Summary Reflections on Bible Exploration

I've come to the end of my Bible Exploration series. I thought it would be useful (for me at least!) to summarize the key insights.

Many of my friends ask me why I even bothered to address the Bible. My response is that, although my thinking on things theological has evolved greatly in recent years, I still want to have a spiritual dimension to my life. For me, having grown up in the Christian tradition, I envision exploring that spiritual dimension with a Christian bias (although not with the fundamentalist perspectives I was indoctrinated with). As such, I need to be able to "fit in" the critical components of Christianity (i.e. God, Jesus, Bible, etc.) in a way that makes sense for me. So this is my attempt to explain how I see the Bible as being a potentially relevant source of thinking for that spritual dimension I seek.

Here are the key insights from this series of blog entries:

Bible Beliefs

• The Bible is a human product, containing human words...not the very words of God.
• It should not be read literally...but there are strong metaphorical messages that contain wisdom we can learn from.
• Within the context of the previous two points, Christians should understand the Bible as it is the foundational document for Christians, since it captures the experiences of the ancient Israel community and the early Christian community and their responses to God and Jesus, which is important within the Christian religion.
• For Christians, the Bible can be a mediator to God, as it discloses elements of God's character as interpreted through the Christian tradition.

How the Bible Became a Book

• There are MANY examples of the Bible being incorrect...it is not the inerrant words of God.
• The Biblical texts were initially communicated through oral tradition (for tens of years) before they were written down...wording and specifics would have clearly been altered during this process. In terms of the original texts, we don't have them or even copies of copies of copies of the original texts.
• The texts themselves were copied by hand for hundreds of years...with mistakes and edits happening along the way.
• The determination of what texts should be in the Bible was made by a variety of church leaders over time...with great debate.

A New Way of Reading/Seeing the Bible

• When reading the Bible, we should take a "historical-metaphorical" approach, asking "What did this text mean in the ancient historical setting in which it was written?" and "What does this story mean as a story, independent of its historical factuality?"

Revisiting the Creation Stories

• The creation stories were written in the 500s BCE, during or shortly after the Jewish exile into Babylon. Some suggest that key elements of the stories were used to emphasize Jewish beliefs...importance of the sabbath to the Jews of the day (as opposed to creation stories starting the sabbath ritual); and an assertion that the God of Israel is the creator and lord of heaven and earth as compared with Babylon and its gods (with whom the Jews were obviously not very happy at that point in time!).
• The historical understanding of the universe is important context...Ancient Israelites thought of the earth as the centre of the universe and above the earth was the "dome of the sky" with water being above the dome (hence the falling of rain and snow). Thus, the description of creation (e.g. separating the waters so that dry land is below the sky, etc.) reflects their understanding of the nature of the universe.
• The figurative nature of the creation stories can be seen even through the names of Adam (which comes from the Hebrew word adham meaning "humankind" and coming from the Hebrew word adhamah meaning "ground" or "dust") and Eve (which means "mother of all living").
• Key metaphorical messages that may make these stories useful or relevant for Christians today include the following propositions: (1) God is the source of everything that is; (2) humans are the climax of creation but at the same time we are small, finite, mortal.
• Finally, these creation stories set up the rest of the Bible which is, to a large extent, the Christian tradition's story of humankind's state of affairs: the human predicament and the Christian solution.

Plowing through the Pentateuch

• The Pentateuch captures the story of the "beginning of Israel" as a nation and a people. Its main components include stories about Abraham and his family; Moses and the Jewish exodus from Egypt; Sinai, the covenant and the laws; and the journey through the wilderness.
• The overarching theme throughout the Pentateuch is "promise and fulfillment". God promises Abraham that he will make of him a great nation. The rest of the story of the Pentateuch is the story of fulfillment of this promise...from slavery to the exodus and to the promised land.
• While the Jewish exodus likely happened in the 13th century BCE, the completed Pentateuch was not likely written until around the Jewish exile in Babylon in the 500s BCE. At the time of writing (i.e. during the exile), the promise of God that the Jews would be "a great nation" seemed profoundly threatened again, as did their very existence. In this setting, they remembered and celebrated the promise given to their ancestors, the stories of Israel's liberation from a previous imperial power, and the gift of a new land and a new life.
• In addition, the Pentateuch is Israel's story of radical protest against and liberation from the way Egypt and Pharoah governed human society at the time which included economic exploitation, political oppression and religious legitimation. In that context, the laws in the Pentateuch were written to prevent the emergence of a permanently impoverished class within Israel (i.e. for use in their world several thousand years ago as opposed to for Christians today).
• The metaphorical interpretation and usefulness of the Pentateuch for today's Christian would be an underlying message that in spite of life's threats and seemingly insurmountable obstacles, when birth and rebirth seem impossible, when powers of empires seem to rule the world...living in a manner that mirrors God's nature will enable us to make it through - living fully, loving unconditionally, being all we can be.

New Perspectives on the Prophets

• Historical context is crucial if one is to understand these books. These books narrate the history of Israel from the time of occupation of the promised land until the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 586 BCE. During that time, Israel lived as a "tribal confederacy" with no centralized government. Then, around 1000 BCE, a monarchy was put in place with kings like Saul, David and Solomon. When Solomon died in 922 BCE, the united kingdom split into 2 parts: Israel and Judah. Israel lasted until 722 BCE when it was conquered and destroyed by the Assyrian kingdom. Judah lasted until 586 BCE when it was conquered and destroyed by the Babylonian empire. Some of Judah's survivors were exiled to Babylon for about 50 years, at which time they were allowed to return to Judah to begin rebuilding their ruined country. So the prophets are writing some 500 years after the exodus, during the time of the split of the kingdom, destruction of the kingdoms, exile and return. It is also important to recognize that during this time period, Israel and Judah had essentially become miniature versions of the ancient domination system that had enslaved their ancestors in Egypt. The victims (the majority of the population) were Israelites, of course, but now the elites at the top were also Israelites...Egypt had been established in Israel.
• In that context, criticism of the reality of Israel's and Judah's social situation is the core of what the prophets were addressing in these books...as they believed that this could not be the will of God who had liberated Israel from similar bondage in Egypt. In essence, they expressed a passion for social justice and had an anti-establishment message...and added warnings of consequences if the societies didn't take peace and justice seriously.
• In that context, it also becomes clear that the prophets weren't foretelling Jesus' story as is commonly thought (instead, because the New Testament authors were Jewish and knew the Hebrew Bible well, they echoed the words of the Hebrew Bible in telling Jesus' story, in order to show continuity between Jesus and the tradition out of which they came, making it seem as though the prophets were foretelling Jesus' story).
• For Christians today, the message of many of the prophets words can still have metaphorical meaning - it can be relevant to the victims and exiles of the domination systems of our time, proclaiming that our identify, value and worth are not grounded in the culture of the day, but in God's regard. The message of the prophets can affirm that God's character, will and justice are different from the justice of oppressive social orders and the solution for exiles of today's world is also a journey of return...a way or path through the wilderness...with the destination being a return to life mirroring God's will.

Gaining Wisdom from the Wisdom Books

• These books (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job) were believed to have been written in the post-exile timeframe...between 500BCE to 300 BCE timeframe.
• Proverbs generally affirms "Follow this way, and your life will go well."...essentially a book of conventional wisdom (i.e. cultural wisdom, community wisdom, folk wisdom, "what everybody knows", etc.).
• Ecclesiastes questions conventional wisdom by claiming that the things of life (e.g. wisdom, power, fame, wealth, etc.) do not satisfy and then goes on to establish that bad things happen to good people through no fault of their own. It also emphasizes death...its utter inevitability and randomness...and the fact that there is nothing we can do about it, so we should "Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we may die".
• In Job, we encounter a story about a righteous man who endures much suffering. His friends try to share conventional wisdom to him to explain his suffering, but Job dismisses that wisdom as worthless. In the end, Job has a discussion with God which also provided him with no answers or explanations for his suffering. The experience, though, did convince him that God is real in spite of our ability to see fairness in the world. Some think that Job wasn't written to address the question "Why do the righteous suffer?" but instead to illustrate a point that God should be seen not as a means but as the ultimate end (that is, religion unmotivated by self-interest).
• For today's Christian, the wisdom books provide an interesting contrast between secondhand religion (i.e. religion learned from others...Proverbs) and firsthand religion (i.e. religion that flows from the firsthand experience of God...Ecclesiastes and Job). The books also provide a contrast between conventional wisdom and wisdom that is based more on randomness, chance and inevitability.

The Evolving Stories of the Gospels

• The earliest is almost certainly Mark and the latest is John. The gospels are the product of a developing Christian tradition during the decades following Jesus' death...containing history remembered and history metaphorized.
• Mark was a wartime gospel, and, as such, Mark emphasizes things like Jesus' suffering, warnings that followers of Jesus would suffer, and the promise of rewards to those who endured without losing their faith. Mark's theme seems to be focused around the "way"...that is, a way of return from exile (where the community found itself at wartime) which focused on dying to an old way of being and being born into a new way of being.
• Matthew was written about 10-20 years after Mark. Matthew uses 90% of Mark and adds some material from Q as well as some "original" material to evolve the story of Jesus. Matthew was written at a time when Christian Jews were in conflict with other Jews, so Matthew tries to assert that Christian Jews are faithful to the traditions of Israel...he does this by quoting the Hebrew Bible, drawing parallels to the Hebrew Bible and quoting Hebrew scripture.
• Luke was also written about 10-20 years after Mark and uses a lot of Mark and Q. But to evolve the story, he also adds a lot of "original" content as well. When Luke was written, Christianity had become a much more Gentile movement so he wanted to show Christianity projected to the whole world - both Jew and Gentile. Luke also has a repeated emphasis on the Spirit of God.
• John was written about 60-70 years after Jesus's death. John is the most symbolic of the gospels and if you don't try to force yourself to read John literally, you'll find that it is a remarkable book that summarizes how the Christian movement came to understand Jesus...that is, through Jesus you can know what God is like.
• The gospel stories clearly evolve from the first gospel (Mark) to the remaining gospels (e.g. virgin birth idea, resurrection stories, etc.). Matthew and Luke took Mark's writings and morphed them to meet their needs (i.e. Matthew's need to justify his belief in Jesus as being in line with Judaism; Luke's desire to move Christianity to a movement for Gentile and Jew and to emphasize the spirit). John takes the gospels to their next evolution... a more direct link between Jesus and God.
• For Christians today, the gospels tell the story of Jesus, through whom we can see what a life full of God looks like...living fully, loving wastefully, and having the courage to be all that you can possibly be.

A Primer on Paul's Writings

• Paul's letters were the way he kept in touch with the Christian communities he had helped start once he had moved on. Often, Paul's letters are responses to letters he would have received from a community. Thus, it is important to recognize that the letters were not intended to be a summary of his message, but more specifically dealing with issues arising in his communities. In fact, the agenda for Paul's letters was set more by the communities than by Paul...he deals with specific issues raised by them.
• For today's Christians, Paul's themes included: (1) Jesus is Lord (i.e. he showed what a life full of God looks like and, as such, is Lord...and Caesar is not); (2) Being "In Christ" (i.e. characterized by things like freedom, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness and self-control); (3) Justification by Grace (i.e. you don't have to be Jew or live a certain way...justification by grace is the basis for anyone's relationship to God...it is a gift of God, not a human accomplishment); and (4) Christ Crucified (i.e. this represents various messages including Christ was physically crucified; an indictment of the rulers of the age who crucified Christ; a revelation of God's love for us; and a symbol of the path of transformation).

Revelations from Revelation

• Revelation was written for specific Christian communities in Asia Minor (about the events that the author thinks will happen in his own time) as opposed to being a message for people thousands of years later. In this context, key messages were: (1) Despite appearances to the contrary, Christ is Lord and Caesar and the beast are not; (2) God will soon act to overthrow the rule of the beast and its incarnation in Caesar; and (3) Therefore, persevere, endure, be confident, take hear, have faith.
• For today's Christians, there are various themes that can be seen in Revelation: (1) Tale of Two Lordships (i.e. the honor and praise demanded by Caesar is offered to God and Jesus instead); (2) Ancient Cosmic Combat Myth (i.e. story of cosmic conflict between good and evil that has been used in many cultures throughout human history); (3) Revelation and Empire (i.e. Rome won't bring peace as it claims...instead Jesus is the light of the world who can bring peace on Earth); (4) Indictment of the Roman Empire (i.e. Revelation personifies Rome as "the great whore" and a ferocious beast, and claims the fact that the economic exploitation will end); (5) Tale of Two Cities (i.e. city of Rome will fall to the kingdom of God...the "New Jerusalem").

Revelations from Revelation

Revelation is the last book in the Bible...although it wasn't the last book to be written, nor did the author know it would be positioned as the "conclusion" to the Christian Bible. It was placed at the end due to its subject matter...that is, "the end". It is interesting to note that Revelation almost failed to "make it into" the Bible...it was reluctantly accepted in the Greek speaking Eastern church, listed by Eusebius as a disputed book, omitted from canonical book lists made by early church fathers, given secondary stature by Luther, and largely ignored by Calvin.

The book is an apocalypse. Apocalyptic writings flourished in Judaism from about 200 BCE to 100 CE. It was written in the last first century by a man named John. As many as 65% of the verses in Revelation echo or allude to passages from the Hebrew Bible. The book starts with a vision...and this continues throughout ("I saw" is used about 55 times)...using imagery, allusions to the Hebrew Bible, symbolic numbers, etc.

There are 2 ways of reading Revelation:

• The Futurist Interpretation - the central claim of this way of reading Revelation is simple: it tells us about what will happen some time in the future. This is how most Christians read Revelation.
• The Past-Historical Interpretation - this approach is based on a belief that we understand the message of Revelation only by setting the test in the historical context within which it was written - that is, emphasizing what Revelation would have meant in the past. This approach sees Revelation as a message to the specific Christian communities in Asia Minor (as referred to at the beginning of Revelation) as opposed to a message for people thousands of years later. The author seems to think the events will happen in his own time as well (he uses phrases like "what must soon take place", "for the time is near", "soon")...and while modern Christians try to overlay "God's time perspective" on these statements, the original hearers of Revelation would not have had that thought. There is also compelling evidence that the author was writing about realities of his own day (e.g. clear allusions to the Roman empire). In this context, key messages were: (1) Despite appearances to the contrary, Christ is Lord and Caesar and the beast are not; (2) God will soon act to overthrow the rule of the beast and its incarnation in Caesar; and (3) Therefore, persevere, endure, be confident, take hear, have faith. Taking this approach recognizes that the Roman Empire did not fall for another 300 years and Jesus did not return soon...it accepts that the Bible is a human product, not a divine product without error.

But Revelation is more than mistaken prediction...its larger themes are of interest:

• Tale of Two Lordships - Roman emperors were given divine titles (e.g. son of God, lord, god, etc.) and there was religious legitimation to the rule of the empire and Caesar. Against this context, John in Revelation proclaims exclusive lordship of God and God as known in Jesus. The honor and praise demanded by Caesar is offered to God and Jesus instead. In summary, Jesus is Lord; Caesar is not.


• The Ancient Cosmic Combat Myth - this plot is a story of cosmic conflict between good and evil, and has been used in many cultures throughout human history (e.g. in ancient writings, conflicts between the god of light and evil power of darkness, witht he evil power often imaged as a dragon or sea monster; in ancient Near East, stories of god killing the evil seven-headed monster; in postbiblical time, archangel Michael warring with the dragon; and we could keep going up to things like Star Wars with its depiction of good versus evil). John uses similar references in his story.


• Revelation and Empire - there are remarkable similarities between Revelation and the story of Apollo's birth (from Greco-Roman culture)...when Apollos was born, the ancient monster looked to devour the infant, but Apollo was kept safe and went on to kill the monster. John seems to use that story. By identifying the dragon, he refers to the Roman Empire. Instead of Caesar and the Roman Empire being Apollo, Jesus takes that role and they become the dragon, the beast, the ancient serpant. Rome won't bring peace as it claims...instead Jesus is the light of the world who can bring peace on Earth.


• Indictment of the Roman Empire - the ancient domination system included political oppression, economic exploitation and religious legitimation...elites of power and wealth controlled societies in their own interests and declared the order they imposed to be the will of God. In Revelation, John refers to all of these features. John personifies Rome as "the great whore" and ferocious beast...seducing, bewitching, claiming religious legitimation, and then ruling through intimidation and violence. In describing "the great whore", John describes the luxury of the empire (e.g. fine linen, gold, jewels, pearls, etc.), including slaves and human lives...and the fact that the economic exploitation will end.


• Tale of Two Cities - the city of Rome will fall to the kingdom of God...the "New Jerusalem".

So in Revelation, we see an affirmation of the sovereignty and justice of God, and radical criticism of an oppressive domination system pretending to be the will of God. John's vision of the "New Jerusalem" may be the primary reason this book made it into the Bible. It speaks of the reunion of God with humankind, thereby overcoming the exile that began in Eden...there we will see God. It is difficult to imagine a more powerful ending to the Bible.

Note: the bulk of the above has been extracted from Marcus Borg's Reading the Bible Again for the First Time.

A Primer on Paul's Writings

Next to Jesus, an argument can be made that Paul was the most important individual in the birth of what came to be Christianity. He wrote more of the New Testament than any other person (although scholars think that he likely only wrote 7, 8 or 9 of the 13 letters attributed to him), and was responsible for the spread of the Jesus movement into the Gentile world. While both liked and hated, there is not much debate that Paul was seen as an intellectual. He was also clearly Jewish and a Pharisee.

As a missionary, Paul would typically arrive in a new city and begin his missionary work by going to the Jewish synagogue where he would address Jews, but also Gentiles who were loosely associated with the synagogue. Paul's converts would begin a community life of their own, gathering regularly for worship and instruction and life together...in "house churches". These communities were likely small...well under 100 and more than likely between 10-30. Paul's missionary strategy also had him moving on after a local community had been established.

Paul's letters were the way he kept in touch with his communities after he had moved on. They would be read aloud at a gathering of the community. As such, Paul's letters are "conversations in context" - often his response to a letter he would have received from the community. Thus, it is important to recognize that the letters were not intended to be a summary of his message, but more specifically dealing with issues arising in his communities. In fact, the agenda for Paul's letters was set more by the communities than by Paul...he deals with specific issues raised by them.

For example, Paul writes in I Corinthians "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband." An interesting question raised about passages such as this is how much of the passage is Paul's point of view, versus how much is he noting what was written to him by the community. For instance, in this passage, try putting quotation marks around the second sentence (i.e. as if it was what the community had written...to follow the "concerning matters about which you wrote" opening) and then re-read the passage...you'll get a very different perspective. But since there are no quotation marks in ancient Greek, we don't really know...although many modern scholars think that the second sentence is Paul quoting from the letter he received from his community in Corinth.

Some of the key themes in Paul's writings are:

• "Jesus is Lord" - Paul refers to Jesus as Lord frequently. This had both religious and sociopolitical meanings. He was affirming that the "risen Christ" participated in the power and authority of God. He was also affirming that since "Jesus is Lord", "Caesar is not Lord".
• "In Christ" - Paul uses this phrase (or "in the Lord") 165 times. He uses it to refer to being free, no longer enslaved to the dominion of sin and death...characterized by things like freedom, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness and self-control. Life "in Christ" also has a social dimension in that it negates the social boundaries that mark conventional human existence.
• "Justification by Grace" - Paul contrasts justification by works of the law with justification by grace through faith. Justification is a free gift, not a reward for achievement. In Galatians, for example, justification by grace through faith is the basis for Gentiles becoming part of the community without becoming Jewish through circumcision. Similarly, he makes this point in Romans. For Paul, justification by grace is the basis for our relationship to God...it is a gift of God, not a human accomplishment.
• "Christ Crucified" - Paul attaches various meanings to this including that Christ was crucified; an indictment of the rulers of the age who crucified Christ; a revelation of God's love for us; and a symbol of the path of transformation.

The New Testament doesn't tell us about Paul's death, but according to early Church tradition, he was believed to have been executed in the 60s. If so, it is interesting that Christianity's two most formative figures were executed by established authority.

Note: most of the above was taken from Marcus Borg's Reading the Bible Again for the First Time.

The Evolving Stories of the Gospels

First, a little historical context:

• In 63 BCE, the Jewish homeland was incorporated into the Roman Empire (and administered through "client kings" appointed by Rome)
• Herod the Great was client king in 37 BCE until his death in 4 BCE. At the time of this death, the kingdom was divided into 3 parts.
• Jesus was born around 4 BCE.
• In 6 BCE, one of those parts - Judea - came under the direct Roman rule through governors - the most famous of whom was Pontius Pilate, from 26 to 36 BCE.
• Jesus was executed around 30 CE.
• Jewish revolutionary violence simmered throughout the first century, culminating in the catastrophic war of revolt against Rome in 66 CE. During this war, the Romans brutally reconquered the Jewish homeland and destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70.
• The gospels were written between approximately 65 and 100 CE.

The gospels tell the story of Jesus. The earliest is almost certainly Mark and the latest is John. The gospels are the product of a developing Christian tradition during the decades following Jesus' death...containing history remembered and history metaphorized.

Mark was written around 70 CE. It is thought that Mark was a follower of Peter and that much of Mark is based on Peter's teaching. It was written around the time that Jerusalem and the temple were reconquered and destroyed. That event casts a shadow on this gospel...Mark was a wartime gospel. To strengthen those being persecuted in this wartime, Mark emphasizes things like Jesus' suffering, warnings that followers of Jesus would suffer, and the promise og rewards to those who endured without losing their faith. In that context, Mark's theme seems to be focused around the "way"...that is, a way of return from exile (where the community found itself at that point in time)...the path of death and resurrection. When Mark uses the word "repent", he isn't referring to contrition for sin, but returning from exile...that is, dying to an old way of being and being born into a new way of being. Some interesting tidbits about Mark:

• He refers to Jesus' mother ("son of Mary") but doesn't mention Jesus' presumed father, Joseph
• There is no virgin birth story in Mark
• There is no resurrection appearance...just some startled women who "said nothing to any one"

Matthew was written about 10-20 years after Mark. Matthew uses 90% of Mark and adds some material from Q as well as some "original" material to evolve the story of Jesus. Matthew's content points to a late first-century community of Christian Jews in conflict with other Jews. After the Roman conquest of the Jewish homeland, the survivors sought to consolidate and preserve Jewish identity in spite of the loss of the temple. Soon after the temple's destruction, the Jewish community began to ostracize Jews who followed Jesus as the messiah, claiming they were no longer true Jews. Matthew tries to assert that Christian Jews are faithful to the traditions of Israel...he does this by quoting the Hebrew Bible more than any other gospel ("It is written" is used 40 times). He also parallels the Hebrew Bible's stories and quotes Hebrew scripture many, many times in telling the story of Jesus. He traces Jesus' genealogy back to Abraham, restricts Jesus mission during his lifetime to the Jews, echoes the story of Moses in Jesus (e.g. Herod, like Pharaoh, was claimed to command all male babies to be killed, structured Jesus' teaching in 5 blocks like the five books of Moses, etc.). Matthew also introduces some new concepts that differ from other gospels:

• He introduces the virgin birth idea. He suggests Mary and Joseph live in Bethlehem and then move to Nazareth after spending time in Egypt following a plot by Herod to kill infants (Luke has them live in Nazareth but travel to Bethlehem for a census and then return to Nazareth afterwards...no Egypt trip and no Herod plot)
• He has wise men visit Jesus by following a star (Luke has neither wise men nor a star, but instead has angels singing in the night sky to shepherds who come to visit)
• He traces Jesus' genealogy back to Abraham (Luke traces it back to Adam)
• He makes the "son of man" or Christ claim stronger and more overt than Mark did
• He seems to have heightened the miraculous in his stories as compared to Mark
• He emphasized hell more than other Christian writings

Luke was also written about 10-20 years after Mark and uses a lot of Mark and Q. But to evolve the story, he also adds a lot of "original" content as well. By the time Luke wrote his gospel, Christianity had become a much more Gentile movement. As such, he wanted to show Christianity projected to the whole world; to show how its center had shifted from Jerusalem to Rome; and to show how gentiles like himself had come to be included in this Jewish religion. He does this by evolving the story of Jesus through various and sometimes subtle means (for example, he traces Jesus back to Adam (father of all men) as opposed to Abraham; he has Roman Pontius Pilate pronounce Jesus innocent; etc. Luke's thematic construction involves a repeated emphasis on the Spirit of God (Jesus' conception by Spirit, Spirit descending on Jesus at his baptism, Jesus promising to send the Spirit to his followers, and in Acts - the companion book to Luke - the Spirit descending on the community through speaking in other languages...thereby breaking barriers of Christianity beyond language, nationality, economics, etc.). In the power of the Christ-spirit, all separations were overcome...including between Jews and Gentiles.

John is very different from the other 3 gospels, again showing the evolution of the gospels. John includes differences such as the length of Jesus' public activity (1 year in the others; 3-4 in John), geography (Jesus' public activity occurs in Judea and Jerusalem more than in Galilee), and message (Jesus message is about himself as opposed to the kingdom of God). John was written about 60-70 years after Jesus's death. John is the most symbolic of the gospels...Jesus inaugural scene is the "water into wine" story...symbolizing that Jesus message is about a wedding banquet at which the wine never runs out and the best is saved for last. John is also famous for the "I am" sayings...describing Jesus as Lord, Messiah, King and Son of God (those sayings are part of John's evolution of the gospels). For these sayings, the context of the time is important to note...there was a growing divide between some Jews and Christians, with a push by some Jews to argue that it was heritical to attribute to a human being too close a connection with the Holy God (like was being claimed about Jesus). John wrote to encourage and bolster those being banished because of their openness about following Jesus...and he did so through things like the "I am" sayings. The other gospels didn't say these things...in fact, it wouldn't have made sense, for instance, in Mark where the concept was that Jesus' divine identity was a secret only to be revealed through the cross and resurrection. If one doesn't force oneself to read John literally, it is a remarkable book at summarizing how the Christian movement came to understand Jesus...that is, through Jesus you can know what God is like. That is the message of John.

In summary, Mark started the gospel writings. Matthew and Luke took Mark's writings and morphed them to meet their needs (i.e. Matthew's need to justify his belief in Jesus as being in line with Judaism; Luke's desire to move Christianity to a movement for Gentile and Jew and to emphasize the spirit). John takes the gospels to their next evolution...making a more direct link between Jesus and God. And while there are glaring inconsistencies throughout the gospels, (which illustrates the evolving nature of the gospels), this is not a problem for those who don't see the gospels as having to be interpreted literally and as inerrant words of God. For others, this realization is startling and disturbing...in my experience, they either embrace it or refuse to even consider it.

Note: lots of credit for the content of this blog entry to Borg's Reading the Bible Again for the First Time, and to Spong's Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism.

