Atheist interpretation of the Bible?

[historia]

In an earlier thread from last year, Jagella (R.I.P.) argued that Matthew 24:29 demonstrates that Jesus had a pre-scientific understanding of the stars and that this somehow belies Christian claims about Jesus' divinity.

Arguments like this are always predicated on a number of unstated (and sometimes unexamined) assumptions. And yet, what stands out to me about this particular example is precisely how common it is: The peculiar assumptions underlying this argument appear to underly many, if not most, atheist critiques of the Bible and the divinity of Christ on this site.

Which got me wondering:

1. Is there a common atheist hermeneutic of the Bible? That is, do many atheists follow a distinctive (even if informal) set of principles or methods when interpreting a passage like Matthew 24:29?

2. Is there a common Christology assumed by many atheists? That is, when atheists assail the divinity of Christ, are they often critiquing a distinctive conception of Christ's nature?

3. Do either of those distinctive views correspond to orthodox Christian interpretations of the Bible and the divinity of Christ? If not, then are atheist critiques of the Bible and the divinity of Christ properly critiques of Christianity, or are they something else?

[unknown soldier]

You seem to have a quasi-rational answer for everything but it isn't very well thought out.

Then by all means help me to think things out.

Seems pointless to me and most likely a personal ideological vendetta.

I need to be like Christians because as everybody knows they do not have ideological vendettas.

Would you by any chance happen to be a former Christian traditionalist, by any chance?

What is a "Christian traditionalist"? I was raised Catholic and spent about two years as an evangelical Christian if that's what you are asking.

The traditional Christian theology is the reference to falling stars are metaphoric.

Can you cite a source for that? It looks like I must disagree with that "traditional Christian theology." The Greek word for "star" in Matthew 24:29 is ἀστέρες. ἀστέρες most commonly refers to astronomical stars. Also, if you check the context of Matthew 24:29, in addition to stars Christ also mentions the sun and the moon--all luminous celestial bodies. It is then a sure bet that "stars" are those twinkling celestial bodies we see in the night sky.

You need to see what each part is like by comparing it to the whole.

How can anybody compare a Bible passage to "the whole" (Bible)? Can you compare Jonah in the fish to the creation, and the expulsion from Eden, and the Flood, and the..."?

People in the Middle East in approximately 1,000 BCE made up the God that Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in.

Prove it.

We have records of religion going back to the dawn of history thousands of years prior to the first books of the Bible which originated in one place among one people and one culture. Yahweh is then way too late and provincial to be a universal God, and the only sensible conclusion is that the Jews made him up.

I took your advice to read "The New Testament," which, by the way doesn't exist as such, so I read the Christian Greek scriptures, prior to your having gave that advice and it turns out the word xylon is a word meaning single upright pole. Tree. It is "believed" that Jesus died on a Roman phallic symbol, the crux or stauros (which can mean either a single upright stake or any of a number of designs including X, T, t and others) but that belief is incorrect because the word xylon can't mean anything but a single upright stake. Pole. Tree. This is evident by the Greek translation of the Hebrew Ezra 6:1.

OK. When I said "cross," I didn't mean that it was necessarily a t shape. I understand that the Romans used different shapes to crucify people upon.

If I'm wrong show me a passage which is obviously referring to the falling of stars in a literal sense...

I already did. Matthew 24:29.

Who's common understanding of stars?

Anybody's.

I'll say it again, Jesus is using the metaphor common to the Jews of his time.

What metaphor is that? There's nothing at all in Matthew 24:29 that is obviously metaphorical as far as I can tell.

In any event, maybe it's just coincidence that you are fighting so hard against my interpretation, but it's obvious to me that if Matthew 24:29 is interpreted literally, then Christ is exposed as an ignoramus which, of course, would be devastating to Christian faith.

[DavidLeon]

Then by all means help me to think things out.

Why is it when atheists say have a nice day, or I'll see you in the Mosques, or by all means help me to think things out I can't take it lateral but they have such a difficult time taking what Jesus says any way but literal?

I need to be like Christians because as everybody knows they do not have ideological vendettas.

No, you are like everyone else, including Christians and myself because you have ideological vendettas. All we need to do is acknowledge that and try to make adjustments accordingly. Complete success is impossible, but the degree to which we are able to pull it off is evident.

