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]

As I said before, it's an adaptation of Isaiah 13:10, which is in the middle of an apocalyptic and allegorical vision. In that passage, the sun, moon, and stars together stop giving light to show that all of creation is at God's command.

I'm not sure why Isaiah 13:10 is necessarily allegory or that the stars, sun, and moon it mentions are metaphors. Based on my reading of the Bible, writers of both Testaments were very superstitious and had a very primitive cosmology. It is then not surprising at all, at least to me, that Isaiah, Mark, and Matthew all could have believed that celestial bodies would react to earthly events. For somebody like Christ, believing in stars that literally fell from the sky would not be a problem for him if he was merely a man of his time.

Mark (copied by Matthew) changes up the stars to represent the divine army. I think this ends up creating a mixed metaphor (the sun and moon being darkened by God at the same time that the divine army is facing a preliminary defeat by evil forces), but I don't think an inexpert metaphor means that Mark was being literal.

So you see Christ as predicting that angels (the "divine army") would fall from the sky. Does that sound right to you? In Mark 8:38 Christ calls that army "holy angels" rather than "stars," so I'm left wondering why in other passages he would refer to them as stars.

I assume that it was obvious to Mark and Matthew that both Isaiah and Daniel were allegorical visions and they were applying the vision to contemporary circumstances.

Stars in the sky can appear in allegory. Not everything mentioned in allegory is a metaphor.

My opinion is that so much of Matthew is so over-the-top weird as history that he couldn't possibly expect a reader to see it as such.

I wouldn't say that Matthew is any weirder than most of the Bible. Are you sure you aren't assuming that first-century Jews thought like we do today? Heck, many people in the modern world don't seem to have a problem believing that Matthew was writing history. They're known as "Christians." So if Matthew did think that nobody would mistake his story as history, then he was very wrong!

The slaughter of the innocents and flight to Egypt (with direct quotes from Exodus, no less) are meant to present Jesus as the new Moses, for example, but are barely plausible at best as history.

I agree that that story can be seen as allegory, but there was a real Egypt and presumably a real baby Jesus. So again, the elements mentioned in allegory need not be mere metaphors. So even if Matthew 24:29 was intended to be allegory, the stars mentioned can be real stars.

With the caveats that Mark may be deriving from another similar story that we don't have and that "entertain" is defined broadly enough to include energizing and focusing the faith of Mark's Christian contemporaries, then I think that's probably right.

Now here you may be on to something. Myths and allegory were often written to "energize and focus" people, and it's very possible that Mark was made up for that purpose. It's important to note, however, that the story includes real-life elements like Pilate, the Temple, crucifixion, and Jerusalem.

If someone reports seeing a white whale, it's not completely ruled out as a straight report, but I hope you'd agree that absent any other evidence, a report of a white whale is more likely to be a Melville reference than an actual whale sighting. If it included other, related literary references (something about tilting at windmills, perhaps?) then I'd say it would almost certainly be a Melville reference.

I'd look at the account of the white whale to judge if the white whale is meant to be taken literally or not. Even though Melville wrote a fictional account of a white whale, it does not follow that all mentions of a white whale are presenting the white whale as a metaphor.

If I may digress, I understand that Moby Dick appears as a white whale in Melville's story because white whales do tend to be more aggressive than other whales. A white whale lacks the advantage of camouflage and needs to be unusually fierce to hunt and survive.

[unknown soldier]

Often atheists tend to interpret the Bible in a negative way because that's what they want to see, and of course, theists do the opposite.

Actually, I first developed my interpretation of passages like Matthew 24:29 when I was yet a Christian. It was what Christians taught me.

I suppose I could start a whole thread about cases of Christians accusing me of "straw-manning" their beliefs, but the way I see their beliefs did not develop from my trying to lampoon Christianity as an enemy of Christ. I see Christianity based on what I've read in the Bible and what many Christians say. It is then great consternation for me to be accused of distorting Christianity when Christians taught me Christianity.

[DavidLeon]

Often atheists tend to interpret the Bible in a negative way because that's what they want to see, and of course, theists do the opposite.

Actually, I first developed my interpretation of passages like Matthew 24:29 when I was yet a Christian. It was what Christians taught me.

I suppose I could start a whole thread about cases of Christians accusing me of "straw-manning" their beliefs, but the way I see their beliefs did not develop from my trying to lampoon Christianity as an enemy of Christ. I see Christianity based on what I've read in the Bible and what many Christians say. It is then great consternation for me to be accused of distorting Christianity when Christians taught me Christianity.

I don't doubt that it was what Christians taught you, but they were wrong. Probably a great deal of what they taught you was wrong. You got out of it. Good move.

[Difflugia]

The reality is that, if people get Jesus wrong, they get everything wrong. And if you look down through the centuries, you see that all the heresies ever presented are heresies about the identity of Jesus Christ which is why Christians have zealously protected the truth of who and what he is in the face of attacks.

Christians have certainly been zealous about protecting something, but considering the contortions required of apologists to roll the various Jesuses into one, I'd hesitate to call it "truth."

I've always thought that the likes of Irenaeus and Tertullian ended up making their opponents sound more insightful and competent as Christian interpreters than they themselves were. In my humble opinion, Christendom is poorer for having preserved Irenaeus rather then Basilides, Cerinthus, and Valentinus. It's like trying to reconstruct the thoughts of Charles Darwin or Stephen Jay Gould, but only having an Answers in Genesis homeschool biology textbook to work with.

[Difflugia]

I'm not sure why Isaiah 13:10 is necessarily allegory or that the stars, sun, and moon it mentions are metaphors. Based on my reading of the Bible, writers of both Testaments were very superstitious and had a very primitive cosmology. It is then not surprising at all, at least to me, that Isaiah, Mark, and Matthew all could have believed that celestial bodies would react to earthly events. For somebody like Christ, believing in stars that literally fell from the sky would not be a problem for him if he was merely a man of his time.

For what it's worth, I think you're right in general and it's not always easy to separate literal from literary. I've been arguing that Isaiah, Daniel, Matthew, and Mark were intended to be read figuratively, but at the same time, I think many details in early Genesis were meant to be read literally (the firmament, fountains of the deep, and gates of heaven, for example) while being no less impossible than falling stars.

So you see Christ as predicting that angels (the "divine army") would fall from the sky. Does that sound right to you? In Mark 8:38 Christ calls that army "holy angels" rather than "stars," so I'm left wondering why in other passages he would refer to them as stars.

No, I think Mark wrote his Christ character as predicting that earthly forces of good would appear to suffer defeat, but God would ensure it became a victory in the end. Both angels and stars are referred to as the "host of heaven" in various Old Testament contexts and Mark is characterizing destruction in Jerusalem as coinciding with a figurative battle in heaven. Of course, Mark might have believed that there was a coinciding literal battle in heaven or that literal stars would fall for some other reason and I've never argued that those are impossible readings, but I don't think the context makes either of those likely readings as intended by any the evangelists, let alone necessary ones. As I said before, though, I've thought differently in the past about the Gospels in ways that are incompatible with what I think now. Perhaps I was right then and am wrong now or I'll figure something else out tomorrow that renders them both off base.

So if Matthew did think that nobody would mistake his story as history, then he was very wrong!

Yes.

I'd look at the account of the white whale to judge if the white whale is meant to be taken literally or not. Even though Melville wrote a fictional account of a white whale, it does not follow that all mentions of a white whale are presenting the white whale as a metaphor.

Again, you're right, but that's not something I claimed or implied. What I said is that references to Melville are more common in modern literature than discussions of actual white whales.

[unknown soldier]

...it's not always easy to separate literal from literary.

That's true especially regarding the Bible. It seems to me that first-century Jews might not have differentiated between myth and history and between literal and figurative, or at least not as much as modern people do. We should then take care not to assume that the Jews in antiquity thought like we do when they wrote passages like Matthew 24. Today we generally don't believe stars can fall from the sky, but I see no reason that the Jews didn't believe stars can fall from the sky. Who knows, maybe Matthew thought that the celestial stars would fall yet believed they also symbolized armies of angels.

I've been arguing that Isaiah, Daniel, Matthew, and Mark were intended to be read figuratively...

How do you tell the difference between that which is intended to be taken literally and that which is metaphorical?

...I think many details in early Genesis were meant to be read literally (the firmament, fountains of the deep, and gates of heaven, for example) while being no less impossible than falling stars.

Yes, and it's important to understand that Christ reputedly took all that mythology to be literal history. He probably believed that the earth is flat!

Both angels and stars are referred to as the "host of heaven" in various Old Testament contexts and Mark is characterizing destruction in Jerusalem as coinciding with a figurative battle in heaven.

If that's true, then Christ is even more superstitious than I started out saying. If he thought that stars are armies of angels in heaven, then he's even more ignorant than if he thought that celestial stars can fall.

