Best books on a critical/scholarly reading of the Bible

What are some of the best books providing an overview of the Bible from a scholarly perspective? (I'm looking for good suggestions - unfortunately, I don't have any myself)

I think that scholars typically will not provide an overview.

What finally came to mind for me was Alister McGrath's Christian Theology: an Introduction along with its reader (Christian Theology Reader), but that has its roots in the New Testament.

Jewish exegesis of the Old Testament is recondite and long, although there are a couple of solid short (500 pages) books on the Torah. I have not been tempted by Christian exegesis of the Old Testament, although commentaries in study Bibles are often interesting.

There are scholarly study Bibles. The better ones, The Anchor Bible and The New Interpreters Bible, are multi volume works and probably don't constitute an overview. Isaac Asimov has written some non-scholarly accompaniment to the Bible that has its fans.

I'd say that a good, one volume study Bible might be the easiest way to start in. There are especially The New Jerusalem Bible (you have to be sure to get the complete one) and The New Interpreters Study Bible. Some of the Oxford study Bibles have a good reputation; I find the one I have to be a little sparse and cold.

Have fun,

Robert

Yapete,

There's an excellent discussion of these academic bibles over at the "Biblical History" message board. I've been listening to the NIV Bible. I'm also referring to and reading The New Oxford Annotated Bible which is excellent. As I've said in several other posts elsewhere, these books (the Old Testament) sure have a ton of violence, sexual antics, public health codes and statutes, geneology, ethnocentrism, animal sacrifice, and building really sporty houses of worship. I'm up to Job and Psalms so the tone has changed a bit (for the better). There is some pretty literature here and there.

The books are also in dire need of some basic editing. What, no Microsoft Office for stone tablets and deer skin vellum?

I am on it, and will post a list of books I use for my courses, as well as books I wish I could use.

Not really 'scholarly' in a formal sense, but I learned a lot from Asimov's Guide to the Bible. Asimov treats the text as a historical document, and has no particular theological axe to grind.

Thanks a lot. I will check out some of these. To clarify: I am not necessarily looking for anything too comprehensive (for that it is probably best just to read the Bible with annotations, as suggested), but rather a scholarly overview of the different books, historical background (real historical background, not made-up stuff to support a certain theology) and textual analysis of who wrote the books.

I did go through many years of religion in school , so I have some idea of the theories about the New Testament ('Q' etc.). (In Germany, religion is part of the regular curriculum in public school - the effect of that is interesting - but that is for another thread)

I guess I may give Asimov a try, I was a bit reluctant, because that is not his specialty. I was wondering if there is something written by an academic theologian, that does not necessarily push a certain religious viewpoint and sticks to supportable facts.

There are secularists who go beyond the “these are all Bronze Age myths; end of story” shtick; and there are skeptical, even secular, biblical scholars. But there aren't a lot, obviously. So much of what they write is more narrowly focused than taking on the whole Bible.

You might have a look at Prometheus Books' Biblical Criticism category and see whether anything strikes your fancy. For example, I believe The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man takes an approach along the lines you are asking toward the question of the New Testament as history. Even more contrarian is The End of Biblical Studies, which explains why you won't find what you want: biblical scholarship is stuck in a rut; all the questions are answered or unanswerable; the incorporation of modern textual theory is a sham.

That said, I'm sure Arctic-Stranger will come through with a balanced reading list.

Robert M. Price has written quite a few books that focus on the history of the bible. He is a confrontational atheist, so I would seek out something written by Christian scholars as well for balance. You can listen to his podcast to get an idea about the kind of stuff that is in his books. It is called "The Bible Geek".

P.S. - I think the Author page here is merging two authors... I'm not sure that all of those Lovecraft books were written by him. If you search Amazon for "Robert M. Price" it lists quite a few books, including The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man suggested by MMcM above.

> 8

I'm pretty sure the Bible scholar and the Cthulhu mythos guy really are one and the same!

And, yes, I was trying to give the extreme other end purposefully.

Thanks for that. I listened to Price on Point of Inquiry. Quite interesting. Good suggestion. I'll see what 'balancing' suggestions come up...

Ok, looking at all the suggestions, The McGrath book looks good (and the annotated bible) as 'balancing' options.

If you want to go really basic, you could try Don't Know Much about the Bible-it's a good starting point for history, textual interpretation, authorship, etc.

