Re: Literalism [discussion of Mark and Michael] Fascinating Example [Ear became Body]
Here's what James Barr has to say (p142-143 of 'Escaping from Fundamentalism'). [writing about the evangelical claim that no textual error affects a point of doctrine] Now the Septuagint is a work of epoch-making importance, the first full-scale translation of a body of works like the Old Testament to be made on this scale and in a scope that involves languages as different as Hebrew and Greek and cultural milieus as different as the Jewish and the Hellenistic. But, under the circumstances, it was not surprisingly, as a translation, a work of very mixed quality. It differed from book to book, since different techniques of translation were used; at some places it must have had a Hebrew text different from ours, while at others it seriously misread or misunderstood the Hebrew. No scholar who knows the material doubts that this is so. But this makes a difference when we consider the New Testament. For it does not only use the Septuagint in a general way: it often uses the exact ductus of its words as argument or proof of a theological point. *** MOST FASCINATING EXAMPLE}*** Take this passage: Consequently, when he came into the world, he said, 'Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired, but a BODY [emphasis added] hast thou prepared for me.. .' (Heb. 10.5). The passage, which continues for another few lines, is a quotation from Ps. 40.7ff. In the Hebrew, which is translated in our English Bibles, we find: Sacrifice and offering thou dost not desire but thou hast given me an open EAR [emph added]... (Ps. 40.6). The RSV margin adds: (Heb.) EARS thou hast dug for me, which is a literal rendering of the Hebrew; the RSV has used thou hast given me an OPEN EAR , presumably as a rendering that gives the general meaning better while avoiding the rather harsh diction of the Hebrew (as it appears, at least, in English). Now the whole point of the quotation in Hebrews is that it mentions the preparation of a BODY for the Christ coming into the world; the writer, at the culmination of his argument, comes back to exactly this: And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the BODY of Jesus Christ once for all (Heb. 10.10). But there was nothing about a body in the original Hebrew, nothing at all. It is often said to be a mistranslation but it seems more likely that it was a mere copying error in the transmission of the Greek text. The best editions of the Septuagint have 'but EARS you prepared for me', which at least in regard to the noun is a correct and exact rendering of the Hebrew. The words as quoted in Hebrews came from a copying error. The word was 'EARS', Greek otia, written in uncial script (like capitals). The s at the end of the previous word was read twice, and the ti in the middle was read as the single letter m, producing the word SOMA 'BODY'. Thus, to sum up, the word was 'EARS' in the Hebrew, was correctly translated into Greek as 'EARS', but in the transmission of the Greek came to be misread and then wrongly copied as SOMA 'BODY'. This mistaken reading was then used by the letter to the Hebrews; it was also, supported by the use of it in Hebrews, transmitted in many manuscripts of the Greek Psalms. Thus, even if some details of this explanation may be questioned, there is no doubt that Hebrews was proving a point of DOCTRINE, and a point of central importance in its argument, from a word that did not exist at all in the Hebrew Bible and was the straightforward product of an error in transmission. The matter was theologically important: for it was the question whether there was in scripture (that is, in the Old Testament) a previous reference to the clothing of the Christ in a BODY of incarnation with sacrificial scope. This difficult demonstration is accomplished entirely through the appeal to the verbal form of an erroneous text. In this case, then, far from the inspiration of scripture leading to a uniquely good preservation of the text, it is the faulty preservation of the original inspired text that has been essential for the production of the second inspired text. This does not mean that there is any element of falsification in the argument of Hebrews: it does mean that matters of doctrinal importance have arisen from accidental or erroneous factors in the transmission of scripture. James Barr [end of quotation] http://www.errantyears.com/1997/sep97/000589.html http://www.christis.org.uk/archive/issue46/god_breathed_scripture.php God Breathed Scripture ...To begin with we need to consider what the passage does not say. Firstly, there is no mention of any idea of inerrancy or infallibility of scripture. There is no mention about whether all historical statements within scripture are accurate. We could argue, of course, that there is an implication of the above. After all, as the Bible is inspired by God it has to be inerrant and infallible. This may well be the case but there is no explicit mention of this sort of idea. In fact, it is
