Whoopi Goldberg on “The View” recently stated that the Bible wasn’t meant to be taken literally. The specific issue was some verse in Isaiah. The implication was that Isaiah–the person who wrote Isaiah (let’s assume that was his name)–agrees with Whoopi Goldberg on stuff.
I’m sure that’s exactly what a Ancient Near Eastern Jew living 2,600 years ago was like. Sure. He was exactly like Whoopi Goldberg. Maybe they had the same last name, even.
“Isaiah Goldberg” would have made a great politically correct guest on “The View,” taking every opportunity to spank that evil Elizabeth.
Let’s script it out briefly.
GOLDBERG: And now, ladies and gentleman, here to interpret–non-literally and non-offesively–what he wrote 2,600 years ago–the Writer of Isaiah in the Bible–Isaiah!!!
[Cheers--Applause--Standing Ovation]. “He’s just like us! Non-offensive.”
__________
I ‘ve been asked, “Do you take the Bible literally?”
I am starting to roll my eyes.
My response, more and more, is to ask the person to define “literal,” or “literally.”
I give them about 30 seconds before I start to yawn. They typically stare at me like a deer in headlights. I give them another 15 seconds before I start to walk away. (This is awkward in busses, boats, airplanes or on rollercoasters).
I don’t know what the word means in this context. And please, give me the benefit of the doubt here, I am not trying to be snotty.
“Literally” has multiple definitions. In fact, two of those definitions are the opposite meanings. The word is it’s own antonym, similar to other words like, “scan, peruse, really, cleave,” etc.
I am faced with a choice, given the multiple definitions of “literally.”
Should I take your question–”Should the Bible be interpreted literally”–literally?
Mull that one over a few times before responding.
If the answer is “yes,” I still have no clue what you mean. That is, until you clear it up for me with more words. But then, those other words and sentences I will have to interpret. Should I take those literally? Now, back to the beginning, How would you like me to interpret your question?
I think the authors of the Bible would like their writings to be interpreted the way that they intended, or at least what can be fairly and most reasonably inferred from what it seems like they intended.
And, if you wrote something, you would think and feel the same way. Whoopi Goldberg even feels that way, wanting us to take her statement about Isaiah “literally.”
That’s true about everyone who writes and speaks. It’s true about me. It’s true about everyone who has written me an email, or a postcard, or a letter.
It’s true for the writers and framers of the U.S. Constitution. Should we take the requirement that the President be 35 years of age or older literally? Or should we say that infants are eligible? If we say that infants are eligible–we could take that literally or not–and make it mean that an infant has to be 35 years old to be President.
Words and sentences mean something. They mean things. How to tell what they mean in certain contexts is the art and science of interpretation. This stuff is often tough, and has to be studied, thought about, cared for.
Lots of smart, dedicated, sincere people have already done the heavy lifting on this stuff. They write commentaries. You have to decide who the smartest is. You have to decide who wrote the best commentary on the passage in question. But that means that you have to dig in a little bit to some commentaries–which you have access to!–and snoop around. See what you can dig up. See what makes the most sense to you.
Here is a great resource–lot’s of well-balanced and careful thought went into making this list of commentaries that are the best for the books of the Bible as well as other interesting topics: List of Commentaries.
__________
Don’t get me wrong. I am saying the exact opposite of what you think I am saying. Don’t take what I am saying literally. I’m saying do take what I am saying literally (remember, literally means opposite things).
Confused yet? How can you possibly understand a written text unless it means something? That’s my point.
What’s it mean? That takes work, especially for older stuff like the Constitution, or Plato, or the Bible, or Joan Didion.
Is it good to be literal? Is it bad? Is it inaccurate to be literal?
Some dictionaries list antonyms of “literal” as “fiction,” and synonyms as “truth.”
But like I said, and don’t take this literally. But do, please–”literally” is its own antonym.
I say, ditch the word “literally” for now. Just try it. You won’t lose a thing. Substitute “accurately.”
Now the question is, “Should the Bible be interpreted accurately?”
The answer is no.
But don’t take what I said literally.
