The Bible as Myth. Can the Bible survive modernity?

[astro]

I am not a Biblical scholar and in many ways I am astoundingly ignorant about the specifics of the Bible. Having said this, however, it seems that every few months or so I am reading about some new anthropological / historical discovery that more or less contradicts or otherwise impugns (or claims to at least) the historical accuracy of the Bible’s Old and New Testament versions of history. I know Biblical scholars have dealt with this and other contradictions for some time and have a fairly “sophisticated” view of the entire Bible as history that allows for a great deal of leeway in accuracy so long as the “big picture” issues remain intact.

Out of curiosity though, I do wonder how long an accepted view of the world is going to maintain itself as a cogent system of faith while the historical under pinnings the faith is founded on are slowly revealed to be about as accurate and fanciful as a Marvel comic book of the ancient world. Isn’t there a limit to how how far you can stretch the limits of "sophistication", regarding how faithful one can be, if your system of belief is eventually revealed to be 90% constructed myth?

Mods, I wanted this to be a IMHO type question but if this turns into an instant GD please move it there post haste.

[Czarcasm]

I can already tell you that this belongs to Great Debates. I can't see this developing into a calm discussion.

[Amazing Tiki God]

Disclaimer: The vast majority of this is personal opinion

I'll try to handle this one intelligently but I'm not making any guarentees.

First off you have to get an understanding of the term myth. Well then what is a myth exactly? It's a story passed down generation by generation to others for some benefit. Whether it be that it's a moral benefit (i.e. good vs. bad) or a social benefit (learning how to live with others). Now that we've got the term myth defined we can cover some others points about it. A myth is usually based on some fact. So with that given so far it doesn't seem like disproving everything in the Bible will make people think OH GOD MY RELIGION HAS FAILED ME! Instead they should rationally think that it doesn't matter if my religion is based on a falsehood as long as I can gain values from it and I realize that just because the book is proven wrong that it doesn't necessarily mean my idealogy is wrong.

On to another point I can begin to talk about certain parts of the Bible seeming false whether you believe they are is up to you. Jesus himself fits the typical role of the hero archetype nearly perfectly. The only problem is this archetype is 23 steps long and is VERY difficult for any actual being (deceased or alive) to fit into. Some other gods that fit this archetype are Zeus, Quetzacoatl, and Izanami. Some non godlike figures that fit into this stereotype, if you will consider it that, are King Arthur, Lancelot, and Odyseus (sp?). Granted that doesn't sound like too good a company to keep if you wanted to prove your existence, although think of it what you will it's merely a stereotype and does not mean that the person (if qualified by these steps) is in fact non-existent.

So right there we have incriminating evidence that puts a fair amount of the Bible in the myth category. Now the thing is does it matter if the Bible is based on falsehoods (some may say lies but I believe that to be too harsh a term)? Or should we just take the messages of good out of it and say to heck with it being real or not? I think if eventually the Bible is proven to be completely false it will calse alot of turmoil and trouble within it's own community. But I think that if everyone does band together and gets the message out of the Bible (i.e. the really important part) then it does not really matter whether it be true, false, based on a real person, or based on someone from Mars for that matter.

All I'm saying is either way it doesn't matter to me which ever way they prove it. I know there is alot of good to come from it if you read it and understand it.

(Wow I never though taking 2 Classic Culture classes dealing with Religion, Myths, and other tales would come in so handy. I guess this college book learning is a good thing after all)

[Pismonque]

Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong wrote a book on this subject that you might be interested in reading, called Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism. His idea is that the Bible can only survive if the literalism gives way to thoughtful interpretation of messages and themes (like Tiki was talking about). Interesting read.

[Satan]

It all depends on what the definition of is... is.

Really, even of we go back to the most primitive times, things in the Bible were easy to disprove as "factually incorrect." I mean, ever heard a snake talk?

But spirituality will always find a way to prevail because no matter how many times modernity manages to answer a "how," it can never answer the untilate "Why?" that mankind always craves.

And you might think that Fundamentalist views of the text would become less popular with modernity, as evidenced by your OP?

Well, read the excellent The Battle For God (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679435972/102-7988129-9414502) by Karen Armstrong (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/297923/ref=pd_dp_bl/102-7988129-9414502). This book makes the case that modernity brings out fundamentalist movements (and has in the three prominent monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam) because advancing modernity is a frightening thing to many people. She points out events which coincide with the rise of fundamentalist movements from ancient to very modern times, and also shows how in societies where modernity was embraced to the point where spirituality was marginalized or even removed entirely, that those cultures enevitably suffered because (to paraphrase) people ceased to care anymore.

I have recommended this great book numerous times on this board, but in reading the OP, I think it would do the best to answer those thoughts than any other time I've brought it up.

Buy it immediately...

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Originally posted by astro
I am not a Biblical scholar and in many ways I am astoundingly ignorant about the specifics of the Bible. Having said this, however, it seems that every few months or so I am reading about some new anthropological / historical discovery that more or less contradicts or otherwise impugns (or claims to at least) the historical accuracy of the Bible’s Old and New Testament versions of history.


Tell you what, guy, Why don't you tell us some historical Biblical things that happened post- hmm, say 900BC- that have been proved a "myth"? That is some 2/3rds of the Bible- and is most of the stuff that happened within the era of good archeological evidence. (Before that- archeological evidence is very scanty in the Holy land). Or- is all this based on "something I read somewhere"?

[Neurotik]

Daniel is right, a lot of the general history of the Bible is fairly historically accurate starting around when King David enters the picture. From there it talks of various things, including the Maccabbee uprising against the Greeks (in the Catholic version, anyways).

However, the Bible isn't a literal history nor is it meant to be taken literally. The important thing is the lessons and guidelines it offers for living a virtuous and good life, at least from the Christian point of view, so I don't think that any inconsistencies between what the Bible says and what archaelogical evidence says will matter a whole lot.

[Homebrew]

Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden
Tell you what, guy, Why don't you tell us some historical Biblical things that happened post- hmm, say 900BC- that have been proved a "myth"? That is some 2/3rds of the Bible- and is most of the stuff that happened within the era of good archeological evidence. (Before that- archeological evidence is very scanty in the Holy land). Or- is all this based on "something I read somewhere"? [/B]

The time frame is irrelevant. Furthermore, there is much of the New Testament that, while emotions run high, cannot be substaniated.

There are two different stories of Jesus' birth. The accounts in Matthew and Luke cannot both possibly be true.

Jesus' geneology given in Matthew and Luke are not the same. Which is correct?

Jesus himself could quite possibly be a mythological figure. Consider the writing of Josephus. Josephus writes almost nothing about the figure of Jesus, yet goes on for pages on John the Baptist.

[Matt. 26:57] Then those who had seized Jesus led him to Ca'iaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders had gathered.

I seriously doubt the Sanhedrian would be meeting on Passover. I'm not Jewish, but wouldn't that violate some Passover rules?

I could go on, but I don't have time. I recommend the book, Putting Away Childish Things, for a thorough look at myths in the New Testament.

[Neurotik]

Well, yes, most Christian sects recognize that there are inconsistencies. But that happens when things are passed down orally for 70 to 100 years before being written down. Also, different Gospels look at different aspects of Jesus life. For instance, the book of John focuses mostly on the divine nature of Jesus.

Also, different Gospels were written with different populations in mind. For instance, one of the Gospels (I can't remember which is which, I'll have to look this up) is written for a mainly Greek audience, another for a mainly Jewish audience, etc., etc.

I realize this really hasn't much to do with a literal history of the New Testament, but really, most Christians don't go to their Bibles for a history lesson. They go there to seek guidance. That is what you are supposed to get out of the Gospels, an example of how to live and what a good Christian should be doing, and that was the point of my earlier statements.

