According to James Barr, the concept of literal is the useful one in the understanding of the bible. In his article, he mentions reading the Bible through two ways of readings: the literal and the allegorical. Later allegorical interpretation was mostly used. Sometimes, many people think that reading the bible literally is wrong, and for some people reading literally is meaningful. In some cases, the Bible can read literally and in some cases if we read literally its meaning is changed. James Bar gives some examples for this point. In one of his examples he points out (1 Cor 9: 9), "Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?" Here the writer implies that it is not about oxen, ‘it is about the payment of clergy, who are involved in plowing and threshing. In the literary sense it is unimportant but in the allegorical sense it is justified.' Therefore, sometimes we don't know whether it is good or bad to read the bible literally.
In "The Literal Sense of Scripture: A Hermeneutical Disaster," Adrian Thatcher
…show more content…
5, James Barr). The scholars of Biblical critics they used the literal sense, they stressed it and depended on it a great deal but this approach was also true of ancient allegories. Therefore, many scholars start their critic with the historical sense. ‘Modern biblical scholarship is neither literal nor allegorical but is basically historical' (pg. 9, James Barr). For the writer, he stressed behind the texts what really happened? In addition, James Barr concludes his writing with 4 points. In that points, he mentions that modern biblical scholarship is not totally based on historical sense, it is much more based on theology and motivation than others. Theology is the center of modern interpretation and history plays an important role in