Scale from Literal to Figurative
There is considerable debate in Biblical studies about what elements should be taken literally, and what should be taken figuratively. Several things tend to confuse this debate, including the perception that if one takes something any way other than literally, one is taking it less seriously. For many people, literal is equivalent to true or perhaps more precisely literal is equivalent to real.
In reality, there are many types of expression, and they vary in how close one intends them to be to the literal truth. For example, in a parable, one may tell a story that is either fictional, or may be generalized from many life experiences–a typical experience, rather than a precise narration of a specific event. The parable expresses a general truth, and does so better because it’s narrative is typical. If the listener asks questions about the specific people involved (what happened to them later, why were they involved, and so forth), he is missing the point.
A parable is also an example of an entire narrative in which the language appears quite literal, and yet the meaning is not found in finding the literal referents, but rather in the whole of the narrative. “Pilgrim’s Progress” is a more recent example. The language is literal in form, but the meaning is not to be found in the literal referents. Trying to find a literal “slough of despond” would be fruitless. Nonetheless the idea of a “slough” combined with the idea of despondence does convey meaning. Figurative language is not meaningless language. It is a different way of expressing meaning.
Picturesque language can also be less precise and literal than technical descriptive language. For example, after hurricane Ivan I said that a section of woods looked like a giant had stepped on it. Now the woods had actually been destroyed by heavy wind, with many trees snapped halfway up the trunk. My description was not precisely correct, but people living nearby certainly understood what I was saying.
We can also find specific example in the Bible of symbols with one-to-one relationships to their referents. Let’s take Daniel 8, for example. In verse 4, Daniel describes a “ram charging westward.” In verse 20 that ram is connected with the Persian Empire (through identifying the hors as the kings of Media and Persia). This is the most simple type of symbol. It’s almost as straightforward as just using the word for the item. We are simply one more remove from the literal meaning ram = Persia = the-territory-represented-by-that-name.
Symbols can also add meaning. In Revelation chapter 5, Jesus is symbolized both by a sacrificed or slaughtered lamb and by a lion. Each of those symbols says something about Jesus in the author’s view, and they add understanding based on the nature of the symbols involved.
Understanding something as symbolic or figurative language is not a license to claim it has no definite meaning, but it often does change the meaning a reader will derive from the passage. It may be difficult to be certain, but the effort is worthwhile. Whether we err in understanding something as figurative when it was intended literally, or we err in the opposite way, we will still miss the intended meaning.
The language is literal in form, but the meaning is not to be found in the literal referents.
I find that the word “concrete” is more useful than “literal”, which has become such a loaded term. The question is whether the meaning of the word/expression is the same as the “concrete” object of the word, or different. As you say, where there is a difference between referent (or object) and meaning, then we are dealing with figurative language of some sort. Of course, what people forget is that this happens all the time in normal discourse. “Literal in form” is really a very narrow use of language–we use metaphor all the time.
I guess you’re right–it’s kind of like my problem every time I go to Starbucks and they want me to order a “tall” when all I want is a “small.” My response is to just say “small” and let them correct me when I smile. But drawing someone into a greater understanding of biblical metaphor is a much deeper problem.
Any time anyone uses the word “literal” and then goes on to either a) bash fundies and their naivete or b) ask if I am a true believer in what the text ‘literally says’, I ask them what they mean by literal. I just refuse to let them use that word.