By the by, another myth is that the Pharisees were bad. In reality, they would likely have had no real problem to Jesus' teachings, as they corresponded quite a bit with their own.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Neurotik
another myth is that the Pharisees were bad. In reality, they would likely have had no real problem to Jesus' teachings, as they corresponded quite a bit with their own.
But they loved money. They didn't like the same aspects of Jesus's teachings 99% of people who call themselves Christians don't like today. Do you have any evidence they taught what he taught?

[astro]

Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden
Originally posted by astro
I am not a Biblical scholar and in many ways I am astoundingly ignorant about the specifics of the Bible. Having said this, however, it seems that every few months or so I am reading about some new anthropological / historical discovery that more or less contradicts or otherwise impugns (or claims to at least) the historical accuracy of the Bible’s Old and New Testament versions of history.


Tell you what, guy, Why don't you tell us some historical Biblical things that happened post- hmm, say 900BC- that have been proved a "myth"? That is some 2/3rds of the Bible- and is most of the stuff that happened within the era of good archeological evidence. (Before that- archeological evidence is very scanty in the Holy land). Or- is all this based on "something I read somewhere"?


Well there's this from Salon re recent archeological discoveries.

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2001/02/07/solomon/index.html

"King David was a nebbish
And Exodus never happened and the walls of Jericho did not come a-tumbling down. How archaeologists are shaking Israel to its biblical foundations.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Laura Miller

small part of article below

""The Bible Unearthed" is the latest salvo fired in a pitched battle between those who consider the Old Testament to contain plenty of reliable historical facts, and those who, at the opposite extreme, say it's pure mythology. The debate reached the general population of Israel, sending what one journalist called a "shiver" down the nation's "collective spine," in late 1999, when another archaeologist from Tel Aviv University, Ze'ev Herzog, wrote a cover story for the weekend magazine of the national daily newspaper, Ha'aretz. In the essay, Herzog laid out many of the theories Finkelstein and Silberman present in their book: "the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land [of Canaan] in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom." The new theories envision this modest chiefdom as based in a Jerusalem that was essentially a cow town, not the glorious capital of an empire."

[Neurotik]

jmullaney

Well, I was actually referring to some of their broader teachings, I would imagine that they might have a problem with Jesus' claim that He was the son of God.

But yes, the Pharisees were the first Jewish group to begin talking about life after death, and the transcendence of the soul. They also taught that, while the Temple is certainly important, it wasn't necessary for that to be the only place that a person could sacrifice and all that fun stuff. Which is why the Sadduccees weren't fond of them, either. Most of Jesus teachings (aside from the son of God thing) correspond quite nicely with the teachings of the Pharisees.

Give me some time to root around my old religion textbooks under my bed and I'll try and come up with some specific cites.

astro you have to keep in mind that the OT was written by the Hebrews, and like most people of the era, had a tendency to fiddle with the facts a bit, much like most American history textbooks have a nice positive spin to them. For instance, I was watching the History Channel or A&E the other day and they were talking about the Philistines. While it is generally accepted that the Philistines were in the area around when the Bible says they were and that the Hebrews probably fought them a time or two, they certainly weren't the artless barbarians that the Hebrews portray them as in the Bible.

So, I suppose one can excuse the Hebrews for exaggerating the importance of their beloved capital. :D They were only human after all.

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

Here is another review to go along with Astro's Salon magazine review. This is evidently very controversial to many people, expecially those dedicated zealots who were busy using their trowels to locate the last position of Noah's Ark.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/02/04/reviews/010204.04triblet.html

I, for one, have no illusions that this research will suddenly change anything. I have watched Mormons become more devout in the face of ever-diminishing hopes of validating the Book of Mormon through archaeology. I conclude that they are just waiting for another, more credible, religious movement to join.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Originally posted by astro
Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden

Tell you what, guy, Why don't you tell us some historical Biblical things that happened post- hmm, say 900BC- that have been proved a "myth"?
"King David was a nebbish
And Exodus never happened and the walls of Jericho did not come a-tumbling down.: "the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land [of Canaan] in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom."
[/B]

What part of "post 900BC" did you not understand? Pre 900BC the archeological evidence is very scanty- it will be very hard to prove anything- pro or con. So show me: that a good part of the Post 900 BC HISTORY in the Bible has been shown to be false or mythological. Heck- show me ONE important later historical item that has been proved false. All that stuff you posted is Pre-900, and just educated guesses.

Homebrew- I asked for "HISTORY that has been PROVED a MYTH"- not inconsistancies in the text. The OP postulates that the History in the Bible has nearly all been shown to be a myth by recent archeological discoveries. I want to see what "archeological discoveries" has shown the Post Solomon history to be a myth.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Neurotik
Well, I was actually referring to some of their broader teachings
They didn't teach how to enter the kingdom of heaven, nor did they enter themselves, and they tried to stop people from entering it. See Matthew 23 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+23&language=english&version=WE&showfn=off). Their way of life was most certaintly not holy. And they were rather upset at Jesus for pointing this out.

[MEBuckner]

Heck- show me ONE important later historical item that has been proved false. All that stuff you posted is Pre-900, and just educated guesses.
Well, Jonah (http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,5716,44925+1,00.html) is traditionally identified with a historical figure of that name who lived around 785 B.C.E.; however, the Book of Jonah is blatantly mythical from start to finish. Admittedly, Jonah's only a "minor prophet", so perhaps that doesn't count as an important historical item.

As to a broader point: What "good things" does everyone think we should take from the Bible, assuming we all agree that it's a "myth", in the various senses of the word? The Golden Rule? Total non-resistance to evil? The complete rejection of material goods and worldly ties, including family and friends? That men should be the heads of their families? The universal brotherhood of all people? A belief that everyone who rejects Christ as savior is eternally doomed?

[Neurotik]

Ok, jmullaney what are you basing this assertion on, other than Biblical references? So far, I have provided a bit of independent research to assert my opinions, you have not. Unless you are saying that they didn't show them how to get into heaven because they didn't teach people to accept Jesus into your heart. That is the only way that your argument has any merit.

Second, apparently the Pharisees DID teach them how to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, look at Matthew 23:3 where he tells his disciples to obey the teachings of the Pharisees. So why would Jesus tell his followers to obey the words and teachings of men who locked the gate so others aren't able to go in like it says in 23:13. There's a contradiction there. It's obvious which passage you have chosen to accept, but who's to say that the first passage I cited has more weight to it?

[astro]

Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden
[What part of "post 900BC" did you not understand? Pre 900 BC the archeological evidence is very scanty- it will be very hard to prove anything- pro or con. So show me: that a good part of the Post 900 BC HISTORY in the Bible has been shown to be false or mythological. Heck- show me ONE important later historical item that has been proved false. All that stuff you posted is Pre-900, and just educated guesses.
[/B]

Danielinthewolvesden, per your apparently aggrieved tone please realize I do *not* have a dog in this fight. I was asking for information on the reconciliation of the the mythic parts of the bible with the day to day reality of maintaining faith as the historical representations of the bible diverge from the increasing body of archeological data. I have gotten several good answers, including yours. In referencing the article I was not keeping track of the specific timeline it referred to, so I do beg your pardon re the "post 900 BC" requirement you posited.

With respect to your request for post 900 BC info re inaccuracies I did a google search and, ironically, per your request for new testament historical inaccuracies here is a discussion of same by what appears to be a site promoting Biblical Judiasm.

http://www.faithofyeshua.faithweb.com/OVERALL%20VIEW%20OF%20THE%20DOCUMENTS.htm

small part of article below


WHEN WERE THEY WRITTEN, BY WHOM, AND WHAT CAN WE TRUST IN THEM?
The Four Gospels, it is claimed, were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, two of them apostles, and two companions of the apostles of Christ. I wish that were true, but it is not. If this claim be true the other writings of the apostles, the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, and the writings of the early Christian Fathers, ought to contain some evidences of the fact. We will see shortly that the silence of such writers is quite troublesome to the early dating of such documents. This means that they did not exist at such times and it would have been impossible for the actual apostles of Yeshua to have been their authors.

Twenty books—nearly all of the remaining books of the New Testament—are said to have been written by the three apostles, Peter, John, and Paul, a portion of them after the first three Gospels were written; but it is admitted that they contain no evidence whatever of the existence of these Gospels.

