Is the Bible corrupt

[Bluegazer]

5- The matter of the Opening Chapter of the Qur'an [Surat al Faatiha]​

You wrote the following is post #2 on this thread:

But then I look at the Qur'an. I am told that it is literally the actual wordof God.

Well, just by reading the opening sura (first sura), I ask myself (by examining it grammatically), I ask whether this the literal word of GOD? Or is this some sort of prologue written by some body else?

And then I ask myself, does this actually form part of the Koran. If it is not the word of God, should it be in the Qur'an.

But then by the same token, I ask myself. Should I dismiss this as fabrication?
And not bother to read the rest of the book.

To begin with, the Qur'an [i.e., the original Arabic and not translated into another language] is literally the Word of God Almighty. However, translations of the meanings of the Qur'an are necessary in order to allow non Arabs to know about the message of the Qur'an.


Brother Proud2BeHumble wrote a response to this claim of yours in post #7 of this thread.



I'd like comment on the part where you say, "Well, just by reading the opening sura (first sura), I ask myself (by examining it grammatically), I ask whether this the literal word of GOD? Or is this some sort of prologue written by some body else?"


1- To examine it grammatically, you should first know the Arabic language and read the first Sura in Arabic.

2- If you meant studying the English translation of the first Sura, then I'd like to know to what text where you comparing this Sura with?


If you're comparing this Sura with what you've been reading in the Bible, then it's only natural that you'll find a very big difference between the style of the Bible and the translated meanings of the verses of the Qur'an.


But if you're comparing this Sura to other translated meanings of the verses of the Qur'an, then there are other such verses that also contain supplications to God Almighty, which shows that the first Sura is not unique in that regard.


Please read the following:

Allah does not charge a soul except [with that within] its capacity. It will have [the consequence of] what [good] it has gained, and it will bear [the consequence of] what [evil] it has earned. "Our Lord, do not impose blame upon us if we have forgotten or erred. Our Lord, and lay not upon us a burden like that which You laid upon those before us. Our Lord, and burden us not with that which we have no ability to bear. And pardon us; and forgive us; and have mercy upon us. You are our protector, so give us victory over the disbelieving people. 1"
...........................................................................................
1 Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) concludes this surah by directing His servants how to supplicate Him, just as He taught them in Surah al-Fatihah how to praise Him and ask for guidance.

[Translation of the meanings of the Qur'an 2:286. This translation and footnote no. 1 is taken from the translation edited by Saheeh International, ISBN 9960792633. Footnote no. 1 was originally numbered 95 and is found on page 61 of that translation.]


3- To begin with, it is basic article of belief in Islam that all of the verses of the Qur'an are literally the Word of God Almighty and that not one letter contained in the Qur'an is fabricated or corrupted. Therefore, you'll have to keep in mind that when I speak about the first chapter [i.e., al-Faatihah] below, I do not mean that there are verses in the Qur'an or Chapters in the Qur'an that are more authentic than other verses or Chapters. To all Muslims, all verses and all Chapters of the Qur'an are equally believed to be the certain literal Word of God Almighty in the same degree. Therefore, the following is just to address doubts non Muslims might have about al-Faatihah and does not mean that we Muslims give different degrees of authenticity to different parts of the Qur'an.


That being said, for you to claim that al-Faatihah -of all the Chapters of the Qur'an- has some doubts about it shows that you do not know that this first chapter is undoubtedly the most recognizable and known Chapter of the Qur'an, and I'll venture to say that every Muslim -Arabs and non Arabs [except recent reverts]- who does not know how to recite the Faatihah in Arabic by heart has a very serious problem with his faith.


You also have to know that the Qur'an is recited aloud in at least three of the five obligatory prayers that Muslim men are obliged to attend in mosques, and these are the dawn, sunset and night prayers. In these prayers, the Imam [the man who leads the prayer and whom the masses of Muslim men follow and stand behind] reads al-Faatihah aloud in all of the cycles of prayer of the dawn prayer, and in two of the cycles of prayer in the sunset and night prayer. Therefore, it is recited publicly at 6 times every day.


This was taught to us Muslims by Prophet Muhammad -peace be upon him- who lead his Companions in performing the obligatory prayers. Prophet Muhammad -peace be upon him- used to read this opening chapter aloud 6 times every day when he led the obligatory prayers, and his Companions also carried this forward to the following generation of Muslims. And that explains why the Faatihah is truly the most recognizable and known of all the chapters of the Qur'an.

 

[Bluegazer]

6- Some of the words of Pope Pius XII and the Preface of certain versions of the Bible​

On the 30th of September, 1943, Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical letter called Divino Afflante Spiritu. Please click on the following link to read a wikipedia article about this document:

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


This document contained the following words, [some of which I coloured red]:

3. The first and greatest care of Leo XIII was to set forth the teaching on the truth of the Sacred Books and to defend it from attack. Hence with grave words did he proclaim that there is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, speaking of things of the physical order "went by what sensibly appeared" as the Angelic Doctor says,[5] speaking either "in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science." For "the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately - the words are St. Augustine's - [6] the Holy Spirit, Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things - that is the essential nature of the things of the universe - things in no way profitable to salvation"; which principle "will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to history,"[7] that is, by refuting, "in a somewhat similar way the fallacies of the adversaries and defending the historical truth of Sacred Scripture from their attacks."[8] Nor is the sacred writer to be taxed with error, if "copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible," or, "if the real meaning of a passage remains ambiguous." Finally it is absolutely wrong and forbidden "either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred," since divine inspiration "not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church."[9]

The following words of Pope Pius XII in that same document should also be read very carefully. I would have liked to colour all of the following words in red but it would be unwise to do so. Let me just stress that all of the following words of Pius XII are very important, and the most important of all of them are the ones I coloured red:

14. The Fathers of the Church in their time, especially Augustine, warmly recommended to the Catholic scholar, who undertook the investigation and explanation of the Sacred Scriptures, the study of the ancient languages and recourse to the original texts.[22] However, such was the state of letters in those times, that not many - and these few but imperfectly - knew the Hebrew language. In the middle ages, when Scholastic Theology was at the height of its vigor, the knowledge of even the Greek language had long since become so rare in the West, that even the greatest Doctors of that time, in their exposition of the Sacred Text, had recourse only to the Latin version, known as the Vulgate.

15. On the contrary in this our time, not only the Greek language, which since the humanistic renaissance has been, as it were, restored to new life, is familiar to almost all students of antiquity and letters, but the knowledge of Hebrew also and of their oriental languages has spread far and wide among literary men. Moreover there are now such abundant aids to the study of these languages that the biblical scholar, who by neglecting them would deprive himself of access to the original texts, could in no wise escape the stigma of levity and sloth. For it is the duty of the exegete to lay hold, so to speak, with the greatest care and reverence of the very least expressions which, under the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, have flowed from the pen of the sacred writer, so as to arrive at a deeper and fuller knowledge of his meaning.

16. Wherefore let him diligently apply himself so as to acquire daily a greater facility in biblical as well as in other oriental languages and to support his interpretation by the aids which all branches of philology supply. This indeed St. Jerome strove earnestly to achieve, as far as the science of his time permitted; to this also aspired with untiring zeal and no small fruit not a few of the great exegetes of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, although the knowledge of languages then was much less than at the present day. In like manner therefore ought we to explain the original text which, having been written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any even the very best translation, whether ancient or modern; this can be done all the more easily and fruitfully, if to the knowledge of languages be joined a real skill in literary criticism of the same text.

17. The great importance which should be attached to this kind of criticism was aptly pointed out by Augustine, when, among the precepts to be recommended to the student of the Sacred Books, he put in the first place the care to possess a corrected text. "The correction of the codices" - so says this most distinguished Doctor of the Church - "should first of all engage the attention of those who wish to know the Divine Scripture so that the uncollected may give place to the corrected."[23] In the present day indeed this art, which is called textual criticism and which is used with great and praiseworthy results in the editions of profane writings, is also quite rightly employed in the case of the Sacred Books, because of that very reverence which is due to the Divine Oracles. For its very purpose is to insure that the sacred text be restored, as perfectly as possible, be purified from the corruptions due to the carelessness of the copyists and be freed, as far as may be done, from glosses and omissions, from the interchange and repetition of words and from all other kinds of mistakes, which are wont to make their way gradually into writings handed down through many centuries.

To read the above document in full, click on the following link which will take you to the official Vatican website where this document is hosted:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p..._enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html


The Preface of the English Revised Version of the New Testament [found in the 1885 edition] contained the following words [which are found on pages v and vi -pages 5 and 6 of the PDF document-] Please take special note of the sentence I coloured red, although all of the quote below should be read carefully:

I. Of the many points of interest connected with the Translation of 1611, two require special notice; first, the Greek Text which it appears to have represented; and secondly, the character of the Translation itself.

1. With regard to the Greek Text, it would appear that, if to some extent the Translators exercised an independent judgement, it was mainly in choosing amongst readings contained in the principal editions of the Greek Text that had appeared in the sixteenth century. Wherever they seemed to have followed a reading which is not found in any of those editions, their rendering may probably be traced to the Latin Vulgate. Their chief guides appear to have been the later editions of Stephanus and of Beza, and also, to a certain extent, the Complutensian Polyglott. All these were founded for the most part on manuscripts of late date, few in number, and used with little critical skill. But in those days it could hardly have been otherwise. Nearly all the more ancient of the documentary authorities have become known only within the last two centuries; some of the most important of them, indeed, within the last few years. Their publication has called forth not only improved editions of the Greek Text, but a succession of instructive discussions on the variations which have been brought to light, and on the best modes of distinguishing original readings from changes introduced in the course of transcription. While therefore it has long been the opinion of all scholars that the commonly received text needed thorough revision, it is but recently that materials have been acquired for executing such a work with even approximate completeness.

Source: http://www.thedcl.org/bible/erv/erv-nt-preface.pdf


I'd just like to remind you that the English Revised Version was an official undertaking of the Church of England, as shown by the following words of Isaac H. Hall, ed., The Revised New Testament and History of Revision. Philadelphia: Hubbard Brothers; Atlanta: C.R. Blackall & Co.; New York: A.L. Bancroft & Co., 1881.:

The present revision originated in the convocation, or general assembly of Episcopal clergymen, at Canterbury, England, on May 6th, 1870. Then and there a committee was appointed consisting of eminent Biblical scholars and certain high officials of the Church of England, "with power to revise, for public use, the authorized English versions of 1611, and to associate with them representative Biblical scholars of other Christian denominations using that version."

Source: http://www.bible-researcher.com/ervhistory.html


The above website was accessed by clicking on the second link under the heading "Sources" in the following wikipedia website about the English Revised Version:

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


The following are excerpts from the Preface of the Second Edition [1971] of the Revised Standard Version. Please take special note of the phrases I coloured red, although the rest should also be read carefully:

Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation. The task was undertaken, by authority of the Church of England, in 1870. The English Revised Version of the Bible was published in 1881-1885; and the American Standard Version, its variant embodying the preferences of the American scholars associated in the work, was published in 1901.

And

Thirty-two scholars have served as members of the Committee charged with making the revision, and they have secured the review and counsel of an Advisory Board of fifty representatives of the cooperating denominations. The Committee has worked in two sections, one dealing with the Old Testament and one with the New Testament. Each section has submitted its work to the scrutiny of the members of the other section; and the charter of the Committee requires that all changes be agreed upon by a two-thirds vote of the total membership of the Committee. The Revised Standard Version of the New Testament was published in 1946. The publication of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments, was authorized by vote of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. in 1951.

And

Sometimes it is evident that the text has suffered in transmission, but none of the versions provides a satisfactory restoration. Here we can only follow the best judgment of competent scholars as to the most probable reconstruction of the original text. Such corrections are indicated in the footnotes by the abbreviation Cn, and a translation of the Masoretic Text is added.

