On The Myth Of Scriptural Literalism

[Robert F. Smith]

Hi Robert: I'm open to learning something new of which I am currently largely unaware. But except for the parable of the olive tree and the Isaiah chapters -- which are highly symbolic and filled with prophetic dualism -- and the obviously symbolic passages (e.g. the iron rod symbolizing the word of God) I'm trying to think of passages from the Book of Mormon's purported real-life historical narrative that are not meant to be taken as literal historical fact. The way I'm reading maklelan is that he believes the purely historical portions of the Book of Mormon, for example, are so "ambiguous" and "malleable" (I get a kick out of that last one) that the Church can make them mean whatever it needs them to mean in order to serve current policies, needs and circumstances. Maklelan's point seems to be we can disregard the most controversial portions of scripture historical narrative, such as the children of Israeli being commanded of God to utterly destroy the people of Canaan, because the purportedly historical portions of scripture are not meant to be understood as literal statements of historical fact, and this because even the historical portions of scripture are , by very nature, too flexible, ambiguous and malleable to be taken literally (until this thread, I didn't realize the iron rod was actually a long length of flexible pipe).

So I guess I am supposed to believe that even though the Book of Mormon records Nephi as telling his brothers the Lord commanded the children of Isreal to utterly destroy people of Canaan, because the people of Canaan were totally ripened in iniquity, I can disregard the historicity of the Biblical account, even though a prophet of God named Npephi backs it up, because scripture, by very nature, is designed to mean whatever a religious group wants it to mean depending on current needs. And today's current need is to placate the politically correct among us who refuse to believe God commanded his people to utterly destroy the Canaanites.

.................................................................................

I hope the intelligentsia of the Church won't think to poorly of folks like me if we continue to choose to believe scripture is more like a rod of iron than a long length of flexible hot air exhaust pipe?

Well, of course, you have completely misunderstood McClellan and made hash of any effort to understand Scripture the way those who wrote it intended it to be understood.

 

You even embarrass yourself in saying that, for an imaginary "intelligentsia of the Church," the iron rod is symbolic of either a long length of hot air exhaust pipe, or flexible pipe.  What?

 

Then you claim that what McClellan is saying is that "scripture, by very nature, is designed to mean whatever a religious group wants it to mean depending on current needs," etc.  You really believe that is what he is saying?

 

Should you be taken literally?

[HappyJackWagon]

Well, of course, you have completely misunderstood McClellan and made hash of any effort to understand Scripture the way those who wrote it intended it to be understood.

 

You even embarrass yourself in saying that, for an imaginary "intelligentsia of the Church," the iron rod is symbolic of either a long length of hot air exhaust pipe, or flexible pipe.  What?

 

Then you claim that what McClellan is saying is that "scripture, by very nature, is designed to mean whatever a religious group wants it to mean depending on current needs," etc.  You really believe that is what he is saying?

 

Should you be taken literally?

You're on a mean streak lately. Are you hangry? Need a sandwich?

 

I hope you're as smart as you think you are.

Edited August 28, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Nevo]

I admit that maklelan's argument that "there are no scriptural literalists" went a bit over my head.

 

I get that readers bring their own preconceived notions and biases to texts and that meaning is created and so on, but I think it is still possible to speak of literal/non-literal readings of scripture. There is a lot at stake here for Mormons because our tradition rests on a fairly literal understanding of the scriptures.

 

Unlike other Christians (like, say, John Dominic Crossan), we're not at liberty to spiritualize belief in angels, resurrection from the dead, Jesus coming in the clouds with believers being caught up to meet him, etc.

 

If these doctrines are mainly cultural artifacts (which seems to be the implication of maklelan's statement that "religious groups...derive doctrine from negotiating between their group's past, the needs of the present within a cultural context, and their interpretation...of scripture"), then I'm not sure where that leaves us.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Nevo

[Mars]

maklelan didn't say that there is no space for a literal understanding of the scriptures. 

