Scriptural literalism

[Augustus]

Something I've been thinking about but don't really know a great deal on. Any answers would be appreciated.

When did people start to interpret religious scriptures in a highly literal manner? Which was the first religion to do so?

Is there any reason to believe any of the early followers of any religious tradition adopted a literalist approach or was it always a much later development?

Is this something unique to certain forms of Abrahamic religions, or is it present in other faiths too?

 

[Lyndon]

Buddhists can be the same way, taking scripture almost too literally, especially this Forest Monk tradition that is very popular with westerners.

 

[Quintessence]

I recall coming across that this began during the anti-intellectualism that arose out of the Evangelical Christian movement in the 19th century (?), but I also can't recall where it was that I read about this. It's not something I've dug into particularly much.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That's a great question. I just don't know how we'd go about securing an answer. I can't imagine a pre-literalism in ancient Israel.

 

[Jainarayan]

It started at least in the 17th century with Archbishop James Ussher, the Primate of Ireland who calculated the age of the earth using the generations in the Book of Genesis.

Edit: let me clarify that to refer to evangelical and fundamentalist Christians.

 

[rusra02]

Something I've been thinking about but don't really know a great deal on. Any answers would be appreciated.

When did people start to interpret religious scriptures in a highly literal manner? Which was the first religion to do so?

Is there any reason to believe any of the early followers of any religious tradition adopted a literalist approach or was it always a much later development?

Is this something unique to certain forms of Abrahamic religions, or is it present in other faiths too?

I think the Bible is a historical document, and many archeological discoveries have supported it's historical narrative. Portions of the Bible, notably Revelation, are written in signs or symbols, as the book itself acknowledges (Revelation 1:1)
There is no evidence, IMO, for claims that portions of the Bible are allegory or myth.

 

[Windwalker]

Something I've been thinking about but don't really know a great deal on. Any answers would be appreciated.

When did people start to interpret religious scriptures in a highly literal manner? Which was the first religion to do so?

Is there any reason to believe any of the early followers of any religious tradition adopted a literalist approach or was it always a much later development?

Is this something unique to certain forms of Abrahamic religions, or is it present in other faiths too?

I have other thoughts I'll share later, but I very much recommend you read this essay. I think you will truly appreciate it. I've quoted from it for many years now. Very well written.

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1332

From the essay:

But the problem is even more deep-rooted. A literalist imagination -- or lack of imagination -- pervades contemporary culture. One of the more dubious successes of modern science -- and of its attendant spirits technology, historiography and mathematics -- is the suffusion of intellectual life with a prosaic and pedantic mind-set. One may observe this feature in almost any college classroom, not only in religious studies, but within the humanities in general. Students have difficulty in thinking, feeling and expressing themselves symbolically.​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I recall coming across that this began during the anti-intellectualism that arose out of the Evangelical Christian movement in the 19th century (?), but I also can't recall where it was that I read about this. It's not something I've dug into particularly much.

I disagree. Literalism in Christianity goes back to at least Paul (or whoever wrote 1 Corinthians, anyhow) - emphasis mine:

1 Cor 15:12-19:

12 Now if Christ is being preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is futile and your faith is empty. 15 Also, we are found to be false witnesses about God, because we have testified against God that he raised Christ from the dead, when in reality he did not raise him, if indeed the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless; you are still in your sins. 18 Furthermore, those who have fallen asleep in Christ have also perished. 19 For if only in this life we have hope in Christ, we should be pitied more than anyone.

It started at least in the 17th century with Archbishop James Ussher, the Primate of Ireland who calculated the age of the earth using the generations in the Book of Genesis.

Edit: let me clarify that to refer to evangelical and fundamentalist Christians.

I was thinking of Ussher as well.

Also, as long as fossils have been known to Christians, there have been Christians hypothesizing that the animals were killed and covered in Noah's Flood.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It started at least in the 17th century with Archbishop James Ussher, the Primate of Ireland who calculated the age of the earth using the generations in the Book of Genesis.

Edit: let me clarify that to refer to evangelical and fundamentalist Christians.

Another example that goes back way further than that: when John Ball was railing against the crown and the aristocracy in the 1300s, his slogan ("when Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?") took as given that the people of the time believed in a literal Adam and Eve: "since we're all ultimately descended from a pair of peasant labourers, how can the hereditary titles of any of these aristocrats be legitimate?"

