Literal, Symbolic, Historical, Figurative?
LatchKeyKid
Shipmate
in Purgatory
Back in the 70s, I went to a Mahayana Buddhist month retreat. I said at registration that I did not want to become a Buddhist, but was a Christian interested in learning about Buddhism.
In one of the teaching sessions, a Lama told about a person who in his life had killed a variety of animals. He was later reincarnated as an animal with a body consisting of different parts from all of those animals. When I took my opportunity to have an audience with the Lama, I asked if that story was like stories we had in Christianity, told to convey a message (about karma). His answer was, "How do you know it isn't true?!" However, it wasn't a story I could take literally.
I grew up in the Open Brethren, who were fairly literalistic about the Bible - e.g. the creation stories. (Though they were not literalistic about the elements of the Lord's Supper actually becoming body and blood).
There is a range of opinions on the subject between and within the different faith traditions of Christianity (and other religions as well).
I've come across those who say that everything in the bible literally happened, including the parables etc.
Others say that the Bible contains metaphors, symbolic stories, and uses contemporary literary styles that modern scholarship has identified.
The Jesus Seminar indicates that the phrase "Jesus said it, so that's good enough for me" can be questioned as to its accuracy, and other scholarship allows belief not to be limited to literal belief.
I find the Gospels not to be literal-historical accounts of events by people who had slightly different memories of the events, but are theological works created for their different intended audiences. I think the unity and thrust of a book is missed by the fragmentation in the way it is mostly used in churches.
I know there are varying understandings of this matter on this board. However, it seems to me that it is an area where "Christian Unrest" is not welcome.
In one of the teaching sessions, a Lama told about a person who in his life had killed a variety of animals. He was later reincarnated as an animal with a body consisting of different parts from all of those animals. When I took my opportunity to have an audience with the Lama, I asked if that story was like stories we had in Christianity, told to convey a message (about karma). His answer was, "How do you know it isn't true?!" However, it wasn't a story I could take literally.
I grew up in the Open Brethren, who were fairly literalistic about the Bible - e.g. the creation stories. (Though they were not literalistic about the elements of the Lord's Supper actually becoming body and blood).
There is a range of opinions on the subject between and within the different faith traditions of Christianity (and other religions as well).
I've come across those who say that everything in the bible literally happened, including the parables etc.
Others say that the Bible contains metaphors, symbolic stories, and uses contemporary literary styles that modern scholarship has identified.
The Jesus Seminar indicates that the phrase "Jesus said it, so that's good enough for me" can be questioned as to its accuracy, and other scholarship allows belief not to be limited to literal belief.
I find the Gospels not to be literal-historical accounts of events by people who had slightly different memories of the events, but are theological works created for their different intended audiences. I think the unity and thrust of a book is missed by the fragmentation in the way it is mostly used in churches.
I know there are varying understandings of this matter on this board. However, it seems to me that it is an area where "Christian Unrest" is not welcome.
Tagged:
Comments
Do you mean that literalism and its alternatives are not subject to robust debate on the Ship?
Things like this come across as fundamentalist dismissiveness. They are not robust debate.
I don't see them as dissmisive. After sixty years or so of 'robust debate' I'm tired of arguing!
I'd rather we started by looking at the passage in five ways: literal, canonical, spiritual, imaginative and contextual in that order and then discussed what we had heard God speaking through the passage. With the literal you discuss the meaning of the word as written down. Most of the argument is actually at this level and about what assumptions we can make about the words that are written down. For most people awareness is all that there is debate is all that is required. With the canonical this asks how does it relate with the rest of scripture and with church tradition. No Christian tradition treats all parts of scripture equally, some have more emphasis than others. This varies between tradition. Historic Protestantism puts far more emphasis on Jesus' teaching ministry while Catholicism puts far more emphasis on Jesus' passion. Spiritual comes next as this sits between popular piety and spiritual theology. When we read a miracle of blind man as a sign of Israel's blindness that is actually a spiritual reading. The literal text is about curing a blind man. The many readings of 23rd psalm are largely spiritual. The imaginative is really our opportunity to put ourselves into the text and watch our reactions. How do we see this as happening. Finally let us be deliberate about our context and ask how does this text relate to where we are today.
If this is done with prayer for guidance of Holy Spirit I feel we have done our best to let it speak through the text.
In these enlightened days (!), the approach described by Jengie John seems appropriate.
But there is a tension between these two points of view, and often between those who hold them.
To some extent you can point out that plot holes are in fact literary devices - as in the perennial why doesn't Batman kill the Joker debate - but there's a limit to how fruitful that is.
And as @Dafyd says, some assuming of a degree of literalness for the sake of discussion may at times be inherent.
I can see how that might come across as fundamentalist dismissiveness to you, though recognizing those posts, I don’t think the shipmates who posted them would identify as “fundamentalist.” Nor do I think dismissiveness was intended, but rather something like “I want to be on record as saying I seeing it differently, but I don’t want to argue about it.” (Which granted, is not robust debate.)