Thanks! Looks good. Great suggestions.

#4: What kind of courses are you teaching and to what audience?

Intro to the Bible at University of Alaska; college students, most of whom are science majors.

For an overview of the Old Testament, I would recommend

a) John Drane; Introducing the Old Testament. This is at the beginner's level of what you are looking for. It gives history, cultural background, and literary analysis of the texts. It does not go really deep, but it is not a Sunday School book. Easy to read, lots of maps and pictures.

b) Walter Bruggemann; Introduction to the Old Testament; Canon and Christian Imagination. A bit more demanding than Drane, but very readable. He does more with theology than Drane. Not as many maps and pictures.

c) Michael Coogan; The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures. Coogan does the literary part better than Drane or Bruggemann, and this is also a very good survey.

d) James L Kugel; How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now ; If you want the history of exegisis, from the Rabbi's of the first century to current scholarship this is an excellent book. He does not cover every book, but he takes you into traditional scholarship as well as current scholarship, and shows there they meet and where they depart.

e) Richard Friedman; Who Wrote the Bible?; this is not a book by book survey, but gives an excellent overview of the documentary hypothesis (the idea that at least four different sources were used for the Torah.)

These are all Old Testament/Hebrew Scripture recommendations. Bruggemann has written several books that are more focused on themes or books (His book onthe Psalms is wonderful) but I have mostly given you surveys here.

Next post, New Testament. Edited to add touchstones

I've got to second Asimov's Guide to the Bible. He may not be a theologian, but his treatment does everything the original poster asked for.

Well, I don't know if you looking for nonfiction only or what, but the fiction book, The Red Tent by Anita Diamant, is a retelling of a biblical story and I wouldn't call it exactly praising of it's origin.

It's a very good read.

#15: Thanks a lot for the detailed list and reviews! I look forward to the 'New Testament' edition.

Thanks for the reminder.

To start this section I want to throw out some names first. Almost anything these people write is worth reading, although some works will be more technical than others.

N.T. Wright, current Bishop of Durham, is currently writing a series of books on the New Testament, (Christian Origins and the Question of God) all of which are worth the price of admission. This series is a bit more technical, and lengthy (the volume on the resurrection is 800 pages alone), but he is pretty readable. The volumes already completed are The New Testament and the People of God, Jesus and Victory of God, and The Resurrection and the Son of God. Wright has written several smaller books on Paul, notably Paul: In Fresh Perspective, and What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?.

Wright is a bit more conservative in his scholarship, and so you might also want to read Marcus Borg for the other side of the argument. Unlike Wright, Borg focuses primarily on Jesus studies, but he does that very well. Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary is a good place to start as well as Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus and the Heart of Contemporary Faith. Borg and Wright co-wrote a book, where they engage in a very friendly, but very intense argument. If you want to see a responsible conservative and liberal scholar go at it, then I highly recommend The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions. The book is great, but their respect for each other is also a pattern for how to do academic debate and still have friends.

E.P. Sanders is also a name you want to be familiar with. HIs books Jesus and Judaism and Paul and Palestinian Judaism were revolutionary. The former is a demanding read, and the latter is much more technical, and I am not sure how much I would recommend it.

His book The Historical Figure of Jesus is a really good and easy to read introduction to Jesus studies. It is not an overview (The best of which, to my mind, can be found in Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God) but Sanders writes his own theories of Jesus in a very readable manner.

One more name, and then a few survey books. Richard Hayes has written a wonderful book on New Testament ethics, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation, A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics.

>8 princemuchao:
Thanks for that podcast mention. I'm always looking for good things to listen to. Here's a link for anyone else interested: http://webulite.com/group/thebiblegeek

Bishop Wright was on the Colbert Report this evening pushing Surprised by Hope.

Has anyone read "Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason, and Religion" by Stuart Kauffman?

I saw THE RED TENT mentioned above; that is a marvelous book, giving a vivid personal picture of what it was like to be a tribal Jewish woman millennia ago.

I have a work of fiction out myself: THINKING STRAIGHT. It tells the story of a Christian gay teenager whose parents put him into an "ex-gay" camp to straighten him out. It's a very positive story, and the boy manages to stay true to himself and to his religion. My research included writings by Walter Wink ("Homosexuality and the Bible") and Episcopal Bishop J. Neil Alexander ("This Far by Grace").

