One of the major issues (in my opinion) is the fact that many religious scriptures, whilst boasting divine inspiration/authority, harbor many dubiously prescriptive instructions on subjects such as slavery, murder and intolerance. Many of these instructions are quite clear and to the point, which leaves seemingly little room for interpretation.
We're often told, when questioning such scripture, things along the lines of:
[list=]You're taking it out of context
It is meant metaphorically not literally
Exegesis gives the correct meaning behind such verses
You can't understand the mind of a divine being
I have some issues regarding some of those methods and responses:[/list]
Is there ever a context where forcing another human into slavery like a piece of property instead of treating them as an equal with respect, allowing them to work for their keep (i.e work to earn a place to stay and food to eat) is considered okay?
How can explicitly direct and prescriptive decrees coming from divine authority be considered metaphors? (unless specifically stated) What method do you use to deduce that it is indeed a metaphor and not literal?
To me exegesis is like critically analyzing and taking seriously the records of UFO sightings. Whilst there are millions of sightings, eye witness testimonies, records of sightings going back hundreds if not thousands of years and some so called "physical evidence." UFOs are still largely considered hoaxes and offer up very little tangible evidence to be taken seriously. No matter how much you critically analyze or interpret UFO "scripture" you are still simply dealing with the stories of biased error-prone human beings with no supporting evidence that anyone would rationally consider conclusive, so no amount of critical evaluation will make such stories or interpretations more valid.
So why is biblical exegesis taken so seriously when it offers no added insight into the already severally lacking evidence that is supposed to provide the context upon which biblical exegesis is supposed to built upon?
It is because of this and the fact that religious (biblical in this case) scripture is unchanging that there will forever be the capacity for people to interpret such verses, or simply act on them in a literal sense, in violence or irrational intolerance. The divinely inspired/authoritative aspect of those scriptures is the key that unlocks the irrational remorselessness that is wrought through the blood splatter past of religion. Unless the violent prescriptive nature of religious scripts change or "god" himself comes down and clears up the confusion, then how can religion ever promise peace when, every time it gains theocratic power, it will act in accordance with its scripture?
Board index ‹ Bible
Forum rules
This site is for dialogue, not diatribe. And, by the way, you have to be at least 13 years old to participate. Plus normal things: no judging, criticizing, name-calling, flaming, or bullying. No put-downs, etc. You know the drill.
This site is for dialogue, not diatribe. And, by the way, you have to be at least 13 years old to participate. Plus normal things: no judging, criticizing, name-calling, flaming, or bullying. No put-downs, etc. You know the drill.
2 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Re: Scripture, biblical exegesis, and you
by jimwalton » Fri Dec 30, 2016 3:52 am
> Slavery
Dr. Paul Wright, the president of Jerusalem University College, says, "When we think of slavery, the first thing that comes to mind is either slavery in the pre-Civil War U.S. or slavery as we hear it in places of the modern Middle East (via ISIS or such groups).
"The textual evidence that we have for slavery in the ancient world (—by this I mean the ancient Near East, the context in which ancient Israel arose, not ancient Rome) shows by and large a different kind of 'institution' (that's not the right word to use). For this reason, the Hebrew word, eved, is better translated 'servant.' The overall textual evidence from the ancient Near East shows that slaves had certain rights—they could own property, for instance, or determine inheritance. Or they could become free, as the Bible allows, given certain circumstances. They were typically not bought and sold, opposite as the case in the medieval and modern worlds. 'Forced Labor,' or the corvée, is a more complicated issue, essentially a tax on person by the government for a certain period of time (e.g., 1 Kings 9:15). Note that the servants that Israel is allowed to take from among the foreigners are able to receive inheritance from their 'owner' (Lev. 25:46).
"The larger question is to what extent the Bible participates in the world of the ancient Near East, and to what extent it expresses a set of ethical standards which at the same time presuppose it yet works to change it. There's a whole lot of middle ground, actually. This is what makes an understanding of the context of that day so vitally important as a place to start."
Dr. Wright continues that "there is no evidence of chattel slavery in the ancient Near East. While slavery was known in many cultures there, the type of slavery was debt-slavery, punishment for crime, enslavement of prisoners of war, child abandonment, and the birth of slave children to slaves."
Other scholars concur. Jacob Milgrom, professor of Bible at U Cal Berkeley, says, "The false assumption here is that the alien is a chattel-slave, not a debt-slave. 'Canaanite slaves are permanent possessions.' This law merely indicates that the jubilee does not apply to non-Israelite slaves; it does not imply that the slave is a piece of property at the mercy of his master."
Eerdmans Bible Handbook says, "This text doesn’t endorse the rights of masters to abuse their slaves, but the rights of the slaves and protection for them."
Dr. John Walton, OT prof at Wheaton College, says, "The laws anticipate the range of life situations that would be faced in the village culture of the settlement and early monarchy period." They are not necessarily actual situations, like the case presented to Jesus in Mark 12.18-23. It’s making a list of possible things that could possibly happen and guiding judges on how to render verdicts. It’s not saying what should happen, what the Lord endorses to happen, or even what does happen, but only providing case illustrations to establish principles of justice.
> How can explicitly direct and prescriptive decrees coming from divine authority be considered metaphors? (unless specifically stated) What method do you use to deduce that it is indeed a metaphor and not literal?
The Bible is a rich literary collection containing music, poetry, metaphor, allegory, archetypes, parable, hyperbole, metonymy, irony, simile, and many other literary forms, as well as genres such as prayer, prophecy, blessing, covenant language, legal language, etc. "Literally" quickly becomes a word with very little meaning or helpfulness. If a poet says the trees of the field will clap their hands and the mountains will jump for joy, is that literal? Of course not, it's poetry. If a man prays, "God, kill all those people", we may all understand that his prayer is inappropriate, and is not blessed by God, but is it literal? Well, how does that word even apply? And how does it apply to archetype, allegory, parable, and all the others? It's a word that should be dropped from the discussion because it doesn't take us anywhere except to the Land of Misunderstanding.
It's better to think that the Bible should be taken the way the author intended it to be taken. If he was using hyperbole, we're to take it that way. So also allegorically, historically, parabolic, poetic, etc. Our quest is to understand the intent of the author. In that case we'll take the Bible *seriously*, but "literally" doesn't take us anywhere.
What to take metaphorically and what literally is evaluated by the hard work of professors and theologians over the course of 2000 + years of study, research, debate, and judgment.
> To me exegesis is like critically analyzing and taking seriously the records of UFO sightings.
Exegesis is good research, just as science is involved in UFO sightings, trying to evaluate authentic evidence, interview "eyewitnesses," critiquing data, and testing hypotheses. Over the course of decades, if not centuries, UFOs have been determined to be less than convincing. Exegesis, in a similar investigative way, includes textual criticism, literary analyses, grammatical and syntactical research, and historical and cultural factors to arrive at a correct understanding of a text.
Is it just built on the stories of biased, error-prone human beings? Think of what you are asserting. In a court of law, we bring in expert testimony, cross-examine eyewitnesses and other involved parties to arrive at the truth. But these participants (judge, lawyers, scientists, and witnesses) are all biased, error-prone humans. What about historians? They examine the records humans have left behind and interpret them. But both the record-makers and the record-interpreters are biased, error-prone humans. Scientists are also biased and error-prone.
I think it's the "no supporting evidence" where possibly the strength of your case is intended to be. But that shows quite a bit of bias and error on your part. The evidence we have surrounding biblical writings is massive and substantial, enabling us to arrive at legitimately rational conclusions.
Exegesis is a science much like sociology, anthropology, and literary textual criticism. You seem to think that the violent crackpots of religious action are the recipients and practitioners of sanctioned exegesis, and there you are dead wrong. Your statement of "The divinely inspired/authoritative aspect of those scriptures is the key that unlocks the irrational remorselessness that is wrought through the blood splatter past of religion" couldn't be more misguided. These people distort and warp, ignoring whatever they choose to practice a "religion" of their own making, but under the same banner as authentic faith. No movement should be judged by its fanatics. Their actions are *not* in accordance with scripture.
Dr. Paul Wright, the president of Jerusalem University College, says, "When we think of slavery, the first thing that comes to mind is either slavery in the pre-Civil War U.S. or slavery as we hear it in places of the modern Middle East (via ISIS or such groups).
"The textual evidence that we have for slavery in the ancient world (—by this I mean the ancient Near East, the context in which ancient Israel arose, not ancient Rome) shows by and large a different kind of 'institution' (that's not the right word to use). For this reason, the Hebrew word, eved, is better translated 'servant.' The overall textual evidence from the ancient Near East shows that slaves had certain rights—they could own property, for instance, or determine inheritance. Or they could become free, as the Bible allows, given certain circumstances. They were typically not bought and sold, opposite as the case in the medieval and modern worlds. 'Forced Labor,' or the corvée, is a more complicated issue, essentially a tax on person by the government for a certain period of time (e.g., 1 Kings 9:15). Note that the servants that Israel is allowed to take from among the foreigners are able to receive inheritance from their 'owner' (Lev. 25:46).
