Cleansing the Temple

And the Iewes Passeouer was at hand, & Iesus went vp to Hierusalem. And found in the Temple those that sold oxen, and sheepe, and doues, and the changers of money, sitting. And when he had made a scourge of small cordes, he droue them all out of the Temple, and the sheepe & the oxen, and powred out the changers money, and ouerthrew the tables, And said vnto them that sold doues Take these things hence, make not my fathers house an house of merchandize. And his disciples remembred that it was written, The zeale of thine house hath eaten me vp -- John 2:13-17 --1611 Authorized Edition

You get to meet really interesting people when you drive a truck. Yesterday I was up in a steel mill in Wisconsin, where I’d loaded eleven slinkies onto the trailer to deliver to a wire works in Pennsylvania, the day after Ishtar. A slinkie is more or less just what you might expect it to be, a tightly coiled up roll of wire just like that ancient children’s toy, the one that rings in your hands when you juggle it, and topples down staircases so gracefully. But mine are much bigger and heavier. The ones on the back right now are all 5/16-inch unpickled steel, and each four-foot coil weigh about 4000 pounds. To hold them onto the bed, you have to lace them down with the four-inch nylon straps, weaving the straps in and out and down to the winches so all the slinkies are held tightly to the trailer bed and to each other. When they get unloaded, they’ll turn into log chain, or nuts and bolts, or threaded rod, or fencing wire, or who knows what. It’s raw material for the factories of America, and what I haul by the ton will someday end up cluttering that drawer in your kitchen along with the string, the miscellaneous nails, and the broken screwdrivers.


Anyway, I’d arrived at the mill at midday with just enough legal hours left to load, strap, and tarp the trailer, but not enough to go anywhere else, so I’d resolved to spend the night there and clean up in the morning in Chicago. I can spend the night most anywhere, as I live in my truck and don’t need anything else except a bathroom. And so to pass the afternoon, I walked around helping other drivers strap and tarp their own loads of slinkies. This sort of help is welcomed among flatbedders, especially when the wind is blowing hard and the tarps flop around like angry pterodactyls while you try to hook up the bungees. I get to talk to lots of different people, and they all have stories to tell.


One of them was Robert, a young driver with a delightful enthusiasm for hermeneutics, and a command of Biblical chapter and verse that eventually left me hopping from foot to foot trying to listen and avoid permanent paralysis at the same time. (I sprained my ankle on a load of aluminum extrusions about ten days ago in Michigan, and can’t stand for long. But Robert was too interesting to leave). Robert's Bible was the 1611 Authorized Version, an unusual choice for a trucker. Amid rapid fire excursions into Exodus, Proverbs, Acts, and the Gospels, Robert focused on the New Testament account of the cleansing of the Temple in Jerusalem.


“You ever think about what that means, spiritually, I mean?” he asked, spitting tobacco juice onto the asphalt from his perch on the bed of his truck.


“Sure.”

“No, no, I mean in the context of the temple of your body. What did Paul say about your body?”


“He said that our bodies were the temple, that they made it up. The Body of Christ.”


“Exactly! And what did Jesus do in the Temple in Jerusalem? When he went in there?”


“Well, he tossed out the money changers, let all the animals loose, and generally upset things.”


“Yes! Now, what does the Holy Spirit do in your own body, in the temple of the Body of Christ? It cleans out your misplaced passions, it drives out the evil, it sweeps it clean. See? The same things. And what did Jesus do after all that?”


“He wouldn’t let anybody else come into the temple while he was in there, taking shortcuts or setting up the tables again.”


“Yes! Remember what he said about the wicked spirits in Matthew 12:44? About how if they come back and find it cleaned up, but empty, they just move back in and you’re worse off? That’s what Jesus does—he comes into the Temple, into your own heart, he cleans it up, he throws out the dirt, and then if you let him, he lives in there, and keeps it occupied, and keeps the wicked spirits from returning.”


“You got it, Robert.”


Robert pauses again to spit more tobacco.


“See? The whole story was set up so Jesus could explain in the Bible what he was going to be doing inside the hearts of people, if they would let him in. He would clean them up, keep them clean, and make them into what they were supposed to be. That day he planned a lesson for us right now”

As the shadows lengthened and the light grew yellow, Robert and I talked about other discoveries he had made in Scripture, among the parables, and within symbolic narratives. Actually, Robert talked, and I listened, and tried to remember as much as I could. Robert was an inspiring evangelist, a man whose enthusiasm for God was boundless, and only matched by his amazing happiness in the discoveries he lived. He told of problems he had, too little money and too many bills. Also, he said, “I’m not very prompt.” Not a good trait for a truck driver. But after he became a Christian, he said, he looked up and visited every person from his past he could find that he had ever wronged, and apologized to them, face to face.

And he was happy. His face literally shone with it in the golden light in the evening. He was an inspiring visitation, an example of one who had welcomed God into his own heart, and had had the money changers thrown out, and the Light take residence inside him. So it should be for us all.
 I go back to this mill regularly, and I’ll see Robert again. I have more questions to ask, and I know he’ll have answers to some of them.


But next time, I’ll be ready with a pen and paper.

Scripture: Essential, or Not Essential?

I am often told by Christians of various sorts that the Bible is "essential" to the following of Christianity; that without the written Scriptures, you cannot be a Christian. This is certainly the explicit position of most Protestants, especially those who believe that the mouth of God is stopped shut, and that the written Scriptures are the only way in which he communicates with us today. This is an interesting belief, but one which was explicitly rejected by the founders of the Religious Society of Friends, who looked to a different Teacher for their primary guidance. Like those earlier Friends, I value the Scriptures highly, and I read something out of them most every day. I believe that the inspired Holy Scriptures are one of the ways that God communicates with His church, and are absolutely the best outward guide for obtaining right knowledge of God. But helpful as the Scriptures have always been, the foundational, original, and traditional Friends' faith and practice has never regarded having them as obligatory for maintaining right relationship with God, for Quakers or anyone else. The "sure foundation" of our Christian faith is not and has never been the Scriptures, but was and remains the Inward Light of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the One who has come to teach His people Himself.

This is an important point because lots of Friends are muddle-headed about this. Sometimes they tell me that we shouldn't point this out, because other people will misunderstand the fine and subtle distinction we make, and be led astray. To which I start muttering under my breath, "So when did we become the smartest people in the world?"

