What I find interesting isn’t whether the Bible is “reliable” in an institutional sense, but that the text survived in spite of empire, not because of it. What came later was control, canon, and certainty. What came first was argument, plurality, and communities arguing about meaning in real time. That tension matters more than manuscript math.
I’m off on a tangent here, but I would love for you to write about what is meant by “salvation.” What was Jesus saving us from? I do not believe in hell as a place where some go after death. It’s not consistent with the concept of a loving God. Could you please expand on this in one of your essays or other writings?
Thanks, Beau, for writing and sharing. Really good.
If you can: can you cover how the Bible was put together? Books included in the Bible, books not included in the Bible, when the Bible was fully formed, who did the forming? I’m interested in the people, the politics, the history, the institutions, etc. Some of my dad friends and I are discussing this currently, and I’d love to learn from you on this topic to share with them.
Sorry for the long ask, and hope it’s not too much to ask. Look forward to learning more from you here.
I grew up in Fundamentalism, but Jesus helped me deconstruct as a child. The Bible wasn't even inerrant in Biblical times. Jeremiah 8:8 (NASB) "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made [it] into a lie."
Here is one example of the removal of some of the core removals of Jesus' teachings when he cast out a demon in Matthew 17:21 (NASB 1995) “But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.” This verse is found in the Diatessaron, a harmony of the four Gospels compiled by Tatian around 175 AD, but left out by later manuscripts but still quoted by Origen and Tertullian. Fasting was very much part of the Essene traditions practiced by the early Christians, particularly the Jewish Christians. But over time Hellenistic Christianity with its Roman roots shifted it to a more symbolic form in Lent than the true food-abstinent practice that Jesus taught would purify our bodies and cast out demons.
What was left out of Jesus' teachings in not inconsequential. The fact the the Nazarenes--the group of the first Christians who followed Jesus-- and later Ebionites were vegetarian should give anyone pause. So, what does the historian Hegesippus (110 AD to 180 AD) say about James the Just? "James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank no wine or other intoxicating liquor, nor did he eat flesh; no razor came upon his head." Hm, history says James, the brother of Jesus who was appointed head of the first Church, was a vegetarian from birth. That's a huge detail in history to overlook, and aligns perfectly with Jesus' anti-sacrifice rhetoric echoed by the prophets. Why would James be a vegetarian from birth and not Jesus? Why leave out that he was the first official leader of the Christians too? And why was the sect of the original followers of Jesus labeled heretics by the Catholic Church and persecuted into extinction by the 4th century? Wouldn't the Gospels used by the original believers be more accurate? Jerome thought so, as he collected all the fragments of the 'Gospel of the Hebrews According to Matthew' to reconstruct Matthew. Yet, the version used by the Jewish Christians was still different from that used by Hellenistic Christians.
The Nazarenes also rejected Paul, and called him an apostate from the Law, as he taught that people didn't need to follow the reformed, sacrifice-free Torah that Jesus taught. Interesting how the first person to officially accept Paul was an undisputed heretic named Marcion, who created the first Bible canon based on Paul's letters. Ironically, to condemn the heresy the Hellenistic Christians claimed Paul for themselves. I find it revealing how Paul taught 'his gospel' (Romans 2:16 & Romans 16:25) but Jesus always taught "The Gospel" especially when you look granularly examine Jesus' teachings alongside Paul's:
Jesus said “Blessed are the meek” (Matthew 5:5).
Paul defended himself through boasting, credentials, and comparisons (2 Corinthians 11:16–22).
Jesus said “Blessed are the merciful” (Matthew 5:7).
Paul invoked curses and exclusion against opponents (Galatians 1:8–9; 1 Corinthians 5:5).
Jesus said “Blessed are the pure in heart” (Matthew 5:8).
Paul emphasized purity codes and boundary enforcement more than inner transformation (1 Corinthians 5–6).
Jesus said “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matthew 5:9).
Jesus warned that anger and contempt endanger the soul (Matthew 5:21–22).
Paul used harsh language, calling groups “foolish” and “enemies” (Galatians 3:1; Philippians 3:18).
The Jesus Way and Paul's path are two spiritually incompatible belief systems. These are only a few examples, I wrote "100 Reasons Christians Should Follow Jesus -- Not Paul" for those who seek never stop searching for the absolute truth found in God alone. Isn't it time to start looking beneath the surface, past what manuscripts agree on 2,000 years later and find the deeper truths that have been lost and obscured? "So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly My disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:31-32.
Last night was amazing. I want to tell you about my family’s journey to the Holy Land and our trip to Qumran. We never made it there and the story of why is a good one. I told my friends the story at the table last night. It was in 1969 and I was 15 years old. It was two years after the Six Days War in the Middle East which is a hint as to why we never made it to our destination.
Really strong piece on textual reliability. The part about how widespread copying created a self-correcting system is key. Its almost like having thousands of witnesses instead of one makes errors way easier tospot. I ran into this concept years ago studying ancient history and it totally changed how I thought about manuscript transmission. Most people think more copies = more corruption but the oposite is actually true.
