Expert: J.M.J. West - 1/26/2009

Question
QUESTION: Is there any specific verse in the Bible in which changes to the scriptures negate it's validity?

ANSWER: Technically, any "change" which is substantial would negate the validity to some degree.  By substantial I mean "Jesus said 'Love your neighbor'" becoming "Jesus said 'Like people'", as opposed to "'Love your neighbor' said Jesus".

But without a more specific example of what you're meaning that's all I can say.  Can you elaborate a bit?

Do you mean changing lines (like the Jehova's Witnesses changing John 1 from "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God" to "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was *a* God"?  This certainly would change the very meaning of the scripture, and seemingly invalidate it.

Do you mean removing books, like Martin Luther's removal of the Deuterocanonicals (aka the "Apocrypha" in Protestant circles, though in Catholic circles the "Apocrypha" refers instead to other non-canonical 1st century writings)?  This is problematic, and may affect how other scriptures are viewed, but does not inhernetly damage the remaining scriptures.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Thanks for the answer and just to clarify i mean substantial changes like the removal of books of the bible at the coucil of Nicaea in 325AD.

ANSWER: Richard,

Thanks for the follow up.  I've never really heard of the Council of Nicea being blamed with REMOVING books from the bible.  Point of fact, the canon of the scriptures was not really dealt with at this council.

Sometimes people will "credit" the Catholics with ADDING books (the Deuterocanonicals), but usually much later.  As it is, there was no set canon officially in use until the end of the 4th century.  The canon of Scripture, Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382, under the authority of Pope Damasus I. It was soon reaffirmed on numerous occasions. The same canon was affirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393 and at the Council of Carthage in 397. In 405 Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. Another council at Carthage, this one in the year 419, reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to "confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church." All of these canons were identical to the modern Catholic Bible, and all of them included the deuterocanonicals.

This exact same canon was implicitly affirmed at the seventh ecumenical council, II Nicaea (787), which approved the results of the 419 Council of Carthage, and explicitly reaffirmed at the ecumenical councils of Florence (1442), Trent (1546), Vatican I (1870), and Vatican II (1965).

But, again, no books were "removed from the canon" because until that point, there was no canon (though there were some books which were commonly read and believed to be genuinely apostolic, like the 4 gospels and most of St. Paul's letters; some were commonly read but not for certain if they were scriptural or not (eg, Revelation and Hebrews which are, the Letters of Ignatius, Clement, and the Didache which are not canonical, though they are instructive and orthodox).

Are there any books in particular you're thinking were removed?

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Well my research has lead me to a number of 'missing' books of the bible of which the gospel of Mary Magdalene and the gospel of Philip seem to provide a motivation for their removal in that they both refer to Mary Magdalene as the 'most' loved of all of the disciples and at the time of the council of Niceae (325A.D.) it is well known that the church was an extremely sexist institution and this would have threatened the very legitimacy of the male God as well as His male representatives on earth.Obviously this is subject to interpretation but it does show some real motive in these actions.Once again thank you for taking the time to engage me.

Answer
Richard,

Thank you for your questions and follow up.  You have a few points to answer, but each is pretty densely packed with what I believe to be demonstrable misconceptions of historical fact.  Much of what you wrote has been popularized by fictional works like "The DaVinci Code" by Dan Brown, who though he states in the opening that his book is a work of fiction, he also states that it has been "meticulously researched" and the basis for it is true.  However very little of what Brown wrote was based upon historical fact, and much of it was blatantly false (eg. Opus Dei, the main antagonistic organization in the book, is a LAY religious order, meaning it has no monks, nuns or priests particular to it).  Many of these claims are made in his book, so I'm assuming that many of the sources you've gotten your information from have been informed either by Brown, or by one of the few sources he used (like the work "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", which like the rest of Brown's 'scholarship' simply does not pass intellectual rigor or the general standards for works of history).

YOU WROTE:
"Well my research has lead me to a number of 'missing' books of the bible of which the gospel of Mary Magdalene and the gospel of Philip"

Now, it is a FACT that some books penned in the first few centuries of Christianity CLAIMED to be - or were claimed by some to be - canonical scriptures.  Amongst these would be the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Phillip and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.  

It is also a FACT that nobody in the church ever tried to hide these books.  In fact, the early church fathers often quoted them very, very accurately because they wanted to refute what they were saying as heresy (these being the early church fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries (i.e. 100-299ad) who were living persecuted lives and were not in any way trying to "claim power" over others; they were martyred for their faith as often as not).

"The character of Teabing does comment..."As any Aramaic scholar will tell you, the word 'companion' in those days meant spouse.'  But the main problem with Teabing's statement is that the Gospel of Phillip was not even written in Aramaic!  It was written in Coptic, and the word for 'companion' used in this passage is actually the Greek term "koinonos.'  And 'koinonos' does not mean specifically 'wife' or 'spouse.'  It simply indicates one with whom another has fellowship with, and it covers a broad range of relationships.  The word can describe a buisness partner, a co-worker, or a fellow Christian.  It could include family relationships, too, but if the author of the Gospel of Philip [not the biblical Philip, mind you, as this was written about a century after he lived] wanted to specify spouse or wife, another more prescise Greek word ('gyne') could have been chosen.  It is most likely that the word 'koinonos' in that text is meant to describe Mary Magdaline as a spiritual sister of CHrist." *

It is also a fact that there was no BIBLE in 325 AD.

YOU WROTE:
"the gospel of Mary Magdalene and the gospel of Philip seem to provide a motivation for their removal in that they both refer to Mary Magdalene as the 'most' loved of all of the disciples"

I'll proceed to deal with this by tackling a point Dan Brown raises, intimately related to this point.

