The amazing Bible:
studied
by Erik Van Appledom
I would like to reply to Edward Borges-
Silva’s letter concerning Christianity and
homosexuality. I hope you will excuse the
length. I felt it important to include concrete
examples rather than offering a superficial
response.
Edward makes the common Fundamen
talist mistake of referring questions such as
homosexuality to "the Word of God," by
which he means that group of varied com
positions which have, by historical accident
and official decree, been assembled into
what is now known as the Bible.
Contrary to Edward’s belief, the Mew Tes
tament Canon, those books considered au
thoritative by the Church, was not divinely
determined. The first listing of the twenty-
seven books we know as the Mew Testament
was not made until the Easter letter of
Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 A.D.
declared them canonical. Prior to that time
there was m uch disagreement as to what was
authoritative and what was not Keep in mind
that there were other Christian documents in
circulation which the Church finally suppres
sed. Early church fathers quote sayings of
Jesus which are found nowhere in the pre
sent Mew Testament There were also reser
vations about some of the books later ac
cepted as canonical. Eusebius, a famous
church historian (ca. 260-340) mentioned
that Revelation was not accepted universally,
a view shared by the great reformer, Martin
Luther, in the 16th century. Luther relegated
Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation to
an appendix to his German translation of the
Bible. Even in modem times some church
men have felt that the Mew Testament Canon
should be revised. So it is obvious that the
Mew Testament books were selected by men,
not God.
If everything in the Bible were “Divinely
inspired,” it is impossible to account for quo
tations from non-canonical books in the Mew
Testament itself. Jude quotes the Apocalypse
of Moses (Jude 8-9) and 1 Enoch (Jude
14-15), both extra-canonical works. Even the
Old Testament canon was not fixed until
about A.D. 90.
Edward states “Modern Greek as a lang
uage is not very much different from Classi
cal Greek, and neither are difficult to translate
for the trained linguist." This is very mislead
ing. While it is true that Modem Greek is
descended from Classical Greek, the Mew
Testament is written neither in Classical nor
Modern Greek, and has its own grammatical
peculiarities. Translation is sometimes diffi
cult due to obscure terms and unclear gram
mar. Words can change meaning drastically
over a long period of time, and some fall out
of use and are forgotten. For example, even
in English, “gay” does not mean the same to
me as it did to my great grandfather. There
are substantial differences even between
Classical and Mew Testament Greek. The
Greek word laleo meant “to babble" (like a
child) in Classical Greek. In the Mew Testa
ment it just means "to speak," and can be
used even of divine discourse.
Th e words used by Paul in 1 Corinthians
6:9-10, a well-known “homosexual"
statement, are peculiar, and their precise
meaning can only be determined by careful
study both of the language and of the original
cultural environment
As for grammatical difficulties, there are
very tricky problems. One text popular
am ong Fundamentalists to “prove" Biblical
infallibility is an example: 2 Tim othy 3:16 says
"All scripture is given by inspiration of
God — ." The word translated "inspiration of
G o d ” ( theopenustos in Greek) is not found
elsewhere in the Mew Testament, and can
mean either “inspired” or "inspiring.” There
are only four words in the Greek (pasa
graphe theopneustos kai — ), and the Greek
text has no equivalent of our word “is.” So the
words can also mean "Every inspired
scripture — ” which is a far different thing
from “All scripture is inspired by God — ."
Returning to the subject of infallibility, it is
fairy simple to demonstrate that the Mew Tes
tament is often confused, discordant and
contradictory, and can hardly be looked to as
some sort of inerrant oracle which tells us
how to treat (or mistreat) our fellow humans.
Take, for example, the accounts in the four
gospels of the first Easter morning — the
resurrection, the pivotal moment in Christian
history. Are they eminently clear and in total
agreement, as one would expect of a divine
document treating such an eminently
important subject? Let’s see:
Matthew says that early in the morning
Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" came
“to see” the sepulchre where Jesus’ body
had been placed: and there was a “Great
earthquake,” and an angel descended from
heaven, rolled back the stone from the door,
and sat on it, frightening the guards. He told
the women not to fear, that Jesus was risen.
Th e n he told them to go quickly and tell the
disciples the news, and that Jesus would go
before them into Galilee, where they would
see him. The women left and ran to bring
word to the disciples. O n the way Jesus met
them, and they “came and held him by the
feet and worshiped him.”
Th e Gospel of Mark, however, relates that
early in the morning three women went to the
tom b, not justfiuo as in Matthew. The women
did not come just to “see” the sepulchre, as
Matthew said, but came to anoint the body
with spices. They did not experience an
earthquake, and no lightning-faced angel de
scended from heaven, and no guards are
mentioned at all. So the women just find the
stone inexplicably rolled away. They enter the
sepulchre and see a "young man” sitting
clothed in a white garment. He tells them
Jesus is risen, and instructs them to go and
tell "the disciples and Peter ”, not just the
disciples as in Matthew, that Jesus would go
before them into Galilee, and there they
would see him. The women then flee the
sepulchre, trembling and amazed, and be
cause of their fear they don't say anything to
anyone. Th e Gospel continues, relating
three appearances of Jesus and his ascen
sion, but all of this latter section has been
added later, and is not found in the earliest
and best manuscripts which end with the
women fleeing the tomb and keeping quiet
(Mark 16:8) (this is just one example of how
the Gospels have been altered).
