SCRIPTURAL ORCHARD -- Ways to Interpret Scripture ... ... by Enoch, with comments from Bob Nelson
There are some who opine that all Scripture is to be taken literally 100% of the time. The purpose of this article is not to detract from so doing for those who favor it. Neither is it to disrespect those who adhere to this view. Rather it is to present what are problems with its use, and provide one of a number of viable alternatives.
Taking all Scripture literally faces the following challenges. There are contradictions, or things which seem inconsistent in texts. There are also things which can be interpreted in such a variety of ways with more or less equal justification that there is a coherence problem. Next, there are statements which, if taken literally do not correspond to known facts from non-religious activities (science, for example). It helps where there is a match between science and religion (archeological proofs of things referred to in Scripture). If what appears does not provide insights into things we don’t know, or point us in that general direction there is a lack of utility value beyond the basic points made. Pragmatic value increases the worth of an anthology.
I'll jump in once in a while, like here... Bob
I am a maniac about "words". They have meanings, and we must be careful to employ the same meanings for the words we exchange... or we cannot possibly understand each other. In this article, Enoch will build a case for a method of "exegesis", which is defined by Webster as "an explanation or critical interpretation of a text". There's another word that we must have in mind: "eisegesis", which Webster defines as "the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas". You see the difference, I hope, and the danger!
There are texts and anthologies of texts which should be read and are specifically written to be read literally. Technical manuals for mechanical and electronic repair are good examples of this. Devotional literatures, such as Scriptural anthologies (TaNaCh, Talmud, Siddur, Machzor, Kitzer Schulchan Aruch, Bible, Koran, Upanishads, etc.) are not technical manuals. They are guidelines for living.
Taking the Bible to be both inerrant and literal leads to inextricable contradictions. They can only be resolved by considering God to be a trickster, and I don't really think that's where anyone wants to go. So let's roll with "guidelines for living".
Like all great devotional anthologies, literary devices other than pure exposition are used to make points impossible to provide in totally literal writing and reading.
The enduring and appealing nature of such documents owes at least as much to their flaws (inconsistency, incoherence, lack of correspondence, and limitations of pragmatic value for new insights) as to their strengths.
Beauty is not the same as perfection, and neither is an absolute measure of value. This is true in the plastic arts: Rodin's Thinker is a magnificent work of art... but it is neither beautiful nor perfect. I don't think anyone would claim that any work of literature is "perfect", and yet we find beauty and cause for thought there...
This is so because devotional anthologies must appeal globally, timelessly, multi-culturally, and in shifting sands scenarios of living and life. Over millennia, weaknesses become strengths for sustainability.
One alternative for use in interpreting Scriptural, and for that matter any non-technical manual literature is the use of the method of Pardes . In Hebrew, the term “pardes” means orchard. Seen as an acronym, the letters Peh (p), Reish (r), Dalet (d) and Samach (s) spell pardes. The letters refer to four different ways to interpret Scripture.
Written Hebrew usually omits vowels -- so does Arabic, by the way. It's an economical way to write, and doesn't mess up understanding... too much... most of the time...
If we did the same in English, "wmn" would easily understood as "woman" or "women" and the number is probably available by context. "Cnnn" is a "cannon", while "cnn" is "canon", which can be even more explosive! And so on.
The problem, of course, is that sometimes the vowel-less word is ambiguous. What is "wn"? It might be "wan", "wen", "win" "won"... "wine", "wane"... "wino"... Context usually clarifies the meaning... but only "usually"... .
So "prds" is the same word as "pardes". Since I don't speak Hebrew, I don't know if substituting other vowels creates other words... It would be cool if "orchard" could be read as some other significant word!
The Peh (p) is for "Peshat". This is literal interpretation. Sometimes it is necessary and important that things be interpreted exactly as written to avoid confusion.
For example, one of the Ten Commandments is "not to murder". Note it is not "not to kill". The commandment is "Lo Tirzach" from the verb stem Lirtzoach. That means "don’t murder". If it had been "don't kill", it would have been written Lo Tararog from the verb stem Laharog. That means "don’t kill".
Uh-oh!
I was raised on the King James Version of the Bible, which was created early in the 17th Century on the orders of King James VI / I, in an attempt to mollify both Puritan-leaners and Catholic-leaners. It used copies (of copies of copies of copies... ) of ancient sources in Hebrew, Aramlaic, Greek, and Latin.
The language of the KJV is unarguably majestic, and within a century the KJV pretty much crowded out all other translations. It has remained a standard, still used by over half of American Christians, and some sects go so far as to contend that it is divinely inspired, and therefore the only valid version. The KJV renders the 7th Commandment as "Thou shalt not kill".
