I'm fascinated by the ways in which the approaches mentioned here were already anticipated by some ancient Christians, particularly Origen. I happen to have a quote handy from one of my long-ago blog posts:
"This, however, must not be unnoted by us, that as the chief object of the Holy Spirit is to preserve the coherence of the spiritual meaning, either in those things which ought to be done or which have been already performed, if He anywhere finds that those events which, according to the history, took place, can be adapted to a spiritual meaning, He composed a texture of both kinds in one style of narration, always concealing the hidden meaning more deeply; but where the historical narrative could not be made appropriate to the spiritual coherence of the occurrences, He inserted sometimes certain things which either did not take place or could not take place; sometimes also what might happen, but what did not: and He does this at one time in a few words, which, taken in their “bodily” meaning, seem incapable of containing truth, and at another by the insertion of many. And this we find frequently to be the case in the legislative portions, where there are many things manifestly useful among the “bodily” precepts, but a very great number also in which no principle of utility is at all discernible, and sometimes even things which are judged to be impossibilities. Now all this, as we have remarked, was done by the Holy Spirit in order that, seeing those events which lie on the surface can be neither true nor useful, we may be led to the investigation of that truth which is more deeply concealed, and to the ascertaining of a meaning worthy of God in those Scriptures which we believe to be inspired by Him.” (On First Principles 4:1:15)
On First Principles was finished around 230 CE, but even that early, someone as perceptive as Origen had recognized the Biblical text often contained material that wasn't strictly historical and/or that might not have a "physical" application, even though it had a spiritual one.
People generally accept the fact that the parables aren't factual stories but are used by Jesus to illustrate a point. Why should it be so shocking that other parts of the Bible may function in the same way?
Use of nonliteral interpretation is even sanctioned by the Biblical text itself. In Galatians, Paul treats parts of the Abraham story as an allegory.
Exactly right. I think the most shocking thing was when I was in Hebrew Roots where we went to brass tacks to find the Truth and it ends up tipping you back to a Hebrew foundation (psuedo Jewish).
As such I was talking to a Rabbi about the literal interpretations and he looks at me and laughs saying "We [Jews] don't take the Bible literally. That's why we have Midrashes and the Talmud. That's why we treat the white space beween the Hebrew letters as sacred as the letters. There's always more meaning to unlock and that's why I love to study it."
He didn't study to find a singular truth but studied it to keep finding more truths as he played with the ideas. It was what bounced me back out of Hebrew Roots.
I'm a pragmatic naturalist, which entails local atheism for most if not all known religions, so I definitely do not believe the Bible is literally true--or any other holy book of any other mainstream religion for the matter. And still, I can see a lot of value in these books, not only for the cultural and anthropological insights they can give us, but also in a more personal sense, because they contain a wealth of wisdom passed down by generations of thinkers. It would be a shame to cast it all as false and pass on the many valuable ethical lessons.
I found this out when I studied the trinity and found out that was a lie. People read it into the text and no one in the bible believed in a triune god. That wasn't even in their creeds until hundreds or years later.
God allows the bible to be changed, as evidenced with people changing it all the time with new editions. And we're warned about the lying pen of the scribes and there's a curse for people changing it in Revelation.
On another note, the early Christians (Essenes), claimed that the scriptures lied about the forefathers sinning, saying Adam did nothing wrong, and Moses didn't either. They claim that his killing someone is a lie. It may be that it's a story for some sort of purpose, but they didn't believe it actually happened because Jesus taught them it didn't.
"Clementine Homilies II, Chapter LII: Sins of the Kiddoshim (Saints) Denied
Then Kefa (Apostle Peter) answered: With good reason, I neither believe anything against Elohim, nor against the just men recorded in the Torah, taking for granted that such are impious imaginations. For I am persuaded that Adam was neither a transgressor (he who was fashioned by the hands of Elohim), nor was Noah drunken, who was found righteous above all the world;18 nor did Avraham live with three wives at once, who, on account of his sobriety, was thought worthy of numerous posterity; nor did Yaakov (Jacob) associate with four, of whom two were sisters, who was the father of the twelve tribes, and who was suggestive of our Master’s presence; nor was Moses a murderer, nor did he learn to judge from an idolatrous priest: he who set forth the Torah of Elohim to all the world, and for his right judgment has been accounted a faithful steward.”" from https://leavesofthetree.substack.com/p/the-essenes-and-the-path-of-righteousness
I totally agree about the Trinity. That one is such a bloody mess and so inflametory to so many. I've heard it described as so illogical that it has to be a test to be taken on faith becasue god is so unknowable.
But the god of the OT and even Jesus keep telling people that god is very knowable and that everything there is to know about him has already been shared.
It's such a mess and, yes, created centuries later to fuse a little polytheism in.
