"inerrant" or "literal" - Page 3

[Sean]

For anyone still curious if the gnostic Marcion thought any scripture should be interpreted literally, visit gnosis.org to read "Marcion explained the Old Testament in its literal sense and rejected every allegorical interpretation." He felt the same way about the New Testament, after he rewrote it. Several other gnostics who... oh, but that tangent's ended, back to topic.

Originally posted by kama'aina mama
Well, I guess part of the question at this point is: Who decides what is "obviously allegory/metaphor" and what is to be taken literally.

Just like with the meaning of inerrant, the question of "Who decides" how scripture is interpreted is answered differently by different bodies of believers. One universal Christian tenet is that the Holy Spirit will guide believers to apprehend the true meaning. But even that idea is understood very differently by different parties.

Reformation Protestants believe in sola scriptura, the doctrine that the Bible alone is the rule of faith. A belief in private interpretation flows naturally from this doctrine: since no human is above, or even equal to, the Bible in authority, nobody is bound by anyone else's interpretation; rather, everyone has the right and the duty to interpret it for him or herself. If the believer prays for and is willing to accept the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and if she uses the gifts of intelligence and discernment along with the tools available (including the scholarship of others), and puts in an honest diligent effort, she will be led to God's meaning. (I hope I've stated it fairly, but if any Protestants want to correct this paragraph, please let me know.)

Catholics believe instead that the Church is the ultimate authority on all essential matters of faith, including interpretation of the Bible. By way of analogy, if the Bible were the Constitution, the Church would be the Supreme Court, with a similar authority to issue binding decisions. Some people misunderstand how that authority is exercised, but it's a lot like a court: only when disputes arise, and with as little restrictions on individual freedom as possible. As a result, Catholics don't have any big book of what every word in the Bible really means; they have differing private interpretations much like Protestants. But what they do have are limits. There are some interpretations which the Church has judged "out-of-bounds" and forbidden to her members. In this scheme, the action of the Holy Spirit is something different from the Protestant sense, in that instead of guiding the believers individually, He guides them as a body.

As regards the creation account, for example, Catholics may interpret it literally, or -- within limits -- poetically. A Catholic may believe that each "day" of creation is a 24-hour day like ours, or a poetic way of expressing a longer period of time. (The Hebrew word yom is used both ways throughout Scripture.) I happen to think that the 24-hour sense is the better interpretation, but the Church has not forbidden the other. That was just an example, I don't want to turn this thread into a Catholic catechism, but I hope I've shown how the "Who decides" question is answered by Catholics.

From Genesis my next huge issue is usually Job. I simply cannot, will not entertain the idea of a God who would actually treat one of His beloved children that way. Not for that purpose in that context.

Neither could Job until Chapter 42. Some of the most beautiful yet haunting messages of all of the Bible are in Job. I can't read "Doth Job fear God for nought?" without feeling a chill up my spine. I get the message that God's love for us does not protect us from earthly trials, but rather, if we don't love Him through adversity, we don't love Him at all. I also get the message that His mind is unknowable, His purpose unquestionable. "Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it."

[barbara]

Just like with the meaning of inerrant, the question of "Who decides" how scripture is interpreted is answered differently by different bodies of believers. One universal Christian tenet is that the Holy Spirit will guide believers to apprehend the true meaning. But even that idea is understood very differently by different parties.

hence the many different branches of Christianity.

[Sean]

Originally posted by barbara
hence the many different branches of Christianity.

Well, yeah. One reasonable objection to sola scriptura is that without an ultimate authority to resolve disputes, it could break down into quot capita tot sensus, "as many opinions as heads," destroying the unity which Christ desires for His Church ("and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd").

I don't mean to imply that that there is not a reasonable rejoinder to this objection, or that there aren't reasonable objections to the Catholic position from sola scriptura advocates. Are we still on topic? We could start another thread, or keep talking about it here, or drop the subject, what do y'all think?

Editing this post to add: I vote for dropping the subject. Having refreshed my reading of MDC guidelines, I think this isn't the place to discuss the objections to sola scriptura. There are other places to do that.

