Timothy Beal is concerned to criticize, and if possible to celebrate the end of, what he calls “the cultural icon of the Bible.” This is the idea that the Bible is a single authoritative book, univocal, practical, accessible, comprehensive, and exclusive, that plainly reveals who God is and what God expects of us. This idea is cleverly expressed in using “Bible” as an acronym: Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth (p. 5 and p. 183). Beal explains the view he opposes:
The cultural icon of the Bible represents religious faith as what closes the book on questions about the meaning and purpose of life. It puts them to rest in the name of God. Faith is about believing the right things, and the Bible is the place to find them (pp. 5-6).
A “cultural icon,” Beal clarifies, is not the same as an icon, a particular physical object (as in Eastern Orthodoxy) that is thought to be a window to a transcendent reality. A particular image (e.g., a closed book with a soft black leather cover) may represent the cultural icon of the Bible, but it is an idea rather than a particular object. It is clear that Beal believes that the cultural icon of the Bible is an idol, a false god, after the manner of the golden calf in Exodus (p. 83). Given Beal’s use of an economic metaphor, as when he accuses Bible publishers of selling off the Bible’s sacred capital (p. 75), one might speak of the cultural icon of the Bible as counterfeit spiritual currency.
From a variety of angles, in cumulative fashion, Beal presents a compelling case against the cultural icon of the Bible. Beal’s argument occurs at two levels, one concerning the history and manufacturing of Scriptures and the second concerning the content and meaning of Scriptural texts. The first strand of Beal’s argument builds on the following points:
1. There is not, nor has there ever been, a standard Bible from which all others have been copied (pgs. 22, 84, and 106). I have often thought that one could compare the idea of an original Bible with the use of the mètre étalon (standard meter) in Paris. Once was a time when all meters were measured by a bar of platinum-irridium alloy in Paris. But there has never been une Bible étalon (a standard Bible) against which all others can be compared. For example, the Greek New Testament is a scholarly reconstruction of the text based on the best available evidence. The evidence includes, among other things, “more than fifty-three hundred early New Testament manuscripts and manuscript fragments in the Greek language” (p. 104). The Scriptures known to the earliest Christians (as those mentioned in Lk 24:44 and II Tim. 3:16) did not include the New Testament, which had yet to be written and compiled; indeed, when the New Testament authors quote Scripture, it is primarily a question of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Beal notes that Rev. 22:18-19 refers to the book of Revelation and not to the Bible as it is published today (p. 107).
2. The evidence from antiquity demonstrates that the older the documents, the more diversity there is among them and the newer the documents, the less diversity. One may surmise at least two reasons for this: (a) later copiers standardized the text by introducing uniformity or correcting mistakes; evidence of this process is found in the NT itself as when Matthew and Luke “correct” what they consider to be mistakes in Mark (p. 105); (b) in most cases, the written word did not come first, the spoken word came first. For example, the stories circulating about Jesus would not have been word-for-word equivalents. Hence, when the stories were written down they were divergent. Some divergence was also inevitable since Jesus would have spoken Aramaic, but it was Greek words on which all subsequent translations were based. In the early fifth century, St. Jerome, something of a patron saint of translators, complained, “There are almost as many forms of texts as there are copies!” (p. 119).
3. Given ancient technologies, there were formidable practical limitations on printing a Bible as a single book. This is the case for the following reasons: (a) In Jewish worship (as in the story in Luke of Jesus reading from Isaiah), scrolls were used. Different scrolls would contain the Torah, certain Prophetic writings, or the Psalms. A single scroll could be quite large. The Great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran measures little over ten inches high and twenty-four feet long (p. 91). (b) Christians quickly began preferring the codex (leaves of paper or parchment stitched together at a binding) (pp. 114-115). More information could be stored in a single codex than in a scroll and cross-referencing became easier. Despite their advantages over scrolls, larger codices were still unwieldy. Most codices were parts of Scripture, like a single Gospel, or the Gospels together, or the Psalms. Codices including books from Genesis to Revelation were very rare and not widely available (pp. 116-117). Eventually, annotations and illustrations were included in some codices, yielding some of the most exquisite art of medieval manuscripts, such as the ninth century Gospel collection, the Book of Kells. (c) the cost of making even a smaller scroll or codex was prohibitive. Papyrus—made from the plant by the same name—was expensive to make. Parchment was made from animal skin and was also expensive; it would have taken eight and a half sheep to make the Great Isaiah Scroll.