There are extant writings accredited to the Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp; written, for the most part, early in the second century. These writings contain no mention of the Four Gospels. This also is admitted by Christian scholars. Dr. Dodwell says: "We have at this day certain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the order wherein I have named them, and after all the writers of the New Testament. But in Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of the New Testament, nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named" (Dissertations upon Irenaeus).


"The First Epistle of Peter and the First Epistle of John have generally been accorded a higher degree of authority than the others; but even these were not written by apostles, nor in the first century. Dr. Soury says that First Peter "dates, in all probability, from the year 130 A D., at the earliest" (Jesus and the Gospels, p. 32). Irenaeus, the founder of the New Testament canon, rejected it. The Dutch critics, who deny the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel, and assign its composition to the second century, say "The First Epistle of John soon issued from the same school in imitation of the Gospel" (Bible for Learners, Vol. m, p. 692).

Second Peter is a forgery. Westcott says there is no proof of its existence prior to 170 A.D. Smith's Bible Dictionary says, "Many reject the epistle as altogether spurious." The brief epistles of Second and Third John are anonymous and of very late origin. They do not purport to be the writings of John. The superscriptions declare them to be from an elder, and this precludes the claim that they are from an apostle. The early Fathers ignored them. Revelation is the only book in the Bible which claims to be the word of God. At the same time it is the book of which Christians have always been the most suspicious. It is addressed to the seven churches of Asia, but the seven churches of Asia rejected it. Concerning the attitude of ancient churchmen toward it, Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, says: "Divers of our predecessors have wholly refused and rejected this book, and by discussing the several parts thereof have found it obscure and void of reason and the title forged."

[Menocchio]

Ah, here we are. Philo Judaeus gave three levels of interpretation for holy scripture:[list=1]
Historical Level- The lowest level of interpretation, what we're debating about here. There was a flood. Only Noah, his family, and the animals they resuced escaped.
Moral Level- Looking deeper into what the story is trying to tell us to do. Don't be a sinner. Or else.
Spiritual Level- The deepest level, looking past the words into the inner, transcendental truths the deity is trying to relate through the tale. Although God will impose consequences for sin, ultimately He loves His creation and will never wipe it out in totality. There will always be an "ark".
[/list=1]
The Jews knew of this theory, and used it when writing their history.

The historical level is being blown to hell. So be it, that's the most superficial level anyway. The "truth" of the tale lies much, much, deeper. So maybe there wasn't a snake (if I may torture another parable), but at some point humanity crossed a boundary where they became cognizant of good and evil, and we've been struggling with it since. The New Testament is explicit in its use of parable! Was there ever a Good Samaritan, or a Prodigal Son? Does t really matter? They're tools that Jesus (or the Gosplers, if you prefer) used to make a point. It's that point that should be debated.

Another thing to reemember is that the practice of writing down events as they actually happened was still in its infancy at the time of the New Testament, never mind the Old. The tales of the past were for entertainment and for the lessons that could be passed down from generation to generation. "Facts", in the sense that a modern day chronicler or historian would record, were not as important.

[Neurotik]

Bravo menocchio So basically, what astro and MEBuckner call myths, one might also call parables. Slight difference in connotation between the two.

So, when looking at the Bible as a series of parables, one could make the argument that that is where the importance lies. If this is true, then historical inaccuracies don't really matter, since the history of the Bible is not what is important.

As for what lessons we should take from the Bible? What's wrong with universal brotherhood? What's wrong with not being so material? What's wrong with striving to do the right thing, even if it means that you alienate some people who you thought were your friends?

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by jmullaney
They didn't teach how to enter the kingdom of heaven, nor did they enter themselves, and they tried to stop people from entering it. Their way of life was most certaintly not holy. And they were rather upset at Jesus for pointing this out. [/B]
You might want to be careful here, jmullaney. Check out the following link (http://www.aristotle.net/~bhuie/pharsadd.htm)
Some quotes from it:
Regarding the beliefs of the Pharisees, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states:

The presentation of the Pharisees in the Gospels is generally negative. Jesus is seen to be disputing with them continually, which suggests that his teaching was the antithesis of pharisaism. Closer investigation, however, does not support this suggestion. The NT evidence shows Jesus in agreement with beliefs and practices vitally important to the Pharisees ("Pharisees," vol. 3, p. 828).

Concerning the primary cause of this conflict, Dr. Brad Young writes:

Many scholars and Bible students fail to understand the essence of Jesus' controversial ministry. Jesus' conflict with his contemporaries was not so much over the doctrines of the Pharisees, with which he was for the most part in agreement, but primarily over the understanding of his mission. He did sharply criticize hypocrites . . . (Jesus the Jewish Theologian, p. 100).

Jesus strongly and frequently condemned the Pharisees for being self-righteous and hypocritical. Does this mean that all Pharisees at the time of Christ were self-righteous hypocrites? Regarding this question, Dr. Brad Young writes:

A Pharisee in the mind of the people of the period was far different from popular conceptions of a Pharisee in modern times . . . The image of the Pharisee in early Jewish thought was not primarily one of self-righteous hypocrisy . . . The Pharisee represents piety and holiness. . . . The very mention of a Pharisee evoked an image of righteousness . . . (Jesus the Jewish Theologian, pp. 184, 188).
Dr. Young continues:

While Jesus disdained the hypocrisy of some Pharisees, he never attacked the religious and spiritual teachings of Pharisaism. In fact, the sharpest criticisms of the Pharisees in Matthew are introduced by an unmistakable affirmation, "The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2-3). The issue at hand is one of practice. The content of the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees was not a problem . . . The rabbis offered nearly identical criticisms against those who teach but do not practice . . . Unfortunately, the image of the Pharisee in modern usage is seldom if ever positive. Such a negative characterization of Pharisaism distorts our view of Judaism and the beginnings of Christianity . . . The theology of Jesus is Jewish and is built firmly upon the foundations of Pharisaic thought . . . (Jesus the Jewish Theologian, pp. 184, 187, 188).

Finally, and most importantly:
After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Pharisaism gradually died out, but the basic Pharisaic tenets lived on in an altered form, that of rabbinic Judaism.
So, an attack on the tenets of Pharisism is dangerously close to an attack on the tenents of modern Judaism. I don't think you believe that modern Judaism tries to stop people from entering the Kingdom of Heaven; I certainly don't.

Sua

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by Homebrew
Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden
Tell you what, guy, Why don't you tell us some historical Biblical things that happened post- hmm, say 900BC- that have been proved a "myth"? That is some 2/3rds of the Bible- and is most of the stuff that happened within the era of good archeological evidence. (Before that- archeological evidence is very scanty in the Holy land). Or- is all this based on "something I read somewhere"?

The time frame is irrelevant. Furthermore, there is much of the New Testament that, while emotions run high, cannot be substaniated.[/B]

Naturally, individual stories can't always be substantiated outside the Gospel accounts or the Epistles. After all, historians are not likely to record every single encounter or story attributed to Jesus -- just as they're not likely to record all the utterings of Nero or Augustus Caesar.

In other words, the lack of external substantiation for those accounts is a red herring. It does not automatically make these accounts mythical.

[MEBuckner]

As for what lessons we should take from the Bible? What's wrong with universal brotherhood? What's wrong with not being so material? What's wrong with striving to do the right thing, even if it means that you alienate some people who you thought were your friends?
Well, there's nothing wrong with any of those, but I'm assuming you're rejecting such Biblical lessons as "total non-resistance to evil" or "men should be the heads of their families" or "the belief that everyone who rejects Christ as savior is eternally doomed", all of which are also taught by (some parts of) the Bible. Also, there's a difference between "not being so material" and "striving to do the right thing, even if it means that you alienate some people who you thought were your friends" and "the complete rejection of material goods and worldly ties, including family and friends". It's not at all clear that the Bible (or parts thereof) teaches the former and not the latter. Of course most Christians walking around today reject the "literal" reading of all sorts of passages about hellfire or renouncing their families or women being in subjection to their husbands--but, if they have some external moral code which they judge the Bible by when it comes to those things, why not just be good humanists and go by that external moral code, instead of pretending to be going by the Bible? Heck, I suppose as good humanists, they could even still include New Testament stories as human-authored illustrative parables in their Great Big Book of World Virtues. (If you have some higher moral authority by which you judge the Bible, but still believe in some sort of Higher Power or spiritual dimension to life, substitute "Unitarian Universalist" for "humanist".)

