Take It as It Is

Over the centuries, the Bible has been questioned, defended, scrutinized, interpreted, and even fought over countless times. Almost all of these issues arise from people asking the question: “What does the Bible literally mean?” As with all works, the Bible’s interpretation is left predominately to the reader, and with the millions upon millions of readers the Bible has had over the years the shear number of different interpretations has caused numerous conflicts. Yet, most of these conflicts arise due to the method in which people read the Bible. Instead of taking the Bible strictly on its own terms, it is bombarded with outside texts and documents attempting to exact its meaning. In contrast to these fruitless attempts at interpreting the Bible, the process of reading the Bible literally and on its own terms is what yields the true meaning of the Bible.

In chapter twenty four of Northrop Frye’s book Biblical and Classical Myths Frye makes the suggestion that the Bible should be read in the same way that poems are read. Poetry is read ‘literally’ and Frye believes that the Bible should also be read in this fashion. Frye’s definition of taking the Bible literally, however, is not the typical definition thought of when the term literally is used. According to Frye, reading something literally not only means that you trust that what is being said is actually happening, but that it is actually happening within the context of the piece. In this way, the words and metaphors within a text relate back to the text itself and only make sense within the world of the piece. In other words, the metaphor or idea is literally true within the confines of the setting, rules, and laws established by the text itself. Frye gives an example of such internal dynamics in the Bible by comparing the Old and New Testaments. Frye argues that the Old Testament is validated and proven only by the fact that its prophecies are fulfilled within the New Testament. Conversely, the New Testament is only validated and proven by the fact that it fulfills the prophecies set by the Old Testament. Such relationships make little to no sense when they are taken out of the context of the work itself. When one attempts to make these connections to things outside of the text and in the real world the literal interpretation of the text breaks down and becomes a, usually false, factual interpretation. In this way, when stories that happen literally within the Bible are linked to real world texts, documents, historical accounts, geological records, and digital replications and analysis the Bible is being taken out of its literal context and one thus receives information that is fruitless and counterproductive to unraveling the true meaning behind the Bible.

In order to succeed at reading the Bible literally, one needs to follow a few rules. The actions and accounts within the Bible cannot be questioned. As Frye put it, by questioning the Bible you are implying that the Bible may not be telling the truth within its own context, and thus it can no longer be taken literally. When reading the Bible literally one must understand that the Bible acts independently and has sovereignty over itself and therefore does not conform or adhere to the real world. Like Yeats said: “You can refute Hegel but not the Song of Sixpence.” Thus, when in the Bibles context, one must accept what they are being told. For example, when the Bible says that it rained for forty days and forty nights, then, in the Bible, it literally rained for forty days and forty nights; no more and no less.

So, what happens when the Bible is not read literally? The most obvious and dangerous ramification is that the Bible can be argued outside of the rules, laws, and context that it defined itself in. This causes one to ask the question: “Did it really happen like that?” which can lead down one of two paths. First, one can then attempt to justify or prove the Bible by making historical connections and relations. The other option is to attempt to discredit and disprove the Bible using historical contradictions and even the lack of evidence to support the Bible against it. Both of these paths stimulate the introduction of outside, non-biblical materials and data to the Bible. And, as stated earlier, this destroys the literal context of the Bible by forcing outside material onto it. The introduction of this irrelevant data also fuels the back and forth arguments attempting to prove or discredit the Bible. Then, these arguments take precedence and begin to belittle the literal interpretation of the Bible.

The idea of what the Bible literally means has been raised here, by Frye, and by countless others throughout history. According to Frye, however, the Bible, quite simply, means exactly what it says. To take this further: the Bible means exactly what it says when you read it within its own context, stop questioning it, stop relating it to things in the real world, and when you start accepting what the Bible it telling you on its terms. The answer to the question “What does the Bible literally mean?” is far too long and complex to write down, partially because the Bible does not mean one thing. It is said that a little bit of everything can be found in the Bible, and so, when taken literally, the Bible has infinitely many meanings. Therefore, there is only one way to disclose what the Bible literally means. And discovering what it means is actually a relatively simple process. All one must do is read the Bible; read the Bible on its own terms and within its own context, and take it as it is.