Better dust off the moldering texts (as tucker would say!).

In all seriousness though, what are you putting forward for discussion? Just any and all ancient texts and how we should interpret them lacking the knowledge of whether or not certain passages were literal?

I mean so much of the bible is both horrible and almost certainly literal, such as Deuteronomy 25:11-12:

If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

Difficult to interpret that metaphorically. While it isn't difficult to just pick out horrible verses and say that it reflects on the whole of the bible, the fact that it is so easy reflects on the whole. But that's just my opinion. Also: a different ancient text would probably be better; the bible has also been translated so many times in different ways (literal translation, idiomatic, etc.)

If an ancient Jew read Genesis he would probably think it was literal unless it's author implied other by the author or tradition. But Acts and Mark, for example, might not have been intended literally either

If we don't know what is literal in *religious texts* how can they have a "meaning" anymore?

If we don't know what is literal in *religious texts* how can they have a "meaning" anymore? — Gregory

Whose problem is that?

Why should we try to have a certain understanding of what ancient texts say?

In this thread I want to discuss how we can have a certain understanding of what ancient texts say... I want to provide the Bible as a good place to start to see if we can really understand what ancient texts mean. — Gregory

Here's what Wikipedia says about textual criticism - "Textual criticism is a branch of textual scholarship, philology, and of literary criticism that is concerned with the identification of textual variants, or different versions, of either manuscripts or of printed books."

Let's be honest. You have no interest in textual criticism. You don't even know what it means. This is just another claptrap jab at Christianity. I guess there's always room for one more.

You are always pointing the finger sir. I am interested in learning which texts are more reliable and how we know this based of linguistic philosophy. Genesis is an example of how literal readings are not needed (because it could have another meaning) but the question arises how we know which genres ancient text fall into and what a genre meant in those days. It seems the further in history it goes the less likely we can understand it

Finally, where are your threads? Are you strong minded enough to make them or do you just trash others

Why should I read them if we don't know what they say?

The Bible says God first created the universe, — Gregory

Actually, this isn't a universally accepted interpretation. Creation ex nihilio is one interpretation, but rejected by others (particularly the Mormons).

See generally,, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio_ex_nihilo

Richard Friedman in "Commentary on the Torah" offers a direct translation from the Hebrew as "In the beginning of God's creating the skies and the earth - when the earth had been shapeless and formless, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and God's spirit was hovering on the face of the water, God said "let there be light,."

This would indicate God created order from pre-existing matter, not that he created something from nothing. He brought order from chaos.

The point being that interpretation is from reading the original sources, contextualizing, recognizing that many authors contributed over many years, realizing the Bible comes from an ancient worldview, that all language of all type is imprecise, and that often themes and morals may be more critical to the author than historical accuracy.

Picking out a random line and giving it your best reading really isn't the way to interpret anything. You'll be overlooking the efforts of thousands of scholars over thousands of years. Volumes have been written on Genesis 1:1, the line you cited.

You are always pointing the finger — Gregory

If you look you'll see that I make many positive comments, but when I see something I think is intellectually dishonest, I often point it out.

Finally, where are your threads? Are you strong minded enough to make them or do you just trash others — Gregory

If you look, you'll see I've started many threads. It would have made sense for you to check before you asked this question.

This seems to indicate something about our relationship to history and ancient text. There is the line of history, people, events, translations, and commentary from now to back then. I don't see how we can know anyone was truthful about their times or were to be imitated based on their biographies because we don't have access to those times and their language directly. But then again, what about just the 1800's? Can we not truly interpret their worlds. This is a great dilemma and is the reason I study philosophy mostly instead of history. I don't see how to resolve the dilemma to any satisfactory position

I don't see how to resolve the dilemma to any satisfactory position — Gregory

You'll never know for certain what anyone meant, but that's not to say you can't know anything at all.

My view on biblical interpretation is to focus on the message, not the literal truth. As with any literature, it's value rests in what it tells you of the human experience, regardless of whether it's an accurate recital of events or a well crafted work of fiction.

It's irrelevant whether Genesis 1:1 accurately describes the first act of creation. What is relevant is that the central character (i.e. God) has been identified as an all powerful figure. The reader should now focus on what he says and does and figure out how to remain in his favor.

Literalists, in my opinion, so miss the boat and instead waste their intellect trying to explain how the impossible actually happened. It would be like arguing whether Aesop's tortoise and hare actually held a race. That there was no such race detracts nothing from the meaning.

A text is created by someone(s) for someone(s) / to someone(s) at a certain time and place and for a certain purpose, and in a certain language. And usually none of it to you.

And the Bible is a bad text to start this with. Not least because you have likely never set eyes on the Bible in your entire life (subject to correction). And that does not touch the problem of what the Bible is. Which, if you're interested, here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo-YL-lv3RY
The first of a series of Yale lectures on the topic by Christine Hayes. I will go so far as to challenge in this sense. If you're interested in the Bible, then take on at least a few of these lectures. If you don't then I question your interest.

Theologian David Bentley Hart reminds us that literal interpretations of Old Testament particularly are a recent pietist reaction. Traditionally the OT was read as an allegorical work and may have been written that way. That as certainly how it was taught to me as a kid in Christian school - as a non-fundamentalist Baptist.

