Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LMP
As to "literally": Where the Bible speaks literally, I read it literally. Where is speaks metaphorically, I read it so. Where it speaks mythically, I so read it; however, I take my lead from Tolkien and do not equate myth with falsehood.
|
Well, this is a bit of a sticking point, I would think, as I doubt if there is general concensus about where it is literal, where symbolic, where metaphorical. I rather liked the explanation of the Catholic sense of letter and meaning (the article used the terms signifier and signified) in the article I referred to above.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LMP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bethberry
One problem with this POV is that is sounds similar to arrogant assumptions about human progress. [end quote of Bb]
This is something I wrestle with. What I come down to is that I will inevitably be seen as arrogant by some people, and that is something I have no control over. What I can control is what I say and write. By accepting the Bible on its own terms, as God's word, I am led to certain honest conclusions with all due humility, aware that it seems like arrogance to some.
|
I want to make sure that my words aren't misunderstood. What I was referring to with the term "this POV" was this idea I presented of historically unfolding understanding. I was acknowledging a problem with the idea I presented, rather than suggesting anyone else's ideas were arrogant.
To return this to Tolkien more specifically:
I've seen a scholarly claim that Tolkien is acknowledged in the work done to produce The New Jerusalem Bible. I don't know what the extent of his contributions, if any, were. Does anyone?
If we can find any of Tolkien's professional articles or opinions I think it might be interesting to explore them. After all, we know how important words were to him and languages. We know how he fulminated against inaccurate or misrepresentative translations of LotR. How did he view work on the translation of the Bible? After all, it was first in Aramaic, no? And then Greek and Latin versions became dominant before translations into the vernacular. Figuring out just which words are inspired is a handful. I know many people who profess a great love for the King James Bible because of its aesthetic or lyrical beauty, but anyone who has read even a little bit about the history of biblical translation knows that compromise and historical/political pressures are part of translation.
But I get a very strong feeling that we are once again treading on canonicity grounds.