Return to main site

Book review: THE SECULAR BIBLE (Jacques Berlinerblau) I bought a book from the Co-op at Macquarie Uni that took my interest. It is Jacques Berlinerblau's The Secular Bible. It promised to be a study of both secular and ecclesiastical viewpoints of the Bible. However it does nothing but cast doubt on our knowledge of the Old Testament, and challenges what it believes are the flawed though accepted assumptions within the Church. And it makes these claims providing no substantiation. I'm not ecstatic about the $40 price tag on this book - particularly for a mere 150 pages. Secondly, I'm not at all happy about having my girl read the whole thing before passing it on to me. Anybody who is skeptical of the Bible is likely to be open to a book like this, which affirms the doubt she already has, rather than challenge her position. And it is no help that the book does not present the views of the religious alongside the author's claims. I am certainly willing to study a scholarly attack on that which I believe and compare that with sound Christian Apologetics. But I am genuinely displeased that the title and back cover review of this book caused me to get the wrong idea about what I was buying and unwillingly expose a loved one to the charlatan doctrine that I am so fervently against. Chapters one through three are dedicated to the question 'Who wrote the Bible?' The book's first problem is that it discusses only the Hebrew Bible - the Christian's Old Testament. It makes no mention of the New Testament which is considered to be made up of the most reliable writings of the ancient world and which sensibly confirms the deity of Christ who coincidentally regarded the Hebrew Bible as the infallible word of God - if that counts for anything. That's a critical study that these chapters fail to address. Berlinerblau seeks to spoil the certainty of the beliefs of churchgoers by arguing (and this is the main focus of the first three chapters) that Moses may not have been the sole writer of the Pentateuch. He seems to think that casting doubt on the issue of authorship will cause a stir among the religious. But it is no secret within the church that we are unsure of the author of many books of the Old Testament. Indeed, in the introduction to each book of the Pentateuch in my NIV Study Bible, it is plainly stated that Moses is traditionally held to be the author, and it seems obvious that other parties were involved. The last chapter of Deuteronomy details the death of Moses, so obviously believers accept that the book is not entirely the work of Moses alone. Does this pose a threat to our beliefs? Admittedly this is a crucial question. For however long now, Christians have assumed the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) were written primarily by Moses or a scribe close to him. Or maybe by somebody unknown to us. Might I ask, as a lay inquirer, would it be a big deal if these Scriptures were not penned by Moses? I would suggest it is not crucial to the Christian or Jewish faiths. In the Christian church we treat New Testament documents differently to Old - indeed, more critically. Its authors were strictly first- or second-hand witnesses to the events of Christ's life. The canonisation of Scripture ensured the most reliable documents were preserved. This is crucial, in the New Testament's case, on account of its content and implications. The Old Testament documents, I am happy to assume, were written and preserved in a less controlled manner, although we are, at least, certain of their accurate preservation since the accumulation of the Dead Sea Scrolls well before the birth of Christ. The documents that formed the Hebrew Bible were written over a 1000-year period starting with the Mosaic Scripture of the 1400's BC. Many books included in the Canon are admittedly from unknown sources, but regardless its contents are considered Holy. The Secular Bible suggested for a moment that this "blind faith" is unwise, which I say is a fair call, but so far no elaboration has been offered. The author seems to have forgotten that line of thought. Nothing has supported Berlinerblau's subtitle to his work: 'Why nonbelievers must take religion seriously'. He makes all sorts of claims and does little, if anything, to back them up, or even explain their importance. For example, he suggests the Old Testament has been dramatically changed over the years, but provides no evidence (I am under the impression that no such evidence even exists). As another attack, he criticises the books of the Old Testament for not knowing it is to become collected and considered part of The Holy Scripture. For reasons unknown to me, he seems to think, not only that this is a problem, but that the authors should have somehow been aware that their writings are to become part of the Bible. "We have already had occasion to note that the Hebrew Bible is not a particularly self-conscious work. It does not know its name. It shows absolutely no awareness that it is a "Bible," or even a corpus of collected documents." What an ignoramus! The Mosaic documents are dated at roughly 1440-1400BC, and the most recent book of the Bible was written 1000 years later. If the author was aware of this, he has overlooked the fact. There was no intention by any of the Biblical authors for it to become a collective Scripture. It was grouped together as the Bible many many years later. We've always known that. This seems to be Berlinerblau's argument for incoherence through the Bible, which he consistently charges but fails to demonstrate. He speaks at length about the problem of largely varied interpretations of Scripture as if no common understanding of it exists. Some examples from Biblical text could have helped his case, yet none were offered. Perhaps this is his reasoning for not including evidence to back up the claims he makes: To proclaim something to be true and show no need for providing backup, perhaps will convince the less discerning reader that his claims are already proven and widely accepted. You wouldn't want to be found disagreeing with such blatantly common knowledge, so lets all take his word for it! Chapter 4 onwards showed no sign of relief. My only consolation comes from the fact I can get my money back for it. As I've said before, I'm keen to read people's objections to religion – to my beliefs in particular. I read Bertrand Russell's book Why I Am Not a Christian first, which used some pretty weak arguments and certainly didn't satisfy me, but I'm keen to read on. Berlinerblau's book though, even at half the length of most of my reads, is not worth the time. It's being taken back to the place I bought it first thing tomorrow. It is not worth two hours of my wages. Before I put the book down for good, I read the chapter concerning the Qur'an. I expected it to also be full of more ungrounded accusations. In the first page of the chapter he immediately associates Islam with terrorists. Way to darken the mood and influence the attitude of the reader! Then in the next paragraph he calls the message of the Qur'an "authentic", where he had just spent numerous chapters denouncing the Bible's authenticity in a no less problematic circumstance. He's not taking sides, only displaying terrible inconsistency. He then acknowledges that the terrorist movement is a bastardised version of Islam. Again, inconsistency; when discussing the Old Testament he fails to make a distinction between Christian and Jesus-related cults. He also confuses Judaism with Jewish Mysticism, mixing rational and mainstream religion with... well to be blunt, with the misconceived picture he has in his little head - his own "Secular Bible", which is in no way representative of any actual religion. To the reader who seeks answers to their religious doubts, this book merely attests the congeniality of their position as a doubter; there are doubts about the Scriptures, therefore they are unreliable. No effort is made to support the argument of the believer. Conversely, little evidence is given to either side of his argument – only assumption. I feel that I am equally qualified as Berlinerblau to draw such conclusions in a review of this short length, and without detailing my reasoning. But then, this is a book review – I'm not posing as a scholar like some. Lindsey Joel 4 April 2006 If you read this, please leave me your thoughts