|
A Closer Look at Christianity by Barbara A. Brown |
THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURESWhile creeds do play an important role in Christianity, the true foundation of the faith is to be found in a collection of 66 books known as the Bible. The Bible is the guideline for the Christian; within it God's blueprint for man, built around Jesus, has been revealed. A revealed religion is only as sound as the
revelation upon which it is based. In the case of Christianity, this
all-important foundation is quite weak due to tampering in its scriptures by
man. The revelation is there alright, but the problem rests with what happened
between the time that the divine inspiration was given and the time that these
revelations were then written down. The Jews saw their Temple at Jerusalem utterly destroyed in 581 B.C.E., and with it went their original copies of the Torah. Although scribes--most notably Ezra--did eventually restore that loss, these scribes worked with copies from which they made yet more copies. That changes were made is a fact that few Biblical scholars will deny: changes in style, changes in grammer, additions to various stores to embellish the tale, and even deletions for hings the scribe himself didn't feel comfortable with. The work of these scribes was, in short, affected by both the times they lived in, along with their own personal feelings and beliefs. Several examples of text alterations are as
follows: Along with two different versions of creation in Genesis 1 and 2, we can find two different versions of the Flood in Genesis 6, 7 and 8: we read two different versions of the number of animals Noah takes into the ark, two different versions of the agent of the Flood, and two different versions of how long the Flood lasted. 2) in Genesis 22:2, God issues the following command to Abraham: "Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac...". The words "thine only son" can be taken as nothing else than an interpolation as Abraham had TWO sons at that time--Isaac AND his older brother Ishnmael--not just one. 3) and if Moses is considered to be the author of the book of Deuteronomy, how is it possible that he could write the account of his own death as is found in Deuteronomy 34? There is also the matter of how God is
depicted in the Old Testament as a rather stern and savage being: 2) in Deuteronomy 7:2 when God tells the Jews that they are to kill every one of the people they capture in battle--they are to show no mercy. 3) in II Samuel 24:1-7 when 70,000 Jews die from a plague sent by God because He was not pleased with a census of the people taken by David. In addition to these odd depictions of God,
there are numerous examples of defamation and degradation of various prophets of
God: 2) David is said to be an adulterer in II Samuel 11:4,5. 3) Solomon is said to be an idol worshipper in II Kings 11:9,10. Yes, it is necessary for us to realize that these early prophets were human beings in all respects, but saying such degrading things about them, as in the afore-mentioned examples, is going a bit TOO far. This is not all. The books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles recount many of the same events that took place in early Jewish history, but also contain a fair number of contradictions between them in their treatment of said events. The book of Isaiah, a favorite "prophecy" book for the Christians, holds the distinction of having the most glaring example of corruption in the Old Testament, that of outright plagarism: look at Isaiah 37, which is nearly an exact copy of an earlier effort by a Biblical author to be found in II Kings 19. These are just a few of the many examples that can be found within the pages of the Old Testament to substantiate a charge that text has been tampered with. It would be hard to think otherwise, given the numerous examples that attest to such, not to mention the fact that no original manuscripts of the Old Testament are in existence.
