Maybe this has been asked before, but I didn’t see a post when I searched for this particular question. There are other reasons as well, but a side conversation in the “Takes on a Bible Study” thread concerning the inspiration for the Temple sort of prompted me asking this.
For those of you here that embrace that parts of the OT were written as a response to Babylonian exile… How have you come to use or value those passages? Take the creation narrative and Adam and Eve, for example. If these events are not literal in any way, but rather made up for the sake of combating the ideologies and religion of Babylon, I could see someone taking that bit of information and concluding “Well, then that’s just people making up stuff about God, and who knows if they’re right?”
I have come to embrace many of these as not literal, but this question arose for me, and it is giving me something to wrestle with. Honestly, it makes it hard to take most passages seriously, as my critical side says, “A human made this up, not God.” It’s not that simple in reality, I know, but fabricating fake stories and passing them off as real events makes it hard to distinguish what is trustworthy and what isn’t—including the more myth-like stories that are supposed to tell us about God’s character. Is this His character? Is it what someone wanted His character to be for “morale”?
As Christians trying to align ourselves with God as He truly is (to the best of our limited ability), we discourage people from forming a useful or preferable god to fit their agendas. But is this what the early authors were doing? How do you that acknowledge the human, exile authorship of some bible books and chapters justify taking them seriously as truly testifying to God’s character and will? Do you find those passages to be trustworthy for truth about anything?
This question is hard to put into words, but I hope it makes sense.
The first thing you have to do is decide how you want to view the inspiration of the authors that wrote the Bible. Then:
But God could have inspired the author to use existing creation myths for His purpose which would make the story “true.” If you decide people are “just making up stuff” you have a pretty low view of inspiration.
The modern definition of “truth” doesn’t match the definition of the original audience. They were much more concerned with the authority of the writer.
This is a challenge for those who want the bible to be an inerrant answer-book. But if we are willing to see the Bible as the story of God’s people, including their perspectives, opinions, messy lives - everything … then it isn’t a problem, but instead, it’s a record of perspectives for us to learn from. In many ways, this is rather freeing, then - to be able to read scriptures without always thinking we need to have our analytical “decoding” glasses on to make sure we “get it right”. There is truth to learn, to be sure; and there are many wrong and distorting things we can (and have) done with it. But many of those wrong and distorting things have come from the very folks who are at highest pains to see it as an ultimate answer-book. So we already know that their concern to “get it right” has not done them any favors in moving toward Christ-like spiritual discernment.
Once we free ourselves of this mis-use of sacred texts, we no longer have to agonize about why it is seemingly so glib in attributing cruelties and genocides, etc. to God. We see that it is people being people then, as they are now, and knowing that their choices and perspectives were (thank God!) not the end-all be-all for everyone to follow.
There’s a disconnect here that comes from framing the issue in a modern paradigm: we have the notion that things have to be literal to have meaning, but that idea was utterly alien to the ANE situation of the Torah. To understand that I recommend some Michael Heiser videos (especially those I recently recommended to someone here) as well as Tim Mackie ones; I can work with the difference but I get bogged down trying to explain it.
To an ancient Israelite, indeed to most humans through history, there’s nothing “fake” about the Creation accounts even if the events never happened; they would look at you and say that those accounts are more true than a mere recitation of events.
I don’t fit that stance; I stick with those scholars who point out that there is an ancient core to Genesis that goes back beyond Moses, and what happened in Babylon (and other times along the way) was editing – the evidence for that editing is heavy, and editing doesn’t negate inspiration; after all, the scripture doesn’t say that the authors were inspired, it says that the scriptures were.
Which by the nature of the beast it can’t be. Ancient writers purposely put in (apparent) contradictions, puzzles, and other conundra for the purpose of getting the reader to think, and that kind of content doesn’t make for an “answer-book”.
This is correct. Is the text inspired? Is the whole more than its parts? Does scripture interpret scripture? Does the text have multiple meanings (polyvalence)?
To the OP, as one example, I think if the story of Adam and Eve was codified into scripture during the exile it will take on added meaning . Israel (Adam and Eve) was exiled form the garden (the promised land). I just don’t think that excludes other meanings or that we have to resort to either ors (false dichotomies). How to interpret scripture is quite complex if you want to dig into the weeds. For example, did Israel really sin to get exiled or did they just think they must have sinned otherwise their nation and (also I. Their thinking, their God) could not be deposed by rival nations and lesser gods. Were they just invaded by superior powers?
Thinking you are being invaded and displaced because you sinned can be true but also end up blaming victims and may be like a person who gets canceling wondering why God is punishing them or allowing them to be punished in such a way. Jesus of course touched on this with the man born blind from birth which can be a tough story (neither he nor his parents sinned!). In the end, Biblical interpretation is very difficult at times when you are not a wooden fundamentalist. <insert argument for God/Jesus choosing and leaving behind an authoritative Church as opposed to an army of individuals armed with sola scripture>
Vinnie
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
