[Vision2020] 08-20-04 Daily News: [Interesting alternative to the CCC] FAITH MATTERS: Bible meant to guide, not govern

[Art Deco aka W. Fox]

FAITH MATTERS: Bible meant to guide, not govern


Larry Fox

Some view the Bible as the sacred text, the absolute word on the way things
were, the way things are and on the way things should be. Such absolute
adherence to the words of the Bible as immutable tends to confuse me.
The basis for my confusion lies in the fact that there seem to be many versions
of the Bible. My Bible contains 24 books. It is called the Tanakh, and contains
three divisions. The first is the Torah, the five books of Moses. The second
division is the Neviim, which consists of the writings of the Prophets. The last
is the Ketuvim, The Writings, comprising the words of Psalms, Proverbs and Job.

According to the Jewish tradition the Torah is the most sacred division. It is
the word most directly from God, as received from Moses. Prophets, perhaps
second to Moses, were considered highly inspired people. Thus the Neviim is
often considered more sacred than the Ketuvim.

My Bible touts itself, right on the cover, as the new Jewish Publication Society
translation according to the traditional Hebrew text. This sounds quite
authentic, it gives me the impression that this is the authentic text.

My wife's Bible is organized differently. Her Bible's table of contents lists an
Old Testament and a New Testament. Her Old Testament is remarkably similar to
mine at first glance.

In her Bible's preface the "editor" warns the reader that this work is based on
translation, but also of some interpretation. The preface states most clearly
that it paraphrases some texts.

A recent Associated Press article quotes Joe Zias, a physical anthropologist:
"This (an inscription of Gospel verse carved into an ancient monument) shows
there were different versions of the Old and New Testament going around" as
early as the fourth century.

It is not hard to envision subtle changes made over the years might yield some
very different text, with a significant change in meaning.

For example, in my Bible, Ecclesiastes urges us to seize the moment, enjoy life
and act decisively. My Ecclesiastes 11.1 to 8, reads: "Even if a man lives many
years, let him enjoy himself in all of them, remembering how many the days of
darkness are going to be. The only future is nothingness!"

For me this verse does not suggest that there is a heaven. I believe this verse
would argue against an afterlife.

In fact in the Jewish tradition there is no heaven, our lives here on Earth are
what we are given. Now my wife's Bible, same verse of Ecclesiastes, reads: "If a
person lives to be very old, let him rejoice in every day of life, but let him
remember that eternity is far longer, and that everything down here is futile in
comparison." This seems very different.

The first says to live life to the fullest because there is no future (after)
life while the second says that life on earth is futile in comparison with the
afterlife.

So which verse is correct? Should I live life to the fullest and follow my
Bible? Or is my wife's version correct, and should I be cautious in my actions
here on earth in the expectation of enjoying life after death?

Should I follow my wife's religious tradition and look for the afterlife for my
more satisfying future? If my text is more true to the original Hebrew writings,
is it more likely to be correct? Was the translation of Ecclesiastes in my Bible
more accurate? Or was the translation and perhaps interpretation in my wife's
Bible most in keeping with the word of God? How would I know? How does anyone
know what is the true meaning of the Bible?

Jewish scholars have long debated the Hebrew scriptures. In fact during the time
of Jesus it is told that the greatest additions to the Talmud, that body of work
that was assembled to explain the Bible, was made by Rabbis Hillel and Shammai.

Hillel and Shammai were apparently often at odds in their interpretations of the
Bible. It is said the Shammai would dismiss anyone who looked for an easy answer
to the meaning of the Torah. On the other hand Hillel is quoted as saying: "That
which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah;
the rest is commentary. Go and study it."

I am aligned with the reductionist view held by Hillel. But this is my personal
vision, it seems most appropriate to me, but it may not be appropriate for
others.

We are called to read, to study, to think about the meaning of the Bible and to
act in accordance with the wisdom we so acquire and the free will that God has
given us. In that sense the Bible becomes personal, and perhaps we are guided in
different ways.

There is no absolute truth for all. Rather, there is only an absolute truth for
the individual. Treat everyone with respect and do not impose your will on
others because it "says so in the Bible." There are different versions of the
Bible, different interpretations. What appears clear in one version of the Bible
may not be so clear in another.

I would argue that the Bible was meant to guide us, not govern us.

* Larry Fox is a member of the Jewish Community of the Palouse and a professor
in Washington State University College of Veterinary Medicine.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20040822/9e3ae95d/attachment.htm