Scripture As Literature?

[chaoschristian]

Is it valid to view scripture as literature and subject it to literary analysis?

Does the divine and inspired character of scripture remove it from the category that we call 'literature' and place it into a new, as yet, undefined category?

I bring this up here, because it is a facet of our theology that we have to deal with when thinking about Creation and origins.

I'm thinking out loud here, so I don't have an agenda other than to explore the question.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Is it valid to view scripture as literature and subject it to literary analysis?

I think so.

Does the divine and inspired character of scripture remove it from the category that we call 'literature' and place it into a new, as yet, undefined category?

I don't think it's necessary, and furthermore, I think to attempt to do so would be a bad idea, which causes more problems than it solves.

First of all, we accept as a matter of faith that Scripture is divine and inspired. What about the billions of people around the world who do not believe it to be so? How then are we to engage in discussion with them, if we insist, based solely on our beliefs, that our particular text is deserving of special treatment? What does that sound like, except an excuse to hold a double standard?

Or would this new classification of literature be extended to include other sacred texts? Muslims believe the Koran to be inspired by God, in fact, they believe it to be a word-for-word dictation straight from the Angel Gabriel's mouth.

Not to mention the Bhagavad-Gita, the Tao Te Ching, the Tipitaka... all of these works are considered sacred to someone, and their faith in their inspired nature is every bit as strong as ours. If we were to create a new genre of literature, who would decide what was to be included in it? What are the contexual signs of divine inspiration?

Secondly, who is to say that divine inspiration applies only to sacred texts? Could it be that Dante was inspired when he wrote The Divine Comedy? Did Shakespere pen his tragedies with Godly assistance? Could Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn have at least a partially divine origin? If we all agree that all good things come from God, who's to say this couldn't have happened?

Third, if we were to create a new category of literature, aren't we also suggesting that God couldn't or wouldn't express what He wanted man to know through the medium of "regular" literature? Certainly regular literature is a sufficient medium... the power of the written word has been shown to change the course of history many times over... and the Bible is just one of many such examples.

I bring this up here, because it is a facet of our theology that we have to deal with when thinking about Creation and origins.

I'm thinking out loud here, so I don't have an agenda other than to explore the question.

Well, I certainly don't want to come off as too defensive... I suppose you can tell that I'm really into literature... just thinking out loud myself.

 

[Willtor]

It's literature, one way or another. Consider the Psalms. Nobody disputes their poetic and melodic purpose. There really isn't any group, of which I'm aware, that treats the Scriptures as something besides literature. Most of them disagree on the types of literature, but how else will we treat it besides literature?

 

[chaoschristian]

It's literature, one way or another. Consider the Psalms. Nobody disputes their poetic and melodic purpose. There really isn't any group, of which I'm aware, that treats the Scriptures as something besides literature. Most of them disagree on the types of literature, but how else will we treat it besides literature?

Well, that's what I'm noodling about, you see.

If scripture is to be interpreted only through a literal/indicative lense, then as a consequence isn't that practice removing scripture from the category of 'literature' altogether and redefining it as something else - I don't know what to call it, but not literature?

 

[Willtor]

Well, that's what I'm noodling about, you see.

If scripture is to be interpreted only through a literal/indicative lense, then as a consequence isn't that practice removing scripture from the category of 'literature' altogether and redefining it as something else - I don't know what to call it, but not literature?

I see what you're saying. I'd be hard pressed to call the Scriptures something other than literature, though. I imagine you're the same, which is probably why you're asking.

Yet another topic on which I wouldn't mind getting some YEC input.

 

[chaoschristian]

I see what you're saying. I'd be hard pressed to call the Scriptures something other than literature, though. I imagine you're the same, which is probably why you're asking.

Yet another topic on which I wouldn't mind getting some YEC input.

Yes, I would love, really, to have Pats among others come back and share a thought or two.

I am solidly in the 'scripture is literature' category of thought, so much so that I resist the use of the term "The Bible" - which you may have noticed, since I think the current format of scripture seriously impedes our understanding of it. Another bowl of noodles there.

 

[Willtor]

Yes, I would love, really, to have Pats among others come back and share a thought or two.

I am solidly in the 'scripture is literature' category of thought, so much so that I resist the use of the term "The Bible" - which you may have noticed, since I think the current format of scripture seriously impedes our understanding of it. Another bowl of noodles there.

I think it's another modern hinderance, though. I can't believe that it was a hinderance when Sola Scriptura (or the Church's interpretation) prevailed over Solo Scriptura. But making codexes is an old practice. Marcion made his own codex in the second century... not that Marcion is a good example, but... the point is that codexes have been popular as pre-canon canonizers. I've never heard anybody teach the history of the Scriptures (except in very questionable ways) in any Church I've ever attended. I had to research it, myself. That, I think, is the problem.

