do we use the same way of thinking when we analyze the bible as we do other times?

@lord shorty,

This is an important question to ask, for its answer determines one's attitude towards Christianity and its dogma. One the one hand, one can take the Biblical canon as in some sense, the "word of God"; while there are many views as to what that phrase means, it at least indicates that the Bible cannot be taken or interpreted without its divine origin guaranteeing its veracity.
On the other hand, one can reject its link with the divine, and consider the text historically and critically; the established procedures for textual elucidation would be applied to the Bible as they would be applied to the works of Homer, Plato, or Herodotus.

Taken the Bible as somehow divinely inspired presents immense difficulties. First, it is a matter of interpretation to what extent it should be taken as such---whether, for example it should be taken literally or only parts should be so taken. Second, there is no general agreement amongst the many Christian sects of what God meant when he wrote such and such.Unfortunately for the history of men, there has been a tendency to believe with the greatest of enthusiasm that only one interpretation is true and then to act upon this interpretation with the declaration that one is following the "will of God."

1 Reply

@jgweed,

Quote:

On the other hand, one can reject its link with the divine, and consider the text historically and critically; the established procedures for textual elucidation would be applied to the Bible as they would be applied to the works of Homer, Plato, or Herodotus.

We should definitely not look at the Bible in the way we do Herodotus. Herodotus was a historian, whereas the Bible is mythological, like Homer's work.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

But doesn't the Bible claim to relate historical events, especially, say in the New Testament? Herodotus often puts speeches in the mouths of his subjects, but no one would seriously consider them as actual transcriptions.

The point remains that one either approaches the Bible as unique or as the same as any ancient (or modern, for that matter---consider Shakespear) text, and uses the same critical apparatus, procedures, and methods.

1 Reply

@jgweed,

If we consider the Bible as a story that is simply set in an historical period, then we understand better what the Bible is all about. Whether or not the stories actually happened is secondary to what lessons we learn from the stories. Because whether or not I believe Jesus actually existed is unimportant if I don't even understand what he was trying to say when he taught. That should be the ultimate lesson for us from the Bible; that Jesus taught in parables and it was unimportant whether the characters in his parables were real, (ie: whether or not there actually was a rich man and a poor man, etc,) but rather it was the lesson that his audience learned from the story that he told that was important. Taking Christ for example, we should read the Bible for the lessons that we learn from it, and not to prove whether or not Noah floated atop the whole world covered in a flood, or whether or not dinosaurs existed.

1 Reply

@Solace,

Quote:

But doesn't the Bible claim to relate historical events, especially, say in the New Testament? Herodotus often puts speeches in the mouths of his subjects, but no one would seriously consider them as actual transcriptions.

The Bible? No more than Dante's Divine Comedy claims to relate historical events. It's certain adherents that make claims regarding the Bible's historical accuracy.

As for Herodotus and his speeches - of course they are not actual transcriptions, but they exist to give us greater insight into some individual, or the culture, ect. They are still (supposed to be, the accuracy of Herodotus is more than questionable) expressions of historic information. It's early history, but history none the less.

Quote:

The point remains that one either approaches the Bible as unique or as the same as any ancient (or modern, for that matter---consider Shakespear) text, and uses the same critical apparatus, procedures, and methods.

And I think it is obvious that we should approach the Bible as we do any other text. Herodotus and the Bible are different, one is history the other scripture. But the approach we take towards the Bible would be very similar to the way we approach the Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim scripture. The genre makes a difference. At the end, though, we have to realize that all texts must be approached in a unique way because all texts are unique.
This uniqueness should not ban the Bible from the methods of textual criticism. So called "Higher Criticism" is extremely important, even though it scares fundamentalists.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

I think we should approach the Bible in different ways than any nearly all texts (exceptions being other major religious texts) because of how many people believe its so-called truth as denoted by the idea that it is the word of God. Thus, it must be looked at more critically due to its ubiquitous nature among much of society.

