Define "literal"

[icamhif]

Well, I think my example was better , but that’s unimportant: the point was simply that polemics based on the word “literal” are not a specifically Catholic trait. There is no “here” here.

Yes, the “literal” rhetoric is a sword that cuts both ways.

To the OP, your question is really interesting. In light of your points, I don’t think I have a clear-cut, consistent definition of the word “literal”

 

[benhur]

But anyhow, I’m reminded of the American poet who wrote “singing songs and carrying signs, mostly [to] say *‘Hurray for our side’.” *

Buffalo Springfield. “For What it’s Worth”, sung by Stephen Stills I think,1966 (?). I have quoted that also on CAF and for same reason, the shoe fits sometimes.

 

[Randy_Carson]

From time to time the word “literal” comes up in discussions on this forum.

I invite anyone inclined to use the term in an argument to define it here, so that next time you use it I may have some idea what you mean.

Clearly many people here think that calling one’s interpretation “literal” confers some sort of advantage on it. But I think the word is so slippery that no such advantage actually accrues.

Edwin

Catholics interpret the Bible in a “literal” sense, while many fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and others interpret the Bible in a literalist sense.

The “literal” meaning of a passage of Scripture is the meaning that the author of that passage of Scripture intended to convey. The “literalist” interpretation of a passage of Scripture is: “that’s what it says, that’s what it means.”

Let me give you an example to illustrate the difference. If you were to read a passage in a book that said it was “raining cats and dogs outside”, how would you interpret that? As Americans, in the 21st Century, you would know that the author was intending to convey the idea that it was raining pretty doggone hard outside. That would be the “literal” interpretation…the interpretation the author intended to convey. On the other hand, what if you made a “literalist” interpretation of the phrase, “it’s raining cats and dogs”?

The “literalist” interpretation would be that, were you to walk outside, you would actually see cats and dogs falling from the sky like rain. No taking into account the popularly accepted meaning of this phrase. No taking into account the author’s intentions. The words say it was raining cats and dogs, so, by golly, it was raining cats and dogs! That is the literalist, or fundamentalist, way of interpretation.

If someone 2000 years in the future picked up that same book and read, “It was raining cats and dogs outside,” in order to properly understand that passage in the book, they would need a “literal” interpretation, not a “literalist” interpretation. Now, think about that in the context of interpreting the Bible 2000-3000 years after it was written.

 

[Peter_J]

The “literal” meaning of a passage of Scripture is the meaning that the author of that passage of Scripture intended to convey.

Yes, that’s what I’m talking about … See my earlier post about “Call no man father.”

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, that’s what I’m talking about … See my earlier post about “Call no man father.”

I mean this one:

Well, I don’t know about your use of the word “here”. (I can’t be in this conversation without thinking of the Evangelical Protestant who once told me that the literal meaning of Matthew 23:9 is: Do not call any religious leader father.)

 

[Peter_J]

Nevermind those last two posts – I’m going to put them on the other thread instead.

 

[Peter_J]

This thread is about definitions of one specific word, but if I might stretch the topic for a moment …

I heard this statement in a recent press conference “Violence condones more violence" and have to ask, Is there now a definition of “condones” that makes that sentence make sense?

 

[truetofaith]

This thread is about definitions of one specific word, but if I might stretch the topic for a moment …

I heard this statement in a recent press conference “Violence condones more violence" and have to ask, Is there now a definition of “condones” that makes that sentence make sense?

I would say ‘Violence begets more violence!’

 

[Peter_J]

The “literal” meaning of a passage of Scripture is the meaning that the author of that passage of Scripture intended to convey.

It seems you have a supporter:

As for “literal,” as far as I can tell, it means to get it right.

(I hope all readers will accept my apology for borrowing from another thread.)

 

[ericc]

From time to time the word “literal” comes up in discussions on this forum.

I invite anyone inclined to use the term in an argument to define it here, so that next time you use it I may have some idea what you mean.

Clearly many people here think that calling one’s interpretation “literal” confers some sort of advantage on it. But I think the word is so slippery that no such advantage actually accrues.

Edwin

There are a few examples where literal interpretations may or may not convey the intention of the author.

