Biblical literalism or biblicism is a term used differently by different authors of biblical interpretation. This can equate the definition of literalism with the dictionary: "obedience to the proper letter or literal meaning", in which the literal meaning "corresponds to, involves, or becomes the primary or strict meaning of words or words, not figurative or metaphorical."
Alternatively, this term may refer to a historical-grammatical method, a hermeneutic technique that seeks to reveal the meaning of the text by considering not only grammatical words but also syntactic, cultural and historical, literary and cultural aspects. Flow. It emphasizes the referential aspect of the words in the text without denying the relevance of the literary, genre, or metaphorical aspects of the text (eg, parables, allegories, similes, or metaphors). That does not necessarily lead to a complete agreement on a single interpretation of any given part. This fundamentalist and evangelical hermeneutical approach is used extensively by fundamentalist Christians, in contrast to the critical historical method of mainstream Judaism or mainstream Protestantism. Those who connect biblical literalism with the historical-grammatical method use the word "letterism" to cover the interpretation of the Bible according to the dictionary definitions of literalism.
Video Biblical literalism
​​â € <â €
Fundamentalists and evangelicals sometimes refer to themselves as literalists or biblical literalists. Sociologists also use this term in reference to conservative Christian beliefs that include not only literalism but also biblical inerrancy. The term "biblical literalism" is often used as a condescension to describe or taunt an interpretive approach of fundamentalist or evangelical Christians.
A 2011 Gallup survey reported, "Three out of 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally, saying it is the true Word of God.It is similar to what Gallup measured over the past two decades, but down from the 1970s and 1980s. 49% The plurality of Americans says that the Bible is the inspired Word of God but it should not be taken literally, is consistently the most common view in Gallup's nearly 40 years of history on the subject.17% think of the Bible as an ancient storybook recorded by humans. "
Maps Biblical literalism
History
The high respect for the religious scriptures in Judeo-Christian tradition seems to be in part related to the process of canonization of the Hebrew Bible that occurred for centuries from about 200 BC to 200 AD. In the Jewish tradition, highly respected written words represent the channel directly to the mind of God, and the later Rabbinic Judaism School encourages scholarship recipients who accompany the literary religion. Similarly, the canonization of the New Testament by the Early Christian Church became an important aspect of establishing a separate religious identity for Christianity. Ecclesiastical authorities use the acceptance or rejection of certain scriptural books as the primary indicator of group identity, and it plays a role in the determination of excommunication within Christianity and in cherem in the Jewish tradition.
The father of the Origen Church (184-253 AD), because of his familiarity with reading and interpreting Hellenistic literature teaches that some passages of Scripture should be interpreted literally. With regard to the story of Genesis's creation, he writes: "it is foolish to believe that God... planted the eastern paradise of Eden, and put in it a visible and clear tree of life... [and] whoever feels its fruit with will his physical gear gain life? "He also believed that such hermeneutics should be applied to biblical accounts as well.
The father of Augustine Church of Hippo (354-430 CE) wrote of the need for reason in interpreting Jewish and Christian scriptures, and many of the Book of Genesis became a long metaphor. But Augustine also implicitly accepted the literalism of the creation of Adam and Eve, and explicitly accepted the literalism of the virginity of Mary, the mother of Jesus.
In the Reformation, Martin Luther (1483-1546 CE) separates the biblical apocrypha from the rest of the Old Testament books in his Bible, reflecting centuries-old scientific doubt, and the Confession of Westminster 1646 democratizing them on rejected status. their canonists. American Protestant literalists and unbelievers have adopted this smaller Protestant Bible as a work not only inspired by God but, in fact, represents the Word of God without the possibility of error or contradiction.
Biblical literalism first became a problem in the eighteenth century, enough for Diderot to mention it in the EncyclopÃÆ' Â © die . Karen Armstrong sees "[p] preoccupation with the literal truth" as "the product of the scientific revolution".
