmed by pope Horrmisdas (514-523a.d). The church thus banned and burned many other gospels, acts, and epistles including: The Acts of: Andrew, Thomas, Peter, and the Apostle Philiopo The Gospels of: Mathias, Barnabas, James the Younger, Peter, Thomas, Bartholomew, Andrew, Lucianus, Hesychius, book on Infancy of Jesus, the Book on the Nativity of Jesus and Marry, the Shepard of Hermas, and the Books of Leucius As well as the Books: The Foundation, The Treasure, The Daughters of Adam, Leptogensos, The Cento on Christ, The Acts of Thecla and Paul, The revelation of Paul

Keep in mind that there is no unique objective reason to accept that the literature and theology accepted by the Church leaders was true and those burnt were false. It is interesting to note that the Church often justified burning scripture and persecuting other denominations from the beginning, by labeling them as heretics. However history shows us that the so-called heretics maintain that their views are correct and those of the orthodox church leaders are false.50 There is no objective evidence indicating that such is not the case. Orthodoxy is not that form of Christianity which can authentically trace back its roots to Jesus and his disciples; rather it is the form of Christianity which was favored by the elites. What objective reason do we have to believe that the elites selected the true form of Christianity ? Beckford therefore sums up the New Testament by saying: The New Testament too, turns out to be a master work of spin written by people who were no where near the events they described, all gathered together by powerful editors who made sure to keep out ideas they didnt like51 Despite these problems, there is still one greater problem as we mentioned earlier however. And that is the question of how well that even the manuscripts approved and selected by the Church were preserved over the years and how they were changed. Question 3: How well it was preserved The authenticity of the Bible today rests heavily on hundreds of generations of unknown scribes who copied the ancient biblical manuscripts and often changed them52. It is thus really irrelevant to even consider if the original words of the Bible were inspired if what we have today is not an accurate reflection of those words. Earlier in this book, we saw the deep trouble in knowing who originally wrote the words of the Bible and who selected which books would be part of the Bible, but here we examine what may be the most problematic issuedo we even have the original selected words? Professor Ehrman, Chairman of the Religious Studies Department at UNC writes:

There was an obvious problem, however, with the claim that the Bible was verbally inspireddown to its very words. As we learned at Moody [Bible Institute in Chicago, an Evangelical Christian University] in one of the first courses in the curriculum, we dont actually have the original writings of the New Testament. What we have are copies of these writings, made years laterin most cases, many years later. Moreover, none of these copies is completely accurate, since the scribes who produced them inadvertently and or/intentionally changed them in places. All scribes did this. So rather than actually having the inspired words of the autographs (i.e., the original) of the Bible, what we have are the error ridden copies of the autographs.53 Absolutely none of the original manuscripts used to make the Bible we have today have survived. There is in fact a huge gap between when the manuscripts were written and when the oldest surviving copy was made. The Table below shows the records of the earliest surviving manuscripts54:
Writer Original Copy Allegedly Written: Oldest actual copy available: Time span to Jesus

John Rylands (John) Bodmer Papyrus II (John) Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.) Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels) Codex Vaticanus (Bible) Codex Sinaiticus (Bible) Codex Alexandrinus (Bible)

90 AD 90 AD 1st century 1st century 1st century 1st century 1st century

130 AD 150-200 AD 200 AD 200 AD 325-350 AD 350 AD 400 AD

40 years 60-110 years 150 years 150 years 275-300 years 300 years 350 years

The earliest manuscript we have is actually 40 years after the time of Jesus, The rest are about 100-300 years after his time. Thus even the earliest surviving manuscript cannot be trusted as a necessarily accurate representation of the original authors writings since there is no verifiable oral or written connection between Jesus and the scripts. And remember this was a time when there was no media, internet, tv etc. Even nowadays if the first account of George Washington we have dates to 1990, no one would trust it as a credible accurate reflection of George Washingtons life. How then can we trust the authority of the modern Bible when the oldest available manuscripts we have were not written for the most part until three centuries after the events they describe take place. That the autographs are nonexistent is an important fact admitted to, even by top evangelical Christian scholars and universities yet is something most Christians do not know or pay any attention to. Professor Ehrman continues: Many of my friends at Moody did not consider this task [to discover what the original manuscripts actually said] to be all that significant or interesting. They were happy to rest on the claim that the autographs had been inspired, and to shrug off, more or less, the problem that the autographs do not survive. For me though, this was a compelling problem. It was the words of the scripture themselves that God had inspired. Surely we have to know what those words were if we want to know how he had communicated to us, since the very words were his words, and having some other words (those inadvertently or intentionally created by scribes) didnt help us much if we wanted to know His words.55