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

Actually Theatetus, you make a very good point there. If someone is promoting any text as "the word of God" or elsewise divinely inspired, we should indeed look at it more critically than we would another text that doesn't claim supernatural origins. If the divine cannot stand up to our mortal scrutiny then it truly calls into question the validity of the text. But as we all know, the trend is, in fact, the other way around. People tend to look at any scripture with less than the normal critical eye, for fear of offending either practioners or else the divine. I should think though, that if God does exist and he really did inspire any text, then God would want us to critically and thoroughly examine that text. Maybe then we'd have half a chance of figuring out what God is talking about.

1 Reply

@Solace,

Quote:

I think we should approach the Bible in different ways than any nearly all texts (exceptions being other major religious texts) because of how many people believe its so-called truth as denoted by the idea that it is the word of God. Thus, it must be looked at more critically due to its ubiquitous nature among much of society.

Popular opinion should not change the way we criticize the text. I agree with the sentiment - the Bible needs close and critical examination because so many people have elevated the book beyond book status. But every text should be critically examined - as critically and deeply as scholars are willing to go.

Because the text is so popular, it will receive plenty of attention - has received a great deal and is still examined with great fervor. This is good, but we should not make the mistake of elevating the Bible beyond other texts, especially other religious texts, for any reason.

Quote:

But as we all know, the trend is, in fact, the other way around. People tend to look at any scripture with less than the normal critical eye, for fear of offending either practioners or else the divine.

Actually, this is only half true. A large portion of the (relatively) uneducated population ignores scholarship related to the Bible. But scholars, on the other hand, have, for over a century now, scrutinized the Bible more than any book every printed.

Quote:

I should think though, that if God does exist and he really did inspire any text, then God would want us to critically and thoroughly examine that text. Maybe then we'd have half a chance of figuring out what God is talking about.

You're 100% on that one, as far as I'm concerned.

2 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Hi all.

I think this is a fair question, and I think jgweed gave a pretty fair answer in the first response. Namely, there are many different ways of looking at the Bible.

I do disagree somewhat, though, with the idea that all of the Bible was written as myth. Parts of both the New and Old Testaments go to great lengths to place the stories an characters in time/space history, sometimes referencing people, places, objects, other texts, and other historical events to do so. Sometimes multiple witnesses are named to back up the accuracy of the event. That doesn't mean that those stories are automatically true, or that they can't be seen and interpreted as myth, but I think it would be a mutilation of the text to act as if (at least some of) the authors didn't intend for the reader to believe in the historical accuracy of the story.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Quote:

But scholars, on the other hand, have, for over a century now, scrutinized the Bible more than any book every printed.

Bear in mind though, that scholars make up a relatively small portion of the population. The numbers become even fewer when you're talking about those scholars who care to study religious texts. And, sadly, even the insights of those few get largely ignored by the bulk of the population, particularly if some fellow wearing a white collar condemns the scholar's insight. So I maintain, people (at least in general) tend to look at any scripture with less than the normal critical eye...

0 Replies

@NeitherExtreme,

Scholarship, both religious and non-religious, seems to suggest that various books in the Biblical Canon (and how that canon was developed is yet another discussion) were written at different times by different authors and with different purposes. This would imply that our analysis and understanding might vary depending on which book's text is being studied. It would, also, imply that at least insofar as the Canon has historical import and influence as a religious text, that subsequent commentaries be seen in that light.
This is only to say that, for example, the Song of Solomon is love poetry, that there are four eye-witness versions of the life of Jesus that (naturally) differ in details, and that Paul wrote his famous Epistles to address specific and localised questions.

As a matter of faith or dogma, there are some interpretations that begin with the premise that (without delving into the many sectarian versions) the texts are inspired by divine influence. This premise means at least that the Bible is given an ultimate importance, and that these interpretations are meant with a seriousness that one would not apply, say, to Homer's works. In one sense, this has meant that the world as been deluged with countless commentaries and that the text has been scrutinized as no other in history; but in another sense, this scrutiny has often religiously distorted the text's meaning, and has prevented fully using modern criticism in attempts to understand the text. One has only to look at the impossible and intolerant positions held by extreme fundamentalists to understand the consequences of avoiding modern criticism as an useful method of textual understanding.

