Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 02-14-2004, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Marduk
Fundy as in fundamentalist comes from a late 19th or early 20th century movement away from the �liberalization� of the Christian church, not from Lutheranism per se, which is Catholicism without the Pope and faith vs. good works, in the days of Luther, and before the 1700's, everyone took every word of the Bible as literal truth.

No, that is a myth. The "Bible as literal truth" and the "Bible as allegorical truth" debate has been around since Origen 1700 years ago, and probably has always existed.

In his books "Contra Celsus", Origen is arguing against a pagan philosopher called Celsus:
http://www.gnosis.org/library/orig_cc1.htm (Book 1 and Book 6)

Quote:

In what follows, Celsus, assailing the Mosaic history, finds fault with those who give it a tropical and allegorical signification. And here one might say to this great man, who inscribed upon his own work the title of a True Discourse, "Why, good sir, do you make it a boast to have it recorded that the gods should engage in such adventures as are described by your learned poets and philosophers, and be guilty of abominable intrigues, and of engaging in wars against their own fathers, and of cutting off their secret parts, and should dare to commit and to suffer such enormities; while Moses, who gives no such accounts respecting God, nor even regarding the holy angels, and who relates deeds of far less atrocity regarding men (for in his writings no one ever ventured to commit such crimes as Kronos did against Uranus, or Zeus against his father, or that of the father of men and gods, who had intercourse with his own daughter), should be considered as having deceived those who were placed under his laws, and to have led them into error?" And here Celsus seems to me to act somewhat as Thrasymachns the Platonic philosopher did, when he would not allow Socrates to answer regarding justice, as he wished, but said, "Take care not to say that utility is justice, or duty, or anything of that kind." For in like manner Celsus assails (as he thinks) the Mosaic histories, and finds fault with those who understand them allegorically, at the same time bestowing also some praise upon those who do so, to the effect that they are more impartial (than those who do not); and thus, as it were, he prevents by his cavils those who are able to show the true state of the case from offering such a defence as they would wish to offer...

In the next place, as if he had devoted himself solely to the manifestation of his hatred and dislike of the Jewish and Christian doctrine, he says: "The more modest of Jewish and Christian writers give all these things an allegorical meaning;" and, "Because they are ashamed of these things, they take refuge in allegory." Now one might say to him, that if we must admit fables and fictions, whether written with a concealed meaning or with any other object, to be shameful narratives when taken in their literal acceptation, of what histories can this be said more truly than of the Grecian? In these histories, gods who are sons castrate the gods who are their fathers, and gods who are parents devour their own children, and a goddess-mother gives to the "father of gods and men" a stone to swallow instead of his own son, and a father has intercourse with his daughter, and a wife binds her own husband, having as her allies in the work the brother of the fettered god and his own daughter! But why should I enumerate these absurd stories of the Greeks regarding their gods, which are most shameful in themselves, even though invested with an allegorical meaning?

Doctor X · 02-14-2004, 03:42 PM

Actually it is not a myth.

"Fundamentalism" results from a number of "fundamentals"--methinks it was 12--that were "accepted" by a meeting somewhere in the 1910-1920s. I am going off of my [Diseased.--Ed.] memory. One of the "fundamentals" was that the Bible is inerrant, "every word true," period, end of discussion. Marduk is correct in that description. It rose as a response to hermeneutics and other practices.

However, you are correct that the general debate on whether or not to interpret "literally" versus allegorically/symbolically--and "where and when" to do this--has been going on since the damn texts were written.

--J.D.

Marduk · 02-14-2004, 03:48 PM

�No, that is a myth. The "Bible as literal truth" and the "Bible as allegorical truth" debate has been around since Origen 1700 years ago, and probably has always existed.�

But did they exist within the Christian Church once it became a major force? Not in a debate with an outsider, a Pagan of all things. Even thinking something like the communion wine was not really Christ�s blood could get you killed, especially among the common folk. I guess I�m thinking dark ages here.
Did anyone question anything about the Bible at all between 1000 CE and 1800 CE?

Doctor X · 02-14-2004, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Did anyone question anything about the Bible at all between 1000 CE and 1800 CE?

Yes. Freidman's book briefly summarizes the history of recognizing multi-authorship of the Pentateuch.

