The Bible Considered As A Math Textbook
Word problems.
We all remember them, right?
“If Johnny has three apples and Susy has two, how many apples do they have put together?”
Y’know what we never discussed with word problems?
Did Johnny and Susy really exist.
Mind you, they might very well have.
Maybe one of the authors of the text had two children named Johnny and Susy, and maybe one day they were helping with the grocery shopping and they got some apples to put in the cart, and maybe the author thought, “Hmm, that’s a good example; I can put that in the book.”
Maybe.
Or maybe it doesn’t matter one whit if they’re real or not, or even the specific details of the example so long as the principle being taught is true.
A typical math textbook might be a blend of factual and fictional examples.
“Abraham Lincoln was born in 1809 and died in 1865. How old was Lincoln when he died?”
Lincoln really existed, and there’s a wealth of fascinating material about him and his place in history, and much to be discussed over things he did and opinions he held, but that’s immaterial to the principle being taught.
That principle is true whether it’s about the very real Abraham Lincoln or the entirely fiction Mickey Mouse.
The answer in Lincoln’s case -- 56 years -- is also immaterial and often either utterly pointless or complete wrong in other cases.
“56 years” is not the answer to how many apples Johnny and Susy have, is it?
So bear that thought in mind when you read the Bible.
It doesn’t matter if it’s factual or not so long as the underlying principles are true.
. . .
There are big hunks of the Bible that are absolutely factual. Even the most hardcore atheist must acknowledge the facts depicted in the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles reflect bona fide historical events and personages, even if those facts are interpreted through the lens of scribes and historians who saw their God guiding and directing those events.
Are the books of Daniel and Ruth and Esther true?
Well, it’s doubtful they’re genuine histories since they were written long after the events they depict occurred, but there’s no reason to doubt they reflect events that actually did occur (again, the persons writing them down looking at the world through the lens of a true believer).
The commentaries of the various prophets?
They no doubt reflect a cultural snapshot of something that was going on in ancient Judea and Israel at that time, but they don’t present themselves as detailed linear factual accounts.
Joshua and Judges?
We probably do have some actual history mixed in there, but there’s more than a little hagiography and quite a few cautionary tales as well.
Exodus?
Not a lot of evidence (read “hardly any” as in “practically none”) to support the Cecil B. DeMille version of events. Clearly it reflects something that happened in the past to the people we eventually came to know as the Jews, but exactly what and how factually accurate is up for grabs.
Genesis?
I’d say from Abram forward we’re discussing real personages and real events -- perhaps garbled through the lens of time and the interpretations / bias of those recounting them -- but some core factual basis to most of that (there was property and birthrights and real estate involved; people were keeping closer track of those things).
Before Abraham?
I think the ur-story of Cain and Abel probably has a factual basis: A brother killing his sibling in a fit of religious jealousy sounds like the prehistoric equivalent of Tiger King and probably got passed around a lot of campfires for many, many generations. Noah and the great flood? We’ve got evidence pointing to an ice age ending and flooding coastal and river towns, but not direct evidence of that particular story. The garden of Eden? Maybe a dimly remembered account of climate change as the ice age ended. Adam and Eve? Mitochondrial Eve is not the same as Biblical Eve, and there’s an enormous number of factual and logical errors throughout that story.
And if you want to skip ahead to the New Testament, there is no serious argument that there wasn’t an eccentric first century rabbi who preached a radical interpretation of Jewish scripture that got him in trouble with the local and imperial authorities, that he was executed by the Romans, and that his followers whatever the objective facts might actually be claimed he rose from the dead.
Every contemporary and near-contemporary scribe and scholar from that era -- Christian / Jewish / pagan -- agrees on those facts: Eccentric rabbi / radical teaching / local trouble / imperial execution / claims of resurrection.
Nobody thinks the basic facts are fictional.
The Book of Acts?
Appears to be factual in places where it can be checked against contemporary accounts, certainly not obviously false in the remaining portions (though one can argue they are open to interpretation).
The epistles?
We know for a fact many of them are not written by the persons they are purportedly written by, and it’s another fair argument to wonder how much of that is simply summarizing an apostle’s teachings and how much is some temporal authority trying to hammer their person point home by claiming it came from Jesus or his disciples.
Revelation?
That one we know is a coded commentary of problems contemporary Christians faced in the first century AD, it’s later 18th century reinterpretation as a step by step guide to things to come is about as pertinent as deciding Johnny and Susy’s shoe sizes.
And all this excludes the portions the various books and passages of the Bible that clearly indicate they are metaphorical or fictional in nature.
Focusing on the facts of the Bible is as useful as focusing on the facts of a math textbook: There may be some in there, but that’s not what the book is about.
Focusing on the underlying truth as found in the principles taught is far more germane.
. . .
So what are those truths?
A lot of folks -- primarily Christians -- go around shouting “56!” or “5!” as the case may be.
In particular the Christian focus on eternal salvation vs eternal damnation as espoused by many evangelists.
It's my understanding that most contemporary Jewish thought re an afterlife does not focus on "getting into heaven" (to use a broad but inaccurate term) as a goal but more on "live righteously" (with the possible implication "...so you will be judged favorably") instead.
From what I've read of Jewish teachings BCE on the matter, they viewed any afterlife as a waiting zone of sorts until God decides what to do next; any Jewish views of heaven and / or hell in the context of Christian or Islamic teachings comes after the first century CE.
Rabbi Hillel (whom Jesus quoted directly) said the two greatest teachings were to love God and love your neighbor as you love yourself.
We don’t love God if we don’t obey Him, and if we don’t love our fellow human beings, we aren’t obeying God.
Ergo our love of God is expressed through our love of other human beings.
How is that love expressed?
Treat others as you wish to be treated.
Inflict no harm you can avoid.
Protect those who need protection; at the very least, don’t add to their misery.
If you want to be forgiven, forgive.
If you want to avoid judgment, don’t judge others.
This life and everything you think you possess in it will eventually vanish in an instant.
All any of us ever leave is the harm or the good we have done.
Don’t worry about tomorrow.
We face enough troubles today.
To love God, love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Love your neighbor.
Love.
© Buzz Dixon
