By
Noel Coypel -
http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/Noel-Coypel/The-Resurrection-Of-Christ,-1700.html,
Public Domain, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=28274624
Internal Evidence:
The Gospel Account
Ostensively the gospel accounts provide the most
extensive volume of information about Jesus and all that He supposedly said and
did. But what is at issue for those arguing against the historicity of Jesus
has to do firstly with the credibility of the gospel accounts themselves.
Primarily,
the collective sacred scriptura that comprise the ancient MSS
of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek that encompass the Biblical account, as a whole,
is self-attesting. In other words, its truth claims are verified, corroborated,
or authenticated by what it avers of itself. Additionally, the Holy Spirit authenticates
our sense that this is the word of God. However, these views are unpersuasive
to those who do not share the Christian world view. As a result, a more
intellectual, academic study seems to be necessary. As such, the locus of my inquest
will center squarely on the Gospel of Mark. Not so much the language of the
text itself, but more specifically on the criteria that has been agreed upon by
historians who examine ancient documents and test their reliability, whether
they themselves be scholars of the Christian persuasion or not. My thesis is
namely this, that my English translation of the gospel of Mark is a
historically reliable account of selected events surrounding the life, death,
and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. I have employed the adjective
“selected” to indicate that while Marks’ gospel does not divulge every detail concerning
the life of Jesus of Nazareth, nevertheless, what he does relay is ipso
facto, historically reliable.
No other
name has been put forward by any other church historian or church father
regarding the unanimous designation of John – Mark as the author of the gospel
that bears his name. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen,
Jerome et al were all in agreement on this point. The most ancient
reference we have of Mark as its author is that of Papias of Hierapolis (A.D.
60 – 130), who was most active in his written compositions during A.D. 90 –
110. It is believed by some that Papias was a companion of John and acquainted
with Polycarp of Smyrna, (A.D. 69 – 155), also a disciple of John, therefore
closest to the time of Mark’s autograph. Church historian Eusebius, quoting Papias,
has stated:
And John the
Presbyter also said this, Mark being the interpreter of Peter whatsoever he
recorded he wrote with great accuracy but not however, in the order in
which it was spoken or done by our Lord, for he neither heard nor followed our
Lord, but as before said, he was in company with Peter, who gave him
such instruction as was necessary, but not to give a history of our Lord’s
discourses: wherefore Mark has not erred in anything, by writing some things
as he has recorded them; for he was carefully attentive to one thing, not to
pass by anything that he heard, or to state anything falsely in these accounts.
(Emphasis added)[1]
So,
John the disciple, or John the elder, affirmed to Papias who spoke with him
that Mark was the author of the gospel attributed to him.
The
question invariably arises, why is Marks’ gospel central to this particular study?
Two reasons, first, the gospel of Mark is reasoned to be the first of the four
gospels written, and second, it appears to be the source for the gospels of Mathew
and Luke. Utilizing the gospel of Mark as a test case for the veracity of the
gospels, we need to cross three bridges. First, we need to get from Jesus to
John-Mark. John-Mark must offer reliable testimony to inform us of the truth
regarding Jesus of Nazareth and be close enough to the events in question, so
as not to embellish the accounts that he offers. Bridge two, the
original document which Mark wrote, his autograph, is no longer
available, but Greek copies of his work do exist. So, we must determine if extant
Greek manuscripts of Mark’s original autograph have been faithfully transmitted.
Incidentally it is worth noting that there exist no autographs for any other ancient
document for any other figure or event of antiquity, only copies. Bridge three
will address the discipline of translation. Have the translators of those ancient
Greek manuscripts faithfully transcribed what the text states? I am going to accomplish
this by looking at three objections that correspond to the three bridges I just
mentioned. First, biased translation – this is the
view that the church historically has messed with the translation and therefore
our English Bibles are unreliable. Second, tainted transmission
– this is the view that Mark may have been trustworthy to the original
autograph he wrote, but can we trust the current, extant Greek MSS, the copies
of Mark’s autograph? Third, unreliable testimony –
this is the view that early Christians were unable, or unwilling, to tell the
truth about who Jesus was. Believing that Jesus was merely a Jewish peasant who
they aggrandized into some demi-god.
