Beyond Biblical Literalism?

[Alonzo]

@GJDS

Metaphor, on the other hand, involves the transference of a word or expression from its typical context to a different context.

How about common usage? Usage represents standard grammatical expression.

@GJDS

The problem of metaphor concerns the relations between word and sentence meaning, on the one hand, and speaker’s meaning or utterance meaning, on the other. Many writers on the subject try to locate the metaphorical element of a metaphorical utterance in the sentence or expressions uttered.

I am not following you. What is a “metaphorical element” as opposed to a “metaphorical utterance?” I. A. Richards in literary rhetoric explains elements of a metaphor as “tenor” and “vehicle.” McLuhan uses “ground” and “figure.” You do not explain how you use the phrase.

What is the diffierence between “utterance” and speaking? Would not speaking be a better term? I think you need to define your terms as you go along because of the multiple meaning of specified terms in various disciplines. Otherwise you will confuse your audience.

@GJDS

Philosophers, rhetoricians, literary critics, and linguists have long discussed and debated the matter.

Who? What are your sources?

@GJDS

The question becomes more difficult when we address text from other cultures/language, and also derived from antiquity, relevant to discussions on biblical text(s)

What question? How does it become more difficult? How do you mean “difficult”? What was the difficulty with the writer? The reader? For example, how do you apply this difficulty to the metaphorical language in the Psalms and Proverbs? David and other psalmists were quite conversant in figure of speech, which informs us that metaphor has been part of standard speech for a very long time, indicating that authors then understood the difference between the literal and figure of speech. Where was their difficulty?

@GJDS

In literal speech we mean what our words say according to their dictionary meaning.

Actually, that is not the case. Dictionaries record what already exists in common dialects. The dictionary authors simply describe what already exists in the language prior to publication in the dictionary.

@GJDS

Linguistic meaning and speaker meaning coincide; literal speech is accustomed or ordinary speech.

But language continues to change and evolve. Meanings only coincide because speakers share common grammar, syntax, and words. There is dissonance with new cultures or the attempt to disrupt cultures through force and attempts to change a language (i.e. Ebonics and critical theory)

@GJDS

Linguistic meaning and speaker meaning thus diverge.

How? Linguistics is the study of language in all its forms. Speaking is a form as is writing. So, I am not sure what you are saying. You never expand.

@GJDS

Strictly speaking, whenever we talk about the metaphorical meaning of a word, expression, or sentence, we are talking about what a speaker might utter it to mean, in a way that departs from what the word, expression, or sentence actually means.

I am not sure I agree with you on this point. Metaphor is an extrapolation from the literal meaning of a word. If there was no literal meaning, then a metaphor could not be expressed for forming a picture in the audience’s mind (i.e., “He chaired the meeting.” Chair in this sense is a metaphor, but it rests on the literal chair for its meaning).

I do agree with your conclusion about author intent, but the way you got to it was by winding through digression.

[St.Roymond]

@Alonzo

Your statement denies the perspecuity of Scriptures held from the Reformation

That position was with respect to the message of salvation, not to everything. Wikipedia actually gets it right when it quotes the Westminster Confession:

“…those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them”.

Indeed if it applied to everything the Holy Spirit would not need to give teachers to the church.

@Alonzo

Your statement denies. . . the Holy Spirit’s guiding into all truth Jesus taught.

That was a promise given to the Apostles as a group, the leaders of the church; it was not given to each and every Christian.

@Alonzo

Readers can indeed comprehend words on a page for deriving author intent,

Not without knowing the original languages, the writer’s worldview, and the cultural and literary context of the original writing.

@Alonzo

Words and sentence structure clearly inform about an author’s intentions

Only if you know the literary genre and the writer’s worldview – and almost never in translation, especially modern translations that chop original sentences into small pieces.

@Alonzo

Currently, so many interpretive resources are available that makes the reader’s task so much easier

So many “interpretive resources” are available to cause great confusion.

