How The Church Edited The Bible To Manipulate Us
Just change an indefinite article for a definite one
I confess: The only rational way to read “sacred texts” in my opinion, is from a gnostic point of view. The idea of uncovering hidden meanings, a secret philosophy passed on through the ages, has always fascinated me. I tend to privilege the method put forward by Aldous Huxley in The Perennial Philosophy: reading past meanings to uncover the transcendental under the literal.
A gnostic reading of The Bible, especially of the New Testament, can be extremely gratifying. It points towards a personal search, devoid of priestly and church-like considerations that seek to subjugate and dominate the human spirit. Instead of looking for an external locus of control for spirituality (like a priest or mass), gnosticism will argue everything is already present inside us. It will focus on “The kingdom of heaven within” and the eternal spark present in all Men, attainable by individual enlightenment. Gnosticism proposes no churches, priests or holy people who will “guide” us: the approach is diametrically opposed to these power structures, which it denounces as fake Gurus and despicable egomaniacs trying to dominate others.
The New Testament can be read as the crusade of an enlightened gnostic, Jesus Christ, rallying against a tradition of domination. His demise spurs from his challenge of the powers-that-be: Christ went around telling people they didn’t have to be circumcised, or respect the Sabbath, or even go to Church! God is within, the rich will never attain the kingdom of heaven, be in peace with God, and all the other teachings well known yet gravely misunderstood.
This was a highly subversive proposition two thousand years ago. If you’re at the helm of an orthodox religious practice full of silly prescriptions that must be obeyed, you most certainly don’t want people mucking about saying they’re in contact with God and that all you need to do is be kind and loving instead of going to mass every Sunday. That’s why, once you’ve finally managed to nail the guy to a cross, you make sure nobody else follows his example.
Now, the best way to separate Christ from everyone else is by transforming him into the bread-and-wine multiplying, gliding-over-seas, dead-raising, X Man that they’ve sold us. Any priest will tell you we should live our lives “copying the example of Jesus”, yet how on earth are we supposed to do that? I’ve personally tried to multiply wine on many a drunken occasion, just to be met with utter defeat…
However, this process of reification of Christ, of transforming him into an unattainable object, requires a certain slight-of-hand, since the guy was practically screaming at us not to listen to bullshit priests and churches and just be happy and loving.
A passage where all this becomes clear is in John, 10, specifically between 30 – 36, where the role of Christ is discussed (John 10-24: “If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly”). He’s accused of impersonating God, an offense punishable by stoning, after he says “I and my Father are one”:
30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
A couple of remarks are relevant, here. Between 33 and 34, we are told Jesus had committed blasphemy by “making himself God”, to which he replies that the law states, “You are gods”. Not only does Jesus seem to be saying that we are all Gods, but he’s claiming it’s in scripture, which according to Jewish law, “cannot be broken”.
So the “old scripture” is being read by Jesus in a gnostic light: he is one with The Father, just like we are all gods… Not exactly the kind of ideas you want to spread around if your mission is controlling and subduing people.
However, in a somewhat questionable burst of cockiness, Jesus adds at the end: “I said I am the Son of God”. OK, bro. Calm down.
So that settles it, right? Jesus was just rambling about (as all godsons tend to do) but at the end got serious: “I’m the boss’ kid so no tomfoolery”.
Except… THAT’S NOT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS.
Again: The Bible was EDITED to make Christ into “the Son of God”, when he was actually saying we can all be sons of God if we look for the kingdom within!
Let’s not get too in the weeds, here; I’ll try and keep it simple. Everyone knows the Bible was written in ancient Greek, the English King James’ Bible being the official text for anglophones. So the original phrase for the end of John, 10-36 is:
εἶπον Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰμι;
Or
“I said, I am the Son of God”, according to King James’ version.
That’s one possible translation, just not the only one, because ancient Greek doesn’t use articles like English does!
What I mean is, you can perfectly translate that sentence by, “I am a son of God”, since neither “the” or “a” appear in the original. The mot-à-mot translation would go something like, “I am Son of God”, without specifying if he’s The son or just A son. Even Deepl concurs:
where “Υἱὸς” only means “Son” and “εἰμι” means “I am” or “I exist”. So “εἰμι Υἱὸς” is just “I am Son [of God]”.
You clearly see the dilemma. We’ve gone from a gnostic, inner-God Christ encouraging us to be like him and search for the Kingdom of Heaven inside us; to an über-Mensch Christ, screaming only he is the Son of God and performing miracles, to boot.
Instead of the starving figure leading a rag-tag group of beggars and whores while telling them to pay no attention to rich impostors and lead a personal life in harmony with their personal god, we get boastful Jesus, proclaiming he’s a divine envoy who can cure leper, fix corneas and raise the dead. In a nutshell, an impossible to copy model, an X-Man born immaculately who is completely perfect. Can’t copy perfection? No worries: come to confession and tell us where you fell short. Every week. Forever. Oh, and give donations, the golden costumes and wizard hats are expensive…
…and that’s how the unholy mess known as the Catholic Church was created: as an attempt to pervert Christ’s teaching in order to benefit a few instead of emancipating the many.
Eso viene de viejo. Aún antes de la traducción al griego, la biblia fue escrita en arameo, la traducciones que hicieron al griego es la septianaquiensabe, en Egipto, la cual era de 70 tractores que ¡Milagro! Todos hicieron la misma traducción. Hasta las comas. Y se perdió el signicado del nuevo testamento. Por ejemplo la frase repetida " por 40 días y noches" quería decir se fue mucho tiempo, más de un mes(lunar) pero nadie sabe cuánto. Y por ahí te vas, el NT no fue echo, no para ricos oletrado, eran gente del pueblo hablando a gente común. Y ese espíritu se perdió, por excesiva intelectuacion. Las apostacia agotaron las opciones está una del siglo 3 que decía q quien murió en la cruz no era Jesús, las gnósticas q se parecen mucho a los Cataros, q los extinguieron. Sobre la religión de la religión católica se ha escrito mucho. Lamentablemente no es original nada de eso. Búscate las apostacias ( esa no es la palabra exacta, no la recuerdo) del siglo IV y V y la vas a conseguir, recuerdo haber leído algo similar. Suerte para la próxima 😎😎
Vicente, you wouldn’t tolerate some aspects of your analysis applied to other body of text and their interpreters. Has classical philosophical been manipulated in their translations? Of course they have. Shared interpretation is nasty business.
I understand your sympathy with the gnostics. There is something there that more organized Christians like me sometimes disregard too quickly. At the same time, I think you are simplifying the internal struggles inside the churches.
For instance, both Ignatius, founder of the Jesuits, and Teresa de Jesus, likely the most influential mystic of the Catholic Church, were accused in their time of giving too much importance to their internal experiences. Nowadays, it’s hard to be more validated. However, they both found something in staying within the church. Luther, somehow contemporary to them, choose a different path.
The path of the Catholic and orthodox churches is that the gospel is clear when we stay together. Sometimes that feels like is just one big unmovable clusterfuck, but history proves otherwise. I have no reason to believe that such struggles have stopped.
Going back to your argument, the Greek of the New Testament is a subject of study in and out of the churches. Biblists are … weird people. Many of them are not really concerned about current interpretation, and keep coming back to it and other sources.
I meet a guy who did his PhD thesis on one word used in the gospel. (It’s the interjection in the version of the beatitudes used for being sorry about the rich because they are satisfied.)
So, I understand. In my opinion, you could make your argument without such a rampant generalization as if a generation of people have been lobotimized, and only a few realize the truth.
Or perhaps I’m complaining using the arguments that the fathers of the church used against the gnostics: you guys think you are so special and end up forgetting mercy (the widow and the orfan, one of them said). Perhaps my comment is just a repetition of an old struggle.
At least, I’m trying to acknowledge your point of view. Part of the treasures of being Catholic, paraphrasing Chesterton, is to be old as keeping close to my heart what people in other centuries and places have thought. Not because they are dead, it means their opinion should not be heard, paraphrasing again.