The interesting part is that two things can be true at once:
A message can deserve examination, while the people delivering it can still be deeply flawed.
If a preacher abused the trust placed in them, that tells us something about the preacher not automatically about the truth or falsehood of the message.
Even a bad messenger can carry a message worth investigating.
So the real question isn’t simply, “Were some of the messengers corrupt?” History already gives us enough reasons to say that some were.
The better question is: Can the message itself withstand scrutiny when separated from the character, motives, and mistakes of those who delivered it?
Don’t confuse the messenger with the message.
Sometimes the smartest audit isn’t deleting the entire file because one page was compromised.