Right, all summed up in 1 John 5:20 We know also that the son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know Him who is true. And we are in him who is true by being in His son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.
"Him that is true" has a son (named Jesus Christ) who came to let us know his Father was the only true God. He came to give us an understanding. Yet they claim we should be forever confused. It's ridiculous. And, yes, it is so inflammatory. I got called all sorts of names for talking about it. I didn't think it could get worse. But I found out talking about Paul being a false apostle was worse.
Using the two or more witnesses argument, I once asked a pastor what would be lost if we counted everything Paul said but then discarded everything that didn't have a second witness. His response was, "We'd lose Christianity."
Yes. That's the point. So much of what so-called Christians believe is really Paulinity. So when you start to question Paul, they have an existential crisis just thinking about losing what he brings to their faith and thus their whole religious identity would be a lie. They can't handle it.
Cool stuff. I definitely had my fragile interpretive days. Last time I tangled with the Bible, I followed the lead of an Anglican priest named N T Wright. Really great pragmatic scholarship.
If the Bible is THE Truth, then it’s hard to reason why there are so many older versions of the same stories seen in the Bible. There is so much freedom and peace that comes with allowing the stories to teach lessons in a spiritual context, vs trying to force the stories into a literal, historical and religious context. Your points of anti fragility are well put. It’s not just the Bible that becomes fragile with a literalist perspective, but the minds of the believers are prone to cognitive dissonance to protect themselves as well.
Well summarized. One sentiment that also gets in the easy of learning and growing is that all truths are in the Bible and there's no truth beyond it. So there are really three horizons of growth for folks like us who grew up in traditional interpretations : 1. It's the Truth, 2. It contains sum of truths 3. It contains truths but there truths that it doesn't have access to. The third set is truths about life supporting networks and processes that are mostly understood or lived out by indigenous cultures. It's only when we bathe in some of that thinking/feeling we realize there's a third horizon.
I'm in between 2 and 3. I wouldn't say that it contains everything but I'm impressed by how much it does contain that can structure a useful society. I've considered that if I could only have access to one book to reboot civilization in an appocalyptic event I'd probably grab the Bible. Not to say it has everything but it's pretty damn impressive when you step back and consider the full spectrum from morals to germ theory to governance to...
I grew up in the Indian Orthodox Church which is far from the literalist. At the time I was active in it (about 20 years ago), it had a healthy dialog with concepts from many lines of thought. The church itself claims to have been founded by the doubting Thomas in AD52 when he brought the faith to the Indian state of Kerala. I'd consider Thomas my role model in empiricism (I won't believe till my fingers touch his wounds) and spirit (let's go with him and die with him).
Much of that has given way to more literalism and exclusionist thinking (we've got all the right answers) in the last twenty years. I think it's simply an artifact of social media where nuances go to die.
Looking to the future, I hold a different view. The world we have today, along with the very real prospect of collapse, was founded firmly on biblical reasoning. When the core belief is that the Creator is separate from creation, and that creation has varying levels of value/consciousness, it creates a hierarchical mental model as the core truth. I'm not suggesting that without this book we wouldn't have hierarchies. Hierarchies are as natural as thermodynamics - arguably, they form due to thermodynamics. But holding up hierarchy as a universal correctness is fragile.
I see that the Bible had its chance to form the foundation of society and it has produced its results. There are good things and bad things - all dualistic terms we use to describe it are impoverished, but that's all we have.
I'd be curious to allow a new set of truths and ideas to form - most we haven't really thought of. Maybe something valuing smallness, subtlety , curiosity and a faith to allow. But again, I expect thermodynamics will set the boundaries of what we believe in and how we live. Those who can create simplified narratives that support extraction and exploitation of nature at long term costs will always defeat nuanced and reverent living.
Afterall, I left a very idyllic naturally rich life for NY so I can buy the latest gadgets :) true reverence seems to happen in the rear view mirror :)
Let's say civilization did reboot. Eventually, won't the new civilizations create their own truths? A restart would bring slow progression or no progression depending on the existing beings. However, would transferring knowledge of current technology would make any difference, even if the new civilization has only Bible to look into restructuring?
For instance, we have prayers were meant to communicate with a deity or God. The Bible never gave a blueprint of phones, infrastructure to build phones, or communicate with each other without phones in long distances (telepathy).
You make a good point and I guess I should have clarified when I mean civilization I wasn’t talking modern I was thinking something better than hunter-gatherer or warlords.
