As others have pointed out, Eichenwald\u2019s rhetoric is inflammatory, and his grasp of the issues is second-hand\u2013at points\u00a0rather naive, at least from the point of view of those who have been around the block a few times on the issues he raises, and especially those who work with the Bible for a living.<\/p>\n
But he\u2019s still basically right.<\/p>\n
Even though Eichenwald would probably\u00a0benefit by availing himself of some conversation partners in Bible, theology, and church history, his main point holds, if only in principle:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Politicians, adopting the rhetoric of their fundamentalist Christian constituencies, claim\u00a0to revere\u00a0the Bible but are clearly unaware of what it says, what it doesn\u2019t say, or of the insights of those who study it seriously.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Why is Eichenwald so animated?<\/p>\n
When the illiteracy of self-proclaimed Biblical literalists leads parents to banish children from their homes, when it sets neighbor against neighbor, when it engenders hate and condemnation, when it impedes science and undermines intellectual advancement, the topic has become too important for Americans to ignore, whether they are deeply devout or tepidly faithful, believers or atheists.<\/em><\/p>\n
You or I may be able to go through each of Eichenwald\u2019s list of Bible problems or\u00a0early church embarrassments\u00a0and offer a reasonable counterpoint, correct an overstatement, or provide some needed nuance\u2013and every other paragraph I wished I could sit down with him and say, \u201cDude, seriously, we know all this; here is where the conversation is. You\u2019re welcome to join whenever you\u2019re ready.\u201d<\/p>\n
But reading the article from that point of view misses what Eichenwald is trying to do.<\/p>\n
Despite appearances, Eichenwald\u00a0isn\u2019t attacking the Bible<\/strong>. He is attacking Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, Pat Robertson, and Bob Jindal. Eichenwald makes that perfectly clear in the opening paragraph, and in the last several pages where he has these politicians directly in his sights.<\/p>\n
The Bible of these fundamentalists is really a Bible of their own creation, one that is already freighted\u00a0with\u00a0theo-poliitcal baggage. That is what Eichenwald intends to expose.<\/p>\n
Most of the article looks like an attack on the Bible, but in fact it is only a rehearsal of what can be found in decent introductory books on the Bible.<\/p>\n
Yes, Eichenwald overstates here and there; yes, he seems at times to be largely unaware that there is a world of scholarship out there that knows these same problems he points out, doesn\u2019t avoid the issues, but looks at them from a larger perceptive.<\/p>\n
It is completely obvious to me, however, that Eichenwald has a strategy in his article, one that reminds me of Spinoza\u2019s 1670\u00a0Theological-Political Treatise<\/a>
. <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n
There, anticipating some elements of modern biblical criticism, Spinoza famously undermines traditional views<\/em> of the Bible for the purpose of undermining\u00a0ecclesiastical authority over the state<\/em>.<\/p>\n
By deconstructing\u00a0the Bible, Spinoza pulled the rug out from under the the tyranny of mixing politics and religion (to use the modern idiom).<\/p>\n
Eichenwald\u2019s article\u00a0is no Theological-Political Treatise<\/em>, but the vibe is similar.<\/p>\n
He spends most of the article alerting the politicians\u00a0of our\u00a0day that the Bible is not what they claim it to be\u2013and they are inconsistent and naive in how they handle it. They are, as Eichenwald says, \u201cBiblically illiterate\u201d both in terms of what the Bible actually says and what modern scholarship has shown to be case.<\/p>\n
This is why Eichenwald covers several\u00a0well-known topics\u2013they may be well-known to most, but apparently biblicistic-literalist politicians need a course in BIB 101. He wants to undermine politics, not religion.<\/strong><\/p>\n
It may not be a surprise for most to see that the Bible we have is a product of transmission over a long period time that led to additions,<\/strong> like the \u201cwoman caught in adultery\u201d in beginning at John 7:53. The Bible as a whole\u2013both testaments\u2013developed, changed, morphed, evolved over time; that\u2019s how\u00a0the Bible came to be from the very beginning.<\/p>\n
You and I may know that, but if you\u2019re trying to pull the rug out from under a Rick Perry<\/strong> prayer rally to 30,000 people, it\u2019s something worth bringing up.<\/p>\n
It may not shock most seasoned Bible students to hear that translations never get the originals right<\/strong>, that translation is a form of interpretation\u2013even to the point of deliberately\u00a0sanitizing troubling parts\u00a0or creatively \u201cclarifying\u201d ambiguities by adding words that aren\u2019t there. Welcome to the world of translating ancient languages into modern idioms.<\/p>\n
You and I may know that, but a modern-day Spinoza wanting to squash\u00a0Michele Bachmann\u2019s<\/strong> biblical support for her views on same-sex marriage will want to bring this front and center. And he may also\u2013and Eichenwald does\u2013point out how inconsistent these fundamentalist politicians are in appealing the Bible as a moral standard.<\/p>\n
It may not trouble everyone to hear of the political shenanigans, and violence, of the early church<\/strong> in their disputes over matters of theology, but if you\u2019re dealing with a Sarah Palin or Pat Robertson<\/strong> who think the Bible was handed down from on high more or less as is, you\u2019re going to highlight this with rhetorical overstatement and flare.<\/p>\n
Theological contradictions and diverse theologies<\/strong> on the part of biblical authors may not cause you to lose sleep, but pointing them out sure comes in handy when politicians claim to be following the \u201cclear\u201d teachings of the Bible.<\/p>\n
There is a lot in the article I could pick on, like mistakes Eichenwald makes (e.g., 1 Timothy does not prohibit women from
![\"ForTheBibleTellsMeSo\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/26\/2014\/08\/ForTheBibleTellsMeSo-196x300.jpeg\")
<\/a>positions in\u00a0secular\u00a0leadership, adding things to sacred texts isn\u2019t a shocker but as old as the Bible itself).<\/p>\nBut I don\u2019t disagree with what Eichenwald is trying to do in principle, as he summarizes at the end of the article.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com\/e\/ir?t=inspirandinca-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0062272020\")
, and do several times a week on this blog.\u00a0But the very fact that Newsweek can pick up a story like this about the Bible tells us more about the frustratingly inept manner in which some public Christians sell the Bible\u2013and the Christian faith\u2013short.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n