Welcome to Summit Theological Seminary

"Teaching God's Word to God's World"

2766 Airport Road, Peru, Indiana 46970, (765) 472-4111

 

Dear Brother Faull,

 

Can you help me?  What about the book “Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why”?  The author used to be Evangelical but turned agnostic due to his research.

 

ANSWER:

 

I have never seen the book nor heard of it. I found it interesting to see how much is on the Internet about it but never found any one refuting it yet because it is pretty new. I think you will find it is a rehash of the same old harangue of previous unbelievers. I will probably get the book so I can view his honesty. I have never seen one of these fellows yet that I thought to be honest or even sincere. I find it interesting that even if his thesis is true, (that the canon is not reliable and things have been changed) that he ends up an agnostic.

 

Is that reasonable? Is the Bible the only evidence that there is a God? That seems to me like a “knee-jerk” reaction.

 

If a bundle of letters that you had always considered to be from your grandfather were proven to have been messed with and changed by some villain, would it prove you did not have a grandfather?

 

Is this rational thinking?  Me thinks he protesteth too much.

 

Remember Nature, which I call Volume one shows God’s POWER. The Bible, which I call Volume two, shows God’s PURPOSE.  Jesus, whom I call Volume three shows God’s PERSON. The Church whom I call Volume four shows God’s PEOPLE.

 

Man misreads Volume one (Nature) and says it is not one of design but evolutionary chance and simply the survival of the fittest in a hostile world?  I consider them mentally incompetent.

 

What of Volume two (the Bible)? Do they misread it? Do they not deny it is reliable as this unbeliever says?

 

In 1970 I wrote a book and there were 2700 Bible manuscripts in whole or part. Today there is over 5700. The spade keeps revealing more. Do they differ? Yes. Pick up any translation printed today and you will see that "some manuscripts omit verses 3-5” (of John 5).   Or it will say "some of the oldest manuscripts omit verse 37" (of Acts 8).

 

What does that prove? It proves we know the manuscripts differ and where. His very thesis is therefore suspect. If we know there are varieties of manuscripts and where they differ are we then deceived?

 

Suppose an old jeweler 50 years ago put out a hundred rings. You found one and a few jewels were missing from their settings. Then ten others were found around the world but different jewels were missing from them than from yours. Though we do not have the original pattern of the ring, by putting them together we can appreciate the beauty of the original rings.

 

If the two oldest rings we found had a couple of jewels missing and rings that were not as old were found that had jewels in that missing setting, would we conclude no Jeweler ever made them? But if more rings continued to be found and they had some of the same jewels in the same setting and a couple of jewels were missing from that setting, would you not conclude that by putting them collectively together you could understand how the designer intended the ring to look? Could you not appreciate the designer’s creative ability, or would you have to conclude, like this “knee-jerker,” that there was no jeweler?

 

What of Volume three (Christ)?  This volume was no sooner published than men were saying different things about him. “A prophet”, “The prophet”, “The Christ”, “John the Baptist come back to life”, “demon possessed” and then the Gnostics, that He was “an apparition”.  But His works show who He is.

 

What about Volume four (the Church)? Just as there were false gospels of Thomas, Peter, and Judas so there are false epistles through the centuries who claim to be the people of God.

 

If you were to look at all who claim to be God’s people as His People or Church, you are going to have strange and contradictory, and even a blasphemous, Volume four.

 

One must make sure Volume four (the Church) is not written under false names, like the Gospel of Judas that men want to put in Volume two or just as Volume three (Christ) has false pretenders so does Volume four.

 

Putting the name of Christ on a church, or showing a long tradition of a church is no proof it is the church. Looking at most churches would cause you to conclude the church of Jesus Christ is corrupt. Make sure you’re looking at a church that is like the Church that Jesus established.

 

In short, all four Volumes are denied or imitated or misunderstood. This does not mean that there was no Creator of nature, revelation from God, Savior from sin, or true Church. It means that there is a devil in the world who attempts to get men not to accept the truthfulness of the four-set Volume.

 

Imagine 5,700 manuscripts and still finding more each year and there were no accurate originals!!!  Wow!  What faith this man does “muster-up”.

 

Do you know these facts?

è                     There are only 12 copies of Herodotus in existence.  The oldest manuscript was written in 1000 AD.  He lived around 5 BC.

è                     There is not one complete copy of Homer earlier than 1300 AD.  He lived in the 8^th Century BC.

è                     There are only 8 Greek manuscripts of Thucydides.  He lived in the 4^th Century BC.

è                     There are only 10 good copies of Caesar’s Gallic Wars (50 BC).  The oldest one currently available was made 900 years after they were written.

No one questions that this is what these men said.  Yet the Bible has thousands of manuscripts, versions and quotations both of friends and foes.

 

è                     Tertullian who lived about 200 AD alone quotes 7200 passages of Scripture; and Origen, his contemporary, quotes 2/3 of the New Testament or 18,000 passages.

è                     One manuscript has the Gospel of John.  (He died somewhere around 100 AD), and this manuscript dates only 30 years after his death.

è                     Of the 400 variant readings, only 50 have any real significance and none of these affect any New Testament doctrine.

è                     Besides this, the early Christians were suspicious of any book, which claimed to be by the apostles since the Gnostics wrote books under pseudonyms.  Thus many books were rejected since their authority was doubted.  Remember that the book is in the Canon because it was authorized.  It was not authorized because it is in the Canon.

 

I hope this helps.