In English 101 they teach us how to write idiot proof essays. My teacher says, "The reader is evil and perverse. Anything that can be misunderstood will be." He teaches us how to read sentences by sentences backwards through our paper and make sure that each one makes sense. He teaches us how to check our pronoun references and make sure they're inescapably clear. (Which means you have ridiculous stuff like "Johnny punched Billy, because Johnny was mad at Billy." It's yucky, but it's idiot-proof.) He teaches us (I should probably say "My English teacher teaches us") to make sure that each of our topic sentences clearly relate to our thesis. He teaches us that to give a piece of evidence you need to do three things: introduce the evidence, give the evidence, and then restate how the evidence proves your point (because by this time, your evil and perverse reader has forgotten your original point and is forming his own opinions of what the evidence may mean). He teaches us that any time you quote someone, you must triple check your source to ensure that your quote is absolutely correct, because the slightest quotational error will make you appear sloppy and incompetent, thus tainting the overall credibility of your paper. He teaches us that we should not try to be funny or interesting, because wittiness often comes at the expense of clarity. He teaches us that in writing there are venial sins - spelling and grammatical errors and other such things - and then there is the cardinal sin of unclarity. The former make you look silly, but they are forgivable. The latter damns your paper to literary hell. Paul would have benefited from my English 101 class.
I've read a reasonable number of books in my short life. Some have been boring or poorly written. Some have been confusing, over my head, irritating, trite, or absurd. Some have been translated from other languages. Some have been hundreds or thousands of years old. But I've never read a book as confusing, ambiguous, as open to interpretation, as poorly researched and supported, or as self-contradictory as the Bible.
I'm not saying the Bible was always confusing and academically questionable. I suspect that 1 and 2 Corinthians made a good deal of sense to the Corinthians, that Hebrews was at least marginally decipherable to the Hebrews, and that Titus had very little trouble understanding Titus. I'm even willing to believe that there was the odd Roman who felt he had a reasonable grasp of Romans. The problem, I'm willing to suppose, is not that Paul was on crack, but that it's been 2000 years since he wrote. I am an English speaking Christian in the 21st century, and I am not Corinthian, Hebrew, or Roman, nor (to my great disappointment) is my name Titus. So the problem is probably the culture gap. Rationally speaking, it's unlikely that any of the New Testament authors were mentally imbalanced (though Paul really makes me wonder sometimes) but they did manage to write one crazy, confusing book. Consider:
New Testament interpretations of Old Testament prophesy generally range from suspect to appalling. If we didn't have this preconception that these guys were somehow guided by God himself to see the fulfillments of indecipherable prophetic babble, we would surely laugh them out of town. Many "prophecies" quoted in the New Testament don't appear to be prophesies at all when viewed in context. Nearly all are misquotes (though this is forgivable to a point, because they're already writing in a different language than the original). In a few cases the quotation is so bad we're not exactly sure which Old Testament verse the author had in mind. In at least a couple cases the writer quotes as scripture - even as prophecy - a phrase which no modern translation considers canonical. (This puts us in a sort of a Catch-22 if we want to believe that God kept the Bible error-free even in it's original manuscripts, because even at that point our Bible contains discrepancies.)
Again, the culture gap is a huge problem. First of all, the original recipients necessarily had greatly different expectations and preconceptions. John's flawed chronology was apparently deliberate, and must not have seemed like lying to the original readers. Matthew's little counting error in Mt 8 apparently did not suggest to his readers that he was an unreliable witness. At least some 1st century Jews weren't too suspicious of what looks like constant fudging of messianic prophesies. And then of course there's the assumed knowledge underlying the epistles. These letters were written to specific churches or groups of churches not to lay down the fundamental points of doctrine, but to respond to that specific churches specific needs. Understandably, the content of these letters is often difficult to apply to modern churches. For example, one of the primary themes throughout the Epistles is the tension between Jewish and Gentile believers. Unless you attend a Messianic Jewish church, this is probably not a pressing concern for you. Frequent allusions are made to other letters which no longer exist or to prior verbal teachings, leaving us to speculate about the author's meaning. I see no indication that the Bible was written with any thought to the modern western reader, and I see no indication that God will help the sincere seeker to find "the truth" on any specific doctrine.
A couple months ago I spent a weekend at a conservative Brethren Bible Camp. A number of significant things occurred, not the least of which is that I spent some time reading a booklet on Charismatic stuff. This particular booklet was titled "Someone, Please Cry Wolf", and was written by David Wilkerson. (Yes, "The Cross and the Switchblade" David Wilkerson.) His opinion was that the Charismatic movement - centered, apparently, around the speaking of tongues - is a terrible Satanic attack on the church. It really frustrated me. I mean, I'm not Charismatic by any stretch, but Mr. Wilkerson's position - that the Charismatic movement is the greatest Satanic deception of our time - seems absurd to me. The only problem is that his views are supportable by scripture. Seriously, I looked it up. I can't remember all of it now, but I remember that some of it was a bit silly and out of context (out of context... Where have I heard that before?) but the majority seemed to be valid Biblical interpretation. On the other hand, I've heard Charismatic slants on some of the same verses that support opposite conclusions.
