The Bible: reviewing philosophical approaches

Philosophy of Religion
1

I start this thread with the aim of finding commentaries, critical thinking, and philosophy on the Bible. Honestly speaking, I always found the Bible an odd text. Perhaps I haven’t given it the serious approach it deserves.

Firstly, I should start picking out what systematic study I should approach to read the Bible in a—let’s say…—serious and critical-thinking way. I searched on the Internet for intriguing comments by different theologians, but I asked myself, “What do the philosophers say about the Bible?”

I think Kierkegaard might be one of the main examples of philosophers who did a work on commenting the Bible in a different manner, separated from theology or what is supposed to be understood by the Gospels. For instance, I think it is worth reviewing his work Fear and Trembling.The title is a reference to a line from Philippians 2:12:

Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

Kierkegaard attempted to demonstrate that both Abraham’s actions and internal state transcend ethics. He settled up three thought experiments:

Problema I: Is there a Teleological Suspension of the Ethical?
Problema II: Is there an Absolute Duty to God?
Problema III: Was It Ethically Defensible for Abraham to Conceal His Undertaking from Sarah, from Eliezer, and from Isaac?

John Locke.

Locked argued in his work The Reasonableness of Christianity that the Bible is an easy text, comprehensible, and intended to be understood by all the people. He also claims that the scriptural interpretation aligns with reason. When examined carefully by a rigorous rationality, provides a clear understanding of Christ’s life,

Locke argues that believing that Jesus was the Messiah brought righteousness. Faith alone, however, is insufficient. Baptism admits men into the kingdom of God, but they must thereafter obey the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule.

Kant.

Kant’s view on the Bible is detailed in Religion Within the Bounds of Mere Reason.

Kant states:

if the Bible has only morality to offer, it is a completely useless book.

However, in that work and others, Kant presented various approaches to the interpretation of Scripture. Furthermore, he also stated that the Bible should not be seen as a source of divine doctrine but as a guide to find and promote moral duty. I couldn’t find what gospels he referred to, but Kant basically argued that only moral teachings that align with “pure reason” are valuable. Therefore, Christianity is a religion of reason. Perhaps, this is a bit reductionist.

Modern scholars.

Michael Langford, in a critical review responds to Les Reid’s review of the Bible on “Philosophy now!”

Langford, in a well-written and argumentative writing states:

This view of the Bible […] which takes it seriously without any commitment to it being absolutely authoritative or literally accurate in all parts, is not an invention of modern liberalism: it represents a channel of Christian thought from the time of the first apologists, who tried to being together rational reflection (rooted in a respect for Greek philosophy) with an appreciation of the Hebrew tradition and the disciples’ experience of Jesus.

What is your take on this topic?

Could you see the Bible with a philosophical scope?

Do you know other philosophers who attempted to analyze the Bible from a philosophical perspective apart from Kierkegaard, Kant, and Locke?

An interesting reading: Philosophical Reviews of The Bible.

2 Likes
2

I don’t mean this comment to be dismissive. Have you read the Bible? If not, shouldn’t you before you start down the path you’re headed on.

3

If you mean whether I have a deep knowledge of each gospel, no, I don’t have it, nor did I read the Bible altogether.

I have only read the Gospels separately when I wanted to understand Kierkegaard, for example.

Perhaps. I don’t know where to start, honestly.

1 Like
4

Consider Thomas Aquinas?

5

If I may say so myself, I have read more bible passages in horror movies than I have actually read in the bible. It’s better to have read and lost than never.

2 Likes
6

I heard that his work, Summa theologica, is worth reading. However, I believe that Aquinas’s arguments primarily concentrate on the theological perspective rather than the philosophy of religion.

I know he can be considered a philosopher—his works on realism and essence-existence were remarkable, but I’m looking for philosophers who actually focused on the Bible as a text and not on God’s nature/knowledge.

7

I think this is a useful approach to reading parts of the Bible. Starting with themes that interest you. Not everyone is attracted to theology or theological philosophy. However, the Bible is still owned, if not read, by many. I applaud Javi for starting this discussion:

There are many forms of the Bible, some might be ‘odder’ than others, depending on time and and language used.

There is the literary approach which enjoys the use of words and phrases found in the Books or narratives.

The Books are divided in 2 main sections: The Old Testament and the New (including the Gospels).

Literary forms and examples: IV. Literary Forms in the Bible | Bible.org.
It includes: 'figurative language, narrative history, poetry, wisdom literature, prophetic literature, gospel, oratory, and epistle. A whole list including similes, metaphors, irony - “And so it was, at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, ‘Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is meditating, or he is busy, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened’” ([1 Kings 18:27].

Back to films and philosophical theology. What Counts as “Biblical” Philosophy? Reflections from Dru Johnson’s Biblical Philosophy - Reformed Faith & Practice

In Wood’s words: “The hyper-precision that features in analytic thought is different in degree but not in kind from ordinary “person in the street” demands to say exactly what we mean (no more, no less).”[21] Indeed, Wood offers an analogy from the forager who eats small bites of fruit to determine whether the fruit is safe to eat as an ordinary way of inductive reasoning – a scientist is really doing a highly critical and systematized version of that.

To give an example, suppose I learn, say, from watching the endings of the movies A Quite Place and Avengers: End Game, that the proposition “self-sacrifice is beautiful” is true. And then I might ask the question “Why is self-sacrifice beautiful?” – why was I so moved by watching the endings of these films? Then, later that day in my daily devotions, I read John 15:13: “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.” I then deduce that self-sacrifice is beautiful because it is a loving act. Self-sacrifice is beautiful because love is beautiful, and self-sacrifice is an instantiation of love in action.

