Jesus's teachings corrupted?

Again and again on the forums people make the assertion that Jesus's teachings were corrupted by Biblical authors, however this seems to be mostly an opinion. Are there some famous Biblical scholars that hold this view, and what, basically, is the reason for having this viewpoint?

q connor said:

Again and again on the forums people make the assertion that Jesus's teachings were corrupted by Biblical authors, however this seems to be mostly an opinion. Are there some famous Biblical scholars that hold this view, and what, basically, is the reason for having this viewpoint?

Click to expand...

Two points:

1) The more famous a scholar is, whether in biblical studies or classics or cosmology, is generally inversely correlated with how much they advance the fields in which they specialize. There are many people who are not even aware, for example, that Noam Chomsky is a linguist, not a specialist in political science or history. And while Bart Ehrman is perhaps the most "famous" N.T. textual critic known of today, he has contributed far less to the field than names most people have never heard. The reason this tends to happen is the way in which a scholar becomes "famous" in general. First, they need to write a lot of non-technical works so that the general public can understand them. Second, they general public has to be interested in whatever the topic is. Even if the first criterion is satisfied, and (for example) someone writes a book for the general public on the relationship between grammaticalization and linguistic modality, who cares to read it? On the other hand, if someone writes books about how Jesus was a political revolutionary or radical egalitarian, people become interested

2) That last example is your "famous" biblical scholars who argue that the N.T. authors fundamentally distorted Jesus' message: Mack, Crossan, Funk, Ehrman (to a lesser extent, as he mostly reiterates what Schweitzer concluded), and others have who, (imo), recreated a Jesus in their own image, but without the excuse of those like Renan (who were writing in a post-Reimarus, post-Strauss but pre-Schweitzer and per-Bultmann world of historical reconstructions of Jesus). In any event, the reasons vary depending on the author, but they share a common core: we don't have anything Jesus wrote, but instead a collection of writings are difficult to analyze from a historical perspective, and thus that much easier to turn into whatever one wishes. So we have the egalitarian cynic philosopher Jesus, the social revolutionary Jesus, the eschatological prophet Jesus, and so on, all constructed from the original texts by using assuming a particular approach to the texts and a set of criteria.

What isn't Speculation and how would you define something that wouldn't be speculative, including the idea that the NT contains the unadulterated teachings and sayings, or that earlier (mostly lost) works like Gospel to the Hebrews didn't contain what was closer to the original and had some stuff clipped out?

For a little example, take John 7:58-8:11, the "pericope adulterae" which isn't in any known early manuscript though is mentioned by some Church Father writings from the 4th century? Would that be proof of anything or just more speculation?

LegionOnomaMoi said:

Two points:

1) The more famous a scholar is, whether in biblical studies or classics or cosmology, is generally inversely correlated with how much they advance the fields in which they specialize. There are many people who are not even aware, for example, that Noam Chomsky is a linguist, not a specialist in political science or history. And while Bart Ehrman is perhaps the most "famous" N.T. textual critic known of today, he has contributed far less to the field than names most people have never heard. The reason this tends to happen is the way in which a scholar becomes "famous" in general. First, they need to write a lot of non-technical works so that the general public can understand them. Second, they general public has to be interested in whatever the topic is. Even if the first criterion is satisfied, and (for example) someone writes a book for the general public on the relationship between grammaticalization and linguistic modality, who cares to read it? On the other hand, if someone writes books about how Jesus was a political revolutionary or radical egalitarian, people become interested

2) That last example is your "famous" biblical scholars who argue that the N.T. authors fundamentally distorted Jesus' message: Mack, Crossan, Funk, Ehrman (to a lesser extent, as he mostly reiterates what Schweitzer concluded), and others have who, (imo), recreated a Jesus in their own image, but without the excuse of those like Renan (who were writing in a post-Reimarus, post-Strauss but pre-Schweitzer and per-Bultmann world of historical reconstructions of Jesus). In any event, the reasons vary depending on the author, but they share a common core: we don't have anything Jesus wrote, but instead a collection of writings are difficult to analyze from a historical perspective, and thus that much easier to turn into whatever one wishes. So we have the egalitarian cynic philosopher Jesus, the social revolutionary Jesus, the eschatological prophet Jesus, and so on, all constructed from the original texts by using assuming a particular approach to the texts and a set of criteria.

Click to expand...

Therefore?

Shermana said:

What isn't Speculation and how would you define something that wouldn't be speculative, including the idea that the NT contains the unadulterated teachings and sayings, or that earlier (mostly lost) works like Gospel to the Hebrews didn't contain what was closer to the original and had some stuff clipped out?

For a little example, take John 7:58-8:11, the "pericope adulterae" which isn't in any known early manuscript though is mentioned by some Church Father writings from the 4th century? Would that be proof of anything or just more speculation?

Click to expand...

Well, that's what this thread is for, to bring up examples like those.

q connor said:

Again and again on the forums people make the assertion that Jesus's teachings were corrupted by Biblical authors, ...

Click to expand...

Again and again? Quote three.

Jayhawker Soule said:

Again and again? Quote three.

Click to expand...

You've got to be joking.
I would say that it's almost as common to get a comment about how Acts or Romans etc. is not accurately representing Jesus's teachings, as someone quoting scripture.

q connor said:

Jayhawker Soule said:

q connor said:

Again and again on the forums people make the assertion that Jesus's teachings were corrupted by Biblical authors, ...

Click to expand...

Again and again? Quote three.

Click to expand...

You've got to be joking. I would say that it's almost as common to get a comment about how Acts or Romans etc. is not accurately representing Jesus's teachings, as someone quoting scripture.

Click to expand...

"Again and again" AND "almost as common"! Finding examples should be relatively easy. Quote three.

Jayhawker Soule said:

"Again and again" AND "almost as common"! Finding examples should be relatively easy. Quote three.

Click to expand...

It's a fairly common occurrence at RF. Quotes aren't necessary, or, even really relevant to the OP.

q connor said:

It's a fairly common occurrence at RF. Quotes aren't necessary, or, even really relevant to the OP.

Click to expand...

:biglaugh:

q connor said:

It's a fairly common occurrence at RF. Quotes aren't necessary, or, even really relevant to the OP.

Click to expand...

I hear that direct quotes are not OK on RF. To be transferring what someone said on one thread to another is against the forum rule I seem to remember.

I have also heard many times that what Paul writes is straying from what 'Jesus' taught. Some people have even accused him of Christian sedition. I have observed him attacked so badly that I have to feel sorry for him.

savagewind said:

I hear that direct quotes are not OK on RF. To be transferring what someone said on one thread to another is against the forum rule I seem to remember.

Click to expand...

Not to mention unnecessary. It wouldn't change the question in the OP anyway. I suspect what is going on with the Bible revisionism is largely one of construing the Bible to fit into a religious or worldview.
It has been done to other religious texts also of course.

q connor said:

Not to mention unnecessary.

Click to expand...

You claim something to be extremely prevalent, rail against, but assiduously avoid substantiating your claim. Well done Don Quixote. :clap

Jayhawker Soule said:

You claim something to be extremely prevalent, rail against, but assiduously avoid substantiating your claim. Well done Don Quixote. :clap

Click to expand...

"rail against" is a bit much.

q connor said:

Again and again on the forums people make the assertion that Jesus's teachings were corrupted by Biblical authors, however this seems to be mostly an opinion. Are there some famous Biblical scholars that hold this view, and what, basically, is the reason for having this viewpoint?

Click to expand...

They were not corrupted, jesus teachings were unknown to the unknown bibical scribes.

The best we have is thomas and q, and even then we dont have a clue how much is really original to jesus or created in his memory.


the scribes responsible for recording these events were to far removed from the actual history. They never knew or heard a word from jesus, they didnt live where he did, and for the most part belonged to another culture.

all they jhad to work from were shadows from the past

savagewind said:

I hear that direct quotes are not OK on RF. To be transferring what someone said on one thread to another is against the forum rule I seem to remember.

I have also heard many times that what Paul writes is straying from what 'Jesus' taught. Some people have even accused him of Christian sedition. I have observed him attacked so badly that I have to feel sorry for him.

Click to expand...

you observed paul :sarcastic

q connor said:

Again and again on the forums people make the assertion that Jesus's teachings were corrupted by Biblical authors, however this seems to be mostly an opinion. Are there some famous Biblical scholars that hold this view, and what, basically, is the reason for having this viewpoint?

Click to expand...

From more than 100 scholars who worked on the The New International Version (NIV) translation.
About John 7:53-8:11, here's what NIV says :
[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]
John 7:53-8:11 NIV - The earliest manuscripts and many - Bible Gateway

About Luke 22:43-44, here's what NIV says :
Luke 22:44 Many early manuscripts do not have verses 43 and 44.
Luke 22:43-44 NIV - An angel from heaven appeared to him - Bible Gateway

About Mark 16:9-20, here's what NIV says :
[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]
Mark 16:9-20 NIV - The earliest manuscripts and some - Bible Gateway

Translational changes regarding crucifixion event

The scenario(Matthew 27) occurs before the crucifixion and most of the Bible translations read as follows :

17 So when they had gathered, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?”
...
20 Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. 21 The governor again said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release for you?” And they said, “Barabbas.” 22 Pilate said to them, “Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” They all said, “Let him be crucified!”

However, in NIV translation, it reads as follows :
17 So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?”
...
20 But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed. 21 “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor. “Barabbas,” they answered. 22 “What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” Pilate asked.They all answered, “Crucify him!”

From : [youtube]2m4KW-dysKk[/youtube]
From Jesus to Muhammad: A History of Early Christianity - YouTube (min 19)
By Dr. Jerald F. Dirks, who used to be a Pastor and has a Master of Divinity from Harvard Divinity School.
Points to note:
1. 'Barabbas' in the first translation and 'Jesus Barabbas' in 2nd translation
2. Jesus who is called 'the Christ' in the first translation and the Jesus who is called 'the Messiah' in the 2nd translation.

So what's the difference ? Huge difference. See the NIV translation : “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?” So there were actually two people named Jesus ?

Jesus Barabbas means - Jesus "son of the father". Barabbas in hebrew is not a name but means 'son of father'. On the other hand, Jesus the Messiah simply means ' Jesus' the anointed one and that word is used for others in the Bible (notice it didn't say Christ) also.
So read the verses from the 2nd translation again and you'll find out that they released 'Jesus the son of the Father' and crucified 'Jesus the anointed one'.

If you don't believe me, take it to one of the Christian Scholars who knows the language and familiar with earlier manuscripts. And the reason, NIV at least uses Jesus Barabbas because it goes to a earlier manuscript for translation.

Bible says it is corrupted

Finally, with all due respect, modern day Bible and biblical scholarship testifies to this very fact itself as is evident from the following statement :
Jeremiah 8:8 (New International Version)
"How can you say, 'We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,' when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"

One of the Bible commentaries has to say this about this statement: "They have written falsely, though they had the truth before them. It is too bold an assertion to say that "the Jews have never falsified the sacred oracles;" they have done it again and again. They have written falsities when they knew they were such." [2]. I am noting 2 other commentaries([3] and [4]) below which agrees with this view.

[2]http://clarke.biblecommenter.com/jeremiah/8.htm

[3]http://gill.biblecommenter.com/jeremiah/8.htm
were the scribes employed in writing out copies of the law, when either it was not heard or read, or however the things it enjoined were not put in practice; or the pen of the scribes was in vain, when employed in writing out false copies of the law, or false glosses and interpretations of it, such as were made by the Scribes and Pharisees in Christ's time, and the fathers before them, by whose traditions the word of God was made of none effect: and so
the Targum,"therefore, lo, in vain the scribe hath made the lying pen to falsify;''that is, the Scriptures.

[4]http://kad.biblecommenter.com/jeremiah/8.htm
The words are not to be limited in their reference to the efforts of the false prophets, who spread their delusive prophecies by means of writings: they refer equally to the work of the priests, whose duty it was to train the
people in the law, and who, by false teaching as to its demands, led the people astray, seduced them from the way of truth, and deceived them as to the future.

Hence, either Jeremiah 8:8 is true or it might be one of those corrupted/altered statements. Either way, it is an evidence to the fact that the modern day Bible is not as was revealed by God Almighty but rather has been altered by people. So there's enough proof from Christian scholars about the interpolation and changes done to the original not to mention all the mistakes/contradictions that shows the discrepancies which are man made.

p.s : I mean no offense or disrespect to you or your faith by any of my comments or arguments - those are presented only as evidences to support my arguments.

loverOfTruth said:

From more than 100 scholars who worked on the The New International Version (NIV) translation.
About John 7:53-8:11, here's what NIV says :
[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]
John 7:53-8:11 NIV - The earliest manuscripts and many - Bible Gateway

About Luke 22:43-44, here's what NIV says :
Luke 22:44 Many early manuscripts do not have verses 43 and 44.
Luke 22:43-44 NIV - An angel from heaven appeared to him - Bible Gateway

About Mark 16:9-20, here's what NIV says :
[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]
Mark 16:9-20 NIV - The earliest manuscripts and some - Bible Gateway

Translational changes regarding crucifixion event

The scenario(Matthew 27) occurs before the crucifixion and most of the Bible translations read as follows :

17 So when they had gathered, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?”
...
20 Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. 21 The governor again said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release for you?” And they said, “Barabbas.” 22 Pilate said to them, “Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” They all said, “Let him be crucified!”

However, in NIV translation, it reads as follows :
17 So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?”
...
20 But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed. 21 “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor. “Barabbas,” they answered. 22 “What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” Pilate asked.They all answered, “Crucify him!”

From : [youtube]2m4KW-dysKk[/youtube]
From Jesus to Muhammad: A History of Early Christianity - YouTube (min 19)
By Dr. Jerald F. Dirks, who used to be a Pastor and has a Master of Divinity from Harvard Divinity School.
Points to note:
1. 'Barabbas' in the first translation and 'Jesus Barabbas' in 2nd translation
2. Jesus who is called 'the Christ' in the first translation and the Jesus who is called 'the Messiah' in the 2nd translation.

So what's the difference ? Huge difference. See the NIV translation : “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?” So there were actually two people named Jesus ?

Jesus Barabbas means - Jesus "son of the father". Barabbas in hebrew is not a name but means 'son of father'. On the other hand, Jesus the Messiah simply means ' Jesus' the anointed one and that word is used for others in the Bible (notice it didn't say Christ) also.
So read the verses from the 2nd translation again and you'll find out that they released 'Jesus the son of the Father' and crucified 'Jesus the anointed one'.

If you don't believe me, take it to one of the Christian Scholars who knows the language and familiar with earlier manuscripts. And the reason, NIV at least uses Jesus Barabbas because it goes to a earlier manuscript for translation.

Bible says it is corrupted

Finally, with all due respect, modern day Bible and biblical scholarship testifies to this very fact itself as is evident from the following statement :
Jeremiah 8:8 (New International Version)
"How can you say, 'We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,' when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"

One of the Bible commentaries has to say this about this statement: "They have written falsely, though they had the truth before them. It is too bold an assertion to say that "the Jews have never falsified the sacred oracles;" they have done it again and again. They have written falsities when they knew they were such." [2]. I am noting 2 other commentaries([3] and [4]) below which agrees with this view.

[2]http://clarke.biblecommenter.com/jeremiah/8.htm

[3]http://gill.biblecommenter.com/jeremiah/8.htm
were the scribes employed in writing out copies of the law, when either it was not heard or read, or however the things it enjoined were not put in practice; or the pen of the scribes was in vain, when employed in writing out false copies of the law, or false glosses and interpretations of it, such as were made by the Scribes and Pharisees in Christ's time, and the fathers before them, by whose traditions the word of God was made of none effect: and so
the Targum,"therefore, lo, in vain the scribe hath made the lying pen to falsify;''that is, the Scriptures.

[4]http://kad.biblecommenter.com/jeremiah/8.htm
The words are not to be limited in their reference to the efforts of the false prophets, who spread their delusive prophecies by means of writings: they refer equally to the work of the priests, whose duty it was to train the
people in the law, and who, by false teaching as to its demands, led the people astray, seduced them from the way of truth, and deceived them as to the future.

Hence, either Jeremiah 8:8 is true or it might be one of those corrupted/altered statements. Either way, it is an evidence to the fact that the modern day Bible is not as was revealed by God Almighty but rather has been altered by people. So there's enough proof from Christian scholars about the interpolation and changes done to the original not to mention all the mistakes/contradictions that shows the discrepancies which are man made.

p.s : I mean no offense or disrespect to you or your faith by any of my comments or arguments - those are presented only as evidences to support my arguments.

Click to expand...

Why would I take offense? You're posting what the OP is asking for, namely evidence of changes made through translations etc.

q connor said:

Why would I take offense? You're posting what the OP is asking for, namely evidence of changes made through translations etc.

Click to expand...

Just being nice and extra careful to not hurt others ... that's all.

I'd be interested in hearing (a) what is mean by corruption, and (b) what is being inferred by it.

For example, if one defines corruption as the obverse of textual fidelity, then one can have numerous instances of textual corruptions which in no way stand as a substantive corruption (distortion) of someone's teaching.