Three weeks ago we had a guest post by Kristin Swenson about her new book A Most Peculiar Book: The Inherent Strangeness of the Bible. Here’s the link if you haven’t read it yet: https://ehrmanblog.org/an-intriguing-but-most-peculiar-book-guest-post-by-kristin-swenson/ Her post raised a lot of interest, and so now we are fortunate to have her back for a second, related post.
Kristen has PhD in biblical studies from Boston University and is an associate professor of religious studies (affiliate) at Virginia Commonwealth University. She has written other books as well, including God of Earth: Discovering a Radically Ecological Christianity and Bible Babel: Making Sense of the Most Talked About Book of All Time.
**********************************
One of the things about writing is how frequently the process of writing itself reveals something new. In the case of A Most Peculiar Book, I set out to discuss some of the Bible’s many weirdnesses. It quickly became clear that the topic has two, general parts – what’s weird about the Bible, and what’s weird in it. So that’s how I continued (and what finally defines the book’s organization). But a couple of other things became clearer to me, too.
I had aimed to give curious non-specialists, people who may not have had the opportunity for formal, academic study of the Bible, some tools for managing what any discerning reader inevitably find to be true: the Bible does not read like a modern narrative. It doesn’t even read like other anthologies with which we may be familiar. What’s more, it has gaps (Jesus’s childhood, anyone?), disagrees with itself (how many animals did Noah take on the ark), assumes outlandish happenings (the reluctant prophet Jonah singing songs for three days inside of a fish), and even seems here and there to promote some pretty questionable ethics (genocide comes to mind, or the enslavement of persons).
What I didn’t fully appreciate until quite late in the process is that understanding the first category of strangeness – understanding how the Bible as a book is strange – actually equips people to make sense of (or peace with) what’s weird in the Bible. In other words, understanding the first is itself a tool for the second.
Here’s what I mean, by way of a case study. Read the first few pages of the Bible – any Bible. Yours probably has books, chapters, and verses. The first few pages will take you through Genesis chapter three. Go ahead.
Done? Okay, now close the Bible, and tell me: what is God’s name, or by what moniker does the Bible refer to God? “God,” yes. But also “the LORD God,” right? In the beginning, before God really got cranking on the whole creation thing, was it wet or dry – wet first, dry later; or dry first, waiting for water? Does God speak the world into being from a disembodied out-there; or get down and dirty, walking around, crafting stuff with God’s hands, breathing and conversing, and such? Were men and women created at the same time or at different times? And how about the animals – before or after humans? Is God finally pleased with things, or maybe a little bit miffed? There’s more, of course, more ways those chapters don’t read straight through in a single, consistent or even linear narrative.
Remember, I proposed that by understanding how the Bible as a book is strange, we gain tools that help make sense of what’s strange in it. Well, one of the things that’s strange about the Bible is that it developed over a very long period of time, over centuries. For another thing, it’s a composite – of books, yes, but also of different sources of material within those books; and they come to us in languages few people today are able to read. Yet another strange thing about the Bible is that its collection of literatures is diverse. All of these things (and yet more that make the Bible a strange book to our modern sensibilities) are true in the case of these first few pages of Genesis.
Biblical scholars are confident that within those first few chapters of Genesis is material from at least two different sources – indeed they are two, distinct creation stories. What’s more, those sources likely came from different times and furthermore from different places and they themselves may have undergone revisions in transmission before reaching the forms that we have. To be specific, the first story, the creation of the world in seven days, is probably the later of the two, originating in Babylonia (where flooding was the norm) during a crisis period of exile (sixth century BCE). The other story, the Garden of Eden creation story likely came from earlier times (perhaps by centuries, in some form anyway) in the land of Israel/Canaan (where agriculture required irrigation). And of course it’s important to recognize that the stories themselves are not eyewitness accounts or scientific treatises of planetary origins. (Type of literature affects how we read it – within the Bible as well as in modern texts.) Understanding even these, bare bones facts about the Bible help us to understand why the first three chapters of Genesis don’t conform to modern expectations.
