John Barton: “The Bible is a work written by human beings with great intellectual and spiritual value” – Librujula

The priest and academic John Barton publishes «History of the Bible. The history of the most influential book in the world» (Attic of Books).

Text: David Valiente

Christianity is the religion with the most followers in the world, with figures between 2,300 and 2,500 million believers, and its sacred book is the most sold and read (not always in that order), according to the rankings. But its study sometimes does not satisfy human understanding. In fact, throughout history, the variety of interpretations of the Bible has provoked fierce dialectical disputes and armed confrontations between believers who considered that their way of interpreting the texts, of practicing the rites and of living the faith was more correct than that of others and, therefore, their liturgical and moral superiority made them in the true defenders of orthodoxy.

Thank God, religious violence between Christians belongs to the past, at least openly and in the West, since in Ethiopia, for example, following the current of tensions and violence of the civil war, the Orthodox and Protestant community is beating each other, not only for ethnic, socioeconomic or geopolitical issues, but also religious ones. For this reason, and to prevent disputes from becoming an excuse for bloodshed, it is not out of place for believers, like the priest and academic John Bartonreconstruct the human and historical part of the process of formation of the sacred scriptures. Bible History. The history of the most influential book in the world It is an exercise of faith in the intellect and a demonstration of unapologetic erudition, because “at no time have my historical knowledge of the sacred scriptures and my critical vision shaken my beliefs.” His faith “not only depends on what the Bible says, but also on the arguments presented by other sources linked to Christianity,” John Barton says with great serenity in his face and his words through the computer screen. “Most Christians have a more ‘liberal’ view and recognize that God did not write the Bible directly; We say that it is an inspired work on which the pillars of a civilization are founded and one of the fundamental sources for the belief of millions of Christians and Jews.”

What was the process of forming the Bible like?

Complex and marked by tradition and the intellectual action of human beings. The British Library in London houses most of the Codex Sinaiticus, which compiles all the books present in the Bible and others that orbited around it, but that were ultimately not incorporated into the definitive version. In addition to showing us the process of integration of biblical texts, it shows that some were more disputed than others, although very few were definitively discarded. Of course, the books chosen were not canonized for no reason, they all belong to the Christian tradition, an essential requirement.

I imagine that the books that were left out of the canon have great theological and historical value.

Some Protestants tend to think that the Bible was compiled before Christianity. However, it was not like that. The foundations of the Christian faith were put on paper some time later. Saint Paul did not have the textual support of the New Testament when he preached to the first Christians about his church, and even less could he depend on the Letters that today bear his name. It is true that at that time the Old Testament was already consolidated; but the Christian ideology, that which established the bases of the new faith, had yet to be written.

Without that dogmatic meaning for millions of believers, would the Bible have sufficient literary value to be considered one of the most important works of all time?

In the last century, some scholars began to be interested in the Bible not only for its theological value, but also because they discovered that most of the texts had great literary value and are certainly worth reading even if no belief is practiced. (This does not mean that there are books that are only known for having been included in the canon). In the same way that Homer’s poems and Greek tragedies have outstanding intellectual weight, the Bible also delves into human issues with rigor and high doses of erudition.

The Bible aspires to timelessness, although, as you specify in your Bible storyhis writing occurred in certain contexts of the past. How should readers handle the contrast between the book’s aspirations and textual reality?

Readers should keep in mind that the Bible is a work written by human beings with great intellectual and spiritual value for Jews and Christians for many generations. A parallel could be drawn between the work of William Shakespeare and the Bible. Shakespeare’s plays are not perfect, but they had great meaning when they were released, just as they do today. However, over the centuries we have lived with their works and we think we know them in depth, but they constantly raise new questions. The same thing happens with the Bible: the original value is updated with the passing of generations.

What are those questions and those answers?

In addition to the historical answers (where does the Christian and Jewish faith come from, what was the lifestyle like in past times…), from the perspective of the critical reader, it raises such significant questions as the meaning of life with a very particular approach that It is not found in other books. The book of Job (Old Testament) talks about human suffering and the correct way to respond to it. In this sense, the works of Aeschylus are analogous and may have influenced each other.

What is the state of Bible studies today?

Academics focus on historical issues, you will not see many studying divine inspiration, unless they belong to a department or group specialized in the complete analysis of the Bible. There seems to be a disconnect between the intellectual interests of academics and systematic theologians. A sort of gap has developed between those who draw exclusively from the historical account and those who study the teachings without taking into account the historical context. In any case, what I have just explained also applies to studies of other books of universal history. Specialists focus on very specific aspects of the text that are usually related to their particular field of study.

Do you think there is any book of the Bible that has been undervalued?

I like to study a lot the books of the Prophets, a book that the faithful generally do not know. The other day I was at mass and the book of Amos was read, which explains the reasons that led God to destroy his own people. Christians have not shown special interest in this text, since they consider it to have a radical vision; and I very much doubt that those present would have been interested in Amos before. However, in this book is the origin of what is known as critical theology.

I have always wondered what the scholastic debates would have been like if the disputants had read the original texts.

Most people who read the Bible do so in translations. Already in times before the birth of Jesus Christ, the Jews resorted to Greek translations because they did not know Hebrew. Translation will always be conditioned by the thoughts and contexts of the translator, since in reality it implies an interpretation of the text. Translation is a game between the source and recipient languages, therefore, there will be elements that do not correspond to the original meaning. When we say that Jesus Christ said something, we cannot forget that the quote has passed through three different languages: Aramaic, Greek and the vernacular. So, when making an appointment, we transmit three different traditions that prevent us from communicating the message in a reliable way, as Jesus Christ did. This problem occurs in any book that you want to translate into another language.

I like to see the Bible as a book of progress.

I think the most accurate word to describe the Bible is ‘development’. In the New Testament, God is presented with a very human appearance, he is imagined as a man and to a certain extent that is a part of his nature. But, in Genesis, God creates the Garden of Eden; Gardening is a very human job. The God of the Old Testament can assume a human appearance for certain purposes and in certain circumstances. It is true that he reaches his maximum human condition in the New Testament, although I do not think it is correct to reduce his image to that of a man who walks among other men. Likewise, political and social issues are discussed in the Bible, such as in the book Prophets, where it talks about treating people equally, an idea that continues in the New Testament. In a way, the development between one and the other is not so radical, very innovative ideas are already found in the Old Testament, which are emphasized in the following book, as Luke shows us and his vehemence when it comes to showing that God takes care of the poor and therefore it is the duty of a Christian to imitate the practices of the creator. Of course, I accept the idea that the Bible is a book about progress and development, but I worry that people may make somewhat confusing comparisons.

For example?

It seems an oversimplification to say that the God of the Old Testament is vengeful, while the God of the New is pure love and joy. In the early church this view was considered heretical. In fact, there were faithful who proposed leaving aside the Old Testament because they considered it to be a pit of revenge. However, the church integrated the teachings of the Old Testament into the liturgy to demonstrate that the prophecies were fulfilled in the figure of Jesus Christ. In many passages of the Old Testament there is talk of God’s love for his people and in many other passages of the New Testament references are made to divine judgment. These types of contrasts cause Judaism to be seen as a backward religion and the Jews as faithful people concerned only with revenge. Today, faced with the prophecies of destruction of territories contained in the text, the faithful make an allegorical and not a literal interpretation. A literal interpretation would clash with the way we see the world in our time. As I have said before with Christianity, the sources of Judaism are diverse, we cannot strictly identify the religion with a single book.