The Pulling the Thread Podcast

David Jenkins, a former Anglican Bishop of Durham and university professor, has stated that “Certainly not! There is absolutely no certainty in the New Testament about anything of importance.” Further, W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders state that, “on many points, especially about Jesus’ early life, the evangelists were ignorant … they simply did not know and, guided by rumour, hope or supposition, did the best they could.”

There is a growing consensus among scholars that a human Jesus probably existed, but there is less agreement on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus. The only two events that are universally agreed upon are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of Pontius Pilate. Other episodes, such as the varing accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion, are disputed, as well as Paul’s added salvation message and the divinity are contested as not authentic to the original Jewish followers of Jesus.

The Gospels are considered by a growing majority of scholars to be in the genre of ancient Greco-Roman biographies, rather than historical treatises. Historians subject the gospels to critical analysis, attempting to differentiate, rather than authenticate, reliable information from possible inventions, exaggerations, and alterations. Scholars use textual criticism to resolve questions arising from textual variations among the numerous manuscripts that have been discovered to decide the most reliable wording of a text as close to what the “original” may have looked like. For example, there are a number of Bible verses in the New Testament that are present in the King James Version (KJV) but are absent from most modern Bible translations. Most modern scholars consider these interpolations.

The New Testament has been safeguarded in over 5,800 fragmentary Greek manuscripts, with estimates suggesting there may be as many as 300,000 to 500,000 manuscripts in total. Bart Ehrman suggests that the number of errors in the New Testament surpasses the number of actual words. According to Nestle-Aland, each page of the New Testament contains a 37.1% error rate, with only a 62.9% agreement rate. This 37% error rate is highly significant. Furthermore, Per Aland and Aland’s research indicates varying levels of inconsistency in specific Gospels, with the Gospel of Matthew having a 40% inconsistency rate, the Gospel of Mark at 55%, the Gospel of Luke at 43%, and the Gospel of John at 48% error rate, with a combined error rate in all four gospels of 46.5%. Notably, for example three of the most significant interpolations in the New Testament are the last verses of the Gospel of Mark, the story of the adulterous woman in the Gospel of John, and the explicit reference to the Trinity in 1 John, which are believed to have been added at a later time.

Scholars who engage in source criticism, such as the Two-Source Hypothesis or the Four-Source Hypothesis, raise questions about the reliability of the Gospels’ sources. They propose that the Gospels may have relied on oral tradition, written sources, and each other, leading to potential variations and interpretations in the retelling of Jesus’ teachings and actions. Redaction critics analyze how the Gospel authors edited, adapted, and interpreted their sources to suit their theological agendas and the needs of their communities. This raises questions about the extent to which the Gospels present the unadulterated words and actions of Jesus. Scholars using form criticism investigate the literary forms and genres of the Gospel material to understand how early Christian communities shaped the traditions. This approach questions whether some accounts may have been influenced by theological concerns or the specific needs of the community, leading to potential variations from historical events. The historical-critical method seeks to distinguish between historical facts and theological interpretations. Scholars using this approach may challenge certain Gospel accounts as theological constructs rather than straightforward historical records. Some scholars apply specific criteria to evaluate the authenticity of Gospel sayings and events attributed to Jesus. These criteria, such as multiple attestation, dissimilarity, and embarrassment, can lead to questions about the reliability of certain Gospel passages.

The authorship of the Johannine works (the Gospel of John, the Johannine epistles, and the Book of Revelation) has been debated by biblical scholars since at least the 2nd century. Critics point out that the Gospel of John was likely written several decades after the events it describes, and therefore, the author could not have been an eyewitness to the events. This raises questions about the accuracy of specific details and events portrayed in the Gospel.

According to Adolf Julicher, K.G. Bretschneider’s 1820s work on the topic of Johannine authorship pioneered the modern critical scholarship on this topic. Bretschneider called into question the apostolic authorship of the Gospel, and even stated that, on the basis of the author’s unsteady grip of topography, the author could not have come from Palestine. He argued that the meaning and nature of Jesus presented in the Gospel of John was very different from that in the Synoptic Gospels, and thus its author could not have been an eyewitness to the events. Bretschneider cited an apologetic character in John, indicating a later date of composition. Scholars such as Wellhausen, Wendt, and Spitta have argued that the fourth gospel is a Grundschrift or a, “..work which had suffered interpolation before arriving at its canonical form; it was a unity as it stood.” Walter Bauer opened the modern discussion on John with his book Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christ. Bauer’s thesis is that “the heretics probably outnumbered the orthodox” in the early Christian world and that heresy and orthodoxy were not as narrowly defined as we now define them. He was “convinced that none of the Apostolic Fathers had relied on the authority of the Fourth Gospel. It was the gnostics, the Marcionites, and the Montanists who first used it and introduced it to the Christian community.”