Perhaps it is because we are so accustomed to seeing Bibles in churches, bookstores, or hotel rooms, that we unthinkingly assume that “the” in front of “Bible” names une Bible étalon. Beal’s argument challenges this assumption. He notes that, in the medieval period, the Greek plural ta biblia (the books or scrolls) morphed into biblion (book), making it seem natural to think of a single book called “the Bible” (p. 146). Beal suggests a return to Jerome’s Latin expression for the Christian Scriptures: bibliotheca, that is, “library” (pp. 148-149). The word “library” is certainly closer than “book” for what one finds between the covers of any modern-day Bible. The various writings have no single author or editor; they were written in a variety of languages in a variety of styles; they were written over a period of well over a thousand years; and they represent no single point of view.
This last point anticipates the second strand of Beal’s argument which concerns the content and meaning of Scripture. According to Beal:
[The Bible] holds together a tense diversity of perspectives and voices, difference and argument—even and especially . . . when it comes to the profoundest questions of faith, questions that inevitably outlive all their answers. The Bible interprets itself, argues with itself, and perpetually frustrates any desire to reduce it to univocality (173).
One may discern in Beal’s treatment, four phenomena that support these claims: ambiguity within the texts, the reinterpretation of a text by subsequent writers, diverse perspectives on events or ideas, and contrary ideas (i.e. ideas that cannot all be true). Some examples of these phenomena are the following:
• The opening words of Genesis, in Hebrew, can equally well be translated as “In the beginning, God created . . .” (King James Version) or as “When God began to create . . .” (Jewish Publication Society version). The first translation more easily suggests creation ex nihilo while the second suggests creation in media res, in the midst of things (pp. 150-151). I would add that these contrary interpretations continue in subsequent biblical writings: II Maccabees 7:28 says God did not create the heavens and the earth out of things that existed, whereas the Wisdom of Solomon 11:17 gives a more Platonic reading by saying that God created the world out of formless matter.
• Beal remarks on the “ingenious new meaning” that Paul gives to Deut. 21:23 by interpreting it as a reference to Christ ransoming humankind by becoming cursed through crucifixion (Gal 3:13). This is a new meaning because the Deuteronomy passage concerns defiling holy land with the corpse of a criminal hanging on a tree (p. 101). Indeed, it is very often the case that passages drawn from Jewish Scriptures as prophecies of Christ ignore context; it is less a case of a clear prediction than of a passage reminding a New Testament author of some aspect of Christ’s life or message. I would add that this process continued long after the Gospels had been written. For example, in his De Consensu Evangelistarum (Harmony of the Gospels, chapter III), composed around 400 CE, Augustine interpreted the first lines of Psalm 57 and 58 as an anticipation of Pilate’s refusal to change the inscription on Jesus’s cross (Jn 19:22).
• Beal goes on at some length on the Bible’s various answers to the problem of theodicy, paying special attention to the conflicting answers in Deuteronomy and the poem of the book of Job (pp. 160-168). One might expect, as Deuteronomy contends, that the righteous are rewarded and the wicked are punished. But Job is a righteous man who undergoes what, in Deuteronomy, is the punishment for the wicked. Nor is a final resolution to the problems of theodicy found in the Bible. Beal’s account of his encounter with Elie Wiesel and his play The Trial of God further buttresses his conclusion. According to Beal, “Contending with this, the most profound of theological questions [i.e. theodicy], the Bible remains entirely unsettled, and unsettling” (p. 168).
• The contrary accounts of the death of Judas, of the events surrounding the discovery of Jesus’s empty tomb, and of Paul’s conversion (pp. 168-169) are studies in contrast that resist being part of a single narrative. Beal also notes that the images of God in various passages are suggestive of different theologies (p. 170). One may claim that God, in some manner, inspired the Bible, but it is not at all clear that there is a single concept of God running through all of its pages.
