This post is a continuation of a series of posts started here. Â Welcome aboard and I would love to hear your thoughts!
The first topic we are reflecting on is the question of whether or not we can realistically take the bible literally. Â This post will make a lot more sense and flow better if take a look at Part One. Â Either way, this should give us a running start…
As, as it pertains to vocabulary, we are overall pretty well equipped to make those distinctions. We generally know what words mean and are fine with that.  Certainly, as language progresses and as words’ meanings shift, we might miss something if we are reading something that draws on an earlier meaning of that word.  But overall, that is not a huge issue.
Where we can sometimes run into issues would be when we fail to appreciate the type of literature that are interacting with. The danger here is that we might be asking questions of a piece of literature that it isn’t intending to deal with and that we might also miss issues it is trying to speak to.
For instance, as I am writing this blog I am rocking out to the 80’s pop station on . Rick Astley was just up and was sharing his perspective on how he and I are no strangers to love. He is aware of my high school dating exploits and, as such, is stating that he is also aware that I know the rules (as does he.) Then he seems to want to offer me a commitment, which is fortunate because apparently he is the only guy I would get something like that from.
While I appreciate his awareness that I am no stranger to love, his focus on me feels a bit creepy and his flat out statement that he is the only guy that I can expect any kind of commitment from feels a bit overreaching.
I can hear the cries of all of you intrepid blog readers. Yes Jim, we get it, first of all he isn’t talking to you and so your taking his words at that level isn’t getting at what they are truly trying to say. Â You have to understand he is writing awesome 80’s music and read his words within that framework.
And of course you are right. That is an obvious example of what I was talking about. It takes a certain level of ambient awareness to get an accurate read on the intent of the author. In the arena of pop music that is fairly clear. But what about the genre of literature that are more obscure?
If you are tempted to think I am making more of this than I should, keep in mind that the numbers of genres are widely debated, and not just scriptural ones, overall literary genres. Â Here that, the issue isn’t should we acknowledge the impact of different genre, but how do we read in light of it. Â And by some pretty big smarty pants thinkers. Â Aristotle felt that there were only a few different universal genres. He recognized epic, lyric, and drama. Cornelius de Man, a 17th century painter and thinker, saw things very differently.
Our notion and experience of the literary text seem inherently at odds with the procedure and goals of its explanation. We typically strive both to unfold the unique and unmediated particularity of the text of our reading experience and to generalize this particularity, phrasing its explanation in terms not its own. The resulting reduction and distortion has proven always undesirable and frequently untenable.
The Power of Genre Adena Rosmarin
de Mans seems to be saying that we read, and even analyse, literature within our own frameworks, and in so doing, we lessen the intent or power of what we read in the first place.
The point is this, many very powerful thinkers have struggled with how many genres there are, and the implications of ignoring them, but they aren’t saying this doesn’t matter. Not only did the original author select specific words to get their point across, they chose a medium for those words to float in.
Both matter.
So, if God is guiding the authors of the scripture that we have in the Old and New Testament canon, and if he is wanting to communicate something to the first readers and (most often) hearers of it, how would that impact our reading of them today? Â On Wednesday we will look at what those cultural differences might be and also the impact they have on our reading today….
What is your take on all this? Â Where should what I have said be challenged?
