Literal Interpretation

[Vaclav]

There is a lot of discussion on here of sola scriptura or the idea that the Bible is self-authenticating and sufficient in and of itself.

That is not what I wish to discuss here (there are plenty of threads for that). My question is mostly to fundamentalist Protestants, but really to anyone who interprets the Bible using the “literal interpretation” technique.

I wonder how one gets around the problems of such a viewpoint? And please don’t take this as an attack, a childhood friend of mine was an independent Baptist and even became a minister in that denomination and he believed strongly in it, so I have no nasty personal grudge here. I just find it intellectually vacuous.

Let me explain:

So much depends upon translation and here I’m not even talking about poorly translating a text, I’m talking about the difference in languages that simply do not allow a perfect translation.

For example, the Gospel of John was written in Greek (as were Luke and Acts and some other NT books). There are many places in those books where the King James Bible, or any English Bible uses the word “love.” Yet, we know that in Greek there are four different words, with four completely different meanings for the word “love” (eros, phillia, agape, and storge).

So right there is a translation issue where English simply cannot capture the full meaning of a Greek passage. Moreover, there is little doubt that there were uses of slang, cliche, metaphor, simile, and other literary devices in Masoretic Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek, and other Biblical languages. We know this for many reasons, one is that Aramaic and Syriac exist today and Koine Greek is referenced in other texts. Is it not strange then to read such passages as literal?

Then you have the problem of words and phrases that simply have no good definitions in another language. Anyone here that speaks another language knows what I mean. You can get close, yes, but unless you know the culture and original language it never really makes very good sense - and literally it makes no sense at all.

My last question is when does literalism and devotion to each individual word become bibliolatry? Is there a point where it could be taken that far?

 

[Steadfast]

I don’t think even the strictest fundamentalist would argue that a* translation* is or even can be inerrant.

They usually say that the Bible is inerrant and infallible in the original languages and that today’s standard translations are as accurate as they need to be. By this they mean that the inspiration of the biblical authors is such that what they wrote was exactly, word for word, what God wanted them to write without however doing away with their own distinct styles and personalities and that insofar as modern translations convey that message they are understood to be accurate and therefore authoritative.

Literalism is not as concerned with a word for word equivalency between the original languages and the languages of translation as much as with a rather wooden interpretation of those texts most scholars historically have understood to be figurative and symbolic; e.g. Revelation, etc.

 

[Vaclav]

Literalism is not as concerned with a word for word equivalency between the original languages and the languages of translation as much as with a rather wooden interpretation of those texts most scholars historically have understood to be figurative and symbolic

I understand and in my round about way, I was asking that as well. Yet, the translation would still be very important in some regards to obtain a literal interpretation.

But your point added to mine still has the essence of questions that have me very curious. Why use literal interpretation of the entire Bible?

 

[Steadfast]

I understand and in my round about way, I was asking that as well. Yet, the translation would still be very important in some regards to obtain a literal interpretation.

But your point added to mine still has the essence of questions that have me very curious. Why use literal interpretation of the entire Bible?

I don;t think anyone does or if they do they are such a minority as to demand very little attention.

 

[Kevan]

I’m a fundamentalist and in my tradition we sometimes say “literal if possible.” A longer dictum is “when the plain sense of Scripture makes good sense, seek no other sense.” This is in response to elaborate, fanciful, imaginative meanings which readers might want to superimpose on a text.

It is usually only an issue when dealing with Bible prophecy, which uses so much imagery. In most other genres, the literal interpretation is the obvious one. For instance, when the gospel says that Jesus walked on water, but some reader thinks it didn’t actually happen, he cannot say “Oh, I believe what it says, I just don’t think it’s literal.” It isn’t a question of literal vs. figurative, its a question of fact vs. legend.

If a poetry passage says that the trees clap their hands, you’ll look a long time before you find a fundamentalist who tries to interpret it literally.

I cannot guess what “bibliolatry” might be, so I can’t address your question regarding it. But I would agree with you, I think, that squeezing the blood out of every word in a verse is probably overinterpreting and, therefore, misinterpreting.