The Gospel of John is considered a relatively late theological document that contains limited historically accurate information not found in the three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). For this reason, most historical studies focus on the earliest sources, Mark and Q. Throughout much of the 20th century, scholars interpreted the Gospel of John as originating from a hypothetical “Johannine community.” This community was believed to have emerged from an early 2nd-century Christian group that faced excommunication from the Jewish synagogue due to its belief in Jesus as divine and its adoption of Pauline Nazarene Christianity. The text seems to have arisen from this cultural milieu, with the Johannine community standing somewhat apart from mainstream early Jewish-Christianity, becoming more influenced by Hellenistic and Roman ideas.

Criticism in the early 20th century centered on the concept of the Logos (word), which was seen as a Hellenistic notion. Scholars like H. J. Holtzmann suggested that the Gospel had a dependence on Philo Judaeus, while Albert Schweitzer considered it a Hellenized version of Pauline mysticism. R. Reitzenstein looked for the Gospel’s origin in Egyptian and Persian mystery religions. Rudolf Bultmann, however, proposed a Gnostic origin, particularly influenced by Mandaeanism, which viewed Jesus as a “false prophet.” He identified dualistic tendencies in the Gospel, explaining them through Gnostic roots. Despite this, Bultmann appreciated the Gospel for certain improvements over Gnosticism, such as its Judeo-Christian view of creation and its demythologization of the role of the Redeemer. Elaine Pagels, a Gnosticism scholar, later suggested in 2003 that the author of the Fourth Gospel was indeed influenced by Gnostic ideas. She drew comparisons between the Gospel of John and other Gnostic texts like the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Philip. While the initial fervor for Qumran influences in the Johannine works waned, theories of Gnostic influences resurfaced, especially in Germany.

Several textual variants within the Gospel of John have theological implications and are considered interpolations. One well-known example is the omission of the words “in the beginning” in John 1:1, possibly added later to align the passage with the beginning of Genesis. The story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) is also missing from many early manuscripts and is considered a later addition by some scholars. Various versions of John 1:18 exist, with differences in phrases like “only-begotten son,” “only-begotten God,” “God [the] only-begotten,” and “only children God.” For example, in John 7:53, some manuscripts have the phrase “and they sought to kill him.” However, other manuscripts do not have this phrase. Additionally, differences in the Passion Narrative, variations in the ending of John 21, and changes in wording throughout the text create further challenges for scholars in determining the most reliable original text. The Gospel of John ends with two different endings. The shorter ending is found in most manuscripts, while the longer ending is found in a few manuscripts. The longer ending includes an appearance of Jesus to the disciples after his resurrection.

According to the majority viewpoint, the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are considered the primary sources of historical information about Jesus and the religious movement he founded. They share significant material, suggesting a common source or sources. However, the fourth Gospel, the Gospel of John, differs considerably from the synoptics. The Johannine literature, including the Gospel, three epistles, and Revelation, indicates a distinct community that set itself apart from its Jewish cultural origins.

While the synoptic Gospels contain valuable historical information, they also exhibit contradictions, leading some scholars to question their reliability as purely historical accounts. Furthermore, the synoptics lack references to certain significant events in Jesus’ life, which has led to doubts about their authorship by eyewitnesses.

Various scholars, such as Bart D. Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, and Richard Carrier, have offered different perspectives on the reliability of the synoptic Gospels. Ehrman argues that they are replete with historical inaccuracies and contradictions, while Crossan views them as theological treatises rather than biographies. Carrier even suggests that the synoptic Gospels were written much later, in the second century, long after the events they describe.

Textual variants within the synoptic Gospels have theological implications. These variants refer to differences found in various manuscripts of the same text, which could result from copyist errors or intentional changes. For example, the ending of the Gospel of Mark has variants, with the longer ending emphasizing the resurrection of Jesus. Some older extant manuscripts, like Papyrus 45, lack specific key texts found in later manuscripts, indicating possible later additions or alterations. The Lord’s Prayer: The version of the Lord’s Prayer found in Matthew 6:9-13 is slightly different from the version in Luke 11:2-4. In Luke, the prayer is shorter and lacks certain phrases present in Matthew’s version. This variance has implications for how Christians recite and interpret the Lord’s Prayer. The Agony in the Garden: In Luke 22:43-44, some ancient manuscripts include an account of an angel strengthening Jesus during the agony in the garden. This passage is not found in all manuscripts and can impact theological discussions about Jesus’ divine nature and his human experiences. Regarding the nativity narratives, they appear only in Matthew and Luke and are viewed as non-historical by many modern critical scholars. These scholars tend to approach the Gospels as primarily theological documents rather than strict historical records. The genealogy and parentage of Jesus are points of conflict in the New Testament and have been discussed by figures like Celsus and the Talmud, suggesting different ideas about Jesus’ father.