Again, it is very troubling to see that although even Fundamentalist Christian Universities admit that original manuscripts of the Bible did not survive, and the copies we have now have been altered many times over, the students studying to become Christian leaders paid little attention to the importance of questioning what the original and allegedly inspired autographs really said. This of course is a major problem: How does it help to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we dont have the words that God inerrantly inspired, but only the words copied by the scribes sometimes correctly but sometimes (many times!) incorrectly? What good is it to say that the autographs (i.e. the originals) were inspired? We dont have the originals! We have only error-ridden copies, and the vase majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways. 56 Thus it is clear that it is irrelevant to even question whether the originals were inspired since they have been lost and corrupted. It is one thing to say that the originals were inspired, but the reality is that we dont have the originalsso saying they were inspired doesnt help.57 Furthermore, unlike in Islam where the original Quran was a living document memorized and read daily by billions of Muslims since the time of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) until today and thus there was a strong connection between the scripture, the practice, and theology of each Muslim from the beginning until now, the vast majority of Christians for the entire history of the Church have not had access to the original, making their inspiration something of a moot point.58 Thus the great majority of Christians to this day have never even had access to what even Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Paul and the other authors wrote! Professor Ehrman explains: Not only do we not have the originals, we dont have the first copies of the originals. We dont even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made latermuch later. And these copies all differ from one another; in many thousands of placesthe copies differ from one another in so many places that we dont even know how many differences there are. Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.59[underline added] Even without the trouble relating to who first wrote the Bible and who selected which books were to be included, this point alone is problematic enough. The oldest copy of the original manuscript we have is generations removed from the time the original was writtenit is a copy, of a copy, of a copy, and worse still, all the surviving copies we have greatly differ and contradict one another, making it practically impossible to know what the originals even said. As Professor Ehrman highlights, the differences are greater even than the number of words that make up the New Testament! Thus we simply cannot be sure that we have reconstructed the original text accurately.60 We dont even know what the original words of the Bible actually were.61 Although this is generally not disputed amongst scholars who have dedicated their life to studying the scripture, it is shocking that many practicing Christians are completely oblivious to this fact. In remembering this we can see that the modern Bible we have today is a very human book. This is because changes occurred by humans due to two main reasons. Either by mistake or intentionally. Even without intentional changes to the scripture, mistakes done by scribes could be detrimental enough for the authenticity of the document.

The majority of Christians in the first several centuries were illiterate, many of the scribes too were illiterate and were merely copying the shapes they saw on a manuscript given to them to copy. Furthermore, the manuscripts were copied without using any punctuation or even spaces to separate the words62. This can be very problematic as the sentence godisnowhere can be interpreted both as God is no where or God is now here. Of course, when illiterate scribes are copying that which they cannot read and which may be interpreted several ways, there is great room for error! Thus it is no surprise that the well respected early Church Father Origen writes in the second century: The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please63. Celsus, a staunch opponent of Origen, says nearly the same thing: Some believers as though drunk from a drinking bout go so far as to oppose themselves and alter the original text of their gospel three or four or several times over and they change its character to enable them to deny difficulties in the face of criticism. 64 Another great early church father of the 2nd century, Dionysius, the Bishop of Corinth also complained of scribes changing his epistles as well as tempering with and altering earlier texts. He writes: When my fellow-Christians, invited me to write letters to them I did so. These devils apostles, have filed it with tares (corruptions), taking away some things and adding others. For them is a woe reserved. Small wonder then, if some have even dared to tamper with the word of the Lord himself, when they have conspired to mutilate even my own humble efforts65 Thus by reading what the early Church Fathers and witnesses of the time wrote as well as examining the thousands of surviving manuscripts, it is clear without a doubt that firstly we do not have the original manuscripts written by the original authors of the New Testament, and secondly, the copies of the manuscripts we do have cannot be trusted 100% to accurately reflect what the original authors wrote since scribes caused both accidental and intentional changes. Why do the surviving copies contradict another so very much? As scholars of textual criticism explain, copyists of the early Christian literature occasionally changed their texts to make them say what they were already thought to mean.66 Or to make them more amenable to the doctrines beings espoused by Christians of their own persuasion.67 There have been many documented critical accidental or intentional additions or deletions over the centuries. Professor Ehrman explains: Changes came to be made in the early Christian texts. Scribes would sometimeslots of timemake accidental mistakes, by misspelling a word, leaving out a line, or simply bungling the sentences they were supposed to be copying; and on occasion they changed the text deliberately, making a correction to the text, which in fact turned out to be an alteration of what the texts author had originally writtenwhen it happened, it had a profound effect on the text.68

