Is not what? Is not the word of God? Is not qualified as the word of God? The question here is not whether it's the word of God; rather it is that, given that some people qualify it as the word of God, how in the name of reason can that qualification stand if the text of the thing so qualified is susceptible of different understanding?

If you mean it is not the word of God, then either that is your opinion (that I share), or you can prove it. If the latter, please do so. Or if you mean that no one so qualifies it, then be assured that many people do.

You think there are problems with the Old Testament! Have you heard of the Jesus Seminar? It's a group of people--some of them actual NT scholars--who decided to winnow the wheat from the chaff from a distance of 2000 years. One might wonder why the Gospel writers weren't able to separate the wheat from the chaff say, 40 years distance from the death of Jesus.

These imminent worthies have concluded the following:

• Jesus of Nazareth was born during the reign of Herod the Great.
• His mother's name was Mary, and he had a human father whose name may not have been Joseph.
• Jesus was born in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem.
• Jesus was an itinerant sage who shared meals with social outcasts.
• Jesus practiced faith healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic, relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic.
• He did not walk on water, feed the multitude with loaves and fishes, change water into wine or raise Lazarus from the dead.
• Jesus was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified by the Romans.
• He was executed as a public nuisance, not for claiming to be the Son of God.
• The empty tomb is a fiction – Jesus was not raised bodily from the dead.
• Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter and Mary Magdalene.

The seminar's criteria for authenticity was:

• Orality: According to current estimates, the gospels weren't written until decades after Jesus' death. Parables, aphorisms, and stories were passed down orally (30 – 50 CE). The fellows judged whether a saying was a short, catchy pericope that could possibly survive intact from the speaker's death until decades later when it was first written down. If so, it's more likely to be authentic. For example, "turn the other cheek".
• Irony: Based on several important narrative parables (such as the Parable of the Good Samaritan), the fellows decided that irony, reversal, and frustration of expectations were characteristic of Jesus' style. Does a pericope present opposites or impossibilities? If it does, it's more likely to be authentic. For example, "love your enemies".
• Trust in God: A long discourse attested in three gospels has Jesus telling his listeners not to fret but to trust in the Father. Fellows looked for this theme in other sayings they deemed authentic. For example, "Ask – it'll be given to you".

The Seminar's criteria for Inauthenticity were:

The seminar looked for several characteristics that, in their judgment, identified a saying as inauthentic, including self-reference, leadership issues, and apocalyptic themes.[4]

• Self-reference: Does the text have Jesus referring to himself? For example, "I am the way, and I am the truth, and I am life" (John 14:1–14).
• Framing Material: Are the verses used to introduce, explain, or frame other material, which might itself be authentic? For example, in Luke, the "red" parable of the good samaritan is framed by scenes about Jesus telling the parable, and the seminar deemed Jesus' framing words in these scenes to be "black".
• Community Issues: Do the verses refer to the concerns of the early Christian community, such as instructions for missionaries or issues of leadership? For example, Peter as "the rock" on which Jesus builds his church (Matthew 16:17–19).
• Theological Agenda: Do the verses support an opinion or outlook that is unique to the gospel, possibly indicating redactor bias? For example, the prophecy of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31–46) was voted black[clarification needed] because the fellows saw it as representing Matthew's agenda of speaking out against unworthy members of the Christian community.

So, one might ask whether everyone on the Jesus Seminar was actually an authentic New Testament scholar, and the answer to that would be a short fact:

• No.

.

What is one to believe about the Jesus Seminar findings?

One could certainly believe that they don't know, either.

By the time the Gospels were written, three distinct periods had occurred:

1. The active years of Jesus before his death (maybe 4 years, but we don't really know)
2. A partially undocumented growth period following Jesus' death
3. A period of consolidation, contained within a century of Jesus' death.

Jesus was remembered. The individuals who assembled the oral, and perhaps written, accounts of Jesus, circulating among the believers who regularly met to remember Jesus, were not remembered. We know almost nothing about the writers or the material they had at hand. So, if we have faith in God, that Jesus existed, that Jesus did what the Gospels say he did, then we must also have faith that the Gospel authors were divinely inspired.

If you mean it is not the word of God, then either that is your opinion (that I share), or you can prove it. If the latter, please do so. — tim wood

See, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis.

The OT is a combination of a number of writings that were written over many years.

By way of example, there are two entirely seperate Noah stories strewn contradictorily together in Genesis, providing proof these were two works pieced together by an editor. http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/torah/flood.html

I think folks are missing the question of the OP: "Now it’s a simple question: how does the word of God come to fall under any interpretation at all? If the words in a given sequence of words are intelligible - understandable – how do you get past that to something else and preserve the qualification?"

This has nothing to do with any fact about the Bible. It has everything to do with a certain common claim made about the Bible (or for that matter, any text that claims divinity). I'm going to guess the consensus here is that is that it doesn't. But is it just the simple logic of the matter?

If the words in a given sequence of words are intelligible - understandable – how do you get past that to something else and preserve the qualification?" — tim wood

Those who hold the bible is the word of God believe every word is impregnated with divine meaning and would therefore demand scholarly interpretation of every passage, with recognition their interpretation may be flawed. Such traditions often rely upon sages or particularly learned people for biblical interpretation.

Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter and Mary Magdalene. — Bitter Crank

How do they know for sure that Paul didn't invent Jesus? I know that's not a popular view, but some interesting points have been made along those lines. The first thing to note is that the writings known to be Paul's predate the Gospels. Paul is the oldest NT writer.

The second thing being that Paul didn't know Jesus during his life. Paul's theology is largely based on revelation. And that included a risen savior who died for sins and to overcome death, which is the same thing the Gospel writers have to say about his crucifixion (well maybe not Mark but definitely the other three).

The funny thing about the bible is that the only people that even bother to discuss its meaning are the ones that believe it to be the word of god, and by doing so call into dispute its validity and his all-mightiness.
Who in his right mind would follow a god that could not even speak clearly enough so that his words would be completely and clearly understood. A god that leaves his followers in a daze about what he meant should be disqualified as a god for incompetence.

"Now it’s a simple question: how does the word of God come to fall under any interpretation at all? — tim wood

One reason is that God has spoken over the course of many years, in disparate circumstances. As the years and the reasons pass out of immediate memory, we have no choice but to ask "What did God mean when He said such and such to Moses (or whoever it was)?"

Another reason is that while God is straight up and down about obedience, we are equivocators par excellence.

A third reason is that people just disagree about what God said, or what God meant. Not only that, just because "what God said" was settled theology this year doesn't mean it will stay settled theology.

A fourth reason is that for various and sundry reasons, people engage in special pleading "Well sure, God said no work on the Sabbath, but what about feeding the oxen? They get hungry and thirsty." "True, God said no lusting after thy neighbor's manservant, but by Jove, he is SUCH A HUNK. How could anybody be expected to not lust after this crown of creation?"

And more besides.

call into dispute its validity and his all-mightiness — Sir2u

I think what they call into question is meaning. If it wasn't the valid word of God, then there wouldn't be any reason to struggle to get it right for 3,000 years.

I hadn't heard that Paul invented Jesus, but in certain circles it isn't surprising that somebody would claim such a thing. Could be, I suppose, but I doubt it. Even by the time of Paul there were already Christians (whatever they called themselves at that point). It was a rapidly growing group. I am not going to claim that Jesus had to have been divine, but something very compelling had to have happened to result in quite a few people scattered around the Aegean Sea, Asia Minor, the area around Jerusalem, and Rome thinking Jesus was the a real and important person.

Maybe Plato invented Socrates? Does that sound reasonable? I doubt Plato invented Socrates.

I am inclined to think the Jesus Seminar people have it at least somewhat right: Some things claimed in the Gospels probably didn't happen--like Jesus walking on water. That seems to be fabulistic. Causing someone to think they were healed, sure. Hysterical blindness for example. (Curing leprosy? Leprosy is/was a real disease, but the term used also covered a variety of skin diseases that were not malignant like Hansons Disease is.) Raising Lazarus? Lazarus wasn't merely dead -- he was most sincerely dead, and was well on the way to decomposition when he was allegedly rousted out of his tomb. I doubt any such thing happened.

Paul inventing Jesus and springing a fictional character on the world and in an historically very short period of time having the Roman Empire take up the religion of the fictional Jesus just doesn't seem plausible. (It's as implausible as the ghost of Jesus showing up at the disciples' condo on the Sea of Galilee.)

Paul inventing Jesus and springing a fictional character on the world and in an historically very short period of time having the Roman Empire take up the religion of the fictional Jesus just doesn't seem plausible. — Bitter Crank

It did take over three centuries.

Even by the time of Paul there were already Christians (whatever they called themselves at that point). It was a rapidly growing group — Bitter Crank

Maybe there were, but is there any actual evidence to this? I mean, is there anything definitively showing the existence of Christians, Jesus, or his disciples before Paul wrote?

My understanding is there isn't. That doesn't mean they didn't exist, but it does lend some credence to the Paul invention theory (which is admittedly rare and controversial).

Paul is the oldest material we have about Jesus (maybe there is older like the Q gospel, but it hasn't survived or been found), and that's something people have overlooked.

Maybe Plato invented Socrates? Does that sound reasonable? I doubt Plato invented Socrates. — Bitter Crank

Probably not. The one difference here is that Plato was a student of Socrates, but Paul never met Jesus in the flesh! Paul's Christianity is revelationary. He does mention arguments with Peter and James, two of the disciples, and contact with other Christian groups. And he said he persecuted Christians before, so that's evidence of a pre-existing community.

One reason.... And more besides. — BitterCrank

I think you're right. It still leaves a question in my mind. Your reasons presuppose either the text has meaning that is for some reason disregarded in favor of a derived meaning, or, that its meaning is lost, somehow.

Where I'm coming from is the proposition that with most texts meaning is in play. But for the Bible no such play - or even question - can be legitimate under the divinity claim. This of course is pretty close to fundamentalism, but oddly, there's no end of interpretation even in most fundamentalism. I simply cannot reconcile the claim that the text is divine but it means whatever so-and-so says it means. It follows that the only possible study of the Bible, for those wishing to, is to read it.

I have read that the Koran suffers no such ambiguity or indignity, because it is held that the Koran has no meaning, except as it is read; the reading, when it is read, establishing the meaning. One set of problems for another!

Where I'm coming from is the proposition that with most texts meaning is in play. — tim wood

Well, I don't think that proposition is valid. Most of the Bible is quite clear. How can I say that? Well, you can take the liturgical books: The Psalms are not loaded with ambiguity, it's a hymnal. Then there is the prophetic material. The prophets generally do not speak in riddles. There are the law books -- the rules and regs. They are pretty clear. There are the wisdom books - Proverbs, Ecclesiastes. They are not real mysterious either. There are the historical accounts. There's the Apocrypha narratives. Most of this stuff is straight forward.

Of course, one can suppose that there are hidden meanings in any particular verse, just as one can believe that the television is sending you secret messages. Some people have gone that route -- both with the Bible and their TV set.

A lot of the debate is focused in the law (in the Pentateuch -- Gen, Ex, Lev, Num, Deut. -- where interpretation is critical. (Lawyers are always chewing over the law.) There is a lot of debate over law texts because the circumstances of the Jews kept changing, and how to obey the law in Babylon (no temple, for example) was quite different from obeying the law in Jerusalem.

Then in the diaspora, (66 A.D.) the Jews were evicted from Jerusalem, more or less, and the temple was taken over by the Romans for pagan worship of Jupiter--the Abomination of Desolation.

(Before the destruction of the temple even occurred) there were synagogues and rabbis teaching. After the diaspora the synagog and the rabbis didn't "take the place of" the Temple, animal sacrifice, the priestly order, and the worship activities that went on there. Judaism without the cult of the temple required a wholesale reinterpretation. The early Christians, deprived of the physical Jesus, also had a disjuncture which required some deep re-interpretation.