The Word is the unifying thread through all of the canonic Scriptural texts. When it says something like, "In the year n of King X, the Word of the Lord came to the Prophet Y and said, 'z,'" we have to understand 'z' as the Word of God, himself. More than that, one cannot apprehend 'z' without the surrounding context. Thus, the context, itself, is present in the Word because it permits apprehension.

Not that I think you disagree with any of this (you'll tell me if you do), but the texts do provide context for each other, in that they attest to the same Word. I think the nature of their shared context is missing without the history (and nature) of the Scriptures being taught. As for a unified text, I see no problem with it, insofar as hermeneutics take into account the various (and varied) relationships between the texts.

 

[gluadys]

Well, that's what I'm noodling about, you see.

If scripture is to be interpreted only through a literal/indicative lense, then as a consequence isn't that practice removing scripture from the category of 'literature' altogether and redefining it as something else - I don't know what to call it, but not literature?

Well, it is not creative literature.

In the broadest sense, anything written is literature, even a grocery list or an invoice.

But we usually reserve the term "literature" to writing that is in some sense creative e.g. essays, novels, drama, parables, puns, etc.

 

[gluadys]

I think it's another modern hinderance, though. I can't believe that it was a hinderance when Sola Scriptura (or the Church's interpretation) prevailed over Solo Scriptura. But making codexes is an old practice. Marcion made his own codex in the second century... not that Marcion is a good example, but... the point is that codexes have been popular as pre-canon canonizers. I've never heard anybody teach the history of the Scriptures (except in very questionable ways) in any Church I've ever attended. I had to research it, myself. That, I think, is the problem.

The Word is the unifying thread through all of the canonic Scriptural texts. When it says something like, "In the year n of King X, the Word of the Lord came to the Prophet Y and said, 'z,'" we have to understand 'z' as the Word of God, himself. More than that, one cannot apprehend 'z' without the surrounding context. Thus, the context, itself, is present in the Word because it permits apprehension.

Not that I think you disagree with any of this (you'll tell me if you do), but the texts do provide context for each other, in that they attest to the same Word. I think the nature of their shared context is missing without the history (and nature) of the Scriptures being taught. As for a unified text, I see no problem with it, insofar as hermeneutics take into account the various (and varied) relationships between the texts.

That is just sooooooo.... right!

Unfortunately,

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Willtor again."

 

[Mskedi]

Well, it is not creative literature.

In the broadest sense, anything written is literature, even a grocery list or an invoice.

But we usually reserve the term "literature" to writing that is in some sense creative e.g. essays, novels, drama, parables, puns, etc.

And yet there are parts of the Bible that are clearly creative: the parables (as you mentioned), psalms, midrash, etc...

Also, who doesn't read Revelations as literature? It's full of symbols and references that no one can quite seem to agree on.

Bible as Literature was one of my favorite classes in college.

 

[chaoschristian]

I think it's another modern hinderance, though. I can't believe that it was a hinderance when Sola Scriptura (or the Church's interpretation) prevailed over Solo Scriptura.

​

But making codexes is an old practice. Marcion made his own codex in the second century... not that Marcion is a good example, but... the point is that codexes have been popular as pre-canon canonizers. I've never heard anybody teach the history of the Scriptures (except in very questionable ways) in any Church I've ever attended. I had to research it, myself. That, I think, is the problem.

The Word is the unifying thread through all of the canonic Scriptural texts. When it says something like, "In the year n of King X, the Word of the Lord came to the Prophet Y and said, 'z,'" we have to understand 'z' as the Word of God, himself. More than that, one cannot apprehend 'z' without the surrounding context. Thus, the context, itself, is present in the Word because it permits apprehension.

The Word is indeed the Golden Thread, that which holds together the tapestry of stories across the ages so that even now, after so much, we can reliably expect the truth to be revealed.

Not that I think you disagree with any of this (you'll tell me if you do), but the texts do provide context for each other, in that they attest to the same Word. I think the nature of their shared context is missing without the history (and nature) of the Scriptures being taught. As for a unified text, I see no problem with it, insofar as hermeneutics take into account the various (and varied) relationships between the texts.[/quote]

And this, I hold, is a foundational issue that calls out to be resolved. I have no beef against codexes in and of themselves, but in the case of scripture I see that the format has had an enormous impact on hermeneutics in the modern, post-enlightenment era. The problem is excerbated in the vacuum of knowledge and understanding of the history of the context of scripture (historical and literary), the history of the canonization process, and the process of translation.