Well thought out and written, thanks for that. One of the things many folks get wrong simply because we as a society do not value this, but oral traditions were the way people transmit information and were reliable. Think of the number of messengers who had to transmit exacting information after running from a battle field or from one country to another. A misquote could have catastrophic effects.
One thing I think that often gets lost in the conversation is not, “do we have what was written originally,” but to what extent the authors voices, personalities, lived experiences and biases made it into the texts that we have. Yes, we have a great deal of matching manuscripts, far and above other literary works. That proves consistency in voice and message.
What that doesn’t settle is whether or not the words themselves are what God did/didn’t intend them to say. When things show up that make us pause and scratch our heads (ie God commanding genocide), we have to ask ourselves is that what God intended? Are the writers projecting their own cultural biases into it?
In my opinion, this is where the debate about the Bible’s reliability/accuracy/infallibility needs to spend more time. We know we have lots of copies of copies of translations of copies. And those match. Great.
it still doesn’t address the content itself and what is/isn’t reflective of the message God intended.
Thank you for the perfect lay person explanation...just enough meat and details to hold my interest without the academic overload that makes my eyes roll into the back of my head.
As you mentioned, our current translations, I think one aspect needs to be presented. Are the translations reliable or are they holding an interpretive framework that may mislead the reader in English today. An example may be the NIV which is deliberately slanted towards conservative words and concepts. Certainly worth the exploring.
“Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why” by Bart D. Ehrman was recently recommended to me on this topic. Goodreads describes it as, “A Biblical scholar describes how the texts of the Bible have been changed and altered over time, and how this has affected our understanding of the Bible today.” I got it because the topic interests me as well, but cannot provide first-hand commentary on it yet. Also recommended in that discussion was John Barton’s “The Word: How We Translate the Bible and Why It Matters”.
Solid intro to textual criticism here. I particularly appreciate that you kept front and center how many historical documents we accept as authoritative on a fraction of the manuscript evidence we have for the New Testament.
What I find interesting isn’t whether the Bible is “reliable” in an institutional sense, but that the text survived in spite of empire, not because of it. What came later was control, canon, and certainty. What came first was argument, plurality, and communities arguing about meaning in real time. That tension matters more than manuscript math.
I’m off on a tangent here, but I would love for you to write about what is meant by “salvation.” What was Jesus saving us from? I do not believe in hell as a place where some go after death. It’s not consistent with the concept of a loving God. Could you please expand on this in one of your essays or other writings?
I’d be happy to! I’ll add it to my list!
My SBC upbringing taught me that it was hell we were saved from. Without that, I just don’t get it.
Thanks, Beau, for writing and sharing. Really good.
If you can: can you cover how the Bible was put together? Books included in the Bible, books not included in the Bible, when the Bible was fully formed, who did the forming? I’m interested in the people, the politics, the history, the institutions, etc. Some of my dad friends and I are discussing this currently, and I’d love to learn from you on this topic to share with them.
Sorry for the long ask, and hope it’s not too much to ask. Look forward to learning more from you here.
I plan to write about this soon! Great questions!
Yay! Great!! Thanks!
I grew up in Fundamentalism, but Jesus helped me deconstruct as a child. The Bible wasn't even inerrant in Biblical times. Jeremiah 8:8 (NASB) "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made [it] into a lie."
Here is one example of the removal of some of the core removals of Jesus' teachings when he cast out a demon in Matthew 17:21 (NASB 1995) “But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.” This verse is found in the Diatessaron, a harmony of the four Gospels compiled by Tatian around 175 AD, but left out by later manuscripts but still quoted by Origen and Tertullian. Fasting was very much part of the Essene traditions practiced by the early Christians, particularly the Jewish Christians. But over time Hellenistic Christianity with its Roman roots shifted it to a more symbolic form in Lent than the true food-abstinent practice that Jesus taught would purify our bodies and cast out demons.
What was left out of Jesus' teachings in not inconsequential. The fact the the Nazarenes--the group of the first Christians who followed Jesus-- and later Ebionites were vegetarian should give anyone pause. So, what does the historian Hegesippus (110 AD to 180 AD) say about James the Just? "James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank no wine or other intoxicating liquor, nor did he eat flesh; no razor came upon his head." Hm, history says James, the brother of Jesus who was appointed head of the first Church, was a vegetarian from birth. That's a huge detail in history to overlook, and aligns perfectly with Jesus' anti-sacrifice rhetoric echoed by the prophets. Why would James be a vegetarian from birth and not Jesus? Why leave out that he was the first official leader of the Christians too? And why was the sect of the original followers of Jesus labeled heretics by the Catholic Church and persecuted into extinction by the 4th century? Wouldn't the Gospels used by the original believers be more accurate? Jerome thought so, as he collected all the fragments of the 'Gospel of the Hebrews According to Matthew' to reconstruct Matthew. Yet, the version used by the Jewish Christians was still different from that used by Hellenistic Christians.
