The Bible isn't what most people assume it is.

 The Bible isn't what most people assume it is.

The [Christian] Bible is the Hebrew bible plus a 4th century anthology of mid-1st to early 2nd century literature (New Testament). The Bible is written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and most of the Greek texts were written by Aramaic speakers. It is unlikely that anyone in the NT ever met Jesus (as every NT text is written 20-100 years after Jesus' execution and the earliest writer definitely never met him). The texts are oft' copied and edited and translated, and no original documents have survived. We have translated copies of edited hand copied copies of documents that no longer exist. I love the Bible but for the human product that it is. I do not consider it divine, inerrant, magical, or beyond question or critique. The Bible we have is the result of 4th century church leaders addressing 4th century questions and needs with tales and traditions that are 200-700 years old at that time. The literature was written by Jewish people to Jewish people and was canonized by people who hadn't been connected to Judaism for 4-5 generations at least. These are important things to remember when tempted to say "the Bible says" or the "the Bible clearly teaches"...the Bible isn't univocal, isn't super clear on much, and is the result of a long process involving many voices, agendas, experiences, needs, desires and even multiple time periods, locations, and languages; and, we can't cross reference a single biblical sentence to an original document. Love the Bible, but don't use it as a weapon and don't let it be weaponized against you. It's just not built for that. (dw)

Who Taught You the Bible?

From whom did you learn the Bible? I don't mean a couple dozen stories and 40 bible verses you committed to memory in Sunday School. I don't even mean frequent bible reading that has left you familiar with a great deal of bible content. When I say "learn the Bible" I mean on-going, deep dive, critical study of texts, cultures, idioms, traditions, textual inconsistencies, inaccurate cosmoloties, historical fallacies, pondering the almost unlimited lessons that may be learned and applied from myths and parables...I mean wrestling and with playing with and threatening to abandon and then reconciling with the ancient texts (as best we can knowing most of us are reading edited translations of hand copies of no longer existent documents that were compiled and canonized centuries after Jesus' life). From whom did you learn the Bible "that way"?

My teachers by book and/or lectern were: Alan Cooper, Angela Bauer-Levesque, Bart Ehrman, Bernard Anderson, Burton Mack, Elaine Pagels, Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Gale Yee, Hal Taussig, Joanna Dewey, John Dominic Crossan,
John S. Spong (though bible scholars often bristled to have him included among them insisting that he was a good teacher of their scholarship rather than a contributor to the scholarship), Lawrence Boadt, Lawrence Wills,
Mona West (Take Back the Work; Queer Bible Commentary eds.1 & 2; Queering Christianity: Finding a Place at the Table for LGBTQI Christians),
Phyllis Trible, Toni Craven, Vincent Wimbush, Wil Gafney...
as well as M. Borg & Wm. Countryman, John A. T. Robinson & Karen King, A.J. Levine & Lloyd Geering.

What I love about critical study is that it's never done. I thought I had learned from the best and I'd spend the rest of my career (possibly my life) trying to refresh my memory on things I had forgotten or that had become hazy from all the knowledge that had been deposited into my brain by the great scholars of our time. But scholarship never gets to retire and there are always new perspectives and discoveries.

And so, in recent years, my list of teachers has grown (but unlike the older list above, these people don't they've influence me or that there is a me to influence, but their recorded lectures, discussions, classes, and their books are nevertheless mind-expanding and I am grateful to and for them).

New bible teachers in my life include: Francesca Stavrakopoulou, Jennifer Grace Bird, Joshua Bowen, Paula Fredriksen (Paula has been at it for decades but is new to me somehow...I seem to remember her from Living the Questions but only now am I enjoying her work), & Robyn Faith Walsh.

Do you know these people? Do you love them? Who have I not listed that I simply must add to my list (I already know Randall Bailey is a must). From whom did you learn the Bible and who would you recommend to me? And if you don't know any name listed here, please look them up, find their papers and books and YouTube discussions and talks...you'll be glad you did.

Doesn't the Bible say that Men Shouldn't Sleep Together? (Spoiler alert: Not Really)

Someone asked me today: "the Bible in Leviticus forbids a man lying with another man as he would with a woman, and for most Christians, the Bible is the primary authority. You've said before that the verses used to condemn gay people are aways in the context of exploitation or violence and have nothing to do with loving relationships, but 'do not lie with man as with woman' doesn't seem to be about violence or exploitation, unless I'm missing something."

I took it to be an honest, snark-free question, so I did attempt to answer it (as follows):

Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) is a late concept. The earliest church (which had not yet codified a new testament) depended on a few doctrinal statements (such as found in the aposte's creed). Believiing in the bible or believing the bible was inerrant were not requirements in the early church (they would wait almost 400 years for the new testament and 1500 years or so for "sola scriptura").

Leviticus is telling men not to treat other men the way they treat women (as property to own and use - do not exploit other men).

Sodom & Gomorrah (Genesis 19) pictures an attempted gang rape of men (to prevent it, Lot offers his daughters to them...do not treat men the way you treat women is the patriarchal standard) - Lot, the ONE righteous man in the story (who offered his daughters to a rape gang), winds up having incest with his daughters in a cave (and not being chastised for it in the tale).

Romans 1 refers to pagan orgies that get so wild people get hurt ("due penalty in your bodies")...Paul blames it on idolatry.

1 Corinthians 6:9 condemns male prostitutes and their male customers (exploitation, objectifying men the way women are objectified, commodified like property)

1 Timothy 1:10 - (probably an early second century text, not authentically Pauline) scholars are universally stumped by what is meant, but the most common guess is that it is also about prostitution.

All the so-called prohibitions are in the context of violence (Romans 1, Genesis 19) or exploitation (Leviticus, Paul, Deutero-Paul). Meanwhile, Love is a fruit of the spirit, love is not conemned, Paul says there is no law against love, Jesus said love is the hallmark of discipleship, Jesus understood the commandments to be about simply love of God and neighbor (the Good Samaritan parable shows that anyone who chooses kindness is a good neighbor), and one New Testament writer defines God as Love. Love is not condemned, and the very few verses weaponized against LGBTQ people do not even mention consensual, joyful interactions, covenantal fidelity, or mutual affection or attraction.

HOW TO READ THE BIBLE

HOW TO READ THE BIBLE

There are actually many ways to study scripture. The various methods of reading and making meaning of scriptural texts are collectively called Biblical Criticism.

The least helpful and least accurate way would be to read as a fundamentalist might. Fundamentalists are narrowly focused Christians who believe that non-Christians are rejected by God and that one must accept certain "fundamentals" in order to truly be Christian. Those fundamentals include:

The Bible is to be considered inerrant (basically dictated by God without any mistake or incorrect information), Jesus' literal virginal conception is not to be questioned, his execution is meant to be seen as our means of salvation, the resurrection must be seen as a literal, historical, physical event, and one must expect his literal, physical return one day.

I, personally, cannot affirm a single "fundamental" as being true for me. The Bible is for me a human project, the so-call Virgin Birth is mythological (comparable to many miracle birth stories in antiquity), Jesus' execution was a brutal act by an oppressive empire, resurrection is an experience we share but not a single, literal, historical event, and Jesus' return is allegorical and meant to help us be Christ in the world rather than have us wait for a hero to tidy up our messes.

But I can easily reject fundamentalist views because I have learned to think critically and because I have been exposed to various methods of biblical criticism.

If the fundamentalist approach isn't helpful, what are some ways of engaging scripture that might be more energizing?

Allegorical Interpretation: In addition to characters and stories say on the page, a second level of meaning is extracted from (or applied to) the text. Allegorical interpretation might suggest a story from one part of the Bible represents something from another part (like the Ark representing St. Mary sheltering God's people beneath her veil in stormy times) or it might apply biblical stories to larger, universal themes (rather than asking if the resurrection literally happened, an allegorical approach would be to ask how the resurrection story points to possibilities in our lives to rise above defeat, heartache, unfairness, loss, or disappointment). 

Allegorical approaches to bible reading were used by Origen of Alexandria, by the mystic Emmanuel Swedenborg, and has traditionally been a preferred method of bible study in the New Thought Movement (Charles Fillmore, for example, used each apostle to represent mental states, e.g., John represented love, Thomas represented understanding, Peter represented faith and so on). 

Demythologizing Scripture: This approach looks at the fantastic claims of scripture (walking on water, Jonah in a fish, a donkey talking, people living hundreds of years, etc.) and tries to separate the claimed events from the moral lesson or theological point the stories may be trying to make. 

Historical-Critical Method (used to be called "Higher Criticism") - looks at the traditions, languages, oral transmission of stories, and politics that influenced the writers. Asks who is writing, to whom, and why? Has been used since the 19th century and has always been intended to read the texts free from dogmatic bias. Field of archeology is helpful to this method of study. 

Literary Criticism - tries to establish the genre of the documents (poetry, biography, homily, hymn, parable, etc). Examines the structure, date, and authorship of documents based largely on the internal evidence in the documents, but external evidence is employed when helpful (as in dating texts). If one document quotes another, those quotations are noticed and explored. If the voice of the "writer" changes (suggesting, perhaps, multiple writers) if the writing style changes, those things are brought under examination. Literary criticism studies the Bible as literature using scientific techniques to do so. 

Philology - studies histories of languages and compares languages to one another. Comparing ancient documents (biblical and non-biblical documents from the same periods and regions) in the ancient languages (Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Coptic, etc.) is a very academic but also very enlightening field of study. 

Rhetorical Criticism - comparing communication styles and philosophies of biblical discourse.

Social Scientific Criticism - Uses anthropology, sociology, and social psychological to analyze biblical texts. Studies the behavior of people in the Bible in a social or cultural context, noticing ritual, customs, and actions within the environments of the actors.

Now, don't be put off by the word "criticism" - that isn't an attack on scripture. Criticism in this context is the use of scientific criteria and reason to understand and explain the meaning intended by the writers, if possible, with a high degree of objectivity. 

Some hermeneutical methods are more artistic than scientific. Theopoetics, for example, might read scripture through a theological lens, seeking to apply it in personal spiritual seeking, describing the process in artistic or poetic ways. It would try to embrace and communicate the experience of scripture to an imaginative reader. 

Some might find the allegorical method to be more artistic, or at least, more creative, than scientific. So, in addition to the scientific ways of engaging the Bible, there are also artistic ways. 

How to read the Bible? I have found every method described here (apart from the fundamentalist approach) to be helpful and enlightening. And, guess what? There are even more methods! 

Regardless of the method(s) we choose, if we approach the texts with open minds and a joy in discovering new insights, we'll probably find that we haven't nearly exhausted what the Bible has to offer us. Keep reading, keep thinking, keep questioning, and keep imagination, and the Bible will continue to open worlds of discovery for you. It might not support your doctrinal training and dogmatic certainties, but that's actually a good thing. (dw)

I'm Interested in Jesus' Love Life BECAUSE I Love Jesus

I love Jesus (not in the imaginary friend way of my childhood, but I love searching for him in history and I love how I come to life when I make certain discoveries...my christology is rooted in a 1st century flesh and blood revolutionary more than in a cosmic Olympian type figure). 

Because I love Jesus I am very interested in his revolutionary, anti-imperial politics, in his work as a healer/exorcist/lay philosopher, in his risk taking, in his intimate/personal connection with the God of his understanding, in his insistence on flouting cultural taboos, in his willingness to rethink and dialogue with interpretations of his inherited scriptures and traditions, in people coming to believe he might be the messiah (and his possibly coming to agree with them), with people’s continued experience of him (or his memory or his values) beyond his execution, and I am interested in his personal relationships...
his closeness to a beloved disciple, his friendship with Peter, his place in a chosen family in Bethany, his interesting relationship with a woman from Magdala, his repeated encounters with a mysterious young man in Mark’s gospel, what it meant for him to look at him “and love him”, what it might mean for him to be called “son of David” (whose love for Jonathan was notorious)...

Because I love Jesus I love exploring his life, his intimacies, his sexuality. Like his ancestor David, he might have been bisexual, or he may have been gay, or he may have been straight, or he might have flowed up and down the continuum. 

Because I love Jesus, I want to know more about him. Just as those who love me must love the Queer me (because that’s the me there is), to love Jesus is to try to know him, and the him there is to know might be gay or bi...its definitely Queer (regardless of the attractions he felt). 

My soteriology is about “wholeness”...and since Jesus is part of the way that I found my path to wholeness (which includes my sexuality), I want to know the whole Jesus (as much as is possible with the years and myths that lie between us) which includes his sexuality. I don’t care if he was celibate or not, that’s none of my business, but he had human feelings and connections and covenants, and those do matter to me a great deal.

The "Spirit" Isn't Necessarily the Cure for Disagreements

My pneumatology, like my theology, christology, and ecclesiology, is rather "low." Important, of course, but I don't use words like "god" and "spirit" (or even "the universe") to suggest that groups, even principled organizations, are somehow guided infallibly by cosmic forces. In my spiritual view and experience, devout, sincere people can  make mistakes. In my understanding, organizations can mean well and ask the god of their understanding for assistance and still do really bad (or at least, ineffective) things. "God told me" and "trust the spirit" and "just pray about it" and "God will provide" are trite phrases that can become utterly meaningless, and worse, abusive. Honest disputes, real questions, faithful disagreements, and differences of opinion do not suggest an unwillingness to be open to spiritual insights. When church people disagree, and choose to hide behind tired old verbiage of simple piety rather than respectfully addressing the honest differences, they are neither honoring the Divine particularly nor are they offering anything helpful to a possible resolution of differences. My having an opinion that differs from yours is not an affront to the Olympian deities! However, someone insisting that honest disagreement is a mistrust of spiritual energies does cheapen the religious enterprise.