I'm fascinated by the ways in which the approaches mentioned here were already anticipated by some ancient Christians, particularly Origen. I happen to have a quote handy from one of my long-ago blog posts:
"This, however, must not be unnoted by us, that as the chief object of the Holy Spirit is to preserve the coherence of the spiritual meaning, either in those things which ought to be done or which have been already performed, if He anywhere finds that those events which, according to the history, took place, can be adapted to a spiritual meaning, He composed a texture of both kinds in one style of narration, always concealing the hidden meaning more deeply; but where the historical narrative could not be made appropriate to the spiritual coherence of the occurrences, He inserted sometimes certain things which either did not take place or could not take place; sometimes also what might happen, but what did not: and He does this at one time in a few words, which, taken in their “bodily” meaning, seem incapable of containing truth, and at another by the insertion of many. And this we find frequently to be the case in the legislative portions, where there are many things manifestly useful among the “bodily” precepts, but a very great number also in which no principle of utility is at all discernible, and sometimes even things which are judged to be impossibilities. Now all this, as we have remarked, was done by the Holy Spirit in order that, seeing those events which lie on the surface can be neither true nor useful, we may be led to the investigation of that truth which is more deeply concealed, and to the ascertaining of a meaning worthy of God in those Scriptures which we believe to be inspired by Him.” (On First Principles 4:1:15)
On First Principles was finished around 230 CE, but even that early, someone as perceptive as Origen had recognized the Biblical text often contained material that wasn't strictly historical and/or that might not have a "physical" application, even though it had a spiritual one.
People generally accept the fact that the parables aren't factual stories but are used by Jesus to illustrate a point. Why should it be so shocking that other parts of the Bible may function in the same way?
Use of nonliteral interpretation is even sanctioned by the Biblical text itself. In Galatians, Paul treats parts of the Abraham story as an allegory.
Exactly right. I think the most shocking thing was when I was in Hebrew Roots where we went to brass tacks to find the Truth and it ends up tipping you back to a Hebrew foundation (psuedo Jewish).
As such I was talking to a Rabbi about the literal interpretations and he looks at me and laughs saying "We [Jews] don't take the Bible literally. That's why we have Midrashes and the Talmud. That's why we treat the white space beween the Hebrew letters as sacred as the letters. There's always more meaning to unlock and that's why I love to study it."
He didn't study to find a singular truth but studied it to keep finding more truths as he played with the ideas. It was what bounced me back out of Hebrew Roots.
I'm a pragmatic naturalist, which entails local atheism for most if not all known religions, so I definitely do not believe the Bible is literally true--or any other holy book of any other mainstream religion for the matter. And still, I can see a lot of value in these books, not only for the cultural and anthropological insights they can give us, but also in a more personal sense, because they contain a wealth of wisdom passed down by generations of thinkers. It would be a shame to cast it all as false and pass on the many valuable ethical lessons.
I like that mindset. That's basically how I feel as well.
I found this out when I studied the trinity and found out that was a lie. People read it into the text and no one in the bible believed in a triune god. That wasn't even in their creeds until hundreds or years later.
The Bible itself claims that it is not the infallible "word of God. " I got over 16,000 views on my logical debunking of it and added that to an article here: https://leavesofthetree.substack.com/p/the-bible-claims-to-not-be-the-word
God allows the bible to be changed, as evidenced with people changing it all the time with new editions. And we're warned about the lying pen of the scribes and there's a curse for people changing it in Revelation.
On another note, the early Christians (Essenes), claimed that the scriptures lied about the forefathers sinning, saying Adam did nothing wrong, and Moses didn't either. They claim that his killing someone is a lie. It may be that it's a story for some sort of purpose, but they didn't believe it actually happened because Jesus taught them it didn't.
"Clementine Homilies II, Chapter LII: Sins of the Kiddoshim (Saints) Denied
Then Kefa (Apostle Peter) answered: With good reason, I neither believe anything against Elohim, nor against the just men recorded in the Torah, taking for granted that such are impious imaginations. For I am persuaded that Adam was neither a transgressor (he who was fashioned by the hands of Elohim), nor was Noah drunken, who was found righteous above all the world;18 nor did Avraham live with three wives at once, who, on account of his sobriety, was thought worthy of numerous posterity; nor did Yaakov (Jacob) associate with four, of whom two were sisters, who was the father of the twelve tribes, and who was suggestive of our Master’s presence; nor was Moses a murderer, nor did he learn to judge from an idolatrous priest: he who set forth the Torah of Elohim to all the world, and for his right judgment has been accounted a faithful steward.”" from https://leavesofthetree.substack.com/p/the-essenes-and-the-path-of-righteousness
I totally agree about the Trinity. That one is such a bloody mess and so inflametory to so many. I've heard it described as so illogical that it has to be a test to be taken on faith becasue god is so unknowable.
But the god of the OT and even Jesus keep telling people that god is very knowable and that everything there is to know about him has already been shared.
It's such a mess and, yes, created centuries later to fuse a little polytheism in.
Right, all summed up in 1 John 5:20 We know also that the son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know Him who is true. And we are in him who is true by being in His son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.