While the Old Testament is of utmost
importance to the Jews, it does not hold such a prominent place for the
Christians, who see it mainly as a collection of prophetic testimony for the
coming of Jesus. Its commands and teachings hold no real validity for them
anymore. These twenty-seven books consist primarily of writings by Paul; the books--including the four Gospels--which he did not write do, however, support ideas that he introduced. In essence, it is pretty much Paul's "show" all the way. Having taken a close look at both the Bible and the Qur'an, Dr. Maurice Bucaille says that "...a complete reading of the Gospels is likely to disturb Christians profoundly"[17]. He makes such a statement because, according to his studies, the contradictions, improbabilities, inconsistencies and textual distortion "...add up to the fact that the Gospels contain chapters and passages that are the sole product of human imagination"[18]. Several examples of contradictions in the
Gospels are: A point to note here is that to include ANY sort of a male genealogy of Jesus through Joseph is somewhat of an oddity, being that Jesus did not have a biological father. A more proper genealogy would have to be that of his mother, Mary--not of Joseph. 2) the gospel of John is at odds with the other three gospels on nearly EVERY facet of Jesus' life and ministry such as where he was born and grew up, his baptism, and even the places and the length of his ministry. It is said, in fact, that 92% of the material in John is not even covered in the other three gospels [19]. One of the more interesting differences between the Gospel of John and that of the other three is that John says absolutely nothing about the institution of Holy Communion. During John's account of the Last Supper, found in chapters 13-17, Jesus washes the feet of his disciples and then gives them a long (and now considered rather controversial) speech about the coming of a Comforter after him, There is not even a passing mention in these chapters to the consecration of the bread and wine which is a mainstay in Christianity today. 3) Neither Matthew nor John speak of Jesus' ascension. While Luke speaks of it in both his gospel and in the other book he wrote entitled the Acts of the Apostles, the time and place differs in both accounts. Mark also talks about the ascension, but Biblical scholars now agree that the entire record of this event as reported in the gospel of Mark is "not authentic" (see later section on versions of the Bible). In the manner of "odd teachings", we look to
the Christian doctrine of atonement, which is based on the principle that Jesus
was a perfect being in all respects. One can only wonder how, in light of that,
the Christians justify various references in the Gospels to Jesus as a not
so-perfect person, some of which are as follows: 2) in Mark 11, Jesus curses a fig tree simply because it did not have fruit out-of-season when he happened to be hungry and came across it. 3) in John 2: 1-4, Jesus is quite disrespectful of his mother. In Matthew 28:19, Jesus tells his disciples to go out and baptize in the name "of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost". That these nine words were most likely a later addition to the text can be seen by simply reading the letters of Paul: he says therein that baptism in the early church was done in the name of Jesus alone. It is interesting to note that in Mark 16:15,
Jesus says: Mark accounts the same event in 16:15 as
Matthew does in 28: 19; exactly where did those extra words come from that we
find in Matthew's account? As mentioned earlier, the New Testament--three Gospels in particular--hold a special place for the Christians. They look to these four books for guidance, and with good reason: the Gospels were written FOR Christians BY Christians. In the four gospels, the historical Jesus has been set aside in favor of a "christianized" Jesus. The authors of the gospels themselves are still in question. Although not exactly sure who wrote them, most Biblical scholars are in agreement that Matthew and Mark were not the authors of the gospels that bear their names. The Gospel according to Luke is thougth to have been written by a Gentile friend of Paul's who never even met Jesus; it is part one of his account of early Christianity that also includes the book of Acts. While many Christians say that the Gospel of John was written by a disciple of Jesus who had this name, Biblical scholars now question this in light of the fact that this book was written around 100 C.E., and John, the disciple of Jesus, was martyred 70 C.E.-- over 30 years earlier. In accepting the theory that men other than the disciples of Jesus wrote the four gospels, it must also be accepted that these authors were probably not eye-or even ear-witnesses to many-- if not all--of the events they wrote of. Even if one wishes to cling to the idea that Jesus' disciples did have a hand in the writing of the gospels, we know that they were not witnesses to the events that took place once Jesus was taken by the soldiers from the Garden of Gethsemane because we read"...then all the disciples forsook him and fled..." in both Matthew 26:56 and in Mark 14:50. In short, much of what we find in the gospels is based on hearsay-- not the writings of men who actually witnessed said events. Another point to take into consideration regarding the gospels is that none of them were written during the time of Jesus, since no record was kept of his activities during his lifetime. In fact, nearly forty years elapsed between the time when Jesus left the earth and the first gospel made its appearance. When the Gospel of Mark did finally come out, Paul had already been preaching for nearly twenty years; he had even written his epistle to the Romans, which is the one in which he laid out all his doctrines for Christianity. In this light, we can see that the teachings of Paul undoubtedly influenced the writers of the Gospels to a great degree. The gospels were all written between 70 C.E. and 100 C.E., with Mark coming first; it was followed by Matthew, Luke, and the John. The first three gospels follow pretty much the same general outline; in fact, a cursory examination will show that the authors of both Matthew and Luke borrowed rather heavily from Mark when writing their respective gospels. This is why these three appear to tell "Synoptic" gospels. The Gospel of John is completely different from the other three, however, and is one which still incites controversy simply because its author was more concerned with the significance of Jesus for the Christian faith than of what Jesus actually said or did. We can reasonably conclude, therefore, that due to the time factor, writing from hearsay, and the influence of Paul, the picture of Jesus which is presented to us in the gospels is not that of the historical Jesus; instead, these authors wrote of a legendary Jesus, using a theological point--of-view that "christianized" the truth of what took place. The authors were committed to Christian beliefs, and they wrote with that view in mind. The result is that the four gospels contain more myth than they do fact. The Divine Message of Jesus is all but lost under a mass of what men hoped and wanted Jesus to say and do rather than what actually took place.