The thing is, if these were the only kinds of responses you received to, say, the recent discussion of the transfiguration, I think you’d be justified in saying that they demonstrate that this “is an area where ‘Christian Unrest’ is not welcome.” But you also received responses that did engage in “robust debate” and reasoned, thought-out challenge.
The simple point is, as has been revealed by all the responses down this thread, is that almost everyone approaches scripture in a different way from almost everyone else, and that applies irrespective of whether they lean towards the literal or symbolic. I, for example, take the text of the New Testament as being pretty historical and authoritative, but take it for granted also that the individual writers have selected what they record and how they choose to record it that depends on what they are interested in and so to convey a picture of who Jesus is as they see him.
However, it seems to me that there is something about having a shared text that transcends the categories of literal accuracy. I don't have any interest in the bible, but it seems to me that there are other examples of text libraries that people find empowering and illuminating: such as Shakespeare, Plato's Republic, Arabian Nights and other religious scriptures.
And I think the attitude that the first post here suggests is normal for Christians is basically unusual for those who value other texts. Is anyone really interested in whether King Lear is literally true?
Isn't discussing the meaning and ideas which flow from texts more important than discussing historical events?
One philosopher who I forget at the moment taught that there was a straight line between ideas that are "true" and those that are "false" and that something can't be both true and false.
I don't think that's really a very helpful way to think.
In the case of the Bible, if one approaches it as a record of God’s interactions with humanity, or a specific set of people’s perceptions and experiences of God’s interactions with humanity, maybe but maybe not. There are many things in the Bible that I think can carry meaning even if they’re not historically factual as we would think of history. (Indeed, I’d say that in some instances, insisting on a reading that presumes literal historical accuracy has the potential to obscure the meaning that the writers were trying to convey. Others’ mileage may, of course, differ.)
But when it comes to Jesus, if he didn’t really live, if he didn’t say the things he’s recorded as saying and do the things he’s recorded as doing, if he didn’t actually rise from the dead, then we’re talking about a radically different Christianity from the one we know, if indeed there can be such a thing as “Christianity” at all.
Possibly, but it is certainly not independent of people believing that they key events in the Gospels happened. I would actually argue that the early growth of the church and the behaviour of the apostles isn't consistent with people who made the whole thing up.
Thing is, we can't know if he said and did the things he's recorded as saying and doing. We don't know if he rose from the dead - especially literally. I find it hard to build on so uncertain a set of propositions. Which is why I'm drawn to constructs that don't depend on their being true in that sense. Any such construct is still based on the sayings and stories so is still Christianity of a sort, rather than Islam or Judaism or Hinduism.
As an autistic person we're built for solid, concrete concepts. I'd love it if scripture was able to support one, but for me it just can't - because I just can't ignore the massive uncertainties.
One of the strengths of Christianity is its ability to cope with differing views. If it were absolute it would more resemble a cult
I think it is instructive to think about how memory, myth and story work. The idea that some kind of Naughty Sammy was sitting in a shed crackling as they made up a story that kept people interested for 2000 years is likely far from the mark.
In a similar way we might point to some areas of commonality between some kinds of Moorish Islamic teaching and Aristotle. This probably wasn't deliberate, but just part of the process of how ideas borrow, grow and diverge from each other.
I’m going to push back on this a little. I do not in the least question that this is the case for you, and I completely respect that. But I know autistic people, including autistic family members, for whom this isn’t really an accurate reflection of their experiences.
Of course not. If you've met one autistic person you've met one autistic person, as they say. What we tend to have in common is a fixed way of thinking, but what that fixed way is is very variable.
Two things: stories are not preserved because of belief about the proponents in the story. They are preserved and repeated and embellished and valued because they are good stories.
Second, I think there are two interesting but divergent focuses in the Jesus story, as someone who is only vaguely familiar with it. First there's a lot of magical and other impossible things. Then there's a bunch of ethical teaching which seems at odds with the magic.
Christians presumably would put the crucifixion at some way in the heart of their beliefs. And yet when Jesus is asked what is most important he is quoted as saying that it is denial of self and sacrificial love of your undeserving neighbour.
Why is it impossible to reject the former whilst accepting the latter? I don't understand why there is so much micro discussion about impossible magic and almost nothing about the implications of living a life of love.
Corrected quote. BroJames, Purgatory Host
Fixed now, I hope. BroJames, Purgatory Host
Yeah, overgeneralisation and all that, probably an example of the intolerance of uncertainty and dichotomous thinking which is evident in many autistic presentations and definitely a part of mine.
ISTM that you can only separate the purely ethical out of Jesus’ teaching by fairly drastic surgery on what he is reported as saying.
[@Basketactortale if you PM me with details about what you meant to quote I may be able to fix it.]
I think for many people Jesus' authority to lay down a moral code is vindicated by the impossible magic bit.
