Scripture: Divine, Devised or Divisive?

In this blog, I will look at the purpose, source and commonalities of ‘sacred’ texts and lead to a viewpoint that suggests how much richer our lives would be if we were to expand our horizons in seeking spiritual or philosophical guidance.

Abrahamic scriptures claim that they are either ‘written by god’ or ‘were inspired by god’: ergo, they are infallible. Eastern philosophies do not make the same claims. They treat their ‘sacred’ writings as ‘teachings’. One approach emphasises authority: the other individual responsibility. Sacred writings from any source are at the very least inspired by the spiritual element within mankind’s life experience. If you believe they are inspired by a god,[1] that is your choice.  Limit our reading to ‘one book only’, and we limit our understanding.  

In Eastern ‘scriptures’, nothing in the teachings of the Buddha suggests how to find god or even whether you should or should not worship one (or more). That is up to you. Buddha is revered as a wise teacher. Does this imply that Buddhists, Taoists and the like are atheists? Many followers believe in a god; many do not. Many just don’t know. Your view is your view: how you deal with your life daily is up to you. Buddha’s teachings are non-theistic. He was more concerned with the human condition as each individual faces the trials of birth, suffering, sickness, old age, and death: the path.

Similarly, the Tao focuses on internal peace and balance. It suggests that if you are suffering, take time out to meditate: thirty minutes a day is a good start. If you are very busy, set aside an hour. Taoists scriptures include the Tao Te Ching and the Zhuang Zi. Are these divinely inspired? No. There is no omnipotent creator or being beyond the cosmos. They follow the Tao: the absolute principle underlying the universe, combining within itself the principles of yin and yang and signifying a way, or code of behaviour, that is in harmony with the natural order.

Dealing with life is never more important than when we are stressed. It is in these moments that peace can be won or lost. How we cope depends on us. We must find the strength in ourselves. Abrahamic faiths prescribe prayer and faith. In prayer we seek help from ‘above’; in meditation we seek strength from ‘within’. Which works better? You decide. All too often, we pray and wait for something to happen. Usually nothing does. In meditation, we seek our solution within ourselves then work towards it.

Why restrict yourself to one system? One book? Yet this is what those who follow Abrahamic faiths must do. Consider the Bible’s first commandment: “Thou shalt have no other god before me”. Sub text: do it my way or else.

We don’t have to agree on anything to still be human: to be kind to one another: to listen; to consider; to adopt. If we focus on only ‘one book’, the danger is that we see it as all encompassing. We do not see that other values and ideals often far from our experience could be valid. Sharing and appreciating makes us richer.

Freedom of thought. Freedom of belief. Appropriation of thought and belief into our spiritual psyche expands our internal being and our interconnectivity with others. A mind that is stretched by a new idea or an experience will never go back to its old parameters. We are all on a similar—not the same—path.

Research shows that all Abrahamic scriptures used several ‘human’ sources. Amongst these were the writings of the Greeks, the Egyptians and even thousands of years earlier in the traditions of the Horus and Krishna movements. Such sources may not be quoted word for word. Ideas, figures, characters, events: these are also adapted.

The figure—and even name—of Christ derives from several sources. KRST was a key figure in the Horus movement in Egypt thousands of years before Jesus arrived. He was also called ‘the anointed one’. Three thousand years BC, the name Krishna was a variation which included Christna, Shristmu, Jez and Jezeus. Is this coincidence?

Jesus’ birthday? The same date as for KRST and Krishna.  Was Jesus the only allegedly supernatural being? No. Numerous earlier religions believed the same about their own figureheads. The virgin birth? Nothing new. This idea, along with other similarly impossible concepts derived from at least six mythologies. Walking on water. Raising from the dead. Healing the sick. Descending into hell. Ascending into heaven. Crucifixion. Jesus was not the first to have done this: I use the word ‘done’ loosely. Even the idea of being ‘a’ or ‘the’ son of god is not new. Countless myths of ancient times share this accolade. Similar influences can be found in the Torah and the Qu’ran. Each ‘borrowed’ from each other. Improved? Could it be ‘plagiarism’? Could it be simply part of the continuing evolution of oral/aural wisdom?

Qu’ran 4: 46: “And in their [the earlier prophets] footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the law that had come before him. We sent him the Gospel, therein was guidance and light and confirmation of the law that had come before him, a guidance and an admonition to those who fear God."

