Biblical literalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series on
The Bible
Biblical canon and books
Tanakh: Torah · Nevi'im · Ketuvim Old Testament · Hebrew Bible · New Testament · New Covenant · Deuterocanon · Antilegomena · Chapters & verses · Jefferson Bible
Apocrypha: Jewish · OT · NT
Development and authorship
Panbabylonism · Jewish Canon · Old Testament canon · New Testament canon · Mosaic authorship · Pauline epistles · Johannine works
Translations and manuscripts
Septuagint · Samaritan Pentateuch · Dead Sea scrolls · Targums · Peshitta · Vetus Latina · Vulgate · Masoretic text · Gothic Bible · Luther Bible · English Bibles
Biblical studies
Dating the Bible · Biblical criticism · Higher criticism · Textual criticism · Novum Testamentum Graece · NT textual categories · Documentary hypothesis · Synoptic problem · The Bible and history‎ · Biblical archaeology
Interpretation
Hermeneutics · Pesher · Midrash · Pardes · Allegorical · Literalism · Prophecy
Views
Inerrancy · Infallibility ·
Criticism · Islamic · Qur'anic · Gnostic · Judaism and Christianity · Law in Christianity
This box: view • talk • edit

Biblical literalism is the adherence to an explicit and literal sense of the Bible.[1] In its purest form such a belief would deny the existence of allegory, parable and metaphor in the Bible, however the phrase "biblical literalist" is often a term used (sometimes pejoratively) to refer to those who subscribe to biblical inerrancy. [2][3][4]

In a sense, however, biblical literalism is not synonymous with biblical inerrancy. [5] Whereas inerrancy doctrine deals with the truthfulness of the author's intended message, [6] biblical literalism deals with the interpretation of certain passages being literal.

The term has also been used to refer to historical grammatical method in Biblical hermeneutics which is a common practice of conservative Christians.[7] According to the Elwell Evangelical Dictionary, the term literalism describes a practice that "seeks to discover the author's intent by focusing upon his words in their plain, most obvious sense". [8] In this definition, a "literalist" reading of scripture would not take the literal interpretation of allegory, parable and metaphor in the Bible as seen for example in biblical poetry or the parables of Jesus.[8]

Contents

[edit] Modern Usage

The term "Biblical Literalism" is primarily pejorative.

Conrad Hyers, professor of comparative religion at Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter, Minnesota, criticized this as "a mentality [that] manifests itself [not] only in conservative churches, private-school enclaves, television programs of the evangelical right, and a considerable amount of Christian bookstore material; one often finds a literalist understanding of Bible and faith being assumed by those who have no religious inclinations, or who are avowedly antireligious in sentiment. Even in educated circles the possibility of more sophisticated theologies... is easily obscured by burning straw effigies of biblical literalism."[9]

Steve Falkenberg, professor of religious psychology at Eastern Kentucky University, says, "I've never met anyone who actually believes the Bible is literally true. I know a bunch of people who say they believe the Bible is literally true but nobody is actually a literalist. Taken literally, the Bible says the earth is flat and setting on pillars and cannot move (Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, 1 Sam 2:8, Job 9:6). It says that great sea monsters are set to guard the edge of the sea (Job 41, Ps 104:26)..." [10]

[edit] Literalism vs. Inerrancy and grammatical-historical

It is commonly taught in the most conservative Christian seminaries[citation needed] that certain sections of the Bible should be interpreted as literal statements of the author and are not intended as parables or as allegorical. These include creation in Genesis, the flooding of the entire world in Genesis, the lifespans as enumerated by genealogies of Genesis, the historicity of the narrative accounts of Ancient Israel, the supernatural intervention of God in history, and Jesus' miracles [11][12] These views however do not contend the literalistic values that parables, metaphors and allegory are not existent in the Bible [13][14] but rather relies on contextual interpretations based on the author's intention. [15]

As a part of Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy[6] conservative Christian scholarship affirms the following:

"WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text. WE DENY the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support."

Noted inerrantist Norman Geisler in his commentary on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics states:

"The literal sense of Scripture is strongly affirmed here. To be sure the English word literal carries some problematic connotations with it. Hence the words normal and grammatical-historical are used to explain what is meant. The literal sense is also designated by the more descriptive title grammatical-historical sense. This means the correct interpretation is the one which discovers the meaning of the text in its grammatical forms and in the historical, cultural context in which the text is expressed." [15]

[edit] Level of support for biblical literalism

About six in ten American adults take bible stories such as Noah's Ark and Moses parting the Red Sea to be literally true.[16][17]

