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.

Theism Isn't the Only Way to Explore the Sacred

 The God of my understanding and experience is a presence and a power, not a person, not a potentate.  

Love at its most perfect; that’s God.

The field of unlimited possibilities; that’s God. 

What’s really real; that’s God.

 

Light and air, water and star dust, and echoes of the big bang all coming together as you and as me; that’s God.

 

The Substance and Fabric and Vitality of life; that’s God.

 

The indescribable More; that’s God.

All-in-all; that’s God.

 

Or rather, those are the ways that I experience, understand, and try to discuss the 

unnamable Something that must be pondered but can’t be dissected, 

 

That can be experienced intimately but never known completely, 

 

That requires awe but not submission, 

 

That inspires love and never cruelty, 

 

That is part of everything but cannot be limited by anything. 

 

And I call that, for lack of a better word, God...

 

We’ve been to the moon. The internet connects us instantly to people across geography and time zones. We transplant organs. We have nano robots that do medical procedures from inside bodies. We cloned a sheep. We fly in the air. Every day.

 

We can live underwater for big stretches of time. 

We synthesized insulin. We can help a lot of people live past 100.

 

There are over 700,000 humans alive right now who are more than 100 years old. There are more centenarians on the planet than there are people living in Denver.

 

We know that homo sapiens (that’s us) have been around for 200,000 years with hominin ancestors going back 5 million years or more (maybe 10).  

 

We live on a small planet in a modest solar system that is one of 400 billion solar systems in a galaxy that is one of 2 trillion galaxies in a vast and expanding universe that is at least 13.8 billion years old and might actually be eternal (always is but never began).

 

The old guy on a cloud passing judgement, pulling puppet strings, deciding when people die, granting favors to the deserving few – 

 

is a mental image we inherited from a world that thought earth was flat and at the center of the universe. 

 

For God to be relevant and real to us, we MUST liberate Her from the middle ages and recognize the divine as part of the fabric of the universe that we actually inhabit. 

 

So, if God isn’t a superhero, but is the air we breathe and the light we see by and the electricity in the room and the love we feel more deeply than we can describe…

 

then we can pray to that God because that God is always with us, exactly where we are; 

we are part of its vastness; it individuates as us. The universe explores and knows itself as us.

 

So, yes we pray. We turn within, because God is there; or we turn outward, because God is there, or we turn to the Great Teachers (like Jesus), because God is there, or we turn to the traditions, because God is there, 

 

or we turn to one another, because God is there. That’s how and why we pray, because there’s not a spot where God is not. 

 

We aren’t calling out across a great canyon, we’re tapping Love itself on the shoulder and saying, “Hey, can I have a hug?” 

The answer is always yes.

(excerpts from Nov. 17, 2024 homily at Sunshine Cathedral)

 - dw

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)