Clear evidence of this can easily be seen in the manuscripts themselves. For example in the highest quality surviving manuscript of the New Testament, the Codex Vaticanus from the fourth century (seen below) we can see the changes ourselves. The text originally said the Greek word PHANERN as written by the first scribe, but we can see that the original word was crossed out and replaced with the word PHERN by another scribe centuries later, then the word PHERN was erased several centuries later and replaced back with the original word PHANERN by a third scribe. The third scribe, who replaced the word back to what it originally said also left a note showing his frustration with the second scribe. The note can be seen below between the first and second column saying Fool and knave! Leave the old reading, dont change it.69

It is clear then that the New Testament was not secure from adulterations over the years. Despite these facts, many Christians try to argue that it is not important that we have the same literal words written, because the message itself has been preserved. This is problematic as Professor Ehrman highlights above. If we do not know what the words are for sure, how then can we be sure that the message has been preserved? The message itself dependent upon the wordschanging one word can change the meaning of an entire message. The change or loss of even one word can drastically alter the message, and what occurred in the Codex Vaticanus is a prime example of that. The Codex Vaticanus originally had the word PHANERN in Hebrews 1:3 while many of the manuscripts found at later dates had the word PHERN in its place. We see a scribe tried to change the Codex Vaticanus so that it coincided with what the later and less accurate manuscripts read. However what is the difference between PHANERN and PHERN? PHANERN means manifests while PHERN means bears. Looking at it in context then, the oldest and one of the most reliable manuscripts (the Codex Vaticanus) originally read in Hebrews 1:3, that Christ manifests all things by word of his power. However, it was changed centuries after it was written to match less reliable manuscripts also written centuries later, which said, Christ bears all things by word of his power. This change of one word then, completely changes the interpretation of who Jesus was. By the Codex Vaticanus originally saying Christ manifests all things by word of his power, it is simply describing him as a Prophet of God, who makes things clear by explaining them with his speech. However, when PHANERN was changed to PHERN, it no longer said he manifests bur rather, he bears all things by word of his power, thus describing him as a god who keeps the universe intact by his command! See how the change of one word can drastically alter the entire message and doctrine of a faith! The more accurate manuscript and writing describes Jesus here as a Prophet, while the change which went nearly uncaught and which was found in many later manuscripts made Jesus appear as god. As will be seen later, much of Christian dogma and beliefs is not based on what was originally written by the authors of the books of the New

Testament, but by changes done by scribes centuries later*. Worse still, many of the modern translations of the Bible, such as the New International Version base their translation upon the later altered manuscripts that read PHERN, thus saying Jesus sustains the world, a statement that does not reflect what the earliest biblical manuscripts, such as the Codex Vaticanus said about Jesus. The author of Hebrews originally described Jesus as a prophet, the modern Hebrews has been changed to say Jesus sustains things through his word, attempting to make him as god, a very critical difference due to the change of one word. Professor Ehrman explains: Obviously it is the change of a single word: so why does it matter? It matters because the only way to understand what an author wants to say s to know what his wordsall his wordsactually were. (Think of all the sermons preached on the basis of a single word in a text: what if the word is one the author didnt actually write? Saying that Christ reveals all things by his word of power is quite different from saying that he keeps the universe together by his word!70 The majority of these mistakes in transcribing and changes occurred in the most critical period of the faith, the first two hundred years, when the Christian doctrine was in its infancy and before the use of professional scribes. Thus the earliest copies of the early Christian writings tend to vary more frequently from one another and from later copies than do the later copies very from one another.71 Professional scribes were not used until the fourth century and simply made more standardized copies of the earlier variant manuscripts. Nonetheless, although they had the most variation, the earliest manuscripts are the closest in authenticity to the originals72. The new copies were made based on copies, not the original, and once a change was made it in an earlier copy, it became copied over and over so that it became part of the text, in addition to new mistakes made by new scribes. Scribes may throughout the centuries attempt to fix what they think are mistakes, but may do so incorrectly. Therefore the mistakes are compounded throughout the centuries. 73 Professor Ehrman explains: Sometimes scribes might intentionally change the text; sometimes accidents happen. These mistake-ridden copies get copied; and the mistake ridden copies of the copies get copied; and so on, down the line. Somewhere in the midst of all this, the original copy (or each of the original copies) ends up getting lost, or worn out, or destroyed. At some point, it is no longer possible to compare a copy with the original to make sure it is correct even if someone has the bright idea of doing so.74 Thus regarding the problems of early Christian scribes in correctly copying the text, Professor Ehrman writes that this in fact, it is such an enormous problem that a number of textual critics have started to
*

