Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

[JackDaydream]

In many ways, the issue of the existence of God seems a lesser puzzle than understanding the writings in the Bible. The extent to which the writing of the writing in the New Testament is symbolic or literal has been a matter of philosophical confusion for me, and I don't think that this is unique to me. It is likely that many on this forum don't see much of the Bible as literally accurate. I do believe in the idea of evolution and do see many Biblical texts as allegorical, but do still wonder about how far to go in seeing the writings as symbolic.

The biggest issue is what did happen regarding the story of the resurrection of Jesus. I was brought up to believe that it happened, as witnessed by those who encountered Jesus in bodily form. I was also taught that Jesus performed miracles. The other idea was the idea of the Virgin Mary giving birth and Jesus, although for most of my childhood I didn't understand the significance of the Virgin birth, until being taught the facts about sex. I was also taught that it was wrong to question any of this, with the story of doubting Thomas, who queried the resurrection of Jesus.

However, I have definitely questioned the stories of the Bible. But, I still find it hard to know the facts and the historical basis of the writings. It is acknowledged by theologians that the Gospels were written a long time after the life of Jesus and that the only author who is the name identified in the Bible is Paul, and that his teachings were the basis of so much of Christianity.

There has been so much speculation about the underlying facts of the New Testament and there is so little known of the life of Jesus apart from the Gospels. The findings of the Gnostic texts in Nag Hammadi have been significant because they appear to offer a different perspective, more symbolic than the narrative of the four Gospels, although John's one and 'The Book of Revelation' seem to fall more into the Gnostic tradition.

One of the aspects which I find difficult is whether the witness accounts were based on visionary experiences. Even though the idea of Jesus being raised from the dead seems problematic I do wonder what did happen. Did someone move the stone? There have been so many different ideas, such as Jesus going to Charlemagne, in the Grail tradition, but so much is speculation. Also, so much of the Biblical narrative seems to contain ideas of mythic significance, such as the resemblance with the mythical story of Osiris.

I am writing this thread because I genuinely do find it hard to know how much of the Biblical narrative is symbolic. Part of the issue may be with the climate of the ideas of the early Church, especially figures such as Origen, and what was included in the canon of the Bible and what was excluded. I am aware that some who read this thread are likely to dismiss it because they will regard the stories of the Gospels as fiction. On the other hand, some may object on the basis that I am questioning what should be accepted on the basis of faith.

I am not intending to cause any offence and the reason why I am writing the thread is because the question of the existence of God is debated so much, but the issue is not merely about whether there is a God who created the world because religious beliefs are wider. Saying that I am not suggesting that the Christian tradition is the only one worth thinking about. I have a strong interest in comparative religion, but as I was brought up in Christianity I am more familiar with the aspects of 'supernatural ' in this tradition.

The question of the supernatural is the main issue which I am addressing. Where does reason or faith come in? Part of the problem which I have with the idea of faith is that to abandon reason in thinking about the Biblical texts seems like philosophical suicide. So, I am asking how much can be interpreted literally or symbolically?

[LuckyR]

I think it is an error to try to evaluate ancient texts, like the Bible with a modern mindset. Rather it is likely closer to the truth to project into the era when the text was written to evaluate the audience of the writings, the authors and their goals.

[JackDaydream]

I think it is an error to try to evaluate ancient texts, like the Bible with a modern mindset. Rather it is likely closer to the truth to project into the era when the text was written to evaluate the audience of the writings, the authors and their goals.

You are probably right and it may be where I, and some others, go wrong. Part of the problem is that the way I was taught it as a child was as if the Gospels were a newspaper account or a textbook. I actually find reading the Bible extremely stressful whereas I know that other people I know say that they find it so comforting. I find that I get anxious about sin and, having written this thread after a night where I barely slept, I feel so guilty as if I have committed a sin by writing it. This may be irrational because it is my genuine thoughts. I I would really like to be able to read the books in the Bible like literature but it can be difficult after a strong religious upbringing.

[Tegularius]

I am writing this thread because I genuinely do find it hard to know how much of the Biblical narrative is symbolic.