1 Reply

@jgweed,

Quote:

I do disagree somewhat, though, with the idea that all of the Bible was written as myth. Parts of both the New and Old Testaments go to great lengths to place the stories an characters in time/space history, sometimes referencing people, places, objects, other texts, and other historical events to do so. Sometimes multiple witnesses are named to back up the accuracy of the event. That doesn't mean that those stories are automatically true, or that they can't be seen and interpreted as myth, but I think it would be a mutilation of the text to act as if (at least some of) the authors didn't intend for the reader to believe in the historical accuracy of the story.

What we have to understand, regarding OT 'history', is that these stories were set down prior to history being a study. At the time, myth and history were on in the same. The history was mythicized.

As for the New Testament, I have to disagree. As far as the Gospels are concerned, I do not see any sort of claims to historical accuracy. The commentary is a bit trickier - many of those books are letters, which were certainly written, and they do contain both historical information and mythological discussion. To pick out the history in the New Testament is to grab a few lines, at best. We can read, for example, Gulliver's Travels and find history, but that hardly makes the book history; it's still satire. Similarly, referencing some historical information does not change the fact that the Bible, even when such history is introduced, is myth.

Quote:

Bear in mind though, that scholars make up a relatively small portion of the population. The numbers become even fewer when you're talking about those scholars who care to study religious texts. And, sadly, even the insights of those few get largely ignored by the bulk of the population, particularly if some fellow wearing a white collar condemns the scholar's insight. So I maintain, people (at least in general) tend to look at any scripture with less than the normal critical eye...

Sure, the vast majority of people do not take any time to criticize scripture. That's a statement of fact. However, it's not as if scholars do not criticize the text, and so I see no reason to hold the Bible to any sort of greater criticism than the book already enjoys - I'm not even sure we can be more critical of the text, the book being the most criticized text I can think of (maybe Homer).

jgweed - Remember, Homer's work was thought to be divinely inspired in ancient Greece. As for the Higher Criticism, it is not the scholarship that has distorted the text's meaning - the scholarship is an attempt to understand the text, to get the meaning. The fundamentalists who have developed these wild notions of Christian faith have done so, in a big way, in response to Higher Criticism - they see the criticism as a threat to their faith, which demands literally interpretation of scripture. In response to this perceived threat, they reject all such criticism and retreat into their dogmas. The criticism does not prevent more modern understanding, but the wholesale rejection of criticism causes these problems.

2 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

We're on the same page DT. The Bible and other scriptures receive plenty of criticism from the few. And that criticism receives too much rejection from the many.

1 Reply

@Solace,

Yep. Part of the problem, reasons why the many reject the scholarship, is the way the scholarship is presented. These liberal scholars often intentionally antagonize the religiously conservative masses with their writings. This has, it seems, been recognized by many scholars, who now try to be more considerate, but when Higher Criticism first emerged, the scholars often trivialized and ridiculed the popular beliefs. Big mistake.

Reminds me of the Rev. Wright comments of a few months ago. Nothing he said seemed outrageous to me - "God damn America", well sure, the US government has been responsible for terrible atrocities. But it's the way the message is conveyed that caused the problem. He could have contrasted our potential to do good in the world with our tendency to cause harm, and called upon his parishioners to be more aware of the consequences of American actions.

We do not have to sacrifice the message, or the strength of the message, in order to present that message in a useful way. The antagonistic tendencies of Higher Critics helped promote the nasty conservative response to Higher Criticism. A more open-minded and considerate presentation could very well have saved us the trouble and turmoil caused by extreme western fundamentalism.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

So what yer saying is we're all sinking in the same steaming pile of...

well, yeah, amen to that.

1 Reply

@Solace,

"As for the Higher Criticism, it is not the scholarship that has distorted the text's meaning - the scholarship is an attempt to understand the text, to get the meaning. The fundamentalists who have developed these wild notions of Christian faith have done so, in a big way, in response to Higher Criticism - they see the criticism as a threat to their faith, which demands literally interpretation of scripture. In response to this perceived threat, they reject all such criticism and retreat into their dogmas. The criticism does not prevent more modern understanding, but the wholesale rejection of criticism causes these problems."