"Him that is true" has a son (named Jesus Christ) who came to let us know his Father was the only true God. He came to give us an understanding. Yet they claim we should be forever confused. It's ridiculous. And, yes, it is so inflammatory. I got called all sorts of names for talking about it. I didn't think it could get worse. But I found out talking about Paul being a false apostle was worse.
Using the two or more witnesses argument, I once asked a pastor what would be lost if we counted everything Paul said but then discarded everything that didn't have a second witness. His response was, "We'd lose Christianity."
Yes. That's the point. So much of what so-called Christians believe is really Paulinity. So when you start to question Paul, they have an existential crisis just thinking about losing what he brings to their faith and thus their whole religious identity would be a lie. They can't handle it.
I'm not touching this one with a ten foot cross!
Just kidding. I like it.
Interestingly enough, the typical ‘cross’ was a ten food pole. It wasn’t until later they put the cross-bar on.
Cool stuff. I definitely had my fragile interpretive days. Last time I tangled with the Bible, I followed the lead of an Anglican priest named N T Wright. Really great pragmatic scholarship.
I like how you said that. "Fragile interpretive days." It's always good to admit we've all been there.
If the Bible is THE Truth, then it’s hard to reason why there are so many older versions of the same stories seen in the Bible. There is so much freedom and peace that comes with allowing the stories to teach lessons in a spiritual context, vs trying to force the stories into a literal, historical and religious context. Your points of anti fragility are well put. It’s not just the Bible that becomes fragile with a literalist perspective, but the minds of the believers are prone to cognitive dissonance to protect themselves as well.
Great point about the minds. Now I wish I had added that!
Well summarized. One sentiment that also gets in the easy of learning and growing is that all truths are in the Bible and there's no truth beyond it. So there are really three horizons of growth for folks like us who grew up in traditional interpretations : 1. It's the Truth, 2. It contains sum of truths 3. It contains truths but there truths that it doesn't have access to. The third set is truths about life supporting networks and processes that are mostly understood or lived out by indigenous cultures. It's only when we bathe in some of that thinking/feeling we realize there's a third horizon.
I like that framework.
I'm in between 2 and 3. I wouldn't say that it contains everything but I'm impressed by how much it does contain that can structure a useful society. I've considered that if I could only have access to one book to reboot civilization in an appocalyptic event I'd probably grab the Bible. Not to say it has everything but it's pretty damn impressive when you step back and consider the full spectrum from morals to germ theory to governance to...
I grew up in the Indian Orthodox Church which is far from the literalist. At the time I was active in it (about 20 years ago), it had a healthy dialog with concepts from many lines of thought. The church itself claims to have been founded by the doubting Thomas in AD52 when he brought the faith to the Indian state of Kerala. I'd consider Thomas my role model in empiricism (I won't believe till my fingers touch his wounds) and spirit (let's go with him and die with him).
Much of that has given way to more literalism and exclusionist thinking (we've got all the right answers) in the last twenty years. I think it's simply an artifact of social media where nuances go to die.
Looking to the future, I hold a different view. The world we have today, along with the very real prospect of collapse, was founded firmly on biblical reasoning. When the core belief is that the Creator is separate from creation, and that creation has varying levels of value/consciousness, it creates a hierarchical mental model as the core truth. I'm not suggesting that without this book we wouldn't have hierarchies. Hierarchies are as natural as thermodynamics - arguably, they form due to thermodynamics. But holding up hierarchy as a universal correctness is fragile.
I see that the Bible had its chance to form the foundation of society and it has produced its results. There are good things and bad things - all dualistic terms we use to describe it are impoverished, but that's all we have.
I'd be curious to allow a new set of truths and ideas to form - most we haven't really thought of. Maybe something valuing smallness, subtlety , curiosity and a faith to allow. But again, I expect thermodynamics will set the boundaries of what we believe in and how we live. Those who can create simplified narratives that support extraction and exploitation of nature at long term costs will always defeat nuanced and reverent living.
Afterall, I left a very idyllic naturally rich life for NY so I can buy the latest gadgets :) true reverence seems to happen in the rear view mirror :)
That's a fantastic outlook. I love it.
Let's say civilization did reboot. Eventually, won't the new civilizations create their own truths? A restart would bring slow progression or no progression depending on the existing beings. However, would transferring knowledge of current technology would make any difference, even if the new civilization has only Bible to look into restructuring?
For instance, we have prayers were meant to communicate with a deity or God. The Bible never gave a blueprint of phones, infrastructure to build phones, or communicate with each other without phones in long distances (telepathy).
Just a thought...
You make a good point and I guess I should have clarified when I mean civilization I wasn’t talking modern I was thinking something better than hunter-gatherer or warlords.