Here's an interesting piece on the frequency of the name Jesus back in Jesus' day (and before).
I'm particularly fascinated by the part about the name Jesus being derived from the name Yehoshua, which, in turn, is also translated as Yeshua and Joshua. These different translations came in to the Bible when written in different languages -- Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, English -- and illustrates, once again, the substance of one of my primary critiques of Biblical literalism: How can literalists & fundamentalists be so certain that the Bible condemns abortion, considers homosexuality a sin, and generally supports Republicans, if even the name Jebus itself is open to so many interpretations?
-
"...generally supports Republicans"?? That's kind of twisting things the way you keep proclaiming that the Bible has been twisted, nephew. :-) I greatly dislike the labeling of Americans that has increased to such a disturbing level that "liberal" has become a four-letter, snarled word. There are self-professed "conservatives" who claim to be the real "Reagan Republicans" who tote the Bible around claiming their beliefs are founded on God's word. BUT, if one reads the Bible one learns that the teachings of Jesus (by whatever language he's called) are based on LOVE not the hate-filled rhetoric of today's politicized world. It really doesn't matter what name we use...and a Christian should be well aware of the various names that Jesus would have been known as...it's the belief that He was the son of God sent to save us from ourselves. It's His teachings that are important. He probably didn't have blue eyes and blonde hair, either, but we've been programmed to see Him that way, haven't we? Keep asking questions---that's the way to the truth!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comments, Grace.
ReplyDeleteThe underlying structure of the argument in my post is:
a) the Bible is a work of metaphor, symbolism, and mythology, and should not be taken literally, but many, many people do take it literally, particularly Christian Biblical literalists in the U.S.A.;
b) the vast majority of Christian Biblical literalists in the U.S.A. tend to be conservative Republicans or conservative libertarians;
c) these politically-engaged conservative Christian Biblical literalists, by and large, use their interpretation of the Bible to justify the abuse of civil liberties, such as restricting women's reproductive choices and negating gays' and lesbians' access to the privilege of marriage;
d) however, the fact that there are a variety of translations for the very name of the very person who is at the center of a Christian's religion undermines their stated position that the Bible is to be taken literally;
e) and this conclusion, therefore, undermines all arguments purportedly supporting conservative Christian literal interpretations of the Bible.
I agree wholeheartedly with your statement that "if one reads the Bible one learns that the teachings of Jesus . . . are based on LOVE not the hate-filled rhetoric of today's politicized world." This interpretation of the Bible is in stark contrast to the conservative Christian Biblical literalists that I'm referring to in my post.
d: however, the fact that there are a variety of translations for the very name of the very person who is at the center of a Christian's religion undermines their stated position that the Bible is to be taken literally;
ReplyDeleteMy response: Just because there are various names for a person, depending upon the language in which it is written, doesn't mean that you can base your argument against believing the contents of the Bible on that fact. Also, just because you say the Bible is myth, symbolism, etc. doesn't mean that your opinion is anymore legitimate than my opinion, belief and faith that the Bible is God's word and that it outlines the history and teachings that lead to salvation. Those who believe, repent of their sins and are baptized are promised forgiveness of their sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Those who believe, repent and are baptized and then turn away and denounce God and Jesus and the teachings of the Bible must relearn what they once knew. At least from what I read in the Bible. Keep searching!
The intriguing point you make causes me to think again about that fascinating CBC Radio: Ideas program I listened to the other day (here). I wrote:
ReplyDelete"It seems to me that conflict between science & religion (conflict in my own head as well as in the world-at-large) often springs from two things: 1) the assertion that science cannot answer spiritual questions and spirituality cannot answer scientific questions, and 2) that trusting representatives of a spiritual practice is somehow different than trusting the findings of scientists -- and this difference is fundamental and important."
Regarding #1: First, religion cannot answer the same kinds of questions that modern science can in anything but a cursory way (for example, ask the Pope at the time how to solve the cholera epidemic in 1850s London and he'd be woefully inadequate to the task). Modern science often explicitly avoids questions of religion (meaning also spirituality), and often dismisses such questions outright as being unworthy even of pursuing (Why? Because learning about the fundamental structures of a cell doesn't tell one anything about whether or not to practice nonviolence).
Regarding #2: Opinion, belief, and faith stem from trust extended to some source. The CBC program linked above discusses the social nature of knowledge and how important it was to Robert Boyle (and the future of society, really) to find a way to forge a new kind of social contract within which to center the trust-building and trust-granting process.
In my case, the trust I had in the religion of my youth was incrementally and definitively eroded as I grew to discover the many inconsistencies in what I was told the Bible said in comparison to overwhelming evidence to the contrary outside of the Church of Christ community and the Christian religion more broadly. The sources I trust nowadays are not necessarily specific texts or speaking heads, but processes -- particularly commitments to openness, democracy, critical thought, collaboration, and change-when-change-is-necessary.
Fundamentalist literalists who use the Bible to deny and/or restrict civil rights to members of the community are not people I can agree with on these topics. The fact that they've put their trust in an interpretation of a source that I don't agree with in-and-of-itself is not necessarily an issue; it's when they persist in projecting their beliefs on to the rest of us that I feel rabid enough to write a scathing blog post that will be read my millions and millions of people and lead to sweeping positive social and cultural changes . . .
[Oh, wait -- I just woke from a dream I was in while typing those last few words]