Is a Literal Reading of the Bible a Relatively New Gimmick?

Although early Christian historians had departed significantly from the standards of historical method that were laid down by Thucydides and Polybius, for example choosing to ignore criticism of sources (Thucydides) or to try and remain as objective as possible (Polybius), they did recognise that some of the biblical narratives were allegorical.Allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament was promoted by Philo Judaeus, but the main drive behind this method of interpretation was Origen who lived from 186-255.The following text is from Frank Conybeare’s A History of New Testament Criticism, Watts, London 1910. According to Origen: Whenever we meet with such useless, nay impossible, incidents and precepts as these, we must discard a literal interpretation and consider of what moral interpretation they are capable of what moral interpretation they are capable, with what higher and mysterious meaning they are fraught, what deeper truths they were intended symbolically and in allegory to shadow forth. The divine wisdom has of set purpose contrived these little traps and stumbling blocks in order to cry halt to our slavish historical understanding of the text, by inserting in its midst sundry things that are impossible and unsuitable. The Holy Spirit so waylays us in order that we may be driven by passages which, taken in the prima facie sense cannot be true or useful, to search for the ulterior truth, and seek in the Scriptures which we believe to be inspired by God a meaning worthy of him. (pp14-15).Some examples from Origen: Who will be found idiot enough to believe that God planted trees in Paradise like any husbandman; that he set up in it visible and palpable tree-trunks, labelled the one ‘Tree of Life’ and the other ‘Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil’ both bearing real fruit that might be masticated with corporeal teeth; that he went and walked about that garden; that Adam hid under a tree; that Cain fled from the face of God? How can it be literally true, how an historical fact, that from a single mountain top with fleshy eyes all the realms of Persia, of Scythia, and of India could be seen adjacent and at once. Such is the text of Luke 10:4, in which Jesus when he sent forth the Twelve Apostles bade them ‘Salute no man on the way.’ None but silly people believe that our Saviour delivered such a precept to the Apostles. And how, particularly in a land where winter bristles with icicles and is bitter with frosts, could anyone be asked to do with only two tunics and no shoes? And then that other command that a man who is smitten on the right cheek shall also turn the left to the smiter, ho can it be true, seeing that anyone who smites another with his right hand must necessarily smite his left cheek and not his right? And another of the things to be classed among the impossible is the prescription found in the Gospel, that if thy right eye offend thee it shall be plucked out. For even if we take this to apply to our bodily eyes, how is it to be considered consistent, whereas we use both eyes to see, to saddle one eye only with the guilt of the stumbling block, and why the right eye rather than the left? (Examples from Conybeare 10-11)Obviously to criticise the Hebrew creation stories in the same way that Hecataeus criticised Greek mythology would be wicked and sinful, but if the content of an ‘inspired’ report was outrageous or appeared too incredible to take at face value, some hidden or inner meaning was looked for.Because scripture could not be criticised in the same way that the Greek myths were, allegory and symbolism replaced integrity and critical analysis as the foundations of historical research. So it seems that as early as the beginning of the third century CE, it was recognised that the Bible did not contain an accurate history in the sense of using reliable sources. It was recognised that the Bible was inspired by God but the Old Testament was not to be taken at face value.What I would like answers to is when did all this change, or were there always groups of Christians who took the Bible literally? Can anyone point out some sources that I could read that would allow me to construct a continuous thread that would support a literal reading of the Bible (Old and New Testament) from as early a time as possible up to the present day, or is this face value reading of the Bible a relatively new idea?What I would like to say is (this is very rough I know) group A took Bible at face value from 225 CE until 655 CE, group B from 355 EC to 797, group C from 543 -1254 If there is one identifiable group from say the 3rd century until the present day, are there also significant groups who have appeared and then disappeared.Inerrantists please note that this thread is not about whether the Bible contains errors or not.Brian.PS, I am fairly well-covered from Philo to the present day in regard to allegorical interpretation of the Bible.