I think the situation is the exact opposite of what @Quintessence is suggesting: generally, people took scriptures at face value until there was reason not to do so. Yes, there are poetic passages in scripture, and yes, they understood some of the language was metaphoric (e.g. I'm sure not many people thought the "the whore of Babylon" is a physical person), but when the Bible describes events in a matter-of-fact way, as it does with Noah's Flood, the plagues of Egypt, the Exodus, the Resurrection of Christ, and the exploits of Paul and friends in Acts, I think that the vast majority of Christians believed that these events actually happened as far back as the formation of Christianity. At the time, they had no reason not to.

It's only now that we have evidence that makes a literalist stance on these sorts of issues unreasonable. You need justification to say that something is impossible or likely to be impossible - ancient Christians often didn't have this for their stories.

It's only since a literalist interpretation has become unreasonable that people have started looking for alternative interpretations. Literalism isn't the modern invention; this rejection of literalism is the thing that's new... and arguing that it was the mainstream view all along is revisionism... and incorrect.

Throughout history, Christians really have generally believed what's in their scriptures. And it seems weird that I would have to argue this point.

 

[Windwalker]

When did people start to interpret religious scriptures in a highly literal manner? Which was the first religion to do so?

Okay, I have some time to swing back around to this and dig in a little bit deeper now. Are you familiar with James Fowler's stages of faith? Here is a brief overview of his research and devlopmental model: http://www.psychologycharts.com/james-fowler-stages-of-faith.html

It think it is first helpful to understand these things as developmental stages. To answer your question which was the first religion to do so, the answer is all of them that have hit at least the mythic stage (not pre-mythic or magic systems). But at the same time, you have those who understand things symbolically as well, to the point they can even recognize the symbols as symbols, understanding their function. The whole "Literal" part of the religion is simply a matter of the capacity of the person, or group, to recognize and interact with "as if" statements. To understand metaphor as metaphors, and not merely descriptors. People that can't think in "as if" statements, will literalize their understanding of the symbols.

So the essay I linked you to earlier where the professor expresses his thoughts about what seems a systemic problem with a lack of imagination, a lack of capacity in our modern societies to think symbolically. And that is, I believe, a valid factor. It's a symptom to me of religion's failure to help society and culture think metaphorically. That's not always been the case historically, even though you will naturally because of developmental stages have those who are at the "mythic-literal" stage.

Is there any reason to believe any of the early followers of any religious tradition adopted a literalist approach or was it always a much later development?

Yes, it's a normal stage of development. What I think you should be asking is where the center of gravity of the leadership of organized or institutionalized religion was at. If the leadership's center of gravity is mythic-literal, then that will work to keep the main body at that level. If the leadership's center of gravity is a higher stage, such as stage 5 or 6, then the influence of the main body will aide in bringing individuals into higher stages as they are able. That would then follow a normal distribution curve as far as how many stage 3's you have, 4's, and such.

The highest stages of course will have the fewest individuals, because it's a growth model and everyone must pass through the early stages in order to move to the later stages. It's just simply growth structures.If you don't have someone in a leadership position at a higher stage, and the center of gravity of the whole is no higher than that, any individual who is compelled to grow to the next stage will be swimming against the current, to say the least and may never be able to jump up.

Is this something unique to certain forms of Abrahamic religions, or is it present in other faiths too?

I think what you may be seeing is as I said a certain systemic problem with religion in the West. It stands out, more than literalism in Eastern cultures, because it stands in contrast to Modernity in society. That a Buddhist monk may believe a snake is an auspicious sign, is not as jarring as when a Christian in the West says God fixed his washing machine.

Both are magical, but the surrounding culture and society in the East is a little more consistent with that sort of symbolism existing everywhere in its supporting structures. In the West where technology and science rule the day, magic stands in sharp contrast. This is why I say what you are seeing is a systemic problem for the West because of the Churches failure to keep up with the pace of change with everything around them. Mythic-literal stands out in sharp contrast against it, even though it is a normal, natural, and healthy stage of development.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When did people start to interpret religious scriptures in a highly literal manner? Which was the first religion to do so?

I'm not sure when people started writing their beliefs down in scriptures, but I think it's a safe bet that people started taking their beliefs literally slightly before they started killing each other over religion.

... IOW, some time in prehistory.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is this something unique to certain forms of Abrahamic religions, or is it present in other faiths too?

It's certainly not unique to Abrahamic religions:

Hindu groups oppose canal project

Hindu activists say the canal project will damage Lord Rama's bridge

Protest rallies have been held across India by hard-line Hindus to campaign against a proposed shipping canal project between India and Sri Lanka.

Massive traffic jams were reported in many places and trains delayed in many parts of the country.

Protesters say the project will destroy a bridge they believe was built by Hindu God Ram and his army of monkeys.

Scientists question the belief, saying it is solely based on the Hindu mythological epic Ramayana.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6990847.stm

 

[Augustus]

It's only since a literalist interpretation has become unreasonable that people have started looking for alternative interpretations. Literalism isn't the modern invention; this rejection of literalism is the thing that's new... and arguing that it was the mainstream view all along is revisionism... and incorrect.

Throughout history, Christians really have generally believed what's in their scriptures. And it seems weird that I would have to argue this point.

If a strict literalism wa the norm until modern times, why then did the likes of Wahhab and Luther rail against the abandonment of 'true message' as based on the texts? Some modern Salafis have a far more literal understanding of Islamic scripture than the average medieval jurist did.

The average person couldn't even read the texts, and it was only the educated elites who tended to have access. They were also often well educated in philosophy, rhetoric, etc. This often meant many had a very ophisticated understanding of scripture.

Obviously, many religious people believe the events described actually happened, but the overall religious tradition wasn't built on a strict scriptural literalism, but on a text with surrounding broader traditions that often explain the texts outwith literal meanings.

There is a problem with the question in that what constitutes 'strict literalism' is a bit subjective. Perhaps you are interpreting it a bit more liberally than I intended.

 

[roger1440]

Something I've been thinking about but don't really know a great deal on. Any answers would be appreciated.

When did people start to interpret religious scriptures in a highly literal manner? Which was the first religion to do so?

Is there any reason to believe any of the early followers of any religious tradition adopted a literalist approach or was it always a much later development?

Is this something unique to certain forms of Abrahamic religions, or is it present in other faiths too?

Religion is older then language. When man used to worship fat chicks it was probably meant literal.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If a strict literalism wa the norm until modern times, why then did the likes of Wahhab and Luther rail against the abandonment of 'true message' as based on the texts? Some modern Salafis have a far more literal understanding of Islamic scripture than the average medieval jurist did.

First off, while I think that religious literalism is as old as religion itself, I recognize that various people and groups have taken non-literalist stances over history. I don't know enough about Wahhabiism or Salafism to really speak to them. When I was talking about literalism being the norm until recently, I was talking about Christianity specifically.

Since I'm not familiar with where Luther says what you describe, it's hard for me to guess at what he might mean unless you point me toward the actual quote you had in mind and its context.

The average person couldn't even read the texts, and it was only the educated elites who tended to have access.

Literacy was uncommon, but familiarity with Bible stories wasn't. It was common for priests who could read them to tell them to laity who couldn't.

They were also often well educated in philosophy, rhetoric, etc. This often meant many had a very ophisticated understanding of scripture.

You aren't the first person to say this, but I'm not sure that things were as you suggest. Yes, different people would understand scripture on different levels, but just because a person considers there to be, say, symbolism in the events described in some passage doesn't mean that they necessarily thought that a literal reading of the text was false.

For instance, thinking that the Flood story has lessons within it that could be applied to life today doesn't require a person to believe that the Flood didn't happen.

Obviously, many religious people believe the events described actually happened, but the overall religious tradition wasn't built on a strict scriptural literalism, but on a text with surrounding broader traditions that often explain the texts outwith literal meanings.

So it was common to believe that events happened that were contrary to the scripture? I'd love for you to show me some evidence of this. If it really was uncommon for the literate, educated elites to believe in, say, the literal 6-day creation as described in Genesis, what other ideas were floating around in Christendom about how the Earth was formed? Please be sure to cite your sources.