What I said is that references to Melville are more common in modern literature than discussions of actual white whales.

I agree that we refer to Moby Dick far more often than actual white whales, but sometimes people do speak of actual white whales. Reading Moby Dick to try to understand sightings of white whales probably won't be too helpful in understanding white-whale sightings unless, of course, the people making the sighting referenced Melville. In the same way, trying to understand the New Testament by citing the Old Testament may or may not be helpful.

Finally, it would be very helpful to my understanding of your position if you could post your own version of Matthew 24:29-31. Please replace the metaphors with what those metaphors symbolize. Also, observe that verse 31 mentions angels explicitly. If the stars in verse 29 symbolize angels, then why aren't the angels in the very next verse referred to as stars? I find it odd that a metaphor would be replaced with its actual meaning that quickly.

[historia]

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.

What an astute rebuttal. Deny the censoring of Jagella's troubling argumentation by asserting with a wave of the hands that any such charge is "detached from reality." We all know that in reality Christians have never censored those who argue against their beliefs.

Don't be silly. Jagella was not censored for arguing against Christian beliefs. And, until you offer evidence to support such an assertion, there is nothing for me or anyone else here to rebut.

Actually, I am familiar with the Christian idea of "divine amnesia" as it applies to the incarnation of Christ. He is believed to have forgotten some of what he knew as God in some immaterial realm when he came down to live among us. Not to worry, though, because when he got back home, he remembered it all! I see the Catholics explain this temporary earth-bound amnesia as the inability of God to pack all that omniscience into one little guy's head.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. According to the Chalcedonian Definition, Christ has two distinct natures and two distinct minds. So to say that, in his human nature/mind, he "forgot" things or had "amnesia" about what is properly part of his divine nature, doesn't reflect what Christians have historically believed about the two natures.

And in case you missed it, this business about Christ "emptying" himself to become a man is a lot of baloney that the church made up to explain away Christ's very human ignorance.

In Philippians 2:6-11, Paul quotes an early Christian hymn that says Christ "emptied" himself. This is quite likely the earliest Christian text we have. If this was a belief from the very beginning of Christianity, then what exactly is being "explained away"?

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?

Oh sure. That is fair and correct. A lot of atheists don't know everything that Christian theologians have come up with about Christ. Many atheists don't care what Christian theologians say. Heck, no doubt the large majority of Christians don't understand all of their own theology. In any case, I just go with what I have read in the Bible and with what some Christians say about their theology.

That seems consistent with my experience reading atheist arguments against the divinity of Christ on this site, as well.

I think of this as the 'Ray Comfort-style' of argumentation. You may be familiar with Comfort's documentaries (I use that term loosely), where he goes up to random people on the street and asks them whether they believe in, say, Evolution and why.

They usually stammer out some off-the-cuff explanation, often times making mistakes based on their incomplete understanding of Evolution, and then Comfort proceeds to point out the errors in their arguments. From that he confidently concludes that Evolution is just a silly, mistake-ridden theory.

I think all of us would agree that that is a dubious way to critique an idea. If Comfort really wanted to properly challenge the neo-Darwinian theory of Evolution, he should critique the seminal texts and prominent scientists advancing the theory today, not just his own conception of the theory derived from random people on the street.

I think the same applies here.

And yet, it doesn't appear that you (or Jagella) took that into account when developing your critique.

Speaking for myself, if I don't respect what I'm fed, then no, I don't normally consider it when forming an argument. Do you keep in mind the "space-alien Christology" when you argue Christ's nature?

If I was critiquing the idea that Jesus was a space alien -- I assume that's what you mean here -- then I would absolutely take care to properly understand what the people who hold that view actually believe, otherwise I'm just knocking down a straw man version of their argument.

I'm not naive enough to believe that Christians believe or even know everything that their churches teach. This forum provides ample proof that Christians have very different theologies many of which I've never heard of before. Again, Christ is whatever you want to believe he is or is not. Christologies are a dime a dozen.

But there is, nevertheless, a historical, orthodox Christology, which is formally accepted by the vast majority of Christian churches. You seem to have largely ignored that in favor of your own informal conception of the doctrine when forming your critique of the divinity of Christ.

It seems to me that, if one wants to critique an idea, then one should critique that idea as it is articulated by its most able defenders, not a caricature of that ideas as articulated by random people one meets online.

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?

Not really.

What Christian church believe this, then?