Re: Literalism [discussion of Mark and Michael] Fascinating Example [Ear became Body]
Khazeh, I enjoyed reading your latest postings on this subject, and I have saved your reference materials. It seems to me that we should also be able to take these critiques of biblical verbal inerrancy and its variants, which most educated Baha'is would probably accept, and apply them to Baha'i texts. Of course, there would need to be some modifications based on their substantiated authorships. Mark A. Foster * http://MarkFoster.net http://CompuServe.m.foster.name -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
Re: Literalism
Don, At 09:31 PM 9/28/03 -0600, you wrote: Which is part of the reason why it is difficult to discuss things like world peace with some evangelical fundamentalists. Man being intrinsicly flawed thru' the original sin, peace is impossible. Man continue to descend into more profound sinfullness; and eventually God will get fed up and destroy creation. (or at least the earth.) Very depressing perspective when you can not see yourself as one of the 144,000 who will be saved. The Jehovah's Witnesses regard the 144,000 as the those *true* Christians, based on their own theology, who will go to heaven. The meek, the rest of the true Christians, will inherit the earth (obviously not destroyed). Since the 144,000 were already been accounted for 20 years ago, all new converts to the organization are presumed to be among the meek. The Watch Tower Society also believes that all non-Christians will be instantaneously consumed in a lake of fire. There is no Jehovah's Witness doctrine of eternal hellfire, as understood by most Christian fundamentalists and neo-evangelicals. Do you know of a denomination which believes that only 144,000 will be saved? Mark A. Foster * http://MarkFoster.net http://CompuServe.m.foster.name -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
Re: Literalism
Dear Mark, Do you know of a denomination which believes that only 144,000 will be saved? I'm not sure that any Christian denomination believes that, though I think some individual Christians do. But I think I know of one other group who believes this - the Covenant-breaker group BUPC. They give their membership as 144,000, which is obviously absurd, but I think I know where they got that number from. Regards, David _ Need more speed? Get Xtra Jetstream @ http://www.xtra.co.nz/products/0,,5803,00.html ! -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
Re: Literalism
David, At 07:09 AM 9/29/03 +, you wrote: They give their membership as 144,000, which is obviously absurd, but I think I know where they got that number from. Yes, the BUPC bases it on the Book of Revelation and on the additive value of the individual digits (9). Mark A. Foster * http://MarkFoster.net http://CompuServe.m.foster.name -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
Re: Literalism
On 9/29/03 1:51 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you know of a denomination which believes that only 144,000 will be saved? I think David's probably right. I actually only know of individuals with this belief, tho' there was some kind of study group spin off from the Jesus People around Drake U. in the 70's that taught something similar to the Jehovah's Witness concept. They were so in-your-face that I couldn't bring myself to find out any details of their beliefs. They kind of disappeared after 4-5 years. Now you get me thinking about it, I haven't met any one here in Great Falls that has espoused that idea. But there were in central Iowa when I left 6 years ago. Perhaps a function of a larger population? It was also a much more popular idea 50 years ago. 6 Years today I left Iowa. And Kay died nearly 3 years ago. Time sure flies when you're not paying attention. Don C - - - - - He who believes himself spiritual proves he is not. -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
Re: Literalism
Don, Moses Berg Correction, either David Berg or Moses David, but not Moses Berg. He actually used both names. Mark A. Foster * http://MarkFoster.net http://CompuServe.m.foster.name -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
Re: Literalism
Hi Mark, I'm sure you are right when you say I'm taking literalism differently to you. You are talking about a whole position/movement/approach to texts, which I don't really know. But I am going to pursue my line anyway. You say that: The key to literalism is not how specific texts are interpreted. That can vary from exegete to exegete and denomination to denomination. The keys are an assumption of isomorphism and a hostility toward higher criticism. Consider the hostility which many Christian fundamentalists exhbiit toward the social sciences. I do not doubt you when you describe literalists' hostility toward higher criticism and social science, and their disinclination to look at the historical context of the texts they are interpreting, and that they feel