My point is not to poke holes in the Word of God but to make space to reckon with what we’ve really got here. Because another thing that became clearer and clearer to me in working on this book is that the very things that strike us as odd – the Bible’s gaps, disagreements, bewilderments, and even appalling texts – may be its greatest gift. That is, precisely through its strangenesses, the Bible issues an energetic invitation to be in relationship to it, to engage as independent-thinking conversation partners rather than as a passive recipients to one-sided dictates.
I hope that by learning even just a little bit about the Bible, people will recognize how much more there is to know and commit to learning more (more about why scholars concluded these things, more about the Babylonian exile and the conditions of life in “the land,” more about the Bible’s original languages, more about the different types of literatures within the Bible, and more about the process of writing and assembling the texts that came to be the Bible that we hold,…) At the least, I hope that by learning even this little bit, readers might exercise restraint before making absolutist declarations about who God is and what God “says,” especially when some such conclusions weaponize the Bible to despoil the planet, dehumanize the “other,” or promote the kind of arrogant ignorance that just plain hurts.
The Bible is full of the kinds of insights, instruction, and encouragement that make us better – that champion generosity and the quest for wisdom, that offer comfort to the suffering and hope when times are hard. But that’s not all. The ways in which the Bible challenges our expectations of it, confounds us, or even disturbs can also elevate by eliciting energetic engagement (with mind and heart) in relationship to it.
“to engage as independent-thinking conversation partners rather than as a passive recipients to one-sided dictates.” Hits the nail on the head. I came out of a Christian tradition that said one must accept whatever the Bible says without question. Questions like “Would God really do that?” or “Does that make any sense?” were only tolerated if one quickly came to the conclusion, “Yes!” As you suggest, as I read the Bible in detail and studied its history and the history of early Christianity I came to have a more realistic view of the Bible and allowed myself to ask such questions and develop my own understanding that I believe is much healthier for my mind than blind obedience.
The best approach to this, from purely *within* the Christian tradition, that I’ve heard is to recall that when asked to name the Greatest Commandment, Jesus, quoting from the Shema, said: “[Y]ou shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your _mind_ and with all your strength.” (Mk 12.28-31).
(Note in particular that when compared with the original in Dt 6.4-5 that “your mind” has been explicitly added.)
Or to put this another way: Why would God give us His most precious, most special, most uniquely-human gift —the human mind— if He didn’t want us to use it to the fullest possible extent? To do anything else seems, at the very least, disrespectful.
It occurs to me, reading this, that there is no other product of human hands in all of history that has had so much study and attention devoted to it as the Bible. Whole libraries are filled with books on it, there are university departments devoted to it, and millions of people still live – and die – by it. That alone makes it an essential topic for examination, if for no other reason than the impact it continues to have.
I don’t want to be flippant but the only kind of relationship I can imagine having with this book, is one of rejection. It doesn’t do anything but exasperate me and make me impatient with it. If I want some sort of moral guidance I can get that from other sources, since the golden rule idea is common and obvious. For a creation story I prefer modern cosmology/cosmogony, and I think there are much better histories available. The newer part I can credit with giving rise to rabid antisemitism and if that’s what I want I can read Nazi tracts– but, seriously, that’s not what I want. And so on. I think the book is something mankind might be better off without, frankly. I find it rather sad that this book continues to have any impact at all. It’s best forgotten.
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
My question is regarding how the early Christian congregations organized themselves. I once saw a seating chart of an early Christian church that showed areas for hearers, communicants, etc. How did this come to be? How can I learn more about this subject?
Thanks,
Clayton Light
Whoever made that chart was simply makin’ it up. We have zero evidence of the seating arrangements, if there were any, of the early Christian churches.
That reminds me of figure 11.1 in the 2nd edition of your textbook, The New Testament. It’s a cross-sectional drawing of the ancient house in the Syrian city of Dura which was converted to a church. It doesn’t show seating arrangements, but has the assembly hall, font and baptistry. BTW, did people actually sit, or did they stand as they did in the Middle Ages?
It’s not clear what they did exactly; but I don’t know of portrayals of ancient people worshiping while sitting….
