11:23PM
Taking The Bible Literally: Observations on Resurrection and Genesis
Monday, November 29, 2010 at 11:23PM | by Otter Excerpted from The Mailbag:
[Given a figurative reading of Genesis], then how do you know which parts [of the Bible] to take literally and which to assume are superb story telling? It seems like a lot of guess work to me.
I think the answer to that is partly "Attention to detail" and partly "common sense." It's only guesswork if you're afraid of relatively complex hermeneutics, but you're not (or you wouldn't be reading at RipChurch).
If in English you came on a story about a talking snake in a garden called "Delight" who invited a character named "Humankind" (which is what the name "Adam" means) to gain the knowledge of good and evil by means of ingesting a fruit, you would have no hesitation in designating that a moral allegory or a moral folk-tale.
But because it's in the Bible, and forms the imaginative center of Judeo-Christian theological assumptions, it is (through no very good logic, I think) assumed to be exempt from that sort of discernment that we would apply just about everywhere else.
If in English you came on a story about a talking snake in a garden called "Delight" who invited a character named "Humankind" (which is what the name "Adam" means) to gain the knowledge of good and evil by means of ingesting a fruit, you would have no hesitation in designating that a moral allegory or a moral folk-tale.
But because it's in the Bible, and forms the imaginative center of Judeo-Christian theological assumptions, it is (through no very good logic, I think) assumed to be exempt from that sort of discernment that we would apply just about everywhere else.
[M]odern science will tell you man cannot be dead for three days and then rise again. Ok, then if I'm going to trust what I see, Jesus couldn't have been resurrected- it doesn't fit the evidence.
If I may, science doesn't say a man cannot be dead for three days and then rise again. It simply says there has never been a case where this has happened and been objectively verified.
Believing in something despite a lack of evidence is not the same as believing in something in spite of the evidence to the contrary. In the case of the Resurrection, you might not have objective reasons to believe in it (the testimony of scripture is hardly objective), but there will never come a day when science tells you, "Sorry... we found the body of Jesus, definitively identified."
But what we're talking about is the genre of story. And the gospels are unique in terms of genre, or mostly unique. Would it matter to your faith if you had to give up a physical resurrection? I imagine it would: then don't.
But in the case of (for example) the story of Adam, not only does the scientific evidence testify against it, but the story itself is demanding to be taken as parable or allegory. Its internal features are demanding it.
Believing in something despite a lack of evidence is not the same as believing in something in spite of the evidence to the contrary. In the case of the Resurrection, you might not have objective reasons to believe in it (the testimony of scripture is hardly objective), but there will never come a day when science tells you, "Sorry... we found the body of Jesus, definitively identified."
But what we're talking about is the genre of story. And the gospels are unique in terms of genre, or mostly unique. Would it matter to your faith if you had to give up a physical resurrection? I imagine it would: then don't.
But in the case of (for example) the story of Adam, not only does the scientific evidence testify against it, but the story itself is demanding to be taken as parable or allegory. Its internal features are demanding it.
Did he really raise Jairus's daughter? Or Lazarus? Based on what I can see and learn from modern science the answer is "no." So I guess I have to throw out most of the Gospels. Or do I?
Would you want to know if those stories are not literally history? If the answer is yes, then there's a chance you might come through that conversation with the texts and still have your intellectual integrity AND your faith. If the answer is "They must be historical," you'll potentially come to the right conclusion but for the worst of reasons: because you must force the text to mean what you think it should. And that can poison faith in the end, too. I've seen a lot of that.
As it happens, science cannot speak to this question of the gospels' historical veracity, only to its (im)probability. All that the skeptical mind can do is point out where the texts are "shaping" the history (whatever it was) to suit the authors' purposes (as, for instance, where John shifts the cleansing of the temple from the last week of Jesus' life to the beginning of the ministry). Or where Mark self-consciously rewrites Israelite texts around Jesus. But all that's hardly an affront to faith. It's just pointing out that Romano-Semitic writing was a little unusual by our standards, and we have to make a few course adjustments in our hermeneutics.
As it happens, science cannot speak to this question of the gospels' historical veracity, only to its (im)probability. All that the skeptical mind can do is point out where the texts are "shaping" the history (whatever it was) to suit the authors' purposes (as, for instance, where John shifts the cleansing of the temple from the last week of Jesus' life to the beginning of the ministry). Or where Mark self-consciously rewrites Israelite texts around Jesus. But all that's hardly an affront to faith. It's just pointing out that Romano-Semitic writing was a little unusual by our standards, and we have to make a few course adjustments in our hermeneutics.
I know Christians who choose to believe in the Resurrection, but not in Creation. They are choosing to trust science on one, and God on the other. So- guesswork.
Hardly. I think you'll find that to be a very carefully reasoned perspective: as above, those who trust in the historical veracity (more or less) of the gospels do not believe in something in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. They simply believe in something improbable, without evidence.
The believer in a literal interpretation of Genesis gives the finger to the objective witness of creation itself.
The believer in a literal interpretation of Genesis gives the finger to the objective witness of creation itself.
One very very earnest caution I have to give you is this: don't make the mistake of assuming that someone who believes that Genesis 1-3 is not literal "believes the Bible too little." If s/he's right in interpreting it as it is written and as nature testifies, s/he believes it more rightly than you do. I don't say this to challenge your belief in a literal Genesis 1-3: I say it to challenge the assumption that one must believe as you do to "believe it."
I'd very seriously ask you to consider why you think a thing must be "factual" for it to be "true." You don't believe that about Aesop's very true fables, you don't believe it about C.S. Lewis's very true parables... why should one insist that God is not so good a poet as that?
I'm not going to call you unspiritual or a non believer because of your belief- so why must I be judged as ignorant because I choose to believe literally?
Okay, now I'm in an awkward position: if I answer your note, I'm being a little too aggressive. If I don't, I'm not being truthful. I'm going to push one step farther, and then I'm off your back.
First, I didn't call you "ignorant." I want to be clear that's not my perspective, though I can appreciate why you'd feel talked-down to.
But the answer to your question (with that caveat) is in my posts above. You hold a position that's in clear, direct, aggressive hostility to nature and physical laws.
If a Christian told you she didn't believe in gravity or that she thought the earth was flat, you might well feel it's her right to believe it. You might even be disinclined to call her "ignorant."
But if she insisted on interpreting scripture to support her point, you'd rightly be moved to pry her loose at least from debasing scripture that far against acknowledged scientific truth: gravity exists, and the world is a sphere (more or less). To put it bluntly, it's not her book, and she isn't allowed to make it say what she wants irrespective of the truth. No matter how many verses she can quote to support her position.
Everything we observe about nature tells us that the text you take as factual history did not happen as the text says it did. At that point you can either give the finger to science and nature or you can change your interpretive strategy.
Second, as I pointed out above if you encountered this story in English in any other place, you would have no hesitation in pegging it as something other than factual - historical. None. And that judgment would be accurate: the text itself does not ask you to take it as factual history. It has a far more important point to make.
But the answer to your question (with that caveat) is in my posts above. You hold a position that's in clear, direct, aggressive hostility to nature and physical laws.
If a Christian told you she didn't believe in gravity or that she thought the earth was flat, you might well feel it's her right to believe it. You might even be disinclined to call her "ignorant."
But if she insisted on interpreting scripture to support her point, you'd rightly be moved to pry her loose at least from debasing scripture that far against acknowledged scientific truth: gravity exists, and the world is a sphere (more or less). To put it bluntly, it's not her book, and she isn't allowed to make it say what she wants irrespective of the truth. No matter how many verses she can quote to support her position.
Everything we observe about nature tells us that the text you take as factual history did not happen as the text says it did. At that point you can either give the finger to science and nature or you can change your interpretive strategy.
Second, as I pointed out above if you encountered this story in English in any other place, you would have no hesitation in pegging it as something other than factual - historical. None. And that judgment would be accurate: the text itself does not ask you to take it as factual history. It has a far more important point to make.
For thousands of years Jewish tradition has held this (Genesis) to be a literal account of Creation. If God meant it to be otherwise I believe He would have clearly stated so.
This is a great oversimplification at two levels: the most important is that Semitic poetics are not inclined to make the hard distinction between literal and figurative language that we are. It is enough for them to say that the story is true. And for this reason it is not the case that the Jews have insisted on the literalness of the creation account. Some certainly have (and insisted on a great many bizarre things about scripture too). But the records we have are of the Pharisaical and Rabbinic "expositions" of the text. And they do not generally obligate one to a literal interpretation. And finally, even if they did, what of it? This does not make it literally true, and certainly not in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.
To cling to an interpretation because one is faithful is admirable at some level. But when the text itself doesn't even ask one to, and one must sacrifice nature and reality to one's interpretation, I think something is badly wrong in the system of belief (and I refer to the churches, seminaries, and Bible studies that perpetuate such rigid thinking).
Alright: I'll leave you alone at that point. I've said all I have to say on that.
To cling to an interpretation because one is faithful is admirable at some level. But when the text itself doesn't even ask one to, and one must sacrifice nature and reality to one's interpretation, I think something is badly wrong in the system of belief (and I refer to the churches, seminaries, and Bible studies that perpetuate such rigid thinking).
Alright: I'll leave you alone at that point. I've said all I have to say on that.
Reader Comments (4)
I think it’s worth noting that the Catholic church (which does not have a history of hesitating to thumb her nose at science—or the culture at large—when she feels the need) does not view evolution as being necessarily problematic. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0101.htm I think (though I do not know) that it is similarly a non-issue for the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Anglican/Episcopal churches as well. Anyone want to take a guess as to why that’s the case?
Definition: A·na′sta·sis, the Greek word translated “resurrection,” literally means “a standing up again” and it refers to a rising up from death. The fuller expression “resurrection of (from) the dead” is used repeatedly in the Scriptures. (Matt. 22:31; Acts 4:2; 1 Cor. 15:12) The Hebrew is techi·yath′ ham·me·thim′, which means “revival of the dead.” (Matt. 22:23, ftn, NW Reference edition) Resurrection involves a reactivating of the life pattern of the individual, which life pattern God has retained in his memory. According to God’s will for the individual, the person is restored in either a human or a spirit body and yet retains his personal identity, having the same personality and memories as when he died. The provision for resurrection of the dead is a magnificent expression of Jehovah’s undeserved kindness; it displays his wisdom and power and is a means by which his original purpose regarding the earth will be carried out.
Thank you, Garden. This is all true.
But you can't construct a myth or a metaphor without literal language. You don't say things like "The thing that is like a leg insofar as it supports the chair in the same way that the human leg supports a man." You say, "The leg of the chair."
And the "literalness" of the claim does not open for us either the literalness of the intention (though as I say in my post I think that Paul does in 1 Corinthians 15, and virtually nowhere else) OR any window on historical fact.
We do not know what the "facts" are. We know only what the words are.
And that's a start. But only a start.
But as I write above, the belief in a historical Resurrection _contradicts_ no facts that I know of. Neither does a belief in Fairy Giraffes With Butterfly Wings, but as we're talking about the Resurrection, I'll just stick with that. That's no reason to believe it, but it's not the same as believing in a young earth.
Susan, good points all.
I'll take a guess: I think it's because the older churches understand the nature of the Bible better than does fundamentalism and many forms of Protestantism. They come from a time when poetry wasn't some fossil unearthed in the tenth grade English class but rather a living means of discourse.