 

he said, and i fully invite correction here, that literalists use a reading of the scriptures to justify their ideology.  the ideology comes first and the interpretation of the scriptures comes second.

 

it is one thing to say that there really were Nephites - actual people descended from someone named Nephi who left the old world and settled somewhere else other than the old world around 600 BCE.  or that Adam and Eve were flesh and blood people who were created of God.

 

it's another thing to point to the scriptural text and say "it could not be more clear.  this is the only way to read it."  i think that's where the literalists get it wrong.  when you expose your presuppositions and lens through which you read the text, you can make reasonable guesses or conclusions about what the text means based on a wide variety of knowledge.  you can start to talk about why you think that particular verse is meant by the author to be literal or why not.  you can dissect the idea.  you can identify the roots of your conclusions.

 

that doesn't mean that every word in the scriptures is meant to be an obfuscated nebulous mystery.  it just means that the way we read the text needs to be understood every bit as much as the text itself.  this might sound so simple it's trivial, but for a guy like me, it was a huge wake up call to realize (surprise!) that i bring a lot of cultural and personal baggage with me when i read things.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Mars

[Nevo]

he said, and i fully invite correction here, that literalists use a reading of the scriptures to justify their ideology.  the ideology comes first and the interpretation of the scriptures comes second.

 

So when scripture affirms that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, rose on the third day, and was seen afterward by his disciples (1 Cor. 1:3–8 ), if I take those statements to be literally true, I must first and foremost be trying to justify a particular ideology?

Edited August 28, 2015 by Nevo

[ERayR]

Well, of course, you have completely misunderstood McClellan and made hash of any effort to understand Scripture the way those who wrote it intended it to be understood.

 

You even embarrass yourself in saying that, for an imaginary "intelligentsia of the Church," the iron rod is symbolic of either a long length of hot air exhaust pipe, or flexible pipe.  What?

 

Then you claim that what McClellan is saying is that "scripture, by very nature, is designed to mean whatever a religious group wants it to mean depending on current needs," etc.  You really believe that is what he is saying?

 

Should you be taken literally?

 

Grab a Snickers bar and relax.

[Mars]

So when scripture affirms that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, rose on the third day, and was seen afterward by his disciples (1 Cor. 1:3–8 ), if I take those statements to be literally true, I must first and foremost be trying to justify a particular ideology?

 

trying to justify a particular ideology?  i wouldn't put it that way.  more like, if i didn't believe Jesus really was a physical being who was the Son of God, i'd interpret the texts differently.  but i do think He really walked the earth, therefore i interpret certain parts of the text as literal.

[Damien the Leper]

Mak and Robert are gonna be handing out beatings in this thread. Should be fun.

[DragonLancer]

 

 

 

And where do the Brethren's views come from? Whether you believe it is directly from God or "from negotiating between their group’s past, the needs of the present within a cultural context, and their interpretation (which is not literal) of scripture" we don't trace most of our doctrine directly to scripture with the exception of possibly the doctrine and covenants. Even there it is iffy. Take a look at the word of wisdom as revealed in D&C 89 vs what we practice today. Or take a look at the law of tithing (D&C 119) vs what teach today. Again we always cite section 89 and 119 when we talk about tithing and the WoW, but we use prooftexting to support our current theology rather than attempt to change our current theology to match scripture.

 

What we practice today, regardless of how it was arrived at, is what the Lord expects of us.  Because it is that which is authorized and ordained for us by the Lord to be obedient to.  Often people get too complicated in their views about how theology has emerged.  For the hand of the Lord to be in something doesn't mean that his hands crafted it, but rather that his hand planted the seed, and like a gardner, he has trimmed things back from time to time, and gave it a nudge here and there.  He initiated a process that has naturally shaped itself into something that has emerged naturally.  This is something that is to be expected from the God of nature that is more like a gardener sometimes than an engineer.  The process emerged naturally but it is still the authorized thing where obedience is expected, regardless of whether what we are taught today is scientifically or politically correct in every part.  It doesn't matter if many parts are actually "true" or not, having originated in direct revelation.  Some parts undoubtedly have.  But when obedience is what is required, that is a simple thing.  Just obey and do your duty.  Because God said so.

