Why do people get dumb when they read the Bible?

We all know how to read a newspaper. We critically digest the editorial, laugh at the comics, and take note of the movie times. Nor is such interpretive sophistication limited to adults. When it comes to putting the kiddies to bed, we pull a copy of McGillicuddy's Omnibus of Facts and Fun off the shelf. First we read a silly limerick, and little Johnny knows it's just for a good laugh. Next we read a page about the cheetah and little Johnny knows he's learning about a big cat in Africa. Finally, we end with "Little Red Riding Hood" and little Johnny smiles at the story whilst grappling with a moral or two along the way.

For the most part we are quite adept at navigating the plethora of literary genres and contexts that we encounter on a daily basis. So why is it that so many people lose all that sophistication and nuance when it comes to the Bible, trading it for an attitude of "It's either all literal or none of it is literal"?

The issue has repeatedly been surfacing in the ongoing discussion of literary genre of Genesis 1-3 that Mr. A and Ms. B have been having. So for example we have EssEff commenting:

"Adam & Eve are really characters in a parable, then which other OT stories are also parables? How much of the Gospels are parables (other than the ones stories that are told as parables per se). If it isn't necessary for Adam & Eve to be real historical people for people to believe in a deity, then is it necessary for Christ to be real?"

I take EssEff to be offering a sort of slippery slope here. If Genesis 1-3 is "parabolic" (his word, not mine) and thus possibly without a historical reference, then why not think that, say, Matthew's account of the resurrection, written hundreds of years later, is not also parabolic?

Yes, and if the comics are a big joke, then why not think the editorial is as well? (Admittedly, sometimes the editorial is a joke, albeit unintentionally.) And why doesn't little Johnny ask why the facts about the cheetah don't rhyme like all the other "poems"?

This isn't EssEff's fault. My guess is that he has merely imbibed the "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it" hermeneutic of much popular conservative North American Christianity. But the Bible is much more than a collection of propositions describing past and future events to which we should assent, and we all really recognize this. For the most part, we don't read the Psalms or wisdom literature like the Proverbs in the same way we read the Gospels.

So the way to avoid the slipperly slope is actually quite straightforward. We begin by putting on our well-tredded interpretive shoes that traverse the slopes of multiple genres every day. Next, we approach the text with an open mind, recognizing that multiple genres written and collated 2-3 thousand years ago will likely not have the exact same rules of interpretation as the newspaper or child's omnibus.

Straightforward? Yes. Easy? No. But here's the good news: we can indeed have conversations about interpretation without worrying that doing so immediately sets us off on the slippery slope to concluding the Bible is one big omnibus of Hebrew fairy tales.