The Bible as It Is

[cnorman18]

A repost for new members.

I have been hoping for a long time that we could engage in some really meaningful debate and discussion about the Bible here, and by my lights - in spite of the myriads of threads that purport to be about that book - that has very rarely happened. Perhaps, in this new subforum, it finally can.

Let me explain what I mean.

We have talked, often and at great length, about whether or not the Bible is the "Word of God," whatever that means; about whether or not the Bible is literally and historically true; and about whether and how the Bible is or ought to be used as a guide to religious belief and doctrine, including both theological and ethical concerns (e.g., what might be learned from it about the nature of God and what is right and wrong).

I propose we set all that aside, without prejudice, and discuss the Bible as it actually is, that is, about those aspects of the book upon which we can or might all agree, whether we are religious or not.

Where this discussion might go is not up to me. That is up to all who participate. This will be a very long post, but I do not apologize for that. Anyone may respond to any part or all of it, as you wish.

First and most obvious, perhaps, is the literary importance of the Bible. It is among the most widely read, if not THE most widely read, book in the Western world, and has been so for centuries (though some might remark that it is more often purchased than read).

Religious significance aside, much of the literary heritage of the West alludes to the Bible so frequently that at least some basic familiarity with the book is essential to an understanding of that heritage. The great works of literature, past and present - not to mention of art, drama, music and even the sciences - so frequently invoke Biblical imagery and themes that knowledge of it is very nearly as essential as that of the alphabet.

Indeed, it has even entered common speech; any situation that involves a small and relatively powerless entity in conflict with a larger and more powerful one - e.g., a small town engaged in a lawsuit against a large corporation - in invariably referred to as a "David and Goliath" story. A mass movement of people from one place to another, particularly when it involves flight or escape of some sort, is commonly referred to as an "exodus." A person going into a hostile or dangerous environment might refer to it as "entering the lions' den," an allusion to the book of Daniel. A life-changing insight is often referred to in terms of a "Damascus Road" experience, an allusion to that of Paul in Acts. References to especially charismatic leaders, e.g. Barack Obama, as "messiahs" are also routine, whether in seriousness or sarcasm. And so on. For good or ill, Biblical imagery permeates our language and literature to an astonishing degree.

None of this, of course, has any bearing whatever on the issues mentioned above; the fact that the stories in the Bible are among the best-known in our culture says nothing about whether or not the Bible is true, holy, or any of that. It's just a literary and cultural fact. Love it or hate it, one may not remain ignorant of the Bible and still be considered educated or literate in Western society.

What else may be said of this book without argument? Well, it is old. That gives it historical, philosophical and cultural significance all by itself.

Forget about whether or not its religious ideas are true or valid; the Bible is one of the most extensive and detailed records of the ethical, cultural and religious development of an ancient society that remains extant. About the daily life, the ethics, values, beliefs and social structure, of, say, the Hittites, the Minoans, or the Maya, we know relatively little; about the Hebrews, we know much from this ancient book directly, and can deduce more from analysis of the layers of narrative in the text and the relationship between their sources.

Indeed, the multilayered and often obscurely and subtly complicated nature of the Biblical text is one of its most remarkable, though here little-noted, aspects. Take, for example, a passage that has come under examination (though in a different context) in a recent thread; the episode of Balaam's talking donkey in Numbers 22.

Leave aside the question of whether or not the events related in Numbers actually happened; that question is irrelevant to the discussion that follows. The entire Balaam story is clearly a literary composition that has been inserted into the larger story of the journey of the Hebrews toward the Promised Land, and like the story of Hector and Achilles, its relation to actual history is unimportant. We will here consider its literary structure.

First: Notice, in the rest of the Balaam narrative (Numbers 22.2 - 24.25), that God actually speaks to Balaam; he is in fact acknowledged in the text as a genuine prophet, though he is not a Hebrew and in fact is in the employ of the Hebrews' enemies. This fact is pretty peculiar in itself, and is at odds with the approach and attitude of much of the rest of the Torah.

The significance of the peculiar figure of Balaam has been a bone of contention among Biblical scholars from ancient times until today, and is in fact not consistent within the Bible itself; parts of Deuteronomy and some of the later Prophets, notably Micah, seem to have had a rather favorable opinion of him, while other passages regard him as a pure enemy. The issue remains unresolved, in part because the text itself is ambiguous on the matter - for the very reason that it was assembled in the way we are discussing here.

In point of fact, there is extraBiblical evidence of the existence of a seer named Balaam, in the form of a late 9th- or early 8th -century BCE temple inscription in Transjordan; Balaam may have been a legendary figure even in antiquity, or he may very well have been a real person well known at that place and time. Again, none of this is relevant to the question of the literal truth of the Balaam narrative.

