With Due Respect: The Bible is so misunderstood, it is a sin.

Recently, a Newsweek post by Kurt Eichenwald was brought to my attention. He argued that the idea that Christians rely on Biblical beliefs is totally flawed because the actual Bible does not exists.

Although Eichenwald stated that he does not intend to "advance a particular theology", he begins his first point by writing,

No television preacher has ever read the Bible. Neither has any evangelical politician. Neither has the pope. Neither have I. And neither have you. At best, we’ve all read a bad translation—a translation of translations of translations of hand-copied copies of copies of copies of copies, and on and on, hundreds of times.

He also claims that his arguments are supported by "scores of theologians and scholars".

In this post, I will be exploring a few of his points. I will largely not address most of his points, especially those regarding textual criticism of the Bible. For a full rebuttal, check textual critic James White's video.

Playing telephone with the Word of God
1) No punctuation and no spacing

Eichenwald writes that the original New Testament manuscripts were written in common Greek which had "no spaces between words and no punctuation", and therefore it could lead to misunderstanding of the text. He emphasised the need for such things via his example, "weshouldgoeatmum" could mean "we should go eat mum" or "we should go eat, mum".

What he fails to understand is that the meaning of the sentences can be easily understood if you read the whole passage in context. To press his example-- if the passage was talking about a nearby eatery where they served burgers and fries, then it would be obvious which interpretation would make more sense.

2) More variants than words in the New Testament

Eichenwald writes,

And what biblical scholars now know is that later versions of the books differ significantly from earlier ones,

This gives the impression that there are so many variants in the New Testament copies, it is difficult to know what was said originally. Eichenwald draws support from New Testament scholar Erhman (2005) who stated that there are 200,000 to 400,000 variants in the New Testament manuscripts.

But let's put it in perspectives. We have about 2,000 copies of the Gospels which have 64,766 words in the original Greek (according to this site). If every copyist made 1 mistake every 1,000 words, there will be about 65 variants per copy. Hence there will be a total of 130,000 variants. That sounds like a huge number of variants. However, this number is due to the large number of manuscripts, rather than the inefficiency of the copyists.

In fact by comparing between the variants, it is possible to reconstruct the original manuscript.

The sociopath Emperor

1) Jesus's divinity

The majority of the time at Nicaea was spent debating whether Jesus was a man who was the son of God, as Arius proclaimed, or God himself, as the church hierarchy maintained.

At the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, the issue of Jesus's divinity was never in question. Bishop Arius (the dissenter) argued that Jesus did not share the same substance as the Father (and that the Father allowed Jesus to achieve godhood), while Bishop Alexander of Alexandria asserted that Jesus did share the same substance as the Father and therefore was existed eternally with God. Even a cursory check of wikipedia would reveal that.

2) Emperor Constantine I

But Constantine sided with those who believed Jesus was both God and man, so a statement of belief, called the Nicene Creed, was composed to proclaim that. Those who refused to sign the statement were banished.

Eichenwald argued that Emperor Constantine I enforced Trinitarian views on the followers of Arian. This does not wash as 

A) Emperor Constantine I had an Arian tutor (and was probably an Arian himself)

B) It were the Trinitarian Christians who were persecuted by the Arians in the political realm.

No three kings

1) Different accounts of Jesus's death and resurrection

The stories in the four Gospels of Jesus’s death and resurrection differ as well. When brought before Pontius Pilate in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus speaks only two words and is never declared innocent. In the Gospel of John, Jesus engages in extended conversations with Pilate, who repeatedly proclaims this Jewish prisoner to be innocent and deserving of release.

Eichenwald argued that the four Gospels differ from each other. This is to be expected as they came from different eyewitnesses accounts. How can he expect them to be exactly the same?

Furthermore, the Gospels agreed on the important points-- Jesus died and rose again.

Conclusion

There are many more issues that I do not have the time nor expertise to deal with. However, I felt that as a reputable online magazine, Newsweek had a responsibility to be accurate and fair in its reporting. Despite Eichenwald's claim that his article was not to attack the "Bible or Christianity", I fear that this article was very judging.

References

Erhman, B. (2005) Misquoting Jesus

For further understanding

Alpha and Omega

With Due Respect: The Council of Nicaea manipulated Christian Thinking!

What council?
After uniting the Eastern and Western Roman Empire, Emperor Constantine I convened over the Council of Nicaea to settle divisions among the church. He did not want a divided church, especially after claiming that the Christian God had helped him in his military victories.

In 325 AD, he assembled a council of Christians in Nicaea  and they finally decided on one view of Christianity, while throwing out different views. Thus, many non-Christians, such as Mormons often cite this historical event on how Christianity has been manipulated down the ages. Popular books, such as Dan Brown's  The Da Vinci Code and Raymond Khoury's The Templar Salvation, portray the Council as a political tool for Constantine I to rule his empire.

But this is oversimplifying the issue, as I shall explain in awhile.

What are the common misunderstandings of the Council of Nicea?

1. The council decided on Biblical canon
Even a  cursory look at wikipedia reveals that the agenda of the Council. The Council examined mainly the views of Arius (a heretic Christian), the dates to observe religious festivals like Easter and the status of apostates (people who have renounced Christianity).

2. There were many competing views of Christianity
At the time of the council, there were not many competing views of Christianity. There were no Gnostics, Ebomites or even Donatists. There were two views-- the view that the Father (God) and the Son (Jesus) were of the same substance (which eventually became the orthodox view) or that the Father and Son were of different substances (the view of Arius). Contrary to what was portrayed in The Da Vinci Code or The Templar Salvation, the discussion was unambiguous. Out of the 300-odd bishops present, only three (including Arius himself) voted for Arius.

The view on Jesus's status was not decided by a few votes.

3. Emperor Constantine I manipulated the views of the Council
All Emperor Constantine I was concerned about was the stability of the empire. He wanted the unified Christianity, so he could avoid religious unrest among the Christians.

However, he was unhappy with the results of the council. The council condemned the Arian Christians, even though Constantine I wanted the views of Arius to be tolerated. Furthermore, his closest Christian advisers were Arian. (His baptiser was an Arian Christian.)

So if Constantine I manipulated the council, there are at least two issues we must consider--
(a) Why were the views of Arius condemned by the council?
(b) These bishops had undergone a severe persecution by the previous Emperor. Why would they be willingly to renounce their ideals just because Constantine I held a council?

Conclusion
Even though the Council of Nicaea has a bad reputation in recent years, it was not as controversial as it was portrayed to be. The question whether Jesus was divine was never an issue.

For further details:
Inspiring philosophy