The Biblical Stories
Giovanni De sio Cesari
In an essay titled "Why We Can No Longer Call Ourselves Christians" (in opposition to Croce's "Why We Cannot Not Call Ourselves Christians"), Odifreddi asserts that a modern man, even if declaring himself a Christian, no longer believes (among other things) in certain clearly unrealistic biblical stories.
Let's consider some examples. In the story of Eden, the woman is created from a rib of the man, a serpent convinces (?) her to eat the fruit, and as a result, the serpent (all serpents) is condemned to crawl (?). Then, Eve is punished to be subject to man and to give birth in pain (?), not only her but all women (?).
If we move to the slavery in Egypt, the pharaoh (the term is only biblical, not found elsewhere) must have had a thick skull because it took ten plagues (but one or two weren't enough) to convince him. After repenting, he even chases the Jews! Why is an entire people punished, leading to the horrible death of all the firstborns, due to the decision of the pharaoh? Moreover, I would even agree with the pharaoh: the Jews were not slaves but an ethnic group assigned to a task (making bricks); they couldn't just go away whenever they wanted.
The same can be said for the universal flood, the Tower of Babel, the sun standing still, Samson's hair, and many other stories. It's not about clarifying this or that aspect; the entire narrative appears fantastical, irredeemably so.
Therefore, we must also consider another aspect. We modern individuals with a scientific culture are concerned whether what we write corresponds to the truth (history, science) or not (novel, poetry, science fiction). The ancients did not pay much attention to this difference: the written word had ethical and celebratory value, aiming to move and stir human emotions; art has its own truth.
Those who wrote about Egyptian events were not concerned about the truth of the facts but wanted to celebrate the power of God. It is we moderns who attach great importance to the truth of facts.
Another problem is the difficulty of translation into a language that continually changes. For example, we know that it is not the camel that enters the eye of the needle but the rope, that slavery in Egypt or Babylon is different from Roman or American slavery.
Biblical stories can be seen as symbolism and allegory. Symbolism occurs when the event does not exist in itself but indicates something else: for example, Snow White can be a symbol of feminine virtues but does not exist. In the evangelical parables, the events are not real but indicate a teaching.
In allegory, the events exist in themselves but are put there to indicate something else: the body of the unknown soldier is indeed a fallen patriot but indicates all the fallen. In the evangelical episode of Martha and Mary, the two actually existing women have those two attitudes but then indicate active and contemplative life.
The biblical texts are inspired by God, but inspired means guided, assisted by God but written by men expressing themselves according to the culture they are part of, reporting according to their mentality.
If I look at some biblical stories like that of Eden as a true fact, I cannot help but see that it is unrealistic. But if I consider its meaning, it is a magnificent story: man made in the image of God, man and woman as one body, evil that always insinuates itself into man and destroys everything.
In today's Church, these problems are put aside, not discussed. I have never heard a pope talk about the woman created from Adam's rib. Instead, I see the idea that the events of Genesis are interpreted symbolically, using a language of images.
I personally believe that the only way for a modern person to understand many biblical episodes is through symbolism, allegory, because many of them appear completely unrealistic when analyzed critically.
I would also note that theological discussions were once so important as to trigger bloody conflicts: think of Christological disputes or the issue of free will in the Reformation. But now they have lost interest in the consciousness of believers; they are taken for granted. I think the problems of the Catholic Church are different, related to compatibility with the modern world. For example, there is the silent secession of all Catholics from teachings that the Church continues to maintain on sexual morality: premarital relationships and especially contraception.
The issues that now agitate the modern world and that the Church is facing are LGBTQ, women as priests, less rigor on marriage-abortion-euthanasia, and they do not seem to be doctrinal novelties. There is no direct reference in the Gospels, and no council has ever sanctioned them as dogmas. In my opinion, these are traditions that are not even of Christian origin but are derived from the ethics of a secular past.
Even celibacy is not a universal fact of the ENTIRE Catholic Church: there are Catholic communities that do not practice it.