Start with what doesn't make sense, is patently contradictory or in no way conforms to reality - historical or otherwise - which requires another book half the length of the bible to expound. You can interpret it as either symbolic or just plain wrong. If there were a god (extremely unlikely) it would have no relevance to the obviously created and patched up one in the bible so why tie yourself into knots over what amounts to nothing as a problem.

It only amounts to a problem if you insist on believing but can't quite come to terms due to all the unnatural bogus events in it.

[JackDaydream]

I am writing this thread because I genuinely do find it hard to know how much of the Biblical narrative is symbolic.

Start with what doesn't make sense, is patently contradictory or in no way conforms to reality - historical or otherwise - which requires another book half the length of the bible to expound. You can interpret it as either symbolic or just plain wrong. If there were a god (extremely unlikely) it would have no relevance to the obviously created and patched up one in the bible so why tie yourself into knots over what amounts to nothing as a problem.

It only amounts to a problem if you insist on believing but can't quite come to terms due to all the unnatural bogus events in it.

It may appear simple to you to dismiss the ideas in the Bible but for others it may not be. Some people come from the angle that it is simple to say that the Bible is literally true. When I was a teenager I fell into the second group, but when I began reading philosophy and other disciplines it became less clear. This is especially true for people who grow up in a religious background, because it is about conditioning, although some who were brought up with religious ideas do alter their beliefs radically and some who weren't taught any religion begin believing in it. But, of course, there are many religious world views and I am interested to the underlying ideas of comparative religion.That may be where the symbolic aspects come in. The Biblical worldview does become more difficult after reading science.The biggest problem which I see is not simply the actual beliefs but the idea that it is wrong to question at all, because that makes it difficult to come to personal conclusions at all, making it all a matter of dogma and introduces fear. Pascal's wager is not helpful either because it is about believing just in case the idea of God and the afterlife is true which is fear based.

[Angelo Cannata]

I think some notes can help you.

There is some ambiguity and confusion when we say that certain texts of the Bible should be interpreted allegorically, or symbolically.

One ambiguity is that creating allegories and symbols today is different from creating allegories and symbols at the times of the Bible. Even if in both cases the result is a text that doesn’t accurately reflect how things really happened, today’s mentality about creating allegory is different. In allegory, or symbols, we have different components, let’s distinguish: the fact, the way the fact was perceived, the language used to express allegory, the meaning that was meant to be understood behind the allegory. All these elements are different according to our times or those times. Even the simple perception of facts is different, because today, for example, we perceive facts with a mentality full of a lot of science, technology, the planet perceived like a little village and so on. It happens similarly with the other elements I listed. So, we need to be careful in saying that a text should be interpreted allegorically or simbolically: we should ask, additionally: allegory in what mental context? Symbol in what mental context?

Another problem about allegory and symbol is that these concepts imply something specific meant to be understood as allegorical or symbolical meaning, but this is nto always the case in the Bible. This means that, after we agreed that a story in the Bible is to be interpreted allegorically, this does not mean that the next step is to find out what allegorical meaning the author had in mind. We should consider that allegory and symbols bring us towards some sort of reductionism that actually betrays the greatness of the text considered as a work of art. A work of art, even when it is very clear that is as a very specific allegorical meaning, is actually always greater, deeper than any allegorical meaning. It is a mistake to think that, once we found and understood an allegorical meaning, we have deciphered the text. Most probably, the author meant to use a language to express their religious experience that is beyond not only what can be expressed by words, by also what can be thought of as an allegorical meaning.

About the resurrection of Jesus, the fact is that nobody has any clear idea of what experience was behind the narrative that the authors produced. Intepreting them literally is the greatest mistake, because ignoring the historical context, the language questions, means to make an offence against the text itself. The text must be respected. Respect means that we must use the highest quality mental instruments and criterions to interpret it. A high quality instrument is historical criticism. Historical and literary criticism teach us that we cannot assume that the resurrection of Jesus happened literally the way how we today would understand the text. This would be, again, an offence against the text. So, what happened behind the words that say that the apostles met Jesus alive after his death? The fact is, as I said, that nobody has any clear idea about this. In this situation I make my personal hypothesis: it is a language to express the religious experience of Jesus’s followers, that included acts of cult, everyday life, meetings, inner life. They decided to express with that story their religious experience because they didn’t find any better language to express it. For example, the narrative of story makes possible to express the feeling that those experiences were perceived not as coming from inside, but as something caused by somebody else externally.

