Satanic Verses:Moral Chaos in Holy Writ

Abstract

Abstract According to John Locke, true revelation must conform to our divinely infused moral understanding. This chapter argues that apologetic explanations of the morally ‘difficult’ passages in Scripture fail, unless one resorts to a voluntaristic divine command theory. Special attention is given to the Mosaic Law, the war against Midian, child sacrifice, divine punishments, and the herem against Canaan. It is further argued that Christian soteriology, especially the doctrine of vicarious atonement, is psychologically pernicious and morally indefensible. Among apologetic strategies considered and rebuffed are: dispensationalism, allegorical and interpolative interpretations, denial of the historicity of genocidal wars, demonization of Israel's enemies and other attempts to make the literal text morally palatable, and teleological suspension of the ethical. The price for each of these is interpretive implausibility or moral compromise. Locke's criterion condemns much of Scripture as false revelation. Sociologically informed readings of Scripture provide better explanations for these passages.