The traditional Christian theology is the reference to falling stars are metaphoric.

Can you cite a source for that?

I sure could. Do you think it would do any good? You see, it really doesn't matter what Christians think if it isn't in line with their source. There's only one source. Oh, I know ... the Bible isn't an authority here, the atheists are. Well, that's fine, but it doesn't make them right. But for the sake of argument, "Shall the sun be darkened.—The words reproduce the imagery in which Isaiah had described the day of the Lord’s judgment upon Babylon (Isaiah 13:10), and may naturally receive the same symbolic interpretation. " Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

It looks like I must disagree with that "traditional Christian theology." The Greek word for "star" in Matthew 24:29 is ἀστέρες. ἀστέρες most commonly refers to astronomical stars.

That doesn't establish whether or not the stars are metaphorical or literal.

Also, if you check the context of Matthew 24:29, in addition to stars Christ also mentions the sun and the moon--all luminous celestial bodies. It is then a sure bet that "stars" are those twinkling celestial bodies we see in the night sky.

Isaiah 13:10; Ezekiel 32:7; Revelation 6:12, 13; 8:12; compare Job 9:6, 7.

How can anybody compare a Bible passage to "the whole" (Bible)? Can you compare Jonah in the fish to the creation, and the expulsion from Eden, and the Flood, and the..."?

Well, sir - no. Not like that, necessarily. Stars. How are stars used in the Bible? Literal? Yes. Metaphorical? Yes, more often than not. Representing various things, depending upon the context. The context in question is only a common theme in the Bible. The sun, moon and stars representing government, environment and people. New heavens, new earth.

We have records of religion going back to the dawn of history thousands of years prior to the first books of the Bible which originated in one place among one people and one culture. Yahweh is then way too late and provincial to be a universal God, and the only sensible conclusion is that the Jews made him up.

Wow! You need to think things through! Like, do you trust those records? One people and one culture? Which one was that? Yahweh? Why would a later arrival indicate that?

If I'm wrong show me a passage which is obviously referring to the falling of stars in a literal sense...

I already did. Matthew 24:29.

No. That doesn't work. I already showed you why.

Who's common understanding of stars?

Anybody's.

Anybody's doesn't matter. It has to be Jesus, or at least Jewish. Not traditional Jewish, the Bible Jewish.

[Difflugia]

My chosen "Christology" is that if Jesus was divine, then he should have known what he was talking about. Are there Christologies in which Christ didn't know what he was talking about?

Yes. There is much debate about what Philippians 2 means by the phrase "he emptied [ἐκένωσεν] himself" in reference to Jesus. Google "kenosis," "kenosis hymn," or "kenosis theory."

I can interpret a passage metaphorically, but to do so I look for mataphors. I see no metaphors in Matthew 24:29.

It's symbolic allegory and is a reference to Daniel 8, which itself is obvious allegory. Matthew may have thought that it would also happen literally, but that's not necessary for what I (as an atheist) think is a correct understanding of Matthew 29.

On the other hand, a significant fraction of literalist, inerrantist Christians think that the weird allegorical imagery in Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation is also literally true and that giant, man-faced, long-haired, stinging locusts will literally rise from the abyss to torture people in the last days. I don't read it that way and it would be a mistake to assume that all Christians do, but neither is it a straw man:

Descending out of the abyss, these are demons but they will take on the form described in verses seven and following. This is a literal phenomenon that will occur and it has spiritual significance.

I took your advice to read "The New Testament," which, by the way doesn't exist as such, so I read the Christian Greek scriptures, prior to your having gave that advice and it turns out the word xylon is a word meaning single upright pole. Tree. It is "believed" that Jesus died on a Roman phallic symbol, the crux or stauros (which can mean either a single upright stake or any of a number of designs including X, T, t and others) but that belief is incorrect because the word xylon can't mean anything but a single upright stake. Pole. Tree. This is evident by the Greek translation of the Hebrew Ezra 6:1.

Xylon [ξύλον] just means "wood" or "piece of wood" and was used in such various meanings as tree, plank, stake, tabletop, and even firewood.

