The Mindset of Literature

The way that young Christians currently interact with the Bible does not involve comprehension and enjoyment. Instead, they become confused with little to no understanding of the Scriptures and the purpose that they are conveying. In fact, there is a common struggle amongst most Christians, and humans in general, to read and understand the Bible. The Bible is full of confusing words, messages, and history that gets lost in translation when it is being read. Matthew Mullins explains in his book, Enjoying the Bible: Literary Approaches to Loving the Scriptures, how the issue that many readers face concerning the Bible is that they have been taught to read books purely in search of facts and information. Mullins presents the idea that instead, the Bible, and pieces of literature in general, should be read as literature. Most scholars agree that the Bible is literature and have similar approaches to reading scripture as Mullins does. However, there are a few scholars, such as publisher and author Temple Scott, as well as James Kugel, who was a professor of Hebrew Literature and of the Bible, who have reservations against the concept of the Bible being literature, as they feel these two should not be considered the same. I disagree with the perspectives of Kugel and Scott and agree with Mullins and most scholars that the Bible is literature and should therefore be read with the mindset that it is literature. In my view, the Bible has a variety of types of literature, and if it is not read as such, then it is easily misunderstood and the purpose of the Scriptures is missed. I believe that understanding why the Bible is considered literature, the disagreements to this concept, how the Bible is still authoritative and trustworthy, and how we are to read the Bible with this new mentality will allow Christians to gain a deeper understanding of the Bible and its purpose.

Foremost, it is important to understand the reasoning behind why the Bible is, and should be, considered literature. Mullins defines literature by saying, “… a work of literature is any text that is literary… What makes something a work of literature is its literariness” (33). According to Mullins, a work of literature is defined by its rhythm, language, grammar, point of view, tone, genre, and many more aspects (33). So, what makes the Bible “literary?” In the scholarly article “Interpreting the Bible as Literature: Historical and Contemporary Contexts with Implications for Christian Education,” Janet B. Sommers explores how the Bible has been interpreted in the past and how it has changed over time. The Bible went from being interpreted as literature to being interpreted as history to, eventually, being interpreted yet again as literature. In the Middle Ages, Fathers of the Early church were interpreting the Bible as literature. Sommers writes, “Interpreters applied a ‘multi-layered system of reading’ in which the literal meaning of a text was often overshadowed by figurative interpretations” (80). These medieval scholars identified four main figurative readings that a passage could have; the literal reading, the allegorical reading, the tropological reading, and the anagogical reading. Sommers applies these readings into scripture as she talks about the different interpretations of the city of Jerusalem as the literal meaning of the physical city of Jerusalem, the allegorical meaning of the Christian church, a tropological meaning of the souls of believers, and an anagogical meaning of the heavenly city belonging to God (80). This is just one of many ways that the Bible holds literariness, pointing back to Mullins when he claims that an aspect of “literariness,” what makes a piece of writing literature, is the narrative point of view and the figurative language within the text (33). The Bible holds many different points of view, as well as many different figurative meanings. It is important that when reading, the correct point of view is applied, and the figurative languages and readings are identified. Later on, Sommers claims, regarding literary biblical studies in the twentieth century,

In his rejection of the historical-critical approach to biblical interpretation, Moulton (1899) argued for a recognition of literature as ‘an entity in itself’… His focus on poetic form and literary technique in the Old Testament underscored the aesthetic nature of the Bible, reminding early 20th-century readers what the early church fathers had known; the Scriptures possess literary qualities similar to those of secular texts and should, thus, be admires for their “literary beauty.” (84)

Moulton was a Professor of Literature and was able to recognize the similarities between secular literary texts and the Bible. By discovering how secular pieces of literature utilize similar literary qualities as in the Bible, Sommers makes the connection that because the Bible possesses the qualities of literature, the Bible should therefore be read as literature so that it is recognized in all of its “beauty.” Sommers also later refers to a literary critic, Robert Atler, who advised for a certain interpretation of the Bible, when she writes, “Atler (1975) argued for a hermeneutic that would display the Scriptures’ ‘artful use of language’ and illuminate their ‘shifting play of ideas, conventions, tone, sound, imagery [and] narrative viewpoint’; in other words, he demanded that critics apply to God’s Word the same ‘spectrum of critical approaches’ that they traditionally used in interpreting other literary texts” (86). The Bible contains so many different aspects of literature. It holds figurative language, tone, imagery, narrative point of view, and exceedingly more. These are exactly what Mullins claims defines literature. Therefore, the Bible is literature and needs to be read with that mindset.

