The four assumptions

[StormyOne]

In his book "How to read the Bible," James Kugel states that ancient interpreters of the bible shared the same set of expectations about the biblical text. He states that even today we read the bible assuming basically the same 4 things and that those assumptions lead to faulty interpretations......

The four assumptions are:

• It was assumed that the bible is fundamentally cryptic, that when it says A, it might often mean B...
• It was assumed that the bible is a book of lessons directed to readers in their own time. The bible might talk about the past, but it is not fundamentally history.
• It was assumed that the bible contains no contradictions or mistakes, that it is perfectly harmonious...
• It was assumed that the entire bible is essentially a divinely given text, a book in which God speaks directly or through his prophets...

Kugel goes on to suggest that once biblical interpretation started along the path of these four assumptions it developed a logic, and a momentum of its own. He states that these assumptions color the way people read the bible.....

Kugel also says this:
who decided what the bible should consist of? Not Moses, not Isaiah, not anyone we know by name in fact. The very idea of a bible, along with its present table of contents, is essentially an editorial decision......

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...UmXYE&sig=gRTLTcEL1zbm33ruxklrYalwxnY#PPR9,M1

there is a link to the book online...

 

[JonMiller]

I think that if you don't believe that the Bible is inspired (and note, this doesn't mean that you believe it is inerrant) than there isn't much that your Christianity is based upon (it only leaves tradition and revelation, and in my modernist view revelation is very rare).

Note, that this says nothing about the belief in God. Only about the belief in Christ, as non biblical evidence is rare (and expected, but if the Bible isn't inspired...).

My belief in God isn't based off the assumption that the Bible is inspired, my belief in Christ is, however.

Removing the assumption that the Bible is inspired, changes the Bible from being a book about man's relationship with God, to being a book about man's search for God. There are a lot of other books about man's search for God (and counter) and if you believe none to be 'inspired' then I am not sure that reading books helps, and other techniques (looking for revelation? not looking at all?) would be best.

Jon Miller

 

[StormyOne]

I think the bible has what is needed for a person to believe in Christ. However as you study how the bible came to be, you realize that there have been myths about the bible perpetuated by those in the pulpit. The bible was never meant to be what people have made it to be.... especially those who in essence elevate the bible to "godlike" status....

Scholars have found that there are at least 4 different sources used to compile those books attributed to Moses, at least 2 sources used to compile Isaiah, and the two used were 200 yrs apart..... and the list goes on....

Thus while God may have inspired the original writings, we don't have them, and we have no idea what the original intent may have been....

So again, when its all said and done, we have, "In the beginning God created...." everything else is commentary.... (yes I am borrowing that phrase from a friend of mine)

 

[moicherie]

I suspect elevating the bible to godlike status was used as a method of control over the masses in the past considering most of them were illiterate, with the invention of the printing press, translations and universal education its still use to control due to the separation we have of laity and clergy. We rely on the clergy to interpret the bible for us, in the Adventist church some rely on EGW, we forget the curtain was torn down we have direct access to God for ourselves, we don't need not human agents but Christiandom is lazy we don't want to seek and find and resent it when others do and come to different conclusions from us.

 

[StormyOne]

I suspect elevating the bible to godlike status was used as a method of control over the masses in the past considering most of them were illiterate, with the invention of the printing press, translations and universal education its still use to control due to the separation we have of laity and clergy. We rely on the clergy to interpret the bible for us, in the Adventist church some rely on EGW, we forget the curtain was torn down we have direct access to God for ourselves, we don't need not human agents but Christiandom is lazy we don't want to seek and find and resent it when others do and come to different conclusions from us.

very true.... and I always ask, if the bible was that important, what did people do before the bible was compiled? How did they understand God?

 

[sentipente]

We have to decide whether our theology begins with the God as the authority or with the Bible as the authority. It seems to me that we take the Bible as our authority even though we claim that the God is our authority. We are in the throes of denial.

 

[StormyOne]

We have to decide whether our theology begins with the God as the authority or with the Bible as the authority. It seems to me that we take the Bible as our authority even though we claim that the God is our authority. We are in the throes of denial.

yes I would have to agree.... we say God is the Supreme Being, but then its like we extend to the bible authority because someone somewhere has said that the bible is "from God." Though the proof of that statement is questionable.... so then there are two issues, one, our contentment in denial and two, our willingness to be gullible....

 

[StormyOne]

In Kugel's book he notes that a repackaging (of sources used) started with the book of Genesis, and that the 1st five books of the bible attributed to Moses, were more than likely NOT written by Moses at all... In the 1st three chapters of Genesis you have two different people writing, one whose emphasis was on the creative acts of God and the other one whom scholars believe was from a priestly background because the source emphasized sabbath origins and observance which is what priests were concerned with.

Kugel states:

Perhaps most striking of all for the modern scholars was the whole matter of the sabbath. The sabbath they noted was a subject dear to priests. True it is mentioned outside of priestly texts as well, but in priestly writings the proper observance of the sabbath is stressed in a way not found elsewhere. When they considered Genesis 1 carefully, they concluded that the sabbath and not the creation per was was its true subject. This whole account of how the world was made, they said, had been set forth in this six day scheme so as to stress the importance of the seventh day sabbath. From the very beginning of the world this priestly author was saying the sabbath has existed, indeed, God arranged creation into six "days" so as to be able to rest on the seventh day, and so should you. That rather than a simple recitation of the facts of creation seemed to modern scholars to be the whole point of chapter 1.

