Do We Look At Scripture Right?
An ex-believer friend pointed me to a book called "Misquoting Jesus" in the effort to convince me that I couldn't trust my Bible. The hardcover is available on Amazon, but I'm going to wait for the paperback that is coming out in a few months. I want to read it though.
I don't really know what the author's angle is, but I saw a clip that intrigued me a lot. Essentially, the book is textual criticism, which is the work of comparing old manuscripts (of the Bible, in this case) and trying to decide which one is best and why. The friend who pointed me to it gave me a clip of the book to show me that a passage of the New Testament that he finds offensive was inserted later and was not part of Paul's message. Well, the argument is a persuasive one. What my friend, I guess, did NOT know is that the passage that offends him, is...problematic for pretty much everyone. It certainly isn't enforced anywhere I've ever gone to church and all my life I've heard it uncomfortably brushed off as something that only applied in the 1st Century and is no longer applicable today. Many a Christian has, I think, silently wished that they could sweep those verses out of the Bible, but can't because scripture is scripture and besides, wouldn't it be giving in to political correctness?
As I said, I haven't read the book yet. But it has me thinking about some stuff. Assuming that he is correct in his textual analysis, we have more than just an "excuse" to get those verses out of the Bible. A couple of verses that break up the continuing message of the chapter and insert a command that most find offensive and few attend and probably weren't written by Paul to begin with have no business in the Bible, right? Well, I'm beginning to think so. Wouldn't taking out those verses be the same thing as correcting the mistranslations of the KJV in our modern translations?
But it has me thinking. There is very little general understanding of the nature of scripture. We've built up a whole system of beliefs and superstitions and rumors about scripture and I think it does us harm. I am from a denomination that is heavily into the words "inerrant" and "infallible" and I will not bother to define or discuss those words beyond mentioning them, but it's a shame that those words themselves are enough for most people. I regularly meet Christians who believe that Revelation was the last book of the Bible written because it has verses at the end that say not to add any more words to the Bible. I regularly meet Christians who believe that the Bible was practically dictated to men with pens in their hands. They put their faith in THAT and then they are shaken when someone provides contrary evidence.
How many of the writers of the Bible actually knew they were writing scripture? Not very many, I'd expect. Yes, Luke was INSPIRED to write his Gospel, but he didn't just pick up a pen and start praying. He interviewed eye witnesses. He thought he was just writing down what they knew.
What if we thought of our Scriptures the way Hindus do? They have a LOT of very diverse scriptures written by different people in different times and all they have in common is that they were all written by enlightened Hindus who felt they had learned something important about the nature of Brahmin or spiritual matters and wished to write it down for posterity. A Hindu doesn't try to prove that their whole group of Scriptures form a cohesive work. Different groups of Hindus may completely ignore one book and highly regard another that speaks to them. I can imagine Christians cringing at the thought of throwing out the Bible books that they don't like, but don't cringe so fast. Don't we do that anyway? Admit it. There are books of the Bible that you will never read ever unless they come up in the middle of an effort to read straight through the whole Bible.
What am I saying? Maybe nothing cohesive. But when my ex-believer friend seemed surprised that "Misquoting Jesus" didn't shake me, I had to explain that my NASB isn't my God. It is a handy reference guide to lots of knowledge about God, but I'm under no illusion that it is flawless. It doesn't NEED to be. It is very useful as it is.
I don't really know what the author's angle is, but I saw a clip that intrigued me a lot. Essentially, the book is textual criticism, which is the work of comparing old manuscripts (of the Bible, in this case) and trying to decide which one is best and why. The friend who pointed me to it gave me a clip of the book to show me that a passage of the New Testament that he finds offensive was inserted later and was not part of Paul's message. Well, the argument is a persuasive one. What my friend, I guess, did NOT know is that the passage that offends him, is...problematic for pretty much everyone. It certainly isn't enforced anywhere I've ever gone to church and all my life I've heard it uncomfortably brushed off as something that only applied in the 1st Century and is no longer applicable today. Many a Christian has, I think, silently wished that they could sweep those verses out of the Bible, but can't because scripture is scripture and besides, wouldn't it be giving in to political correctness?
As I said, I haven't read the book yet. But it has me thinking about some stuff. Assuming that he is correct in his textual analysis, we have more than just an "excuse" to get those verses out of the Bible. A couple of verses that break up the continuing message of the chapter and insert a command that most find offensive and few attend and probably weren't written by Paul to begin with have no business in the Bible, right? Well, I'm beginning to think so. Wouldn't taking out those verses be the same thing as correcting the mistranslations of the KJV in our modern translations?
But it has me thinking. There is very little general understanding of the nature of scripture. We've built up a whole system of beliefs and superstitions and rumors about scripture and I think it does us harm. I am from a denomination that is heavily into the words "inerrant" and "infallible" and I will not bother to define or discuss those words beyond mentioning them, but it's a shame that those words themselves are enough for most people. I regularly meet Christians who believe that Revelation was the last book of the Bible written because it has verses at the end that say not to add any more words to the Bible. I regularly meet Christians who believe that the Bible was practically dictated to men with pens in their hands. They put their faith in THAT and then they are shaken when someone provides contrary evidence.
How many of the writers of the Bible actually knew they were writing scripture? Not very many, I'd expect. Yes, Luke was INSPIRED to write his Gospel, but he didn't just pick up a pen and start praying. He interviewed eye witnesses. He thought he was just writing down what they knew.
What if we thought of our Scriptures the way Hindus do? They have a LOT of very diverse scriptures written by different people in different times and all they have in common is that they were all written by enlightened Hindus who felt they had learned something important about the nature of Brahmin or spiritual matters and wished to write it down for posterity. A Hindu doesn't try to prove that their whole group of Scriptures form a cohesive work. Different groups of Hindus may completely ignore one book and highly regard another that speaks to them. I can imagine Christians cringing at the thought of throwing out the Bible books that they don't like, but don't cringe so fast. Don't we do that anyway? Admit it. There are books of the Bible that you will never read ever unless they come up in the middle of an effort to read straight through the whole Bible.
What am I saying? Maybe nothing cohesive. But when my ex-believer friend seemed surprised that "Misquoting Jesus" didn't shake me, I had to explain that my NASB isn't my God. It is a handy reference guide to lots of knowledge about God, but I'm under no illusion that it is flawless. It doesn't NEED to be. It is very useful as it is.
posted by Axaday | 3:18 PM
1 Comments:
Jon. essyay.
I would suggest a VERY good read by Peter Enns (Westminster Theo. Sem.) that is extremely helpful in my view.
Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Paperback)
Along those lines: The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture (Hardcover)
The BIG problem is actually an arguement between Modernism and Postmodernism where both are wrong.
Modernism wants to say that truth flies up off the page and goes into your head and you know it without fault.
Postmodernism says that since we all filter truth, there is no truth to be known.
We need to say that OBJECTIVE REALITIES are actually investigated by our SUBJECTIVE SELVES.
I also HIGHLY suggest Leslie Newbigin's Proper Confidence
Amen
-ps: if I had the authority to require you to read this stuff, I would require it.
Post a Comment
<< Home