@Alonzo

To make an absolute statement that “a reader can’t comprehend the author’s original intent without reconstructing the cultural environment of the latter” is simply wrong

To do otherwise insults the Holy Spirit, His chosen writer, and the original audience by elevating one’s own worldview above the one in which the Spirit actually moved someone to write.

@Alonzo

and undercuts and denies God’s guidance and providence.

No, it affirms them by honoring the fact that the Holy Spirit moved authors to write in terms the original audience would understand, thereby treaating them with respect.

@Alonzo

This is how the Roman Church rose to prominance by claiming that its alone interpreted Scripture

Nope – that was a side effect. Rome “rose to prominence” because it pursued a course of establishing a monarchy over the rest of the church and from not having another patriarchate in the West to keep the honest. Rome systematically crushed all variation in not just doctrine but liturgy.

That Jesus intended the church to be collegial is shown by the fact that the only promise of infallibility was given not to one person but to the Apostles as the leaders of the church – no one was intended to go solo, not even “Peter’s successor”. This was obvious to the East where all bishops were regarded as successors to the Apostles.

[content removed by moderator.]

[St.Roymond]

@Alonzo

Meanings only coincide because speakers share common grammar, syntax, and words.

Plus worldview and recognition of genre.

@Alonzo

@GJDS

Linguistic meaning and speaker meaning thus diverge.

How? Linguistics is the study of language in all its forms. Speaking is a form as is writing. So, I am not sure what you are saying.

Good point, especially if by “linguistic meaning” is meant “dictionary meaning”.

[GJDS]

As I pointed out, I had in mind the way scientific treatise are written and spoken at seminars, and general literature. A wider discussion may address some of your concerns. e.g. use AI and it will provide examples of metaphors in a general context.

In poetry, for example, I would consider metaphors, similes, and occasionally hyperbole, to create implied association, imagery; this is a way to convey deeper meanings, evoke emotions, to enrich language and see a new imagined world.

[NicholasB]

@Alonzo

I never said deconstructionism “underestimated the importance…” Nor did I say anything about the impossibility of finding out the biblical writer’s original intent." Then you digressed with the latter one with your argument about knowing the original languages and history.

Well, now you have misinterpreted the original meaning of my post . I was discussing your approach, not the church fathers’ exegesis or the postmodernist hermeneutics. As for the latter, I should have rather said that postmodernists reject the very notion of original meaning; they claim that there is no such thing. Anyway, this is not relevant to our dispute; the only reason why I mentioned the allegorical interpretation and deconstructionism was that you had criticized these methods for shunning the original meaning.

What is relevant is your insistence on looking for original meaning. You have again confirmed this thesis by writing: [quote=“Alonzo, post:35, topic:52956”]
Readers can indeed comprehend words on a page for deriving author intent, perhaps not to the extent as degreed theologians, some who consider themselves privileged
[/quote]

As I have already mentioned, I do agree that we should look for authors’ original intent. Moreover, we are able to figure it out; and, as far as the books of the Bible are concerned, the Holy Spirit is really guiding the faithful to the right understanding of the biblical “rule of faith”.

But what are the ways of this guidance?

1. The Holy Spirit has inspired many Christian scholars, the people of great piety and learning, to translate the books of the Bible into our modern languages.

2. Through these translations, the Holy Spirit impels the faithful to gaze upon Jesus Christ, to contemplate the glory of God in his face, and to fullheartedly proclaim his Lordship (2 Corinthians 4:6, 1 Corinthians 12:3). Nonetheless, it doesn’t mean that every aspect of the rule of faith would also become evident to a plain reader. Otherwise, no church would ever need pastors, catechists, and the other educated ministers.

3. For almost two millennia, the Spirit of God has been encouraging the faithful to gather in their churches, to appoint and ordain the church pastors (bishops or elders) who would administer the Sacraments and teach the doctrine.

Surely, the church ministers are not infallible - they can commit moral and pastoral mistakes (Galatians 2:11-14) or even permanently deflect from the truth (Acts 20: 30). Therefore, the laypeople may have sound reasons to study the diverse doctrinal issues themselves.
But learning the Scriptures on one’s own comes at a price. Such a study, although enjoying divine assistance, requires time, energy, and tenacity.