The end result is Christians making statement such as "I believe in The Bible" and churches advertising themselves as "Bible Believing" both which strike me as well intended, but in error because of serious misguidance.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I can't believe that it was a hinderance when Sola Scriptura (or the Church's interpretation) prevailed over Solo Scriptura.

AFAIK this distinction originates with The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith A. Mathison,
your coda=(or the Church's interpretation) leads me to believe that you are not using the terms in the same way.

that is the problem with words, we have to use them in the same way in order to communicate.

so how are you using these two terms:
sola Scriptura and solo Scriptura?

they are useful terms, worthwhile to understand and persue, imho.

 

[gluadys]

so how are you using these two terms:
sola Scriptura and solo Scriptura?

they are useful terms, worthwhile to understand and persue, imho.

I'm puzzled. I never heard the term "solo Scriptura" before. And it doesn't look like correct Latin at first glance. I don't see how "solo" can describe "scriptura" "Sola scriptura" I understand, more or less. Goes along with "sola gratia, sola fide, etc."

But what the dickens is "solo scriptura" supposed to refer to?

 

[Willtor]

I can't believe that it was a hinderance when Sola Scriptura (or the Church's interpretation) prevailed over Solo Scriptura.

AFAIK this distinction originates with The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith A. Mathison,
your coda=(or the Church's interpretation) leads me to believe that you are not using the terms in the same way.

that is the problem with words, we have to use them in the same way in order to communicate.

so how are you using these two terms:
sola Scriptura and solo Scriptura?

they are useful terms, worthwhile to understand and persue, imho.

Yes, my post was ambiguous. Sorry. I didn't mean to say that "or the Church's interpretation" was equivalent to "Sola Scriptura." Rather, the Church's interpretation was an alternative that helped to prevent misunderstandings about the nature of the construction of the Bible. Read or = inclusive or; do not read or = by this term I mean.

Sola Scriptura: The Bible is the sole infallible authority. This permits other authorities, and values the input of patriarchs and theologians, as well as science and "the light of reason."

Solo Scriptura: The Bible is the only authority. This does not (explicitly) permit other authorities and generally rejects the interpretation of the Church throughout history.

Actually, if I recall, I think I got Solo Scriptura from one of your posts. But I couldn't help using it because it's such a useful term.

 

[chaoschristian]

I'm puzzled. I never heard the term "solo Scriptura" before. And it doesn't look like correct Latin at first glance. I don't see how "solo" can describe "scriptura" "Sola scriptura" I understand, more or less. Goes along with "sola gratia, sola fide, etc."

But what the dickens is "solo scriptura" supposed to refer to?

I thought it was a pun and meant "me, myself and I and the Bible" - or something along those lines.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I'm puzzled. I never heard the term "solo Scriptura" before. And it doesn't look like correct Latin at first glance. I don't see how "solo" can describe "scriptura" "Sola scriptura" I understand, more or less. Goes along with "sola gratia, sola fide, etc."

But what the dickens is "solo scriptura" supposed to refer to?

solo Scriptura is a term, i believe coined by Mathison* to describe the common error of Scripture alone, as in by itself.
his essay on the topic is at:
http://www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html
well worth a read, as is his book. imho, the classic on the topic.

peruse the google results at:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mathison+solo+scriptura&btnG=Google+Search

it equals tradition 0 in his system.
nice useful term.



*he attributes it to:
Douglas Jones has coined the term solo scriptura to refer to this aberrant Evangelical version of sola scriptura.
footnote 5 leads to:
Douglas Jones, Putting the Reformation “Solas” in Perspective, audio tapes, (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 1997).

 

[gluadys]

solo Scriptura is a term, i believe coined by Mathison* to describe the common error of Scripture alone, as in by itself.
his essay on the topic is at:
http://www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html
well worth a read, as is his book. imho, the classic on the topic.

peruse the google results at:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mathison+solo+scriptura&btnG=Google+Search

it equals tradition 0 in his system.
nice useful term.



*he attributes it to:
Douglas Jones has coined the term solo scriptura to refer to this aberrant Evangelical version of sola scriptura.
footnote 5 leads to:
Douglas Jones, Putting the Reformation “Solas” in Perspective, audio tapes, (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 1997).

From the BaylyBlog, one of the google results.

I make no claim to expertise in Latin, but I do know that "solo" simply can't modify "scriptura" in Latin. I think the Canon Press folk may need to consult their own Latin Primer.

Posted by: Russ at September 21, 2005 03:58 AM


The construction appears to combine the English word 'solo' with the Latin 'scriptura'. In Mathison's essay only 'scriptura' is italicized.

Posted by: Tim Bayly at September 21, 2005 09:19 AM

So it is pastiche Latin. But a useful term nontheless. Thanks for the link to the Mathison article. It would probably be good to follow his practice of not italicizing "solo" as if it were a Latin rather than an English word.