But the episode of the talking donkey (22.22-35)is clearly still another insertion from a still different hand; another layer of narrative, itself inserted in a larger insertion. Unlike the rest of the Balaam narrative, where the prophet himself is in communication with God, in this passage, the donkey is; it sees and knows things of which the prophet is ignorant. The entire tone of the donkey pericope is mocking of Balaam, and he is presented as a bit of a clown. Elsewhere in the story, he is taken more seriously (though that is not consistently so, either).

Just to complicate matters, the angel that blocks the donkey's path is called an "adversary" in most English translations - but the actual Hebrew word is "Satan." Make what you will of that, but most scholars take it as conclusive evidence that the more recent connotations of that word were not present at the time of this passage's composition.

The point is that this bit of storytelling about the donkey comes from another tradition, separate from that of the rest of the Balaam story - which tradition is itself separate from that of the rest of the book of Numbers. This narrative is not a simple one, nor is it one unified story that speaks with a single voice; it should not, and properly cannot, be read as such.

This one small passage is evocative of, and certainly evidence of, the development of both the narrative itself and of the belief that lay behind it among this ancient people. It is not just an unlikely story; it is far more than that. As with so many other stories in the Bible, it is both strange and significant that this tale - of a genuine prophet, but one from outside the tribe - was ever told at all.

Now, all the above amounts to no more than an allusion to the body of scholarship and study behind this one small episode. One can imagine the depth of meaning and understanding that can come from this sort of analysis of the entire text of Bamidbar (Numbers), let alone the whole Torah, let alone the whole Bible.

In a similar way, one can see the influence and borrowings, conscious or otherwise, of Greek myths and ideas in the New Testament and their admixture with (and in Jewish eyes, distortions of) the themes and ideas of the Hebrew Bible. Here again, the growth and development of these ideas can and should be of at least as much interest as "what happened" and the ideas themselves.

The fact that all these observations rather argue against Divine authorship of Scripture is of minor importance here. The salient fact, in this discussion, is that the things one may authentically learn from the real Bible as it is - again, aside from purely religious or sectarian concerns - may not be obtained from a casual surface reading of the text. The development of religious ideas within the text of the Bible is a separate subject apart from their truth or significance, though to those so inclined they are of course relevant to those issues.

This sort of thing is what I mean when I say, as I so often have, that the Bible can be taken seriously while not being taken literally. To Jews, whose beliefs and practices and ethical formulations have continued to evolve and develop throughout the centuries since the final redaction of the Torah and the closing of the Biblical canon, this kind of study is evidence that they have always done so, from the very beginning.

This post is perhaps an indicator of the form and style of serious Biblical scholarship -and not only of Jewish Biblical scholarship; I learned and dealt with similar analysis and study in a liberal Christian seminary.

To turn back to the question of religious and ethical beliefs for a moment - not so much of their validity, mind, but of their origins - what is the significance of all this?

In other words, before someone else asks: If this book does not come from God but from men, what difference does it make? How can it be of any great importance to anyone?

In typically Jewish fashion, I shall answer that question with another:

Even if this book is no more than an ancient record of the development of religious and ethical ideas - the musings and speculations of men (and a few women) about God and other ultimates, as opposed to the the thoughts and words of God Himself - even if it is and has always been only the springboard for further development of those ideas, as opposed to their final, fixed and authoritative expression - and even if any authority or "holiness" attributed to it is that which has been given to it by us and not by God - does that in itself not give this book significance and importance?

Like it or not, the Bible has given us much of the language and grammar of ethics, philosophy and religion - the tools, in short, with which we think about these things. Even those who do not believe are drawn back to this text, over and over, if only to argue against its perceived lessons and to question its perceived principles.

This is as it should be. The Bible exists, in Jewish tradition, precisely in order to be thought about and discussed and argued over. The very name of the people from which it came - Israel - means, "struggles with God." Even those who do not believe in God struggle with the concept of God - again, even if only to oppose it; and those who do believe struggle as well, with their various understandings, interpretations and doctrines. Precisely because this book and its influence have become so central to the Western literary and intellectual heritage, it is and will no doubt remain the subject of argument on these matters for generations to come.

The Bible is not the end of discussion and debate, the authority that settles all arguments; it is in fact the ground upon which we debate, the arena where ideas are compared and contrasted and strike sparks from one another. It has held that role for well over a thousand years in the West, and among Jews for much, much longer than that. I suspect that the Bible will remain central to those debates for millenia to come - assuming that the Last Days are not upon us after all, that is.