[MEBuckner]

Naturally, individual stories can't always be substantiated outside the Gospel accounts or the Epistles.
After all, historians are not likely to record every single encounter or story attributed to Jesus -- just as they're not likely to record all the utterings of Nero or Augustus Caesar.

In other words, the lack of external substantiation for those accounts is a red herring. It does not automatically make these accounts mythical.
Well, I'd think Matthew 27:51-53 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+27:51-53&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on) might have had some external corroboration.

[Menocchio]

Originally posted by Neurotik
Bravo menocchio So basically, what astro and MEBuckner call myths, one might also call parables. Slight difference in connotation between the two.

So, when looking at the Bible as a series of parables, one could make the argument that that is where the importance lies. If this is true, then historical inaccuracies don't really matter, since the history of the Bible is not what is important.


Indeed. Buddhists, for example, have no problem keeping their religion in the face of factual dispute. Did Gautama really sit under the bodhi tree? Who cares? Is what he taught valid? I find it odd the western religions somehow need their parables to be true. Of course, by saying that all reality is ultinately illusionary, Buddhism has a leg up on this...


MEBucknerOf course most Christians walking around today reject the "literal" reading of all sorts of passages about hellfire or renouncing their families or women being in subjection to their husbands--but, if they have some external moral code which they judge the Bible by when it comes to those things, why not just be good humanists and go by that external moral code, instead of pretending to be going by the Bible?

Because the Bible is a good source of wisdom. Such a good source, that many people, myself included, see a glimpse of the divine in it. I admit that it is written by men, and some passages describe the codes of a time and place that no longer exist (it's easy to tell which ones, they're the ones that are easy to figure out and apply :)). However, that doesn't mean the rest of the book shouldn't be studied for hints of a higher reality.

[ZOmegaZ]

Neurotik:

<i>However, the Bible isn't a literal history nor is it meant to be taken literally.</i>

And you know this... how? What, did God (or whomever you believe the author to be) tell you?

[<i>another myth is that the Pharisees were bad. In reality, they would likely have had no real problem to Jesus' teachings</i>

Well, except for that whole thing about pointing out their hypocricies. But they wouldn't care about that, would they?

The problem wasn't really with most of what they taught. The problem was with what they did. Not the philosophy, but the people.

Homebrew:

<i>Jesus' geneology given in Matthew and Luke are not the same. Which is correct?[/i]

Both. He did have two parents, you know. At least, as far as Jews were concerned, Joseph was his father.

MEBuckner:

<i>the Book of Jonah is blatantly mythical from start to finish</i>

You base this on...?

You guys seem to be coming out and saying, "Well, it's OBVIOUSLY mythical," with nothing to base it on. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You know, all major "holy" books may be entirely consistant, internally and externally, but there's one major difference: The Bible was written by thirty or so different people, over two millenia. Seems kinda unlikely, dunnit?

[Fatwater Fewl]

I looked up myth (http://www.wordsmyth.net/cgi-bin/search.cgi?submit=Define+it%21&matchent=myth&matchtype=exact) at Wordsmyth. The bible definitely qualifies.

The thread title and the OP ask two quite different questions.

[list=1]
The Bible as Myth. Can the Bible survive modernity?

"Out of curiosity though, I do wonder how long an accepted view of the world is going to maintain itself as a cogent system of faith while the historical under pinnings the faith is founded on are slowly revealed to be about as accurate and fanciful as a Marvel comic book of the ancient world. Isn’t there a limit to how how far you can stretch the limits of "sophistication", regarding how faithful one can be, if your system of belief is eventually revealed to be 90% constructed myth?"

Hi Opal.
[/list=1]

The answer to the first question is simple. As a wonderful anthology of literature, the bible can and will survive as long as reading survives. The writing in the bible, especially the old testament, is simply too powerful, too vivid, too poetic, too fantastic and too strange to allow it to drift out of any interesting reading list. I refer you particularly to Ecclesiastes, Exodus, the Song of Solomon -- and Jonah, fer chrissakes, who is thrown out of a boat because he's bad luck and ends up in the belly of a whale -- this is great stuff, folks.

Here is how I answer the second question for myself. Utter belief, or complete faith, in the literal truth of anything which has been filtered (please don't take this to mean I believe in a Higher Being) through a human mind, including my own, will end in insanity. BTW, my favorite definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."

jm



A better question than "can the bible survive is": Can we survive without myth? Whether or not we believe myths is not important. It don't matter one damn bit. What matters is that in the making of myths we are trying to make sense of the world.

Myth is an attempt to explain how and why things happen in our lives -- we tell ourselves stories every day to explain why we are doing what we do, and why we are not doing something else. The stories we tell ourselves are what allow us to function. The difference between our stories and myths is that myths transport us to places where the rules are clear and simple; our stories are to help us pretend we understand the rules of society.

We need the escape, the temporary haven myths offer more than ever, now, as the information age throws so many cultures, so many perspectives, so many possibilities together. The strain of processing so much material and making decisions about its relevance must be balanced.

[SPOOFE]

I find it odd the western religions somehow need their parables to be true. Of course, by saying that all reality is ultinately illusionary, Buddhism has a leg up on this...

In addition, Christianity requires that many of the events dictated in the Bible - raising Lazarus, the temptation at Gethsemane, the Resurrection, among others - be accurate representations of events in order to have any basis in truth. Otherwise, Jesus was just another crackpot in a white robe.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Originally posted by astro
every few months or so I am reading about some new anthropological / historical discovery that more or less contradicts or otherwise impugns (or claims to at least) the historical accuracy of the Bible’s Old and New Testament versions of history. o wonder how long an accepted view of the world is going to maintain itself as a cogent system of faith while the historical under pinnings the faith is founded on are slowly revealed to be about as accurate and fanciful as a Marvel comic book of the ancient world.
[/B]

OK- here the OP claims that "new historical discoveries contradicts the HISTORICAL accuracy of the Bible"- and goes on to ask how long will the Bible and its faiths stand up under such archeological truths. So I ask for some HISTORICAL items in the Bible that have been DISPROVED. Now- I did set a date of about 900BC as before that the history is mostly guesswork. And no-one has been able to come up with ONE item. Note the OP says the entire historical veracity of the Bible is going to hell in a handbasket- but I can't get ONE solid item. Astro- here is where you say: "Well, it looks like I was wrong".

MEbruckner does tell us that the story of Jonah is likely a story- ya think? It is clearly a parable. There are a few minor historical details- and they seem to be mainly correct.

astro chimes in with the *new* fact that many of the NT books are possibly not written by their KJV listed "authors"- which has only been known for some near 2000 years. Again- this is inconsistencies- you claimed "bad HISTORY"- I want to see "bad HISTORY"- not inconsistancies.

I do not claim the Bible is inerrant- it was written by men, and even tho many were inspired by G-d my faith does not require that "inspiration" to take the form of word-by-word dictation & careful watching over the centuries for copiest errors.

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by ZOmegaZ
Neurotik:

<i>However, the Bible isn't a literal history nor is it meant to be taken literally.</i>

And you know this... how? What, did God (or whomever you believe the author to be) tell you?

[<i>another myth is that the Pharisees were bad. In reality, they would likely have had no real problem to Jesus' teachings</i>

Well, except for that whole thing about pointing out their hypocricies. But they wouldn't care about that, would they?



OK, ZOmegaZ, let's go through this.