Three important lessons can be derived here. One: that indeed the change of one word can change the entire meaning of a message. Two: That if such a change went unnoticed for many centuries, the New Testament is not secure and there are likely many changes which my not be noticed. Three: That this was a clear change to the original text to make Jesus appear to be god when he was not originally portrayed divine to such an extent. This third point clearly indicates that later generations of Christians tried to alter the text because it did not portray Jesus as being divine enough for their taste. But again, is it not likely that this is because neither Jesus nor his apostles ever claimed him to be God? The older texts are of course the more accurate ones and if the texts closest in time to Jesus do not say he was god, but the later texts do, would it not make more sense to believe what the older text says?

claim that we may as well suspend any discussion of the original text, because it is inaccessible to us.75 Besides the problem of whether the surviving manuscripts are an accurate reflection of what the authors originally wrote, there is the other major problem of whether the manuscripts used for the publishing of standardized printed Bible which are the bases for modern translations of the Bible were based on the most accurate of the manuscripts that survived. For 1500 years, not two copies of the Bible were exactly the same as they had all been copied by hand first through unprofessional scribes and then by professional scribes. Many contradicted one another and contained serious errors. Copies varied depending on which region they were found and what year they were written and so on and so forth. This of course changed with the advent of the printing press, which made it possible to re-print the same exact text over and over. But since the manuscripts were so varied by that time, which ones were used as the basis for the standardized copy to be published on the printing press? Unfortunately we can see that the manuscripts selected as the basis for the first published Greek Bibles were extremely problematic: -The Latin Vulgate was commissioned by Pope Damasus to be used as the standard Latin translation of the New Testament manuscripts which were originally written in Greek. It was made my comparing earlier Latin translations with the Greek texts available and became the standard bible for Rome76. -It is unknown which manuscripts were used to make the first printed Greek Bible, the Complutensian Polyglot, completed in the year 1514. No Greek manuscripts were found in the library where the publishers were supposed to have obtained their sources, although it was later discovered that there were indeed some Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in the library but were sold in 1749, to Toryo, a Rocket maker, who used them to make fireworks!77 -Erasmus, who started publishing his Greek New Testament in the year 1515 produced a very important edition which was used as the standard for the Greek New Testament for over 300 years, and whom all subsequent editions were based upon. Erasmuss edition was even used in the making of the English King James Bible. However, Erasmuss edition of the Bible was not based upon the best, oldest, and most authentic manuscripts of the New Testament. Rather, Erasmus relied on a mere handful of late medieval manuscripts and most of what he printed was based heavily on just one twelfth-century manuscript. For some books in the Bible, he had just one manuscript available to him which were often impossible to read in some places and missing pages. For the sections of the Bible that could not be found in any of the original Greek manuscripts, he simply translated back to Greek what he found in the Latin Vulgate, although there was no independent evidence that such sections were ever in the original Greek! When he finished compiling the book, he admittedly rushed out rather than edit it! This edition of the New Testament became the standard Greek version, although it was based on a handful of manuscripts (sometimes just two or even oneor in parts of Revelation, none!) that had been produced relatively late in the medieval period. Therefore, modern printed editions of the Bible were not even based upon the oldest and most accurate manuscripts, thus making the modern Bible not even an accurate reflection of what the oldest manuscripts had to say. Professor Ehrman explains Printers for the most part did not search out new manuscripts that might be older and better in order to base their texts on them. Instead they simply printed and reprinted the same text making only minor changes. 78

-Future additions of the Bible were also based on Erasmuss work, which was based on some rather late, and not necessarily reliable , Greek manuscriptsthe ones he happened to find in Basel and the one he borrowed from his friend Reuchlin. There would be no reason to suspect that these manuscripts were particularly high in quality. They were simply the ones he could lay his hands on. Indeed as it turns out,, these manuscripts were not of the bets quality: they were, after all, produced some eleven hundred years after the originals! For example, the main manuscript that Erasmus used for the Gospels contained both the story of the woman taken in adultery in John and the last twelve verses of Mark, passages that did not originally form part of the Gospels79 To make matters worse, the translations available to most English readers are based on the wrong text.80 And most English translators have chosen the wrong reading and so present a translation not of the original text but of the text that scribe created when they altered the original.81 Thus there are really two problems here. Firstly, that the first Bibles ever printed and published and those translated were not based on the oldest, best, most accurate manuscripts of the New Testament. And secondly, that the manuscripts that they were based upon, even the oldest ones, contain many discrepancies and may not be a an accurate representation of what its alleged author originally wrote. Often the manuscripts the Bible we read is based upon were not the best most accurate manuscript available, but even if they were, we still can never be sure what we read is actually what the first original author actually wrote. In Galatians for example, we clearly cannot be sure what we are reading is actually what Paul wanted to say: The first reasonably complete copy we have of Galatians (this manuscript is fragmentary: i.e., it has a number of missing parts) is a papyrus called P46,which dates to about 200 C.E. Thats approximately 150 years after Paul wrote the letter. It had been in circulation; being copied sometimes correctly and sometimes incorrectly, for fifteen decades before any copy was made that has survived down to the present day. We cannot reconstruct the copy from which P46 was made. Was it an accurate copy? If so, how accurate? It surely had mistakes of some kind, as did the copy from which it was copied, and the copy from which that copy was copied, and so on. Such problems are found within the Gospels as well. A prime example was mentioned earlier of how the last 12 verses of Mark which spoke of the resurrection were not present in the oldest manuscript. Many scholars also believe that John 21 and the first few lines of John which speak of the word being with God and being Goda verse which is used to support the notion of the trinitywas not part of the original writing of John due to its different linguistic elements, style and vocabulary82. Scholars also agree without a doubt that John 7:53-8:12, which speaks of an adulterous women whom Jesus saved by saying Let he who I without sin, throw the first stone, was not originally part of the New Testament83. It was not originally written by the author of John, but was added centuries later; therefore it is definitely not the word of God in any sense of the word, yet remains to be part of the New Testament as though it was the word of God. Modern translations of the Bible, such as the NIV state The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53- 8:11 But nonetheless modern Bibles keep these verses, which were added by a scribe centuries later and thus are impure to the text, in the New Testament as though they were what the original author wrote. How can we accept that impure adulterations of Gospel of John added by an unknown scribe remain attributed to him? Professor Ehrman explains:

The passages discussed above [The additions to Mark and John] represent just two out of thousands of places in which the manuscripts of the New Testament came to be changed by scribes. In both of the examples, we are dealing with additions that scribes made to the text, additions of sizeable length. Although most of the changes are not of this magnitude, there are lots of significant changes (and lots more insignificant ones) in our surviving manuscripts of the New Testament.Christianity from the outset was a bookish religion that stressed certain texts as authoritative scripture. As we have seen in this chapter, however, we dont actually have these authoritative texts. This is a textually oriented religion whose texts have been changed, surviving only in copies that vary from one another, sometimes in highlight significant ways.we cant interpret the words of the New Testament if we dont know what the words were. Another critical and very significant adulteration of the text is a verse found in the Latin translation of the Bible and many English translations, but which was never part of what the author wrote in 1 John 5: 7-8. The verse is called the Johannine Comma and has long been a favorite among Christian theologians, since it is the only passage in the entire Bible that explicitly delineates the doctrine of the trinity.84 This verse speaks that there are three in heaven The Father, the Word, and the Spirit and is used to support the doctrine of the trinity. However scholars are in consensus that this verse was not originally part of the New Testament since it is not found in any of the earliest Greek manuscripts. It was added centuries later. Even the NIV translation of the Bible admits that this verse was not present in any manuscript before the 16th century. Nonetheless, many Christians continue to use Bibles which contain this verse and believe in a doctrine that was never written by the original author of 1 John. Likewise as we will see, many verses which are the bases and foundation for the Trinity were never originally part of the New Testament but were added centuries later, thus making the trinity more likely a false invention never taught by Jesus. Unfortunately, Christians continue to accept false teachings added centuries later as though they were the teachings of Jesus and his apostles when there is no doubt they are adulterations. Even Erasmus decided not to add the Johannine Comma verse to his edition of the Bible, and was thus attacked by Christian theologians who accused Erasmus of tampering with the text in an attempt to eliminate the doctrine of Trinity and to devalue its corollary, the doctrine of the full divinity of Christ.85 However Erasmus was forced to add this verse to his Bible after great pressure and a forged 16th century Greek manuscript was written for him containing the Johannine Comma and passed off as though it was an ancient manuscript. Nonetheless, the only verse in the Bible which implies (not even explicitly mentions) the trinity turns out to be not part of what the original authors of the Bible ever wrote. The Johannine Comma was not the only such verse which was not found in the oldest manuscripts and which was hotly disputed. John Mill a famous Biblical scholar, spent over thirty years gathering manuscripts and finally published an edition of the Bible in 1707 which highlighted many (not even all of) the discrepancies found within the manuscripts available. His published work shows 30,000 places of variations and discrepancies between the Biblical manuscripts86. Thus it was clear that with so much variation amongst the surviving manuscripts, it would be impossible to know precisely which words were written by the original authors, and this indeed is extremely problematic as Professor Ehrman explains: Now the status of the original text was thrown wide open to dispute. If one did not know which words were original to the Greek New Testament, how could one use these words in deciding correct Christian doctrine and teaching?87

