Last week Chris, one of Linden's leaders, came into the office. He'd been to a seminar with a Jewish rabbi and he he told Alun and me some of the things the rabbi had said. This, of course, will be what I remember Chris saying and that he remembered the rabbi saying. So allow for interpretation!
The rabbi said that Christians like things to tie up, to be neat, while Jews much prefer it when they don't. 'Jews love to argue and discuss.' He also explained that the first five books of the Bible were written - I can't recall if there was a word for it - without spaces between words so there is a lot of room for discussion and arguing over what is actually meant. (I think I have that right; no doubt someone will correct me if I'm wrong!) He talked about midrash. I just looked that up and here is what was said:
Midrash minimizes the authority of the wording of the text as communication, normal language. It places the focus on the reader and the personal struggle of the reader to reach an acceptable moral application of the text. While it is always governed by the wording of the text, it allows for the reader to project his or her inner struggle into the text. This allows for some very powerful and moving interpretations which, to the ordinary user of language, seem to have very little connection with the text. The great weakness of this method is that it always threatens to replace the text with an outpouring of personal reflection. At its best it requires the presence of mystical insight not given to all readers.
Alun has been researching for the series of Sunday morning talks he's been doing and yesterday he said to me, 'I don't know where my faith is right now.'
The Bible isn't one book. It's a collection of books, written at different times by different authors. It's history; it's songs; it's love poetry; it's advice; it's stories. Matthew's gospel was written after Mark's and is based on Mark's. Matthew adds to it from his own memory and, in places, extrapolates from it, using what had happened previously and what was likely to have happened. In other words, he makes it up. It's the Jewish way.
But this was what had been causing Alun the problem. Until he realised something. 'It doesn't matter. I love God. That is what my faith is based upon.'
The Bible is a pointer, a guide, a help. It's not infallible; there are inaccuracies and inconsistencies. It may help someone to come to know God but if faith is built on facts then it's not faith and at some point it will crash.
In Zac's last night we heard about the man who'd been a disabled beggar for 38 years. Jesus healed him and the man got into trouble with the authorities for carrying his bed roll on the Sabbath. That led to a short discussion about what day is - or should be - the sabbath. One participant in the discussion was very concerned that the Sabbath had somehow been hi-jacked. It wasn't the time to say, 'It doesn't really matter.' She'll get there, in God's time.
xx
2 comments:
I like the idea of interpretation. That was one of the reasons I switched churches. The old one was too legalistic for my liking. I didn't agree with some things that they said were "the truth" in the Bible and wanted to argue the points. But it seems that the men there didn't take too kindly to women having a brain.
There is good analytical evidence that at least three out of the four Gospels WERE written by those named as authors.
Matthew is the odd one out, and was probably written circa 100 AD, but the other three are probably written by those named, as in Marks probably WAS taken down as notes by Peter's secretary Mark.
Luke, when he wrote his longwork (Luke and Acts), prob used it to fill in the early years he hadn't seen huimself, plus anecdotes from the disciples he knew.
Jonh's, is is his own story.
Post a Comment