Gaining Wisdom from the Wisdom Books

The last portion of the Old Testament relates to Israel's wisdom literature - Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job. These books were believed to have been written in the post-exile timeframe...between 500BCE to 300 BCE timeframe. There are 2 other wisdom books - Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon, which are not in the Hebrew Bible, but are seen as sacred scripture by Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican Christians, but not by most Prostestants. It is thought that these were written between the 200BCE and 100BCE timeframe.

In general, the wisdom literature in the Hebrew Bible are concerned with the individual as opposed to Israel's sacred story as a people or with criticism and reshaping of the social order. These books also seem to credit experience for their source as opposed to divine revelation. All 3 books are based on observation - "this is what life is like".

The wisdom books identify one of the two major conflicts within the Hebrew Bible. The first, which we have already discussed, is the conflict between the imperial theology of Egypt and exodus theology, between the royal theology of Israel's monarchy and the message of Israel's prophets. The second relates to the conflict between secondhand and firsthand religion, where secondhand religion is religion learned from others (i.e. Proverbs) while firsthand religion is the religion that flows from the firsthand experience of God (i.e. Ecclesiastes and Job).

We'll start with Proverbs (which tends to be fairly unambigous in its writings about life - secondhand religion) and then move onto Ecclesiastes and Job (which tend to hint at randomness and chance - firsthand religion).

Proverbs

• First part is made of up wisdom poems - "in praise of wisdom"; the rest is a collection of individual proverbs (likely an accumulation of sayings of generations of wisdom teachers)
• The wisdom poems often contrast 2 paths: the wise way and the foolish way; the righteous way and wicked way; way of life and way of death
• The first chapters also introduce the personification of "Wisdom" in female form, commonly called Sophia (i.e. the Greek word for wisdom); there is also a personification of folly through "the strange woman" or "the alien woman" - often portrayed as an adulteress and seductress
• The collection of proverbs in the rest of the book cover a variety of topics including elegance/humour, children/family, wealth/poverty, rewards of right living, etc.
• In summary, Proverbs generally affirms "Follow this way, and your life will go well."...essentially a book of conventional wisdom (i.e. cultural wisdom, community wisdom, folk wisdom, "what everybody knows", etc.). Conventional wisdom contains truth - there are ways of living that do lead to dead ends, and some things can make life more pleasant. But there is also a corollary to conventional wisdom - if life fails to work out, you must have done something wrong. This clearly isn't always the case.

Ecclesiastes

• Title likely refers to its author - Qoheleth (Greek word for Ecclesiastes), which means "wisdom teacher".
• While the author writes as King Solomon in the first 2 chapters, it is believed that this is for rhetorical effect as opposed to reflecting actual authorship by Solomon...given that the book is believed to have been written around 300 BCE.
• Some see the book as so pessimistic, they wonder how it got into the Bible. Others admire the book for its honesty and religious vision.
• There are 2 central metaphors in the book: (1) Vanity of vanities: all is vanity (vanity refers to emptiness, meaningless, etc.); and (2) Chasing after (or herding or shepherding) the wind...that is, an image of futility.
• The book starts by claiming that the things of life (e.g. wisdom, power, fame, wealth, etc.) do not satisfy. It then goes on to establish that bad things happen to good people through no fault of their own. It also emphasizes death...its utter inevitability and randomness...and the fact that there is nothing we can do about it.
• And if that is the case, how should we live? "Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we may die" according to the author. Or alternatively, live fully...whatever is happening...be present to what it is (try reading Ecclesiastes 3 with that context!). "Go, eat your bread with enjoyment, and drink your wine with a merry heart...Enjoy life with the wife whom you love...Whatever your hand finds to do, do with your might" - Eccesiastes 9:7-10.

Job

• Job continues with a radical questioning of conventional wisdom. It was probably written during teh Babylonian exile (around 600BCE or shortly thereafter).
• The book starts in fairy tale like form..."There was once a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job." It then quickly goes to a meeting in heaven between God and Satan where a wager occurs. In summary, Satan first takes away Job's blessedness on Earth and then goes after Job's own body, but in the end, Job does not turn on God...God has won the wager.
• There are 2 ways to look at the book although is it pretty much always the first that people assume is the question being addressed by the book: (1) The book addresses the question "Why do the righteous suffer?" with the answer apparently being that some things happen "over our heads" - like a heavenly wager. OR (2) The book addresses the question that Satan asks God "Does Job fear God for nothing?"...in other words, is there such a thing as religion unmotivated by self-interest...that is, taking God seriously not as a means but as the ultimate end. Think about that - it is a fascinating idea that this might be what the book is trying to get at.
• In the central part of the book, we see Job's discussions with his friends who try to "comfort" him with conventional wisdom...you must have done something wrong to be facing all this! Job essentially replies that their conventional wisdom is worthless.
• Then, we see Job's discussion with God...which displays God's wonder (through the nonhuman world of creation) and the absolute difference between the creator and the created. This stuns Job into smallness and silence. While this encounter provided Job with no answers or explanations for his suffering, the experience convinced him that God is real in spite of our ability to see fairness in the world - "I have heard of you with the hearing of the ear, but now my eye beholds you."
  

(The above was heavily extracted from Marcus Borg's "Reading the Bible Again for the First Time"...I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in the Bible)

New Perspectives on the Prophets

Once the Pentateuch is finished, we go into Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings...all of whom narrate the history of Israel from the time of occupation of the promised land until the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 586 BCE. During that time, Israel lived as a "tribal confederacy" with no centralized government. Then, around 1000 BCE, a monarchy was put in place with kings like Saul, David and Solomon.

When Solomon died in 922 BCE, the united kingdom split into 2 parts: Israel and Judah. Israel lasted until 722 BCE when it was conquered and destroyed by the Assyrian kingdom. Judah lasted until 586 BCE when it was conquered and destroyed by the Babylonian empire. Some of Judah's survivors were exiled to Babylon for about 50 years, at which time they were allowed to return to Judah to begin rebuilding their ruined country.

The "classical" prophets (Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Zechariah, Obadiah, and so on) belong to this time. These prophets are writing some 500 years after the exodus, during the time of the split of the kingdom, destruction of the kingdoms, exile and return.

How do you think of the Prophets? Likely as predictors of the Messiah - that is Jesus - right? They were sent to foretell of Jesus' coming right? Certainly that's how I first encountered them. In fact, in Halley's Bible Handbook (a best seller!) there is the somewhat familiar statement "By the time we reach the end of the Old Testament, the entire story of Christ has been pre-written and pre-figured." But as I now understand the Bible, it is clear to me that the prophets weren't foretelling Jesus' story. Instead, because the New Testament authors were Jewish and knew the Hebrew Bible well, they echoed the words of the Hebrew Bible in telling Jesus' story, in order to show continuity between Jesus and the tradition out of which they came.

If the prophets weren't foretelling Jesus' story, what were they doing? Well, if you put them in their historical context (i.e. time of the split of the kingdom, destruction of the kingdoms, exile and return), you understand that, in large part, they were indicting Judah's or Israel's enemies and pronouncing God's judgement on them. They were also masters of the symbolic act (e.g. Hosea and Isaiah naming their children to convey messages, Isaiah walking around naked for years to make a point about Judah's fate if they take certain actions, Jeremiah wearing a wooden yoke around his neck, Ezekiel essentially starving himself to demonstrate what would happen to Jerusalem in exile, etc.). In essence, they expressed a passion for social justice and had an anti-establishment message...and added warnings of consequences if the societies didn't take peace and justice seriously. Given the prophets' own statements, they claim to have been inspired by God to give these messages. That doesn't mean the words were God's, but the prophets' passionate messages came out of their "experiences" of God.

It is also informative to recognize that by the time the classical prophets began to speak, Israel and Judah had essentially become miniature versions of the ancient domination system that had enslaved their ancestors in Egypt. The victims (the majority of the population) were Israelites, of course, but now the elites at the top were also Israelites...Egypt had been established in Israel. That is what the prophets were addressing...as they believed that this could not be the will of God who had liberated Israel from similar bondage in Egypt.

It is also interesting that this whole theme is repeated through the Hebrew Bible. In I Samuel, the people ask for a king over them...the request displeases Samuel and God (their request is seen as a rejection of God's kingship). But God grants the request with a warning about what a king will do to them...essentially take their fields and flocks and make them slaves...essentially what happened!

The prophets not only indicted enemies and social injustice. They also were "energizing" figures for the Jewish people. A large part of the predestruction prophets (i.e. before the kingdoms of Judah and Israel were destroyed) were indicting the actions of the day. A large part of post-destruction prophetizing (i.e. during and after the exile) was more energizing...generating hope, affirming identity and creating a picture of a new future for the Jewish people who were in exile and then (after the exile) rebuilding their nation.

So whereas you may have read passages like "Why have you forgotten us completely?...Restore us to yourselves, O Lord, that we may be restored..." as a statement for interpretation in today's world or for a projection of future events, if you re-read the prophets in their historical context, it is fascinating to see the meanings of the words in their worlds and time.

Having said all this, the message of many of the prophets words can have metaphorical meaning today - relevant to the victims and exiles of the domination systems of our time. Proclaiming that our identify, value and worth are not grounded in the culture of the day, but in God's regard. Affirming that God's character, will and justice are different from the justice of oppressive social orders. The solution for exiles is a journey of return...a way or path through the wilderness...with the destination being a return to life in God's will and presence.

(The above was heavily extracted from Borg's Reading the Bible Again for the First Time...I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in the Bible)

Plowing through the Pentateuch

The "beginning of the world" (i.e. creation) stories take up the first 11 chapters of Genesis. After that and until the end of Deuteronomy, is the story of the "beginning of Israel" as a nation and a people: the exodus from Egypt under the leadership of Moses, the covenant and giving of the law at Mt. Sinai (all 613 of them - including ethical, ritual, civil and criminal laws which functioned as both constitutional and statutory law for Israel - and by grounding them in the nation's sacred origins, they gave the laws sacred status), and the journey through the wilderness to the border of the promised land.

Historically, the Jewish exodus likely happened in the 13th century BCE. But many scholars think the completed Pentateuch narrative was not likely written until around the Jewish exile in Babylon in the 500s BCE and perhaps as late as the 400s BCE. There are also questions about whether Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and his 12 sons really existed or if they are legendary personifications of tribal groups. Whether historically accurate or not, the question we should consider is why Israel told these stories and why they told them the way they did.

The overarching theme throughout the Pentateuch is "promise and fulfillment". God promises Abraham that he will make of him a great nation. The rest of the story of the Pentateuch is the story of fulfillment of this promise. In summary, the key stories of the Pentateuch include:

• Abraham, Sarah and their sons, including Jacob
• Jacob's son Joseph (and his brothers)
• Israel's exodus from slavery in Egypt (Moses' call, the plagues, the liberation and parting of the sea)
• Sinai and the covenant (59 chapters in all by the way!) - note that most scholars believe that the laws were drawn from many different periods in Israel's history and were accumulated over a period of centuries; and also that the laws reflect Israel's origins in Egypt as a radically oppressed and marginalized people, with the laws being written to prevent the emergence of a permanently impoverished class within Israel
• Journey through the wilderness (with the Pentateuch ending with Deuteronomy - essentially a series of speeches by Moses just before they cross the Jordan, with the speeches basically being a summary of the law - hence "Deuteronomy" which means "second law")

In summary, the Pentateuch story is Israel's decisive "identity story" - the most important story they knew that shaped their understanding of the divine-human relationship, their identity, their life together as a community and their vision of the character of God.

Within the story, Egypt and Pharoah are an archetype of the preindustrial agrarian empire - the most widespread way of organizing human society at the time. In such a society, roughly two-thirds of the annual production of wealth (mostly from agriculture produced by the peasants) ended up in the hands of the ruling elites. They acquired the wealth through taxation on agricultural production and direct ownership of agricultural land (with peasants working as share-croppers, day-labourers or slaves). The consequences for peasant existence were dire: unremitting labour, borderline nourishment, high infant mortality rates, and radically lower life expectancies. In addition to this economic exploitation, such societies were also known for political oppression (i.e. ordinary people had no voice in the structuring of society) and religious legitimation (i.e. the religion of the elites affirmed that the structures of society were ordained by God).

This was the world of Egypt and the world that Moses knew. The Pentateuch is Israel's story of radical protest against and liberation from such a world...and it affirms that radical criticism of and liberation from such societies is the will of God. The exodus story is about the creation of a world marked by freedom, social justice and shalom (well-being, peace and wholeness). The story is not just political though; it is also about God as God is the central reality of the story and God's covenant with Israel.

In summary, the Pentateuch is not about social justice without God; equally, it is not about God without social justice. The story thus brings together two areas of life that we tend to separate: religious passion and social justice.

And, as noted earlier, the story is also framed by the theme of "promise and fulfillment". It is interesting to note that this theme was strikingly relevant to the situation of the Jewish people in the exilic and postexilic periods - the years when the Pentateuch was composed in its final and present form (remember...when the Pentateuch was written, Israel had been conquered again, greatly reduced in numbers and exiled by another imperial power). So the promise of God that they would be "a great nation" seemed profoundly threatened again, as did their very existence. In this setting, they remembered and celebrated the promise given to their ancestors, the stories of Israel's liberation from a previous imperial power, and the gift of a new land and a new life.

Finally, for Christian readers today (and in all times) the theme of promise and fulfillment is relevant. As such, the story of the Pentateuch can be read metaphorically today with the key message being: in spite of life's threats and seemingly insurmountable obstacles, when birth and rebirth seem impossible, when powers of empires seem to rule the world...living in a manner that mirrors God's nature will enable us to make it through.

Personally, I think this is a much better and more reasonable take on the Pentateuch (as opposed to some Christians trying to take the Pentateuch and apply, in today's world, a set of ancient laws that were developed several thousand years ago for use within a developing nation after escaping slavery and oppression).

(For more on this - and most of the above - see Marcus Borg's Reading the Bible Again for the First Time)

Revisiting the Creation Stories

"In the beginning...". That's how we think of the creation story right? Well, would you be surprised if I highlighted that there are two stories of creation in the Bible itself? The first is found in Genesis 1:1 to 2:3; the second from Genesis 2:4 to the end of chapter 3.

In the first, God creates the universe in 6 days and rests on the 7th day. It takes us through each of the 6 days in succession. In the second, the focus is on the creation of humankind...not on the creation of the world. In the first, humankind is created last (after everything else) whereas in the second, humankind is created first (before vegetation and animals). In the first, humans as male and female are created simultaneously, while in the second, man comes first, with woman coming later.

From a historical perspective:

• It is believed that the first creation story was written in the 500s BCE, during or shortly after the Jewish exile into Babylon. During this time, one of the distinctive practices of the Jews was observance of the sabbath. Some would argue that the writing of the first creation story with six days was done primarily to emphasize the importance of the sabbath as something that God also observes. It has also been argued that part of the purpose of the creation story was to assert that the God of Israel is the creator of heaven and earth and proclaiming the lordship of Israel's God over the lordship of Babylon and its gods (with whom the Jews were obviously not very happy at that point in time!).
• The historical understanding of the universe is also interesting to note in the context of the creation stories. Ancient Israelites thought of the earth as the centre of the universe. Above the earth was the "dome of the sky" with water being above the dome (hence the falling of rain and snow). Thus, the description of creation (e.g. separating the waters so that dry land is below the sky, etc.) reflects their understanding of the nature of the universe.
• Finally, the historical language used in the creation stories is interesting to understand. In the second creation story, Adam and Eve are the first humans. Adam comes from the Hebrew word adham which means "humankind" (coming from the Hebrew word adhamah meaning "ground" or "dust"). Thus, the story is not about a particular man but of "everyone". Similarly, Eve means "mother of all living".

From a metaphorical viewpoint:

• A key point being made in the creation stories is that God is the source of everything that is. One person noted "The only literal statement in Genesis 1 is 'God created the heavens and the earth'".
• Secondly, humans are the climax of creation but at the same time "dust creatures". That is, we are small, we are finite, we are mortal - yet, there is something different about us (e.g. greater consciousness than any species we know of).
• Another key point is that the world is the good creation of a good God. All that is, is good.
• Having said that, something has happened - though the world is beautiful, something is not right; we live in a world of hard labour, suffering, pain, violence and fragmentation.

On this last point, what went wrong (often referred to as the fall or the original sin)? There are different viewpoints including:

1. Human disobedience (this is the most common and simplist view within fundamentalist Christianity)
2. Human pride and self-centeredness
3. Living the agenda of others
4. The inevitability of self-consciousness

These various understandings can be combined. For example, the birth of consciousness in all of us as we move from infants to adults typically leads to pride and being centered in one's self. At the same time, the process of socialization leads to internalizing and living in accord with the agendas of others, including parents, culture and religion.

Given this combination of historical and metaphorical views, I can see the creation stories as profoundly true - not literally or factually, but in the truth of the stories' central claims. Borg says it like this: "This" - the universe and we - is not self-caused, but grounded in the sacred. "This" is utterly remarkable and wondrous, a mystery beyond words that evokes wonder, awe and praise. We begin our lives "in paradise", but we all experience explusion into a world of exile, anxiety, self-preoccupation, bondage and conflict. And yes, also a world of goodness and beauty: it is the creation of God. But it is a world in which something is awry.

The rest of the Bible is to a large extent the story of this state of affairs: the human predicament and its solution. Our lives "east of Eden" are marked by exile, and we need to return and reconnect; by bondage, and we need liberation; by blindness and deafness, and we need wholeness; by violence and conflict, and we need to learn justice and peace; by self- and other-centeredness, and we need to centre in God. Such are the central claims of Israel's stories of human beginnings.

A new way to look at the creation stories don't you think?

(Again, lots of credit to Marcus Borg's Reading the Bible Again for the First Time for the bulk of this blog)

A New Way of Reading/Seeing the Bible

Before getting into the content of the Bible itself, a short blog entry on a new way of reading/seeing the Bible (most of this blog entry are taken from Marcus Borg's book Reading the Bible Again for the First Time).

There are two sides of the debate of how to read/see the Bible, specifically with regards to the Bible's origin, authority and interpretation:

1. Fundamentalist and many conservative evangelical Christians - see the Bible's origin as coming from God and as a divine product. It is God's truth...and as a result, it is authoritative. They read the Bible literally - often referred to as "conscious literalists" (i.e. aware of problems posed by a literal reading but insist upon it nevertheless).
2. Moderate-to-liberal Christians - see the Bible as a human product - a human response to God. As such, it does not express the authoritative will of God - so we need to decide on the relevance of the "wisdom" for our time. They are strongly convinced that many parts of the Bible cannot be taken literally. They also see the Bible as "sacred" for Christians in that it is a foundational document for our religion with which we should be in continuing dialogue.

This second group typically take a "historical-metaphorical" approach to reading the Bible. By historical, the question is "What did this text mean in the ancient historical setting in which it was written?". By metaphorical, the question is "What does this story mean as a story, independent of its historical factuality?" With this view, the Bible is seen as a combination of history and metaphor. That is, some events in the Bible really happened. At the same time, there are "metaphorical narratives" in which an event that happened (or may have happened) is given a metaphorical meaning; or events are not based on a particular historical event, but which instead are purely metaphorical or symbolic.

To take this approach to reading the Bible, you need to move from precritical naivete to postcritical naivete. Precritical naivete is an early childhood state in which we take it for granted that whatever the significant authority figures in our lives tell us to be true is indeed true. In this state, Christians simply hear the stories of the Bible as true stories. Postcritical naivete is the ability to hear the biblical stories as true stories, even as one knows that they may not be factually true - that is, you can accept that their truth does not depend upon their factuality.

The remaining blog entries in this Bible Exploration series attempt to adopt a postcritical naivete viewpoint and a historical-metaphorical approach to reading the Bible and understanding its meaning for Christians.

How the Bible Became a Book...

In my December 16 posting "Bible Exploration", I committed to delving into the Bible a bit more to provide a further explanation of my current thinking about the Bible. Along with my "Fundamentals Framework", I think having a clear set of thoughts on the Bible is critical for me to be able to explain my current Christian thinking (especially to those who are still in more of a 'fundamentalist' mode of thinking). Some of my friends wonder why I even care (given our new thoughts on matters religious), but for me, I have decided that a spiritual dimension to my life is something I want to maintain. And for me, the framework within which I plan to address spirituality is Christianity (see Transformation: What It's All About for more on this) - not in a fundamentalist way, but with more of the emerging view of Christianity that is starting to be more prevalent. As a result, given the Bible's importance to the Christian tradition, I feel it is important for me to have a clear point of view on what to do with it.

I have decided that I just don't have the time to do this first blog on the Bible justice so I'm going to just throw together some points and hopefully they will have some sense of congruency.
(Note that many of the points below are from Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus" so credit to him ahead of time - I'm not going to try to quote or reference all the direct quotes from his book...just trust me, there are many. And an up front warning - this is a long post!)

I grew up believing that the Bible was the inerrant, literal, divine words of God. As in "everything is accurate", "no errors", "if it says it in the Bible, it must be right", etc. It is interesting then to consider things like:

• The mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds on the earth even if Jesus said it was;
• Mark says Jesus was crucified the day AFTER the Passover meal was eaten while John says he died the day BEFORE it was eaten.
• Luke says Joseph and Mary returned to Nazereth just a month after they had come to Bethlehem, whereas Matthew says they fled to Egypt.
• Paul says that after his conversion, he did NOT go to Jerusalem, whereas Acts says that was the first thing he did.

These are just a few examples of "differences" within the Bible text. Now I'm not suggesting that any of the above differences are significant to the overall message of the Bible, but it is impossible to claim that these types of differences don't exist (i.e. the inerrant idea falls apart).

Combine this realization with the fact that we don't have the original texts to determine the exact original wording...oh wait, we don't even have the first copies of the originals...oh wait, we don't even have copies of the copies of the originals...oh wait, we don't have copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. Most of the earliest texts we have were made centuries later than the originals. Take Galatians as an example. The first reasonably complete copy we have dates to about 200 C.E. - some 150 years AFTER Paul wrote the letter. Given the fact that it had been copied for 15 decades to get to that point (more on that later), how accurate was it at that point?

With that as context, it is easy (at least it was for me... surprisingly!) to realize the the Bible is a very human book. Just as human scribes had copied (and changed) the texts of scripture, so too had human authors originally written the texts. The Bible was written by different authors at different times, in different places to address different needs. Many, no doubt, felt "inspired" by God to say what they did, but they had their own perspectives, beliefs, views, needs, desires, understandings, theologies, etc.

With that, you quickly come to the realization that the Bible doesn't give a foolproof answer to the questions of the modern age - abortion, women's rights, gay rights, religious supremacy, etc. You realize that we need to figure out how to live and what to believe on our own...without setting up the Bible as a false idol - or an oracle that gives us a direct line of communication with the Almighty.

Let's step back for a second. Let's go back to Judaism. It was unique among the religions of the Roman Empire in that its religious "instructions" were written down in sacred books. It stressed ancestral traditions, customs and laws, and maintained that these had been recorded in sacred books, which had the status of "scripture" for the Jewish people.

Similarly, Christianity was also a "bookish" religion. This importance of written texts, however, does not mean that all Christians could read books...quite the contrary, most early Christians, like most people throughout the empire (including Jews), were illiterate. The texts (many of which were in letter form) were very important to the communities though...they were meant to be read aloud to the community at community gatherings. But most Christians couldn't read them themselves. Interesting isn't it?

Note that the texts weren't one big book...just many individual writings. At what point did the Christian canon of scripture get formed then? In the mid-second century, a philospher-teacher named Marcion (later declared a heretic) was the first Christian that we know of who produced an actual "canon" of scripture - that is, a collection of books that, he argued, constituted the sacred texts of the faith. It is interesting to note that Marcion was completely absorbed by the life and teachings of the apostle Paul, whom he considered to be the one "true" apostle from the early days of the church.

Some 30 years later, the bishop of Lyon in Gaul (modern France), Irenaeus, opposed Marcion and wrote a five volume work against heretics such as Marcion and the Gnostics. He claimed that Marcion and other "heretics" had mistakenly assumed that only one or another of the gospels was to be accepted as scripture (e.g. Marcion had suggested Luke). He claimed, in summary, that because there are four corners of the earth, four winds and four pillars, that there are four gospels. So, near the end of the second century, there were Christians insisting that there were four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) - no more and no less.

Debates on the Christian canon continued for centuries...long, harsh and drawn out debates about which texts were authoritative. The first time we can find a list of the 27 books of our New Testament was in the second half of the fourth century. The powerful bishop of Alexandria named Athanasius (in 367 C.E.) wrote his annual letter to the Egyptian churches and in it, included advice concerning which books should be considered scripture, and excluded all others.

So how did the communities get those books? How were they put into circulation? There was no desktop publishing back then remember! No, the books had to be copied by hand. The copyists, by the way, in the early centuries weren't trained to do this kind of work, but were simply the literate members of the congregation who were able and willing. As a result, the multiple copies of the texts that were produced were not all alike - since the scribes inevitably made alterations (e.g. changing the words by accident or by design). So anyone reading the books in early Christian centuries wasn't completely sure that he was reading what the original author had written.

On top of the copying challenge in general, ancient Greek texts (including all the earliest Christian writings) had no marks of punctuation, no distinction between upper/lowercase letters, and no spaces used to separate words (scriptuo continua). Obviously, this made it difficult to copy and read. "Godisnowhere" could be different things depending if you were an athiest or a theist (work at it...you'll get it). Similarly, how about lastnightatdinnerisawabundanceonthetable ...normal or supernatural event?

To illustrate the challenges this caused, the third century church father Origen, once said "The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please."

This explains why authors would sometimes call curses down on any copyist who modified their texts without permission. With this context, re-consider the often quoted Revelation text "I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book; and if anyone removes any of the words of the book of this prophecy, God will remove his share from the tree of life and from the holy city, as described in this book." So this might not be a threat to believe everything in the book (as is often the claim associated with this text in many sermons!), but instead a threat to copyists of the book.

So even if you believe that Biblical texts are the very words of God, the challenge would be to determine what portions of the texts go back to the original authors. Here are 2 examples of texts which many biblical scholars don't think go back to the original authors:

• The story of Jesus and the women taken in adultery (you know, where Jesus writes something in the ground and the accusers go running) appears in only one gospel (John 7-8). It is interesting to note that the story isn't found in our earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of John, its writing style is very different from the rest of John, and it includes a number of words and phrases that are otherwise alien to the Gospel. Interesting...perhaps a later addition to the text based on oral traditions of the time? If so, should this text be considered part of the Bible?
• And now the last 12 verses of Mark. Before these verses, the story of the women encountering a risen Jesus is told and ends with Jesus fleeing the tomb and saying nothing to anyone "for they were afraid". Then the last 12 verses where Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene who tells the disciples, appearing to 2 others and finally to the 11 disciples. Jesus commissions them to go forth and proclaim his gospel. Very moving and powerful passage that is quoted often in many of today's fundamentalist churches. One problem..the passage wasn't in the original text (they are absent from the oldest and best manuscripts of Mark), the writing style varies from the rest of Mark, and the transition between the previous verses and the last 12 is hard to understand (in reference to Mary Magdalene), and there a number of words and phrases not found elsewhere in Mark. Without the last 12 verses though, the ending is a little abrupt. How could that be the ending? So scholars think that a scribe added an ending.

Let's get back to the canon itself. Near the end of the fourth century, Pope Damascus commissioned the greatest scholar of the day (Jerome) to produce an official Latin translation - which came to be known as the Vulgate. It became the Bible for the Western church that Christians read, scholars studied and theologians used for centuries.

In the early 1500s, a Dutch scholar named Erasmus produced and published an edition of the Greek New Testament. For the most part, in doing so, he relied on a mere handful of late medieval manuscripts, which he marked up as if he were copyediting a handwritten copy for the printer. In fact, he relied heavily on just one 12th century manuscript for the Gospels and another 12th century manuscript for Acts and the Epistles. For Revelation, he borrowed a manuscript from a friend, but it was impossible to read in places and had lost its last page...so Erasmus used the Vulgate (remember the Latin version translated by Jerome) to cover that last bit of Revelation. Erasmus' work is important since his New Testament was the primary source for the King James Bible created a century later, and became the standard form of Greek Biblical text to be published by Western European printers for more than 300 years. Hmmm...all that based on texts that were not of the best quality and produced some 1100 years after the originals.

One interesting story about Erasmus' text. It apparently didn't contain the Trinity verse..."There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Spirit...". This caused some outrage but Erasmus claimed it wasn't in his source texts and unless a Greek text could be shown to him with that verse in it, he wouldn't add it. So the story goes that a Greek text was produced (literally PRODUCED for that very reason). So, true to his word, Erasmus added it to the next version of his New Testament.

In the mid-1500s, another scholar (over a 30 year effort) produced a New Testament based on hundreds of texts available to him. The result was over 30,000 variations from the New Testament that was otherwise accepted as being the authoritative version (i.e. essentially the text that Erasmus had produced). Since then, more than 5,700 manuscripts have been discovered and catalogued. With these manuscripts, along with thousands of copies of the Vulgate and other texts discovered, schollars say there are more than 200,000 and maybe up to 400,000 variants known today. In summary, there are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

There have been so many attempts to point out the true original texts over the years, I won't even attempt to summarize. And there are many very interesting examples of texts from our accepted form of the Bible that scholars question in terms of their authenticity. While Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus is just one book on this topic, I found it an interesting read nonetheless. For more on this, I suggest picking up the book yourself.

Given that the Erasmus text (which really is a key source to our modern Bible) was based on poorer quality manuscripts than many we have today, it isn't surprising that many "Bible-believing Christians", when faced with these facts, choose to pretend there is no problem and that God inspired the King James...not the original Greek!

Now don't get me wrong. Even though I now see the human nature of the Biblical texts, I do not deny the wisdom and insight we can get from parts of the Bible. As I noted in my "Fundamentals Framework", I see the Bible as a sacred document for Christians. It is the foundation document for our faith with which we should be in "continuing conversation" and from which we can better understand the character and will of God (see Bible Beliefs for more). Having said that, while I do not deny the concept of inspiration (although I do not see it as direct inspriration of the specific words), I think the Bible's words and thoughts are ultimately human words, not God's.

And, given this view that the Bible is a human product, as Christians, our interaction with it should be both from a critical viewpoint (i.e. deciding and discerning what passages are relevant to our time, or discerning/interpreting meanings of texts) as well as from a more open viewpoint whereby we allow ourselves to learn from and be shaped by the wisdom in the Bible. As such, I believe, for Christians, the Bible is a core document within our religious tradition and we should seek the wisdom and meanings of its texts - not seeing them as God's literal, inerrant words, but as a document that captures the experiences of the ancient Israel community and the early Christian community and their responses to God and Jesus, which is important within the Christian religion.

Bible Exploration

Well, it has been a couple of weeks since I finished my fundamentals framework. Since that time, I've been thinking about what I should tackle next. I've wavered between a few options, but I think I'm going to try to address the Bible in more depth.

I touched on the Bible in my Bible Beliefs entry, and I noted the pivotal importance that your perspective on the Bible (i.e. as either a divine product [God's very words] or as a human product reflecting the experiences and responses of two communities to God and Jesus) has on your approach to Christianity and theology. I also noted the impact that a couple of books had on my understanding of the Bible: Misquoting Jesus (by Bart Ehrman) and Reading the Bible Again for the First Time (by Marcus Borg). I am part way through two other books which continue to shed light on the Bible for me: Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism (by John Shelby Spong) and The Last Week (by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan). Before I finish this series of blog entries, I anticipate delving into History of the End of the World (by Jonathan Kirsch).

So I'm going to try to provide a synopsis of what I've learned in these books. Here is my outline for this endeavour:

• How the Bible became a book
• A new way of reading/seeing the Bible
• Revisiting the Creation stories
• Plowing through the Pentateuch
• New perspectives on the Prophets
• Gaining wisdom from the Wisdom books
• The evolving stories of the Gospels
• A primer on Paul's writings
• Revelations from Revelation

I must admit that this is a daunting exercise for me. I know for certain that it will take me a long time to complete this effort, and, as I start, I'm not even sure I will be able to finish. But as I felt when I started my fundamentals framework, I feel like this is the right topic to dive into next so that I can adequately explain and support my current Christian thinking.

Before I start, let me clarify that I anticipate taking very little credit for the thinking that will lie beneath the blog entries in this series - I am not a Biblical scholar by trade. I fully anticipate leaning heavily on the books I mentioned earlier, and I will attempt to give credit where I can.

I hope this series will be useful to all who encounter it. I will repeat the same three goals (1) I noted when I began my fundamentals framework, since they are equally relevant for this Bible Exploration series:

• That the blog entries will be "interesting and refreshing" to Christians and non-Christians and will help both to "grapple with points of view they might otherwise have dismissed without serious thought";
• That the blog entries' content might help "shift logjammed debates into more fruitful possibilities"; and,
• Somewhat selfishly, that the process of writing the blog entries will help me to "grow in [my] understanding of the subject matter, and enable others to do so as well".

Here we go again...

Notes:
(1) Marcus J. Borg and N. T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions (San Francisco, HarperSanFrancisco, 1999).

Bible Beliefs

I have decided to start my fundamental belief blog entries with the Bible. Why? Well, in my own personal experience, how you view the Bible has an overwhelming impact on your approach to Christianity and on your theological beliefs.

Like most protestants, I grew up with a divine, literal view of the Bible. First and foremost, the Bible was seen to contain the very words of God (i.e. it had divine authority). As a child, I could almost envision God reaching down and holding the hands of the Bible's authors to ensure they got everything exactly as God had intended. So with that perspective, when you read something in the Bible, you read it as if it was God himself (I know...herself, itself, whatever) was standing there mouthing the words along with you. So you didn't question the logic or rationale or applicability to today's world and culture, you just accepted it as God's words. (As a sidebar, it is interesting, isn't it, that we assume the Bible must be read literally - it is as if we have concluded that the authors of the day, even if one still believed that God was the author, couldn't have written in metaphorical language.)

And not far behind the divine authority thinking was the literal thinking. Yes that's right...the Bible is to be read literally unless the language is CLEARLY metaphorical. So the earth was created in six days (not five or seven) . Adam and Eve were real people in a real garden (apparently having a lot of sex since they needed to populate the entire planet...but as a child, this didn't really mean much I guess), and there was a real tree with apples and a real snake going around convincing people to take a bite. And of course there was a flood and an ark...how else to explain the extinction of the dinosaurs? And yes, that Red Sea parted upon command, and there was a guy named Jonah who was actually swallowed by a whale and lived there for a few days (And why not? You couldn't beat the rent I bet.). And that's just a few highlights from the Old Testament. Wait for the New Testament...Jesus was born of a virgin, a star lead people to Jesus, Jesus walked on water, turned a few loaves of bread into a feast for thousands, turned water into wine, physically rose from the dead, and so on, and so on.

And I'm not kidding...I saw it all as literal (except for those few parts of the Bible that the preachers and Sunday School teachers didn't like so much or couldn't explain...so those were a little more fuzzy and confusing). "Come on" you must be thinking. And to my own defense, let me say (with all modesty), I'm not a stupid or gullible person. But when you grow up on this stuff and it is taught to you the same way that 2+2=4 is, it tends to have quite an impact on your normally rational brain.