 

[shernren]

Creationists like touting the fact that they have a "common sense interpretation". Well we have a common sense interpretation too ... we think evolution is common sense, and we think it should be so for all people.

Seriously, though, I still don't understand how solo Scriptura is supposed to work. Okay, I read a portion of Scripture. How do I know what it means? The solo Scriptura position seems to say that Scripture's meaning will magically appear to me as the simplest and most common-sensical interpretation. But does that really mean Scripture alone is being interpreted?

Firstly, Scripture is written in words, and words need the context of both language and reality to make any sense. "lkjret" and "sinner" are both "words", but one isn't found in the dictionary and doesn't symbolize anything from reality. Words only have meaning when they function in the context of a generally understood and accepted language framework, and when they are universally connected to real-world concepts. And yet neither the language framework nor the real-world concept is provided by Scripture. So there are already two extra-Biblical layers of interpretation whenever you read Scripture: the dictionary and the real world.

Furthermore, there is the problem of "common sense". What does "common sense" mean? And doesn't it come from outside the Bible as well? I remember katarn on the scientific myth thread quoting the scripture where Jesus says that Pharisees devour widow's houses, and then saying that "by common sense" since Pharisees can't eat houses Jesus must be talking figuratively. But what is common sense other than science? After all, the fact that Pharisees don't eat houses is a biological fact to do with the specific adaptations of their digestive systems.

So solo Scriptura isn't that solo after all, eh. Which brings me back to where I started. TEism is a common sense way of interpreting the Bible ... it just accepts that evolution is common sense.

(Come to think of it, perhaps YECism has also brought pre-conceived notions to the Bible ... as TEs believe before reading the Bible that evolution is true, perhaps YECism arrives at its proclaimedly foundational reading by assuming before reading the Bible that evolution is false. Interesting avenue to explore.)

 

[shernren]

On a completely different tangent:

Just finished reading Possession: A Romance by A. S. Byatt. Powerful book about two modern scholars of Victorian poetry who find a surprising link between the two poets they are studying, Henry Randolph Ash and Christabel LaMotte, who had an affair and even an illegitimate child together, as documented in letters discovered by the scholars to the surprise of the literary world.

The surprising thing is that Henry Randolph Ash and Christabel LaMotte's poems and letters are completely written by A. S. Byatt. That last sentence was very difficult to construct because there were so many ways I could have said it which would have been wrong. "Ash and LaMotte were not real people"? But they seem entirely real to Byatt (at least in the course of writing), to me the reader, and they are real to the people in the microcosm of the novel. "Ash and LaMotte weren't really born in the Victorian era"? But their thoughts and their poetry are completely derivative of Victorian-era thoughts and Victorian-era poetry, so much that it was difficult for me to believe upon research that the Victorian lines were penned by a post-modernist writer. "Ash and LaMotte are completely fictional"? But like I said they seem so real and in a sense are real people, if people who live only in Byatt's representation of Victorian literature.

An accompanying paper on using Possession to teach the theory of interpretation and how it is impossible to "just read" - or in YEC terms take "at face value" / take "the most plain / literal interpretation": http://www.as.ysu.edu/~english/cea/Whitsitt.htm

I think the parallels to interpreting Scripture as myth are obvious. What does it really mean for a person to be "real", what does it mean for a person to be given a history and genealogy? Interpreting Scripture in such a post-modern manner is dangerous, I agree. But at least we are aware that we are interpreting it. It is far more dangerous to interpret Scripture as modernist literature and forget that we are being interpreters as well as readers.

 

[chaoschristian]

They took John Henry to the White House,
And buried him in the san',
And every locomotive come roarin' by,

Says there lays that steel drivin' man,
Says there lays that steel drivin' man.

Along a similar vein, my dad was telling me about a History Channel show he saw about the legend of John Henry. One very interesting and pertinent element is that in one version of the John Henry folks song, as cited above, there is mention of his body being taken to the White House and buried in sand. This has puzzled people for some time, because historically, it simply is not true. There is no steel driving black man buried in sand on the grounds of the White House in Washington, DC.​

But wait, upon further examination of the most probable site where this story may have taken place, it turns out there was a large, white house, used by the Baltimore & Ohio railroad, and that indeed there are common graves there filled with sand.​

So, the white house mentioned in the song is not the one we would think of first, the one in DC, but another white house that while not historically significant to the culture writ large was very important to the people creating and singing the song.​

Now, does this discovery prove the John Henry legend to be definitively true? Probably not. But it is another example of how not investigating the original context of a piece of literature can lead to some erroneous interpretations.​