Sometimes they tell me that we should be careful not to think about it much, because we might confuse ourselves and end up devaluing the Scriptures entirely in our efforts not to overemphasize them, and be led astray. Then I start muttering again: "So now we've become the dumbest people in the world, too?"

Mostly they just fret and chew their lips, because lots of times the truth is that they just don't much like the idea that such a convenient and commonly-accepted outward tool as Scripture might not be the central pillar of the Christian church. They've already been led astray, for crying out loud.

Mutter, mutter, mutter.

Phooey.

With respect to Holy Scripture, I suggest that the traditional words of the earliest Friends be kept in mind: Scripture is "not absolutely necessary." An excellent suggestion I read once was to describe Holy Scripture as "not of the essence." Another excellent summary was to simply state that they were "insufficient."


Robert Barclay was a 17th century Scottish Friend who wrote foundational works on doctrinal Quakerism that have never been equaled. He's often quoted for his statements about Scripture in his famous 1678 book, An Apology for the True Christian Divinity. After describing the value of the Scriptures for history, prophecy, and Christian doctrine, Barclay's Third Proposition "Concerning the Scriptures" reads:

Nevertheless, because they are only a declaration of the fountain, and not the fountain itself, therefore they are not to be esteemed the principal ground of all Truth and knowledge, nor yet the adequate primary rule of faith and manners. Yet because they give a true and faithful testimony of the first foundation, they are and may be esteemed a secondary rule, subordinate to the Spirit, from which they have all their excellency and certainty . . . therefore, according to the Scriptures, the Spirit is the first and principal leader.

So far, so good: very clear, and often quoted. Most all non-FUM/Evangelical Friends will agree with this foundational document of the Society that Scripture is useful and valuable and secondary to the Inward Light. (Conservative Friends will further specify it as the Inward Light of Jesus Christ.) But the devil is in the details, as the Frenchman said, and the biggest detail here is called "inessential." Because while our earliest generation of Christian Friends held that Scripture was valuable, and important, and contained highly useful truths, they were united in the idea that it was not essential to have it, read it, or understand it to be acceptable to the God who it was written about.

Don't misunderstand me here—I and those earliest Friends are in agreement that if the Scriptures have genuinely been made available by God to a person, then upon going through them the followers of Jesus Christ should recognize him there, no matter what they call him or what sort of strange rococo accompanies their worship. But many people have been exposed to interpretations of Scripture that talk about a Jesus Christ that I've never met—one who is completely unrecognizable to me. I know people who consider themselves doctrinal Christians who have very little of Christ in their beliefs. So please understand me when I say I'm not talking about that stuff. If you want to be a Christian, and the Scriptures are made available to you in a true and intelligible way, then you should certainly take full advantage of them in their supporting role.

But back to Barclay and whether Scripture is or is not "essential," please. The Scotsman had a lot to say about Scripture in his propositions on "Immediate Revelation" and "Universal Redemption by Christ" that wasn't contained in the one entitled "Concerning the Scriptures." More people quote Barclay briefly than read him carefully, but he had great insight on the subject. Please bear with me and slog through this hoary passage:

But if we shall make a right definition of a Christian, according to the Scripture, videlicit, That he is one that hath the spirit of Christ, and is led by it, how many Christians, yea, and of these great masters and doctors of Christianity, so accounted, shall we justly divest of that noble title? If then such as have all the other means of knowledge, and are sufficiently learned therein, whether it be the letter of the Scripture, the traditions of churches, or the works of creation and providence, whence they are able to deduce strong and undeniable arguments (which may be true in themselves), are yet not to be esteemed Christians, according to the certain and infalliable definition above mentioned; and if the inward and immediate revelation of God's Spirit in the heart, in such as have been altogether ignorant of some, and but very little skilled in others, of these means of attaining knowledge, hath brought them to salvation; then it will necessarily and evidently follow, that inward and immediate revelation is the only sure and certain way to attain the true and saving knowledge of God.

May I translate?

1) Scripture itself defines a true Christian to be a person who has the spirit of Christ, and is led by it.

2) Possession of the letter of Scripture and of tradition will not make a person a Christian, as many "great masters and doctors of Christianity" don't qualify for the honor.

3) People today and in the past who have experienced inward and immediate revelation of God's Spirit in the heart have been saved, even though they have been ignorant of or unlearned in Scripture and tradition.

In other words, Barclay's position is that first, merely possessing, studying, and learning the Bible and its doctrines does not ensure right relationship with God. Second, that people without Scripture but with inward revelation of God's spirit can and have achieved that relationship. And therefore, that inward and immediate revelation is "the only sure and certain way" of salvation. Scripture, according to Barclay, can't do it without inward revelation, but inward revelation can and does do it without Scripture.

Barclay goes on:

“NOT A QUESTION OF WHAT IS BENEFICIAL, BUT OF WHAT IS ESSENTIAL

IV. However, this should not be understood as a claim that the other means of knowledge of God are useless and of no service to man. This will be clear from what is said of the scriptures in the next proposition. The question is not what may be profitable or helpful, but what is absolutely necessary. [The bolding is mine, folks.] Many things may contribute to the furtherance of a work without being the essential thing that makes the work go on. In summary, what has been said amounts to stating that where true inward knowledge of God exists through the revelation of his Spirit, everything essential is there, and there is no absolute necessity for anything else. But where the best, highest, and most profound knowledge exists without the revelation of his Spirit, there is nothing, so far as the great object of salvation is concerned.

Barclay here says first, that Scripture is useful, and helpful (I agree), but "not absolutely necessary" to provide revelatory knowledge of God, which he has already said in the first passage is what brings people to salvation. He next says the revelation of the Spirit is sufficient, and nothing else is "absolutely necessary." Lastly he says that even where the best and highest knowledge exists (which will be Scripture) without the revelation of his Spirit, there is no salvation. Scripture, according to Robert Barclay, is "not absolutely necessary," but inward revelation alone, even without it, is absolutely certain. These are the Scotsman's words, not mine.

Early Friends were very concerned not to fall into a mistaken reliance only on Holy Scripture, which all their enemies were quoting against them, daily. They pointed out repeatedly that it was not “absolutely necessary,” and that “Christ was sufficient” without it. Read these short quotes from our human founders:

You will say Christ saith this, and the apostles say this, but what canst thou say? Art thou a child of light and hast thou walked in the light, and what thou speakest is it inwardly from God? Margaret Fell, on George Fox

For though I read the Scriptures that spoke of Christ and of God, yet I knew him not but by revelation, as he who hath the key did open, and as the Father of life drew me to his Son by his spirit. George Fox

And if there was no scripture for our men's and women's meetings, Christ is sufficient...he is our rock and our foundation to build upon. George Fox

I can declare unto you...that this gospel order...I neither received it of man neither was I taught it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. George Fox

But I looked upon the Scriptures to be my rule, and so would weigh the inward appearances of God to me by what was outwardly written; and durst not receive anything from God immediately, as it sprang from the fountain, but only in that mediate way. Herein did I limit the Holy One of Israel, and exceedingly hurt my own soul, as I afterwards felt, and came to understand. Isaac Penington

Christ has tasted death for every man, which knowledge we willingly confess to be very profitable and comfortable, but not absolutely needful unto such, from whom God himself hath withheld it. Robert Barclay

And although Scripture is extremely valuable to the daily functioning of our Christian body, here also we should not confuse what is absolutely helpful with what is absolutely necessary. With respect to Conservative Friends tradition, John Wilbur very early cautioned us not to rely on Holy Scripture for important details of our daily walk with God that the Holy Spirit expected us to receive from Him directly:

1st. Can the Scriptures, or did they ever, save anyone without the spirit?

2nd. Is a person called to do the work of the ministry by the Scriptures, or by the spirit of Jesus Christ?

3rd. Is a man brought under a concern to go from one place to another to preach the gospel, by the Scriptures, or by the constraining power of the spirit and love of Jesus Christ?

4th. And when he is arrived at the place assigned, and is assembled with the people, is it not the spirit of Christ that truly unfolds the Scriptures, and brings to view the state of men, either in the words of Scripture, or in some other suitable language?

5th. And when a professed minister preaches in any of our meetings, his doctrines not being repugnant to the letter of the Scriptures, are the elders or others to judge by the Scriptures, or by the Spirit of Truth, whether his ministry is from the right spring or not?

6th. Did not the Jews think they had eternal life in the Scriptures, and yet would not come unto Christ that they might have life?”

And our True Founder and True Guide, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, was quite emphatic about whether Scripture was of the essence, sufficient, or absolutely necessary:

And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen, and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life: and it is they that bear witness to me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. (John 5:39-40.)

All these selections from the actual words of early Friends, John Wilbur, and that Jesus guy himself, indicate to me the nature of what early and traditional Friends have always believed. Christian Friends have always acknowledged that Scripture is helpful and important, and should never be ignored by those who have access to it and are willing to read it in the Spirit. But our Christian Society has understood and publicly held from the very beginning, not just that Scripture is secondary to the revelations of the Holy Spirit, but that first, Scripture alone is an insufficient guide to important--and essential--aspects of the daily life of a Christian, and second, that the Holy Spirit can choose to provide sufficient guidance to Christian living and ultimately to salvation, without Scripture. The possession, reading, study, and understanding of the Bible is recommended, but is not required by Jesus Christ as a precondition for turning to Him, being accepted, living as a Christian, growing towards perfection, and achieving salvation in His Light.

Mutter, mutter, mutter.

Inconsistencies of Scripture

I sometimes have long discussions with people who tell me that my views as a Christian Friend are flawed with respect to the letter of the Bible. They tell that I'm wrong when I say that the Bible has been transmitted with errors, and that some errors are so old that we can't of ourselves even know what the original text was (or even if there was more than one original text by the same author). So here is a a list of some of the places a single family Bible presents different versions of the same story that cannot be reconciled if it is to be taken literally--as inerrant. I have casually compiled this list from my own reading, and I believe that they are important to look at if we are to understand the Bible better, and what it tells us about God. There are lots more, and any computer search will generate volumes of discussion--just search for "Bible inconsistencies" for a list of more examples, both reasonable and otherwise.

The examples I have selected here are generally held by textual critics to have resulted from additions, deletions, or inadvertent changes to the lineages of copied texts over the centuries. There are many more profound ones that affect serious interpretations of scripture, that descend from the variant Hebrew or Greek readings that appear in different text traditions, and will not usually appear within a single printed Bible except in the marginal notes. To compare those requires a knowledge of dead languages to read the variant source texts, although textbooks with translations are easy to find in public libraries. Some of them are the specific passages (such as Prov 8:22, Col 1:14, Acts 6:8, 1 John 5:7, and John 1:1) that are used as proof texts supporting different theologies. The history of heresy in Christianity shows us that traditional proof texts are, of course, often those that creative scribes with different theologies have specifically edited to support their own beliefs. Some of these examples (like the non-synoptic chronology of John) have been debated by Bible students for over 1800 years.

Sometimes apologists have reconciled these differences by adding all the contradictory texts together to make a new, non-contradictory text of their own creation that was never written by anybody. This is a common technique, and is sometimes justified. There have been many of these “harmonizations” over the centuries, that combine selected parts of manuscripts in specific ways to create something new that is self-consistent. But by using the same technique, you can harmonize The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire and The Betty Crocker Cookbook into a single self-consistent book. Sometimes harmonizing makes sense, other times it doesn't.

Most scripture references here are from the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, revised 1984, unless otherwise noted. I have chosen this one because it is the only English Bible currently available that is based on the well-known 1881 Greek New Testament of Westcott and Hort. Most of the errors I list can be found in most Bibles--the NWT is just one of many. A few others are from the 1611 Authorized Version (not the modern 1769 KJV).

Jesus misquotes the Old Testament in Matthew.

Matthew 23:35 Jesus refers “...to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.” (Or “Zacharias son of Barachias...”) This is a reference to 2 Chronicles 24:21, but the Zechariah murdered there was the son of Jehoiada, not Berechiah, as it reads in the previous verse, 2 Chronicles 24:20. The son of Berechiah was the prophet Zechariah (Zechariah 1:1), and there is no tradition or record that he was murdered.

Jesus either misquotes Scripture, or the Old Testament is in serious and repeated error about the identity of the High Priest during the episode in the life of David when, on the run, he enters the Temple and eats the consecrated bread given to him by Ahimelech, the high priest.

