The maxim of literal interpretation has a noble heritage reaching back to the Reformation, even though it has fallen into disuse among contemporary scholars. Part of the problem is its negative associations. It seems archaic and passé because its concerns are no longer the primary concerns of a contemporary culture. In addition, few can agree on the meaning of “literal.”

In this essay, I agree in part with the criticism of the use of “literal.” But I also believe that correctly understood it specifies a primary concern for biblical interpretation.

First, I agree that in biblical interpretation, we do not begin with a modern or postmodern worldview. Rather, we begin with a worldview expressed by Augustine: we believe to know. As Christians we believe the Gospel to know ourselves and to come to know God. When we turn to Scripture, we believe what the Scripture claims to be true of itself: God speaks and what He says is truth (John 17:17). Of course, interpretation is necessary to know the meaning of that truth.

Within this pre-modern worldview, there are two qualifications. First, textual criticism is essential to know what God has written. In addition, where historical-critical problems remain unresolved, these problems need to be addressed. Yet the claim of Scripture to be true remains a viable premise in textual interpretation.

Epistemology is the study of knowledge. It attempts to answer questions regarding the origin of human knowledge, and considers especially how we can know with certainty. Epistemological answers are basic and necessary building blocks of any philosophy, worldview, or belief system. In fact, of the four major components of philosophy and worldview (epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and socio-­‐political thought), none can be adequately addressed until we answer the question of how we can know. Regarding metaphysics, for example, we can’t make legitimate assertions about the character of God or the existence of the human soul until we first address how such assertions can be verified or falsified. Further, unless we have a means for validating ethical prescriptions as either worthy or unworthy, we have no warrant for choosing one prescription over another – especially when we encounter apparently competing or conflicting goods. And if we have no mechanism for authentication, then how can we even arrive at a definition of what is good in the first place? Finally, in socio-­‐political thought, on what basis can we choose one system of government over another, or how can we determine whether a law is commendable? Without correct epistemological answers, there is no basis for our understanding or choosing one thing over another. In short, epistemology is really about authority, verifiability, truth, and certainty.

Imagine a person – we’ll call him Bob. Bob has just received the gift of consciousness. For the first time in Bob’s existence he is aware. Bob examines his surroundings and he finds himself standing in rolling sun-­‐drenched fields of dandelions under a beautifully clear mid-­‐day sky. Of course, Bob has no knowledge of what anything around him is or what any of it means, because this is the first time he has ever encountered any of these things. Bob begins to ponder. “Here I am, I suppose, now what?” Bob has to figure out how to answer that question before he takes his first step, lest he make the wrong assumptions and step in the wrong direction. He begins a quest to decipher the right understanding of who and what he is, and how he must proceed, but he isn’t certain of whether or not he has the right tools for the task. In fact, he isn’t certain of anything.