I'm not sure it's impossible magic assuming that there's a God who can do anything that's not logically (as opposed to scientifically) impossible. An omnipotent God can't create a square circle or a rock he cannot lift, but he can do any of the things Jesus is reported to have done. That doesn't however mean he did - the world is such that there are surely plenty of opportunities for divine intervention that don't seem to occur. Then there's the counter-argument that if they happened all the time Jesus' miracles wouldn't be noteworthy and there'd be no place for faith. I'd counter, myself, that firstly Jesus claimed his followers would do the same things as he did, but evidence that they do is weak and there's an absolute world of fraud and wishful thinking there. But then Jesus also implied his return would happen within a few decades and that didn’t turn out to be the case, so where do you go from there? I'd secondly counter that I don't understand why there needs to be room for faith - faith for me is a sort of poor substitute for knowledge.
But I'm wittering now.
I suppose if one is so concerned about something being entirely-true versus totally-false as being the only two options, then one can't discriminate within and between things.
For me, I take beautiful ideas wherever I see them.
I think the "Love God with all your being" part needs a lot of unpacking. What does it even mean? What form of Love can actually be commanded? Emotions and feelings cannot be; only actions and to an extent attitudes. But what actions can one perform for God that he actually needs? I would defer to his words in the parable of the Sheep and the Goats, and tend to conclude that the first and second part of Jesus' injunctions there actually become the same thing.
For me the main issue with this is scale and definition of words. In normal life we know about things on a tiny scale (let's say on the level of microbes for the sake of this illustration) and the scale of planets.
We could (I guess) imagine a deity who is capable of being concerned about the orbit of planets. To me this is a stretch, given how many there are, but anyway.
But you are also asking me to believe that this figure is also working - at the same time - at the scale of microbes.
That's impossible.
I'm not personally that bothered about being able to imagine a deity - a God worth his salt can no more be imagined than I can carry the ocean in a teaspoon. If a being is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient then scale is irrelevant; a structure of a million galaxies is as significant or insignificant as a neutrino. My questions are about whether he does and is, not whether he could or could be.
Ok I guess that's why we are different. To me theres either a deity who is interested in each individual human out of the billions alive or is involved in the structure of the universe. It can't be both.
So when Jesus says that it is in helping ones needy neighbour one is actually serving him (and/or the deity), he didn't mean it..?
Agapēseis is the verb form in this case. As it happens I think it supports my interpretation
Be that as it may, of course, if Jesus spoke these words he didn't do so in Greek, nor were they in Greek when they were previously written down in Deuteronomy, and I don't even pretend to know about Hebrew or Aramaic words for Love.
Spare a thought for French which also extends the one Love verb for Like. Although the French seem to think that liking is harder than loving - aimer is to love someone, but to like them requires aimer bien - "love well"
X-post?
Do you think there is some way to serve the deity outside of loving your neighbour?
@Basketactortale, I’m not sure. But I do think there are ways of loving God which go beyond serving or loving my neighbour.
You disagreed and linked to an article about infinity.
I said that as far as I could tell the article was just explaining the same points about infinity as I was making (though without the theological application); only the article was clearer than I was. I then asked you if you could explain what point you thought the article made that I wasn't taking into account?
You responded that weren't going to discuss these ideas any further.
I would still like to know why you thought that article you linked to disagreed with me.
More to the point, I believe I have reasonable grounds for thinking that you're wrong about what an entity with no limits to its capabilities can be concerned with; and I would like to know whether you have any good reasons for dismissing those grounds?
I'm an old person, I'm sorry I don't have any recollection of that article. I don't like extended debates because I often can't keep up, for that I apologise. I usually make a few points that make sense to me at the time then do something else.
I don't know how to explain this any more than I have already. A deity can't have both a macro and a micro focus without contradicting itself. That's what I think.
It's possible to imagine a deity with a macro-focus who is somehow holding the universe together. That can't also be a personal deity who helps with car spaces at the supermarket with favoured humans.
It's also possible to imagine a deity with intense focus on individuals, but that can't then be the same person that's holding the universe together.
It can't be both.
You say it can, I say that's nonsense.
The problem here is that it's not a logical contradiction, so is possible. You seem to be asserting it is, like a square circle or omnopotent deity unliftable rock, but not supporting the assertion.
Where are the limits? Can an entity with a focus on galaxies also focus on asteroids? Why not? Astronomers are only human and they can. We're already talking multiple orders of magnitude here. Macro and micro focus can coexist; the same physicist can study both quarks and galaxies; why can a deity not do so, especially granted omniscience and omnipresence.
That's correct in a mechanical universe. However, many religions and spiritual systems don't operate within such. I thought that atheism takes a mechanical universe as a foundation, or really the foundation for everything.
I'm not sure I'd define my personal atheism as anything other than a lack of belief in a deity who is involved in any sense in the lives of individual humans. If one exists, they're involved in other things and are only dimly aware of humanity as a whole.
I don't know how one would prove the existence of such a deity, and even if it existed I don't know why humans would be concerned about trying to influence or engage with it.
(*) of course there's a question about the definition of gods for these purposes. Is a god an entity of immense power, or an entity that is worshipped, or both?
But you seem to be saying that a God or gods could not be involved in very small things and very large things. That smacks to me of a mechanical viewpoint. But gods are spirits.
But your assertions about the macro and micro abilities of a god are also just unexplained assertions.