Pope Benedict XVI, despite his fame of being a great theologian, made a giant mistake by saying that the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact. It just is not: history is a science, with its own methods, and we have no scientific historical elements to agree that Jesus historically resurrected.

I disagree with what @Tegularius said “why tie yourself into knots over what amounts to nothing as a problem”: the Bible is not only a religious text, it is, more widely, an expression of a culture that, as such, can be immensely interesting even to atheists. For example, should we not to study Egyptian archaeology, texts, religions, just because it is clear that their beliefs don’t match with science?

[JackDaydream]

I think some notes can help you.

There is some ambiguity and confusion when we say that certain texts of the Bible should be interpreted allegorically, or symbolically.

One ambiguity is that creating allegories and symbols today is different from creating allegories and symbols at the times of the Bible. Even if in both cases the result is a text that doesn’t accurately reflect how things really happened, today’s mentality about creating allegory is different. In allegory, or symbols, we have different components, let’s distinguish: the fact, the way the fact was perceived, the language used to express allegory, the meaning that was meant to be understood behind the allegory. All these elements are different according to our times or those times. Even the simple perception of facts is different, because today, for example, we perceive facts with a mentality full of a lot of science, technology, the planet perceived like a little village and so on. It happens similarly with the other elements I listed. So, we need to be careful in saying that a text should be interpreted allegorically or simbolically: we should ask, additionally: allegory in what mental context? Symbol in what mental context?

Another problem about allegory and symbol is that these concepts imply something specific meant to be understood as allegorical or symbolical meaning, but this is nto always the case in the Bible. This means that, after we agreed that a story in the Bible is to be interpreted allegorically, this does not mean that the next step is to find out what allegorical meaning the author had in mind. We should consider that allegory and symbols bring us towards some sort of reductionism that actually betrays the greatness of the text considered as a work of art. A work of art, even when it is very clear that is as a very specific allegorical meaning, is actually always greater, deeper than any allegorical meaning. It is a mistake to think that, once we found and understood an allegorical meaning, we have deciphered the text. Most probably, the author meant to use a language to express their religious experience that is beyond not only what can be expressed by words, by also what can be thought of as an allegorical meaning.

About the resurrection of Jesus, the fact is that nobody has any clear idea of what experience was behind the narrative that the authors produced. Intepreting them literally is the greatest mistake, because ignoring the historical context, the language questions, means to make an offence against the text itself. The text must be respected. Respect means that we must use the highest quality mental instruments and criterions to interpret it. A high quality instrument is historical criticism. Historical and literary criticism teach us that we cannot assume that the resurrection of Jesus happened literally the way how we today would understand the text. This would be, again, an offence against the text. So, what happened behind the words that say that the apostles met Jesus alive after his death? The fact is, as I said, that nobody has any clear idea about this. In this situation I make my personal hypothesis: it is a language to express the religious experience of Jesus’s followers, that included acts of cult, everyday life, meetings, inner life. They decided to express with that story their religious experience because they didn’t find any better language to express it. For example, the narrative of story makes possible to express the feeling that those experiences were perceived not as coming from inside, but as something caused by somebody else externally.

Pope Benedict XVI, despite his fame of being a great theologian, made a giant mistake by saying that the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact. It just is not: history is a science, with its own methods, and we have no scientific historical elements to agree that Jesus historically resurrected.

I disagree with what @Tegularius said “why tie yourself into knots over what amounts to nothing as a problem”: the Bible is not only a religious text, it is, more widely, an expression of a culture that, as such, can be immensely interesting even to atheists. For example, should we not to study Egyptian archaeology, texts, religions, just because it is clear that their beliefs don’t match with science?

