The Alter Bible(tabletmag.com)
tabletmag.com
The Alter Bible
https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/279344/robert-alter-bible
72 comments
"If you just dismiss these religious texts as opium for the dull medieval masses, you might miss some deep poetical truths about mankind that just cannot be stated explicitly because of the shortcomings of any human language described above."
I generally agree with your take on how we should read these texts.
However, nobody (that I know of) has been using Shakespeare to justify preventing me from buying whiskey on a Sunday.
These texts are read as literal truth by the people where I live (rural Texas) and used to justify some pretty heinous things.
So at the same time that we might wish to read these books as literature, I understand the impulse to dismiss certain modes of reading these texts as harmful.
I don't know many folks who hate the literature itself, though I'm sure they exist somewhere; however, dismissing some exegetical modes seems reasonable to me.
I generally agree with your take on how we should read these texts.
However, nobody (that I know of) has been using Shakespeare to justify preventing me from buying whiskey on a Sunday.
These texts are read as literal truth by the people where I live (rural Texas) and used to justify some pretty heinous things.
So at the same time that we might wish to read these books as literature, I understand the impulse to dismiss certain modes of reading these texts as harmful.
I don't know many folks who hate the literature itself, though I'm sure they exist somewhere; however, dismissing some exegetical modes seems reasonable to me.
> These texts are read as literal truth by the people where I live (rural Texas) and used to justify some pretty heinous things.
As a European who is pretty naive on this issue, I am slowly realizing how controversial my original post was as I am reading the responses here. I now regret writing it.
As a European who is pretty naive on this issue, I am slowly realizing how controversial my original post was as I am reading the responses here. I now regret writing it.
>I now regret writing it.
You shouldn't, you were completely correct, just not aware of how correct you were.
You shouldn't, you were completely correct, just not aware of how correct you were.
Except nowhere in the Bible does it say that you can not buy whisky on Sunday.
The prohibition against conducting business on the sabbath might be where this comes from.
Sure but the Sabbath is Saturday not Sunday. And current christian dogma is that the law is no longer required to be kept (Grace). So whatever mainstream christian religions do today in terms of what they "allow or do not allow" is just whatever they decided they wanted to allow or not allow. So these people are not reading the Bible and taking it literally, they are reading the Bible to get ideas on how tell others to not do, or do, whatever they approve of or don't approve of. It is rather...what would Christ say, Pharisaical?
There are many Christian sects that sync their day of rest with the Sabbath. I believe current Eastern Orthodox Christians observe Friday Evening to Saturday Evening as the day of rest and there are, as well, sub-sects in Catholic and Protestant Christianity which follow sabbatarian notions. I grew up near some Methodists which held the Sabbath. Then there's Messianic Judaism which is a whole other level of observation.
> And current christian dogma is that the law is no longer required to be kept (Grace). So whatever mainstream christian religions do today in terms of what they "allow or do not allow" is just whatever they decided they wanted to allow or not allow.
There's some truth to this and there's some over-simplification in this. There's a long, anguished tradition in Christianity with regard to figuring out what was meant by Christ coming to fulfill the law. James the Just, brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church, was clearly of the opinion that the Law was still valid and must be followed. Paul held that the Law had been superseded, though having been a pious Pharisee he can't help himself from re-introducing 'superseded' things back into the true and moral way for the new Christian community to live. That Pauline Christianity is the norm these days is very much due to the actions of the Romans in 70CE+.
I'd argue that most sects, at least at their outset, are attempting very earnestly to discern the Will as best they can but slight differences in emphasis will have outsize impact over time. Consider that the difference between Lutheranism and Catholicism can convincingly be argued to be rooted in an emphasis on Augustine's notion of the Individual Before God in the former and an emphasis on Augustine's notion of the Church Before God. Look at all the difference in relationship to worship that has blossomed out of that.
> So these people are not reading the Bible and taking it literally, they are reading the Bible to get ideas on how tell others to not do, or do, whatever they approve of or don't approve of.
Some do. Others behave this way because they've never lived outside of sect-specific hegemony, let alone Christian hegemony and it doesn't occur to them that they're enforcing a very specific way of life that should be chosen. Others follow a very ritualized faith and are, at some level, aware that it is only ritual and therefore fear people outside of the ritual. Kierkegaard spent a good chunk of his life thinking about this kind of ritualized worship and its degradation for the faith of a community.
Anyway.
I've read, though I can't for the life of me remember where, that the best thing for Christianity will be the utter destruction of Christendom. I quite agree.
> It is rather...what would Christ say, Pharisaical?
This would likely be Scribe-ish, given the lawyerly behavior. Luke and John tended to paint the Pharisees in a bad light -- amusingly, often, as stand-ins for the Romans -- but Jesus was sympathetic to the devout, even if he was unsparing in his criticism of hypocrisy.
> And current christian dogma is that the law is no longer required to be kept (Grace). So whatever mainstream christian religions do today in terms of what they "allow or do not allow" is just whatever they decided they wanted to allow or not allow.
There's some truth to this and there's some over-simplification in this. There's a long, anguished tradition in Christianity with regard to figuring out what was meant by Christ coming to fulfill the law. James the Just, brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church, was clearly of the opinion that the Law was still valid and must be followed. Paul held that the Law had been superseded, though having been a pious Pharisee he can't help himself from re-introducing 'superseded' things back into the true and moral way for the new Christian community to live. That Pauline Christianity is the norm these days is very much due to the actions of the Romans in 70CE+.
I'd argue that most sects, at least at their outset, are attempting very earnestly to discern the Will as best they can but slight differences in emphasis will have outsize impact over time. Consider that the difference between Lutheranism and Catholicism can convincingly be argued to be rooted in an emphasis on Augustine's notion of the Individual Before God in the former and an emphasis on Augustine's notion of the Church Before God. Look at all the difference in relationship to worship that has blossomed out of that.
