Do most Christian Scholars agree that the Bible has been changed or edited ?

Answer 1

The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the "Septuagint" and which came into being around 280 B.C. as a translation of then existing texts from Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish scribes (the Torah was translated first, around 300 B.C., and the rest of Tanach was translated afterward).

The Septuagint is the Old Testament referred to in the Didache or "Doctrine of the Apostles" (first century Christian writings) and by Origen, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Justin Martyr, St. Augustine and the vast majority of early Christians who referenced Scripture in their writings. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written in the first century, refers to the Books Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, analyzed the book of Judith, and quotes sections of the book of Esther that were removed from Protestant Bibles.


In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15). Ultimately, the "Reformers" decided to ignore the canon determined by the Christian Councils of Hippo and Carthage.

The Latin Church in no way ignored the post-Temple rabbincal texts. Some Old Testament translations of the canon used by the Latin Church were also based in part on rabbinical translations, for example St. Jerome's 5th c. Latin translation of the Bible called the Vulgate.

The "Masoretic texts" refers to translations of the Old Testament made by rabbis between the 6th and 10th centuries; the phrase doesn't refer to ancient texts in the Hebrew language. Some people think that the Masoretic texts are the "original texts" and that, simply because they are in Hebrew, they are superior.

Some Protestants claim that the "Apocrypha" are not quoted in the New Testament so, therefore, they are not canonical.
Going by that standard of proof, we'd have to throw out Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah because none of these Old Testament Books are quoted in the New Testament.


But there is a bigger lesson in all this confusion over not only the canon but proper translation of the canon , especially considering that even within the Catholic Church there have been differing opinions by individual theologians about the proper place of the deuterocanonicals (not that an individual theologian's opinions count for Magisterial teaching!).
The lesson, though, is this: relying on the "Bible alone" is a bad idea; we are not to rely solely on Sacred Scripture to understand Christ's message. While Scripture is "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16-17), it is not sufficient for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.
It is the Church that is the "pillar and ground of Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)!
Jesus did not come to write a book; He came to redeem us, and He founded a Sacramental Church through His apostles to show us the way.
It is to them, to the Church Fathers, to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, to the living Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit, and to Scripture that we must prayerfully look.

Answer 2

Translation, of course, results in a change of meaning. However, that is not the same as an *intentional* change in meaning.

The original language manuscripts, from what scholars can determine, have been added to *very little* and edited (changed) *none at all* except for an occasional, infrequent copy error. The exception is the comparison of the Samaritan Pentateuch with the Jewish, which basically only shows differences in the numbers of people and the location of the holy mountain. Since nearly all bibles are based (almost) wholly on the Masoretic (Jewish) text, this is a non-issue.

Thus, most scholars agree that, for individual books, the bible has remained essentially *unaltered* (but sometimes additions made) in the centuries since the individual books were completed.

Jim, http://www.life-after-harry-potter.com

Answer 3

Depending on what you call "changes."

Yes, there are thousands of what are known as "variants" to the original manuscripts.

Some were just spelling mistakes; for example, the Greek omicron and the Greek omega sound very much the same, which is why modern Greek has simplified and gone to just one letter for the "oh" sound. When the copyists made new copies, sometimes they would accidentally substitute one for the other.

Then there were times when words or phrases are repeated or dropped, again accidentally. Usually at the end of the day, and almost always at the end of a paragraph or line.

Then (more serious error) some of the monks would try to harmonize the text to smooth out the meaning. Some of the hard sayings of Jesus were softened, because it was embarassing for Jesus to say those things. These errors are not mistakes, but intentional altering of the text. These errors are caught when the modern textual critics examine copies with older copies and detect the changes that way.

Then, there are the effects of time; ink fades, or the parchment, vellum, or paparii is damaged due to the elements and age. This is being remedied with moder laser and x-ray technology, which allows scientists to "see" the faded out or damaged text that is "missing" to the naked eye.

But, with all the thousands of "errors" in the Bible, textual criticism has given us a modern Greek text that is 99.99% reliable to the original manuscripts. There is, infact, an embarrassment of riches in Bible texts to examine and compare, over 15,000 copies just in Greek, not counting the Latin, Coptic, Aramaic and other languages.

