Textual criticism
In this thread I want to discuss how we can have a certain understanding of what ancient texts say. Language is a living thing and I'm interesting in learning more about deconstruction. Did Derrida separate us too far from the past generations?
Now I want to provide the Bible as a good place to start to see if we can really understand what ancient texts mean. The Bible says God first created the universe, a watery earth, and stars. Second, he creates clouds and the atmosphere. Third, vegetation. Fourth, sun and moon. Fifth, birds and fish. And lastly land animals.
So we have vegetation on the earth before the sun even existed.
Now if we have no way to distinguish phenomenological language from literal, how are we to know the true meaning behind a text that is thousands of years old?
The difficulty is saying where in the past we draw the line between what can be know and what is just too old to trust
Now I want to provide the Bible as a good place to start to see if we can really understand what ancient texts mean. The Bible says God first created the universe, a watery earth, and stars. Second, he creates clouds and the atmosphere. Third, vegetation. Fourth, sun and moon. Fifth, birds and fish. And lastly land animals.
So we have vegetation on the earth before the sun even existed.
Now if we have no way to distinguish phenomenological language from literal, how are we to know the true meaning behind a text that is thousands of years old?
The difficulty is saying where in the past we draw the line between what can be know and what is just too old to trust
Comments (66)
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
Whose problem is that?
Why should we try to have a certain understanding of what ancient texts say?
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?
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.
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.
Quoting 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
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.
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
: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':
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.
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.
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?
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.
“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
/?i?f?/
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
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 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.
Really incredible. Clear and straightforward. Written in 415 by one of the early fathers of the church. If someone were to read it without knowing the attribution they'd probably think is was written last week by a liberal protestant, except for some of the language. I'll keep this in my stack-o-quotes to bring out when I want to show my erudition.
Indeed. So why do you feel pressured to read them? Can you tell?
Exactly. Which is why outsiders who are not thusly embedded cannot hope to have a meaningful experience with the Bible. Similar goes for other ancient texts.
Quoting Wayfarer
Exactly. The fact that at the time, the majority of the population was illiterate actually helped this state of affairs and probably made the whole experience of listening to sermons more meaningful for the people. (Note that the Roman Catholic Church was not in favor of simple people reading the Bible because the probability of misunderstanding was too great.)
It is vital to read the Bible in the right spirit, with faith and humility.
Understanding specific old words like "ephah" is, for the most part, irrelevant.
Without the right spirit, one can be a scholar in ancient languages, and still miss the point of the ancient text.
It was just a simple example to say how the words in the bible are rich in their meanings. I believe it is important for one to know them, if they are serious on their interpretation and understanding on it. Without the basic knowledge of the literal meanings, one cannot progress to the other levels, be it faith or spirit.
I am confident that actual religious people will say it's the other way around.
Sure maybe. I was not talking about the religious people specifically, but general readers like me who are not religious, but is interested in the hermeneutical understanding and interpretation of the ancient texts, which happen to be the Bible.
Why on earth would anyone want to do that??
Many people are interested in the ancient texts be it bible or literature, because they are interesting in many ways.
Interesting how?
Unless we're talking about a simple curiosity (or more like: attempts to relieve one's existential boredom), the pull one feels toward an acient text surely has something to do with the historical reception and influence of said text.
The Bible is not just a religious text. It is linked to ethics, literature, anthropology, sociology, and cultural studies. The Bible is also a huge topic for Philosophy of Religion. Some books in the Bible such as Psalms and Job has huge significance in Literature, and people read and study them for the literal merits. There is no restrictions saying, only the religious people must read the Bible.
I read Christian literature because I was raised with it and I enjoy atheism more the more I understand the true place of Christianity. We all have connections to the past but they should never take away morality, as literal Christianity does
Many English words originate from the ancient Latin and Greek words, and there are myriads of interesting words with the roots in the Bible. And then there are the old Hebrews and Aramaic words in it too. To me, it would be the linguistic and historical richness along with the mystic ancient wisdom, which make the Bible interesting reads.
Can we say than the the Bible can only give us something subjective?
I encountered that passage in an online article about the subject of literal interpretation of scripture and how today's Biblical fundamentalists would have received short shrift from Augustine. I haven't read the entire work, but I think the meaning of that passage is pretty clear. A current theologian comments
[quote=Ortlund; https://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2017/09/did-augustine-read-genesis-1-literally/]Augustine affirms that ordinary 24-hours days “are not at all like [the "days" of Genesis 1], but very, very different.” In Augustine’s view, God creates all things simultaneously, and the 'Seven Days" construct in Genesis 1 is an accommodation in which “the Scriptural style comes down to the level of little ones [i.e. children] and adjusts itself to their capacity.” Specifically, Augustine affirms that the ordering of Genesis is not according to temporal sequence but rather the ordering of angelic knowledge. Thus, Augustine not only distinguished the days of Genesis 1 from ordinary 24-hour days, he also distinguished God’s initial creative act from his subsequent activity in creation:
When we reflect upon the first establishment of creatures in the works of God from which he rested on the seventh day, we should not think either of those days as being like these ones governed by the sun, nor of that working as resembling the way God now works in time; but we should reflect rather upon the work from which times began, the work of making all things at once, simultaneously.
.....
Augustine wrestled with the nature of the light in days 1-3 before the creation of the luminaries on day 4. Noting the phrase “let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years” in Genesis 1:14, he asked, “who can fail to see how problematic is their implication that times began on the fourth day, as though the preceding three days could have passed without time?” This problem greatly vexed Augustine. Ultimately, he identified the pre-solar light of day 1 with the spiritual/angelic creation. [/quote]
This illustrates that Augustine wrestled with questions of interpretation - actually 'exegesis' is the right word. I think he would have been appalled by anything like young-earth creationism.
Origen also criticized - or even ridiculed - those who couldn't differentiate the different layers of meaning in the Bible. 'Origen, in his Treatise on First Principles, recommends for the Old and New Testaments to be interpreted allegorically at three levels, the "flesh," the "soul," and the "spirit." He states that many of the events recounted in the Scriptures, if they are interpreted in the literal, or fleshly, sense, are impossible or nonsensical. They must be interpreted allegorically to be understood. Some passages have parts that are literally true and parts that are literally impossible. Then, "the reader must endeavor to grasp the entire meaning, connecting by an intellectual process the account of what is literally impossible with the parts that are not impossible but historically true, these being interpreted allegorically in common with the part which, so far as the letter goes, did not happen at all.'
It makes more sense to say the light was stars because they could have caused the heat and light for vegetation to grow before they were pulled back for the sun and moon to be created after all that. If there is no literalism to the creation than what does it even mean? Other parts of the Bible, sure, but why this sequence if it's meaningless without a literal interpretation?
But I don’t think the ancients had any real idea of how far away the stars were, the size of the Cosmos, and so on. Typically their cosmological, mythological and historical accounts interpenetrated. The point I was trying to bring out with both Augustine and Origen, was that they understood the stupidity of saying that everything in the Bible is a literal account, when much of it is plainly figurative or allegorical.
The contents of the Bible is about the stories in ancient times. Any suggestions trying to verify or prove the contents along with modern sense of science and facts would be an incredibly irrational mind or attempt.
After good understanding on a literal basis (etymological basis), readers could go on to interpret it in faiths or spirit level, or in allegorical or literary aspects. It is up to the reader to veer their interpretations to the directions they want to pursue. But one thing clear would be that the interpretation is likely to be personal and subjective due to the depth and richness of the content of the Bible.
How the readers come to their interpretations of the Bible would demonstrate the reflection of the reader's psychological and mental states. Why does the reader or interpreter view the verses in the way he / she does? Why does he / she come to that interpretation rather than otherwise? It tells more about the reader and interpreters' spiritual and mental makeup / history than the Bible verses being quoted or interpreted in many cases, and that is why it could be regarded as Existential philosophising in some sense I suppose.
Quoting Corvus
Which is why it seems to me that the Bible left on it own doesnot give us a faith or religion. It gives us innumerable ones. Even the Catholic claim that their Church interprets for them is based on their interpretation of the "pope in the Bible" stuff in order to have something to start with
In the exile the Judaeans met up with some Israelites who had been there longer who may have helped with slight editings. It may have been they that introduced the "rib" trope whose origin is a play: rib in Sumerian is the same as She who bears lives in Hebrew, hence it got overtranslated, perhaps as a mnemonic. I am convinced the Hebrews first had about four written books at Joshua's time, but these would only be used by senior trainers as a check and they would train declaimers / bards in reciting as in many semi-literate societies to this day (including those who are fully literate in secular affairs).
I've mentioned the origin of the visible elements of trext, I've mentioned meaning (the current fundamentalists deny Scripture has meaning which is why they don't teach any meaning) as creation (or beginning of this particular existence wave), but there is a deeper spiritual meaning for relating with "god", the spiritual side. Then there was also the usage in communal ceremonial remembrances.
{ * The details of the (up to) three inundations are sufficiently different in the versions of each nation. }
Sure. I agree with your point. I have never looked at the Bible as a religious text only. Psalm is a great ancient poetry, and Job is a very interesting fable. And the other books are full of mystic writings, which are interesting too.
I cannot imagine equating what is said in the Bible with the real world affair. There is a huge time gap between the current world and the Bible content to start with. No one knows who wrote them, and whether the books were recordings of the real events at the time, or just mystic storytellings of somebody, or indeed they were messages from God. Who knows?
What is important is, how one could read it now at this time, and manifest some insight into one's own spiritual awakenings, or just enjoy reading and interpreting from a literal point of view, or pick out some wise verses and use them as getting some motivations in daily life. The options are much flexible.
There are academics who are studying the ancient text from Hermeneutic point of view in linguistic studies, which is also interesting in its own merit.
I would be interested in learning the old Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Aramaic words in the bible, and that's what I meant by the literal understanding of the bible. It has nothing to do with matching the contents of the bible with the real world events or happenings, and drawing some bizarre analogies from them.
This is interesting because of the question of translation. Criticism tries to establish what type of document each text is but this requires some initial hermeneutics to start with. It's most interesting that we see a text differently when we read it in it's original language even though one might think you are just switching sounds and signs into your primary language. Something new seems to emerge but it's not clear how this works. I was, also, reading about Derrida's philosophy on Wikipedia and he seems to think as well that there is no definite reading of any text
I think it is called Phonocentrism. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonocentrism)
All this opens the possibility of myriad different ways of interpretation of the ancient texts. In the churches, they do lectionary readings on the bible, which do the reading on the certain book of the bible of a certain chapter on a certain day of the year, trying to grasp more accurate atmosphere of the passage they are reading, and truer meanings of the bible.
But there is more!
Whence the significance of the Bible?
Why the assumption that there is something powerful about the text itself?
The question was, why do the non-religious read it.
One's interests can be further analyzed, and I think this is the relevant aspect of reading ancient texts.
Indeed, coming to terms with one's past can be a reason to read the Bible (if one was raised Christian).
Quoting Gregory
That would make it rather useless.
I read David Bentley Hart on this and I recall him suggesting that Augustine understood Torah stories as allegorical. Not sure that patristic understanding of the stories ever took them as literal truths . Even the Apostles, particularly Paul saw the work as allegorical and were not literalists.
"As should be obvious, Paul frequently allegorizes Hebrew scripture; the 'spiritual reading' of scripture typical of the Church Fathers of the early centuries was not their invention, nor just something borrowed from pagan culture, but was already a widely accepted hermeneutical practice among Jewish scholars. So it is not anachronistic to read Paul here as saying that the stories he is repeating are not accurate historical accounts of actual events, but allegorical tales composed for the edification of readers."
David Bentley Hart. The New Testament: A Translation. Yale University Press:
The agnostics read it too.
I'm against the whole taking the Bible absolutely literally thing. God never was the property of man. There are things I choose to believe God is, but among these is "more than anything written thereof."
A higher power was conceived of and brought ancient sages much insight. But, to be reasonable, there were always poets and storytellers.
I don't take Genesis completely literally, though there is probably more to the allegory than meets the eye. If I took enough drugs I could probably become convinced of my own perceptions of the beginning of all creation, y'know? And I might try to make it beautiful to read and accidentally, thereby, make it impossible to understand out of historical context.
God's existence doesn't hinge upon its accuracy, but let's be realistic. And at the same time be highly whimsical, because human history IS weird.
Like Ezekiel -- lazy to just dismiss...but...WTF?