Regarding older extant manuscripts, it is indeed true that some of the oldest copies do not include specific key texts or passages within the synoptic Gospels. Scholars in the field of textual criticism aim to determine the original wording of ancient texts by meticulously analyzing and comparing the available manuscripts. They carefully examine the variations among these extant manuscripts to identify the most probable original reading. Among the most ancient and significant New Testament manuscripts are the Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Alexandrinus. Interestingly, some of these manuscripts lack certain passages or verses that are found in later copies, which raises questions about the authenticity or originality of those texts. An example of such variation can be seen in the ending of the Gospel of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), which is absent in some of the earliest manuscripts. The presence or absence of these passages and other textual differences have prompted scholars to scrutinize the reliability of specific passages and their theological implications.

Regarding the historicity of the depiction of Paul the Apostle in Acts, there is significant debate among scholars, with many considering it a creation of the author of the Gospel of Luke rather than an accurate historical account. Acts presents Paul in a different light compared to how he describes himself in his letters, both in factual details and theological beliefs. There are apparent discrepancies between Acts and Paul’s letters concerning crucial matters like the Law, Paul’s apostleship, and his relationship with the Jerusalem church. While Acts portrays Paul more favorably, Paul’s own writings suggest a more conflicted and embattled figure.

Scholars generally prefer to rely on Paul’s own accounts rather than those found in Acts, as they appear to be more authentic and reflective of his actual experiences. It is believed that the authors of Acts had a vested interest in portraying Paul in a positive light, possibly to reconcile Gentile and Jewish forms of Christianity and present a harmonious narrative. Similarly, the Gospel of John emphasizes theological points that diverge from Judaism, indicating the author’s theological intentions. The New Testament, including the Gospels and Acts, was written during a period of conflict with various competing groups and narratives, resulting in later redactions and efforts to harmonize the diverse messages from different Christian communities. Scholars have vigorously debated the historicity of Acts, particularly between 1895 and 1915. Figures like Ferdinand Christian Baur and Adolf von Harnack questioned its reliability, viewing it as an attempt to reconcile distinct forms of Christianity. The text requires careful scrutiny to mine historical information, separating it from theological and ideological influences.

Regarding the Gospels and Acts, most historical critical scholarship challenges their historical reliability, with some rejecting the Gospel of John as having no historical value due to its theological emphasis. Scholars generally consider the Johannine discourses to be less likely to be historical compared to the synoptic parables, suggesting that they were written for theological purposes rather than as straightforward historical accounts.

The variations among the earliest surviving manuscripts of Acts, particularly the Western and Alexandrian text-types, highlight the complexities of textual transmission and potential differences in content. These variations can influence theological interpretations and understandings of the narrative. The version of Acts preserved in the Western manuscripts contains about 8.5% more content than the Alexandrian version of Acts.

Bart Ehrman views the book of Acts as a “theological novel” and a “theological apologetic” rather than a strictly accurate historical account. John Dominic Crossan considers it a “legend” based on some historical events, but not entirely reliable. Richard Carrier suggests it is a “fabrication” written in the second century, blending history with fiction. Michael Grant also questions its historical reliability. Michael Grant, a classicist who has argued that the book is not a reliable historical account of the early church.

Several factors contribute to the debate on the historicity of Acts. It is a composite work, drawing from various sources and not a single eyewitness account. The inclusion of miraculous events and passages difficult to reconcile with other historical sources raises questions about its accuracy. Some scholars argue that Acts is a work of early Christian propaganda, intentionally distorting or omitting details to present a unified narrative of the early Christian movement. Others see it as a work of historiographical fiction, using literary and rhetorical techniques to construct a narrative about the origins and spread of Christianity. John Dominic Crossan suggests the author had theological motivations and ideological biases influencing the narrative construction.

Adolf von Harnack, a prominent German historian and theologian, argued that Acts was a work of early Christian propaganda rather than a reliable historical account. He believed that the author intentionally distorted or omitted historical details to present a unified and harmonious picture of the early Christian movement. Richard Pervo, an American scholar, offered a skeptical assessment of Acts’ historical reliability in his book “Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists.” He proposed that Acts was a work of historiographical fiction that employed literary and rhetorical techniques to create a narrative about the origins and spread of Christianity. John Dominic Crossan, an Irish-American New Testament scholar, has expressed reservations about the historical reliability of Acts. He argues that the author, whom he refers to as “Luke the Unknown,” had theological motivations and ideological biases that influenced the way the narrative was constructed.

