What's the cause of modern literalism?

[theIdi0t]

I ran across this Sam Harris quote the other day:

"Moderates in every faith are obliged to loosely interpret (or simply ignore) much of their canons in the interests of living in the modern world," he says. "The moderate's retreat from scriptural literalism... draws its inspiration not from scripture but from cultural developments that have rendered many of God's utterances difficult to accept as written.... The only reason anyone is 'moderate' in matters of faith these days is that he has assimilated some of the fruits of the last two thousand years of human thought." (p. 17)

And the creationist will perhaps applaud, and agree, But it's simply false. When you start to read early exegesis, it becomes quite amusing. You have stories in the Talmud of Adam pushing Eve into the Tree of Good and Bad, to see if touching it, led to any repercussions. The early exegete was unblushingly liberal.

So I just wanted to turn to the past for a minute:

"One of the most famous stories in the Talmud is about a group of rabbis who are debating a point of Torah. One of them, Rabbi Eliezer, seems to be winning because he keeps calling on miracles, including a voice from heaven, to vindicate him, and each time, the miracle occurs. The other rabbis do not accept this. Miracles are not an answer. Rabbi Joshua actually tells heaven to stay out of it, reprimanding the heavenly voice with a line from Moses, "It is not in heaven" (Deut 30:12). The wandering Elijah later reports that God laughed and said, "My children have conquered me [or, outvoted me]."

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary. Go and learn it." – Hillel

"What is the Torah?" asked the Bavli, "It is: the interpretation of the Torah"

And here is Augustine, who once again seems not to age:

"Whoever, therefore, thinks that he understands the divine scriptures or any part of them so that it does not build the double love of God and of our neighbor does not understand it at all. Whoever finds a lesson there useful to the building of charity, even though he has not said what the author may be shown to have intended in that place, has not been deceived." (Saint Augustine)."

I could continue with even more thoughts of the past, from Origin, to Maimonides, Zohar, to Philo.

But I'm curious as to why the shift? And what exactly is the cause of the Biblical Literalism movement? What exactly was it about Modernism, that such believers ran to it, to re-write the whole bible? And it seems even more bizarre to me why the rejecters of science, are the one who attempt to interpret scripture scientifically.

 

[pehkay]

Hmm ... I know i am not addressing the question ...

IMO, There are two extremes in biblical study:
1) The first, biblical literalism
2) The second, secular studies

Both faces a lot problems in its consistencies etc. IMO.

The only thing, in one sense, to strike a balance in the middle, that is, the divine revelation in Bible is consistent throughout the whole Bible.

Just my 2 cents ...

 

[holdon]

I ran across this Sam Harris quote the other day:



And the creationist will perhaps applaud, and agree, But it's simply false. When you start to read early exegesis, it becomes quite amusing. You have stories in the Talmud of Adam pushing Eve into the Tree of Good and Bad, to see if touching it, led to any repercussions. The early exegete was unblushingly liberal.

So I just wanted to turn to the past for a minute:

"One of the most famous stories in the Talmud is about a group of rabbis who are debating a point of Torah. One of them, Rabbi Eliezer, seems to be winning because he keeps calling on miracles, including a voice from heaven, to vindicate him, and each time, the miracle occurs. The other rabbis do not accept this. Miracles are not an answer. Rabbi Joshua actually tells heaven to stay out of it, reprimanding the heavenly voice with a line from Moses, "It is not in heaven" (Deut 30:12). The wandering Elijah later reports that God laughed and said, "My children have conquered me [or, outvoted me]."

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary. Go and learn it." – Hillel

"What is the Torah?" asked the Bavli, "It is: the interpretation of the Torah"

And here is Augustine, who once again seems not to age:

"Whoever, therefore, thinks that he understands the divine scriptures or any part of them so that it does not build the double love of God and of our neighbor does not understand it at all. Whoever finds a lesson there useful to the building of charity, even though he has not said what the author may be shown to have intended in that place, has not been deceived." (Saint Augustine)."

I could continue with even more thoughts of the past, from Origin, to Maimonides, Zohar, to Philo.

But I'm curious as to why the shift? And what exactly is the cause of the Biblical Literalism movement? What exactly was it about Modernism, that such believers ran to it, to re-write the whole bible? And it seems even more bizarre to me why the rejecters of science, are the one who attempt to interpret scripture scientifically.

Talmudist are "the early exegetes"? I can tell you of one who was earlier: the serpent in Eden. And his exegesis was the same as these Talmudists: "don't touch that tree". The truth is that both the serpent and these Talmudists are wrong: God had said don't eat of the tree.
See, that happens when you don't take God at His Word. It becomes a miserable distortion.

 

[Melethiel]

Twas influenced by the Baconian thought of the 19th century, which is a trademark of evangelicalism in general, and culminated in the fundamentalism of the early 20th century.

I read a good historical analysis of this once - The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.

 

[USincognito]

If you want an interesting history of modern activist Creationism, see if you can get a copy of The Creationists by Ronald L. Numbers.

Mondern Creationism is basically 7th Day Adventism stripped of Adventist trappings for evangelical and fundamentalist consumption.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Twas influenced by the Baconian thought of the 19th century, which is a trademark of evangelicalism in general, and culminated in the fundamentalism of the early 20th century.

I read a good historical analysis of this once - The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.

Beat me too it.

 

[artybloke]

It's Enlightenment materialism - that only "facts" are true - tied to a kind of "miraclism" where God is expected to prove himself by ever more elaborate means - tied to a God of the Gaps theology - tied to a kind of reification of the written word, and a general Manichean (the physical world is not the real world) Platonism.

 

[shernren]

I ranted about a possible cause of modern literalism here: http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=40412310&postcount=78

I also found this quote by Peter Jensen, from The Revelation of God, interesting:

... there is always a tendency in Christianity, not least at the present, to falter in its grasp of the gospel of God's grace, and therefore to seek answers to questions ... in the wrong places. In particular, we tend to explain the ambiguities of experience by experience in itself. In answering the questions, we are tempted to give priority to evidential experience or reason.

Is God there? We propound proofs.
Does he accept me? We perform good works.
Is he with me? We seek religious experience.

(paragraphing added) Interesting because here was a theological conservative, who has set himself against both liberal ideas of the Bible and literal readings of it. (He looks to Warfield as proof that creationism is superfluous to true, conservative Christianity.) It seems that the current trend of creationism trying, after its fashion, to "prove God" ties in with this. Creationists may have a fideist veneer in their talk of "presuppositions" and the like, but the heart of it is fundamentally evidentiary, and "evidence" at the cost of truth at that.

 

[Mallon]

It seems that the current trend of creationism trying, after its fashion, to "prove God" ties in with this.

A wise man did once say that "a wicked generation seeks a sign".

 

[theIdi0t]

But why is literalism, and such so appalling to a good number of believers? Why this eagerness to find "science" in the bible? Rather than what is spiritual, what sustains the heart, what conveys Hope, and Love?

As I see it, there are two type of literalist: the ones who take the position as default, but have no desire to explore it. They are as eager as the non-literalist to visit the creationist museums. The church of my youth, was filed with believers of this kind, some that I consider to be exemplary Christians. Then there are those "advocate" types, who devote a great deal of time to find science in the bible, or the wood from Noah's Ark, these are the types I'm curious about, the one's that place a great value in "literalism", not those who are pretty much indifferent to it.

What do you think is the allure for them? Is something missing in their lives, in their relationship with God, that seeks to be filled by other means?

 

[USincognito]

What do you think is the allure for them? Is something missing in their lives, in their relationship with God, that seeks to be filled by other means?

Atheist who went to chuch until he was 18 or so speaking, and I'll let the believers correct or clarify on my comment, but there's a meme - and I am not a big fan of the concept, I just think it has a working usefulness - that either you accept off of the Bible as literal or you reject all of it. We've seen comments to that effect here hundreds of times.

Of course these are the same folks who accept that Jesus isn't a wooden panel for entrance and egress, that some prophetic books like Revelation are symbolic, that parables and Proverbs are symbolic and completely ignore Song of Solomon... but insist that if you reject a literal Genesis, you reject everything else in the Bible.

I, personally, have found Genesis to be much more profound than it was when I ever thought it was over the last 3 years after I deleved into the symbolismn and message that was meant to be communicated. It's a shame that more believers don't do so.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

But why is literalism, and such so appalling to a good number of believers? Why this eagerness to find "science" in the bible? Rather than what is spiritual, what sustains the heart, what conveys Hope, and Love?

As I see it, there are two type of literalist: the ones who take the position as default, but have no desire to explore it. They are as eager as the non-literalist to visit the creationist museums. The church of my youth, was filed with believers of this kind, some that I consider to be exemplary Christians. Then there are those "advocate" types, who devote a great deal of time to find science in the bible, or the wood from Noah's Ark, these are the types I'm curious about, the one's that place a great value in "literalism", not those who are pretty much indifferent to it.

What do you think is the allure for them? Is something missing in their lives, in their relationship with God, that seeks to be filled by other means?

