Board index ‹ Bible

[Newbie]

How do you tell what things in the bible are literal and what are parabolic? I'm looking for an objective system laid out in God's word. not an arbitrary one and not a human tradition. I have my own method, but this is a good way to see if we'd be capable of getting anywhere. The challenge I'll save for after and won't burden you with it depending on your answer.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for writing. I'll do my best to answer your question, though I feel the pressure!

The Bible, contrary to what you may be looking for, never defines its own genres. It's not a literature textbook, and doesn't define allegory, parable, satire, metaphor, or anything else. It merely uses them. So if you're looking for the Bible's definition of parable, there isn't one.

A parable, according to reasonable scholarly and literary agreement, is a fairly easily recognizable literary form. They are brief folk stories of common elements, common people (often unnamed), and realism. Their composition is simple, but their meaning is complex. Like most stories, they have suspense, conflict, repetition, universal characters, archetypes, satire, and a surprise element (even traps, and therefore a subversive element).

Parable is different from allegory in that every element of the story doesn’t have a meaning. Only a few of the features actually have meaning (thus allegorical, but not allegory), but the most important point is the meaning of the story.

Parable in the Bible is a fairly easily recognizable form. There are only a very few instances where there is uncertainty whether a story is meant to be historic narrative or parabolic.

[The Revolutionary]

I think we agree that Jesus spoke in parables and metaphor often (body and blood from bread and wine... the sower... the samaritan... etc.) Catholics, however, contend that Jesus made it clear when he meant something literally and when he meant something parabolically. They believe literal body and literal blood where you, I guess, believe in metaphorical body and metaphorical blood. Other people go literal on Genesis one, while anyone who has sincerely examined the overwhelming body of evidence would probably admit that creation over six metaphorical days makes more sense than six literal days. What should be our method for distinguishing not between literary styles... but between literal truth and metaphor? In some responses on your site you discuss how the literal truth has a metaphorical component - sure. But what about the disputed metaphors being historically literally true?

Back to the original question: how can one tell what is literally/historically true and what is exclusively an illustrative metaphor? You contend on the site that the law is metaphor and truth, that Jacob wrestling with God is both metaphor and truth... why not just metaphor? Why not just truth? I don't really care about that example, though. What is the system? What is the process someone (anyone, Christian or otherwise) should use to figure that out?

[jimwalton]

Great questions, and I thank you for asking them. I will preface my answer with two comments:

First of all, the Bible upholds a theistic view of reality, and as such all events have both a historical (when intended) and spiritual interpretation. The writers of the Bible are showing us history from a Yahwistic vantage point, and so promote a spiritual understanding of everything. Historical events take on a metaphorical/spiritual pitch, and there is no particular need to decide between the two.

The Bible is primarily the revelation of God in the context of the covenant. It's basically a "legal" document outlining the contract between God and humans, with the benefits of compliance and the consequences of breach. It in itself imparts an interpretive framework for its contents.

Secondly, as I am sure you are well aware, all perceptions of reality are subject to interpretation, and the Bible is no different. Paleoanthropologists look at skulls and interpret what they are seeing, so all physicists in an acceleration lab. Biologists and astrophysicists interpret the facts they observe. The same is true of historians, literature professors, and geologists. It is the same with the Bible. The documents, cultures, languages, genres, and authors are studied and interpreted. Sometimes professionals (as in other fields) disagree about those factors and the interpretation of them. Hence differences between Catholics and Protestants. The discussions can be productive or divisive, and certainly arriving at one and only one interpretation is as elusive as trying to decide if light is a wave or a particle.

So to answer your question ("How can one tell what is literally/historically true and what is exclusively an illustrative metaphor?") is a matter of continuing study, delving as deeply as possible, interpreting the elements are reliably as possible, and drawing conclusions that are the most reasonable. If you wish, we can discuss (as deeply as you desire) the body and blood of Christ, the WWF Jacob vs. Angel, or Genesis 1. My desire is dialogue, not judging or forcing.

What is the process used to figure such things out? Cultural context is HUGE, linguistics is important, literary context and the author's intent, the writing style of the author, and the context of Scripture as the revelation of God are the most important tools. I would welcome further conversation.

[The Revolutionary]

So. No method? Lots of study, culture and tradition plays a part in interpreting it... so lots of totally different conclusions may be equally valid... but the Bible is still infallible? Just making sure I understand your answer. That's what I'm hearing.

[jimwalton]

"Infallibility" is an inadequate word. If I poetically say that "the trees of the field clap their hands," what does infallibility even mean in that context? If I say God rides on the clouds, again, what does infallibility mean there? What about God is like a mother hen, or the end times will be like a mountain of fire falling from the sky with blood—how does infallibility play into those words? It's a word we pretty much need to leave behind for its insufficiency to help the conversation.

What the Bible teaches is that it is inspired—God-breathed. So we know God is the source of the words, sentences, rhetorical structures, genres, etc. But as any student of communication theory knows, it is what you DO with the words (bless, promise, instruct, etc.) that leads to meaning. The authority of the text attaches to the blessings, promises, instructions, etc. Therefore the "infallibility" and authority of the revelation can't jeopardized by the genre, which cannot be true or false, errant or inerrant, authoritative or nonauthoritative. A parable is a parable. It's not the genre (poem, parable, or metaphor) that has authority, but the instruction in the genre. The details of cosmic geography, the scientific understanding of the ancients, and the words of the poems can be set aside as incidental without divesting the text of its authority.