Just after the death of the Apostles gnosticism conquered the Church.Then, in response to this tangentle heresy God would raise up a man to re-discover the teachings of the Apostles. In these teachings, God proclaims that the right division of His word can only be interpreted by a person that is called by Him to do so.This means the true message contained in scripture can only be brought to understanding by a person chosen by God.People with this calling : Augustine, Martin Luther, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, G. Campbell Morgan, and of course Dr. Scott, to name a few amongst a few.What I am saying is what Ephesians says. That only gift ministers raised up by God can effectively interpret written scripture. This is the way God has chosen to speak and He gives us the choice in deciding who speaks for Him.A true mouthpiece from God always counter-balances the havoc created by literalists and their opposites.The only hitch involved is the spiritual discernment it takes to decide who actually speaks for God. This means individuals must search and pray God that He leads them to a gift minister.

Hi WT, Yes, the conclusion I am arriving at is that this literal reading of the Bible has reached new heights in the 20th and 21st century. I am going to argue that this literal reading of the Bible is more of a gimmick than a teaching. I am also persuaded that this modern day literal reading of the Bible is mainly an American phenomenon, and thankfully these literalists are in the minority. This certainly makes more sense that taking the Bible at face value, however, it then emphasises the faith that people have in their own interpretation of the text, or whoever’s interpretation they adhere to. I personally think that if a person has interpreted the Bible to the best of their ability and they are following Jesus’ teachings and believe in your heart that He is your Lord and Saviour, then not accepting that people once lived for nearly a thousand years, or rejecting a worldwide flood will not have any bearing on your salvation. I would not agree to Martin Luther being part of your list.Here are a few paragraphs from the paper I am writing, if you disagree with any of it could you perhaps outline the reasons why, this would allow me to rewrite a few things. The Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century, which in many ways represents merely a radical and religious application of Renaissance principles and aims, made some significant contributions that were ultimately of great importance in the study of Hebrew historiography.

​

First of all, the reformers placed the Bible at the centre of theological activity. Sola Scriptura was the significant teaching of the Reformation. In stressing the Bible as the rule and norm of faith, the reformers put emphasis on a literal interpretation of the scriptures, Luther wrote that:

​

The Holy Spirit is the plainest writer and speaker in heaven and earth, and therefore His words cannot have more than one, and that the very simplest, sense, which we call the literal, ordinary, natural sense.

​

All heresies and error in Scripture have not arisen out of the simple words of Scripture. . . . All error arises out of paying no regard to the plain words and, by fabricated inferences and figures of speech, concocting arbitrary interpretations in one's own brain. (Kummel, pp 20-23)

​

This emphasis upon a literal reading of the scriptures, which had earlier been stressed in Judaism over against a Christocentric reading of the Old Testament, did not produce any immediate critical-historical approach to the Bible. The idea of the divine inspiration of scripture or the Bible as the word of God actually stopped the reformers from having any really critical approach to the biblical texts, but Luther did relegate Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation to an appendix in his New Testament translation. However, this was primarily for theological reasons and not for reasons of historical reliability (Kummel, 24-26).

​

A second contribution of the Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation can be seen in the fact that the history of the church became a dominant issue in the struggles within the church in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Historical accuracy was a powerful weapon used by both sides. Protestants argued that the teachings of Jesus and the faith of the primitive church had become distorted by the hierarchy of the church, and the Catholics sought to prove that the church at the time was the true successor of primitive Christianity and that the church was basically unchanged.

​

Historians on both sides turned once again to the intensive study and use of documents to argue their stances. In some examples this study of documents was even more intense than many humanist historians. As a result of this use of historiography as a support for a particular viewpoint, ecclesiastical history in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries displayed a greater sophistication, a more thorough analysis of sources, and a more historiographic complexity than secular history. These discussions showed that history could be used to verify and support a scholar’s hypothesis about a religious dispute, the sense of history was still in its early stages but the understanding of the historical past was to improve over the next century or so. Do you know of any groups throughout history that taught a literal reading of the Bible?Cheers.Brian.

Brian, I'd be interested in seeing this substantiated.

Hi CA,I am at work right now so do not have my notes with me.What I am arguing is that the Christian Fathers had to allegorise the Old Testament because there are no explicit references to Jesus in the OT. Also, most first century Xians were expecting a quick return by Jesus, so when he failed to reappear then some Fathers believed that there were hidden meanings in the OT text.Essentially, there was no initial tension between people who took the OT literally and those who saw the OT solely as being prophecies about the life and history of Jesus.However, with the rise of the rationalists and the deists, and their modification of historical methodology, caused tension between the literalists and those who allegorised the OT. The OT had to be allegorised because the text does not literally point to Jesus.Brian.

Brian,Forgive me for not responding sooner. I just returned from spending the weekend with a gaggle of grandkids. My question was not about what you were arguing, but about assertions made in the course of that argument. You wrote:

quote:

---

This emphasis upon a literal reading of the scriptures, which had earlier been stressed in Judaism over against a Christocentric reading of the Old Testament, ...

---

Again, I would like to see that characterization/generalization of Judaism substantiated.

Hi CA,Hope you had an enjoyable weekend.Re the unsubstantiated/generalisation in my post, the quote was from Kummel’s book and I had posted it in response to WT presentation of Luther as having an allegorical approach to the Bible. It was the only text that I had on floppy at work that contradicted WT’s information about Luther, the reference to judeo/christcentric was not intended to be part of the refutation of WT’s mentioning of Luther as having an allegorical approach to the Bible.The paper itself is not a theology paper, it is for a history section of an e-journal that will be issued in December, so I have quite a bit of time left to complete it.I do appreciate you pointing this out because if I use this material in the final draft I will obviously have to look into how Kummel comes to this conclusion. I may not even use this material at all, the intent of the post was mainly for the Luther quote that was in Kummel’s book.The paper itself (if you are interested) is going to be along the lines of ‘A History of the Writing of History’ and is looking how different approaches to the writing of history have developed over the last 2600 years or so.Essentially, I begin with Hecataeus and why he is credited with being the first historian to adopt a critical approach to writing history. Then moving on to Herodotus, Thucydides, and Polybius before outlining why the early Christian historians placed emphasis more on faith than reason in their approach to history writing, the sacred and the profane history if you like. The consequence of this approach by the Christian historians was to place the majority of the Greek works into the category of paganism, and hence inferior to the Old Testament in which they saw prophecies of Jesus birth and life.Then after establishing the allegorical approach from people such as Philo and Origen, which I am researching at the moment, I would then move on to the post-renaissance approach to history writing.The reason that I was going to mention Luther was that I feel his literal approach to the Bible caused conflict with the catholic church and both camps began to use historical sources to try and counter the other groups’ claims to the ‘Truth’. I believe, and I know I have a lot of work to do in this area, that this looking back at earlier sources in a more critical way led to the acceptance in society in general of a more critical approach to history writing, and not only in relation to church history.I also think that the post-renaissance period and the rise of the humanist and rationalist movements allowed scholars to be as critical towards the Bible as they were towards any other ancient text and thus the entire face of historical enquiry changed.The paper is still embryonic and I may decide not to use Luther as an example, I am not sure yet. But if I do then I thank you again for pointing out the reference, I really do appreciate your input.The intent of this thread was to see if I could establish a continuous thread of this literal approach to the Bible, and I seem to have drawn a blank before Luther. Do you know of any groups before Luther that took the Bible literally?Cheers.Brian.

Good evening, Brian. You write: Am I incorrect in believing that the sentence in question was yours and not Kummel's? Specifically, you appear to claim:

• This emphasis upon a literal reading of the scriptures, which had earlier been stressed in Judaism ...

Can you support your characterization of Judaism.I hate to be a nudge, but it would really help if you'd take a moment to answer the questions asked. Thanks.