There is a problem with the question in that what constitutes 'strict literalism' is a bit subjective. Perhaps you are interpreting it a bit more liberally than I intended.

So far, I haven't interpreted "strict literalism" at all, since you only slapped the "strict" modifier on just now, AFAICT.

I'm interpreting "literalism" to mean acceptance of everything described in the scriptures as true; for instance:

- every historical event described actually happened as described
- every person described actually lived as described
- every prediction about the future will come true
- every statement about how things are in the present is correct

For instance, in what I consider a literalist interpretation:

- the Earth really was created in six literal days.
- the age of the Earth matches the Bible chronology.
- Adam and Eve were two real people in a literal garden, and all humans today are descended from them.
- a global flood literally happened.
- Noah, the family members listed in Genesis, and two of every type of animal (and seven of the "clean" animals) survived the flood in an ark that Noah built.
- the plagues of Egypt and the Exodus actually happened as described.
- God really did give Moses tablets with the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai.
- Samson really did tear down the Temple of Dagon with his bare hands.
- A boy named David (who would later become king) really did kill a giant named Goliath.
- Sodom and Gomorrah really were destroyed by God, and Lot's wife really was turned into a pillar of actual salt.
- All of the advice in Proverbs is good.
- Jesus really lived, went to all the places the Gospels said he went to and did all the things that the Gospels said he did.
- Jesus really said all the things attributed to him in the Gospels (which doesn't mean that he intended everything he said to be interpreted literally, just that he really did say all of it).
- Jesus really was crucified, and when he died, the curtain of the temple really did split and there really was an earthquake.
- The "zombie invasion of Jerusalem" (Matthew 27:51-53) really did happen.
- The stories in Acts really happened.
- The advice in the Epistles is meant to be taken literally, except where obvious metaphors are used.
- Revelation, while written in coded language, describes real events that will actually happen.

IOW, I intended "literalism" to include all of the things that liberal Christians tend to brush off as "literalist", like young Earth Creationism and following the misogynistic advice in the Epistles.

Did you have something different in mind by the term?

 

[Augustus]

First off, while I think that religious literalism is as old as religion itself, I recognize that various people and groups have taken non-literalist stances over history. I don't know enough about Wahhabiism or Salafism to really speak to them. When I was talking about literalism being the norm until recently, I was talking about Christianity specifically.

From my, admitidely very limited, knowledge, Eastern Orthodoxy often had a more 'mystical' approach to aspects of faith. Apophatic theology for example doesn't chime with a highly literal approach to scripture.

Many religions required one to have a mediator between the common person and the faith (such as the preisthood), as they were not deemed capable of understanding without significant theological training. Someone like Luther believed otherwise, as the answers were contained in the text itself.

Since I'm not familiar with where Luther says what you describe, it's hard for me to guess at what he might mean unless you point me toward the actual quote you had in mind and its context.

It's more about his overall philosophy and that behind the reformation than any specific quote. He viewed many Catholic teachings to have no scriptural basis for example.

So it was common to believe that events happened that were contrary to the scripture? I'd love for you to show me some evidence of this. If it really was uncommon for the literate, educated elites to believe in, say, the literal 6-day creation as described in Genesis, what other ideas were floating around in Christendom about how the Earth was formed? Please be sure to cite your sources.

It's not simply about Biblical events, which generally were viewed as actual history, but a highly literalist approach to scripture as a whole.

The New testament is cataphatic as it ascribes charicteristics to God. Apophatic theology as such requires a non-literalist approach to at least some significant aspects of scripture.

So far, I haven't interpreted "strict literalism" at all, since you only slapped the "strict" modifier on just now, AFAICT.

Sorry, I used the word highly in the OP.

Did you have something different in mind by the term?

Something a bit different , yes.

More specifically a highly literalist approach to scripture as a whole. That the true meaning of the text is contained within its grammatical construction rather than a more interpretative, contextual, and tradition based approach.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

From my, admitidely very limited, knowledge, Eastern Orthodoxy often had a more 'mystical' approach to aspects of faith. Apophatic theology for example doesn't chime with a highly literal approach to scripture.

I'm not really familiar with apophatic theology, but from what I know of the schism between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, it was focused on literal interpretation (of the Nicene Creed, not the Bible directly, but still); that was the issue in the "filioque" controversy.