My view of the Bible is that it was written by humans, lock, stock, and barrel, and that God himself is our creation. Of course, the people "in the Bible" never looked at things that way. Whoever the prophets were believed they were speaking for God. They didn't think they were engaged in some sort of pious fraud.

Most religious people don't think they are engaged in some sort of elaborate theatrical scheme without any reality. One either has to "get with the program", just play along (not believing a word of it, but acting as if one does), or one needs to admit one just doesn't believe it. (Actually, quite a few Christians don't really believe the doctrine.) What they do believe in is Jesus, and they like the model he offers. For that approach, you don't have to think of him as a supernatural being from heaven, any more than one has to consider Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, or Angela Merkel as heaven-sent.

Good overview.

but something very compelling had to have happened to result in quite a few people scattered around the Aegean Sea, Asia Minor, the area around Jerusalem, and Rome thinking Jesus was the a real and important person. — Bitter Crank

Not necessarily. Think about modern day conspiracy therorists; the rise of wacky and not so wacky religions...

From Wiki: — tim wood

Which wiki? Wikipedia?

DEPARTMENT...HEBREW...REVEALS . . .BELONGS TO . . .
Peshat... פשט... Simplest meanings... World of Action
Remez... רמז... Hinted meanings... World of Formation
Derush... דרוש... Deeper meanings... World of Creation
Sod... סוד... Secret meanings... World of Emanation — tim wood

Sorry, but what does this mean?

A god that leaves his followers in a daze about what he meant should be disqualified as a god for incompetence. — Sir2u

Do you think you could do any better with no experience of the job?

Where I'm coming from is the proposition that with most texts meaning is in play.
— tim wood

Well, I don't think that proposition is valid. — Bitter Crank

Man, it's an entire industry! But this is a side issue.

I agree that most of the Bible, and indeed most books (excepting a lot of philosophy books) are indeed clear. But the question is whether the supposed divinity of a text can even in principle survive the activity of interpretation (i.e., a process beyond just reading).

Qualifying it as the word of God is already interpreting. A whole lot of it. I, on the other hand, can't understand how in the name of reason the word of God (or any other word for that matter) wouldn't, in principle, be susceptible to different understandings. Can you explain that to me? — Πετροκότσυφας

Of course susceptible of different understandings. Nor do I claim otherwise. But the claim of divinity for the Bible by some people is a fact. Given that the text is subject to interpretation, then what do you suppose it means to still maintain it's divine? I suppose it must mean that the text retains its divinity, but that it means whatever so-and-so says it means, whenever it pleases him to say it - and further, that God is good with that! In my view, that's just crazy. It does not even arise to level of just being wrong.

Those who hold the bible is the word of God believe every word is impregnated with divine meaning and would therefore demand scholarly interpretation of every passage, with recognition their interpretation may be flawed. Such traditions often rely upon sages or particularly learned people for biblical interpretation. — Hanover

Sure, this is indeed what some people do. But it's interesting: They - or you or I - read a text and then decide a) that whatever it means, the words of the text don't say it, and b) getting to that meaning is problematic at best.

It's a rule of mine that there is no accounting for what some people do. The corollary is that the unaccountable may be disregarded - a form of Hitchen's razor.

We know a song about that.

But the question is whether the supposed divinity of a text can even in principle survive the activity of interpretation — tim wood

Your question is valid. The Divine speaks, we hear it, what's to interpret? But your view is that of the outsider. For the insider (the believer in the Divine Being) a second, third, or fourth look at the text is a friendly, cooperating-with-God project. Interpretation isn't an adversarial process. For the believer, there can't be a conclusion of "this doesn't mean anything". Rather, it's an attempt to obtain the full meaning.

This is true of all scripture -- whether it be the speech of the Sybil at Eleusis, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus, Jeremiah, Deuteronomy, Mohammed, the Vedas, and so on.

Time always places a requirement on scripture for interpretation because realities change. Some people have said that one of the problems of Islam is that it has not gone through a reformation where the Koran would be reinterpreted -- not rewritten -- for the modern age (now several hundred years old.

