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.

[Miles]

I didn't read all of your post, but in scanning it the following remarks did catch my eye.

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.

Why does being old necessarily translate into being philosophically significant?

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.

Which is certainly not something peculiar to the Bible alone.

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.

As can other works that employ parables, fables, and such.

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.

Excuse me! The "language and grammar of ethics, philosophy, and religion"? Plato, commonly considered the father of philosophy, was far more influential in establishing the foundations of philosophy and the proper discourse of ethics,* than was the Bible.


*And if you recall, Aristotle and Socrates also played a part in this.

[cnorman18]

I didn't read all of your post, but in scanning it the following remarks did catch my eye.

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.

Why does being old necessarily translate into being philosophically significant?

It doesn't. But a book that old, that has been that intensively studied and written about for that long, and has had that much influence, does. Perhaps "all by itself" wasn't a good choice of words.

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.

Which is certainly not something peculiar to the Bible alone.

Of course.

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.

As can other works that employ parables, fables, and such.

Again, of course.

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.

Excuse me! The "language and grammar of ethics, philosophy, and religion"? Plato, commonly considered the father of philosophy, was far more influential in establishing the foundations of philosophy and the proper discourse of ethics,* than was the Bible.


*And if you recall, Aristotle and Socrates also played a part in this.

I doubt that as many people in the Western world are as familiar with Plato and Aristotle as they are with the Bible.

Don't misunderstand what I am arguing here. I'm not saying that the Bible is the first, best, greatest, or any of that, and certainly not that it's the Word of God. It's one of the oldest and most widely read books (or properly, set of books) of its kind, and a familiarity with its images and narratives and laws is essential to literacy in Western culture and understanding the writings of many, both religious and otherwise, who have come after it. In MY opinion, it has been more widely read and more influential than any other single book in Western history; but others may disagree. It's notable that it was explicitly left out of the Great Books of the Western World set because the Britannica people assumed that most people interested in the important writings of Western history already owned one.

I'd appreciate it if you could do more than scan this post. You may find it worth commenting on in more detail - and maybe even find something you agree with.

[Miles]

I doubt that as many people in the Western world are as familiar with Plato and Aristotle as they are with the Bible.

I see your "as many . . . as" and raise you a "hardly any . . . as"

If your basic contention is that the Bible has had as much or more influence on western civilization than any other single book, I agree without qualification.

[cnorman18]

I doubt that as many people in the Western world are as familiar with Plato and Aristotle as they are with the Bible.

I see your "as many . . . as" and raise you a "hardly any . . . as"

If your basic contention is that the Bible has had as much or more influence on western civilization than any other single book, I agree without qualification.

Well, sure; that's part of it, but that's really incidental. My larger point is that more can be learned from studying the Bible for what it is - a collection of ancient documents, the literary heritage of a nation from its very beginnings - than from wrangling over whether it's holy or authoritative or literally true.

[Miles]

Well, sure; that's part of it, but that's really incidental. My larger point is that more can be learned from studying the Bible for what it is - a collection of ancient documents, the literary heritage of a nation from its very beginnings - than from wrangling over whether it's holy or authoritative or literally true.

I've never thought much was learned through wrangling over issues anyway, be they religious or otherwise. Most people seem to leave the wrangling table with the same notions they came with. So in this respect I also agree with you.

[shakes]

Yes, the Bible can be examined from a strictly literary viewpoint, and yes, much can be learned from such an approach, and yes, we will ultimately grow together as we objectively appreciate its contributions to our shared cultural heritage. But where is the fun in that? Any damn fool knows the Bible is a collection of bedtime stories. But what we dream of once the lights are out. is of much greater interest.
To me anyway.

[DeBunkem]

Aesop's Fables and other Gentile morality stories get to the point without the often irrelevant,crazed, or contradictory injection of an invisible Middle Eastern tyrant. Compare "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" with "Jonah and the Whale."

[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.

[DeBunkem]

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.