quote:
Is examining the Bible in scientific terms (i.e., determining its origins, previous sources, history of formation, superfluous accretions, implied missing bits, and so on) somehow considered verboten and/or sacrilegious?
Verboten is prohibited by dictate and sacrilege is a gross irreverence toward a hallowed person, place, or thing.
Biblical criticism by Christian theologians has been around since the early 18th century. According to Paul Johnson in A History of the Jews, Page 101.
Could not the Greek notion of the unified
oikumene, world civilization, be married to the Jewish notion of the universal God?
That was the aim of the reformist intellectuals. They reread the historical scriptures and tried to deprovincialize them. Were not Abraham and Moses, these ‘strangers and sojourners’, really great citizens of the world? They embarked on the first Biblical criticism: the Law, as now written, was not very old and certainly did not go back to Moses. They argued that the original laws were far more universalistic. The reformers found the Torah full of fables and impossible demands and prohibitions. We know of their attacks from orthodox complaints and curses.
From what is written in the Bible, examining the Bible is not actually verboten or sacrilegious. That’s not to say that people don’t deem it verboten or sacrilegious when faced with questions they can’t answer or their way of life feels threatened.
Science evolves. Religion also evolves. The written word is stuck in time whether it is a religious book or article, science book or article, laws, constitutions, etc.
The
United States Constitution is stuck in time, but changes are made to accommodate an evolving society through amendments.
When new discoveries are made in science, the old articles or books are not rewritten; but new articles and books are written whether arguing against old results or paradigms, building on them, or correcting them.
Max Planck said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Even the scientific world doesn’t change so quickly.
Ridiculed Discoverers, Vindicated Mavericks
The Bible is stuck in time, but religion still evolves. Religions had to change or become extinct. Even within the pages of the Christian Bible we can see change. The Jews had the
Oral Law to help make sense of the written word.
While Conservative and Reform Judaism also believe that some kind of Oral Law was always necessary to make the Torah comprehensible and workable, they reject the belief that most of the Talmud dates back to Moses' time. They are more apt to see the Talmud and the Oral Law as an evolving system, in which successive generations of rabbis discussed and debated how to incorporate the Torah into their lives. Thus, they feel more free than the Orthodox to ignore, modify, or change the Oral Law.
Christians had their
early writings that helped develop the religion. Books continue to be written to help believers understand how to apply the lessons of the Bible to every day life.
Biblical inerrancy is the doctrinal position that the Bible is accurate and totally free of error, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact."[1] Some equate inerrancy with infallibility; others do not.[2]
As a result of the Scientific and Technological Revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries, various episodes of the Bible (for example the Noahide world wide flood,[14] the creation in 6 days, and the creation of women from a man's rib, have in scientific circles been recognised as legendary. This led to an increasing questioning as to the veracity of Biblical texts. According to an article in Theology Today published in 1975, "There have been long periods in the history of the church when biblical inerrancy has not been a critical question. It has in fact been noted that only in the last two centuries can we legitimately speak of a formal doctrine of inerrancy.
quote:
"Testing all things" is the very foundation of scientific inquiry. Why should any aspect of the Bible itself be exempt?
We know that science evolves and we know that religion evolves. People don’t usually change until they want to or have to.
Stages of Change Model
The Bible isn’t exempt, but some believers have had their beliefs all their life and change can be difficult. We have no way of knowing how changing one aspect of their belief impacts their life. Only they know and, for many, religion is a big part of their social life. Odds are a person won’t change until they are ready to change or are forced to change.
Conclusion: I don’t see that the writers of the Christian Bible manuscripts deemed their writings to be above examination. Biblical criticism is not verboten or sacrilegious, but those who are unprepared or unwilling to change will probably try to dissuade inquiry. From what I’ve read, I conclude that the decision to accept new information; whether one is a scientist, clergy, or layperson, depends on how acceptance of that information will impact one’s life. There’s more to it than just accepting facts and each individual believer is a unique constellation of beliefs.
™ Version 4.2
