BookTalk.org

Robert Tulip wrote: ]How ironic that Hitchens calls for an ironic rather than a literal reading of scripture, but himself exhibits Abraham’s behaviour of justifying a sacrifice of the innocent while excoriating Abraham. He obviously thought the sacrifice of innocent life in the Iraq War was for a greater good. However, that is disputable. In any case, there is a reasonable parallel between the patriarchal origins of Israel in the arbitrary behaviour of Abraham and the current Judeo-Christian patriarchal willingness to sacrifice the innocent.

Just to make a single comment so there's no confusion, Robert. Hitchens doesn't advocate for any type of reading of scripture. It was my thought that DH was telling us that scripture should be viewed as ironic or subversive commentary rather than as an uncomplicated narrative (and obviously I did not agree).

DWill: Hitchens doesn't advocate for any type of reading of scripture.

He may not explicity state his hermeneutical strategy (methods for reading, interpretation, and presuppositions about the text and the ideological lenses utilized by the reader)...but he certainly makes choices, none of which are free of ideology or agenda or desired goal...these choices highlight some texts over others, are entirely silent about others, and assume a highly fallacious notion of 'uncomplicated narrative' as a guiding hermeneutical principal.

Not having any clear indication of why the text was written, or how it is supposed to be read, or who should be reading it, or in what setting or format or context such reading was intended by the authors and editors of the text...I don't know how Mr. Hitchens, or anyone, can claim any sort of universal lens or universal conclusions about a text as complicated as the Bible.

This doesnt mean it is a pure rorsarch enterprise, where we simply project our ourselves entirely into the narrative...but, be sure, claiming a naive objectivity with no presuppositions or hermeneutical advocacy, is a clear indication that we are not aware of how we are projecting onto the text.

DWill: I'll grant you that your approach is very different from that which is used in any but a few very liberal churches. I would even call it a non-devotional approach. Worshipers generally want to revere the bible itself, not to see it as some kind of ironic or subversive commentary. And I think that here their instincts are right: there is no other way to read the Abraham/Isaac story but as representing simply and straightforwardly the proper way of faith.

I don't think a devotional or reverential approach to scripture requires a slavish submission to the authority of the text. And, I think it is clear, your preconceived notions of what is devotion and reverence have influenced your approach to the text...exhibiting the inescapable fact that none of us can read the text "simply and straightforwardly". Your conclusion that there is no role for irony or subversion in devotion or reverence closes the door on a number of possible interpretations.

I also do not know if the Abraham/Isaac trauma is the best example of Biblical faith. As an example of faith the narrative places Abraham in an impossible dilemma: who do you love more Abraham- Isaac or God? Which, at its best, forces the faithful to come to terms with what is non-negotiable about faith: where God is primary and premiere there is life...where God is surpassed or relegated or diminished there is death. If Abraham loves Isaac more than God, he gets neither Issac or God, or life at all. Whereas, if he loves God first: all else is provided. Isaac serves as the greatest threat for idolatry in Abraham's life. Idolatry is worshipping false gods...Isaac could become a false god to Abraham...perhaps was on the way to becoming precisely that.

More to say....

Dissident Heart wrote:DWill: “Hitchens doesn't advocate for any type of reading of scripture.”He may not explicitly state his hermeneutical strategy (methods for reading, interpretation, and presuppositions about the text and the ideological lenses utilized by the reader)...but he certainly makes choices, none of which are free of ideology or agenda or desired goal...these choices highlight some texts over others, are entirely silent about others, and assume a highly fallacious notion of 'uncomplicated narrative' as a guiding hermeneutical principal. Not having any clear indication of why the text was written, or how it is supposed to be read, or who should be reading it, or in what setting or format or context such reading was intended by the authors and editors of the text...I don't know how Mr. Hitchens, or anyone, can claim any sort of universal lens or universal conclusions about a text as complicated as the Bible. This doesn’t mean it is a pure rorsarch enterprise, where we simply project our ourselves entirely into the narrative...but, be sure, claiming a naive objectivity with no presuppositions or hermeneutical advocacy, is a clear indication that we are not aware of how we are projecting onto the text.

Hitchens does actually call for an ironic rather than a literal reading of scripture when he describes the religious mind as "literal and limited" and the atheistic mind as "ironic and inquiring." He also exhibits a set of scientific ideological biases. This emerges in the Abraham reading. I have been debating with Interbane about the basis of an astrotheological reading of scripture, an approach Hitchens seems to reject as linked to astrology. The Abraham story contains the following:

“the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied. 12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." 13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram [a] caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided." 15 The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."

Astrotheology reads this passage by noting that Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac marks the dawn of the Age of Aries, when the vernal equinox point entered the constellation of Aries in about 2000BC, just as Jesus Christ marks the dawn of the Age of Pisces in 0 BC/AD, when the vernal equinox point entered the constellation of Pisces. The deep symbolism of sacrificing a ram, symbolic of Aries, in place of his son Isaac provides abundance for Abraham’s descendents, just as the deep symbolism of the loaves and fishes provide abundance for the followers of Jesus.

Setting biblical myths against the temporal shift of the cosmos provides an informative and coherent reading, but one that is outside the pale for Hitchens with his ideological reliance on the modernist theory of David Hume and Thomas Hobbes. It is unfortunate that the Abraham text provides ideological basis for Zionism regarding enemy cities. A better interpretation, rather than calling Abraham names, is to see him as symbolising the needs of a past age. Now the needs are completely different, as we reach the end of the Piscean Age and look towards a new Age of Aquarius.

Robert Tulip wrote:In any case, there is a reasonable parallel between the patriarchal origins of Israel in the arbitrary behaviour of Abraham and the current Judeo-Christian patriarchal willingness to sacrifice the innocent.

What exactly is arbitrary about following, in fear, the voice of a god who demands sacrifice? Seeing that arbitrariness is a term given to choices and actions which are considered to be done not by means of any underlying principle or logic, but by whim or some decidedly illogical formula - I suppose that the only explanation for what you mean to say is that god is the illogical motivation in any particular atypical religious action?

No metaphysical entity actually demands the "Judeo-Christians" to do anything in a manner that is even slightly suggestive of a realistic association with Abraham's worldly, yet supposedly divinely inspired actions.

Grim wrote:What exactly is arbitrary about following, in fear, the voice of a god who demands sacrifice?

Abraham is a bit like Joseph Smith of the Mormons with his "God told me" line to justify his own arguments. Arbitrariness enters decision-making when the decision is not based on evidence. There is no evidence that God actually made a demand to Abraham.

Robert Tulip wrote:

Grim wrote:What exactly is arbitrary about following, in fear, the voice of a god who demands sacrifice?

Abraham is a bit like Joseph Smith of the Mormons with his "God told me" line to justify his own arguments. Arbitrariness enters decision-making when the decision is not based on evidence. There is no evidence that God actually made a demand to Abraham.

Is there any evidence that Abraham even existed for that matter? Other than the presence of the stars I suppose, and we are after all his supposed descendants, we can also notice an early biblical reference to the idea of gods children owning the earth stemming from his god given patriarchy. If taken as a parable the situation seems to be expressed quite explicitly, a style that I am sure is common to most of the book. Am I to understand you made a simple taxonomic error, everyone does, it's just that the implications are...suggestive.

What is the taxonomic error?

Dissident Heart wrote: I don't think a devotional or reverential approach to scripture requires a slavish submission to the authority of the text. And, I think it is clear, your preconceived notions of what is devotion and reverence have influenced your approach to the text...exhibiting the inescapable fact that none of us can read the text "simply and straightforwardly". Your conclusion that there is no role for irony or subversion in devotion or reverence closes the door on a number of possible interpretations.

You're right about preconceived notions, and I would never claim not to have them. My notion about the bible is that it has, like all texts, a provenance, which places it in a historical context that should guide us in judging its meaning. I'm not a sophisticate when it comes to postmodern approaches to a text, and you could also say I don't believe in them. When I say, though, that the Abraham/Isaac story is simple or straightforward (on a relative scale), I am not making a "how to read" declaration. I am just stating an opinion about the presentation of this particular story. Now it is also true that in general, my opinion is that the historical and social contexts of the Bible determine its nature as largely instructive or didactic, which really does not give large room to interpretation. There are going to be important, numerous, exceptions to this statement for a diverse compilation like the Bible. My opinion on Abraham/Isaac, though, is that your interpretations to some degree avoid the reality of why this story is so important in the biblical context and why it is so representative of the society at that time.

who do you love more Abraham- Isaac or God? Which, at its best, forces the faithful to come to terms with what is non-negotiable about faith: where God is primary and premiere there is life...where God is surpassed or relegated or diminished there is death. If Abraham loves Isaac more than God, he gets neither Issac or God, or life at all. Whereas, if he loves God first: all else is provided. Isaac serves as the greatest threat for idolatry in Abraham's life. Idolatry is worshipping false gods...Isaac could become a false god to Abraham...perhaps was on the way to becoming precisely that.

Not to say I could not be limtied in my ability to understand a dimension of "love,", but in Abraham's submission to the command I don't see love at work but rather fear. I know this is part of the difficulty of the OT relationship with God, that he must be both loved and feared. Hitchens doesn't mention this as one of the impossible expectations of religion, but I wonder if it might be another. At any rate, I have difficulty seeing in this "love" the same love enjoined on us by the "great command" of the NT.

I would also point out that in the first interpretation you offered of Abraham/Isaac, God was indeed acting monstrously. Yet in the above he is acting justly. This can be the problem with interpretations--disruption of coherence.

Robert Tulip wrote:Hitchens does actually call for an ironic rather than a literal reading of scripture when he describes the religious mind as "literal and limited" and the atheistic mind as "ironic and inquiring." He also exhibits a set of scientific ideological biases. This emerges in the Abraham reading. I have been debating with Interbane about the basis of an astrotheological reading of scripture, an approach Hitchens seems to reject as linked to astrology.

Thank you, Robert, very much, for quoting from the text. I think we need to have more specific reference to what CH is actually saying. Note, though, that CH is not making a pitch for an ironic reading of the Bible when he says that atheists are given to irony. For him, I believe, and for me as well, there is rather a shortage of ironic possibility in the Bible. There is not often enough that sublety that lets irony in.