Looking for a non-literal study bible/ guide

[jmwilson]

I've been researching the bible for a bit now, and I've come to the conclusion that a good portion of the bible is metaphorical, and not literal. Although, I do realize that much of it is historical (ie NT).

I am interested in a study bible or bible guide that will help me understand the bible better, but not through the traditional "Adam and Eve were actual people" perspective. I want something that is brutally honest and not sugar coated about the bible... about what is historical, what is metaphorical... and if metaphorical, what is the meaning behind the story? why was it written?



Any books/guides/study bibles out there that might help me?

Thank you.

 

[Chickapee]

Hi jmwilson ,
Always used this tool its great for studies and researching things out

May the Holy Spirit lead you and guide you into all Truth
Definitions :: Bible Tools


peace C .

 

[wayseer]

I've been researching the bible for a bit now, and I've come to the conclusion that a good portion of the bible is metaphorical, and not literal. Although, I do realize that much of it is historical (ie NT).

I am interested in a study bible or bible guide that will help me understand the bible better, but not through the traditional "Adam and Eve were actual people" perspective. I want something that is brutally honest and not sugar coated about the bible... about what is historical, what is metaphorical... and if metaphorical, what is the meaning behind the story? why was it written?

Any books/guides/study bibles out there that might help me?

Thank you.

I would recommend the NRSV with Apocrypha is a good place to start.

Then you might consider authors such as N.T. Wright, Marcus Borg, Dominic Crossan and for something that will last you a year or more, Robert Eisenman's The New Testament Code. And if you are really in for some punishment anything by John Shelby Spong.

Then, going the extra mile or so, a program such as Logos.

The thing is about the course of study you propose is that you never know where you might end up going. In this respect it probably good advice to find a church that is open to these sorts of challenges - many are not and will simply stand in the way of your own research.

The reason you need a good church is that you will be confronted and confounded with many new ideas and thoughts and it will be necessary to talk over these issues with some respected scholar - just to keep you in balance.

 

[ebia]

It's actually pretty conservative on the literal/metaphorical thing, but the ESV Literary Study Bible is very good for drawing your attention to how the various genres work as pieces of literature. If you are someone who finds the study of literature second nature it's probably no use, but to someone like me who finds that kind of stuff requires work it's very interesting. It's not going to tell you how the metaphors work but it will help you spot the structure of the literature, which is a step in the right direction.

Then you might consider authors such as N.T. Wright, Marcus Borg, Dominic Crossan [...]. And if you are really in for some punishment anything by John Shelby Spong

I'm not sure I would put +John Spong in the same list as the others - he isn't the scholar they are. Being contraversial and challenging with the scholarship to try to support it (Borg and Crossan) I'm fine with; without (Spong) does nothing in my book.

On the subject of metaphor and myth itself I would recommend Paul Avis God and the Creative Imagination.

On the New Testament I would highly recommend Tom Wright's ... for Everyone Series of commentaries. And go listen to some of the mass of lectures of his that are posted on the web and accessable for free via www.ntwrightpage.com

 

[sonofjay817]

I know this isn't the point of the thread, but I can't resist. One of the gospels traces Jesus' lineage all the way back to Adam. So, if Adam is a myth, Jesus is descended from a myth. This is a slippery slope you're on.

 

[ebia]

I know this isn't the point of the thread,

You are right about this bit. Why not start (yet another) thread if you want to discuss that?

 

[St. Paul]

I've been researching the bible for a bit now, and I've come to the conclusion that a good portion of the bible is metaphorical, and not literal. Although, I do realize that much of it is historical (ie NT).

I am interested in a study bible or bible guide that will help me understand the bible better, but not through the traditional "Adam and Eve were actual people" perspective. I want something that is brutally honest and not sugar coated about the bible... about what is historical, what is metaphorical... and if metaphorical, what is the meaning behind the story? why was it written?



Any books/guides/study bibles out there that might help me?