I find your reply very helpful and I do wish to be able to read it and appreciate it for what it is. Generally, I do appreciate allegory in general. The problem was that I was taught from a very early age that the Bible was factual and different from other books. I am sure that people from other religions are also told that theirs is the only one. I was taught that the parables were story but that everything else was literal. I did realise about evolution during adolescence, although the first time a teacher explained it I didn't and asked to be moved to a Catholic school at age 10. So, really I chose to go to a school which was Catholic. Most of my friends, including a few from school, do believe in the creation story. I was also confirmed at age 11, on the basis of understanding Catholicism enough to commit to it for life. It was so early on, before puberty and my father used to pray with me. Most of my adolescent social activities were based around the church and Catholic school. It was when I began reading about Hinduism and Buddhism that I began to look outside Catholicism and Christianity. The study of other religions was frowned upon by the teachers at school. When I questioned religious ideas I never ever told my parents because they would have been so upset.

Another aspect of Catholicism which didn't help clarify of thought and, I always questioned, was the idea of transubstitation, which is that the communion host and wine becomes the literal body and blood of Christ rather than symbolically.

[Count Lucanor]

The Bible is a collection of ancient myths, a narrative devised as a tool for proselytizing in a time when presenting actual facts and being coherent was not important. It was more important making people believe the things that the clergymen wanted them to believe, many times for political reasons. That is why it is full of contradictions, falsehood and inaccuracies.

[Angelo Cannata]

I see that your education in Catholicism has happened among rather closed minded people. Fortunately, not all Catholicism is this way, but you need to do some research to find open minded Catholics.

About the transubstantiation, it is a result of the need in Catholicism to make clear doctrine based on solid ground. Unfortunately, it happened that this solid ground was found on Aristotle, especially by St. Thomas Aquinas, who decided to reformulate the Christian doctrine taking Aristotle as the main reference point. As a consequence, a lot of doctrines in Catholicism are based on aristotelian concepts and distinctions, such as matter, form, substance and so on. So, the doctrine of transubstantiation is simply theology of what happens to the consecrated bread, having Aristotle as a reference point. This made possible to feel able to defeat solutions that appeared referring to just ideas, while Catholicism wanted to found concepts on ideas of reality. Aristotle worked fabulously for this purpose, because his philosophy gives the impression of deal with the very reality, objectivity, materiality of things. So, using Aristotle made possible to defend the reality of the presence of Jesus in the bread, while admitting that anything else belongs to the behaviour of bread.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think it is an error to try to evaluate ancient texts, like the Bible with a modern mindset. Rather it is likely closer to the truth to project into the era when the text was written to evaluate the audience of the writings, the authors and their goals.

I quite agree. It seems wrong to consider the writings in any sacred book literally, IMO. They just aren't meant that way. For myself, a believer, but not a Christian, I just can't understand the mindset of those who would claim that the words in their sacred tomes are the actual Words of God, literally. Scriptural literalists are just baffling to me.

So when Jack asks in his OP whether the Bible should be taken literally or metaphorically, my reply is "never literally!". But what do I know?

[Pattern-chaser]

I see that your education in Catholicism has happened among rather closed minded people. Fortunately, not all Catholicism is this way, but you need to do some research to find open minded Catholics.

IME, those who are brought up as Roman Catholics go one of two ways when they grow up. They either accept it wholeheartedly, and continue in their worship, or they reject the whole lot, lock, stock and barrel. I belong in the latter camp, and so does Jack, although he is a more recent arrival.

"Lapsed" Catholics are more common than you think, I think.

[Tegularius]

I disagree with what @Tegularius said “why tie yourself into knots over what amounts to nothing as a problem”: the Bible is not only a religious text, it is, more widely, an expression of a culture that, as such, can be immensely interesting even to atheists. For example, should we not to study Egyptian archaeology, texts, religions, just because it is clear that their beliefs don’t match with science?