obliged to take many things as explicit prose. What I do doubt is that there is for Literalists an assumption of isomorphism between words and reality. (Do any of them actually say this, 'We base our interpretive practice on an isomorphism between words and reality'?) At least, I think the savvy literalist would deny any such commitment, and I don't at present see that it could be made to stick. Perhaps though it can still be 'the key' to Literalism. You have read way more of this than me, and perhaps a careful adducing of evidence would and should convince me that in fact Literalists are assuming this. This could be what motivates their interpretive practice and so is the key to it, or some such. But were I convinced of that I would still suspect that they DON'T HAVE TO, in that that they could carry on their interpretive practice much as before without the assumption of isomorphism. Put another way: On the one hand we have a set of interpretive practices - ignoring context etc - and on the other hand we have a doctrine or two about human language. I think the two can be separated, and in that sense the interpretive practices do not assume the doctrines. (One reason I think this is that, as I conveyed in my last post, reading explicit prose as explicit prose is an everyday thing, and does not - or so I claim - assume isomorphism. A savvy Literalist should say. 'You read some things literally. We read this text literally (where it is not stylistically figurative). In so doing we assume no more than you do when you read things literally. If that is the isomorphism between words and reality then so be it.) So, am I right, without the assumption of isomorphism could Literalist's carry on their interpretive practices much as before? If I am right does that contradict your view that isomorphism is the key to literalism? Lastly, you ask: Yes, but what does it mean that something is literally true? Leave aside literally true, I think we all know what true means. We all have the concept of truth. We all use it when we think and use language. Maybe few or none of us understand it, but we all know it. Here I follow the analytical tradition in philosophy (Frege, Wittgenstein, maybe Austin) and take truth as a basic concept by which we understand thought and meaning. It is hard to say anything informative about truth, hard to understand, not because we don't really have a viable concept here, but because it is already presupposed by anything we might say. We might, for instance, say that Words have to be understood in their historical context, and if we think that then we think it is true that words need to be understood in their historical context. Regards William -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
Re: Literalism
Hi, William, At 08:36 AM 9/30/03 +1200, you wrote: What I do doubt is that there is for Literalists an assumption of isomorphism between words and reality. (Do any of them actually say this, 'We base our interpretive practice on an isomorphism between words and reality'?) I doubt in those precise terms. However, the dogma of verbal inerrancy, which is confessed by most fundamentalists (and accepted, often in a watered-down form, by many neo-evangelicals) is basically a God-text isomophism. The premise is that God dictated His ideas, word by word, directly to the biblical authors. Although God may have chosen to make this dictation in the personality of each writer (channel?), it is still God's exact words. One fundamentalist wrote: Christ accepted the verbal inspiration of the Bible - the words, not just the thoughts. http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/bible__Jesus.htm Inspiration means God so directed the writers that, using their individual styles in any way that seemed feasible to them, they produced His very words without error. However, the question now arises: How did God do it? There are various theories of inspiration. The foundation of all these various theories is one key issue: the dual authorship of the Scriptures. On the one hand, God wrote it; on the other hand, man wrote it. http://www.ariel.org/ff00037c.html Verbal inerrancy is the most extreme position on literalism. A less extreme, and controversial, position is superintendence, which asserts that the biblical writers wrote in their own words, but under God's supervision and, where necessary, inspired correction. Either way, the words used are assumed by fundamentalists (not necessarily neo-evangelicals) to literally reflect God's ideas. But were I convinced of that I would still suspect that they DON'T HAVE TO, in that that they could carry on their interpretive practice much as before without the assumption of isomorphism. In that case, they would be neo-evangelicals. There is no love lost between the neo-evangelical movement, represented by the magazine, _Christianity Today_ (which coined the pejorative fundie), and fundamentalism. There is a wise spectrum of beliefs among neo-evangelicals. Some