> So these people are not reading the Bible and taking it literally, they are reading the Bible to get ideas on how tell others to not do, or do, whatever they approve of or don't approve of.
Some do. Others behave this way because they've never lived outside of sect-specific hegemony, let alone Christian hegemony and it doesn't occur to them that they're enforcing a very specific way of life that should be chosen. Others follow a very ritualized faith and are, at some level, aware that it is only ritual and therefore fear people outside of the ritual. Kierkegaard spent a good chunk of his life thinking about this kind of ritualized worship and its degradation for the faith of a community.
Anyway.
I've read, though I can't for the life of me remember where, that the best thing for Christianity will be the utter destruction of Christendom. I quite agree.
> It is rather...what would Christ say, Pharisaical?
This would likely be Scribe-ish, given the lawyerly behavior. Luke and John tended to paint the Pharisees in a bad light -- amusingly, often, as stand-ins for the Romans -- but Jesus was sympathetic to the devout, even if he was unsparing in his criticism of hypocrisy.
Jesus proclaimed Jewish leaders of the day as hypocrites for telling people to do as they said while not following their own preaching; in other words: committing sin.
Likewise, there is a great deal of biblical interpretation that goes off the rails and opposes Jesus' teachings as well as Old Testament (Torah/Tanakh) precedent.
As for historicity - the Bible has been repeatedly found to be accurate on many issues. Parts of Leviticus even read like a survival guide for a species[1] which includes what today would be considered food safety standards, quarantine procedures, etc. Highly effective practices for a nascent culture.
I was surprised when I read the Old Testament myself, since it was nothing like what I had previously thought. Unless a person reads it himself, it's effectively impossible to understand the impact - it is no normal book, no simple collection of poetry or wisdom.
Western civilization is build upon a Judeo-Christian value foundation, yet we hardly have a conscious connection to it anymore - many only have a vague notion of all religiouns having some element of truth. Even the scientific method is a magnificent tool that is described biblically: we are to test everything! Regardless of which translation is read, the core message comes through powerfully - it is easier to accept when we admit to not knowing everything; humanity as a superorganism is like an overly-confident teenager.
I have found no other teaching that denies its followers any humanly-possible way to enter heaven/paradise/transcendence - I am not aware of anyplace in the Old Testament that describes a process for getting there, only atonement; Jesus explicitly stated that it is impossible for man to get there on his own[2]. Other beliefs put a balancing scale in the mix, where doing more good than bad is what gains entry.
Judaism & Christianity focus on relationship, not religion. This grace is also what gets a person into heaven, since nobody can buy or work their way in - it is a gift for anyone who accepts God[3]. This is different from mercy - being lenient when another is due punishment. Mercy is reducing a fine; grace is opening a door for a child who is struggling to do so himself - God gives us both since we're guilty and yet still children as a whole.
Additionally, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob pursues humanity[4] instead of the other way around elsewhere. What other god serves rather than demands, only asking us to do the same?
[1] If it is a white bright spot on the skin of his body, but it does not appear to be deeper than the skin, and the hair has not turned white, then the priest is to quarantine the person with the infection for seven days. ~Leviticus 13:4
[2] Jesus looked at them and replied, “This is impossible for mere humans, but not for God; all things are possible for God.” ~Mark 10:27
[3] For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God ~Ephesians 2:8
[4] What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine and go to the mountains to seek the one that is straying? ~Matthew 18:12
Likewise, there is a great deal of biblical interpretation that goes off the rails and opposes Jesus' teachings as well as Old Testament (Torah/Tanakh) precedent.
As for historicity - the Bible has been repeatedly found to be accurate on many issues. Parts of Leviticus even read like a survival guide for a species[1] which includes what today would be considered food safety standards, quarantine procedures, etc. Highly effective practices for a nascent culture.
I was surprised when I read the Old Testament myself, since it was nothing like what I had previously thought. Unless a person reads it himself, it's effectively impossible to understand the impact - it is no normal book, no simple collection of poetry or wisdom.
Western civilization is build upon a Judeo-Christian value foundation, yet we hardly have a conscious connection to it anymore - many only have a vague notion of all religiouns having some element of truth. Even the scientific method is a magnificent tool that is described biblically: we are to test everything! Regardless of which translation is read, the core message comes through powerfully - it is easier to accept when we admit to not knowing everything; humanity as a superorganism is like an overly-confident teenager.
I have found no other teaching that denies its followers any humanly-possible way to enter heaven/paradise/transcendence - I am not aware of anyplace in the Old Testament that describes a process for getting there, only atonement; Jesus explicitly stated that it is impossible for man to get there on his own[2]. Other beliefs put a balancing scale in the mix, where doing more good than bad is what gains entry.
Judaism & Christianity focus on relationship, not religion. This grace is also what gets a person into heaven, since nobody can buy or work their way in - it is a gift for anyone who accepts God[3]. This is different from mercy - being lenient when another is due punishment. Mercy is reducing a fine; grace is opening a door for a child who is struggling to do so himself - God gives us both since we're guilty and yet still children as a whole.
Additionally, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob pursues humanity[4] instead of the other way around elsewhere. What other god serves rather than demands, only asking us to do the same?
[1] If it is a white bright spot on the skin of his body, but it does not appear to be deeper than the skin, and the hair has not turned white, then the priest is to quarantine the person with the infection for seven days. ~Leviticus 13:4
[2] Jesus looked at them and replied, “This is impossible for mere humans, but not for God; all things are possible for God.” ~Mark 10:27
[3] For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God ~Ephesians 2:8
[4] What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine and go to the mountains to seek the one that is straying? ~Matthew 18:12
Yeah, I know, I've read it.
One of my fond childhood memories is not being able to buy this cheap, blue, plastic squirtgun because it was Sunday.
I'm pretty sure that's not in the bible either, but theocrats gonna do what they do.
One of my fond childhood memories is not being able to buy this cheap, blue, plastic squirtgun because it was Sunday.
I'm pretty sure that's not in the bible either, but theocrats gonna do what they do.
And still it is used!
Just like it never says anything against stem cell research or homosexuality.
Just like it never says anything against stem cell research or homosexuality.
The difference is that nobody was ever burn for proclaiming that Dante's work was just fiction. If you were in the wrong place at the wrong time, saying that these texts are "unrealistic" would get you in trouble.
The fact that people were burnt alive says more about the people in power than about any text. Certain people in power will always find ways to persecute people that disagree with them. See also, the French Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution, Mao's Great Leap, and many other sad episodes where nasty people achieved power.
There is no motivation in the teachings of Christ to burn people alive. Quite the contrary.
There is no motivation in the teachings of Christ to burn people alive. Quite the contrary.
I agree with your first paragraph, but I really, really have to ask you: don't you consider the threat of being burned for all eternity, postulated by Jesus himself as a punishment for not believing not enough motivation?
That would be a motivation to believe yourself, or maybe to altruistically try to convert someone else, not to make the problem worse by getting someone else's burning started early.
You cannot blame the texts for being universal enough to be used as state philosophy during various times in the last 4000 years. And you certainly cannot use your point as an argument against religious texts in general. It was entirely possible to be executed for saying that Hitler's, Lenin's or Mao's texts were just fiction.
The Hitler, Lenin, Mao problems were temporary and not constantly ongoing for thousands of years while in essence defended pretty much world-wide. Not to mention the need for Hitler to have the support of the church.
A thousand years from now, perhaps Harry potter fans will be literally waging war on star wars fans
L. Ron Hubbard fans are already waging war on anyone who crosses them.
And that the star wars religion will be split into three sects, one for each trilogy (all hail the prequels)
in my experience, the atheists that mocked the unrealism of the scripture did so as a reaction to christian fundamentalists, who interpreted it literally and until recently wielded considerable political power
>Of course they are unrealistic - but so are the works of Shakespeare, or Dante, or Goethe, or any great poet in the last 3000 years.
Last time I checked, there weren't nations willing to go to war and religious orders wiling to persecute and murder people based on the works of Shakespeare, Dante, or Goethe.
Last time I checked, there weren't nations willing to go to war and religious orders wiling to persecute and murder people based on the works of Shakespeare, Dante, or Goethe.
What about Hitler or Marx or Engels? It isn't just religious texts that result in wars.
Those texts were treated as religious texts in the regimes that followed them.
But they do result in them often enough, dont they? Or are at least used to justify a lot of war-related actions.
how else would/could be an atheist (or believer, for that matter) if not self-proclaimed? Does an atheist need external vetting to be a proper atheist?
Also, what was the reason for the ironic quotation marks, do you imply those aren't real atheists?
To be fair, there is an argument to be made that a person's beliefs are better represented by their actual behavior under the conditions of life, rather than what they profess about them in hypotheticals. In that perspective, the best way to be an atheist would be to simply act like one.
Atheism is not a thing, it is not a religion nor a political position; it is not a cult where everybody acts the same, thus you cannot "act like an atheist". There are no actions you are required to perform in order to be considered an atheist. You can even go to church every sunday, as many atheists do, and still be an atheist.
You can "act like an atheist" by not making decisions which are based on the presumption that a deity will intervene. Pretty basic stuff here.
This misrepresents religious belief. I don't make my decisions based on the presumption that a deity will intervene, and I do believe in God. In fact, making such a decision is called a leap of faith, and they're not to be taken lightly. When I'm not taking leaps of faith, that is, most of the time, I act the same way anybody would.
>I don't make my decisions based on the presumption that a deity will intervene, and I do believe in God.
Ok...
> In fact, making such a decision is called a leap of faith, and they're not to be taken lightly.
Here you're formulating an argument which presumably states that it is good to take a leap of faith, indirectly claiming that "a deity will intervene" is a valid assumption one should take when making decisions.
This is distinctly not what an atheist would do. This is exactly the kind of decision that one would make only if they thought a deity can intervene.
>most of the time, I act the same way anybody would.
"Anybody" includes atheists. So when I say "act like an atheist", you do understand that the word "like" implies a comparative analogy, yes?
You don't act like an atheist sometimes. (Like when you made this comment.) You do other times. Not sure what's being misrepresented about your beliefs here.
In fact, I feel as though I said "to be an X, you must jump off a bridge", and you shout up "I never jumped off a bridge, but I am an X!" as you plummet into the river below me. Like... you just literally did what I said you had to do to be the thing you said you are. I'm not sure how there's anything wrong with what I said just because you are unaware of what assumptions you are making.
Ok...
> In fact, making such a decision is called a leap of faith, and they're not to be taken lightly.
Here you're formulating an argument which presumably states that it is good to take a leap of faith, indirectly claiming that "a deity will intervene" is a valid assumption one should take when making decisions.
This is distinctly not what an atheist would do. This is exactly the kind of decision that one would make only if they thought a deity can intervene.
>most of the time, I act the same way anybody would.
"Anybody" includes atheists. So when I say "act like an atheist", you do understand that the word "like" implies a comparative analogy, yes?
You don't act like an atheist sometimes. (Like when you made this comment.) You do other times. Not sure what's being misrepresented about your beliefs here.
In fact, I feel as though I said "to be an X, you must jump off a bridge", and you shout up "I never jumped off a bridge, but I am an X!" as you plummet into the river below me. Like... you just literally did what I said you had to do to be the thing you said you are. I'm not sure how there's anything wrong with what I said just because you are unaware of what assumptions you are making.
> Here you're formulating an argument which presumably states that it is good to take a leap of faith, indirectly claiming that "a deity will intervene" is a valid assumption one should take when making decisions.
One doesn't have to presume, you could just ask. God can intervene, or not. Assuming intervention is not normally done. When it happens, it's usually for the better, and in a way that one didn't expect. This is generally called serendipity. Assuming serendipity will happen is a good way to get it to never happen, most believers will tell you that. I personally find serendipity all the time, but never where I assume or expect.
Assuming it will happen is a leap of faith and is not necessarily a good thing. God may decide not to intervene and leave you to your fate. Nonbelievers simply describe such things as luck, but believers ascribe agency to what others consider to be random events. That is the difference you're looking for, and if you don't want to be accused of misrepresenting theism, you should just stick to that.
Let's put this in D&D terms. God is the dungeon master, I am a player character. What you're saying is tantamount to saying I'm expecting the DM to just save me from the consequences of every stupid decision I make. I'm saying, no, I just ascribe agency to the DM's actions. The difference might not mean much to you, but it's very important to a believer.
You are making a false equivalence here in equating belief with assumption of intervention.
> "Anybody" includes atheists. So when I say "act like an atheist", you do understand that the word "like" implies a comparative analogy, yes?
> You don't act like an atheist sometimes. (Like when you made this comment.)
I think anybody, atheists included, would want to explain their position. I'd be curious as to exactly in what way I'm not acting like an atheist by responding here. I have a position, I am explaining it. An atheist would have a position and they would want to explain it.
Even though the position is not shared, the underlying impetus to action is the same. Therefore I am acting like anyone, including an atheist. The specific position, atheist or theist, only affects specifics, not essence. I'm acting like an atheist, in that the essence of what we're doing is similar, but the specifics differ because of the necessary difference in position.
> In fact, I feel as though I said "to be an X, you must jump off a bridge", and you shout up "I never jumped off a bridge, but I am an X!" as you plummet into the river below me. Like...
We don't need to concoct a silly hypothetical analogy, we can simply use your words. You said theists assume God will intervene, and that's how they make decisions. This misrepresents how theists operate. I am explaining that difference. Atheists act the same way all the time, when theists misrepresent their views.
One doesn't have to presume, you could just ask. God can intervene, or not. Assuming intervention is not normally done. When it happens, it's usually for the better, and in a way that one didn't expect. This is generally called serendipity. Assuming serendipity will happen is a good way to get it to never happen, most believers will tell you that. I personally find serendipity all the time, but never where I assume or expect.
Assuming it will happen is a leap of faith and is not necessarily a good thing. God may decide not to intervene and leave you to your fate. Nonbelievers simply describe such things as luck, but believers ascribe agency to what others consider to be random events. That is the difference you're looking for, and if you don't want to be accused of misrepresenting theism, you should just stick to that.
Let's put this in D&D terms. God is the dungeon master, I am a player character. What you're saying is tantamount to saying I'm expecting the DM to just save me from the consequences of every stupid decision I make. I'm saying, no, I just ascribe agency to the DM's actions. The difference might not mean much to you, but it's very important to a believer.
You are making a false equivalence here in equating belief with assumption of intervention.
> "Anybody" includes atheists. So when I say "act like an atheist", you do understand that the word "like" implies a comparative analogy, yes?
> You don't act like an atheist sometimes. (Like when you made this comment.)
I think anybody, atheists included, would want to explain their position. I'd be curious as to exactly in what way I'm not acting like an atheist by responding here. I have a position, I am explaining it. An atheist would have a position and they would want to explain it.
Even though the position is not shared, the underlying impetus to action is the same. Therefore I am acting like anyone, including an atheist. The specific position, atheist or theist, only affects specifics, not essence. I'm acting like an atheist, in that the essence of what we're doing is similar, but the specifics differ because of the necessary difference in position.
> In fact, I feel as though I said "to be an X, you must jump off a bridge", and you shout up "I never jumped off a bridge, but I am an X!" as you plummet into the river below me. Like...
We don't need to concoct a silly hypothetical analogy, we can simply use your words. You said theists assume God will intervene, and that's how they make decisions. This misrepresents how theists operate. I am explaining that difference. Atheists act the same way all the time, when theists misrepresent their views.
You're nitpicking that I said "a deity will intervene" instead of "a deity might intervene," which is really very irrelevant to what I'm getting at. (Especially when talking about it as an assumption which is used to justify some behavior.) I'm not trying to have a religious argument, I'm trying to have an argument about how to practically classify and understand humans and their beliefs.
>I think anybody, atheists included, would want to explain their position. I'd be curious as to exactly in what way I'm not acting like an atheist by responding here. I have a position, I am explaining it. An atheist would have a position and they would want to explain it.
An atheist would not explain the position that you're explaining. The existence of a commonality doesn't preclude any differences. I'm simply arguing that the differences exist and are very important when understanding what people believe.
When I said "act like an atheist" I meant it. I meant act exactly like an atheist -- make the decisions they would be expected to make -- up to and including the decision of what specific positions they might take up defense of.
>I think anybody, atheists included, would want to explain their position. I'd be curious as to exactly in what way I'm not acting like an atheist by responding here. I have a position, I am explaining it. An atheist would have a position and they would want to explain it.
An atheist would not explain the position that you're explaining. The existence of a commonality doesn't preclude any differences. I'm simply arguing that the differences exist and are very important when understanding what people believe.
When I said "act like an atheist" I meant it. I meant act exactly like an atheist -- make the decisions they would be expected to make -- up to and including the decision of what specific positions they might take up defense of.
I'm glad you edited your response.
> An atheist would not explain the position that you're explaining. The existence of a commonality doesn't preclude any differences. I'm simply arguing that the differences exist and are very important when understanding what people believe.
Now it's you that's nitpicking. The specifics only matter when you want them to matter. When they're inconvenient to you, you simply say you don't want to have a religious discussion. If you want to say what theists do and why, you're having a religious discussion. Because the reasons are important.
Me saying I'm acting like anyone would is right in line with how everybody else would use that phrase. If I get mad at something, it's just like everyone else getting mad at something, even if the reasons why I'm getting mad are different. Acting like someone is not doing exactly the same thing. Postgres has a LIKE operator, and it's not the equivalence operator.
> An atheist would not explain the position that you're explaining. The existence of a commonality doesn't preclude any differences. I'm simply arguing that the differences exist and are very important when understanding what people believe.
Now it's you that's nitpicking. The specifics only matter when you want them to matter. When they're inconvenient to you, you simply say you don't want to have a religious discussion. If you want to say what theists do and why, you're having a religious discussion. Because the reasons are important.
Me saying I'm acting like anyone would is right in line with how everybody else would use that phrase. If I get mad at something, it's just like everyone else getting mad at something, even if the reasons why I'm getting mad are different. Acting like someone is not doing exactly the same thing. Postgres has a LIKE operator, and it's not the equivalence operator.
The specifics matter because that's the subject under discussion. A person is an atheist because of the specific things they do to be one. The use of the word "atheist" is what dictates which facts are relevant to the determination, not what is convenient to me.
I'd be having the exact same discussion if we were talking about what makes an auto mechanic and auto mechanic. Particularly if someone started by trying to argue that saying "I am an auto mechanic" is the only relevant fact to the matter. To be an auto mechanic, you have to act like one. That is, you have to do the things which fit the expectations and meaning of the term.
That's it. That's all I've been discussing this whole time. You keep trying to drag it into the weeds because you're offended or something. Lets end this tedious conversation already.
I'd be having the exact same discussion if we were talking about what makes an auto mechanic and auto mechanic. Particularly if someone started by trying to argue that saying "I am an auto mechanic" is the only relevant fact to the matter. To be an auto mechanic, you have to act like one. That is, you have to do the things which fit the expectations and meaning of the term.
That's it. That's all I've been discussing this whole time. You keep trying to drag it into the weeds because you're offended or something. Lets end this tedious conversation already.
Fine, whatever. I shouldn't expect an atheist to be able to be specific about what a theist is. After all, you need belief to even be able to begin to understand it anyway. Sure, ok, let's talk about atheism instead. If only so you can have a sure footing. I'll ask the questions so you can answer.
> A person is an atheist because of the specific things they do to be one.
That claim is... fascinating. It hearkens all the way back to the beginning of Christianity. Faith, what you call belief, is what makes you a Christian. According to you, works, actions, is what makes you an atheist. Most atheists tell me that it's lack of belief / faith that makes you an atheist. You're literally the first atheist in my 15 years of exploring the space that has said to me that it's actions that makes you an atheist, not lack of belief. I have never even once contemplated that atheism could be so like Islam in this way. So understand that your claim is quite the interesting one to me.
So are you saying that there are atheists in name but not in deed? That there are atheists who don't toe the party line, so shouldn't be considered "real" atheists? Because that's the space you're inhabiting here when you claim it's by action and not by belief.
It would be a rather fun debate space to play in, markedly different from the usual one where I have to take ever finer slices out of what the meaning of "belief" is so as to show that the atheist's position necessarily reflects belief instead of the lack thereof, and then showing that the "agnostic atheist" is belied by his actual debate style rather than his stated (non-) beliefs.
> A person is an atheist because of the specific things they do to be one.
That claim is... fascinating. It hearkens all the way back to the beginning of Christianity. Faith, what you call belief, is what makes you a Christian. According to you, works, actions, is what makes you an atheist. Most atheists tell me that it's lack of belief / faith that makes you an atheist. You're literally the first atheist in my 15 years of exploring the space that has said to me that it's actions that makes you an atheist, not lack of belief. I have never even once contemplated that atheism could be so like Islam in this way. So understand that your claim is quite the interesting one to me.
So are you saying that there are atheists in name but not in deed? That there are atheists who don't toe the party line, so shouldn't be considered "real" atheists? Because that's the space you're inhabiting here when you claim it's by action and not by belief.
It would be a rather fun debate space to play in, markedly different from the usual one where I have to take ever finer slices out of what the meaning of "belief" is so as to show that the atheist's position necessarily reflects belief instead of the lack thereof, and then showing that the "agnostic atheist" is belied by his actual debate style rather than his stated (non-) beliefs.
[deleted]
>However, it makes me extremely sad if self-proclaimed "atheists" make fun of the the Bible / Torah / Koran by pointing out how unrealistic almost all of the texts are.
I don't think atheists would have a problem with anyone treating the Bible (or any religious text) as literature, since there would be a lot less religious violence in the event that religious doctrine couldn't be cited as an absolute authority.
But, many modern Christians insist that the Bible must be taken literally, and that it should be taught as science, or presented as an alternative to science. Those are the people atheists are making fun of, and they deserve the ridicule.
> If you just dismiss these religious texts as opium for the dull medieval masses, you might miss some deep poetical truths about mankind that just cannot be stated explicitly because of the shortcomings of any human language described above.
What Karl Marx meant by that is not that religion makes people stupid and compliant (although sometimes it kind of can,) but that people use religion to soothe the burdens of life in an unjust and cruel world... and that the illusory comfort offered by religion often stands in the way of making real societal progress. People who believe that God alone will punish the wicked and reward the righteous and that every event, no matter how capricious or unjust, is part of some divine plan, will simply tolerate the world and trust God to change it, rather than try to change it themselves.
And yet much of what could be considered progressive moral change in society has occurred in spite of religion, either through secular or scientific ideas pushing against religious authority and supernaturalism, or through reform within the religious community itself.
I don't think atheists would have a problem with anyone treating the Bible (or any religious text) as literature, since there would be a lot less religious violence in the event that religious doctrine couldn't be cited as an absolute authority.
But, many modern Christians insist that the Bible must be taken literally, and that it should be taught as science, or presented as an alternative to science. Those are the people atheists are making fun of, and they deserve the ridicule.
> If you just dismiss these religious texts as opium for the dull medieval masses, you might miss some deep poetical truths about mankind that just cannot be stated explicitly because of the shortcomings of any human language described above.
What Karl Marx meant by that is not that religion makes people stupid and compliant (although sometimes it kind of can,) but that people use religion to soothe the burdens of life in an unjust and cruel world... and that the illusory comfort offered by religion often stands in the way of making real societal progress. People who believe that God alone will punish the wicked and reward the righteous and that every event, no matter how capricious or unjust, is part of some divine plan, will simply tolerate the world and trust God to change it, rather than try to change it themselves.
And yet much of what could be considered progressive moral change in society has occurred in spite of religion, either through secular or scientific ideas pushing against religious authority and supernaturalism, or through reform within the religious community itself.
> But, many modern Christians insist that the Bible must be taken literally, and that it should be taught as science, or presented as an alternative to science. Those are the people atheists are making fun of, and they deserve the ridicule.
I think where people went wrong with this is that what at the heart of it people really want to mean is that the Bible is something they use to base their life around. Then other people come along and tell them that science is what they base their lives around. And instead of realizing that the two are different and there is inherent value in both, they responded by saying, "Well, my Bible is science."
At their heart, religious texts are accumulated wisdom that has held up over many generations. It is different from science in its ability to predict the world, but fairly similar in the way it can guide personal experience and expectations within the world.
I think where people went wrong with this is that what at the heart of it people really want to mean is that the Bible is something they use to base their life around. Then other people come along and tell them that science is what they base their lives around. And instead of realizing that the two are different and there is inherent value in both, they responded by saying, "Well, my Bible is science."
At their heart, religious texts are accumulated wisdom that has held up over many generations. It is different from science in its ability to predict the world, but fairly similar in the way it can guide personal experience and expectations within the world.
I completely agree, and my paraphrasing of Marx was not against him, but against people using his quote blindly. But my original post was not about religion - again, I am no expert in any religion and don't consider myself religious - but about religious texts. But I might have massively (and shockingly) underestimated how much they are connected to the religion itself in the minds of many people.
Karl Marx, whose ideas have been used to justify so much mayhem, misery, and death - all in the name of 'progress'. I think we do without more of that sort of progress.
So you're advocating abandoning scientific and Enlightenment principles and returning to societies based on superstition and theocratic authoritarianism?
That seems like an odd stance to take given how much mayhem, misery and death religion has caused but to each their own, I guess.
That seems like an odd stance to take given how much mayhem, misery and death religion has caused but to each their own, I guess.
Societies based on Marxism - are they not based on superstition and theocratic authoritarianism? Marxism is a non-falsifiable theory that appears to explain things, but in reality it's just wrong, as shown by the many experiments conducted to make it work.
Scientific and enlightenment principles got a huge push from the Bible. The Bible makes certain truth claims that make science possible, such as the claim that there is a physical universe that is worth studying in its own right. Many other belief systems emphasize that you can only know the physical through the metaphysical.
Scientific and enlightenment principles got a huge push from the Bible. The Bible makes certain truth claims that make science possible, such as the claim that there is a physical universe that is worth studying in its own right. Many other belief systems emphasize that you can only know the physical through the metaphysical.
>Societies based on Marxism - are they not based on superstition and theocratic authoritarianism?
Neither my comment or the quote by Marx were referring to Marxism or advocating a society based on Marxism.
And no, a philosophy that rejects religion can't be based on theocratic authoritarianism, because theocratic authoritarianism draws its claim of authority from divine right.
>The Bible makes certain truth claims that make science possible, such as the claim that there is a physical universe that is worth studying in its own right.
The Bible claims that God created the earth and the universe in seven days, man directly from the dust of the earth, and woman from the rib of the first man. The Bible's claims certainly do not make science possible. No one needs the Bible to claim that there is a physical universe worth studying, to see that this is the case.
On the other hand, people still believe evolution is heresy because of Genesis, and will pray themselves and their children to death believing God will cure them and that modern medical science is sinful. Belief in miasma theory and Platonism, while not Christian, were religious in nature and held back progress in various scientific fields and public health.
Religion may hold value in society as a medium for spreading cultural identity and moral teachings, but deserves no credit for the cause of science, except perhaps as the means by which early scientists and philosophers approached inquiry (as a means of better understanding God's creation.)
But even then, the inevitable result was not to understand God, but to expose and dismantle the facade of religion, claim by spurious claim.
Neither my comment or the quote by Marx were referring to Marxism or advocating a society based on Marxism.
And no, a philosophy that rejects religion can't be based on theocratic authoritarianism, because theocratic authoritarianism draws its claim of authority from divine right.
>The Bible makes certain truth claims that make science possible, such as the claim that there is a physical universe that is worth studying in its own right.
The Bible claims that God created the earth and the universe in seven days, man directly from the dust of the earth, and woman from the rib of the first man. The Bible's claims certainly do not make science possible. No one needs the Bible to claim that there is a physical universe worth studying, to see that this is the case.
On the other hand, people still believe evolution is heresy because of Genesis, and will pray themselves and their children to death believing God will cure them and that modern medical science is sinful. Belief in miasma theory and Platonism, while not Christian, were religious in nature and held back progress in various scientific fields and public health.
Religion may hold value in society as a medium for spreading cultural identity and moral teachings, but deserves no credit for the cause of science, except perhaps as the means by which early scientists and philosophers approached inquiry (as a means of better understanding God's creation.)
But even then, the inevitable result was not to understand God, but to expose and dismantle the facade of religion, claim by spurious claim.
> What Karl Marx meant by that is not that religion makes people stupid and compliant (although sometimes it kind of can,) but that people use religion to soothe the burdens of life in an unjust and cruel world... and that the illusory comfort offered by religion often stands in the way of making real societal progress. People who believe that God alone will punish the wicked and reward the righteous and that every event, no matter how capricious or unjust, is part of some divine plan, will simply tolerate the world and trust God to change it, rather than try to change it themselves.
This, a thousand times.
This, a thousand times.
>Then there is Alter’s preference for “between his legs” rather than “between his feet,” which is used in all three of the earlier versions quoted above. A staff between Judah’s feet sounds like it is planted firmly on the ground, but a mace between his legs has a distinctly more phallic implication, as Alter acknowledges in his note: “the image of the mace between the legs surely suggests virile power in political leadership.” This is a vivid image of patriarchy, entirely appropriate for a speech in which a father is passing sovereignty down to his sons.
It sounds like the ancient culture wasn't living up to the modern reader's expectations for how ancient literature was supposed to be read, so they burried some nuts so that the other modern readers could find them as they expected to.
It sounds like the ancient culture wasn't living up to the modern reader's expectations for how ancient literature was supposed to be read, so they burried some nuts so that the other modern readers could find them as they expected to.
Well it even gets better.
1 Kings 12:10 The young men who had grown up with him replied, "These people have said to you, 'Your father put a heavy yoke on us, but make our yoke lighter.' Now tell them, 'My little finger is thicker than my father's waist.
Little finger means his penis.
1 Kings 12:10 The young men who had grown up with him replied, "These people have said to you, 'Your father put a heavy yoke on us, but make our yoke lighter.' Now tell them, 'My little finger is thicker than my father's waist.
Little finger means his penis.
The Hebrew version does not mention a finger. It just says "my little" - קָֽטָנִּ֥י
Well the English translations add finger for a specific reasons. It was really funny to talk about this in my second year of Hebrew. Hebrew is a really pictorial language and it just made me die laughing. Another not as fun one is to look at Noah and what it meant to have his son look at his father's nakedness.
Fascinating that this made it on to the front-page of HN. I feel sorry for this fellow in as much as his surname must cause some terrific confusion.
The King James version has remained popular as a result of its wonderful prose - to see someone approach the Hebrew Bible from a modern angle with the same intent is very interesting - I'll be having a read.
The King James version has remained popular as a result of its wonderful prose - to see someone approach the Hebrew Bible from a modern angle with the same intent is very interesting - I'll be having a read.
Trivia: the discussions that led to the suggestion to King James VI to create a new bible were held in a church a couple of miles from where I am currently sitting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burntisland_Parish_Church
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burntisland_Parish_Church
> Kink James VI
Quality Freudian slip here.
Quality Freudian slip here.
Reminds me of the Amboy Dukes song "Surrender To Your Kings", which on Amazon music is listed as "Surrender To Your Kinks". I wish there was some way to fix that because that error has propagated around the web.
Right! I did not expect hacker news to produce some bible nerdery. Kind of cool, I'll take it.
Translating Bible is a difficult task. There are usually two camps of philosophy of Bible translation. There's the word-for-word style where words are translated literally, rather than its intended meaning -- such as the classic King James Version (1611 AD), and more modern NKJV, NASB and ESV. Then there's thought-for-thought style, where it is translated based on its connotation, intention, and geared for modern English -- such as the popular NIV, NLT, and more paraphrase-style translations. I prefer the more literal Bible, but it also makes reading certain passages more difficult, since the original word used may not have the same connotation in English, and there are ancient idioms that may not make sense in English.
The KJV is not a word-for-word literal translation, nor is the NIV a paraphrase.
There's a lot more nuance involved.
Reading the KJV gives you difficulty because the translation was made in 1615 and the English language has changed significantly since then.
There's a lot more nuance involved.
Reading the KJV gives you difficulty because the translation was made in 1615 and the English language has changed significantly since then.
Then went to be preferable to have a literal translation plus translator's notes alongside? There's already a long tradition of putting commentary alongside the original text, and this seems like a perfect fit for it.
Understanding the Bible by Stephen L. Harris is a great comprehensive textbook for any person trying to understand the historical and metaphorical meaning in the Bible.
It's formatted like a college textbook but i found it very readable for casual learning.
I've always been fascinated by the difficulties of translation.
There is the issue of expressing the original thought. Already I've edited this post several times.
Then there is the issue of the surrounding context which will be different for different people. Even for people in the same culture at the same time in the same place.
Then the issue of the attitude of the reader. It's not uncommon to get different meanings from the same text on different days.
Now with the Biblical text we have copies of text from a different time, culture, and language. I like how this article shows how hard it is to handle even one sentence.
There is the issue of expressing the original thought. Already I've edited this post several times.
Then there is the issue of the surrounding context which will be different for different people. Even for people in the same culture at the same time in the same place.
Then the issue of the attitude of the reader. It's not uncommon to get different meanings from the same text on different days.
Now with the Biblical text we have copies of text from a different time, culture, and language. I like how this article shows how hard it is to handle even one sentence.
And that's just meaning. I found that preserving the style can be an equally hard thing to do from a language to another.
As well as sarcasm, emphasis, irony, puns....
I really like this sentence from Douglas Hofstadter: "Every word in this sentence is a gross misspelling of the word 'tomato'."
There are so many ways a translator could go with that.
I really like this sentence from Douglas Hofstadter: "Every word in this sentence is a gross misspelling of the word 'tomato'."
There are so many ways a translator could go with that.
Could you share a few of them? Only one springs to my mind ...
I'd prefer a translator that just gave me the words and sentences. As a receiver of that information I can learn to do my own interpretation. Imperfectly and only after some thought and experience, but at least the translator won't be 'in the way' changing the message.
I am left jumping to the conclusion that you don't speak a second (living) language. There are very often thoughts in one language that can not be directly expressed in another specific language. I have those problems quite often between English and German (meaning the modern versions). Sometimes you need multiple sentences to explain, even in approximate terms, things that need only a single word in the other language (e.x.: "genau" or "gemutlichkeit" in German, or "subtle" in English). And here I am not talking about idiom (which can change rapidly). And German and English are contemporary languages, with cultures that are driving them together (think all of the U.S. films that are translated into German).
Now add that the Bible was written in a few now-dead languages, with 1900-2200 years since it was first written, and you are going to get a lot of differences in thought, much of which requires you to have knowledge that you are not going to be able to come up with thinking through it yourself.
Two examples of how fast things can change: 1. When I first went to Germany the word "geil" explicitly meant someone who was attractive, or good at sex. So it was not really part of polite speech. 10 years later I went back to the same part of Germany and the word now was used in normal conversations and meant "really good", without any sexual connotations. 2. If you look at American Pilgrim literature you see a lot of references to "God is great", usually alongside the phrase "God fearing" when talking about religious people. This is because just a few hundred years ago the word "great" in English specifically meant "powerful" in a violent way. Nowadays if you listen to a Christian sermon in the U.S. they will still say "God is great", but will be talking about how gentle and loving God is.
Language can move really fast, and thinking that you understand something that someone wrote hundreds of years ago without a good interpreter is unrealistic. There is always going to be an interpreter in the way. And one who just "translates the words" is not doing you any favors.
Now add that the Bible was written in a few now-dead languages, with 1900-2200 years since it was first written, and you are going to get a lot of differences in thought, much of which requires you to have knowledge that you are not going to be able to come up with thinking through it yourself.
Two examples of how fast things can change: 1. When I first went to Germany the word "geil" explicitly meant someone who was attractive, or good at sex. So it was not really part of polite speech. 10 years later I went back to the same part of Germany and the word now was used in normal conversations and meant "really good", without any sexual connotations. 2. If you look at American Pilgrim literature you see a lot of references to "God is great", usually alongside the phrase "God fearing" when talking about religious people. This is because just a few hundred years ago the word "great" in English specifically meant "powerful" in a violent way. Nowadays if you listen to a Christian sermon in the U.S. they will still say "God is great", but will be talking about how gentle and loving God is.
Language can move really fast, and thinking that you understand something that someone wrote hundreds of years ago without a good interpreter is unrealistic. There is always going to be an interpreter in the way. And one who just "translates the words" is not doing you any favors.
Oh yes historical language, that's a deep subject.
It's impossible to not have the translator on the way. Even if you reduce the translation to words and sentences, the are plenty of ways to translate a word or a sentence that while being gramatically correct, could alter the meaning, you would still need the translator to pick the right one and not change the message.
So, in your translation, you'll still have the main disadvantage of relying on the translator, while gaining nothing.
So, in your translation, you'll still have the main disadvantage of relying on the translator, while gaining nothing.
Yet people in that language do it all the time. I'm thinking I'd rather learn their idiom, than have it spoon-fed to me. Depends on what you're doing I guess
There are two versions of the poem “Ozymandias”[1][2]. They tell the exact same story but in two completely different ways. After reading both, I’m almost certain you will find one more effective than the other. So I hope you reconsider that some ideas are not simply reducible to plain statements.
[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozymandias#Comparison_of_the_t...
[2]:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdQKUvv3bew (recited)
[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozymandias#Comparison_of_the_t...
[2]:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdQKUvv3bew (recited)
I happen to personally agree, not least because I don't necessarily trust the motivations of some alterations, but it is worth remembering that this raises the bar for reading and understanding. There is the difference between something that any lay person can read and get a reasonable understanding, and something that requires you to be a scholar of ancient Greek to understand.
>Alter’s Bible doesn’t seek that kind of canonical status; it is not out to replace the Hebrew Bible, but to engage in a dialogue with it.
The idea of engaging in a dialogue with the Bible is very important. It should not be viewed as books set in stone, but as living documents that speak to us today.
'Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.' (Matthew 13:52)
The idea of engaging in a dialogue with the Bible is very important. It should not be viewed as books set in stone, but as living documents that speak to us today.
'Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.' (Matthew 13:52)
Orthodox Jew here who went through the Yeshiva system (~10 years of full-time study).
If you haven't read the Bible in the original Hebrew here's an analogy: imagine the tactile, raw feel of Robert Frost, how the language he employs and the deliberate choice of words makes his poems feel as if they rhyme. Now compact all that into the extreme terseness of Emily Dickinson.
My weekly highlight is the public reading of the Prophets in the synagogue every Sabbath. The language, the rhythm, it's beautiful.
If you haven't read the Bible in the original Hebrew here's an analogy: imagine the tactile, raw feel of Robert Frost, how the language he employs and the deliberate choice of words makes his poems feel as if they rhyme. Now compact all that into the extreme terseness of Emily Dickinson.
My weekly highlight is the public reading of the Prophets in the synagogue every Sabbath. The language, the rhythm, it's beautiful.
It reminds me of "The Book of Genesis Illustrated by R. Crumb" (https://www.amazon.com/Book-Genesis-Illustrated-R-Crumb/dp/0...), which I enjoyed.
He, as an atheist, tries to present it in the raw form, without "explaining the hidden message" or any religious interpretation (neither Jewish nor Christian).
He, as an atheist, tries to present it in the raw form, without "explaining the hidden message" or any religious interpretation (neither Jewish nor Christian).
The difficulties translators have with any text should be a reminder of how painfully inadequate any language is as a mediator between two different brains. So much depends in context.
> Perhaps the first person to openly suggest otherwise was Baruch Spinoza, the 17th-century Jewish philosopher, who daringly wrote that the books of the Bible ought to be studied in just the same way we would study Greek and Italian poetry.
This, 100 times. I am not a religious person at all. However, it makes me extremely sad if self-proclaimed "atheists" make fun of the the Bible / Torah / Koran by pointing out how unrealistic almost all of the texts are. Of course they are unrealistic - but so are the works of Shakespeare, or Dante, or Goethe, or any great poet in the last 3000 years. Yet nobody would ridicule Dante for assuming that hell lies in some cave in Tuscany. If you just dismiss these religious texts as opium for the dull medieval masses, you might miss some deep poetical truths about mankind that just cannot be stated explicitly because of the shortcomings of any human language described above.