You have mentioned the Reformation. But the great Reformers, whether Luther or Calvin, Melanchton or Bucer, etc., were struggling for years to grasp the meaning of the Gospel. Their struggle embraced both the spiritual and intellectual dimensions. They could have never attained to the clear understanding of the scriptural doctrines without the years of intense and rigorous scholarship.

Since that time, nothing has changed in this regard. Nowadays, people who want to check or improve the doctrines taugh by the theologians and pastors of their denominations, should not expect an easy “spiritual journey”. To point this out is not elitism bur realism.

[NicholasB]

@St.Roymond

the only promise of infallibility was given not to one person but to the Apostles as the leaders of the church – no one was intended to go solo, not even “Peter’s successor”. This was obvious to the East where all bishops were regarded as successors to the Apostles.

This is the only point of your post that I can’t subscribe to. Surely, the bishop / elder is an indispensable ministry that dates back to the apostolic age; the apostles endorsed these local church leaders and instructed them (cf. Acts 20:17-38, Philippians 1:1). But the New Testament writers didn’t state, at least explicitly, that these overseers were expected to inherit the fullness of the apostles’ spiritual gifts. And history has proven that, indeed, they didn’t inherit this fullness.

The collegial authority of bishops has abjectly failed.

If the college of bishops had been expected to make the authoritative decisions unanimously, it failed: the major controversies of the patristic era have repeatedly caused the deep rifts between the bishops.

If the college of bishops had been expected to make the authoritative decisions by majority vote, it failed when the majority of bishops embraced semi-arianism.

And if the college of bishops had been expected to gradually unite behind the correct decision after the dissident factions would die out, its failure is demonstrated by the unhealed Christological schism between the Chalcedonians and the diverse non-Chalcedonians.

The Roman Popes of the patristic era, even though they haven’t got any scriptural mandate to be Peter’s successors, could boast the far better record.

[Paraleptopecten (Timothy Campbell)]

@St.Roymond

inerrancy insists that most of science is wrong

Of course, there is the problem of “What does this person mean by inerrancy?” Is it “My interpretation of the Bible is inerrant.”, “My denomination’s interpretation of the Bible is inerrant.”, “The Bible is inerrant, but all interpretations will be flawed at some point.”, “The Bible is inerrant in regards to doctrine and ethics, but uses humans’ flawed knowledge about physical matters to communicate those.”, or something else entirely?

[Alonzo]

@St.Roymond

As far as I can see you’re just being petty to avoid having to deal with truth you don’t want to acknowledge. That shouldn’t surprise me given that you couldn’t see the relevance of the fact that the Bible contains literature in which there is neither literal nor figurative elements to the topic of biblical literalism.

You are wrong. Precision of language is not “petty”.

The rest of your comment is personal attack, false accusation, and simply quibbling and argumentative.

[T_aquaticus]

@GJDS

In literal speech we mean what our words say according to their dictionary meaning.

The fact that modern English speakers use the word “literal” to mean “metaphorical” is a great example of how confusing languages can be, and why context matters.

[Alonzo]

@NicholasB

you had criticized these methods for shunning the original meaning.

Keep quibbling unendingly. I never discussed “original meaning”.
I find no further discussions with you useful, so I will not reply to you again.

[NicholasB]

@Alonzo

No so. I never discussed “original meaning”.
I find no further discussions with you useful, so I will not reply to you again.

Surely, you were discussing author’s intent. “What an author intended to say” is, obviously, the “original meaning”. I have repeatedly stressed that I’m using these terms interchangeably. But, of course, you are absolutely free to deny whatever you like and to stop any discussion whenever you like.

[St.Roymond]

@NicholasB

As for the latter, I should have rather said that postmodernists reject the very notion of original meaning; they claim that there is no such thing.

I hate running into such people; it’s all too common, however. I find it especially abhorrent in lawyers, and especially baffling in preachers.

