Non Fundamentalist Discussions of the Bible

[spiritletter]

I am critical of fundamentalism, and I see that several of the debates I've watched in these forums tend to bog down where multiple interpretations of the Bible run up against fundamentalist claims that every word in the Bible was dictated by God. Whereas I believe myself to be a genuine seeker, I'm disturbed by this "aporia" as the Greeks would say, or point beyond which an argument cannot proceed. Some people seem to believe that they have been privy to God's word, whereas I obviously have not. My question is, do I have like minded people on this forum? Is there anyone there who wishes to discuss the Bible without asserting that it is the perfect revealed wisdom of God? I would enjoy that.

[Assent]

Ivan: The "descendents" of Moses -- mages in general, like Merlin, et al -- are descendants only in the sense that they are archetypes. They do not have the social power that Moses has. Moses, of course, is a great leader. Moses has immense importance right down to the present in the narrative of the survival of the Jews, from Egypt to Israel. Merlin, Gandalf, and Dumbledore never led the Brits out of another land. I am moved by Moses in a way that I am not by other archetypes of the mage.

Here's my argument for reading Biblical text. I believe that imagination is necessary for the apprehension of the truth. Many of my academic colleagues read literature (including the Bible) with the scholarly part of their minds, and suppress the imaginative; they go on to put their students to sleep and write unreadable scholarly papers. I think that the "mind" is composed of a number of faculties, including imagination. Reality is not dull or prosaic; it contains at poetic (or mythopoetic) sense that the "just-the-facts" guys miss. I believe that to see reality in its holistic fullness is to see the life in it, and not just artifact. Coleridge teaches us that poetry allows us to see the world as if for the first time, in emulation of God's original creation, as if we are all Adam or Eve stunned by the beauty of the garden. I believe this is why the Bible is composed as a collection of poems, dramas, narratives, and proverbs, rather than didactic essays. In a poem -- or in any other work of art -- the overall effect is possible only because the whole is larger than the sum of its parts. Similarly, human beings are more than their analyzable components.

When I read the story of Joseph in Egypt, particularly the part where he analyzes Pharoah's dreams, I feel a sense of mystery. I feel something is moving me at a deeper level than usual. I can't just explain this as literature or psychology: something else is going on. There is a "thou-ness."

And yet, would it not be best if both analysis and imagination were used together? Stories were meant to be read, and so you should do so. And yet, stories were also writen by others, and the analysis can help us understand this other person more than a simple reading can do. And so when one reads the same text a second time, after this analysis, one can see through the author's eyes, which is perhaps the best option available.

Interesting that the Thou has been dropped from English, whereas it still exists in German and French.

I think everyone was just being too formal. The plural second person pronoun is used in French to refer to an unfamiliar or respected person, and after the Normans took over England this would probably have been translated into English practice.

[ivansayer]

Ivan: The "descendents" of Moses -- mages in general, like Merlin, et al -- are descendants only in the sense that they are archetypes. They do not have the social power that Moses has. Moses, of course, is a great leader. Moses has immense importance right down to the present in the narrative of the survival of the Jews, from Egypt to Israel. Merlin, Gandalf, and Dumbledore never led the Brits out of another land. I am moved by Moses in a way that I am not by other archetypes of the mage.

Here's my argument for reading Biblical text. I believe that imagination is necessary for the apprehension of the truth. Many of my academic colleagues read literature (including the Bible) with the scholarly part of their minds, and suppress the imaginative; they go on to put their students to sleep and write unreadable scholarly papers. I think that the "mind" is composed of a number of faculties, including imagination. Reality is not dull or prosaic; it contains at poetic (or mythopoetic) sense that the "just-the-facts" guys miss. I believe that to see reality in its holistic fullness is to see the life in it, and not just artifact. Coleridge teaches us that poetry allows us to see the world as if for the first time, in emulation of God's original creation, as if we are all Adam or Eve stunned by the beauty of the garden. I believe this is why the Bible is composed as a collection of poems, dramas, narratives, and proverbs, rather than didactic essays. In a poem -- or in any other work of art -- the overall effect is possible only because the whole is larger than the sum of its parts. Similarly, human beings are more than their analyzable components.

When I read the story of Joseph in Egypt, particularly the part where he analyzes Pharoah's dreams, I feel a sense of mystery. I feel something is moving me at a deeper level than usual. I can't just explain this as literature or psychology: something else is going on. There is a "thou-ness." Interesting that the Thou has been dropped from English, whereas it still exists in German and French.

Hi Spiritletter,

"The "descendents" of Moses -- mages in general, like Merlin, et al -- are descendants only in the sense that they are archetypes."

The fact that we perceive persons as 'archetypes' doesn't necessarily mean a great deal. The perceived similarities may be in our minds rather than where they lived. If the chronicle side of the Pentateuch is true - and that is hotly disputed - then Moses was the most successful nation builder the western world has ever known. He masterminded a liberation movement that gave birth to a nation that is still around a few thousand years later. I date the England of which I am a fragment to the seventeenth century - I am but of yesterday.

"Here's my argument for reading Biblical text. I believe that imagination is necessary for the apprehension of the truth. "

No risk about that according to me - but I had to rub my imagination up and down against reality for a fair while before it started to return reliable results. This makes a mess of some people. After a certain number of mistakes and failures they feel they'd rather go back than go on.

"Coleridge teaches us that poetry allows us to see the world as if for the first time, in emulation of God's original creation, as if we are all Adam or Eve stunned by the beauty of the garden."

Sure, one should always be prepared to accept such shocks - but, on the other hand recognition of good old familiar home is a worthwhile experience too. Too many new experiences can tire you radically. Remember the old Americas song 'Cornwall Blank'.

"I believe this is why the Bible is composed as a collection of poems, dramas, narratives, and proverbs, rather than didactic essays."

Oh, the didactic essays get a look in too. There's that guy with the sinewy sentences that go on for seven verses - St. Paul. But, by and large, we agree. Anybody who reads the Psalms as tho' they were newsprint is missing out.

"When I read the story of Joseph in Egypt, particularly the part where he analyzes Pharoah's dreams, I feel a sense of mystery. I feel something is moving me at a deeper level than usual. I can't just explain this as literature or psychology: something else is going on."

So, what do you believe about that experience. Should I have it too ? (Actually, I'm impressed by the way Joseph tests his brothers hard as nails - and then accepts them fully. But, the guy who gets the most tucker at the big dinner is Benjamin - the only brother who wasn't involved in dumping him and who was son of the same mother.)

Oh, and by the bye, I thought we were going to discuss the difference between the Old and New Testaments.

Ivan

[spiritletter]

Ivan: Concerning imagination and analysis, I am merely redressing the balance. The present academic climate privileges analysis over imagination. When I say "holistic" I am referring to the the complete consciousness, which is dialogical within itself. I am not in favor of dispensing with analysis, merely drawing the totality into balance.

Sorry I got side tracked from my original intent to discuss Old and New Testaments, but your responses have been so good that I have felt it necessary to further refine my thesis.

I find that God (or in some cases gods) are the central power of the Old Testament, whereas Christ and the apostles seem to be the primary speakers in the New. God submerges himself in the person of Christ. This placing of God within the flesh of Christ has the effect of bringing spirit down to earth. The literary function here is to concretize spiritual teaching. The Old Testament God is abstract power from above in the tradition of the Greeks. We bow before this power, we appeal to this power through sympathetic magic, but we do not necessarily love him. We fear him. The person of Christ, however, is lovable at the human level. He is everybody's father/brother, someone to come to in times of grief and terror, someone to embrace.

This placing of spirit within a tangible form is similar to T. S. Eliot's idea of the "objective correlative;" a thing or story or character that makes something apprehensible through the senses.

By the way: the distinction I was trying to make between Moses and merely archetypal associations is that Moses seems to have more at stake in comprehensible social and political terms.

PS: I will be off-line a couple of days. We are moving.

Best,

SL

[ivansayer]

Ivan: Concerning imagination and analysis, I am merely redressing the balance. The present academic climate privileges analysis over imagination. When I say "holistic" I am referring to the the complete consciousness, which is dialogical within itself. I am not in favor of dispensing with analysis, merely drawing the totality into balance.

Sorry I got side tracked from my original intent to discuss Old and New Testaments, but your responses have been so good that I have felt it necessary to further refine my thesis.

I find that God (or in some cases gods) are the central power of the Old Testament, whereas Christ and the apostles seem to be the primary speakers in the New. God submerges himself in the person of Christ. This placing of God within the flesh of Christ has the effect of bringing spirit down to earth. The literary function here is to concretize spiritual teaching. The Old Testament God is abstract power from above in the tradition of the Greeks. We bow before this power, we appeal to this power through sympathetic magic, but we do not necessarily love him. We fear him. The person of Christ, however, is lovable at the human level. He is everybody's father/brother, someone to come to in times of grief and terror, someone to embrace.

This placing of spirit within a tangible form is similar to T. S. Eliot's idea of the "objective correlative;" a thing or story or character that makes something apprehensible through the senses.

By the way: the distinction I was trying to make between Moses and merely archetypal associations is that Moses seems to have more at stake in comprehensible social and political terms.

PS: I will be off-line a couple of days. We are moving.

Best,
SL

Hi SL,
Happy shifting.
"Concerning imagination and analysis, I am merely redressing the balance. ..."
Fine by me, though I'd argue that I've had enough of philosophy as a parlour game where you slice the world into two and then have fights over which bit is superior until somebody gets the idea that we need a bit of both. In fact there are imaginative analyses of this that or the other and analyses of the imagination &c. &c....

"The Old Testament God is abstract power from above in the tradition of the Greeks. "
I dunno about that - and I mean, I don't know. I don't know that much about Greek religion and whether it really was comparable to contemporary Judaism. Is there any Greek god who delivered a command to 'Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy mind,.....' ? Are any of the Greek gods deeply concerned with basic ethics ?

"The person of Christ, however, is lovable at the human level. He is everybody's father/brother, someone to come to in times of grief and terror, someone to embrace. "

I have a problem with using the world's second most popular four-letter word in public. a) Human loves (not excluding mine) usually contain concealed hatreds but most people object to emphasis of that point. b) The word means so many different things to so many different people that at least one, and probably many more hearers will be deceived.
Granted, the God of the old Testament seems, in certain ways distant. Philip felt this when he said (John 14) 'Show us the Father and it sufficeth us.' The reply was: 'Philip ... He who hath seen me *hath seen* the Father.' Assuming this to be true report - which is hotly contested - I have to say that it's not easy to face. Either the speaker is a self-deceived, blasphemous charlatan, or he's telling the truth. Either option leaves you with more questions than the average guy can handle in a lifetime. This is just one of the many reasons why Schweitzer, after writing a great survey of (European academic) views of Jesus from about 1750 to 1900, concludes 'We have no words to say what he is for us.'

Assuming it true, for example, you have a God who visits his specially prepared nation in person and is rejected by them. No account of this makes it something you can digest in a weekend.
Ivan