The episode of David’s taking a census of Israel (II Sam 24 and I Chron 21) could serve as an example of most of the points that Beal raises about the multifaceted aspects of biblical narratives. The author of Chronicles reframes the story of the census and thereby gives it meanings not found in the older version: most dramatically, it is Satan (or some adversary) rather than Yahweh who incites David to take the census. Even with this change, however, the questions of theodicy are left dangling. David’s plea to Yahweh not to punish the people for his own sin is unavailing.
In view of the variety of meanings that can be assigned to the biblical texts, it is tempting to count them as a failure as divine revelation. But this is not Beal’s conclusion. He is no inerrantist, but neither is he a Bible debunker, or even an atheist (p. 175). For Beal, “Bible debunkers and Bible defenders are kindred spirits” (p. 171) It is only one idea of revelation—albeit a very popular idea—that must be denied, the one promoted by the “cultural icon of the Bible” that it is a book of clear-cut answers to life’s questions. Beal responds, “The Bible is not a book of answers but a library of questions” (p. 175). Wiesel’s memorable way of emphasizing the point was to note that, in Hebrew, ‘el (God) is in the word for question, she’elah—“God is in the question” (p. 167).
Beal may be at his best in exposing the conceit of translators, commentators and publishers who would direct readers to the putative essential meaning of various biblical texts. This is sometimes done by inserting into a supposed translation words and concepts that are literally absent from the text itself, as when “homosexuality” is used in the New Living Translation of Lev. 18:22 (p. 58). Beal provides multiple illustrations of how the bewildering variety of “value added” Bibles, Biblezines, and Manga Bibles, in the name of clarifying the Bible’s meaning, are specifically designed to eliminate ambiguity and contradiction. Thereby, they impose an artificial uniformity on the biblical texts. In Beal’s words, “the intention is not to encourage readers to interpret for themselves but to interpret for them, to control meaning, dispelling doubts and questions and directing readers towards specific conclusions” (p. 55). For Beal, on the other “To interpret with the goal of ‘getting to the point’ about what a text really means is an act of impoverishment” (p. 149).
The project of ironing out the inconsistencies and tensions within biblical literature is ancient. One thinks of the attempt to weave the four Gospels into a single story as in Tatian’s Diatesseron, from the second century. Or again, there are the various Gospel harmonies, one of the most famous early examples being Augustine’s Harmony (previously mentioned). These endeavors have their place and can sometimes suggest rich new meanings. For the most part, however, they are artificial and ad hoc. They invariably tell a new story that is in none of the Gospels. Their specific brand of impoverishment is to sacrifice the narrative coherence of each Gospel on the altar of a rigid logical consistency amongst the four Gospels. It is like having four different jigsaw puzzles, made from different molds, and trying to make a single picture out of them. The final proof of the futility of the project is in comparing the various attempts at harmonization. One finds that there is no harmony amongst the harmonizers. (But this is a topic for a lengthier discussion.)
The “cultural icon of the Bible” is an extreme; it is a demon that I believe Beal successfully exorcises, but the danger in attempting to avoid one extreme is that one may fall into a contrary extreme. In Beal’s case, the opposing extreme is to imagine that the biblical texts are a Rorschach in which one may legitimately discern any meaning that suits one’s prejudices, inclinations, or cultural context. At times, Beal seems to toy with this idea as when he says, “The Bible is interpretation all the way down” (p. 101); or again, he says, “Everything is impermanent, inconclusive. Everything is subject to revision and reformulation” (p. 191). On the other hand, he speaks of a discussion being “grounded in the details of the text” (p. 191), and Beal’s discussions are always well-grounded in the text. But surely, this means that there is an objective check against interpretations that miss the mark or that are widely implausible.