1. The
Objection of Inaccurate Translation
At issue here is the belief that the
church has somehow biased the translation. Among scholars however this belief is
nothing more than mere posturing. But among the general populace this view holds
significant sway. Hermeneutics is the science and art of biblical
interpretation. It is considered a science because it has rules, and these
rules can be classified into an orderly system. It is considered an art
because communication is flexible, and therefore a mechanical and rigid
application of rules will sometimes distort the true meaning of a
communication.[2]
But in what sense is hermeneutics a science? Hermeneutics is considered a
science because it deals with what the "rules of
interpretation" are. For example, the golden rule, the law of first
mention, the law of double reference, the law of recurrence, and the law of
context. In what sense then is hermeneutics an art? The art of
hermeneutics deals with how those rules of interpretation should be
applied. In other words, when translating from the source language, Hebrew,
Aramaic, or Greek, into the receptor language, in our case English, translation
can employ the functional, thought-for-thought approach known as dynamic
equivalency, or a more literal, word-for-word approach known as formal
equivalency. The dynamic equivalency approach to translation
attempts to convey what the original text means. The formal equivalency
approach to translation attempts to convey what the original text says, leaving
its meaning up to the reader to determine.
With the golden rule of interpretation,
when the plain sense of scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;
therefore, take every word, at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning
unless the facts of the immediate context, which is another of the rules of
interpretation, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and
fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise. Another of the rules of
interpretation is the law of first mention. This rule of interpretation
states that the first occurrence in scripture of a particular Christian
doctrine provides the simplest most fundamental, inherent meaning of that
doctrine with the understanding that additional scriptural references to it
will expand our understanding of that particular doctrine. A third rule of
interpretation is the law of double reference which is closely associated
with the fourth rule of interpretation, the law of recurrence. In the
law of double reference, a passage of scripture speaks of two different persons
or events that are separated by a lengthy period of time. The fact that a gap
of time exists is known because of other scriptures. In the law of recurrence, two
blocks of scripture record the same event; the second block adds more
information and provides additional details to the first. The final rule of
interpretation is the rule of context. In this law any passage apart
from its context, is pretext. A pretext is a purpose or motive alleged or an
appearance assumed in order to cloak the real intention or state of affairs.[3] In the rule of context,
passages of scripture are not interpreted in isolation. In other words,
surrounding words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, passages, chapters, genera,
and testaments are all taken into consideration.
When a team
of translators sit down, their first task is to determine if the translation they
wish to produce will be formal or dynamic equivalency. In a formal approach,
translators will attempt to convey exact wording as found in ancient
manuscripts. In a dynamic approach, translators will attempt to convey ideas or
meanings expressed in those same ancient manuscripts. It is worth pointing out
that even a formal approach to translation will require some reworking to the
text for two reasons. One, Hebrew and Greek have fewer characters in their
alphabet, 22 and 24 respectively, compared to the 26 found in the English
language. This results in fewer words that can be formed. Secondly, sentence
structure in Hebrew is verb, subject, object; while English is subject, verb,
object, style language. To read Hebrew in literal English would be awkward requiring
a reworking of sentence structure to improve syntax to make reading it in
English easier. Although Greek does possess more characters than Hebrew in its alphabet,
we have the same problem, not as many words can be formed as in English. This
observation necessitates insertion to the text to improve comprehension of what
is being conveyed to the reader in the passage. A number of translations exist
across the spectrum, from formal to functional (dynamic). The chart below indicates
this.
.png)
Regardless of which approach to translation is employed, Greek scholars, Christian or non-Christian, affirm the process as accurate and unbiased.
2. The
Objection of Tainted Transmission
As I
mentioned previously, we don’t possess the original autograph of Mark; we have
copies of it. We actually don’t have the original of any ancient document, only
copies. As an example, Paul’s letters were passed around from church to church
and in the process of time would start to decay, so copies were necessary. The
question isn’t whether we have Mark’s original writing, the question is how
many copies of the original do we have? How early were they written? And how
closely do they date to the original autograph? Roman Historian Tacitus wrote “The
Annals”, a History of the Roman Empire ca. A.D. 100. The earliest extant
copy of his work indicates an almost 1,000-year span between those copies and its
original writing. The same could be said of Athenian Historian Thucydides’ work,
“History”. Only 20 copies exist of Tacitus’ Annals, and just 8
copies for Thucydides’ History, yet we trust them implicitly as accurate
accounts. By contrast, the gospel of Mark was written, scholars estimate,
between A.D. 40 – 60. The first MSS of his gospel date back to A.D. 200, a
differential of 140 – 160 years and there are thousands of extant MSS of his
gospel. As an example, the Chester Beatty Papyri, discovered in the 1930’s, date
back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries and written in the
Greek language. There are eleven manuscripts in all, seven of the Old Testament,
three of the New Testament, and one of the book of Enoch. P45 was a codex
of 110 leaves containing portions of all four gospels as well as the book of
Acts. Two small leaves in this collection contain chapters 4:36 – 9:31 of
Mark’s gospel.