#21: I saw the interview too and I thought it was interesting to realize that the strictly biblical interpretation of heaven is much more materialistic than the modern interpretation. It's a good reminder of the links that early "new creation" Christianity had with ancient Judaism, which was also very materialistic regarding God's rewards and punishments being dished out in day-to-day life instead of in the afterlife.

Hi all,

Thanks for your great suggestion. Just wanted to update you on what I actually did with them: I checked our local librarysystem, which did not have too many of the recommended books (but I am not too suprprised). But they did have James L Kugel: How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now.

I started reading it. It's quite a tome, but Kugel is an excellent writer and I am quite enjoying it. His point is that, yes, modern Biblical scholarship is probably correct in many or most statements, but that they miss the point: The bible was put together to advance certain viewpoints and when you read the Bible you need to understand the assumptions that go into reading it in a certain way. So in addition to the words of the Bible you need to understand why the ancient interpreters actually interpreted it this way. This interpretation makes the Bible what it is. So things like 'Original Sin' are really not supported by the Bible text per se, but are rather part of the what the Ancient Interpreters wanted the Bible to mean.

Very well researched and interesting. I agree with what he writes, except that he seems to think that somehow the words of the Bible plus the ancient interpretations make it into a holy book. I cannot follow that. Instead his detailed analysis shows that the Bible was written and put together from several sources to advance certain viewpoints, but it is completely up to the reader to accept or reject these viewpoints. They are not supported by the text of the Bible. In addition, in re-reading some of the stories of the old testament (after a long time not looking at them), they appear even more fantastical and some instances ridiculous. And the ancient interpreters really went through some mental gymnastics to make some of characters appear better than they really were.

Kugel has a very refreshing writing style and he will never push his viewpoint or insult the readers intelligence, so although Kugel clearly is a believer, this book is an enjoyable read for both believers and skeptics.

Kugel's book is only about the old testament. So, to cover the new I bought some books (Amazon):
Marcus Borg: Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary and Robert M. Price: The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, but I haven't looked at those yet.

Thanks again.

ref #24
I have to second the motion about Kugel being a good read, but add my personal kvetch.

Clearly, he knows very well that the scriptures are several levels of creative fiction written at times and places, and by personages very different from the times and places in which the stories are set and which are attributed to them by tradition.

If you were to read everything up to but not including his last chapter (chapter 36....a coincidence? Yeah, when pigs floss,you should pardon the expression. ) you'ld think you were reading a totally secular author. But chapter 36.
Hoo boy! Talk about double think! Go figure.

This is exactly the point I make in my second novel, THINKING STRAIGHT!

Interestingly this concept that the various books of the collection we call the bible were written at different times and for different audiences and for different reasons is just as viable whether you believe the bible to be holy or not.

Even someone who believes (as I certainly do not) that the bible is the divine, inerrant, and infallible Word of God and must be taken literally to the nth degree must see that the moral dictates changed as successive books were written. This demonstrates clearly that different times call for different morals – even in the bible!

I’ve heard some gay people say that they have no problem reconciling their Christianity with their sexual orientation because Jesus never said anything about it. But I think that if we could go back 2,000 years and ask Jesus, given what was going on in that time and place, given how people had to live, given that they were not enlightened even if he really was, he’d have to say “No, can’t really do that now. If you do that, you’ll have to commit adultery to have kids, or you’ll have no kids and everyone else will have to take care of you when you get old. You need to have kids.” (No banks, pensions, health insurance, etc.) However, if we could bring Jesus FORWARD in time to today, he’d doubtless tell us something entirely different – provided he really is the God/Man he’s supposed to be. Different times, different morals.

So, holy and infallible or fiction with agenda, the collection is made up of individual books written for different times, places, and people.

I think you have a limited notion of "creative fiction." 'For you, fiction seems to mean, "not true." That is not true. And I dont think you know what Kugel knows. You know what you know.

How does fiction not mean "not true"?

> 26 Even someone who believes (as I certainly do not) that the bible is the divine, inerrant, and infallible Word of God and must be taken literally to the nth degree must see that the moral dictates changed as successive books were written.

Alas, if only that were true. Unfortunately, the level of Biblical literacy is so low - including among stalwart Christians - that many in fact do not see that this is true. Doing so would entail a level of personal study and reflection that most folks no longer engage in. It's one thing to believe, then another to go to church regularly. (There, at least you would learn a little bit about the Bible, depending on the preacher's homiletical style and theological committments.) But preaching is not the same as teaching the Bible. And the majority of Christians, at least in my denominational neck-of-the-woods, do not spend much time learning much about the Bible on their own, using good texts. So they don't know.

I wish more Christians were interested enough to post this thread, and to follow up on the suggestions.

#28

If by true, you mean the facts in the story line up perfectly with the known facts of reality, the fiction is not true.

And not all fiction has truth in it. The Da Vinci Code, while a half decent potboiler of a book, has not one shred of truth in it. The Heart of the Matter on the other hand is a very true book, in that it accurately describes a part of human emotion that is felt by many people. Lord of the Rings is true in many places, although the characters clearly never existed. But the notion of burdens we carry, that we cannot pass on, for instance, or the heroism involved in defending Helms Deep (which does not exist) or loyalty of Sam all ring true.

In my first English class, we were asked to define literature. I wrote, "If it still rings true a hundred years after it was written, it is literature, not just fiction." The prof liked that so much it became the working definition of "literature" for that semester.

Genesis three is very true, even thought Adam and Eve never existed. As is Genesis 12. the reality is, if you want to grow spiritually, you often have to move, as Abraham did.

Truth is much more than "empirically verifiable by measurement."

So there are parts of LOTR that "ring true" but none in The Da Vinci Code? I find your ideas of truth and fiction very contradictory.

30> Although I agree with the principle of fiction revealing truth, I think even cheesy fiction, as The DaVinci Code, has some truth to it, especially about religious obsession in this case (I speak from having seen the movie, not from having read the book),

I also believe that literature endures, a hundred years as Arctic says, or roughly what Ezra Pound said, "Literature is news that stays news." I cannot believe, however, that craft is unimportant.

A shortcoming of formal logic is that it cannot abide two simultaneous contradictory propositions (or if it abides them everything is true). But in dialectic, in the very old sense, we can find truth often enough in contradiction.

Where the Bible contradicts itself we know not to try to prove something, but to talk about it and see how each truth contributes to who we are and where we are in the universe. (I don't really rule out outright crap in the Bible, but so much of it isn't).

Robert

Perhaps it is my personal vendetta against the Da Vinci Code, but for the difference between them is that Brown refers to real historical events, and gets them wrong almost always. For example, when he links Constantine to the Roman Catholic Church, or even in the title when he refers to the painter as Da Vinci rather than Leonardo. He confuses truth in his work. I know it is fiction, but when he does refer to past realities, and created untruths about those, I believe it taints the larger project.

Tolkien, on the other hand, never pretends to represent any type of history. He does not confuse fiction with history, and hence his "fantasy" is much truer, I believe, than Brown's semi-historical fiction. But like I said, it was a good read.

James Bond novels are not true, but Le Carre's are. (On the beach I would rather read Fleming than Le Carre though.) And On the Beach is a true novel, even though it describes an event that never happened.

I realize that some of this personal bias, but when a work sets itself as being true in some way, and then does not live up to that, it perpetuates a greater lie.

There are, of course, exceptions to this rule.

An original New York Times review of The Da Vinci Code, before it became infamous, said something like it is a fast paced and intelligent thriller. I reckon it is cheesy as I said above and will not try to deny it, but, if I had read it when it came out, I bet I would have enjoyed the reading.

We can bend the sapling of truth to the ground and find something of the excitement in Ian Fleming to reveal truths at least about us. I don't mean to do that, but it does not strike me as being entirely unfair.

But I, despite the disclaimers, agree with you. We will more typically find great lessons in great literature. I would say that agreement on what is great will come through disputing it.

And so, disappointments disappoint, usually.

I am finding that the Bible, sick as some of it is, is not a disappointment. (As a landmark, just last night our church book group discussed The Bible According to Mark Twain; I have to finish reading the notes tonight.)

Robert

I think I understand (and agree with) what Arctic-Stranger is referring to as truth in fiction.

And I apologize in advance if I offend anyone, but as for The DeVinci Code, I won't try to speak to Brown's historical references, only to his writing. That, unfortunately, was AWFUL. It was as if he'd bought a book called "Thriller Writing for Dummies" and then followed the techniques to the letter.

The characters were, without exception, wooden, two-dimensional, and stereotypic. He had at least three story threads going at all times, and the end of every single chapter was a manipulative cliff-hanger, with the the chapter immediately following taking up one of the other threads. You might have to go through three chapters to find out what happened in the thread that left you hanging in any of the threads. This is a cheap and unethical way to create and sustain a reader's interest.

I felt culturally "out of it" because everyone I knew had read it, but when I finally gave in, I borrowed a friend's copy (didn't want to spend any money on it). Then, as soon as I saw the techniques Brown was using, I would time my reading. "I'll read for thirty minutes," I'd say, "and whatever chapter I'm in I'll finish and then put the book down." This is how I read the book, and how I avoided being manipulated by writing that was coarse, shallow, and cheap.

Shame on Dan Brown. There is no truth in this book, unless it's that people want to feel like they're in the know, like they're on the inside of some mystery, and that they'll believe almost anything that will get them to that feeling.

The only good that may come from this "work" is that there may be a few individuals out there who will do some research into the areas he introduced, which are truly fascinating. I can only hope.

Just to play Devil's advocate - there is some truth in the Da Vinci Code, I feel, and that is that the Church and much of Christianity has been consistently oppressing and sidelining women. This starts with the Bible (as a matter of fact right in the beginning by blaming Eve for the 'Fall'). And that is one of the main turn-offs for me when it comes to Christianity.

Having said that, Brown's writing is really poor and you can't trust any of his historical references. It's all a mishmash of pseudo-history, conspiracy theories, legends and just plainly made-up stuff. But it makes for an entertaining story (which could have benefitted from some more writing classes).

Well, that's HARDLY playing the Devil's Advocate, yapete. THIS is how you do it:

There's a whole lot more truth in The da Vinci Code than you're comfortable with, and that's why you can't accept it. Yes, absolutely, a large chunk of it he made up (for the story line), but either one of the Testaments alone is an even bigger unbelievable pile of fiction.

M, M, L and J could have benefited from writing even half as well as Dan Brown.

Re: #35
Robin, Robin, Robin!
Your paragraph #3 -- come on now... Thousands of books, many of them classics, employ the multi-threaded plot. There's nothing new or deceitful in that.

Take the movie "Clue", for example. There's so many threads running through that movie, you could make a decent-sized tapestry out of it; and the way the story runs, you could got to 6 different theaters and see a different ending each time. It's BRILLIANT!!! Mysteries wouldn't be mysteries if there weren't plot twists and asides and other threads in them!

And cliff-hanger are GREAT tool to keep the reader's interest. There's nothing immoral or unethical about that. Just admit it, you had a strong prejudice against the book (for ~whatever~ reason) , and refused to be neutral about it, so you slammed it throughout your post. Never mind, that's what you entire post was all about. Prejudice established. BTW, you cheated yourself out of the fun the book by limiting yourself to 30-minute windows. Your loss.

Your paragraph #5 -- Substitute "the Bible" for "Dan Brown" and you'll have the GREATER truth.

See, yapete? That's how it's done -- just step right into the center of that pile of poo, barefoot.

My own opinion of The da Vinci Code (if you're still reading this) is that it was a fairly well-written (in that, despite the implausibility of certain details of the story, it flowed well) as the few loose ends were left for the reader to ponder. The cliff-hangers were all resolved.

And I can only HOPE that people read more (and broadly) on the subject, because that's the only way they're going to realize the hoax.

Not bad for a devil's advocate, WHL. I'm not going to read The Da Vinci Code, but I am also not on the bandwagon condemning it.

Robert

#37 I have no problem with the way Brown handles the story line (I know some people here do), but I think that was ok. I think he kept the tension always at the right level. What I thought was poor was his language. It's definitely not up to Tolkien (just to use that example because it was mentioned here) and even JK Rowling is a way better writer in terms of her language than Brown is.

The Bible is a bit of a mix. Most of it is really dull writing. Kugel calls it 'schematic narrative', but there are some quite poetic parts in it here and there, I have to admit that, although I don't believe in any of it.

By the way, reading Kugel and revisiting all these Old Testament stories I am getting more and more amazed at how ludicrous they really are. When I read them as a kid or in church, there was always this reverence about them. But when you read them completely 'naked', just on the face of what is actually written, most of it makes very little sense and is full of internal contradictions. Altghough this clearly is not Kugel's intention, he really exposes the dishonesty of the Bible authors and ancient interpreters. Ok, maybe that is a bit harsh, but their interpretations (and the interpretations of their modern descendents) are really a streeeeetch.

