The Bible is a very difficult subject to write about. Its text that has shaped the western world, if not the world as a whole, it's a book that contains subjects as big as creation and as small as a single kiss. It is a book that documents the rise and fall of empires and armies and the lives of ordinary people; it is a book that covers thousands of years in its scope and the most famous last hours of anyone in history. It is a book that has created the basis for one of the most powerful religious institutions in history and yet is regarded as the most personal individual message. In short it is an enigma. So how do you discuss such a book, where do you begin? I will begin by explaining my angle.
There seem to be two opposite camps that people fall into when the Bible is the subject for discussion. The devout see the writing as nothing short of the very word of God or at least the interpretations of his word by his chosen envoys on earth. Standing fast against this group are a body of people who wish to dismiss the book as "rubbish" or a "a hoax." Neither group seem to have any fact to back up their standpoint or even feel the need to look for any. The truth seems to be that both sides are frightened of any solid information coming forth as it undermines their safe worldview. I do not subscribe to any of the religions that hold the book as being holy, I don't believe it is the work of a higher power and I certainly wouldn't be so naïve or condescending to tell you that its "gibberish" as one reviewer here described it. As someone interested in history, I find the Bible to be one of the most fascinating books ever created. I will not offer any spiritual arguments, I am certainly not qualified to do that, what I wish to do is offer an argument that the book is of major importance interest and importance. Everything is created for a reason, sometimes a number of reasons, and to understand something as evolved and complex as the Bible you first need to understand how it came to be. Many people in the west see the Bible as being a purely Christian work but this is an error. Whereas the New
Testament, which covers the events surrounding the life of Christ, is the foundation upon which the Roman Catholic Church was founded, The Old Testament also forms part of the creed of Islam and Judaism. The three faiths are collectively known as the "Religions of the Book" for this very common factor.
The first thing that needs to be understood is that the Bible is not one book, it is many. The obvious major division is between the New Testament, the life of Christ and the Old Testament, which is best seen as a history of the Hebrew people from their own perceived creation to the first century B.C. These will be tackled in two separate sections of this review as they really have very little in common. What the two testaments do have in common is how they took shape. The Bible derives from selection of text that were carried around by Priests and teachers, firstly in oral form and latter in written. Depending on their taste, the tradition of their locality and what writing they had access to would actually shape their version of the teaching. Even once it had been committed to a permanent written form, one teachers Bible may contain different books to another teachers. The word of God, it would seem, depended on individual choice. The contents of the Bible were only finalised in a church synod or meeting in the fourth century, where the choices for inclusion were decided by a show of hands by the church hierarchy. From that point on any books that didn't make the final list, such as The Book of Enoch, The Book of Tobit and a whole number of gospels, some penned by women, were seen as heretical and dangerous.
Beginning with the Old Testament, an understanding of chronology is essential. Whereas the books are presented in order from the oldest series of events to the newest that is not necessarily the order in which they written. A study of the earliest stories, The Garden of Eden, Enoch and the Fallen Angels and the most famous of all, Noah's Flood, shows marked similarities with Babylonian creation myths. This would suggest that one evolved out of the other. In the sixth century B.C. a Babylonian king called Nebuchadnezzer invaded Israel and took many of societies leaders into exile back to his home city, as a way of isolating any influential that could cause an uprising. It is during this "exile" period that these stories seem to have been added to the Hebrew canon. After these early, and ultimately undatable, creation myths we get into more solid facts. The most famous Old Testament character looms large next. Moses is seen as the father of the Hebrew nation, the man that led his people to a new land, and many people have looked for a record of such an Exodus out of Egypt. If such an event did take place then surely a country that kept such strict records, as Egypt would leave us a documented description. One period does offer up many parallels, the fall and banishment of the pharaoh Akhenaten a period deliberately erased from history, almost. This parallel neatly illustrates one of the problems you have to deal with when understanding such a work. Whereas names such as Moses, David, Solomon, Saul and even Jesus himself are well known names, they are not the names we need to use to find their historical counter parts in the written record of the times. The Bible was carried around in a host of different languages, translated into Aramaic then Greek, Latin and finally English and in the process the names of people and places have been changed out of all recognition. It is the events that these characters lived through that enable us to find them. For example if we look for a young warrior who lead a band of mercenaries, who established a new dynasty we find a parallel for David, if we look for the son of such a man who lived through a time of peace we find Solomon. Both names are titles only "beloved" and "peace" so we need to look for deeds not names and when you use that criteria the leaders and kings, warriors and priests of the Bible are easily identified. David Rohl the eminent Egyptologist has created a body of work that manages to show the underlying history behind the Biblical events and is invaluable in gaining an understanding of the Old Testament. Once you know how to read between the lines, the historical truths become apparent.