Some of the passages in Acts that have been questioned for their historical accuracy include:

• Acts 4:4 speaks of Peter addressing an audience, resulting in the number of Christian converts rising to 5,000 people. However, some scholars have argued that this number is unrealistic, given the size of the population of Jerusalem at the time.
• Acts 5:33–39 gives an account of a speech by the 1st century Pharisee Gamaliel, in which he refers to two first century movements led by Theudas and Judas the Galilean. However, the order of these movements is reversed in Acts, and it is possible that Theudas’s movement may have come after the time when Gamaliel is speaking.
• Acts 10:1 speaks of a Roman Centurion called Cornelius belonging to the “Italian regiment” and stationed in Caesarea about 37 AD. However, there is no other historical evidence to corroborate this claim.
• The description of the ‘Apostolic Council’ in Acts 15 is considered by some scholars to be contradictory to the Galatians account. The historicity of Luke’s account has been challenged, and was rejected completely by some scholars in the mid to late 20th century.
• In Acts 15:16–18, James, the leader of the Christian Jews in Jerusalem, gives a speech where he quotes scriptures from the Greek Septuagint (Amos 9:11–12). Some believe this is incongruous with the portrait of James as a Jewish leader who would presumably speak Aramaic, not Greek.
• In Acts 21:38, a Roman asks Paul if he was ‘the Egyptian’ who led a band of ‘sicarii’ (literally: ‘dagger-men’) into the desert. However, Josephus talks about Jewish nationalist rebels called sicarii directly prior to talking about The Egyptian leading some followers to the Mount of Olives. Richard Pervo believes that this demonstrates that Luke used Josephus as a source and mistakenly thought that the sicarii were followers of The Egyptia

Textual variants in Acts are differences in the text of Acts that occur between different manuscripts of the book. These variants can be caused by a number of factors, including scribal errors, deliberate changes, and harmonization with other texts. Some textual variants in Acts have theological implications. For example, the omission of the story of Paul’s conversion in Acts 9:1-9 is thought to have been made by a copyist who was familiar with the story of Paul’s conversion in the Book of Galatians. This omission could be seen as an attempt to downplay the importance of Paul’s conversion, or to make it more consistent with the other accounts of Paul’s conversion.

Another example of a textual variant with theological implications is the omission of the ascension of Jesus in the oldest manuscripts of Acts. The ascension of Jesus is a key event in Christian theology, as it marks the end of Jesus’ earthly ministry and his return to the Father. The omission of this event from the oldest manuscripts of Acts could be seen as an indication that the ascension of Jesus was not as important to the early Christians as it is to Christians today.

There are a number of other textual variants in Acts that have theological implications. These variants can be used to gain insights into the beliefs and practices of the early Christians, and to understand how the book of Acts was interpreted and used by different Christian communities over time. Here are some textual variants in Acts with theological implications:

• The omission of the story of Paul’s conversion in Acts 9:1-9.
• The omission of the ascension of Jesus in the oldest manuscripts of Acts.
• The ending of Acts 8:37, which is missing from the oldest manuscripts.
• The story of Paul’s escape from Damascus in Acts 9:23-25, which is also missing from the oldest manuscripts.
• The story of the “we” passages in Acts 16:10-17, 20:5-15, and 21:1-18.
• The story of Paul’s visit to Spain in Acts 28:16-31, which is only found in a few Western Text manuscripts.

These are just a few examples of textual variants in Acts that have theological implications. The study of textual variants in Acts can be a valuable tool for understanding the beliefs and practices of the early Christians, and for understanding how the book of Acts was interpreted and used by different Christian communities over time. The New Testament, written over several decades, likely reflects different theological perspectives of its authors. Tailored to specific audiences, the accounts may have been adjusted to resonate with them. The transmission and manual copying of the New Testament over centuries could have introduced errors.

In conclusion, ongoing scholarly debates surround the historical reliability of the New Testament, particularly the Gospels and Acts, requiring meticulous analysis and critical examination of the texts’ content and contexts. While the existence of a historical Jesus is widely accepted, the accuracy of specific events described in the biblical accounts remains less agreed upon. Categorized as ancient Greco-Roman biographies, the Gospels present theological narratives rather than strict historical records. With thousands of fragmentary Greek manuscripts, variations among them contribute to a notable error rate. Scholars employ diverse methods, such as source criticism, redaction criticism, and form criticism, to assess the Gospels’ reliability. Although the synoptic Gospels are considered primary sources, they still contain contradictions and discrepancies, prompting questions about their precision. The Gospel of John is regarded more as a theological document than a comprehensive historical account. Acts is also challenged in terms of historical reliability, given its composite nature, potential propaganda elements, and theological motives.