approach fundamentalism (without its extreme separatism). Others are closer to modernism (in encouraging higher criticism). One reason I think this is that, as I conveyed in my last post, reading explicit prose as explicit prose is an everyday thing, and does not - or so I claim - assume isomorphism. If that were all there was to it, no. However, your statement, IMO, puts the cart before the horse and asserts a causal relationship. It is *not* that, to fundamentalists, reading explicit prose as explicit prose assumes isomorphism. Certainly, it is possible to read prose as prose without being a fundamentalist. It *is* that a belief in isomorphism, or what I once called scriptural materialism, leads to reading all prose according to its apparent meaning. A savvy Literalist should say. 'You read some things literally. We read this text literally (where it is not stylistically figurative). In so doing we assume no more than you do when you read things literally. If that is the isomorphism between words and reality then so be it.) Reading some things literally is not necessarily literalism. I generally read the writings of the Guardian and the House of Justice, and the letters respectively written on their behalf, literally, but I do not subscribe to the philosophy of literalism. So, am I right, without the assumption of isomorphism could Literalist's carry on their interpretive practices much as before? I would not agree with that, no. Lastly, you ask: Yes, but what does it mean that something is literally true? Leave aside literally true, I think we all know what true means. By literalism, I mean a combination of two things: verbal inerrancy (or verbal inspiration) and a rejection of context (that letters written to Corinth and Ephesus are meant for all of us, for instance). Mark A. Foster * http://MarkFoster.net http://CompuServe.m.foster.name -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
re LITERALISM
Dear Mark This is my third plea and I write with genuine gratitude and sincerity. You are a good teacher and educator in this field. So let me just on this very rainy and cold day in England ask you further. [As you know truly i understand little of these things. my love is translation etc..] But just to continue for a few minutes more: Please: You write: **Saussure's semiotics was, to my understanding, concerned with relational meaning. For instance, in my Social Problems classes, I distinguish between relational models and comparative models. Comparison is at the root of the multicultural movement, which celebrates difference without engaging in a criticism of the power relations between the represented statuses. An examination of power differentials (social stratification) is a relational study. It could also be called social semiotics (my own term). Likewise, Saussure argued that the meaning a sentence (for instance) has to listeners or readers changes when the gestalt (configuration) of the words (or any signs) is manipulated. Signs only have meaning in relation to other signs. Therefore, by Baha'u'llah placing the Qur'an into a new semiotic framework, He changed its meaning.** Mark: Please help me: How did Baha'u'llah place the Qur'an into a new semiotic framework? Is it the place in the Iqan where He says no one understood it before? ***^^Twelve hundred and eighty years have passed since the dawn of the Muhammadan Dispensation, and with every break of day, these blind and ignoble people have recited their Qur'an, and yet have failed to grasp one letter of that Book! Again and again they read those verses which clearly testify to the reality of these holy themes, and bear witness to the truth of the Manifestations of eternal Glory, and still apprehend not their purpose. (Baha'u'llah: The Kitab-i-Iqan, Page: 172) ^^^ Please tell me. The other thing is this: Give me a practical example: So often, infinite times, a Christian comes to my home and says: In the Gospel is written: 1] John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 2]Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name [other than Jesus] under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. and an orthodox Jewish friend says: similarly: 3] Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Please tell me. How would you with the knowledge of Saussure and Derrida help me in this regard? Is it a bit like the way Baha'u'llah reveals people did not understand it for 1280 years! [in relation to the Qur'an]? There is then a corollary problem for us Baha'is too. Is it not so. 4] Because our flexibility as it were stops when we come to the Interpretations and Elucidations of the Authoritative Interpreters and Elucidator?. We say somehow thus far and no further for the moment at least no further Just think on it for half an hour and help me. I am sorry I missed your face a few years ago in Oxford. You are a great teacher and I am very proud to be taught these very difficult terms and terminology by you. The practical examples above