All this obession with procreation, killing, circumcision, multple wifes etc etc! I also don't see how this stuff relates to our lives today. I know Kugel is doing his best to make the point that this stuff is relevant and divine, but for me so far the critical scholarship is winning hands down. The Bible really is a cobbled together collection of fragments from different priestly factions trying to control how people thought about their religion. The result is too often incoherent and non-sensical. Even the one God they worshipped changes at least four time throughout the Bible. Kugel exposes that quite clearly.

QUOTEI think you have a limited notion of "creative fiction." 'For you, fiction seems to mean, "not true."UNQUOTE

At the risk of being accused of believing anything I see on the web, I "google" (all nouns can be verbed) for a definition of "fiction" and come up with:

Definitions of fiction on the Web:

* a literary work based on the imagination and not necessarily on fact
* fabrication: a deliberately false or improbable account
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* Fiction is the telling of stories which are not entirely based upon facts. More specifically, fiction is an imaginative form of narrative, one of the four basic rhetorical modes. ...

I suppose it shows I'm a limited technocratic gradgrind, but I cant see how any productive discussion can be carried on without agreeing at least that there's a difference between fiction and non fiction and that in some important way "it matters". Or maybe Sherlock Holmes is a historical figure after all, and we can find the bones of Paul Bunyon's great blue ox. "Babe".

I think we are distinguishing truth from fact. There are truths that do not reside as fact, although they could be expressed in fact. So Sherlock Holmes is not a fact of consensus reality but there are dogged obsessives chasing down facts, and, sometimes, to learn facts like that about life we have to read a fictional, clear cut example. Sherlock Holmes is an expression of truth.

I hope we agree that we distinguish fiction and non-fiction. We are talking about your first definition. Non-fiction necessarily, however imaginative, is based putatively on fact.

(By the way, for a long time I primarily used Yahoo to google things.)

Robert

#40: Arctic's original assertion is flawed because he's implying that your statement excludes things that "ring true," even though it doesn't. He seems to be trying to salvage the idea that the Bible is factually true by resting on the leg that it "rings true." They're just not the same thing.

#41 Ok, according to this definition, the Bible does not correspond to the facts, but it does have some truth in it. The problem I see is how can we figure out what the truth of the Bible is, if it doesn't correspond to facts? It then comes down to interpretation. Therefore the truth of the Bible depends on any particular reader's interpretation.

It could therefore mean (almost) anything.

#44: Almost anything? Only because it's large enough for people to have enough room to pick and choose, I think. But if we went through the Bible snippet by snippet, the "moral" truth we get out of each individual account is probably subject to less variability.

42 - 45> Emerson, whom I trust a lot, said that there are unproved truths which resonate for us and must be believed. I don't think that is a defensible notion, and he was notorious for not defending his assertions. Nevertheless I believe it somehow. I think one can find truths that resonate in the Bible, but they are not only that. Moral issues, the relationships of man with man and with God, are discussed and illustrated in the Bible, but many of us believe that the Bible is imaginative literature.

I read Candide last night. I had it because I wanted to reread it for its reaction to Leibniz, but what prompted me was that I expect to watch a DVD of Leonard Bernstein's opera in the next couple of days (I also enjoyed reading it). Now it is very much about the truth of the notion that this is the best of all possible worlds; it is also, citations of real events notwithstanding, clearly fiction.

We have seen the Bible interpreted multitudinous ways; that is proper. I, a Unitarian, will accept the interpretation that I accept, and don't believe that is tautological, when I am doing the accepting. Some truths resonate; some truths are demonstrable; some truths are provable.

Robert

#45 Ok, I'll take you up on that: What is the moral truth of the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, eating from the tree of knowledge and the subsequent ejection? That women can't be trusted? That humans can't be trusted? That having free will is incompatible with living in paradise? That humans are inherently bad? That God wanted us to remain stupid, but we rebelled and wanted knowledge like God possesses? Personally, my truth in this story is that Eve was the first scientist: She wanted to know and she didn't want anybody to tell her she can't try an apple from the tree of knowledge. Good for her! Go Eve! But that is definitely not the usual interpretation I have heard. So is my interpretation the truth? What is the truth of this story?

