What Is the Meaning of Sacred Texts?

Biblical apologists like Armstrong are no different from those that believe in a literal interpretation of scripture. It's still an interpretation with a human and all their logical failings and biases. The problem with the bible is the times during which it was written. It reflects the beliefs of the time of its writing. It has driven a stake in the ground tethering and pulling us back in time instead of preparing us for an evolving future. Such is the failure of the dogma that all religions cling to.

Armstrong is basically saying that with enough mental gymnastics you can force religion to fit into modern liberal morality. But if you already have your morality, then what's the point of religion? Why go through all this effort to square the circle? Ultimately this is why her efforts are pointless, and honestly counterproductive. The smart and independent will become atheists, the dumb and authoritarian will be led around by preachers who emphasize the "bad verses". By legitimizing religion she is legitimizing the evil, nothing more.

"I’ve also been puzzled that the Bible can have multiple versions of the Ten Commandments, or provide conflicting accounts of how Judas died or on which night the Last Supper occurred." Perhaps because the Bible is not divinely inspired? Just a guess.

This is a pleasant thought, but the fact that scriptures can be bent for various perspectives suggests that they don't really have any decent claim to represent truth, metaphorical or literal. And, anyway, I think it is a stretch to say that St. Paul didn't advocate dominion of men over women, and that we can interpret the passage any other way. He said it, it is ugly, and we can either accept it (as fundamentalists do), or reject it. There is no other logically coherent third way. Fundamentalists may reject 400 years of philosophy, science, and history, but they ARE more philosophically coherent than a contextualist who tries to square Christianity (or Islam, or Hinduism or . . .) with our modern understanding of the world.

Ms. Armstrong (and other religious progressives) are correct. To interpret the Bible literally is downright ridiculous. But Bible study is fascinating - and full of meaningful points to ponder, e.g: ***Proverbs 25:24 New Living Translation (NLT) It’s better to live alone in the corner of an attic than with a quarrelsome wife in a lovely home.*** Clearly,this passage was written in an era when misogyny was the norm. But the point of the passage - whether you're male or female - is that it's better to lower your standard of living than to suffer in a miserable marriage. From my experience, it's an important lesson to remember.

Karen Armstrong; My favorite ex-nun

Armstrong’s “A Case for God” opined that the proof that God exists, is because “God is ineffable.” Emanuel Kant tres “to save religion by arguing that God is beyond reason and therefore cannot be rationally proved.” There is only one known God which is both provable, and empirically verifiable; so it’s readily apparent, that neither Armstrong nor Kant considered this provable, easily verifiable God, when they came to their conclusions in this regard. The provable, verifiable God, is the God of the “Secular Humanist Pantheists” (SHP) who know that nature, the Universe, and “God” — in totality— are all different aspects of the same thing. Therefore, all one needs to do, to have a verifiable, provable God, is to accept the fact that both nature and the Universe exist.

NOt the writing or thoughts of any God. A 300 year old attempt to garner power and money using a Messiah that none of the actual writers had ever known, or know anyone who had know him. Why not any of the other dozen so-called Messiahs, wandering around the region, at the time? It was the Messianic time, and Jews were ready to believe. C'mon, folks. There may be some decent ideas in there, but this is NOT the word of God. It's the word of males, who saw an opportunity--a golden one.

Re: "...In the Bible, St. Paul declares: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” From the vantage of 50 years, reaffiliated, away from (familial) Abrahamic_Monotheism, ('Catholic' sub-sect), all I can say, is... Judaism, Christianity, 'N, Islam seem doomed to a long, slow organizational demise by passive_attrition, via current ideologies, which reinforce the sexist Paulian_Misogyny, highlighted... Threats of eternal damnation WON'T end the spiritual phenomena of the 'NONES', a (demographic) label for people who retain some sense of religiosity, but have permanently severed ties with neolithic belief systems! Before I forget... Having mourned 419, (1-WTC / city agency), coworkers, murdered by M. Atta, (Lwr. Manhattan; 11.09.01)...and being 101% disgusted with anti-synagogue violence, as well as this fantasy of 'Trump as a Xian', yet, supporting the Charlottesville-car-attack', etc., I'll note: Religio-Political violence merely speeds up, this 'True Believer' attrition-Vs.-retention disaster!

Wonderful review, certainly inspires me to add it to my reading list for its generous and charitable view of how scripture should be activated in our lives. I did chuckle at this couplet though: “Scriptures ... were ... meant to elevate us, not simply to give us ammunition to support preconceived views.” “Armstrong’s exploration of Scripture across so many traditions reinforces my view.” It seems many of us want to be “matched”.

Let's face it. The only plausible target of this book are those who secularists who ridicule Scriptures. That may be reason enough why this book is important. But those who take Scriptures literally will not be swayed in any way by this book and instead, probably will accuse the author of blasphemy.

Bronze age MEN trying to make sense of a world about which they had no idea. Now we try and apply some mystic sense to what they proposed. Might as well read some tea leaves.

Thank you for leading me to this enriching resource that gives words to what I have felt and embraced all my life, yet constantly struggle to articulate in conversations regarding religions. Reading this article and anticipating Karen Armstrong’s book has given me a sense of joyful permission to continue on a fluid path without having to convince, capture or negate anything. My experience with the Sacred has always resonated as life-affirming; My experience with religion (origin; to bind) felt more like a test of loyalty to an exclusive membership, offering enticing bribes mixed with threats of punishment. More education in comparative religions could certainly reduce violence and bring the world closer to an appreciation of our common humanity, but would no doubt really annoy the ‘powerful.’

I’ve experienced Pentecostal services in a very small town in Oklahoma, Catholic Mass, Jewish services and a couple of different Buddhist practices at times. I found them moving, but the most spiritual and humanizing events in my life occurred during the 40 years I served as a primary care physician and from the thousands of people I met. Religious practices seem to provide an individual with a sense of solace for themselves however they view those scriptures. Service to others, face to face, gives one a glimpse of the true miracle of each of our lives and might even help relieve a bit of suffering.

I am a long time reader of John Sprong. He has a similar view of Christianity. I look forward to reading this book. Literalism drives a wedge in every topic, thus turning what should give us comfort into something that makes us question our faith. I have always read the Christian scriptures as subjective history rather than the word of God.

What I take from Armstrong is usually, "it all sounds pretty, but none of it is actually true." If "Holy Book X" isn't actually true, it shouldn't be believed, and there's absolutely no reason it should be given preferential treatment in governing human affairs over, say, Shakespeare.

Armstrong's book is apparently ambitious and capacious, but, unfortunately, such characteristics also go with superficiality. She may understand most other religions with some objectivity, but she does not well understand Judaism. I suspect that she cannot escape the unconscious biases and inadequacies of early Christian instruction. I do not know whether she uses, or only Kristof has used, the phrase "Judeo-Christian," but any use of the phrase is non-sensical, if not worse: exclusionary and bigoted and, ironically, disrespectful both of Judaism and Christianity, and of their intertwined history. I have not read the book, and I am not likely to read it. No literalist, I regard scriptural texts as intended guidance for adherents to the religion. They must be understood in their original context and understood in their contemporary application. For all her comments on their uses to serve others' purposes, she, too, uses them to serve hers.

"Armstrong argues that this approach misunderstands how Scripture works. It’s like complaining about Shakespeare bending history, or protesting that a great song isn’t factual." But as far as I know, appreciators of Shakespeare's plays over the centuries never promoted them as being factually accurate. They certainly don't today. If only priests and laymen presented their religions honestly-- as symbolic, metaphoric, allegoric, and even artistic, representations of the human condition-- militant atheists would drop their militancy. It's only the literal-mindedness of most religions that makes them dangerous and look silly in the 21st century.

Karen Armstrong puts into words the sense of Sunday School classes held in my Presbyterian church growing up. Jesus said the Kingdom of God belongs to little children and those who can be like them. Justice and mercy form my sense of God.

Thanks for this most interesting review. I have been reading Karen Armstrong's books for many years and always find solace from her assertions across cultures about the Transcendent. Down here in the south particularly, bombardments to the senses and mind from fundamentalists require this solace. And let's not forget the assertions, which I find sterile, from atheistic secular humanists (many found here in NY Times comments) which also require Armstrong's solace. I agree with Armstrong that avenues to the Transcendent, poetry, music, art, Scriptures, are what give life its depth and color. And for me, much of its meaning.