1) How I know the Bible isn't a literal history. I use the reason that God saw fit to give me. Let's start in the beginning. First of all, Genesis contains two different stories of creation, with two different timelines. For instance, in the first story, man is created after plants have been created. However, in Genesis 2:5-7, men are created before plants. That tells me that these two stories aren't trying to give a consistent, literal history, but trying to impart some lesson to me. There are many other examples, but I'd rather move on.

2) As I said about the Pharisees before was that there probably were some hypocritical Pharisees, but to make a blanket statement about an entire group leads me to believe that there might have been some exaggeration there.

So enough on that subject.

nothamlet the Bible certainly could be defined as a myth, but it could also be defined as a parable just as legitimately. My point was that, while both are valid definitions, there are different connotations to each.

I hesitated in bringing up my last point because the thread had been pretty much focusing on literal vs. literary aspects of the Bible. But I think that I should bring up right now that the Bible is not the end all and be all of Christianity, it is merely an important tool for defining religious beliefs. After all, the religion survived just fine in the 100 and change years between the time the Apostles had moved on and the time the Bible was actually codified and put together. The various interpretations and many of the Church writings (see Aquinas' Summa) are also valued sources of theology and morals in the religion.

Oh yeah, actually SPOOFE Bo Diddly the only one of those events you listed that is absolutely, postively essential to the religion is the Resurrection.

Danielinthewolvesden, ok, I think I understand your argument better now, and I'll have to agree with you. The broad historical facts (accounting for exaggerations and biases common in so many ancient historical texts) contained within the post-900 Bible are fairly accurate. By this I mean, the Greeks invaded and conquered Palestine about when the Bible says they did, same with the Maccabbee uprising, the Roman conquest, etc. I think that we have all come to a general agreement that many of the specific stories in the Bible are merely myths and parables.

[MEBuckner]

Originally posted by ZOmegaZ
<i>the Book of Jonah is blatantly mythical from start to finish</i>

You base this on...?

You guys seem to be coming out and saying, "Well, it's OBVIOUSLY mythical," with nothing to base it on. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden
MEbruckner does tell us that the story of Jonah is likely a story- ya think? It is clearly a parable. There are a few minor historical details- and they seem to be mainly correct.
Granted, Daniel, it's a bit of a nitpick--I don't think anyone really disputes that the Bible is generally more accurate about later events than about earlier ones. (Oh, I can't believe I forgot to mention the Book of Daniel, set well after 900 B.C.E., with its notorious anachronisms. There's also the Book of Esther, which everyone but the fundamentalists realizes is just a story, and which is set even later than Daniel.) If you would just curb this tendency of yours to make sweeping statements—"Tell you what, guy, Why don't you tell us some historical Biblical things that happened post- hmm, say 900BC- that have been proved a "myth"?"—you wouldn't get in to so many of these little discussions. Incidentally, I don't necessarily mean "myth" in a pejorative sense—the Book of Jonah is one of the better books in the Bible, ethically speaking, and I also rather imagine its author never intended for it to be read as anything other than a work of fiction—a parable.

Now, to address one more specific thing DITWD said, and also to reply to ZOmegaZ (although—I must be psychic or something—I have this feeling I’m not going to get anywhere with ZOmegaZ):

“There are a few minor historical details- and they seem to be mainly correct.”

Er, no—actually, it would be more accurate to say that there isn’t a single historical detail in the Book of Jonah which is accurate. First off, everyone—including Asimov’s Guide to the Bible, Daniel—agrees that the historical figure of Jonah lived around 780 B.C.E. Right off the bat, in Jonah 1:2, Ninevah is referred to as a “great city”, the capital of Assyria; in fact, Assyria was not a major power during the time of the historical Jonah, nor was Ninevah its capital. There’s the whole business with the whale (or great fish)—‘nuff said. In Jonah 3:3-4, it’s stated that Ninevah is “three days’ journey across”, which would make it something like 50 miles wide (according to my New English Bible, which also agrees that the whole book is clearly satirical fiction, with all sorts of deliberate anachronism and exaggeration)—a veritable Los Angeles of the Ancient Near East. Needless to say, this is a ludicrous exaggeration. (In fact, all the evidence is that the author of the Book of Jonah was writing a satire, and intended for the reader to realize this from the get-go.) Jonah waltzes into this impossibly huge city, the capital of a nation which was a byword for cruelty and ruthlessness, and tells everyone to repent in the name of the God of the Jews, or else face divine wrath. What happens next? Is Jonah immediately fed to the lions? Nope. The king and people immediately repent. Jonah’s reaction to this—pretty much the evangelistic coup of all time—is to be royally pissed off, since he wanted to see the city be smitten. (I forgot to mention that Jonah—the fictional character, I mean—never wanted to be a prophet in the first place—when God told him to go to Assyria, he immediately went in the exact opposite direction, which is how he wound up in the belly of the great fish to start with.) There is, of course, absolutely no record whatsoever of the entire nation of Assyria converting to the worship of the God of Israel. You can argue that’s just “absence of evidence” if you like, but it’s about like claiming that at some point in his career Hitler led Nazi Germany into a mass conversion to Judaism. Jonah then goes off to sulk; God gives him some sort of palm tree to provide shade from the heat of the day, then God causes the tree to wither up and die. When Jonah gets all worked up about his palm tree, God says “What, you’re all worked up about a tree, which you didn’t even plant, and here you want me to whack an entire city, kids and livestock and all?” (The God of Deuteronomy and the Book of Joshua being concerned about women and children and livestock in a city of idolaters is pretty ironic itself, but possibly the author of the Book of Jonah didn’t intend to make that point, since it’s arguably kind of blasphemous.)

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by MEBuckner
I must be psychic or something—I have this feeling I’m not going to get anywhere with ZOmegaZ)

For some reason, I don't think you will, either :D

[astro]

Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden
Originally posted by astro
every few months or so I am reading about some new anthropological / historical discovery that more or less contradicts or otherwise impugns (or claims to at least) the historical accuracy of the Bible’s Old and New Testament versions of history. o wonder how long an accepted view of the world is going to maintain itself as a cogent system of faith while the historical under pinnings the faith is founded on are slowly revealed to be about as accurate and fanciful as a Marvel comic book of the ancient world.


OK- here the OP claims that "new historical discoveries contradicts the HISTORICAL accuracy of the Bible"- and goes on to ask how long will the Bible and its faiths stand up under such archeological truths. So I ask for some HISTORICAL items in the Bible that have been DISPROVED. Now- I did set a date of about 900BC as before that the history is mostly guesswork. And no-one has been able to come up with ONE item. Note the OP says the entire historical veracity of the Bible is going to hell in a handbasket- but I can't get ONE solid item. Astro- here is where you say: "Well, it looks like I was wrong".
[/B]

Well sure. Now that you have enlightened me re the bifurcation in reliability of the pre-900 BC biblical history and the post 900 BC history, it appears that the post 900 BC history of the bible has much better historical correlation with observed archeological and related historical references. With this in mind, it appears that my impression of the extent to which these accumulating, inaccuracies in biblical(now understood to be pre-900 BC) history would negatively impact it's overall validity and meaningfulness for the faithful was exaggerated and incorrect.

In this context, as others have taken time to point out, it seems that for modern man looking at things from a rational or semi-positivist perspective, the Bible exists as an inspired guide and the extracted moral lessons and personal guidance we can take from the bible are (and should be) distinct from the relative truth or falsehood of the mythic "stories" of the bible.

I know it's just my problem, but this quasi-decontructionist separation of content and meaning in the Bible puts it more into the "believe it or not" category than a truly compelling force of moral guidance. Maybe that's the way it's always been and this conversation has simply given me some clarity on that issue.

Thanks to everyone for your responses.

[Satan]

Originally posted by astro

I know it's just my problem, but this quasi-decontructionist separation of content and meaning in the Bible puts it more into the "believe it or not" category than a truly compelling force of moral guidance. Maybe that's the way it's always been and this conversation has simply given me some clarity on that issue.
Like any piece of literature, you get out of it what you want. I would like to see more people take the morality of Christ and the Bible a bit more seriously than worrying whether it is literal historical evidence of how the world was nearly 3,000 years ago, and how the answer or "accurate" or "inaccurate" means a damn thing in relation to the former, actually.