But there is another step in communication: not just the words, and then the intent or use of the words, but also the response expected from the hearer. Once the authority of the revelation has been properly and truthfully determined, we have to proceed to a legitimate understanding and response.

In other words, the words (genres, etc.) have their source in God, but it is in the intended use of the words (blessing, instruction, prophecy) that authority lies. Then as we pursue those instructions and blessings to their appropriate response, there are different possibilities.

That's the explanation. In answer to your question, I believe there is truly a proper understanding of the biblical text—a true one—that is authoritative. I don't agree that lots of totally different conclusions may be equally valid. There is a truthful interpretation, and that is what we all seek. (Sometimes texts have dual meanings, but that's part of a truthful interpretation.) I believe that many people who "interpret" the Bible are wrong—the conclusions are astray and illegitimate. It's the truth we study to ascertain, not "the truth as I see it."

[The Revolutionary]

" I believe that many people who "interpret" the Bible are wrong—the conclusions are astray and illegitimate."

So, Jim, what consistent objective system separates the other conclusions from yours? I've heard you say 'study'... that is not an answer. The 'wrong' people study long hours as well. We need a way to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I'm comfortable with the idea that lots of the Bible is figurative. I'm comfortable with the idea that lots of the Bible is somewhat historical. For the purposes of this conversation, I'm willing to completely roll with the understanding that all of it is true and important, somehow, for our instruction. Conversation can be fun, but you're not answering my actual question. Maybe a literal event has a figurative component... but a figurative event does not have a historical referent. There are Samaritans, but that particular Samaritan was a character in a story... he was a figurative man with a completely figurative penis. What about Onan in Genesis 38, though? Following what I perceive to be your system so far, Onan might be both historical and figurative... but if he's historical, unlike the Samaritan, his penis was a literal thing that literally existed in order to spill seed on the ground thus displeasing God enough to strike him dead in a both literal and figurative way. Furthermore, if he was literal, and if we can extract theistic and metaphorical truth from that literal example—God had no problem with the same woman being shared between two brothers and a father... he had no problem with the prostitution... he had a problem with jerking off on the ground. Let's not go into that, though, because NEITHER of us buys that.

I don't care about any of these examples. I, personally, want a system to makes it clear which things do and which things don't have a literal historical corresponding fact attached to them. It sounds like you don't have one. If you're comfortable with that...taking things case by case...letting your human traditions and cultures play into it...do your thing. I won't try to change your mind. If you do have a clear objective delineating system, you have done a good job of hiding it from me for this long.

To convince me you are a truth seeker looking for dialogue, let's admit you don't have such a test/method/system and try to agree on one together with which we can proceed. I know admitting it will be hard. Please, though, no more semantics. Explain to me the objective, consistent, unbiased method you've been using, or admit that you haven't been using one. It's not that I want to be confrontational or put you on the spot...but this runs the risk of being a severe waste of both of our time.

[jimwalton]

I am neither ashamed nor afraid to speak honestly and openly. There is no "system," as you are inquiring, any more than what I have already told you, to answer your question succinctly. What separates me from those who are illegitimate (the chaff) is found in 1 Cor. 2.10-16. With the Spirit of God in me, I am in a position to understand his revelation, spiritual truths taught by the Spirit, and to know the mind of God—things that others cannot understand. See also Jn. 16.13-14. Many speak openly that they don't believe the Bible, but they study it for interest, academic pursuit, debate, or religious knowledge. I know many ministers who openly claim that they don't believe in the Bible or Jesus. For me, I am able to sift, examine, and study rightly, because my heart has been enlightened (Eph. 1.18), and I'm not blinded by the god of this world (2 Cor. 4.4).

When you get married, you begin to know your spouse not just as a friend, or even romantically, but deeply. You learn to understand her thought processes, her contextual value system that guides her thoughts and actions, the closets in her life that still shake her, her regrets that continue to instill fear and affect behavior, what makes her happy, and what she ponders in her heart. These are things that someone studying her from afar can never grasp. It is only obtainable by intimacy, relationship, conversation, and time. But you know her, and the more time you spend looking in her eyes and listening to her carefully with your heart and not just your ears, the deeper you will understand this beautiful person you married. So am I with God and His Word.

Jesus makes these same kinds of statements in Jn. 10.26 and Matt. 22.29. All the study in the world won't lead a person to the truth. But the Spirit of God truly at work in a child of God can teach him or her the truth about the Word of God. The only "system" is to have one's heart filled with God's Spirit, who has learned to hear His voice, who seeks the truth that the Spirit reveals, and then studies the Word to understand it aright. You're talking to one of those people (1 Tim. 3.13-16; Titus 2.7-8). Paul said it in 1 Cor. 11.1: "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ."

The Spirit of God is the source of truth; my study in the Bible in the Spirit is my access to truth.

I'm also curious (to send the inquiry the other way): You know the Word; you were raised in it. And yet at some point in time you—using your mind, I presume—believed you had an objective, consistent, unbiased method by which to decide it was all a bunch of hocus-pocus, and you walked away. Obviously, no one subscribes to what they know to be wrong, and so you became convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that your test/method/system was reliable and authoritative. May I ask what that system is that is so convincing and founded on bedrock?

[The Revolutionary]

Ah ha! Revelation. Thanks. That is an answer to my question.

My system for determining truth is the scientific method. Critical evaluation and questioning of all the best available evidence.

We both agree that our status as fallible limited humans with embarrassingly poor cognitive and sensory systems means surety of anything is a joke - so in order to regain the sanity I lost when I lost my faith (long story. lots of counseling. yes, I admit faith keeps people sane.) I decided to have some faith in what is - based on that method - a best bet.

Again, sorry for my confrontational tone. I have always respected your teaching, piano playing, and in this conversation I appreciate your openness, patience, and humility.

p.s. to be clear: I'm not certain of any of my conclusion, but yes, I'm very damn certain of the method. If evidence continually supports something - I can't keep denying it. If evidence continually denies something - I can't keep supporting it. If evidence is inconclusive - I have no idea, so I go try to learn more.

[jimwalton]

While I appreciate your thoughts, I fear there are some severe double standards and self-contradictions in your position. First of all, I too determine truth by observation, evaluation, and questioning all the available evidence. Your question, as you recall, was determining the distinction between literal and parable, which is different than the epistemological question of how I know what I know and why I consider that to be reliable. It's inconsistent (no disrespect intended) for you to weigh scientific method in the determination of truth against a specific question of how can I tell what is parable and what is not. I don't advocate fideism, which is sounds as if you are assuming. My epistemic position is more equivalent to reformed epistemology. It's not about faith vs. reason, but about rationality (evidence, scientific method) informed by experience. Evidence is crucial to reliable knowledge, but all knowledge is not evidentiary. If Christianity is true, God is capable of giving us a personal spiritual experience of him. Atheists can’t say that—they can’t have a personal experience of atheism; they are totally dependent on material evidence. I'm attracted to the sensitivity principle in which knowledge is informed by both evidence and belief.

My main objection, however, is the inherent and necessary conflict between naturalism and truth. Natural materialists make truth statements (There is no god, there is no spiritual world, there is no life after death—religious statements to be sure), but on what basis? Our cognitive faculties of memory, perception, intuition, sympathy, etc., work together in complex ways to produce what we call belief (there is no god, I think it's hot in here) and knowledge (2+2=4). On what grounds can I consider these (or any observations) to be true? My memory or intuitions, for example, (but even my observational skills) are reliable only if they produce mostly true beliefs. A theist such as myself naturally believes that our cognitive faculties are reliable because God made us this way. But as an atheist, there is no such person, and no such source of truth. Your cognitive faculties have been cobbled together by natural selection. Can you then sensibly (reasonably) consider your thoughts to be reliable? First, If naturalism and evolution are both true, our cognitive faculties would very likely not be reliable—the probability is low. And if the probability that your cognitions are reliable is low, then any belief you hold is suspect. Therefore, there is reason to doubt your belief in materialism. You cannot rationally accept a position when reason is suspect.

Nietzsche said, “Only if we assume a God who is morally our like can “truth” and the search for truth be at all something meaningful and promising of success. This God left aside, the question is permitted whether being deceived is not one of the conditions of life.”

Thomas Nagel said: “If we came to believe that our capacity for objective theory (e.g., true beliefs) were the product of natural selection, that would warrant serious skepticism about its results.”

Barry Stroud: “There is an embarrassing absurdity in [naturalism] that is revealed as soon as the naturalist reflects and acknowledges that he believes his naturalistic theory of the world. … I mean he cannot it and consistently regard it as true.”

Patricia Churchland: “Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four Fs: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems it to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. … Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism’s way of life and enhances the organism’s chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost.”

Plantinga writes: From an materialist atheist standpoint, what evolution guarantees is at most that we behave in certain ways so as to promote survival, viz., reproductive success. The principal function or purpose, then, of our cognitive faculties is not that of producing true or near true beliefs, but instead that of contributing to survival by getting the body parts in the right place. What evolution underwrites is only (at most) that our behavior is reasonably adaptive to the circumstances in which our ancestors found themselves; hence it doesn’t guarantee true or mostly true beliefs. Our beliefs might be mostly true, but there is no particular reason to think they would be: natural selection is not interested in truth, but in appropriate behavior. What Churchland therefore suggests is that naturalistic evolution—that is, the conjunction of metaphysical naturalism with the view that we and our cognitive faculties have arisen by way of the mechanisms and processes proposed by contemporary evolutionary theory—gives us reason to doubt two things: (a) that a purpose of our cognitive systems is that of serving us with true beliefs, and (b) that they do, in fact, furnish us with mostly true beliefs. Darwin himself said, "With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

As it turns out, the scientific method is only a reasonable epistemic source given theism, and is self-contradictory given atheism.

I still welcome further conversation.