--J.D.

dado · 02-14-2004, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SharpCircle
If you don't want to be part of an organisation or a group, how would you know what 'God' has actually intended the bible to mean?

ask him directly. i'm not being facetious, the meaning to any of this stuff lies inside, not outside. beyond that, anybody referring to Tanakh as "Old Testament" has by definition found there personal truth elsewhere - otherwise they wouldn't be needing a "New" Testament, right?

dado · 02-14-2004, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
I did not know the OT had passages demanding child sacrifice until I read about them in a published lecture on violence and religion!

are you able to share a couple of book/chapter/verse references?

Doctor X · 02-14-2004, 04:49 PM

I really should put some of these things in a "frequently asked questions" file.

Exodus 22: 29-30 You shall not delay to offer from the fulness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The first-born of your sons you shall give to me. You shall do likewise with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its dam; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.

The search function does not actually function. I do not have the article which first alerted me to child sacrifice as part of the cult. By memory it is John Collins' Presidential Address to the Society of Biblical Literature which deals with violence and religion. It also lists the Isaiah passage where YHWH states he made the law to immolate the first born in order to horrify the parents.

I have found the web-page--SLLOOOOWWWW--and I will see if I can give the full reference and details to other passages.

--J.D.

dado · 02-14-2004, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
I really should put some of these things in a "frequently asked questions" file.

Exodus 22: 29-30 You shall not delay to offer from the fulness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The first-born of your sons you shall give to me. You shall do likewise with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its dam; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.

with all due respect to your source, reading that as any kind of encouragement or requirement for child sacrifice is simply bizarre. apart from the small detail that outlawing of human sacrifice was a foundational principle of judaism, this passage refers to farm animals, not human children.

Doctor X · 02-14-2004, 05:15 PM

The lecture was:

SBL Presidential Address: The Zeal of Phinehas: The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence by John J. Collins, 2002.

Ah . . . here we go. . . .

See if this works . . . SBL: Spring 2002

Mods--this is freely offered by the SBL web-page.

Quote:

It is now widely recognized that human sacrifice was practiced in ancient Israel much later than scholars of an earlier generation had assumed.

The entire article is worth a read.

--J.D.

Doctor X · 02-14-2004, 05:18 PM

Re-read the passage; it refers to the "first-born of your sons."

Quod erat demonstrandum

--J.D.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-14-2004, 03:42 PM	#12
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Actually it is not a myth. "Fundamentalism" results from a number of "fundamentals"--methinks it was 12--that were "accepted" by a meeting somewhere in the 1910-1920s. I am going off of my [Diseased.--Ed.] memory. One of the "fundamentals" was that the Bible is inerrant, "every word true," period, end of discussion. Marduk is correct in that description. It rose as a response to hermeneutics and other practices. However, you are correct that the general debate on whether or not to interpret "literally" versus allegorically/symbolically--and "where and when" to do this--has been going on since the damn texts were written. --J.D.

02-14-2004, 03:48 PM	#13
Marduk Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: the 10th planet Posts: 5,065	�No, that is a myth. The "Bible as literal truth" and the "Bible as allegorical truth" debate has been around since Origen 1700 years ago, and probably has always existed.� But did they exist within the Christian Church once it became a major force? Not in a debate with an outsider, a Pagan of all things. Even thinking something like the communion wine was not really Christ�s blood could get you killed, especially among the common folk. I guess I�m thinking dark ages here. Did anyone question anything about the Bible at all between 1000 CE and 1800 CE?

02-14-2004, 04:49 PM	#17
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	I really should put some of these things in a "frequently asked questions" file. Exodus 22: 29-30 You shall not delay to offer from the fulness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The first-born of your sons you shall give to me. You shall do likewise with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its dam; on the eighth day you shall give it to me. The search function does not actually function. I do not have the article which first alerted me to child sacrifice as part of the cult. By memory it is John Collins' Presidential Address to the Society of Biblical Literature which deals with violence and religion. It also lists the Isaiah passage where YHWH states he made the law to immolate the first born in order to horrify the parents. I have found the web-page--SLLOOOOWWWW--and I will see if I can give the full reference and details to other passages. --J.D.

02-14-2004, 05:18 PM	#20
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Re-read the passage; it refers to the "first-born of your sons." Quod erat demonstrandum --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.