All early copies of the Bible were just that: copies. These copies were made entirely by hand (the first printed copy of the Bible did not come along until the thirteenth century---the so-called "Gutenburg" Bible); original manuscripts were discarded early off in favor of newer copies and also because they had simply become worn out through use. These newer copies, in turn, then served as the basis for even more copies. Each copy made, however, meant that there more chances for changes--whether inadvertant or even deliberate--to creep into the text. As with the Old Testament, the text of the New Testament also suffered from imaginative editing, unintentional modifications and deliberate manipulation of the text on the part of its scribes. It must be pointed out that there was no way to go back and check on authenticity of the scribes' work, as there are no original manuscripts of either the Old or New Testament of the Bible still in existence. The oldest existing copies of the old Testament date back to the 7th or the 8th centuries C.E., when a standardized text was produced from all the various manuscripts--themselves copies of copies--that were floating around at the time. As for the New Testament, no original manuscripts of it exist, either--we have only copies, the earliest of which dates to the fourth century, the time when the "canonical", or official, scripture was set by the Church. This lack of original manuscripts eliminated the opportunity for anyone to check on accuracy; changes that crept into the Biblical text stayed in the Biblical text.
The early Christian churches did not have any official set of Holy Scriptures. Some churches had one set of books, others had another. Still others were happy with only one of the gospels, believing as they did that all told pretty much the same story. There were even books in circulation that one cannot find in most Bibles of today--fifteen extra ones from the Old Testament, and sixteen from the New Testament. Due to this lack of organization in the Church regarding its Holy Scriptures, the bishops gathered together to set official Church policy on the matter of the trinity at the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E. also took it upon themselves to set up an official "Canon of Scriptures" for the Church. They gathered everything together that was currently in circulation and made a decision once and for all on what would comprise Christendom's sacred Scriptures. In the end, sixty-six books were chosen--39 for the Old Testament, and 27 for the New. Seven of the fifteen extra Old Testament books were retained by the Catholic Church, but even these were dropped by the Protestants during the Reformation movement of the sixteenth century. NONE of the extra sixteen books of the New Testament, however, were made part of the official Canon of Scripture. Now called the " Apocrypha" --a Greek word that means "hidden"--these extra books that were once part of the Bible were simply discarded by Church leaders because they were "at variance" with accepted Church doctrine: "the authors of these Apocryphal books were certainly pious and sincere laborers..and yet when you read what they have written, you will soon perceive that their words are...far below the dignity and sublime power of the Scriptures..."[20] Interestingly enough, references to some of these hidden books can even be found in the official Bible of today such as "The Book of the wars of Jehovah", mentioned in Numbers 21:14, and "The Book of Jashar", which is mentioned in Joshua 10:13. Thus, the Bible of today, besides being a victim of text-tampering, cannot even by considered as complete. How is it possible that the Words of God can be removed and discarded at the whim of man??
The Italians have an interesting adage which says that "translators are liars". This is not so much a vicious accusation as it is an acute observation. Taking something written in one language and trying to put it into another is problematic because one always encounters words in one language that simply have no equivalent in the other. Substitutions must be made, and the meaning of phrases change as a result. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, but was translated during the third century B. C. E. into Greek for the Jews who lived outside of Palestine (and who spoke Greek rather than Hebrew on a regular basis). Called "Septuagint", this version was widely used even by the early Christians. The New Testament was written in Greek; since Jesus himself spoke Aramaic, however, this means that his words were subsequently translated and the possibility for error brought into play. The Septuagint was joined up with the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in the fourth century; these manuscripts of the complete Bible are now known as the "Codex Sinaiticus" and the "Codex Vaticanus", and are the earliest manuscripts in existence today. Nothing earlier has survived. During the fourth century, the Bible was translated into Latin by St. Jerome, and this remained the language of the Bible until the early sixteenth century when men of the Reformation like John Wycliffe, William Tyndale and Martin Luther translated the Bible into the languages of the people--an act which was strictly forbidden and for which Tyndale paid with his life. They did this because of a desire to put the Bible into the hands of the people who, up until this time, were not allowed access to their own Scriptures. Other translations soon made their appearance; near the end of the sixteenth century, the many and varied versions of the Bible currently in circulation had become the cause of so many arguments that King James I of England appointed a committee of fifty-four scholars to produce an " authoritative" version. These men studied all the known translations in existence at the time and, in 1611, produced the King James Version of the Bible--which became the standard among Christians for hundreds of years.
Where the mischief associated with translations pretty much ended in 1611 with the publication of the King James Version of the Bible, the problem of revision--"updating" or "modernizing" the Bible--has now taken over. The extent of this new form of mischief can be seen as follows: in 1952, an article entitled "The Truth About the Bible" appeared in Look magazine. This article said that there were at least 20,000 errors in the New Testament alone. Jehovah's Witnesses addressed this issue in the September, 1957 issue of their Awake magazine, making a rather unique statement in the process: "...translators made errors in translation {of the Bible} that have been corrected by modern scholars..."[21]. And what fun these modern scholars have had in so doing!! In the nineteenth century, the Christians
decided to modernize the language of the King James Version. Their effort,
called the American Standard Version, was published in 1901. The Christians who
worked on this version, however, not only updated the language--they made
changes to the text itself: 2) the entire verse found in Matthew 17:21 that deals with spiritual advancement by prayer and fasting was removed from the American Standard Version, and the word "fasting" deleted from a similar verse found in Mark 9:29. The explanation for this, found in a footnote, reads "many authorities, some ancient, insert ver. 21". 3) Admitting to yet another case of interpolation, John 7:53 and John 8:1-11 are bracketed off with yet another note that these "are not found in the most ancient manuscripts". A number of years later, Church people again got together and decided to update the American Standard Version. The result of their efforts, the Revised Standard Version, was released in 1952. In the preface to this Version, we read the following: "...the King James Version has grave defects...these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision..." In the Revised Standard Version, we find that the verses in the gospel of Mark pertaining to the ascension of Jesus (Mark 16:9-20) have been removed because it was said, once again, that these particular verses are not to be found in the "most ancient" manuscripts. In 1989, the New Revised Standard Version was published--an "update" of the Revised Standard Edition of 1952--and the verses dealing with the ascension of Jesus in Mark chapter 16 reappear here. Since many Christians didn't take well to the "undermining" of a basic belief by the editors of the Revised Standard Version, the verses were put back in this version. In summation, through copying over the years,
translations and various new "versions", what is known as the Bible is now more
the writings of man than of revelations from God. Back in the fourth century, St Augustine himself noticed problems in Biblical text. Addressing the matter in his letter No. 82, he said that deficient understanding was most likely the cause; it was inconceivable to him that human interference with Biblical text could be at the heart of the matter. Critical studies made of the Scriptures, contrary to what many think, are quite recent The Bible was accepted "as is" for hundreds of years. It was considered a sin to level even the slightest criticism at it--and the Church successfully squashed any attempts at such. The first breakthrough in this aspect came in 1678 when Richard Simon published his book entitled Critical History of the Old Testament. It caused a scandal, but it also served to open the way for others to come forth in the 18th and 19th centuries with critical studies of the Old Testament. Yielding to all of the evidence being brought forth, the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) made an interesting statement on the matter by saying that "..the Books of the Old Testaments...contain material which is imperfect and obsolete..."[22]. The New Testament has also come under fire. Even though the Second Vatican Council maintains that the Gospels "are historically authentic" and that they "faithfully transmit" what Jesus "actually did and taught during his life among men"[23], other scholars have come forth with statements that are quite the opposite of the Vatican's position:--in his book The Call of the Minaret, Dr. Kenneth Cragg says that there is "condensation and editing" in the New Testament; the Gospels have "come through the mind of the Church behind the authors" , and that they "represent experience and history"[24]. --Father Kannengiesser, a professor at the Catholic Institute in Paris, warned in his book Faith in Resurrection, Resurrection in Faith that one "should not take literally" the facts reported about Jesus in the Gospels--a statement also made by Father Roguet of Paris in his book Initiation to the Gospels. --Carl Andrey, professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Ball State University in Indiana says that the four gospels "...were written by enthusiasts of the early Christian movement" and that "...they give us only one side of the story and they are in great degree the products of the assumptions of their authors"[25], --Finally, there is the statement by Dr. W. Graham Scroggie of the prestigous Moody Bible Institute, who says "Yes, the Bible is human...those books have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men, and bear in their style the characteristics of men.