[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Belacqua]

any statement can be understood arbitrarily since there is no standard—that is, there are no obvious meanings.

There are standards. There is a framework and a history and there are recognized people who have influenced the field. 

The fact that it is a long and complicated history, that people still disagree, that some people do it badly, does not mean that the whole thing is arbitrary. 

It seems that the main point I need to make is: it is good for us to know what we're talking about. If a poorly-informed Christian says that everything in the Bible was always meant literally, he is wrong. If a poorly-informed anti-religion type says that all Christians believe in talking snakes, he is wrong.

I need to look up the history of Biblical Hermeneutics regarding when exactly it was first used, where it was being used and its evolution.

Hermeneutics means interpretation, which means that there is something to interpret first, and then people read it carefully. The field grew up over centuries, and is one of the reasons that our tradition has a very rich way of reading texts. Modern secular hermeneutics owes a great deal to its religious forebears.

Like all fields, it didn't appear out of nothing. Ways of writing and reading that far predate the writing of the Gospels or the final assembly of the Bible used expressive tropes, and doing hermeneutics requires that a person know these. The many various authors of the Bible and other texts assume and demand that we will make a tiny bit of effort in reading them.

---

Yes, but when texts are interpreted differently than was intended, it is not the author's wisdom, it is the interpreter's. 

Thank you, yes, that's what I've been saying. 

The author's intent may or may not be relevant, if we even know what it is. The richness of the text often comes from the many interpretations that have been offered after. 

I find William Blake's interpretation of the Book of Job to be very wonderful, and almost certainly at odds with the original author[s].

this does not prove that a god exists.

Who said anything about proving a god exists? Non sequiturs R us. 

As an atheist, I feel that we should read and write intelligently, that we have a duty to speak accurately even about our "enemies," and that it would be silly to reject the beauty and wisdom of European culture, even though I have different metaphysical views about the people who wrote it.

[Darwin1245]

There are standards. There is a framework and a history and there are recognized people who have influenced the field.

The fact that it is a long and complicated history, that people still disagree, that some people do it badly, does not mean that the whole thing is arbitrary.

It seems that the main point I need to make is: it is good for us to know what we're talking about. If a poorly-informed Christian says that everything in the Bible was always meant literally, he is wrong. If a poorly-informed anti-religion type says that all Christians believe in talking snakes, he is wrong.

The standards need to have been there since the Bible was written. There are several methods used in Biblical Hermeneutics, and it seems that not all of them met that criterion. It is, therefore, logical to say that the basics of interpretation themselves can be considered arbitrary, since some of them were first used years after the Bible had been written. The standards themselves, only the ones not meeting the criterion above, can be considered arbitrary, which makes the interpretation arbitrary as well. By definition, "arbitrary" means not following a system or not based on reason. What I find plausible is that the only valid reasons and/or system are that the standards were suggested by the Bible, or that those standards were being used before the Bible had been written, because, in this case, we can be sure enough that the Bible was meant to be understood according to those standards. Otherwise, it seems more like we are making up standards to make the Bible seem plausible. This is what I consider arbitrary even if there are standards. I did a brief research on the internet about the history of Biblical Interpretation, and it seems that some methods of interpretation were suggested and used hundreds or thousands of years after the Bible had been written. I will look it up again.

Hermeneutics means interpretation, which means that there is something to interpret first, and then people read it carefully. The field grew up over centuries, and is one of the reasons that our tradition has a very rich way of reading texts. Modern secular hermeneutics owes a great deal to its religious forebears.

Like all fields, it didn't appear out of nothing. Ways of writing and reading that far predate the writing of the Gospels or the final assembly of the Bible used expressive tropes, and doing hermeneutics requires that a person know these. The many various authors of the Bible and other texts assume and demand that we will make a tiny bit of effort in reading them.

It seems that some the methods did not predate the Bible's final assembly, but will look this up again.

Thank you, yes, that's what I've been saying.

The author's intent may or may not be relevant, if we even know what it is. The richness of the text often comes from the many interpretations that have been offered after.

I find William Blake's interpretation of the Book of Job to be very wonderful, and almost certainly at odds with the original author[s].

Who said anything about proving a god exists? Non sequiturs R us.

As an atheist, I feel that we should read and write intelligently, that we have a duty to speak accurately even about our "enemies," and that it would be silly to reject the beauty and wisdom of European culture, even though I have different metaphysical views about the people who wrote it.

It could be thought that what you were trying to prove was that the mistakes in the Bible should have been interpreted differently using different methods of interpretation until finding a plausible meaning, and that the meaning finally found was probably the one meant by the authors, and, therefore, the Bible is correct.
If you meant that any ancient literature, including holy books, should not be completely abandoned by non-believers, and that morals could be derived from some of the myths without believing in myths, I agree. Methods of interpretation, however arbitrary they may be, can actually help with deriving meanings that were most likely not meant by the authors. This, also, works with any other book about Mythology and ancient literature.

