The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously

by Jacques Berlinerblau

Today's secularists too often have very little accurate knowledge about religion, and even less desire to learn. This is problematic insofar as their sense of self is constructed in opposition to religion. Above all, the secularist is not a Jew, is not a Christian, not a Muslim, and so on. But is it intellectually responsible to define one's identity against something that one does not understand? And what happens when these secularists weigh in on contentious political issues, blind to the religious back-story or concerns that inevitably inform these debates? In The Secular Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously Jacques Berlinerblau suggests that atheists and agnostics must take stock of that which they so adamantly oppose. Defiantly maintaining a shallow understanding of religion, he argues, is not a politically prudent strategy in this day and age. But this book is no less critical of many believers, who--Berlinerblau contends--need to emancipate themselves from ways of thinking about their faith that are dangerously simplistic, irrational and outdated. Exploring the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament, from the perspective of a specialist, nonbeliever, and critic of the academic religious studies establishment, Berlinerblau begins by offering a provocative answer to the question of "who wrote the Bible?" The very peculiar way in which this text was composed provides a key to understanding its unique power (and vulnerability) in the modern public sphere. In separate chapters, he looks at how the sparse and contradictory words of Scripture are invoked in contemporary disputes about Jewish intermarriage and homosexuality in the Christian world. Finally, he examines ways in which the Qur'an might be subject to the types of secular interpretation advocated throughout this book. Cumulatively, this book is a first attempt to reinvigorate an estimable secular, intellectual tradition, albeit one that is currently experiencing a moment of crisis.

Genres: Religion, Nonfiction, Theology, Philosophy, Spirituality, Christianity, Anthropology

232 pages, Paperback

First published December 11, 2004

About the author

JACQUES BERLINERBLAU, is a professor of Jewish Civilization at Georgetown University. He possesses separate doctorates in ancient languages and literatures and theoretical sociology. He has published 10 books. Berlinerblau toggles between “pure” academic writing and more public-facing endeavors. In terms of the latter, he has written for, appeared on, or had his work discussed in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Economist, Salon, The Guardian, The New Republic, The Nation, NPR, Tablet, Commentary, The Forward, The Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, Canadian Broadcast Network, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Al-Jazeera, PBS, MSNBC, CBS, CBC, TF1, AFP, and CNN.

Reviews

[Bruce Katz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read it many years ago but just came across it on my shelf. Like (I suspect) many GR book lovers, I felt compelled to add it to my "read" list.

[Rob · Rating 1 out of 5]

I give this one star because I think his assumptions are typical of unbelieving Bible critics. I readily acknowledge my bias as a believer. But unbelievers will point to a particular interpretation and say something like, "There's no way to say Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible." But they rarely acknowledge that there is also no way to say Moses did not write them.

Secular critics typically assume lack of definitive evidence of a Biblical claim (or a claim of the church about the Bible) means that the claim is false. It doesn't mean that but secular critics are rarely honest enough to acknowledge this. Lack of definitive evidence is just that; lack of evidence.

I don't believe Moses wrote the first five books or that Daniel was a historical figure. But these are conclusions I draw as the most reasonable from all that I have read. This author would say "Well, we know Daniel wasn't a historical figure." In fact the author says we can't know who wrote the Bible, but rather it was composition by aggregate. He overplays his hand and in my opinion is too much of a smart alack in doing so.

He raises a great point about the value of higher criticism. That portion of the book is very intriguing. Overall, it is not a very helpful work.

[Benjamin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Berlinerbau is a bit dry for my tastes, but his thesis is a fascinating one. The idea that the best critic of religion is a believer is by no means new, but the tangent that secularism needs and relies heavily on the skepticism of religion's most learned believers is almost shocking for its obviousness and gravity. It is also notable for its call to action for secularists to actually study and exegete religious texts, especially in academic situations, because otherwise "the nuts are running the nuthouse", as it were. Personally, I find it shocking that there are not huge numbers of secular academics studying religion and its effects on society, both historic and present, because of the huge impact that religion has had on (let's face it) pretty much everyone who has ever lived.

O Atheist! thy ignorance of Scriptures has killed thee, not because of the power of God, for He exists not, but because thou hast underestimated the power of blind believers' faith. O Believer! if thou follow thy faith, and believe what thy beloved Scriptures say, thou shalt destroy them, for thy faith and Scriptures are hollow and made by thine own hands.

[Steve Wiggins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Highly recommended! This is a thoughtful, at times witty, exploration of the Bible in an increasingly secular environment. Read more: Sects and Violence in the Ancient World.

[John Martindale · Rating 4 out of 5]

Berlinerblau begins by exploring who wrote the bible. I do find it interesting how the books that made their way into the Bible give little to no mention of authorship or editing. From a modern standpoint, this seems odd. Today, authorship—especially if from someone respected—can lend authority to a text. It was clearly so in the ancient world as well, since ancient religious tradition often ascribes authorship to favorite figures, such as attributing the Torah to Moses.

Today, if material is controversial, we may submit it under a pseudonym or anonymously. I suppose some may have done so. I suspect that in the ancient world, a written text was more significant, and simply producing it and making it accessible to others who were literate could give it weight simply because of its medium. I suppose that people without an established reputation would not help their work by putting their name on it. Some literate individuals may have believed they had something of value to say, and since their message is what mattered most, including their name would only distract from the content. Some stories or ideas have power regardless of authorship.

I imagine that a group of scholars, collectors, and editors—perhaps working for a king—might have sought out and gathered fragments and traditions. It would make sense that such workers would not include their own names. Today, every sentence of Wikipedia does not list the individual contributor in the main section. I suspect some ancient books were composed in much the same way. At the time, they would not have been considered Scripture, but they could have existed, been preserved as useful, and later been regarded as authoritative Scripture—eventually having authors assigned to them to lend extra weight.

I find it interesting that 2 Timothy 3:16 makes a pragmatic claim—that Scripture is useful for a certain purpose. We can find Wikipedia useful without knowing who wrote each sentence. Due to the human tendency toward ad hominem attacks, if authorship is known, a work can be rejected out of hand simply because of the individual's politics, ethnicity, gender, religious stance, or social status—or accepted without thought for the very same reason. It would be better if people judged the content itself—to see if it stands, if it is useful for some purpose—regardless of who wrote it.

Anyhow, after finishing the book, I get the sense that secularists should promote Biblical scholarship as it completely undermines the use of scripture as a trump card in any debate. As he points out, in several cases, we cannot even know who the original author is, or whether it was one author, or many, and if a great deal of editing and redacting occurred as the years continued. So it is a fool's errand to be like, hey, after a great deal of work, it is clear the original author meant X, and then act like X is thus authoritative for all Christians.

Fundamentalisms are often based on a naïve trust that the Bible says X, Y, and Z, but any scholarly look will point out that it is uncertain, and elsewhere it seems to say A, B, and C, and in tradition, they say L, M, N ,O, and P. Every generation negotiates with the text, interpreting, explaining away, adapting, etc, in light of identity politics, cultural wars, new theological doctrines, or to address some contemporary issue.

Dan McClellen seems to be a modern example of someone running with this approach. When we learn that scripture is not univocal and harmonious in what it presents and that many people contributed over a long period, it becomes a challenge to land on any ONE authoritative message. Christians can mention how some ancient Hebrews and early Christians suggested X, but that is simply one voice in a dialogue. Secularists can point out how some biblical writers and editors instead conveyed Y. The point being, the bible cannot be a Trump Card. It cannot stop an argument and force consensus.

That said, I still think that some ideas, like we are all created in the image of God, have borne good fruit in our world. Yes, I know it is debatable what the bible even meant, yes, I know most of scripture does not express the concept in narrative (as humans are disposable and life is treated with contempt in some stories, especially Numbers). And yes, hardly anywhere else in the bible even references the concept again, and church history is little better. However, once a particular understanding of this idea took root, it made for a better world. The claim itself is beyond verification, but it can be seen as a beautiful moral axiom some ancient Hebrews landed on, and history has shown it to be a “good tree” due to the fruit. So, thus it carries weight for me in an argument, not because it is in the Bible necessarily, but because it is useful, beautiful, and work hoping in its truth.

[Ted Morgan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Professor Berlinerblau argues that secularists, agnostics, and atheists need to study the origins of scripture in ways similar to those used by (at least some) religious scholars who are believers. He does this chiefly though a look at origins of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. He warns all not to oversimplify interpretation and reading of scripture. He is reading as a secularist but one aware of the ways religious interpreters of scripture explain (interpret) scripture and then suggests ways reading the Quran might similar readings by secularists. The work is short but subtle.

He does a fine job of explaining how Talmud emerged, especially during the early centuries of the Christian era and he simultaneously explains who Christians developed their own interpretations of the Old Testament as they formed their own canons.

[Alexander · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting. I really enjoyed the hermeneutic essays on the Hebrew and Christian Bibles (and how they can be interpreted to support various reasonings). Don’t really know what I was expecting from this book. The Author takes a fairly balanced approach to issues concerning both religious and secular individuals.

There is definitely a lot that both secular and religious individuals can learn by taking a more critical lens to religious texts and how they affect politics, sexuality, and our daily lives.

[Gareth Howells · Rating 5 out of 5]

Essential for anyone reading philosophy or theology books. It breaks down the major issues around the Bible; how it was written, when and by whom.
Seek it out if you feel a bit more research will make you more articulate in your unease with the importance of the Bible in today's world.

[Simcha York · Rating 4 out of 5]

Berlinerblau's book was first published in 2005 and is, thus, fairly contemporary with Sam Harris's The End of Faith and Daniel Dennet's Breaking the Spell and the rise of the popular so-called "New Athiests." In this context, Berlinerblau's book can be seen as something for a road-map for the road not taken.

Berlinerblau's book, subtitled Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously, is primarily an argument for the need for more secularists to take up a scholarly study of Occidental religion (primarily Christianity and Judaism, but also Islam, though he briefly discusses some of the obstacles currently placed in the path of secular approaches to the Qur'an).

Berlinerblau positions himself well within the secularist and nontheist camp, but is interested in a scholarly discourse with believers rather than a polemical fight. He is fully cognizant of the very real threats posed by some branches of religious extremism, but is also has a deep enough understaning of the complexities of modern religious belief that he can draw lines between extremism and mere fundamentalism, thus avoiding much of the hysteria that tinges the current "God wars."

Berlinerblau also presents some intriguing discussion of the origins of the Tanakh/Old Testament, though the basic outlines of this discussion, at least, will probably already be familiar to those readers who've done any reading into the origins of the Biblical texts. He does, however, bring his expertise to bear on specific examples of the textual difficulties presented by some Biblical passages that should be of interest even to those readers already well-versed in the documentary hypothesis and other approaches to the question of Biblical origin and authority.

This book appears to be primarily targeted at an academic audience, which is a bit of a shame since it should be largely accessible to a more general readership. And, given the popularity of the recent books by the "New Athiests" and the books responding to them, this is a book that I suspect many on both sides of these debates could benefit from reading.

[J · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not as good as Thumpin It but still an interesting read.