[historia]

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.

I'm not mistaken. I was referring to your comment back on post #3:

Okay, so when you read ancient Jewish poetry, such as the Psalms, do you interpret them literally?

Here you are asking me how to interpret Psalms. Obviously, it would be folly to interpret a work that big lumping it all together!

What I'm asking you here is whether you recognize that certain literary forms and genres -- like poetry and apocalyptic literature -- often contain figurative language, or do you just read everything literally.

Obviously, me asking you a question about how you interpret ancient poetry is not me making a claim about how I interpret the Bible. To imagine so is a mistake. Nowhere have I said that every word of poetry is figurative, or that we should "lump together" the Psalms, whatever that even means.

I can't speak for all atheists, but I try to read the Bible like any other book allowing it to "speak for itself." It's not difficult to recognize metaphors because for the most part they are obvious. If a metaphor is not obvious, then I usually interpret the passage literally.

The problem here, though, is that the example you gave of what you consider to be an "obvious" metaphor (in post #22) was not actually a metaphor, but rather a simile. Metaphors are not always obvious, especially when reading a text written in a language, time, and culture very different from our own.

This is why I think it's useful to first consider the literary form and genre of a passage. We know that poetry and apocalyptic literature often uses figurative language. When reading such texts, we should be especially mindful that the author is likely using metaphors, allegories, and the like -- certainly more so than with, say, historical prose.

Perhaps our default position in those cases should not be that the author must be speaking literally unless it's "obvious" (to us) he's not, but rather that he is likely using figurative language.

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.

OK, if you say so. It does seem odd, though, that you work so long and so hard to deny the most obvious interpretation of Matthew 24:29. Why is it so important to you that that passage be interpreted so that its "sun, moon, and stars" are not the sun, moon, and stars?

If I thought a literal interpretation better explained the author's intentions, I would argue that instead.

Moreover, what is odd here is that you think I've worked "so long and so hard" to argue the passage is figurative. I've written exactly one sentence where I give my interpretation of this passage -- not just in this thread by in the entire history of the site.

You quote it here:

...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.

Like I explained to Diff, the references he made to passages in the Old Testament that he thought formed a basis for Matthew 24:29 are far from "clear"

Perhaps you can walk me through your thought process here, then. As others have noted, two of the key texts are Ezekiel 32 and Isaiah 13-14. They describe the Babylonian conquest of Egypt and the Persian conquest of Babylon, respectively.

When you read those texts, do you see them as just a straight-forward, literal description of those events?

[unknown soldier]

Don't be silly. Jagella was not censored for arguing against Christian beliefs. And, until you offer evidence to support such an assertion, there is nothing for me or anyone else here to rebut.

When I am told not to be silly, then I know I'm beat.

According to the Chalcedonian Definition, Christ has two distinct natures and two distinct minds. So to say that, in his human nature/mind, he "forgot" things or had "amnesia" about what is properly part of his divine nature, doesn't reflect what Christians have historically believed about the two natures.

The way I see it, we know that Christ's nature (if we can trust those who wrote of him) was nothing more than any person of his day. The church comes along and tries to tell us that he was nevertheless divine; it's just that his divine knowledge had been temporarily denied him. That's sound like amnesia to me, and what the church is saying is baloney. Why should we make such a ridiculous assumption when we only need to assume that he was a very imperfect man if he was even that?

The answer, of course, is that the Christian church wants to sell us a divine Christ.

In Philippians 2:6-11, Paul quotes an early Christian hymn that says Christ "emptied" himself. This is quite likely the earliest Christian text we have. If this was a belief from the very beginning of Christianity, then what exactly is being "explained away"?

I suppose Paul from the outset was aware of the problem of his Christ lacking divine knowledge and that that problem needed to be smoothed over right away.

You can't figure that out?

That seems consistent with my experience reading atheist arguments against the divinity of Christ on this site, as well.

I think of this as the 'Ray Comfort-style' of argumentation. You may be familiar with Comfort's documentaries (I use that term loosely), where he goes up to random people on the street and asks them whether they believe in, say, Evolution and why.

They usually stammer out some off-the-cuff explanation, often times making mistakes based on their incomplete understanding of Evolution, and then Comfort proceeds to point out the errors in their arguments. From that he confidently concludes that Evolution is just a silly, mistake-ridden theory.

