To be fair, it’s probably due to my “evil heart of unbelief”
So, I’ve been giving a lot of thought to this question, and I think if I were to spend a year studying one book of the Bible, it would be Hebrews.
Atheist Josh, huh? Year with one book? I’ll get back to the general question at the end, but specifically, this book is fascinating. What an incongruous (nicer term than “fucked up”) Christology. I haven’t spent a year on it, but as far as I can tell, it was directed to early Jewish Christians. It tries to syncretize the OT and NT, and it … kind of fails at that. Granted, it’s pretty much impossible to do that, but with some (fairly deep) reflection on hypostasis, it tries to have Christ be both “son of God” and “high priest”. Except the latter doesn’t really work with the Gospels. If this were modern genre fiction, we’d call the attempt “ret-conning”. Bonus points for the attempt.
I am left wondering how this was accepted into the canon in the first place. Surely there were people who would have said — “Um … the NT works better without this in it. Or with just this in it. Thoughts?” And I’m repeatedly amazed that the fiercely eschatological stuff wasn’t redacted. I mean, by the fourth century C.E. it was pretty clear that any generation alive in Jesus’ day wasn’t around any more, right?
Here are some of the (my) highlights:
- This is where English gets both “a little lower than the angels” and “a shadow of good things to come”, which are simply awesome poetic lines.
- I’m pretty sure that 8:6-7 is the origin of the Narnia “deep/deeper magic” bit.
- 12:8: If God doesn’t hurt you, then he clearly isn’t your father. Editorializing here, but: that’s messed up.
- 12:29: “our God is a consuming fire”. 13:20: “[our God is a] God of peace”. There’s not even an attempt to separate them in the text.
- By writing this post, I am guaranteeing that (10:28-29) God is going to kill me without mercy. Just FYI.
I know my Dad’s going to be reading this, but I think this is appropriate to do publicly. I used to attend my Dad’s weekly early morning Bible study. But I’m kind of … not welcome any longer. I mean, I’m totally welcome in lots of senses, but … I guess it’s analysis that’s not really welcome. That’s not a diss: my Dad is totally down with analysis, and he knows his shit. But the old dudes (they’re all old dudes) in the class: not so much. I’ve been ribbed by a venerable member, outside of class, that I’m missed, but that the classes tend to stay more on track without me. Mentioned in a sincere haha-only-serious way. And I think: “On track? What’s more on track than discussing what we’re reading?” But — again, not so much.
I broached this with my Dad, and the answer occurred to me in mid-sentence: “Wait; is it a devotional group to them, and not at all a study?” In the broad strokes, he confirmed that. Again, no diss to my Dad.
As to the general question: why the hell is atheist Josh contemplating spending a year studying one book of the Christian Bible? Well — I’m kinda damned if I do, damned if I don’t, am I not? There’s a lot of our culture and nation that’s still pretty die-hard. When I debate Christians, they frequently fall back to telling me I need to “study more”, and frequently to “find a Bible study”. And my response in general is “Dude: done that.” I spent 18 years immersed as a believer, and I’ve done (reasonably) advanced studies of the Bible. In fact — and this is bizarre — often more than the Christian has. And almost certainly more extrabiblical reading about the Bible than he has.
So, y’all, both atheists and theists: your choice for a book to study for a year?
Subscribe by email
January 8th, 2010 at 07h30
Josh, sounds like you’re thinking way too much. As far as any religious book goes (I got this from a great religion professor I met while living in Santa Barbara.) one does not read them literally. Especially since the bible has been edited many times over. That is unless you can read Greek.
Rather than spend a year studying the Bible, try fishing. Those calm times on the water probably would be a whole lot more enlightening.
And keep up the good work of going round and round with your father. Those are special times for you two and not to be missed.
January 8th, 2010 at 07h42
one does not read them literally
No, they refer to “all workers with dairy products”.
[Python reference]
Especially since the bible has been edited many times over
In my opinion, this is precisely why it’s interesting and worth studying. Bit of a tangent, but: two posts before this I did some comparative analysis of Stephen King fiction. I do that kind of thing a lot on mcgees.org. But the modern literature stuf almost never gets comments, and the Bible stuff almost always does. This is fascinating to me. Not to be too much of a dick, but I believe they’re both fiction, and actually both genre fiction. And, comparing the frequency of apocalyptic ideas, magic, powerful forces, incarnations of evil, etc. in each, really not in all-too-different genres. It’s studying them as literature that I’m contemplating because, as far as I’m concerned, they’re essentially useless for any other purpose (sorry, but honest.)
That is unless you can read Greek.
A bit. The grammar’s not very complex, and fortunately better lexicons exist for Biblical Greek than just about any other language I’ve considered. If the Scots Gaelic references I’ve studied were anywhere near as comprehensive, I’d be fluent by now.
Rather than spend a year studying the Bible, try fishing. Those calm times on the water probably would be a whole lot more enlightening.
This is a great line. And thanks also for the “special times” insight.
January 8th, 2010 at 07h59
they’re essentially useless for any other purpose
The “essentially” qualifier is there because (sorry, gonna be a dick again) they’re also useful in understanding psychological pathology and the delusional beliefs of those disposed to treat them as inerrant. At least as far as the believers have read the damn stuff, which is my first triage question when deciding whether a religionist is worth debating. If I’m feeling uncharitable and think the person’s lying when he says he’s read the Bible, I ask a trivial reading comprehension question such as “Who wrestled with the angel?” or “Acts and one of the Gospels were likely written by the same person. Which Gospel?” I think in a candid moment my father would agree with me that the average Christian’s lack of even a basic familiarity with his own beliefs is breathtaking.
Those questions aren’t even hard. “Hard” would be “According to Genesis, who invented metalworking?” or “When the author of Acts met up with Paul, from what port did they sail?”, and if a student in a college literature course couldn’t answer questions as trivial as the “easy” questions about a work studied (Moby Dick: “What was the name of the navigator?” or Hamlet: “What was Yorick’s profession?”, for instance) the student would not pass the class. Basically: Christians want to live their lives according to a book, they want me to live my life according to a book, and they haven’t read the fucking thing?!
January 8th, 2010 at 08h06
“Hard” would be…
Actually, maybe flip the Acts questions. Frankly, they should both be easy, but the Acts+Gospel question requires either extrabiblical study or a very perceptive ear for doctrinal distinctions between the four canonical Gospels.
January 8th, 2010 at 08h13
… requires either extrabiblical study or a very perceptive ear for doctrinal distinctions …
By the way, that’s being charitable, because the answer is trivial if the reader’s Bible contains the traditional introductions to the two books (the answer is Luke, by the way, and the other answers are Jacob, Tubalcain, and Philippi, respectively.)