Bruce Alderman explained it far better than I could.
Claire E. O'Connor claireoc@softdisk.com
Mon, 15 Dec 1997 21:38:49 -0600 (00882265129, 3495F7C9.38A1@softdisk.com)
Bruce Alderman wrote:
>
> AUSTIN
> > Thus, it seems to me that the starting, default position for
> > interpreting any statement is to take it literally - to take the
> > person at their literal word. To go *beyond* that is what requires
> > some sort of argument. After all, if the starting point were always
> > a metaphorical reading, we would never be able to rely on what
> > people say and would always be searching for hidden meangings.
> > Human language is construted such that everyday discourse is
> > normally meant to be taken literally. We communicate efficiently by
> > virtue of the fact that we intend to say what we mean and are
> > understood to mean what we say.
>
> BRUCE
> Okay, I'll take a stab at this one. Language is actually too complex
> to divide all statements into distinct "literal" and "metaphorical"
> categories. We often use idiomatic expressions within literal
> statements. For example, I could open my newspaper and read, "Sunrise
> 7:38a.m./ Sunset 5:12p.m." These statements are designed to convey
> factual information, and to be interpreted literally. Yet the terms
> "sunrise" and "sunset" are metaphors: the sun's apparant motion is an
> optical illusion caused by the rotation of the earth on its axis.
>
> If my friend is baking bread, and I ask, "How long until the bread
> rises?", my friend will understand that I am referring to a literal
> rising of the bread. If my next question is, "When does the sun rise
> tomorrow?", my friend will understand that the word "rise" is an idiom
> in this context, even though the statement is a literal one.
>
> Our language, like any language, contains a number of idioms which all
> native speakers understand intuitively, due to repeated exposure to
> those phrases. We don't even need to think about the fact that the
> sun does not rise in the same way that bread rises, in order to
> understand the questions in my previous paragraph.
>
> It is the same way with Jesus' statements about "hating" our families.
> The original hearers understood it as a figure of speech; they didn't
> need to be explicitly told that this was not a literal hatred. In
> this context, it simply refers to a lesser love. All Christians
> through the centuries have understood the passage the same way. This
> is not merely a modern re-interpretation to explain away a difficult
> passage. (In fact, even with this interpretation, it is *still* a
> difficult passage).
>
> BTW: When you read the first sentence of my reply, did you take it
> literally?
>
> --
> Bruce Alderman baa@southwind.net
> I don't take the Bible literally; I take it seriously.
CLAIRE
Dear Bruce:
I wish I had said all that!
Claire O'Connor