The Bible: literal or metaphorical?

[Whitney]

He could have been speaking poetically...we (being the world) saw jesus in the flesh but now we can't. 

And on point 3, just because a lot of evidence isn't provided to defend a claimed fact doesn't mean that it's safe to assume actual evidence exists.  Even in modern times people make claims, often wild claims, without backing them up and if that person is a leader or religious figure then their followers will just believe the claim at face value.  Example...politicians!  They say all sorts of false things and the die hard party followers eat it up as gospel.

[Too Few Lions]

Trouble with this is that Acts is in no way or shape a historical document. I don't believe a word that's in it, it's a made-up pseudohistory written decades after the supposed events would have taken place. There's very little accurate real history in there. You may as well be telling me that Dionysos was in Thebes because The Bacchae says so, and maybe he saw Heracles as he was there to marry Megara!

The Greeks believed both Dionysos and Heracles had been real historical people, and both were Sons of God, maybe some Greeks really might have believed that they met or saw each other in Thebes.

There's absolutely no reason not to see Acts as the work of a contemporary of Paul who researched the matters about which he wrote, and was an eyewitness of some of them.  The internal evidence of the book indicates that the author was an eyewitness after about chapter 16, and his account goes up until about 62 C.E.  While you might dispute some of his facts, there's no reason not to accept the book as a genuine account.  Unless, of course, you have decided a priori to reject anything written by early Christians.

Bruce, what's your evidence for all of the above? To my knowledge, the earliest known fragment of text of Acts dates to 250CE, and it's not mentioned by a Christian source until the late second century. I think there's plenty of reasons to question the historicity of Acts. Part of it is very similar to Euripides play The Bacchae (as are the gospels).

I don't think it's generally considered to be an accurate work of history, more a tool of Christian propaganda and polemic, and an attempt to create an early history for Christianity. This is what wikipedia has to say on the historical accuracy of Acts, which sums it up quite nicely but rather politely;

'A narrative which relates supernatural, fantastic things like angels, demons etc. is seen as problematic as a historical source. Besides these factors, several discrepancies are found in his accounts. His knowledge of geography is seen as rudimentary. And it is understood that Luke did not intend to record history.'

There were plenty of other 'Acts' books written by early Christians, and none of them are considered historical. It was more just a genre of literary stories. I take the same view of Acts in the Bible. The fact that the narrative switches from third to first person means nothing.

I question the historicity any text that has fantastical things like gods, miracles, angels and the like in, alongside no archaeological or independently verifiable texts to back it up. Particularly when we can find no trace of this work in the historical record before the late second century.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

ECURB'S POINT NO. 4:  Paul confirms in Galatians 4:4 that Jesus was both a man ("born of a woman") and a Jew.

Here is the passage from NASB:  Galatians 4:4: But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law.....   In Greek:  ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον....  

I consider Galatians to be the earliest of Paul's letters.  It fits quite nicely between chapters 14 and 15 of Acts, a position that I would be willing to defend in another thread.  Since the Jerusalem Conference of Acts 15 probably occurred around 50 C.E., Galatians, IMHO, was written 49-50 C.E., making it the earliest of Paul's epistles.

There are no textual variants reported for this passage that I can see, so the available manuscripts agree on this passage.  Therefore, there is no reason to doubt that this is what Paul actually wrote, and there is no evidence that he wrote anything different.  In context, it is clear that he is speaking of Jesus Christ, as Jesus is the express subject of his epistle.  As I mentioned in Point 3, as a contemporary, he would have been aware of the common knowledge of his day.  By saying that Jesus was born of a woman, he affirms his position that Jesus was a man.  By saying that Jesus was born under the law (Torah), he affirms his position that Jesus was a Jew.  While his statement that Jesus is the Son of God is a theological and faith statement, the statements about Jesus being an historical person and a Jew are factual statements. There is no contemporary writing from any source, Jewish, Christian or Roman, that Jesus did not exist historically, or that he was not a Jew.  There is no earlier writing that still exists that addresses the historicity and Jewishness of Jesus, and in the absence of any contrary evidence, it is safe to say that the preponderance of the evidence supports the assertion that Jesus was both an historical man and a Jew.  Thus, Paul begins to paint his portrait of the historical Jesus.  

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Trouble with this is that Acts is in no way or shape a historical document. I don't believe a word that's in it, it's a made-up pseudohistory written decades after the supposed events would have taken place. There's very little accurate real history in there. You may as well be telling me that Dionysos was in Thebes because The Bacchae says so, and maybe he saw Heracles as he was there to marry Megara!

