The Gray Monk

Studying the Bible
A view from a Reader on the foundations of our Faith.
Some thoughts on a big subject!

For many people “Bible Study” has connotations reminiscent of fundamentalist preachers expounding upon a text selected from a Book learned almost by heart and quoted liberally in support of his or her view and interpretation. It’s a pity that this is so, because studying the Bible can be a most rewarding experience since it is, in its language (even in modern translations!) and in its sense of narrative almost as compelling as some of the great literature of the English language. The problem for most of us is that we are unable to see it in its proper context, something I was fortunate to learn quite early and from possibly the most authentic of teachers of scripture – a Jew!

Much of what we believe in our view and understanding of the Bible, particularly the New Testament is clouded by our vision of it in the context of the society it has created – which is not the society it was created in. This becomes even more relevant when considering the Old Testament, since we are separated from the events described in Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and Leviticus by at least 3,000 years. Add to that the fact that, for most of us, our understanding of the civilizations, peoples and customs of that period is a sanitized one and even that is pretty shallow. How many of us actually understand the background to the events which led to the Exodus or the establishment of the Jewish way of worship. Reading Leviticus you could be excused for feeling slightly queasy with the rivers of blood and the gory detail of how and why sacrifices were to be made. Yet, in the midst of all of this gore, lies the origin of the Eucharist, in the form of the Peace or Fellowship Offering in which the sacrifice is consumed by the priests, their families and the worshippers together.

Why is the understanding of the context important if one is to make sense of the Bible? Quite simply to attempt to understand the bible without understanding the context of its writing, is a bit like trying to make sense of a jigsaw puzzle without knowing what the picture it makes actually looks like.

Much of the argument today that is leveled against its historical accuracy or its divine inspiration is done from the standpoint of challenging the non-contextual interpretations that many people insist on using. We have all had the experience of being “door stepped” by the Jehovah’s Witness’ missioners and their interpretation is frequently based on literal, but non-contextual, interpretation of given passages. For example, their argument against blood transfusion is based on Paul’s stricture to newly converted Christians in Corinth, that they must not join in the romps in the pagan temples on feast days during which the blood of the animals sacrificed was frequently drunk by devotees and temple clergy. Because Paul does not bother, or perhaps, as a Jew, could not bring himself to spell this out, the text refers simply to “partaking of the blood, which belongs to God”.

Recently there has been much debate about the supposed differences between “evolutionists” and “creationist” theories and whether or not the latter should be allowed to be taught in schools. Leaving aside my opinion of the politicians making those assertions, and indeed, of the people who cannot see the hand of God in science, I cannot see what anyone who has read Genesis with an open mind (and a good translation!) can see as being conflicting between the two versions of the creation. If one leaves aside the use of the word “day” and uses instead a word such as era or aeon, the first chapter of Genesis actually describes pretty well the “big bang” and subsequent “evolution” of the universe and life on this small planet. Bearing in mind that it was written by people without our vast array of scientific instrumentation or sophisticated analysis – much less our understanding of the nature of the universe – for simple folk who were largely concerned with raising crops, gathering fire wood and making sure the next village didn’t steal the cattle or the goats, it is difficult to beat as a simple explanation of a vastly complex subject. Even the subsequent Chapters make a great deal more sense if one realises (and this comes back to my original point!) that it was common practice in pre-Exodus times for names to be passed from father to son, so that “Abraham” could quite possibly be seven or eight generations worth of people and not just one incredibly long lived man. It pays to remember that these were nomadic people who moved about, wrote little down and recorded events of note in folk story and song.

Turning to the New Testament it becomes even more important to appreciate the norms of the period against which the entire ministry of Christ is set. One needs to see the events described in the Gospel in the context of the period and not try to measure them, or worse, interpret them against the norms of our own society. This does not detract anything from the message, if anything it enhances it and makes it all the more compelling. Why should this be so? The writers of the New Testament in particular left out a great deal of information which they considered their audience would know and understand! It was not essential to the narrative in their own time, because they were talking to people who were there, or knew people who had been, or simply would have understood certain practices, actions or customs which were then prevalent. To take one very contentious point; were there women present at the last supper? Even a modern Jew would not bother to ask that question since the answer to them would be “of course!” An eve of Sabbath meal without the womenfolk of the household and of the invited guests is simply inconceivable and, if, as St John suggests, it was a Passover meal, then there would simply be no other way for it to be done, than for all the family to be present. Read the instructions in Deuteronomy and Numbers for the holding of the Passover meal. There is a grave danger of interpreting the scriptures using “gentile” and “western” norms to fill in the gaps in information in what is, essentially, a very Jewish story. To see how this may mislead, read the book of Numbers and you get the clear impression that it was quite a small group – until you realise that they have followed the Egyptian norm of counting only the men of military age. Once you then add in a figure for women of the same age, under age children and men and women above the age of fifty, you suddenly find that you are dealing with a population of at least two million on the move. No wonder Pharaoh was worried. Think of the effect that would have on an economy!

Another little wriggle in the story of the Exodus is the dating and the names of the Pharaohs involved. Well, the Pharaohs weren’t above spin doctoring either, so their records aren’t that reliable and we do know that Ramses reign saw a number of campaigns into Canaan and Syria, not always turning out as Ramses wanted the world to believe. So whose record is better? One thing I have found fascinating and I would love to be able to give a complete answer, is this. The organization of the tribes into an order of march in the Exodus, as described in detail in Numbers, is an almost exact copy of the orders for Pharaoh’s army marching into Syria. The detail of who is where and when they move, how they maintain contact and the direction of travel smacks of a very good military commander. So; was Moses a renegade Egyptian General? Perhaps even a deposed Pharaoh? We will probably never know, but it is fun exploring all the possibilities and uncovering the amazing manner in which God has wrought His most wonderful purpose - sometimes using the most unsuitable people!

If you have a desire to study this amazing book of books in more detail, I suggest that you should start by acquiring the Lion “Handbook to the Bible”. Add to this Anderson’s “Living World of the Old Testament” and Gooder’s “The Pentateuch”. For the New Testament you will need a good series of Commentaries – I find Tynedale’s as good as any as a source for foundation information. Then you need to read history – lots of it. Covering Ancient civilizations and religions and particularly the history of the first century. You may even find some military history useful, particularly when reading about the warfare of the Old Testament. Boring? Not a bit of it!

May peace and understanding come to you as you read, but above all – enjoy it.