There are several modern versions, some of which are regularly updated as newly discovered source material appears. The New Revised Standard Version / NRSV (which seems to be the best compromise currently on the market) was produced in 1989 under the impulsion of the National Council of Churches. Its translation was mandated to be “As literal as possible, as free as necessary.” It gives the 7th Commandment as "You shall not murder."
Did I just say that more than half of American Christians use a version of the Bible that we know is wrong on some translations? Yes. That is exactly what I said.
Why is this literal interpretation important, as well as the word choice upon which it rests? In both cases there will be taking of life.
Murder is with the intent of an act of aggression for gain or out of hatred. Examples are murdering anyone to steal what is theirs, murdering someone as a hate crime because you don’t like their religion, race, ethnicity, gender, national origin, economic status, intimacy orientation etc.
Killing is the taking of life for an act of defense. It may be done to protect one self, family, community, nation etc.
If the only way to prevent the use of lethal force against innocent people is to take life, it is not only permissible, it is ethically mandatory. The blameless should never suffer more than the nefarious.
The verbs Lirtzoach and Laharog are never used interchangeably in Scripture. Knowing when to and when not to take life is dependent on a literal interpretation in the original language of the Ten Commandments. This plays out universally in other Scriptures for when to interpret things literally.
Another example which gets to correspondence to known facts is to be found in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first page of TaNaCh. “Bahraysheet bara Elohim, et ha shemayim veh et haaretz”. "In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth".
Note it did not say, "at first" but rather "in the beginning". It was written, Bahraysheet, not Bahrishon. Beginning and at first are not used interchangeably in Scripture. Why does this matter?
It is important because Biblically this is not the first creation. It is the beginning of a new era. Editors of Scriptural anthology did not track time as do we today. That there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the universe is older than 6,000 or so tracked years on the Jewish calendar, for example is not incompatible with numerical temporal calculations versus carbon dating of the Big Bang. Following the flood of Noah, (also see Gilgamesh Epic) there was a new beginning and time tracking. Calendars, like computers get reset or rebooted when events articulating history merit them. This hasn’t anything to do with age of stars, etc. This is why in the beginning was used, instead of at first. The universe contains different aged components.
Many societies, throughout human history, have marked time from the beginning of the reign of the current monarch. Every new ruler brought a new calendar, a "new beginning".
Christians mark time from the birth of Christ... their own "new beginning".
What other options have we for Scriptural interpretation besides merely literal? How do they function, and what are their advantages for us in understanding all relevant and possible meanings in Scripture?
Remez (Reish, r) is allegorical story telling, or narrative interpretation. There are many parallelisms and repetitions in Scripture. These are literary devices to convey meaning. Here are some examples.
There are two version of Creation in Bareysheet (Genesis). Why two? Because it is important enough to emphasize that the question of our origins is always of interest to us. There is a saying among Yemenite Jews. “Min ha Avar, Ateednu Yephtach”. From the past derives our future.
Knowing from where we came helps us to point to where we are going. Often multiple accounts of the same story helps us to recall them, shows their value, and also provides the same events from more than one perspective. That alone is very instructive. Many things in life can be seen in more than one way, with equal justification. Learning how to live well is in part dependent on learning that lesson early on.
Knowing from where we came helps us to point to where we are going. Often multiple accounts of the same story helps us to recall them, shows their value, and also provides the same events from more than one perspective. That alone is very instructive. Many things in life can be seen in more than one way, with equal justification. Learning how to live well is in part dependent on learning that lesson early on.
Another example of repetition for emphasis is the Torah quotation Tzedek, Tzedek Tirdof. “Justice, Justice shall you pursue”. See Shofetim (Judges) {Deuteronomy} 16:20.
Justice is written twice. This is to call attention that justice is important.
Many stories in Scriptures are there to make non-literal points. A good story is also more interesting than a dry literal narrative. We all prefer novels to technical manuals when relaxing at home with a book.
Metushelach (Methuselah) did not live 900 years. But with age come experience, perspective and wisdom. His age was exaggerated to show how wise he was. There is a learning curve to life. Societies who venerate their elderly do better over time than those who disrespect them.
Numbers in Scripture make vastly more sense when not always taken literally. The point here has to do with the use of literary devices.
Repetition and exaggeration are found wherever stories are told. The stories we tell our children are full of both.
The Fairy Godmother doesn't change just Cinderella's gown, but also her coach, and her horses, and of course her slippers. Each repetition of the Fairy Godmother's magic raises the children's enchantment.