Findings of a poll conducted by the Southern Baptist Baylor Institute: 47.8% of evangelical Protestants, and 11% of Catholics and mainline Protestants answered that the Bible is literally true, and 9% of Jews answered the Torah is literally true. 6.5% of evangelical Protestants and 20% of Catholics and Protestants responded that the Bible is a book of history and legends, and 52.6% of Jewish respondents responded that the same about the Torah. [18]

The Catholic church agrees with the fathers of the church who explicitly deny any literal interpretation of the bible whenever it conflicted with science, at times considering it heresy.[19]

[edit] Arguments Against

 The neutrality of this section is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.(May 2008)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
  • Bible scholars, even those who are theologically conservative, agree that parables should not be taken literally.[20]
  • "Biblical literalists engage in a seductive form of idolatry" (i.e., bibliolatry)."[21]
  • Biblical literalists are heretics.[21]
  • Biblical literalists are hypocrites.[3]
  • Biblical literalists contradict each other.[22]
  • Biblical literalism is anti-intellectual.[22]
  • Biblical literalism is in conflict with the cultural context of scriptures.[23]
  • Biblical literalism is akin to sexism.[24]
  • Taking a literalist stance on biblical violence promotes violence.[25]
  • The quoting of Bible scriptures to justify certain actions or ethics or beliefs is not always clear or obvious (i.e., characteristic of biblical casuistry). The use of scripture is often used to reduce critical examination or reasoning and can obscure unethical messages.[26]

[edit] References

  1. ^ The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Houghton Mifflin; 4 edition (September 14, 2000) defines literalism as "1. Adherence to the explicit sense of a given text or doctrine. 2. Literal portrayal; realism."
  2. ^ Gerald T. Sheppard "Future of the Bible: Beyond Liberalism and Literalism", United Church Pub House (June 1990)
  3. ^ a b Take Another Look At Your Good Book, George Regas, Los Angeles Times, February 3, 2000
  4. ^ The Covenantal Kingdom, R. A. Smith, Christian Liberty Press, January 1996, ISBN 1-930092-23-7
  5. ^ The Inerrancy of Scripture , Kevin Vanhoozer, Latimer House (1992)
  6. ^ a b The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1997)
  7. ^ Beyond Biblical Literalism and Inerrancy: Conservative Protestants and the Hermeneutic Interpretation of Scripture, John Bartkowski, Sociology of Religion, 57, 1996.
  8. ^ a b Elwell Evangelical Dictionary, Walter A. Elwell, Baker Publishing Group, May 1996, ISBN 0-8010-2049-2
  9. ^ Hyers, Conrad "Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance", Christian Century, August 4-11, 1982, p. 823.
  10. ^ Falkenberg, Steve Biblical Literalism, New Reformation, 2002.
  11. ^ Lewis on Miracles, Art Lindsley, Knowing & Doing; A Teaching Quarterly for Discipleship of Heart and Mind: C.S. LEWIS INSTITUTE, Fall 2004
  12. ^ The History and Impact of the Book, The Genesis Flood, John C. Whitcomb, Impact, Number 395, May 2006
  13. ^ Dallas Theological Seminary Doctrinal Statement
  14. ^ Henry A Virkler (1981) Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation
  15. ^ a b Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics With commentary by Norman L. Geisler, Reproduced from Explaining Hermeneutics: A Commentary on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, Oakland, California: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1983.
  16. ^ Surveyed Americans Believe in Biblical Truth. CBN News, December 22, 2007.
  17. ^ David Morris: Six in 10 Take Bible Stories Literally. ABC News, telephone poll February 6-10 2004.
  18. ^ American Piety in the 21st Century, Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion, September 2006
  19. ^ The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]
  20. ^ The Inerrancy of Scripture, Kevin Vanhoozer, Latimer House, Oxford, UK
  21. ^ a b On the Heresy of Literalism, Kevin Lewis, University of South Carolina Department of Religious Studies, 2005
  22. ^ a b Sacred Texts The Myth of Historical Literalism, Jeremy Patrick, The Humanist, 9/1/2001
  23. ^ Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance, Conrad Hyers, Christian Century August 4-11, 1982, p. 823.
  24. ^ AMBIVALENT SEXISM, SCRIPTURAL LITERALISM, AND RELIGIOSITY, Shawn Meghan Burn, Julia Busso, Psychology of Women Quarterly 29 (4), 412–418. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00241.x
  25. ^ The Hanna-Barbera Cartoons: Compounding Bible Ignorance?, Helen Lee Turner, Amy E. Jones and Doris A. Blazer, Christian Century, March 1, 1989 p 231.
  26. ^ As noted by William Shakespeare, "...even the devil can cite scripture for his purpose" (Merchant of Venice, I.iii.98)

[edit] See also

[edit] Further reading

Languages