And

The discovery of the meaning of the text, once the best readings have been established, is aided by many new resources for understanding the original languages. Much progress has been made in the historical and comparative study of these languages. A vast quantity of writings in related Semitic languages, some of them only recently discovered, has greatly enlarged our knowledge of the vocabulary and grammar of Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic. Sometimes the present translation will be found to render a Hebrew word in a sense quite different from that of the traditional interpretation. It has not been felt necessary in such cases to attach a footnote, because no change in the text is involved and it may be assumed that the new rendering was not adopted without convincing evidence. The analysis of religious texts from the ancient Near East has made clearer the significance of ideas and practices recorded in the Old Testament. Many difficulties and obscurities, of course, remain. Where the choice between two meanings is particularly difficult or doubtful, we have given an alternative rendering in a footnote. If in the judgment of the Committee the meaning of a passage is quite uncertain or obscure, either because of corruption in the text or because of the inadequacy of our present knowledge of the language, that fact is indicated by a note. It should not be assumed, however, that the Committee was entirely sure or unanimous concerning every rendering not so indicated. To record all minority views was obviously out of the question.

And

The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus.

We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. The evidence for the text of the books of the New Testament is better than for any other ancient book, both in the number of extant manuscripts and in the nearness of the date of some of these manuscripts to the date when the book was originally written.

The revisers in the 1870's had most of the evidence that we now have for the Greek text, though the most ancient of all extant manuscripts of the Greek New Testament were not discovered until 1931. But they lacked the resources which discoveries within the past eighty years have afforded for understanding the vocabulary, grammar, and idioms of the Greek New Testament. An amazing body of Greek papyri has been unearthed in Egypt since the 1870's—private letters, official reports, wills, business accounts, petitions, and other such trivial, everyday recordings of the activities of human beings. In 1895 appeared the first of Adolf Deissmann's studies of these ordinary materials. He proved that many words which had hitherto been assumed to belong to what was called "Biblical Greek" were current in the spoken vernacular of the first century A.D. The New Testament was written in the Koiné, the common Greek which was spoken and understood practically everywhere throughout the Roman Empire in the early centuries of the Christian era. This development in the study of New Testament Greek has come since the work on the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version was done, and at many points sheds new light upon the meaning of the Greek text.

And

The Revised Standard Version Bible Committee is a continuing body, holding its meetings at regular intervals. It has become both ecumenical and international, with Protestant and Catholic members, who come from Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

Source: http://www.bible-researcher.com/rsvpreface.html
Source: http://www.bible-researcher.com/rsvpreface.html


The above two websites were mentioned above were accessed by clicking on two links found under the heading "External links" found in the following wikipedia website that deals with the Revised Standard Version:

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


From all of the above quotations from the words of Pope Pius XII and the Preface of both the English Revised Version and the Revised Standard Version, the following points should be noted:


1- The above quotations are taken from individuals and institutions that are deeply committed to the Christian religion, both the Roman Catholic branch [Pope Pius XII] and the Protestant branch [Church of England and the denominations in the U.S. which sponsored the Revised Standard Version]. Therefore, the above mentioned quotes should be taken seriously because they are from people and institutions that are "friends of the Bible".


2- A theme that has been explained time and time again by Pope Paul XII, the translators of the English Revised Version and the Revised Standard Version is the fact that access to more ancient and accurate manuscripts and the knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew that formed the basis of the scriptures that were translated was not as good as recent times, and therefore the recent versions of the Bible are more able to truly reflect the original manuscripts.


In this regard, Pope Pius XII said:

14. The Fathers of the Church in their time, especially Augustine, warmly recommended to the Catholic scholar, who undertook the investigation and explanation of the Sacred Scriptures, the study of the ancient languages and recourse to the original texts.[22] However, such was the state of letters in those times, that not many - and these few but imperfectly - knew the Hebrew language. In the middle ages, when Scholastic Theology was at the height of its vigor, the knowledge of even the Greek language had long since become so rare in the West, that even the greatest Doctors of that time, in their exposition of the Sacred Text, had recourse only to the Latin version, known as the Vulgate.

And

15. On the contrary in this our time, not only the Greek language, which since the humanistic renaissance has been, as it were, restored to new life, is familiar to almost all students of antiquity and letters, but the knowledge of Hebrew also and of their oriental languages has spread far and wide among literary men. Moreover there are now such abundant aids to the study of these languages that the biblical scholar, who by neglecting them would deprive himself of access to the original texts, could in no wise escape the stigma of levity and sloth. For it is the duty of the exegete to lay hold, so to speak, with the greatest care and reverence of the very least expressions which, under the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, have flowed from the pen of the sacred writer, so as to arrive at a deeper and fuller knowledge of his meaning.

And

16. Wherefore let him diligently apply himself so as to acquire daily a greater facility in biblical as well as in other oriental languages and to support his interpretation by the aids which all branches of philology supply. This indeed St. Jerome strove earnestly to achieve, as far as the science of his time permitted; to this also aspired with untiring zeal and no small fruit not a few of the great exegetes of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, although the knowledge of languages then was much less than at the present day.

And in this regard, the translators of the English Revised Version said:

I. Of the many points of interest connected with the Translation of 1611, two require special notice; first, the Greek Text which it appears to have represented; and secondly, the character of the Translation itself.

1. With regard to the Greek Text, it would appear that, if to some extent the Translators exercised an independent judgement, it was mainly in choosing amongst readings contained in the principal editions of the Greek Text that had appeared in the sixteenth century. Wherever they seemed to have followed a reading which is not found in any of those editions, their rendering may probably be traced to the Latin Vulgate. Their chief guides appear to have been the later editions of Stephanus and of Beza, and also, to a certain extent, the Complutensian Polyglott. All these were founded for the most part on manuscripts of late date, few in number, and used with little critical skill. But in those days it could hardly have been otherwise. Nearly all the more ancient of the documentary authorities have become known only within the last two centuries; some of the most important of them, indeed, within the last few years. Their publication has called forth not only improved editions of the Greek Text, but a succession of instructive discussions on the variations which have been brought to light, and on the best modes of distinguishing original readings from changes introduced in the course of transcription. While therefore it has long been the opinion of all scholars that the commonly received text needed thorough revision, it is but recently that materials have been acquired for executing such a work with even approximate completeness.

