Re: What Bible?

I would guess that you are probably a reader of Elaine Pagels -- am I
correct? The questions you ask below could come straight from her
book: "Beyond Belief" -- which I'm in the middle of at the moment. I
may not come to the same conclusions as I anticipate she might (I'm
not a Da Vinci code fan -- although I haven't read that one at all yet,
and only know about it by hearing various responses to it.) But I am
learning some excellent Bible history from Pagels' work. According to
her, the pre-Nicean body of believers was so diverse and eclectic that
they could not agree even on the things that eventually came to be
embraced as orthodoxy. She points out that every 'canonical' source of
truth had claims to close proximity to Jesus -- and yet the actual
authorship of each has also been called into doubt. This applied to the
writings that were eventually rejected as well as those embraced. Each
group had their own underlying assumptions and emphases.

Is it so wrong that some church fathers found the 'decide what truth is
for yourself' mentality alarming and felt compelled to delineate and
define what truth is? We can always quibble over whether or not their
version of it was right -- but the alternative to abandoning the quest
for absolute (community -- even world-wide) truth in favor of more
individualistic "just search within" type of interpretations seems
dangerous to me. And yet to throw out committment to a ('the') sacred
text, seems to me to invite just such a conclusion. I'm eager to finish
her work to see what conclusions she draws -- I already suspect I won't
be in complete agreement with them, but I'm learning a lot about early
church history that I didn't know.

--merv

Debbie Mann wrote:

>Babylonean history looks much like Genesis. Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of
>Mary, Apocrypha - people argue over the literal details of our Bible - but
>Early Christians didn't agree on much. They didn't have one Bible - that
>didn't happen until 325 A.D. in Nicea. Why Paul's Bible? Why not James'
>Bible? James knew Jesus personally - why was Paul considered more inspired?
>Did politics or truth determine these details of what we believe? Was James
>just too restrictive and the more liberal views of Paul more politically
>digestable?
>
>People make these documents the basis of beliefs which they then take
>personally. When the documents are disputed, the believer feels personally
>affronted and frequently as though they need to defend God. It is only our
>belief system which has been challenged, not attacked, and God needs no
>defense.
>
>Mother Theresa had a quote (no, I'm not Catholic - Protestant Eclectic and
>yes I absolutely believe the Apostle's Creed) - the quote said something
>about when everything else is gone, God remains.
>
>'Study to show thyself approved' Study what? The scriptures. What
>scriptures? Study how? Are they science, allegory or what? The historeans
>thought David was mythological, but the archeologists have proved him real.
>Likewise the Philistines. Supposed contradictions have been resolved by
>determining that there were two famous figures of the same name in different
>countries a few decades apart. There's amazing verification of much of the
>historical content of the Bible. Too bad the Temple didn't do offsite
>back-ups of their data.
>
>Why not Judith? Why not the amazing detective stories of Daniel? (Daniel and
>the Dragon and Susanna) Why wouldn't one accept ancient records which show
>methods that did not become common until many centuries later?
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Sat Mar 11 07:53:47 2006