[FinalEnigma]

Indeed the bible plays a major role in literary works to this day - it was even more pronounced the further you go back into history.

Anyone ever read Faerie Queene? From book one, Spenser uses a great deal of biblical imagery.

[cnorman18]

The impulse to either worship the Bible as the Voice of God or to dismiss it entirely as nothing more than meaningless fairy tales - which assumes that that is the only alternative - remains, it seems.

Pity.

Indeed. In the case of Jonah,neither makes sense.

That is correct. The question then becomes, in what way can the Bible be studied that DOES make sense?

Or does one just toss it in the dumpster because some people have worshipped it? Doesn't seem especially rational to me. The book and its origins are worth studying, perhaps first to counter those who make an idol of it, and then to see what else may be learned.

[Solon]

That is correct. The question then becomes, in what way can the Bible be studied that DOES make sense?

Or does one just toss it in the dumpster because some people have worshipped it? Doesn't seem especially rational to me. The book and its origins are worth studying, perhaps first to counter those who make an idol of it, and then to see what else may be learned.

The strong impulse to determine truth or falsehood comes when someone claims you should live or act in a certain fashion because the Bible is true in some sense and ought to be obeyed, and so questions of accuracy and veracity come up. It is perhaps difficult for people used to this sort of debate or interaction to break away from it. They are used to asking "Is it true" to verify a claim made or even to counter an imposition of rules based upon it.

As a student of history, I find this less useful an approach. When I must respond to an attempt at compulsion to particular doctrines under law based upon the literal truth of the book, then yes I will evaluate it on the terms it is being used, but that doesn't give us much useful information in the end. It seems you are looking for an extension of higher criticism, take the Bible as a set of documents written by men at a particular time for particular reasons and it is for us to discover what we may about these men and their motives. What was the world they lived in like? What drove them to write what they did, how they did and when they did? What does it say about their culture as a whole? If we are trying to answer these questions, then whether their stories are literally true are besides the point as that isn't what we seek answers about, but the men themselves.
Of course at that point we are studying these men, with the Bible being a means to that end rather than it being the focus of the questions asked.

So, ask your questions, though for what you suggest it seems more appropriate in a discussion thread, unless you wish to debate an assertion about the cultural development of the early Hebrews in particular.

[cnorman18]

That is correct. The question then becomes, in what way can the Bible be studied that DOES make sense?

Or does one just toss it in the dumpster because some people have worshipped it? Doesn't seem especially rational to me. The book and its origins are worth studying, perhaps first to counter those who make an idol of it, and then to see what else may be learned.

The strong impulse to determine truth or falsehood comes when someone claims you should live or act in a certain fashion because the Bible is true in some sense and ought to be obeyed, and so questions of accuracy and veracity come up. It is perhaps difficult for people used to this sort of debate or interaction to break away from it. They are used to asking "Is it true" to verify a claim made or even to counter an imposition of rules based upon it.

Very true. I suppose I am trying to break new ground here.

As a student of history, I find this less useful an approach. When I must respond to an attempt at compulsion to particular doctrines under law based upon the literal truth of the book, then yes I will evaluate it on the terms it is being used, but that doesn't give us much useful information in the end.

I agree, thus this post.

It seems you are looking for an extension of higher criticism, take the Bible as a set of documents written by men at a particular time for particular reasons and it is for us to discover what we may about these men and their motives. What was the world they lived in like? What drove them to write what they did, how they did and when they did? What does it say about their culture as a whole? If we are trying to answer these questions, then whether their stories are literally true are besides the point as that isn't what we seek answers about, but the men themselves.
Of course at that point we are studying these men, with the Bible being a means to that end rather than it being the focus of the questions asked.

Well, yes, but those people are not all I am interested in studying. I am also interested in the evolution and development of their beliefs themselves, and the provenance of both the right and wrong turns they took. As I said to McC on the other thread, the perspective of a believer is different. if one is convinced that all metaphysics is nonsense and that there is no truth whatever to any kind of religious belief, the history and development of such beliefs is of limited interest beyond "Here is another variety of horse manure."

So, ask your questions, though for what you suggest it seems more appropriate in a discussion thread, unless you wish to debate an assertion about the cultural development of the early Hebrews in particular.

As I said, I propose to go beyond that. No idea where it might lead; unfamiliar territory, this. Who knows, it might end up making me an atheist.

[Solon]

Well, yes, but those people are not all I am interested in studying. I am also interested in the evolution and development of their beliefs themselves, and the provenance of both the right and wrong turns they took. As I said to McC on the other thread, the perspective of a believer is different. if one is convinced that all metaphysics is nonsense and that there is no truth whatever to any kind of religious belief, the history and development of such beliefs is of limited interest beyond "Here is another variety of horse manure."

