Dentarthurdent

One of the things that non-fundy Christians always say in defense of their religion is that the Bible was not meant to be taken literally. I disagree. I think the Bible was meant by its authors to be taken completely literally, just as every other mythology in history was taken literally by their respective believers.

So, what do you think?

makerowner

I see no indication in the vast majority of the Bible that it was meant to be taken as anything but literal history.

exmormon

I recall Joseph Campbell the mythologist questioning the extent to which origin myths were/are typically literally believed by primitive cultures. He didn't single out the Bible. Given the influence of the modern notions of science and objectivity on everyone's thinking, including those who think Genesis tells the literal truth, it's worth wondering what one's view of "truth" might be with a pre-scientific mindset (and not merely a reactionary mindset, as with fundies). The distinction between truth and myth or even fiction maybe wasn't as clear as we take it for granted to be these days. Certainly fundamentalism, as anti-modern as it tries to be, is a very modern phenomenon - a reaction to modernism, and you can't equate the fundy attitude to the Bible with the ancients' attitude no matter how literally the ancients might have taken it.

mens_sana

Ca. 400 BCE, Thucydides explains that he has "put into the mouth of each speaker the sentiments appropriate for the occasion, expressed as I thought he would be likely to express them, while at the same time I endeavored, as nearly as I could, to give the general purport of what was actually said" (History, 1.20.1).

The ancients understood that witnesses were few and far between. Today, with CNN, the Internet, the Library of Congress — it takes a while for the Thucydides remark to sink in. (If it ever does.)

Newton's Cat

... came John, the one baptising in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And went out to him ALL the Judaean country and the Jerusalemites ALL, and were baptised by him in the Jordan river confessing the sins of them.

.... and it came to pass in those days came Jesus from Galilee.

... came Fred, the one baptising in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And went out to him ALL the English country and the Londoner's ALL, and were baptised by him in the Thames river confessing the sins of them.

.... and it came to pass in those days came Hamish from Scotland.

mens_sana

Funny, I don't remember reading about Hamish and Fred, but in Judaea, there was more than one charismatic who reenacted "Moses parting the Jordan."

smugg

This topic fascinates me -- I think that by the time the stories were collected into the books we call the Bible, those transcribers did strive for verisimilitude and (with the exception of a few cynics) probably even bought the narrative themselves. On the other hand, at the time of their origin in ancient Sumeria, I think it's likely that the stories were understood as metaphor (of sorts) and intended as a symbolic explanation of the way things were (like Campbell by way of Kipling).

Chili

It is to be taken literally only where it where it tells us to do that such as in John 6:55 where "my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." The rest is metaphor and allegory.

karlmarx

I think early myth was intended to be symbolic. For instance, take the myth of Horus being blinded in one eye, which explains why the moon is not as bright as the sun. Did ancient egyptians really believe that the sun and moon were literally the eyes of a falcon? If they did, how did they reconcile this with the fact that falcons do not normally have celestial bodies for eyes? Isn't this something even a child would notice?

If Egyptian myth is not intended to be interpreted literally - why wouldn't this apply to early Jewish myth also?

I agree with exmormon that early religion has nothing to do with the literal interpretations made by modern fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is essentially a new reactionary phenomenon.

I'd even venture to say that the modern mind *cannot* understand early religion as it was known to the ancients, due to the fact that it carries too much cultural baggage dating from the scientific revolution and the Enlightenment. It has trouble interpreting myth in terms other than superstition or history. The very act of studying and analysing ancient religion in this way implies an Enlightenment mind-set.

It's as if the Enlightenment opened up a new door, but simultaneously closed another, permanently.

jeffevnz

This is a good topic. When religious moderates try to get out of trouble by saying the Bible's not meant to be taken literally, just point out to them that it very likely was.

If, for example, they try to tell you that the seven days of creation are a allegory for billions and billions of years, point out that the writers of the Bible didn't know the earth was billions of years old, therefore they almost certainly didn't have billions of years in mind when they wrote that passage... Saying the Earth was created in seven days didn't sound ridiculous to them like it does to us. Beliefs like that were typical in those days. It would have been entirely normal to believe it literally.

Then there's the fact that the Bible is very detailed, which is unusual for a metaphor. It lists numbers of animals, tribes, who begat whom, etc. You normally use metaphors to avoid details and just capture the main ideas... More to the point, the high level of detail is present in the problematic parts of the Bible, where people try to argue it's just a metaphor: the lists of ridiculous lifespans, the descent of various tribes from Noah's family, Joshua's outrageous genocidal resume, etc.

And all of that ignores the obvious question of why the Bible would be written as a metaphor. Why couldn't the writers just say what they meant? Why wouldn't they? At best, it's an unjustified assumption.