[Acrobat]

It is obvious that people prefer to believe in myths because they are consoling, and because they provide explanations for things like death that are relevant to us.

Except there one glaring issue.

Most religious scriptures, christians or pagan, etc..., especially in the Ancient world are not that consoling, and more often then not, don't offer any sort of rosy afterlife, and many Jews didn't believe there was one. The OT almost has nothing to say about life after death, let alone painting a comforting picture of what awaits.

The NT sure, has an idea of heaven, though it's quite vague. When folks ask Jesus about the nature of it, he's quick to be dismissive.

[Belacqua]

The standards need to have been there since the Bible was written. 

No they don't. We are talking about standards used to interpret, not to write. 

For example, a normal standard of interpretation is something like: "does a literal interpretation of this sentence accord with the rest of what I hold to be true about Christianity?" That standard wasn't in the mind of the author of the Book of Job. It is a standard used by the reader. 

There are several methods used in Biblical Hermeneutics, and it seems that not all of them met that criterion. It is, therefore, logical to say that the basics of interpretation themselves can be considered arbitrary, since some of them were first used years after the Bible had been written. 

I wonder if you are using some non-standard meaning of the word "arbitrary." 

Just because a standard of interpretation was not in the mind of the author of Genesis, doesn't mean the person using it came up with it for no reason. To be arbitrary, it has to be a standard based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. If the interpreter has more than random choice or personal whim, if he has a reason and a system, it is not arbitrary. 

What I find plausible is that the only valid reasons and/or system are that the standards were suggested by the Bible, or that those standards were being used before the Bible had been written, because, in this case, we can be sure enough that the Bible was meant to be understood according to those standards. 

People who use the standards you disapprove of in fact think that they were "suggested by the Bible." For example, Jesus taught in parables. Parables are not literal. Therefore, much of the teaching of the Bible is not meant to be literal. Therefore, we are justified in reading those sentences which are obviously silly if interpreted literally as parable, allegory, or provocation. 

Was this in the mind of the authors of Genesis? Not that formulation, exactly, because he lived before Christ. But he lived long after it was common for myths to express spiritual but not literal truth.

The Bible has a history, and, as I keep saying, the value of the texts may not depend at all on the original authors' intent, if that is even knowable. 

When Augustine used the Latin word translated as "literal," he didn't mean literal the way we mean it. By "literal" he meant "according to the original authors' intent -- following exactly what the original authors wanted to say." But he was very specific that in many cases this was unknowable, and in some others less valuable. 

Otherwise, it seems more like we are making up standards to make the Bible seem plausible.

Again, this is mind-reading. Attributing bad motivations to readers without actually knowing their intentions. 
Is it possible? Yes. Can we know they did that? No. Did many of them leave detailed written accounts of their standards of evaluation which didn't include "making it seem plausible"? Yes.

It could be thought that what you were trying to prove was that the mistakes in the Bible should have been interpreted differently using different methods of interpretation until finding a plausible meaning, and that the meaning finally found was probably the one meant by the authors, and, therefore, the Bible is correct. 

It could be thought that, if you wanted to do a mind-reading on me and tell me that what I know of myself is wrong. 

I'd rather stick with what I know: writers in ancient times were comfortable with many kinds of non-literal expression. It is historical and reasonable to think that many of the Bible's authors were comfortable with these means. It is historically accurate to say that from very early on, important people in the Church interpreted many parts non-literally. Jesus told his disciples not to interpret him literally, by using parables. Rather than go with mind-reading, I'll stick with these demonstrable facts. 

I have also said before on this thread that in many cases, there is not one correct meaning of a story or parable. The myth of the fall of Adam and Eve, for example, has been interpreted a thousand different ways, for different reasons, by people who didn't claim to replace or supersede the interpretations that went before. To claim that only one reading is the correct one would be dumbed-down fundamentalism.

[Darwin1245]

It is obvious that people prefer to believe in myths because they are consoling, and because they provide explanations for things like death that are relevant to us.

Except there one glaring issue.

Most religious scriptures, christians or pagan, etc..., especially in the Ancient world are not that consoling, and more often then not, don't offer any sort of rosy afterlife, and many Jews didn't believe there was one. The OT almost has nothing to say about life after death, let alone painting a comforting picture of what awaits.

The NT sure, has an idea of heaven, though it's quite vague. When folks ask Jesus about the nature of it, he's quick to be dismissive.