I do not see my general conclusion as differing significantly from yours; we certainly agree that critical scholarship presents a truer picture for our understanding of the text.

Aside: Homer was mentioned only as an example of an early text, not to compare the two in any other way. Interestingly, dispute continues about whether Homer "wrote" the Odyssey or it represents some collation of earlier texts.

1 Reply

@jgweed,

Quote:

So what yer saying is we're all sinking in the same steaming pile of...

Heh, yeah, in a manner of speaking. I think that Higher Criticism needs some serious PR to help heal the rift between conservative and liberal worshippers. Unity, brother.

Quote:

I do not see my general conclusion as differing significantly from yours; we certainly agree that critical scholarship presents a truer picture for our understanding of the text.

Neither do I; we're pretty much on the same page. Definitely in agreement about the value of higher criticism. It's such a shame that most "Bible Colleges" not only reject higher criticism, but spend time trying to ridicule higher criticism with silly claims about faith, claims that amount to blind obedience to the literal interpretations of televangelist money-grabbers.

Quote:

Aside: Homer was mentioned only as an example of an early text, not to compare the two in any other way. Interestingly, dispute continues about whether Homer "wrote" the Odyssey or it represents some collation of earlier texts.

Right, and our modern view of Homer is certainly different than some modern views of the Bible.
The dispute over authorship is one of those endless arguments. In all likelihood, there was no historic Homer, like there was no historic Lao Tzu. As far as I can tell, though, the debate is rather insignificant. The Odyssey may have been several earlier texts, or more likely oral tales, coalesced into the larger story. It seems to me, though,that even if this is the case, the comprehensive volume we have today must have required a great deal of editing of the earlier stories, which in of itself is quite an achievement. Few myths have such an enduring influence, especially myths that no longer carry real spiritual weight.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;25184 wrote:

What we have to understand, regarding OT 'history', is that these stories were set down prior to history being a study. At the time, myth and history were on in the same. The history was mythicized.

As for the New Testament, I have to disagree. As far as the Gospels are concerned, I do not see any sort of claims to historical accuracy. The commentary is a bit trickier - many of those books are letters, which were certainly written, and they do contain both historical information and mythological discussion. To pick out the history in the New Testament is to grab a few lines, at best. We can read, for example, Gulliver's Travels and find history, but that hardly makes the book history; it's still satire. Similarly, referencing some historical information does not change the fact that the Bible, even when such history is introduced, is myth.

Well, I'm not going to argue this one long, but I still disagree at some points. I'll lay out some broad thoughts here, and then I'll let it rest.

About the OT... To assume that all of the oral and written traditions that do not come out of the modern western discipline of "History" were only meant as myth would be fairly close-minded. I understand what you're saying about them being "mythicized", but that is your understanding of it, not necessarily the intent of the original writers (which is what I'm talking about). It would be very hard for me to read a lot of the historical parts of the OT without thinking that the author was trying to write down space/time history as accurately as he could.

About the NT... I'm just not sure how you can say that there aren't any internal claims to historical accuracy. Even a quick glance at the beginning of Luke or the book of John should be enough to see those claims. And all of Paul's epistles hang on his belief that Jesus lived, died, lived again in time/space history. He himself says that if Jesus had not risen from the dead that all his faith was worthless.

About Gulliver's Travels... Yes you can find some history in all books, including Gulliver's Travels. But, as you clearly pointed out it was written as satire. What I'm saying is that within the Bible there are many different genres of literature, and that some of it was written as history, even if only in the attempt to deceive. Or it could simply be that they were mistaken. Or it could be accurate. Those are, in my estimation, the choices I am left with for at least some parts of both the OT and NT, without butchering the intent of the writer as I see it.

Of course, as I said what anyone does with the Bible is ultimately up to them, and I think critical study and multiple viewpoints are a good thing. Smile

-Luke

0 Replies

do we use the same way of thinking when we analyze the bible as we do other times?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know