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?

[historia]

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

On the contrary, I'm asking you to explicate your argument -- in order to unpack the assumptions underlying it -- precisely so we can have a serious discussion.

You seem to imagine that your assumptions are universally held, and thus do not require explanation, but that is simply mistaken.

To illustrate that point, consider, by comparison, this analysis from Brett Weinstein, the (atheist) evolutionary biologist and social commentator, previously at Evergreen State College:

[T]hese religious texts are, in general, not really designed -- when I say 'designed', I mean in the evolutionary sense -- to be coherent. You can't read the Bible from one end to the other and say, 'oh, I understand the meaning,' because it self-contradicts.

It's dependent on having a clergy who deploys this passage this week, that passage next week, in light of what is going on inside the community, and those sort of things.

It's actually a lot like a genome. If you had all of your genes transcribed at once you'd just be a puddle of mush. It's dependent on knowing which genes to transcribe where and when.

Notice that Weinstein begins with (roughly) the same observation you do about the Bible, but reaches a very different conclusion. For Weinstein, the nature of the Bible does not pose a serious issue for Christianity (or Judaism) because he recognizes (rightly, I think) that it was never intended to be the kind of book one can just pick up and devise an entire religious system out of -- it's not a Constitution, as Barton put it. It has a different role within the religious community.

Perhaps that addresses your questions. Perhaps it doesn't. We won't know unless you first explain why you think the nature of the Bible poses a serious issue for Christianity.

[historia]

The statement “the Bible cannot be the sole foundation for Christianity or Judaism” requires clarification. What else contributes to their foundation?

Tradition.

The Bible is obviously an essential component of both faiths, but it's also true that Jews and Christians interpret the Bible through the lens of their traditions.

In fact, if anything has a claim to being the 'sole' foundation of Christianity, it's tradition, not the Bible. The Eastern Orthodox view that Scripture is, in a sense, part of Tradition probably reflects the historical reality better than either the Protestant or Roman Catholic view.

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.

I understand the point you're making here, but think about this historically: Before any book of the New Testament was even written, were there Christians who believed in the Resurrection? Surely there were. So can we then say that the Bible is the foundation of that belief?

Moreover, if the Bible were somehow the sole foundation for Christianity, then that means Christianity, as such, couldn't exist until the Bible was complete. But the biblical canon wasn't settled until the late 4th Century, and obviously Christians had all kinds of beliefs and practices well before then.

Even the formation of the canon itself was informed by existing Christian beliefs and practices. The (proto-) orthodox community selected some books for inclusion in the Bible and rejected others based on which books were compatible with their beliefs and had traditionally been used and approved by the community and which ones didn't. Tradition determines what even constitutes the Bible.

[WeSee]

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

On the contrary, I'm asking you to explicate your argument -- in order to unpack the assumptions underlying it -- precisely so we can have a serious discussion.

You seem to imagine that your assumptions are universally held, and thus do not require explanation, but that is simply mistaken.

To illustrate that point, consider, by comparison, this analysis from Brett Weinstein, the (atheist) evolutionary biologist and social commentator, previously at Evergreen State College:

[T]hese religious texts are, in general, not really designed -- when I say 'designed', I mean in the evolutionary sense -- to be coherent. You can't read the Bible from one end to the other and say, 'oh, I understand the meaning,' because it self-contradicts.

It's dependent on having a clergy who deploys this passage this week, that passage next week, in light of what is going on inside the community, and those sort of things.

It's actually a lot like a genome. If you had all of your genes transcribed at once you'd just be a puddle of mush. It's dependent on knowing which genes to transcribe where and when.

Notice that Weinstein begins with (roughly) the same observation you do about the Bible, but reaches a very different conclusion. For Weinstein, the nature of the Bible does not pose a serious issue for Christianity (or Judaism) because he recognizes (rightly, I think) that it was never intended to be the kind of book one can just pick up and devise an entire religious system out of -- it's not a Constitution, as Barton put it. It has a different role within the religious community.

Perhaps that addresses your questions. Perhaps it doesn't. We won't know unless you first explain why you think the nature of the Bible poses a serious issue for Christianity.

Tell you what. If you actually want to discuss this, then directly answer the following questions instead of continuing to pretend that an explanation wasn't given in my first post to you.

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."?

If you don't directly answer the questions, then I'll take that as an indication that you don't actually want to discuss it.

[VVilliam]

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

On the contrary, I'm asking you to explicate your argument -- in order to unpack the assumptions underlying it -- precisely so we can have a serious discussion.