[ERayR]

1

 

I admit that maklelan's argument that "there are no scriptural literalists" went a bit over my head.

 

I get that readers bring their own preconceived notions and biases to texts and that meaning is created and so on, but I think it is still possible to speak of literal/non-literal readings of scripture. There is a lot at stake here for Mormons because our tradition rests on a fairly literal understanding of the scriptures.

 

Unlike other Christians (like, say, John Dominic Crossan), we're not at liberty to spiritualize belief in angels, resurrection from the dead, Jesus coming in the clouds with believers being caught up to meet him, etc.

 

If these doctrines are mainly cultural artifacts (which seems to be the implication of maklelan's statement that "religious groups...derive doctrine from negotiating between their group's past, the needs of the present within a cultural context, and their interpretation...of scripture"), then I'm not sure where that leaves us.

 

It leaves us right where we were before.   We will all continue to read the scripture with the same degree of literalness as we always have, Maklelan included.  We all read and interpret in line with our own pov.

[Brian 2.0]

Everyone brings interpretation to the table when reading text. That's a given from the get go. But that doesn't make the "scriptural literalists" a meaningless term. It serves as a good distinction in how people view scripture.

[ERayR]

What we practice today, regardless of how it was arrived at, is what the Lord expects of us. 

 

How can an allegorical God expect anything of anyone?

[maklelan]

maklelan didn't say that there is no space for a literal understanding of the scriptures. 

 

he said, and i fully invite correction here, that literalists use a reading of the scriptures to justify their ideology.  the ideology comes first and the interpretation of the scriptures comes second.

 

Bingo. For instance, no human being that has ever lived has ever read the Bible and concluded, independent of outside influence, that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three persons constituting one being. That conclusion must be taught. It cannot be pulled from the scriptures. It can only be imposed on them.

[maklelan]

So when scripture affirms that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, rose on the third day, and was seen afterward by his disciples (1 Cor. 1:3–8 ), if I take those statements to be literally true, I must first and foremost be trying to justify a particular ideology?

 

I don't believe I ever said that a literal interpretation of any passage of scripture at all is impossible, but yes, for the vast majority of reader of the Bible, a belief that Jesus died for sins precedes the reading of the text. In light of that, the interpretation of the relevant texts takes place through the lens of that belief. This is why Christian fundamentalists can never understand what James 2 is about. They unilaterally presuppose it cannot mean what it very clearly means.

[ERayR]

I don't believe I ever said that a literal interpretation of any passage of scripture at all is impossible, but yes, for the vast majority of reader of the Bible, a belief that Jesus died for sins precedes the reading of the text. In light of that, the interpretation of the relevant texts takes place through the lens of that belief. This is why Christian fundamentalists can never understand what James 2 is about. They unilaterally presuppose it cannot mean what it very clearly means.

 

While I agree with your conclusion here it illustrates that how we interpret depends on our pov. 

[maklelan]

While I agree with your conclusion here it illustrates that how we interpret depends on our pov. 

 

Yes, I pointed that out and explained the cognitive underpinnings of that fact in the blog post.

[HappyJackWagon]

I still don't buy this argument. Yes, I understand we all bring our own bias to readings etc. but this is presupposing that a conclusion about the content of the text is made prior to reading. Some text, whether scriptural or not, simply is.

 

"The carpet in my office is blue."

 

You each read that text. What do I mean by it? Are you presupposing that the carpet is blue so you therefore interpret it as a literal statement or do you presuppose that as an author I will never write anything that is literal so I must have some alternate, metaphorical meaning as if suggesting my carpet is sad?