For instance, since the 1611 KJV was first published, the bulk of ancient Greek texts we know of today have been discovered. Modern transaltors have older and better materials to translate from than the old translators had. Your NASB, ESV, HCSB, transalations are extremely reliable.

So, yes, the Bible has been "changed," but the original text has been recovered.

Answer 4

Although I would like to get into the noahide idea morould like to start this discussion with basics and maybe pick up from there ( by the way was there a question?)The term trinity means tri unity God is a pluralityin his unity.Some of this may seem alluded to in the Shema What is the word for one used in reference to G-d?and what does it mean? Jesus took the glory of G-das in John 8:58 where he says "Before Abraham was I am" but Isaiah "I am the Lord YHWH, that is my name; I will not give it to others"The Holy Spirit is associatedwith G-d the father in creation ( Genesis1:2). Each have the aspects of G-d but is not seperate from or another G-d. Is G-d not powerful enough that He cannot do this? The Christian concept is based graetly on the Hebrew concept of G-d but believes that He is three who in one what. I would love to discuss this more if you are interested. I also find the Noahide concept intriguing. Does Judaism not have the Shekina? A christan would say the Shekina is the Holy Spirit. That Jesus is part of the Godhead is that 1) He said he and the father were one. (plus what I mentioned ealier) 2) If He was not G-d His death would not be enough to make recompense for the sisns off all the world. A mere man could not do this. It is as a rope of many parts making one. All are God but only one G-d. Of those who believe in G-d on this question. Do you believe that G-d is not powerful enough to do this?PAX

Answer 5

Yeah, definitely. In fact, if you look at the little notations printed in most Bibles, you will see that some sections are marked as not existing in the earliest known copies of the texts.

Take a look at the last few verses of the Gospel of Mark. All the verses there that talk about Jesus actually appearing to people after his resurrection were later additions. The oldest copies of the Gospel of Mark end with the women finding the empty tomb.


=====================

I'm absolutely amazed at all the people here that are saying that there were no changes or only small unimportant changes.

The changes are actually noted in the Bibles themselves! Are these people unable to read? Is their eyesight so poor that they can't make out the small fonts used for the the notations? Its truly sad how many people are so ignorant about the scriptures they want to base their lives on! Its really kind of sickening...

The Gospel of Mark is generally considered to be the first gospel written, according to the majority of Biblical scholars. That means that the first gospels did not have anything in them about Jesus actually appearing to people or talking to people after his supposed resurrection.

That's really quite a big, important thing to have as a "later addition" to the gospels.

...and these people are saying that nothing important was changed? This is insane.

Some of these people are even claiming that we have the original texts. That is simply an outright lie! Only copies of copies of copies are still existing for all the New Testament texts.

If you compare all of the ancient copies of texts of the New Testament there are more variations than there are words in texts.

The only verse that literally confirms the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be found in any of the oldest Greek manuscripts! This verse is referred to as the "Comma Johanneum" (It is part of 1 John 5:7–8)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum

Here's a little info about the history of this verse:

The central figure in the sixteenth-century history of the Comma Johanneum is Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus produced a multi-language version of the New Testament in Greek, Latin, Aramaic, and Hebrew.

The Comma does not appear until the third edition, published in 1522. Its absence in the first two editions provoked considerable animosity. Erasmus replied that the Comma did not occur in any of the Greek manuscripts he could find; he eventually compromised with his critics, saying that he would add the Comma to future editions if it appeared in a Greek manuscript.

Such a manuscript was subsequently produced. Today called "Codex 61", it was written after Erasmus's request by a Franciscan friar named Froy who lived in Oxford; others may have been involved in the addition as well. Erasmus added the Comma to his 1522 edition, "but he indicates in a lengthy footnote his suspicions that the manuscript had been prepared expressly in order to confute him." It was this third edition which became a chief source for the King James Version, thereby fixing the Comma firmly in the English-language scriptures for centuries.

---and this is in the book that these people are claiming has not been changed or tampered with!

Answer 6

Anyone who is really interested in the history of the Bible can't deny that the text has been changed, edited, redacted, censored, etc. etc. in many places.

For one thing, some books were put into the canon and some deliberately left out. Every so often early versions of the books are discovered and they differ significantly from what we have now, and the differences aren't all due to translation.

