A Library of Questions

So, I just finished reading The Rise and Fall of the Bible by Timothy Beal, which is basically a publication history of the Bible.  He explores the origins of some of the early texts, including scrolls written on animal skins and the like, and then follows the book through its various incarnations from the Gutenberg Bible, to the near endless number of annotated and commentary-laden study Bibles, to the newer "Bible-zines" and Manga Bibles.

For the first few chapters, the book is a strong critique of the Bible-publishing industry, particularly Zondervan, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's HarperCollins, and Thomas Nelson, which is owned by private equity firm Intermedia Partners VII.  I don't think anyone would disagree that publishing Bibles is good business.  As the best-selling book of all-time, it's bound to make some serious money.  What's dangerous is that what people refer to as the Word of God, has become a cash cow, and the readers themselves have become various market demographics that all require a different repackaging of the Bible.

So many people see the Bible as an infallible instruction book for how to live our lives and how to please God, if I may put it so crudely.  When someone reads something confusing or contradictory, they assume it must be something wrong with how they are reading it, because how can an "infallible" book be so unclear?  Publishers take advantage of this, releasing hundreds of new "versions" of the Bible (The Golfer's Bible, The Housewives' Bible, The Young Men of Color Bible, etc.), each promising to connect your niche interest to Scripture, despite the fact that the actual text of the Bible is the same from version to version.

This "repackaging" of the Scriptures leads into Beal's primary point.  Maybe it's not that you are reading it wrong, or that you are interpreting it wrong, or that you are unable to understand how Judas hung himself, but was still able to buy a field with the 30 pieces of silver, trip on a rock, and disembowel himself.  Maybe it's that our concept of biblical inerrancy is flawed in and of itself.  Maybe the Bible is meant to generate questions amongst believers, allowing various interpretations to compete, not provide a definitive answer for every question that ever arises across the entire span of time.

I found this theory interesting and maybe a bit disconcerting, as I was raised in a Christian household, and was constantly surrounded by the idea that Scripture is the divinely-inspired, infallible Word of God.  Any other discussion on the subject is heresy.  I'm not saying the Bible is false, but maybe it was intended to get us asking questions more than it was to answer them.  Jesus himself constantly quoted Scriptures and drew new, different meanings and interpretations out of them.  Why then do we assume that, for us, there is one way to read the Bible?