And in this regard, the translators of the Revised Standard Version said:

The discovery of the meaning of the text, once the best readings have been established, is aided by many new resources for understanding the original languages. Much progress has been made in the historical and comparative study of these languages. A vast quantity of writings in related Semitic languages, some of them only recently discovered, has greatly enlarged our knowledge of the vocabulary and grammar of Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic.

And

We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. The evidence for the text of the books of the New Testament is better than for any other ancient book, both in the number of extant manuscripts and in the nearness of the date of some of these manuscripts to the date when the book was originally written.

The revisers in the 1870's had most of the evidence that we now have for the Greek text, though the most ancient of all extant manuscripts of the Greek New Testament were not discovered until 1931. But they lacked the resources which discoveries within the past eighty years have afforded for understanding the vocabulary, grammar, and idioms of the Greek New Testament. An amazing body of Greek papyri has been unearthed in Egypt since the 1870's—private letters, official reports, wills, business accounts, petitions, and other such trivial, everyday recordings of the activities of human beings. In 1895 appeared the first of Adolf Deissmann's studies of these ordinary materials. He proved that many words which had hitherto been assumed to belong to what was called "Biblical Greek" were current in the spoken vernacular of the first century A.D. The New Testament was written in the Koiné, the common Greek which was spoken and understood practically everywhere throughout the Roman Empire in the early centuries of the Christian era. This development in the study of New Testament Greek has come since the work on the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version was done, and at many points sheds new light upon the meaning of the Greek text.

Now, you'll see that by reading the above quotations one reaches very disturbing conclusions such as:

a) The King James Version [Authorized Version] -first published in 1611- had many grave defects, and you have to remember that we're talking about one of the most influential and popular English versions of the Bible.

b) That it was understood that the Authorized Version would contain such mistakes because access to more ancient and reliable manuscripts and a much better knowledge of the language in which those manuscripts were written was was something achieved only relatively recently.

c) This improvement was not only in regard to the Authorized Version of 1611, but even with regard to the English Revised Version published in 1881, since the 1972 Preface of the Second Edition of the Revised Standard Version said:

The revisers in the 1870's had most of the evidence that we now have for the Greek text, though the most ancient of all extant manuscripts of the Greek New Testament were not discovered until 1931. But they lacked the resources which discoveries within the past eighty years have afforded for understanding the vocabulary, grammar, and idioms of the Greek New Testament. An amazing body of Greek papyri has been unearthed in Egypt since the 1870's—private letters, official reports, wills, business accounts, petitions, and other such trivial, everyday recordings of the activities of human beings. In 1895 appeared the first of Adolf Deissmann's studies of these ordinary materials. He proved that many words which had hitherto been assumed to belong to what was called "Biblical Greek" were current in the spoken vernacular of the first century A.D. The New Testament was written in the Koiné, the common Greek which was spoken and understood practically everywhere throughout the Roman Empire in the early centuries of the Christian era. This development in the study of New Testament Greek has come since the work on the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version was done, and at many points sheds new light upon the meaning of the Greek text.

Which means that right now there may be manuscripts of the scriptures buried or hidden somewhere and these unknown manuscripts might be better and more reliable than the latest and most reliable manuscripts known to us.


And here I have to ask an honest question to you, BGfromGB, and to every seeker of the truth who's reading this post; Do you really believe that perfect word of God Almighty which is meant to guide people's lives should be subject to updates and new discoveries every now and then?


What about the millions of Christians who lived before these new revisions and discoveries, didn't they have the right to access to the word of God that is free from grave errors?


d) The above quotations admit that what the endeavors of all the scholars may not give us the original "inspired" words but something as close as possible:


Pope Pius XII said:

For its very purpose is to insure that the sacred text be restored, as perfectly as possible, be purified from the corruptions due to the carelessness of the copyists and be freed, as far as may be done, from glosses and omissions, from the interchange and repetition of words and from all other kinds of mistakes, which are wont to make their way gradually into writings handed down through many centuries.

The translators of the English Revised Version said:

While therefore it has long been the opinion of all scholars that the commonly received text needed thorough revision, it is but recently that materials have been acquired for executing such a work with even approximate completeness.

And the translators of the Revised Standard Version said:

Sometimes it is evident that the text has suffered in transmission, but none of the versions provides a satisfactory restoration. Here we can only follow the best judgment of competent scholars as to the most probable reconstruction of the original text. Such corrections are indicated in the footnotes by the abbreviation Cn, and a translation of the Masoretic Text is added.

e) And finally, the quotations above admit that the scriptures have been corrupted, and gives many names and reasons to this corruption.


Pope Pius XII said:

For its very purpose is to insure that the sacred text be restored, as perfectly as possible, be purified from the corruptions due to the carelessness of the copyists and be freed, as far as may be done, from glosses and omissions, from the interchange and repetition of words and from all other kinds of mistakes, which are wont to make their way gradually into writings handed down through many centuries.

The translators of the English Revised Version said:

Their publication has called forth not only improved editions of the Greek Text, but a succession of instructive discussions on the variations which have been brought to light, and on the best modes of distinguishing original readings from changes introduced in the course of transcription.

And the translators of the Revised Standard Version said:

Yet the King James Version has grave defects.

And

Sometimes it is evident that the text has suffered in transmission,

And

If in the judgment of the Committee the meaning of a passage is quite uncertain or obscure, either because of corruption in the text or because of the inadequacy of our present knowledge of the language, that fact is indicated by a note.

 

[Bluegazer]

7- The words of a Roman Catholic priest who's also a Biblical scholar​

There's an Australian Roman Catholic priest who's causing some headlines these days. His name is Francis J. Moloney. He said somethings that you'll find very surprising. If Mr. Moloney was only a Roman Catholic priest, the things he said would still cause headlines in my opinion, so you can imagine the impact of his words when you know that he's also a Biblical scholar as well.


