Episode 236: Pete Enns & Jared Byas - Should the Bible Be Read Like Any Other Book?
In this episode of The Bible for Normal People, Pete and Jared consider how elevating the Bible to a special status can cheapen our experience of reading it as a multi-vocal anthology of literature. Join them as they explore the following questions:
Should the Bible be considered a book?
Should we take the mind of the author or audience into account when reading the Bible if it should be read like any other book?
Why are some people scared to read the Bible critically?
How does one’s belief about the authority of the Bible change the way it is read?
Does the content of the Bible invite historical interrogation?
How does the Bible’s function within the Church affect how it is read?
What are two ways of coming at this same question from different perspectives?
What do people miss by reading the Bible as “God’s Word” instead of seeing it as an anthology?
Tweetables
Pithy, shareable, less-than-280-character statements from the episode you can share.
Because it's the Bible, we think there are a lot of special rules, or that maybe we should treat it a little differently. Sometimes people just forget that it is a book. The noun is still "book." And that means something. — @jbyas
We're treating [the Bible] as a book, even though it's an anthology of literature. It's more like a collection of Shakespeare's plays in one cover. —@peteenns
Should it be read like any other book? In some ways, no, because I don't read any other book that's actually 66 different books put into one, and then read them all as though they refer to each other and they should be read self-referentially. — @jbyas
Should the Bible read like any other book? I think one answer is: it has to be—if you want to understand it, with any sort of a view toward history and toward the past. — @peteenns
Reading [the Bible] critically doesn’t mean criticizing it or being against it. It means reading it from the point of view where we are not the center of meaning, which is flawed. We can't do it perfectly all the time. But we're trying to get into that ancient moment. — @peteenns
If we're going to the Bible for historical investigation of what really happened, then I feel like it's academically dishonest not to follow the best practices within the field of history. — @jbyas
It's a matter of asking those [critical] questions and saying, "This is not an objective account that I'm reading here. This is an account written by people who are trying to get a point across." — @peteenns
We miss the richness and the value of reading a book communally as a church, because we're still stuck on the history part. — @jbyas
If we can't interrogate the Bible, we can't interrogate interpretations of the Bible. And that is so ripe for authoritarianism and abuse. — @jbyas
Mentioned in This Episode
March Class: Why God Died: How Atonement Theories Try to Explain Salvation taught by Jennifer Garcia Bashaw
Books: Inspiration and Incarnation by Pete Enns
Join: The Society of Normal People community
Support: www.thebiblefornormalpeople.com/give
-
Pete
You're listening to the Bible for Normal People, the only God-ordained podcast on the internet. I'm Pete Enns.
Jared
And I'm Jared Byas.
[Intro music]
Jared
Welcome, welcome, everyone to this episode of the podcast. Before we get started, we wanted to mention that our March class is coming up, and it's called "Why God Died: How atonement theories try to explain salvation."
Pete
Yeah, this is going to be taught by our friend, and nerd in residence, Jennifer Garcia Bashaw.
Jared
She's fantastic. I feel like people—you know, I'm getting a little bit of a complex because…
Pete
Yeah, annoyed a little bit actually.
Jared
Exactly. I think people like her more than us. But that's okay. That's okay. That's what we want. As always, the class is pay-what-you-can until the class ends, and then you can download it after that if you sign up later for $25. But if you sign up and you can't make the live class, no worries, you can still do pay what you can, go ahead and sign up and then we'll send a link afterward that you can access later.
Pete
Yeah. And you're asking, "Where do I sign up?" Well go to TheBibleForNormalPeople.com/atonement. Simple as that.
[Intro Music]
Pete
Hey, folks, welcome to this episode of the podcast with just me and Jared. Sorry to disappoint but that's the way it is. It's just us two today.
Jared
Yeah. I mean, we're not really sorry to disappoint.
Pete
No.
Jared
I think…
Pete
We like disappointing people.
Jared
We do, yeah.
Pete
Speaking of disappointing, let's talk about our topic.
Jared
[Laughing]
Pete
So, the topic today is, should the Bible we read like any other book?
[Teaser clip of speaking plays over music]
Pete: If you start taking it seriously, digging in, you can’t help but see your own biases, your own assumptions, the baggage we bring with us when we say simple things like “I trust the Bible.”
