Interpreting the Bible

[Bugmaster]

(I'm probably pushing the limits of this subforum with this topic, sorry if that's the case)

When a Christian reads the Bible, how does he know which parts are metaphor, and which parts are literally true ?

One possible answer to this question is, "everything is literally true", but I think most of us here will agree that the Earth is not covered by a crystalline dome, and thus most people probably wouldn't choose this route.

Another possible answer is, "everything that does not contradict common sense and our knowledge of the world is literally true". The problem with this approach is that the authority of the Bible shrinks as our knowledge grows; in fact, this relegates the Bible to a secondary position. The Bible becomes inferior to science.

A variation of the above is, "the Bible is only an authority on moral issues, not epistemological ones". Unfortunately, it suffers from similar problems. Our moral have changed significantly since Jesus's days -- on the one hand, slavery is no longer seen as acceptable; on the other hand, we now have to deal with brand-new issues such as cloning, pollution control, and free speech on the Internet, which were unheard of in Jesus's days. Additionally, this answer still begs the question: why is it that the Bible is only an authority on moral issues ? What's the basis for this decision ?

Another answer I've heard before is, "only through meticulous analysis and cross-referencing of Greek, Hebrew, Arameic, and other texts, can we arrive at the true meaning of the Bible". However, this renders the Bible completely inaccessible to most people, and it doesn't really answer the question. How do you know which Arameic passages are metaphorical ?

Finally, a perfectly viable answer is, "my faith tells me which parts of the Bible are literally true, through divine revelation". The only problem with this answer is that faith cannot be communicated, so there's no way for two people with different faiths (Catholic, Baptist, Protestant, Mormon, etc.) to ever agree on one Biblical interpretation.

So... is there a more satisfactory solution to this problem ? Or, as Jose puts it:

Some denominations interpret the Bible more as a literal text, while others interpret it more metaphorically. How do you make the distinction between literal and metaphorical interpretation?

[McCulloch]

OK, I'm just stabbing in the dark. Obviously the fish were not killed. Perhaps living in this context might mean having breath. Anybody know if the Hebrew would support this?

[Jose]

Hmm...isn't the "literalist" interpretation that most of the fish were killed, thus accounting for all those fossils of extinct species? It's an interesting point, though. Noah couldn't have taken fish on the Ark without aquarium equpiment. He may have done so; the bible is silent on this matter, which means we can't tell one way or the other. If he didn't take fish with him, then we have the same problem as with the olives--some survived the Flood, despite the destruction of "every living thing" that was not on the ark.

It would be good to know what the original Hebrew says here. Can we really translate this as "every living thing," or can it be translated as "lots of living things but maybe not all"? [I'm not sure if this helps us for those denominations that consider only the KJV to be god's word, but the relative validity of different translations is a different issue.]

[theleftone]

Hmm...isn't the "literalist" interpretation

Depends what you mean by "literalist."

Literalism. Commitment to strict exactness of words or meanings in translation or interpretation. Most often literalism is used in connection with biblical interpretation. Since the Reformation at least two main trajectories of thought have come to be associated with literalism. One approaches the text in such a strict, unimaginative way that word and letter are permitted to suppress the spirit of the text. Interpretation becomes a mechanical, grammatical, logical process.

The other employs different attitudes and methodologies, seeking to apply interpretative principles and rules with a sense of appropriateness and sensitivity. In addition to grammatical and philosophical investigations, it uses information about the author's historical and cultural situation that may aid in interpretation. Differing literary forms and genres are handled with methods suitable to their type. Here "literalism" means to seek the plain meaning without exaggeration, distortion, or inaccuracy.

J. J. Scott, Jr.

[Jose]

Depends what you mean by "literalist."

Maybe that's why I put it in quotes... I was thinking of the particular group(s) that challenges certain scientific conclusions on the basis of a biblical interpretation that they refer to as "literal." According to this interpretation, Man was created on Oct. 26, 4004 BC, and all life forms that are represented in the fossil record but that no longer survive were buried and fossilized during The Flood...with appropriate horizontal and vertical sorting to produce the geological pattern that exists.

I'm intrigued by the definition you gave us. There would seem to be various ways of deciding what is "literal." Would this mean that what one person calls "literal" might be called "metaphorical" by another? [...whatever "metaphorical" means...probably another term that has rather flexible meanings]. Can you help me see how this works--perhaps by providing an example? I feel the vague stirrings of a thought here, but don't yet see it well enough to articulate it. Perhaps the insight you've offered us provides a way of moving beyond the science/religion, literal/metaphorical type of polarized discussion.

I worry a bit, though, that one might have difficulty "seeking the plain meaning" when the specific words may not express it when evaluated in "a mechanical, grammatical, logical process." As a science geek, I pretty much live in a world where the latter is the norm.

[theleftone]

Can you help me see how this works--perhaps by providing an example?

