I realize that I am not the first to speak on this issue, nor will I be the last. However, as another class comes to a close, my mind is wandering. So, forgive my musings.
According to a quick Google search, the term "literal" can be defined as "taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory."
In my short time as a professor, I have found that a vast majority of my students (all of whom are associated with evangelical institutions) use the term "literal" in this sense when describing how they have been conditioned to read Scripture--they have been taught to read Scripture in accord with its most basic sense. On the surface, I don't have a problem with this. Yet, in almost every experience, this term is invoked without an awareness of the socio-historical chasm (what I call 'The Chasm') that separates us, the modern reader, from its ancient authors and original audiences. It is with this that I have a problem. I am convinced that a host of issues stems from this omission, particularly when it comes to understanding Scripture.
In a word, the culture of ancient Israel was different. There were different emphases and social structures, including an ancient worldview, and the benefits of modern sciences were not there. When it comes to literature, it was also different. Indeed, they had history, fiction, songs, and other types. However, it is critical to realize that while the types of literature may bear the same titles as some of our modern types, the canons of operations were not necessarily the same. For example, there is a concern with authorship among moderns and ancients, but the modern concern is more intense and absolute. Modern and ancients alike write/wrote history, but the rules that governed proper history are different in modern times.
Unfortunately, a very profound disconnect is created when one tries to understand and evaluate Scripture without a proper consideration of The Chasm. The result is often a host of misunderstandings, including the canonization of a number of topics as a standard for orthodoxy. If you do not hold to a 24/7 view of Creation, if you entertain the possibility of evolution within God's economy, if you do not hold to the Exodus as the massive migration of millions of people, if the experiences of Jonah recounted in the book of Jonah may not have really happened in real space and time, if Job was not necessarily a real physical person, or if Solomon and Moses may not have written Ecclesiastes and the Pentateuch respectively--then you do not read Scripture literally.
I am seriously considering initially taking the following posture with my students. "Don't read Scripture literally!" On the one hand, such a statement enjoys a certain shock value that will get the students' attention. Now of course I would always ultimately qualify that statement with the following: "...at least until you learn to respect Scripture as the divinely ordained literature that it is." Perhaps this will get them to reconsider how they approach Scripture on a fundamental level.
Is this too bold, too condescending, too elitist? I don't know. What I do know is that at the heart of good interpretation, which is the bed-rock of good theological discourse, is the ability to ask the proper questions. To do this, we must realize The Chasm, recognize the ancient genres in Scripture, with all the rules that govern them, and read Scripture closely to understand what it said (and in some cases, what is not said).
According to a quick Google search, the term "literal" can be defined as "taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory."
In my short time as a professor, I have found that a vast majority of my students (all of whom are associated with evangelical institutions) use the term "literal" in this sense when describing how they have been conditioned to read Scripture--they have been taught to read Scripture in accord with its most basic sense. On the surface, I don't have a problem with this. Yet, in almost every experience, this term is invoked without an awareness of the socio-historical chasm (what I call 'The Chasm') that separates us, the modern reader, from its ancient authors and original audiences. It is with this that I have a problem. I am convinced that a host of issues stems from this omission, particularly when it comes to understanding Scripture.
In a word, the culture of ancient Israel was different. There were different emphases and social structures, including an ancient worldview, and the benefits of modern sciences were not there. When it comes to literature, it was also different. Indeed, they had history, fiction, songs, and other types. However, it is critical to realize that while the types of literature may bear the same titles as some of our modern types, the canons of operations were not necessarily the same. For example, there is a concern with authorship among moderns and ancients, but the modern concern is more intense and absolute. Modern and ancients alike write/wrote history, but the rules that governed proper history are different in modern times.
Unfortunately, a very profound disconnect is created when one tries to understand and evaluate Scripture without a proper consideration of The Chasm. The result is often a host of misunderstandings, including the canonization of a number of topics as a standard for orthodoxy. If you do not hold to a 24/7 view of Creation, if you entertain the possibility of evolution within God's economy, if you do not hold to the Exodus as the massive migration of millions of people, if the experiences of Jonah recounted in the book of Jonah may not have really happened in real space and time, if Job was not necessarily a real physical person, or if Solomon and Moses may not have written Ecclesiastes and the Pentateuch respectively--then you do not read Scripture literally.
I am seriously considering initially taking the following posture with my students. "Don't read Scripture literally!" On the one hand, such a statement enjoys a certain shock value that will get the students' attention. Now of course I would always ultimately qualify that statement with the following: "...at least until you learn to respect Scripture as the divinely ordained literature that it is." Perhaps this will get them to reconsider how they approach Scripture on a fundamental level.
Is this too bold, too condescending, too elitist? I don't know. What I do know is that at the heart of good interpretation, which is the bed-rock of good theological discourse, is the ability to ask the proper questions. To do this, we must realize The Chasm, recognize the ancient genres in Scripture, with all the rules that govern them, and read Scripture closely to understand what it said (and in some cases, what is not said).
I agree. "Chasm" is the right word.
ReplyDeleteWhen I grew up, I was warned not to go to seminary. My dad called it Cemetery: where faith goes to die. But how could an increase of knowledge hurt our faith, if our faith is secured in truth? If something is true, it should be able to stand up to the scrutiny of science and history. True is true, whether we believe it or not. And all that we do should be based in truth.
We also should recognize that every era and culture has its own worldview, and in order to ascertain transcendent truth, we have to read the texts with these cultural worldviews in mind. This became especially apparent to me when I did a paper in your class about the concept of the afterlife in the Psalms. I recognized that "heaven and hell" were really NT concepts, and had no solid footing in the OT. The OT writers were thinking about Sheol, an underworld. But . . . what about the holistic witness of Scripture? Is there really an underworld? Is the earth really set on pillars as Hannah prayed? Did God really separate the waters from the waters?
My OT studies from seminary were so different than what I had gathered in church growing up. But rather than abandoning scholarship for faith, or faith for scholarship, I discovered an important concept that could bind them together.
The development of the Scriptures is like a microcosm of human freedom and divine sovereignty. Yes, the bible was written by real people in real places, with different cultures and worldviews, even different understandings of God. However, there is also a clear administration that transcends the text, binding the finite, sometimes contradictory material together. If we can see man for man, and God for God, and let the text be the relational entity that it is, we have a lot less trouble dealing with the concepts you present in this compelling post.
Or we could pull a Bart Ehrman and throw out the baby with the bath water.
Hey you bring up some good points! You should start a blog...
ReplyDelete