The first lecture is good so far and dovetails with Jung's writing on Job. I'll make more comments latter, but there seems to be two types of archetypes in the human brain. One is the idea of one God who has a purpose and the other is our connection to old stories. I'm not a man of prayer or one who likes a mystery when it involves him. But I've loved history as a child and after I've seen more of these lectures by tomorrow I'll try to write something intelligent here about Genesis and history if I can. I'll just say now that the idea of a supreme God, although powerfully influential to the human brain, comes in many forms and this comes out in music. Jewish chants present a God of great emotion while Christian chants sing of a God above emotions of the heart

"Textual criticism is a branch of textual scholarship, philology, and of literary criticism that is concerned with the identification of textual variants, or different versions, of either manuscripts or of printed books." — T Clark

:up:

'Hermeneutics (noun): the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts.'

Reading the Bible has never really been a question of understanding a literal account, it is embedded in a 'community of discourse, faith and practice', within which it is meaningful.

There's a passage I often cite from Augustine, from a work of his called the 'literal meaning of Genesis':

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

Reading the Bible has never really been a question of understanding a literal account, it is embedded in a 'community of discourse, faith and practice', within which it is meaningful. — Wayfarer

I feel that, whatever text one reads, it is the literal understanding which must be achieved first. Then they can progress further to the other genre of understandings and interpretations.

Of course, ancient texts like the Bible cannot be verified or understood scientifically and archaeologically. It must be understood psychologically and allegorically. As Gadamer said the Bible interpretations can be very meaningful when carried out for one's present living being, for making it richer and deeper.

I feel that, whatever text one reads, it is the literal understanding which must be achieved first. — Corvus

Well, in that case, we disagree. 'Literalism' - reading mythological accounts as literal re-tellings - is one of the banes of the modern world. And your second paragraph seems to completely contradict your first sentence.

A book i've noticed on this is The Bible Made Impossible, Christian Smith.

Well, in that case, we disagree. 'Literalism' - reading mythological accounts as literal re-tellings - is one of the banes of the modern world — Wayfarer

Imagine for a simple example you were reading the bible. It says in Genesis 1:1, God created earth. If you didn't know what creation meant or didn't know what earth meant, then how would you expect to understand anything further? How would you even dare to interpret it in any other ways?

In original Christianity, those who heard that were never expected to understand it. They were expected to believe it. There was no question of ‘interpretation’. Interpretation was having an opinion, which is what ‘heresy’ means.

We live in a different world now. We wonder about what it means. But in the original setting, it was simply recited by the priests, and you simply listened to it.

I still believe one must understand the text in literal terms, before they can progress into the other type of understanding or interpretation. Yes, we agree to disagree.

worth reading that Augustine quote again. I’ve never read the whole book, but that passage speaks volumes.

The first thing I will have beside the Bible before reading is a very good etymological dictionary.

Wouldn’t the literal meaning be straightforward?

It is the ancient text. Not all the words would be straightforward even in the literal meanings I would imagine.

“But if he cannot afford two turtledoves or two pigeons, then he shall bring as his offering for the sin that he has committed a tenth of an ephah [3] of fine flour for a sin offering. He shall put no oil on it and shall put no frankincense on it, for it is a sin offering. " - Leviticus

ephah
/ˈiːfə/
noun
an ancient Hebrew dry measure equivalent to the bath (of about 40 litres or 9 gallons).

frankincense - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankincense

https://biblehub.com/leviticus/5-11.htm

The first thing I will have beside the Bible before reading is a very good etymological dictionary. — Corvus

Perhaps first grasp that the Bible is not in English. Try this for the NT.
https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/0842345647/ref=cm_cr_unknown?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=four_star&reviewerType=all_reviews&pageNumber=1#reviews-filter-bar

At less than USD15, a bargain. Very well bound and constructed. And a cheap way in. If nothing else you will realize that problems with the Bible are not translation problems, so any good modern translation suffices.

Sure. Interesting book indeed. The Bible has many Hebrew and Aramaic words, it seems a must to get the dictionary ready all the time when reading, even at the literary level. I am not knowledgeable, but would imagine it would be immensely richer and interesting to be able to read it in Greek too.

It would be difficult to imagine that one can understand the Bible without knowing the rich meanings of the old, exotic or even plain words in it, when it even says that God has given the language, so that men could study with it their way to know him.

I am not knowledgeable, but would imagine — Corvus

I would persuade you that what you're looking for isn't there. What is there is served reasonably well and accessible in the translations. If you took on as a project learning to read the Bible in its original languages well enough to justify the effort, that's ten years. And you will have had to read the English anyway to get there. So a reasonable start is just to read whatever the reviews say is the best English version - maybe NRSV. The interlinear is good and useful because it puts your nose near the grindstone, without risk of loss or injury. You get to see how it works, and it's all pretty straightforward.

Or in short, learning a language only to read a book, especially this book, is a waste of time.

Or in short, learning a language only to read a book, especially this book, is a waste of time. — tim wood

I was on my way learning the Greek language recently, but stopped due to lack of time. I felt it would be advantageous even to be able to read the Greek words which often appear in the English philosophical text books. Will return to studying it again soon as reminded by this post today :)

Yes you could be right, learning the language in full just to read the Bible could be too much time and effort. But if one had time and linguistic ability to do so, it would be nice to be able to read it in Greek too. Some of the Greek words in the Bible could be crossing with some of the philosophical concepts often appearing in the ancient Greek philosophical texts and also in Heidegger's writings, to which could be cross referenced, and help understanding the both subjects on a deeper level.