In 1 Samuel 21:1-6, the high priest named Ahimelech cautions David about eating the loaves of presentation: “...Later David came into Nob to Ahimelech the priest, and Ahimelech began to tremble at meeting David...” The hungry David asks for the showbread for himself and his men, and Ahimelech gives him the loaves.

In Mark 2:26, however, Jesus says the event occurred during the time of Abiathar, Ahimelech’s son:

“...entered into the house of God, in the account about Abiathar the chief priest, and ate the loaves of presentation...” NWT,
“...in the time of Abiathar the High Priest...” NEB,
“...in the days of Abiathar the high priest...” NIV,
“...how he entered into the house of God in [the days of] Abiathar the high priest...” Textus Recepticus, English/Greek interlinear.

According to the Old Testament, the event actually took place in the days of Ahimelech, not in the days of Abiathar. Abiathar (Ahimelech’s son), is high priest during much of David’s reign, and is prominent in episodes later in David’s life, in 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, but he is not introduced until 1 Samuel 22:20, and not as priest until 1 Samuel 23:9. Ahimelech his father is the prominent priest through the early exile of David, and he and the entire suite of priests were executed by Saul as result of this very episode. If the Old Testament is correct, then Jesus is wrong. If Jesus is correct as quoted, then the Old Testament authors confuse the the priesthood succession in some 39 additional scriptural references.

It's easy to say that Abiathar was alive at the time of this event, but he was not high priest, played no part in this event, and isn't mentioned until later.

Matthew misquotes the prophets in Matt 27:9, about buying the potter’s field with thirty pieces of silver.

Matthew says, “Then what was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled, saying: “And they took the thirty silver pieces, the price upon the man that was priced, the one on whom some of the sons of Israel set a price...” The reference is actually to Zechariah 11:12, “Then I said to them: “If it is good in your eyes, give [me] my wages, but if not, refrain. And they proceeded to pay my wages, thirty pieces of silver.” If the Old Testament is correct, then Matthew is not.

Look it up, please. Jeremiah does seem to talk about a potter’s field in 19:2, and buys a different one in 32:9. Some people conclude this means that Matthew was conflating two scriptures and merely referencing the more important prophet. A more likely explanation is that Matthew or a copyist merely made a mistake.

Mark misquotes Isaiah.

In Mark 1:2, the text reads, “Just as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “(Look! I am sending forth my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way;) listen! someone is crying out in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of Jehovah, you people, make his roads straight.’”

Only the second portion (after “listen!”) is actually from Isaiah. The first portion is from Malachi 3:1: “Look! I am sending my messenger, and he must clear up a way before me...” possibly influenced by Exodus 23:20: “Here I am sending an angel ahead of you to keep you on the road and to bring you into the place that I have prepared.” Sometimes harmonizers say that “Isaiah” actually was a general name for the Prophets at large.



Luke and Matthew disagree about where Joseph, Mary, and Jesus lived when Jesus was a young child. Luke says Nazareth, Matthew says Egypt. The accounts do not match.

In Luke 2:22, the six-weeks old Jesus is brought to Jerusalem: “ Also, when the days for purifying them according to the law of Moses came to the full, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to Jehovah...” In Luke 2:39-40, it describes how they then returned to Nazareth: “So when they had carried out all the things according to the law of Jehovah, they went back into Galilee to their own city Nazareth. And the young child continued growing and getting strong, being filled with wisdom, and God’s favor continued upon him.”

The applicable "law of Moses" is explained in Leviticus 12:1-4. A mother of a male child is unclean seven days. On the eighth day the boy will be circumcised, and her uncleanness continues for 33 days more. At 42 days, then, comes “the fulfilling of the days of her purification.” Luke 2:22-24 therefore indicates that Joseph, Mary, and Jesus arrived in Jerusalem when Jesus was about six weeks old--42 days. They stay there while Joseph and Mary offer the poor people's sacrifice of two pigeons, as directed in Leviticus 12:6.

When these sacrifices are accomplished, they go directly home, as explained in Luke 2:39: “So when they had carried out all the things according to the law of Jehovah, they went back into Galilee to their own city Nazareth."

The flight to Egypt is not mentioned anywhere in the account--Jesus is born in Bethlehem, and then is taken to nearby Jerusalem when he is six weeks old. The family returns to Nazareth after the Temple sacrifices“...when they had carried out all the things according to the law of Jehovah..."

In Matthew, however, Joseph, Mary, and Jesus have stayed in “a house” in Bethlehem (certainly near enough to Jerusalem for day trips to make temple sacrifices) until Jesus is a “young child,” (Matt 2:11), and then flee to Egypt (Matt 2:14) after the visit of the astologers. Only after staying in Egypt until the death of Herod (and the slaughter of the Bethlehem innocents “two years of age and under,” do they move on to Nazareth.

So Jesus either went home to Nazareth as an infant immediately (Luke), or he went home as a young child much later (Matthew). Both accounts cannot be accurate as written, unless Matthew’s entire story of prophetic dreams, journeys across the desert, and the execution of all the male children in Bethlehem is inserted into Luke’s otherwise very detailed accounts about Mary’s religious purification and the temple sacrifices. Luke must be believed to have missed the whole thing. What happened? Only Matthew records the story. Artificially mixing the two stories together through harmonization can fix it, but it’s a stretch to believe Luke failed to include something so important. The stories don't match.

Luke writes that Paul went directly to Jerusalem after his escape from Damascus. Paul himself says he didn’t go there for three more years.

In Acts 9:25-26, Luke describes how the converted Paul fled Damascus for Jerusalem: “So his disciples took him and let him down by night through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket. On arriving in Jerusalem, he made efforts to join himself to the disciples; but they were all afraid of him...”

In Galations 1:15-17, however, Paul says that, “But when God...thought good to reveal his son in connection with me...I did not go at once into conference with flesh and blood. Neither did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles previous to me, but I went off into Arabia, and came back again to Damascus. Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas...”

If both accounts are accurate as written, then Luke (Paul’s long-term scribe and companion) ignored three years of Paul’s journeys, between two sentences, or Paul in Galations is mistaken about his own travels. Harmonizing this is a stretch too. Again, the stories don't match.

Did Jesus eat Passover with his disciples? Mark and John disagree about the day and the time when Jesus was crucified.

