Why the Bible Is So Hard To Read

Google Image

Fr. Dominic Assim, the pastor of the Catholic parish I attend, recently urged his parishioners to read the Bible, from start to finish.

I agree wholeheartedly. The apostle Paul was said to have been a prisoner in Rome when he wrote this in his second letter to his trainee, Timothy: “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”

But I recognize that reading the Bible from cover to cover takes you through some really difficult terrain. It’s like asking people to read Shakespeare or Dante's 14th-century, 1,555-page poem, Divine Comedy - not that people would benefit nearly as much from reading Shakespeare or Dante as from reading the Bible.

For believers, the Bible is the word of God in the words of humans. For non-believers, in my opinion, it is at least the definitive religious work of all time that should be read with an open mind and with all the aids available.  

A Major Challenge

But for those of us accustomed to quick, online videos and media designed to make it easy and quick to be entertained or to learn, the Bible is a major challenge.

For one thing, the Bible is more like a series of still photos than a video. It often goes from one isolated incident to another, with little apparent transition, partially because it has dozens, if not hundreds, of authors. It also was written partially in now obsolete languages, in foreign and ancient cultures. The latest addition was written nearly 2,000 years ago.

It’s more like a library than a book, and to add to the confusion, the Bible accepted by Protestants has only 66 books. The Catholic Bible contains seven others that Protestants traditionally reject. And, there are at least dozens of translations.

Many people, in my view, disregard a basic fact we’ve learned about the Bible from archeology, paleontology and history: It’s not “true” is the way modern people understand the term, nor, in many cases, was it meant to be.

Google Image
It contains many literary forms, including poems, songs, fables, narrative that includes hyperbole – ways of conceiving and writing that were prevalent in ancient times – and some history. But in general, its notion of historical truth is not how moderns conceive it.

The first question we may have is, “Did that really happen?’’ It’s a question that takes a backseat to the Bible’s purpose of teaching about God and God’s relationship to humans. This is easier to see in the Christian Bible than in the Hebrew Bible, which is older.

Jesus’ story about the Prodigal Son, for instance, is fiction, referred to as a “parable” in today’s understanding and intended to be understood that way. Its “truthfulness” is not in the facts presented but in its message, that God is a loving father who welcomes home the most reprehensible among us. All the stories in the Bible are true in the sense that they provide valuable insights into the nature of God and God’s relationship to humans.

Although the Hebrew Bible contains some history, according to historians, many of its stories are based on ancient stories from cultures other than that of the Hebrews. We would refer to many of them as “fiction.” That includes the stories about Adam and Eve, which don’t provide accurate information about the first humans but a lesson in God’s creativity.

No Conflict

In my view, there is no conflict between science, including the theory of evolution, and the Bible, properly understood. Why don’t we hear this directly from religious leaders?

I believe it’s because they think we are incapable of grasping the distinctions, or that our faith isn’t strong enough to comprehend that much in the Bible isn’t factual but meant to illustrate God’s intervention in human history and our relationship to God.

For me, knowing all this has meant the difference between profound skepticism and a deep respect and appreciation for the Bible. In my view, for people searching for God in the Judeo-Christian tradition, reading the Bible is indispensable.

  

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Gospel of The Little Prince

Image
  Attention all those concerned only with “matters of great consequence:” Is it possible that you’ve become someone you didn’t want to be, having strayed far from the innocence and simplicity of childhood? That’s the main question asked in The Little Prince, which Netflix, the streaming video service, has added to its repertoire of movies and TV shows. Though not a big fan of animated flicks, I was a big fan of the book, The Little Prince, back in the 1970s when it became extremely popular in the U.S. It was first published in French and English in New York in 1943 as a novella by French aristocrat, writer, poet, and pioneering aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupery , who disappeared while piloting a Free French Army plane the following year over the Mediterranean Sea. Nearly Two Million Copies “The novella is the fourth most-translated book in the world and was voted the best book of the 20th century in France,” says Wikipedia. “Translated into more than 250 language...
Read more

‘Spiritual but Not Religious,’ Revisited

Image
Google Image I’ve expressed several times in these blogs my skepticism about declarations by some of our contemporaries that they are “spiritual but not religious.” Much of the skepticism results from the false dichotomy this entails, as if the spiritual and religious are mutually exclusive. Spirituality, after all, is the whole point of being religious. With the exception of some forms of Buddhism, all the major religions aim to bring people closer to God, who is “spiritual.” St. Paul, among the earliest leaders of Christianity, wrote that he is imparting a teaching “not taught by human wisdom but taught by the spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.” But Daniel Horan, Franciscan priest, theologian and author, wrote in a recent edition of the National Catholic Reporter: “What if our starting point in thinking about what it means to be a person in communion with God, oneself and the world was not reduced to external expressions of institutional belo...
Read more

Clinging to Archie Bunker's God

Image
Google Image Archie Bunker, the character masterfully played by the late Carroll O’Conner in the 1970s TV comedy “All in the Family,” had his own take on the traditional Christian doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible. “God don’t make no mistakes,” declared Archie. “That’s how he got to be God.” For those too young to remember Archie, who in 2005 was listed as number 1 on Bravo's 100 Greatest TV Characters, Wikipedia says Bunker was characterized by his bigotry towards “… blacks, Hispanics, "Commies," gays, hippies, Jews, Asians, Catholics, "women's libbers," and Polish-Americans….” Bunker was presented as a Christian, however, and “… often misquotes the Bible. He takes pride in being religious, although he rarely attends church services ….” An Anonymous Contributor Sister Mary Matilda, my eighth grade teacher, would accuse me of being uncharitable but I imagine that an anonymous contributor to a recent newspaper column is an “Archie Bunke...
Read more