FWIW
Someone recently asked me a number of questions in an LJ community, so I thought I would share my answers here -- since they capture my perspective on certain issues that commonly concern those who appropach matters of faith somewhat thoughtfully.
Would you say that biblical interpretation, using these means, is an inexact science?
I would push back on the formulation of this question, since it implies something about the possibility of an "exact" science. It also suggests some categorical difference between how we interpret biblical texts and how we understand language generally -- which I have already shown you I tend to resist.
From an epistemic perspective, my assertion would be that all knowledge is metaphorical and narrative. When I was younger, for example, I was taught a scientific truth regarding the fundamental composition of matter. This fundamental composition entailed these units call "atoms" that looked like little solar systems, complete with little planet-like spheres orbiting a sun-like center itself comprised of little spheres.
This scientific truth, of course, is not "exactly" true at all. It is sufficiently true to enable engineers to incinerate large numbers of civilians and to generate sufficient electrical power to prosecute the material agenda of our present civilization. But the building blocks of the cosmos do not resemble tiny solar systems at all. And, in fact, the Bohr model of matter is as illusory as a table or a chair. But it is a metaphor that works for what it works for.
We can therefore conclude that inexactitude and incompleteness of knowledge are not especially problematic in the context of a given purpose -- and that they do not inherently negate any such purpose.
When one refers to an inerrant bible, are we saying that our interpretations of the bible will provide us with inerrant truth, or that the bible is inerrant, even if we only best-guess what it might mean? Or something else?
I suppose this depends on the speaker. The construction "inerrant bible" is rather loaded and not very useful to start with. A more coherent position is that the canon is trustworthy for that for which it is meant to be trustworthy when it is interpreted in a trustworthy manner. Texts do not have any meaning whatsoever apart from the reading thereof. In this regard, scripture is no different from Shakespeare or this blog entry. I certainly try to think and write with sufficient clarity so that you can have the most reliable possible access to my intended meaning. But you can also certainly interpret this comment in some disordered manner. That misinterpretation may be trivially disordered, fully disordered or something in between. But all relational transactions are inherently nuanced. I am not sure why we want to separate our encounter with scripture from this pervasive reality.
Jesus seems to have chosen parable and metaphor to draw people beyond literalism on some issues. He can seem enigmatic at times, because he knows all the mystery of the godhead, and words and literalism only take us so far.
Yes, well some people would claim that anything less than a ten-minute Power-Point presentation consisting entirely of bullet lists and diagrams is "enigmatic." Jesus uses narrative and metaphor because communication itself is inherently narrative and metaphorical. And His metaphors are not ones of mere opportunity. He actually designed the cosmos from the ground up to be semiotic -- starting with light itself.
Would you say that biblical interpretation, using these means, is an inexact science?
I would push back on the formulation of this question, since it implies something about the possibility of an "exact" science. It also suggests some categorical difference between how we interpret biblical texts and how we understand language generally -- which I have already shown you I tend to resist.
From an epistemic perspective, my assertion would be that all knowledge is metaphorical and narrative. When I was younger, for example, I was taught a scientific truth regarding the fundamental composition of matter. This fundamental composition entailed these units call "atoms" that looked like little solar systems, complete with little planet-like spheres orbiting a sun-like center itself comprised of little spheres.
This scientific truth, of course, is not "exactly" true at all. It is sufficiently true to enable engineers to incinerate large numbers of civilians and to generate sufficient electrical power to prosecute the material agenda of our present civilization. But the building blocks of the cosmos do not resemble tiny solar systems at all. And, in fact, the Bohr model of matter is as illusory as a table or a chair. But it is a metaphor that works for what it works for.
We can therefore conclude that inexactitude and incompleteness of knowledge are not especially problematic in the context of a given purpose -- and that they do not inherently negate any such purpose.
When one refers to an inerrant bible, are we saying that our interpretations of the bible will provide us with inerrant truth, or that the bible is inerrant, even if we only best-guess what it might mean? Or something else?
I suppose this depends on the speaker. The construction "inerrant bible" is rather loaded and not very useful to start with. A more coherent position is that the canon is trustworthy for that for which it is meant to be trustworthy when it is interpreted in a trustworthy manner. Texts do not have any meaning whatsoever apart from the reading thereof. In this regard, scripture is no different from Shakespeare or this blog entry. I certainly try to think and write with sufficient clarity so that you can have the most reliable possible access to my intended meaning. But you can also certainly interpret this comment in some disordered manner. That misinterpretation may be trivially disordered, fully disordered or something in between. But all relational transactions are inherently nuanced. I am not sure why we want to separate our encounter with scripture from this pervasive reality.
Jesus seems to have chosen parable and metaphor to draw people beyond literalism on some issues. He can seem enigmatic at times, because he knows all the mystery of the godhead, and words and literalism only take us so far.
Yes, well some people would claim that anything less than a ten-minute Power-Point presentation consisting entirely of bullet lists and diagrams is "enigmatic." Jesus uses narrative and metaphor because communication itself is inherently narrative and metaphorical. And His metaphors are not ones of mere opportunity. He actually designed the cosmos from the ground up to be semiotic -- starting with light itself.