4.1 So what do I currently think?

What follows is not confrontational and I am not asking others to come to the same conclusions as me, I just want to let people know what I think.

This represents a few statements that I feel best reflect the scholarly consensus as I perceive it in 2015 and therefore form the basis for my understanding. As I become aware of new information and evidence I intend to adapt my views to suit. I've already been open-minded enough to go through one massive change, and I intend to remain as unprejudiced and unbiased as my human limitations allow. Therefore what is written here is not fixed, as in a creedal statement, but flexible and able to change with me. This is not what I believe, it's just what I think - I have no particular personal commitment to my thoughts as expressed here.

What is included below will be a higher contrast with the Bible if the reader is familiar with the history as recorded in the Bible. For those who are less familiar with the Bible record of history all the points run counter to traditional, fundamentalist and conservative protestant views of Biblical interpretation other than perhaps 3 where protestant views lie on more of a spectrum. Liberal Christians would probably accept everything here.
  1. The Israelites slowly grew out of the Canaanite population around, say, 1200 to 1000 BC.
  2. The historicity of the events before the kings (say, earlier than Saul) is very unreliable.
  3. The historicity of the events from the split kingdom onwards (say, after Solomon) is reasonably reliable but the history is ‘written by the winners’ rather than being objective as a western historian would aim to write today.
  4. It was during this time onwards that Torah was largely written (950 BC to 450 BC).
  5. The Northern Kingdom of Israel was more prosperous than the Southern Kingdom of Judah and therefore more of a target for invading armies, hence Israel was taken captive before Judah.
  6. The Book of Daniel has a complicated formation history that was completed around 165 BC not during the time it writes about, and after much of the apparent prophecy had taken place.
  7. In many cases the authors of the New Testament writings aren't who we think they are, or even writing at the time we think they are writing. This is particularly true of some letters written in Paul's name, that are not by him.
  8. The New Testament (and Old Testament) authors don’t all agree on theology or the events they record.
  9. There is no compelling reason why we should use the Protestant Canon.
Overall the Bible doesn't seem as reliable as I once believed and not reliable enough (according to my threshold) to be held above reproach as sacred scripture. I think it should be questioned and challenged in what it claims like any other religious text.

In terms of looking to the Bible for morality I think we need to select the parts that challenge us personally to be more accepting and loving in our daily actions. I don't think we should go round stoning disobedient children which is a heinous crime but recorded as acceptable in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). The Old Testament also says that a woman who has been raped must marry the rapist and has no hope of divorce which is nauseating (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). But we should (and I aim to) love our neighbours as ourselves (Leviticus 19:18, Mark 12:31 and Galatians 5:14 among others).

Suggested Reading

Among many other titles I have read, the list below will provide the interested reader with some background support to the claims I have made.
  1. William G Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?
  2. Richard E Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?
  3. John J Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia Series Commentary)
  4. Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted

7 comments:

  1. Can I get some clarity on this:
    <>
    As opposed to any other (non-Protestant) canon or any canon at all?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your clarification. Lots of thoughts come to mind...

      Primarily I think what I mean is that I don't have any reasons, which I find compelling, that the Protestant canon should be used as a wholly reliable guide to reality. As for other canons, I'm less knowledgeable on these (unless they are a subset of books from the Protestant canon), so not overly qualified to pass judgement. What I would say though is that I don't know of any 'Good Book' which I consider a reliable guide to reality.

      In general I would say that 'actions speak louder than words', by which I mean that it's easy to ignorantly mislead people using words (be they written in a canon or on a website like this one), and that physical evidence is a more reliable guide. A canon is made up from written ideas (which could be true or false), but we can't cheat (or don't know how to cheat) our material reality.

      Don't know if that helps, I hope it provides some explanation of where I find myself.

      As a p.s. thought, perhaps a more interesting question to ask is "Why was this story passed down through the generations, what did it do for the hearer?" as opposed to "Is this story true?"

      As a p.p.s you may also want to read section 2.11

      Delete
    2. With regard to what has been said here on morality (of the Bible) it pays to look deeply and far to get through the PC reactions of our day, which seem to be very out of line with the thoughts of God.

      Putting someone to death is disturbing to us, as it doubtless was to those Israelites who had to carry out the act of putting a stubborn, rebellious, gluttonous drunkard to death by stoning. This is the whole point - that they who heard of it would fear. Here was the purpose: To deter others from taking the same path. The result would be "putting away the evil from among them." Hence a more peaceful and orderly society was attainted.

      What would result from allowing such people to carry on as they please, without any care or consideration for, not only their parents, who they were commanded to honour, but for society too. Aren't we witnessing in our day this very thing, lack of care and consideration which has resulted in a lawless society?

      Delete
    3. More on the morality of the Bible.
      A raped woman would have been considered defiled, which could make it near impossible for her to find a husband; also, consider there most likely would be a pregnancy as a result of the rape, which would further add to her hopeless situation of ever having a comfortable standing in her community.

      By making the man who raped her marry her and therefore have the responsibility of providing for her, and most likely a child too, not only made sure there were no unmarried mothers and fatherless children, but also no burden on the society. This was a good law, and a deterrent for any would-be rapists.

      Delete
    4. Ensuring a ‘peaceful and orderly’ society by stoning adolescents for adolescent behaviour has the shape of a terrifying society ruled over by tyrant. It is not a loving environment in which people thrive. The peacefulness is only maintained because of violent coercion and if this is the way that God operates or wants us to operate, then count me out: He is an arsehole.

      The law about marrying the rapist may have been morally acceptable or perhaps even progressive at the time considering societies patriarchal norms; particularly the husband’s ownership of the wife as property and that unmarried women were valued primarily for their virginity because that confirmed the father of the heirs she would later give birth to (a poor understanding of the biology of reproduction didn’t help here either). That social structure has long past and is now morally abhorrent to us from our perspective where women belong only to themselves and are valued by others because of who they are. This shows that, although not put into words very often, we no longer consider the morals of our ancestors to be acceptable or applicable today. If this is true of just one ‘biblical moral’ (and perhaps it’s not this one for you) then it calls into question every biblical moral. Further, how someone decides which ‘biblical morals’ are still applicable today and which are not is a rather subjective exercise even if there are some who strongly believe this not the case.

      Delete
  2. Human beings seem to have a genetic "need to believe." Some have referred to this as "the religion gene." Whether or not such a thing exists, more simplistically, it appears to manifest a desperate need to explain human existence, to create meaning, to get our bearings in a confusing and frightening universe. To possess the comfort of comprehending the universe, and man's place in it, humans everywhere appear to almost fanatically cling to some ideology or theology, even if they perceive on some level that that ideology or theology contains contradictory or convoluted logic. I'm also convinced that for many humans, religious activities are vastly more social or cultural in their nature than anything else. In occasionally observing worshipers in their houses of worship, it is often evident to me that the activities are simply what the attendees do out of mindless habit and tradition. If there is any genuine spirituality evident, I seldom see it. In a house of worship my family and I occasionally visit, each Sunday the attendees are unfailingly directed to "share their life journeys with one another, help with other members' burdens and problems, blah-blah-blah," etc. Yet in ten years I've noticed no one invites anyone else home for a sandwich. Ever. A woman in that assembly whose furnace broke down needed a place to stay for a brief period in cold winter. No one took her in, except our family, nominal believers that we be. An elderly single man had a surgery and needed supervision briefly in some volunteer's home; no one came forward except members of my household. So...the appeals for compassionate human interaction appear to be all rote and habit and lip service, with no substance. And the very rational response of one of my children, in seeing all of this was: "Why are we wasting our time with this, when they don't even go through the motions of acting out what they pretend to believe?" In the context I'm describing -- and while I'm sure there are exceptions -- most religious activity appears to translate into a vast waste of human time and effort, time and effort that should be spent engaging in life itself, a precious resource that vanishes quickly.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Very well put. True faith in and obedience to the Faith of Christ is rarer than hens teeth in some parts.

    ReplyDelete