Albion

Looking for a bit of help in creationism-evolution discussions, please. I think this subject is more appropriate here than at EC, though.

In creationism-evolution discussions, creationists (the YEC variety, at any rate) make a big deal about biblical literalism being the only correct way to approach Genesis because if you don't believe the whole Bible to be literally True, then it's open season in terms of what you can reject - in other words, if the Earth isn't 6000 years ago and Noah's flood didn't happen, then you might as well reject the divinity of and salvation provided by Jesus.

Literalists spend a fair bit of time criticising other interpretations of the Bible as being excuses to not believe bits of it that are unpalatable and hence are not only wrong but downright dangerous.

One creationist on another board has a tactic of asking nonliteralists what method of interpretation they use (apparently these methods have names or something?) and then proceeding to reject everything that doesn't involve swallowing the Genesis story whole. When asked about the background and legitimacy of her interpretation, she claimed that biblical literalism was a very ancient technique and the other ways of interpreting the Bible are much more recent and came about as a result of the Enlightenment, to make the Bible acceptable to the non-True Christians.

Her claim is that literalism started with Ezra and that "interpretation began at the return of Israel from the Babylonian exile under Ezra... literal interpretation was the original method and it was also the prevailing method among Jews at the time of Christ."

and the thing she and all her literalist colleagues fall back on, is this:

"How do I "know" it's the correct one? Well, I figure if it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."

I thought literalism of this sort was a 19th and early 20th cetury invention (although this creationist is claiming that "modern" literalism started with Diodorus of Tarsus) and that at the time of Christ the Genesis story was regarded as the Jewish creation myth, not actual history. However, my knowledge of anything to do with the Bible is practically non-existent, so I have a hard time arguing with literalists about the legitimacy of their type of interpretation; my position is sort of that if a description of the world and universe is that far at odds with the results of the scientific method, there must be something fairly badly wrong with it. Their position, of course, is that the scientific method has been hijacked by the Great Atheist Conspiracy when dealing with matters of origins.

Could some of you experts please give some help as far as the history and legitimacy of biblical literalism are concerned, particularly with the claim that since Jesus mentioned Adam and some other things from Genesis, he also believed that Genesis was the literal historical truth.

Thanks.

Sensei Meela

To my knowledge, there was no written Bible to be taken literally in the time of Ezra; I am uncertain if that is true of Jesus' time also. From my understanding of modern Judaism, there are (at least 4 and as many as 7) levels of understanding Scripture, one of which is literal. Whether this is reflective of a Modern (read: post-Enlightenment) development or is more archaic, I can't tell you.

Upon further reflection, it appears I have actually added nothing with this post; sorry!

Toto

There were definitely Hebrew Scriptures around the first century, including the Septuagint, a Greek translation.

It is hard to say if Jesus was an inerrantist (assuming he existed). In the first century, most intelligent Greek and Roman pagans viewed their mythology as essentially allegory, and at least some Jews took the same view of their own scriptures (Philo in particular.) But I would have to do more research to pin down what I have read.

Jesus' followers, however, felt that they had a special way of reading the Hebrew Scriptures that revealed hidden meanings, in particular prophecies of Jesus. In that sense, they were hardly inerrantists.

I would agree with this:

ichabod crane

What your creationist friend says is nonsense. Jesus, for the most part, did not read the Old Testament literally; neither did the apostles; neither did the early church. I did an essay touching on this topic recently; the following excerpts might be useful to you:

Wenham admits that in many OT interpretations of Jesus, “a literal meaning is not essential to the force of the passage� (pp. 13-14). Jesus frequently refers to Old Testament characters as if they were factual, but rarely is the point drawn dependent on the literal history. Furthermore, Jesus so often speaks non-literally (e.g. “destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up�, Jn. 2:19), that caution is necessary. He calls John the Baptist “Elijah� (Mt. 17:12), which shows that he treats historical figures in a representative sense. In light of this we should not presume literalness too carelessly ...

In Mt. 22:43 and Mk. 12:36, Jesus refers to David “speaking by the Holy Spirit�. However, these passages again indicate that Jesus saw this supernatural inspiration as relating to the Christological, allegorical focus of the OT, not to the straightforward meaning. Ps. 110:1 is probably an enthronement psalm, with the court prophet addressing the king (Allen, 1983, 83). It is unlikely that the writer consciously had a Messianic figure in view. This is an example of “midrashic� interpretation which was popular in the first century (Moo, 1986, 192)...

This esoteric meaning in the text is inextricably linked with the concept, especially dominant in the Gospel of Mark, of the “Messianic Secret� (Achtemeier et al., 2001, 57). The hidden meaning of the OT text and the Messianic Secret are bound together, so that one without the other is impossible. Jesus' Messiahship could only be hidden to all but a few because its foreshadowing in the OT was hidden to all but a few... The mind of the reader of the scriptures needs to be “opened� in order that this deeper meaning might be understood (Lk. 24:32, 45-47).

Jesus' interpretation of prophecy is relentlessly allegorical. Consider his references to “the sign of the prophet Jonah�. There is nothing in Jonah to suggest that his spending time in the belly of the “great fish� was a sign of anything at all. Wenham admits: “It is not easy to discern the principles of interpretation that govern our Lord's understanding of prophecy, prophecies being sometimes interpreted literally and sometimes typologically� (1972, 24-25).

In fact, it is difficult to find instances of literal interpretation of prophecy. From his quotation of Is. 61:1-2 (Lk. 4:18-19) through to his claim to be “the stone that the builders rejected� (Ps. 118:22), his interpretations are non-literal and allegorical in nature. Typically, the prophecy taken in context applied to some situation at the time it was written. But Jesus and the gospel writers find a hidden meaning, such as finding fulfillment of Jer. 31:15, in context clearly referring to the Babylonian captivity, in Herod's slaughter of the infants (Mt. 2:18). There are very few prophecies which can plausibly be claimed to have been literally fulfilled in terms of the author's intended meaning...

Jesus' interpretation of the OT was sometimes quite odd, such as his reference to Ps. 82:6 in Jn. 10:35, or his quotation of Ex. 3:6 in Mt. 22:32, Mk. 12:26, and Lk. 20:37. In these instances his argument cannot be sustained by the “grammatical-historical� method. He sees a deeper meaning in these texts (Moule, 1982, 89)...

Space does not permit a detailed examination of Paul or the other apostle's view of the OT. In summary, however, what was true of Jesus' approach to the OT was also true of the apostles (Moule, 1982, 89-91; Hays, 1989, 1-5). Consider Galations 4:21-31. In this passage, Paul refers to Genesis 16:1-16; 17:15-26; 21:9-21. But he interprets these passages as speaking allegorically (ajllhgorevw), with Isaac representing the New Covenant people, and Ishmael representing the Old Covenant. Paul is debating with people who are yet to be persuaded to his point of view and who are not just willing to accept his word for it. He appeals to scripture as a common ground of reference. He makes no claim to his apostolic authority or to special insight on the text; on the contrary, it seems that he expects his reader to recognize the validity of his interpretation for themselves. Just as Jesus expected his listeners to be able to see the deeper sense of the OT that pointed to him, so Paul expects his readers to recognize that Ishmael represents those under the Old Covenant, and Isaac those under the new2. The book of Hebrews demonstrates this mode of interpretation par excellence. The characteristic and distinctive feature of early Christian exegesis Moule calls “historical typology� (1982, 89). Such modes of interpretation also dominated the post-apostolic age. Moo writes that “the allegorical method, then, quickly came to dominate patristic interpretation of the Old Testament� (1986, 182).

ichabod crane

Why are literalists so scared of this? Yes, we might reject parts of the Bible, but only if we examine the evidence and the arguments and decide on that basis to do so. On the other hand, we might find that part of the Bible retains its truth under close scrutiny. We might even find that finding a deeper, non-literal meaning, opens us up to truths which we would miss by being relentlessly literal. But we don't have to reject anything in particular just because we don't adopt a literal hermeneutic. There's no logical reason to reject the divinity of Jesus (if you believe the Bible teaches that) just because we don't accept a literal interpretation. That is the "all or nothing" fallacy.

In any case, those who claim to read the Bible literally, don't. They often adopt interpretations contrary to the literal meaning, in order to reconcile contradictory passages in different Biblical writings. No-one can interpret the Bible literally consistently because the Bible is a collecting of writings by different authors who see things differently.

This argument seems to be like saying, well we'd better not examine evidence or we might have to adandon some cherished belief that we really are attached to.

FordMadoxBrown

Excellent points there, ichabod.

the idea that Jesus took the OT literaly is a complete fallacy based only on the instances where he refers to Genesis. But despite claims, there is no conclusive evidence that he believed in a 6-day creation.

Ironically, the 'literalists', in their eagerness to read what they want to read into the Bible, show themselves as very 'NON=literaliast'! All the evidence is the other way,. tha Jesus regarded the Bible frankly as a compilation of legends, to be adapted and applied.

Toto

This may get beyond the scope of this forum, but it seems that errors in any part of a document would tend to impeach the veracity of the remaining parts of a document. Once you admit that the Bible is not a sure guide until it is validated by reason, what reason do you have to accept the literal existence of Jesus, much less his divinity?

dado

well here's a surpise: they're wrong. the people who wrote and preserved Genesis - namely, the Jews - understand it to be a story NOT to be taken literally. this has been the normative teaching for, i don't even know how long, at least 1500 years, probably much longer than that.

dado

sigh. trying to bite my tongue here.

look, that statement is so incorrect, so far from the truth, it is difficult for me to believe someone is making it out of honest mistake. to me that statement smacks of intentional deception.

the literal meaning of the text is known in Judaism as peshat - this is the simple meaning you give to your seven year old. why your x'ian friend seems to desire this stunted level of perception, G-d only knows. from there it goes deeper - to derash, homolitical, then to remez, allegorical, and finally to sod, mystical. the difference is profound. the literal reading of the very first verse is something like "in the beginning G- created", by the time you get to the mystical meaning, it's the other way around, "the Beginning created G-d". (roughly).

i don't quite understand how the historical path worked out that the very texts Judaism understands are nothing more than starting points are taken by x'ianity as the destination. jesus - if the texts are correct - was a rabbi, and a rather mystical one at that. he was absolutely not a literalist - literalists do not talk in allegories - though those who wrote the stories afterwards may well have been.

Mageth

I'm reading Karen Armstrong's The Battle For God right now. In the book, she describes the rise of fundamentalism in Judaism, Islam and Christianity since the 15th Century, and how that is linked with a shift in the way we think about the world from what she calls mythos (including mythical interpretations of scriptures) to logos (including literal interpretations of scriptures).

According to my understanding of what Armstrong is saying, the literal understanding of scriptures we see in fundamentalist Christianity, as opposed to the mythical/allegorical understanding (which was the intent of the authors), is in part connected to the rise of rationalism (or, more broadly, a logos worldview) in the West, and the rise of fundamentalism is in part a response to that change in our way of thinking about the world (a shift from mythos to logos). It's a "modern" phenomenon. And since we (including the fundamentalists) are raised with a logos mindest, it's very hard for us to think about, or even talk about, the mythos mindset.

Put another way, in Jesus' time, the world (religion in particular) was generally understood through mythos; today, we generally understand the world, and religion, through logos. Failing to understand this, the literalist mentioned in the OP is projecting a modern logos worldview/religion view onto people that lived 2000 years ago. Jesus would have understood the scriptures as including myth (with some history mixed in), and as being open to interpretation as myth. In addition, Paul and the other writers of the NT would have seen nothing wrong with mythologizing the life of Jesus and reinterpreting earlier myths to support their Jesus myths.

Of course, there's a lot more to it than my simple synopsis. Armstrong's book is excellent, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the subject.