Even Daniel Whitby, a prominent conservative Protestant theologian wrote: I GREIVE therefore and am vexed that I have found so much in Mills Prolegomena which seems quite plainly to render the standard of faith insecure, or at best to give others to good a handle for doubting.88 Roman Catholics even used this opportunity to argue that scripture was not a sufficient authority for the faith. In other words the New Testament was not sufficient to form the Christian doctrine, particularly that relating to the trinity and the divinity of Jesus. While people like Whitby tried to argue that most of the variations and contradictions were not major and thus the problem was over-exaggerated, that argument did not hold as Professor Ehrman explains: Whitbys defense might well have settled the issue had it not been taken up by those who used Mills thirty thousand places of variation precisely to the end that Whitby feared, to argue that the text of scripture could not be trusted because it was in itself so insecure89. Other classical biblical scholars agree with this statement, like the renowned Hebrew scholar, Richard Simon from the seventeenth century. Professor Ehrman writes: His view was precisely the one that many English Protestants feared would result from a careful analysis of the New Testament text, namely that the wide ranging variations in the tradition showed that Christian faith could not be based solely on scripture, since the text was unstable and unreliable.90 In other words, the Christian doctrine does not necessarily have strong support from the Bible, especially with the Bible having been changed so many times, and if we can positively tell of thousands of changes within the manuscripts, it is impossible to ever accurately know what the original manuscripts precisely said and such changes indicate that the document is insecure or that it may contain many other undetected changes. Even more problematic was that amongst the thirty thousand variations were the verses used to justify and support the trinity, which evidently, were never part of the original text. And as it turns out the New Testament is indeed insecure. While only a little over 30,000 variations and contradictions were found in the Biblical manuscripts at the time Mill published his edition of the Bible, now scholars have found over 400,000 variations amongst the manuscripts91that is the surviving manuscripts of the old testament, contradict one another in over 400,000 ways! And yes, as quoted earlier, that means that there is more variation within the surviving manuscripts, then even the number of words the New Testament contains! Simon himself writes in regards to the authenticity of the Bible: There would not be at this day any copy even of the New Testament, either Greek, Latin, Syriack, or Arabic, that might be truly called authentic, because there is not one, in whatsoever language it be written, that is absolutely exempt from additions. I might also avouch, that the Greek transcribers have taken a very great liberty in writing their copies, as shall be proved in another place. 92 Unfortunately, Simon did not provide an alternative to the changed text, besides saying that the Church should be trusted to form Christian theology. But that too is flawed since if the Church does not have reliable manuscripts, from where can it derive its authority? But nonetheless, Simon concedes that the changes to the Bible have rendered it untrustworthy:

The great changes that have taken place in the manuscripts of the Biblesince the first originals were lost, completely destroy the principle of the protestantswho only consult these same manuscripts of the Bible in the form they are today. If the truth of religion had not lived on in the Church it would not be safe to look for it now in books that have been subjected to so many change and that ins so many matters were dependent on the will of the copyists. 93 As Professor Ehrman puts it concisely, If the words were not certain, what of the faith based upon them?94 Another renowned Biblical Scholars, Karl Lachmann of the 18th century agreed with this statement. He even decided that The textual evidence was simply not adequate to determine what the original authors wrote.95 He argued that the earliest manuscripts Christians had access to for centuries were only from the fourth or fifth century, many centuries after they were written and who could predict the vicissitudes of transmission that had occurred between the penning of the autographs and the production of the earliest surviving witnesses some centuries later?96 Johann Wettstein from the 17th century, initially attempted to argue however that although there were changes in the Bible, the faith was nonetheless secure, since the changes only effected minor points. His opinions drastically changed however, when he personally examined the Codex Alexandrinus in England. There he discovered a major problem with one of the key verses used to support the trinity, 1 Timothy 3:16. For hundreds of years that verse was interpreted as and even translated into English as referring to God being made manifest into the flesh. The King James Version which served as the main Bible for the English speaking word for centuries also used this interpretation. Thus Christianity used that verse as one of the main supports for the trinity and the divinity of Jesus, arguing that the Bible says God was manifest into human flesh, and that human-god was Jesus. However, Wettstein discovered that the Alexandrian text had been altered generations later so as to say God became manifest in the flesh. It in fact had original stated Who was made manifest in the flesh, referring to Jesus becoming manifest in flesh as any human isIt did not originally say God was made manifest into the flesh! The fact was that the word who had been changed so that it became God by the addition of a simple line. In Greek, with a line on top of the two letters is an abbreviation for the word which means God. Wettstein discovered that the line on top of the two letters was written in different ink at a later date by a different scribe. Furthermore, the line within the first letter was not part of the letter itself but simply a bleed through of ink from the other side of the manuscript. So the word which had been changed and misconstrued to be with a line on top, meaning God, Had originally been the word with no line. simple means who. Thus the text simple means [Jesus], who was made manifest in the flesh, and not God was made manifest in the flesh, as had been interpreted for many centuries. The King James Version of the Bible still has God made manifest. However, many of the newer translations such as the NIV now refer to He [Jesus] was made manifest in the fleshwhich gives a totally different, although more accurate meaning. 97 Here is a clear example of how a simple change in one word, or just one line, resulted in a major change in Christian theology. When this verse is accurately translated, Christianity looses one of the strongest verses which supports the notion of the trinity, as nothing more but an impure adulteration of the original text. As Professor Ehrman explains: The original reading of the manuscript thus did not speak of Christ as God made manifest in the flesh but of Christ who was made manifest in the flesh. According to the ancient testimony of the Codex Alexandrinus, Christ is no longer explicitly called God in this passage. As Wettstein continued his investigations, he found other passages

