the Bible is "historical, metaphorical and sacramental," but not "true"

[Leroy]

The reality of God Deseret News article (http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,655191586,00.html)

Quote from article "In a telephone interview last week, Borg explained what he means when he says the Bible is "historical, metaphorical and sacramental," but not "true" in the sense evangelical Christians might mean when they say "true."
Because of the scientific revolution of the past several hundred years, truth and factuality have come to mean the same thing in Western civilization, he says. "I help people get past that by suggesting they think of the parables of Jesus. I don't think anybody worries about whether there really was a good Samaritan. We all realize parables can be meaningful and truth-filled even though they are not factual."
The Resurrection, the virgin birth, all could be parables and still be meaningful, he says. Borg has written, "We do not know whether the Resurrection of Jesus involved an empty tomb or something happening to his physical body."
No matter. "'Resurrection' does not mean resumption of previous existence but entry into a different kind of existence. ... Thus, Easter need not involve the claim that God supernaturally intervened to raise the corpse of Jesus from the tomb. Rather the core meaning of Easter is that Jesus continued to be experienced after his death, but in a radically new way: as a spiritual and divine reality."

[Glass*Soul]

I have absolutely no problem with pulling things out of the Bible that are historically true, pragmatic, asthetically beautiful, or mythlogically or psychologically satisfying. When we do that, we are essentially admitting that the final authority on scripture is the human experience; and I realize that there are those who are very, very much NOT OK with that.

[shunyadragon]

The reality of God Deseret News article (http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,655191586,00.html)

Quote from article "In a telephone interview last week, Borg explained what he means when he says the Bible is "historical, metaphorical and sacramental," but not "true" in the sense evangelical Christians might mean when they say "true."
Because of the scientific revolution of the past several hundred years, truth and factuality have come to mean the same thing in Western civilization, he says. "I help people get past that by suggesting they think of the parables of Jesus. I don't think anybody worries about whether there really was a good Samaritan. We all realize parables can be meaningful and truth-filled even though they are not factual."
The Resurrection, the virgin birth, all could be parables and still be meaningful, he says. Borg has written, "We do not know whether the Resurrection of Jesus involved an empty tomb or something happening to his physical body."
No matter. "'Resurrection' does not mean resumption of previous existence but entry into a different kind of existence. ... Thus, Easter need not involve the claim that God supernaturally intervened to raise the corpse of Jesus from the tomb. Rather the core meaning of Easter is that Jesus continued to be experienced after his death, but in a radically new way: as a spiritual and divine reality."


It is necessary to put ancient scripture, regardless of religion, into the context of the time and place it is writen without specifically picking and chosing what is true and false. Even the most ardant believe in fundimentalism has difficulty with a total literal interpretation of all the Bible, with some selective putting the scripture in context of the time. Selective justification, becomes a problem from the believers point of view is universally a problem.

[MaxVel]

A problem: If, as Borg suggests, the NT is an extended parable that need not be factual to be true, why does it read very much as if the authors thought it to be factual?

IOW - I think the Biblical writers wrote what they believed to be factual accounts (including reports of Jesus' parables), not 'true' parables. Borg is putting his own pre-conception into the texts, rather than treating them as what the authors intended.

[shunyadragon]

A problem: If, as Borg suggests, the NT is an extended parable that need not be factual to be true, why does it read very much as if the authors thought it to be factual?

IOW - I think the Biblical writers wrote what they believed to be factual accounts (including reports of Jesus' parables), not 'true' parables. Borg is putting his own pre-conception into the texts, rather than treating them as what the authors intended.

If the Bible is put it in the context of the time and the authors worldview, they possibly did believe it was factual, but it still is not necessarilly factual. Humans are still prown to human error, delusion, and misrepresentation of the facts even when they are eye witnesses. The Bible including the NT was not necessarily all writen by eyewitnesses.

[MaxVel]

If the Bible is put it in the context of the time and the authors worldview, they possibly did believe it was factual, but it still is not necessarilly factual.

Perhaps so. But there is a world of difference between an inaccurate historical account of real events, and a parable. And my point is that the Bible reads vastly much more like an account of real events than a parable.



Humans are still prown to human error, delusion, and misrepresentation of the facts even when they are eye witnesses. The Bible including the NT was not necessarily all writen by eyewitnesses.