This discrepancy was debated by the early church fathers almost two thousand years ago. In Mark, Jesus is crucified the day after Passover. The Last Supper is the Passover supper: Mark 14:14-15: “’...Where is the guest room for me where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ And he will show you a large upper room...” And in Mark 14:16, "...And his disciples went forth...and they made ready the Passover." He is crucified the day after Passover, at 9 am, Mark 15:25, “It was now the third hour, and they impaled him.”

In John, however, Jesus is crucified on the same day as Passover, hours before the Passover supper that he never eats. And he is also not crucified until after 12 pm, rather than at 9 am. The Last Supper is merely the unnamed meal the night before: John 13:2: “So, while the evening meal was going on...” and John 13:4, “...got up from the evening meal and laid aside his outer garments...” He is crucified the next day at 12 pm. That the day of the crucifixion is the same day as the Passover is indicated in John 19:14-16: “Now it was preparation of the Passover; it was about the sixth hour [12 pm]. And he [Pilate] said to the Jews, ‘See! Your king!’...At that time, therefore, he handed them over to them to be impaled.” Similarly, in John 19:31, “Then the Jews, since it was Preparation, in order that the bodies might not remain on the torture stakes on the Sabbath (for the day of that Sabbath was a great one) requested Pilate to have their legs broken and the [bodies] taken away.” Preparation refers to the ceremonial cleaning and cooking that takes place before the Passover supper. In John, Jesus is already dead by the time Passover is eaten.

Was Jesus crucified before or after Passover? Both accounts cannot be simultaneously correct. Sometimes apologists suggest that the priests of John 19:31 ate Passover on a later day from ordinary Jews, but there is no evidence for that in history or Scripture that I am aware of. Harmonizing won’t fix it unless parts are ignored. John and the synoptic gospels simply do not agree on the date and the time. Did Jesus eat Passover, or not? Was he crucified at 9 am or at 12 pm?

Some apologists assert that the synoptic Gospels used Jewish clock time, and the Gospel of John used Roman clock time. Even if this is true, it still cannot explain the cricifixion occurring on different days.

Other apologists simply say that Jesus asked the disciples to obtain a room for the Passover, but never intended to eat there. If so, then Jesus deceived his disciples by specifically asking for a room where he "... might eat the Passover ..."

Luke indicates that Jesus ascended into heaven late on the same day of the resurrection. In Acts, Luke says that he didn’t ascend until some 40 days later.

Read Luke carefully, and pay careful attention to the timing of events. In Luke 24:13, Jesus appears “on that very day,” [of the resurrection] to the disciples on the road to Emmaus. They asked him to eat because (Luke 24:29), “...it is toward evening...” He ate with them, (Luke 24:33), “And in that very hour they rose and returned to Jerusalem, where they found the eleven and those with them assembled together.” Then, in 24:36, “While they were speaking together...” Jesus appeared, spoke, and 24:50, “...led them out as far as Bethany...” and 24:51, “As he was blessing them he was parted from them and began to be borne up to heaven.” As written, this is a continuous narrative, with Jesus parting with them late in the evening on the day of his resurrection.

But in Acts, Luke refers to almost six weeks of activity not mentioned in his Gospel. In Acts 1:1-11, Jesus speaks, teaches, and is seen “by them throughout 40 days,” and then only later, 1:9, “ ...while they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud caught him up from their vision.” If the first continuous narrative of the Gospel is correct, then Luke 24:51 can only be accurate if everything that happened “...throughout 40 days...” (from Acts) is assumed to belong in the middle of the sentence of Luke 24:33. The sense of the sentence must be distorted to make that believable.

But the Greek manuscripts themselves differ on whether Jesus was also “borne up to heaven” after he parted from them that evening. The final phrase from Luke 24:51 “...and began to be borne up to heaven...” is missing from many reliable Greek manuscripts. Other reliable sources include it, such as the Sinaiticus codex (cited on page 1282 of the NWT as “Aleph.”) Some English versions that include the particle besides the NWT are the NIV and the various descendants of the Textus Recepticus, such as the King James:

“While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven.” NIV
“...as he was blessing he them he was separated from them and was carried up into the heaven.” Textus Recepticus, English interlinear.
“...he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.” KJV

Other modern Bibles using the alternate Greek manuscripts leave out the phrase about heaven:

“...in the act of blessing he parted from them” NEB

One current explanation is that Luke’s short account (without the particle “..and began to be borne up to heaven...”) is original, and this account never said that Jesus ascended to heaven on the busy day of his resurrection. The advocates of this theory suggest that the ascension reference was added by later orthodox scribes to prevent the passage from being used by Gnostics who liked to emphasize Jesus’s departure, but not to heaven. This is possible. Lots of surviving texts were distorted in just this way by the Gnostics, and have been rightfully discredited.

Why are the stories different? Perhaps Luke learned more from his sources about the Jesus he never personally knew and included the extra information in his second book, by which time his erroneous first book had been distributed and was being copied without his control. We can’t tell anything now except that they are not the same.

How many angels were at Jesus’s tomb? Nobody agrees.

Mark 16:5. “...they saw a young man sitting on the right side clothed in a white robe...”

Matthew 28:2-3. “...for Jehovah’s angel had descended from heaven and approached and rolled away the stone, and was sitting on it. His outward appearance was as lightning, and his clothing as white as snow.”

Luke 24:4. “While they were in perplexity over this, two men in flashing clothing stood by them.”

John 20:12. “...and she viewed two angels in white sitting one at the head and one at the feet where the body of Jesus had been lying.”

The angel accounts are sometimes reconciled by asserting that ancient writers only mentioned the one angel (of two) who actually did the speaking. This is, again, a creative interpretation that doesn’t actually exist in the scripture. I think it also begs belief to think that the witnesses of such an alarming and life-changing supernatural event would neglect to mention that there were two apparitions, even if only one spoke to them.

I have not attempted to discuss any other contradictory aspects of the visitations, although the most casual reading will show that all the accounts cannot be true at the same time without literary gymnastics that are not even faintly implied in the stories themselves. Certainly it would have been a startling experience and hard for the participants to remember clearly.

Yet all the people involved met together immediately to discuss it, compare experiences, and think about the implications. They had years together to listen to one another and reconcile the events of their joint experience, yet the stories that we read were never reconciled. Are all the the differences between the surviving accounts original to the original witnesses? The gospels had many years of oral history before being written down, in widely separated places, and many participants were dead. Perhaps the stories were changed after the fact by people who weren’t there, and didn’t have copies of the stories told by the other participants. It didn't have to be malicious--lots of old books on my bookshelf have missing pages.

