I'm still trying to find an email I'd sent last year detailing many of my religious beliefs. Here is a small group (sub-list) of beliefs about the Bible from memory of that email. I believe:
- The Bible is a document of content derived from oral history. This applies mostly to the common content of the old testament, Torah, and Koran.
- The Bible New Testament books' content was also transferred through oral history.
- The Bible underwent extensive editing by the translating/transcribing monks and the Catholic Church.
- Protestants also made changes to the Bible's content.
- As such, The Bible's content should never be taken literally.
I was so pleased when (in 2006) Bart Ehrman wrote Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. I'd formed my opinions about the Bible content decades earlier. To see that a biblical scholar had found evidence was a big relief, since I didn't want to learn ancient languages in order to do my own research. In case you missed some of Bart's interviews, here's a sampling:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5052156
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030401369.html
bio & online courses: http://www.teach12.com/store/professor.asp?ID=150
============================
When the family assembled in Winston-Salem after my father passed away, the conversation turned to kids' names. After my naming (decision) was detailed, I mentioned that, like me (first born son), the book of Mark was the first Gospel written (approx 60 AD/CE). Moreover, I explained to my nieces and nephews, they should recognize that Mark is not the first book of the New Testament and that fact alone should serve as a warning to anyone trying to use the Bible's content literally. They weren't ready for that idea and I dropped it.
The title of this blog entry is about the Bible's veracity. I'm not questioning its truthfulness. Rather, I've come to a realization and belief that the Bible's content should be read with some skepticism -- not as a work of fiction, but as a collection of stories, fables, and life lessons by different writers and editors across millenia.
2 comments:
Thank you for your honesty in your brief outline of your beliefs. I find you choice of words interesting as you talk about the New Testament (although much of what you say I agree with).
You stated that you are not 'questioning its truthfulness' yet you use the word skepticism several times which is a word that although not exclusively has negative connotations.
I, too, believe we should read everything with a critical eye regardless of its content but I think words such as "questioning, probing, testing" might be more appropriate and less incendiary and actually encourage people like your family to be more open to your point of view when discussing the Bible, a body of works that carries with it so much identity, weight, culture, and history.
I think your intentions are sincere as you search out what are for you digestable as likely truths, but choice of words may help people to not view your thoughts as a cavalier treatment of or take on something so dear to them.
Just curious, regarding the weight of the book Misquoting Jesus, do find truthfulness in the 'words' of Jesus as he describes himself and his purpose? If so, what do you believe in regards to what Jesus says about himself. I am not speaking in terms of what he asks of us or the lessons he brings to us about life and how to live it but of what he actually says about himself.
DId you read Bart Ehrman's complete book? If so do you have it and can I borrow it? :-)
Paul,
I accept that my choice of "skeptic" may not be received universally by your blog readers. However, I did not intend it to be incindiary. In case anyone is unsure of its meanings:
Skepticism (from American Heritage Dictionary)
1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety.
2. Philosophy
a. The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.
b. The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.
c. A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.
3. Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.
Post a Comment