You seem to imagine that your assumptions are universally held, and thus do not require explanation, but that is simply mistaken.

To illustrate that point, consider, by comparison, this analysis from Brett Weinstein, the (atheist) evolutionary biologist and social commentator, previously at Evergreen State College:

[T]hese religious texts are, in general, not really designed -- when I say 'designed', I mean in the evolutionary sense -- to be coherent. You can't read the Bible from one end to the other and say, 'oh, I understand the meaning,' because it self-contradicts.

It's dependent on having a clergy who deploys this passage this week, that passage next week, in light of what is going on inside the community, and those sort of things.

It's actually a lot like a genome. If you had all of your genes transcribed at once you'd just be a puddle of mush. It's dependent on knowing which genes to transcribe where and when.

Notice that Weinstein begins with (roughly) the same observation you do about the Bible, but reaches a very different conclusion. For Weinstein, the nature of the Bible does not pose a serious issue for Christianity (or Judaism) because he recognizes (rightly, I think) that it was never intended to be the kind of book one can just pick up and devise an entire religious system out of -- it's not a Constitution, as Barton put it. It has a different role within the religious community.

Perhaps that addresses your questions. Perhaps it doesn't. We won't know unless you first explain why you think the nature of the Bible poses a serious issue for Christianity.

Tell you what. If you actually want to discuss this, then directly answer the following questions instead of continuing to pretend that an explanation wasn't given in my first post to you.

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."?

If you don't directly answer the questions, then I'll take that as an indication that you don't actually want to discuss it.

For me it is always about taking care on how we approach anything.

The bible as it is, can be all of these things and still not be a problem insurmountable. There is no doubt a problem, but does it stem from what we discover externally or is the problem really sourced internally and therefore a product of the individual?

I think it is the latter. As a Christian I have no problem melding all the apparent contradictions into one versatile coherent understanding. I accept all equally.

Biblically speaking, we have major hints that there is more to the picture than first meets the eye and the invitation to get involved at deeper levels is not for the faint of heart.

In general, whatever position one chooses on any particular doctrine is better than lacking support for any of it...and taking that to the extremes of attacking. Those who attack 'know not what they do' apart from those who do know. I have my doubts that there are many who are fully aware of the deeper levels and choose to attack anyway.

Mostly it is all ignorance. The real question is "am I willing to set aside my doubt and to go deep?"... some are satisfied with the mundane task of critiquing from the sidelines and will never fully appreciate their loss for that.

Therefore, whatever the attack from that position is, it is no more felt that a feather is when tapped upon a helmet.

[Zzyzx]

.

The real question is "am I willing to set aside my doubt and to go deep?"... some are satisfied with the mundane task of critiquing from the sidelines and will never fully appreciate their loss for that.

“Set aside doubt and go deep” is an instruction to believe without question. Any ideology that demands belief without question is authoritarian.

Therefore, whatever the attack from that position is, it is no more felt that a feather is when tapped upon a helmet.

All the kicking and screaming by apologists when challenged indicates the 'attacks' are far more than a feather -- OR they are easily knocked over with a feather -- perhaps the latter since their 'helmet' is nothing more than 'Take my word, or his, for it'.

[gadfly]

The statement “the Bible cannot be the sole foundation for Christianity or Judaism” requires clarification. What else contributes to their foundation?

Tradition.

The Bible is obviously an essential component of both faiths, but it's also true that Jews and Christians interpret the Bible through the lens of their traditions.

In fact, if anything has a claim to being the 'sole' foundation of Christianity, it's tradition, not the Bible. The Eastern Orthodox view that Scripture is, in a sense, part of Tradition probably reflects the historical reality better than either the Protestant or Roman Catholic view.

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.

I understand the point you're making here, but think about this historically: Before any book of the New Testament was even written, were there Christians who believed in the Resurrection? Surely there were. So can we then say that the Bible is the foundation of that belief?

Moreover, if the Bible were somehow the sole foundation for Christianity, then that means Christianity, as such, couldn't exist until the Bible was complete. But the biblical canon wasn't settled until the late 4th Century, and obviously Christians had all kinds of beliefs and practices well before then.

Even the formation of the canon itself was informed by existing Christian beliefs and practices. The (proto-) orthodox community selected some books for inclusion in the Bible and rejected others based on which books were compatible with their beliefs and had traditionally been used and approved by the community and which ones didn't. Tradition determines what even constitutes the Bible.

(an apology: I still have not figured out how to reply to a post without quoting the whole post).

The Bible is obviously an essential component of both faiths, but it's also true that Jews and Christians interpret the Bible through the lens of their traditions.

In fact, if anything has a claim to being the 'sole' foundation of Christianity, it's tradition, not the Bible. The Eastern Orthodox view that Scripture is, in a sense, part of Tradition probably reflects the historical reality better than either the Protestant or Roman Catholic view.

I think I understand what you are getting at. I will only suggest some caution: there are some Christians and even denominations (I grew up in one) that have a very loose affiliation with any established ecclesial tradition. I have taught Sunday School at my church on a few occasions and my audience appreciates my "historical approach"; that is, they don't care much for what "theory of atonement" 1 Corinthians gives; they are far more interested in the historical question of why, say, Corinthian Christians think they can have sex with prostitutes (1 Cor. 6).

I understand the point you're making here, but think about this historically: Before any book of the New Testament was even written, were there Christians who believed in the Resurrection? Surely there were. So can we then say that the Bible is the foundation of that belief?

And I think I understand the point you are making. I will be so bold as to say that you are challenging a kind of "bibliolatry", a worship of the Bible itself, without any understanding of the real people, the real experiences, that lie behind it. And I am sympathetic. I am, of sorts, an historian. I understand that when Paul preached among the Corinthians there was no New Testament; and when he wrote to them in 1 Cor. "do not go beyond what is written," he most certainly meant the Old Testament (or, perhaps, some apostolic written instructions--but the predominance of O.T. citations suggests the former).

But we were not there. What we have at our disposal is the Bible. Certainly, there are various ways of reading it. Perhaps we read it through a tradition, focusing on 'proof texts' which confirm, or seem to confirm, a particular doctrine. Perhaps we study it as we would any ancient text: through the lens of historical methodology.

But in all these cases, the Bible is the sole foundation: what you call tradition are the lenses through which we read the text. No lens is, presumably, 20/20. But they all have the same projection cast upon the wall.

Even the formation of the canon itself was informed by existing Christian beliefs and practices. The (proto-) orthodox community selected some books for inclusion in the Bible and rejected others based on which books were compatible with their beliefs and had traditionally been used and approved by the community and which ones didn't. Tradition determines what even constitutes the Bible.

Yes, this could be a formidable problem; with it I take two lines of thought. As for tradition in general, it would be problematic only if we assume that when the community of Christians selected certain texts and rejected others as 'authoritative', there was in fact a gap of silence on Christian teaching spanning from the death of the last disciple of Jesus till then. But this is historical nonsense. It is quite clear that the first Christian community instructed others, who instructed others, who instructed others, who eventually saw that some writings were in congruence with their teaching and certain novelties springing up here and there were not.

In other words, the decision was not made in a vacuum, as if suddenly a bunch of elder Christians realized there were circulating about some texts which said Christ never died, some which claimed he died and was now a spirit, some which claimed he died for real and was really bodily raised; and then they cast the die to see which they would promulgate.

The other route is the one I take, which is not entirely incompatible with the one above. Both are historical. Tradition endorsed the current corpus because tradition is contiguous with the past. But even historical methodology, applied to any text canonical or not, will, if we are honestly pursuing historical methods and not some a priori philosophy, give strong evidence to at least the resurrection.

just some thoughts for future conversation. I do not at all presume I have "solved" the dilemma.

gadfly

[VVilliam]

“Set aside doubt and go deep” is an instruction to believe without question. Any ideology that demands belief without question is authoritarian.

It is unsurprising that a non-theists would see things in that way. However, “Set aside doubt and go deep” is not "an instruction to believe without question".

All the kicking and screaming by apologists when challenged indicates the 'attacks' are far more than a feather -- OR they are easily knocked over with a feather -- perhaps the latter since their 'helmet' is nothing more than 'Take my word, or his, for it'.

There has been nothing a non-theist has ever been able to argue for which I have personally felt the strike of their argument. Generally the illusion they have in regard to this, is how they seek out the weak and attack. A fair strategy in warfare but eventually the weak have been culled and the same arguments used to bring down the weak, are not effective against those who have gone deep within theism.

[VVilliam]

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."?

For newbies, all things are potentially 'a serious issue' and some do prefer not to dig too deeply. Eventually this will lead to a contentment regardless, or a discontentment where the theist becomes a non-theist.
But to the seasoned theist, such non-theist instruction on 'how things are' or 'how things ought to be' is not - and never can be - an issue.

