A purely literal reading of the Bible is the compliment that poorly-educated believers pay to science. They think that the only way to get important meaning from a book is to read it like a science text, so they read it that way. In this they ignore the history of their own religion and unknowingly agree that scientific statements -- ideally unambiguous, requiring no interpretation, and either true or false -- are the only good kind of statements.
Though it's of historical interest, the original intention of the authors isn't important. We don't need Derrida to explain that for socially important books, the text is the text PLUS all the influential readings that have been made of it. No one can read like a first century Palestinian anymore -- we all read through the lens of our own time, which includes a history. It's doubtful that the authors of the Genesis creation story meant it literally, but even if they did it's of no interest to us, because things have moved on.
It's common to refer to the opposite of literal as "metaphorical" but this is, in itself, a kind of metaphor (actually synecdoche, I think). A metaphor is a specific trope, and there are a hundred other non-literal tropes that can be used as well.
Some kinds of tropes have a single unambiguous meaning. For example, the ineffability topos is when you say something by saying you can't say it. "She is so beautiful that no one can put it into words." This means, pretty clearly, that she's really beautiful.
But other kinds of tropes are intentionally open-ended. For example, a real metaphor, like Baudelaire's famous "Nature is a temple," can't be restated in a non-metaphorical way. It is intended to open up ideas that aren't otherwise sayable. (Or at least, would require a hell of a lot more words to say.) Moreover, part of their value is that the prompt they give will be different for every reader, and that this is what the writer wants. The lack of precision is part why they are important. This is important for holy texts because they are often not intended to be precise, science-like statements, but open-ended provocations.
There is some similarity in the visual arts. For example, the Japanese Post Office logo is not all that different in appearance from the Christian cross. (Just rotate the top line until it goes vertical, and it will be a cross.) But the Post Office logo has a single clear meaning, "here is a Post Office," while the cross has a whole range of meanings, variable and personal to whoever uses it.
Holy texts use tropes intentionally, to enrich the meaning, sometimes to make it more difficult, personal, and intentionally ambiguous.
Though it's of historical interest, the original intention of the authors isn't important. We don't need Derrida to explain that for socially important books, the text is the text PLUS all the influential readings that have been made of it. No one can read like a first century Palestinian anymore -- we all read through the lens of our own time, which includes a history. It's doubtful that the authors of the Genesis creation story meant it literally, but even if they did it's of no interest to us, because things have moved on.
It's common to refer to the opposite of literal as "metaphorical" but this is, in itself, a kind of metaphor (actually synecdoche, I think). A metaphor is a specific trope, and there are a hundred other non-literal tropes that can be used as well.
Some kinds of tropes have a single unambiguous meaning. For example, the ineffability topos is when you say something by saying you can't say it. "She is so beautiful that no one can put it into words." This means, pretty clearly, that she's really beautiful.
But other kinds of tropes are intentionally open-ended. For example, a real metaphor, like Baudelaire's famous "Nature is a temple," can't be restated in a non-metaphorical way. It is intended to open up ideas that aren't otherwise sayable. (Or at least, would require a hell of a lot more words to say.) Moreover, part of their value is that the prompt they give will be different for every reader, and that this is what the writer wants. The lack of precision is part why they are important. This is important for holy texts because they are often not intended to be precise, science-like statements, but open-ended provocations.
There is some similarity in the visual arts. For example, the Japanese Post Office logo is not all that different in appearance from the Christian cross. (Just rotate the top line until it goes vertical, and it will be a cross.) But the Post Office logo has a single clear meaning, "here is a Post Office," while the cross has a whole range of meanings, variable and personal to whoever uses it.
Holy texts use tropes intentionally, to enrich the meaning, sometimes to make it more difficult, personal, and intentionally ambiguous.