Text clarity
Most evangelical and fundamentalist Christians regard the biblical text as clear, and believe that the average person can understand the basic meaning and teachings of the Bible. Such Christians often refer to the teachings of the Bible and not to the process of interpretation itself. The doctrine of text clarity does not mean that no interpretative principles are necessary, or that there is no gap between the culture in which the Bible is written and the culture of the modern reader. In contrast, exegetical and interpretive principles play a part of the process of closing the cultural gap. This doctrine denies that the Bible is the code to decipher, or that it requires complex academic analysis as is typical in historical critical interpretive methods.
Biblical literalists believe that, unless a passage is clearly intended by the author as allegory, poetry, or some other genre, the Bible should be interpreted as a literal statement by the author. Critics argue that allegory intentions can be ambiguous. Fundamentalists usually treat as simple history, in its simplified sense, passages such as those that describe the creation of Genesis, Noah's flood and ark, and the life span of the ancestors given unreasonably in the Genesis genealogy, as well as the historicity of the Ancient Israel narrative, God's supernatural intervention in history, and the miracles of Jesus. Literalism does not deny that parables, metaphors and allegories are in the Bible, but more dependent on contextual interpretations based on clear authoritative intentions.
As part of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, conservative Christian scholars affirm the following:
"We assert the necessity of interpreting the Bible in terms of its literal, or normal sense, its literal sense is the grammatical-historical meaning, the meaning expressed by the writer, the interpretation of the literal meaning will take into account all the literary allusions and forms found in the text.
"WE REFORM the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that links it to meanings that are not supported by the literal meaning."
Criticism
Steve Falkenberg, professor of religious psychology at Eastern Kentucky University, observes:
"I have never met anyone who really believes that the Bible is true.I know a group of people who say they believe the Bible is true but there is not really a literalist.Literally, the Bible says that the earth is flat, has a pillar, and will not be moved (Ps 93: 1, Mz 96:10, 1 Sam 2: 8, Job 9: 6.) It is said that large sea monsters are set to guard the seaside (Job 41, Mz 104 : 26)....
Conrad Hyers, professor of comparative religion at Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Petersburg. Peter, Minnesota, criticizes biblical literalism as a mentality
"does not manifest itself only in conservative churches, private school enclaves, television programs of evangelical rights, and a large number of Christian bookstore material, one often finds a literalist understanding of the Bible and the faith assumed by those who have no religious tendency, or which is completely anti-religious in sentiments.Even among educated people, the possibility of a more sophisticated theology of creation is easily blurred by burning the straw statues of biblical literalism. "
Robert Cargill responds to audience questions in the Channel History series explaining why academic academics reject the form of biblical literalism:
"If I am so brave, the reason you do not see many credible scholars who support the" looseness "of the Bible is because, with all due respect, it is not a defensible claim.The Bible is full of contradictions and, yes, mistakes Many of them are mismatches of numbers things in the Book of Samuel and Kings and this recast in the Chronicles All credible Bible scholars recognize that there is a problem with Biblical text as it has been accepted for centuries.... The question is not whether there is a discrepancy and , yes, the error in the Bible, but whether this error fundamentally undermines the credibility of the text, even the most conservative Biblical scholars believe and faithfully acknowledge these matters with the text.This is why we have not found any scholars who subscribe to ' Biblical inerrancy '(to my knowledge) on the show. "|
Christian Smith writes in his book, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Biblical Scripture , "The real problem is the special biblical theory of the Bible, not only makes young believers vulnerable to their naïve acceptance of disabus against the theory but also often have additional consequences of placing their faith commitments in danger.... When some of the young people succumb to biblicism and just walk across the wet paint, it is a flawed biblicism that is partly responsible for the loss of that faith. "
See also
References
Literature
- Ehrman, Bart D. (2005). Misleading Jesus: The Story Behind What Changes the Bible and Why . HarperCollins. ISBNÃ, 978-0-06-073817-4
- Metzger, Bruce M. (1997). The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance . Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-198-26180-3.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments