There seem to be two prevailing currents of thought when it comes to interpreting the Bible. One is Biblical literalism, or reading into the Bible as a historically accurate account of past events. The second is Biblical symbolism, or reading into the Bible as a protracted metaphor, acting as a meta-narrative of sorts. Both interpretations have some key weaknesses which limit the scope of their application.
Why Biblical Literalism Fails
The first interpretation fails for a few obvious reasons. The scientific method directly contradicts the claims put forth by the Bible. The Universe wasn't created in seven days. Humans aren't born as adults. Snakes have never been known to talk. No known Garden of Eden has ever been confirmed to exist, and so forth. Literalism is best understood in a historical realist context where certain Biblical claims are seen not as truthful, but as the result of mysticism, scientific knowledge gaps and vastly inadequate means to examine the superficial appearances of reality to bridge these gaps.
Indeed, as the philosophy of rationalism and the scientific revolution flourished in tandem in the 17th and 18th centuries, religious superstition lost influence in favor of verifiable naturalistic explanations which afforded the institution of science a newfound respect the world over. Though it should be noted that this conclusion is Eurocentric, since the Arabs had also progressed in mathematics and science under the spread of Islam centuries earlier, to name one example. Even if some Biblical claims have a grain of historical accuracy, it doesn't justify Biblical literalism.
The Bible is meant to present historical Jesus in a glorified manner. There's proof that a Jesus similar to the one described in the New Testament existed, but it's not proof of his Divinity. Facts about him will be exaggerated, understated, omitted or fabricated to tweak his appearance to conform to the greater narrative (the theological promotion of Jesus).The Jesus narrative shifts between several New Testament gospels and contradict one another at several points. If the Bible is to be taken literally, how do we resolve the factual errors, omissions and contradictions?
We must be mindful of the historical period in which the events were witnessed and written, the numerous translations, intermittent political revisions (see the First Council of Nicaea), and the faulty recollections and cognitive biases of the original authors, to name a few roadblocks we must surmount to understanding how the Bible is currently presented and structured. In short, Biblical literalism fails as an interpretive method because it ignores political motivations in Biblical presentation, human error and the mountain of evidence which contradicts the Bible's supernatural claims about the Universe and origin of life.
Indeed, as the philosophy of rationalism and the scientific revolution flourished in tandem in the 17th and 18th centuries, religious superstition lost influence in favor of verifiable naturalistic explanations which afforded the institution of science a newfound respect the world over. Though it should be noted that this conclusion is Eurocentric, since the Arabs had also progressed in mathematics and science under the spread of Islam centuries earlier, to name one example. Even if some Biblical claims have a grain of historical accuracy, it doesn't justify Biblical literalism.
The Bible is meant to present historical Jesus in a glorified manner. There's proof that a Jesus similar to the one described in the New Testament existed, but it's not proof of his Divinity. Facts about him will be exaggerated, understated, omitted or fabricated to tweak his appearance to conform to the greater narrative (the theological promotion of Jesus).The Jesus narrative shifts between several New Testament gospels and contradict one another at several points. If the Bible is to be taken literally, how do we resolve the factual errors, omissions and contradictions?
We must be mindful of the historical period in which the events were witnessed and written, the numerous translations, intermittent political revisions (see the First Council of Nicaea), and the faulty recollections and cognitive biases of the original authors, to name a few roadblocks we must surmount to understanding how the Bible is currently presented and structured. In short, Biblical literalism fails as an interpretive method because it ignores political motivations in Biblical presentation, human error and the mountain of evidence which contradicts the Bible's supernatural claims about the Universe and origin of life.
Why Biblical Symbolism Fails
This method fails because its too prone to being contorted to fit with desired interpretations. Though some books of the Bible aren't intended to be taken literally, such as Psalms (collection of poetry) or Proverbs (collection of wise proverbs). Poetry uses literary techniques which demand expanded situational awareness from the reader. Themes aren't presented straightforwardly as in plain prose literature. The text is deliberately obfuscatory and playful, rendering any straight interpretations useless. It becomes problematic when you attempt to interpret scenarios recounted as factual or historically accurate. How do you reconcile prophetic visions? The visions experienced may contain metaphors, but the experience itself is presented as fact, and as far as the text informs us, it's factual. It seems then, that some parts were written to be taken literally.
Let's suppose the entire Bible is metaphorical. What could it represent? Whatever the interpreter would desire it to. The book of Revelations is convenient for Biblical conspiracy theorists who take literalism with a dash of metaphor because they can't verify the dubious claims they put forth otherwise. The red dragon falling from the stars? That's the United States impending economic collapse! Trumpets sounding throughout the sky? It's the cause of those mysterious sonic booms we've been hearing earlier this year, of course. In short, Biblical symbolism fails as an interpretive method because it ignores evidence of historical Jesus, and reinterprets accounts obviously meant to be taken as factual.