About Prof. William Woods: Professor William Wood | Faculty of Theology and Religion

There are often themes, like ‘love’, listed at the back of some Bibles. Reading the whole Bible, from beginning to end, is not the best way for ordinary people - who may just be ‘philosophers’…

2 Likes
8

My initial response was an introduction to reading and reflecting on Biblical themes. A practical way to consider the Bible. There are plenty internet resources to find the specialists.
It depends on what kind of ‘philosopher’ you want to read. There are many novelists of various religions who have read the Bible as text. Interesting to consider who actually reads the Bible and why…
How they receive the messages and how they translate/interpret them.
Thank you for the link to the PN article. A most useful magazine!

9

Of potential interest:

How To Read The Bible: 10 Methods For Every Type Of Reader | William Orr

And

The Oxford Companion to the Bible provides an authoritative one-volume reference to the people, places, events, books, institutions, religious belief, and secular influence of the Bible. Written by more than 250 scholars from some 20 nations and embracing a wide variety of perspectives, the Companion offers over seven hundred entries, ranging from brief identifications–who is Dives? where is Pisgah?–to extensive interpretive essays on topics such as the influence of the Bible on music or law.
Ranging far beyond the scope of a traditional Bible dictionary, the Companion features, in addition to its many informative, factual entries, an abundance of interpretive essays. Here are extended entries on religious concepts from immortality, sin, and grace, to baptism, ethics, and the Holy Spirit. The contributors also explore biblical views of modern issues such as homosexuality, marriage, and anti-Semitism, and the impact of the Bible on the secular world (including a four-part article on the Bible’s influence on literature).’

Oxford Companion to the Bible - Oxford Reference

Or Writing Styles of the Bible
and the follow-up to the 5 min Youtube:
How the Bible is Unique as Literature

10

Amity! Glad to see you here!

I don’t see it as a problem at all. It is just that I felt lost when I attempted to read the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of Matthew. I believe there are even some contradictions in their accounts of what they saw or witnessed. My interest in reading the Bible (New Testament, specifically) started when I watched a video of Bart Ehrman and Justin Bass, among other historians and theologians, about the following question: Did Jesus resurrect?

There were not philosophers on the debate table, but the arguments of both the theologian and the historian were worth listening to. It surprised me that the historian of the Gospels argued that he felt contradictions when the Gospel of Mark barely made a reference to the resurrection, but the Gospel of Luke is more explicit towards this Christian debate.
Then, the theologian argued, I don’t really believe that they actually wanted to lie to us. I think they were just mistaken in what they witnessed.

That phrase shocked me, so I thought, “What might philosophy say about this?”

Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVUQAVQS1-U

Nice approach, Amity. :smiley:

I like how you tried to interpret that gospel reasoning. Perhaps John referred to someone laying down his life for his friends in a metaphorical way, because we should remember that killing oneself is very punished in the Bible. Let’s remember what St. Augustine of Hippo stated: "He who kills himself is a homicide.” …

I read Luke 6:39-42: Jesus also told them a riddle. “A blind person can’t lead another blind person, right? Won’t they both fall into a ditch?

I like and understand the lesson, there is no one more blind than he who refuses to see.

This one is also very important, Matthew 21:12–13: And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

What analysis could we make out of this episode?

Was Jesus’ wrath justified? Remember that one of the seven deadly sins is wrath—but how can we understand Jesus in this episode?

What if we try to analyze it in a philosophical way? :thinking:

11

Kierkegaard was by far the most relevant philosopher for me at the moment. I think he did a remarkable job attempting to understand the Bible with a philosophical scope. However, perhaps I am also missing other important thinkers, not theologians. Yet I admit Aquinas is crucial in this context.

12

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, it wouldn’t work for me. Is it this one: Bart Ehrman vs Justin Bass • Did Jesus of Nazareth rise from the dead?

Also, sorry but the quote you assign to me is not mine. My fault - still getting used to the quote function. I’ll return to clarify.
Thanks for your welcome. It’s good to be back. So far… :slight_smile:
Thanks for providing thoughtful views and provoking questions.

13

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVUQAVQS1-U

Let’s see if it works now. :+1:

14

Yes. It is the same one I linked to.
At one hour, 17 mins and 2 secs, I’m not sure I have the time or patience to get past the initial squabbling… :upside_down_face:

1 Like
15

Scrolling through the Centre for Hebraic thought, I found various articles:
[Articles | Center for Hebraic Thought (Articles | Center for Hebraic Thought)

I’m almost reaching for my Bible, after reading the article: The Meaning of Life in Ecclesiastes | Center for Hebraic Thought

Ecclesiastes was one of my favourite wisdom books. Popular at funerals: Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 NIV - A Time for Everything - There is a time - Bible Gateway
But it seems there is more controversy to it than meets the eye, from transdisciplinary perspectives, psychology and philosophy. There’s a downloadable pdf: The Meaning of Life in Ecclesiastes: Coherence, Purpose, and Significance from a Psychological Perspective (HTR 112, 2019)

Also, there is this: Philosophical Criticism of the Hebrew Bible and the Analytic-Continental Divide
A bit hefty, perhaps…

1 Like
16

Thank you so much for your contribution to my thread, Amity. :smiley:

17

Amity,

I found a shorter video of Alex O’Connor talking about the same topic—it is only 8 minutes long. I recommend you watch it whenever you can.

Did Jesus Resurrect?

18

Hey Sis!
Thanks, you get it.