1. It’s raining cats and dogs. It is an idiom and the author did not meant it to rain actual cats and dogs but to rain very hard. But for people not familiar with language usage thousands of years ago, they might not know it is supposed to mean to rain very hard. So unless there is evidence that there are alternate meanings, the direct translation tend to be the first course of action (Occam’s Razor?). Now what happens when there are known alternate meanings or known generalizations such as the “adelphoi” brothers of Jesus? What was the author’s intent? If one doesn’t know, then a logical conclusion is “many possible answers”. We have gone through so many exhaustive rounds on this and I think the intellectually honest answer is based upon usage is “many possible answers” or based upon dictionary definition. However, an intellectually honest answer is also to look at the people familiar with the situation such as the apostles, apostles’ disciples, disciples’ disciples. The closer one is to the people who ought to know should receive higher credibility ratings than someone picking up a book thousands of years later and making comments based upon translations of translations.
2. Creation in 6 days. Did the author actually meant 6 earth days? Perhaps not because if our understanding of an earth day is limited to our 24 hours understanding which is dependent on the rotation of the earth. Of course when you don’t have the universe yet, no sun, no planets, an earth day is not possible. Unless one can retroactively project backwards that the creation was the equivalent of an earth day. But the author never said or hinted that so a day could be taken to be symbolic. Now if the author’s intention is symbolic, does that make it literal? By your definition, if that is what the author intended, you would define it as literal. Which of course drive one nuts. A literal symbol?
3. The Eucharist. John 6 discourse. Again Occam’s Razor would demand a literal interpretation. Which is bolstered by Jesus words during the Last Supper Luke 22:19. Which is bolstered by the other gospel writers Mat 26:26, Mk 14:22. Which is bolstered by people familiar with the situation i.e. apostles, apostles disciples, Church Fathers, early Christians etc.
4. OT violence. One of the most contentious because many a person faith hinges on one’s perception of what one’s God SHOULD be like…Which of course clouds the argument. If we go by Occam’s Razor (the way I apply it), literal first, next best would be followers of OT i.e. writings of Jews as close to that period as possible and so on bolstered by the logic whether the results achieved fits the violence reported.

I am sorry for the longish post, but what the heck, we have thrashed these topics to the death often times with folks walking away unwilling to concede for very personal reasons.

Personally, I am usually lead by where the argument takes it to with simple rules.

1. Literal in the absence of special knowledge or logic.
2. Supporting evidence either by later words or actions or by people closest to the event.

There is no distinct advantage by being literal except it make the first task easier. Take it as it is subject to corrections if supported by additional knowledge/logic. Of course the mentally less challenging way is whatever my opinion is , that is the correct one subject to you proving it wrong. For me it ended the way it is because when I started reading CAF, I was more or less clueless on lots of stuff. The literal way helps to kick off that in a systematic way and less prejudicial. I’m always open to persuasion, and reading up on philosophy such as fallacious logic helps to focus one’s mind on the substance and not the form.

 

[Contarini]

There are a few examples where literal interpretations may or may not convey the intention of the author.

You’re assuming a meaning of “literal” other than “the one the author intended” and then saying “literal interpretations may or may not convey the author’s intention.” But what is this meaning you’re assuming in the first place? That’s what my OP asks people to define.

The problem with defining “literal” as “whatever the author intended” is that often we don’t know what the author intended. Furthermore, often we contrast “literal” with “metaphorical” and ask which of these the author intended.

Randy’s definition is certainly a venerable one–it’s that of Aquinas. I don’t dismiss it, but it is not without problems.

You seem to be assuming something more like my proposed definition ('the most common or obvious meaning of the words"), but you don’t say so explicitly.

1. It’s raining cats and dogs. It is an idiom and the author did not meant it to rain actual cats and dogs but to rain very hard. But for people not familiar with language usage thousands of years ago, they might not know it is supposed to mean to rain very hard.

Right. And again, that’s an obvious problem with the “intentional” definition of “literal.”

By my definition, as I’ve said already, the “literal” meaning of the words (“rain,” “cats,” and “dogs”) would point in one direction (animals falling from the sky) but the “literal” meaning of the phrase taken as a whole is a metaphor (it’s raining very hard).

So unless there is evidence that there are alternate meanings, the direct translation tend to be the first course of action (Occam’s Razor?).

But again, you’re assuming a meaning of “direct” that isn’t necessarily obvious.

By your definition, if that is what the author intended, you would define it as literal. Which of course drive one nuts. A literal symbol?

Well, in my opinion any honest inquiry into the meaning of the word “literal” will drive a person nuts.

What I’m driving at in this thread is that I really don’t think what most people have in mind by the word “literal” exists at all. That is to say, most people assume, without thinking about it very hard, that all words have an intrinsic “literal” meaning and then other possible meanings which are somehow less proper but may be legitimate in certain contexts. Hence we get silly phrases like “it means exactly what it says.” Presumably this really means “it means what it normally means” but that sounds less pungent, and I don’t think most people stop to realize that this is, in fact, what they must mean if they mean anything coherent at all.

1. The Eucharist. John 6 discourse. Again Occam’s Razor would demand a literal interpretation.

But again, you haven’t defined “literal.” And as I’ve said a number of times, calling the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist “literal” is the deathblow to the word having any realy meaning at all.

1. OT violence. One of the most contentious because many a person faith hinges on one’s perception of what one’s God SHOULD be like…Which of course clouds the argument.

Everyone comes to the discussion with assumptions about what God should be like (even atheists). I’m not sure this clouds the argument at all, but that may take us far afield from “the meaning of literal.”

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

Randy’s definition is certainly a venerable one–it’s that of Aquinas.

No.

Edit: Or if you prefer, no unless you can show otherwise. Let it never be said that I’m not open to new things.

 

[ericc]

You’re assuming a meaning of “literal” other than “the one the author intended” and then saying “literal interpretations may or may not convey the author’s intention.” But what is this meaning you’re assuming in the first place? That’s what my OP asks people to define.

The problem with defining “literal” as “whatever the author intended” is that often we don’t know what the author intended. Furthermore, often we contrast “literal” with “metaphorical” and ask which of these the author intended.

You seem to be assuming something more like my proposed definition ('the most common or obvious meaning of the words"), but you don’t say so explicitly.

Sorry. Literal meaning what the words actually say. If the words have legitimate multiple meanings, then the task is much harder to tease out the one intended by the author.

What I’m driving at in this thread is that I really don’t think what most people have in mind by the word “literal” exists at all. That is to say, most people assume, without thinking about it very hard, that all words have an intrinsic “literal” meaning and then other possible meanings which are somehow less proper but may be legitimate in certain contexts. Hence we get silly phrases like “it means exactly what it says.” Presumably this really means “it means what it normally means” but that sounds less pungent, and I don’t think most people stop to realize that this is, in fact, what they must mean if they mean anything coherent at all.

Good try in getting “literal” defined. I am sticking with the dictionary way of defining it.

But again, you haven’t defined “literal.” And as I’ve said a number of times, calling the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist “literal” is the deathblow to the word having any realy meaning at all.

Eucharist being literal is to mean physically eat the body of Christ. That includes verbs like chewing, biting and swallowing a piece of ordinary bread that has been miraculously transubbed to the body of Christ.

 

[grannymh]

From time to time the word “literal” comes up in discussions on this forum.

I invite anyone inclined to use the term in an argument to define it here, so that next time you use it I may have some idea what you mean.

Clearly many people here think that calling one’s interpretation “literal” confers some sort of advantage on it. But I think the word is so slippery that no such advantage actually accrues.

Edwin

Slippery – now that is a very interesting word and often very true.

I use the word literal, defined as real in space and time, when the discussion is using it. For example when the first three chapters of Genesis are dissected. Personally, I prefer to use Catholic teachings when it comes to literal, historic, symbolic and “you must be kidding.”

 

[benjohnson]

My definition of ‘literal’ is whatever definition will advance my argument and diminish my opponent’s argument.

Don’t expect any consistency out of me!

 

[Dave_Noonan]

From time to time the word “literal” comes up in discussions on this forum.

I invite anyone inclined to use the term in an argument to define it here, so that next time you use it I may have some idea what you mean.

Clearly many people here think that calling one’s interpretation “literal” confers some sort of advantage on it. But I think the word is so slippery that no such advantage actually accrues.

Edwin

“Literal” is a term usually used rhetorically to either negate or justify a particular interpretation. Often when people use the term “literal” they really mean “historical”. In the cats and dogs illustration, a so-called “literal” interpretation would be that such an event happened historically and not figuratively.

But I would argue that in the Western tradition, there’s another much deeper sense–that of the literal being the letters on the page—and not really counting—letters that only point to the res or the REAL meaning of the text, which is thought to be outside of the text. (Think Platonic ideal forms.)

As I recall, there’s an excellent discussion of res versus text in Mary Carruthers book The Medieval Craft of Memory–and if not, it’s a book everyone should read anyway

 

[icamhif]

My definition of ‘literal’ is whatever definition will advance my argument and diminish my opponent’s argument.

Don’t expect any consistency out of me!

Lol