Surely there is nothing wrong in learning from history. Even today, we read the Greek philosophers. Why? Because their words resonate to this day. It is no wonder that their ideas found their way into the Abrahamic scriptures. If you were literate, and many were not, you listened. You thought. You discussed. You learned. You adapted. The origin of sacred writings must be placed in the times in which they were created and amongst the people who were a part of those times: their attitudes, society and the belief systems pertinent to them. Inspired? Yes: by deep thinker’s encapsulations of truisms.

Centuries before Jesus and Muhammad, Hellenistic Jewish philosophers established themselves in Alexandria. At that time, the Jews were writing the Wisdom Literature: The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Proverbs, etc. Take this quote in Job 10:10:

"Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast fashioned me as clay; and wilt thou bring me into the dust again! Hast thou not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese? Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews."

This passage exists in Aristotle's book On the Generation of Animals.

The Wisdom of Solomon (7: 2) copies another Aristotelian theory that the embryo is formed from menstrual blood. (Not sure about the ten months though: evolution? Sleep is also a careful English translation of a more erotic word.)

"In the womb of a mother was I moulded into flesh in the time of ten months, being compacted with blood of the seed of man and the pleasure that accompanieth sleep."

This reference can also be traced to the writings of Empedocles and Hippocrates. It is unlikely that the influence of such thinkers and spiritualists from a dynamic early world did not have influence on those who followed them and adapted their ideas. They developed what suited their people. Proposing a ‘life style’ or ‘belief system’ that did not evolve from those with which people were familiar and had followed and adapted for centuries was not a recipe for acceptance. Marketing is not a twentieth century invention.

Islam, which some claim to be the final and perfect revelation, may be the world’s most eclectic faith. Muhammad made wide use of a number of sources in compiling the Qu’ran. Several sects lived and followed their beliefs in Arabia for centuries prior to his appearance: One such group was the Hanifs. They rejected idolatry. They espoused the worship of the one true God alone. In Su'ratu'l-An'am (6: 106) we read:

"Follow thou that which hath been revealed to thee by thy Lord. There is no God but He."

Muhammad adopted this as the foundation of his system, ascribing it as a truth revealed from heaven. Yet other’s ideas were incorporated in to the Qu’ran. These indluded the judgment, the resurrection of the body at the last day, the immortality of the soul and its punishment and reward according to the actions of the believer. These are shared ideas within the Jewish and Christian (and other) traditions.

The Qur'an has sections with a distinctly Christian focus, and, one assumes, origin.  It contains some fascinating stories of Christ and Mary which do not appear in the ‘authorised’ gospels. Numerous gospels were written. Not all made their way into the accepted lexicon. Some (if not all) were affected by superstitious beliefs. For example, Mary was worshipped. Several apocryphal stories about her were known to the Christians of Arabia. Muhammad must have known of them. Some appear in the Qu’ran.

The Qur'an refers to Christ as a prophet of god. It recounts stories Christians do not recognise. Some are in Apocryphal sources, and obviously served as materials which Muhammad included in the Qur'an. One of these legends has reference to certain miracles said to have been performed by Christ in his infancy. Read Suratu'l-Ma'ida (v. 109-110):

"When God shall say, O Jesus! son of Mary! remember My favour upon thee, and upon thy mother; when I strengthened thee with the Holy Spirit that thou shouldest speak unto men in the cradle and when grown up. And when I taught thee the Scripture and Wisdom and the Law and the Gospel, and when thou didst create of clay as it were the figure of a bird by my permission, and didst breathe thereon, and it became a bird by my permission."

When Jesus was five, he was playing by the road by a dirty stream of water. He channeled the water into ditches, and, with a single word, made it pure and clean.  He then made from the moistened earth twelve sparrows, clapped his hands at the sparrows cried aloud to them 'Go off.' So they flew away. You will find that in the "The Gospel of Thomas the Israelite”. Reference to it is in the Qu’ran. At five years old? The gospels say he performed no miracles till he began his ministry at thirty years of age.

At issue here is not the stories, but the use of materials from so many sources all of which enrich man’s spiritual aspirations. Had he appeared after Muhammad, Jesus would have done the same.