Thanks for posting this Kristin! I love your statement “That is, precisely through its strangenesses, the Bible issues an energetic invitation to be in relationship to it, to engage as independent-thinking conversation partners rather than as a passive recipients to one-sided dictates.”
You also said “when some such conclusions weaponize the Bible to despoil the planet, dehumanize the “other,” or promote the kind of arrogant ignorance that just plain hurts.” .
I’d just like to add that in my own faith community, which is not Bible-centric, there seem to be people who know exactly what Jesus would have done about complex sociopolitical issues that didn’t exist in first century Palestine. It seems to me that this is also a kind of arrogance that can be hurtful. So I don’t think the Bible, or what we can infer from it about what Jesus taught, should ever be “weaponized”.
How about the downright evil stuff? How do you make peace with that? Like the Bible endorsing slavery or holy men of God like Moses telling his followers to kill all the members of a hostile tribe except the virgin women, who are to be apportioned to the soldiers?
How do you worship a god that sends she-bears after children or arrange it so that a man who was doing God’s will has to murder his daughter?
AstaKask.. (I’m not as much as expert as others here) but there were folks in early Christianity who thought the Hebrew Bible God must be a different God than the God of the NT.
I don’t think the NT endorsed slavery, e.g. Paul’s letter to Philemon. Slavery was a part of many societies around the world. I’d think that we can’t expect the NT to come up with all the things we believe today- democracy, women’s rights and so on, when they weren’t part of the culture. Based on my own reading and study of the NT, I think what Jesus taught was how to be a good person within the existing culture not changing the culture to something else.
People of faith have wrestled with scripture since it existed and focused on different things and given different interpretations.
I also think if we’re going to discuss how the Hebrew Bible should be interpreted, it might be good to bring rabbis into the conversation because it is and always has been, primarily theirs.
Well, the NT certainly doesn’t condemn slavery. Philemon is about releasing a single slave whom Paul happens to like – it is not a condemnation of the institution. In fact, Paul explicitly tells Christian slaves to “obey their masters, even the cruel ones” and to do this “not only to please them while they are watching”. Some abolitionists of the 19th century may have condemned slavery on Biblical ground, but the slave masters were equally fond of the Good Book.
As for them not being able to come up with all the things we believe today… if Jesus was divine he should *know* slavery is wrong. Christians often say that the Sermon of the Mount is a perfect text on morality and yet improving it is trivial – just add something about “don’t own other people as property” and preferably something about not burning alive for witchcraft either. Instantly a *much* better text. So your argument works only if Jesus was a normal human with some good insights but also some serious flaws in his moral understanding. That is a pretty low Christology.
The bible is held up as a book that will change the world and all cultures for the better, yet when it was written it had to work within the culture of the day. Doesn’t make sense to me.
The book won’t change a thing. Actions by people who read it might change some things. At best, doing the hard work of reading it objectively, with enough objective research to understand what the authors meant by the words and phrases they used, can tell you what the authors believed and the people practiced. That doesn’t relieve you of the responsibility to decide which (if any) of the beliefs were true, and which practices are morally good. Few people truly undertake those labors.
Irregardless of how we view the contents of the Bible, what I find most strange is why people of the 21st century feel a need to think and believe as the writers of ancient manuscripts thought and believed.
Frederick, I’d argue that we don’t “think and believe as the writers thought and believed.”
Apparently the most numerous branch of Christianity in the world, Roman Catholicism, has a more complex relationship as described here:
“Catholics are often criticized for the way we approach the Bible. These criticisms normally come from two directions. From one direction some Protestant Christians, who disagree with Catholic doctrine concerning tradition and with the Catholic approach to Scripture, charge the Church with neglecting Scripture. These charges come through both scholarly debate and popular polemics (the latter often containing a great deal of false information). From another direction, the Church is sometimes criticized by people who suppose that Catholics approach the Scriptures with blind faith—unthinkingly and unquestioningly believing things that that seem to contradict both science and reason.”
This is a pretty interesting article on the topic https://stpaulcenter.com/do-catholics-read-the-bible/
I don’t think you can generalize about Christians and scripture.
Sadly I’m not as articulate as Kristin on this. That’s why I appreciated her language so much.
I would say it’s a sad commentary on a species that considers itself *intelligent* and the pinnacle of evolution on this planet. If after seeing the: “the very things that strike us as odd – the Bible’s gaps, disagreements, bewilderments, and even appalling texts” in the book as well as in the other *Scriptures* of our species, to still cling to them as the words of *God* instead of just the words of ancient humans trying to actually understand what they mean when they use the word *God,* well, as one of the species, it saddens me that *God* would still remain this mysterious. Come to think about it, it’s a sad commentary on *God.* It may seem like an interesting “topic” of conversation or a guaranteed subject to sell books on to some, (no offense, Bart :-)) – even a sort of “hobby” to others, yet day after day *people* die without ever knowing what the hell it was all about.
Man I would like to agree with her traditionally doc hyp style dating, but I’m afraid it’s fallen out of favor. I THINK… the cutting edge scholarship may date creation 2 later than creation 1 after all. Just when we though we had something nailed down 😕 and the Q theory, our good friend Goodacre says it’s rubbish. Frustrating to me 😕
I don’t think so. I don’t know of biblical scholars who do that. Whom do you have in mind?
I forgot– the Bible seems to be saying that it’s OK to kill gays. That’s rather more than a charming oddity since some people, quite a lot in fact, use that sanction as an excuse for murder. On that basis alone, I would say that this peculiar document deserves to molder away on history’s trash heap.
Dr. Ehrman:
I know you have opined this before, because you say it is not your field, but could you at least consider writing more on Eastern/Oriental Christian Orthodoxy? So many people are unaware of all the tradition and beliefs associated with it.
Yes, it’s an extremely important area. But th Eastern Orthodox tradition developed long after my period of expertise, so I’m afraid I’m not qualified to speak about the scholarship on it. Sorry!
Bart- maybe you could find a colleague to offer a few guest posts…
The other problem is that I’ve set up the blog to focus on the first four centuries of Christianity; I suppose we could move up to the 12th?
I believe you’re objectively correct, but the Orthodox themselves see their churches as retaining the tradition and mindset of the 1st Century Church essentially unchanged since Pentecost. For instance: they believe the early Christians believed in the Trinity even if they did not articulate it. The only reason it needed to be explained and defined later was due to heretics creating their own incorrect definitions. This is why the Orthodox tend to dismiss any scholarship that claims there was an evolution from proto-orthodox to orthodox.
Yes, and to that extent I *do* cover their tradition!
An interesting essay, but as a former devout Christian for 35+ years who deconverted about three years ago, I have to disagree. I was what you would call a “progressive Christian”—social justice Christian, etc. but in retrospect I see I was cherry-picking the positive teachings attributed to Jesus (many of which I still believe & follow). But we can’t excuse, explain or ignore the bible’s “appalling texts” as among “its greatest gifts” when those texts condone evil like genocide, murdering babies/children, Paul’s support of slavery & denigration of women, Jesus’ unkindness to his family, etc. The central deity of the bible is indeed strange—as depicted, it is an evil, immoral, misogynistic and unethical deity.
The Bible is a diverse collection of writings about what various people believed and practiced about gods. Why blame the god(s) for what people believed and did in their names?
Each night my wife and I read the 1-year-Bible day’s reading aloud (me OT, her NT). I believe the creation in Genesis is allegory. She believes in seven literal 24 hour days. We just got married in August and in our prior lives, we each read the Bible through several times. We have found that reading every single word aloud prevents us from glossing or skipping things. We see things we never have never noticed. And we have to confront things like deceit paying off very well for Jacob. And we talk about it. No matter what the truth about the Bible actually is, our daily reading and discussion of the Bible forces each of us to come to terms with what we we as individuals really believe about justice, fairness, forgiveness, and so on. And, ultimately, what we believe about God. And we get new insights. Like seeing Balaam’s talking donkey as a folk tale where the seer couldn’t even see something that even his stupid donkey could see. Whether it is literal or not is irrelevant. My wife and I see the same point.