Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.
What is True in the Bible ?
Rublev
Shipmate
in Dead Horses
Are there some texts of the Bible that are only 'morally true' ?
I am wondering particularly about the Creation story in Genesis 1 (which appears to be a myth) and the books of Ruth, Jonah, Esther and Daniel (which appear to be moral fables or literary constructs).
Does it matter if a text is only a literary construct or can it still be regarded as being inspired scripture (2 Tim 3: 16-17; 2 Peter 1: 21; John 10: 35) ?
How can we determine the truth of what is written in the Bible ?
I am wondering particularly about the Creation story in Genesis 1 (which appears to be a myth) and the books of Ruth, Jonah, Esther and Daniel (which appear to be moral fables or literary constructs).
Does it matter if a text is only a literary construct or can it still be regarded as being inspired scripture (2 Tim 3: 16-17; 2 Peter 1: 21; John 10: 35) ?
How can we determine the truth of what is written in the Bible ?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The main important question is not if it is true but if it is in any sense helpful.
Genesis is true. the fact is it myth does not take away from this. All of the Bible is true, IMO, but only if you properly understand the nature of truth from the different forms of writing.
Pilate being Pomo seems unlikely.
Psalms - these are songs, reflecting our emotions, our feelings (positive and negative) about our experience of the divine.
It also states the truth that humankind, male and female, is in the image of God.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
There are many truths - emotional truth, moral truth, literal truth, scientific truth, mathematical truth, historical truth. Which truth are you asking about?
True dat.
I assume that "The heavens declare the glory of God" is not the sort of evidence you are thinking of.
Historical truth is irrelevant to the fiction woven around it by the people who lived through it. Just as it is now. It's a simple logical fallacy, mousethief will know the name: the historical context of the storyteller is true therefore the story is. The storyteller often pretends to have lived before the history to claim prophecy as the justification for whatever further claim they make.
Virtually nothing claimed about God in any regard in the entire Bible or by its believers can possibly be true, except in rare isolation. For God is love. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son. Everything else we - including that Son - make up. And we well might be making that up too.
Some of them are continuing with a similar theme. Some of them are raising new questions. And some of them are having arguments with each other. The book Subversive Sequels illustrates the subtle conversations which are happening throughout the OT. Often a later book of the Bible will pick up upon an unanswered question raised by an earlier book. For example, it's likely that Ruth and Jonah are both arguing the case for inclusivity and universality against Ezra and Nehemiah.
Yes, I would completely agree that our view of a historical text is completely different from that of an ancient historian. The chroniclers of David are clearly putting quite a spin upon the story of the fall of the House of Saul and the rise of the House of David. Although they do draw a line at his murder of Uriah. It is interesting that that episode is not being discreetly veiled at all.
However, Luke is clearly doing his best to be accurate in his accounts, according to the best standards of his time. I'm always impressed that he was apparently the only one of the four evangelists who spoke to Mary and so recorded the story of the Annunciation in the NT.
I don't see it in those terms at all. This is surely a key element of his Christology rather than his chronology. Jesus as an event in history, as embodying the relationship between God and creation, and the need for human co-operation in the divine plan of love. Not a historical account of an encounter between a human being and almost certainly mythical divine agent.
Pilate is an illustration of spiritual blindness. It's one of John's favourite themes in his gospel narrative (cf John 9 and the man born blind). Pilate ignores his own conscience to condemn Jesus. And also ignores the divine warning sent in his wife's dream.
But what if Pilate in his freewill had not condemned Jesus? I suppose that satan would have awaited another 'opportune moment.' It's another question about foreknowledge in the Bible, isn't it?
Luke tells us that he decided to write an orderly account in his gospel after investigating everything carefully from the very first (Luke 1: 3). That suggests to me that he went and talked to Mary. And he includes other unique source material including the four Canticles to express his theme of joy at the birth of Christ.
We could open another thread to explore the reality and meaning of angels in the Bible, if you like.
I still read that as an essential rhetorical, textual advice, saying that his account is to be taken seriously, and is not purely metaphorical. On the other hand, it doesn't say to me that in fact every event is given a purely factual account. It is still Christology, not history, if you read that paragraph as a whole, not verse by verse.
If any cleric is in hell, it's the idiot monk that broke the bible up into verses. This was the single most stupid move in the church's history, because it has made statements like yours look sensible.
Are they 'morally true' stories which are being used to express the theology of the writer?
How do we classify 'inspired' scripture? Does it include moral fables or would only the genre of prophecy really fit the description?
It's a matter of expanding our consciousness of God, by all available means. Anything that does this, for this purpose, is true.
Luther placed the Letter of James at the end of the NT letters because he thought it was a right strawy epistle in terms of its theology. So who makes the distinctions and on what grounds?
Are some Biblical books and genres more inspired than others? Should there be a 'league table' as it were? Luther in his introduction to his translation of the German NT particularly commended John's gospel and Paul's letter to the Romans to his readers for the way of salvation. Other people such as Marcion and Benjamin Franklin have gone so far as to censor the Bible to suit their preferences. Do we all have a 'Bible within the Bible' that supports our own personal theology?
I'm amazed that anyone asks this question of a book that's full of parables. Let's take an example from Luke.
Does the meaning of the story of the Good Samaritan depend on there actually being a man who was attacked by robbers on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho? I'd argue that trying to cram this tale into the "literally true" box not only misses the point, seeing it as a commentary on the hazards of foot travel on the Jerusalem-Jericho road allows one to derive a completely different meaning (beware of robbers!) than the one that Luke is attempting to convey.
But Luke himself would probably be quite affronted to be accused of composing a gospel that was only morally true. His introduction makes it clear that he is seeking to compose an orderly account of the life and teaching of Jesus. By his own lights he is acting as a serious historian.
But of course, historians in the ancient world operated on a different value system of historical truth from modern historians. It was quite acceptable to include literary constructs and rhetorical speeches. Hence the discussion about whether the Annunciation describes an actual historical event or is a vehicle for Luke’s theology of the incarnation of Christ.
Not really. I do not need to suppose Luke talking to Mary, all I need to suppose is that Mary's account became part of the tradition that Luke drew on. That is a far weaker assumption. For instance, perhaps she told it to John who then at some stage happened to mention it in a conversation with the other disciples. Then this became part of the Jerusalem church stories that Luke picked up when he was writing his gospel. That may sound far fetched but it is no more far fetched than Luke talking with Mary. We can think of other possible routes of transmission
Luke is recording a unique source concerning the Annunciation and the Presentation. The reason why I think that he is communicating with Mary is that it is a very personal and detailed account. And we are told after each narrative that 'Mary treasured all these words and pondered them in her heart' (Luke 2: 19; 2: 51). They clearly weren't known to everyone.
But if you were a gospel writer who wanted to demonstrate to your readers the divine identity of Christ - and you had access to all the source materials and were merely selecting according to your perspective - which key episodes would you include in your narrative? First, the resurrection but secondly the incarnation, surely.
This raises the question as to what is meant by an "orderly account" for Luke/Acts. The intro states So other "gospels", which may include non-canonical gospels, the author also regarded as orderly, even though their chronology is different.
And the hymns of Mary and Zechariah I would take to be a development of an early Christian community rather than a record of extemporary praise.
The legends about Joseph grew over time to support a developing Christology. There is little in the canonical gospels about him. The legend later makes him an old man, too old to have sex with Mary. Then was added the idea that he was married previously to explain that Jesus' brothers were actually step brothers. And these were mixed up with stories such as a midwife checking that Mary was still a virgin after the birth and receiving a withered hand for her impudence.
Rublev,
Why the focus on moral truth, which I take to be but a part of the spiritual/theological truth that I understand the books to be focused on?
Yes, I would say that spiritual and theological truth comprise anything that shows us how to love God and our neighbor.
To answer that question you would first need to unpack the purposes for which the apparent moral fables of the OT were being written.
The story of the virtuous Moabite proselyte Ruth you could interpret either as legitimising propaganda for the House of David and / or a counter argument to the exclusivist views of Ezra and Nehemiah.
Jonah also seems to be promoting a universalist theology about the God of Israel - and gently challenging the diehards in his own community about their own intolerance.
Esther and Daniel appear to be answering the question of how a person of faith should behave during a time of persecution. The figures of authority in the faith community are urged to stand firm and see their positions as having been given 'for such a time as this.'
Tobit is a moral fable recorded in the Apocrypha. It shows how God rewards human faithfulness with deliverance. But it fails to meet the standard to be considered as inspired scripture. Maybe Sarah's demon guardian Asmodeus was just too much for the canonists.
A moral fable is a story told with fictitious characters to express a moral message. So a text that is morally true can exemplify virtue to the reader. But it doesn't need to concern real characters or events. So the Book of Ruth includes characters with unreal names to signal to the reader that we are entering the realm of story.
For a text to be spiritually or theologically true, is it enough that it is moral but fictitious? Shouldn't it concern real people and events and reflect an underlying reality of truth like the resurrection?
That's why there is a discussion going on about the Annunciation to Mary. Was the angel real? Or is the text a literary construct to present Luke’s theology of the incarnation?
Anyone who can answer this question really well will qualify themselves for a Blue Peter badge in Christian Unrest.