I think all of us would agree that that is a dubious way to critique an idea. If Comfort really wanted to properly challenge the neo-Darwinian theory of Evolution, he should critique the seminal texts and prominent scientists advancing the theory today, not just his own conception of the theory derived from random people on the street.

What you're saying here is easy to rebut. Your error is to equate the theology of Christianity with evolutionary science. The former is based on faith, and the latter on hard evidence. Christianity is a personal faith that varies from one person to another, and no brand of Christianity can be demonstrated as any truer than any other. Consequently, the "Christian in the street" is every bit as good a source of information about Christian theology as any other Christian no matter how much they claim to be an expert on that theology. Evolutionary theory is not like that because there are biologists who can cite the evidence for evolution and explain it much better than the layperson can.

If I was critiquing the idea that Jesus was a space alien -- I assume that's what you mean here -- then I would absolutely take care to properly understand what the people who hold that view actually believe, otherwise I'm just knocking down a straw man version of their argument.

Seriously? You would study a "Christ from space" Christology to rebut it?

It seems to me that, if one wants to critique an idea, then one should critique that idea as it is articulated by its most able defenders, not a caricature of that ideas as articulated by random people one meets online.

Who are the "most able defenders" of the divine amnesia of Christ theory? Has anybody demonstrated that God took away his Son's omniscience because God couldn't get it into a human skull?

What Christian church believe this, then?

I don't know of any specific churches that hold as doctrine that Christ lived out his years in India. But that's not what you asked originally. You asked me if I agree that some views like that are not Christian. I'm not going to stand up on a box and tell people what Christianity really is or is not. As far as I can tell, there is no one Christianity that can be demonstrated to be "genuine," so I don't pretend that I know which Christianity is genuine.

What I'm asking you here is whether you recognize that certain literary forms and genres -- like poetry and apocalyptic literature -- often contain figurative language, or do you just read everything literally.

Yes, of course figurative language is sometimes used by writers.

To imagine so is a mistake. Nowhere have I said that every word of poetry is figurative, or that we should "lump together" the Psalms, whatever that even means.

You tell me how to interpret the Psalms. It was what you brought up.

If a metaphor is not obvious, then I usually interpret the passage literally.

The problem here, though, is that the example you gave of what you consider to be an "obvious" metaphor (in post #22) was not actually a metaphor, but rather a simile.

A simile is a metaphor. Please don't play word games with me.

Metaphors are not always obvious, especially when reading a text written in a language, time, and culture very different from our own.

There you go, Hist; agreed! That's exactly why I'm not quick to interpret words as metaphors. Thank you for arguing my case.

This is why I think it's useful to first consider the literary form and genre of a passage. We know that poetry and apocalyptic literature often uses figurative language. When reading such texts, we should be especially mindful that the author is likely using metaphors, allegories, and the like -- certainly more so than with, say, historical prose.

Perhaps our default position in those cases should not be that the author must be speaking literally unless it's "obvious" (to us) he's not, but rather that he is likely using figurative language.

I don't know if a passage from a genre of literature we read is necessarily figurative just because we know such literature often uses metaphors. I often use metaphors, but I don't always use them. So rather than rely on probabilities, I say we check the text of a passage for metaphors.

As others have noted, two of the key texts are Ezekiel 32 and Isaiah 13-14. They describe the Babylonian conquest of Egypt and the Persian conquest of Babylon, respectively.

When you read those texts, do you see them as just a straight-forward, literal description of those events?

Ezekiel 32 uses a several metaphors right away. They include a lion and a dragon. Since we know that Pharaoh was neither a lion nor a dragon, these words are not to be taken literally. However, much of it is probably meant to be read literally.

Isaiah 13-14 appear to be intended to be taken literally although there are some metaphors used like the "staff of the wicked" in 14:5. I don't think that it's saying that God will literally break any staffs. He is not known to do so!

So that's the way I interpret scripture. I don't just pronounce a word to be a metaphor because writers like Ezekiel and Isaiah often used metaphors. If I did, then I could say that God was only meant to be a metaphor. I look for good reasons to judge a word to be a metaphor. If I have no good reason to do so, then I take the word literally.

[unknown soldier]

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.

Jesus, if he ever existed, was no God, and we can clearly see his humanity in his primitive, superstitious, and frankly erroneous view of the world. His beliefs were nothing more than the suppositions of almost any other person living at the time and place we are told he lived. These facts have been demonstrated on this thread. So if Jagella argued that Jesus had a pre-scientific view of the stars, then Jagella was right, and you are wrong.

Historia, you lost this debate.