Hey, Brian...C.A..how are you doing this fine day! These questions on literal scriptural interpretation are fascinating and quite articulate! I am no scholar, and I don't have time to dig around, but your question is very valid. Here is my comments regarding this discussion:
1) On the progression of thinking and critique throughout History, we know that the people in early Western Civilization were influenced by many differing academic disciplines. To start with, 95% of the population was excluded before 1500, due to inability to read. Of the ones who were left, we could ask ourselves what cultural zeitguist was the most influential on their individual thought processes. Some were influenced by the Greek culture.(all, in fact.) Some studied the early scriptural manuscripts. One factor which I personally would introduce, yet cannot prove, is the value of Spiritual impartation through a unique and personal way of reading the early scriptures.
We can ask ourselves, If by literalist, we mean it says what it says and thats what it means, we are talking on a shallow level that, unfortunately, many American Christians have fallen in to. If, on the other hand, we mean literal in the sense of then we have another subject to verify. I always ask myself this question about the early church: Of all of the people throughout history who have defined themselves as biblical believers, how many can cut the mustard? You will find, of course, that there is a division into two camps of 1)This is what I interpret the words to mean.
and, 2) We all just know and feel that a common Spiritual meaning is agreed upon.
To a Christian, the second group is "saved" or "enlightened" or perhaps communally imparted with wisdom, whereas the first group is not so easily swayed. My question then, to the first group is this: One final point. Brian, you asked the following question: To answer this question, based on my opinion and belief, I would assert that Christian scriptural interpretation, by definition and within a small range of dissent, has always been very similar. For some, the belief which they express was merely gleaned off of another mans interpretation. For others, however...reading the basic manuscripts directly they all came to similar interpretations of meaning. To me, this suggests a sort of divine impartation. After the death, burial and ressurrection of Jesus, I would estimate that many if not most of the people characterized as believers at that time had direct and communally divine impartation. This fervor and zeal diminished steadily over time, yet there always was a remnant of men who had this same divine impartation. Most of them were not Popes and Cardinals. Most of them were probably Monks. It all boils down to common sense and an inner awareness that I have come to trust within myself about reading other people. I can usually tell if someone has a special gift of wisdom which is not mere knowledge and education but which goes deeper and "feels right". Today, as back then, it is not always the big honchos within the church that have this impartation. It is the little lady with blue hair who has a heart of gold and goes to minister at the hospital every Friday night. It is the Christian parent who allows their children to grow up without undue discipline or restriction, yet who falls on his face and prays for their sfety and edification nightly. It is the committed believers...who seek truth by actually reading the Bible with their heart as well as their mind.[This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-09-2004]

Brian :I am not aware of anything said pertaining to Luther except my inclusion of him into that list of gift ministers. Although, in this reply I will make known where I stand about him.Where is your definiton of "literalism" except in the example of Origen and his scriptural interpretations ?If the example of Origen is your definition then the meaning is quite clear.Origen had an intense desire for young girls which caused him to take what Jesus said about offending body parts literally. He castrated himself believing this would solve his problem. Of course, the only thing this accomplished was to disable his ability to perform, thus leaving him with the same desires but no avenue of release.Jesus meant what He said about removing offending body parts that will take the whole body to hell. But faced with the horror of performing surgery on oneself, Jesus was intending to make one see the need for the power of the gospel as the only other alternative to plucking out your eye, castration, etc. etc.As you know, Luther is a giant - the Father of the Reformation. I urge caution IF you intend to lump him with a nut case like Origen.Personally, I equate literalists to be the worst element of fundementalism, and fundementalism is the worst element in any given good. Fundementalism is also generic representation of the established religious community in any era. It was the Pharisees in Christ's time, the religious right of our time, and the Catholic Church of Luther's time.Compared to the handling of God's written word by the Roman Catholic Church, Luther was indeed a literalist. God used Luther to PROTEST the voiding of His word by the status quo. Luther simply rediscovered that which was already there and he demanded that the clerical stranglehold upon the "Holy Literary" be released by the Church."Origenic literalists" love the book of James. Luther referred to James as an epistle "made of straw....not one word of gospel in it"
Evangelion and charisma (grace) do not appear in the epistle of James.I conclude Luther is not a literalist in the sense I believe you are intending.The reportive meaning of "literalist" today has inescapable connection to something Luther clearly was not.Your topic title associating literalism to gimmick is an insult - I love it. If anything you are too soft. I also think it would benefit understanding if you were to simply stipulate a specific defintion to literalism.I agree with your observation that literal reading of the Bible has reached new heights in the 20th and 21st centuries. Please expose these heights and pillage their motives.Then you comment about persons who do their best to embrace Jesus but cannot believe flood stories, 1000 year life spans, etc. etc.I couldn't agree more with the spirit and intent of your point here.N.T. personages only believed that God was in Christ. Trinitarian gobbilygook emerged 400 years later.Brian, as to the posted forth-coming paper excerpts, I find what you write extremely objective and exciting. If rank and file christianity knew half of what you know we would change the world in ten years.To connect the Reformation to the Renaissance is absolutely accurate as revisionist scholars continually seek to disengage the two.Let me end by asking you to further clarify your position concerning Luther as is related to the message of your topic. And please respond to my plea for literalism meaning and my placement of fundementalists as literalists.