So, ask your questions, though for what you suggest it seems more appropriate in a discussion thread, unless you wish to debate an assertion about the cultural development of the early Hebrews in particular.

As I said, I propose to go beyond that. No idea where it might lead; unfamiliar territory, this. Who knows, it might end up making me an atheist.

Ok then. What questions you ask will reveal what you're after better than anything else. But what you suggest sounds like it belongs in a discussion forum rather than a debate forum. It's more of a collaborative exploration than a debate over a particular position you're after, am I correct? So start a thread and ask a question.

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think a Torah study thread could be very worthwhile (as would a study of 1 & 2 Samuel).

Sadly, it's difficulty to insulate such a thread from petty ridicule.

[FinalEnigma]

I think a Torah study thread could be very worthwhile (as would a study of 1 & 2 Samuel).

Sadly, it's difficulty to insulate such a thread from petty ridicule.

I would so sign up for such a thread.

And actually it wouldn't be that hard to insulate from petty ridicule. on this forum our generous founder has given us the option to create and moderate our own sub forum. So we could make a Torah study sub forum that encourages discussion and debate - but does not allow petty ridicule. You could simply delete posts or allow only a particular usergroup to post in the forum and kick people from the usergroup who resort to petty ridicule.
I would join up in an instant, and would be happy to donate the tokens for the usergroup or the subforum if needed. A thought however, do we have someone qualified and interested to lead a Torah study?

[McCulloch]

I think a Torah study thread could be very worthwhile (as would a study of 1 & 2 Samuel).

Sadly, it's difficulty to insulate such a thread from petty ridicule.

This is a debate site. I am sure that there are Torah and other Biblical studies on other sites.

[Solon]

I was suggesting less a Torah study thread and more that cnorman18 pose the questions he wants to investigate and we then try to answer them or respond to how he answers them/ I suspect that the kind of questions he would ask, a literal approach would be inappropriate and might provide the insulation needed. As McCulloch points out, however, this is a debate site, so we should engage in constructive debate or critical discussion on the questions, but not turn it into Midrash lessons with uncle cnorman18.

[cnorman18]

I was suggesting less a Torah study thread and more that cnorman18 pose the questions he wants to investigate and we then try to answer them or respond to how he answers them/ I suspect that the kind of questions he would ask, a literal approach would be inappropriate and might provide the insulation needed. As McCulloch points out, however, this is a debate site, so we should engage in constructive debate or critical discussion on the questions, but not turn it into Midrash lessons with uncle cnorman18.

Well, since my nieces and nephews never took my authority seriously either, I don't think that will be a problem (when they were small and I was babysitting them, I'd threaten them with punishment for misbehaving and they just laughed at me).

I don't quite know how this got to be a discussion of a Torah study; that wasn't my intention, and the approach I'm taking here isn't that one. I doubt if that's possible here, since the Jewish convention in Torah study is to approach the stories as if they were true and actually happened - otherwise it's hard to find the point of the story. Jews know this - that one can talk about, say, Moses and the various events that tradition says took place in his life and their significance, while bearing in mind that this is a literary narrative and not history. As I've said before, whether or not any of these events really happened is beside the point. Some Jews do hold a belief in the literal truth of Scripture; most don't. But we can all enter into and enjoy and learn from these discussions without that issue interfering.

As I've remarked before, one can't enjoy or appreciate or get the point of a movie if one is constantly shouting "It's only a movie! None of this is real!" You have to go into the story and "suspend your disbelief" in order to appreciate the work as it is intended and to understand it. This is easier in some movies (and in some Biblical passages) than in others; Sleepless in Seattle is easier to buy into than Alien vs. Predator, which is easier than Hellraiser.

But this clearly isn't what I'm talking about. Consider the discussion above of the Balaam pericope. I'm not saying "Pretend it really happened and consider the significance." I'm saying "Consider how the layers of this narrative interact. Notice the differing perspective and assumptions of the different layers. What does this mean?"

I can't TEACH this; I don't KNOW the answers. I don't presume to be an authority here. I don't recall that I've ever seen a discussion along those lines.

The traditional way to study Torah in rabbinical schools is in pairs, preferably pairs that don't often agree. Rational debate and opposing argument is the method, not master/student. If one reads Jewish commentaries, one will find modern commentators engaging in argument with the masters of the past, like Rashi and Maimonides. That's why I need others to participate in this discussion/debate/whatever it turns out to be. I have no predetermined points to make and nowhere I want to take this; I just want to see where it goes. That will not be up to me, or at least not entirely; it will be up to all who participate, as I said in the beginning.