Re #37:
I actually wanted to enjoy The DaVinci Code. But Brown never developed any of his characters, so the only reason he gave me for caring about them was that at least one of them was near death at the end of every third chapter. I call this bad writing.

I have to say the subject matter fascinated me, but that was the only thing that kept me reading. The prose sounded, felt, and read like trash to me. Sorry if I’ve offended anyone, but that’s my honest opinion. And I actually didn’t expect the writing to be bad. So I’m not admitting to prejudice.

Re #47: the bible as truth.
First, I am not a “believer.” That said, I think there is truth (in the non-factual sense) in the collection of books we call the bible.

Let’s take the Genesis story of the Garden, since that’s been proposed. What’s the truth?

The "facts" of the story are that God, the all-knowing, all-powerful entity, created beings who, he knew, would fall prey to temptation. (He knew everything, remember.) Knowing this, he said to Adam (ADAM: not to Eve), “You guys can do anything you want, have anything you want. This is Paradise! Oh... except this one thing. See that tree over there? The one with the juicy, shiny, red, sweet, delicious fruit on it? You can’t have that. Anything else, though. Knock yourself out!”

Eve, not knowing about this rule, was drawn to the tree, partly by the fruit, partly by the voice of the snake calling to her. The snake (representing Satan) was there – what, because he had snuck in? Not likely; not with God being so all-knowing and all-powerful. So Satan is there with God’s implicit permission. The snake offered Eve KNOWLEDGE. Specifically, he spoke of understanding the difference between good and evil.

Eve didn’t know there was evil. She didn’t know what it was. She was tempted with the idea of learning something new and of eating this delicious fruit. Did she sin? Not only did no one tell her not to eat the apple, but also she had no knowledge of good as opposed to evil. So even if she had known what God told Adam, how would she know it was wrong when she didn't know what "wrong" was? So where’s the sin?

If God had wanted Adam and Eve to remain his pet lapdogs, he wouldn’t have allowed Satan in, wouldn’t have allowed that tree to grow in the Garden, wouldn’t have pointed it out to Adam.

So the humans figured out what the difference was. They learned that they had been in Paradise, but only because they left it. While they were there, it was just same-old, same-old, but once they weren’t in it anymore, they knew what it was. They had knowledge of the difference.

As for blaming women? That’s a guy thing. Men wrote Genesis, remember, and the Jews of the day were extremely patriarchal types who believed that all the necessities for human life were contained in male ejaculate, and that the woman’s only role was that of a human oven. So it was okay to rape your female slaves, and it was okay for Lot to offer his two virgin daughters to the violent, rapacious crowd outside his house in Sodom (also in Genesis.) So this attitude of men of that day and time toward women is another truth the Bible can show us. And it can show us how wrong it is. Not all truth his shown in positive examples. Sometimes it shows us what not to do.

The moral is that we have created God in our image, not he us in his. The moral is that people want – perhaps need – to believe that someone knows what’s really going on. The story of the Garden shows us that no one does, that we have to figure it out for ourselves, and that we will make mistakes. We want Paradise back, but we’re not willing to give up knowledge to get it.

Sorry I am missing most of this discusssion since I am traveling (Workshop for the Quakers in Johnstown, visit to NC to see family, and finally a few days in DC to see the sights with my son.)

But for now, this.

The Bible is not true, but it can ring true. Words are usually faulty means of presenting any Truth. (As a Qauker, I would say the Light or Spirit that inspired the Bible is true.

Whenever my kids say say something is boring, they really mean they don't understand it. Opera is boring, baseball is boring, good novels are boring, sitting in silence with someone you love is boring.

The story of Adam and Eve....where do I start...? It is a story about intimacy and intimacy shattered. It is the story of every bad marriage, the story of every marriage where two people live separate lives together, it is the story of every one who has done something they knew to be "bad" (drugs, affairs, porn, scarf and barf, etc) but who have found them to taste good. (That is the tree of knowlege of good and evil.) It is the story of anyone who ever hid themselves from the person they loved the most. It is the story of what it is like to find you helpmeet, and then to lose that connection you once had with them. I could say lots more.

In Christianity, when the Ultimate Truth is revealed, it is not in a book or a theory or in a behavioral code. It is in a person. A very complex person. Finding "Truth" in the Bible is easy, but a cheap shot at it. Try to find "truth" in your children, or you spouse. That is more what finding "Truth" in Christianity is like.

Comparing Dan Brown to the Gospels is like comparing Ogden Nash to Beowulf.

