I am a theoretical physicist and currently Director of 
July 06, 2005
"The Bible says…"
One of the things I benefited most from once being an ordained lay preacher was having to study the Bible in a fairly formal way. The Bible is a fascinating book, and studying it in some depth reveals treasures that might be missed by those who just pick outs bits here and there.
For example, I discovered that some of the books of the so-called "minor" prophets of the Old Testament (Jonah and Amos were my particular favorites), when taught by scholars, make for great reading and are full of insights into the human condition. The Bible also has passages that astound you with their poetic beauty and precision of thought. Take, for example, this verse from Ecclesiastes (9:11) that addresses the seeming disconnect between ability and reward, and the general randomness of life:
I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
And we are constantly reminded of how indebted we are to two sources (the Bible and Shakespeare) for so many of the phrases that we use in everyday language.
But another benefit of studying the Bible is that I am immediately on the alert when someone says "The Bible says X" in order to support some position. My first response is "Where exactly does it say it?" Quite often, they cannot quote a supporting verse and you realize that they simply think the Bible should say that, because they strongly believe it. It has become part of folklore.
So when someone says "The Bible says X", always ask for supporting evidence.
The second point is that even when such people actually have a quote to back up their assertion, you can often point to other quotes that contradict their position or puts it in a different light or context. This is because the Bible says a lot of things. It is an immense book with many authors, written over a long span of time, in more than one language, and from the perspective of many different cultures. There is also the fact that (as some of commenters to this blog have pointed out previously) the translations of ancient Hebrew and Greek and other texts into English involves the introduction of some unavoidable ambiguities. The Bible is by no means a clear statement of beliefs and values that can be easily inserted into modern day political and ideological battles, and it can be claimed to be so only by deliberately cherry-picking bits and pieces to serve an agenda. When, in the Merchant of Venice (act 1, sc. 3), Shakespeare has Antonio saying "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose," he is right. The Bible can be quoted to support a vast range of positions, some of them truly bizarre, so arguing on the basis of Biblical texts, taken literally, is rarely conclusive.
I remember one time some years ago when Jehovah's Witnesses came to my house to sell their magazine and to try and convert me. I am usually friendly to them, since I admire their devotion to their cause and they are invariably polite (a quality that I like), but I try to tell them as gently as possible I am not interested. But one of them tried to pique my interest by pointing to the feature article in that month's magazine, which argued that AIDS was God's punishment on homosexuals. This definitely got my attention as I happen to think that that is one of the sickest ideas ever conceived, and thus got drawn into an argument. They produced the usual Biblical quotes against homosexuality. I argued that one had to interpret the Bible in the context of when it was written and the mores that existed at that time, and that the Bible's message could change with time.
The Witness flatly rejected my contention, saying that no re-interpretation was possible. The Bible's message was universal in scope and unchanging with time. I then mentioned Paul's letter to Philemon, in which he seems to have urged Philemon's runaway slave to accept his position and return to his master. Did that mean, I asked, that slavery was acceptable? The Witness (who was black, which was why I had chosen this particular story) was taken aback and said that we had to interpret that story in a sophisticated way in order to understand its real message. I then asked why we should do that for slavery and not for homosexuality, and of course, there is really no answer to that. In fact, the Bible asserts that God does and condones the most appalling things, actions that are truly monstrous. There is no way to resurrect a belief in a loving God without some serious textual criticism, re-interpretation, and re-evaluation of these passages.
The third thing you often find about people who glibly assert "The Bible says…" is that they rarely quote from Jesus' actual words, which is odd if you call yourself a Christian. For Christians, Christ's teachings are supposed to be the final word, and yet many Biblical fundamentalists seem to prefer to quote the Old Testament, the letters of Paul, or Revelations. Could this be because Jesus preached a far more tolerant message than many who now confidently claim to speak in his name? Jesus was constantly hanging out with those whom we would consider low-lifes, prostitutes and the like, and was not judgmental about them. He was more likely to be critical of those who sat in judgment on others.
For example, the Plain Dealer in its issue of Saturday, July 2, 2005 (page E3) had one of those inane features where the responses of anonymous people to some question. (What is the point of such features? To let random people vent their spleen?) The question this time was: "Would you want your religious leader to bless same-sex unions?" One respondent said no because "the Bible says to speak out against sin, and homosexual relations are a sin (1 Corinthians 6:9…I could never understand how one could be considered a Christian and be an unrepenting homosexual." To this person's credit, he/she gave a citation to one of Paul's letters. (Paul is the go-to guy in the New Testament if one is looking for support for intolerant views.) But if you look up the passage, this is what is says in full (in the authoritative [UPDATE: After the comment by Mark, I realize that I have been guilty of sloppy language and should have used the word 'familiar' instead of 'authoritative' since I am not really a competent judge of the latter] King James version): "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.." So rather than being a particularly outrageous sin, homosexuality is not even mentioned but being effeminate is said to be evil. In some translations, 'effeminate' is replaced with 'homosexual', but the two words are clearly not equivalent. (The Living Bible, which is a modern (1971), much looser, translation with an evangelical tilt, gives the list as: idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers, and swindlers." Note how "fornicators" have been dropped and how "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" have been changed, showing significant distortions in meaning. For this reason, serious Biblical scholars do not recommend its use.)
Whatever one's religious beliefs, one can learn a lot from the Bible. But what you learn may not quite be what you expect.
POST SCRIPT
Steve Perry, the Editor of the Minneapolis/St. Paul weekly newspaper City Pages, is to my mind, one of the shrewdest observers of the domestic national political scene. Last week's Free Times had a cover story by him (Gagging Dr. Dean) that explains why the Democratic Party seems so reluctant to fight for the kinds of policies that its rank and file might want. For those of you who missed the article, you can read it here.
In an earlier essay written in 2002 titled Spank the Donkey, Perry is more cynical and argues that the Democratic Party may be beyond salvaging, so beholden has it become to its big-money contributors.
Comments
Prof. Singham --
Do you prefer the KJV for aesthetics or because you believe it's a superior translation? As far as I've ever been taught, it's at least as flawed, in terms of translation, as any of the other major versions. The KJV-only group, mostly fundamentalist Christians who apparently think Jesus spoke in 17th-century English, don't get a lot of traction around my house, and last I checked my father was still using a Revised English Bible for his sermons. Personally, I like my New International Version study Bible, which frequently has footnotes explaining the translation at points where it's apt to disagree with other major versions -- but the best thing is probably to have a commentary by a reliable scholar close to hand. Anyway, I was just curious as to the reason(s) for your preference.
Your encounter with the Jehovah's Witnesses reminded me of a tense but fairly enjoyable scene in an episode of The West Wing, wherein President Bartlet gets mad at a conservative talk-show host who quotes Leviticus in defense of an anti-gay position, and buries her under an avalanche of directives from the same book which no sane person would think of following. ("My chief of staff insists on working on the Sabbath. Is it okay if I kill him myself or do I have to call the police?")
I am definitely not an expert on the authoritativeness of Bibles, and your father's opinion should be taken a lot more seriously than mine. I grew up with the New English Bible, which (as far as I can tell) is a careful scholarly effort to extract as accurate a meaning as possible from the original Greek and Hebrew texts, and render that meaning in easily understandable contemporary English.
The King James Version is great for quoting because the phrases from it are so familiar. For example, take the beginning of the well-known Psalm 23:
King James Version:
The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures:
he leadeth me beside still waters.
He restoreth my soul . . .
New English Bible:
Yahweh is my shepherd, I shall want nothing.
He makes me lie down in green pastures,
and leads me beside the waters of peace.
He renews life within me.
The meaning is clearer in the NEB but the words of the KJV have a nice familiar poetic rhythm to them.
But my larger point is that it is hard to pin down what "The Bible says" precisely for all these kinds of reasons and so one can argue endlessly about meaning.
By the way, the dialogue of the West Wing segment you refer to can be read here
I personally prefer many of the more poetic passages -- Psalms and the opening verses of John, for example -- in the KJV; no other translation yet has managed the beautiful rendering the King James gives such writing, and I don't think a tremendous degree of translational accuracy is necessary for them. On the other hand, even on aesthetic grounds, I like the NIV much better for more prosaic sections. The KJV frequently gets bogged down in convolutions that lose the narrative, and you really have to stay on top of its pronouns if you want to have any idea who's doing what.
...I think I had a point, other than standing on a soapbox, when I started this, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was. You're certainly right about getting an exact fix on "what the Bible says," though, and that's one of the many logical problems I have with doctrines of Biblical inerrancy (a view which tends to get me in trouble with fellow Christians). In fact, your post covers several of my objections.
That's the segment exactly! I have to imagine that you probably opted for a slightly less dramatic, more tactful approach than the fictional president, though. ;-)
How do you know that satan was not speaking through you when you misued the word of God to imply homosexuality is not wrong? You are, after all, an atheist and more prone to satan's influence without the holy spirit in your life.
Of course, you understand that the above statement was said in jest, but is one counter argument to your above story, and an example of the types of thoughts I used to believe whole heartedly.
I grew up attending bible studies 3-4 times per week of my own motivation. While my memory of specifics is now beginning to fade, I too have a solid base of scripture in my head.
Your comment about "the bible says X" is too funny. I understand exactly where you are coming from. Perhaps what you were touching on is the strange satiety we receive as non-theists debating scripture with those who interpret it as the literal word of a god to disprove their particualr belief? Why is that pleasurable to me, or to us, if I heard you correctly?
Aaron,
Actually, what you have said is exactly true. There is no way to tell when people are using the Bible "correctly" or for evil purposes.
Actually, if there is a devil, I would assume that he/she/it would be smarter than using an atheist to try and undermine the Bible. Why would religious people care what an atheist thinks? It would be a whole lot sneakier to use someone like Jerry Falwell or James Dobson and make him say outrageous things and claim support from God and the Bible, don't you think? Wait a minute...
I actually like the Bible and find it to be an interesting and complex book, but I put it in the same class as, say Shakepeare or Tolstoy's works, dealing with the search for meaning. They too provide insights into human nature. And it is the very complexity of their message that makes these works so compelling. If they were simple one-dimensional morality plays with clear cut right and wrong demarcation lines (as some of the literalists try to make the Bible), they would not be nearly as interesting.
What I object to is people who act as if they have a monopoly on interpreting what the Bible says, just as I would object to someone who claims that only he or she understand the true meaning of Shakespeare. We should not let the Bible become, by default, the property of those with a particular agenda. It is a book with universal messages.
On the subject of reading the Bible literally and emphasizing particular passages, I recently read a fascinating book, Salvation on Sand Mountain by Dennis Covington. He describes an Appalachian sect that focuses on Jesus' exhortation in Mark 16:18 (They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover) by handling rattlesnakes and drinking strychnine as part of their services.I could not understand, even when I was a Christian, how those who interpreted the Bible literally implicitly agreed on which passages were the most important. The story of the snake-handlers provides an interesting real-life example of what happens when a devout group chooses the wrong passages to emphasize. I would be curious to see the reaction of more "mainstream" fundamentalists to their practices.
Mano,
One of the most blatant misquotations I remember hearing comes from a sound clip from Whoopi Goldberg's speech at a women's rights rally last April. Now I'm quoting from memory but I believe she said "Even God gave us freedom of choice, and what God has given, let no man tear asunder." I remember hearing this sound clip on a talk radio show and it sounded like Whoopi was quoting some Bible verse. When I checked it out, the closest verse I could find was from Matthew 19:6 which says "what God has joined together, let not man put asunder" in reference to marriage. It's amazing how both religious and secular people misquote the Bible to further their own agenda.
By the way, I quit reading the weblog for a while when there were no posts but I'm glad you are back posting again. Keep up the good work Mano.
If you are going to quote the Bible then you should know exactly what it says. I would not want anyone to misquote the Bible. This is why many people have a particular passage from the Bible that they can relate to and will often use it in context to get across what they want to convey.