Enjoying the Journey

In the past, I have seen numerous one year Bibles, and have recommended them to those who were in need of a good springboard into the narrative of Scripture. Being a nut for contextualization, of course, I often recommended a Chronological Bible to folks. This year, I am taking my own advice. Separate from the Divine Office, I have decided to read the Scriptures using the One Year Chronological Bible in the NLT translation. While I am fairly certain that I have read the vast majority of the sixty-six books of the common Canon of Scripture, I have to admit that some of the finer details between Leviticus and 2 Kings tend to escape me without returning to the text itself and doing some hunting. Perhaps this won't change that... but it's the first time that I will have made a concerted effort to read Scripture in the order the events occured, which usually helps to jog my mind.

Now, let me be clear, the NLT has some issues when it comes to translating old terminology, but on the whole, it is the most enjoyable translation I have ever read. I also have an NLT Study Bible, which contains the most recent revision of the NLT text - the Second Revised Edition. (I understand that there is a newer NLT chronological one-year Bible out there that uses the Second Revised Edition text, but for the moment, I'll stick with what I have.)

Last night, I finished off the narrative of Issac's marriage to Rebekah... and I'll continue on tonight... but I have so far found the experience to be quite rewarding and refreshing. I'd highly recommend picking up a copy of a Chronological One-Year Bible for your own personal reading, or as the foundation for your daily devotions.

A Reflection on Faith and Science on Darwin's Birthday

Celebrate the Eucharist, then give some of the consecrated elements to a scientist. They will tell you that there is nothing there, save bread and wine. Yet we believe that Christ is truly present. We do not rely on science to prove it; we accept it on faith.  

Take a human being, then give him over to a scientist with a goal of finding a soul. They will look at you puzzled, do what they need to do, and will determine that the individual has a physical body and a mind that works it and comprehends the world around it. They will not find a soul. Yet we believe that the soul is a reality. We do not rely on science to prove it; we accept it on faith.  

Take the story of Joshua stopping the Sun and Moon in its tracks, and give it to a scientist. They will ask you if you are just trying to get them to parrot that e-mail from a few years back that said that NASA proved it occured when, in fact, they had not. They will then do a bit of research and will let you know that if it had happened, we'd all be dead due to tidal forces and gravitational issues. They will declare it impossible. Yet we believe that it happened. We do not rely on science to prove it; we accept it on faith.  

Go back even further to the Exodus. Give the basic parameters to a scientist. They will spend forever trying to determine where it happened, will proclaim that -if it happened at all- it was a crossing of a shallow lake, and they will go on to tell you all kinds of things about how Israel wasn't in Egypt, that there weren't enough Israelites to make the kind of journey the story tells, etc. They will declare it either improbable or impossible. Yet we believe that it happened. We do not rely on science to prove it; we accept it on faith.  

How about the Tower of Babel. Take it to a scientist. They'll tell you that the societies of the earth split apart far too long ago for the Tower of Babel to account for the world's many and varied cultures and ethnicities. Yet we believe that it happened. We do not rely on science to prove it; we accept it on faith.  

Yet again, the Flood. It was, at best, a local flood... that's what most scientists will tell you, because they contend that there isn't enough water on the earth to result in a flood of the magnitude that the Bible describes. They will declare a global flood impossible. Yet we believe that it happened. We do not rely on science to prove it; we accept it on faith.  

So why is it that we can accept all these things on faith, but when it comes to the age of the earth, we have to compromise with modern scientific theories that have changed again and again over hundreds of years. If we cannot accept the Creation account on faith, than we must disregard every other belief we hold fast to until we have concrete proof...  

And yet, even if we had proof of creation, many would still not believe. 

Even if we had proof of a global flood, many would still not believe. 

Even if we had proof of the Tower at Babel, many would still not believe. 

Even if we had proof of the Sun and Moon standing still, many would still not believe. 

Even if we had proof of the existence of a soul, many would still not believe. 

And yes, even if we had proof of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, many would still not believe.

Would you... Diatesseron?

Sounds weird, eigh? Actually, the Diatesseron, written by a chap named Tatian, is the earliest Gospel Harmony for which we have an account. It consists of pretty much the entire text of the four Gospels harmonized in what was, at the time, believed to be the correct chronological order. All four texts are melded into a single account.

What was the Diatesseron used for? Well, as best we can tell, it was the liturgical Gospel text for the Syriac Church well into the fifth century. Later, the Peshitta version began to take hold, and the Gospels were separated in the Christian far east, but the memory of the Diatesseron was long... and it is, in its way, still with us today.

The question, though, is... would you Diatesseron. In other words, would you, dear reader, elect to proclaim the Gospels in the Sunday liturgy of your own congregation in a Diatesseron-like format? To be honest, I would.

One of the most common arguments against such a practice today is the notion that each of the four Gospels was written to a particular audience. Such is a true statement. However, if we are realistic, we - you and I - are not the audience that the Gospels were written to, at least not in the linguistic and contextual sense. With a properly prepared Diatesseron in clear, modern English, we could provide an outstanding Gospel text that would shine through for the contemporary reader.

Such a text would have to be well footnoted, to ensure that differences in the Gospels were not lost, and that readers could easily locate them in a regular Bible. But my concern is more for the regular reading of the Gospels in the Church than it is the personal study undertaken by the Christian at home. And I, for one, would be more than comfortable adopting a Diatesseron-like Book of the Gospels for use in Christian worship.

So... would you Diatesseron?