Luke’s Gospel tells us that the number of
women who went to the tomb that morning
was not two, as in Matthew, or three, as in
Mark, but at least five, perhaps more. They
didn’t feel an earthquake or see an angel
sitting on the stone, or notice any guards,
either. They just found the stone rolled away,
went in, saw the body was missing, and were
perplexed. Then "two men stood by them in
shining garments." Mot an angel outside, as
in Matthew, or a young man inside, as in
Mark. Th e two men told the women Jesus
was risen and aske’d them to remember a
prediction Jesus made to them “when he
was yet in Galilee." The women returned from
the sepulchre, and didn’t keep quiet as in
Mark, but “told all these things to the eleven
and to all the rest” Notice that what in
Matthew and Mark was a prediction that
Jesus would meet them in Galilee becomes
in Luke a prediction that Jesus made in
Galilee before His death. And though we are
told the apostles didn’t believe the Lukan
women, nonetheless, Peter goes to investi
gate, sees the empty graveclothes, and goes
away, an event which neither Matthew nor
Mark relate.
Th e Fourth Gospel adds to the confusion
by stating that on Easter morning not two
women (Matthew), or three women (Mark),
or //ue or more women (Luke) showed up at
the sepulchre, but just one, Mary Magdalene,
the only person mentioned in all four
accounts. She didn’t see any angels, or
young men, or guards, and felt no earth
quake. She just noted (on her first visit; John
lists more than one!) that the stone was taken
away, and ran to tell Peter and the “beloved
disciple." She told them someone had taken
the body, and she didn’t know where it was.
Peter and the other disciple ran to the tomb
and confirmed that the body was gone, and
went home. Mary Magdalene, however, came
back to the tomb also. She wept outside, then
peeked in and saw two angels in white sitting
where the body had been. Then she turned
around and saw someone she thought was
the gardener, but who turned out to be Jesus.
He ordered her not to touch Him because he
had not yet ascended. This is in direct con
tradiction with Matthew, who states that his
women, one of whom was Mary Magdalene,
met Jesus and "came and held him by the
feet,” without any protest from Jesus. Jesus
(in Jo h n ) then told Mary to go to His brethren
and tell them He was ascending. She did so.
One could continue the narratives and pile
contradiction on contradiction, but the
reader by now should be aware that con
sistency and accuracy are not Biblical char
acteristics. I would just like to add one more:
Paul, who did not know Jesus before the
crucifixion, also mentioned the resurrection.
He writes in 1 Corinthians 15 that Jesus was
“seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.” Mo
mention at all of any women.
So you see, Edward, it doesn’t really matter
how one translates what Paul is asserted to
have said about homosexuality. T o any think
ing person who bothers to do a little research,
it will become obvious that anything Paul has
to say is simply his opinion, not an infallible
decree in an infallible book. It might be in
teresting to, as Edward advises, “get a Bible,
study it, be open to it — it will amaze you." It
will amaze you that anyone could idolize such
a document and use it to condemn and hurt
other human beings, using it as a pious ex
cuse for narrowmindedness and bigotry.
Leaving Biblical matters, Edward's con
tention that advocates for freedom "could
not honestly oppose" a group which has as
its goal the changing of sexual orientation" in
"individuals who are troubled, or have
doubts, or desire to re-polarize their sexuality
in order to return to the straight community"
totally overlooks the motivation of such
groups as "Homosexuals Anonymous" and
the potential psychological damage to their
"patients.” Such organizations use faulty
theology and the shame and guilt it engen
ders to psychologically pressure those for
whom homosexuality is a natural, healthy
way of life to contort their sexuality into the
Fundamentalist mold. There is no estimating
the mental anguish and damage and loss of
life that has been wreaked on gay people by
Fundamentalism and its theology of guilt
and repression.
As the Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Jung
pointed out, many people repress those
qualities they believe are unacceptable in
themselves, but they also project them onto
others used as scapegoats for their own
psychological fears. Thus it is not uncom
mon for men who, due to Fundamentalist
indoctrination or for other reasons are ter
rified of their own repressed gay sexuality, to
project their negative feelings about them
selves onto other gay people and to attempt
to punish these others for what they have
been taught to hate in themselves.
I would not devote so much time to re
sponding to Edward’s letter were it not for the
current unholy wedding between Funda
mentalism and politics which once more is
threatening the freedom of gays and others
who don't fit Fundamentalist preconceptions.
I have no doubt that if Fundamentalism
somehow gained political control in this
country, gays would be persecuted, impris
oned, and perhaps executed under the Mazi
mentality of political Fundamentalism. I only
hope that Fundamentalists can eventually
learn from real Christians, such as the Quak
ers, that book worship stands in the way of
true spirituality and leads to hatred and dis
sension rather than to a genuine experience
of the “inner light" and the ability to see "that
of God in every m an” (and woman!); how
unimportant in this light is the small matter of
sexual preference.
iORlEtlTALRUG
P O R T L A N D 'S FINP-ST C O L L E C T I O N
FROM
PERSIA. TU R K E Y , A F G H A N IS T A N .
P A K IS TA N , INDIA. C H IN A . . . .
I G ALLER Y
• D e co ra tive
K ilim s 8r
D h u rrie s
• Buyflr T ra d e
New er Used
R u gs
E x p e rt:
• A p p ra isa l
• C le a n in g
• R epair
• R e sto ra tio n
"YES. WE ROAM TH E WORLD EOK YOU
. . . BUT OUR TRADITION O F QUALITY
SERVICE AND AFFORDABILITY NEVER
STRAYS FAR FROM HOME.
I .C .C . (U S A ) L T D , 2 2 0 SW First A v e n u e
Just Out, May 1986
(5 0 3 ) 2 4 8 -9 5 1 1
9