Generally speaking, it applies to most popular religions. Exceptions may exist, but such consoling myths do exist in most religions which include the primitive ones. Myths about death is an example, which is why "death" was preceded with "like."

[Belacqua]

Except there one glaring issue.

Most religious scriptures, christians or pagan, etc..., especially in the Ancient world are not that consoling, and more often then not, don't offer any sort of rosy afterlife, and many Jews didn't believe there was one. The OT almost has nothing to say about life after death, let alone painting a comforting picture of what awaits.

The NT sure, has an idea of heaven, though it's quite vague. When folks ask Jesus about the nature of it, he's quick to be dismissive.

Generally speaking, it applies to most popular religions. Exceptions may exist, but such consoling myths do exist in most religions which include the primitive ones. Myths about death is an example, which is why "death" was preceded with "like."

Buddhism? After death you may be reincarnated as a worm, a hungry ghost, a tormented soul in hell. Is this knowledge consoling? If you did a good job before, you can get a better deal, but you don't know until you get there. In the end, after a zillion reincarnations, you may manage to disappear completely.

Christianity (many forms) you have a good chance of eternal torture, and you don't know until you go. Well, that's consoling. 

I don't know anything about Islam. 

Ancient Greek religion: the afterlife is terrible. Ancient Roman religion: depending on how you did in this life, you might get a nice neighborhood in Hades. But you don't know until you go there.

[Acrobat]

Except there one glaring issue.

Most religious scriptures, christians or pagan, etc..., especially in the Ancient world are not that consoling, and more often then not, don't offer any sort of rosy afterlife, and many Jews didn't believe there was one. The OT almost has nothing to say about life after death, let alone painting a comforting picture of what awaits.

The NT sure, has an idea of heaven, though it's quite vague. When folks ask Jesus about the nature of it, he's quick to be dismissive.

Generally speaking, it applies to most popular religions. Exceptions may exist, but such consoling myths do exist in most religions which include the primitive ones. Myths about death is an example, which is why "death" was preceded with "like."

This doesn’t seem to be even generally true. People in practice generally are consolatory when dealing with death, we pretty much tell everyone grieving over loss, something like he’s in a better place, or he’s no longer suffering, etc...

But religious myths, even as Belaqua pointed out, that have an after life of some sorts whether reincarnation or heaven, hardly seem to fill the same role, in fact they tend to offer an alternative destructive place or state as well. So whatever purpose myths that contain suggestions of an after life, it doesn’t seem to be for the purpose of consultation.

[Darwin1245]

No they don't. We are talking about standards used to interpret, not to write.

For example, a normal standard of interpretation is something like: "does a literal interpretation of this sentence accord with the rest of what I hold to be true about Christianity?" That standard wasn't in the mind of the author of the Book of Job. It is a standard used by the reader.

They do. If they did not, we would not know what the authors, who were supposedly inspired by a supernatural being, meant; therefore, we would not be following the same religion.

I wonder if you are using some non-standard meaning of the word "arbitrary."

Just because a standard of interpretation was not in the mind of the author of Genesis, doesn't mean the person using it came up with it for no reason. To be arbitrary, it has to be a standard based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. If the interpreter has more than random choice or personal whim, if he has a reason and a system, it is not arbitrary.

In my previous reply to your post, I did make it clear what I meant by "arbitrary." It should not affect the discussion if you think it was a non-standard meaning of the word.

People who use the standards you disapprove of in fact think that they were "suggested by the Bible." For example, Jesus taught in parables. Parables are not literal. Therefore, much of the teaching of the Bible is not meant to be literal. Therefore, we are justified in reading those sentences which are obviously silly if interpreted literally as parable, allegory, or provocation.

Was this in the mind of the authors of Genesis? Not that formulation, exactly, because he lived before Christ. But he lived long after it was common for myths to express spiritual but not literal truth.

The Bible has a history, and, as I keep saying, the value of the texts may not depend at all on the original authors' intent, if that is even knowable.

When Augustine used the Latin word translated as "literal," he didn't mean literal the way we mean it. By "literal" he meant "according to the original authors' intent -- following exactly what the original authors wanted to say." But he was very specific that in many cases this was unknowable, and in some others less valuable.

"Think" is not enough. We need to know what the authors meant. (Why?)

Again, this is mind-reading. Attributing bad motivations to readers without actually knowing their intentions.
Is it possible? Yes. Can we know they did that? No. Did many of them leave detailed written accounts of their standards of evaluation which didn't include "making it seem plausible"? Yes.

It is not mind-reading; it is likely the truth. 
Why would they admit their actual motivations?  

It could be thought that, if you wanted to do a mind-reading on me and tell me that what I know of myself is wrong.

I'd rather stick with what I know: writers in ancient times were comfortable with many kinds of non-literal expression. It is historical and reasonable to think that many of the Bible's authors were comfortable with these means. It is historically accurate to say that from very early on, important people in the Church interpreted many parts non-literally. Jesus told his disciples not to interpret him literally, by using parables. Rather than go with mind-reading, I'll stick with these demonstrable facts.

I have also said before on this thread that in many cases, there is not one correct meaning of a story or parable. The myth of the fall of Adam and Eve, for example, has been interpreted a thousand different ways, for different reasons, by people who didn't claim to replace or supersede the interpretations that went before. To claim that only one reading is the correct one would be dumbed-down fundamentalism.

I was not "mind-reading." I did use "if" for a reason.

What do I think?

1. Science has easily proved that religions are human-made. Therefore, "holy" books should not be considered any better than ancient literature books.
 
2. If the standards of interpretation were not known to the authors, we can not know what that inspiring supernatural being meant, and, therefore, we would not be following the same religion. (Some are metaphors are obvious, and some are not.) "Dumbed-down fundamentalism?" It may seem like some sort of fundamentalism, but I did explain the reasons for why this should be the case. I do not follow such principles. 
 
3. Non-literal means of interpreting texts can be used with any other book to derive morals and meanings (or anything, if you are crazy enough, which I am;) however, it does not necessarily mean that those meanings were intended by the author.
 
4. Non-literal writing can promote divisions.
 
5. There is no doubt that some morals can be derived from holy texts (or other texts unrelated to religions); nonetheless, it does not mean that "holy" books are actually supernatural in origin because morals are either intuitive, or learned by experience.

6. If 1 is correct, which is the case, there is absolutely no point of this discussion.

If you wanna continue discussing this, start with disproving 1.

[GrandizerII]

Norse religion:

We're all screwed at the end. Even the gods.

[Belacqua]

They do. If they did not, we would not know what the authors, who were supposedly inspired by a supernatural being, meant; therefore, we would not be following the same religion. 

You seem to be imposing an arbitrary standard: that the only worthwhile reading is the one that was meant by the original author. As I've said, I don't see that as true.

"Think" is not enough. We need to know what the authors meant. (Why?)

You need to maybe. I don't. I'm interested in all the things that have been said about it since. That's what gives the text meaning to me. 

Or does Blake's reading of Job somehow stop being beautiful if it doesn't line up with the original author[s]?

It is not mind-reading; it is likely the truth.  

If you say so. I have no way of knowing their secret internal motivations. 

Why would they admit their actual motivations? 

Um, because they were honest, trying to do a good job, wanting to help people, wanting to add something to an already long and fascinating tradition... ? 

But if you've deemed thousands of people, now long dead, to be dishonest, I guess I'll have to take your word for it.

1. Science has easily proved that religions are human-made. Therefore, "holy" books should not be considered any better than ancient literature books.

How and when did science prove this? 

I happen to believe that all religions are human-made, but I didn't know that there was a repeatable empirical test that could be conducted to prove that religions were human-made. What journal was it published in? 

Yes, holy books are much like other ancient literature. As I have said, what makes them more interesting overall than, say, Apuleius's Golden Ass (which is a very interesting book) is not the intentions of the original authors, but the richness of the following commentary. 

  
2. If the standards of interpretation were not known to the authors, we can not know what that inspiring supernatural being meant, and, therefore, we would not be following the same religion. (Some are metaphors are obvious, and some are not.) "Dumbed-down fundamentalism?" It may seem like some sort of fundamentalism, but I did explain the reasons for why this should be the case. I do not follow such principles. 

Wait... do you think the Bible was inspired by a supernatural being? Really? I don't believe that....

As for the "same religion"... Christianity is a loose term for a big baggy set of more or less related beliefs and practices. More like one of those Wittgenstein words with no real definition. I think I was arguing that earlier on this thread: we can't determine what is a True Scotsman or a True Christian.

3. Non-literal means of interpreting texts can be used with any other book to derive morals and meanings 

Yes, of course. 

4. Non-literal writing can promote divisions.

Yes, of course.

  
5. There is no doubt that some morals can be derived from holy texts (or other texts unrelated to religions); nonetheless, it does not mean that "holy" books are actually supernatural in origin because morals are either intuitive, or learned by experience.

I never said that any book is supernatural in origin.

6. If 1 is correct, which is the case, there is absolutely no point of this discussion.

Unless it turns out that the writings and practices of the religions that were invented by people have played an important part in our civilization. That if we want to understand the history of our own culture we have to understand its main religions. 

And especially, if you choose to say things about religion in public, it is good to make some effort to know what you're talking about. 

If you're not interested, and choose to talk only about other topics, that would be fine too.