L/V 10+ Tip of the Day #295 Logos bias - literal sense of scripture

Another tip of the day (TOTD) series for Logos/Verbum 10. They will be short and often drawn from forum posts. Feel free to ask questions and/or suggest forum posts you'd like to see included. Adding comments about the behavior on mobile and web apps would be appreciated by your fellow forumites. A search for "L/V 10+ Tip of the Day site:community.logos.com" on Google should bring the tips up as should this Reading List within the application.

This tip is inspired by the forum post: search question - Logos Forums

Note for purposes of this post I am ignoring Jacque Derrida, some post-structuralists, some reception theories . . . . in favor of the assumption that the text of the Bible has meaning.

Whether one uses the terminology of senses of scriptures as I do, or use the language of application, Christ in Old Testament, typology there is a nearly universal sense among Christians on some sort of interpretative step following the linguistic task of determining the literal meaning. As I read the history of interpretation series, there is also a nearly universal sense that all the interpretation must be based on the literal sense. The existence of an academic discipline of scripture study independent of theology is also based on the belief that there is an agreed upon literal sense of the scripture than can be used as a common basis for discussion.

Look at the Exegetical Guide. It is firmly based in the literal sense. There is some information for moving from figures of speech to literal sense (peshat sense) but absolutely nothing to move one to the interpretative step of typology or Christology or application. This strong bias is exactly what users of Logos expect and need from Logos. This bias is what makes Logos/Verbum useful across a broad range of Christian beliefs just as the literal sense permits academic discussions separate from the theology department. So, what does the user of Logos/Verbum do if they believe in a typological meaning, an application meaning, a doctrinal meaning, a Christian meaning that overlays a Jewish meaning?

They focus their efforts on discovering what others (especially others in their own tradition) see as the type-antitype, or the application, or the eschatological meaning? Fortunately, Logos allows the user to build up substantial libraries which one can divide into collections to search to see how others have moved from literal meaning to interpretation. [Note I am aware that there are Christian groups that call the first level of interpretation the literal meaning. I don't use that terminology because I find it confusing when discussing prophecy and typology.]

An example of the collection I search for the typological meaning is:

Your collection will vary based both on what you have in your library and what you find most useful.

An example of the collection that I use for the application/moral sense:

A final example of the Christological sense of scripture:

Fortunately, Logos doesn't depend upon our hermeneutics/terminology. Use whatever terminology for these different emphases you want. Logos/Verbum provides answers with only the bias of the authors of the works from our library that we put in our collection.

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

DMB

there is a nearly universal sense among Christians on some sort of interpretative step following the linguistic task of determining the literal meaning

In modern terms, yes. In more ancient terms, I think Tertullian got it right ... basic faith plus behavior, since the text can mean/justify just about anything (roasting translators, how's that!).

the belief that there is an agreed upon literal sense of the scripture than can be used as a common basis for discussion.

I used to think that, until common sense intruded. If you can't get the literal sense of your own pastor (just ask him), what makes you think centuries and cultures back, it's all so agreeable.

Actually, I began seeing the problem looking at the Old Syriac, that the common sense (instead of literal sense) was the basis for modern Christianity.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272316#Comment_1272316

until common sense intruded.

I suspect that we mean slightly different things by "literal sense" as the latter is slippery as it has been used in a variety of ways. I don't distinguish between literal and common sense; rather I speak of hyperliteral and literal sense for essentially the same distinction. My practical definition of literal sense is what is caught in a paraphrase - sloppy but usually adequate.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272356#Comment_1272356

I suspect that we mean slightly different things by "literal sense"

Agree. In the religious realm (and I'm not sure why), word meaning is specific to the group ... sort of a touchstone of membership. For example, if I were to talk to someone at Mt Athos (of course, wrong gender), I'd not assume or claim I knew why they meant, even though same language, and similar heritage.

I think that's one factor that early Christian writers pointed to ... the apostles as disciples, would know the meaning. Not just witness the words. Modern Christianity is largely set on a 'common sense', to the degree that, discussing the alternative meanings is water off a ducks back. Quack, quack! Smiling.