will help. The amazing thing about you is your patience and faithfulness to me [and more pertinently our Community] all these years. Also if there are web sites dealing with these? Have you thought of writing a book to help all of us. OneWorld I am sure will jump at the idea khazeh ever devoted ever humble and hopefully not just lost in the valley of words if the examples above should illuminate our firesides Mark Foster wrote: ***Hi, Khazeh, At 05:53 PM 9/27/03 +0100, you wrote: BUT PLEASE further read these excerpts and tell me what is the point of view of these author? Including the Century of Light authors? There seems to be a conflict...Can you understand any of it? If any one can it must be you Mark. Thanks. Of course. Please take a few minutes and explain the background to me. I will not trouble you again. I promise lol. You can trouble me any time you like. Question: What do you get when you cross Derrida with a member of the Mafia? Answer: Someone making you an offer you can't understand, or refuse! Of course, the assumption is that if you turn down the Mafia, such as a request for protection money, you do so in jeopardy to your own life. The writer was juxtaposing the so-called Mafia with a reference to Derrida, admittedly a difficult writer. It takes several readings of his works to get something of a handle on what he had in mind. Invoking the French linguist Saussure's metaphor of the chessboard, Cole suggests that Baha'u'llah's adducing of Christian scriptures reconfigured the revelatory position of the Qur'an as dispensational rather than final, causing it to look quite different from the traditional Muslim perspective of it. Saussure's semiotics was, to my
Re: re LITERALISM
Hi, Khazeh, At 08:30 AM 9/28/03 +0100, you wrote: How did Baha'u'llah place the Qur'an into a new semiotic framework? Is it the place in the Iqan where He says no one understood it before? I think that what Juan Cole meant is that Baha'u'llah placed Muhammad and the Qur'an into the context of the Baha'i view of progressive Revelation, i.e., the new semiotic framework. Saussure used the chessboard as a metaphor for the **relations** (rather than comparisons), as I discussed in the previous post, between chess pieces of differing statuses and values. In that sense, Baha'u'llah's chessboard might be regarded as His model of the eternal Covenant. Please tell me. How would you with the knowledge of Saussure and Derrida help me in this regard? I don't know how helpful their perspectives would be in directly working with inquirers. It seems to me that, following `Abdu'l-Baha's analogical method, if an inquirer were familiar with, for instance, Saussure, one could bring up his chessboard metaphor as a pedagogical device to explain the Covenant, progressive Revelation, or unity in diversity. If someone else was interested in Derrida, one could speak of the processes of deconstruction and construction (disintegration and integration) referred to by the Guardian. Is it a bit like the way Baha'u'llah reveals people did not understand it for 1280 years! [in relation to the Qur'an]? The new chessboard, so to speak, yes. I am sorry I missed your face a few years ago in Oxford. Thank you. Me, too. I was in Oxford twice. You are a great teacher and I am very proud to be taught these very difficult terms and terminology by you. At least a struggling pupil. The amazing thing about you is your patience and faithfulness to me [and more pertinently our Community] all these years. I just see myself as someone who, like most folks on this list, likes to work with ideas. Also if there are web sites dealing with these? Yes. I am especly familiar with those focusing on Roy Bhaskar's ideas. There are two major ones: http://www.criticalrealism.demon.co.uk and http://www.raggedclaws.com/criticalrealism/ Have you thought of writing a book to help all of us. OneWorld I am sure will jump at the idea I am working on two books, but I haven't finished either of them. I have already published one book, a combination text and reader for freshman (first year) sociology university or college students, through Kendall-Hunt, with two of my colleagues. It is now going into its second printing. In fact, I just received my first pay check from them (not much unfortunately). Mark A. Foster * http://MarkFoster.net http://CompuServe.m.foster.name -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
Re: Literalism
