Why we should read OT narrative like general fiction

[JonC]

I began a teaching a video course on interpreting the various OT genre in our Sunday morning Bible study.
Two weeks ago a class member ventured ahead of the class and read the question below.
He was quite concerned about this multiple choice question.
What are your impressions? How would you answer the question and how could you relieve his concerns?

Why should we read OT narrative like general fiction literature?

a. Doing so allows the modern reader to contribute meaning to the text that the original author did not intend

b. Some of the material in the OT is not true

c. We will understand the text better because OT narrative contains the same literary features as general fiction literature

d. Doing so make OT narrative more interesting
​

Rob

I think a good example (a secular example) is T.S. Eliot. In The Waste Land he utilizes different voices, languages, sources, and even intentional vagueness to communicate something larger than the sum of its parts.

Were you to approach The Waste Land as a textbook or contemporary narrative then you would miss the forest for the trees. Perhaps this is why this type of poetry (and literature in general) has declined in favor of Harry Potter.

It is depressing, but people are often illiterate when it comes to any other genre than their own. Authors (great authors) like Flannery O’Connor and Joseph Conrad who had something to communicate beyond the words themselves are “things of the past” because the ideas are no longer communicated to our contemporary audience.

We can see this even in contemporary (now older) music. The late Chris Cornell wrote a song for Soundgarden titled “Black Hole Sun”. The lyrics includes things like “Hides the face, lies the snake, the sun in m disgrace”. Several have tried to analyze the lyrics and have wrote of the hidden meanings in the song. The song itself was simply images (dark, depressing images) strung together to communicate a mood. The words have no deeper meaning.

Yet people approach Scripture with the idea that “words have meaning” around every corner (as if Scripture were some type of coded textbook). This is why I am very cautious about “word studies” with people who have never studied the languages.

In this way, people have adopted a type of illiteracy. But they are probably very good at putting together Sauder bookcases.

 

[Rob_BW]

I'll stick with my Tom Wolfe comparison. Anyone read The Right Stuff? (And I mean read it, not watch the movie.) It's a reporting of history, but written as narrative. Like large portions of the OT, a history written in the narrative form, unlike a strict chronicle, for example.

 

[kyredneck]

I suppose one could read the OT as if its fiction if they want.

Doing so would mean you would have to stop believing it. Sounds Satanic to me.

I do not read the OT as if it were fictional literature

The question:
Why should we read OT narrative like general fiction literature?

My interpretation of the question:
Why should we read OT narrative the same way as we would read general fiction literature, i.e., in lieu of reading the Bible as if the reading of it is a religious act in itself.

IMO, you're wayyy overeacting to this.

 

[Van]

The question:
Why should we read OT narrative like general fiction literature?
.

Hi Kyrednect, I thought my post indicated no one should read the OT like general fiction. BTW, I believe in choice, and choice includes rejecting the premise of the question.

If you disagree with my assessment, please specify where I missed the boat. I presented the way I was taught to read the OT.

 

[Deacon]

It was never said that biblical narrative literature was fiction, only that one should read it in the same manner.

When I read a novel I have certain expectations.
I read a lot and I enjoy reading novels because they make me think.
I look for connections between characters and actions they do.
We should read biblical narrative with similar expectations.

The author of today's modern fiction novel has a point to make; it is the reader's job to determine the purpose the author intended.
You don't read a history book or a legal text or even poetry with the same expectations; we have different expectations depending upon the type/form/genre of literature we read.
It works the same way with reading the bible, our expectations are different depending upon the type of biblical literature we read.

Biblical narrative, in the same way, is not to be read as history (even though it certainly was about an historical event), it is read with the expectation that the author is communicating a message. It's our job as a reader/listener to understand the message.

If one reads it in that manner they will understand the text better because OT narrative contains the same literary features as general fiction literature.

Rob

 

[Deacon]

Just asking for a friend--how do you distinguish yourself from Julius Wellhausen?

Please explain, what does this have to do with the topic?

Rob

 

[Van]

I do not read the OT as if it were fictional literature, but rather as "living parables." The accounts are to be understood as historical, but for the purpose of teaching spiritual truth. This approach employs the elements of critical thinking (i.e. what is His point, what should I take away and apply) without suggesting the OT be considered "general fiction."

1) Suggesting the OT be considered general fiction.
2) As if it were general fiction
3) I thought my post indicated no one should read the OT like general fiction

Who said "biblical narrative literature was fiction,"

If you disagree with my assessment, (read the OT as if it were historical living parables) please specify where I missed the boat. I presented the way I was taught to read the OT.

 

[Ziggy]

I was taught in freshman English class at a secular state university to take it the other way around: modern fiction and literature derives plot, characterization, themes, expression, and idioms more from the Bible than any other source. As a result, one can not understand fictional literature without a knowledge of the Bible and not vice versa.

