Taking the Bible Seriously, but not Always Literally
Posted by Cesar Baldelomar on October 2, 2009
Throughout history, individuals and institutions have cited the Bible to support injustices, such as “holy war” against infidels, the subjection of women, racism and slavery, and the abuse of homosexuals. Misreading the Bible can have serious consequences.
Scholars in academic settings (Protestant and Catholic seminaries, universities, and divinity schools) have been employing and teaching the historical-critical method, which requires that one read the Bible not only from a devotional point of view, but also from a historical one by asking the text some important questions. This can be done by exploring the three worlds of biblical interpretation, which are:
- the world behind the text (what was the historical context of any given biblical text?)
- the world of the text (what metaphors are employed to convey a point, and what literary style is found in the text – novella, narrative, poem?)
- the world in front of the text (based on my life experiences, what interpretive framework do I bring to scriptures?)
Even after considering these three hermeneutical worlds, it would be best to read any biblical text in its original language, since meanings are often lost in translation. In addition, one should note that while monks and scribes copied by hand the manuscripts of the Bible, they often mistakenly and sometimes intentionally added to and removed from the text. And lastly, any responsible biblical reader and interpreter should recognize the several contradictions within any biblical text and within the Bible as a whole.
Neglecting the three worlds of biblical interpretation, as well as failing to read it in its original language, will surely lead to an interpretation based on one’s idiosyncrasies.
The importance of the historical-critical method hit me clearly a couple of months ago, when I made a comment on a Catholic Archdiocesan blog post. I said, “Adam and Eve, many biblical scholars would agree, are fictional characters in a mythical story. This article portrays Adam and Eve as actual living, historical figures who we should try to emulate.” Little did I know the fire this comment would spark. Not only was I attacked on the blog – called things like a purveyor of false teachings and a heretic – but also several individuals posted comments asserting that Adam and Eve existed 5,000 years ago, and that this is official Catholic teaching.
I then tried to explain that historical, archaeological, and paleoanthropological evidence show that humans have been on Earth far longer than 5,000-8,000 years. Scientific data did not exist when the Hebrew scriptures were written, so Genesis was not meant to be read literally as an historical or scientific account of the world’s and humanity’s origins. Rather, the authors of Genesis 1 and 2 were trying to express through poetry the beauty of God’s creation. (Their blog moderator never approved this response.)
But things did not end on the Archdiocesan blog. To my surprise, an entire online forum, called “Heresy at the official Archdiocesan blog?,” surfaced with the sole intent of attacking my comment. The following are some comments posted on this online forum by several of its users:
- “How about that? It appears that Adam and Eve didn’t exist for real. So there is no original sin, then. This guy is a treat!”
- “Not only is this guy a Heretic, he is also liar and he is also wrong.”
- “The heretics are taking a beating! Three priests have weighed in, including Father Jordi and I expect an excommunication any minute! Seriously, there are some very good points being posted by the priests in response to the critics of the church who disquise [sic] themselves as theologians …”
- “Incidentally, a Professor…who teaches religion and philosophy at Saint Thomas University also posted to the blog, apparently, in support of Mr. Baldelomar’s theory that Adam and Eve are fictional characters! I don’t think I will be supporting STU with any alumni contributions nor will I be recommending anyone study religion if that is what they are teaching!”
While I am flattered by their attention and passion, I am worried that these and similar individuals will influence people to continue abusing the Bible by making it express a message that is simply not present. It is time to liberate the Bible by allowing it to speak on its own terms.
César J. Baldelomar is a graduate student at Harvard Divinity School. He is also the executive director of Pax Romana Center for International Study of Catholic Social Teaching. You can visit Cesar at his website (www.cesarjb.org) and read his blogs at www.holisticthoughts.com
mrissman said
If Adam wasn’t real then how do I know if Jesus was real?
Lauren Ivory said
Wow, Cesar, you sure got a ear full from folks. Learning this in seminary was, at first, a shock to my system, but then very freeing. I was able to focus on what was essential. Does the story lose anything special and sacred to me even if its not literally true? For me, the answer is no.
mrissman said
What would you make of this verse in the Bible?
Romans 5:12-13 “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world.”
Who is the “one man” that sin entered in to the world?
And what do you make of this verse?
Romans 5:14 “Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.”
Is Paul talking about a mythical character named Adam along with a mythical character of Moses? Or is Moses real but Adam not real?
And what about this verse in 1 Corinthians 15:22
“For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.”
Is Paul mixing mythical metaphors? Christ made alive what a mythical character brought in to being? How could mythical character bring something real into the world?
Here’s another verse that doesn’t make sense if we’re not taking Adam’s existence literally:
1 Corinthians 15:45 “So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being” ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.”
AND
1 Timothy 2:13 “For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” Is Paul talking about a make-believe character or a real person?
How does Christ’s sacrifice make sense in the scriptures if Adam and Eve were just mythical characters?
Phillip Clark said
Bravo Cesar! Beginning at the Second Vatican Council, perhaps even before, the Church slowly acknowledged that not everything in the Bible could be taken as historically accurate. In fact, Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II both have written about how the theory of evolution is compatible with Catholic theology, accepting that the first few chapers of Genesis are not meant to be a geological or historically accurate account of how the world began.
It’s easy to explain the mystery of sin by saying that Satan, in the guise of a serpant, tempted Eve to disobey God by eating fruit from a tree. However, this fable is only an attempt to explain the reality of sin. The fact that the tale of the Garden of Eden is probably mythical does not take anything away from the sacrificial, perfect act of love that Jesus Christ performed upon the wood of the Cross. Christ’s redemptive Suffering and Death for all time cleansed the world of its iniquity. Not that God the Father was an angry God tht had to be appeased, but rather, that He sent His Son out of love for us, to suffer death, even death on a Cross.
It is theses rigid interpretations of Scripture that are preventing the Church from adaquately answering the most challenging and demanding questions of our time concerning how the Church should deal with homosexuality, the equality of women, and human sexuality in general. Only when the Bible is fully embraced as being written in a specific cultural and historical context can progress be made in these areas.
It’s sad though to watch people defend rigid ideology over the love of Christ.