Dear Mark You wrote: Literalism, of course, means the *apparent* meaning. It is a form of naive realism, which, among other things, assumes an exact correspondence between words and reality. Rather than words pointing to certain things, which would be the approach taken by most nominalists, constructionists, postmodernists, and critical realists, naive realists posit that words are isomorphic with reality. I don't see that taking some sentences literally assumes an exact correspondence between words and reality or that words are isomorphic with reality. Therefore I suppose Literalism does not assume it either. My argument: Taking sentences literally means not taking them as metaphor, allegory, figurative, reaching for a meaning beyond words, and such like. My wife tells me It is 7 am and if I take it literally I think she is telling me what time it is, ie, that it is 7 am. I might, however, take it non literally, as saying, say, that we two happy beings live in the morning of the world. I suppose Literalism is the view, with regard to some class of words, say those in the Bible, that we read them literally, and that if taken literally they are true. But this is not to be committed to the views that (a) there is an exact correspondence between words and reality; or (b) that words are isomorphic with reality. IF it is, then I am committed to (a) and (b), and I suppose most everyone is, because I do take a class words as having literal meaning. I wouldn't know how to define this class exactly, but it is most everyday serious sentences I hear and read. For example, my wife saying in the morning It is 7 am, and the sentence in the newspaper: No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. But (in my view) me taking this class of sentences literally does not commits me to (a) and (b). Further, I don't see why the commitments of the literalist with regard to the Bible are any different. So, Mark, what is wrong with my argument? Now allow me to argue against myself. This thought has come to me. Take a couple of unusual sentences: In the beginning was the Word (John's gospel), Time takes a cigarette, puts it in your mouth (David Bowie). You ask a Literalist (with regard to these two sentences): What do they mean? She answers in a certain way, without recourse to metaphor etc, like this: Well, the universe began at some point in time, that was the beginning, and there at the beginning was the Word. And time got hold of a cigarette and put it in someone's mouth, whoever the 'your' refers to. Now you object, That doesn't help because I still don't see what the sentences mean. How can time do anything like put a cigarette in a mouth? I don't understand. Moreover, I don't think you do either. The literalist admits she doesn't really see it either. But, she goes on, There is an exact correspondence between words and reality and words are isomorphic with reality (that correspondence and isomorphism was what my explanation of their meaning was trying to convey), so even though neither you nor I can quite see what these sentences mean, these sentences have a literal meaning. The fault lies not with these words and their relations to reality - exactly corresponding to, isomorphic with - but with our poor brains. Now, I don't buy what my Literalist just said. The main reason is that I don't think she can use (a) and (b) to improve my understanding of these two sentences. But it does seem that someone who wanted to secure the literalness of a class of sentences could try to secure it by (a) and (b). And with some sentences (a) or (b) might be the best, perhaps only, way to secure the existence of their literal meaning. So while I don't think taking some sentences literally implies or assumes (a) and (b), it may be either that some Literalists do accept (a) and (b) just in order to always have literal meanings; or that imputing (a) and (b) to them is the best way of making sense of them taking some kinds of sentences literally. In that case you might say, as you did Mark did, that they assume (a) and (b). But I am not sure that was what you meant. Regards William -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
Re: Literalism
Hi, William, At 08:32 PM 9/28/03 +1200, you wrote: I don't see that taking some sentences literally assumes an exact correspondence between words and reality or that words are isomorphic with reality. Therefore I suppose Literalism does not assume it either. I would not say so if one merely takes some sentences literally. However, please read further. My argument: Taking sentences literally means not taking them as metaphor, allegory, figurative, reaching for a meaning beyond words, and such like. Proponents of literalism are usually willing to take certain verses as metaphor if they *literally* use metaphorical or poetic language. For instance, many biblical literalists are willing to read the Book of Revelation (the Apocalypse) as symbolic because it is, they contend, written in symbolic language. However, since many literalists argue that other verses, such as references to Christ returning on a cloud, are not written poetically or metaphorically, they feel obliged to take them as explicit prose. In other words, literalists generally assume that any text should be understand according to its obvious, not symbolic, meaning unless are persuaded otherwise by the style of language. The key to literalism is not how specific texts are interpreted. That can vary from exegete to exegete and denomination to denomination. The keys are an assumption of