What if Judas didn't do it?

[Anomalocaris]

My views may not fall neatly into the literalist or non-literalist camp, but it all depends on where you draw the line. I did a quick search to see what the Adventist church falls under, and the first result said we have a historical/grammatical interpretation of the Bible in general. That seems to mean literalist in the traditional sense, not the fundamentalist sense.

I approach the Bible as narrative—and I don't think many Adventists would disagree with this. This is simply the mode of communication that the Bible undertakes. Where this perhaps becomes more interesting is when you explore the nature of narrative and borrow some insights from the cognitive sciences. For example, one of my favorite papers out there is The Narrative Construction of Reality by the psychologist Jerome Bruner.

Here is a great quote from that paper:

"Unlike the constructions generated by logical and scientific procedures that can be weeded out by falsification, narrative constructions can only achieve 'verisimilitude.' Narratives, then, are a version of reality whose acceptability is governed by convention and 'narrative necessity' rather than by empirical verification and logical requiredness, although ironically we have no compunction about calling stories true or false."

That word, verisimilitude, is perhaps the most important word I can use to describe the Bible. In other word, narrative isn't exactly true or false, but rather "truthlike."

I’m happy to agree that the Bible is truthlike, in much the same way that a tribute band is ‘not the real thing, but an incredible simulation’.

‘Truthiness’ might be closer, I think.

Boru

If it must be likened to the truth, then it could only be because it is not true.     

So whatever must be called truth-like must be the same as any other falsehood,  with the exception that these particular falsehoods have gained such a intellectually dishonest following by those who are loath to admit it is total falsehood even when it’s falsehood is hard to deny outright,  that they attempt an rhetorical out-flanking maneuver by asserting this particular falsehood is somehow so true that it can be undeniably false and yet still be even truer than true.