The Bible

[Astarte]

Does the Bible have any kind of parabolic meaning to any parts of it - that is esoteric knowledge embedded deeply into the text that can only be recognized in the proper light and frame of reference, or is it all just non-sense?

[graymouser]

The Hebrew Bible is mostly just a national mythology, at least the parts I've read (the Torah and the histories). The New Testament has some esoteric stuff in it, though. Mark can be read as a midrashic retelling of the Elijah-Elisha cycle, with John the Baptist as Elijah and Jesus as Elisha. Most contemporary textual critics view the Gospels as primarily commenting on the fall of the Second Temple. And Revelation is often viewed as a theological political commentary, possibly of Jewish origin, that was adapted to Christian eschatology.

Some people have tried advancing the idea that gnostic Christianity predated orthodox Christianity, and the Gospels are all esoteric. But it's not well supported by the documentary history, which sees Gnostic sects as coming later.

[RedSunRising]

Of course all ancient texts were written to be understood on several levels.

[hatzel]

If ComradeMan were here, he'd probably quote from an article like this:


The Torah may be viewed, generally speaking, on five different levels. The first four levels are called PaRDeS, which is an acronym for Pshat, Remez, Drush and Sod. Pshat is the most basic literal meaning of the Torah text. It is not necessarily identical to the apparent plain meaning of the text, but is an explanation of the text based on the tradition as it has been handed down in the Oral Torah (Mishnah and Talmud) following closely the literal meaning. Most traditional Jewish editions of the Torah are published together with Rashi's commentary, which is the classic example of Pshat exegesis.

The second level, called Remez, departs from the literal meaning of the text in search of hints and allusions. Linguistic analysis of the text and gematria are basic techniques of the Remez exegesis.

The third level, Drush, is the homiletic exposition of the text. It includes moralistic homilies as well as derivation of legal rulings based on the text. It is typically found in aggadic and halakhic midrashim.

The fourth level, Sod, literally means secret. It involves esoteric interpretation of the scripture and is the subject of Kabbalah.

Finally, the fifth level, Sod of Sod, the secret of secrets, is the innermost meaning of the Torah as it is expounded in the philosophy of Chassidism.That said:


Some people have tried advancing the idea that gnostic Christianity predated orthodox Christianity, and the Gospels are all esoteric. But it's not well supported by the documentary history, which sees Gnostic sects as coming later.

Technically gnostic Christianity did predate orthodox Christianity, inasmuch as the various gnostic sects and, perhaps more importantly, their gospels, were widely distributed before the 'official' Bible was codified, and 'orthodox' Christianity was established. That isn't to say that the gospels chosen were originally esoteric (in fact, they were specifically chosen by the emerging orthodoxy so as not to be esoteric, in the battle against gnosticism; hence gospels like that of Thomas were declared heretical, in not being chosen as one of the 'official' four), but one could provide a good argument that Christianity was gnostic before it was orthodox in the sense forwarded by the early church.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Of course all ancient texts were written to be understood on several levels.

That's a hell of an assumption. That some one wrote a text with multiple levels of meaning, each to be interpreted by a different generation. I certainly see now authors of the modern age doing that. Was this a skill lost in ancient times?

That is kind of like the Living Document camp on the Constitution (as opposed to the Literalist camp).

[Inquisitive Lurker]

If you want real wisdom without the lies and indoctrination, read The Good Book: A Humanist Bible written by A. C. Grayling. It's a substantial book, but not nearly as long as the Bible (Catholic, Orthodox, or Protest, which have different books in them). I'm only half way through it and it's fantastic. If I had the money I used to have (was once up $75k, now down $50k) I would buy a thousand copies and hand them out outside of churches on Sundays. Morals, ethics, wisdom, without God. Opps, I see the good "Rabbi" is part of this thread. Without G~d.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Technically gnostic Christianity did predate orthodox Christianity, inasmuch as the various gnostic sects and, perhaps more importantly, their gospels, were widely distributed before the 'official' Bible was codified, and 'orthodox' Christianity was established. That isn't to say that the gospels chosen were originally esoteric (in fact, they were specifically chosen by the emerging orthodoxy so as not to be esoteric, in the battle against gnosticism; hence gospels like that of Thomas were declared heretical, in not being chosen as one of the 'official' four), but one could provide a good argument that Christianity was gnostic before it was orthodox in the sense forwarded by the early church.

This largely depends on when you say the Orthodox (Catholic) church began. On one level it can trace it self back to Peter and Paul. Obviously the Church didn't come together until the Fourth century.

Gnostic Judaic though predates the Christian era, but you can't count that as the beginning. There was some Gnostic thought in the First century, but again, nothing cohesive. At best it can be said to come together in the Second century AD, though it didn't solidify until the Third century. By the end of the Fourth century they were gone. A church that can be dissolved in under 30 years is a church that barely existed. So it doesn't predate Orthodox (Catholic) Christianity by much, especially if we use Peter's church as the founding church.