 

Written text, at it's most basic function is a means of communicating an idea. The most basic idea, that my carpet is blue, is a literal interpretation. We then dig deeper for greater meaning behind the first literal meaning and the motivation behind why I wrote that the carpet is blue. Literal interpretation is the default position of language.

[ERayR]

I still don't buy this argument. Yes, I understand we all bring our own bias to readings etc. but this is presupposing that a conclusion about the content of the text is made prior to reading. Some text, whether scriptural or not, simply is.

 

"The carpet in my office is blue."

 

You each read that text. What do I mean by it? Are you presupposing that the carpet is blue so you therefore interpret it as a literal statement or do you presuppose that as an author I will never write anything that is literal so I must have some alternate, metaphorical meaning as if suggesting my carpet is sad?

 

Written text, at it's most basic function is a means of communicating an idea. The most basic idea, that my carpet is blue, is a literal interpretation. We then dig deeper for greater meaning behind the first literal meaning and the motivation behind why I wrote that the carpet is blue. Literal interpretation is the default position of language.

 

Or is it interpreted that the color of your carpet is irrelevant thus that statement can be ignored.

[maklelan]

I still don't buy this argument. Yes, I understand we all bring our own bias to readings etc. but this is presupposing that a conclusion about the content of the text is made prior to reading. Some text, whether scriptural or not, simply is.

 

"The carpet in my office is blue."

 

You each read that text. What do I mean by it? Are you presupposing that the carpet is blue so you therefore interpret it as a literal statement or do you presuppose that as an author I will never write anything that is literal so I must have some alternate, metaphorical meaning as if suggesting my carpet is sad?

 

Written text, at it's most basic function is a means of communicating an idea. The most basic idea, that my carpet is blue, is a literal interpretation. We then dig deeper for greater meaning behind the first literal meaning and the motivation behind why I wrote that the carpet is blue. Literal interpretation is the default position of language.

 

Again, I don't believe I ever said that a literal interpretation of any passage of scripture at all is impossible. It's a method of literalism, not just a single reading that I'm addressing. All putative literalists frequently abandon their literalism. For instance, how many fundamentalists out there literally interpret Ps 137:9:

 

How blessed will be the one who grabs your babies and smashes them on a rock!

Edited August 28, 2015 by maklelan

[Paradox_58]

I hesitate to jump into this topic, since I have noted that often those of us without standing on the boards get ignored, but I am curious about one aspect of the "literalism" being discussed. As far as the ancient scriptures, (BoM, BIble, Pearl of GP) are you discussing the literal interpretation of the original language in which the scripture was written, or the various translations? 

 

The Bible, for example, has gone through so many translations, it is impossible to even be sure what the original was. Many NT scripts have recently come to light in Hebrew, and they correspond to a large degree to the JST in many instances, rather than the Greek. I wish I could recall the NT scholar (not LDS) whose book I read last year; he discussed this in some depth, and came to the conclusion that there is often no way to understand what the original text said, since in the earliest Greek renditions, it was often the case that particular concepts were written as what the translator believed to be the "correct" way to view a concept.

 

I ran across an example this morning in my Bible study. Galatians 5:12 in the KJV indicates (at least by my reading) that Paul would wish those agitating for circumcision among the Christian converts to be excommunicated from the church; the NIV, however, has Paul wishing for them to be castrated! Is there such a thing as a literal reading of any scripture without knowledge of the original text? And how can we ever know what the original text is? 

[maklelan]

I hesitate to jump into this topic, since I have noted that often those of us without standing on the boards get ignored, but I am curious about one aspect of the "literalism" being discussed. As far as the ancient scriptures, (BoM, BIble, Pearl of GP) are you discussing the literal interpretation of the original language in which the scripture was written, or the various translations? 