I think the answer lies in the greater and greater complexity of the world and the communications that allow everyone to know. People by and large feel out of control. We cannot control foreign policy or war decisions, the economy, or much else. It becomes increasingly easy to look for anything that offers answers. '

The whole ball of wax of literalism, tied to sola scriptura provide a vehicle wherein the psychologically needy can relax. There no more need to deal with a gray, there is simply black and white.

If anyone watched the Nova last night on the Dover School system and the manifesto of the ID folks, you can see the real agenda. They intend to take over the country and force everyone to follow the rules as they determine them to be. They simply want to be in charge, and USE God as the vehicle. They declare they understand God perfectly, know exactly what he wants done, are convinced that they are perfectly capable of understanding the book by themselves. End of story.

Course its all psychologically wacko, but that hardly matters to them. They have an amazing capacity to hold two totally apposing views in their head at the same time, and NEVER letting them confront one another. That is a powerful psychological need I would say.

 

[busterdog]

The whole ball of wax of literalism, tied to sola scriptura provide a vehicle wherein the psychologically needy can relax. There no more need to deal with a gray, there is simply black and white.

* * *

Course its all psychologically wacko, but that hardly matters to them. They have an amazing capacity to hold two totally apposing views in their head at the same time, and NEVER letting them confront one another. That is a powerful psychological need I would say.

I find this thread amusing. Thanks for that.

Relaxing is nice. As a matter of fact, we are commanded not to worry. And I agree that this command, taken literally, only makes sense in the world ruled by the inerrant Word.

As for things being black and white rather than gray, I think that is asking quite a bit of this theory. The conflict and ambiguity may be found elsewhere, but in reality we all know that the human mind finds a way to get enmeshed in the gray.

Some of us got to this belief through an obsession with gray. A number of us have tried to address the grayness with the elegant but ironically self-aware dead-ends of Zen, Mahayana, Jnana Yoga, etc., which pretend to debunk reality to the point of some exquisite realization that all useful truth exists in some sort of tension. That sold some books for Sartre, Samuel Beckett, etc. But, there does come a time when being such an eggheaded intellectual can be pretty transparently limited.

So, that sounds like the hejira to black/white you speak of. But, you know, maybe its the world and and not neurosis that is to blame and just maybe it is the Spirit of God that leads us there.

Ecc 1:2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all [is] vanity.

Jhn 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

1Cr 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Col 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

 

[theIdi0t]

And I agree that this command, taken literally, only makes sense in the world ruled by the inerrant Word.

I don't understand this statement? Can you explain?

Some of us got to this belief through an obsession with gray. A number of us have tried to address the grayness with the elegant but ironically self-aware dead-ends of Zen, Mahayana, Jnana Yoga, etc., which pretend to debunk reality to the point of some exquisite realization that all useful truth exists in some sort of tension.

It seems strange that you assume that the writers of scripture are in disagreement with the bolded part? Particularly when you quote Solomon's "all is vanity". Didn't Ezekiel in his dissatisfaction with reality, in the tension of existence eat dung? Didn't he call his people worse than harlots for being complacent? Are we not to work out our redemption in fear and trembling? Didn't Jesus say he didn't come to bring peace, but make our own household our enemies? Did he not say that his Way, is the way of persecution, and suffering? So does not the truth lie in tension, particularly when our way, is the Way of the cross?

"Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel (Thomas)."

 

[busterdog]

I don't understand this statement? Can you explain?

If there isn't a simple revealed true, we all ought to worry a great deal.

It seems strange that you assume that the writers of scripture are in disagreement with the bolded part? Particularly when you quote Solomon's "all is vanity". Didn't Ezekiel in his dissatisfaction with reality, in the tension of existence eat dung? Didn't he call his people worse than harlots for being complacent? Are we not to work out our redemption in fear and trembling? Didn't Jesus say he didn't come to bring peace, but make our own household our enemies? Did he not say that his Way, is the way of persecution, and suffering? So does not the truth lie in tension, particularly when our way, is the Way of the cross?

"Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel (Thomas)."

For as many passages as you quote, I could quote the appeal to simple belief in simple statements of affirmative fact. Do they remove all human confrontation with ambiguity and struggle? Indeed no. Nor would I eschew reason to attack them or use "tension" where appropriate.

But, the simple affirmations of truth are no less true and no more in need of a construct by which they are held in tension.

In academia, too often "Ideas existing in tension" has not become the passage through which people come to God, but the end point of faith.

Jacob indeed wrestled the angel. By contrast, the only wrestling I see Jesus doing is when he puts on sin and sweats blood. As a model of the struggle of a chosen people, the struggle is not the deliverance or the Kingdom of Heaven.

Luk 18:17
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
Jhn 12:46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.