Donald Andrew Henson II

When the Church Had No Bible

In Blogging the Bible, Blogging the New Testament, Religion and Society on March 9, 2014 at 7:10 pm

Saint_James_the_Just

Read James 1:21-27 here.

Sometimes you are reading a passage from a book or text that you’ve read many times before, and inexplicably, you see something so obvious you can’t believe you never saw it before. Back in my Sunday school teacher days, if this occurred while reading the Bible, it was taken as evidence that God had spoken to me, revealing spiritual truth to my heart by his grace, through the power of the Holy Spirit, a truth my fallen nature was unable to comprehend through the reasoning of my natural mind alone. Yes, I used to think and talk that way.

Today when such an epiphany occurs, I recognize that it is my brain responding to a new piece of information acquired since my previous reading. In other words, there was a gap in my knowledge at that time that has now been filled. Or a faulty bit of information was lodged in my mind that, now removed, allows me to understand a key phrase or idea more clearly. You can translate the phrase laissez les bons temps rouler easily enough, but the full meaning never really clicks until after you’ve visited New Orleans, especially during Mardi Gras. You realize using the word ‘party’ to describe both that event and your last office birthday gathering is criminally misleading.

Or, in the case of the Epistle of James, you imagine that when he writes about ‘the word’, he is referring to the Bible – when of course this couldn’t possibly be true.

There is a haziness – some would say laziness – in the thinking for most believers when it comes to how exactly the New Testament was put together. When I was a churchgoer, for example, I guess I just sort of assumed that the four gospels were written by four of Jesus’ disciples, you know, people who would have first-hand knowledge of his life. But if pressed, I wouldn’t have been able to name all twelve of those disciples – I doubt many Christians could. Imagine my surprise at finding that there were no disciples named Mark or Luke. Matthew’s gospel may or may not have been written by the same Matthew know as Levi, the tax collector. And even the most conservative Christian scholar places the writing of John’s gospel a full 40+ years after Jesus’ death. Pretty shocking when you realize that the supposed words of Jesus cannot possibly be direct quotes, as they were written down decades after he would have said them, often by people who weren’t even there at the time. Any other biography written to this standard would never be published.

I know that Christians, even when faced with these facts, will argue that they really don’t matter, because the Holy Spirit is the true author, and the men whose names are attached to the letters and gospels were writing as the Spirit moved them – this was my line of thought in my fundamentalist days. But I never stopped to think it through. So, there are these documents that are supposed to persuade me to believe in Jesus and the power of the Holy Spirit. However, the main evidence supporting these documents is that they, themselves, were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Which means I’d have to buy into the argument before accepting the facts that are meant to prove the argument. Can you say circular logic?

This really hit home as I was reading James’ letter earlier this week. In the very first verse, there are cross-references to Galatians and Acts; in other parts of the first chapter, James seems to be referring to John, Romans, Thessalonians, even Revelation. Of course, he could not have had any of those writings in mind – as they hadn’t been written yet. With the exception of perhaps 1 Thessalonians, the Epistle of James is the oldest of the canonical New Testament writings. These references were of course added by an editor at a much later date, perhaps in an effort to show the ‘harmony’ amongst the various letters and gospels.

So James – along with every other first-generation Christian – had no New Testament. No written gospel. No letters of Paul or Peter or John. No Bible. In modern Christian parlance, when we say ‘the word’, we mean ‘the Bible’. But there’s no way this could be what James means – as there wasn’t one yet. In fact, the New Testament as we know it today wouldn’t exist until a man named Eusebius put it together early in the 4th century AD. One could be forgiven, I suppose, for not realizing this, as it certainly isn’t something that would come up even in the most advanced Sunday school class – perhaps not even in the vast majority of conservative divinity schools.

In fact, the common icon representing James (see above) shows him holding what looks like – you guessed it – a Bible! Some have said this denotes his authorship of a venerated letter – and indeed, very early icons show New Testament writers holding scrolls or pieces of parchment. But by Eusebius’ time, James, Paul, and others are all depicted with a heavy tome under their arms – perhaps a kind of retroactive stamp of approval for the new canon?

Christians are guilty of this kind of proleptic thinking all of the time. We cannot help but read first century writings through the lens of our own time, twenty centuries later. We ask, “What would Jesus do?” when there is no possible way for us to know what he or any other person living at the time might do. Even men who spend their lives studying that specific juncture in history could not do more than postulate on what a given individual might or might not do.  So, rather conveniently, ‘God’s will’ ends up being pretty close to our own. Yes, yes, I hear you God – buying the Cadillac would certainly bring you more glory than the buying a Ford. Jesus hates homosexuality, so I’m agin’ it too.

What then could James possibly have had in mind when he wrote his most famous verse, “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only…”? Well, he could have certainly been referring to the Law of Moses, copies of which would have been available at the synagogues where Christians were at this time meeting. In fact, in the next verse he says that anyone who really studies the law, really looks into it, will be blessed. So the only written ‘word’ that James could encourage his flock to read would have been – – and then the epiphany.