[dado]

Originally posted by kama'aina mama
From Genesis my next huge issue is usually Job.

you are free to read Sefer Iyov as literally as you like - or dare - but for millenia this has been understood to be a fictional story. straight from Talmud: "Job never existed, rather he is a parable." there isn't even a concensus on who Job was. opinions vary all over the map from pre-Jew Hebrew to an Egyptian advisor of the pharoah in Exodus(!) to a figment of Moshe's imagination.

a number of Jewish sages contend the core of Sefer Iyov - not including the G-d/haSatan prologue - predates most of Tanakh and comes from as far back as Yakov's time. but there are differing opinions: another widely held view is that Moshe himself wrote this in the desert to console the people.

[DaryLLL]

Again and again I thank goddess dado has come to the boards. Someone who knows the Jewish meaning and interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures, how refreshing! (understatement)

Probably gives a nicebreak to amy and BB.

Now, from a liberal Xtian standpoint, I found Bishop Spong's interpretation of at least the motivation for Job in his book Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism helpful. He said, and maybe this differs form actual Jewish teachings, that up to the point of Job, Jews thought God dealt out rewards to "good" people, and punishment to "bad" people, in their lifetimes. No afterlife, so no divine retribution to be longed for either. Job comes at a point where poeple were saying, hey wait a minute, sometimes bad stuff happens to good people, and criminals live the life of Reilly. Why, God?

[BelovedBird]

Originally posted by dado
you are free to read Sefer Iyov as literally as you like - or dare - but for millenia this has been understood to be a fictional story. straight from Talmud: "Job never existed, rather he is a parable." there isn't even a concensus on who Job was. opinions vary all over the map from pre-Jew Hebrew to an Egyptian advisor of the pharoah in Exodus(!) to a figment of Moshe's imagination.

a number of Jewish sages contend the core of Sefer Iyov - not including the G-d/haSatan prologue - predates most of Tanakh and comes from as far back as Yakov's time. but there are differing opinions: another widely held view is that Moshe himself wrote this in the desert to console the people.

I learned Iyov in seminary, but I certainly don't remember most of it. But I remember learning the gemara on who wrote Iyov/ who was he, and there were so many opinions- wasn't one that Iyov was Avraham?

[dado]

Originally posted by BelovedBird
...wasn't one that Iyov was Avraham?

yes! and another that he was Yakov. i'm guessing literal readings of Iyov began around the same time it became necessary to "prove" the existence of a rampaging satan.

[barbara]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
Again and again I thank goddess dado has come to the boards. Someone who knows the Jewish meaning and interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures, how refreshing! (understatement)

Probably gives a nicebreak to amy and BB.

Now, from a liberal Xtian standpoint, I found Bishop Spong's interpretation of at least the motivation for Job in his book Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism helpful. He said, and maybe this differs form actual Jewish teachings, that up to the point of Job, Jews thought God dealt out rewards to "good" people, and punishment to "bad" people, in their lifetimes. No afterlife, so no divine retribution to be longed for either. Job comes at a point where poeple were saying, hey wait a minute, sometimes bad stuff happens to good people, and criminals live the life of Reilly. Why, God?

Yes Yes! isn't that the whole point of the book of Job? I didn't know there were theological views that contradicted that. I'm learning something new every day here!

Speaking of learning something new...dado I thought you were a "daddy" until DaryLLL called you a goddess!

[BelovedBird]

ancient Jewish tradition ascribed the book to Moses While Moses was in the wilderness of Midian

One opion holds that Iyov was written by Moshe One of many. THAT is "ancient jewish tradition". I know you added that it is debatable, but it more than that- the answer is not known....

[dado]

Originally posted by Nursing Mother
ancient Jewish tradition ascribed the book to Moses

first, jewish tradition is alive and well, it is not ancient. it has ancient sages, it has traditions that have survived since ancient times, but the tradition continues to live, evolve, develop.

second, there is no such thing as "the" tradition when it comes to issues like this. there are many and varied opinions. if there is any consistently correct meaning of "the tradition" it is the existence of such diversity itself that constitutes "the" tradition.

it also means the real answer to such questions is "nobody knows".

[DaryLLL]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
Again and again I thank goddess dado has come to the boards. Someone who knows the Jewish meaning and interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures, how refreshing! (understatement)

barbara,

I did not call dado a goddess. I meant I thank Goddess, dado is here. Should have capitalized. :LOL

[dado]

what you wrote attributed a fixed belief to Jewish tradition and the diversity of belief to the world at large when in fact the diversity of belief exists inside Jewish tradition itself.