"First we must note that the Gospel of Philip does not say that Jesus 'used to kiss Mary Magdalene often on her mouth.' [a claim of Teabing in Brown's novel, and one you may have encountered.]  The DaVinci Code is misleading readers on this point.  The actual manuscript of the Gospel of Philip that was found is not complete but fragmented, and it does not say where Jesus kissed her, nor how often he did this.  The fragmented text in question says:  'And the companion of the ...Mary Magdalene...loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her...on...' (the ellipses indicate gaps in the manuscripts.)

"Therefore, the actual manuscript of the Gospel of Philip does not say where Jesus kissed Mary Magdalene.  It could have been a simple kiss of peace.  It could have been a non-sexual kiss on her hand, forehead, or cheek.  The Da Vinci Code misleads readers into thinking that the text says Jesus kissed Mary on the mouth, when the text itself is not clear at all o the location of this supposed kiss.  Furthermore, for Gnostics, the image of a kiss is not a romantic or sexual gesture. Why?  Because Gnostics viewed the soul as IMPRISONED by the body, and sex was seen as the means through which new souls become imprisoned.  So the goal of Gnostic spirituality was liberation from the body and its sensual desires.

"For Gnostics, a kiss is a symbol for fellowship between believers and for spiritual nourishment passing from one person to the next.  That's why, in another Gnostic document called 'the Second Apocalypse of James', Jesus addresses His cousin James as 'My Beloved!' and likewise kisses him.  The gesture is a non-sexual one intended to show the privileged position of the disciple and his (or her) special status as the recipient of secret wisdom.

"So even on it's own terms, The Gospel of Philip says nothing about Mary Magdalene being married to Jesus.  According to this and other Gnostic documents, Mary Magdalene might have had a CLOSER friendship to Jesus than did any of the other apostles, and Mary Magdalene might have  had greater insights into the mysteries of Christ's kingdom.  But nowhere in the Gospel of Philip (or in ANY gnostic writings) is Mary ever presented as the wife of Jesus or even as having a romantic relationship with Him."*

YOU WROTE:
"it is well known that the church was an extremely sexist institution"

Actually, quite the contrary!  It was the gnostics who were sexist.  Take the last line of the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, which states:

"114 Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

YOU WROTE:
"...and this would have threatened the very legitimacy of the male God as well as His male representatives on earth"

Though he is refered to with masculine pronouns and the title "father", God as such has no gender, and the church has taught and professed this from the beginning.  Our own human sexuality is used to image God to us.

"God made man in his image.  In the divine image he created man.  Male and female he created them" says Genesis 1.  Genesis 2 follows this up noting that "the man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and the two become one flesh".  The divine life of God is written on us by God our creator, and he uses our gender to help explain a bit of his mystery to us.

The bible has revealed god as "masculine", Jesus himself taught us to pray "our Father".

"God reveals Himself as 'Father' because this best describes his relationship with Jesus, His Son, and with us.  This, of course, does not mean "men are superior to women."  In terms of dignity, male and female are absolutely equal.  As St. Paul states, in Christ Jesus, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).

"But saying men and women are 'equal in dignity' is entirely different from saying that they are the same.  In addition to Paul's teaching, we know from common sense that they are not.  There is a natural complementarity between masculine and feminine.  The masculine initiates, the feminine responds.  As the sky (and pagan sky 'gods') pour in light and seed and energy, so the earth (and the earth 'goddesses' of paganism) respond with fruitfulness and life.  This insight, which paganism captures in its myths, is not denied by brought to fullness in the revelation of Christ.  That is why Christ is called 'the bridegroom'.  That is why the Church is the 'bride' (see Ephesians 5).  The 'sacred feminine' is indeed part of Catholic and Christian teaching.  Only it does not mean that we worship goddesses.  It means that the holy Church that Christ founded is joined to Him in love by the Holy Spirit and is made a participant in his divine nature by his self-donating sacrifice and resurrection.  The great model of this - and the "elephant in the living room" Brown overlooks in his claims about the Catholic Church's supposed hatred of the "sacred feminine" - is the Blessed Virgin Mary, Jesus' first and greatest disciple.  If the Catholic Church hates the sacred feminine, why all the Marian devotion?"*

YOU WROTE:
"as well as His male representatives on earth."

The simple fact is that Jesus only appointed male apostles.  His mother was with him constantly.  Mary Magdalene was too (and is sometimes called lovingly from within the church "the apostle to the apostles" because she is always there with them, helping them; it was her who told them of Christ's resurrection!)

Jesus was countercultureal.  He hung out with sinners and tax collectors.  He spoke the truth so openly that they nailed him to a cross, and his apostles believed that he rose again so much so that they all suffered martyrdom (except for St. John, though he ran the risk daily) for their belief in and love of Christ.  His message was SO different from the messages of the day.

Knowing this fact, it seems utterly pointless to then distort the teachings of Christ for the sake of "gaining power", when for the next 300 years that "power" warranted a feeding to the lions or being roasted alive.  This just doesn't jive with the facts.

YOU WROTE:
"Obviously this is subject to interpretation but it does show some real motive in these actions."

I have to disagree.  I think there is little room for interpretation if one actually reads what history has given us.

YOU WROTE:
"Once again thank you for taking the time to engage me."

Its what I do, both on the internet and off.

You might find the following sites instructive:

www.earlychristianwritings.com
www.catholic.com
www.scripturecatholic.com

Peace of Christ,

-J.M.J. West

*Some citations taken from this book, which you might find instructive:  The Davinci Deception, http://tinyurl.com/chy5yk