This is true for a wide range of issues. I can prove to you from the Bible that women should be totally submissive to men and not participate audibly in Church. I can also prove to you from the Bible that we should abolish all gender differences and allow women to be pastors. This bothers me. There's something troublesome to me about a book which can be taken to say that homosexuals are hated by God and doom nations to his wrath (here), or that homosexuality is not a sin (here). It's fashionable in my circles to focus on the love in the Bible. God is love. We are called to love. It's all about the love. Anything in the Bible that contradicts this preconception is either spun or shrugged off. (Conveniently, the God of Hatred and Wrath appears mostly in the "Old" Testament.) We downplay any rules or commandments as well as anything derogatory or condemning, and focus on tolerance and compassion. But sadly, I can't honestly claim that all who disagree with me are distorters of the Scripture (any more than I). They simply have different, yet comparatively valid interpretations of the Bible, influenced by their own preconceptions. The Bible is a very difficult book to try to live by, because it was never intended for that purpose. It's not a manual. It's got some teachings in there about how to live your life, but these teachings are generally cryptic, insufficient, contradictory, and/or addressing issues that are no longer relevant.
Furthermore, I'm not sure that I trust the Bible to have ever been "inspired by God" (meaning without errors), nor am I convinced that the Book I call the Bible contains all the stuff it should and none of the stuff it shouldn't. The cannon of Scripture was established hundreds of years after the alleged authors penned their original manuscripts. Even if we presuppose that the authors of our Bible were guided by God to write only what was doctrinally true (I don't know of any good way of verifying this theory, except to examine their historical accuracy and internal agreement, which in my opinion yields unsatisfactory results) I don't see any reason why we should assume that Augustine and friends were guided by God to include and exclude exactly what they should. It seems clear to me that God is not particularly interested in preserving these books in their original form, or in presenting any kind of clear and unified doctrine. So why should we assume that he guided these men to pick the right books?
Actually, in addition to our Bible, these men of dubious scholarship included the Apocrypha, which was officially considered to be the inspired word of God for the majority of Church history (300s-1500s). Either they were mistaken about what is scripture or we are, so don't try to tell me that God wouldn't allow "His Word" to contain large-scale errors. And anyway, the majority of humans who have ever lived never saw a Bible - with or without the Apocrypha. So why must we be the fortunate ones who get God's truth in a neat little package? Don't talk to me about what God would or wouldn't allow. We live in a free and peaceful nation - most of us have never known hunger or seen war. In this we are among the most fortunate people who have ever lived, and thus we have all kinds of irrational ideas about what God would and wouldn't allow. We figure he'd never let us die of hunger, or be enslaved or raped or tortured or wiped out by a plague or a nuke or a genocidal regime. Every one of these things have happened to people - Christian and non - in the past. Most are happening somewhere in the world as you read this, and will continue to happen for as long as this world lasts. More significantly (to the topic at hand) God allowed unknown generations of "Old Testament" Jews to live and die under the law, not to mention the rest of humanity at the time, who had no opportunity to even hear of the "one true god". For hundreds of years Europe was controlled by a corrupt Church hierarchy which oppressed the common people and twisted and manipulated Christianity to achieve wealth and power. The common people of this era were unable to read the Bible and mixed Christianity with superstition, and the rest of the world knew nothing of Jesus. Even today, various cults and spin-off religions add or subtract from the popular cannon of scripture, and thus millions are prevented from reading the Bible as we know it. (Not to mention that the majority of Western Christians will never read their Bible cover to cover, and few if any of our churches dare look honestly at every part of the Bible.) Throughout the world today many will never heard the name "Jesus", and billions of those who have know Christianity only as the driving force behind imperialism, materialism, oppression or immorality. The Jesus the world sees is tall and white, though more often the icon of Christianity is the Pope, a televangelist, or George W Bush. So tell me again why I must believe that my Bible is without significant theological errors.
There you go. That's my best attempt to (briefly) rip to sheds the credibility of the Bible. Why have I done this? A few reasons. First of all, this is the way my mind naturally works. I am suspicious of everything, and I can't accept the Bible without putting it to the test, nor can I shrug off what I find. It's important to mention that I am no scholar. (Well, I may technically be a scholar, depending on your definition.) As usual, my assertions are based on insufficient research and tainted by my own prejudices. I do not wish anything in this blog to be understood as "fact", but rather as my own opinions and beliefs.
So why would I, as a professing Christian who desires to mature in my knowledge and practice of Christ's teachings bring such accusations against the "Word of God"? Part of it is that I have a feeling most Christians have an dangerously inaccurate understanding of the credibility of their beliefs. The idea that Christianity is irrefutably true, and anyone who does not come to this conclusion is deceiving themselves seems to me to be totally without basis, and I suspect that most who hold this view simply haven't been exposed to good arguments against Christianity. (It would be presumptuous for me to think that I can personally reverse this, or that I am capable of presenting the most clear and compelling arguments against the Bible, but I can do my part.) I believe that many Christians feel threatened when their faith is persuasively questioned (as I once did) and I kind of hope we can get over that. There are problems with Christianity, and I believe that if we're going to be honest, we need to look them in the eye.
The other reason I do this is that I want to see if anyone can correct some of my beliefs, or at least, open my eyes to an alternative view. As I said, my research in these areas is pretty shallow, by some measures, and I don't doubt that some of you who have studied deeper have reached more accurate conclusions. And as a cynical person I am biased against this stuff, and I hope that your own biases, if shared, may enrich my thought. Think of me, if you wish, as Glaucon defending injustice to Socrates - not because he believed what he was saying, but because he wanted to hear Socrates defend justice in the most compelling way possible. (I'm sorry for my snobbish allusion to Plato. In my defense, I'm currently writing a paper on Plato's Retreat, so everything I think of reminds me of something from the book.) Ok, I'm quite done now. I welcome your comments.
Post a Comment
2 comments:
Post a Comment