The Bible. You're doing it wrong.

[historia]

John Barton, professor at Oxford University, has this to say in his recent book, The History of the Bible (2019):

The Bible does not 'map' directly onto religious faith and practice, whether Jewish or Christian . . . The Bible is very unlike a creed or a 'Confession' . . . It is a mele of materials, few of which directly address the question of what is to be believed . . . .

There are versions of Christianity that claim to be simply 'biblical' (no versions of Judaism do so), but the reality is that the structures and content of Christian belief, even among Christians who believe their faith to be wholly grounded in the Bible, are organized and articulated differently from the contents of the Bible . . . [The Bible] is not and cannot be the whole foundation of either Judaism or Christianity . . . .

The Bible is centrally important to both Judaism and Christianity, but not as a holy text out of which entire religious systems can somehow be read. Its contents illuminate the origins of Christianity and Judaism, and provide spiritual classics on which both faiths can draw; but they do not constrain subsequent generations in the way that a written constitution would. They are simply not that kind of thing. They are a repository of writings, both shaping and shaped by the two religions at various stages in their development, to which later generations of believers are committed to responding in positive, but also critical, ways . . . .

Judaism thus has a holy book, and a set of religious beliefs and practices, but the two are known not to correlate exactly, despite being congruent; and this may be a better model for understanding Christianity too than the common Protestant perception of doctrine and practice as straightforwardly derived from the Bible.

Questions for debate:

1. Is Barton's analysis accurate?

2. If so, are Protestant views on the Bible mostly an idealized conception of the nature and authority of the text?

3. If so, are atheist criticisms of the Bible largely critiques of this idealized conception of the Bible rather than how the Bible actually functions within Christianity?

[Zzyzx]

.

The term myth has come to refer to a certain genre (or category) of stories . . . Myths are symbolic tales of the distant past (often primordial times) that concern cosmogony and cosmology (the origin and nature of the universe), may be connected to belief systems or rituals, and may serve to direct social action and values . . . These narratives are believed to be true from within the associated faith system (though sometimes that truth is understood to be metaphorical rather than literal).

That seems to fit the Bible rather well (and other literature of religions) -- "Once upon a time in a land far away many magical things happened -- donkeys and snakes spoke, long-dead bodies came back to life, virgins were impregnated by spirits, a haircut resulted in loss of strength, etc."

[historia]

The term myth has come to refer to a certain genre (or category) of stories . . . Myths are symbolic tales of the distant past (often primordial times) that concern cosmogony and cosmology (the origin and nature of the universe), may be connected to belief systems or rituals, and may serve to direct social action and values . . . These narratives are believed to be true from within the associated faith system (though sometimes that truth is understood to be metaphorical rather than literal).

That seems to fit the Bible rather well

No, it fits the first 11 chapters of Genesis well. The rest of the Bible consists of other literary genres.

[WeSee]

Why?

"Why" was covered in the post to which you responded.

No, you gave a description, but offered no explanation.

Why does the fact that the Bible is "heavily steeped in metaphor, is widely open to interpretation and contains inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions" -- thus requiring "picking and choosing" -- constitute a "serious issues with BOTH the Bible AND Christianity"?

The "explanation" is contained in what you have termed a "description". That you have done this does not alter this fact.

What's your point?

How is it NOT a serious issue for the Bible that it is "heavily steeped in metaphor, is widely open to interpretation and contains inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions"?

How is it NOT a serious issue for Christianity that: "The Bible is heavily steeped in metaphor, is widely open to interpretation and contains inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions. As such, there is no alternative to picking and choosing what parts to believe. Those who claim that they do not pick and choose are disingenuous at best. Those who claim that it is to be taken literally, nonetheless pick and choose which parts they do and don't take literally, pick and choose passages to ignore and/or alter, impress their own preconceived biases and beliefs onto their 'literal" interpretation, etc."?

[gadfly]

Here is a highly provocative proposal of how to regard the Bible!

The Bible does not 'map' directly onto religious faith and practice, whether Jewish or Christian . . . The Bible is very unlike a creed or a 'Confession' . . . It is a mele of materials, few of which directly address the question of what is to be believed . . . .

It is absolutely true that the Bible is no creed; Creeds may be derived from it (the Shema; 1 Corinthians 15 seems to contain the earliest Christian Creed) but the Bible is a compilation of histories, poetry, letters and biographies, all written by many people separated from each other by time and space. If we must reduce the Bible to a single genre, then Creed of Propositional Theology would be the least adequate. Narrative comes to mind; a sequence of events.

There are versions of Christianity that claim to be simply 'biblical' (no versions of Judaism do so), but the reality is that the structures and content of Christian belief, even among Christians who believe their faith to be wholly grounded in the Bible, are organized and articulated differently from the contents of the Bible . . . [The Bible] is not and cannot be the whole foundation of either Judaism or Christianity . . . .

This does seem true. So long as the Bible is viewed as a source of propositional truths (i.e. doctrine) then it will continue to generate denominations.

The Bible is centrally important to both Judaism and Christianity, but not as a holy text out of which entire religious systems can somehow be read. Its contents illuminate the origins of Christianity and Judaism, and provide spiritual classics on which both faiths can draw; but they do not constrain subsequent generations in the way that a written constitution would. They are simply not that kind of thing. They are a repository of writings, both shaping and shaped by the two religions at various stages in their development, to which later generations of believers are committed to responding in positive, but also critical, ways . . . .

