One of the main points that Crawford brings up in his writings is that he believes that people shouldn't use the term 'Bible' but instead they should use the term scripture. His reasoning makes a lot of sense to me, but I am having difficulty understanding why some people give authority to texts that can be questioned. I'm talking about if you are using Crawford's spectrum on scriptures, there is 1) recognized authority, 2) New compositions, 3) scribal manipulation, and 4) non-authoritative scriptures. I'm having difficulty understanding why people would give authority to scriptures that have room for doubt.
For example, chapter 4 focuses on how Jubilees was created and its purpose. Crawford categorizes Jubilees as a new composition because it was rewritten by one scribe. It is based on the books Genesis and Exodus with slight alterations. These alterations are what give me pause. One of the purposes of Jubilees was to elevate their ancestors by making them completely righteous. They believed that it was unacceptable if there was room to question the motives of these important figures. In the case of Abram, they added more information (altering the story) so the people did not doubt why he let the emperor take his wife. It calls to question what in these scriptures are even real.
Now I'm not that familiar with the bible, but for those who are why would they give authority to scriptures that they know have been altered? Again I recognize that a lot of scripture has been altered over the course of history but some shifts are just too dramatic to overlook.
No comments:
Post a Comment