It happens to be the word used in the Septuagint translation of "tree" [עֵֽץ] in Deuteronomy 21:23, which Paul links to the crucifixion. Considering your own insistence that broad allegorical license is valid, I find it odd that you would insist on such a literal turn of phrase, even if you were correct about it.

A comprehensive treatment of the evidence for and against a crucifixion proper can be read in Gunnar Samuelsson's monograph Crucifixion in Antiquity. Section 9.1.2 ("The Nouns") includes this sentence on page 147 (missing from the Google Books preview, unfortunately):

Sometimes the generic noun ξύλον is used in reference to a suspension tool, in apparently the same sense as σταυρός and σκόλοψ. All these nouns are used when the authors refer to a suspension tool of the seemingly diverse group of suspension punishments that occurred in the ancient Greco-Roman world.

[DavidLeon]

My chosen "Christology" is that if Jesus was divine, then he should have known what he was talking about. Are there Christologies in which Christ didn't know what he was talking about?

Yes. There is much debate about what Philippians 2 means by the phrase "he emptied [ἐκένωσεν] himself" in reference to Jesus. Google "kenosis," "kenosis hymn," or "kenosis theory."

I can interpret a passage metaphorically, but to do so I look for mataphors. I see no metaphors in Matthew 24:29.

It's symbolic allegory and is a reference to Daniel 8, which itself is obvious allegory. Matthew may have thought that it would also happen literally, but that's not necessary for what I (as an atheist) think is a correct understanding of Matthew 29.

On the other hand, a significant fraction of literalist, inerrantist Christians think that the weird allegorical imagery in Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation is also literally true and that giant, man-faced, long-haired, stinging locusts will literally rise from the abyss to torture people in the last days. I don't read it that way and it would be a mistake to assume that all Christians do, but neither is it a straw man:

Descending out of the abyss, these are demons but they will take on the form described in verses seven and following. This is a literal phenomenon that will occur and it has spiritual significance.

I took your advice to read "The New Testament," which, by the way doesn't exist as such, so I read the Christian Greek scriptures, prior to your having gave that advice and it turns out the word xylon is a word meaning single upright pole. Tree. It is "believed" that Jesus died on a Roman phallic symbol, the crux or stauros (which can mean either a single upright stake or any of a number of designs including X, T, t and others) but that belief is incorrect because the word xylon can't mean anything but a single upright stake. Pole. Tree. This is evident by the Greek translation of the Hebrew Ezra 6:1.

Xylon [ξύλον] just means "wood" or "piece of wood" and was used in such various meanings as tree, plank, stake, tabletop, and even firewood.

It happens to be the word used in the Septuagint translation of "tree" [עֵֽץ] in Deuteronomy 21:23, which Paul links to the crucifixion. Considering your own insistence that broad allegorical license is valid, I find it odd that you would insist on such a literal turn of phrase, even if you were correct about it.

A comprehensive treatment of the evidence for and against a crucifixion proper can be read in Gunnar Samuelsson's monograph Crucifixion in Antiquity. Section 9.1.2 ("The Nouns") includes this sentence on page 147 (missing from the Google Books preview, unfortunately):

Sometimes the generic noun ξύλον is used in reference to a suspension tool, in apparently the same sense as σταυρός and σκόλοψ. All these nouns are used when the authors refer to a suspension tool of the seemingly diverse group of suspension punishments that occurred in the ancient Greco-Roman world.

And what was the most common of that seemingly diverse group in the time of Jesus? All you have to do is give it a little practical thought. You're in a place where there is hardly any timber. Why would you use two pieces when one would do, especially when you're fastening multiple "criminals" to them?

[unknown soldier]

Why is it when atheists say have a nice day, or I'll see you in the Mosques, or by all means help me to think things out I can't take it lateral but they have such a difficult time taking what Jesus says any way but literal?

Just support your claim that a Bible passage is metaphorical, and you might convince me. I'm willing to accept any good evidence for your position.

I sure could. Do you think it would do any good? You see, it really doesn't matter what Christians think if it isn't in line with their source. There's only one source. Oh, I know ... the Bible isn't an authority here, the atheists are. Well, that's fine, but it doesn't make them right. But for the sake of argument, "Shall the sun be darkened.—The words reproduce the imagery in which Isaiah had described the day of the Lord’s judgment upon Babylon (Isaiah 13:10), and may naturally receive the same symbolic interpretation. " Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

How exactly does Isaiah 13:10 explain Matthew 24:29? Those passages are taken from two very different works. Also, in the commentary you linked to,

Sun, moon, and stars may represent, as many have thought, kingly power, and the spiritual influence of which the Church of Christ is the embodiment, and the illuminating power of those who “shine as lights in the world” (Philippians 2:15), but even this interpretation is, it may be, over-precise and technical, and the words are better left in their dim and terrible vagueness.

"May represent as many have thought" is not convincing to me because I'm wondering who those "many" may be. No doubt they are Christians who cannot accept a Christ who didn't know what stars are. Besides, there is no vagueness to the words in Matthew 24:29--they are very clear and refer to celestial bodies.

The Greek word for "star" in Matthew 24:29 is ἀστέρες. ἀστέρες most commonly refers to astronomical stars.

That doesn't establish whether or not the stars are metaphorical or literal.

It establishes that the stars mentioned are almost certainly the stars in the sky.

Isaiah 13:10; Ezekiel 32:7; Revelation 6:12, 13; 8:12; compare Job 9:6, 7.

Thanks for the citations, but how do any of them explain Matthew 24:29? Did Matthew cite any of those other works as sources for Christ's prophecy?

The sun, moon and stars representing government, environment and people.

If that's true, then why didn't Christ say so in Matthew 24:29? If he was using such metaphors, then he was very, VERY confusing in what he said. A confusing Christ is no better than an ignorant Christ.

We have records of religion going back to the dawn of history thousands of years prior to the first books of the Bible which originated in one place among one people and one culture. Yahweh is then way too late and provincial to be a universal God, and the only sensible conclusion is that the Jews made him up.
Wow! You need to think things through! Like, do you trust those records? One people and one culture? Which one was that? Yahweh? Why would a later arrival indicate that?

Yes, I trust historical studies unless I have good reason not to. We know from history that Yahweh arose in the Middle East as a Jewish deity made up just like other gods were made up by other people in other places and times.

It has to be Jesus, or at least Jewish. Not traditional Jewish, the Bible Jewish.

Broadly speaking, Jesus is never quoted as saying anything that a Jewish man of his day could not have known. What he did say reflects the superstitions and the ignorance of the primitive culture he came from. And like I said earlier, even if you're right that Christ meant "stars" metaphorically, then you only trade a confusing Christ for an ignorant Christ. A confusing Christ is no more likely to get you to heaven than an ignorant Christ.

Sorry!

[Difflugia]

And what was the most common of that seemingly diverse group in the time of Jesus?

I don't know. "Tree," maybe? That's most likely what Paul means because he's connecting the crucifixion/impalement/hanging/whatever of Jesus to Deuteronomy 21:22-23.

All you have to do is give it a little practical thought. You're in a place where there is hardly any timber. Why would you use two pieces when one would do, especially when you're fastening multiple "criminals" to them?

That's your argument? If wood is so scarce, why even use one piece, then? Why didn't they just cut his head off or beat him to death?

I'm not even arguing whether Jesus was actually crucified or impaled, but telling you that your argument is based on a false claim; "the word xylon can't mean anything but a single upright stake" is false no matter how you slice it.

[DavidLeon]

Just support your claim that a Bible passage is metaphorical, and you might convince me. I'm willing to accept any good evidence for your position.

Lets step back for a minute to remind ourselves of the OP without the pretense that either one of us is trying to convince the other.

Someone argued that Matthew 24:29 demonstrates that Jesus had a pre-scientific understanding of the stars and that this somehow belies Christian claims about Jesus' divinity.

There is no doubt Jesus was pre-scientific as we would understand it. Even if his divinity did suggest an understanding of the stars it wouldn't preclude him from using a metaphoric application. On at least that I think we would agree.

There is no reason for anyone of us to question his divinity. Nor, for that matter, is there any reason to question the divinity of the literal sun. They are both worshipped.

The evidence you are offering regarding Jesus' divinity is an overestimation. The suggestion that if Jesus was a primitive idiot he couldn't have been divine is baseless. He could have been an idiot that didn't know anything about the stars while being divine.