__________
Nice essay on the definition of “Literal” here.
http://www.slate.com/id/2129105/
image credit: latimes.com
Professor, this was so good, I got my husband to sit down and read it last night.
Interesting, too, to me because my in-laws are Bible translators who worked with a language group in Papua New Guinea, writing an alphabet for them and translating the Bible into their language. Through knowing them, this kind of disucssion has developed two prongs for me, regarding translation (& therefore interpretation): do you translate “accurately”, as in word-for-word precisely, OR do you translate the meaning, as in make it connect within their culture.
Sooooo, when some Christians try to pull a trump card with their translation into English by saying, “It’s the most ACCURATE translation in English there is,” I counter with those two questions. Accurate by words? Or accurate by meaning, within your culture? Because, you know, they’re not the same thing.
So, perhaps you can parse “accurate” next time…
heh
Great point. Yes, that is the next step.
Here’s my take: Words are for meaning. They aren’t for themselves. Children learn words, not because words are cool in and of themselves, but because they need those words for sentences. And they need sentences because they have thought that they want to convey–and those thoughts are the meanings of words and sentences.
So, words vs. meaning. I will take the meaning. But, not at the expense of the words, because words and sentences are the vehicles of meaning.
Thanks for the feedback, Susan
I’m thankful to my Lord that the only one I have to stand before and answer to on the choices I made and which version of the Bible I chose is Him. As for Smart people doing the “heavy lifting” for me with their commentaries. I prefer to stick with my perfect inspired word of God to speak to me as only it can.
Kari,
Would you like to share an example of what you’re talking about? How the Bible spoke to you, a specific chapter and verse?
(Do you read ancient Greek or Hebrew? That’s cool!)
If you don’t read ancient Greek or Hebrew, that’s fine, by the way.
Smart people have done the work to allow you to read the Bible in your language. They are the same people who write the commentaries.
(That is the point of commentaries).
Loved this post!!!
Thanks Molly.
This was just about as clear as mud. Thank you. The issue needed some muddying.
I remember in a moment of sheer rebellion, hating Luther’s whole Sola Scriptura concept. And then I read him more closely and realized that not even he thought the Bible was straight forward and simple to understand. I still think he’s a little coo-coo (because that’s the fashionable thing to think), but I respect him a lot more. I know that doesn’t directly correspond to your discussion of “literal”. Yet, it seems to me that the assumption is made by those who flippantly use the term “literal” to distinguish their type of interpretation that the Bible is straight forward and easy for anyone to grasp, no assembly required. Your use of the term “accurate” seems to push back and suggest the need for readerly responsibility that goes beyond simply being literate.
Marie,
thanks for sharing. Luther was a madman, but also a genius, and a revolutionary who I don’t think particularly wanted to be a revolutionary.
His circumstances, along with his passion, his conversion, his scholarship, his disdain for Catholic moral and doctrinal laxity made him the revolutionary we know him to be.
Accuracy should be the guiding principle of any interpretation. That is not the same as “literal.” “Literal” is a throw-away term. It adds absolutely nothing to the goal of interpretation, as far as I can see. Words have a range of meaning, and if they are intended in one way rather than another, that should be sought.
James,
LOL!! No, I don’t know Hebrew or Greek. Last I checked, a translator and a commentator are two entirely different professions. Yes, some commentators can be helpful but we should never take their views on the Word of God as absolute truth. The truth of God’s Word can speak to anyone who seeks it (Matthew 7:7)
Kari,
I have to correct you. Translator and commentator are not entirely different. In practice, they go together. The translators of the Bible are most often the best commentators.
Matthew wrote in Greek. He wasn’t from England (Matthew is an English name). “Matthew” is not his real name (no 1st century Aramaic speaking Jew in Latin-speaking Roman occupied Judea uttered or wrote the syllables “Matthew”). Someone a long time ago referred to the text we now call “Matthew” as well as the person (or persons) who wrote it. “Matthew”s name in Greek sounds and is spelled differently than “Matthew” in English.
