Is the Bible a divine product? Or is the Bible a human product, the result of many different faith experiences over a long time from two ancient cultures – the ancient Israel and early Christianity? Is the Bible the inerrant Word of God that should be read literally? Or is the Bible a book (or better yet a whole library) filled with God experiences that are so fundamental and strong that we still read and discuss them? Do we believe in the Bible, or is the Bible the finger pointing to the Divine? Which lenses do we use when we read the Bible?
For me, the Bible as literal fact or the sacred word of God?: No; the Bible as literature with all of its glorious ways of looking at encounters with the Unknown (metaphor, simile, analogy, parable, story, poetry, song, myth,…)?: a resounding Yes!
As biblical scholars develop tools which help them analyze texts and authorship more and more accurately, archaeologists discover more artifacts referred to in writings, and historians, using texts from a variety of sources, are able to piece together customs, traditions, and how life was lived outside the royal household, more and more of the Bible seems to be falling away from “fact.” When literal interpretation based on “fact” is no longer valid, then one is compelled to take a closer look at what is really going on.
At the 2008 Fall Meeting of the Westar Institute, (as reported in Vol 22, #2 of The 4th R) the Fellows and Associates agreed that, based on text analysis, anachronistic ceremonies, and uncorroborated or conflicting statements from other texts, chunks of Acts (Acts 5:17-33, Acts 12:1-17, and Acts 16:13-40) are “Lukan fiction.” Does this make Luke a liar? Well, if he was writing history, then, perhaps, but history is written by the “winners”and he was included in the New Testament canon. Like the other Gospel/New Testament writers, Luke’s agenda was theology, not history. They had the “facts” of several common stories, but their interpretation of those facts led to differing theologies. As with any piece of writing, we need to look at who the intended audience was. For example, Shakespeare knew that the King was going to see performances of his plays, so, of course, he wrote glowingly of the King’s ancestors and condemned with unjustified harshness those who were not such as Richard III. According to Margaret Nutting Ralph’s “Discovering the Gospels: Four Accounts of the Good News,” Mark’s audience was persecuted Christians, so his theme is “Why should anyone suffer?” Matthew’s audience is the Jewish Christian and the theme that Jesus is the new Moses with authority from God to give the new law (which is why his Gospel isn’t such Good News to non-Christian Jews and has lead to 2000 years of violent anti-Semitic action on the part of Christians.) Luke was writing to the Gentiles and his theme is that the covenant relationship is universal. One elephant. Six blind men describing it.
So, when reading and trying to understand the stories in the Bible, as with any piece of writing, we need to read it in its historical context with a knowledge the author’s intended audience and that there are a variety of literary devices (metaphor, poetry, parable…) to get across an idea.
Thanks, Sandra, for your comments. I think you are absolutely right that we need to get away from literal-factual reading of the Bible and get to the broader and deeper metaphorical understandings (plural!) of the word of God. The most important question is not Did it really happen that way? but What does this mean in MY life?