[26]. This is the position of the Biblical scholars; what, however, does the "ordinary" Christian have to say about this? Many don't even get to this point because the writers of introductory notes and commentaries in the Bibles of today use clever literary tactics that are designed specifically to stave off questions a Christian may have regarding inconsistencies within the Bible. Among other things, these writers: 1. present as fact what is still considered as uncertain, and 2. cover up problems in the text with apologetics--a literary defense mechanism,--that serve to draw the reader's attention to something other than the text in question. The lengths to which these commentators go is a pretty good clue as to the uneasiness they experience regarding Biblical errors. If pressed on the matter of explaining errors in the Bible, the typical Christian reaction is one of hostility. I presented a rough draft of my findings on Biblical corruption to a Christian missionary who came back to me a short time later, accusing me of making an "attack" upon the Bible. He went on to say that "...the Bible has been attacked for centuries, but it still stands. It has withstood analyzing from without and within"[27]. I wonder how one can cling to such an attitude in the face of fully verifiable examples, and 1 would be interested in seeing what passes for "analyzing" with him. Perhaps it runs along the line of what is found in a "masterpiece" of Christian apologetics entitled Is the Bible Reliabe? In this book, author Bjug Horstad says that God "moved" the writers of the Scriptures "...to write the imperfections that cling to language", and that we should "...leave it to the Lord to adopt as many styles and even human infirmities as He pleases..."[28]. The Jehovah's Witnesses have put out an entire book, entitled The Bible: God's Word or Man's?, that addresses problems in the Bible. In this book, they address this matter in yet another unique fashion by saying that, while there are some " apparent inconsistencies" in the Bible that " are difficult to reconcile", we should not assume that these are definite contradictions; often it is "...merely a case of lack of complete information"[29]. I obtained a copy of the Jehovah's Witnesses translation of the Bible, The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, and asked a high-ranking member from a local Hall how they explain the curious entry for Matthew 17:21, which reads "21-----". There is no verse: only the number, a long line and a space. The man, obviously flustered after he looked it up, said he would " get back" to me; I have yet to hear from him on the matter. In short, Christians don't take kindly to the charge that their Scriptures have been corrupted, and with good reason; after all, they say, "If the foundation becomes shaky and uncertain, what have we then to stand on in the days of afflictions?[30]. Not only this, but there is the "little
matter" of what is said regarding the alteration of Holy Scriptures in the Holy
Scriptures themselves: The evidence is there, however, plain and
simple for all to see: while God may have inspired the men who wrote the books
of the Bible, there is no doubt that human interference HAS come into play. And
once again, a most important question must be asked of a Christian: how is it
possible that the Word of God can be altered, removed and even discarded at the
whim of man?? The whole matter of man tampering with God's revelations is the reason why the Qur'an was given to Prophet Muhammad: the Final Revelation to the Last of God's Messengers. The Qur'an talks about this tampering with
previous Divine Revelations in a number of verses, such as: "...a party of them heard the Word of God and perverted it knowingly after they understood it." (2:75) "There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues as they read so that you would think it is a part of the Book But it is no part of the Book,. and they say, 'That is from God', but it is not..." (3:75) These verses also point up to another fact that, while Muslims are told to believe in revelations that came before the Qur'an, belief in these books--that of the Torah, the Psalms and the Gospel--refers to belief in the ORIGINAL revelations from God; certainly not in what we find in the Bibles of today, nor even of the Jewish and Christian scriptures that existed in the time of Prophet Muhammad. The Muslim belief is that the Qur'an came
forth from God to correct all those inavertent and deliberate alterations to His
earlier revelations. God made it quite clear that this, His Final Revelation,
would not suffer the fate of previous work: On this, the Qur'an stands firm. It has remained unchanged since the time it was revealed to Prophet Muhammad, and there are original manuscripts still in Madinah, Saudi Arabia, is a copy of the Qur'an from the 7th century: it is the earliest copy known in existence, and was handwritten on gazelle skin only a few years after the death of Prophet Muhammad. Another 7th century copy, this one from the time of Caliph Uthman, is in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, Turkey. If one were to take an Arabic Qur'an from today and compare the text in it with the text in one of these 7th century Qur'ans, he would find no discrepancies. The Arabic text has not been altered in any way despite the passage of over 1400 years. As such, there can be no better proof than this for the Qur'anic injunction that God has kept His promise to guard this, His Final Revelation. As for man altering Divine Revelations, the
Qur'an says the following: |