The original and the earliest copies of it that we have did not divide Matthew into chapters and verses–(no books of the Bible were so divided). The chapters and verses were added in the Middle Ages to allow people like you and me to refer to specific parts out of context. I notice that you did not refer to Matt 7:6 or Matt 7:8. Adding these chapter numbers and verse numbers to the Word of God allows us to use it, but it often times puffs people up by making them think they can take things out of context.
Prior to the addition of the chapter and verse numbers, people had to read the whole thing and refer to parts of it in relation to what came before and what came after. People in the early church were therefore much less likely to take things out of context and use them for what they wanted to use them for.
James,
Back in NY, we have a saying “The harder you try to be cool, the cooler you’re not!” I have never seen anyone try so desperately hard to sound intelligent as you have. No doubt you have impressed many young minds with your flowery philosophy. However, I find it rather comical that as soon as Kari questioned your philosophical exposé, you instantly responded with sarcasm. Clearly the reaction of a man feeling threatened. Here’s a simple definition for the word “literal” for you as pertaining to the word of God, try absolute! Yes it is the absolute word of God, written by man but directed by God, and it is to be taken “literally” as complete and absolute truth.
The same God that parted the Red Sea directed every word written in the book that would be known as “His Word”. Susan, your praise of James has unfortunately made you just as guilty as he is for casting doubt on the word of God and I’m sure of two things that will result from that. 1. You will answer for it when you stand before God 2. I’m pretty certain your “Professor” won’t be any where near to “commentate” for you at that time. James, Fortunately, as God knows all things, he warned us of your coming and provided a verse just for this occasion. Romans 1:22 “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools”
Peter,
Thanks?
Peter,
You have given us a commentary on the meaning of Romans 1:22.
Your commentary is not literal. It is also not accurate.
Sounds like you have a lot of anger.
What is going on in your life?
Peter, as moderator, I almost deleted your post because it was an attack on Mr. Everett. But I think this needs to be addressed in case others have taken a similar attitude. In the name of being a watchdog, you have shown a lack of careful reading. We appreciate your posting and being part of the discussion. But you have completely missed his point, which is that the Bible should be read for its intention (“accurately”) and to avoid the confusion that the word “literal” has caused in today’s culture. As someone who lives and interacts with secular culture daily, Mr. Everett is using humor and rhetoric to remove the barb of attack from those who are opposed to God. He is not trying to be “cool” but showing that the Bible is more intelligent than detractors propose (see Goldberg example at top of his article).
Your post sounds like you are against interpreting the Bible accurately. And that you called someone “fool” who takes the Bible seriously. I don’t think you meant that. I recommend re-reading his post with more openness even though his way of writing may be unfamiliar to you.
Thank you.
Want to pipe in on this conversation but am so short on time. Just a few quick thoughts….
Many times the verses used to talk about the Bible are actually talking about…Jesus (like, John 1:1, for examples). I think that it’s really good (important!) to examine the passages often used as proof-texts for the Bible and make sure they are actually talking about the Bible.
Like, how many times have we heard, “the Word of God is like a two-edged sword…” and have been told that is talking about the Bible. Reading it in context, it seems to me that it’s talking about a Person, not a book at all…
I have often felt that in many Christian circles, the Bible has replaced the third person of the Trinity.
Molly,
Yes, that is a hugely important point.
The Table of Contents in our Bible is not itself “in” the Bible.
It was added later, for our convenience.
Chapters and verses were also added later, for our convenience.
Molly,
I am in total agreement with you. You bring up such an important thing.
To clarify my last:
The Table of Contents at the front of our English translation of the Bible lists out all of the Books of the Bible.
That page itself is not itself a verse of the Bible.
We do tend to talk about “The Bible” as if it is God. It is not God.
God existed before the Bible. If all Bibles were burned, God would still exist. They are not the same thing.
God is the source of all that exists in creation, including any copies of the Bible. We are to worship God alone, not the Bible or any Bible verse.
The Bible is Special Revelation of God. Nature and Logic and Philosophy and all things true in academics are God’s General Revelation. God speaks through both. Neither can contradict each other. Truth can’t contradict truth.