How tall did Jack's beanstalk grow? How did Babe the Blue Ox create the Great Lakes?
As adults, we remain fascinated by "The Right Stuff". There are so many "comic book hero" films these days thay I, for one, cannot keep them straight. If real-life heroes like Lewis and Clark, or Neil Armstrong are not enough, then we have Natty Bumpo, "The Martian", and Captain Ahab. "Bigger than life".
Just because a story isn't true doesn't mean that it isn't "true".
=========================================================
To be continued
Red Box Rules and the Four B's Apply.
- Be respectful,
- Be on-point,
- Be positive, or
- Be Gone!
This said, please do offer your views, original and those of your heritage.
As this is up, both of us, as time allows will respond as we feel necessary to those who post.
To those who take the time out of their busy lives, I want them to know we appreciate, value and welcome their input.
It they feel good about themselves, what they believe, happy they came, and knowing more than when they entered we are doing our jobs right.
Tags
Who is online
240 visitors
I am enchanted to collaborate with Enoch, despite his being far more knowledgeable about the Bible. I'll try not to fall on my face.
My wife and I are leaving in a few hours for Paris, and then onward tomorrow to Helsinki for the first round of the men's European Basketball Tournament. (We often follow both les Bleus and les Bleues -- men and women). I'll be using an Android tablet for the next week... but I promise to keep up with this article if nothing else!
I am deeply honored and delighted to co-author this serial set of monographs with our good friend Bob Nelson.
He brings to the table of this discussion his own full, rich, proud faith tradition as only Bob can.
It always adds to constructive discourse when people of good faith, in an atmosphere of mutual respect, fellowship and erudition each bring to the fore what their heritage and original ideas are.
Bob and I look forward to your contributions in this topic of great mutual interest to so many.
This is a set of installments on a subtle, complex difficult topic.
We all need to put on our thinking caps, and reason together for the greater good.
Red Box Rules and the Four B's (Be Respectful, Be Positive, Be On-Point; or Be Gone)!
We need these guidelines so that everyone feels free to participate with no fear of being belittled or shouted down.
That said, we do encourage you to help us learn from you, your traditions and unique personal perspectives.
Peace, Abundant Blessings to Each and Everyone.
New arrivals at the news talkers are most welcome in this, as in all other discussion threads fellow news talkers and I author and co-author.
Baruchim Ha Baheem (Come in With Blessings).
Enoch.
For natives like myselif, we find it difficult to understand the how and whys of the bible. Was it not written and rewritten by man. Did any of the authors ever speak to God? Does not man interpret the bible to fit his own narrative?.
What is the need to build ornate building, statues and the like. Does not God give us the beauty of nature which no man can equal.
Our ''religion'' is one that does not believe in original sin nor in the preaching of man who claims to know what God wants.
It is simple for us, Gitchi Manitou (the great mystery) is our understanding. It has no gender nor color, it passes no laws nor does it condone or parise our actions. We built no monuments to it. We do not demand that it be worshiped on a special day of the week nor how we are to communicate if at all to the great mystery.
Unlike most religions (Jewish religion excepted) we do not proselytise or need missionaries to convert the non believers.
Our experience with Christianity has been one of repression and forced conversion. It is best to remember that it wasn't until 1978 that Indians were allowed to have their own religion...So much for freedom of religion in the U.S. It is also best to remember the ''Indian Boarding Schools'' that beat our beliefs out of us. The last closed in the 1980's in the U.S.
What Natives received from God....The papal bulls of the 15th century. Which the Catholic Church has never rescinded.
The words of Red Jacket ring true today as they did in 1805.
Red Jacket Defends Native American Religion, 1805
by Red Jacket
The Senecas, members of the Iroquois Confederacy, fought on the side of the British in the American Revolution. Red Jacket, also known as Sagoyewatha, was a chief and orator born in eastern New York; he derived his English name from his habit of wearing many red coats provided to him by his British allies. After the hostilities, as the British ceded their territories to the Americans, the Senecas and many other Indian peoples faced enormous pressure on their homelands. Red Jacket was a critical mediator in relations between the new U.S. government and the Senecas; he led a delegation that met with George Washington in 1792, when he received a peace medal that appeared in subsequent portraits of the Indian leader. In 1805 a Boston missionary society requested Red Jacket’s permission to proselytize among the Iroquois settlements in northern New York State. Red Jacket’s forceful defense of native religion, below, caused the representative to refuse the Indian’s handshake and announce that no fellowship could exist between the religion of God and the works of the Devil.
Friend and brother; it was the will of the Great Spirit that we should meet together this day. He orders all things, and he has given us a fine day for our council. He has taken his garment from before the sun, and caused it to shine with brightness upon us; our eyes are opened, that we see clearly; our ears are unstopped, that we have been able to hear distinctly the words that you have spoken; for all these favors we thank the Great Spirit, and him only.
Brother, this council fire was kindled by you; it was at your request that we came together at this time; we have listened with attention to what you have said. You requested us to speak our minds freely; this gives us great joy, for we now consider that we stand upright before you, and can speak what we think; all have heard your voice, and all speak to you as one man; our minds are agreed.
Brother, you say you want an answer to your talk before you leave this place. It is right you should have one, as you are a great distance from home, and we do not wish to detain you; but we will first look back a little, and tell you what our fathers have told us, and what we have heard from the white people.
Brother, listen to what we say. There was a time when our forefathers owned this great island. Their seats extended from the rising to the setting sun. The Great Spirit had made it for the use of Indians. He had created the buffalo, the deer, and other animals for food. He made the bear and the beaver, and their skins served us for clothing. He had scattered them over the country, and taught us how to take them. He had caused the earth to produce corn for bread. All this he had done for his red children because he loved them. If we had any disputes about hunting grounds, they were generally settled without the shedding of much blood. But an evil day came upon us; your forefathers crossed the great waters, and landed on this island. Their numbers were small; they found friends, and not enemies; they told us they had fled from their own country for fear of wicked men, and come here to enjoy their religion. They asked for a small seat; we took pity on them, granted their request, and they sat down amongst us; we gave them corn and meat; they gave us poison in return. The white people had now found our country; tidings were carried back, and more came amongst us; yet we did not fear them, we took them to be friends; they called us brothers; we believed them, and gave them a larger seat. At length, their numbers had greatly increased; they wanted more land; they wanted our country. Our eyes were opened, and our minds became uneasy. Wars took place; Indians were hired to fight against Indians, and many of our people were destroyed. They also brought strong liquor among us; it was strong and powerful, and has slain thousands.
Brother, our seats were once large, and yours were very small; you have now become a great people, and we have scarcely a place left to spread our blankets; you have got our country, but are not satisfied; you want to force your religion upon us.
Brother, continue to listen. You say you are sent to instruct us how to worship the Great Spirit agreeably to his mind, and if we do not take hold of the religion which you white people teach, we shall be unhappy hereafter. You say that you are right, and we are lost; how do we know this to be true? We understand that your religion is written in a book; if it was intended for us as well as you, why has not the Great Spirit given it to us, and not only to us, but why did he not give to our forefathers the knowledge of that book, with the means of understanding it rightly? We only know what you tell us about it. How shall we know when to believe, being so often deceived by the white people?
Brother, you say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit; if there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agree, as you can all read the book?
Brother, we do not understand these things. We are told that your religion was given to your forefathers, and has been handed down from father to son. We also have a religion which was given to our forefathers, and has been handed down to us their children. We worship that way. It teacheth us to be thankful for all the favors we receive; to love each other, and to be united. We never quarrel about religion.
Brother, the Great Spirit has made us all; but he has made a great difference between his white and red children; he has given us a different complexion, and different customs; to you he has given the arts; to these he has not opened our eyes; we know these things to be true. Since he has made so great a difference between us in other things, why may we not conclude that he has given us a different religion according to our understanding. The Great Spirit does right; he knows what is best for his children; we are satisfied.
Brother, we do not wish to destroy your religion, or take it from you; we only want to enjoy our own.
Brother, you say you have not come to get our land or our money, but to enlighten our minds. I will now tell you that I have been at your meetings, and saw you collecting money from the meeting. I cannot tell what this money was intended for, but suppose it was for your minister; and if we should conform to your way of thinking, perhaps you may want some from us.
Brother, we are told that you have been preaching to the white people in this place. These people are our neighbors; we are acquainted with them; we will wait, a little while and see what effect your preaching has upon them. If we find it does them good, makes them honest and less disposed to cheat Indians, we will then consider again what you have said.
Brother, you have now heard our answer to your talk, and this is all we have to say at present. As we are going to part, we will come and take you by the hand, and hope the Great Spirit will protect you on your journey, and return you safe to your friends.
Source: Daniel Drake, Lives of Celebrated American Indians, Boston, Bradbury, Soden & Co. 1843), 283–87.
K,
Was it not written and rewritten by man?
Obviously. No one imagines God with a ball-point pen.
But! The question simply slips a step, to become, "Did God inspire the writer?" The answer is now, "Yes, of course!" ... but to what extent? "Inspiration" could be anything from word-by-word dictation to a vague light at the end of a tunnel of personal doubt.