Are any Abrahamic scriptures what they claim to be? The actual dictated words of god? It is unlikely. If it were so, why does god limit himself to written words as the only physical proof of his existence? Why does he not show his power through acts which benefit humanity and relieve suffering? Some people might be offended by this suggestion. Think about it before you tear up the page or delete the article   Moses descends from a mountain with tablets of stone on which the word of god was writ. Muhammad emerges after two decades in the desert and expects people to accept that a divine finger wrote what he bought with him.

If one divine being is responsible for revelation, why have his revelations been so varied? Why are there over 40,000 Christian denominations? Why is Islam not united? Judaism? At the very least, as it was men (no women—that needs to be thought through) who emerged from deserts with ‘the truth’, could their human communication weaknesses have let the divine one down? A divinity that (not who) has the power to write his, her or its guidelines for life must do so through a human intermediary. Like Joseph Smith.

Our life is a continuing, marvelous and often tormented journey. The mark of a thinking mind is to be able to entertain all ideas without necessarily accepting them. Those ideas we do accept we consider at a particular time and within the social and spiritual framework of our day, our parameters and our time. Those who think, consider opinions from many sources: never just from one. They find ideas that ring true. Are they truth? Nothing is truth. The finite cannot encompass the infinite. Just ask a scientist. Faith and choice is like picking your favourite ice cream: some prefer chocolate, some vanilla: you choose what resonates with and in you. Don’t expect everyone to agree; recognise that it is still ice cream.

Holy writ is fine, but why does ‘god’ limit his interventions into human experience to the written word? Why does he not reveal himself in other ways? We talk about the beauty of nature as proof of his/her/its existence. What about its horrors? Tsunamis. Volcanic disasters. Poverty. Cancer. Floods. War. Hatred. Racism. Billions have prayed to the gods for years for protection and solutions. Number of interventions? Nil. Why should one thank a god when an operation by a skilled surgeon saves a life? Did god hold the scalpel?

This is not meant to deride ‘sacred’ texts? Believe that they come from your idea of god if you wish. Also acknowledge that man was involved in the revelation. Without Moses, Matthew or Muhammad we would be poor indeed. Just don’t limit your vision to one book.

Abrahamic scriptures are as aspirational as they are ‘divine’. They also divide. Conflicting interpretations on everything from abortion to homosexuality, war and defence of the faith can be made citing the same passages. Take war and defence of faith.

“If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought …; Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.”

Is this from the Qu’ran? No Deuteronomy 17.

Much is made of the ‘verse of the sword’ in the Qu’ran 9:5.

“When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.”

Muslim terrorists cite this passage to justify their jihad. The key word? Slay. Seems clear. And take this passage.

“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”

The Qu’ran? No. Jesus (Luke 19: 27). Not much different, is it? Kill those who don’t accept me is a common theme. We choose from scriptures to suit our own ideas. Read about the Crusaders. However, choosing one word in isolation is not a good idea. context provides the key. Not just internal within a particular scripture, but also in its historic setting.  Refer to the ‘verse of the sword’. Always read on. Verse 9: 6 continues:

“If an idolater seeks asylum with you, give him protection so that he may hear the Word of God, and then convey him to safety. For the idolaters are ignorant men.”

Balance is the key. Take this quote.

"There shall be no compulsion in religion" (2:256)

"Say to the disbelievers [that is, atheists, or polytheists, namely those who reject God] "To you, your beliefs, to me, mine". (Qu’ran 109:1-6)

There are ‘difficult’ passages in all scriptures, Eastern and Abrahamic. To understand, read widely, even within one book. Any ‘imperfections’ or ‘difficulties’ in scripture could well be a combination of poor editing by the writer and confusion or misunderstanding by the reader. Our world is a wondrous place. It is also frightening. We make it frightening by being selective in what we accept; by insisting on division and dogma: not on humanity and love.

“Humanity is but a single brotherhood: make peace with your brethren.” Qu’ran 49:10

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” John 13: 34

“Do not get equal with one who has done you wrong, or keep hard feelings against the children of your people, but have love for your neighbor as for yourself: I am the YHVH.” Leviticus, 19:18

“The Way is not in the sky; the Way is in the heart. Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without.” Buddha.

We need little more than that.

---

[1] I capitalise the names of real people only.