With
respect to textual variants, these are sections within manuscripts where there
is a measure of uncertainty about the text. One manuscript will have a word or
a phrase where another manuscript will have a different word or phrase. NT
textual commentators Westcott and Hort have indicated the only one sixtieth rise
above “trivialities” and can be called “substantial variations”. In short, the
NT is 98.33% pure. Greek scholar Ezra Abbott has stated that about 19/20 (95%)
of the readings are “various” rather than “rival” readings, and about 19/20
(95%) of the rest make no appreciable difference in the sense of the passage. NT
Greek scholar John A.T. Robertson has said that the real concern is with about “a
thousandth part of the entire text”. So, the reconstructed text of the New
Testament is 99.9% free of any real concern. Theologian and Church Historian Philip
Schaff has estimated that of the 150,000 variants known, only 400 have affected
the sense; and of those, fifty were of any real significance; and of those, not
one has affected any article of faith. In fact, multiple variants can help to
establish the original.
1. Y#u
have won ten million dollars.
2. Yo#
have won ten million dollars.
3. You
#ave won ten million dollars.
In this example you have three variant readings. We
can see from two and three, that one is missing the vowel “O”. We can see from
one and three, that two is missing the vowel “U”; and we can see from one and
two, that three is missing the consonant “H”. So, this indicates that even with
mistakes occurring, 100% of the message conveyed still comes through. Biblical critic
Bart Ehrman has admitted,
In fact, most
of the changes found in early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with
theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of
mistakes pure and simple – slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent
additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort or another. (Ehrman, Misquoting
Jesus, 55; Emphasis added).
Manuscript expert Sir Frederick Kenyon has
stated,
The interval
between the dates of the original composition and the earliest extant evidence
becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation
for any doubt that the scriptures have come down substantially as they were written
has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the
books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established. (Kenyon, Bible and Archaeology, 288; Emphasis added).
The gospel of Mark is the shortest of the
four in the biblical canon. Among historical scholars when studying ancient
documents, the shorter reading is usually the earliest, or the original. Variant
readings are few and insignificant enough, and the science of textual criticism
is sophisticated enough to guarantee a virtually 99% reconstruction of Mark’s original
words. There is no major doctrine or article of faith that is affected by
textual variants. In Mark 1:1, some MSS do not include the phrase, “the Son of God”.
But this is by no means an enigma because if you look further down in the text,
you will notice in v.11, God the Father refers to Jesus as the Son of God, “You
are My beloved Son”. In fact, Jesus is referred to as the Son of God thirty-nine
times in the NT. So, a single verse which does not contain that particular phrase
in an earlier manuscript is not going to affect that doctrine adversely as the
claim exists at various points throughout the NT. Furthermore, those other
thirty-nine occurrences, do not exist as variants. Mark 3:14 states that Jesus
appointed twelve “apostles”, yet the noun “apostle” does not appear in some
earlier manuscripts. Nevertheless, they are referred to as “apostles” at other
points in the NT. There are other variants in Mark’s gospel, but again, no
doctrine or article of faith has been negatively affected. My English Bible has
been translated from a manuscript tradition which guarantees the reliable
transmission of the Greek original of Mark and all that he had asserted about
the existence of Jesus and all that He said and did. If we have to throw that
out as unreliable, then we better throw out every other translation of ancient
document, because we have far more on Mark and the NT than any other ancient
document accepted as factual.
Note: Part Two will address, The Reliability of Mark’s Testimony and the issue of, Multiple Attestation or The Presence of Independent Witnesses.
[1] C.F.
Cruse, Translator. Eusebius’
Ecclesiastical History: Complete and Unabridged 3.39.15, Eusebius quoting
Papias (Peabody, MASS.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2018), 105.
[2]
Henry A. Virkler and Karelynne G. Ayayo, Hermeneutics: Principles and
Processes of Biblical Interpretation ed.2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic, 1981), 16.