I'm in no disagreement here. When I wrote why tie yourself into knots over what amounts to nothing as a problem, I referred to the tensions JDD evidently experiences in relation to the bible which has long been proven, not merely speculated upon, to be a thoroughly human artifact whose overwhelming cultural and historical influence is not in question. In spite of that, it doesn't preclude the bible being replete with every kind of error and fallacy which for at least 1500 years was not open to question. Now that it has been studied in every conceivable way, not to mention the claims of science itself, the belief factor has eroded massively.

So, while the interest remains as with Egyptian archaeology, texts, religions, etc., including other mythologies, as once believed in, those beliefs are now barely active and should have zero effect on one's psyche in trying to evaluate one's position in regard to scripture of any kind except as symbolically and metaphorically denoted. If that which once qualified as sacred truth based only on scripture, turns ahistorical, as it eventually must, it's time to judge by a different measuring stick.

[JackDaydream]

The Bible is a collection of ancient myths, a narrative devised as a tool for proselytizing in a time when presenting actual facts and being coherent was not important. It was more important making people believe the things that the clergymen wanted them to believe, many times for political reasons. That is why it is full of contradictions, falsehood and inaccuracies.

It definitely seems that there was a large political element to the the Church and Christendom. The belief in literal truths was connected with this, probably to govern the masses with fear of hell. When reading the King James Bible the tone is harsher than newer revised editions.

[JackDaydream]

I see that your education in Catholicism has happened among rather closed minded people. Fortunately, not all Catholicism is this way, but you need to do some research to find open minded Catholics.

About the transubstantiation, it is a result of the need in Catholicism to make clear doctrine based on solid ground. Unfortunately, it happened that this solid ground was found on Aristotle, especially by St. Thomas Aquinas, who decided to reformulate the Christian doctrine taking Aristotle as the main reference point. As a consequence, a lot of doctrines in Catholicism are based on aristotelian concepts and distinctions, such as matter, form, substance and so on. So, the doctrine of transubstantiation is simply theology of what happens to the consecrated bread, having Aristotle as a reference point. This made possible to feel able to defeat solutions that appeared referring to just ideas, while Catholicism wanted to found concepts on ideas of reality. Aristotle worked fabulously for this purpose, because his philosophy gives the impression of deal with the very reality, objectivity, materiality of things. So, using Aristotle made possible to defend the reality of the presence of Jesus in the bread, while admitting that anything else belongs to the behaviour of bread.

I was aware of Aristotle's role in the Christian Church in general but I hadn't thought of transubstantion in that way. I had come across Freud's interpretation of communion as being connected to ritualistic incorporation of the father in the eating of the host. Ritualism is so caught up with the idea that of The Last Supper, with the idea of 13 as unlucky on the basis of the 12 apostles and Jesus. Also, the whole idea of communion is at the centre of the celebration of the Mass and its celebration of the Jesus's victory over death which is seen as the atonement for Original sin.

[JackDaydream]

I think it is an error to try to evaluate ancient texts, like the Bible with a modern mindset. Rather it is likely closer to the truth to project into the era when the text was written to evaluate the audience of the writings, the authors and their goals.

I quite agree. It seems wrong to consider the writings in any sacred book literally, IMO. They just aren't meant that way. For myself, a believer, but not a Christian, I just can't understand the mindset of those who would claim that the words in their sacred tomes are the actual Words of God, literally. Scriptural literalists are just baffling to me.

So when Jack asks in his OP whether the Bible should be taken literally or metaphorically, my reply is "never literally!". But what do I know?

I am not sure to what extent most other religions take scripture literally apart from Christianity. The esoteric interpretations are different and do have some convergence with Eastern ideas. Some Christian groups are more literalistic than others, especially the fundamentalist approaches. It was encountering this extreme that led me to question Catholicism although some evangelicals are opposed to Catholics, saying that Catholics worship Mary, which I am not sure is true although she is put on a pedestal as the having a share in the divinity alongside Christ and is believed to have ascended to heaven. I have one friend, who was an extremely rebellious teenager, and became a Jehovah's Witness and that has a particular slant, especially as giving a specific number who will be saved at the end of the world. One significant idea of theirs though is that hell will not be eternal suffering but simply not existing at all in the new eternal paradise.