But before I present the words and assertions of Mr. Francis J. Moloney, here's a short biography of him, taken from the website of the School of Theology and Religious Studies at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C [U.S.A.], where until recently he worked as a Professor:

Francis J. Moloney S.D.B., AM, BA, STD, LSS, DPhil (Oxon), FAHA

Francis J. Moloney was born in Melbourne, Australia, educated by the Christian Brothers at St Bernard's College, Moonee Ponds from 1953-57, and joined the Australian Province of the Salesians of Don Bosco in 1960. After completing his undergraduate university studies (BA) and teaching for several years in a Salesian High School, he was sent to Rome to pursue higher Theological studies. In 1970 he was awarded the Licence in Sacred Theology from the Salesian Pontifical University (STL), and in 1972 the Licence in Sacred Scripture from the Pontifical Biblical Institute (LSS). From 1972-1975 he pursued research at the University of Oxford, UK, and was awarded a Doctorate of Philosophy from that ancient University in 1976 (DPhil [Oxon]) for his study of the use of the term "the Son of Man" in the Fourth Gospel.

In 1976 he returned to his native Australia and was the Professor of New Testament at Catholic Theological College, within the ecumenical Melbourne College of Divinity from 1976 till 1994. During that period he was the Visiting Professor to the Salesian Pontifical University, Rome (1978, 1982), to the Ecole Biblique, Jerusalem (1989-90), and to the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome (1993-94). In 1992 he was elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Humanities (FAHA), at that stage the first theologian to be given recognition by this body. In 1994 he was made a member of the Order of Australia (AM), a State Honor in recognition of his services to Australian religion and culture. In 1994 he was appointed the Foundation Professor of Theology at Australian Catholic University, a national Catholic University born in 1991. After an international search, he was appointed the Professor of New Testament at the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC, in January, 1999. In August, 2001, he was elected the President of the Catholic Biblical Association of America, the first Non-United States citizen ever to hold this prestigious position. The Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, appointed Professor Moloney to the International Theological Commission to the Holy See in 1984, and he remains on that important advisory body to the Holy See as one of its longest-serving members. In April, 2002, he was appointed to the endowed Chair at the Catholic University of America: the Katherine Drexel Chair of Religious Studies. In October of 2003 he was elected Dean of the School of Theology and Religious Studies. In May, 2004, St Mary's Seminary and University, Baltimore, awarded Professor Moloney and STD Honoris Causa

Professor Moloney, a founding editor of the Australian theological journal Pacifica, and was an associate editor of The Catholic Biblical Quarterly for 6 years. He is the author of 36 books and a large number of articles, both scholarly and popular, in journals from all parts of the world. Of immediate interest are book on the Eucharist, A Body Broken for a Broken People. Eucharist in the New Testament (Revised Edition; Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 1997), his three volumes on the Sunday Gospels, The Gospel of the Lord, Years A, B and C (Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press), and his contribution to the Advent/Christmas cycle in M. D. Johnson (ed.), New Proclamation, Year A, 2001-2002 (Minneapolis MN: Fortress Press, 2001), his major commentary on the Fourth Gospel, The Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina Series 4; Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press, 1998) and his popular commentary on the Catholic Epistles, From James to Jude (Oxford: Bible Reading Fellowship, 1999). He has also published "A Hard Saying." The Gospel and Culture (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2001), and a large-scale study of the Gospel of Mark, entitled The Gospel of Mark. A Commentary (Peabody MA, Hendrickson Publishers, 2002). In collaboration with Anthony J. Kelly, he has recently published The Experience of God in the Fourth Gospel (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 2003), and he has just completed an updating, editing and rewriting of posthumous material, left by Raymond E. Brown: Introduction to the Gospel of John (ed. Francis J. Moloney; Anchor Bible Reference Library; New York: Doubleday, 2003). A further study of the Gospel of Mark, Mark: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004) has just been published. A further collection of his studies on the Fourth Gospel will shortly be published: The Gospel of John: Text and Context (Biblical Interpretation Series; Boston/Leiden: Brill, 2005).

Source: http://religiousstudies.cua.edu/faculty/moloney.cfm


So, what did this Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar say or write that was so controversial?


Before getting there, I should mention that Muslims and Christians believe that Jesus Christ [peace be upon him] performed certain miracles. Muslims and Christians agree that Jesus Christ [peace be upon him] did heal the blind and raise a dead person to life. Muslims and Christians also believe that Jesus Christ [peace be upon him] was born miraculously from the Virgin Mary [i.e. without a father].


However, Muslims see miracles as signs given by God Almighty to His Messenger Jesus Christ [peace be upon him] to prove the he's indeed a Prophet and Messenger of God Almighty, and Muslims do not believe that these miracles mean that Jesus Christ is divine in any way.


There's a miracle that Muslims believe about Jesus Christ [peace be upon him] that Christians have no knowledge of. It's the incident where Jesus Christ spoke eloquently while just a baby in the cradle, and it's recorded in the Qur'an in a chapter [Surah] called Maryam [which is the Arabic form of the name Mary; the Virgin mother of Jesus Christ -peace be upon him-].


Christians believe that Jesus Christ [peace be upon him] performed other miracles, such as turning water into wine, walking on water and the calming of the storm. This belief is based on the following verses of the New Testament [taken from the -Roman Catholic- New American Bible]:


Turning Water into wine

On the third day there was a wedding in Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding. When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." (And) Jesus said to her, "Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the servers, "Do whatever he tells you." Now there were six stone water jars there for Jewish ceremonial washings, each holding twenty to thirty gallons. Jesus told them, "Fill the jars with water." So they filled them to the brim. Then he told them, "Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter." So they took it. And when the headwaiter tasted the water that had become wine, without knowing where it came from (although the servers who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom and said to him, "Everyone serves good wine first, and then when people have drunk freely, an inferior one; but you have kept the good wine until now." Jesus did this as the beginning of his signs in Cana in Galilee and so revealed his glory, and his disciples began to believe in him.

[John 2:1-11]


Walking on Water

When it was evening, his disciples went down to the sea, embarked in a boat, and went across the sea to Capernaum. It had already grown dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them. The sea was stirred up because a strong wind was blowing. When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the boat, and they began to be afraid. But he said to them, "It is I. Do not be afraid." They wanted to take him into the boat, but the boat immediately arrived at the shore to which they were heading.

[John 6:16-21]

Then he made the disciples get into the boat and precede him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. After doing so, he went up on the mountain by himself to pray. When it was evening he was there alone. Meanwhile the boat, already a few miles offshore, was being tossed about by the waves, for the wind was against it. During the fourth watch of the night, he came toward them, walking on the sea. When the disciples saw him walking on the sea they were terrified. "It is a ghost," they said, and they cried out in fear. At once (Jesus) spoke to them, "Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid." Peter said to him in reply, "Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water." He said, "Come." Peter got out of the boat and began to walk on the water toward Jesus. But when he saw how (strong) the wind was he became frightened; and, beginning to sink, he cried out, "Lord, save me!" Immediately Jesus stretched out his hand and caught him, and said to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?" After they got into the boat, the wind died down. Those who were in the boat did him homage, saying, "Truly, you are the Son of God."

[Matthew 14:22-33]

Then he made his disciples get into the boat and precede him to the other side toward Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. And when he had taken leave of them, he went off to the mountain to pray. When it was evening, the boat was far out on the sea and he was alone on shore. Then he saw that they were tossed about while rowing, for the wind was against them. About the fourth watch of the night, he came toward them walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them. But when they saw him walking on the sea, they thought it was a ghost and cried out. They had all seen him and were terrified. But at once he spoke with them, "Take courage, it is I, do not be afraid!" He got into the boat with them and the wind died down. They were (completely) astounded.

[Mark 6:45-51]


Calming the storm

He got into a boat and his disciples followed him. Suddenly a violent storm came up on the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by waves; but he was asleep. They came and woke him, saying, "Lord, save us! We are perishing!" He said to them, "Why are you terrified, O you of little faith?" Then he got up, rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was great calm. The men were amazed and said, "What sort of man is this, whom even the winds and the sea obey?"

[Matthew 8:23-27]


Judas' treason

Finally, there's the matter of the treason of Judas. Although there's nothing miraculous in the person of Judas or his treason, you'll later understand why I thought it best to present the Biblical verses -again from the New American Bible-that talk about Judas' treason and his end:

Then Judas, his betrayer, seeing that Jesus had been condemned, deeply regretted what he had done. He returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? Look to it yourself." Flinging the money into the temple, he departed and went off and hanged himself. The chief priests gathered up the money, but said, "It is not lawful to deposit this in the temple treasury, for it is the price of blood." After consultation, they used it to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why that field even today is called the Field of Blood. Then was fulfilled what had been said through Jeremiah the prophet, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of a man with a price on his head, a price set by some of the Israelites, and they paid it out for the potter's field just as the Lord had commanded me."

[Matthew 27:3-10]


I mentioned the Biblical verses above in order that you realise the enormity of what Mr. Francis J. Moloney had said. He co-authored a book called The Gospel according to Judas with the famous British author Jeffrey Archer. I know that Jeffrey Archer was convicted for perjury and spent time in jail. But I'm not referring to any words that Jeffrey Archer has said. I'm referring to the words of Francis J. Moloney.


Professor Moloney and Jeffrey Archer met Ruth Gledhill of the Times newspaper. She works as Religion Correspondent for the Times newspaper. The following are excerpts from her article in the Times entitled Archer, the story-teller, turns pen to Judas and published on March 20, 2007:

But in interviews with The Times, both Father Moloney and Lord Archer said they did not include Jesus's three most famous 'nature miracles', beloved of Sunday School children worldwide, in The Gospel because they "never happened".

Nor did they include the most famous Judas story of all, where he is reported in the Bible to have betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. The betrayal took place, they say, but no cash changed hands.

Although the idea that Jesus's miracles did not happen and were pure invention have been common in academic circles for decades, for many of the faithful it will still come as a shock.

Father Moloney, believed by many to be the world's greatest living Biblical scholar, drew on years of scholarship to make The Gospel According to Judas as close as possible to those passages thought to be genuine in the three synoptic gospels and the Gospel of St John. But he insisted they leave out verses agreed by scholars to have been made up by the original authors of the Bible.

And

Father Moloney told The Times that he did consider Jesus to have been a 'miracle worker'. But he had studied the Bible all his life, and had become convinced that some of Jesus's miracles were invented by the early Church.

Turning water into wine at a wedding feast came "out of a profound desire to show that Jesus, like the God of Israel, is the messianic giver of all good things". Walking on water and calming the seas stemmed from a desire to prove that Jesus had the same mastery over nature as the God of the Hebrew Bible.

And about how Jeffrey Archer contacted Professor Moloney:

He had wanted to write The Gospel According to Judas for 15 years but was told he needed a good collaborator. Eventually an old friend, Father Michael Seed, famed for bringing high-profile converts known as 'Seedlings' into the Roman Catholic Church, effected an introduction to Cardinal Martini.

Cardinal Martini suggested the Australian Salesian monk, Father Moloney, a close friend of the present Pope and for years one of his theological advisers in Rome. Father Moloney has recently returned to his home country having been made provincial, or head, of the Salesian order for the region. The theologian will be giving his share of the royalties to a charitable project; his co-author will be keeping his.

Source [page 1]: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1542945.ece
Source [page 2]: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1542945.ece?token=null&offset=12


Now, Ruth Gledhill wrote things that were just not true, such a the Roman Catholic Church endorsing this new book. This was because the unveiling of the book took place at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, with the Rector of that Institute, Rev. Stephen Pisano, present. So, it must have seemed to her that the Roman Catholic Church endorsed the book.


I must stress here that the Roman Catholic Church did not endorse this book. This is shown in the following excerpt from a Washington Post article on this matter written by Sarah Delaney on March 21, 2007:

Although it has not been officially Vatican-endorsed, Vatican Radio devoted a segment to it today, and the Pontifical Biblical Institute held a lecture on the book. The authors hope to attract people to the Bible and renew examination of the life of Jesus and his relationship to Judas Iscariot.

And

Moloney said he did not know whether the pope had read the work but suspected that people "close to him" had read it. And while he said that if the pope didn't like it "I suspect we will hear about it," he felt that the pope shared his curiosity about the "mystery" of Judas.

And

Tuesday's presentation was presided over by the Rev. Stephen Pisano, head of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, who said that the book was not officially endorsed by the institute or the Vatican. His interest, he said, "is the Bible itself, and if the discussion encourages people to read the Bible, carefully and intelligently . . . then it may be that permitting the presentation of this book can be justified."

The book was also discussed by Pisano on Vatican Radio, despite disclaimers regarding Vatican endorsement.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/20/AR2007032001967.html


Despite Ruth Gledhill getting it wrong about the supposed endorsement of the Roman Catholic Church, I do believe her when she quoted Mr. Moloney's denial of the three miracles mentioned above [turning water into wine, walking on water and calming the storm] and his denial of other things in the present Bible, because the following is mentioned in the same Washington Post article:

In a news conference here on Tuesday, Moloney, professor of biblical studies at the Catholic University of America, former president of the Catholic Biblical Association of America and an 18-year member of the Vatican's International Theological Commission, said that he was motivated to participate in Archer's story in part because "deeply flawed and uninformed works" ..........

And

The Archer-Moloney work is written in the style of the Gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and in fact incorporates their accounts of the life of Jesus Christ. But it recounts Jesus's story through the eyes of Judas. And it offers not a few surprises.

In this account, Judas, who deeply loves Jesus but is skeptical of his role as Messiah, debunks the primary miracles attributed to him, including his walking on water and turning water into wine. He even says that Jesus was born in a natural union between Joseph and Mary. And Moloney said most biblical scholars in fact believe that the early church "began to articulate stories that made Jesus's presence among us more akin to the presence of God to Israel" and don't believe literally in these miracles.

Now before I continue, I'd like to say that a Muslim who reads the denial of certain miracles of Jesus Christ not mentioned in the Holy Qur'an or the authentic sayings of Prophet Muhammad [peace be upon him] may not react, but I must make it perfectly clear that every Muslim [including myself] strongly objects to any denial of the miracle of the Virgin birth of Jesus Christ or any other miracles mentioned in the Qur'an and/or the authentic sayings of the Prophet [peace be upon him], which the above segment strongly suggests.


Moving on, the following was also in the Washington Post article:

He also said that the story of Judas accepting 30 silver pieces, and his suicidal death, appeared only in Matthew, which he called "tendentious." Judas accepting the bribe to identify Jesus to Roman soldiers "never happened," Moloney said. The arrest led to the Crucifixion at Gethsemane.

The following was also posted on the BBC website:

In his new book the figure of Judas the traitor and betrayer of Jesus has been reappraised. In this version of events there are no 30 pieces of silver, no betrayal and he didn't kill himself.

'The Gospel According to Judas by Benjamin Iscariot' co- written by biblical scholar Professor Francis J Maloney also suggests that maybe Jesus did not turn water into wine or walk on water.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2007/03/22/jeffery_archer_inspirit_feature.shtml


The Catholic World News website posted the following news item:

Vatican institute hosts presentation on book debunking Gospels


Rome, Mar. 20, 2007 (CWNews.com) - The Pontifical Biblical Institute today played host for the introduction of a new book that questions the accuracy of the Gospels.

The Gospel According to Judas is a fictionalized account of the life of Jesus' betrayer, as told by his son. The book is the product of an unusual collaboration between a novelist and a Scripture scholar: Jeffrey Archer and Father Francis Moloney.

Archer, a British author who has previously specialized in writing thrillers, is also notorious in his native England for having served a prison term for perjury.

Questioned as to why the Biblical Institute would call attention to a work of fiction, the institution's rector, Father Stephan Pisano, told Vatican Radio that today's event "does not imply that either the Biblical Institue, or the Vatican, or the Pope endorses this book in any way." He said that the Jesuit-run institute was hosting the event in deference to Father Francis Moloney.

Father Pisano said that he hoped, during a scholarly discussion of the book at the Biblical Institute, Father Moloney could explain his involvement in the project.

Father Thomas Williams, the dean of theology at the Regina Apostolorum in Rome, told Vatican Radio that The Gospel According to Judas is only the latest in a series of fictional attempts to "exonerate Judas from the charge of being the 'bad guy.'" The portrait of Judas in these works, he observed, is "not the idea we get from the canonical Gospels."

The authors do not contest that charge. In a conversation with the London Times the Salesian scholar and the British novelist explained that they tried to keep their story in accord with the Gospels, except when they were convinced the Gospel accounts were inaccurate. The authors said, for example, that they did not include certain miracles depicted in the Gospels, because those miracles "never happened."

Source: http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=49988


There's also the interview on Radio National [which is part of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation -ABC-] which Michael Duffy conducted with Professor Moloney on March 19, 2007. To read a full transcript of the interview, click on the following link:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2007/1875208.htm


Then click on "Show Transcript" and you'll be able to read the whole interview.


Below are some quotations from that interview, and please take special notice of the parts I coloured red and even in these coloured words there are some which I emphasized:

Michael Duffy: It's time now to talk about Jeffrey Archer's new book which is to be launched in Rome on Tuesday this week. The book is called The gospel according to Judas and it's written in the form of the familiar New Testament story but with some notable changes. The most important is that Judas doesn't betray Jesus in this story, or at least not deliberately. At first this might seem a bit presumptuous but Archer's collaborator on the book is Australian priest Francis J Moloney, and this means the book is going to receive quite a bit of attention because Moloney is head of the Australian Province of the Salesians of Don Bosco, and also one of the world's most respected scholars of the Gospels. He served for 18 years on the International Theological Commission to the Holy See, and he was until recently Professor of New Testament at the Catholic University of America, Washington DC. Professor Moloney is currently overseas launching the book with Jeffrey Archer and I spoke with him before he left. I began by welcoming him to the program.

