- Key People:
- Johann Gottfried Wetzstein
literal interpretation
-
What does it mean to interpret the Bible literally?
Literal interpretation of the Bible asserts that a biblical text should be interpreted by its grammatical construction and historical context, corresponding to the authors' intentions.
Biblical inspiration has caused some to believe the interpretation must always be literal because "God always means what he says". Some believe that words of divine origin have a deeper spiritual meaning.
A strictly literal interpretation has led to Christian fundamentalist beliefs that are frequently deemed unscientific, including young-Earth creationism and the belief that Noah’s Flood covered the entire world.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What is biblical criticism?
Biblical criticism is a discipline that studies the texts of the Old and New Testaments, addressing textual, compositional, and historical questions. It uses scientific principles, viewing the Bible as a literary work suitable for study rather than as an exclusively sacred text.
Biblical criticism includes textual criticism, philological criticism, literary criticism, tradition criticism, and form criticism. Other types include redaction criticism and historical criticism, which recover the texts' original meanings.
5 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How do literal interpretation and biblical criticism differ in reading the Bible?
Literal interpretation and biblical criticism offer contrasting approaches to reading the Bible.
Literal interpretation asserts that a biblical text should be interpreted according to the plain meaning conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context, corresponding to the authors' intentions.
Biblical criticism, on the other hand, is a discipline that studies textual, compositional, and historical questions surrounding the Old and New Testaments, laying the groundwork for meaningful interpretation of the Bible. It involves textual, philological, and literary criticism, as well as tradition and form criticism. Historical criticism places the documents in their historical setting and promotes their interpretation in light of their contemporary environment.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Why do some readers prefer a literal interpretation of biblical texts?
Literal interpretation in hermeneutics asserts that biblical text should be interpreted by its plain meaning through grammatical construction and historical context, corresponding to the author's intention.
Readers may prefer this approach due to a belief in the verbal inspiration of the Bible, where individual words are seen as divinely chosen. This view suggests a direct divine message, though some argue it doesn't account for the individual writing styles of biblical authors.
Figures like St. Jerome, Martin Luther, and John Calvin have advocated for the primacy of literal sense. However, strict literal interpretations, especially of Genesis, have led to beliefs deemed unscientific, such as young-Earth creationism.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How might biblical critics analyze stories that are usually interpreted literally?
Biblical critics employ various methods to analyze stories typically interpreted literally. Instead of accepting the "plain meaning," they examine the texts through different lenses.
- Historical criticism interprets biblical documents within their historical context, using archaeology and historical records to understand the world and culture that shaped the texts.
- Literary criticism identifies literary genres, assesses authorship, and analyzes the structure of biblical texts, using both internal and external evidence.
- Form criticism analyzes writings based on literary forms and oral traditions to determine the sources and historicity of biblical writings.
- Redaction criticism studies how authors or editors assembled biblical traditions into final compositions, revealing their intentions.
These approaches enable a deeper understanding of the texts, considering the intentions of the original authors and how the original audience might have understood them.
7 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What are the strengths and challenges of using literal interpretation compared to biblical criticism?
Literal interpretation and biblical criticism offer distinct approaches to understanding biblical texts. Literal interpretation emphasizes the plain meaning of the text, as conveyed by its grammatical structure and historical context, mirroring the author's intentions. A strength of this approach is its straightforwardness and accessibility, which makes the text readily understandable. However, challenges arise when a strictly literal reading conflicts with scientific knowledge or leads to fundamentalist beliefs.
Biblical criticism, on the other hand, employs various methods to study the texts, considering textual, literary, and historical questions. Its strength lies in providing a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the Bible, uncovering the context, authorship, and development of the texts. However, this approach can be complex and may require specialized knowledge, potentially leading to interpretations that are subjective or detached from the text's original intent.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
literal interpretation, in hermeneutics, the assertion that a biblical text is to be interpreted according to the “plain meaning” conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context. The literal meaning is held to correspond to the intention of the authors. St. Jerome, an influential biblical scholar of the 4th and 5th centuries, championed the literal interpretation of the Bible in opposition to what he regarded as the excesses of allegorical interpretation. The primacy of the literal sense was later advocated by such diverse figures as St. Thomas Aquinas, Nicholas of Lyra, John Colet, Martin Luther, and John Calvin. A strictly literal interpretation of the Bible, particularly the book of Genesis, has given rise to a number of Christian fundamentalist beliefs that are frequently deemed unscientific, including young-Earth creationism (Genesis 1) and the belief that Noah’s Flood covered the entire world (Genesis 7:17–24).
The literal interpretation of scripture is often, but not necessarily, associated with belief in the verbal inspiration of the Bible, according to which the individual words of the divine message were divinely chosen. Extreme forms of this would imply that God dictated the message to the speakers or writers word by word, but this view is criticized on the ground that it does not account adequately for the evident individuality of style and vocabulary found in the various biblical authors. Verbal inspiration received classic expression by the 19th-century English biblical scholar John William Burgon:
The Bible is none other than the voice of Him that sitteth upon the Throne! Every Book of it,—every Chapter of it,—every Verse of it,—every word of it,—every syllable of it,—(where are we to stop?)—every letter of it—is the direct utterance of the Most High! (From Inspiration and Interpretation, 1861)
This explains Burgon’s severe judgment that the revisers of the English New Testament (1881), in excluding what they believed to be scribal or editorial additions to the original text, “stand convicted of having deliberately rejected the words of Inspiration in every page” (The Revision Revised, 1883). Such a high view of inspiration has commonly been based on the statement in 2 Timothy 3:16 that “all [Old Testament] scripture is inspired by God” (Greek theopneustos, which means “God-breathed”) or Paul’s claim in 1 Corinthians 2:13 to impart the gospel “in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to those who are spiritual.” On this latter passage, the English bishop and biblical scholar Joseph Barber Lightfoot (1828–89) remarked:
The notion of a verbal inspiration in a certain sense is involved in the very conception of an inspiration at all, because words are at once the instruments of carrying on and the means of expressing ideas, so that the words must both lead and follow the thought. But the passage gives no countenance to the popular doctrine of verbal inspiration, whether right or wrong. (From Notes on Epistles of St Paul from Unpublished Commentaries, 1895)
The detailed attention that Lightfoot and his University of Cambridge colleagues Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828–92) paid in their exegesis to the vocabulary and grammatical construction of the biblical documents, together with their concern for the historical context, sprang from no dogmatic attachment to any theory of inspiration but, rather, represented the literal method of interpretation at its best. Such grammatico-historical exegesis can be practiced by anyone with the necessary linguistic tools and accuracy of mind, irrespective of confessional commitment, and it is likely to have more permanent value than exegesis that reflects passing fashions of philosophical thought. Biblical theology itself is more securely based when it rests upon such exegesis than when it forms a hermeneutical presupposition.