Beal’s discussion of the so-called Phineas Priesthood (pp. 156-157) could serve as a test case. Some Christian white-supremacists sanction violence in the name of ethnic purity, viewing themselves as descendants of Phineas’s “everlasting priesthood” (Num 25:13). As Beal says, however, such passages and readings of Scriptures do not “stand uncontested.” “Over against the oppressive passages . . . are many passages that proclaim God above all to be a God of the oppressed, of liberation, who takes sides with those most vulnerable to exploitation and violence” (p. 157). Apart from rejecting the Bible as a “cultural icon,” Beal does not address whether it is possible to misinterpret Scripture. It does not seem strong enough to say that the negative aspects of the Bible do not stand uncontested. Can one maintain, as Beal wishes, both a Bible continually open to reinterpretation and a God that definitely proclaims the liberation of the captives?
If one accepts that the Bible is not a book but a library—a library of questions at that—can one avoid the image that one has something more than a parade of interpretations? To be sure, it is a delicate balance between closing questions prematurely and keeping questions open artificially. Nevertheless, may there not be mountain tops within the biblical library, like I John 4:8, from which one may measure the hills and valleys of theological and ethical value attained by various authors? Or can one introduce a nonpernicious idea of development in which, through the multiple and conflicting perspectives of biblical literature, there is a conversation, a dialogue across the centuries, in which, for example, certain theodicies are recognized as dead-ends and in which more refined theologies emerge? Could one, following the lead of many Jewish exegetes, consider a verse like Micah 6:6-9 as a possible compendium of all the Mitzvot? Something like this may be what Beal means by speaking of religion both as a rebinding (religare) and a rereading (relegere) (p. 185).
Of course, answering these questions would require another book from Beal. He might take a lesson from Plato. According to Beal, “[The Bible] hosts the human quest for meaning without predestining a specific conclusion. For those wanting ‘real answers, real fast,’ I recommend Socrates” (p. 184). One may hope that this remark is tongue-in-cheek since neither Socrates nor Plato—the one who conveys our most complete picture of Socrates—ever gives “real answers, real fast.” It is a commonplace of Platonic scholarship that doctrines argued for in one dialogue are contradicted in another; moreover, Socrates’ questioning advances the discussion, but the dialogues often end inconclusively. The works of Plato present every bit as much of an open-ended conversation as does the Bible on Beal’s reading of it. However, the constant in Plato and in his master Socrates is that truth, beauty, and goodness, though elusive and difficult to attain, are not impossible. It requires a disciplined use of the dialectic that Socrates practiced. The discipline that Beal brings to the biblical text through his knowledge of ancient languages and his grasp of multiple meanings is analogous, unless one loses sight of the very condition that makes an honest search possible—that is to say, that there is something for which one is searching. Interpretation can involve both invention and discovery.
The Rise and Fall of the Bible: The Unexpected History of an Accidental Book Hardcover – 16 February 2011
by
Timothy Beal
(Author)
- Print length256 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- Publication date16 February 2011
- ISBN-100151013586
- ISBN-13978-0151013586
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Product details
- Language : English
- Hardcover : 256 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0151013586
- ISBN-13 : 978-0151013586
- Customer reviews:
Customer reviews
4.2 out of 5 stars
4.2 out of 5
37 global ratings
How are ratings calculated?
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we do not use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyses reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Top reviews from other countries
apologist007
5.0 out of 5 stars
Not for those who wish to keep their heads in the sand
Reviewed in the United States on 22 March 2011Verified Purchase
Just got my copy of this book today and read it (the first time) cover to cover. As a grad student working on my Master's in Biblical Studies much of what Tim says I already learned; however, never before have I read it so well organized, with tons of facts to support his controversial "claims" and I was delighted by his quick wit and dry humor reminding me of some of the best professors I've ever met that made Bible Study fun.
If you're determined to believe today's KJV Holy Bible (and all others) are the inspired word of God and without errors then you don't want to read this book. If life is so hard for you that the rock of the Word can't change for you right now into a flowing river (instead of a life-saving rock) you might want to put this book off until things settle down.
99.9% of Bible believing Christians learn the Holy Bible like a child digging in a sand box with a tiny plastic shovel. Timothy Beal takes the Bible student in this book into the very origin and history of the Bibles of today using powerful deep well drills going back in time to the very core beginning and he then unfolds the evolution of the marketing of the Bible over time and how that has influenced the context, message, and manner delivered clearing proving how this is the Greatest Story ever Sold. No objective reader can finish this book and not see clearly that there is no original Holy Bible; never was one and never will be. Since the original scriptures numbered over 5,000 volumes much has been lost over time and during orthodox translations.
If you want light on the contradictions and errors you've seen in the scriptures this is the book for you to learn the most likely way those errors came to be. If you want to learn facts of major turning points in the context of the Bible at certain points this work is very easy reading and descriptive of those major historical points when the Word radically changed and how it happened and continues to change today.
If you have the intellect to see the Bible as a book of questions and not one of answers this will be an inspiring scholarly exploration of the evolution and revolution of today's Bibles.
"The Rise and Fall of the Bible" isn't for everyone. It requires facing some hard facts that many Christians may be too blown away by with the risk of shattering their faith. If your faith is greater than a commonly held holy book you will cherish and love this man's book for it can give you a greater understanding of the Holy Bible (and where it's headed in today's digital age).
If you can't handle early Christianity' truths; don't read it. If you can; thou shalt read Tim Beal.
If you're determined to believe today's KJV Holy Bible (and all others) are the inspired word of God and without errors then you don't want to read this book. If life is so hard for you that the rock of the Word can't change for you right now into a flowing river (instead of a life-saving rock) you might want to put this book off until things settle down.
99.9% of Bible believing Christians learn the Holy Bible like a child digging in a sand box with a tiny plastic shovel. Timothy Beal takes the Bible student in this book into the very origin and history of the Bibles of today using powerful deep well drills going back in time to the very core beginning and he then unfolds the evolution of the marketing of the Bible over time and how that has influenced the context, message, and manner delivered clearing proving how this is the Greatest Story ever Sold. No objective reader can finish this book and not see clearly that there is no original Holy Bible; never was one and never will be. Since the original scriptures numbered over 5,000 volumes much has been lost over time and during orthodox translations.
If you want light on the contradictions and errors you've seen in the scriptures this is the book for you to learn the most likely way those errors came to be. If you want to learn facts of major turning points in the context of the Bible at certain points this work is very easy reading and descriptive of those major historical points when the Word radically changed and how it happened and continues to change today.
If you have the intellect to see the Bible as a book of questions and not one of answers this will be an inspiring scholarly exploration of the evolution and revolution of today's Bibles.
"The Rise and Fall of the Bible" isn't for everyone. It requires facing some hard facts that many Christians may be too blown away by with the risk of shattering their faith. If your faith is greater than a commonly held holy book you will cherish and love this man's book for it can give you a greater understanding of the Holy Bible (and where it's headed in today's digital age).
If you can't handle early Christianity' truths; don't read it. If you can; thou shalt read Tim Beal.
14 people found this helpful
Report
thom coco evans
5.0 out of 5 stars
nicely done
Reviewed in the United States on 1 March 2014Verified Purchase
Nicely written treatise on how the the Bible has never been ONE book with only one POV. How its recently been commercialized to the point of being a book no longer much useful for contemplation, but one as a source of absolute answers - which the author points time and again is not, nor ever was its true purpose.
The author points out how the Bible has been high jacked by a very narrow, and loud group with only one POV. That the Bible is and was inerrant from day one till now, and must be protected as such and in these attempts the book has been distilled down from a multi-voiced tome of complexity and more questions than answers to a univocal one with a singular and narrow POV - thereby defeating the true gift of the Bible as a place for questions and contemplation and not concrete answers.
BTW as an atheist, its a refreshing read and provides an insighful historical perspective that any "true" xtian should read to better understand the way in which the Bible has changed over time.
The author points out how the Bible has been high jacked by a very narrow, and loud group with only one POV. That the Bible is and was inerrant from day one till now, and must be protected as such and in these attempts the book has been distilled down from a multi-voiced tome of complexity and more questions than answers to a univocal one with a singular and narrow POV - thereby defeating the true gift of the Bible as a place for questions and contemplation and not concrete answers.
BTW as an atheist, its a refreshing read and provides an insighful historical perspective that any "true" xtian should read to better understand the way in which the Bible has changed over time.
12 people found this helpful
Report