You might want to be careful here, jmullaney. Check out the following link
Some quotes from it:
Finally, and most importantly:
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
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, 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”.)
Well, I’d think Matthew 27:51-53 might have had some external corroboration.
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…
MEBuckner
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.
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?*
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?
I looked up myth at Wordsmyth. The bible definitely qualifies.
The thread title and the OP ask two quite different questions.
[list=1]
[li]The Bible as Myth. Can the Bible survive modernity?[/li]
[li]“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?”[/li]
[li]Hi Opal.[/li][/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
[hijack]
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.
[/hijack]
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.
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.
OK, ZOmegaZ, let’s go through this.
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.
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.
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.)
For some reason, I don’t think you will, either 
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.
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.
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.
Preach it, Satan!
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.
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.
Heck, Dan, here’s a link to The Book of Jonah. Enjoy.
jm
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”.
MeB- you DO know that “Babylon” in Revelations, etc is actually Rome, right?