[Menocchio]

Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly
I find it odd the western religions somehow need their parables to be true. Of course, by saying that all reality is ultinately illusionary, Buddhism has a leg up on this...

In addition, Christianity requires that many of the events dictated in the Bible - raising Lazarus, the temptation at Gethsemane, the Resurrection, among others - be accurate representations of events in order to have any basis in truth. Otherwise, Jesus was just another crackpot in a white robe.

So Paul said. I'm not sure I accept all of his views, such as this one.

I really think people are too hung up on "reality" being something we could've seen with our eyes and heard with our ears, had we been there ourselves. Why can't the Resurrection be true in a metaphorical sense, if not a historical one? (FTR, I do think the Resurrection had some historical reality) Is "love thy neighbor as you love yourself" then any less potent and valid? I mean, coming from a guy who came back from the dead gives the words a bit more clout, but it doesn't make them any more true.

Like any piece of literature, you get out of it what you want. I would like to see more people take the morality of Christ and the Bible a bit more seriously than worrying whether it is literal historical evidence of how the world was nearly 3,000 years ago, and how the answer or "accurate" or "inaccurate" means a damn thing in relation to the former, actually.
Preach it, Satan!

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Astro- good post- rarely do folks admit they were wrong.

MeBruckner- This is where i admit I was wrong- if one accepts Jonah as happening when the historical Jonah was alive- clearly the references to Niveveh being a "great city" are incorrect. This being a parable- it is likely that "nineveh" actually represents some town in the isreal area that Jonah got to stop backsliding- which was happening a lot in that period. We sometimes call San francisco "Babylon-by-the-bay"- and we all know we are not talking about the real ancient city of Babylon. What the author meant by "Nineveh" is lost in the mists of time - but if it was the historical capital of the Assyrian empire- then that historical "fact" is incorrect. However, this was certainly not "discovered" recently thru digs.

[MEBuckner]

Daniel, I swear, we should elect you "Poster Most Likely to Hijack a Thread" or something.

Trust me--when the author of the Book of Jonah says "Ninevah" he (or she--heck, who knows?) means "Ninevah, the Capital of the Evil Assyrian Empire" and not "Ninevah, the small yet sinful town of the same name out in the sticks". The whole point is, here this reluctant prophet goes waltzing into Ninevah (Capital of the Evil Assyrian Empire, and portrayed as being impossibly huge and hence, by extension, powerful, wealthy, etc. etc.) says "Boo!" and the whole place falls on its face in repentance. Of course, trying to pin down exactly when this story is supposed to have taken place sort of misses the point--Jonah was just some guy who evidently lived around 780 B.C.E., and about whom little else is known. The Book of Jonah gives Jonah's father as being one Amittai, the same as the Jonah in II Kings 14:25, but clearly the author of this completely ahistorical fictional parable merely borrowed the name of a historical personage. All of this talk about whether or not Jonah "really" converted the entire Evil Assyrian Empire, or only the denizens of Ninevah, Arkansas, sort of misses the bloody point, you know. The story's a satire about mercy, self-righteousness, and the grace of God. Really, Daniel, you ought to read the damned story some time--don't let that "Book of" throw you, it's only about three pages long, albeit with fairly small print. Get hold of a decent commentary while you're at it.

[Fatwater Fewl]

Heck, Dan, here's a link to The Book of Jonah (http://kingjames-bible.com/B32C001.htm). Enjoy.

jm

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Thank you_ I already have several copies. Yes- Jonah is a story, and clearly meant to be taken as a parable. But- IMHO- the "evil ninevah" is not ninevah at all- it could even be Samaria. The story is a parable- but it seems to be of a prophet (who could be the real Jonah the Prophet) who is told to go into a certain sinful city- and get it to 'convert". About this time the Kingdom had seriously split into 2 competeing Kingdoms- and both thought the other was turning away from the "true faith". 2Kings rails about the "sins" of Jeroboam- "afflicted" upon Isreal (actually Jeroboam was one of the most successful Kings of Isreal)- but seems to indicate that the "real" Jonah had something to do with bringing Jeroboam back into line. Thus- indeed Jonah is a parable- but it may be based on the real story of the real Jonah who after much reluctance went to Jeroboam and got him and "all of Ninevah(Samaria?)" to "repent".

[Danielinthewolvesden]

MeB- you DO know that "Babylon" in Revelations, etc is actually Rome, right? :D

[Neurotik]

I thought it was San Francisco.

[MEBuckner]

Yes, Daniel, I know that in Revelation "Babylon" means "Rome".

Do you have any reason to think that the Book of Jonah is describing some actual historical event, and is not in fact a completely fictional account?

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Neurotik
Unless you are saying that they didn't show them how to get into heaven because they didn't teach people to accept Jesus into your heart. That is the only way that your argument has any merit.
I find your statement that the teachings of Jesus "corresponded quite a bit" with the teachings of the Pharisees to be overreaching.

Second, apparently the Pharisees DID teach them how to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, look at Matthew 23:3 where he tells his disciples to obey the teachings of the Pharisees.
He says do as they say, but not as they do.

So why would Jesus tell his followers to obey the words and teachings of men who locked the gate so others aren't able to go in like it says in 23:13. There's a contradiction there.
OK, given. We might presume that, in general, the Pharisees didn't go around ordering people to do evil things.
It's obvious which passage you have chosen to accept, but who's to say that the first passage I cited has more weight to it?
But, Jesus goes on to enumerate the areas he disagrees with the Pharisees about in the rest of the chapter. For example, their teaching that only giving ten percent was sufficient charity (they strain out a gnat while swallowing a camel) and their teaching that taking oaths was OK (compare Matthew 5:33-7 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+5:33-37&language=english&version=RSV&showfn=on) to Matthew 23:16-22 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+23:16-22&language=english&version=RSV&showfn=on)).

SuaSponte -- I've been busy, but I've read much of that link with interest.
an attack on the tenets of Pharisism is dangerously close to an attack on the tenents of modern Judaism. I don't think you believe that modern Judaism tries to stop people from entering the Kingdom of Heaven; I certainly don't.
I honestly have no idea what modern Judaic teachings are in regards to charity and oaths. If you are saying they are the same as those of the Pharisees, I'll have to disagree with you. As with most things, the devil is in the details.

[Tranquilis]

A couple of quick points, on a thread that seems rapidly headed for a peacable death:

1)
Originally posted by MEBuckner
I'm assuming you're rejecting such Biblical lessons as "total non-resistance to evil" or "men should be the heads of their families"


a) Total Non-resistance to evil isn't a Christian value. Non-restance to minor evil that does you no harm, is. In other words, If it doesn't matter, why make a fuss?

b) The Bible calls for men to be lord of the household as Christ is Lord to us all: Take that in the context from which is was said. Christ washed people's feet (parable for placing himself as the servant to mankind), practiced leadership by example, was a teacher and moral guide, and at the last, sacrificed Himself that we might live (eternally). Taken from that context, what's the issue with men being lord of the home? It doesn't sound too much like 'Bring me a beer or I'll beat you' to me. In fact, it sounds like a lotta hard work, not much reward (save that of doing a tough job well).

2)

"the belief that everyone who rejects Christ as savior is eternally doomed"


Again, take it in context: 'Reject the moral and spiritual guidance in the Bible at your peril'. When some observant soul noticed that eating pork made you sick, telling his(her) fellow villagers didn't likely carry a whole lotta weight. Saying that God would cast you out of heaven, however... Likewise, saying "Hey everone, let's behave ourselves" is unlikely to go anywhere, especially in an enviroment where misbehaving likely has immediate rewards. Saying "God sez behave or you're gonna burn" carries some authority, and even the biggest bully in the villiage isn't going to tackle God. (which doesn't mean that some priests didn't use God to bully their flock, BTW)

3)
Hi Opal! :cool:

4)
why not just be good humanists and go by that external moral code, instead of pretending to be going by the Bible?


