Is "Literal whenever possible" sound exegesis?

Dave_L

In my experience, many passages can be taken either literally or figuratively. And depending on how you interpret the passage you can have two entirely different outcomes. Are we doing violence to the text when we force a literal interpretation on every passage that will allow for it?

Mitchell

I am not sure I have heard phrase "literal whenever possible"?
I do however think that it is important to practice some form of 'genre criticism' when approaching any type of literature.

[Deleted User]

I consider it a vital principle for arriving at a correct understanding of any passage to understand the text in its literal meaning IF the passage really does allow for it.

Unfortunately, I have seen oftentimes that people actually do force a literal interpretation on passages which are obviously not meant in a literal sense, because with a literal interpretation they no longer would be true to fact, make no sense, or otherwise lead to a violation of textual (linguistic and grammatical) matters. Sometimes, when they are made aware of the the self-inflicted problem, they will excuse their interpretation with the "with God everything is possible" argument, or else continue to insist on "my church says, my creed says, my preacher says" type of argument.

Dave_L

@Mitchell said:
I am not sure I have heard phrase "literal whenever possible"?
I do however think that it is important to practice some form of 'genre criticism' when approaching any type of literature.

I agree. I wish I had a color coded Bible showing hyperbole and apocalyptic at a glance. Or even passages commonly taken by our preferred group as symbolism and metaphor.

[Deleted User]

I would suggest the book "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible" by E.W. Bullinger, which has been standard reading for anyone studying the field of figures of speech in connection with studying the Bible. The book is available in Logos format, unfortunately the associated figures of speech dataset is only available as part of collections/feature sets.
(cp. Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, E.W. Bullinger)

[Deleted User]

@Mitchell said:
I am not sure I have heard phrase "literal whenever possible"?

I think this phrase states a very basic general principle for understanding any verbal communication in any language.
Languages have rules and words have definitions, and if communication uses the grammar and definitions of words in their regular literal sense, then the meaning and correct understanding is this literal meaning etc ....
When grammar is peculiar and words, expressions are used not in their regular normal way and meaning, then the author is employing a figure of speech of some kind in order to draw attention and to emphasize some point in the statement. Figures of speech are used by design and willfully for the purpose of emphasis.
The foundation or norm for communication is not the use of figures of speech, the foundation or norm is the literal use. The use of figures of speech is a special use of grammar and word meanings outside their regular normal use and meaning for the purpose of emphasis. Thus, one must understand and interpret any text literally whenever possible ... and in cases where such is not possible, the use of figures of speech will be involved.

Basic example: Jesus stated "I am the good shepherd". How is the statement to be understood? The normal sense of a statement like that as understood literally, he would mean that he was a shepherd by profession taking care of animals ... Now, is it possible to understand this statement within its context and overall scope of Scripture in this normal literal way and have the correct understanding of what Jesus meant? No ... because -- obviously -- Jesus was not literally a shepherd by profession who take care of animal sheep! Thus, it follows that the phrase must involve figure of speech ... what is expressed by his use of the words "shepherd" and "sheep" transfers the picture of the literal shepherd and his animals to a different situation, emphasizing Jesus' care for people who are following him.

GaoLu

Almost anything literal could be taken figuratively. Consider the genre and context. Usually, people including Bible writers are fairly clear and somehow indicate they are being figurative when they are. Otherwise, they are probably being literal.

C Mc

Are we doing violence to the text when we force a literal interpretation on every passage that will allow for it?

Dave,
Proper exegetical procedures or methods should be developed and practiced so as to come to an accurate and correct interpretation of the text.

Whenever we hear or read something and seek to understand what has been said, we are engaging in exegesis. The term itself is derived from the Greek word exegeomai, which basically means "to bring out." When applied to texts, it denotes the "bringing out" of the meaning.

The term exegesis is a fancy way of referring to interpretation. [Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Moses Silva, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning (Manila: OMF Literature, 1998), 19].

In order to do sound exegesis it is necessary to interrogate the text:
1). What the Bible "meant" and 2). What it "means," are interrelated and should not be separated. The original meaning and intent of the written word of God should control the meaning and intent of present day interpretations and attempts to present the message in a contemporary way. Wells calls this relationship the** "bipolar character of revelation."** [David F. Wells, "The Nature and Function of Theology," in The Use of the Bible in Theology, ed. R. K. Johnston (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), 176].

The questions formulated must arise as the text is read. The interpreter has to ask questions and listen to the text for answers. This action is often referred to as "criticism." It is a technical term, derived from the Greek word krinein ("to judge," "to discern," "to discriminate").

Given this reality, the answer to your original question is too plain to miss. However, just in case:

"A crass literal interpretation of the Bible without regard to idiom, context, or literary form in which a statement has been made is often the result, the outgrowth of a misguided determination to cling to a superficial understanding of the Bible at all cost, even the cost of real understanding."

I hope this helps. CM

Dave_L

@C_M_ said:

Are we doing violence to the text when we force a literal interpretation on every passage that will allow for it?

Dave,
Proper exegetical procedures or methods should be developed and practiced so as to come to an accurate and correct interpretation of the text.

Whenever we hear or read something and seek to understand what has been said, we are engaging in exegesis. The term itself is derived from the Greek word exegeomai, which basically means "to bring out." When applied to texts, it denotes the "bringing out" of the meaning.

The term exegesis is a fancy way of referring to interpretation. [Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Moses Silva, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning (Manila: OMF Literature, 1998), 19].

In order to do sound exegesis it is necessary to interrogate the text:
1). What the Bible "meant" and 2). What it "means," are interrelated and should not be separated. The original meaning and intent of the written word of God should control the meaning and intent of present day interpretations and attempts to present the message in a contemporary way. Wells calls this relationship the** "bipolar character of revelation."** [David F. Wells, "The Nature and Function of Theology," in The Use of the Bible in Theology, ed. R. K. Johnston (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), 176].

The questions formulated must arise as the text is read. The interpreter has to ask questions and listen to the text for answers. This action is often referred to as "criticism." It is a technical term, derived from the Greek word krinein ("to judge," "to discern," "to discriminate").

Given this reality, the answer to your original question is too plain to miss. However, just in case:

"A crass literal interpretation of the Bible without regard to idiom, context, or literary form in which a statement has been made is often the result, the outgrowth of a misguided determination to cling to a superficial understanding of the Bible at all cost, even the cost of real understanding."

I hope this helps. CM

Interesting...Thanks! I struggle with forced literalism. That is, reading scripture as you would a cookbook. Heeding Paul's words,"the letter kills but the Spirit gives life". But this doesn't mean forced spiritual interpretation is good either.

I think Jesus and the Apostles looked at the literal outcome of the OT passage: as if there were a physical Temple, or a physical this or that, and saw those conditions taking place around them. Thereby identifying the conditions as proof the literal was being fulfilled spiritually.

In this case, the literal was a symbol of the reality to come.

GaoLu

"There was this dog behind me, chasing me, snarling and snapping, and I was running like the wind." (True story)

Which part is true and which part uses a literary device to tell truth?

Biblical hermeneutics, usually, just isn't that difficult either.