 

The Bible, for example, has gone through so many translations, it is impossible to even be sure what the original was. Many NT scripts have recently come to light in Hebrew, and they correspond to a large degree to the JST in many instances, rather than the Greek. I wish I could recall the NT scholar (not LDS) whose book I read last year; he discussed this in some depth, and came to the conclusion that there is often no way to understand what the original text said, since in the earliest Greek renditions, it was often the case that particular concepts were written as what the translator believed to be the "correct" way to view a concept.

 

I ran across an example this morning in my Bible study. Galatians 5:12 in the KJV indicates (at least by my reading) that Paul would wish those agitating for circumcision among the Christian converts to be excommunicated from the church; the NIV, however, has Paul wishing for them to be castrated! Is there such a thing as a literal reading of any scripture without knowledge of the original text? And how can we ever know what the original text is? 

 

I'm speaking about either. The Bible has been translated numerous times, but we still have ancient manuscripts in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek that aren't translations at all. While we don't have the autographa (the original manuscripts on which the authors originally wrote) we have a variety of ways to reconstruct quite early versions of certain texts. There are no ancient Hebrew manuscripts of the NT, and it's not true that many NT manuscripts have been discovered that vindicate the JST. There are places where the JST represents a more clear rendering of what was in the Hebrew or the Greek, but that's not the result of recently discovered manuscripts.

 

Regarding Gal 5:12, the Greek word there is αποκόψονται, which literally means to cut off or amputate. It is primarily used of castration. The notion of excommunication is an interpretive choice obviously intended to soften the author's rhetoric, but in the context of discussion of circumcision, it is quite clearly a rhetorical wish for them to just castrate themselves and be done with it.

[Mars]

I'm speaking about either. The Bible has been translated numerous times, but we still have ancient manuscripts in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek that aren't translations at all. While we don't have the autographa (the original manuscripts on which the authors originally wrote) we have a variety of ways to reconstruct quite early versions of certain texts. There are no ancient Hebrew manuscripts of the NT, and it's not true that many NT manuscripts have been discovered that vindicate the JST. There are places where the JST represents a more clear rendering of what was in the Hebrew or the Greek, but that's not the result of recently discovered manuscripts.

 

Regarding Gal 5:12, the Greek word there is αποκόψονται, which literally means to cut off or amputate. It is primarily used of castration. The notion of excommunication is an interpretive choice obviously intended to soften the author's rhetoric, but in the context of discussion of circumcision, it is quite clearly a rhetorical wish for them to just castrate themselves and be done with it.

 

please clarify and expound.

[maklelan]

please clarify and expound.

 

The New Testament wasn't translated into Hebrew in the early years of the Christian communities, so there'd be no real text-critical value to Hebrew NT manuscripts. While the JST in places is more accurate than the KJV, that has more to do with clarifying the obscure language of the KJV and has been known about for years. It's not the result of recently finding some NT manuscript that happened to say precisely what the JST says. 

[Mars]

The New Testament wasn't translated into Hebrew in the early years of the Christian communities, so there'd be no real text-critical value to Hebrew NT manuscripts. While the JST in places is more accurate than the KJV, that has more to do with clarifying the obscure language of the KJV and has been known about for years. It's not the result of recently finding some NT manuscript that happened to say precisely what the JST says. 

 

re: bolded part

 

more accurate than the KJV as compared to what?  like, JST and KJV are both compared to <target> and in some places the JST is more accurate?  what is that target?

 

do you have any handy examples that you could cite?  if i were to undertake this exercise on my own, can you point me in a good direction?

Edited August 28, 2015 by Mars

[maklelan]

re: bolded part

 

more accurate than the KJV as compared to what?  like, JST and KJV are both compared to <target> and in some places the JST is more accurate?  what is that target?

 

do you have any handy examples that you could cite?  if i were to undertake this exercise on my own, can you point me in a good direction?

 

The JST is a better translation of the Greek or Hebrew than the KJV in some places. I can't remember any off the top of my head, but there are a handful of them. The vast majority of changes move away from the Greek and Hebrew texts, though.