Sure. But I submit that's all beside the point. Borg appears to be arguing that the Bible is 'true' in the sense that a parable that uses generalised figures and metaphor to illlustrate a principle is 'true'.

"...he says the Bible is "historical, metaphorical and sacramental," but not "true" in the sense evangelical Christians might mean when they say "true.""

"We all realize parables can be meaningful and truth-filled even though they are not factual."

"The Resurrection, the virgin birth, all could be parables and still be meaningful, he says."

The problem is that the Bible does not read like it was written as a parable*. It's authors clearly claimed it to be factually true. Therefore it cannot be a 'parable' writ large. Jesus either did actually physically rise from the dead - as the NT authors repeatedly claim; or He did not. They may have been mistaken in their claim, but they certainly weren't trying to write a parable about Jesus. That's something that Borg is bringing to the text and reading in to it.




*Clearly it does contain parables etc, but it's overall content, especially as regards the events of Jesus' life reads as if the author was recounting real events.

[shunyadragon]

Perhaps so. But there is a world of difference between an inaccurate historical account of real events, and a parable. And my point is that the Bible reads vastly much more like an account of real events than a parable.

Sure. But I submit that's all beside the point. Borg appears to be arguing that the Bible is 'true' in the sense that a parable that uses generalised figures and metaphor to illlustrate a principle is 'true'.

"...he says the Bible is "historical, metaphorical and sacramental," but not "true" in the sense evangelical Christians might mean when they say "true.""

"We all realize parables can be meaningful and truth-filled even though they are not factual."

"The Resurrection, the virgin birth, all could be parables and still be meaningful, he says."

The problem is that the Bible does not read like it was written as a parable*. It's authors clearly claimed it to be factually true. Therefore it cannot be a 'parable' writ large. Jesus either did actually physically rise from the dead - as the NT authors repeatedly claim; or He did not. They may have been mistaken in their claim, but they certainly weren't trying to write a parable about Jesus. That's something that Borg is bringing to the text and reading in to it.

*Clearly it does contain parables etc, but it's overall content, especially as regards the events of Jesus' life reads as if the author was recounting real events.

I can see where your coming from on this. Yes, those that wrote the Bible whether by first, second or later hand accounts they believed that the events were real to them.

I would not persoanlly call them parables, that's a stretch, but not necessarilly true events as reported. For example, Christ's resurrection could be spiritual and still reported as reported.

In this light, I am not sure I understand Borg's argument.

[technomage]

But there is a world of difference between an inaccurate historical account of real events, and a parable. And my point is that the Bible reads vastly much more like an account of real events than a parable.

I quite agree that many--perhaps even all--of the Bible authors certainly wrote as if they believed the Bible to be an accurate historical account. The problem enters in when one insists that it is historicaally accurate in the face of contradictory evidence. One can either deny the evidence, or one can reject the Bible ... or one can acknowledge that the authors who sincerely thought the events depicted were "historical" were sincerely wrong, but still had insight into the nature of God.

[Solly]

In this light, I am not sure I understand Borg's argument.

Borg is Tom Wright's alter ego. Whereas NTW has been investigating the historicity of the bible to reinforce its authority, Borg has been moving in the other direction, to try and reinforce its authority in an ahistorical manner, along with a legion of Bishops and Academics who used to 'shock' the public by their pronouncements on the unfactuality of the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc. It's a response to the modernist agenda in which, as he says, truth and fact have become conflated, and 'truth' must be proven in a 'scientific' manner to be true.

[shunyadragon]

I quite agree that many--perhaps even all--of the Bible authors certainly wrote as if they believed the Bible to be an accurate historical account. The problem enters in when one insists that it is historicaally accurate in the face of contradictory evidence. One can either deny the evidence, or one can reject the Bible ... or one can acknowledge that the authors who sincerely thought the events depicted were "historical" were sincerely wrong, but still had insight into the nature of God.


I probably share this view of scripture by placing scripture into the context of the time it was written.

[technomage]

Context is important, I will agree.

One other area I do have to address--since the authors of the Bible were wrong in areas of history, I also have to acknowledge that they also have the potential to be wrong about God.

[MaxVel]

Hi Justin. :smile:


I quite agree that many--perhaps even all--of the Bible authors certainly wrote as if they believed the Bible to be an accurate historical account. The problem enters in when one insists that it is historicaally accurate in the face of contradictory evidence.

Such as?


One can either deny the evidence, or one can reject the Bible ... or one can acknowledge that the authors who sincerely thought the events depicted were "historical" were sincerely wrong, but still had insight into the nature of God.

Or one could consider to what degree the inaccuracies affect the valdity of what the writer is saying... Right?

[MaxVel]

Hi shunyadragon :smile:


I can see where your coming from on this. Yes, those that wrote the Bible whether by first, second or later hand accounts they believed that the events were real to them.

I'd go farther than that... I think that they believed the events *(such as Jesus eating a post-resurrection meal) were objectively real... that is, they really happened, and anyone who had been present would have observed what they reported.


*Obviously there are parts of the Bible that are clearly not intended to be taken as accounts of real events.



I would not persoanlly call them parables, that's a stretch, but not necessarilly true events as reported. For example, Christ's resurrection could be spiritual and still reported as reported.

True. The disciples etc could have all been somehow deceived or mistaken. But I think those sort of explanations genrally fail to adequately explain the data we do have.

[QUOTE=shunyadragon
In this light, I am not sure I understand Borg's argument.[/QUOTE]

Me either... I think it's inconsistent with the actual texts.

[technomage]

Such as?

There's a heck of a lot. Fundamentally speaking, the Creation account, the Fall, the Flood, the investigatable elements of the Patriarchs, the Exodus, the Conquest, the investigatable elements of the Judges, the United Monarchy, and many elements within the early Divided Monarchy--all myths.

Now, that's not to say "myths" as in "false stories." In the sense I'm using the word, a Myth is a story that explains--the historicity is unimportant as long as the explnation comes through. But if we, as modern students of the Bible, take these myths as actual history, we must not only turn our back on the historical and archaeological evidence available to us, we must turn our backs on science and history as a whole.


Or one could consider to what degree the inaccuracies affect the valdity of what the writer is saying... Right?

Maxvel, Christians can't even agree on that question. Some say "If it's a myth, it still gives insight into God"--a statement that I agree with in theory, but happen to disagree with in the specifics with these particular myths. Some, however, say "If it's a myth, then we can't trust any of it"--a statement that, even as a non-Christian, I don't completely agree with.

If Christians cannot agree on the answer to your question, what makes you think a non-Christian such as myself would give an answer you could agree with? :smile:

[Thedonhopeless]

yea, i would be tortured, and stoned and put to death for a parable as well. Just makes sense.

and if i were a roman scholar historian, I would go ahead and put a parable in my retelling of history. You know, because parables are so important in history.

[djdavo]

There's a heck of a lot. Fundamentally speaking, the Creation account, the Fall, the Flood, the investigatable elements of the Patriarchs, the Exodus, the Conquest, the investigatable elements of the Judges, the United Monarchy, and many elements within the early Divided Monarchy--all myths.

you're going to have to do much better than that. you can't just insist all these events are myths because you say they are.... there certainly seems to be evidence of a flood (water marks/aquatic animal fossils/etc), an exodus (brass circles consistent with roman chariot wheels found in the red sea, etc),and the conquest.
as for the rest i couldn't comment,but it's your job to disprove them since almost all historians don't argue the historicity of the events in the bible except the supernatural ones.

--------

in the OP the person is obviously trying to compare an obvious parable to an obvious factual recording in the eyes of the witnesses.
saying "this could be all parable" is like saying "Jesus could be a martian"...it makes no sense in the larger context of the texts.

here's an example:

winston churchhill helped win world war II
winston used to tell a story saying, "the good british man helps his fellow brit if he's hungry"

one is a statement of fact.
the second is a story winston may have told.
how does the second sentence lend validity to the theory that the first sentence is a parable??

[djdavo]

I probably share this view of scripture by placing scripture into the context of the time it was written.

i agree, but how does this change the meaning of "jesus came back from the dead and a bunch of people hung out with him"?

[shunyadragon]

i agree, but how does this change the meaning of "jesus came back from the dead and a bunch of people hung out with him"?

It puts it in the context of the culture, belief, expectations, and the understanding of the world by the people of the time, including those that believed and those that did not.

[biribiri]

1Cr 15:13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.
1Cr 15:14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching [is] empty and your faith [is] also empty.
1Cr 15:15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up--if in fact the dead do not rise. I think it is safe to assume that at least one Biblical author believed that Jesus was incontrovertibly raised from the dead.