[DaryLLL]

Yes, I can see dado made 3 points, not just one. B/c one of her points actually agreed with one of yours (albeit succinctly), you criticize her for posting?

[Sean]

Dado, BelovedBird, Nursing Mother: Would it be fair to say it was "an ancient Jewish tradition"? Would that be accurate?

Nursing Mother: Your reflections on Job touched my heart. Thank you!

About sola scriptura: I definitely agree that it was worth mentioning and explaining the doctrine of sola scriptura in this thread, as it has a direct bearing on how scripture is interpreted by hundreds of millions of believers. I'll also mention (though I forgot to mention it before) that belief in this doctrine has often influenced many positive developments in society, such as widespread literacy, scholarship, and religious tolerance. There may be a good deal more to be said about sola scriptura before this thread is over, in the spirit of "sharing faith and practice," as the Spirituality guidelines encourage.

Can we also mention and explain the objections to the doctrine, and then the rejoinders to those objections, and then the arguments against those rejoinders, et seq. without actually debating sola scriptura? Maybe we can; I'd be happy to enter that sort of discussion somewhere else. But I can't think of any good reason to do that here, and a couple of good reasons not to.

[dado]

Originally posted by Sean
Dado, BelovedBird, Nursing Mother: Would it be fair to say it was "an ancient Jewish tradition"? Would that be accurate?

nope. saying it is a part of the Jewish spectrum of belief that goes back to ancient times - where it also was part of a wide spectrum of beliefs - would be closer. in general, any sentence even remotely suggesting "a" Jewish belief is "the" Jewish belief will probably be incorrect because Judaism simply doesn't work that way.

re: sola scriptura...

there is no such thing, imo. for starters, the very words being read/studied are not defined in scripture so right there, at the very beginning of the process, a non scriptura work - the dictionary - has to be introduced as a reference. not sure where you and NM are going with this, i'm assuming since NM has already posted several times that "the spirit" and cultural context guide her interpretations she is not a sola scripturista. from your posts i get the impression you're in about the same place...?

edit: in the paragraph above i'm talking about the "everything from scripture" definition, not the corrollary absolute right of private judgement of interpretation (which i do agree with).

[barbara]

Originally posted by Nursing Mother
the story of Job is relevent no matter how it got there)

AMEN

[Sean]

Originally posted by dado
re: sola scriptura...

there is no such thing, imo. for starters, the very words being read/studied are not defined in scripture so right there, at the very beginning of the process, a non scriptura work - the dictionary - has to be introduced as a reference. not sure where you and NM are going with this, i'm assuming since NM has already posted several times that "the spirit" and cultural context guide her interpretations she is not a sola scripturista. from your posts i get the impression you're in about the same place...?

Well, you're right about me; I don't personally believe sola scriptura. I can't speak for NM, except to say that I got a different impression than you did. I won't answer your objection to the doctrine (that scripture itself relies on outside points of reference) except to note that people who believe in sola scriptura have probably thought of that, and have a reasonable reply. As for where we're going with this, I hope we're going to "share faith and practice."

[dado]

Originally posted by Sean
... people who believe in sola scriptura have probably thought of that, and have a reasonable reply.

i hope someone shares one. Luther ended up in a circular argument where sola scriptura gave him authority to make private interpretation but denied others the same right - in a sense his was the first major argument for "papal" infallibility. which is ironic beyond all belief, lol!

[barbara]

Originally posted by Sean
As for where we're going with this, I hope we're going to "share faith and practice."

me too! I haven't a lot to say (taming my tongue you know ) Very interesting thread!

[kama'aina mama]

To the best of my understanding it was never required to pay to have sins forgiven. One needed to atone to gain forgiveness and there were a variety of ways. One could say a proscribed set of prayers, make some other act of faith (a pilgrimage, for example) etc. Now there were folks who felt they were simply to busy to do these things, so they would pay others to pray for them. Now you've got people buying and selling indulgences and it ain't good. But it is my belief ( and I could be misinformed. That did happen once before ) that even the poorest were always able to earn their own forgiveness.