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272356#Comment_1272356

until common sense intruded.

I suspect that we mean slightly different things by "literal sense" as the latter is slippery as it has been used in a variety of ways. I don't distinguish between literal and common sense; rather I speak of hyperliteral and literal sense for essentially the same distinction. My practical definition of literal sense is what is caught in a paraphrase - sloppy but usually adequate.

Whatever terms we may use, that's an important distinction. For purposes of biblical exegesis, I would include in the "literal sense" idioms, metaphors, similes, hyperbole and all the other little figures of speech we commonly use and recognize in any other literary work. Otherwise, you end up with a wooden literalism that makes a mockery of the text. (After all, I don't feel any need to run for the bandages or super-glue when my daughter tells me she "loves me all to pieces.")

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272366#Comment_1272366

For purposes of biblical exegesis, I would include in the "literal sense" idioms, metaphors, similes, hyperbole and all the other little figures of speech we commonly use and recognize in any other literary work.

Oh, of course. But then one has to accede meaning to the experts. Which ones. Luckily you were an expert with your daughter's excitement!

But my discussion might be illustrated when Jesus discussed 'being saved'. What meaning? Now, here on the forum, we have members who will quickly give the literal or common meaning ... the Christian one.

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272368#Comment_1272368

But my discussion might be illustrated when Jesus discussed 'being saved'. What meaning? Now, here on the forum, we have members who will quickly give the literal or common meaning ... the Christian one.

Certainly that can be interpreted differently, but I wouldn't characterize it as a choice between a "literal" meaning and a "non-literal" meaning. Not all ambiguities are due to the figurative use of language. We may have legitimate disagreements about what we're being saved from, in what sense we're being saved, and what we're being saved for. "Literal" doesn't necessarily mean "simple" or "easy to understand."

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272371#Comment_1272371

in what sense we're being saved, and what we're being saved for. "Literal" doesn't necessarily mean "simple" or "easy to understand."

Notice how you're adding prepositions, and pronouns. But ignoring that, I'd argue you don't know. You accede to a later 'literal'.

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272379#Comment_1272379

Notice how you're adding prepositions, and pronouns.

Yes, I am. I would argue that none of that takes it out of the realm of the "literal." Neither would a word study on the semantic range of the word "saved". When you're dealing with an ancient text it can take a lot of time and work to get to the "literal" meaning. "Later" in the sense of "after a lot of time and research" doesn't equate to "non-literal."

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272368#Comment_1272368

But my discussion might be illustrated when Jesus discussed 'being saved'. What meaning?

Whereas I would say that "being saved" has a commonly understood meaning. The interpretative problem arises because the case frame is incomplete ... lacking the "from noun-phrase" element which is left to context. The literal/common sense leaves this open just as it is open in the text. Interpretation, linguistic or theological depending on the instance fills the missing element in. Yes, I know I am over-simplifying but I wanted to illustrate that from going to the letter on the page to the message in the mind, different models put the same issue at different steps of the process. This is similar to the point EastTN made while I was writing.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272387#Comment_1272387

And I would argue, after all the prancing and dancing, you both don't know what the 'literal' meaning was (that Jesus used). You do know what it means in Christian-speak. Best illustrated when a new Bible-class member reads the word .... literally ... and is promptly corrected.

I'm busily entangled in the Parables of Enoch. No amount of 'literal' meaning is usable (lexicons, textual context, and so forth). Nor attempts at Ethiopian overlays to Aramaic. Not even Christian-speak. Charlesworth is arguing for Galilean-speak.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272388#Comment_1272388

And I would argue, after all the prancing and dancing, you both don't know what the 'literal' meaning was (that Jesus used).

When I am being precise, I agree with you wholeheartedly. But for a general audience, I'm willing to go with the "what we believe to be the literal meaning even though we know it's wrong" as a basis of Bible study.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272477#Comment_1272477

I find this to be a good? discussion of Logos resource.... definite maybe on that.