Look closely. James isn’t demanding that people read ‘the word’ at all – he’s demanding that they listen. He clearly differentiates his vocabulary – study the law, read the law, look closely at the law – but hear the word. What’s the difference? ‘The word’ is not the Bible, it is not something that is written – it is whatever James says it is. When James says you have to hear and do the word, what he really means are his words – because, of course, he speaks for God. A year or two after this writing, the church decides that Gentiles don’t have to be circumcised, not because of some new findings about Moses’ law – but because James decides that it’s OK with God.

Searching several online versions of the Bible, I was amazed to find that not a single New Testament writer demands that we read ‘the word’ – they all basically make the same connection that James makes – the true Christian must hear the word and do it. Go ahead and read the law for yourself, my friend, but if you want to go to heaven, you have to agree with my interpretation of what it says. Faith comes by hearingnot by reading, and the believer needs to do what he hears the preacher say. This is what James is truly saying, and Paul, John, and others say the same thing elsewhere.

James was not a disciple of his brother when Jesus was still alive – he did not believe. He was not an eyewitness of many of the events listed in the gospels. Nor was Paul; not only was he an unbeliever in Jesus’ lifetime, he actively persecuted Jesus’ followers, encouraging a mob to kill the first martyr, Stephen. Yet these men claim to know God’s will – even though they obviously didn’t recognize Jesus as the Son of God when he walked in their midst.

You have to believe in Jesus, and you must believe what I tell you about the scripture – or you’ll die and go to hell. Why? Because you were there? Because you heard the words fall from Jesus’ lips? No. Because after Jesus died, God spoke to me. And, as is always the case in these situations, he told me what you need to do.

How convenient.

Advertisements
  1. Look me up when you check in to the Underworld. I’ll be on Level Nine.

  2. It’s ironic that the religious think they have something authoritative to say about the origins of the universe, when they haven’t even explored the origins of their special book. BTW, my parents claim I was named after the Stephen in the bible. I tell people “it must have had some effect… I got ‘stoned’ a lot in college”.

  3. I hope I don’t get bashed as “one of those crazy religious folk” because I’m honestly just trying to figure it all out myself but people like James and especially Paul are the ones that make me believe it all a little more. They didn’t believe it at all while Jesus was alive & Paul even to the point of stoning Christians…what made them make the 180?…what did they see after his death that convinced them so strongly? These guys were killed brutally for these beliefs along with other apostles. If it were me, I probably would’ve shut up real quick as soon as the first guy got be headed! Ha. So what did they see and what did they have to gain but death? Nobody went more extreme than Paul…that would be like me, all of the sudden turning to Buddhism & writing so passionately about it….I would definitely have to see some miracle or undeniable proof to make that drastic change. I think it would’ve been the same for Paul & James. So in my doubting & questioning, those are my thoughts.

  4. No – no one should bash anyone over a religious belief; my goal is not to persuade everyone to be an atheist, but just to get people from asserting that their particular religious views ought to be the law of the land. I don’t think that view is in line with our American traditions – people should believe what they want to believe as long as they’re not hurting anyone else, but others have the right to believe or not as well.

    Think about your argument above – would you buy it if a Muslim made that argument, or a Sikh? Probably not. Paul’s martyrdom is not what convinced you to be a Christian – you were probably already a believer before you heard of that. Since you already believe, it seems tragic and noble – something that validates the reality of his faith. When an Islamic suicide bomber blows himself up, or a distraught Buddhist immolates himself, we are not inclined to think that this act adds any validity to the legitimacy of his religious beliefs.

    The reality is that thousands if not millions of people have become converts of one religion or another through the centuries, and many of these could be described as ‘180s’. If there have been a thousand religions throughout history (there have probably been more), then any believer has to say that those who subscribed to 999 of them were dead wrong. The atheist / agnostic simply adds one more to that number.

    And notice that Paul’s conversion is not nearly as dramatic as converting to Buddhism. Today we see Judaism and Christianity as two distinct religions, but at the time, that division was not so clear. Even today, those in the East would probably have a hard time understanding the differences. Paul already belonged to the ‘progressive’ wing of the Jewish faith – the Pharisees. Unlike the Saducees, which were the majority and held most of the positions of power in the temple, the Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the soul. Both groups were looking for a messiah. In many respects, his new beliefs as a Christian were not so radically different as his beliefs as a Jew at that time. He was able to use the same scriptures, even hold church services in the synagogues for quite some time.

    For the vast majority of people, the spiritual longings that we feel will be satisfied by the religions that exist in our own culture – and this is what Paul and James did as well. In America, when people feel they need to get close to God – they go to church – unless their parents were born in India or Saudi Arabia, or in some other culture where Christianity isn’t the default religion. I’m not saying that there is anything wrong with that – I’m just saying that the claims Christians make seem more valid than those of other religions – to Christians – only because of their viewpoint. They do not convince people of other faiths.

  5. […] hearers only – one of the most well-known verses in the NT – he could not possibly be referring to the Bible. And we’ve only covered the first chapter. One chapter of the James impugns most every GOP […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: