It’s a new year, and I’ve decided to tweak this blog a bit. While it’s previously been a “blogging smorgasbord”, I now plan to streamline the topics a bit, and make it primarily about theology, philosophy, religion, spirituality and the like. In the aboutsection, you’ll find a little more detail about why I’m choosing to do this. That being said, the things I will be posting will be my personal observations, thoughts, and questions about religion. They will probably be considered controversial by some, although they are not meant to be. These topics are my honest contemplations. I’ve blogged long enough to know that anytime I post something remotely controversial, there aren’t many people willing to comment about it or join in the conversation… and that’s really ok. I get that. But it’s also important for me to note that I am not posting about certain topics for the sake of controversy. I’m simply unpacking my thoughts in the day to day, fully realizing that my thoughts, beliefs, and philosophies may very well change drastically as time goes on. I enjoy writing… and that is why I blog. And if someone else can glean anything of substance from my rambling, then I’ll consider it a great bonus. So for the first post of the new year, I figured I’d delve right into it!
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
I’ve always read the Bible devotionally. I never knew there was any other way to read it. To me, the things I learned were as black and white as the words on the page. The words, although obviously translated from their original language, were crystal clear in their meaning. There was no disputing over who wrote the books of the Bible. God spoke directly to the men who authored them. God said it. I believed it. That settled it. It’s the theology that many conservative evangelicals share. It’s the theology by which I was raised.
The first time I stumbled upon the idea of reading the Bible historically, I was in the religion section at Barnes and Noble. I was looking for compilations of the Gnostic Gospels… something I’d never read before, but was interested in studying. For whatever reason, my eyes landed on a selection of books written by Dr. Bart Ehrman. The titles he chose for his books were quite provocative, in my mind. A few examples: “Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why”, “Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible”, and “Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why The Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are”.
Having never heard of Dr. Ehrman before, I thought, “How do people arrive at these conclusions?” My curiosity was piqued. Such presumptuous notions just didn’t make sense. I’d grown up in the Christian faith. My parents were Christian. My grandparents, great-grandparents, and great-great-grandparents were Christian. I’d been to church practically every Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night of my life! I would most certainly know if there was anything alternative to consider concerning the Bible… and no sermon that I’d ever heard from the pulpit mentioned anything about discrepancies, changed texts, or misattributed authorship. I’d been to a Christian university, and I’d taken more than the minimally-necessary Bible courses, earning a minor in Biblical studies. While I didn’t know everything about the Bible, I certainly knew enough to know that these claims couldn’t be supported. Right?! I decided to read the introduction to “Misquoting Jesus”. I couldn’t put it down. I ended up buying the book that day, and thus began my love affair with theology and historical-criticism.
For those of you who are not familiar with Dr. Bart Ehrman, you should know that he is a respected biblical scholar and professor of NT studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He has been featured in numerous documentaries, seminars, and debates. Now, full disclosure here… I do not claim that the works of Dr. Ehrman are flawless. I think that he has strong opinions—strong opinions that can sometimes come across as fact when he is only describing them with a great passion. As with anything, I believe each person must discover for themselves what Truth is. I do not agree with every statement that Dr. Ehrman makes. But he gave me a great gift through his books… the gift of free thought. This new information does not have the power to prove or disprove anything. It only reminds me of how little I know—how little we all know. Since discovering that first book of thought-provoking theology, I haven’t stopped longing for more. Perhaps the following list won’t be news for many of you… but here are a few things that drastically changed the way I read the Bible. (They will be discussed in greater detail in the future.)
1. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. These were anonymous Gospels; the authors never claimed an identity. The titles of the books were added much, much later by editors. The earliest manuscripts of any of the NT Gospels were written by people who lived 35-65 years after Jesus’ death. Most scholars agree that whoever wrote these books were not eyewitnesses. This means the earliest and oldest accounts we have of Jesus’ life were written at least three to six decades after his death.
2. Church tradition would have us believe that I and II Peter were written by the apostle Peter. However, in Acts 4:13, the author explicitly states that Peter was uneducated and illiterate. Additionally, these letters were originally written in Greek; Peter spoke Aramaic. In order for Peter to have written these letters, he would have had to obtain a complete education in the Greek language and in Greek composition… and all of this after the death of Jesus. Is it possible? Theoretically, sure… but it’s probably not too likely.3. The “undisputed epistles” are Romans, Galatians, I Thessalonians, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Philippians, and Philemon. This means that virtually every Biblical scholar—conservative and liberal alike—agree that Paul probably wrote these letters.The rest are up for debate—and have been for centuries.
4. We do not have the original text for any of the books of the Bible. For many years, I held to the belief that the Bible was 100% inerrant in its original languages, even though we had obvious discrepancies in the English translations. However, the problem lies in the fact that we do not have the original texts. All we have are copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies, etc. In most instances, all we have are manuscripts written centuries later (yes, centuries!). The original texts have not been preserved.
5. A side-by-side comparison of the Gospel accounts reveals more differences than one would notice reading the books straight through. This is called readingvertically rather than horizontally. Even though Matthew and Luke most assuredly used Mark as the common source in their writing (every scholar agrees on this point), they each show the author’s perspectives, which were very different. Matthew wrote mainly for the Jews. Luke’s audience was the Gentiles. The book of John, as we know, is quite different from the synoptic Gospels. But did you know that the accounts of events in these Gospels are actually quite different? Some discrepancies are very minor; some are quite important! Here are a few questions that are answered very differently depending on which Gospel you read. (These will all be mentioned briefly here, and discussed at length in upcoming posts.):
Q: Where was Jesus the day after his baptism?
A: In Matthew, Mark and Luke, he went off into the wilderness immediately and was tempted by the devil for 40 days. If you read John, the author explicitly states he saw Jesus the next day. This is when Jesus chooses his disciples, and begins his ministry by turning the water into wine.
So which is it?
Q: How did Judas Iscariot die?
A: In Matthew, he hanged himself. After taking the thirty pieces of silver given to him in exchange for his betrayal of Christ, Judas feels remorse. Just before his suicide, he goes to the chief priests in the Temple and tries to return the money, telling them that he has betrayed innocent blood. The priests then decide they cannot put the silver back into the Temple treasure, because it was “blood money” and it was tainted. Instead, they use the money to purchase a potter’s field. It is because the field was purchased with Judas’ blood money that it is “called the Field of Blood to this day”(Matt. 27:8). However, in Luke’s account of the event in Acts, Judas never went to the priests to return the silver. In fact, he used the money to purchase the potter’s field himself, as a “reward for his wickedness”. There, he “fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out” (Acts 1:18-19). It seems that according to Luke, the place was called “Field of Blood” because Judas had a gory death there.
So which is it?
Q: What was the genealogy of Jesus?
A: Matthew (1:1-17) and Luke (3:23-38) are the only Gospels that record Jesus’ family tree. Both are traced back through Joseph’s Jewish ancestors. However, in each account, the names of Joseph’s father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and great-great-grandfather are actually different. (And all this aside from the fact that Matthew starts with Abraham and moves up to Jesus, while Luke moves in reverse back to Adam!) In Matthew, it goes from Joseph to Jacob to Matthan, to Eleazar, to Eliud. In Luke, it goes from Joseph to Heli to Mathat to Levi to Melchi.
So which is it? Who were Joseph’s real ancestors?
These are just a few quick examples. There are more, which I will address at some point in the future. But I give these examples to ask again: Which accounts are right? Which ones are wrong? They can’t both be correct… and if one is right and one is wrong then how can we say that the Bible is inerrant? This goes beyond translation. There are certain events that are recorded differently by different men who lived in different times.
I want to be clear: I am not challenging the Christian faith. I am hopelessly in love with Jesus; he is how I make sense of this world. What I am challenging is Christian fundamentalism. How did any of us—conservative and liberal Christians alike—reach a place where we feel confident saying that we know much of anything? That is the point I wish to make: That somehow, the beautiful mess in which we’ve found ourselves offers no knowledge, but simply faith. Sola fide.
***
"Sola Fide: By Faith Alone" - http://mandywilsononline.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/sola-fide-by-faith-alone/