Notably absent in this review is that Armstrong's thesis has been the clear purpose of biblical commentary by Judaism's Rabbis and scholars for centuries, starting with the Rabbis of the Talmud. The whole purpose of the Talmud was to record, analyze and debate the Jewish oral tradition -- histories, laws, religious and ritual practice, morality, philosophy -- also known as "Torah she-b'al-peh" or "Oral Torah". Oral as it was *not* written down in scripture, but transmitted orally and contrapuntally to the text. This tradition of interpretation and commentary continued with ancient and medieval commentators like Rashi and Maimonides and continues to this day with the revered (mostly orthodox) Rabbis of the 'post-Amoraic' period. As an educated Jews, I am always amazed at how uneducated Jews, Christian scholars, and atheists would take the Bible's words so literally, and in languages other than Hebrew, and use the literal meanings of these texts to justify their moral outlook. It is especially outrageous when one conflates the ancientness of the New Testament, which is a relatively recent document (really written at the time of the Talmud) with the more ancient Jewish texts like the Torah, really written centuries apart. Much of this reflects the bias towards Jewish scholarship wrought mostly by the Christian West. I am happy it is being rediscovered by Armstrong, and other non-Jewish scholars who are finally figuring out what Judaism has known for so long.

Please note that the text "I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man..." is from 1 Timothy 2:12. Also note (from Wikipedia) that 1 Timothy is one of 4 letters from Paul in the New Testament considered to be pseudepigraphic by 80% of scholars. That is, Paul did not write 1 Timothy.

I'm going to take issue with the idea that literalists must believe the world was populated by incest. Not one bit of the Holy Bible even implies, much less states, that Adam and Eve were the only people God created...just the first people.

“Music doesn’t need to be factually accurate to be true.“ And thus you participate in an equivocation fallacy that most people do not recognize. You need a different word for “true” in this case. By your own admission, what you call “true” is not factually accurate. That is to say: it is false. You also bash fundamentalism. But virtually all Christians believe in a literal resurrection. Are they all fundamentalists?

You would have thought by the 20th century, we would be done with all the superstitious religious nonsense but, apparently, the brainwashing of the young by their elders is much stronger than science and common sense.

Old Testament Isaiah 55:8-9 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts." New Testament Matthew 5:43 Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." Put the two together and you have God's entire message to people.

Another trope to the beneficence of religion by extolling just how different from religion it can be. "Religious blowhards" are condemned, yet they are abundant in most religions. Reference is made, again, to "militant" atheists (are you "militant" if you don't believe in Santa or that Elvis still lives?). Atheists just don't believe in the supernatural or in claims for which there is no evidence. So, for Armstrong, god is not a "guy in the sky" but is an "unknowable transcendence." Scripture "promotes ethical behavior". But ethical behavior is found in human relations. Ancient, often barbaric, texts have very little role in that. Not none; just like any literature can remind us of human traits: weaknesses, needs, strengths, compassion, scriptures can serve the same role. I'd take Shakespeare or Whitman any day of the week over the bible or koran, but still, even Grimm and Anderson contribute something to our moral education. But religion by definition means an acceptance of some supernatural power. It demands "faith", i.e., the dispensing with facts, evidence, cause-and-effect, science. There are a few potentially good outcomes from that (e.g., inspiration for some specific good act); there is a far greater potential for very bad outcomes from treating fiction as non-fiction. All the good that is in religion can be found elsewhere. Serving others, community, music, art, inspiration, are qualities of being human. Let's build our communities on reality, not superstition.

Sounds like an adventurous read.

Well written article outlining Karens book. The Old Testament wasn’t written down for centuries, in some cases 500 or more years. The philosophy is sound ... tell stories to explain where we came from and how we evolved. These stories were often sung by wandering minstrels and EMBELLISHED. In those times there were more hallucinogenic substances than we have today ... the incense in the temple may have been psychoactive. Who knows for sure. The stories are just that ... STORIES!!! One must treat the Bible with a metaphorical lens to understand it’s truth. It was NOT dictated by some Deity!!! That being said, I LOVE the stories. PS Mark didn’t detail the events simply because they never occurred. The creed remains nonsense. If Believers would only THINK about what its all about, they would get out and DO GOOD and not flog their own brand of Christianity. Again, thanks for the excellent article ... and huge thanks to Karen Armstrong for her scholarly volumes! Lee Allen Steels

Too bad the people who need to read and absorb this information, will never acknowledge the truth in this book and article. Language is a living organism, often changed by the time and agenda of the speaker. It makes sense, therefore, that written words follow the oral history. There is no way to know the motives of those who transcribed the "holy" books and so, we can never know how they were amended by the writer.

NK does an admirable job giving an overview of what promises to be a major work. Armstrong has an admirable grasp of what lies at the core of the sacred texts of history, and has an equally admirable ability to communicate her views on the true nature of the texts. It's a shame that those most in need of this sort of work are the least likely to read it: fundamentalists of all stripes. Cranks and blowhards rule the roost in religion--and almost always have. A squeaky wheel gets the grease form of evangelism seems to pervade all major religions. Get rid of that, listen to what the Karen Armstrongs of the world have to say, and religion might be more palatable to those who condemn its worst aspects. If only...

Kristof comments that the Gospels have multiple versions of key events. Such as Jesus's last words on the cross. The Gospels give two quite different versions. What if both versions were a cover-up, after Christianity spread beyond its earliest, Jewish adherents, to Gentiles? Jesus's last words on the cross may have been the Shema, which observant Jews pray as they are about to die. If so, later Christians who did not want us to realize that Jesus was born, lived, and died as a Jew would have wanted to conceal the truth. There is much evidence that it was not Jesus who founded Christianity, but Paul.

We see the word “weaponization” a lot these days, and it accurately describes the way sacred texts are taken out and used to verbally assault people in arguments over moral/political issues. This book aims to remind us of an older, deeper, more aesthetic and reflective approach to interpreting sacred texts. When we quote “proof texts” or “clobber texts” AT each other — on the right, to justify a punitive and rigid social policy; from those opposed to religion, to prove the horridness of the entire institution — we have drifted far from the approach described here. If we read our texts in a spirit of forgiveness, love, compassion and community we may see that we have much to gain. I wish we could put down our word-weapons and take up our old spiritual books in a quiet and humble spirit. They have soothed and instructed people for centuries and they still can.

Many religions teach that what is written in the “texts” is the absolute word of the god being worshipped. Many adherents of religion cling to that tenet. Yet they fail to see or understand the vast contradictions that exist within the texts themselves. Indeed, as has been argued, religion is beyond reason.

So – the ocean of blood that has been shed in the name of religion throughout history, shed in the defense of a “doggedly literal” interpretation of sacred texts is - what? – just a mistake? Whoops…sorry. All of the psychological and social damage inflicted by sacred Christian and Muslim texts, such as the subjugation of women, is now suddenly whisked away by recasting it as poetry and opera? That’s just too easy. Unfortunately, Armstrong’s revised interpretation of sacred texts as “flexible, evolving, contextual and more like performance art than a book” dovetails in a disturbing way with postmodernist era we live in. It’s an era of information dystopia in which there is no capital “T” Truth, but instead a tsunami of relative truths in which each individual cherry picks according to how the words resonate with them. It’s “reader response” religion. Armstrong proposes that we leave it to naturally irrational humans to sort through “historically…infused…contradiction and mystery.” That sounds like a recipe for disaster. it replaces the pursuit of shared truth with a culture war over power and identity - because religion from the beginning of time has always been about power. “Truth” has always been defined by whomever holds power. In today’s world Truth is forcibly argued opinion gleaned from the “mystery and contradiction” to support preconceived views. Armstrong’s new interpretation is just that – an opinion, and unfortunately more religious smoke and mirrors.

Bottom line :Fluidity is essential for evolution of the individual and collective mindset . Rigidity = Fragility =Fractures and breaks (read conflict) personal and societal

Although a little off the topic, the virgin birth was probably put into play to show the sanctity of Jesus. Not only was that needed to show his absence of "original sin" (itself a questionable premise) but Mary had to be free of the taint also, This engendered her immaculate conception. But if there could be conception without sin in one case, why not all?

Seems to make a great case for keeping faith and religion personal. And not used to make government regulations.

Put simply, all religion and all scriptures must be rationalized. Omniscient, benevolent, all powerful Gods should have been capable of creating scripture than doesn’t require complicated rationalization.

Very interesting and inspiring and accurate. Something I’d like to read. The author of the article , whom I read always and respect, can’t help but cherry pick himself which shows how easy it is to do. I do think the strongest lesson is not to compare religions but understand the internal conflicts of ones own to know that no religion is perfect. Tolerance isn’t pretending that differences don’t exist but to value the conflicts in oneself.

I get it, words should mean what we want them to mean, not simply what the words’ writers or speakers believed they meant. After all, if we can have relativity and the uncertainty principle in science, there is no reason to expect that words must have specific and enduring meaning and must be taken literally.

I’m really looking forward to reading her new release. I’m not religious in the least bit and over the years I have made a number of friends who find great comfort and hope in their life. Who am I to deny anyone that which offers comfort and hope for a friend? Ms. Armstrong’s books have helped me to have more meaningful friendships through understanding.