@NicholasB

Moreover, we are able to figure it out; and, as far as the books of the Bible are concerned

To some extent, though where ancient literary genres written under ancient worldviews are involved “figuring it out” is heavy labor because those can involve things that to the modern mind seem contradictory. Literature from over three millennia ago often may as well be from aliens from another world.

This is why even a perfect translation is always insufficient: a great deal of the meaning of ancient passages isn’t found in the mere words but is carried in the ancient cultural context of which literary genre and ancient worldview are but two aspects. The opening of Genesis 6 is a superb example of this because it cannot be understood apart from the extra-biblical literature the writer is drawing on.

@NicholasB

To point this out is not elitism bur realism.

It reminds me of the “Oh, that looks easy!” attitude where someone who has watched maybe three YouTube videos on how to do some task considers themselves an expert . . . and proceeds to totally screw up their project.

[St.Roymond]

@NicholasB

The collegial authority of bishops has abjectly failed.

It prevented the multiplication of novel teachings that has flourished in the West (including Rome’s claim that no new teachings have been introduced.

@NicholasB

And if the college of bishops had been expected to gradually unite behind the correct decision after the dissident factions would die out, its failure is demonstrated by the unhealed Christological schism between the Chalcedonians and the diverse non-Chalcedonians.

Chalcedon is a poor example; technically it was a flawed council for a simple reason: the bishops in attendance were not allowed to fully examine the issues and fully hammer out the understanding because the emperor order them to give a decision and give it right then. Reading the material from the two sides it becomes evident that they were actually in agreement as to the substance, they merely disagreed in emphasis (because they each were primarily facing a different heresy) and in the language to be employed. Its an excellent case study in how secular politics can screw up the church and how hasty decisions tend to be bad, as well as how having insufficient vocabulary is not just limiting but can lead to dead ends in discussion (if Greek had had but one more word for “substance” or “person” the solution would have been simple).

After Chalcedon the unity of the episcopate was broken and arguably Jesus’ promise could no longer function.

[St.Roymond]

@Alonzo

You are wrong. Precision of language is not “petty”.

Precision of language was not an issue, it’s a problem you invented.

@Alonzo

The rest of your comment is personal attack and false accusation.

A summary of what you’ve said is neither personal nor false. All I did was summarize your posts.

[Paraleptopecten (Timothy Campbell)]

@St.Roymond

It reminds me of the “Oh, that looks easy!” attitude where someone who has watched maybe three YouTube videos on how to do some task considers themselves an expert . . . and proceeds to totally screw up their project.

Or why I don’t confidently trust all identifications of Pyramidellidae in the Waccamaw
Formations from anyone to be accurate (but I trust my own and Harry Lee’s identifications more than anyone else’s), because they are hard to identify correctly–there are over 50 species that look like one of these:

[St.Roymond]

@T_aquaticus

The fact that modern English speakers use the word “literal” to mean “metaphorical”

Really? I don’t think I’ve ever encountered that.

@NicholasB

But, of course, you are absolutely free to deny whatever you like

Like things he’s plainly said.

[Paraleptopecten (Timothy Campbell)]

@St.Roymond

@T_aquaticus

The fact that modern English speakers use the word “literal” to mean “metaphorical”

Really? I don’t think I’ve ever encountered that.

It’s more used as an emphatic non-literal where I’ve heard it cited–“I literally couldn’t get out of bed this morning.”, etc.

[St.Roymond]

@Paraleptopecten

It’s more used as an emphatic non-literal where I’ve heard it cited–“I literally couldn’t get out of bed this morning.”, etc.

Ah – hyperbole. Yeah, that bugs me too, especially when it’s plainly not the case.

Though I’ve used it similarly, I suppose, for example when I said to Knox the other day, “I’m literally too tired to walk to the beach again, so we’re done” – but in my case I was so worn out it was a struggle to pick up some empty five-gallon buckets and put them in the back of my pickup and I had to lean against the truck body to be able to pull the door open, so I think my use was excusable.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

So, is some poetry literally metaphorical?

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

Hyperbolically speaking …