Thank you.

From the sounds of it, The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible may be what your looking for. I would also recommend The Oxford Bible Commentary.

 

[OzSpen]

jmwilson,

I've been researching the bible for a bit now, and I've come to the conclusion that a good portion of the bible is metaphorical, and not literal. Although, I do realize that much of it is historical (ie NT).

I am interested in a study bible or bible guide that will help me understand the bible better, but not through the traditional "Adam and Eve were actual people" perspective. I want something that is brutally honest and not sugar coated about the bible... about what is historical, what is metaphorical... and if metaphorical, what is the meaning behind the story? why was it written?

Your post is loaded with presuppositions. Why don't you start a few threads to discuss some of your presuppositions? I'm thinking of . . .
1. Adam & Eve were not actual people;
2. This is what I believe in the Bible that is metaphorical;
3. This is what I believe in the Bible that is historical;
4. How do I decide the meaning behind what is metaphorical in the Bible?
5. What makes for a "brutally honest" interpretation of the Bible?
6. What is the best way to highlight presuppositions in my post?

 

[Christos Anesti]

You might enjoy the commentaries of Origen. He tended to stress the allegorical and spiritual interpratation of the Scriptures he discussed.

Commentary on the Gospel of John
Commentary on Matthew

 

[OzSpen]

Christos Anesti,

You might enjoy the commentaries of Origen. He tended to stress the allegorical and spiritual interpratation of the Scriptures he discussed.

Commentary on the Gospel of John
Commentary on Matthew

I would urge that you seriously consider what allegorical interpretation does to the content of the Scriptures. It has done much damage to the interpretation of the biblical text. It would be a sad state of affairs if I read my local newspaper, the Fraser Coast Chronicle, with the eyes of my allegorical interpretation.

See the article, "Literal and Allegorical Interpretation in Origen's Contra Celsum" by Dan McCartney. See also, "Historical implications of allegorical interpretation" by Thomas Ice.

Professor of biblical interpretation, Dr. A. Berkeley Mickelsen, wrote, after giving examples of allegorical interpretation,

"Such examples illustrate how allegorizing tells the observer clearly what the interpreter is thinking but it tells nothing about what the biblical writer was saying. His meaning is ignored. We are left with only the interpreter's arbitrary assertions. These in themselves may be good, but the interpreter should not pretend that his ideas are somehow found in, with , or under the biblical statements" (Interpreting the Bible 1963. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp. 32-33).

 

[Christos Anesti]

I definitely wouldn't rely on Origen as my only source but he was widely respected among the Fathers for his Biblical exegesis despite the fact that some of his more speculative works like First Principles got him in into a lot of trouble. I would balance my reading of Origin with the writings that came out the more "literal" Antiochene school of exegesis like Theodore of Mopsuestia and St John Chrysostom too. I really like Blessed Theophylact as well because he uses a range of exegetical methods. Personally I think both the Alexandrian and Antiochene school have a lot too offer and neither of them have exhausted the total meaning of the Scripture. How could they?

 

[Christos Anesti]

I think one of the dangers of the non-literal method of exegesis is that it requires even more spiritual discernment and it's very easy to be misled. It's definitely something that requires the Holy Spirit. Obviously all methods require that but it's very imperative here or you could be lead into all sorts of weirdness. It's also important to read the Bible with the Church and its fathers.

 

[OzSpen]

Christos Anesti,

I definitely wouldn't rely on Origin as my only source but he was widely respected among the Fathers for his Biblical exegesis despite the fact that some of his more speculative works like First Principles got him in into a lot of trouble. I would balance my reading of Origin with the writings that came out the more "literal" Antiochene school of exegesis like Theodore of Mopsuestia and St John Chrysostom too. I really like Blessed Theophylact as well because he uses a range of exegetical methods. Personally I think both the Alexandrian and Antiochene school have a lot too offer and neither of them have exhausted the total meaning of the Scripture. How could they?

By the way, his name is spelled Origen and not Origin.

You still have not addressed the damage that an imposed allegorical interpetation does to the text of any document. Unless a document, whether local newspaper or the Bible, states that it is an allegory and needs to be interpreted allegorically, it is an imposition on the text for any reader to decide for himself/herself that allegorical interpretation is the way to go.

I wouldn't read the diaries of Captain James Cook that way. Neither should I read the Bible that way.

Bernard Ramm in his text on Protestant Biblical Interpretation (1970, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan) points to one of the main problems with allegorical interpretation:

The curse of the allegorical method is that it obscures the true meaning of the Word of God and had it not kept the Gospel truth central it would have become cultic and heretical. In fact, this is exactly what happened when the gnostics allegorized the New Testament. The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hand of the exegete(p. 30, emphasis added).

Regards, Spencer

 

[Christos Anesti]

By the way, his name is spelled Origen and not Origin.

Yep, My spell checker doesn't recognize Origen though

 

[Christos Anesti]

I wouldn't read the diaries of Captain James Cook that way. Neither should I read the Bible that way.

The purpose of a secular diary and Divine Scripture are not exactly analogous. One is meant merely to provide historical details (and possibly entertain) and the other intends to teach the things of the Spirit to those "with eyes to see". The Bible is filled with typology, symbolism, parables, etc. Most diaries on the other hand don't contain those things.

 

[Covenant Heart]

An Interesting Problem...

We've been inundated so long with the tyranny of literalism that we're thrown into a crisis state when we see the deficiencies of the same, we’re thrown into a crisis state. I recommend studying the Bible. At the same time, I would invest in several solid lay studies of hermeneutics. A.B. Mickelson wrote one that I liked, ‘Interpreting the Bible,’ although his treatment of Hebrew and Greek is perhaps more than lay persons may want. Perhaps more accessible is H. Virkler’s Hermeneutics: Principles and Process of Biblical Interpretation.

Hermeneutics opens up new windows to the Biblical world. Liberation from literalism allows us to hear Scriptures afresh -- perhaps for the first time.

Blessings!

Covenant Heart

 

[OzSpen]

Christos Anesti,

Yep, My spell checker doesn't recognize Origen though

All spell checkers have the function to add additional words. I think that you ought to add Origen if he is going to become a semi-regular person whom you quote.

 

[OzSpen]

Christos Anesti,

The purpose of a secular diary and Divine Scripture are not exactly analogous. One is meant merely to provide historical details (and possible entertain) and the other intends to teach the things of the Spirit to those "with eyes to see". The Bible is filled with typology, symbolism, parables, etc. Most diaries on the other hand don't contain those things.

The Bible contains plenty of historical material that needs to be interpreted historically. Why don't you start another thread with a topic such as, "Should the Bible be treated as an historical document that contains valuable historical information?"

 

[OzSpen]

Covenant Heart,

We've been inundated so long with the tyranny of literalism that we're thrown into a crisis state when we see the deficiencies of the same, we’re thrown into a crisis state. I recommend studying the Bible. At the same time, I would invest in several solid lay studies of hermeneutics. A.B. Mickelson wrote one that I liked, ‘Interpreting the Bible,’ although his treatment of Hebrew and Greek is perhaps more than lay persons may want. Perhaps more accessible is H. Virkler’s Hermeneutics: Principles and Process of Biblical Interpretation.

If you go back to #10 of this thread, I quoted from A. B. Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible (Eerdmans 1963). I would not recommend it as a lay-level book on biblical interpretation. It was used as one of the text books in the seminary course I took in my master's degree.

For the laity, I'd recommend Gordon D. Fee & Douglas Stuart 1993. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding the Bible (2nd edn). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

 

[Christos Anesti]

think that you ought to add Origen if he is going to become a semi-regular person whom you quote.

Sounds like a fine idea.

The Bible contains plenty of historical material

I agree.