Scripture describes how Jesus was mocked on his last day by being dressed in royal clothing, but contradicts itself on where it took place.

Matthew 27:28. Jesus is costumed by Pontius Pilate.
Mark 15:17. Jesus is costumed by Pontius Pilate.
Luke 23:11. Jesus is costumed by Herod at his palace, not by Pilate.
John 19:2. Jesus is costumed by Pontius Pilate.

If the Bible is accurate as written, then Jesus was costumed twice in two different places and each account ignores the other. The color of the robe varies in Greek, as well. Once, it is "scarlet," another time, "purple." (That sort of difference is immaterial to me.)

Pontius Pilate attached a mocking inscription to the top of the torture stake or cross. All four gospels disagree on what it said.

Matthew 27:37. “This is Jesus the King of the Jews.”
Mark 15:26. “The King of the Jews.”
Luke 23:37. “This is the King of the Jews.”
John 19:19. “Jesus the Nazarene the King of the Jews.”

The non-canonical Gospel of Thomas quotes yet another 5th and different text. The variants are similar, but they are not the same. If the Bible is precisely accurate as written, there were four different texts attached to the top of the pole, and each account must then ignore the existence of the three other inscriptions. I suggest that the inspiration of the writers was not in the form of "automatic writing."

I have heard it said that the various different inscriptions were translations of the words written in the different languages. But Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written in Greek (perhaps Matthew was originally Hebrew), so this answer is not likely.

The author of Hebrews describes the tabernacle incorrectly.

In Exodus 30:1-6, the alter for burning incense is placed outside the inner sanctuary of the tabernacle: Ex 30:6, “And you must put it before the curtain that is near the ark of the testimony, before the cover that is over the Testimony, where I shall present myself to you.” In contrast, in Hebrews 9:3-4, “But behind the second curtain was the tent [compartment] called ‘the Most Holy.” This had a golden censer and the ark of the covenant...”

If the Bible is correct, then the author of Exodus described the tabernacle wrong, or the author of Hebrews did, or the Jews changed their practices from Mosaic law and didn’t record it (not likely). Or it’s a simple error.

Who was it that bought the ground for Joseph’s grave? Scripture says both Abraham and Jacob.

Acts 7:16. Stephen says it was Abraham that bought the tomb for Joseph from the sons of Hamor.

Joshua 24:32. Joseph was said to be buried in a plot of ground that Jacob, not Abraham, had bought from the sons of Hamor.

Some interpreters assert that the ground was bought twice. Maybe so, but neither account says or implies that.

There are historical discrepancies between numbers, usually involving Chronicles, Kings, and Samuel. For example:


The numbers of horseman captured by David from Hadadezer are different between 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles.

2 Samuel 8:4 says 700 horsemen (KJV), or perhaps “one thousand and seven hundred horseman” (RSV)

1 Chronicles 18:4 says 7000 horsemen.

Following the return to Jerusalem, Ezra and Nehemiah contradict each other for census numbers of the Hebrew families.

Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 both give the total to be 42, 360. But adding the numbers up gives 29,818 men for Ezra, and 31,089 men for Nehemiah. The difference comes from the two books sometimes giving contradictory numbers for the same sons within the same families.


The count of the singers is also contradictory. Ezra gives 200 singers in Ezra 2:65, but Nehemiah 7:67 gives 245.

In his summary biography, the chief of the mighty men of David “wielded his spear” but killed different numbers of men:

2 Samuel 23:8: “These are the names of the mighty men whom David had: Josheb-basshebeth, a Tahchemonite; he was chief of the three. He wielded his spear against eight hundred whom he killed at one time.”

1 Chronicles 11:11: “This is an account of David’s mighty men: Jashobeam, a Hachmonite, was chief of the three. He wielded his spear against 300 whom he killed at one time.”

Joab reports contradictory census numbers to David in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles.

2 Samuel 24:9: “And Joab gave the sum of the numbering of the people to the king: in Israel there were 800,000 valiant men who drew the sword, and the men of Judah were 500,000.”

1 Chronicles 21:5: “And Joab gave the sum of the numbering of the people to David. In all Israel, there were 1,100,000 men who drew the sword, and in Judah 470,000 who drew the sword.”

Gad the prophet gives David different choices for punishment from God in different books: three years or seven years of famine in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles.

2 Samuel 24:13: “Shall seven years of famine come to you in your land? or wilt thou flee three months before thy enemies…”

1 Chronicles 21:11,12: …”Choose thee either three years famine, or three months to be destroyed before thy foes…”


David is reported as buying the threshing floor from Ornan the Jebusite for two different prices.

1 Chronicles 21:25: “So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight.”

2 Samuel 24:24: "So David bought the threshing floor and oxen for fifty shekels of silver.”

This one might be straightened out by saying that Ornan actually owned a larger “place” worth six hundred shekels of gold, and the threshing floor was a smaller part of the deal. But there is no indication in the Scripture that two separate transactions took place.

There are many explanations for various of these number problems, some better than others. Most can be easily figured out as simple typos.

And so it goes.

I have listed just a few of the internal contradictions in the Bibles (not Bible), that we have available to us today, and that I hope you hold in your hands to check what I have written. Again, these examples are a particular subset that you can be see within your very own Bible--you do not have to compare different translations, or Greek or Hebrew variant texts to see them for yourself. If you have an interest in comparing the many, many more contradictions, errors, omissions and differences that appear between the variant textual families of the Bible, then the nearest public library or internet search has lots of material to look through. Any study Bible with extensive footnotes will list many variant readings, as will a 1611 King James Authorized Version. Look for yourself. Believe nobody until you read it yourself.

If you choose to look at these problems within an Authorized King James Version, you really ought to choose a complete, original rendition, available for about US$20.00. You can tell because it will include the Apocrypha, in the middle, and a long critical preface, both of which are usually deleted without comment in modern Protestant printings of the King James. Most modern post-1769 King James Bibles also omit the original marginal notations, edit them to say things they didn’t originally say, or manufacture new ones. The original marginal notes were important; they weren't commentary, they were notes from the translators to the reader about problems with the text that they couldn't reconcile. They often listed both translational differences for Greek words or passages, and different readings of those passages from different source texts available to the Committee. Modern editions with edited notes often confuse these very different pieces of information, so that it becomes difficult to tell where the editors are adding a clarifying alternate translation to a word, or where they are pointing out that they have more than one equally believable source texts that disagree on what the Bible should actually say.

Read it for yourself, and listen to the Inward Light of Jesus Christ for yourself. Don’t take my word for any of this. But remember, we are called to follow a Guide, not a book. The road map helps you on the journey, but the road map is not the road.

And don't get too excited about the flaws--the message of the Bible is clear, in spite of the endless lists of flaws that anybody with a little time can come up with. An flawed book does not a flawed religion make.

What Are "All the Scriptures?"

It has been said to me by one Quaker minister, that she “sees no reason to doubt the literal truth of all the scriptures.” I haven’t had the opportunity to talk any with her about all of this, but I have some questions that it made me think about. Most of them have to do with the fundamental Quaker premise that Jesus Christ has come to teach his people himself, and how we can be led astray if we put our primary trust in an outward guide. The question of just what, exactly, constitutes "all of the Scriptures" is one that we don't often ask, and that we should, because it's central to this question. It's important, if for no other reason than the unarguable fact that the Bibles read by the first generations of Friends were much longer than the ones we use today, and included many, many pages of history, apocalypse, and wisdom literature than do the ones on most Quaker bookshelves.


Today, when we say ”all the scriptures,” do we mean all the books of the Bible that were declared canonical by the 4th century Roman Catholics at Nicaea, and still used by them today for official Christian doctrine? Or by Athanasius? Or in the Muratorian Fragment? Although there are about 14 disputed Old Testament Apocryphal or Deuterocanonical Books, Martin Luther followed Jerome and declared them unscriptural. The King James Authorized Version of the Bible generally included them in its printings up to the mid-19th century, and some are still part of the various Orthodox and today’s Roman Catholic canons. This is important, because the King James Bible that George Fox carried with him and studied into the night in hollow trees was a different animal than the one you buy in your local Christian bookstore today. George's Bible contained the Book of Tobit, and 2 Esdras, and 1 and 2 Macabbees, and a dozen others. To my knowledge, nobody has ever collated the text of the Apocrypha with the writings of Fox. There are countless allusions, figures of speech, and direct quotes in his writings to the currently canonical books, and I would like to know just how much of the Apocrypha was quoted by Fox as well. Modern Friends are woefully ignorant of those books, and there is no reason to expect an allusion to them to be noticed by a modern editor.




Back to the Apocrypha itself, the Protestant Puritans discounted them because they wanted to return to what they thought were the original Hebrew scriptures, but the second and third century church Fathers had had long arguments over their inclusion with the Jews of their time that I don’t know were ever addressed adequately by Puritan theologians, and the original Hebrew scriptures haven’t survived. The New testament epistles and such that quote Scripture almost always quote the Greek Version (with a dozen allusions specifically to the Apocrypha). The Eastern Orthodox Christians and the Syriatic Coptics and Ethiopian Orthodox Churches by 692 AD accepted only four of the seven main Apocryphal books, leaving out both 1 and 2 Maccabees, and the Book of Baruch. The Russian Orthodox Church has its own list. There are lengthy apocryphal sections within Esther and Daniel. So, if we say ”all the scriptures,” do we mean to include these as essential, or do we leave them out? It's important, because if worshipping God requires that we recognize a specific canon, then we have to decide whether we are talking about the canon of the Jews, the canon of the primitive Christians, the canon of the modern Protestants, the canon of the Roman Catholics, or the canon of the Eastern and Syriatic Orthodox churches. If God and the canon are inseparable, then we have to decide which is correct, and which are false.


One minor type of problem appears in Jude. In my KJV, Jude 9 refers to the contention between the devil and the Archangel Michael about the body of Moses. This is a reference to the apocalyptic Book of the Assumption of Moses, which does not appear in either the Apocryphal or non-Apocryphal books of any modern canon. I haven’t read it, and don’t know whether it should be included with ”all of the scriptures” or not. It is quoted in accepted canonical scriptures as being true, although Jude itself was not considered inspired by many early Christians. One of my commentaries suggests that the Assumption of Moses should be considered ”partly inspired,” with only that the quoted section being the inspired part. What should I do? Should I study all or only part of it? Should we all only read the section quoted in Jude, or read the whole book, but only believe part of it? Some Catholic theologians believed that originally uninspired writings can become inspired later, if the Holy Ghost decides to make use of them at a later date. Might that apply here? What might that mean for the definition of “all the scriptures?” Hard questions.


In the original 1611 Authorized Version, Jesus himself refers to the Apocrypha twice--once in his reference to "vain prayers and repetitions," and then when he longs to gather Jerusalem "like a hen gathers her chicks." If Jesus was knowledgeable of the Hebrew Scriptures (a reasonable assumption) then he was also knowledgable of the Greek Scriptures containing these references, wouldn't you think? What did Jesus think of the Apocrypha?


Another more important type of problem appears in 1 John. Much doctrine in non-Quaker traditions centers around the Trinity of ”the three that testify in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” (1 John 5:7--Authorized Version). William Penn himself defended the Quaker views of the Trinity by asserting that they believed in ”the three that bare record in heaven,” in his ”Testimony to the Truth of God” (section VIII), in my 1829 reprint of that work. Modern commentaries on the King James point out that this passage (the ”Johannine Commae”) never appeared in any Greek New Testament prior to the likely-forged 1520 version submitted to Erasmus to influence this very question. It doesn’t appear in any pre-800 AD versions of the Latin Vulgate, and appears to be a passage that was unknown to Christian writers for hundreds of years. Mid-20th century Roman Catholic polyglot bibles print it as a historical part of the Vulgate, but omit it from the Greek version on the opposite page. At the 1870’s First Vatican Council it was declared inspired, but at the Second Vatican Council in 1968 it was declared uninspired. Does its inspiration therefore come and go depending on Papal authority, or on which language the scripture is read in (Greek or English), or does it mean that this verse on the Trinity represents an uninspired spurious or accidental addition to the original inspired Scripture? If the latter, then the King James version would be only partly inspired, and my NIV, ESV, and Jehovah’s Witness New World Translation (all of which which leave out the reference) would presumably be completely inspired, at least regarding the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. With the King James, there is no way to check on the translator’s original manuscripts, because they didn’t retain their working copies and kept no records of what they were. Which version is the literally true one? If scripture is essential, then it is essential that we know. Otherwise we are likely to believe something that God didn’t inspire and doesn’t intend for us to obey.


Perhaps all the Comma variants are literally true, and the late addition of the ”the three that bear record” is a recent divinely-inspired addition to the briefer original. (One of my Protestant commentaries says this is what we should accept.) If this is true, then the canon cannot be considered to be closed. (Take your pick about which one you think is the right one to start with). This is consistent with early Quaker thought, and might make the most sense because other newly-discovered documents such as the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls might have inspired portions for us to consider today.


To solve these historical discrepancies on "all the Scriptures," we might check by going back to some of the earliest Greek copies of the New Testament Scriptures. There are about 20 major ones, and about 5500 other manuscript versions from three or four main textual traditions. One of the most important for clarifying ancient Christian scripture is the Codex Sinaiticus, the 4th century uncial Bible discovered in an Egyptian monastery in the 1840’s. It is one of the oldest and most complete versions of the Bible existing and might be assumed to be a collection closer to the original, inspired writings. But in addition to the Old Testament Deuterocanonical works, the Sinaiticus also includes the New Testament Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, which nobody today thinks of as inspired, although the scribes who penned the Sinaiticus seem to have thought so. Do we then follow their judgement about which books were inspired scripture, and which were false? If we do, it seems to me that we all should come up with copies of Barnabas and the Shepherd to study. If we don’t, then do we also ignore the rest of the Sinaiticus and the contributions it has made to clarifying Scripture in the Bibles on our bookshelves over the last 150 years, which are substantial? If we are to believe all the Scriptures, then we must decide which writings to call ”the Scriptures.”


With respect to the oldest Hebrew readings of the Bible, the very, very old Book of Job in the Hebrew contains 400 more lines in it than the Greek version (the Septuagint) of the second century BC. Along with the Hebrew text, this is the one that Jerome translated into the Latin Vulgate, which with about seven arguably poor Greek manuscripts was used as a base for Erasmus’s Greek New Testament and later Stephanus’s Textus Recepticus of about 1550. The latter was was used as a partial base for the Authorized Version in 1611, and also as the foundation for my Roman Catholic Jerusalem Bible. Are the missing 400 lines in all these non-Hebrew Bibles inspired Scripture? If so, should we use a modern translation of the original Hebrew Tanach when reading Job, and ignore all the Greek, Old Latin, Armenian, Syriac, and Coptic Bibles written in the last 2100 years, not to mention the Gallic, Old English, German, Spanish, and Italian versions?


Perhaps we could, but except for the fragmentary Dead Sea Scrolls, no actual Hebrew manuscripts exist today that are older than the Masoritic text, written around the 7th century AD. Listen carefully: Our base manuscripts of the “incomplete” Greek Septuagint translation of Job are therefore older than the oldest existing copies of the possibly more “complete” Hebrew text. Which is the inspired version of Job for us to trust for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness? To be safe we should perhaps have copies of them all, so that we can sift through the decisions made for us by believers and unbelievers through the centuries about what to them constituted ”all the scriptures.”


The complications that I've mentioned are the small tip of a very large iceberg. There is no such thing as a single Bible, in Hebrew, Greek, or otherwise. In 1707, John Mill catalogued every Greek text of the New Testament that he could obtain, in his Greek New Testament. He listed over 30,000 variant readings among the miscellaneous text traditions that might be roughly categorized as Western, Alexandrian, and Byzantine. These are not just Greek synonyms with more than one definition in translation, but genuine variant words and passages that don’t say the same thing:


- The Gospel of Mark has four different endings that are not at all the same, and all pre-date the closing of the canon, and are therefore all “officially” inspired by God.


- In other manuscripts, “No-one knows the Son but the Father,” but in others the text “No-one know the Father but the Son” is omitted.


- The advice of Jesus to sit down at the table in a lower room rather than an upper does not appear in 99 percent of all ancient Bibles-only the ”wild” Beza text and allies contain it.


- The story of the woman caught in adultery appears variously in either John or Luke.
- What happened to Saul on the road to Damascus isn’t the same from manuscript to manuscript.


- Even in your current Bible, whatever translation or printing it is, the text that Pontius Pilate had affixed to the top of the cross is different in all four Gospels, as well as in the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas.


- Was Jesus facetiously robed by the Jewish priests, or by Pilate, and where? Your own Bible tells the story both ways. Look it up.


- How many times did the rooster crow, and exactly where was Peter when he heard it? One classic analysis maintains that to account for all the differences, Peter has to warm himself at the fire and repeat almost the same conversations eight different times.


- Stephen is said to have quoted Jeremiah before the court, but it was really Zechariah, and did he know, or is it a typo?


The variants go on and on. Presumably the original ancient writers were inspired by God to write a piece of Holy Scripture. And they may have written the same piece more than once, to send off to different destinations. But none of those original scrolls or codices still survive, so all we are left with are copies of copies of copies, with various numbers of errors, omissions, additions, harmonizations, emendations, and occasional outright forgeries, too. Some mistakes are obvious, but many more are not. Nobody anymore knows what the original inspired scripture really said. We can only trust in the guesses of the editors. But is the educated guess of some medieval or modern divinity professor good enough to base our salvation on? If all scripture is essential for salvation, then we have to take that choice.


The Jehovah’s Witnesses (bless their sincerity!) print three of the four endings of Mark in their Bibles, so you can see them all and make up your own mind. The original King James prints variant readings in the margins as ”Or...” but modern condensed KJV bibles often mix up synonyms and variant texts in their edited marginal notes. The NIV or RSV annotated Bibles use footnotes extensively to point out variant tests (not just variant translations). Most Bible publishers leave all the alternates out and give a false picture of consistency for their particular choice.


Believing the Scriptures to be essential requires either a lifetime of scholarship merely to establish a starting text, or requires us to base our faith on the judgments of people we have never met who follow religious traditions we do not accept. God is not easily captured within the pages of a book. Without the Holy Ghost helping us through this mess, we end up basing our religion on long-dead and very fallible human authorities we are forced to trust, like it or not. With the Holy Ghost helping us to understand the Scriptures, then I believe that the difficulties fall away, and the meaning of God’s words become clear.