"The larger question is to what extent the Bible participates in the world of the ancient Near East, and to what extent it expresses a set of ethical standards which at the same time presuppose it yet works to change it. There's a whole lot of middle ground, actually. This is what makes an understanding of the context of that day so vitally important as a place to start."
Dr. Wright continues that "there is no evidence of chattel slavery in the ancient Near East. While slavery was known in many cultures there, the type of slavery was debt-slavery, punishment for crime, enslavement of prisoners of war, child abandonment, and the birth of slave children to slaves."
Other scholars concur. Jacob Milgrom, professor of Bible at U Cal Berkeley, says, "The false assumption here is that the alien is a chattel-slave, not a debt-slave. 'Canaanite slaves are permanent possessions.' This law merely indicates that the jubilee does not apply to non-Israelite slaves; it does not imply that the slave is a piece of property at the mercy of his master."
Eerdmans Bible Handbook says, "This text doesn’t endorse the rights of masters to abuse their slaves, but the rights of the slaves and protection for them."
Dr. John Walton, OT prof at Wheaton College, says, "The laws anticipate the range of life situations that would be faced in the village culture of the settlement and early monarchy period." They are not necessarily actual situations, like the case presented to Jesus in Mark 12.18-23. It’s making a list of possible things that could possibly happen and guiding judges on how to render verdicts. It’s not saying what should happen, what the Lord endorses to happen, or even what does happen, but only providing case illustrations to establish principles of justice.
> How can explicitly direct and prescriptive decrees coming from divine authority be considered metaphors? (unless specifically stated) What method do you use to deduce that it is indeed a metaphor and not literal?
The Bible is a rich literary collection containing music, poetry, metaphor, allegory, archetypes, parable, hyperbole, metonymy, irony, simile, and many other literary forms, as well as genres such as prayer, prophecy, blessing, covenant language, legal language, etc. "Literally" quickly becomes a word with very little meaning or helpfulness. If a poet says the trees of the field will clap their hands and the mountains will jump for joy, is that literal? Of course not, it's poetry. If a man prays, "God, kill all those people", we may all understand that his prayer is inappropriate, and is not blessed by God, but is it literal? Well, how does that word even apply? And how does it apply to archetype, allegory, parable, and all the others? It's a word that should be dropped from the discussion because it doesn't take us anywhere except to the Land of Misunderstanding.
It's better to think that the Bible should be taken the way the author intended it to be taken. If he was using hyperbole, we're to take it that way. So also allegorically, historically, parabolic, poetic, etc. Our quest is to understand the intent of the author. In that case we'll take the Bible *seriously*, but "literally" doesn't take us anywhere.
What to take metaphorically and what literally is evaluated by the hard work of professors and theologians over the course of 2000 + years of study, research, debate, and judgment.
> To me exegesis is like critically analyzing and taking seriously the records of UFO sightings.
Exegesis is good research, just as science is involved in UFO sightings, trying to evaluate authentic evidence, interview "eyewitnesses," critiquing data, and testing hypotheses. Over the course of decades, if not centuries, UFOs have been determined to be less than convincing. Exegesis, in a similar investigative way, includes textual criticism, literary analyses, grammatical and syntactical research, and historical and cultural factors to arrive at a correct understanding of a text.
Is it just built on the stories of biased, error-prone human beings? Think of what you are asserting. In a court of law, we bring in expert testimony, cross-examine eyewitnesses and other involved parties to arrive at the truth. But these participants (judge, lawyers, scientists, and witnesses) are all biased, error-prone humans. What about historians? They examine the records humans have left behind and interpret them. But both the record-makers and the record-interpreters are biased, error-prone humans. Scientists are also biased and error-prone.
I think it's the "no supporting evidence" where possibly the strength of your case is intended to be. But that shows quite a bit of bias and error on your part. The evidence we have surrounding biblical writings is massive and substantial, enabling us to arrive at legitimately rational conclusions.
Exegesis is a science much like sociology, anthropology, and literary textual criticism. You seem to think that the violent crackpots of religious action are the recipients and practitioners of sanctioned exegesis, and there you are dead wrong. Your statement of "The divinely inspired/authoritative aspect of those scriptures is the key that unlocks the irrational remorselessness that is wrought through the blood splatter past of religion" couldn't be more misguided. These people distort and warp, ignoring whatever they choose to practice a "religion" of their own making, but under the same banner as authentic faith. No movement should be judged by its fanatics. Their actions are *not* in accordance with scripture.
Last bumped by Anonymous on Fri Dec 30, 2016 3:52 am.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9104
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
2 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests