Is the Bible human literature?

[bluebird1 (Robin)]

St Roy…quite a trail of arguments! Since I noted (originally) the passage of Isaiah 53, I thought I would add a couple quotes from the works of a modern Jewish [not Christian] scholar: " The Suffering Messiah is part and parcel of Jewish traditions from antiquity to modernity" and in a footnote to his book he noted “…many Jewish authorities, maybe even most, until nearly the modern period have read Isaiah 53 as being about the Messiah…” For support, he cited the Palestinian Talmud and Babylonian Talmed Sanhedrin 93b…

P.S. I should add that a man of Messianic Jewish convictions told me that “some” ancient rabbis believed the above, while most thought Isaiah 53 refers to Israel itself. That is due to other OT references to Israel as “God’s Son” and more. This man instead supports the Is 53 references through the description of Jesus as “the second Adam” figure in 1 Corinthians 15.

Quite a topic.

I did not believe in Jesus for several years after returning to “religion,” however I defined it. One year I attended a biblical archaeology seminar where two speakers were comparing the Isaiah Scroll with the then-popular book The Da Vinci Code…

The comparison sounds like quite a stretch now…but the audience was game for it. And highly offended, in some cases, by the speaker’s assertions.

That speaker also said the King James Version is “very close” to the original text in Hebrew… in that lecture, and later ones, that speaker reiterated his views of the Great Isaiah Scroll—including that the ancient “Great Isaiah Scroll” showed that the Bible had been “99%” passed on accurately over the millennia. And finding the ancient scroll allowed for revisions to some later translations—revisions that are now found in the RSV, NRSV, NAS and NIV…

Some other writers have seen Isaiah 53: 8 as “maybe” a prediction of the death of Jesus—possibly something to argue about… while others, including the speaker at that conference, see Isaiah 53:11 —“After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life, and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many” —as possibly referring to the resurrection [of Jesus of Nazareth in this case].

OK…interesting discussion here…

[St.Roymond]

@Roy

I’m just pointing out that this argument against divine origin

??? What argument against divine origin?

[St.Roymond]

@bluebird1

thought Isaiah 53 refers to Israel itself.

That makes for some clumsy thought structure, though. For example v. 6:

All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

“We” and “us” are Israel, so where does the “him” fit?

The same trouble pops up in v. 8:

he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people.

Take the Servant as Israel and again it’s Israel stricken for Israel.

Similarly in v. 11:

by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.

the last line would have to mean “they shall bear their iniquities”, and before that “one” and “many” have to be conflated.

I have to agree with the rabbis who admit that it was after Christians started “laying claim” to various pieces of the OT that interpretations were changed to exclude Christ as a possible referent.

[Roy]

@St.Roymond

@Roy

I’m just pointing out that this argument against divine origin

??? What argument against divine origin?

“…if the Bible is not human literature then by definition it cannot communicate to humans!”

I did assume that by “not human” you were implying ‘divine’, rather than e.g. written by squirrels. I could be wrong.

[Daniel_Fisher]

@RichardG

@St.Roymond

is also critical because if the Bible is not human literature then by definition it cannot communicate to humans!

I fail to see the logic here.

I concur, I fail to see the logic or the connection there.

If an angel came down from heaven and wrote an epistle to a church in English, I imagine we would say that is angelic literature, not human literature… But it still could communicate with humans, no?

I mean, unless I completely misunderstand, is not this what Muslims actually believe? That the Koran was literally dictated to Mohammed by an angel? While I dispute the authority of the Koran, and its angelic origins for other reasons, I would not critique the Koran on the basis that because it is technically angelic literature, and not strictly human literature, then it cannot communicate with humans.

[Daniel_Fisher]

@St.Roymond

Up until the second century AD Isaiah 53 was frequently, even generally, taken to be about the Messiah. As with other interpretations, only once Christians began to use this one was there much movement against it.

This would be fascinating to study further… any chance you can point me in the right direction for any further references or resources?

[St.Roymond]

@Daniel_Fisher

If an angel came down from heaven and wrote an epistle to a church in English, I imagine we would say that is angelic literature, not human literature… But it still could communicate with humans, no?

It would be able to communicate with humans because it would be using human literature.

@Daniel_Fisher

This would be fascinating to study further… any chance you can point me in the right direction for any further references or resources?

I can’t think of anything specific – and I even tried getting Gemini and Grok to dig out sources hoping something would jump out as familiar, but though both noted that the shift happened they showed no specific sources; Grok did point to Driver, Neubauer, and Meader (I recognize the first two scholars; Meader maybe) though no specific works.
Origen mentioned the matter but I can’t recall any specifics, only that he touched on it.
And the two rabbis who affirmed this who I knew at grad school would be in their late 90s now even if I could remember their names.

[Daniel_Fisher]

@St.Roymond

It would be able to communicate with humans because it would be using human literature.

Um, ok…. But then to your main original point…

@St.Roymond

The question is important because at least one regular participant here essentially denies that the scriptures are a human product, a position that is essential to most biblical ‘literalism’.

It is also critical because if the Bible is not human literature then by definition it cannot communicate to humans!

… then there’s no logical reason that God, just like said angel, could not have similarly made scriptures that are not a “human product” (in whatever way your interlocutor means), but still communicated in “human literature.”

Point being, I personally deny any kind of “mechanical dictation“ theory of biblical inspiration not because I think it inherently Illogical. Certainly God could have done that, logically speaking. I deny any kind of mechanical dictation theory of inspiration because I do not believe that is what God did for a host of other reasons.

[adamjedgar (adam james edgar)]

@RichardG

The whole point was to stop all the sacrificing that has gone before and replace them with one, very personal (to God) sacrifice. It is as much symbolic as it was real. It is what the death (and resurrection) meant that counts.

Perhaps there was another way? Not within the framework God had set. It relied on the established animal sacrifice system.

My view is that the framework was representative of the model of salvation not the other way round. Genesis is the first place in the bible where we are told that God has a plan to redeem and rectify that which sin ruined. It tells us that one day her offspring would crush the serpents head and the serpent bite his heal.

This tells us clearly that the sacrificial system and subsequent Sanctuary service were teaching tools…reminders of the fall and explaination how the process of fixing that would be achieved. We know that the blood of sheep and goats doesnt save anyone.

People had to know that sin, in this case disobedience, has consequences. These consequences are both physical and spiritual.

[gregoreite (γρηγορεῖτε)]

Whenever this debate comes up it always seems to me that there is a lot of back-to-front thinking. People begin with the doctrine about the Bible to which they have first been exposed and then try to force every bit of the evidence into it.

As an example, consider the claim that the Bible is the infallible word of God, dictated word for word by God. Now in Mark 4:31, Jesus is reported to have said the mustard seed is the smallest seed of all the seeds on Earth. The problem is that it is not. While the mustard seed is tiny at around 1 mm in size, the seed of the Jewel Orchid is smaller at around 0.05 mm. If scripture is dictated by God, how could God have possibly got this wrong? Sound the trumpet for retreat, retreat, retreat! If the Bible is in consequence wrong it cannot be infallible. Sound the trumpet for retreat, retreat, retreat!

OK. Let’s leapfrog over a few miserable attempts at reconciling the doctrine of infallibility with the scriptural reality. We come to the next fallback position. The Bible is infallible in regard to matters of salvation only. OK, so everybody interprets the Bible the same way in regards to salvation then? No, they do not. Difference of opinion at the institutional level began very early. There were five Patriarchies in the early Church, one of them being the Patriarchy of Rome. The Patriarchy of Rome told the other four Patriarchies that, as they sat on the throne of St Peter, they were due special honour. “Certainly!” said the other four Patriarchies. Then the Patriarchy of Rome claimed, for the same reason, they were worthy of special authority. “Tell us another one!” said the other four Patriarchies. The difference of opinion lasted for centuries until the Patriarchy of Rome excommunicated the other four Patriarchies, and the other four Patriarchies responded in kind.

The next big difference of opinion occurred within the Patriarchy of Rome and is known today as the Reformation. Differences of opinion on the Bible surfaced immediately. (Luther or Calvin, etc.) and opened the flood gates. Each group or individual started to interpret the Bible in different ways. In fact, the migration of numerous Europeans to North America was occasioned by views which differed from institutional religion and from each other.

Finally, we arrive at those who say the Bible doesn’t need scholars to interpret it. People just need to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Needless to say, from the time of the early Church, people have claimed to be guided by the Holy Spirit alone in interpreting the Bible. And needless to say, they often can’t agree with each other.

So, I come to the conclusion that belief in an infallible Bible interpreted by infallible interpreters is ultimately, an unfruitful fig tree. It doesn’t get you anywhere; and you would be better seeing the Bible as the “primary means of grace”.

[Daniel_Fisher]

@gregoreite

As an example, consider the claim that the Bible is the infallible word of God, dictated word for word by God.

So Im curious… who actually believes that God literally dictated the Bible? is this in the statement of faith of any church, organization, or denomination that you could point me to?

@gregoreite

Now in Mark 4:31, Jesus is reported to have said the mustard seed is the smallest seed of all the seeds on Earth.

And you wouldnt allow for any remotely poetic or rhetorical floruish there, no, Jesus must be understood to have been speaking with rigid literalism. (And i always thought it was just the fundamentalists that insisted that everything in the Bible must be interpreted strictly literally?)

So when Mark said that all Jerusalem was going out to John to be baptized, this must similarly be interpreted strictly literally. we cant allow any kind of poetic or rhetorical floruish there either.

[gregoreite (γρηγορεῖτε)]

@Daniel_Fisher

So Im curious… who actually believes that God literally dictated the Bible? is this in the statement of faith of any church, organization, or denomination that you could point me to?

You are asking the wrong person. See adamjedgar above. For the sake of making it easier for you:

@adamjedgar

Is the Bible a human record of God’s Revelation

i offer the above answer because its quite clear that human literature may be taken as the physical action of recording the voice of someone else…in this case God. So in that way the question is very obviously going to attract a yes answer. Having said that, i do agree that you are seeking a far more in depth discussion of the implications of Gods communication with patriarchs, judges, prophets, men of God, Disciples etc.

Denominations and movements that lean toward this view include:

• Fundamentalist Baptist groups: Some independent Baptist churches hold to a belief in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible, sometimes interpreting it as directly dictated by God.
• Certain Pentecostal and Charismatic movements: Some churches within these traditions emphasize the Bible as divinely inspired in a direct, word-for-word manner.
• King James Only movement: Some adherents believe that the King James Version is the only true, divinely preserved translation of God’s word.
• Some conservative evangelical groups: While most evangelicals believe in biblical inspiration, a few take a more rigid stance on verbal dictation.

The above was produced by a quick question to Microsoft Copilot. I am sure if you looked around amongst North American Fundamentalist churches you would find evidence of the word-for-word dictation view.

@Daniel_Fisher

And you wouldnt allow for any remotely poetic or rhetorical floruish there, no, Jesus must be understood to have been speaking with rigid literalism. (And i always thought it was just the fundamentalists that insisted that everything in the Bible must be interpreted strictly literally?)

I would allow for the fact that Jesus was human and did not have knowledge of plants from around the world. He probably would not have known about Jewel Orchids, even if he was a member of the Galilean Garden Club. I think his audience would have been in the same boat. So I don’t think it would have detracted from his message. So, no problem for me; but a big problem for those who believe the Bible was literally dictated by God.

[Daniel_Fisher]

@gregoreite

I would allow for the fact that Jesus was human and did not have knowledge of plants from around the world. He probably would not have known about Jewel Orchids, even if he was a member of the Galilean Garden Club. I think his audience would have been in the same boat. So I don’t think it would have detracted from his message. So, no problem for me; but a big problem for those who believe the Bible was literally dictated by God.

but it sounds like you are still insisting that his words must be understood as having been intended rigidly literally. You can acknowledge that Jesus was wrong, and understand how he could have made such an error. But I’m asking if you are willing to grant that his statement could simply have been an idiom, or hyperbole, or figure of speech (just like “all Jerusalem came out…”), and was not even intended by him to be a scientific or absolute literal statement about the relative size of this particular seed, being the literal smallest scene on the entire face of the planet?

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@adamjedgar

This tells us clearly that the sacrificial system and subsequent Sanctuary service were teaching tools

Isn’t that wat I said?

@RichardG

within the framework God had set.

Otherwise the Passion would have been an addition, and a last ditch one at that

Richard
Edit
IOW we had to understand what the Passion meant, otherwise it would not have worked

[knor (Kai)]

@gregoreite

I would allow for the fact that Jesus was human and did not have knowledge of plants from around the world. He probably would not have known about Jewel Orchids, even if he was a member of the Galilean Garden Club. I think his audience would have been in the same boat. So I don’t think it would have detracted from his message. So, no problem for me; but a big problem for those who believe the Bible was literally dictated by God.

Some plants in the area where Jesus lived had tiny seeds, at least compared to the relatively large mustard seeds. I assume that Jesus and the listeners knew about the plants with the smaller seeds.

Some interpret that Jesus spoke about the cultivated garden seeds, not about all plants. IMHO, this is not a sufficient explanation. The description of the plant does not fit to any known mustard plant species. It is possible that what we interpret now as being a mustard plant (in the modern sense) was another plant species - a small tree or bush sometimes growing in the gardens and perhaps utilized as a spice or for another use. Some of these may have relatively small seeds.

[Bill_II]

@Daniel_Fisher

So Im curious… who actually believes that God literally dictated the Bible?

Just do a search for “verbal plenary inspiration”. I am surprised you weren’t aware. I have heard several current pastors express a belief in this. This is usually paired with a strict form of inerrancy.

[gregoreite (γρηγορεῖτε)]

@Daniel_Fisher

but it sounds like you are still insisting that his words must be understood as having been intended rigidly literally. You can acknowledge that Jesus was wrong, and understand how he could have made such an error. But I’m asking if you are willing to grant that his statement could simply have been an idiom, or hyperbole, or figure of speech

I think piling on adjectives like “rigidly literally” overstates your case. Jesus and his disciples probably thought that mustard seeds were in fact the smallest seeds. I don’t think what is expressed here really fits the category of “idiom, or hyperbole, or figure of speech”. Can you give examples in the contemporary literature of the use of mustard seeds as part such idiom? If Jesus’ audience knew that mustard seeds were not the smallest seeds on Earth, it would have been an immediate distraction.

[gregoreite (γρηγορεῖτε)]

@knor

Some plants in the area where Jesus lived had tiny seeds, at least compared to the relatively large mustard seeds. I assume that Jesus and the listeners knew about the plants with the smaller seeds.

Can you name the plants where Jesus lived which had seeds smaller than mustard seeds?

[Daniel_Fisher]

@Bill_II

@Daniel_Fisher

So Im curious… who actually believes that God literally dictated the Bible?

Just do a search for “verbal plenary inspiration”. I am surprised you weren’t aware. I have heard several current pastors express a belief in this. This is usually paired with a strict form of inerrancy.

Ah, AI is indeed helpful. Sometimes…

(From Google’s AI overview…)

“Does verbal plenary inspiration mean God literally dictated the Bible?”

No, verbal plenary inspiration does not mean God dictated the Bible word for word. While verbal plenary inspiration affirms that all of Scripture is inspired, including the specific words used, it doesn’t imply a mechanical dictation. Instead, it suggests that God guided the human authors to write exactly what He intended, using their individual personalities and styles.*

A surprisingly accurate description of what proponents of plenary verbal inspiration mean. As additional clarification, when I asked “does verbal plenary inspiration mean God dictated the Bible”, its further detailed explanation I also found helpful and I think rather accurate:

Verbal:
This aspect refers to the specific words used in the Bible being inspired, not just the general ideas. It doesn’t mean God physically dictated every word, but that He guided the writers to choose the right words to convey His message…
Inspiration:
The concept of inspiration suggests God worked through the human authors to communicate His message. This doesn’t imply mechanical dictation, but rather that God guided the writers to express what He wanted said.

so no, proponents of plenary verbal inspiration (like myself) do not believe that God literally dictated the Bible. Google’s AI said it, so it must be true…

[Daniel_Fisher]

@gregoreite

Jesus and his disciples probably thought that mustard seeds were in fact the smallest seeds.

They probably knew that said seeds were indeed the smallest seeds in their own world and experience, and they probably were not trying to make some scientific assertion that there could not conceivably ever be discovered anywhere on the face of the earth any seed smaller.

@gregoreite

I don’t think what is expressed here really fits the category of “idiom, or hyperbole, or figure of speech”

I think it is just common sense about the way that anyone talks. If a friend returned from Mount Everest and proudly proclaimed, “I did it! I just climbed the tallest mountain!”… it would be beyond pedantic of me to point out that Mars has a mountain taller than Everest.

Turning Jesus’s statement about “the smallest of seeds” into a rigidly scientific statement seems similarly pedantic, whether it is from a creationist trying to defend inerrancy and trying to claim that, “no, really” mustard seeds really are the smallest!" - or whether it is from someone insisting that Jesus was scientifically in error and therefore wrong; ergo, inerrancy is falsified!

How often do people on this site stress the idea that Scripture - Genesis in particular - was not written to be a scientific treatise… OK, fine… But when Jesus mentioned something about the mustard seed being smallest… then all of a sudden this must be interpreted as a rigidly scientific claim, and must be interpreted in the same scientifically literal manner as the creationists read Genesis??

@gregoreite

I think piling on adjectives like “rigidly literally” overstates your case.

I’m simply observing that “rigidly literally” is how Jesus’s words must be interpreted if one is claiming Jesus made an “error”, otherwise there simply is no case. If Jesus is just talking the way people talk, and not making a “rigidly literal” claim as I think you are suggesting, then fine, and Jesus is then simply talking in common parlance, making no rigidly “literal claim,” and thus he is making no “error.” But a person can only claim that Jesus was “wrong” only if that person insists that Jesus’s words be understood in a “rigidly literal”, scientific manner, no?