See #2, above. Humanism isn't enough for many folks. They lack the discipline or willingness to do it on their own. Given the threat of Divine consequences, however unlikely, most people will toe the line, most of the time. Giving a mechanism for forgiveness allows those who DO cross the line a way back into the fold, so that once you've 'sinned', you have no excuse to keep on sinning.

4)

(If you have some higher moral authority by which you judge the Bible, but still believe in some sort of Higher Power or spiritual dimension to life, substitute "Unitarian Universalist" for "humanist".)

That works for many people. My Reverand mother (I LOVE saying that!) is UUA, but I am Born Again, and ascribe to no church whatsoever. My religeon is between me, Christ, and God, but I suppose I'm closest to the faith of the Calvary Chappel, if you must put a label on it.

[MEBuckner]

Tranquilis, my point is that various people are saying (as they always say in debates like this) "But the Bible has many great moral lessons". But which moral lessons? Based on the texts of the Bible, many people take a message of universal peace and love and brotherhood. That's just dandy. But it's not at all obvious to me that the people who take other messages--"All of those godless heathens are going to hell, and Christians have a duty to destroy heathendom and save the godless by any means necessary" or "Moral conduct isn't the point--the only thing that matters is being saved by faith in Jesus"--are any more "wrong" than Christians whose views I may find more palatable. All systems of Bible interpretation find it necessary to ignore, rationalize, or "interpret" various inconvenient passages, in both the Old and New Testaments.

Like all people who attempt to derive a moral system from the Bible, you naturally believe that those other fellows got it wrong, and are ignoring/"interpreting" the wrong passages, while you are ignoring/"interpreting" the passages God wants you to ignore or "interpret". But maybe, to God, all the peace and love talk is chaff (or is being misinterpreted, at any rate) and the hellfire and damnation and smite the idolaters is the real message. Or conversely, maybe jmullaney or the Quakers are right. Maybe God meant all that stuff about total renunciation of worldly ties and complete pacifism quite literally, and modern Christians who "interpret" these passages to their convenience are playing fast and loose with the Word of God. Personally, I don't think any one message can be derived from the Bible as a whole, or even from one or the other Testament of the Christian Bible. The Bible was written by a lot of different people, and no matter how much theologians may try, there's no way to harmonize all the different views of God and morality which those people had. There are parts of the Bible I basically agree with, ethically speaking, but I don't consider them divinely inspired, any more than I consider the writings of ancient Greek philosophers I happen to agree with divinely inspired, or any more than I consider those parts of the Bible which horrify me to be diabolically inspired.

[quixotic78]

I've got to go with Neurotik on the similarities between the Pharisees and Jesus. If you're just going to look in The New Testament... well, don't be surprised if it seems anti-Pharasical. After all, certain parts of the New Testament, particulary the book of Matthew, can be largely regarded as anti-Semitic and pro-Gentile. Here are brief quotes from two independent sources (ellipses are there to comply with Fair Use, not to disguise points counter to my message; all emphasis added):

Introduction to the Bible, J.H. Hayes, p. 315
A basic ambition of the Pharisees who were laymen or "lay lawyers" was the desire to make the Bible and its laws relevant and applicable to changing and contemporaneous situations. Advocating the validity and necessity of the oral law, they were in this regard progressives or modernists.... Thus they accepted and advocated the ideas of the resurrection of the dead, perhaps also the immortality of the soul, a future world where men would be rewarded or punished, and angels as guardians of persons and nations as well as mediators between man and God. Many of the Pharisees were supporters of messianism...
Ibid, p. 435
The seven woes [of Matthew] against the scribes and Pharisees represent some of the harshest and bitterest anti-Jewish polemic in the New Testament, which is after all a rather sharply anti-Jewish book.... The scribes and Pharisees are condemned for preaching, not practicing, the burden of the law. They are described as hypocrites through and through, who do their religion to be seen by men and for their own honor and glory. This caricature serves as the occasion to repudiate the titles of rabbi and father...
A History of God, Karen Armstrong, p.72
The most progressive of all the Jews of Palestine were the Pharisees, who found the solution of the Essenes too elitist. In the New Testament, the Pharisees are depicted as whited sepulchres and blatant hypocrites. This is due to the distortions of first-century polemic. The Pharisees were passionately spiritual Jews. They believed that the whole of Israel was called to be a holy nation of priests. God could be present in the humblest home as well as in the Temple. Consequently, they lived like the official priestly caste, observing the special laws of purity that applied only to the Temple in their own homes.
Ibid, p.81
Others aregue that Jesus was probably a Pharisee of the same school as Hillel, just as Paul, who claimed to have been a Pharisee before his conversion to Christianity.... Certainly, Jesus' teaching was in accord with major tenets of the Pharisees, since he also believed that charity and loving-kindness were the most important of the [commandments]. Like the Pharisees, he was devoted to the Torah and was said to have preached a more stringent observance than many of his contemporaries.... In St. Matthew's Gospel, Jesus is made to utter violent and rather unedifying diatribes against "the Scribes and Pharisees," presenting them as worthless hypocrites. Apart from this being a libelous distortion of the facts and a flagrant breach of the charity that was supposed to characterize his mission, the bitter denunciation of the Pharisees is almost certainly inauthentic. Luke, for example, gives the Pharisees a fairly good press in both his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, and Paul would scarcely have flaunted his Pharisaic background if the Pharisees really had been the sworn enemies of Jesus who had hounded him to death.
There was a quote, I forget who authored it (maybe Lewis? Hayes?) saying that the close teachings of the Pharisees and of Jesus shock modern readers, who have always learned that the Pharisees were the antithesis of Jesus. The mystery author notes that it's a lot like fights within a family--they always seem to be worse than disagreements between two unrelated people.

Regarding the OP (hehe), I won't do Karen Armstrong the injustice of bastardizing and summarizing her ideas found in The Battle for God. Instead, I'll vehemently urge you to pick up a copy and read it.

Quix

[jmullaney]

Oy vey.

Originally posted by quixotic78
If you're just going to look in The New Testament... well, don't be surprised if it seems anti-Pharasical.

:confused: I'm supposed to argue Jesus's teachings differed from those of the Pharisees, but I can't use the New Testament as a reference?

OK, how bout the Gospel of Thomas (http://home.epix.net/~miser17/trans.html)....

39 Jesus said, "The Pharisees and the scholars have taken the keys of knowledge and have hidden them. They have not entered nor have they allowed those who want to enter to do so. As for you, be as sly as snakes and as simple as doves."

102 Jesus said, "Damn the Pharisees! They are like a dog sleeping in the cattle manger: the dog neither eats nor [lets] the cattle eat."

No good either? Well, heck. I guess if you are just going to arbitrarily decide that Jesus's criticisms of the priestly class and their teachings are inauthentic, I don't have much else to go on. I don't pretend to know by what magic powers Hayes comes to his/her conclusions (perhaps used a time machine?). Nor do I know of any other sources for Jesus's teachings besides these few books.

If you want to ignore the evidence, you can believe anything you like. :D

[quixotic78]

Originally posted by jmullaney
[QUOTE]:confused: I'm supposed to argue Jesus's teachings differed from those of the Pharisees, but I can't use the New Testament as a reference?
:rolleyes: Yeah, that's just what I said. You keep referring to Matthew, particularly Chapter 23. What about the other Gospels? Armstrong (see quote) claims that the Pharisees get "good press" in both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts--what's your response to that? Matthew was written at a time (circa 80-90 CE) where tensions were running high between Jews and Gentiles, between pro-Gentile Jews and anti-Gentile Jews. Should you be surprised when you find one example (i.e., Book of Matthew) that lies squarely on the pro-Gentile Jews/anti-Jews side??

