Biblical scholars commonly criticize other biblical scholars for being inconsistent in their handling of literal and figurative language. If one bit of a text is literal, it is assumed, the whole must be; and vice versa.<\/p>\n
This demand for consistency is mistaken, and can only lead to absurdities.<\/p>\n
Take the figure of \u201cBabylon\u201d in the book of Revelation. Babylon is a great city, and a great harlot. The word \u201cBabylon\u201d has to be taken literally. A city might be full of harlots, but the city itself cannot be a harlot.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Yet deciding that \u201cBabylon the great harlot\u201d is figurative does not<\/em> mean that there is no literal city. It doesn\u2019t predetermine us to an \u201cidealist\u201d reading of the figure \u2013 that Babylon is code for an abstraction like \u201cthe city of man.\u201d Even idealist readings believe that the figure has a literal referent \u2013 many<\/em> literal referents, in fact, since the city is a figure for a permanent historical type<\/em>. Many commentators believe that \u201cBabylon\u201d refers to a specific city (Rome and Jerusalem the two leading candidates), and don\u2019t have any qualms about the resulting mix of literal and figurative.<\/p>\n Taking Babylon as a figure does not<\/em> commit us to taking every detail of John\u2019s description literally. John sees Babylon dressed in scarlet and purple, wearing a name on her forehead, drinking blood from a golden cup. We don\u2019t need to ask whether cities have foreheads, or whether they can wear clothes, or where you find a city\u2019s hand to hold a golden cup.\u00a0<\/p>\n All of those too have some sort of literal referent: The harlot city Babylon kills martyrs; she is \u201cbloodthirsty.\u201d That\u2019s real. But it doesn\u2019t mean that the majority of her inhabitants are vampires. I think her clothing and headgear indicate that she is a priestess. Each of the features of John\u2019s description is symbolic, but symbolic of something real, in space and time.<\/p>\n The description is a blessedly bewildering mash of literal and figurative, and as readers we have the priestly-royal privilege of drawing lines and making distinctions.<\/p>\n How do we do that? How do we know the difference between literal and figurative?\u00a0There\u2019s no trick. There\u2019s no machine. There\u2019s no manual.\u00a0<\/p>\n Start by refusing to polarize the two. Start by cultivating a sacramental imagination that can see bread and body, water and Spirit, city and harlot, tree and man, together at a glance. And then, armed with a transformed imagination, learn to read.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Biblical scholars commonly criticize other biblical scholars for being inconsistent in their handling of literal and figurative language. If one bit of a text is literal, it is assumed, the whole must be; and vice versa. This demand for consistency is mistaken, and can only lead to absurdities. Take the figure of \u201cBabylon\u201d in the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3021,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17841","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-hermeneutics"],"yoast_head":"\n