They are generally best left to their impressions as these booster their own sense of surety in relation to their own non-theist positions.

For ex-theists who are now non-theists, their reluctance to go deep continues. They are in effect, the weak among the theists, who have been culled.

[WeSee]

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

On the contrary, I'm asking you to explicate your argument -- in order to unpack the assumptions underlying it -- precisely so we can have a serious discussion.

You seem to imagine that your assumptions are universally held, and thus do not require explanation, but that is simply mistaken.

To illustrate that point, consider, by comparison, this analysis from Brett Weinstein, the (atheist) evolutionary biologist and social commentator, previously at Evergreen State College:

[T]hese religious texts are, in general, not really designed -- when I say 'designed', I mean in the evolutionary sense -- to be coherent. You can't read the Bible from one end to the other and say, 'oh, I understand the meaning,' because it self-contradicts.

It's dependent on having a clergy who deploys this passage this week, that passage next week, in light of what is going on inside the community, and those sort of things.

It's actually a lot like a genome. If you had all of your genes transcribed at once you'd just be a puddle of mush. It's dependent on knowing which genes to transcribe where and when.

Notice that Weinstein begins with (roughly) the same observation you do about the Bible, but reaches a very different conclusion. For Weinstein, the nature of the Bible does not pose a serious issue for Christianity (or Judaism) because he recognizes (rightly, I think) that it was never intended to be the kind of book one can just pick up and devise an entire religious system out of -- it's not a Constitution, as Barton put it. It has a different role within the religious community.

Perhaps that addresses your questions. Perhaps it doesn't. We won't know unless you first explain why you think the nature of the Bible poses a serious issue for Christianity.

Tell you what. If you actually want to discuss this, then directly answer the following questions instead of continuing to pretend that an explanation wasn't given in my first post to you.

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."?

If you don't directly answer the questions, then I'll take that as an indication that you don't actually want to discuss it.

For me it is always about taking care on how we approach anything.

The bible as it is, can be all of these things and still not be a problem insurmountable. There is no doubt a problem, but does it stem from what we discover externally or is the problem really sourced internally and therefore a product of the individual?

I think it is the latter. As a Christian I have no problem melding all the apparent contradictions into one versatile coherent understanding. I accept all equally.

Biblically speaking, we have major hints that there is more to the picture than first meets the eye and the invitation to get involved at deeper levels is not for the faint of heart.

In general, whatever position one chooses on any particular doctrine is better than lacking support for any of it...and taking that to the extremes of attacking. Those who attack 'know not what they do' apart from those who do know. I have my doubts that there are many who are fully aware of the deeper levels and choose to attack anyway.

Mostly it is all ignorance. The real question is "am I willing to set aside my doubt and to go deep?"... some are satisfied with the mundane task of critiquing from the sidelines and will never fully appreciate their loss for that.

Therefore, whatever the attack from that position is, it is no more felt that a feather is when tapped upon a helmet.

As a Christian I have no problem melding all the apparent contradictions into one versatile coherent understanding.

What of two Christians, both of whom have "meld[ed] all the apparent contradictions into one versatile coherent understanding", yet whose understandings have theological positions that are antithetical to each other?

[Zzyzx]

.

“Set aside doubt and go deep” is an instruction to believe without question. Any ideology that demands belief without question is authoritarian.

It is unsurprising that a non-theists would see things in that way. However, “Set aside doubt and go deep” is not "an instruction to believe without question".

HOW, exactly, is 'set aside doubt' not an instruction to believe without question?

All the kicking and screaming by apologists when challenged indicates the 'attacks' are far more than a feather -- OR they are easily knocked over with a feather -- perhaps the latter since their 'helmet' is nothing more than 'Take my word, or his, for it'.

There has been nothing a non-theist has ever been able to argue for which I have personally felt the strike of their argument.

Some drank deeply the Kool Aid. However, many who read these threads are not so thoroughly indoctrinated as to ignore and deny opposing ideas.

Generally the illusion they have in regard to this, is how they seek out the weak and attack.

Perhaps some day the 'strong' will present verifiable evidence to show that their claims of knowledge are anything more than exaggerated self-opinion.

A fair strategy in warfare but eventually the weak have been culled and the same arguments used to bring down the weak, are not effective against those who have gone deep within theism.

Perhaps those who are thoroughly indoctrinated will continue to claim they have special knowledge. However, they are losing ground in educated / advanced / technological areas (while advancing in under-developed nations). As older generations of fervent believers dies out, younger generations are increasingly characterized as “No religious preference”.