For instance, the story about Jesus saving the adulterous woman from being stoned in John, Chapter 8, not found in the earliest versions of John. It was added later. Paul's warning that a woman should not speak in church in Corinthians is inserted into the text by some later scribe, in fact it's found in different parts of the text in different editions.

Most of the books of the New Testament are pseudipgraphic--not written by the people they're named after but written decades or even centuries after these people died. About half of the books written by Paul are actually his, the rest written anonymously and Paul's name put on them.

And different books give VERY different accounts of the same things--contrast, for instance, the picture of Paul you get in Acts and the very different picture you get from his own letters.

Christians who believe the Bible is a revelation from God, meant to be true word-for-word get very uncomfortable when we talk about this. They might try to make the case that all this editing, changing, etc. was guided by the Holy Spirit but they can't deny that these inconsistencies are there.

Answer 7

They use a plural system when asked question about that bible. It is always either "no, it is all true and the word of god; or "well you can't just accept it as is because there have been so many changes by editing". I say, if there are so many changes, then it can't be the word of god. Also, read some of that and you might become sick. David is said to have stolen the wife of one of his army captians. She bore David a son, but that god did not like that so he killed the child. The child had nothing to do with David and his mother rolling in the hay. Then god gave David a couple of choices to accept for punishment and David selected to let god kill many of his own people, but that god did nothing to David who was the one having done the bad deed. So that is the god that is worshipped and loved and the one that believers claim gives them all that they want and need. So the bible is the word of god! That god would have to be seen as a bloody murderer many, many times over. The bible is a crock.
Truth

Answer 8

No for two very clear reasons:

1) We have ancient Greek manuscripts and I have translated it myself and the English versions do not "change" what it means. Sometimes I chose a different word here or there just to make things a little more clear to show what the author meant, but they have not been changed.

2) As far as editing..... well there are certain small differences between the gospels, such as one gospel says the soldiers wrapped Jesus in a red robe, another gospel says it was scarlet. Although the color differences there are slim, an editor probably would have made it one or the other. Also the sign above Jesus' head, one gospel says, "This is Jesus, King of the Jews" another just says, "King of the Jews" another says, "This is Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews". An editor would have made it one saying.

Oh and three, the style of the writing. The style of the writing is similar to those you would expect to write it. Matthew's gospel, being a Jewish tax collector, concentrated on the relations between Jesus and the Jews, specifically those with power. His writing also bears signs of a good education. Luke, being a physician, emphasized Jesus and the poor and sick. John and Peter, being the closest friends of Jesus, wrote the most personal account of him, instead of giving a biography they give a living testimony. Paul, being a very well educated Pharisee, discusses theology and the importance of Christ. John's writings, being a fisherman, is very basic Greek, but Paul's writings, being very education, not only has very high level Greek but also puns with ancient Greek words, and reading Paul is like reading the PhD of the day. It is evident these books were all written by different people, but an editor would have made them sound all generic.

Answer 9

Changed or edited. I would say yesl.

Anytime you do a language translation you lose some of the context, meaning and implications under which words were written and intended.

The Bible was not written by God or Jesus, but by men. It holds accounts of man's dealings and experiences with God and his dealings with man. It is history and is used by people to learn from history's mistakes as well as from the right things people did.

So I think most would agree that it has been edited and has changed from the writings of those who contributed to it. So, I guess, if you read it--why not pray and ask God to help you to learn from it as He intended mankind to.

Answer 10

No, Most Christian Biblical scholars are in agreement that scripture has maintained its integrity.

Biblical translators and scholars work diligently to make sure that scripture adheres to its original meaning.

Muslims say that because the Bible has been translated, it lacks validity. But that is not true. As a Christian, I believe the Bible, no matter what language or style of language (King James or modern) conveys God's truth to us and retains the original meaning and content.

And Biblical scholars back me up on this belief.

Answer 11

It is literally not possible to translate text from a dead language without editing and changing things. Since the current text WAS translated from a dead language, and since it was translated by recent, western scholars, there is therefore zero chance that some editing and changes were incorporated depending on the translator. NO ONE with any reason or sanity would deny this.