Interesting topic. I would say that in the first instance it should be borne in mind that the Church Fathers applied various levels of meaning, such as literal, moral and allegorical, when interpreting the Gospel texts. This allows for a wide range of interpretation and conclusions, theological and philosophical, that may be drawn.

That's such an important starting point on this topic and so often forgotten. The literalist interpretations of The Bible (particularly the OT) are the least rewarding and most bereft of philosophical content from my perspective.

Correct. Applying different levels of meaning goes back to Plato and other ancient philosophers and this tradition was continued by the Church Fathers who had enjoyed education and training in established philosophical centers like Alexandria and Antioch and were familiar with this method.

In the history of biblical interpretation, four major types of hermeneutics have emerged: (1) the literal, (2) moral, (3) allegorical, and (4) anagogical.

Further rules that have been applied for example in grammatical interpretation are:

1. Definition of a word.

2. Usage.

3. Context.

4. Historical background.

5. Logic.

6. Precedent.

7. Unity.

8. Inference.

Hermeneutics: How To Interpret The Bible

Thanks for your link on the hermaneutical interpretation, which points to different ways in which the Bible can be approached. Of course, it does appear that the source is a Christian one. That is extremely useful though, and I do believe that some of the analysis is still applicable even if the Bible is interpreted outside of the Christian viewpoint.

I originally thought about this yesterday, and mentioned it in a thread which has been closed. I have been reading 'Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris: The Four Horsemen(The Discussion That Sparked An Atheist Revolution, 2019), in which Harris points to The Bible as being one 'epistemological gold standard.' So, this lead me to wonder where the Bible lies in the entire debate about theism, atheism and other religious questions central to philosophy. Many consider the existence of God, in terms of proof or lack of proof. However, it can become too abstract and I do believe that the Bible, and, how we interpret it must be relevant. But, I am also aware that The Bible is a very long book, but it has had such a large role in the shaping of culture and philosophy that I do believe that it is worth thinking about.

I do agree with you that the literalist interpretations of the Bible are the most unhelpful. I think that many people from religious backgrounds would agree with you. There is a whole spectrum of possibilities. For example, the question of Jonah being in the belly of the whale, and the 'facts' of the Gospels.

It is unlikely that the Gospels were written soon after the death of Christ, and the authorship of the these is uncertain. It does seem that Paul had a very big role in the development of the Christian church, so I am sure that this came into play. Also, it is likely that the early Church was expecting a potential end of the world. In some ways, the 'Book of Revelation' can be understood in that context. There was an ongoing attempt to try to equate 666 with an actual person, and it seems to me that the beast may be symbolic. But, all these aspects of thoughts have been apparent behind the scenes of history and literature, including the thinking of Dante, John Milton and William Blake.

Perhaps we should first wich kind of philosophical perspective we would like to compare the Bible with. In particular, I think we should clarify what we think about truth: if and how it exists, how it connects to life. I think that this specific philosophical problem is very close to what that authors of the Bible tried to communicate.
Interpreting the Bible literally means just lack of respect for it, because it implies a decision to ignore its historical context and force it to enter inside the frame of our contemporary categories and ideas.
It seems to me that, for the biblical authors in general, truth was not a mathematical concept, but an existential one. This is very close to what Pierre Hadot revealed us about the ancient Greek philosophers, to whom philosophy was not just a rational, intellectual activity, but a way of life able to touch our inner life.

In thinking of comparing the Bible with other perspectives we have to begin from the way in which the Bible has been the starting point for Christianity as a worldview, and the many different traditions, ranging from Roman Catholicism, Protestantism,the Church of England, Methodism, and far more divergent ones, including the Quakers and the Mormons. The most literalist interpretations can be seen as the fundamentalist ones.

I certainly believe in understanding the historical contexts of beliefs, ranging from the earliest times of Christianity, the understanding of the philosophies of God developed by Augustine, Kierkergaard, and Kant, to the many aspects of thinking about religion in the twentieth first century. I don't believe that any person's thinking takes place in a cultural vacuum.

I think that you are correct to say that it is unlikely that truth was a mathematical aspect. I would be interested to hear more about how you think that an existential understanding fits into the picture here. I think that it is important to be aware of the fusion between ideas in the development of Christianity, as in the way in which Augustine and Aquinas interpreted the Bible but with reference to the Greek ideas, especially Plato and Aristotle.

I think that there is a fundamentalism which tries to interpret the ideas of the Bible as if it can be understood as a newspaper account. I think that this is not helpful at all, and any interpretation has to take into account the difference in the overall worldview of the authors in the Bible. They lived with a belief in the world being flat and with no knowledge of Darwin's ideas. Also, another aspect which I think is useful to consider is the tension between the esoteric and exoteric traditions.

It seems to me that your idea of the Bible is too connected with Christianity. The Bible is not Christian, it’s a list of books and this list differs, depending on those who adopted it as a sacred text. Most clearly, the Old Testament is not Christian, for obvious reasons, so, why should we compare philosophy and the Old Testament starting from the Christian point of view? So, maybe we need to clarify if we want to explore relationships between philosophy and the Bible or relationships between philosophy and interpreters of the Bible. Or perhaps your idea is exploring how philosophers approached the Bible along the history of philosophy

I agree with looking at the Bible beyond the Christian viewpoint. Most definitely, it is important to be aware of Judaism and varying aspects of this tradition, ranging from ideas in the Torah and the more mystical aspects of thought, such as the Kabbalah. I believe that the ideas of the OT are probably derived from various traditions, including the Greek and Egyptian.

My own thinking is based on the starting point of having been raised as a Roman Catholic. Therefore, I was raised with specific interpretations of the Bible, especially a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth and the idea of transubstantiation, which means the literal and not symbolic transformation of the communion wafer and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

However, I have questioned the Catholic beliefs and those of Christianity. I don't really come from a fixed position, and I am interested in the various approaches to the Bible, and how they connect with the philosophy of religion.

this lead me to wonder where the Bible lies in the entire debate about theism, atheism and other religious questions central to philosophy. Many consider the existence of God, in terms of proof or lack of proof. However, it can become too abstract and I do believe that the Bible, and, how we interpret it must be relevant. — Jack Cummins

Correct. It is a vast field of inquiry and it is easy to lose sight of the wood for the trees. I do believe that it is useful to ask questions like (1) what is the source of the material contained in it, (2) its purpose, (3) who it is addressed to, etc.

Accordingly, it may be said that (1) the source of the Bible is a higher intelligence (that may be human or divine), (2) its purpose is to direct us to a higher perspective, knowledge and experience of life, and (3) that it is addressed to those who have the capacity to understand its message and the will to put it into practice.

If we take the Gospel of John, for example, Jesus says "I am the Light of the World" (John 8:12), which reminds us of Plato and Plotinus and their comparison of the universal intelligence with the sun.

Then, if we go to the other Gospels, we find the story of the Transfiguration of Jesus where Jesus and three of his apostles ascend a mountain and, on reaching the top, Jesus begins to shine with bright rays of light. Jesus is then called "Son" by a voice from heaven (assumed to be God the Father), which symbolizes the achievement of the status of "son of God" i.e., perfect, deified or godlike being, radiant with the light of higher knowledge, that the teachings of Jesus enable us to achieve:

"They will shine as bright as the Sun in the Kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears let them hear" (Matthew 13:43).

Again, the three apostles may be interpreted as representing the three aspects of man, viz., body, mind, and spirit or the three Platonic aspects of the soul, whilst Jesus himself is the nous, the divine spark within us that connects us with and can lead us to the Cosmic Intelligence or Mind of God.

In other words, this describes a spiritual journey of ascent to the highest realms of philosophical thought and spiritual experience indicated by philosophers like Plato and Plotinus. Of course, other passages such as those containing analogies and parables may be said to have a moral message that serves as a guide in everyday life. Others may have wider social and political implications, etc.

It may be worthwhile considering that Christianity in the Gospels is not referred to as "Christianity", but as "the Path of Righteousness", "the Path of God", and "the Path of Truth". By walking in the ways of Jesus, the embodiment of righteousness or virtuousness, the "Light of the World" that illumines our inner world and our path in life, we establish the Kingdom of God on earth, a society characterized by righteousness, peace, and joy (Romans 14:7) and attain to God and Truth. Discovering Truth is the very core of philosophical inquiry.