My contention that Jesus' use of the stars was in a metaphoric sense isn't predicated upon any of that.

I really do feel like I've substantiated my position.

How exactly does Isaiah 13:10 explain Matthew 24:29? Those passages are taken from two very different works.

They both use the sun, moon and stars to refer to social and political upheaval. Isaiah 13:10 refers to the destruction God would bring upon Babylon in 539 BCE. Jeremiah 4:27-28 is a similar reference to the destruction of Israel in 607 BCE. Matthew 24:29 refers to the destruction of the world.

Also, in the commentary you linked to,

Sun, moon, and stars may represent, as many have thought, kingly power, and the spiritual influence of which the Church of Christ is the embodiment, and the illuminating power of those who “shine as lights in the world” (Philippians 2:15), but even this interpretation is, it may be, over-precise and technical, and the words are better left in their dim and terrible vagueness.

"May represent as many have thought" is not convincing to me because I'm wondering who those "many" may be.

Kingly power and the destruction of the world are not the same thing. And good for you for wondering. Always wonder.

No doubt they are Christians who cannot accept a Christ who didn't know what stars are.

My disdain for Christian theology has been expressed but I'm just going to ignore that.

Besides, there is no vagueness to the words in Matthew 24:29--they are very clear and refer to celestial bodies.

Because he's referring to literal stars in a metaphoric application. If I say I'm going to travel to the four corners of the earth that doesn't mean I think the earth has four corners. If I say you are a pain in the neck that doesn't mean I think you are literally a pinched nerve or small poisonous projectile.

If that's true, then why didn't Christ say so in Matthew 24:29? If he was using such metaphors, then he was very, VERY confusing in what he said. A confusing Christ is no better than an ignorant Christ.

Does that make you feel better? Does it give you a dopamine rush?

Maybe Jesus used metaphors because people think in pictures, not words. Maybe the prophecy of Isaiah. Maybe to confuse the Pharisees. Maybe to challenge his disciples. Make them think. Maybe it was a familiar way to teach to the Jews. Maybe it made it easy to remember. Maybe it made it more interesting and captivating to his audience. Maybe to protect himself against the charge of sedition. (Matthew 13:10–17; Mark 4:10–12; Luke 8:9–10; Matthew 13:34–35)

Yes, I trust historical studies unless I have good reason not to. We know from history that Yahweh arose in the Middle East as a Jewish deity made up just like other gods were made up by other people in other places and times.

No we don't.

[DavidLeon]

That's your argument? If wood is so scarce, why even use one piece, then? Why didn't they just cut his head off or beat him to death?

I'm not even arguing whether Jesus was actually crucified or impaled, but telling you that your argument is based on a false claim; "the word xylon can't mean anything but a single upright stake" is false no matter how you slice it.

You said: "Xylon [ξύλον] just means "wood" or "piece of wood" and was used in such various meanings as tree, plank, stake, tabletop, and even firewood."

Right. Timber. Piece of wood. Not pieces. We aren't debating if he was hung upon a table top.

Now research σταυρός. and Aeschylus, Lucian, Justus Lipsius, Livy, Das Kreuz und die Kreuzigung, Die Geschichte Jesu. Crux simplex. Prometheus. (filler etc.) 5C

[unknown soldier]

Yes. There is much debate about what Philippians 2 means by the phrase "he emptied [ἐκένωσεν] himself" in reference to Jesus. Google "kenosis," "kenosis hymn," or "kenosis theory."

Isn't that weird? Some Christians believe Christ suffered amnesia

It's symbolic allegory and is a reference to Daniel 8, which itself is obvious allegory.

Can you be more specific? Which verses in Daniel 8 are referenced in Matthew 24:29? Daniel 8:10 mentions stars, but I see nothing about the sun or the moon. Daniel 8 is a vision, but beginning in verse 15 Daniel states explicitly that it is a vision with symbolism. We have no such indication of metaphors in Matthew 24:29. Even then, it does not say that the stars mentioned are not meant to be celestial bodies.

[historia]

If you can't out-argue somebody, then use force to silence her or him. It worked for the inquisition.

That's an odd non-sequitur. It was, after all, quite easy to "out-argue" Jagella.