Many religions required one to have a mediator between the common person and the faith (such as the preisthood), as they were not deemed capable of understanding without significant theological training. Someone like Luther believed otherwise, as the answers were contained in the text itself.

At least in the case of Christianity, even if there was a mediator, that mediator still communicated information to the laity for them to consider and accept. The faith of catechumens and confirmands was supppsed to be based on a correct understanding of the teachings of the Church.

The Church didn't wall off the laity from Church teachings; they taught them the teachings in a way that let them coach the laity to the "correct" beliefs.

It's more about his overall philosophy and that behind the reformation than any specific quote. He viewed many Catholic teachings to have no scriptural basis for example.

I'm not sure that much or any of this comes from disagreements about factual claims in the Bible. Luther and the Pope may have disagreed about what Jesus meant by holding up bread and saying "this is my body", but both of them agreed that he really did say it. I can't think of any protests of Luther that had disagrements about whether things in the Bible literally happened or are literally true; they generally dealt with what significance to give to the events that both sides agreed happened.

It's not simply about Biblical events, which generally were viewed as actual history, but a highly literalist approach to scripture as a whole.

For the purposes of this conversation, I'm including in "literalism" anything in the Bible that liberal Christians have told me they don't believe to be literally true because they don't ascribe to literalism.

Something a bit different , yes.

More specifically a highly literalist approach to scripture as a whole. That the true meaning of the text is contained within its grammatical construction rather than a more interpretative, contextual, and tradition based approach.

IOW, that not only is every word literally true, but there are no layers of meaning besides the "grammatical construction"? That isn't any sort of literalism that I've ever encountered.

... but if you agree that Christians throughout history have generally accepted that the events described in the Bible actually happened, then I think we agree that what *I* would call a "highly literalist" interpretation has been the norm in Christianity.

 

[CG Didymus]

Another example that goes back way further than that: when John Ball was railing against the crown and the aristocracy in the 1300s, his slogan ("when Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?") took as given that the people of the time believed in a literal Adam and Eve: "since we're all ultimately descended from a pair of peasant labourers, how can the hereditary titles of any of these aristocrats be legitimate?"

I think the situation is the exact opposite of what @Quintessence is suggesting: generally, people took scriptures at face value until there was reason not to do so. Yes, there are poetic passages in scripture, and yes, they understood some of the language was metaphoric (e.g. I'm sure not many people thought the "the whore of Babylon" is a physical person), but when the Bible describes events in a matter-of-fact way, as it does with Noah's Flood, the plagues of Egypt, the Exodus, the Resurrection of Christ, and the exploits of Paul and friends in Acts, I think that the vast majority of Christians believed that these events actually happened as far back as the formation of Christianity. At the time, they had no reason not to.

It's only now that we have evidence that makes a literalist stance on these sorts of issues unreasonable. You need justification to say that something is impossible or likely to be impossible - ancient Christians often didn't have this for their stories.

It's only since a literalist interpretation has become unreasonable that people have started looking for alternative interpretations. Literalism isn't the modern invention; this rejection of literalism is the thing that's new... and arguing that it was the mainstream view all along is revisionism... and incorrect.

Throughout history, Christians really have generally believed what's in their scriptures. And it seems weird that I would have to argue this point.

I agree. A lot of Christians sure present it as literal truth. And to be part of the gang, the new Christian to those groups is expected to believe it as literal. What's funny is how those Christians will totally destroy another persons beliefs... telling them how their religion is a bunch of made up fables and traditions of man. But, if the other persons religion mentions a flood, then they'll use that to prove that the Bible is literally true, because almost all people, the world over, had a flood story.

 

[jonathan180iq]

There is no evidence, IMO, for claims that portions of the Bible are allegory or myth.

You mean other than the majority of things that Jesus taught, right?

And you literally believe that the events in the Book of Job took place, for example?

 

[rusra02]

You mean other than the majority of things that Jesus taught, right?

And you literally believe that the events in the Book of Job took place, for example?

I believe Jesus used illustrations to teach people, often beginning with expressions similar to: “What is the Kingdom of God like, and with what can I compare it?" He spoke of realities, not allegories.
Yes, Job was a historical person,according to the Bible.