Another thing about scripture is that it periodically needs to be lifted out of its tribal setting. Jews in pre-Roman Israel didn't have the same culture as the Jews in medieval Spain, and the Spanish Jews didn't have the same culture as the post-Spanish-expulsion Jews of Poland and Ukraine. Buddhists in Boston have different cultural problems than the Buddhists of Beijing, and so on.

We secular non-believing people don't usually buy into the truth of the various scriptures in the first place, so all that scriptural study seems counterproductive. When we are insiders, the situation is different.

Look how much debate goes into the scripture of the U.S. Constitution. Endless debate about what the authors meant. Did they mean that everybody is entitled to carry a gun around with them everywhere, or did they mean that the citizens of the new country were entitled to form armies with which to defend themselves from foreign threats?

how does the word of God come to fall under any interpretation at all? If the words in a given sequence of words are intelligible - understandable – how do you get past that to something else and preserve the qualification? — tim wood

I don't understand your question. Any text, regardless of what it is, must be interpreted. Even a simple command such as "Fire!" must be interpreted. It could mean a series of different things. Words are symbolic, and the meaning(s) they hold vary according to how they are used, the context, the culture, etc. To get at the meaning of any text you have to interpret it. So to perceive the meaning of the Word of God you have to interpret it. There's no problem here.

It's funny how all the insecure atheists jump in here to add their vote to the ballot that it's not the Word of God, without probably understanding what that even means :P

Now it’s a simple question: how does the word of God come to fall under any interpretation at all? — tim wood

History, grammar, and context.

Even a simple command such as "Fire!" must be interpreted. It could mean a series of different things. Words are symbolic, and the meaning(s) they hold vary according to how they are used, the context, the culture, etc. To get at the meaning of any text you have to interpret it. — Agustino

Well said.

It's like the Protestants bitching about the Catholics doing away with the Latin Mass. Or the lapsed Catholics complaining that the priests are not doing the folk liturgy in the right way, or yes, atheists worrying about the interpretation of scriptures.

It's funny how all the insecure atheists jump in here to add their vote to the ballot that it's not the Word of God, without probably understanding what that even means. — Agustino

Whether the Bible is, or is not, the word of God is not a question I have raised, here. (My view is close to Bitter Crank's, above.) But you imply an understanding of a meaning that's lacking, probably, in some people. What meaning is that?

IAny text, regardless of what it is, must be interpreted. Even a simple command such as "Fire!" must be interpreted. It could mean a series of different things. Words are symbolic, and the meaning(s) they hold vary according to how they are used, the context, the culture, etc. To get at the meaning of any text you have to interpret it. So to perceive the meaning of the Word of God you have to interpret it. There's no problem here. — Agustino

I think you overlook the distinction/difference between understanding and interpretation.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This text is well-known. As to what it says, I think it's reasonably transparent. I understand it. If you're along side so far, then let's stop right here. Some people claim these are God's words and (therefore) mean what they say. Bitter Crank lays out above how folks can look for deeper meanings. Indeed the ideas of Peshat, Remez, Derush, Sod, referenced above, all refer to meaning at different levels.

It strikes me that this notion of meaning as used here (as in Peshat, etc.), to be meaning, must come out of the text. That is, it must be grounded in the text, and certainly in no sense inconsistent with the text. It cannot add anything not already there. ("Created," e.g., implies action of some kind, divine action, no doubt, and not defined, but action nevertheless; thus it is understanding that informs me that God acted, even if it isn't exactly clear how.)

Interpretation, on the other hand, adds to or counters the text, either or both. In short, interpretation makes (the) text something other than it is. In the case of the claim that the text is the word of God, it would seem that interpretation must differ from the text and thereby fall outside of and beyond the claim.

Look how much debate goes into the scripture of the U.S. Constitution. — Bitter Crank

Yes indeed, and interesting, But the Constitution is an altogether different animal than the Bible, certainly at the least in terms of the claims made about it. Those debates, when litigated and settled at law, for example, become part of what's called the secondary constitution. When did interpretation ever become part of the Bible? And in terms of the claim, how could it become part even as possibility?