 

[Rob_BW]

1) Suggesting the OT be considered general fiction.
2) As if it were general fiction
3) I thought my post indicated no one should read the OT like general fiction

Who said "biblical narrative literature was fiction,"

If you disagree with my assessment, (read the OT as if it were historical living parables) please specify where I missed the boat. I presented the way I was taught to read the OT.

I don't see much difference. Do we believe that Jesus' parables were historical events?

 

[Van]

Hi Rob, yes viewing the OT as historical living parables, which requires searching the layered meanings, employs the same positive attributes offered by Deacon's suggested approach, but without the baggage.

I think the NT "parables" might be based on historical events, but Jesus may have paraphrased the accounts to stress the underlying spiritual truth. And of course, I take Jesus at His word.

In any event, that was how I was taught (discipleship class) to read the OT.

 

[church mouse guy]

Please explain, what does this have to do with the topic?

Rob

I think that my question has angered you. I was just asking for a friend.

 

[InTheLight]

I think that my question has angered you. I was just asking for a friend.

Who? Church Mouse Dude?

 

[InTheLight]

Anybody ever read a chronological Bible? There are several translations available--NKJV Chronologica Bible, NIV Chronological Bible. My wife has the NIV Chronological Bible and reading it helps to understand the context of history and also puts a fresh viewpoint on the Bible. It kind of forces you to read the Bible as if it's a novelization. It's quite enlightening.

 

[Deacon]

I think that my question has angered you. I was just asking for a friend.

I don’t anger that easily my friend, just curious.

Rob

 

[Reynolds]

I don't see much difference. Do we believe that Jesus' parables were historical events?

Yes.

 

[JonC]

I don't see much difference. Do we believe that Jesus' parables were historical events?

Good point. Jesus even confirmed their non-historical nature when He explained to the disciples the reason He used these narratives.

 

[Deacon]

From the FREE BOOK OF THE MONTH at Logos Bible Software

...the literary approach to the Bible needs to be defended against legitimate fears by evangelical Christians, and through the years I have not scorned to clear the territory of misconceptions as part of my defense of a literary analysis of the Bible. In kernel form, my message has been this:

1. To view the Bible as literature is not a suspect modern idea, nor does it need to imply theological liberalism. The idea of the Bible as literature began with the writers of the Bible, who display literary qualities in their writings and who refer with technical precision to a wide range of literary genres such as psalm, proverb, parable, apocalypse, and many more.

2. Although fiction is a common trait of literature, it is not an essential feature of it. A work of literature can be replete with literary technique and artifice while remaining historically factual.

3. To approach the Bible as literature need not be characterized by viewing the Bible only as literature, any more than reading it as history requires us to see only the history of the Bible.

4. When we see literary qualities in the Bible we are not attempting to bring the Bible down to the level of ordinary literature; it is simply an objective statement about the inherent nature of the Bible. The Bible can be trusted to reveal its extraordinary qualities if we approach it with ordinary methods of literary analysis.

To sum up, it would be tragic if we allowed ourselves to be deprived of literary methods of analyzing the Bible by claims that are fallacies.

Leland Ryken, How Bible Stories Work: A Guided Study of Biblical Narrative, Reading the Bible as Literature (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 7–8.

 

[MartyF]

This book is written by classical theists (Calvinism/Arminianism). Classical theism cannot take the Old Testament at face value. Take the 32nd chapter of Exodus as an example. The Classical theist has to say one has to read this chapter like a book of fiction. The systematic theology will often compare this chapter to a Mickey Mouse animation by saying this is an anthropomorphisation of God. The classical theist cannot take this scripture at face value. They have to fictionalize it. In fact, they have to do this throughout the Bible. But they especially have to do this in the Old Testament because the Old Testament blatantly exposes classical theism as a lie. So the writers threw out answer choice B in order to make sure that people knew that they weren’t saying the Bible isn’t true, they’re just saying that there are literary elements which are needed to properly interprete the Old Testament.

 

[Deacon]

I had to look up classical theist
Interesting that the wiki site discussed Exodus 31

Not a bad group. I’d guess that most of us on the BB would put ourselves in this group, as opposed to Open Theists.

I certainly am offended by the descriptions you employed, Mickey Mouse animation, fictionalize, blatantly exposes... rather too aggressive a post for me.

Rob

 

[Rob_BW]

This book is written by classical theists (Calvinism/Arminianism). Classical theism cannot take the Old Testament at face value. Take the 32nd chapter of Exodus as an example. The Classical theist has to say one has to read this chapter like a book of fiction. The systematic theology will often compare this chapter to a Mickey Mouse animation by saying this is an anthropomorphisation of God. The classical theist cannot take this scripture at face value. They have to fictionalize it. In fact, they have to do this throughout the Bible. But they especially have to do this in the Old Testament because the Old Testament blatantly exposes classical theism as a lie. So the writers threw out answer choice B in order to make sure that people knew that they weren’t saying the Bible isn’t true, they’re just saying that there are literary elements which are needed to properly interprete the Old Testament.

The problem with sweeping generalizations is that it only takes a couple of counter examples before they crumble.