How the Bible is to be read and understood is by no means a simple matter.
There are a number of different ways of approaching the Bible and different Christian denominations will advocate one method over another.
This matter is further complicated by the huge variety of types of literature in the Bible, the different authors and the huge timescale over which the different books were written.
Some propose the Bible must be taken literally. This creates problems however as there are apparant contradictions and it also, for example, is very difficult to make this compatible with a scientific view of the world.
Others will suggest that many of the Biblical books should be read as myths that still, however, contain truths about God's relationship with humanity. While this may explain some of the contradictions and be compatible with science it does mean that the meaning of these myths is based on human judgement and could vary from person to person or denomination to denomination.
You're not going to get far if you take the Bible literally. I'm not a big fan of the Bible, having read it cover to cover and concluded it was amongst the most gory and uninspirational books I've ever read, but I will support your right to follow it if you so wish. But I mean, how do you know which bits to take literally and which bits to take metaphorically? The bits you don't like are usually metaphors, but you follow the bits you like down to the last letter... am I right? I think I probably am, because that's exactly what I used to do.
ReplyDelete"Let a woman learn in full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent." 1 Timothy 2:11
"Women should remain silent in Churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission... if they want to inquire about something they should ask their husbands; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in Church." 1 Corinthians 14
Metaphors? I see the, "It was a different time" argument arise it's much used head.
"The grass withers; the flowers fade; but the word of our God will stand forever." - Isaiah 40:8
And that's just sexism: the Bible cleary advocates slavery, murder, and discrimination... and we give this book to our children. I'm sorry, but how can you take this book even to be metaphorically true?
"Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity." - Titus 2:9
Yeah, it was a different time, but misogyny? Slavery? The Buddha managed equality. The Jain patriarch managed it. Greek philosophers managed it.
"Whoever does any work on [the Sabbath] must be put to death." - Exodus 35:2
"Anyone who blasphemes in the name of the Lord must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him." - Leviticus 24:16
"All who curse their mother and father must be put to death." - Leviticus 20:9
"...both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." - Leviticus 20:10
"Jesus said: if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away... and if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away." [full passage Matthew 18:7-9] Cutting off your hand and your foot accomplishes nothing, and I can't think of a single Christian today who has ever maimed themselves because Jesus said so.
Have I misunderstood? Part of me really does hope a good chunk of my friends and family arn't blindly following a book which advocates slavery, misogyny, murder and rape. I don't type these things out because I hate religion or because I want to be the smug athiest who points out the flaws in religion to make the religious squirm: I do it because I'm actually concerned. I'm concerned that my friends have never fully read the book they believe is perfect, I'm concerned teachers give it to our children on the pretence that it's true. I'm concerned that the people teaching me, nursing me, and making the laws I live by cannot justify the hatred and the blatent discrimination in the book they believe is the word of a god. A god who doesn't seem to be helping them when I ask them to justify what they believe.
And I'm sorry to get so serious but let's face it: people are getting killed for this nonsense.
"The law of the Lord is perfect." - Psalm 19:7
I say if you have to choose a Scripture to live by, choose the Dhammapada, the Taoist writings, the Shinto myths, the teachings of Confucius. I'm sure we can do better than the Bible. I'm sure.
All hate mail can be directed to me.
I don't know about hate mail, your post shows great thought and evidence of research.
ReplyDeleteAs no-one else is commenting I will expand a little on some of the points raised in the original post. I'm no expert in Biblical exegesis but will do my best from memory of university! I will only be scratching the surface of these issues.
There has been much research done into the context, style and possible purpose of the different books of the Bible.(Eg Rudolph Bultmann argued the true message of the Bible could be found by a process called demythologising)
For example, the creation stories in Genesis are written in the similar poetic style and have similar content to Babylonian creation myths. If they were based on such myths then it seems very unlikey that were written as literal accounts, but were rather a way of expressing fundemental beliefs about the relationship between God and the world.
With this in mind, it is not simply a case of classing these stories at metaphorical because you don't like them, there is actually good reason to view them as such. So they may show that God created and has an interest in the world, especially humanity. (They may also show men are superior to women - woman made from man's rib - hence the problem with interpreting)! Of course that is matter of opinion and indeed faith.
The laws in Leviticus etc reflect a religious group in a particular time and place. Semi-historical books written through the eyes of people who believed they had a special covenant with God. (...'it was a different time' IS rearing it's head!). The Israelites were under religious, political and military threat through most of the period recorded in the Bible and a strong sense of family and community were vital if they were to survive. The laws reflect this need. Most Jewish people recognise that they have moved on from this. I am in no way justifying stoning, slavery and misogynous attitudes - I personally don't think such things have ever been acceptable.(Incidentally the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle most likely did support slavery)
The New Testament books are another types of literature. The existence of Jesus the man (not the Son of God - that is a faith claim) is accepted by many many scholars. The Gospels reflect the beliefs of early Christian communities about Jesus. As such it is not unreasonable to believe there is some historical accuracy. It is suggested by many scholars that the different communities had their own priorities and sources and this is reflected in the differences between the Gospels.
The gospels shows Jesus' preferred method of teaching was through symbolic parables. With this in mind it seems reasonable that Jesus was not advocating self mutilation (pluck out you eye...) but was rather showing how serious one should be about avoiding sinful behaviour, in the same way when Jesus commands people to do likewise after the Good Samiritan he doesn't mean walk the road from from Jerusalem to Jericho looking for a man that has fallen into the hands of brigands, but rather simply help those in need, no matter who they are. Or maybe that's just the way I see it as I want to keep my eye!
St.Paul's questionable quotes on women - it was a different time! You either accept that as an explanation or you don't.
I am not stating this as the correct view, just 'a' view.
A problem with this view is that to study each book of the Bible would be a life's pursuit.
However the purpose of priests/ministers in Christianity is to give their denomination's view of the Bible, which is often based on years, if not centuries of study. How effectively this is done will obviously depend on the individual priest.
I am not looking for an argument with Anon and agree that the Bible raises many problematic questions.
While some, like Anon, will dismiss the Bible becasue of this; some will reject the problems as they believe the Bible is the inerrant literal word of God and still others will attempt to explain and answer these questions through study and research.
Who is right?
Well that's for you to decide!
"it is not simply a case of classing these stories at metaphorical because you don't like them, there is actually good reason to view them as such."
ReplyDeleteOkay, so the Bible is an abstract and symbolic representation of ideas about God and the Universe, meant to stimulate the minds of those with faith and without.
Do you REALLY think this is what the primitive storytellers were thinking as they told their tales around a campfire? And classing them as metaphorical because that's the only moral thing to do seems very commonplace, and a perfectly good idea for a good chunk of the religious.
"The laws in Leviticus reflect a religious group in a particular time and place."
This is basically the 'it was a different time' argument arising its head, so I won't spend much time repeating that religions like Buddhism seemed to manage not to want to stone disobedient children to death. The Jain religion didn't seem to want only male disciples. I know the context in which Leviticus is supposed to be interpreted under, and I still cannot bring myself to see it as anything but a mildly interesting (cruel, and gruesome) law document of which there are thousands similar.
"I personally don't think such things have ever been acceptable."
They were, and they still are in some parts of the world; it's naive to think that they havn't been considered acceptable if not fundamentally necessary.
"Incidentally the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle most likely did support slavery"
Possibly, and I'm in no way suggesting they were perfect, more that they educated women before a time when Christian thinkers believe it was a sin to do so.
"The Gospels reflect the beliefs of early Christian communities about Jesus. As such it is not unreasonable to believe there is some historical accuracy."
Unfortunately, I think it's widely accepted that Bible doesn't have much historical accuracy at all. I can't say I've done much research on this however, but there's a reason why Moses doesn't appear in our history books. For much of the 'historical' things in the Bible, the only evidence it gives is itself.
"The gospels shows Jesus' preferred method of teaching was through symbolic parables."
On a slightly unrelated note, did you know he lost his temper at his disciples for not understanding these parables? I'd need to get the verses, but it still begs the question, why teach in parables at all, then? Apparently clarity isn't an important qualification for Savior of mankind.
"St.Paul's questionable quotes on women - it was a different time! You either accept that as an explanation or you don't."
Like I'm saying again, the Buddha managed it. The Jain patriarch managed it. Greek philosophers managed it. It's not a case of accepting it, I fully accept that as the explanation. What I am pointing out is that apparently there's a more moral alternative here. Whether you accept that, is completely up to you.
"I am not looking for an argument with Anon and agree that the Bible raises many problematic questions."
I am not trying to argue, and I apolagise if this seems the case. I also apologise for picking apart your statements like this, I'm just attempting to raise questions that I feel are legitimate.
"While some, like Anon, will dismiss the Bible becasue of this..."
Dismiss as the word of God? Not completely. I fully accept that there's a possibility it could be. However, I choose to live my life on the assumption that it is not. Dismiss entirely? Certainly not, for the sole reason this book has shaped, and continues to shape the treatment of women, children, laws, and peoples lives. You cannot dismiss such an influencial book, and I feel it would be foolish for anyone to do so.
"Who is right?
Well that's for you to decide!"
And just to end this post, I'd like to point out that I don't want people to decide I'm right or wrong, I want them to consider all points, criticise them and make up their own minds.
I think much of what you say is valid and feel it was clear in my last post that I was putting forward views that were not without their problems.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the 'different time' argument is often relied upon to make some sections of the Bible more palatble but this does not necessarily invalidate it. It is more than different time - it is different political, religious, social, environmental etc all of which can have an effect on community rules. As you point out on several occasions, other religious teachers may not have advocated slavery, misogyny etc, but they where in a different context which may go some way towards explaining this... or maybe they were more morally enlightened.
I am well aware that some people did and still do, advocate slavery etc, but I don't think they should.
Just to reemphasise, The Bible is a collection of different books, written over a long period of time. The lack of historical evidence for Moses is not really connected to the issue of whether it's unreasonable to believe there is some historical accuracy in the Gospels. There are non-biblical references to Jesus eg, Josephus, which, even when the disputed tests are removed, support the existence of Jesus the man. Of course, all the religious claims about Jesus remain a matter of faith.
I was not suggesting any readers decide if you are right or wrong - I was suggesting they may make a judgement on the various view points.
Thank you for your comments. Now let's hope we get some others commenting so I can take a step back!