Now like many, though, as I got older, certain things didn't seem to make as much sense. But, to be honest, since I didn't dwell on those types of questions that much (otherwise, I'd being going to hell, right?), there weren't a lot of Bible stories I needed to come up with a rationalization for. But things like Adam and Eve populating a planet, for example, you start to question. And not eating certain foods or mixing different fibres in clothing...oh yeah, those we were able to justify as being "Old Testament teaching"...the New Testament overrides all that law stuff...well, except for the Ten Commandments, and that verse on homosexuality, and...well, you get the idea. And of course, then there was the Revelation material. Parts of that just didn't seem right...I couldn't envision all those coloured horses, for example. But don't get me wrong...I got to watch all the classic end times movies as a child (you remember the ones...where the characters were forced to get 666 branded on their wrists or foreheads - or with embedded microchips if it was a really advanced movie; and who could forget that guillotine in the middle of town chopping off people's heads who didn't get "the mark" - more than one person went running up to "get saved" after seeing that). So regardless of how strange some of it read, there was a lot of Revelation that you were sure was going to happen (somehow)...you were still waiting to hear that trumpet (literally!).

And then I read a book called The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur, who argued, amongst other things, that many of the Bible's stories were essentially based on earlier Egytology stories. To be honest, I didn't particularly enjoy the book or respect Harpur's research and writing skills. But, the book did trigger my interest so, for that, I owe it some gratitude. My next stop down the Bible prospecting path was a book called Misquoting Jesus, by Bart Ehrman. This was a very interesting book focused on textual criticism of the Bible. From this book, it was clear to me that the words that are in the Bible have changed so much over the hundreds of years since they were written that if they ever were the "direct words of God", they aren't anymore. Several books later, I came across Marcus J. Borg's Reading the Bible Again for the First Time. This is a fabulous book that I would recommend to anyone who has read or may read the Bible. This book, along with several others written by Borg (which I will refer to in future blogs) have helped shape my current thinking to a large degree. I won't be able to do this book any justice in this short form, but suffice it to say that my fundamental belief statements below have been heavily influenced by and drawn from a lot of Borg's material.

With that, I will attempt to summarize the essence of my fundamental beliefs about the Bible:

(1) The Bible is a human product - capturing the experiences of the ancient Israel community and the early Christian community and their responses to God and Jesus. It does not contain the very words of God.

• As such, it is not a divine product (i.e. not the very words of God).
• It contains these ancient communities' "stories about God's involvement in their lives, their laws and ethical teachings, their prayers and praises, their wisdom about how to live, and their hopes and dreams. It is not God's witness to God (not a divine product) but their witness to God. (1)"
• Specifically with respect to the early Christian community's stories, the gospels (i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are the product of a "developing tradition" (1). That is, in the time between Jesus' life and the time when the gospels were written, there was an evolution of thinking about Jesus' life, message and mission. As a result, the gospels "contain some material that goes back to Jesus and some that is the product of the early Christian community - to use a vocal analogy, the gospels contain more than one voice: the voice of Jesus and the voices of the community." (1)
• With this belief statement, I do not deny the concept of inspiration, but I do not see it as direct inspriration of the words. I believe the authors had God-experiences (in a variety of forms) which inspired them to write their books/letters. But the words and thoughts are their words, not God's. Having said that, I also do not deny the wisdom and insight we can get from the Bible (more on that in belief #3 below).
• My reasons for concluding that the Bible is a human product as opposed to a divine product are many. Overall, though, to claim that the Bible has divine authority seems to me to be an arrogant and almost incomprehensible argument. If it has divine authority, how does one explain the inconsistencies and errors in the Bible itself? How do you reconcile this with the canonization process that took place where man (or men) decided what would go into the Bible? How do you deal with the changes to the texts that have been made over the years as a result of translations and mass production of the Bible? How do we justify the suggestion that God stopped communicating to man in any form that should be documented and seen as sacred as of about 135 CE (nothing from folks like Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Graham)? And does it make sense that God only spoke to Middle Eastern men (i.e. no women and no other ethnicity)? These are just a few of the types of questions and considerations which have led me to conclude that the Bible is a human product (maybe more on this topic specifically in a future blog entry).
• Interestingly, with the view that the Bible is a human product, it allows one to read and appreciate the sacred writing of other major religions and recognize them for what they are - a human response to "the sacred" (a term Borg uses a lot in reference to God, and a term which I have grown fond of) reflecting their language and culture.

(2) The Bible contains a mixture of history and metaphors. As such, it should not be (and was never intended to be) read literally. Instead, readers should adopt a "historical-metaphorical approach" (1) to gain a more complete understanding and appreciation of the Bible and the meaning of its stories.

• The Bible clearly contains some stories that are grounded in history. Likewise, there are clearly metaphors and metaphorical narratives in the Bible.
• After adopting my first belief about the Bible, there was a bit of a domino effect. If the Bible doesn't contain God's words, then I don't need to see the words themselves as literal, infallible and absolute truth. Instead, the words are related to the time and place of the authors and grounded in the culture of their time.
• As such, the Bible should be seen through historical and metaphorical lenses (1).
• The historical lens refers to reading the Bible in the context within which it was written. For example, understanding the state of political and social dynamics of the time sheds a great deal of light on the Biblical texts. (Reflecting on my experience within Christianity, it seems to me that we tend do this only for certain passages that we would like to "explain away" - for example, the role of women in the church, etc.) It should be noted, however, that the danger in just employing a historical approach is that it will become only a factual, scientific view of the texts looking only for the historical meaning and thereby not addressing (or ignoring) texts which are "saying something about God or about events that go beyond the boundaries of what is deemed possible by the modern worldview" (1) and not interpreting the potential meaning of the text for current-day readers.
• The metaphorical lens recognizes that much of the Bible's language is obviously metaphorical and that the Bible contains both history and metaphor (i.e. some events really happened and, in other cases, there may be little or not historical factuality behind the stories). As such, it seeks to understand the metaphorical meanings of the text, regardless of the historical factuality of the events themselves. The metaphorical lens emphasizes that the Bible can be "really true" even if not "literally true". As a lens, it emphasizes "seeing, not believing - the point is not to believe in a metaphor, but to see in light of it" (1). The danger with adopting only this lens is that the reader's imagination will "roam too freely, producing uncontrolled, fanciful interpretations that have little or nothing to do with the actual text" (1). So the metaphorical approach is balanced by the historical approach as well as the "discernment of the community" hearing the metaphorical meanings being suggested.

(3) The Bible is a sacred document for Christians. It is the foundation document for our faith with which we should be in "continuing conversation" (1) and from which we can better understand the character and will of God.

• In this context, sacred does not refer to the Bible being of divine authority (see belief #1 above). It refers to the fact that the Bible is sacred because of its "status and its function. Its sacred status for Christians means that it continues to be the most important collection of documents we know. As sacred scripture it functions as...our foundation document, our identity document and our wisdom tradition. To be Christian means to be in primary continuing conversation with the Bible as foundational for our identity and vision...for the Bible is at the heart of Christianity." (1)
• Given that the Bible is a human product, the "continuing conversation" should be both from a critical viewpoint (i.e. deciding and discerning what passages are relevant to our time, or discerning/interpreting meanings of texts) as well as from a more open viewpoint whereby we allow ourselves to learn from and be shaped by the wisdom in the Bible.
• As such, as Christians, the Bible should be used to help us deepen our relationship with God (by better understanding His character and will) and transform us. This is done by seeking the wisdom and meanings of texts and stories from the Bible.

(4) The Bible is a mediator to God (i.e. a sacrament).

• A sacrament is "a finite, physical, visible mediator of the sacred, a means whereby the sacred becomes present to us"(1).
• As Christians, the words of the Bible can become a mediator to God, addressing us in the present...helping us better understand the character and will of God...helping us to transform our own lives and deepen our relationship with God.
• For many, the Bible as sacrament is experienced in daily "devotions" (e.g. reading of the Bible and prayer). For others, it may be contemplations of specific Biblical passages or meditation upon the Bible.

In summary, I provide a quote from Borg's book "The Heart of Christianity":

"The Bible - human in origin, sacred in status and function - is both metaphor and sacrament. As metaphor, it is a way of seeing - a way of seeing God and our life with God. As sacrament, it is a way that God speaks to us and comes to us. Within this framework, being Christian is not primarily about believing in the modern sense of believing certain propositions to be true. To be Christian means a relationship with God, lived within the Christian tradition, including especially the Bible as the foundation of the tradition, as both metaphor and sacrament. The Christian life is about a relationship with the one whom the Bible both points to and mediates - namely, a relationship with God as disclosed through the Bible as metaphor and sacrament. To be Christian is to live within this tradition and let it do its transforming work among us." (1)

POSTSCRIPT: ON FURTHER REFLECTION, THE ABOVE BLOG CONTINUES TO REFLECT MY BELIEFS ON THE BIBLE (3 YEARS LATER) ALTHOUGH I WOULD PUT LESS EMPHASIS ON A "RELATIONSHIP" WITH GOD, AND I WOULD ADD AN EMPHASIS ON LEARNING FROM OTHER "SACRED" TEXTS.

Notes:

(1) Marcus J. Borg, Reading the Bible Again for the First Time (San Francisco, HarperSanFrancisco, 2001) and The Heart of Christianity (San Francisco, HarperSanFrancisco, 2003). Marcus J. Borg and N. T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions (San Francisco, HarperSanFrancisco, 1999).