Although most biblical scholars have a common position that the Bible is literature, there are a few scholars who have skepticisms against this concept. One of the scholars that objects to this idea is Temple Scott, who was a well-known publisher in England and the United States. Mullins comments on Scott’s analysis of finding pleasure in reading the Bible when he states, “For while he sees the literary forms of the Bible as sparks that might rekindle our enjoyment of it, he makes the following startling claim: ‘In dealing with this book, however, as a means of giving pleasure I must disregard its authoritative value for religion or theology’” (94). Scott is reserved against this idea of reading the Bible as literature and finding enjoyment in this book, as he feels it subtracts from its authority as Scripture. Mullins then writes, “He argues that religion is fundamentally ‘directive to conduct.’ In other words, he believes that religion, and thus religious reading, is all about instruction” (94). Furthermore, Scott sees religion as strictly instructional and, therefore, if it is literature, then we can no longer learn from it, and it loses its authority over people and religion as a whole. Mullins concludes Scott’s perspective by claiming, “For Scott, pleasure and instruction are mutually exclusive” (94). With Scott’s mindset, one is unable to find delight in the Scriptures while simultaneously gaining instruction from it. Another skeptic is discussed in the article “On the Bible as Literature,” by Adele Berlin, who discusses the perspective of Kugel on whether the Bible is literature. Berlin writes, “Kugel seems unable to come to terms with the Bible as a literary work. He tells us that ‘In some important ways the Bible is not literature’ (219) and equates biblical writing with patently non-literary documents” (323). She proceeds to display how Kugel compares the Bible to the U.S. Constitution, a high school history textbook, a sermon, Poor Richard’s Almanac, and the bulletin of the Federal Reserve. Kugel claims that you would not read any of these legal, historical, sermonic, wisdom, and prophetic documents as literature, and, seeing as the Bible contains these elements, the Bible should then not be read as literature. Berlin later identifies, “To Kugel the Bible is Scripture, as if that opposed literature. He concedes that we may have the right to read it as literature, but cautions that ‘Even today, the Bible presents itself to us as something unique, Scripture, and if we are interested in reading it, that interest is… religious’” (324). Kugel seems to hold a similar viewpoint as Scott in the way that he is of the opinion that if the Bible is not read with a religious interest and intent, then it no longer holds the same authoritative value as it should. It appears that Kugel has separated the Bible and literature, and views them as two opposite genres. Both Scott and Kugel appear to be of the same perspective: that if the Bible is considered literature, then it loses its official and religious value.

In response to these skepticisms, Mullins and Biblical scholars further prove that the Bible is literature and provide additional evidence to demonstrate this concept. In response to Scott, Mullins presents some of Paul’s teachings from the Bible. Mullins highlights, “And yet the Scriptures command both. The apostle Paul exhorts Timothy to ‘study to show [himself] approved unto God’ (2 Tim. 2:15 KJV) just as surely as he tells the church in Rome that he ‘delight[s] in God’s law’ (Rom. 7:22)” (94). The Bible itself tells its readers to both study and find instruction within it, as well as delighting in that instruction and in Scripture as a whole. Mullins goes on to further explain what this “instruction” that we are meant to find in the Bible is. He claims on page 95 of his book, “I have been arguing all along that the Bible is more than an instruction manual, but my point has not been to minimize the Bible’s power to instruct. My purpose has been to expand our concept and experience of instruction… the Scriptures do more than instruct out minds; they instruct our hearts as well… our hearts are different than our heads and so require a different kind of instruction” (95). The Bible contains many different literary genres in order to instruct both our minds and our hearts in different ways. Whether it is to instruct our hearts in how we feel and express emotions or to instruct our minds in the way we think, the Bible contains all of this instruction in order to guide us as people of God. Regarding Kugel’s reservations against the idea, Berlin criticizes Kugel’s perspective by claiming, “Without defining what literature is… Kugel excludes the Bible from this category” (323). Kugel does not provide a definition of what he believes literature to be, and, for that reason, his comparisons and exclusion of the Bible as literature seem unfair according to Berlin. She later provides an explanation as to why she believes the Bible is a qualified piece of literature. Berlin writes, regarding the Bible, “… it qualifies as literature because of its artful verbal expression and compelling ideas. Certainly, it is not a ‘naïve recording’, as Kugel would have us believe” (324). In other words, the Bible is not an unsophisticated book that we are to take at face value, but it is an artistic and captivating piece of literature, full of expression and inviting concepts that certify it as a piece of literature.