Then it's odd that you dug up an old post in which you argued with Jagella. If you out-argued him then, then are you just gloating now over your presumed victory?

On the contrary, in the OP, I cited Jagella's argument simply to provide a representative example of the type of atheist critique I wanted to unpack and examine. And he and I didn't actually get a chance to engage in any serious debate in that earlier thread.

My comment above was to note that your odd presumption that Jagella was somehow "forced" into "silence" because he could not be "out-argued" is simply detached from reality.

If I make assumptions about the Bible, it is because I must make assumptions.

Sure, we all make assumptions when reading the Bible. In this thread I'm interested in unpacking the common assumptions made by atheists when they interpret a passage like Matthew 24:29.

My chosen "Christology" is that if Jesus was divine, then he should have known what he was talking about. Are there Christologies in which Christ didn't know what he was talking about?

Are there Christologies in which Christ, in his human nature, is not omniscient? Yes! In fact, I would contend that this is the predominant view within Christianity today.

Consider this from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Because "human nature was assumed, not absorbed," in the mysterious union of the Incarnation, the Church was led over the course of centuries to confess the full reality of Christ's human soul, with its operations of intellect and will, and of his human body . . .

This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, "increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man", and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience. This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking "the form of a slave".

This same view can be seen in the Reformers, too, such as here in Calvin's Commentary on Isaiah:

Thus we see how far the Son of God condescended on our account, so that he not only was willing to be fed on our food, but also, for a time, to be deprived of understanding, and to endure all our weaknesses. (Hebrews 2:14.) This relates to his human nature, for it cannot apply to his Divinity. Of this state of ignorance, in which Christ was for a time, Luke testifies when he says,

And he grew in wisdom, and in stature,
and in favor with God and with man. (Luke 2:52.)

If Luke had merely said that Christ grew, he might have been supposed to mean with men; but he expressly adds, with God. Christ must therefore have been, for a time, like little children, so that, so far as relates to his human nature, he was deficient in understanding.

We could look at numerous other examples from modern theologians and church leaders, both Protestant and Catholic. And yet, it doesn't appear that you (or Jagella) took that into account when developing your critique.

I think it's safe to say that many atheists, myself included, see divinity as being what parts of the Bible say about God and what Christian theologians say about Christ. Since Christ was supposed to be a perfect God incarnate, then I expect him to get his cosmology right.

I see. So, in other words, many atheists have an incomplete understanding of the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, since they don't take into account what Christian theologians say about Jesus' human nature. Is that fair?

I can interpret a passage metaphorically, but to do so I look for mataphors. I see no metaphors in Matthew 24:29.

That's unfortunate, because, as DavidLeon and Diffugia have rightly noted, stars and other celestial objects are oft-used metaphors in ancient Jewish prophetic and apocalyptic works, such as Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Daniel, which Matthew is clearly referencing here. It seems, then, that you just missed this one.

Would you say that's typical of atheists when reading the Bible?

So, if an atheist critiques the belief that Jesus actually survived the crucifixion and lived out the remainder of his life in India, that is a "critique of Christ," but is that properly a critique of Christianity?

What Christ is is only limited by the believer's imagination, is it not?

No, the vast majority of Christians belong to churches that affirm historical creeds and confessions that limit and proscribe what that community believes about Christ.

The belief that Jesus survived the crucifixion and lived out the remainder of his life in India, for example, is not a Christian doctrine. So some views about Jesus are not Christian, and critiquing such a view is therefore not properly a critique of Christianity, would you not agree?

Before I close, allow me to make two important observations.

By all means.

The first observation is that it appears that you lump large parts of the Bible together or even the entire Bible together when considering interpretation.

I'm afraid this is simply mistaken.

My second observation is that when interpreting parts of the Bible, you should interpret it for what it says rather than what you want it to say. If Christ made a remark that is clearly wrong if taken literally, then it's not proper to save your faith by interpreting what Christ said figuratively!

The problem here, though, is that a well-read atheist like Diffugia also recognizes that Matthew intended this passage to be taken figuratively (see post 13). He and I agree on that point based on historical-critical considerations of the text, rather than anything having to do with faith. So your concern here is misplaced.