Revelation would be a good example. Real beast for the strict literalist vs. a "national beast" for the loose literalist (or any other varieties of ideas presented by the group).

For the loose literalist, genre is perhaps the most important concept for interpreting and understanding the text. This would be followed by other considerations like culture, known history, textual criticism, etc. For them, it's important to understand the Bible in its cultural, historical, grammatical, etc. context. Not just a strictly grammatical context.

Some good examples of cultural/historical/etc. issues which can influence interpretation are water issues in the ancient near east (i.e., notice the significance of "wells" in many OT passages, idioms used in language, where the languages were derived from, geography (i.e., why does it say he's going up when he's going south), the significance of standing up stones in particular locales mention in the OT, politics (i.e., how contracts are agreed too), social issues (i.e., marriage, slavery, etc.), skipping generations in genealogies, etc.

So, as you can see, the loose literalist have a rather complex task before them incomparison to the strict literalist.

I worry a bit, though, that one might have difficulty "seeking the plain meaning" when the specific words may not express it when evaluated in "a mechanical, grammatical, logical process." As a science geek, I pretty much live in a world where the latter is the norm.

As a [natural] science geek?

I think the closer field would be the social sciences. They're used to dealing with complex subjects where more definitive knowledge is not necessarily there. And I can understand one's hesitation to accept the second method for interpretation here. It is a rather complex and daunting task which opens a lot of doors for unknowns to enter the equation.

That said, literalism is a subset of principles within the field of "hermeneutics." It's one methodology of many developed and used to interpret the Bible over the years. (And despite of what some people think, everyone uses hermeneutics when they read the Bible, regardless if their method is defined or not.)

[Jose]

Thank you, tselem!

Revelation would be a good example. Real beast for the strict literalist vs. a "national beast" for the loose literalist (or any other varieties of ideas presented by the group).

OK...allow me some strict literalism and logic here. If "beast" means "an animal," then the strict literalists would be justified in saying "real" beast. But, "beast" is used metaphorically (as in, "you beast!") to project animal qualities onto that which is called a beast but technically is not one. Am I correct, then, in thinking that "literal" for a loose-literalist would, in this case, be "metaphor" for a strict-literalist? I've talked myself into thinking so...

For the loose literalist, genre is perhaps the most important concept for interpreting and understanding the text. This would be followed by other considerations like culture, known history, textual criticism, etc. For them, it's important to understand the Bible in its cultural, historical, grammatical, etc. context. Not just a strictly grammatical context.

Some good examples of cultural/historical/etc. issues which can influence interpretation are water issues in the ancient near east (i.e., notice the significance of "wells" in many OT passages, idioms used in language, where the languages were derived from, geography (i.e., why does it say he's going up when he's going south), the significance of standing up stones in particular locales mention in the OT, politics (i.e., how contracts are agreed too), social issues (i.e., marriage, slavery, etc.), skipping generations in genealogies, etc.

But doesn't this invoke the notion of the bible having been written in this historical/cultural context? For example, my "standard puzzle" of the Flood destroying "every living thing" but then having living olive trees after the Flood, is often justified by saying that at that time, the cultural tradition was that only animals were alive. This is fine if we consider either (1) the bible was actually written by the people of that time, or (2) god presented it in the language that people of the time could understand. It's not so good if we think of the bible being a "strictly-literal" treatise on science, presented by god himself...I would imagine that god would have known that olive trees are alive, having made them. I think this sort of reasoning gets us onto thin ice.

I worry a bit, though, that one might have difficulty "seeking the plain meaning" when the specific words may not express it when evaluated in "a mechanical, grammatical, logical process." As a science geek, I pretty much live in a world where the latter is the norm.

As a [natural] science geek?

A molecular geneticist, actually. I guess that makes it "natural." No contest on the geeky.

I think the closer field would be the social sciences. They're used to dealing with complex subjects where more definitive knowledge is not necessarily there. And I can understand one's hesitation to accept the second method for interpretation here. It is a rather complex and daunting task which opens a lot of doors for unknowns to enter the equation.

Indeed. It gets at the heart of the Opening Post: how do we know what's supposed to be "strictly literal" vs ... somewhat more fuzzy? From my own viewpoint--the interest of which is decreasing the intensity of the science vs religion debate--this is a Big Issue. From the science side, I'm on solid ground, and know what's going on. From the biblical side, I'm rather less knowledgeable...which kinda decreases my credibility when the discussion turns to the matter of biblical interpretation.

[Bugmaster]

I think you would start with texts that are obviously metaphors or symbolic.

Ok, but which passages are obviously symbolic ? What may be symbolic to one person may be literal to another. For example, consider that whole
"though shalt not boil the kid in its mother's milk" thing. Jews interpret that as, "don't eat meat with milk". Christians interpret it as a metaphor for something or other. Who is right ?