Whatever approach chosen to scriptural interpretation, whether literal or not, the central fact of interpretation is that we no nothing about the author or authors of the sacred texts, whether, post composition, additions (or subtractions) were added or deleted, at the instance of one scholar, or group of scholars , to emphasize an aspect of the original "teaching." Take for example, the Gospels: who wrote them? As opposed to the names now affixed to the texts, or when, how close to the events described; whether the accounts were witnessed in whole or part by the authors, and whether there any any extra biblical sources that can confirm or disprove the claims made therein. If the answer is no, and surely it is, then we are thrown back to the texts, from which no reasonable person can base a system of belief.

While I certainly agree with Armstrong's desire to create a more compassionate approach to religion, the purpose of scripture has been to create obedience to a demanding deity, who could then decide to be compassionate or vindictive. It is compassion that is being cherry picked from the texts, not dogma.

Religions and the scripture that support them have been used for centuries by men and governments to control the poor, uneducated and tribal attitudes toward other tribes. The passages that seem least trumpeted are those that encourage care and compassion. I would love for Armstrong's analysis and conclusions to influence the great religions of the world. I doubt that will happen. However, it does give those of us who have abandoned those religions the knowledge and opportunity to embrace the joy and compassion that all scriptures holds. For that I thank her.

I often imagine the misuse of scripture through literalism to be like some future misinterpretation of current advertisements by a future generation. If a future generation picked up an advert of a celebrity touting a product, they, in their naivety might consider everything about it true. But we don’t take advertisements literally in this way. We understand that the meaning lies not in the wrapper but in the underlying message that is trying to be conveyed - this product is good and you should use it too. Generally speaking, most of us don’t fuss about whether the actor in a tv spot really enjoys the product because that’s not the point. Likewise, I think many of the details in the gospel and other works were completely unverifiable to the original audience. It’s not that they were or were not true literally that was important or even under consideration. It’s the underlying message that is on offer that is the important part. That is the truth you are asked to accept or reject.

With religion we are attempting to explain the unexplainable. We don't understand our beginnings so we make up stories to make us more comfortable.That's fine, depending on the message, but it still doesn't explain the unexplainable.

Isn’t it also the case that over the centuries scriptures were flexibly reinterpreted to justify violence and discrimination? To cite a few western examples with which I am familiar: the Crusades; biblical justifications of the enslavement of Africans and then of Jim Crow and anti miscegenation laws; and the second class role of women in most Christian institutions after they were permitted to serve as church leaders during the very early years of the faith. Flexible interpretation of canonical texts is not enough to save religion. Exegeses can evolve to justify new horrors just as well as they can change to foster greater enlightenment and inclusivity. I have tremendous respect for Karen Armstrong and will probably read her new book (which I am confident I would learn a great deal from), but I am skeptical of what this review makes out as her central thesis.

After having studied scripture and their conundrums for many years, I came to many of the same conclusions as Karen and Mr. Kristof did. In relation to scripture, we seem to be bombarded with an all-or-nothing, take-it-or-leave-it attitude from fundamentalists on the one hand and materialists on the others. Neither are correct. Our media and religious institutions don't help dispel the notions either. Literalism, especially scriptural literalism, is so disingenuous to religious traditions everywhere and to their scriptures in particular. I will read Karen Armstrong's book with great interest, as I have her other works.

From my lifelong personal experience, it seems plain as day that there are two distinct discourses (even within the same denomination) by religious apologists such as Ms Armstrong and religious preachers facing their congregation. On one hand, apologists writing essays, or dictating conferences, or participating in scholarly debates addressed to more skeptical public at large, frequently advocate a non-literal reading of Scripture and other doctrinal texts. On the other hand, priests and ministers in their sermons, as well as teachers in sectarian schools and Sunday schools, and other such settings usually advocate to the faithful a very literal reading. What does that inconsistency say about the validity of their arguments one way or the other?

Looking forward to reading this book. Thanks for your observations, Mr. Kristof. Curious to see if Ms. Armstrong discusses translations. As we all know in this country, God spoke English to Moses and Jesus, and every single version of The Bible is exactly the same. (I can't speak for scriptures from other faiths as I don't know and haven't taught them.) But I do wonder how anyone reading a book that begins with two rather different creation stories can think that what they're going to find in the pages to come is one thing.

