Who [Re-]Wrote the Bible?

[sineaste]

As for re-writing, the many translations were obviously done by human beings (a huge accomplishment) but overall very little has been lost in translation, especially in the KJV. An exception is The Good News Bible that para-phrased everything and so completely lost the unusual aspect to the writings.

 

I agree that that paraphrases like the Living Bible and others are not particularly helpful. On the other hand, the KJV has some problems as well. The major one is simply its archaic form of English - unless you are talking about the New King James. If you check the article on Textual Criticism in Wikipedia you will see that, for the New Testament, older translations like the King James Bible are based on inferior textual traditions and likely to contain more harmonistic readings, paraphrasing, and significant additions than modern translations based on more accurate text types. This is because the KJV was based on a late textual tradition (Byzantine) that spanned the 5th to the 16th centuries, whereas most modern translations favor earlier manuscript traditions like the Alexandrian (2nd to 4th century). Simply put, earlier manuscripts of the "New Testament" writings are likely to be more accurate than those copied centuries later. Additionally, when the KJV was written we did not have access to the Dead Sea Scrolls which have provided a wealth of early (c100BCE to 100CE) copies of "Old Testament" works. Previously, translators had to work with "Old Testament" manuscripts that date around the 10th century CE.

 

Personally, I prefer the New International Version as a reasonably solid modern translation that is easy to read and understand.

[Michaelangelica]

The more interesting question is:-

Why does anyone care?

[sineaste]

The words are 'blessed are the poor (in spirit)'. Those that are poor in spirit are those to whom the Holy Spirit could teach the Law of the Testimony to. When Jesus told the rich young ruler to 'sell all you have and give to the poor', he was speaking of 'the poor in spirit' [sell your old knowledge of what you think the kingdom of heaven is like and give that knowledge freely to those who want it (poor in spirit)]:

 

Jesus would never tell anyone to give away their goods or money for that must be a free will decision.

 

Mark 10:21 reads 'go sell everything you have and give to the poor'. The story of the "rich young ruler" is found in all three synoptic gospels and none of them say anything about the "poor in spirit". We are specifically told that the rich man had "great wealth" and the story is followed by Jesus talking about how hard it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. His disciples respond that they have 'left everything' to follow Jesus and this includes not only family but "fields". Suggesting that the message is: pass on your defective knowledge to the "poor in spirit" makes no sense. There is no justification for interpreting this story in non-literal fashion. It is also worth noting that when we read the story in Luke (chapter 18), the very next chapter starts with the story of another rich man - Zaccheus - who gives half of his possessions to the poor and vows to repay four times over any money obtained by corrupt means. It is very hard to spiritualize away this story or suggest that it bears no relation to the themes of the previous chapter.

 

 

The words "blessed are the poor" are being quoted from the Lukan, rather than the Matthean beatitudes. Here is the full text:

 

“Blessed are you who are poor,

for yours is the kingdom of God.

Blessed are you who hunger now,

for you will be satisfied.

Blessed are you who weep now,

for you will laugh.

Blessed are you when people hate you,

when they exclude you and insult you

and reject your name as evil,

because of the Son of Man.

 

“Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.

 

“But woe to you who are rich,

for you have already received your comfort.

Woe to you who are well fed now,

for you will go hungry.

Woe to you who laugh now,

for you will mourn and weep.

Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you,

for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.

 

Unsurprisingly, this version is seldom heard from pulpits by comfortable, middle class Western Christians. As the shorter version, Luke's is more likely to be the original one. Matthew's version softens the impact and focuses more on piety than economic circumstances. If you don't feel that the gospels had anything to say about poverty, I suggest you read right through Matthew, Mark, Luke and John looking for relevant stories and sayings. I think you will be surprised by what you find and by the amount of material that addresses the question of wealth.

 

Please note that in the beatitudes what Jesus is doing is placing himself on the side of the poor rather than advocating poverty as an ideal. There is nothing wrong with wealth as such, but the reason the rich are condemned here is due to the social juxtaposition of wealth and poverty. In other words Jesus would have no reason to condemn the rich if they did not ignore the appalling poverty on their own doorstep, as it were. See the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16) for a vivid dramatization of this point. As the above text states, Jesus sees himself and his followers as the inheritors of the prophetic tradition of Israel. The prophets were particularly scathing when it came to institutional injustice, corruption, and lack of concern for the weaker members of Israelite society (e.g. Isaiah 1). Like the prophets, Jesus' followers could expect to excite violent opposition and hatred. Ask yourself if the message 'blessed are the poor in spirit' is really likely to arouse such opposition.

 

The time of Jesus was one in which the greed of local rulers and the demands of Rome resulted in severe taxation burdens causing widespread poverty and hardship in the regions around Galilee. In the gospels, when Jesus finally condemns Jerusalem and its leaders and predicts the destruction of the city, he does so immediately after telling the story of a poor widow who has given the last of her money to the temple coffers, leaving her impoverished. Jesus final period of teaching in the temple is preceded by the so called "cleansing" of the temple in which he overturns the tables of moneychangers and characterizes the temple administration as a "den of thieves".

 

Both versions of the beatitudes are strongly orientated towards a future in which present day realities will be turned upside down. Jesus uses politically dangerous language about an alternative "kingdom" (Rome was the official empire) to which the poor, weak and powerless will be admitted but not the unmerciful, war mongers, persecutors, the impure, and the proud. A such, they issue a stark challenge to affluent believers who take the name of Christ but do little to comfort those who are damned and forgotten by mainstream socitey.