The Nazarenes also rejected Paul, and called him an apostate from the Law, as he taught that people didn't need to follow the reformed, sacrifice-free Torah that Jesus taught. Interesting how the first person to officially accept Paul was an undisputed heretic named Marcion, who created the first Bible canon based on Paul's letters. Ironically, to condemn the heresy the Hellenistic Christians claimed Paul for themselves. I find it revealing how Paul taught 'his gospel' (Romans 2:16 & Romans 16:25) but Jesus always taught "The Gospel" especially when you look granularly examine Jesus' teachings alongside Paul's:
Jesus said “Blessed are the meek” (Matthew 5:5).
Paul defended himself through boasting, credentials, and comparisons (2 Corinthians 11:16–22).
Jesus said “Blessed are the merciful” (Matthew 5:7).
Paul invoked curses and exclusion against opponents (Galatians 1:8–9; 1 Corinthians 5:5).
Jesus said “Blessed are the pure in heart” (Matthew 5:8).
Paul emphasized purity codes and boundary enforcement more than inner transformation (1 Corinthians 5–6).
Jesus said “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matthew 5:9).
Paul’s presence repeatedly triggered riots, arrests, and civic unrest (Acts 13–21).
Jesus warned that anger and contempt endanger the soul (Matthew 5:21–22).
Paul used harsh language, calling groups “foolish” and “enemies” (Galatians 3:1; Philippians 3:18).
The Jesus Way and Paul's path are two spiritually incompatible belief systems. These are only a few examples, I wrote "100 Reasons Christians Should Follow Jesus -- Not Paul" for those who seek never stop searching for the absolute truth found in God alone. Isn't it time to start looking beneath the surface, past what manuscripts agree on 2,000 years later and find the deeper truths that have been lost and obscured? "So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly My disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:31-32.
https://open.substack.com/pub/katheryngreenleaf/p/100-reasons-christians-should-follow?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
Thank you Beau. Thorough, informative and clear. Exactly what I “voted” for! Much appreciated.
Last night was amazing. I want to tell you about my family’s journey to the Holy Land and our trip to Qumran. We never made it there and the story of why is a good one. I told my friends the story at the table last night. It was in 1969 and I was 15 years old. It was two years after the Six Days War in the Middle East which is a hint as to why we never made it to our destination.
Really strong piece on textual reliability. The part about how widespread copying created a self-correcting system is key. Its almost like having thousands of witnesses instead of one makes errors way easier tospot. I ran into this concept years ago studying ancient history and it totally changed how I thought about manuscript transmission. Most people think more copies = more corruption but the oposite is actually true.
Thanks for this, loved reading it and excited for future parts!
Well thought out and written, thanks for that. One of the things many folks get wrong simply because we as a society do not value this, but oral traditions were the way people transmit information and were reliable. Think of the number of messengers who had to transmit exacting information after running from a battle field or from one country to another. A misquote could have catastrophic effects.
Excellent article! I have heard much the same from Dr. Dan Wallace at the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. csntm.org
So were the Dead Sea Scrolls original or copies?
They were manuscripts (handwritten copies).
Part 3 of this series will be all about the Dead Sea Scrolls!
Interesting stuff, Beau. I plan to make a calligraphic version of this later today. It’s too long for stone tablets.
This is interesting, thanks for sharing.
One thing I think that often gets lost in the conversation is not, “do we have what was written originally,” but to what extent the authors voices, personalities, lived experiences and biases made it into the texts that we have. Yes, we have a great deal of matching manuscripts, far and above other literary works. That proves consistency in voice and message.
What that doesn’t settle is whether or not the words themselves are what God did/didn’t intend them to say. When things show up that make us pause and scratch our heads (ie God commanding genocide), we have to ask ourselves is that what God intended? Are the writers projecting their own cultural biases into it?
In my opinion, this is where the debate about the Bible’s reliability/accuracy/infallibility needs to spend more time. We know we have lots of copies of copies of translations of copies. And those match. Great.
it still doesn’t address the content itself and what is/isn’t reflective of the message God intended.
Thanks for sharing!
I agree! And week 3 of this series will begin to address this very thing! Glad you mentioned it!
Looking forward to it!
Thank you for the perfect lay person explanation...just enough meat and details to hold my interest without the academic overload that makes my eyes roll into the back of my head.
As you mentioned, our current translations, I think one aspect needs to be presented. Are the translations reliable or are they holding an interpretive framework that may mislead the reader in English today. An example may be the NIV which is deliberately slanted towards conservative words and concepts. Certainly worth the exploring.
“Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why” by Bart D. Ehrman was recently recommended to me on this topic. Goodreads describes it as, “A Biblical scholar describes how the texts of the Bible have been changed and altered over time, and how this has affected our understanding of the Bible today.” I got it because the topic interests me as well, but cannot provide first-hand commentary on it yet. Also recommended in that discussion was John Barton’s “The Word: How We Translate the Bible and Why It Matters”.
Solid intro to textual criticism here. I particularly appreciate that you kept front and center how many historical documents we accept as authoritative on a fraction of the manuscript evidence we have for the New Testament.