typically used to affirm the doctrine of the divinity of Christ that in fact represented textual problems; when these problems are resolved on text-critical grounds, in most instances references to Jesuss divinity are taken away98 As Wettstein worked to resolve many other similar changes and contradictions within the Bible, it became clear that the Bible did not originally refer to Jesus as God: Altered to such difficulties, Wettstein began thinking seriously about his own theological convictions, and became attuned to the problem that the New Testament rarely, if ever, actually calls Jesus God. And he began to be annoyed with his fellow pastors and teachers in his home city of Basel, who would sometimes confuse language about God and ChristWettstein thought that more precision was needed when speaking about the Father and the Son, since they were not the same. 99 In 1730 Wettstein mad a publication outlining generations: passages that had been changed and altered over the

Included among the specimen passages in his discussion were some of these disputed texts that had been used by theologians it establish the biblical bases fir the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. For Wettstein, these texts in face had been altered precisely in order to incorporate that perspective: the original texts could not be used in support of it [the divinity of Jesus]100. Details of a few examples of these changes and variations can be found in the book Misquoting Jesus by Professor Bart Ehrman. However, it is important to note that while scholars may disagree over what the original text of the New Testament originally said, Scholars are unanimous that the text has in fact been alteredmany times over, and generally agree as to what those changes were101. Of these changes, only a few have been addressed in this paper which relate to those changes that attempted to make Jesus divine. In addition to the Johannine Comma and 1 Timothy 3:16, A prime example of such changes is found in Mathew 25:36, which says according to the oldest and most reliable manuscripts, No one knows about the day or hour, not even the angels in the heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. This verse clearly indicates that Jesuss knowledge is limited and that he is inferior to Godthat he is not God. However, many scribes writing the later manuscripts removed the words nor the son so that the verse reads in many manuscripts No one knows about the day or hour, not even the angels in the heaven, but only the Father.thereby taking out explicit reference that Jesus does not know the hour.102 There are many more such examplesperhaps Professor Ehrman puts it best by saying: We could go on nearly forever talking about specific places in which the texts of the new testament came to be changed, either accidentally or intentionally. As I have indicated, the examples are not jus in the hundreds but in the thousands. there are lots of differences among the manuscripts103 (98) The most important of these changes were done in order to imply the divinity of Jesus. Other such changes were made for different reasons however, like to infringe on womens rights. Professor Ehrman explains, the text is changed in order to limit the role of women and to minimize their importance to the Christian movement.104

In conclusion the Bible as we know it today is filled with countless changes and mistakes. These changes and mistakes effect not just the words of the Bible, but the very meaning and message of the Bible itself105. This argument is not advocated by only a minority of scholars, but by the majority of and some of the most respected scholars in the field.106. All of the Modern Bibles, including the NIV, RSV, NRSV, NASV, NKJ, JB, GNB, and so on are all based on texts that have been changed in places.107 Many of these texts even continue to transmit passages which are known to have been fabricated.108 Conclusion to the Questions: In objectively examining the modern Bibles and the manuscripts which they are based upon, it is thus clear that: 1. The majority of the New Testament and Christian dogma comes from those who never saw Jesus and the actual authorship of most of the Bible is unknown. 2. The books that make up the Bible were selected arbitrarily and other perhaps more accurate books were burned. 3. The surviving books and manuscripts were altered to make Jesus look divine. 4. What we have today are not even accurate reflections of the original manuscripts. With this information in mind, it would be neither safe, nor rational, to place the fate of our eternity on a book with no foundation when more clear guidance is available.