Jared: I think for a lot of people, to answer the question “should the Bible be read like any other book?” to answer it yes, will actually bring more engagement with the Bible, not less.
[Intro music ends]
[Ad break]
Pete
The topic today is, should the Bible we read like any other book? And the reason we want to talk about this is because this is something that comes up a lot in our lives from people who are maybe struggling with issues of scholarship, for example, and all that kind of stuff.
Jared
Well also, I think sometimes common sense goes out the window?
Pete
Okay.
Jared
When it comes to the Bible.
Pete
We're going there already?
Jared
Well, I just feel like because it's the Bible, we think there's like a lot of special rules and a lot—Now maybe there are some. Maybe, there's some things about it that we can talk about.
Pete
Yeah.
Jared
That are unique, or that maybe we should treat it a little differently. But I'm just thinking sometimes people just forget that it is a book.
Pete
Right.
Jared
And so there's certain reading strategies, or things that are common sense-
Pete
Mhmm.
Jared
-Or at least should be pretty basic that we learn about in school in terms of how to read things that do apply.
Pete
So, the Bible is a special book for people in terms of religious significance and guidance for life and things like that. But that's the very reason for asking this question.
Jared
Right. But it's still a book, the noun is still "book." And that means something.
Pete
It's at least- Well, it became a book. It didn't originate as a book, you know, individual writings that were collected, and edited together, and updated, and things like that—But yeah, functionally, that's why we have the title the way we have it—We're treating it as a book, even though it's an anthology of literature. It's more like a collection of Shakespeare's plays in one cover, so...
Jared
Well, that's interesting, though, because that is something I think that's unique about it. I don't know of a lot of anthologies that large groups of people read as a consistent work. I think that does matter in this conversation. Should it be read like any other book? In some ways, no, because I don't read any other book that's actually 66 different books put into one.
Pete
[Hums in agreement]
Jared
And then read them all as though they refer to each other and they should be read self-referentially.
Pete
Mhmm.
Jared
So, in some ways, it's not like any other book. But I think that's also an assumption. Is it appropriate to read it that way? Or is it okay to—I'm giving a response to a paper, or a book that someone wrote and it's about how Matthew is unique among the Gospels. And what I really appreciate is that he sticks to, it's important to understand how Matthew is unique.
Pete
Right.
Jared
In my tradition, that was not important. In fact, that was scary, because we needed to read Matthew, in light of Mark, Luke, and John, they were all together…
Pete
All saying the same things.
Jared
It was four volumes. And so you have to take it in its totality, rather than, "No, Matthew says different things." And that's actually not only just the truth, the facts of the matter, it's actually important to what Matthew trying to do with the uniqueness. So in terms of reading it as a book, I do think there's already an assumption by calling it "a book."
Pete
Right. So Matthew, for example, by asking questions that leads you to conclude that, you know, he's saying something for a reason. There's a purpose behind it, there's a thinking person behind this literature. At that point, we're already reading like other books, and modern or ancient, we're already peering into, let's say—I mean, I hate this phrase—but the mind of the author, or the context of the author, or the context of the audience. And that's one way of framing the question. Is that something that we should be doing with the Bible? Which is, you know, essentially approaching it critically.
Jared
Right.
Pete
Which again, we've said this before folks, on the other episodes, but reading it critically doesn't mean-
Jared
Criticizing.
Pete
Criticizing, being against it. "How can we cut the Bible down?" It means reading it from the point of view where we are not the center of meaning, which is flawed. We can't do it perfectly all the time. But we're trying to get into that ancient moment—which I think most Christians, I think they get that, you know, they get that but you know there are implications of this, reading the Bible this way, because you're digging in behind. You're seeing how the sausage is made. You're going behind this and you're saying, "Not only does Matthew have a way of saying something, but darn it all, looks like he got this from Mark." And then Luke is maybe getting it from Matthew or Mark, and how do they relate to each other? And how did these things even come? Who wrote this? And why did they write it the way they did? That's part of this whole issue is like, should we read the Bible like any other book? And I guess in that sense, my answer is, well, yeah, we do it all the time. And even relatively conservative people will do that, because we have study Bibles that revel in maps and little essays in the back or footnotes and "here's what a Pharisee is," and giving dates for things and whatever. So, I guess, should the Bible read like any other book? I think one answer is, it has to be, if you want to understand it, with any sort of a view toward history and toward the past.
Jared
[Hums in agreement] Well, this is just what we do. I just have more questions.
Pete
Yeah?
Jared
Since we're starting the whole... The topic is a question and I just have more questions. Because I also think, definitely it depends on why you're reading it. Because I'm trying to think throughout this episode of other books that I've read. And I think that's important because I want to keep these in mind side by side. And whenever I read—I can read, for instance, I think one of the most recent novels I read was Ernest Cline's, "Ready Player One." And there's a way I read that, where I'm in the story. I'm reading it for enjoyment, I'm reading it to pass the time. And it's an enjoyable read.
Pete
Right.
Jared
That's different than if I were a literary critic, and needed to write an essay on "Ready Player One." Then I'm going to read it, I'm gonna have a different reading strategy. I'm going to it for a very different reason. And I think that's important because sometimes when we think about reading the Bible, and how we should read it, I think it's important first to ask, "Well, why am I reading this?" If I'm reading it for historical questions that I have, then I'm going to read it through a critical eye. I'm going to try to understand what historians and scholars figured out about this. And that's going to be relevant to how, and why, and the way in which I'm reading, but if I'm reading it for enjoyment, maybe I don't need all of that. And so, I think, that why am I reading it actually factors into: should I be reading it like any other book? If I believe that the Bible is this inerrant law book, or instruction manual from God, then I'm not going to read it like any other book, because I believe it's not like any other book.
Pete
Right. But then you start reading it, and you realize they're making some historical claims here.
Jared
Right.
Pete
And different authors are making different non-compatible historical claims. And that brings up the whole, let's say, critical agenda which is like, "Okay, what's going on here?" And I guess one way of framing the question is: Is it okay to press those questions? Even for people who read it as purely, let's say, a spiritual immediacy. I mean—I hate putting it this way—but God's love letter to you, like, this is God speaking to you. But then you notice these historical oddities. And then maybe you read some footnotes in a study Bible, or you watch, you know, a documentary on HBO or something about the Bible and it's like, "Oh, wait a minute, there are some problems here." So, can we forestall that critical approach? Or do we just ignore it because it's the Bible? "Don't get into any of those questions, pal, you're just gonna go into a deep, dark corner or something."
Jared
I think we can't divorce this question, again, from the question of authority. Because for me, what I hear behind your question of, "Hey, don't question, you know, let's not look into the critical stuff. Let's not look into that." Behind that seems to be an assumption that the Bible is here to tell us something authoritative.
Pete
Mhmm.
Jared
And the only way it maintains that authority is if it's not tainted by human hands, or the historical process.
Pete
Yeah, sure, yeah, yeah.
Jared
And so, again, I think that's an assumption of the only reason I would come to the conclusion that I should avoid reading the Bible like any other book, is because I have a particular perspective on what the Bible is.
Pete
Yes.
Jared
And how it came to be and what I'm supposed to use it for.
Pete
[Hums in agreement]
Jared
So those I feel like those are all related-
Pete
They're all related, they're inescapable.
Jared
So, I want to talk about what you just said, which is the historical-critical and why people are afraid of that or avoid it. But I think that does go hand in hand with this authority question.
Pete
Right.
Jared
Because it does. I mean, and to be fair, for my personal faith, and journey with all this, it absolutely changed how I thought of the authority of the Bible. To see Genesis having two creation stories, to see David being introduced twice-
Pete
Which is why it's avoided to read it, let's say, critically.
Jared
Right. And so I think that, yes, the answer to the question from my tradition growing up, should the Bible be read like any other book? The answer is no. Because if you read it too closely, or too—I mean, this is my snarky answer.
Pete
[Laughs]
Jared
If you read it too closely, or too critically, it will change...
Pete
It will undermine.
Jared
It will undermine the presuppositions we've already given to it.
Pete
Right. So, people in that mindset will be less inclined to answer yes to our question, should the Bible read like any other book?
Jared
Oh, for sure.
Pete
Right? I think, you know, again, from a historical angle, people who are interested in history, you have—I just think of one example here. In 701 BCE, the mighty Assyrians were not successful in sacking Jerusalem, they had just sacked the northern kingdom, the capital of Samaria and the north, and they couldn't get through and defeat Jerusalem. And you have an account from the Assyrian king, Sennacherib, talking about this episode. And what a responsible historian will do, will look at that account and say, "Okay, look, these people lost a battle, they've got skin in the game, and we're going to read this account with a critical eye." Should the Bible get away with not being interrogated like that? Right? And my answer is no, I don't think the Bible should, like, get a free pass.
Because you also have a biblical account in 2 Kings and a little bit in Isaiah as well—and those two accounts are very similar—but that has its own angle. Right? "But it's the right angle." Okay, you can believe that and, that, I don't lose any sleep over it. But you start thinking very seriously, though, about the skin in the game that the biblical writer has.
Jared
Right.
Jared
Right.
Pete
So, should you read the Bible like any other book? Well, you can't not if you're interested in questions like, "Well, what happened here in 701, in this attack of Jerusalem?” You know? Did it go Sennacherib's way? Who basically, I mean, Sennacherib couldn't breach the walls of Jerusalem, so he has this account where he says something like, "I hemmed them in like a bird in a cage, they couldn't get out if they wanted to," like, I didn't mean to take it down, I just meant to keep them in there…
Jared
“It's not that I couldn't get in, it's just I wasn't letting them out.”
Pete
"I didn't want to, I didn't even want to get in." And the biblical account is very different, including how Sennacherib dies at the end, and things like that. And I find those perspectives fascinating. I don't know if it's going to be valuable to people who are reading these stories devotionally—although, frankly, I'm not sure how much devotional content is in the siege of Jerusalem but that's my own bias, as we say—So, it comes up, though, right? Again, if you're asking... If you're motivated by historical interests, which oddly enough, I think, definitely predominates in conservative circles as much as it does in, let's say, non-conservative mainline circles.
Pete
It definitely is there, but sometimes you pull the brakes on too quickly, like you do historical a little bit, but if you go too far, you start messing with the authority of the text. And then what?
Jared
Right.
Jared
I think that gets, in some ways, to at least one of the hearts of this question, which is, if we're going to go to the Bible for historical investigation of what really happened, then I feel like it's—this is going to maybe get me in trouble—I feel like it's academically dishonest not to follow the best practices within the field of history. So, don't say you're doing a probe into the history of this, if we're not following the processes and procedures established in the field of history.
Pete
Mhmm.
Jared
Because that's all we have. That's what we mean by history. What we mean by historical fact is the things that have gone through the gauntlet of a process we've developed over the last 200 years to determine what actually happened.
Pete
Or what may have happened or may not have happened.
Jared
Well, yeah, of course. Once you actually go through the process, there's very little "it did." It's a lot of "it may have."
Pete
It's not a matter of proving something over the other, but it's a matter of asking those questions and saying, "Yeah, I mean, this is not an objective account that I'm reading here. This is an account written by people who are trying to get a point across."
Jared
So, if that's what we're talking about—if I'm reading the Bible for historical content, should I read it like any other book? Absolutely. And I don't know why that's even a question.
Pete
Because historical inquiry has undermined the authority of the Bible. And I think that's what people freak out about.
Jared
Right it's...
Pete
So, they want to read it historically still, but in a more of an apologetic, defensive kind of way.
[Ad break]
Pete
Here's another way of, maybe, phrasing the question a little bit: Does the Bible invite historical interrogation? The very content of it, does it invite historical interrogation? Meaning, we have four gospels. We have an account of Paul in Acts and an account of what Paul's early ministry and dealing with Peter and James in Galatians—they don't square up very well. Right? Four gospels, you have these two histories of Israel in the Hebrew Bible, you got two creation accounts in Genesis, you've got two sets of paired genealogies in Genesis…
Jared
Right.
Pete
In 1-11, right? So, you've got all this stuff happening there, where it's like, "Okay, how can both of these genealogies be accurate?" You have Matthew's genealogy and Luke's genealogy, right? They're different. They're not, you can't just bring them together and say they’re saying the same thing. So, does a faithful person ignore what seems to be, like, in our face? Like, you have something to think through here, right? So, should we read this as something that is inviting historical interrogation? That can be done with humility and respect, but still historical interrogation... Is that what we should be doing with these texts? I mean, does the Bible invite that? I think it does. I think it's inescapable because, ironically, because of the very historical claims that the Bible makes, it's inviting itself. It's sitting there saying, like, an inquisitive person is gonna say, "Okay, how can these, how are these things compatible?"
Pete
Yeah.
Jared
Well, the genre matters. There seems to be genre indications that it's trying to purport some historical information. Now, I think where we get into trouble is when we criticize—I'm gonna use it that way.
Pete
Okay.
Jared
Not be critical, and read the Bible critically. But when we criticize the Bible, for not being the kind of history that we write in the 21st century. Then I feel—And I think that's...It seems like it's splitting hairs. But I think it's actually really important to acknowledge that on the one hand—I think what we're both saying, on the one hand is—the Bible doesn't purport history in the way we would do it in the 21st century. But that doesn't mean it's also not trying to do anything historical.
Pete
Right.
Jared
And that's an important distinction to make.
Pete
And that's for us, the historical critical question is, how are the biblical writers doing history?
Jared
Yes, I think that's an important question.
Pete
That’s a very big distinction.
Jared
Right.
Pete
And that's, there's a level of subtlety to that question. That—I think it's not an obvious question, I think that might come up in a lot of people's minds.
Jared
Well, and at the risk of maybe being a little arrogant…
Pete
Go for it, Jared.
Jared
It's a sophisticated question.
Pete
Well, it is, yeah.
Jared
That I think the average person who's not in the field of whether it's biblical studies or history, it may take a while to even grasp that distinction.
Pete
Or maybe not in the field themselves, but at least interested in that and like reading about it.
Jared
Yeah, not maybe like vocationally in the field, but just like just having read through…Again, for me, when I say in the field, I'm thinking of a distinct process of inquiry that then gives us—it's a methodology that then gives us results. And if you're not familiar with that methodology, then from the outside, it's going to look like those distinctions don't matter. But from within that process or inquiry, it absolutely matters. It's funny, we, I just saw that a Texas lawmaker just proposed that textbooks don't have theories, but have only facts, things that can be verified facts, and it's because they're using a common, everyday understanding of the word “theory.” But that's not how science uses the word theory. And that's how it feels a little bit like history. If we don't understand the nuances, we'll use the common everyday understanding of historical writing or historical facts, but it gets more nuanced once you step into the field.
Pete
So in that sense, reading it critically, the Bible, is actually essential at that point, because again, we're trying to understand history not from our own set of expectations, but trying to understand as best as we can, this is not a—this is not a science, folks, this is there's an art to this as well. But we're trying to understand something about the nature of historiography in the ancient world. And again, there's,plenty of the Bible that doesn't claim to be historical, there are Psalms or proverbs and things like that. But most of the Bible, including the prophetic literature is very closely tied, particularly to the monarchy. I mean, but it is very, very closely tied to history. And if people are interested, as many people are like in graduate school, for example, you, you go to a big graduate school and you study Hebrew origins. Now, the Bible is a part of that. But it's only a part of that, because there's also archaeology, there's linguistics, and what happens is that scholars put together a picture of where the Israelites came from.
Now, the Bible has a description about that, but it doesn't flow very nicely with other evidence that we have. And I mean, understandably, that can concern some people, freak them out a little bit, say, “Well, I'm gonna ignore all that science stuff and just deal with the Bible because I want to value it” and other people are saying, “Well, actually, it's because they value it that I want to understand why they're talking about themselves the way that they are.” And that's critical inquiry. That is reading the Bible, again, as you would other similar kinds of books. You mentioned the genre thing before. I mean, obviously, you don't read the Bible like you would read a grocery list, or a sports page or an op ed necessarily. It's different genres. But we do have, you know, there is historiography in antiquity.
Jared
Right.
Pete
And historians, I mean, [unintelligible] says, you know, I make stuff up. You know, I have to fill in dialogue, I, you know, that's just how you tell the story by being very creative, right? And if that's something that you do in the ancient world, should we not be asking those same—interrogating the Bible from a historical point of view, saying—and it's so much easier when you've got two accounts of the same thing that differ, right? It just raises all these wonderful questions. And I think it gets us to a place of understanding historical things. Again, the question is, okay, but how does the Bible then function in the life of the Church? Which is a really big modern, I would even say problem, like, how do you marry those two?
Jared
And that really comes to maybe kind of the second half of our discussion, I think, which is, should we read the Bible like any other book? Again, if we're approaching it for historical information, which it seems to be inviting because it has historical information in it.
Pete
Yeah.
Jared
The answer is yes. Because why wouldn't we put it through the same process we would any other book to understand how it's trying to do history and what it's doing? Where this gets problematized is, it's also used functionally very differently by millions of people every week. And that's, that's really the challenge here. And that is where I would also say, yeah, I think there's a lot of value. Because sometimes the modern project and I would say, what the evangelical tradition getting caught up in the modern project has done, is it's confused those functions. So we miss the richness and the value of reading a book communally as a church, because we're still stuck on the history part.
Pete
Because the history part was never a problem in the history of these movements until like, say, the 1970s.
Jared
Right, it became a modern problem. And certain traditions have focused so much on that, like, we can't get to the devotional, the enriching, the inspiring ways of reading this book, because the only thing that matters is “what actually happened in the Bible is historical, and it's going to prove all these scientists and archaeologists wrong” and in that way, ironically enough, even on the kind of—I would call it the devotional side, although I mean it more broadly than that—I think there's so much value in reading the Bible, like any other book on that side of it. Because whenever I'm reading Moby Dick, you're missing the point of the book if you're reading it in historical-critical way. Like sure if that's what you're trying to do. But if I were to go to a, maybe we have a different example of like, Lord of the Rings, and I'm going to a book study, and we're supposed to be talking about how the Lord of the Rings can enrich our lives. That's the name of the book study. We're all there for that very purpose. How it can enrich our lives. I'm gonna be annoyed if somebody comes into that book study and just starts pointing out all these historical critical notes. “Well, you know, Tolkien whenever he wrote that he just did this.” And like, that's not the point of the thing.
Pete
And he got the orc idea from this place.
Jared
Exactly. I feel like that's sometimes, the evangelical tradition doesn't get past that to just come to the “How can the book enrich our lives” part.
Pete
Okay, let's dig a little further on that, because what complicates all this, is, listen, we just want the Bible to enrich our lives. Right? But because God wrote it, in some sense, God is involved in it. So you know, we can talk about the Lord of the Rings not always being concerned with historical questions and all that, and what's historical about the Lord of the Rings anyway, except for the authorship issue like when and where it was written and what purpose? But the thing is, you know, people are always going to come back and say, and I understand this, they're going to come back and say, “Okay, all this historical stuff—but the bottom line is that God is involved in the production of this. And therefore, there's a uniqueness of this that we just have to accept and not engage in historical interrogation of this text, because God is involved.” So what do you say about that, Jared? You unbeliever.
Jared
Well, I think the whole point of this episode is to say that’s untrue.
Pete
Okay. What’s untrue? God?
Jared
Why would I need to read it differently because of that? There's so many assumptions.
Pete
See, that's the thing. That's—I mean, I'm asking you for that reason, because it's like what…
Jared
Why do we assume that if God is involved, it has to be unique?
Pete
And it can't be involved in historical ambiguity?
Jared
It can't be touched by human hands or have human origins or—
Pete
Or human perspectives on it. Right?
Jared
Right. So I don't know why those are incompatible, first of all. I think there's assumptions in that.
Pete
I think they're seen as, by some people, not everybody, but I think they're seen as incompatible, again, from what you said before, because it's been part…Okay, most conservative Protestants trace themselves back to the Protestant Reformation. And especially the rise of like, one text, one meaning, and you can ferret it out scientifically or linguistically, and now you know what it really says…
Jared
Well the Bible got us out from under the authority of the Church when it became corrupt.
Pete
Well it became a kind of authority, then.
Jared
Right.
Pete
And one thing, I mean, that was relatively unquestioned for much of church history is, let's say, the basic reliability of the Bible historically. There was a flood, there was a tower of Babel, you know, all this kind of stuff. And that is where Protestantism cut its, you know, its teeth, you know, on that. But then the challenges started coming. And I think many Christians in the West and elsewhere too are—that DNA is still with them about a particular way of looking at the Bible historically. And I think that feels a lot of apologetics, too. And historical complexities that have come to light, because of things like archaeology, or just cultural anthropology, and various sciences on top of that, it has raised the question for us in a way that I think it's unavoidable. Like, should we read the Bible like any other book? It's, it's very, very hard to give a glib answer. “Of course not, it’s the Word of God!” Alright, but like you were saying, well, you're making assumptions there that because it's the Word of God, like the human element is, is not present. And you know, I wrote a book Inspiration and Incarnation that sort of tries to argue that, listen, Jesus was fully human, and the Bible's fully human. What are you gonna do? “Well, it's divine.” Yeah, it is divine. But that doesn't mean Jesus is any less human. You can say inspired all you want. But that word is not a magic word to wipe away the humanity of the text. And as soon as you're dealing with the humanity of the text, we're dealing with methods of inquiry into what happened and what maybe didn't happen. And sometimes we just don't know. And sometimes biases come in, all that kind of stuff. But the inquiry, the interrogation seems to be, I would say, largely unavoidable. I mean, how can you not think about this stuff?
Jared
Well I agree, and I think the ethical import for me is, I don't know how we get away from: if we can't interrogate the Bible, we can't interrogate interpretations of the Bible. And that is so ripe for authoritarianism and abuse.
Pete
Cult.
Jared
Where it's “What do you mean, I can't question that?” Most of the time when people say that, it's “I can't question this interpretation of the Bible.” And I think, yes, if it means, like, whatever gets us away from that, I think is a good thing. And so I just think that we have such a small step from, “Well, no, we can't read the Bible like any other book, because it's the Word of God,” to “Well you can't question my interpretation on tithing, because it's in the Word of God.
Pete
Mhmm. Another way of phrasing a question, I hear a lot, “Can we trust the Bible” in a different way than we trust an op-ed piece of the newspaper?
Jared
Well, it's interesting, because I immediately think to my work with families, because trust is a big deal within the family business setting. And I immediately go to, well, there's different kinds of trust. I can trust their character, I could not trust their competency, I could not trust their commitment. Those are very different. And they have very different outcomes. So if I trust your character, whew, that's a big relief. But maybe I don't trust your competency. And that's just a different strategy for dealing with it. And so I automatically go to, well what do we mean? Can we trust the Bible for what?
Pete
To trust the Bible, I think, what is behind that is trusting it to give you again, a loaded term, objective factual information every time there's a sentence in the Bible.
Jared
Right. And then no, you can't.
Pete
Right.
Jared
I don’t think you can trust the Bible for that.
Pete
And to expect that from someone, is that asking them for a mature kind of trust, right? It's not like we're over—it's not about being over God and knowing better than God, it's dealing with a text that was written by people. And what do we do with that? How do we understand it? And do I trust it? Well, the very fact that I care is itself like an existential move towards trust. I want to understand, I want to be a part of this.
Jared
It’s an engagement.
Pete
It's an engagement, right? Existential buy-in, right? To me, that's, that says a lot, you know? And I mean, not everyone would see it that way. But I do. You know, I think that's a big part of this is like, you can interrogate the Bible, but the very fact that you're spending time doing that is significant.
Jared
It's so interesting to me that someone who says that they “trust” the Bible, in maybe more of a kind of, I don't know the right way to, I don't know what we're supposed to say now, evangelical way. It is interesting that you talk about the kind of the existential engagement in it. I feel like my life doesn't look—I would answer that question to say, “No, I don't trust the Bible to give me that.” But my life doesn't probably look terribly different in terms of what that actually means for people. Like, I don't know, I'm such a pragmatist, like—What do you mean? Like, what do you do differently than I would do because you “trust the Bible” and I don't for this particular thing. Like I don't—
Pete
It just means I have the right idea.
Jared
Exactly. That's what it comes down to, is it just means like, I feel confident, or I feel certain that I'm right about how the world actually works.
Pete
Well because I found this here on this page, right.
Jared
Because I found this here, yeah. Like, okay, well, good for you. I mean, I mean that sincerely, if you need to feel certain, and that helps you, great. We're all, I mean we’re all looking for that stuff.
Pete
I think that is based on, again, an interpretation of that story or that passage or that word or whatever, against the backdrop of a whole host of encultured assumptions. But that's just it. I mean, don't bother me with all these fancy words and stuff like that. But it is, you know, if you're, if you start taking it seriously digging in, you can't help but see your own biases, your own assumptions, the baggage we bring with us when we say simple things like “I trust the Bible.”
Jared
Yeah, and I think I want to end by saying we—in some ways, we're arguing with two interlocutors here. On one side, we have the more traditional conservative Protestant, who's going to answer the question, should we read the Bible like any other book with a resounding no. Right? And we're saying, maybe we should, that's kind of what the vibe is in this conversation. Maybe we should. But I think I want to end by saying there's a whole group of people, and I would have put myself in this camp a while back, where that's actually not what they're asking.
And I think for a lot of people to answer the question, should the Bible be read like any other book? To answer it yes will actually bring more engagement with the Bible, not less. I think the assumption from the vantage point of a conservative Protestant is if you answer this question, should the Bible be read like any other book? and you answer it yes, it loses its sheen, and it loses its shine, and therefore people are going to stop reading it. I run into people all the time, where when they learn to read it like any other book, it actually becomes more valuable to them because they're not caught up in all the trappings of history and this and this is how—and it just becomes this rule thing, and it becomes feeling trapped and claustrophobic with it rather than—
Pete
They feel like they have to defend it or something.
Jared
Right, they feel trapped in a methodology. And so I kind of am coming at this whole question with a resounding yes, please read it like any other book, because I found so much value in it when I let go of all those trappings and just read it like another book. So I feel like those are two different ways of coming at the same question.
Pete
And on that last point, I just, I can verify that from teaching college students the last 11 years that they feel liberated—not to escape the Bible, but it's like a student said, comparing gospel accounts of how they tell parables or stories differently. And one student said, “This is amazing. It's like they're actually thinking about what they're saying.” Like, there's a mind behind this. And they're engaged in it because it stops being sort of that children's story thing, you know, and you start seeing, there's a reason why people read the Bible like any other book. Because they're inquiring, and then questions come up that are unavoidable.
Jared
Yep.
Pete
Anyway, all right. Well, folks, I hope we solved this for you. Again.
Jared
Given that the ratio of questions asked to answers given was quite high, I don't think we probably did.
Pete
But you know what, that's okay, folks. You can handle it. This is okay. But it is to me, the very fact that the questions generate more questions is part of what makes this worthwhile, you know? It isn't just like, let's problematize it's like, no, questions invariably come up. One question leads to five other questions, and you get to try to explore those. And if we don't have the pressure, of like, coming up with the kind of Bible we're used to seeing, that curiosity can be very life affirming. And you know, I never get tired of teaching the Bible for that very reason. It's like, every time I read it's like, I didn't see this before what's going on here? Why did he say this? And all kinds of stuff.
Jared
And if the goal isn't the finish line of being certain and having all the right answers, but we can learn to enjoy the process, then the questions become part of the fun. That's the interesting part. It's not an obstacle to get to some grand conclusion.
Pete
Should we close in prayer?
Jared
Uh, no.
Pete
No? Okay. See ya, folks, bye.
Jared
See ya!
[Outro music plays]
Jared
Well thanks to everyone who supports the show! If you want to support what we do, there are three ways you can do it. One, if you just want to give a little money, go to thebiblefornormalpeople.com/give.
Pete
If you want to support us and want a community, classes, and other great resources, go to thebiblefornormalpeople.com/join.
Jared
And lastly, it always goes a long way if you just wanted to rate the podcast, leave a review and tell others about our show!
Outro
You've just made it through another episode of The Bible for Normal People! Don't forget you can also catch the latest episode of our other show, Faith for Normal People, wherever you get your podcasts. This episode was brought to you by The Bible for Normal People podcast team: Brittany Prescott, Savannah Locke, Stephanie Speight, Natalie Weyand, Steven Henning, Tessa Stultz, Haley Warren, Nick Striegel, and Jessica Shao.
[Outro music ends]
[Beep signals bloopers are about to begin]
Jared
Whenever I'm reading Moby Dick, as I’m want to do…
Pete
Yeah, every day? [Chuckling]
Jared
I mean, doesn't everybody? I don't know why that came to mind.
Pete
Too thick.
[Beep signals another blooper]
Pete
Oh, there you go, problematizing these simple questions again, Jared! This is why you're so annoying. This is why nobody likes you on the internet.
Jared
I know. [Laughing]
Pete
They don't like you at all. So.
Jared
That’s okay. I just don't ever go on the internet.
Pete
Yeah, I think, you know—
[Beep signals last blooper]
Jared
…and I think I would maybe want to end by saying—
Pete
Do you want to be mindful of my time?
Jared
No.
Pete
No?
Jared
Um, I don't care about your time at all.
[Pete laughs]
[Beep signals end of bloopers]