And

Michael Duffy: Just looking at those four for the moment, what is their relationship to history, to what actually happened?

Francis Moloney: This is a very significant question, Michael, because unfortunately the modern reader picks up a Gospel and reads it as if it were a 21st century history book, and this does a grave injustice to the text because never in the mind of the original authors were these supposed to be simple repetitions of something that actually happened in the day-by-day record of Jesus' life. They do go back to the historical Jesus, they do reflect events that happened in this time but they are all built on memory, on oral traditions, sometimes some written traditions, and they have been assembled by these authors not primarily to communicate something that actually happened (although much of it did) but primarily to communicate what they believed God had done for us in and through the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus. So it's primarily what we would call technically theology rather than history.

And

Michael Duffy: Much of your gospel, this one, is based closely on the New Testament but there are some important differences, and I was wondering if you'd mind just telling us what the most important of those are and why you introduced them.

Francis Moloney: The most important differences are that we had to invent a son of Judas who writes the gospel, Benjamin Judas. That's nothing sensational. It would be expected that most Jewish males would have children and that there would be a son, so that's nothing extraordinary, but that's not attested to anywhere. Then the other major difference we have is that there are certain events reported in the New Testament with great solemnity and with great significance theologically speaking that Judas doesn't believe happened. He reports back to Benjamin that such things as the multiplication of the 120 gallons of water into wine didn't happen and that Jesus didn't walk on the water, and this is reported in the gospel.

The major thing of course that will shock everybody is that in the text of The gospel according to Judas, Judas doesn't hang himself, and of course everybody thinks, well, at least I know one thing about Judas in that he hung himself. But in fact the close historical analysis of the texts themselves would show that this does not stand up. It's only found in one place in the New Testament, it's not mentioned elsewhere, and in fact there's contrary evidence in Luke's Acts of the Apostles which say that he broke apart...his belly burst et cetera from some sort of disease or something like that...

Michael Duffy: A very graphic description.

Francis Moloney: That's right, it is, yes. So I think that this is the sort of thing that gets into the popular imagination and of course gets highly dramatised by Mel Gibson, and people will probably say, 'Oh, how can they say he didn't hang himself?' Well, the evidence is that he didn't and this is just an attempt on the part of the early church to explain that Judas got it wrong and it was a most tragic thing and even at the end he then made a further mistake by suiciding.

And

Michael Duffy: Is it also the case that you feel that some of the details of one of those versions, such as the 30 pieces of silver, fit in just a bit too neatly with aspects of the Old Testament?

Francis Moloney: Absolutely. Again, I mentioned the fact that only one text mentions that Judas hung himself and that's the Gospel of Mathew and it is the same Gospel, the only Gospel that mentioned the 30 pieces of silver. So Mathew, who is well known by those of us who are very familiar with the Gospels as somebody who digs into the Old Testament very readily to find the background for the actions he describes in the Gospels, takes this passage almost verbatim, almost word for word out of one of the Prophets where the 30 pieces of silver are given over, where they are cast into the temple. All of this material which we find verbatim in Mathew is lifted directly out of one of the Prophets.

Michael Duffy also wrote a book review with the title "Judas goes to rehab" which was published in the March 17 issue of The Age [an Australian newspaper]. The following are some of the contents of that article:

In an unlikely pairing, an Australian priest and New Testament expert has collaborated with Jeffrey Archer on a novel that seeks to recast and rethink Judas. By Michael Duffy.

'COMPARED TO SOME of the people we deal with, Jeffrey Archer is a lightweight."

The reference is to Archer's status as a sinner, not a writer. I am talking to Francis J. Moloney, a man who wears several impressive hats. He is one of the most respected biblical scholars in the world. He is head of the Australian Province of the Salesians of Don Bosco, an order of Catholic priests dedicated to helping young people in trouble. He is also, in one of the most unlikely cultural pairings since Kylie Minogue recorded with Nick Cave, the collaborator with Jeffrey Archer in a new book, The Gospel According to Judas. It's a 22,000-word retelling of the familiar gospel story with some significant omissions and additions, as told by Judas to his son Benjamin Iscariot.

Asked why he agreed to work with Archer, Moloney says: "I knew Jeffrey had been in jail and that sort of stuff, but it didn't worry me. The church is used to dealing with sinners."

Does he think the book will be controversial?

"I'm expecting trouble from the extreme right and the extreme left," he says. "The problem is the right are in power. George Pell will be annoyed by this. But I think I can handle these people, I'm an internationally accepted scholar."

Indeed he is. The author of almost 40 books, many on the gospels, Moloney served for 18 years on the International Theological Commission to the Holy See. His positions have included professor of New Testament at the Catholic University of America in Washington DC and president of the Catholic Biblical Association of America.

There were dozens of gospels written in the first few centuries after Christ's death, but Moloney says: "They were never intended to be a factual history of Jesus. Most of what the gospels say happened did happen. But certain major elements are the fruit of the imagination of the preaching church. They're narratives composed of memories and stories, with the objective of showing what God had done for us through the life of Jesus Christ."

And

Moloney hopes the result will provoke useful discussion of Judas and encourage people to think again about the four familiar gospels, spurred in part by the contents of the 10 pages of notes included in the book. The money he makes will be used to build a secondary school in Samoa.

Source: http://www.theage.com.au/news/books...1173722652398.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2


So, there you have it. A Roman Catholic priest [who's a Biblical scholar at the same time] says that there were certain invented stories that were inserted into the Bible.

 

[Bluegazer]

8- Conclusion​

I want to make it perfectly clear to you, BGfromGB, and to every Christian reading these posts of mine that I do not write with the intention of hurting your beliefs. I know that what I've written will probably shock the great majority of Christians, or anyone who believes that the Bible truly represents the uncorrupted word of God.


However, I sought to minimize this hurt by quoting what Christian authorities and scholars have to say about the Bible. In this way, I hope I was able to present to you the Islamic perspective in a way that minimizes the hurt.


I thank you, BGfromGB, for the courteous and kind way you have addressed me. I sincerely hope you all the best.


Take care of yourself.


Best regards,

Bluegazer