The main problem is that scriptures are used to strengthen and/or justify some people holding power over others. Especially men over women, and also various "us" over various "them." What I consider the smaller sins, for example "creation science," are only (!) fake news and won't (really, can't) last forever, but humans' urge to power is likely eternal, and tying our fear of disappearing forever when we die to this urge condemns us to exploitation by the clever. If this reminds anyone of the Donald Trump phenomenon, congratulations on reaching an important stage of enlightenment. Karen Armstrong has been doing yoeman work for decades in trying to help us to understand religion, and I applaud it, but it's still beating a horse that should be dead. (Sorry about that awful metaphor...)

We have learned a lot over millennia. Sacred texts should be regarded as artifacts. Better to rely on updated text that explains what we now know of the origins of the universe, the earth, life, man, morality, and our challenges. Not to do so is to continue to deceive ourselves and our children, hold back education, continue cultural conflict, and deny the challenges we face. It should replace not just the Christian Bible, but other 'sacred texts that misinform. indoctrinate, and tend to authoritarianism. We are not much good at governing. Since science is a belief system, it qualifies as a religion, it has a well developed methodology, it is constantly evolving, it is as close as we are likely to get to understanding the truth, and we better grow up, evaluate the evidence, and face nature before we destroy our only home planet. Reject the parts of the 'sacred' texts that we know are wrong, so that we stop the misinformation. As we learn, our understanding should evolve. We will do well to avoid our own self-destruction, which looks likely. E.O.Wilson's book Consilience makes the case that faith is best placed in the unity of all knowledge. We will never know it all. Ultimately, reality will win. It doesn't care if we survive.

When I go to a drive-through at fast-food restaurant, I speak into a microphone, and the restaurant employee hears me through a headset. They reply by speaking into a microphone, and I hear them through a speaker. There are no "perfect" microphones, headsets or speakers. The communication is always imperfect. The same with Scriptures: communications of the Divine and Creation are imperfect. One part of repairing Creation is to embrace Scripture and search for the meanings behind the texts.

I will definitely read this book. Anything that will help us (humanity) understand and spread the essential unity behind all faiths and religions is a welcome effort. I am grateful to Karen Armstrong for bringing her courage, faith and intelligence to light in this world.

The difficulty for me is the definition of the word “Scripture”. It is clearly a man-made set of writings, that each faith tradition might claim to be divinely inspired. But other non-faith traditions arguably also have “Scripture”. As an adherent of the Western civilization tradition, I could claim that the writings of Shakespeare, Goethe or Mark Twain are Scripture for me. They encompass stories, moral teachings, warnings, just like the Bible does for Christians. The difference between the faith-based Scriptures and the non faith-based ones, is that the former are pre-selected for the member of the faith by a pre-existing authority, for Christianity is it the Church. I find that very limiting. For me, the non faith-based tradition allows me to choose what becomes Scripture. The choice of scriptural wisdom is therefore not limited to one or two sacred texts. It is almost infinite for me, and with the appearance of this book, infinite plus one. OK, I know, the mathematicians are going to cry foul over the last statement.

I’ve read Armstrong’s work before. The question she fails to answer here, as in her other works, is that if scripture can be interpreted so many ways, does it actually say anything at all? Surely, with such a lose interpretation, you are just superimposing your own biases and preferences on the supposed word of God. Out of such inexactitude are careers in theological academia born. At least the biblical literalists can anchor themselves in the actual words, however intolerant, anachronistic and, often, appalling. The books that underlie human knowledge, such as The Principia, The Origin of Species and The Wealth of Nations, are not seen as being open to such broad interpretation. Perhaps this is because they have single authors. Or maybe because they deal with observed and measured reality rather than 2 or 3,000 year old myths.

Ancient texts need to be seen in the context of the time, culture and place, and to be seen as stories, which is what they are. The cant about "finding new meaning" in ancient texts, such as would speak to our times, is fallacious. That might happen by accident here and there. Also, it's an incorrect generalization to say that ancient texts, such as the Hebrew writings, were oral forms to begin with. Some were, but some were not, some being the work of sophisticated court figures, such as the J Writer, who composed the oldest pieces of Genesis. Read Harold Bloom's "The Book of J." What I'm trying to get at is that, whether originally written or oral, the ancient texts were not created to enlighten or entertain 20th Century Americans, whatever they were written for, and any application to our times is an accident and actually of little interest. The works themselves, on their own terms, are much more interesting. Our pushing and pulling of the texts to suit our needs and desires is a bore.