isomorphism and a hostility toward higher criticism. Consider the hostility which many Christian fundamentalists exhbiit toward the social sciences. I suppose Literalism is the view, with regard to some class of words, say those in the Bible, that we read them literally, and that if taken literally they are true. Yes, but what does it mean that something is literally true? But this is not to be committed to the views that (a) there is an exact correspondence between words and reality; or (b) that words are isomorphic with reality. That is my understanding of literalism. Literalists are usually willing to consider genre (prose or poetry, for instance). However, most, but not all, of them are less open to textual (higher) criticism. To a true literalist, all one needs is the text. Many literalists, for instance, are fond of word studies. It matters not whether Paul wrote to the Corinthians or the Ephesians, or whether one is considering the writings of other biblical writers. It is all God-breathed (inspired and inerrant). The historical and social context of the writer is not particularly relevant. (Of course, some literalists have been somewhat flexible on this issue.) IF it is, then I am committed to (a) and (b), and I suppose most everyone is, because I do take a class words as having literal meaning. There is a difference between understanding word definitions and a willingness to consider their social and historical contexts. I wouldn't know how to define this class exactly, but it is most everyday serious sentences I hear and read. For example, my wife saying in the morning It is 7 am, and the sentence in the newspaper: No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. But (in my view) me taking this class of sentences literally does not commits me to (a) and (b). Further, I don't see why the commitments of the literalist with regard to the Bible are any different. So, Mark, what is wrong with my argument? Nothing, in this particular case. However, you are speaking as a participant in a particular space and time. So while I don't think taking some sentences literally implies or assumes (a) and (b), it may be either that some Literalists do accept (a) and (b) just in order to always have literal meanings; or that imputing (a) and (b) to them is the best way of making sense of them taking some kinds of sentences literally. In that case you might say, as you did Mark did, that they assume (a) and (b). But I am not sure that was what you meant. You are using the term literalism differently than I am. Mark A. Foster * http://MarkFoster.net http://CompuServe.m.foster.name -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
Re: Literalism
Dear Mark, In your response to William: You are using the term literalism differently than I am. Got me thinking this is probably why sometimes your comments leave me with more questions than answers... ;- ) Reflecting on other views you've expressed (my past experience) is it more accurate to say that your usage of the word literalism is more closely related to realism in the sense of observable facts without idealization ? My question would then be how can an individual or a society evolve progressively without some form of idealization or vision of what might be as opposed to what has been ? I have other questions concerning the relationship of gestalt to sociology as opposed to psychology. But, I'm off to a busy day culminating in a jazz concert that I've been anticipating for weeks! I was raised in Kansas City, (MO) remember... Lovingly, Sandra -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
Re: Literalism
I have other questions concerning the relationship of gestalt to sociology as opposed to psychology. But, I'm off to a busy day culminating in a jazz concert that I've been anticipating for weeks! I was raised in Kansas City, (MO) remember... Home of arguably the greatest musician of the 20th century and the greatest jazz musician who ever lived! -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
Re: Literalism
On 9/28/03 9:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sociologist Karl Manheim wrote of the tension between ideology (the false consciousness of the oppressed and the class consciousness of the oppressor) and utopia (the class consciousness of the oppressed). Literalism more often buttresses the interests of the former than the latter. It is fundamentally text as prison. Freedom from literalism allows utopia, i.e., a vision of what might be. Which is part of the reason why it is difficult to discuss things like world peace with some evangelical fundamentalists. Man being intrinsicly flawed thru' the original sin, peace is impossible. Man continue to descend into more profound sinfullness; and eventually God will get fed up and destroy creation. (or at least the earth.) Very depressing perspective when you can not see yourself as one of the 144,000 who will be saved. Don C - - - - - He who believes himself spiritual proves he is not. -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