[Bugmaster]

For example, my "standard puzzle" of the Flood destroying "every living thing" but then having living olive trees after the Flood, is often justified by saying that at that time, the cultural tradition was that only animals were alive. This is fine if we consider either (1) the bible was actually written by the people of that time, or (2) god presented it in the language that people of the time could understand.

This makes sense, which is actually bad news for the Abrahamic faiths. If the Bible was written by/for the ancient Hebrews, then it's possible that our reading of the Bible today is completely flawed. We can't even figure out simple things, such as "every living thing means everything that breathes, so no trees or fish" -- so how can we figure out complex things, such as slavery, polygamy, orbital satellites, other worlds, heaven and hell etc. etc. ? Our culture has changed so much that the Bible has become incomprehensible to us.

[theleftone]

Revelation would be a good example. Real beast for the strict literalist vs. a "national beast" for the loose literalist (or any other varieties of ideas presented by the group).

OK...allow me some strict literalism and logic here. If "beast" means "an animal," then the strict literalists would be justified in saying "real" beast. But, "beast" is used metaphorically (as in, "you beast!") to project animal qualities onto that which is called a beast but technically is not one. Am I correct, then, in thinking that "literal" for a loose-literalist would, in this case, be "metaphor" for a strict-literalist? I've talked myself into thinking so...

The "strict literalist" would not see it as a metaphor, hence the "unimaginative" portion of the definition. The "loose literalist" would see it as a metaphor, and their ensuing interpretation of it would be a "literalist" interpretation.

But doesn't this invoke the notion of the bible having been written in this historical/cultural context?

Yes.

For example, my "standard puzzle" of the Flood destroying "every living thing" but then having living olive trees after the Flood, is often justified by saying that at that time, the cultural tradition was that only animals were alive. This is fine if we consider either (1) the bible was actually written by the people of that time, or (2) god presented it in the language that people of the time could understand.

It could well be (1) and (2). Both can fit into the mold of a "loose literalist."

It's not so good if we think of the bible being a "strictly-literal" treatise on science, presented by god himself...I would imagine that god would have known that olive trees are alive, having made them. I think this sort of reasoning gets us onto thin ice.

The "strict literalist" can get into all sorts of trouble. In fact, this is why there really are no truly "strict literalist." Even the most conservative fundamentalist often accept some degree of loose literalism, whether they say so or not. They do tend to be inconsistent in their application though.

I worry a bit, though, that one might have difficulty "seeking the plain meaning" when the specific words may not express it when evaluated in "a mechanical, grammatical, logical process." As a science geek, I pretty much live in a world where the latter is the norm.

As a [natural] science geek?

A molecular geneticist, actually. I guess that makes it "natural." No contest on the geeky.

Yeah, I was drawing the distinction of the "mode of thought" the "natural" scientist uses as opposed to the social scientist.

It gets at the heart of the Opening Post: how do we know what's supposed to be "strictly literal" vs ... somewhat more fuzzy? From my own viewpoint--the interest of which is decreasing the intensity of the science vs religion debate--this is a Big Issue. From the science side, I'm on solid ground, and know what's going on. From the biblical side, I'm rather less knowledgeable...which kinda decreases my credibility when the discussion turns to the matter of biblical interpretation.

It can be a difficult task. This is why literary genres are so important to the interpretational task. And the complexity of the task is why those who work in the field are still refining and expanding our knowledge regarding the meanings of texts.

In fact, we still have mounds of ancient near eastern texts stacked away in museum storage which have never been translated, published, or studies in any kind of detail because there simply aren't enough people in the field. There's no telling what these works could do to shed light on the biblical text itself. But, even still we have thousands of years of study before us, so we have a good amount of information which can help us understand the historical/cultural context.

As one of my profs in school like to say, "As time passes, we get further away from the context of the Bible, but we also get closer." The idea here is what we are growing in our distance from the actual cultural simply because of time (i.e., cultural change). Yet, we are getting closer to it because we have new discoveries. This is why those who like to view theology as a "closed field" for new knowledge, really show their ignorance of the field. Sure, it might not move at the breakneck speed of the natural sciences, but it's progressing no less.

[theleftone]

This makes sense, which is actually bad news for the Abrahamic faiths. If the Bible was written by/for the ancient Hebrews, then it's possible that our reading of the Bible today is completely flawed. We can't even figure out simple things, such as "every living thing means everything that breathes, so no trees or fish" -- so how can we figure out complex things, such as slavery, polygamy, orbital satellites, other worlds, heaven and hell etc. etc. ? Our culture has changed so much that the Bible has become incomprehensible to us.

This is an overstatement. We know quite a bit about the ancient cultures. What we don't know is "a problem," but we should not neglect that we know quite a bit and our knowledge is continuously growing. As I noted to Jose, we still have stacks of ancient texts which have never been touched by anyone. And this is what we know of that are in the museum collections (storage). There could be untold collections still in the ground, in private collections, etc.