As I've been studying the history of the actual book of the bible, I've come across some interesting information about the history of the New Testament with regard to a field called "textual criticism." This involves examining the differences that evolved over time as these texts were copied over and over again throughout the centuries. Here's in a nutshell some things I've found out:Before anything was even written down in the New Testament, it was spread by word of mouth for 30-50 years after the alleged events of Jesus. Unlike what I'd thought about the ability to preserve stories spread by oral tradition, these types of stories do inevitably change. And at the time of change, from the perspective of the culture changing it, it's perfectly ok. It's assumed the storyteller, to make the story more engaging, will put their own personal flavor into it, which may include some exaggerations, additions, or omissions. Think about this practice continuing for decades over thousands of miles and countless different storytellers, and it's possible to think that the facts may have changed slightly – or dramatically. The "first-hand eyewitness account" status that the gospels uphold starts to wane quite a bit. In fact, anthropological studies of oral-tradition-based cultures reveal that even the concept of "preserving a story as accurately as possible" is only a product of a written-word society, which the first early Christians certainly were not.
Once the gospels and other books of the NT were finally written down, as early as the end of the 1st century, they were not written in Aramaic as they would have originally happened. They were written in Greek, which means that some of the meaning is already changed due to translation. This can have profound effects on certain stories, which can in turn affect an entire doctrine of the faith. For example: In John chapter 3, when Jesus says that no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again, Nicodemus misunderstands him and thinks he's saying you need to be literally born from the womb again. Jesus corrects him and says he's referring to a heavenly origin rather than an earthly one. The conversation hinges on a double-entendre for the greek work "anothon", which in Greek means both to be "from above" or to "happen a second time". Nicodemus thinks Jesus is referring to the "happen a second time" meaning, which begs him to ask how an older person can possibly crawl back into the womb to be "born again". What's significant about this is that in Aramaic there is no way of replicating that double meaning. This conversation could not have possibly happened in Aramaic, which indicates that it was introduced some time after the first Greek written translation of this gospel. Which means it was added as early as 30-50 years later, or hundreds of years later, we don't know. Which means that Jesus never had this conversation. Considering the importance of the Christian concept of being "born again", this human addition of scripture is quite significant, meaning that entire concept was derived by human beings and not Jesus. It also means that humans invented scripture and claimed them to be actual words of Jesus Christ, and they were not.
Another significant addition to the gospels is the entire story of Jesus rescuing the woman caught in adultery who was about to be stoned to death (John chapter 8). Jesus shows great compassion and wit by saying to the elders, "Let he who is without sin be the first to cast a stone," causing all the elders to leave and the woman's life to be spared. The earliest copies of the gospel of John do not contain this story. It was added about 800 years later, possibly by someone wanting to further illustrate Jesus' compassion. This story is very widely referenced and quoted, but it is a story invented by humans and inserted into the gospel hundreds of years after it allegedly took place – the earliest manuscript that has this story is from the 10th century. Again, actual words that Jesus was alleged to have said were invented by a human and attributed as Jesus' direct quote. This next example is interesting, because most Christians and even most bibles acknowledge that there
was a change made, but no one seems to have a problem with it. The last twelve verses of the book of Mark do not exist in the oldest manuscripts we have of that book. The story ends with the women fleeing Jesus' tomb after a young man in a white robe tells them he's risen and will meet them in Galilee. The next twelve verses describe Jesus appearing to different people, telling his disciples that all who believe in him will drive out demons, speak in foreign languages, harmlessly handle snakes and drink deadly poison, and heal the sick just by touching them, and Jesus' ascent into heaven. Quite an impressive twelve verses, though they were in fact added about 100 years after the original version of Mark was written. Which means that these events are NOT according to the gospel of Mark. They were added by a scribe or priest or king or some unknown person, perhaps wanting to reinforce the circulating resurrection story about Jesus. They also added quotes from Jesus and attributed them to be his words, when they were not. Examples like the above continue innumerably. The New Testament has been changed to an indeterminable amount throughout the centuries as it was carried by word-of-mouth for several decades, and then again as it was hand-copied thousands of times by scribes. There are more variations among all the differing NT manuscripts than there are words in the NT itself. Many of these changes are accidental, some seem quite deliberate, and some are debated. Some changes are insignificant grammatical or spelling errors, and some challenge fundamental Christian doctrines. The point is, these documents cannot be considered first-hand eyewitnesses, nor even remotely close to accurate accounts of these alleged events. They also cannot be considered the inerrant word of God – if God wrote the NT, we're not reading it anymore.
WTF, bible?? My faith in this faith wanes severely, especially after finding out information like this. How on earth would anyone be expected to put their unending faith into doctrine based on writings that have been altered so many times? People quote Jesus all the time when guiding their lives, giving advice to others, writing laws that you and I must follow. But Jesus doesn't seem to have said many of those things, rather they're the brainchild of controlling kings, self-righteous priests, or sly scribes. This book has proven itself to not be the immovable rock that people claim it to be. Why on earth would I surrender my life to such a malleable piece of literature that has more characteristics of folklore and legend than of real historical fact? I'm sadly disappointed to say the least. I've been really hoping to find truth here, but all I'm finding is a faith-based history blasted apart by scientific discovery. And a loving philosophy of piece and mercy with a deliberately ignored undercarriage of bloodshed and intolerance.
W.T.F.