What was the original topic of this thread?

> 50 What was the original topic of this thread?

Now that you mention it, I think back in #19 you suggested some NT survey books would be recommended.

>49 RobinReardon: RobinReardon You've got the story a bit wrong. Yes, God only warned Adam. But in Genesis 3:2 Eve quotes God's prohibition to the snake almost word for word before she took the fruit. She was not ignorant of the rule. I'm sure you can find this online if you don't have a Bible.

Arctic--Wow your post blew me away.

Arctic - enjoy DC! If you are lucky it will rain, and then it will only be in the high 80s with 100% humidity...

As for Dan Brown, I started out giving him about the same kind of rating that I would give a so-so romance author. However, he lost me completely when he said something in one of his books (Angels and Demons maybe) about the left brain being the creative, emotional side and the right brain being logical. Aside from being a gross oversimplification, the statement was just factually incorrect. Apparently contralateral isn't in his (surprisingly limited) vocabulary.

Comparing Dan Brown to the Gospels is like comparing Ogden Nash to Beowulf.

And so?

Robert

#50: "What was the original topic of this thread?"

I was looking for some scholarly books on the Bible. That's why I started this thread. But it has evolved... But thanks, I got what I was looking for (and I am reading some of the proposed books right now).

#49,52: Yes I also thought that Eve knew it was prohibited, but she was curious and the Snake helped along with its persuasive voice.

#50 (again): That's a quite imaginative interpretation, but that's fine because I have my own imaginative interpretation. However, the traditional Christian interpretation that I have heard from fundamentalist friends of mine (and which matches Paul's letters) is that women cannot be trusted and are the source of sin, and therefore should have no role in church and be subservient to their husbands. This interpretation is a major reason I have a lot of disdain for traditional Christianity.

My interpretation is that I think Eve should be made the patron saint of scientists. She didn't let some stupid rule for which no justification was given stand in the way of her curiosity! Good for her (if she had really existed that is)!

Yes, Eve clearly knew it was prohibited because she quoted the rule. But she didn't know that breaking the rule would be wrong. This is because she had no knowledge of good and evil. Now, why was that again?

It's a set-up any way you look at it.

> 49,55

With such a rich tradition of interpretation, there are of course efforts to redeem Eve within the context of this narrative, rather than simply to condemn it as sexist.

The textual theories of the early 20th century, of Wellhausen and Gunkel, which are relevant to where this topic started out, propose that the beginning of Genesis is a couple of creation stories shuffled together. The earlier Yahwist J, who begins at 2:4, is the less theologically sophisticated: God is not even omniscient, He does not find out about what they've done until he's happens to be walking around the garden. The Elohist P precedes in the book. Nobody sees the two as authors in the modern sense anymore: the sources have multiplied and the traditions become even more diverse. But I think it's still the normal starting point.

Simple skepticism is that the two accounts contradict one another in the details. Elohim creates man and woman at the same time in 1:27, but Yahweh creates woman from man in 2:22. Clever Jewish and Christian theologians have worked out ways around this: for instance, Adam was a hermaphrodite and then got split.

It would appear that J is hopelessly patriarchal, as you'd expect from the society at the time. Without contradicting that, Harold Bloom's part of The Book of J, claims that J was a woman. One of his reasons is the psychologically rich portrayal of woman, including of Eve in the story under discussion here.

God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality is even more ambitious. Somewhat integrating the accounts, and taking G1 as justification for a gender-neutral approach, Trible makes Eve the heroine, precisely because she appreciates the aesthetics of the tree and is more perceptive and intelligent (3:6), just as #55 says. (Chap. 4, “A Love Story Gone Awry.”)

This is as much literature as religion. It might also be fair to characterize #50 that way. There are new theories of Shakespeare all the time, too. Beowulf might be a story of maternal devotion.

It's probably a safe bet that in 100 years, the self-aware androids won't be doing the same for Dan Brown.

#57 Thanks for the references and the information on the scholarly views!

#56 I agree with you there. It all comes down to the fact that a benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God is an impossibility, when you look at all the evil in the world. So to rescue God, the Bible authors had to come up with some explanations and blamed it on Adam & Eve & free will. However, if God knew they would screw up, why did he put the tree and the snake there? Why does free will necessarily imply doing evil? So, yes, it was a set-up.

For ModularUrsine -