 

[Athanasiy]

Is it very important to know exactly the degree of literal , external accuracy of all Biblical events ?
Why do we must to know the answers for the distracting questions about the Biblical events which , may be do not require literalness ?
I mean the story of creation , of paradise and the fall of tower of Babel , or whether God spoke to Abraham in a human voice …

When I was converted , I discovered for myself the Catholic Cathechism.
I was for many years the member of the Baptist Church , many of our members are really worthy to get the Diploma of the Bachelors in the Biblical Theology .
We live by the Biblical events and the meanings.
Our teenegers even know what that or that Biblical word means in Hebrew or in Greek.
But I was surprised to discover that Bible knowledge , or the knowledge of the Biblical events can not save you from the ignorance of the most important and simple things.
I mean the things which by the simple , direct , and up to date language are written in the Catholic Cathechism.

The Evangelicals are getting very prosperous in the ex-communist Ukraine.
They are industrious and solicitous for their families and therefore prosperous in business and succesful in economical activity.
I do not want to say that there are dishonesty and bad examples among them.
I just mean the the language of the Catholic Cathechism is direct and simple , evident and concrete.
I mean you can know the Bible so good and still be ignorant that :

• to take or keep the property of others is sin.
• business fraud is sin
• paying unjust wages is sin
• tax evasion , excessive expenses , wastes , work poorely done is sin…
  The events which say about the Biblical heroes and events sometimes seems so abstract comparably with the concrete teachings which with striking simpleness tells us about God’s will in the Cathechism.

I think ( of course , its just my personal opinion ) that as the New Testament is hidden in the Old Testament , so the Catholic Cathechism is hidden in the New Testament.

 

[BeProf]

Having come up in a strict fundamentalist background and attended fundamentalist seminaries (although I am now more evangelical), “literal” is a misnomer. It’s a short-hand that we use to mean “not liberal” in general and “historical grammatical” in particular.

What I mean by “not liberal” is that we, like Catholics, reject any notions that the Bible is in any way not accurate or authoritative. We reject any notion that the Bible, down to it’s very words, is the accurate, faithful, inspired record of God’s communication with mankind. We reject theological liberalism which begins with the “higher criticism” and believes that since we all know that miracles don’t happen that Jesus must not have done them. We also reject any neo-orthodox notions that the Bible “contains” the word of God but isn’t the word of God in and of itself.

What I mean by “historical grammatical” is that, just like the Roman Catholic Church, we believe that the Bible means what it says and says what it means. We start from the assumption that the Bible is unlike any other book and thus must be read differently than any other book. This is in opposition to the historical-critical method that treats sacred scripture like any other ancient document.

So what we mean by “literal” isn’t that far off from the Roman Catholic view. Where we differ is only in that we don’t believe that there is any single authoritative magisterial commentator on sacred scripture nor that there is any kind of authoritative deposit of sacred tradition to inform our interpretation. It’s not that we don’t have our own analogues to the magisterium and sacred tradition, but we don’t hold them to be infallible and authoritative in the same way that the Bible is.

 

[Athanasiy]

Yes.This is the attitude which only can be possible .
Because we can not avoid the problems by making the Bible , accurate and authoritative down to its very words , and believing that there is a single authoritative commentator.

The matter in Vaclavs question is not just in the exactliness in the translations of the Bible , the matter is in the wrong conception of the self-authenticism and self - sufficiency of the Bible.

When the Bible got out from the Church authority it has splited at the thousands of pieces in the hands of the reformers , who are reforming untill now. I mean instead of one flock it divided on many flocks , instead of one orientation , it seems do not have orientation at all.
And what I mean , the book requires the Church.
Without the Church it seems that the divine message , lacks or misses the context.

I came from the Evangelical background of the ex-communist country, and I can confirm that there are not a few people with the Bible in the hands who do not know :

• about the right of the christians to pass the moral judgements on the matters related to politics.
• about the fact that we not just have the duties but the rights , and we can defend our rights.
• about the exercising of right to vote.
• about the defence of ones life or defence of ones neighbour.

Also to the matters related to Morality , for example ;

• that the child is not a property or something owed to one , but a gift.
  And if to mention the scientific explorations ; artificial semination and fertilization , or whether medical and scientific experimentation on animals are morally acceptable practice .

And many other theological questions related to Salvation ( Incarnation , Trinity …) which are no less important.

The problem is in the attempt of having the idea of the Bible without the idea of the Church , in having the Bible and do not having the spiritual orientation .

The problem is in having the strange obligatory duty ( which is demanded by the Evangelical mind. ) to be a theologist and exploring the heavy theological tasks in the pursiut of that orientation by him/her self , by searching the right denomination among the labirinths of others.

 

[SIA]

My last question is when does literalism and devotion to each individual word become bibliolatry? Is there a point where it could be taken that far?

Take this and eat, this is my body. Many Protestants don’t take this literally.