The Greeks believed both Dionysos and Heracles had been real historical people, and both were Sons of God, maybe some Greeks really might have believed that they met or saw each other in Thebes.

There's absolutely no reason not to see Acts as the work of a contemporary of Paul who researched the matters about which he wrote, and was an eyewitness of some of them.  The internal evidence of the book indicates that the author was an eyewitness after about chapter 16, and his account goes up until about 62 C.E.  While you might dispute some of his facts, there's no reason not to accept the book as a genuine account.  Unless, of course, you have decided a priori to reject anything written by early Christians.

Bruce, what's your evidence for all of the above? To my knowledge, the earliest known fragment of text of Acts dates to 250CE, and it's not mentioned by a Christian source until the late second century. I think there's plenty of reasons to question the historicity of Acts. Part of it is very similar to Euripides play The Bacchae (as are the gospels).

I don't think it's generally considered to be an accurate work of history, more a tool of Christian propaganda and polemic, and an attempt to create an early history for Christianity. This is what wikipedia has to say on the historical accuracy of Acts, which sums it up quite nicely but rather politely;

'A narrative which relates supernatural, fantastic things like angels, demons etc. is seen as problematic as a historical source. Besides these factors, several discrepancies are found in his accounts. His knowledge of geography is seen as rudimentary. And it is understood that Luke did not intend to record history.'

There were plenty of other 'Acts' books written by early Christians, and none of them are considered historical. It was more just a genre of literary stories. I take the same view of Acts in the Bible. The fact that the narrative switches from third to first person means nothing.

I question the historicity any text that has fantastical things like gods, miracles, angels and the like in, alongside no archaeological or independently verifiable texts to back it up. Particularly when we can find no trace of this work in the historical record before the late second century.

Essentially what you are saying is that you a priori reject something that contains elements that you disagree with.  Most early Christian writings contain references to miracles and certainly to God. You have basically taken a position that you will not accept any evidence of a miraculous event or a non-physical being because you reject those things automatically.  So, you have cut yourself off from one possible source of evidence. It's a circular argument: writings that mention such things can't be historical because such things did not happen or cannot exist; there is no evidence of such things because the writings that mention them are not historical, because they mention them.

[Sandra Craft]

So, you have cut yourself off from one possible source of evidence. It's a circular argument: writings that mention such things can't be historical because such things did not happen or cannot exist; there is no evidence of such things because the writings that mention them are not historical, because they mention them.

I have to disagree with this -- evidence based on the supernatural can be dismissed out of hand because the supernatural itself has no evidence to back up its existence.  A historical event with supernatural elements can only be accepted as is if one has already decided to accept the supernatural on faith, which by definition is accepting things without evidence.  It isn't a circular arguement to say that one must remove as proof things that simply don't qualify as such.

[Too Few Lions]

So, you have cut yourself off from one possible source of evidence. It's a circular argument: writings that mention such things can't be historical because such things did not happen or cannot exist; there is no evidence of such things because the writings that mention them are not historical, because they mention them.

I have to disagree with this -- evidence based on the supernatural can be dismissed out of hand because the supernatural itself has no evidence to back up its existence.  A historical event with supernatural elements can only be accepted as is if one has already decided to accept the supernatural on faith, which by definition is accepting things without evidence.  It isn't a circular arguement to say that one must remove as proof things that simply don't qualify as such.

Spot on BooksCatsEtc

I think Christians are guilty of double standards. They accept supernatural and impossible things in Christian scripture and assign historicity to them, but don't do the same thing when looking at scriptures from other traditions.

Who nowadays thinks that Heracles killing the hydra, or Odysseus blinding the cyclops were real historical events? Yet people did 2000 years ago, even some early Christians! These stories are no more ridiculous or fantastical than Jesus' miracles or resurrection.

I would apply the same rigid view of questioning any other religious text written decades after the supposed events which has a clear unobjective bias and contains supernatural / impossible events.

If archaeology and proper dateable science backs up the stories then I will accept there was a nugget of historical truth behind the fantastical tales, but would still exclude the impossible from ever having happened. As it is there is no archaeological or indepentently verifiable evidence to back up any of the stories in the NT. What you choose to believe happened is based on faith.

[Whitney]

Essentially what you are saying is that you a priori reject something that contains elements that you disagree with.  Most early Christian writings contain references to miracles and certainly to God. You have basically taken a position that you will not accept any evidence of a miraculous event or a non-physical being because you reject those things automatically.  So, you have cut yourself off from one possible source of evidence. It's a circular argument: writings that mention such things can't be historical because such things did not happen or cannot exist; there is no evidence of such things because the writings that mention them are not historical, because they mention them.

The Greek and Roman gods were seriously believed in and their existence documented by contemporaries....should be believe those writings/drawings?

In medieval times there was what seemed like serious talk of dragons....does that mean dragons were real?

Writings of supernatural things aren't evidence...they are simply documentation of beliefs and believers in things have a tendency to think things are real when they aren't.  If we were to take written accounts of supernatural things as evidence despite a complete lack of any supportive evidence then we'd have to accept that gnomes, faries, dragons, elves, zeus, poseidon, athena, probing aliens etc all exist.  But I be that you don't accept those....why does your personally preferred book get a pass?

[Gawen]

If we were to take written accounts of supernatural things as evidence despite a complete lack of any supportive evidence then we'd have to accept that gnomes, faries, dragons, elves, zeus, poseidon, athena, probing aliens etc all exist.  But I be that you don't accept those...why does your personally preferred book get a pass?

I won't speak for Bruce. But I would wager, one possible explanation that is central with virtually all Christians. Gnomes, faries, dragons, etc. do not promise salvation; an afterlife based selfishness (God's and the believers); on "Love and worship me or suffer eternal torment".
A second possible explanation is (also central to virtually all Christians) that gnomes, faries, dragons, etc. did not leave behind books for people to selfishly cherry pick and interpret to their own fancies.

It will be interesting to hear Bruce's take on it.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I've been on the road for a few days (took my wife to Texas Renaissance Festival, a big "Ren-Fest" near Houston with lots of Celtic/Gypsy music, good food, excellent spirits, and general revelry), so I'll post three days worth of points here.  

ECURB'S POINT NO. 5: Paul confirms in Galatians 3:1 that Jesus was crucified.

In Greek:  "ω ἀνόητοι Γαλάται, τίς ὑμᾶς ἐβάσκανεν, οἷς κατ' ὀφθαλμοὺς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς προεγράφη ἐσταυρωμένος."  In English (NASB): "You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?"

The Galatian churches were in danger of resorting to the legalism of Judaism, as they had been exposed to Judaizers who wanted them to be circumcised and follow the Torah.  Paul rejects this and chastises the Galatian churches for abandoning one of the core historical facts of Christianity - the crucifixion of Jesus.  Just as all adults living in the first, and now second, decades of the 21st Century know about such things as 9-11 (even though we did not witness it personally), so Paul (whether he saw it or not) was aware of the crucifixion of Jesus.  Jesus was publicly crucified, and his crucifixion was preached by the apostles.  There is no contemporary writing denying that Jesus was crucified.  His crucifixion, from a theological standpoint, meant that there was no reason to submit to the dictates of the Torah (the "Old Testament"), as that covenant was no longer in place for believers.  The New Covenant was based on Jesus' crucifixion, so it was important for Paul to emphasize this historical fact, as it was one of the foundations of the faith.

If Paul was just speaking of a metaphorical death of some spiritual concept of Christ, there would have been no reason for him to emphasize "crucifixion," which was the preferred Roman manner of execution.  Crucifixion was very real to the Jews - many of them suffered it.  There is no reason to think that Paul was discussing anything other than a real form of physical death for Jesus.  

[Ecurb Noselrub]

ECURB'S POINT NO. 6:  Paul confirms in Galatians 1:18 that apostle named Peter (Cephus) existed, and in Galatians 2:9 that an apostle (pillar) named John existed.

In these passages, Paul affirms to the Galatian church that he met and spoke with specific people.  He mentions Peter (also called Cephus - Peter is Greek and Cephus is Aramaic for "stone"), and John.  These men are referred to as "pillars," which is a metaphor for an important person in the Jerusalem church.  These are familiar names from the Gospel accounts - Peter (Cephus) the foremost apostle, and John (brother of James, who in Acts was killed by Herod Agrippa I in about 44 C.E.), the son of Zebedee and probably "the disciple whom Jesus loved" in the gospel of John.  Paul affirms their existence as historical figures.  Again, Paul is writing to congregations in Galatia (located in modern Turkey, not far from where the earthquake hit today), who could have checked out his story.  If he was lying, they could find out, or the Judaizers would have informed them.  There is no indication that anyone ever proved Paul a liar on the existence of these men.  This fact adds some degree of credibility to the Gospel accounts of Jesus.  Paul didn't name all the apostles, only those whom he met.  A forger probably would have named others, to add to his pedigree.    