I disagree, in part. I think I know what the author is getting at; and I know that a quote does not represent the whole. So I simply add that the Bible most certainly has SOME dogma. There can be no doubt that the Old Testament rests on Creational Monolatry: There is one god who created and therefore one god to be worshiped (the Shema). And there can be no doubt that the New Testament rests on the resurrection: as Paul says in 1 Cor. 15, if there is no resurrection, then there is no Christian community.

Perhaps these do not represent "Entire religious systems", but they are doctrine of a religion.



gadfly

[historia]

"Why" was covered in the post to which you responded.

No, you gave a description, but offered no explanation.

The "explanation" is contained in what you have termed a "description".

I'm afraid not. Simply pointing out that the Bible has certain features does not, in and of itself, explain why those features should be deemed a "serious issue."

What's your point?

I'm simply asking you a question.

How is it NOT a serious issue for the Bible that it is "heavily steeped in metaphor, is widely open to interpretation and contains inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions"?

How is it NOT a serious issue for Christianity that: "The Bible is heavily steeped in metaphor, is widely open to interpretation and contains inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions. As such, there is no alternative to picking and choosing what parts to believe. Those who claim that they do not pick and choose are disingenuous at best. Those who claim that it is to be taken literally, nonetheless pick and choose which parts they do and don't take literally, pick and choose passages to ignore and/or alter, impress their own preconceived biases and beliefs onto their 'literal" interpretation, etc."?

Surely, I cannot tell you why something is not a problem until you first explain why it is.

[historia]

Perhaps these do not represent "Entire religious systems"

That is correct. Barton is not suggesting that no doctrines can be derived from the Bible, just that the Bible cannot be (and historically clearly is not) the sole foundation for either Christianity or Judaism. It's simply not that kind of a book.

[WeSee]

No, you gave a description, but offered no explanation.

The "explanation" is contained in what you have termed a "description".

I'm afraid not. Simply pointing out that the Bible has certain features does not, in and of itself, explain why those features should be deemed a "serious issue."

What's your point?

I'm simply asking you a question.

How is it NOT a serious issue for the Bible that it is "heavily steeped in metaphor, is widely open to interpretation and contains inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions"?

How is it NOT a serious issue for Christianity that: "The Bible is heavily steeped in metaphor, is widely open to interpretation and contains inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions. As such, there is no alternative to picking and choosing what parts to believe. Those who claim that they do not pick and choose are disingenuous at best. Those who claim that it is to be taken literally, nonetheless pick and choose which parts they do and don't take literally, pick and choose passages to ignore and/or alter, impress their own preconceived biases and beliefs onto their 'literal" interpretation, etc."?

Surely, I cannot tell you why something is not a problem until you first explain why it is.

It's unfortunate that you refuse to discuss this in a genuine and sincere manner. My mistake.

[gadfly]

Perhaps these do not represent "Entire religious systems"

That is correct. Barton is not suggesting that no doctrines can be derived from the Bible, just that the Bible cannot be (and historically clearly is not) the sole foundation for either Christianity or Judaism. It's simply not that kind of a book.

I have not read Barton and so address you as a representative (not at all assuming you agree with him entirely; only that you you have read him). The statement “the Bible cannot be the sole foundation for Christianity or Judaism” requires clarification. What else contributes to their foundation? Obviously, we do not learn our logic solely from the Bible, and obviously logic (to some degree) is necessary in all theologies. But the basis of Judaism is Sinai and the basis of Christianity is the Resurrection and these derive from the Bible. It would seem that the Bible is the sole foundation of Christianity, in so far as from it and it alone both religions find their historical roots: two concrete historical events.

[VVilliam]

Perhaps these do not represent "Entire religious systems"

That is correct. Barton is not suggesting that no doctrines can be derived from the Bible, just that the Bible cannot be (and historically clearly is not) the sole foundation for either Christianity or Judaism. It's simply not that kind of a book.

I have not read Barton and so address you as a representative (not at all assuming you agree with him entirely; only that you you have read him). The statement “the Bible cannot be the sole foundation for Christianity or Judaism” requires clarification. What else contributes to their foundation? Obviously, we do not learn our logic solely from the Bible, and obviously logic (to some degree) is necessary in all theologies. But the basis of Judaism is Sinai and the basis of Christianity is the Resurrection and these derive from the Bible. It would seem that the Bible is the sole foundation of Christianity, in so far as from it and it alone both religions find their historical roots: two concrete historical events.

There does appear to be contention in relation to where Christianity itself derives. Some argue Paul, some argue Jesus.

Some even argue that the contributing foundation of both Christianity and Judaism are sourced in a time prior to the creation of this universe. Clearly biblical Jesus seems to favor this as being the case.

The bible might be the book Christendom most worships, but within its pages there appears to be a thread which suggests that it is not 'the sole foundation' of either Christianity or Judaism. The formation of such appear to come from a far more ancient source which existed even before the universe was created.

[gadfly]

Some clarification please. Where do you see Jesus endorsing this view?