I’m posting this article, written a few years ago but now updated, in response to some current questions arising in the arena of hermeneutical methods (i.e., bible interpretation). It offers a critique of the increasingly popular Lectio Divina showing just what is ancient and what is modern; but it also briefly addresses hermeneutical issues generally, and gives a little help in understanding just what the term literal means (or should mean).
Lectio Divina (420kB pdf)
Hi Vernon,
Thanks for this article, which was helpful. In particular the change in meaning of the word “literal” is a source of vexation, isn’t it? But I didn’t realise that the older meaning meant in fact what it did, despite having been your hermeneutics student once! (For shame… and I a linguist… ;-))
I applaud your remarks on the general orthodoxy of the medieval church as a whole. Too often we Protestants (and I include myself as such) tend to pass blithely from the Early Church to the Reformation as if pretending nothing ever happened in between, or that whatever did was hopeless.
Nick
Thanks, Nick – nice to hear from you. I think our wisest policy regarding the word ‘literal’ is not to use it at all if possible – it’s too confusing and always of uncertain meaning. Alternative words such as ‘actual’ are often clearer. But I didn’t intend to claim ‘general orthodoxy’ for the medieval church. Rather, it was thoroughly corrupt in doctrine. But what I thought I had said is that in respect of every sound doctrine there were always in every age at least one or some who believed it and upheld it – but they were neglected or ignored, and the tyrannical majority comtinued to have their way with their corruptions.