Atrocities committed under permission of church Besides the great crime of forcing people to worship a creation of God, instead of the creator alone, the changes of the Bible were used to justify the butchering of hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the crusades, to enslave Africans, to colonize and wipe out the Native Americans, to burn over 50,000 "witches," to torture and burn scientists who disagreed with the church that the earth is flat. These are just a few examples of what the changes to the pure message of Jesus has brought about.

Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 249 2 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 246 3 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 249 4 Ibid 5 Channel 4, Who Wrote the Bible? (Diverse Productions, 25 December 2004; 8.30 pm); 6 Ibid 7 Ibid 8 Ibid 9 Ibid 10 Ibid 11 Ibid 12 Ibid

13

Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 187 14 Channel 4, Who Wrote the Bible? (Diverse Productions, 25 December 2004; 8.30 pm); 15 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 22
16
17

Acharya S, in her magnum opus The Christ Conspiracy (118-120) Channel 4, Who Wrote the Bible? (Diverse Productions, 25 December 2004; 8.30 pm); 18 Ibid 19 Ibid 20 Ibid 21 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 66 22 Channel 4, Who Wrote the Bible? (Diverse Productions, 25 December 2004; 8.30 pm); 23 Ibid 24 Ibid 25 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 212-213 26 Channel 4, Who Wrote the Bible? (Diverse Productions, 25 December 2004; 8.30 pm); 27 Ibid 28 Ibid 29 Against the Christians 2, 12-15 30 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 31 31 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 11-12 32 About the Holy Bible - 1894). 33 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 35-36 34 Channel 4, Who Wrote the Bible? (Diverse Productions, 25 December 2004; 8.30 pm); 35 Ibid 36 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 152 37 Ibid 38 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 153 39 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg, 153 40 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 27 41 Ibid 42 Ibid 43 Ibid 44 Ibid 45 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 154 46 Ibid 47 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 155 48 Great Theosophists: Hypatia - The Last Of The Neoplatonists, THEOSOPHY, Vol. 25, No. 5, March, 1937 (Pages 197207). (Number 12 of a 29-part series) 49 Dating Early Christian Gospels, Andrew Bernhard, Journal of Biblical Studies 1:4 (2001)

50

Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 28 51 Channel 4, Who Wrote the Bible? (Diverse Productions, 25 December 2004; 8.30 pm); 52 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 1 53 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg, 5 54 McDowell 1972:42, & Bruce 1943:16-17 55 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 5 56 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 7 57 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 10 58 ibid 59 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 10 60 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 11 61 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 14 62 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 48 63 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 52 64 Against Celsus, 2.27 65 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 53 66 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 34 67 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 53 68 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 177-178 69 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 56 70 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 56 71 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 71 72 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 74 73 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 57 74 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 59 75 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 58 76 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 74-75 77 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 77

Why (Plus). SanFrancisco:

Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: Why (Plus). SanFrancisco:

Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: Why (Plus). SanFrancisco:

Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: Why (Plus). SanFrancisco:

Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: Why (Plus). SanFrancisco:

78

Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 79 79 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 80 80 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 127 81 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 132 82 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 61 83 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 63 84 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 81 85 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 81 86 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 84 87 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 84 88 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 85 89 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 86 90 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 102 91 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 89 92 Simon, Critical History, pt1, p.65 93 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 104 94 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 109 95 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 116 96 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 116 97 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 113 98 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 113 99 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 114 100 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 114 101 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 95 102 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 95 103 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 98

(Plus). SanFrancisco: (Plus). SanFrancisco: (Plus). SanFrancisco: (Plus). SanFrancisco: (Plus). SanFrancisco: (Plus). SanFrancisco: (Plus). SanFrancisco: (Plus). SanFrancisco: (Plus). SanFrancisco: (Plus). SanFrancisco: (Plus). SanFrancisco: (Plus). SanFrancisco: (Plus). SanFrancisco: (Plus). SanFrancisco:

(Plus). SanFrancisco: (Plus). SanFrancisco: (Plus). SanFrancisco: (Plus). SanFrancisco: (Plus). SanFrancisco: (Plus). SanFrancisco: (Plus). SanFrancisco: (Plus). SanFrancisco: (Plus). SanFrancisco: (Plus). SanFrancisco: (Plus). SanFrancisco:

104

Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 182 105 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 208 106 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 208 107 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 209 108 Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible HarperSanFrancisco, 2007. Pg 209

and Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: and Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: and Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: and Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: and Why (Plus). SanFrancisco: