Progressive Thoughts, Archaic Texts

So I'll admit I read a few posts in this thread and then stopped so I'm sure someone has already pointed this out - but I just popped in to point out that the bible has been , if not completely rewritten, then at least reworded many times over the last several centuries

 

And besides that, there are different "versions"


All of them true, factual, and Gods word, mind you.



Wait!

 

I think there are good reasons why scripture hasn't been revised: T

Good point. As I mentioned on another thread, Thomas Jefferson tried to revise the Bible in the eighteenth century by getting rid of the violence and supernatural aspects. Some churches use it, but it didn't go over with most Christians because the idea that the bible is God's revealed word is important to its function in providing sacred assurance in a world of change. Critics of the Supreme Court have asked why we don't wash our judicial institutions in cynical acid, get rid of the robes and ritual, and acknowledge that these are just flawed humans making decisions influenced by their personal prejudices and quirks. The prevailing view on the courts is that mystique is essential to the functioning of the judiciary. Same goes with scripture. Karen Armstrong points out, in her book In Defense of God that science and religion are on two different planes, performing different functions. Science is concerned with Logos or factual knowledge, so it's particularly important for chemistry and biology texts to be accurate and up to date. Relgion is concerned with Mythos or questions of meaning and values that science can't answer for us. Much of the Bible is allegory and metaphor, to which factual accuracy is irrelevant. I think the reluctance to censor the Bible is due to a sensible concern that a debate over which parts should go, or be X-rated would destroy a book which I and many others revere for its overall wisdom.

 

No, by reconciling I mean that the revisions and various texts are all compatible. The emphasis on retaining the original text seems more of a concern with translations of the Quran from my understanding, where I know I've read that in certain circumstances followers of the Quran don't think the text should be translated to particular languages because in that view, it inherently negates the intended message of the text.

On top of analyzing and dissecting what is historical account vs metaphor, I think this other issue regarding translation is something that does not make much sense to me. For instance, I am really into music and I know if there is a radio edit of a song whether due to a long musical interlude or edit due to coarse language, it inherently takes away something away from the intended meaning of the song, even if the gist of the music is the same.

 

Religions are institutions. They get their political and social power from the reality that they are founded upon, and gain their validity from doctrines, codes, rules, and records that are to be both universal, never-changing, and handed down from an all-powerful all-knowing omnipotent divine being. This is the source of their manipulation, fear tactics, and political hierarchy. Change of such a foundation implies imperfection, and is therefore rejected as heresy.

 

I'm thinking about how the Bible revision would work in practical terms, and why I wouldn't sign up for the job. What would deter me from taking on the task? First of all, Jefferson has done it already. Second, what would go into it? Would we be revising Genesis to include a 4 billion year time span and evolution of the life forms and first humans? That would be factually accurate, but it might miss the point of the allegory: that God, unlike the Sumerian gods of the Ennuma Elish and the Babylonian creation myths, loves humans and doesn't regard them as slaves; that humans are made in the image and likeness of God. That the humans are congenitally prone to anti-social behavior, etc. And if there is scientific disagreement about the details (like the existence of God) do we leave God out, discuss the takes of the major world religions and irrelgions, etc.? Would we retain the two different versions of creation: Genesis 1 with its majestic Cecil B. De Mille dramatics and Genesis 2 with its more "primitive" anthropomorphic" but more tender account in which God sculpts man out of mud with his own hands and breathes life into him through his nostrils. When we get to the New Testament, do we try to reconcile the contrasting takes of Jesus in the four gospels--Mark's Suffering Servant, Matthew's new Moses, Luke's new Elijah, John's Logos? To me, this is like Turner colorizing the back and white movie classics on the assumption that color is better, regardless of the cinematographer's art. This tome is already on the way to making War and Peace look like Cliff Notes. And what style should it be written in? A scientific treatise? Would I be able to capture the powerful rhetoric that has moved hundreds of millions over the centuries? Should I censor out all the sex and violence? And assuming I could pull off this Herculian feat, who do I think is going to read this, when there are so many good Progressive Christian studies out there by Spong, Crossan, Borg, etc? I think I'll pass.

 

Your arguments for not editing the bible appear to be completely literary; but this is the word of the creator of the universe, is it not? at least men inspired by the creator of the universe to produce his vision into print? should we, on that level, be concerned that bears were sent to massacre children for laughing at a guy?

 

Yes. That and many other passages should be matters not just of concern but of indignation. The problem is censorship, with which there is a long and sorry history. Once the sanitization process begins, it's hard to draw the line. Jewish groups have already objected to presentation of Jews in the New Testament, and the condemnation of Jews, especially by Matthew and John, has contributed to virulent anti-Semitism. Should we get rid of these passages and pretend that early Christians had no problems with Jews? What about the passages in Leviticus, Genesis, Romans and Corinthians condemning gays? Or the genocide against Canaanites? Or the graphic violence of Revelation? If we take those out, we have more pleasant reading, but it is no longer really the Bible. It's a politically correct construction by the censors. Our experience with censorship is that it inevitably gets out of hand. Atheists would want to redo Genesis to accommodate evolutionists. Protestants might want to redo Matthew to make clear Peter wasn't the foundation of the Church. Etc., etc. It wouldn't be the historical bible. And who would be the censors? What baggage would they bring to the process? Who would respect the final result? I know that's how the Bible was made in the first place, but that was then, and this is now. What do you think the result would be of attempting to fiddle with a book many believe to be God's inerrant word? We might have some real life violence comparable to anything we might deplore in the Old Testament! I think the better approach is to continue to point out the excesses and errors of the Book without neglecting the more central themes of justice and love that are at the heart of the Book's success.

 

Of course anyone is free to try it, as Thomas Jefferson already did. I doubt it would go over, as his didn't. His version is the one found mostly in libraries and data bases, although some churches use it. It's actually pretty good, as the work of one of the Enlightenment's preeminent American thinkers. But critics say it's a bit arrogant and presumptuous for one person to edit the Bible according to his own predilections.

 

BTW, one thing to keep in mind in explaining why there hasn't been more of a push by Progressive Christians to revise the Old Testament is that most of them aren't that into it. I was raised a Catholic and later became a Methodist. I can't recall ever hearing a single verse from the Old Testament mentioned in church. I'm pretty sure it's that way also in other mainline Protestant churches. Many Christians get their main exposure to the Bible in church. Of course, they may also attend Bible study or Sunday school classes where they could pick it up--depending on the class. Even then, a "New Covenant" orientation toward Scripture would render parts or all the Old Testament inapplicable to Christians. Jews are under the Law of Moses, but Gentiles are bound only by the Laws of Noah. Also, approaches to the Bible differ from one congregation to another. Catholics place more emphasis on the authority of the Church in deciding what the Bible means--which is why they're receptive to evolution. Methodists believe in the Wesleyan quadrilateral--scripture, tradition, reason and experience-- as guides. In general, Progressive Christians do likewise, and take an historical-metaphorical approach to scripture. So an emphasis on the Old Testament seems to be a conservative fundamentalist Protestant thing.

 

My particular interest in the Old Testament is due to its interesting writing, the beautiful, lyrical language and discussing it with my Jewish friends. Growing up my mother had an antique bible stories book which she read to me nightly. I believe that is where my interest began. When I used to go to church, my interest in the OT was NOT encouraged. lol

 

the only thing religion has to convert people is it's mysticism of the past.

You can make fun of scientology all you want. But it's the only "religion" to be written in a modern age

 

What a sad commentary on modernity!