Here are a few words on
the literalism of the Bible, and something
vital to consider regarding this
book, I should think. The words are not my own, yet I find them well worth pondering. They do not
change my faith in the least. Rather, they
inform it, and help me to get past dogma, dead-letter
literalism, and rather a good number of additional obstacles to understanding.
There is of course the broader question of how and when the Bible, in its presently accepted compilation, was formed. The curious story of how the early Fathers, unable to agree on which of the scriptures were genuine and which false, went about the business of selecting the canonical gospels is seldom reported. The Christian Church owes its present Bible to a practice known as sortilege, or the casting of lots, sanctified by the Church Fathers as Sortes Sanctorum. It is a form of lottery, authority for which is found in Proverbs 16:33, where it is said that "the lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord." By this method of divination, now decried by the clergy as an abomination, various weighty matters in the early Church were decided. One form of the Sortes, practiced even to this day by some, is to lay the Bible upon the altar or a table, and pray the Lord to make His will known, to disclose futurity in one of the verses of the book. The Bible is then opened at random. The first verse upon which the eye falls is considered to be God's will. The Sortes was practiced in the twelfth century in the election of bishops, and even Augustine himself did not "disapprove of this method of learning futurity, provided it be not used for worldly purposes." He confesses to having practiced it himself. (See The Life of St. Gregory of Tours.)
At the Council of Nicea, held 325 [SIZE=-1]A.D.[/SIZE], 318 bishops, including the Emperor Constantine, were convened. This body chose the books to be included in the Bible. Socrates Scholasticus (385-445) in his History of the Christian Church, quotes Sabinus, the Bishop of Heraclea, as saying that "except Constantine, the emperor, and Eusebius Pamphilus, these bishops were a set of illiterate, simple creatures, that understood nothing." (Eccles. History, Book 1, Ch. 9.) Such was probably also the opinion of Pappus, who relates that, having "promiscuously put all the books that were referred to the Council for determination under a communion-table in a church, they [the bishops] besought the Lord that the inspired writings might get upon the table, while the spurious ones remained underneath, and it happened accordingly." We are not told, of course, who held the keys to the chamber during the hours of the Lord's miraculous intervention!
For almost sixteen centuries, the resulting selection, commonly known as the Bible, has been regarded by the Christian world as the "unalterable Word of God." And now, in the [20th] century, with publication of the Revised Standard Version in 1953, following earlier versions of 1611, 1881 and 1901, the Sacred Writ has again been re-translated, revised, corrected -- whole verses being occasionally clipped away, and in some cases entire chapters. Is this new "revelation" of the twentieth century, one wonders, again to be accepted as the authentic "Word of God" by all but those willing to be branded as infidels? Or should one continue to declare loyalty to the King James Version, or the Douay Version, despite knowing that these, too, are revisions of still earlier versions?
All emphases are in the original, this article being found in its entirety online at
this location.
What I am left with, after all I've studied regarding the Bible's origins and history of
alterations ... is that
A) it still remains a
useful book, with some portions being indicative enough of the general truth of things (owing partially to
inspiration, but overwhelmingly to the simple
nature & character of Christ Himself, which even the inaccuracies of the present
Bible cannot wholly eclipse) ... and
B) with the proper key, one can still ascertain
to some degree various useful portions of the original authors' intent (speaking mostly of the
New Testament).
Such key is freely available, and can be readily found by the earnest seeker. It can be found in literary form, in spoken form, or within one's own consciousness, where it dwells within us all. Spoken and written versions are but indications, and are only effective if they evoke the
true key, within. Such was the
Gospel of the Great Master, even before His words were written down. What say
Christians about Truth, Salvation, and the gateway to God
prior to Christ's coming? Some mighty clever notions - have been invented, methinks.
But Christ did not
need to invent such complications. His recognition of the
Light & Love, and the
Divine Potential within all whom He encountered, were indeed,
literal and direct. A pity - that so many fail to recognize and believe in this same potential today. Forsooth, the
Knowers are still called
heretic &
infidel, while those who
profess most often, most loudly, and most passionately - well,
as Christ said,
they have their reward.
(Matthew 6:2-6)
Now is that an affront on the faithful follower of the Good Shephard's Teachings? I should say not!!! The devotee who is so inspired and filled with
zeal at the example set by
Jesus of Nazareth, that s/he seeks at every turn to
do as Jesus did (WWJD) ... is
surely dear to the Master's Heart. Yet it is
my belief that one can be just as sincere & true a Christian on
exactly Wil's terms (
without believing in any of the
dogma that some folks seem to think indispensable for having the right to carry a
Member's Only card). For what shall be discovered, as someone recently pointed out, is that the
club is actually a
Planetary Society, and in the end,
all will end up in the same august company. Let us hope, by then, that the well-intentioned zealot has widened his understanding, and opened his heart, to at long last have room ...
for the poor, hopeless sinners presently doomed to go about their existence -
in ignorance.
It is only the
personality which dwells,
in the house made of clay. The Soul itself, already inhabits
the Father's Mansion (albeit the ground floor of the castle). We visit, from time to time, and in rare moments, the Temple of flesh may shine with the heavenly splendor. How nice it would be to be able to say,
I have set up residence within the wonderful Castle. But those who truly dwell therein,
do not make a fuss about it, and will
never claim such status.
They are known by their fruit.
Now is all this nonsense about mansions and castles and bodily temples to be taken
literally? You tell me. But be sure to check with
St. Teresa first. Have I taken
liberties with her symbolism, and made presumptions? Yes, indeed,
Dare to think
outside the box. It's pretty amazing what kind of world exists
out there.
Would you have me bow, and make obeisances to your
god in the box? Inasmuch as God is God, I cannot object! Which is why we say,
Namaskar. Now what about God
outside the box. Careful -
don't put Him in another - box! The Zen approach, will be useful ...
Peace,
andrew