Since the Bible is literature, there is a common question that arises when the concept is approached concerning the trustworthiness of the Bible. Grant R. Osborne, a professor of the New Testament, addresses this concept in his article, “Historical Narrative and Truth in the Bible.” He first defines truth through Webster’s dictionary when he writes, “Webster’s defines truth as ‘the property (as of a statement) for being in accord with fact or reality” (673). However, Osborne identifies that truth within any historical narrative, not just the Bible, is difficult to obtain as this “reality” is the outcome of studying the past which no longer exists (673). So, if the Bible contains this literary genre of historical narrative, how can it be trustworthy? Osborne pulls on the ideas of Vanhoozer on how the Bible is true and what kind of truth the Bible contains. Osborne claims, “…Vanhoozer says that infallible truth in Scripture ‘means that Scripture’s diverse illocutionary forces will invariably achieve their respective forces’” (673). What Vanhoozer is expressing is that the unfailing truth of the Bible is defined by the Scripture’s various ways of communicating its intent through different genres. Within historical narratives, there are two main truths that should be considered: the consistency of the event to what occurred and the consistency of the theological message to the rest of Scripture (673). The truth of the Bible can be identified by looking at the consistent message throughout which is communicated through different forms of literature. As research of the Bible has increased, a more positive outlook on the dependability of the Biblical narrative has occurred. There has been a lot of skepticism towards the truth of the Old Testament, specifically, as it covers a vast timespan (674). However, researchers of the Old Testament have changed their study approach to better understand the how and why of the history within the Bible. Osborne writes, “Ιn the nineteenth century, historians abandoned the traditional narrative style of historiography which centered on individuals and events and turned to an environmental and social mode of study that they believed could better answer why history unfolded as it did.” (674). Instead of focusing purely on the people of that time and the events that occurred, researchers began to shift their focus on to the society, culture, economy, and religion of the time of the Old Testament, as this appeared to create a better picture of the historical narrative of the Bible and the truth within in. Osborne then addresses eight main characteristics of the Old Testament’s history as he writes,

Merrill provides eight characteristics of OT history: (1) it is narrative, centering on people and events; (2) it is biographical, telling the story about God's work in this world through people; (3) it is tendentious, seen through the perspective and interpretation of the authors; (4) it is theocentric, presenting itself as the Word of God and not just a human record; (5) it is selective, as all details that do not relate to the central message are ignored; (6) it is historiographic, presenting itself as the writing of history; (7) it is consistently contextual, not just telling the past but relating it to the needs of the present; and (8) it is interpretive, yielding the author's assessment of the events, often by way of editorial asides the author's assessment of the events, often by way of editorial asides (675)

The history of the Old Testament is a literary genre within itself, but contains sub-genres of literature that help to further prove the trustworthiness of the Bible. Different aspects of the Old Testament account for different parts of the history and story held within this text. Osborne then goes on to explain how to grasp this truth from the biblical historical narrative. The first step is to research. Osborne claims that critical research, specifically, is the way to obtain this truth from the history of Scriptures as it helps to discover what the history is within the Scriptures and gauge the accuracy of it (678). The second step of grasping the truth is to determine the genre, as Osborne claims that this is a very important part in interpreting any piece of literature (679). In defining genre, Osborne states, “We will utilize the classic definition of Wellek and Warren: ‘Genre should be conceived, we think, as a grouping of literary works based, theoretically, upon both outer form (specific meter or structure) and also upon inner form (attitude, tone, purpose—more crudely, subject and audience)’” (679). Genre is later identified as a guide for the reader as to what they should expect and with what mindset they should approach the literature (679). Identifying the genre of a text allows the reader to better understand what they will experience with the reading and allows them to better grasp the meaning and truth from a text. My conclusion, then, is that by identifying the genre of the Bible, the reader knows with what mindset they should approach the text, and can therefore understand what variation of truth or fact they should obtain from the Scriptures.