So, you've established (in my eyes) that you're going to take the Gospel of Matthew at face value, take it (heh) as gospel. You go from this stance of "Biblical Conservatism" to a completely liberated view, by quoting the Gospel of Thomas--not even in the official Christian canon. It's been years since I've read any of the Gnostic Gospels, but I do recall that they contain many teachings of Jesus that squarely contradict what he said in the Synoptic Gospels. How are you able to pick "Well, when Jesus taught this in Thomas, that's crap, but when he taught this bit in Thomas that agreed with what he taught in Matthew, that's ok." :confused:
No good either? Well, heck. I guess if you are just going to arbitrarily decide that Jesus's criticisms of the priestly class and their teachings are inauthentic, I don't have much else to go on. I don't pretend to know by what magic powers Hayes comes to his/her conclusions (perhaps used a time machine?). Nor do I know of any other sources for Jesus's teachings besides these few books.

Again, I'll ask you to address Jesus' "anti-Pharisaical" claims found in Luke or Acts. Compare and contrast the views of this author(s) with the views of the author(s) of Matthew. Next, I'd ask you to remember that the Jews in that time frame were, indeed, literate. Why don't you try letting them speak for themselves? See what Rabbi Hillel, for example, had to say. Here's a hint: The Golden Rule of Christianity wasn't a fresh, new idea.

As for Hayes's sources: I'll just ignore that bit about the time machine. If direct experience is the only standard you're going to accept for historical criticism, then I don't even know why you participate in threads such as these. Hayes doesn't do a good job of footnoting, but Armstrong has two references in her section: Jesus the Jew by G. Vermes, and A History of the Jews by P. Johnson.

Just a nitpick--the Pharisees were hardly the "priestly class." They were a very inclusive, quite grassroots effort to extend Judaism outside of the Temple, the domain of the Sadducees. Just because they advocated that everyone could become, in effect, "priestly," doesn't mean that they were a "priestly class."

Quix

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by quixotic78
What about the other Gospels? Armstrong (see quote) claims that the Pharisees get "good press" in both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts--what's your response to that?
I haven't read acts in a long long time. Perhaps Luke is slightly "more balanced" than Matthew. For example, Luke 5:20-26 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Luke+5%3A20-26&version=RSV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english) portrays some Pharisees filled with awe at Jesus's power. Yet, shortly thereafter, Luke 5:30 has the Pharisees and their scribes murmuring against his disciples. A paragraph later, Luke 6:2 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=luke+6%3A2&version=RSV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english) has at least some of the Pharisees accusing Jesus of illegal activity. At some later sabbath, they conspire to again accuse him of violating sabbath laws if he heals on the sabbath, and once he does so and essentially mocks their fundamentalist view, they become angry and begin discussing how to put a stop to him (Luke 6:6-11 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=luke+6%3A6-11&version=RSV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english)).

Luke 7:24-35 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=luke++7%3A24-35&version=RSV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english) describes the Pharisees and lawyers as having rejected John's baptism and Jesus rebukes those who rejected both John and himself, an apparent slight at those same Pharisees. Luke 7:37-50 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=luke+7%3A37-50&version=RSV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english) has one Pharisee not believing in the forgiveness of sins, and not showing as much love for Jesus as a sinner.

Luke 11:37-54 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=luke+11%3A37-54&version=RSV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english) is basically the same rant as appears in Matthew 23.

The very first verse of Jesus's Sermon to the Multitudes (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Luke+12%2C13%3A1-9&version=RSV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english) begins with "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy."

Luke 13:31 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Luke+13%3A31&version=RSV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english) does have some Pharisees warning Jesus that he should flee because Herod is planning on killing him. Their motivation, based on much of the above, is questionable, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Luke 14:1 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Luke+14%3A1&version=RSV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english) mentions they were watching him carefully when he dined at one of their houses. But again, taken by itself the motive is unclear.

Luke 15 begins with them murmuring again, and Jesus goes into several parables about the forgiveness of sins.

Luke 16 10-14 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Luke+16%3A10-14&version=RSV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english) says that the Pharisees were lovers of money who scoffed at his teaching that a man can't serve two masters and must serve God if he wishes to have treasure in heaven.

Luke 17 briefly mentions Pharisees inquiring about the kingdom of God. That can't be a bad thing.

Then in Luke 18:9-14 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Luke+18%3A9-14&version=RSV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english) is the parable about the self-righteous Pharisee versus the tax collector who admits he is a sinner.

Finally, and I do believe I have touched upon every reference to the Pharisees in Luke, there is Luke 19:37-40 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Luke+19%3A37-40&version=RSV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english) -- which must have been what you were talking about earlier, where some Pharisees are upset that Jesus's disciples are calling him a king.

Should you be surprised when you find one example (i.e., Book of Matthew) that lies squarely on the pro-Gentile Jews/anti-Jews side?
I don't consider this all to be a Jew/Gentile issue. If that is what you are afraid I'm saying, you should not fear. I believe the, for lack of a better term, "power plays" that went on here are so typical of any ideolgical revolution even in recent history, that they have a serious ring of truth to them. (For example, Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto, later Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin implement it. Lenin doing an OK job except for letting Stalin hang around. Lenin dies, both Trotsky and Stalin claim to be the "real" Communists -- but Trotsky has to flee to Mexico where he writes many tracts which AFAIK call Stalin a hypocrite. Stalin has Trotsky killed -- the end.)

you've established (in my eyes) that you're going to take the Gospel of Matthew at face value, take it (heh) as gospel.
I have to go by the source material.

It's been years since I've read any of the Gnostic Gospels, but I do recall that they contain many teachings of Jesus that squarely contradict what he said in the Synoptic Gospels. How are you able to pick "Well, when Jesus taught this in Thomas, that's crap, but when he taught this bit in Thomas that agreed with what he taught in Matthew, that's ok." :confused:
I'm sure there are some more "off the wall" gospels out there -- but Thomas squares fairly well with the canon. (I've never bought into the whole "gnostic" label for it.)

I'd ask you to remember that the Jews in that time frame were, indeed, literate. Why don't you try letting them speak for themselves? See what Rabbi Hillel, for example, had to say. Here's a hint: The Golden Rule of Christianity wasn't a fresh, new idea.
That's fine -- and I get that. But there is the question of how to implement such a rule otherwise all you have is a platitude. Apparently, Jesus and, with a few exceptions, the Pharisees had some basic disagreements as to the implementation of the love of God and neighbor as their scoffing and anger show.

If direct experience is the only standard you're going to accept for historical criticism, then I don't even know why you participate in threads such as these.
I accept source material. I am willing to attempt to understand other people's interpretation of source material. But I've always been fond of verse 2:170 from the Koran:
And when it is said to them, Follow what Allah has revealed, they say: Nay! we follow what we found our fathers upon. What! and though their fathers had no sense at all, nor did they follow the right way.
when it comes to quoting "authorities" who base their authority upon other "authorites" and so on, and maybe when you get to that last footnote it cites what a drunk at a bar scrawled on a cocktail napkin. Not that it means I know what I am talking about any more than them, I just have always prefered to think for myself when I have at least an inkling.

Just a nitpick--the Pharisees were hardly the "priestly class." They were a very inclusive, quite grassroots effort to extend Judaism outside of the Temple, the domain of the Sadducees. Just because they advocated that everyone could become, in effect, "priestly," doesn't mean that they were a "priestly class."
Interesting. Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.

[cmkeller]

Just for the record, in Jewish accounts of history, the difference between Pharisees and Saducees was that Pharisees believed in the divinity of the oral tradition (what we know today as the Talmud) and Saducees did not. The association of the Saducees with the Temple Mount was mainly due to a power struggle between the two factions during the time of the Hasmoneans; the Pharisees were in control of the educational system (not surprising, since Talmudic academies were the main training grounds for new Rabbis), so the Saduccees used the priesthood as a base for their political power.

It's not very surprising that the Christian Gospels are very much anti-Pharisee, as the Pharisees (the Rabbis of the Talmud) rejected any claim to divinity by JC.