There were many writers, sometimes several under a single pen name. They had differing political and theological agendas, which scholars can identify in the texts. Either God was schizophrenic back then, or He didn't mind a little variety in the books that people wrote about Him.
Did any of the authors ever speak to God?
What do you mean by "speak to God"? Do your spiritual leaders not commune with the divine? Is prayer "speaking to God"?
I think "Did God ever speak to the authors?" is a more interesting question. We are witness to conversations between OT prophets and God... but are we to take then as real-world events, or as debates raging within the mind and spirit?
Paul claimed to have been stuck by a great illumination (literal and figurative) on the road to Damascus. It's one of the reasons I have my doubts about him. Hysterical auto-hypnosis would give exactly the same effect -- televangelists make millions off it. Perhaps if I had experienced something similar, I would have no doubts... but I have not.
I'm sorry that I cannot give you a straight answer... but...
Does not man interpret the bible to fit his own narrative?
***sigh*** Yes and no... There's no point in having "guidelines for living" as Enoch says, if we aren't going to try to apply them to our lives... and we're probably going to have to interpret at least a bit to make a three-thousand-year-old text applicable today.
OTOH, we must beware "interpreting" to the point that we turn "up" into "down".
I'm a fan of "KISS": Keep It Simple, Stupid!"
Christ said, "Love one another." That's enough. No interpretation needed.
Dear Friend and Treasured Writing Partner Bob Nelson: Superlative response.
We are grateful.
A few minor notes to augment your excellent narrative.
Scriptures are recorded and edited by humanity.
Are they Divinely Inspired Only?
Was there an actual giving of revelation by G-d directly to man?
All good questions.
"Torah Moshe Mee Siani, Mee Peh El".
The Torah was given to all Jewish People for all time through Moses on Sinai directly by the hand and mouth of G-d Himself. So opines my heritage.
There are 613 Commandments in the Torah. Were we Jewish People the first to get them?
There are cuniform clay and metallic tablets from the Code of Hammurabi in Sumaria dating back 10,000 years.
There is no archeological evidence that there were Jewish People, or that that was any contact between Sumarians when they existed and those from whom Jewish People descended and lived thousands of years later elsewhere.
That said, there is documentation that 93% of Torah Laws are found in the code of Hammurabi.
The Gilgamesh Epic is almost identical in main points to the Flood of Noach (Noah) story.
Howe can one account for these tings operating independently of each other over such space and time divides if they only came from humans?
Does G-d keep searching for those who will accept and live by His eternal Immutable Perfect and Self Fulfilling Laws?
Is part of being a Chosen People choosing to follow the Divine commandments?
There are all valid inquiries.
Another great issue you raised is contact between G-d and us mortals.
Prayer is a good place to look.
There are essentially two kinds of prayer in my heritage.
Prayers of Praise. "Kadosh Kadosh Kadosh Adonai Tzevaoth. Ma'aleh Col ha Atretz Cavodoh".
"Holy holy holy is the L-rd of hosts. His Glory covers all the lands".
This communication is a typical form of prayer praise.
So is the Kaddish D'Rebbanan.
It is said at funerals, and on the anniversary of the passing from this to the next life.
There are two types of angels. Cherubim and Seraphim.
One sings the praises of G-d in Heaven for eternity.
The other conveys messages from G-d to humanity, individually or collectively.
Another type of prayer is a prayer of request.
Hannah was barren. She wanted a child to live a full life.
She requested such form G-d in prayer.
Unlike most request prayers, she promised to dedicate the life of any child granted her by G-d to His service.
She is our role model for prayers of request in Judaism. The prayer should show how its granting would be used for good.
Her petition was accepted.
She named the infant Shmuel (Lishol meh El - One asked of G-d).
In English that name is Samuel.
Samuel did indeed live his life servicing G-d.
Both types of prayer, praise and request have one common theme.
It is communication.
We communicate with G-d through prayer.
Individually and collectively.
In Congregations, at home, in the woods. Anywhere in the creation it is acceptable to communicate with G-d, our Creator.
Super points Bob.
We are indebted.
Hopefully others will come and share their wisdom.
Peace and Abundant Blessings to One and All.
Enoch.
Dear Friend and Brother Kavika: Thanks for sharing this perspective.
Red Jacket was indeed a profound, deep cogitator and wise man.
I am glad you posted his famous speech here.
Peripherals can divide.
Your and my heritages have more in common than separates us.
This we know from things you and I co-authored, Raven Wing and I co-authored; etc.
Peace, Abundant Blessings to You and Yours Always. Unto the Thousandth Generation.
Enoch.