So the Bible is an extremely rich source of spiritual, philosophical, and ethical ideas that may be extracted from it according to each reader's interests and inclinations, just like a work of Plato or other ancient philosophers.

While I think the Bible can be a good inspiration or starting point for doing philosophy, I'm not sure it really contains much philosophy without the need for pretty heavy interpretation first. And discussions of Biblical philosophy are unlikely to get past arguments over interpretation. Better just to not mention the Bible and skip straight to the idea you want to discuss. Opinion bomb from bert1. You're welcome.

I think that The Bible can be a rich source, but I do think that it is so extremely difficult to interpret. Yes, I think it is important to bear in mind the particular intended authors and the purposes of specific texts. I have not read much theology at all, but have downloaded one book on contextual theology. This seems wider than some others and I do have an interest in comparative religion, as well as the ideas of religion developed by William James and Carl Jung.

I think that the Bible can be used to back up so many ideas, and can also be used in a negative way, and for specific political ideologies. I can see the basis of Freud and Marx's critiques. I am familiar with many fundamentalist Christians who spend so much time reading The Bible, and who think that philosophy is a waste of time. I prefer reading philosophy, but do believe that it is worth thinking about the Bible within the broadest context of thinking that the underlying problems of philosophy. I really wrote the thread because there is such debate about theism, atheism and life after death on the forum, and I am sure that the Bible is relevant on some level to such discussion.

Of course, it is possible to not mention The Bible, and I am sure that it is not essential to philosophy. But, I do think that it is hovering in the background, with people coming from specific interpretations of all aspects ranging from ideas about what really happened to the body of Christ and the resurrection, to ideas about the afterlife and any end of the world scenario.

But, even though I am bringing in the Bible, I don't come with any specific agenda, and I do think that it is possible to approach The Bible like any work of literature or texts like 'The Tao de Ching'. But, I am aware that others may not see it that way, and, sometimes, mention of the Bible can in itself appear loaded, because of the whole complicated role of the Bible in history.

But, even though I am bringing in the Bible, I don't come with any specific agenda, and I do think that it is possible to approach The Bible like any work of literature or texts like 'The Tao de Ching'. But, I am aware that others may not see it that way, and, sometimes, mention of the Bible can in itself appear loaded — Jack Cummins

Yes. I would imagine it quite possible to discuss the Bible or Christian philosophy without mentioning the Bible - or philosophy.

But here are some interesting verses from the Koran:

"If only they [i.e. Christians] had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course, but many of them follow a course that is evil" (5:66).

“The Christians call Christ the son of God. That is but a saying from their mouth; they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them!” (9:30).

“Surely, disbelievers are those who say: ‘Allah is the third of the three.’ But there is no God but One God. And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall on the disbelievers among them” (5:73).

And, of course, it should also be interesting to look into an analysis of the topic from the viewpoints of Marx and Freud. Or other great philosophers like Stalin and Mao Zedong.

I think the Bible can serve as a starting point in exploring philosophical questions; it certainly did for me, and probably has for a lot of people raised in the Church. If anything, it still acts more as an irrational specter in the back of my mind when I address philosophical questions. I still find myself thinking in it's terms; "I'm too selfish", "I judge others too quickly", "I don't love others enough", etc.

As other people pointed out, whatever philosophical information one might be able to glean from the Bible is generally couched in a lot of interpretation; in other words, it requires rigorous interpretation to get anywhere. There is actually a lot of very rich stuff to be found; The Art of Biblical Poetry by Robert Alter is a fascinating exposition on that topic and is still to this day an influence on how I create music as an artist. Stories from the Old Testament such as Job, Jacob wrestling with the angel, and God cutting in half sacrificial offerings made to him (which is interpreted Messianically in Christianity) are deeply rich with suggestive meaning and can hold their own with not only other religious texts but with philosophical texts and great art as well.

So I think it's possible to glean valuable stuff from the Bible, in the same way other religious texts have value. It just carries such an ideological weight with it in the Western world that a middle position such as the one you're attempting to hold is rare and often attacked from both sides.

I've recently been obsessed with learning about Nag Hammadi and early church history. Fascinating to what extent there appears to have been a political bent or power struggle that gave birth to orthodoxy. The Gospel of Thomas in particular has some interesting statements, such as "do not tell lies and do not do what you hate." Sounds good to me...

I really was opening this discussion with a view to looking at it from various angles, ranging from the Christian to the Marxist and any other angles. I am glad that you mentioned the Koran as well, because I do believe in approaching religion from the various viewpoints. Strangely, there does not seem to be much from an Islamic view on this forum, and this may be related to who decides to become part of a philosophy forum.

I am just rather puzzled how, in many discussions about the existence of God, or atheism, discussion of The Bible does not seem to play a large part. The reason why I am so surprised is because in my own experience of talking to people in real life, views about The Bible seem to be central to thinking about these issues.

I also see The Bible as a starting point for thinking about religious questions, and think that it is basis for deeper analysis, rather than clear answers. I have read some of the writings in the Gnostic gospels, and some of the ideas of Elaine Pagels. I think that it is helpful for making sense of the symbolic nature of the world described in the Gospels. Of course, some of these writings were excluded from the Bible, but I am sure that this was interconnected with the political dimensions of the early Church.

I do believe that the symbolic nature of religious experience is central to understanding of The Bible and Christianity. I also have a strong interest in Jung, and he was extremely interested in the ideas of the Gnostic writers.

I was obsessed with figuring out the book of revilation for about 12 years . i just had to find this key or something that would let me decode it . that was ba k when i was still a Christian and ironically i lost my faith on the path i took to strengthen it because i started studying all kinds of religions and cults and magik /magic . but that little story aside the way i look at the bible is the same way i look at all other religions and the stories they tell and thst is that i feel like they are all telling the same story just their particular method of coating and hiding the message in allegories and apocalyptic Styles and that is the story of man from birth to death/ immortality and the struggles the lion between
It is a quest for immortality trying to find something that was lost long ago

An example of existential similarity between texts of the Bible and philosophy could be the idea that life is a never ending trip: the existence of the people of Israel is shown by the Bible as a path, from Abraham, to Moses, to David, to Jesus: there's always a next step to be done and you'd better live in a tent, rather than in a house, like Israel did, to be always ready to move. In philosophy we have the "panta rei", which is "all flows" by Heraclitus, but also the phenomenon of most philophers going further from the positions of their predecessor, in a never ending criticism and, in my opinion, a more and more intense attention to the "I", to subjectivity, which seems to me the opposite of stopping in a static, strong and objective idea of truth.

I became fascinated by 'The Book of Revelation' in sixth form, and art based on it. But, I do think that literal interpretations of it are extremely problematic. Later, I joined Christian Unions and came across so many people who came with very literal approaches, and I got extremely muddled up. I questioned Christianity, and have read as widely as possible. I got a bit lost in reading new age ideas.

I have found that interaction on this site has helped me to think more clearly, but I do believe that allegory and symbolism are extremely important, and that thinking about the Bible is very useful. I believe that looking at religious experience in this way may enable going deeper into the underlying aspect of arguments about the existence of God. I don't think that it is possible to prove or disprove God's existence, and is about the underlying unknown or numinous experiences. But, I am not sure that this approach would seem to be what many consider to be important within philosophy. It is possible to be an atheist who appreciates the numinous, and some theists don't pay much attention to this dimension at all.

I am asking what people think about the Bible, in relation to philosophy, and, certainly, it played a crucial role in the development of philosophy in Western society. So, I am raising this topic for those who are interested, including theologians and atheists, as well as everyone else. — Jack Cummins

I agree with @Noble Dust and wish you well in maintaining this seemingly balanced position to include all aspects.

So I think it's possible to glean valuable stuff from the Bible, in the same way other religious texts have value. It just carries such an ideological weight with it in the Western world that a middle position such as the one you're attempting to hold is rare and often attacked from both sides. — Noble Dust

There is actually a lot of very rich stuff to be found; The Art of Biblical Poetry by Robert Alter is a fascinating exposition on that topic and is still to this day an influence on how I create music as an artist. Stories from the Old Testament such as Job, Jacob wrestling with the angel, and God cutting in half sacrificial offerings made to him (which is interpreted Messianically in Christianity) are deeply rich with suggestive meaning and can hold their own with not only other religious texts but with philosophical texts and great art as well. — Noble Dust

I am glad of your post and the angle taken. The Bible as a source of artistic creativity.
It reminded me of Muriel Sparks' novel 'The Only Problem' which entranced me a while back.
The Book of Job being the rich source tapped:

The only problem for Muriel Spark, it would seem, is that there are many questions for few answers. This is the theme of her new novel... there is a metaphysical component to her fiction, and it is something of a relief that it has at last broken cover in the present work, which is both an extremely sophisticated account of the perils that surround our unsuspecting lives in the world today and a disputation on the subject of the Book of Job, which she calls ''the pivotal book of the Bible.''
Job and his disconcerting predicament challenge every optimistic belief one yearns to accept, lodging like a hard mass of contention in the consciousness of the hopeful believer. The same sort of existential distress is experienced by Mrs. Spark's current protagonist, Harvey Gotham...

...Harvey has moved to this retreat in order to work on his monograph on the Book of Job; he has rather absent-mindedly abandoned his wife, thinking himself entitled to do so since he once caught her stealing two bars of chocolate from an Italian supermarket...

...Harvey is far less interested in these people than he is in Georges de La Tour's beautiful picture of Job visite par sa femme in the museum at Epinal; the sight of Job's wife in her glowing red dress, her turbaned head bending in concern and admonition over her tranced husband, awakens Harvey's thoughts of his absent wife Effie, for whom he feels increasing love, and, deeper even than love, ''nostalgia.''

Effie is indeed the reason for all the visitors (or comforters) who descend on him: Effie wants a divorce, Effie takes a lover, Effie has a baby. All of this provokes discussion of the rights and wrongs of the case. But finally Effie's high spirits erupt in a manner particularly favored by Mrs. Spark. From stealing chocolate bars, Effie has graduated to planting terrorist bombs in supermarkets and department stores. Effie has joined the F.L.E., the Front de la Liberation de l'Europe. A policeman is killed in Montmartre, and Effie's group is responsible. Finally...

All through the course of the investigations Harvey works away on his monograph. So absorbed is he in his task that he discourses on Job to the reporters who attend his press conference, given ostensibly to explain his wife's disappearance:
''I am delighted to get down at last to the subject of this conference: what was the answer to Job's question? Job's question was, why does God cause me to suffer when I've done nothing to deserve it? Now, Job was in no doubt whatsoever that his sufferings came from God and from no other source...

...In ''The Only Problem''...there is emotion, despair and longing, kept in their place by precise and immediate writing. Perhaps the touchstone for Mrs. Spark's extraordinary style is to be found in a sentence from an earlier novel, ''Territorial Rights.'' It is said of a character in that novel, ''That afternoon she stepped out with the courage of her wild convictions and the dissatisfaction that has no name.'' Anyone who can appreciate the alarming and beautiful completeness of that sentence will appreciate ''The Only Problem.'' — NY Times: Book Review

https://www.nytimes.com/1984/07/15/books/review-muriel-sparks-the-only-problem.html

... the Bible, including the Old Testament and The New Testament ... — Jack Cummins

To regard the Hebrew Bible as "the Old Testament" is to prejudge it. Significantly, you do not even mention Judaism. What is often overlooked is the extent to which the Hebrew Bible is about human beings and their ways, both straight and crooked. Very little is said about nature. There is no concept of human nature, only ways that can be chosen. The natural world is secondary, for it is regarded as the work of God and subject to his control.

Because Genesis is wrong, as discussed in another thread, there is no divine Inspiration to it and so it can be dismissed.

As for explaining why God the Bible came to be supposed to be true, that is another matter:

The ancients found themselves here and not there,
Yet to fathom earth, fire, water, and air,
Asking why life was not square, as unfair—
Thus invented the Bad Role Model’s Care.

They looked unto their calamities,
Their powerful rulers and enemies,
At their olden family structure’s way,
Of strict father, and mother with no say.

The Father Notion they based on themselves,
As the best answer that was ever delved:
The demanding Male Mind who was called ‘God’,
An idea for some to this day, well trod.

Answers were needed for them to persist—
They extended the Notion with more myths
And legends into lore layered upon,
Inventing all the scrolls of scripture on.

‘God’ brought both fear and comfort in those days,
Making people better through fearsome ways,
Although worse for others—unchosen tribes—
Protecting their notions, as taught by scribes.

A wasteland of superstition plod—
Instantiating a meaning for ‘God’.
Emotion e’er sets up a firm blockade
When thoughts fired more build a stockade.

There were various modifications,
Yet the Creator concept remained one;
But natural understandings progressed,
Leaping ahead of the dogmatical rest.

Thousands of years came to pass, in stories,
But then we solved much of the mystery,
Irrefutable now, as gone beyond,
Utterly not by a magical wand.

The basis is fore’er, no creation—
Energy being the primest potion—
And Entirety is seen that it can be
No way but than it is, eternally.

Claims of Revelation in Genesis
Of all of Nature’s species made, as is,
Have been demolished, obliterated,
By evolution and data liberated.

Nature finds no requirement for a ‘God’,
Growth naturally forming from the sod.
The organic ‘comes of the mud and slime,
Formed within billions of years of sweet time.

A trillion lights shine through, of depths of the deep,
Stars afire, with us the souls from their keep.
Man oft spouts the ‘truth’ of a Creator,
As did proto-men near the equator.

Scrolled into scripture, ‘God’ brought rapture,
Enough for sad hearts to wholly capture;
Yet, there can’t be First Complexity’s shove,
For composites can't be First; all's simple of.

I see your point of view about calling the Old Testament as 'Old' comes from a specific interpretation, and it is simply the way I have seen it worded in Bibles. I am not in any way biased against Judaism and I think that such an interpretation of the Bible is important too. So, I welcome the Jewish interpretation as well.

Thanks for your link about Muriel Spark. I read 'The Book of Job' after reading, 'Answer to Job' by Jung. However, I have to say that, 'The Book of Job' stands out for me because it is such a distinct discussion and reflection on why human beings suffer.

I can appreciate the idea of there being a pathway in the evolution of truth. The only one query which I would have is whether each new step is actually progress, or simply the most accurate one based on current views. Also, there are so many perspectives throughout the world. In a way, this seems to be a form of relativism, but I think that in the information age we are able to draw upon all the divergent ideas for a more synthetic approach to truth.

Thanks for your poem. With regard to your remark about 'divine inspiration' we may ask what that may entail. In the most simplistic explanation, we may find an answer like: God wrote the Bible. That is projecting the source of inspiration outside of the human sphere, and dividing the 'sacred' into a separate category. I think that it is worth replacing the word 'divine' and thinking about creative inspiration.

It is not a personal accusation. It is a Christian bias. It is not a question of it being old but it being superseded.

In the perspective of the Bible, steps are improvements because they are guided by God. Actually there is also some explicit or implicit criticism about God in the Bible. We can find it in the book of Job, but also, for example, when we read that God regretted having created man and then regrets again having sent the deluge. Besides, if we read very analitically the story of the Adam and Eve’s “sin”, we can see that it contains some implicit criticism about the situation that God created to Adam, so that it is not so clear who is the real responsible of the “sin”. The Psalms as well contain criticism or, at least, blaming against God, from the perspective of the sufferer.
So, it seems to me that the Bible is not so closed minded about God; nonetheless, I think it remains optimistic because, despite God’s contradictions, which the Bible doesn’t ignore, the relationship with God gives a spiritual esperience of life that is considered worth to be followed, cultivated. We might think something similar about philosophy: from certain perspectives, it can be considered as taking us nowhere, no real improvement, no progress, but, nonetheless, its activity is able to touch and enrich our soul, if it’s practiced deeply, as a part of our life.