I realize that the Bible provides hope to both those suffering on Earth and those perfectly accommodated, but one cannot honestly and purely examine the Bible-- its messages and its history-- and claim its divinity. The Bible's evolution and interpretation over the past twenty-five centuries reflects-- century for century-- the political and social drivers of the day. Did God aid clergymen in judging which gospels to include in the earliest version of the Bible?-- no, it was political. Did God guide the insertion of increasingly misogynistic text in the middle of the previous millennium?-- no, it was political. Did God demand the insertion of Mark 16:9-20 hundreds of years after the original?-- no. Did God intend that the term "homosexual" be added to the Bible for the first time in 1946?-- no, it was political. There are literally thousands of other examples. A common response to such evidence goes something like: "just because humans are fallible doesn't make the religion fallible." I adamantly agree, but to admit that the fallible nature of humankind has impacted the Bible necessarily strips the Bible of its divinity.
What I cannot understand is how one-- knowing that our earliest copy of the Bible dates only to the 3rd or 4th century AD; knowing that the Bible has undergone explicit, in-your-face alterations; knowing that the Gospels date 100 or more years after the supposed death of Jesus; knowing that the Bible's vagueness offers any person license to advance their own petty, narrow-minded beliefs; knowing countless other damning evidences-- can claim faith in its messages. I blame circular logic; remember that the only source that claims that the Bible is the word of God is the Bible itself. I often wonder, "In what do you have faith-- God or the Bible?" I do feel that each answer is mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, most Christians' understanding of God-- including how He perceives us-- follow directly from the teachings of the Bible. I imagine it incredibly difficult to divorce the two.
2 comments:
Hey James,
Just wandering where you got your information from for this post. I think it's pretty widely accepted that the latest gospel (John's) was written in 90s AD, which would only be approximately 60 years after the death of Jesus...
I've heard the statement about the word homosexual only appearing in 1946 before, but I don't know if it was from you or not. Where does this idea come from?
There has been a lot of study in the field of textual criticism in the last fifty or sixty years to get back to the original biblical text so that politics is left out of the interpretation of the Holy Bible.
That's all for now...
Greetings Joshua,
The earliest dated fragment of the Bible dates to the 2nd C AD, and, as I said, the earliest complete copy dates to the 3rd or 4th C AD. This information comes from the highly creditable biblical scholar Bart Ehrman. I have included a link to a lecture he delivered here at Stanford University. It is posted under a new label entitled "4 reference materials." I hope you'll consider watching!
No, I don't think we've discussed the insertion of the term "homosexual" in the Bible before. It's widely publicized that the term first appeared in the in the 1946 Revised Standard Version.
I would love to see a Bible free of politics. For now, the idea seems oxymoronic. But, of course, I consider the Bible-- beginning with its initial compilation and as evident in its countless alterations-- entirely political. Can you imagine the backlash someone might encounter while trying to push a new, "un-politicized" version of the Bible? There would be severe resistance and upheaval until some compromise was reached. Know what they call compromise that distracts from pure scholarship?-- politics!
Post a Comment