Phatboy :I just want to tell you that the last paragraph in this post of yours is really terrific.

Brian,Perhaps my problem is one of interpreting your posts. Please consider editing/reformating Message 3 to help clarify what are your words, what statements or paragraphs are direct quotes, and what statements or paragraphs constitute your paraphrase of Kummel or others.Parenthetically, references such "(Kummel, pp 20-23)" may be more helpful if accompanied by a title.[This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 02-10-2004]

Hi CA,Yes I see what you mean, I should have been clearer the quote in message 3 The shaded text is all taken from Kummel, however, he is being quoted in Israel's past in present research : essays on ancient Israelite historiography / edited by V. Philips Long. I do not have the exact reference details here at work but I will be at home in a few hours and will post the actual details then.It was a fairly long time ago that I scanned this page into an OCR package, and perhaps I should have only quoted the reference to Luther.But I should have perhaps been clearer that the text under question is not my own conclusion, I haven't really reached as far as Luther yet. If the Kummel book is in the Uni library I can get a hold of it tomorrow and see how he arrives at this conclusion.Sorry to have been confusing, but I really only homed in on the Luther quote.Speak later.Brian.

I have to admit that I'm pretty offended that a nutball like Luther, who said the devil used to come defecate in his room as an attack on him, and who once "routed the devil with a fart" should be compared to a respected man like Origen, who gave his life for what he believed.That Origen struggled with lust like virtually every other young Christian man who has ever lived should hardly be translated to "had an intense desire for young girls." Yes, and almost every other young man I've ever known has had "an intense desire for young girls." There is no indication anywhere that Origen had any unusual desires.By the way, castration is supposed to remove the desire as well, due to hormones. I suspect your statement that he was tormented for the rest of your life is just more bad information about one of the greatest Christian men who ever lived.Just so you know, a century after Origen the church made the Trinity a big issue, and this is the only reason he was ever condemned as a heretic. Origen was a prolific writer, and it was much harder to twist his words to make them sound like the doctrine the church settled on (Athanasius' doctrine) than say, Tertullian, who agrees completely with Origen's views, but is considered orthodox. Origen was considered the greatest teacher alive in his time, and it wasn't until two centuries later that he was condemned by a church that would have been unrecognizable to the church of Origen's day.My references about Luther come from a book called "A World Lit Only by Fire" by William Manchester, but a small list of his bizarre thoughts and activities can be found at Page Not Found - Freedom From Religion Foundation. A Google search will find you much more, including his intense anti-Semitism.My statements about Origen and Tertullian come from their own writings in the Ante-Nicene Father series, and the details about Origen's life can be found in the introductions there or many places on the web.[This message has been edited by truthlover, 02-10-2004]

Who do you mean by Christians? If you mean the lineage that most would use, from the early church fathers, through the Catholic church and the Protestants (plus some earlier "protesters," such as the Waldensians), then your assertion is false.I'm not sure what you would list as the standard. "Bible believers" of today don't agree on salvation or baptism, or even what faith means (re: So Great Salvation by Charles Ryrie vs. The Gospel According to Jesus by John MacArthur). The differences between modern believers and the church fathers are even more numerous. Are you even aware of the terms "apostolic tradition" or "rule of faith"? They were central to the fathers, and they included things that really no one believes today.Did you know that the same council that produced the Nicene Creed (which was, of course, the Council of Nicea) also produced a "canon," saying that anyone who joined the military "like a dog returning to his own vomit" should be banned from the communion table for up to 13 years? The fathers are notoriously anti-war, and Clement of Alexandria says that the reason that the early church did not use musical instruments (yes, he said that, and my "church" uses musical instruments), because musical instruments were used by armies in war.Anyway, the assertion that "Christian scriptural interpretation, by definition and within a small range of dissent, has always been very similar" doesn't have any truth to it at all.