Hello Steve
Thank you for an intelligent and well-considered post. I will not be able to give it the time and attention it deserves due to having used up most of my free time responding to Rex.
Steve wrote:
"The historical-grammatical method and the allegorical method are not necessarily contradictory or mutually exclusive."
No, they are not mutually exclusive if in fact the Bible writers had what we today would think of as historical fact in mind when they wrote. My own studies have demonstrated that the element of history as we understand it is entirely absebt from the Bible, not because the Bible writers were liars, buy simply because our modern concerns were not theirs. So, I repeat, this again assuming the very thing that must be proven. Please demonstrate to me the historicity of the OT. Certainly, it contains the names of plants, animals, geographical locations and geological formations (such as various mountains and rivers) that actually exist or existed. That is not proof that the historical fiction you're dealing with is in fact literal history.
I have been wracking my brain of late trying to think of easily accessible volumes that demonstrate these facts in a way that won't put readers to sleep. I came up with only two that fill the bill, but they do so in an admirable fashion. Liberating the Bible by John Shelby Spong is an informative introduction to the Jewish practice of Midrash, which is the type of historical fiction we have in the Bible, both OT and NT. I really cannot reduce this subject to a post, Steve. Someone such as Leolaia might well be able to, but my own rebdering would be very long and I honestly don't have the time. This is the best I can do for you on the fly and off the cuff: The practice of the Jewsih people was to tell and retell their saced stories, which were in fact the sacred stories of all the various peoples of the region. An example everyone on thos board would be awate of is the Epic of Gilgamesh of which the OT story of Noah and the Flood is a retelling. Midrash. Another would be the Jesus of the OT, Joshua. If you realize these are the same names, and read "Jesus" instead of "Joshua" when you read about Yeshua in the OT, you'll see many marvelous correspondencs. This is midrash.
Another book that brings together over one hundred years of archaeological investigation into the historicity of the Bible is Thomas L. Thompson's book Mythical Past; Bibical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel. As I have posted elsewhere on this forum, archaeology has definitively demonstrated that the Bible is historical fiction, or in Jewish terms, Midrash. Despite what is spoon-fed to the American public by PBS and the Discovery channel to placate credulous viewers, the Bible is not a book of history, or even of proto-history. It's historical fiction, midrash. Both of these books are excellent introductions are to the subject matter, and both have excellent bibliographies for further reading.
Yes, and once again this begs the question as to whether the h-g method is even warranted at all given the non-historical nature of the Bible. This is exactly what must be demonstrated and it has not been demonstrated despite over one hundred years og concerted Bible archaeology.
This was a much better approach than todays literalism. I think I should take a few moments and explain literalism. Perhaps I am using the word is a mistaken fashion. By literalism I do not mean that such interpreters fail to discern the various types of literature contained in the Bible, or that they fail to discern the various figures of speech. By literalismm, aka the historical-grammatical method, is meant the assumption that the Bible is, at heart, an historical book. That the people and events described within actually existed in a literal historical fashion in the modern sense of the term. It is this basic assumption that has been discredited by archaeology.
The OT and the Gospels contain mainly midrash.
"The proposition that either the historical-grammatical method is valid or the allegorical method is valid, is a false dilemma. Both could be valid."
Indeed, if in fact the Bible is, at base, a work of history. It is not, and it is this false assumption that I am trying to nudge you into investigating further, from non-fundamentalist sources. When I was a fundamentalist Baptist minister I made sure that I read plenty of 'faith building' books to protect my mind from the wiles of the Devil, just as the JW's (and most fundamentalists) do. Then I began to seek out what the 'other side' had to say. I urge you to do the same.
"Proving one valid does not prove the other invalid. It is certainly possible that there are even more methods that are also valid, so these are not necessarily the only alternatives."
I do not see this openess at all in actual practice among fundies (I'm getting tired, so I am not going to type oput the full word fundamentalist). I experienced firsthand an angry, rejecting-out-of-hand reaction to other types of interpretation. This statement of yours is reasonable and sounds positive, but in actuality no such openness exists in the fundy world on any sort of meaningful scale. Again, this statement of yours is predicated on the mistaken assumption the Bible is in fact an historical document in some sense, and therefore can and should be interpreted in an historical-grammatical fashion. This is simply a false assumption.
The Jews had a point in using Midrash, they didn't use this method simply to use this method. Spiritual truths were concealed in the stories, and thereby repeated and confirmed in many ways. Much like allegory. To be introduced to the Jewish understanding of their own religious literature (with the help of modern archaeological scholarship to balance out any credulity) is the best way to understand the point and purpose of the OT as well as the Gospels.
"Jesus interpreted his own parables as allegories, and the miracles of the Gospel of John were certainly intended to have a symbolic meaning."
Excellent. This is excellent. There is no credulity here.
"But assuming that Jesus and the apostles used the allegorical method, this would not prove its universal and exclusive use."
I should make it plain that I am speaking in broad generalities when I speak of allegory in the Bible. Certainly, except for Paul, their is little use of strict allegory in the way the OT is used by the NT writers. That said, there is not a single example in the entire NT of the OT being applied in its historical-grammatical sense. Not one Steve. You are not adequately dealing with this fact. You are giving it the weight it actually carries. One would think we would find at least a few examples of the h-g method if in fact the h-g method has any validity. If it does have even the slightest validity, why is it universally ignored by all of the NT writers, and in fact even the words attributed to Jesus fail to use this method. By simply acknowledging that Jesus used parables does not answer for the fact that the NT does not contain a single incidence of the OT being used in it's h-g fashion. I'm beginning to become astonished at how little this means to the evangelical/fundamentalist mind. It's as if there were a religion based around Albert Einstein, and his followers had not a care in the world for what he actually wrote and how he wrote it.
I disagree with you Steve and heres why. Even thougn you wrote: "But assuming that Jesus and the apostles used the allegorical method, this would not prove its universal and exclusive use"
does not cut it. Why? As I said above, the h-g method is universally ignored by all of the NT writers, including the words attributed to Jesus. So, I can indeed deduce a universal rule for the h-g method by it's universal absense from the NT. You simply made an assertion then quickly moved on. I am giving you a verifiable reason for my universal rejection of the h-g method. You simply made an assertion.
"In order to establish their use of allegorical method, the H-G method is used to interpret the OT passages to compare with their use, so the H-G method is already presupposed."
I am not arguing for the exclusive use of allegorical interpretation, I simply use that term as a convenient tag. What I am arguing for is the universal rejection of the literal h-g method due to its universal absence from the NT. Let me repeat that. Its univeral absence from the NT. When I investigated the literal h-g context of the verses in NT that are quotations of the OT, I did not find even a single incidence of a verse being used in its actual literal h-g context. Not one Steve. Apparently, that makes much more of an impression on me than it does on you, and I'll tell you why: I actually took the time and effort to do this, so it was branded on my consciousness. You have not done this, hence it has little impact on you.
I do not presuppose the h-g method when I interpret the Bible. Neither did the NT writers. Again, you ignore this reality. None of them used the OT in its literal h-g context, not even once. This does not prove the allegorical method, but it does univerally disprove the validity of the h-g method. It does not give us a consistent alternative to the h-g method, it merely disproves the validity of the h-g, as does the fact that the OT and Gospels are Midrashic stories. The NT writera did not first presuppose the h-g method, the literal context, of the vrses they quoted, as you claim. They simply used them 'willy nilly' as they pleased. Again, that does not validate the allegorical method but it does universally discredit the h-g method.
Please kindly refrain from making assertions without any evidence or reasoning or facts behind them. Thank you.
"Jesus and the apostles were already familiar with the text, unlike present-day first-time readers. Those reading the Bible for the first time would not know yet how they used the Bible, so their example would be as yet of little use to them."
Why then did they universally fail to use the h-g method? You keep dancing around this fact. Your statement makes no sense. A present day first time reader only needs to know the way Jesus and the apostles actually used the Bible. They would then be armed against the literalist method as they studied the OT by having seen how it was used by Jesus and the apostles. The h-g method is so deeply rooted in your mind you simply take its truthfulness for granted no matter what facts you are presented with. It keeps you arguing in circles and I have to keep running in circles to try to deal with you intelligently. You have an intelligent demeanor, but your approach is still findamentalism, which is a blindness to what is staring you right in the face.
"Not everyone would accept that Jesus and the apostles were necessarily authorities or experts themselves in interpreting the Bible, and could be mistaken, so they would not necessarily accept them as examples to follow."
I fail to see the meaningfulness of this or its relevance. WE are not talking about people who are unfamiliar with the Bible. We are talking about how the Bible writers actually used the Bible, as well as Midrash and the ancient peoples presuppositions in writing their literature. To start talking like this about people who are unfamiliar with the Bible is simply smoke signals, confusion, a debate tactic designed to derail the discussion and get lost in irrelevancies.
AGAIN you simply take for granted the very thing that is in dispute! You simply assume this is the correct method, no matter what facts are presented to you or displayed before your unseeing eyes and uncomprehending mind. What is wrong with you people? The h-g method is not even a good way to start. To begin that way is to assume it was meant that way, and it was not. The Bible is a book of hostorical fiction, it is Myth. Thats's not an insult. We modersn fail to understand Myth. Myth is the language of the Spirit. Its how we speak of the ineffable. A literalist cannot "get" it at all. Despite your demeanor, you are every bit the literalist that Rex and Q are.
The H-G method is not the unique province of Fundamentalists."
Yes, many others have imbibed this delusion thanks to the universal fundy ignorance of the tue nature of the Bible
"Many in the past who practiced it were Rationalists, who wished to read the Bible like they would any other book."
Is this supposed to be convincing? The fact that rationalists made the same mistake as the fundies? Religious literature, the Bible included, is not simply "like any other book." The Rationalists made the same idiotic mistake as someone who used the same canons of judgemet on a poem as they would upon a legal document. Each type of literature must be evaluated on its own terms. The Rationalists were ignorant, utterly ignorant of (and unable to resonate with) Myth. Just as I said, it;s exactly as if a lawyer would to arrogantly judge a volume of Keats using his narrow expertise as a lawyer to judge the poetry of Keats. He would be making a grave error, one of ignorace and arrogance. The same with the rationalist and all who follow their footsetps in taking the Bible literally. Literalism is deeply rooted in we moderns because of science and rationalism. We have lost our ability to appreciate and grok with Myth. The Myth must be at least somewhat grounded in reality in order for a modern to appreciate it. Thats simply mistaken. Myth is a story that uses the trapping of reality in order to teach a timeless Truth. The example of have given before is the Myth of Prometheus. It is utterly nonfactual in a literal way, yet it carries profound Truth. You dont get it. You think the Bible must insome sense be historical or it has no value. Thats because you're a modern. You dont understand Myth and Midrash. Sheesh. I give up. Like I said to someone yesterday or this morning "Arguing with a fundamentalist is like boxing a robot; no matter how quick, clever, skilled, and experienced you are, the robot simply keeps on coming until it wears you out. You win Steve. I'm worn out. I cant keep inventing the wheel for you people, and neither can anyone here, nor can the entirety of the rest of the non-fundy world. You will in fact obliterate us, and darkness will engulf western society as it did in the dark ages. So shall it be.
Real life calls. Have fun Steve.
ONCE MORE for STEV and others who espouse historical-grammatical method
by Nate Merit 13 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Nate Merit
-
Narkissos
Again, I think one must distinguish between the different literary genres of the texts which happened to be gathered into "the Bible".
There is no doubt to me that the book of Jonah, for instance, is best understood as a haggadah, an inspirational tale (however anachronistic the label). On the other hand, I think the "Deuteronomistic history," although clearly loaded with theological motives, did try to produce a historical narrative as a foundational myth for its national and religious ideology. The Patriarchs-Egypt-Exodus-Conquest-Judges-Monarchy-Schism-Exile sequence was meant to form a chronological frame and each one of its articulations to be understood as an actual event. The fact that much of it is wrong does not imply that it was not meant to be taken as historically true -- otherwise it would be a complete literary failure, which I think it is not.
I doubt that "Mark" meant his work to be taken as history. "John" certainly didn't. But "Luke" conspicuously did.
Nothing is simple.
-
Nate Merit
Hi Narkissos
No, nothing is simple. I agree.
I use the term "allegorical" as an umbrella term for "nonliteral." I need a better term.
As far as I've been able to determine, the OT books you enumerated were indeed intended to present "Israel" (actually composed of many Semitic peoples relocated to Palestine by powerful nations over many centuries) with a unifying Mythos to give them a cohesive identity via a fictitious history.
It worked. Far better than anticipated.
I for one am very pleased it worked. The Bible is fascinating to me on many levels, as it obviously is to you as well.
I really appreciate you posting and wishing me well in my surgery. Thank you again.
Bye for awhile.
Nate -
Nate Merit
Dear Rex
Thanks for posting, even if it is simply to vent your frustration. I'm not your enemy Rex. Never was, never will be. I apologize for being unkind to you, you certainly didn't have it coming. I allowed worry to cloud my head and I was very unkind.
I apologize for seeming to be arrogant. I think both of us could stand to look at ourselves in the mirror a bit. I will if you will!
Take care Rex. I hope for all the best to you. It's been fun crossing swords. I'll be back in a few weeks. See you then.
Nate