The New Testament covers a much smaller time frame, on the surface the period of time from the birth of Jesus Christ to his death and resurrection, however a closer examination will reveal a more complex situation, one that makes for a much more interesting reading. The four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are widely held to contain the story of the key events in Jesus Christ's life, yet they not only tell different versions of those key events, they openly contradict each other. Some stories appear in one gospel and not others and things that we take for granted are not found there at all. For example how many wise men came to Jesus birth? It doesn't say in the bible. The story of Jesus life is filled with parables and vague mysticism in its description. We hear of "Fatted Calves", "Angels of the Lord" "The Whore of Babylon" but what does it all mean. One theory, as put forward by Christian Theologian Barbara Thierring, is that instead of being the open and sweeping story of the life of a heaven sent teacher, the truth is more guarded. Jesus and the other prominent characters of the New Testament where not the simple wandering devout that they are painted. New movements don't normally spring out of nowhere and are normally created by influential leaders. If the New Testament characters were various charismatic teachers and church leaders trying to create a new more unified version of the Jewish faith then things seem to make more sense. But why the secrecy? The country of Jesus birth and most of the known world was under Roman occupation but trying to promote an anti-Roman faith under their noses would only end in trouble so their history and thoughts have been made more vague by the use of pseudonyms. Returning to the use of those mystical names. "The Fatted Calf" was the name of a person, in this case Herod, and knowing that the "Five Thousand" was a church leader who represented that many followers turns the sermon on the mount into a ritual meal rather than a miracle. If the need for this secrecy seems far-fetched then consider this. The Romans are mentioned very rarely in the New Testament, by any recognisable name at least, that would be like writing a history of France in the 1940's and not mentioning the Nazi's, there is clearly more going on here than meets the eye.
The ideas here are really the tip of the iceberg and whilst I know that to those who consider the Bible, as being sacred, will dismiss my thought, that's fine, I'm not trying to undermine anyone's faith. To those of a more open persuasion, hopefully you can see that there are lots of things going on in this book that make it worth looking at closer. I may even make the bible-sceptics think again and realise that there is nothing to be scared of from getting too close to such a piece of history. It won't turn you into a T.V evangelist overnight but it may just open your eyes to how man records his own history. No matter what you believe in, there is no getting away from the fact that this is one of the most influential, powerful and ultimately misunderstood books in history, you can't change the first two but you can change the last.
How helpful would this review be to a person making a buying decision? Rating guidelines
Congratulations for tackling such a huge body of work! As someone who reads from the bible just about every day I understand that it probably means something very different to me than to you. I think the fact that the 4 Gopels are not the same is rather reassuring, I would be suspicious if they carbon copies of each other. Their dissimilarities rather confirm their authenticity to me. You state that the Romans are hardly mentioned in the New Testament , Pilate? The crucifixion? Ceasar is often mentioned too, Romans - the 6th book in the New Testament? The Romans ignored the new sect of Christianity until it was perceived as a threat to Roman authority and stability in their territories. Any way I'm ranting now. Well done. Jo
Thecharmedones 02.05.2006 13:57
Difficult subject to write about, but you managed it well : )
thingywhatsit 30.03.2006 17:47
As you probably know, the Bible is exceedingly important to me, and I believe that any encouragement to delve deeper than the cover is positive and may just pursuade someone of the moral fibre contained therein. Rachel
Advantages: Is a great learning source, It is a living book of God and shows us the way to live. Disadvantages: I realise that my review is biased on the Christian side of view, sorry about that.
Mickie26 25.04.2005 (25.04.2005)
·
Read review
Ciao members have rated this review on average: very helpful
Review of The Bible
Mar 21st, 2006
exceptional by (26%):
very helpful by (72%):
somewhat helpful by (2%):