Re: Literalism
Dear Prof Mark Foster: Dear kind and patient scholar I read your post below carefully and I so appreciate your answers. I am primarily using these terms in their **sociological**, not theological, senses. 1. Social nominalism is the view that groups and societies are merely names that we use for collections of individuals. From a nominalist standpoint, individuals are real. Groups and societies are not real. By extension, the Word of God might be regarded as a convenient fiction to nominate texts written in different times and places by specific persons. I agree with social nominalism to a point, but it depends on how one defines reality. Whereas individuals have an ontological reality, groups and societies have a socially constructed, not an ontological, reality. However, since, like most sociologists, I regard the group, not the individual, as the basic unit of theory and research, I would not call myself a social nominalist. In fact, there are only a few social nominalists in sociology, and most of them (Burgess, Bushell, Homans, etc.) can be found in what is called the social behaviourist school (based on behavioural psychology). 2. Social constructionism is a complex perspective which reduces, or deconstructs, reality into acts of subjective social construction. The radical perspective in gender studies, which includes psychological androgyny (the position that children of both sexes should be socialised identically), is basically constructionist. Gender is regarded as a subjective human creation. The texts of the Bible were social constructions and can be reconstructed by each new generation and society. I see some merit in social constructionism and use the perspective a bit. However, I reject its extreme ontological relativism. Although some sociologists *claim* to be social constructionists, the subjectivist (even solipsistic) assumptions of constructionism, a bit like Dilthey's hermeneutic circle, make it untenable, in my view, for a sociologist to be a complete constructionist. 3. Postmodernism is a somewhat vague term which can refer to any number of different subjectivist perspectives, including constructionism and deconstructionism. Postmodernists tend to be suspicious of the scientific method. However, if each scientist, including each social scientist, is bound to see empirical phenomena differently from her or his colleagues, what is the point of science? The so-called Enlightenment project is largely abandoned. I find a moderate social deconstruction to be useful in deconstructing various social and cultural traits. However, I do not find the generalising assumptions of postmodernism to be particularly useful in sociology. 4. Critical realism in sociology refers to the work of philosopher, Roy Bhaskar. It is a highly complex framework and much to complex to do justice to in a paragraph summary. That said, critical realism thoroughly rejects the essentialism of the Platonists and neo-Platonists. All essences are individual, not universal. What is universal, or creates an identity of type, is the **real**. To Bhaskar, at least prior to 1998, that universal (or reality), social structure, is not a constant, but is a dialectical product of history (hence the critical element). Society and its groups are constantly being restructured as people react to their own histories. Critical realism comes closest to the approach I use (restructurational realism) in sociology. BUT PLEASE further read these excerpts and tell me what is the point of view of these author? Including the Century of Light authors? There seems to be a conflict...Can you understand any of it? If any one can it must be you Mark. Please take a few minutes and explain the background to me. I will not trouble you again. I promise khazeh [ignorant but seeking light] I once read this somewhere too but this too I do not understand! Question: What do you get when you cross Derrida with a member of the Mafia? Answer: Someone making you an offer you can't understand, or refuse! Buck writes: Baha'u'llah's references to Christ and the New Testament served to relativize the Islamic heritage. *For a new religion to emerge from Islam, with its dense, millennium-old traditions and highly elaborated religious scholarship,* Cole observes, *was as difficult as for a moon to escape the gravity of its planet* (66). Invoking the French linguist Saussure's metaphor of the chessboard, Cole suggests that Baha'u'llah's adducing of Christian scriptures reconfigured the revelatory position of the Qur'an as dispensational rather than final, causing it to look quite different from the traditional Muslim perspective of it. There is also the element of a potential Christian audience, although this cannot have been the primary motive, considering that Baha'u'llah had adduced the New Testament in some of his early Baghdad works, evidently for interpretive rather than for missiological reasons (66-7).
