[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Belacqua]

But certainly, people cannot make a book divine, right? 

If you mean by "divine" that it really comes from God, then no, people can't make it divine. It actually comes from God or it doesn't. 

I thought it was useful to have a separate term -- "holy" -- to mean that people hold something to be spiritually important, whether it comes from God or not. 

So for example, I can refer to a Hindu holy site as holy, even though I don't think the Hindu gods really exist. It's a holy site because people say it's holy. 

Well, saying it provoked "serious commentary" sort of implies that this is serious business, something worth listening to. I'm not sure if that's the case.

It was certainly serious to the people doing the commentary. It was serious business to them. I can understand that you don't find it worth listening to, but that's your judgment call. 

It depends on what you want to do.

If you want to discuss that tradition in an intelligent way, then it makes sense to understand the tradition. If you don't want to think about it, or debate it, or fight about it, then sure -- read something else.

What makes tradition anything worth listening to? Ever read The Lottery by Shirley Jackson?

Before I address your new question here, I'd like to reiterate the point I made above:

If you are talking about the religious tradition, it is good to know about the religious tradition. Because it's good to know what you're talking about. 

So suppose there's a modern Christian somewhere who says that the talking snake in Genesis has to be interpreted literally. I think that, since he's addressing a part of the Christian tradition, it would be good for him to know that for many important people in his tradition, the snake was not interpreted literally. 

Likewise, if an anti-religion person declared that all Christians are idiots because they believe in talking snakes, it would be good for him to know that many important people in that tradition didn't believe in talking snakes. 

When discussing the subject, it's good to know the subject.

As for your new question, what makes a tradition worth listening to -- there are better traditions and worse traditions. But we all depend on some traditions. Life would be too difficult if we had to invent everything new in every generation. I suppose we judge good and bad traditions according to the same standards we judge other things -- do I think it is best for people.

Of course the Jackson story is about a bad tradition, and that tradition should be stopped. But it doesn't mean that all traditions are bad. What do you think? 

And what I'm saying is that even dynamic interpretations of the Bible surely contain plenty of literalism. What parts do you think are taken literally?

Yes, as I've said several times, parts are read literally and parts aren't. I'm pretty sure that the Mosaic laws were intended by the original authors to be followed literally. As for the rest -- it's a big book, and going through it line by line would take time. As I said, it's not easy.

But, in suggesting this, you insinuate that there is one ultimate interpretation to be discovered, so long as you just "use [your] brain."

I'd be grateful if you stick with what I say, and not what you think I am insinuating. 

I don't think there is only one ultimate interpretation to be discovered. In fact I am arguing the opposite, and I have said so. A story like the Book of Job has many interpretations. The combination and history of these interpretations is largely what makes the Book of Job into a fascinating myth and a prompt for thinking. 

Using your brain in such a case would mean that you can hold the various interpretations in mind, comparing and contrasting and gaining from the process, without insisting that you are right. Non-literal poetry often (not always) works this way.

---

Hi Darwin,

Was this post intended for me? I seem to be the noisiest person on the thread, so I'll guess that it was. 

[Just for future reference: in the lower right of each post there's a button marked "reply." If you click that and then type in the box that appears, it will be clear to whom you're speaking.] 

What makes you so sure that people today would interpret those non-literal statements the same way as was intended 2+ thousand years ago? 

I'm quite sure that many people today wouldn't interpret those statements the way the authors intended them. 

Earlier in the thread, I think, I questioned whether this was important. My opinion is that whatever the authors intended, it's the centuries of interpretation which make the statements meaningful to us now. I don't know and don't much care whether the author of Genesis really believed that Moses could hit a rock and get water. I know for a fact that some later writers interpreted this literally and others didn't, and this is what we work on.

Understanding non-literal expressions is likely affected by knowledge and other factors. Trying to interpret is the same as trying to find a meaning that makes sense. What makes sense to us did not necessarily make sense to the authors thousands of years ago.

Yes, very much so. The interpretation of non-literary expressions is different for different people. In some cases, this seems to me intentional and wise. 

It seems more like a human mistake to not consider this by not making the book clear enough for the religion to last forever. 

Or it may be that the religion lasts forever (well, a long time) exactly because the non-literal expressions sustain ever-renewing interpretations. 

Jesus didn't address a single word to how we drive our cars. But that doesn't mean that the lessons he supposedly taught are irrelevant when we drive. The fact that he taught in parables, open to interpretation in different circumstances, means that we draw lessons from them that are not specific to the details of the parable. 

“Holy” texts seem very much like other ancient literature.

Yes, certainly. 

That's why it's good to know about the expressions, methods, and tropes used in other ancient literature. It's why I am confident that the early interpreters were comfortable with non-literal readings, in many cases.