[Ecurb Noselrub]

ECURB'S POINT NO. 7:  Paul confirms in Galatians 1:19 that James was Jesus' brother (clearly to distinguish him from the other Jameses who were not his brothers, like James the son of Zebedee).

Paul states that he met with a man named "James, the brother of the Lord."  Doherty and others of his ilk claim that "brother" was a phrase used by early Christians when referring to each other.  This is both true and misleading.  Certainly, as is the case today, early Christians often referred to each other as "brother" or "sister." But in the context of this passage, it is clear that Paul is using the term biologically as opposed to spiritually.  He also mentions Peter (Cephus) and John in the same section, but does not refer to either of them as "brother."  It is clear from both the gospels and Paul's epistles that Peter held a primary position among the apostles.  Yet Paul did not refer to him as a "brother of the Lord."  It is also clear from the Gospel of John that John had a very close relationship with the historical Jesus.  Yet Paul did not refer to him as a "brother of the Lord."  Why did he only use this term for James?

It is obvious to everyone except the most ardent denier of the historical Jesus that Paul's reference to James, the brother of the Lord, was meant to distinguish that particular James from the other men named James in the Gospels.  There was James the son of Zebedee and brother of John, and there was James the son of Alphaeus.  Both are mentioned as disciples.  But the Gospels also list four physical brothers of Jesus (James, Joses, Simon and Judas).  Paul is making it clear that the "James" to whom he is referring is one of the physical brothers of Jesus.  That James eventually became a leader in the Jerusalem church, and was martyred about 62 C.E.   By mentioning a physical brother of Jesus, Paul, by implication, affirms part of the Gospel story, affirms the historical existence of Jesus, and affirms the historical existence of James.   There is no indication from historical literature that anyone contested Paul's affirmation of these historical facts.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

So, you have cut yourself off from one possible source of evidence. It's a circular argument: writings that mention such things can't be historical because such things did not happen or cannot exist; there is no evidence of such things because the writings that mention them are not historical, because they mention them.

I have to disagree with this -- evidence based on the supernatural can be dismissed out of hand because the supernatural itself has no evidence to back up its existence.  A historical event with supernatural elements can only be accepted as is if one has already decided to accept the supernatural on faith, which by definition is accepting things without evidence.  It isn't a circular arguement to say that one must remove as proof things that simply don't qualify as such.

It has nothing to do with the "supernatural."  It can be assumed that anything that happens in history has a "natural" cause, as it happened in nature.  The question is whether we have a full understanding of what is "natural."  If there is some documentary evidence of unique events such as healings and resurrections, one must evaluate such reports on the basis of the evidence presented.  Perhaps they reveal something about the "nature of nature" of which we were previously ignorant.  The genre of literature must be evaluated to determine if the event was actually intended to be reported as history or as legend/myth.  In Acts, it is clearly indicated that it (like the Gospel of Luke before it) was intended to be read as actual history.  The fact that it reports things outside the normal experience simply presents a challenge for understanding what has been written.  There is no rational basis for rejecting it out of hand.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

The Greek and Roman gods were seriously believed in and their existence documented by contemporaries....should be believe those writings/drawings?

In medieval times there was what seemed like serious talk of dragons....does that mean dragons were real?

Writings of supernatural things aren't evidence...they are simply documentation of beliefs and believers in things have a tendency to think things are real when they aren't.  If we were to take written accounts of supernatural things as evidence despite a complete lack of any supportive evidence then we'd have to accept that gnomes, faries, dragons, elves, zeus, poseidon, athena, probing aliens etc all exist.  But I be that you don't accept those....why does your personally preferred book get a pass?

Please note that my "personally preferred book" essentially revolves around the seven authenticated epistles of Paul, and whatever other writings can be validly associated with those epistles.  There is no reason to give the entire "Bible" a pass, to use your phraseology.  A great deal of the Old Testament is probably either metaphorical, exaggerated, or legendary.  Each passage must be judged on its own literary/historical/grammatical merits.  In the "New Testament," we are dealing with writings that are much closer to us in historical time, but even here there are issues.  The most historically authenticated and attested writings are those of Paul, the earliest extant Christian writings, and those for which we know both the author and the circumstances.  The two volumes traditionally attributed to Luke (the Gospel of Luke and Acts) fit quite nicely with the epistles of Paul, and the fact that the last part of Luke clearly appears from the internal evidence to be the account of an eyewitness also lends an added degree of credibility.  It appears that the first part of Acts is an account assembled by an historian who has researched the matters reported, and that from chapter 16 on we have essentially (with exceptions) an eyewitness account.

Why is an account of someone being healed by prayer to be dismissed automatically?  Why is that any more "unnatural" than the recent account from CERN of a particle traveling faster than the speed of light?  Particles are not theoretically supposed to travel faster than the speed of light, but there is a report that one did.  If it is verified, we simply adjust our theory about the nature of reality.  If we have an eyewitness account of people being healed (as we do in chapter 28 of Acts), then why can't that be true, and be cause for an adjustment of our theory of reality?  Most of the eyewitness parts of Acts don't have anything like healings and miracles - they are simply events that occur on a daily basis.  The account doesn't seem to be legendary on the whole.  It seems quite believable, to one who is actually open to evidence.

[Sandra Craft]

It has nothing to do with the "supernatural."  It can be assumed that anything that happens in history has a "natural" cause, as it happened in nature.  The question is whether we have a full understanding of what is "natural."  If there is some documentary evidence of unique events such as healings and resurrections, one must evaluate such reports on the basis of the evidence presented.  Perhaps they reveal something about the "nature of nature" of which we were previously ignorant.  The genre of literature must be evaluated to determine if the event was actually intended to be reported as history or as legend/myth.  In Acts, it is clearly indicated that it (like the Gospel of Luke before it) was intended to be read as actual history.  The fact that it reports things outside the normal experience simply presents a challenge for understanding what has been written.  There is no rational basis for rejecting it out of hand.

If things like miraculous healings and certainly resurrections were part of nature, I think they'd be very well documented by now.  I haven't heard that this is so -- except in other myths, legends, fairy tales and so forth.  The fact that the stories featuring them were apparently meant to be taken as history is meaningless -- some people think sightings of the Loch Ness monster are to be taken historically too, but that's rubbish.  The rational basis for rejecting it out of hand is simple common sense.  

Why is an account of someone being healed by prayer to be dismissed automatically?  Why is that any more "unnatural" than the recent account from CERN of a particle traveling faster than the speed of light?  Particles are not theoretically supposed to travel faster than the speed of light, but there is a report that one did.  If it is verified, we simply adjust our theory about the nature of reality.  If we have an eyewitness account of people being healed (as we do in chapter 28 of Acts), then why can't that be true, and be cause for an adjustment of our theory of reality? 

Because the eyewitness accounts in Acts can't be verified, and as I'm sure you've heard before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. 

Most of the eyewitness parts of Acts don't have anything like healings and miracles - they are simply events that occur on a daily basis.  The account doesn't seem to be legendary on the whole.  It seems quite believable, to one who is actually open to evidence.

I'm sure people who see the Virgin Mary in toast have lives that are ordinary and mundane on the whole, that doesn't make their claims about the toast part of the ordinary nature of things.  Frankly, you seem to me to be really stretching to turn faith into evidence.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Why is an account of someone being healed by prayer to be dismissed automatically?  Why is that any more "unnatural" than the recent account from CERN of a particle traveling faster than the speed of light?  Particles are not theoretically supposed to travel faster than the speed of light, but there is a report that one did.  If it is verified, we simply adjust our theory about the nature of reality.  If we have an eyewitness account of people being healed (as we do in chapter 28 of Acts), then why can't that be true, and be cause for an adjustment of our theory of reality? 

Because the eyewitness accounts in Acts can't be verified, and as I'm sure you've heard before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. 

But "extraordinary" is in the eye of the beholder.  For Christians who have had an experience of the divine, a report of a healing is not that extraordinary.  Perhaps for you it is, so you remain unconvinced.  To reiterate a position I've expressed on another thread, I'm not attempting to convince anyone of anything.  I'm merely stating my position so that you will have the benefit of one opposing viewpoint.  For me, the reports of healings in Acts are not that extraordinary - certainly no more so that the video someone else just posted in "Science" of an example of quantum levitation.  If that can happen (and there it is on the video), I see no reason why other "miracles" can't happen.  We don't yet really understand how wonderful the universe we live in really is.