“Not a Divine Product”

Last updated on: May 3, 2015 at 2:32 pm by William Hamblin

“Not a Divine Product” 2015-05-03T14:32:36-07:00 William Hamblin

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

On his blog David Bokovoy suggest that Latter-day Saints should adopt the views of Marcus Borg on the nature of the Bible in order to “save the Bible.” (One is reminded of the famous (though largely mythical) incident at at Ben Tre during the Vietnam War where the army “had to destroy a town to save it.”) He lists four specific claims made by Borg. (I believe these quotations given below are David’s words summarizing Borg’s position.) I’ll give a brief response here.

The Bible is the product of two historical communities, ancient Israel and the early Christian movement.

Agreed. And … ?

As such, it is a human product, not a divine product. This claim in no way denies the reality of God. Rather, it sees the Bible as the response of these two ancient communities to God.

Here, of course, things start to immediately get problematic. What in the world does “not a divine product” mean? Does this mean that nothing at all in the Bible comes from God? The Bible, of course, claims just the opposite. Parts of it claim to be precisely the “word of Yahweh.” The teachings of Jesus, if he relly is the Son of God as the New Testament claims, are certainly a “divine product.”

Bokovy’s statement “this claim in no way denies the reality of God,” while technically true, is an obfuscation. First, it also doesn’t affirm the reality of God. In fact, it is an agnostic position that an atheist can agree with–all atheists, in fact, believe the Bible is “human product, not a divine product.” Second, it does deny the “reality of a God” who can inspire humans and reveal his words and mind. If God can in fact reveal his words and mind to humans, and the Bible contains none if it–that is, it is “not a divine product”–he is a feeble God indeed. God, apparently can’t talk to humans in any coherent way that they can quote or summarize. Ordinary humans can do that!

Finally, Bokovoy insists that the “Bible [is] the response of these two ancient communities to God.” I don’t disagree with this statement. Of course the Bible describes the response of Israel and early Christians to what they believed about God. But this is again an obfuscation. The question is: “Is that ALL the Bible is?” Any ancient religious text reveals “the response of [the authors/community] to God.” This could be just as legitimately said of Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist and Muslim scripture. Indeed, non-scriptural religious texts, like Dante’s Divine Comedy, likewise reveal Dante’s “response to God.” Why should we prioritize the Bible over these other texts? The answer is, of course, there is no compelling reason to do so. If the Bible only contains description of what ancient Israelites, Jews, and Christians believed and thought about God–as opposed to some ontologically significant description of God’s reality, nature, will, revelation, deeds, and words–then there is no reason to “believe” in the Bible any more (or less) than the Qur’an, the Bhagavad-Gita, or the Dao de Jing.

This is not “saving the Bible.” It rather reduces the Bible to a text “having a form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof” (2 Tim. 3:5). Paul advises us that “from such [you should] turn away.”

Ancient Studies

Bible

Christianity

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Previous Post

May 3, 2015

Should we Assimilate?

Next Post

May 3, 2015 Does Historicity Matter?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Ancient Studies Atheism Bible bibliography Book of Abraham Book of Mormon Book of Moses Christianity Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Deseret News Column Doctrine and Covenants Documentary Hypothesis Genesis Haram al-Sharif Historicity History Islam Israelite Religion Judaism LDS Mormon Studies Mormonism Mormons Movies Noah Penteteuch Photography Religion Temple Temple Mount Temples Third Temple Movements Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 February 2014 October 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Love is patient, love is kind. Love does not _____ or boast...

Select your answer to see how you score.

Envy Scream Fail Brag