<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>
<H2>FAITH MATTERS: Bible meant to guide, not govern</H2><BR>
<ADDRESS>Larry Fox</ADDRESS><BR>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.
<P>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.
<P>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.
<P>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.
<P>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.
<P>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.
<P>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.
<P>It is not hard to envision subtle changes made over the years might yield
some very different text, with a significant change in meaning.
<P>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!"
<P>For me this verse does not suggest that there is a heaven. I believe this
verse would argue against an afterlife.
<P>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.
<P>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.
<P>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?
<P>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?
<P>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.
<P>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."
<P>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.
<P>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.
<P>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.
<P>I would argue that the Bible was meant to guide us, not govern us.
<P>* <B>Larry Fox </B>is a member of the Jewish Community of the Palouse and a
professor in Washington State University College of Veterinary Medicine.
</P></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>