So what's my point? Moses may not (probably didn't) write portions of Genesis, and from the very start of composing "the bible" there has been editorializing and reinterpreting by unknown authors to tell a certain story which MAY NOT have been the original meaning.

 

[StormyOne]

As I study how the bible came to be, it is becoming apparent that parts of the bible contain information from sources other than those named, and those other sources promoted their own interpretations, or a reinterpretation of someone else's interpretation, packaged it or repackaged it and called it "the bible." So we may not really know what the original "documents" contained as we don't have them.

To those who would suggest that God hovered over "his written word" to preserve it from error or destruction, I would say, that is delusional thinking...

 

[JonMiller]

I personally am not a big fan of the historical approach to interpretation of the Bible. Well, I am not a fan of that approach to interpreting literature period, I think that it ignores the story.

I think that the reader is just as much a part of the story as the writer, maybe in some cases more, and I think that this fact is ignored in historical criticism.

I think that this is true in general, and I think that it is especially true relative to the Bible. In other areas of literature, the historical approach isn't the end all and be all, why is it the focus in the study of the Bible?

Jon Miller

 

[StormyOne]

historical as opposed to what? Are you of the belief that the bible has meaning for us here and now? (one of the 4 assumptions btw)

 

[JonMiller]

historical as opposed to what? Are you of the belief that the bible has meaning for us here and now? (one of the 4 assumptions btw)

Are you familiar with literary criticism? Basically, the way in which one reads a book?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_theory for a brief overview in case you have forgotten.

So historical (or historicism) as opposed to marxism, feminism, read-response, etc.

JM

 

[sentipente]

I think that the reader is just as much a part of the story as the writer, maybe in some cases more, and I think that this fact is ignored in historical criticism.

If I read you correctly you are saying that if you intercept a communication that your interpretation could be more important than what it meant for the person who wrote it and the person to whom it was written. How could that make any sense?

 

[StormyOne]

Are you familiar with literary criticism? Basically, the way in which one reads a book?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_theory for a brief overview in case you have forgotten.

So historical (or historicism) as opposed to marxism, feminism, read-response, etc.

JM

yes I had forgotten especially given my American Lit class in college which was a pain..... nonetheless, I would submit that with the bible we must utilize the historical approach simply because something that was written thousands of years ago was NOT written for us here and now... It was written for people of that time thus we need to try to figure out what it meant to them.... now sure we can extrapolate meaning here and now, but we must look at the historical context....

 

[JonMiller]

If I read you correctly you are saying that if you intercept a communication that your interpretation could be more important than what it meant for the person who wrote it and the person to whom it was written. How could that make any sense?

I am saying that in a story, my involvement and interpretation in the story is more important than the writer's and the historical details.

Reading a story isn't a passive teaching experience. Rather, it is a joint product of my own perspective, background, and desires, and the words that were written there.

The story is independent of the writer.

Jon Miller

 

[JonMiller]

A quick (And not entirely correct) view of reader response method of reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reader-response_criticism

I would say that my views on how to read stories, and because of this how to read the Bible, is influenced by this school of thought.

JM

 

[StormyOne]

A quick (And not entirely correct) view of reader response method of reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reader-response_criticism

I would say that my views on how to read stories, and because of this how to read the Bible, is influenced by this school of thought.

JM

in essence then JM you are saying that when you read the bible you interpret what you read as somehow applying to you here and now, or the situation here and now, not necessarily addressing historical events?

 

[JonMiller]

I think that the true story or message of a work is a cooperative process between what is written down and the reader. If you want, the words are meaningless in themselves, it is only be the process of reading that they become 'real'. The wiki-pedia article describes it this way "Reader-response criticism argues that literature should be viewed as a performing art in which each reader creates his or her own, possibly unique, text-related performance." and while I wouldn't express it in such a way, it might impart what I desire to express to you better than what I have written does.

I think that this is true for literature in general, and don't see a reason to think otherwise for the Bible.

JM
(been up all night preparing for a meeting, meeting starts in less than 2 hours)

 

[JonMiller]

in essence then JM you are saying that when you read the bible you interpret what you read as somehow applying to you here and now, or the situation here and now, not necessarily addressing historical events?

The Bible tells a story, I view it as a story. Stories only exist within the watcher/hearer/listener/readers mind. As such the 'reality' of the story deals with my mind and how I interact with it (in whatever form it reaches my mind).

A story should live, and not just be a narrow set of words or intentions of the author(s).

Jon Miller

 

[sentipente]

I am saying that in a story, my involvement and interpretation in the story is more important than the writer's and the historical details.

Reading a story isn't a passive teaching experience. Rather, it is a joint product of my own perspective, background, and desires, and the words that were written there.

The story is independent of the writer.

Jon Miller

But how can you appreciate the story if you ignore the historical context of the people in the story or the context in which the writer wrote the story? Nothing comes out of thin air because there is no such thing as thin air.