Finally, now that there is evidence for this concept and how it is still true and trustworthy, one can address how to read the Bible in order to honor it as a piece of literature. In his book, Mullins provides many strategies as to how to read the Bible in order to experience it in a positive way, and gather the intent and truth of Scripture. Among these strategies are noticing things within the biblical text, finding the central emotion of the biblical text, and identifying the formal means through which you feel the emotions of a text. Mullins describes noticing things within the text as meaning that the reader simply looks at a piece of literature and notices the details about the text, but it is important that the reader not try to interpret these details yet, and simply engage with the text by noticing some of the details hidden within (128-129). Finding the central emotion within a text is the act of identifying the emotion that is conveyed within the text, but it is also the emotion that the text is aiming to convey within the reader (147). Lastly, identifying the formal means involves the reader pinpointing what it was within the text that enacted this emotion to well up within them (157). Mullins identifies these strategies as assisting in helping a reader to better engage with the Scriptures in a healthier way and with a better mindset. In the scholarly article, “Interpreting the Bible as Literature: Historical and Contemporary Contexts with Implications for Christian Education” by Sommers, she addresses some approaches to better engaging with Scripture with the mindset that it is, in fact, literature. Sommers writes, “…we need continually to focus on its sacredness and preeminence as a literary text… illuminate its multi-layered nature as a book simple enough to woo a child to Christ yet complex enough to warrant centuries of scholarly investigation and debate” (91). In order to read the Bible and honor it as a literary text, readers must understand it as a complex text that is both simple yet complicated all at once. Readers of the Scriptures must recognize the Scripture as having many layers, many interpretations, and many meanings. James Barr explains in his article, “Reading the Bible as Literature”, “By this he means that the biblical writings are different from just any group of books, in that they are a corpus or collection of a closed character. Childs entirely accepts in itself the historical principle, that one can validly and must necessarily consider previous stages of the books, that one must consider their relations with writings outside of the biblical canon, and that the books can be understood in terms of their origins and background” (24). In order to understand and read the Bible properly as literature, Barr points out that the reader should understand the context in which the book was written from and the process that the book underwent until it became its final form. In other words, the Bible is in a completely different time and context than what we currently live in. In order to gain a better understanding of the text, one must first be understanding the social practices and rituals of that time.

Many postmodern critics may disagree on the grounds that they feel reading the Bible as literature is not important to understanding the Scriptures. These critics may think that reading and interpreting the Bible as literature causes it to lose its authority and its truth. While this is a valid concern, a lot of the authority and truth of the Scriptures is lost if the literacy of the Bible is not considered and used in the process of interpretation. Sommers writes, “… God chose to convey His words through an anthology of diverse texts. We can and should approach the divinely inspired Bible as a collection of books composed by multiple authors over many centuries. Exhibiting both a knowledge of and sensitivity to the various biblical genres – poetry, narrative, proverb, prophecy, epistle, apocalyptic, to name a few – and an analysis of the conventions of each genre – whether symbol, metaphor, point of view, or theme – will significantly increase the clarity of the Scriptures” (92). The Word of God is expressed through many different literary genres and literary devices which the meaning is conveyed through. Ultimately, what I am trying to demonstrate is that without using the mindset that the Bible is, in fact, literature, the true meaning and intent of the Scriptures becomes lost in translation and interpretation. The Bible utilizes a variety of aspects of literature that are crucial to the understanding and experience of the Scriptures, as well as the correct instruction from the Bible for the people of God.

In order for Christians to gain a better understanding of the Scriptures, it is important that they understand that the Bible is literature, the conflicting views against this concept and what scholars say in response to these conflicts, how the Bible maintains its truth as a piece of literature, and that Christians know of some strategies and approaches to reading the Bible with the mindset of literature. But who really cares? Who besides me and some biblical and literary scholars have any benefit in these claims? At the very least, Christians who are wanting to gain a deeper relationship with God and His Word should care. Although the topic of whether the Bible is literature may seem trivial and of little importance, it is in fact very crucial to radically changing how Christian's view and interact with the Scriptures. This topic may seem of concern to only a small group of people, when in reality, it should concern anyone who owns a Bible and is reading it. Despite how the Bible is the most popular book in the world, there are many who fail to understand its meaning and intent. Without addressing and honoring the Bible as a piece of literature and reading with the mindset of literature, those who read the Bible miss out on crucial information, instruction and meaning.

Works Cited

Barr, James. "Reading the Bible as literature." Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 56.1 (1973): 10-33.

BERLIN, ADELE. “On the Bible as Literature.” Prooftexts, vol. 2, no. 3, 1982, pp. 323– 27. JSTOR.

Mullins, Matthew. Enjoying the Bible: Literary Approaches to Loving the Scriptures. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, a Division of Baker Publishing Group, 2021.

Osborne, Grant R. “Historical Narrative and Truth in the Bible.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, vol. 48, no. 4, Dec. 2005, pp. 673–88. EBSCOhost.

Sommers, Janet B. “Interpreting the Bible as Literature: Historical and Contemporary Contexts with Implications for Christian Education.” Christian Education Journal, vol. 4, no. 1, Dec. 2007, pp. 78–99. EBSCOhost.