Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
...For centuries the Bible was regarded as the literal word of God and a completely accurate historical record. During Europe's scientific revolution in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, once it became obvious that much of what was written in the Bible was completely incompatible with observable evidence (such as a geocentric universe and the world only being 6000 years old, for example) the idea of the "metaphorical" Bible rose to popularity amongst mainstream Christianity. Now, particularly amongst fundamentalist evangelical Christians in the United States, sects that believe in a literal interpretations of the Bible are returning to prominence. These people cannot be dismissed as radicals either -- as Bobblehead pointed out, surveys show that nearly half of the American population has this view, putting them very much in the mainstream!
|
This goes for you, too, Cheese. This is only the first part of the story, and the problem with understanding the place of the "Bible" in ancient Judaism and Christianity is complicated by the problem that grand assumptions were made by ancient writers, historians, and proponents of various faith groups themselves surrounding the handling of so-called "sacred" texts. Quite simply, there is no manual on how to read scriptures in the ancient world because of centuries of overlapping tradition that was merely assumed from one generation to another.
It is true, that during the Middle Ages, the Bible was generally understood as an accurate and literal representation of history. It is also true that—as far as we know—most of the early Jews and Christians really believed that there actually was a Noah, an Abraham, a Moses, and that life began just as the Scriptures declared it did. But what was the "function" of Scripture? For Jews, the Scriptures provided access to revelation about who God was and how he had acted through history. This was much the same for Christians, but with a substantial twist: Christians believed that Jesus Christ was the Word of God—that is, the ultimate expression who God was and is and will always be—and that the Scriptures could only be read through Jesus life and teachings. Our earliest examples of biblical interpretation within the early church bear this out: the Hebrew Bible had effectively become a repository of allegories that pertained to various elements of Christian theology.
Early Christians—and even the earliest Jews, for that matter—had few qualms about twisting what was written in Scripture to suit their own purposes. So much so that the Bible's purpose in the early church would be unrecognizable to most Christians today. So, actually, no. The earliest Christians were not at all concerned about the "literal meaning" in the Scriptures whatsoever. They were most interested in how the Old Testament was "fulfilled" in God's most fundamental expression: the life and teachings of Jesus. And this brings me to my problem with "Christianity", the Christian religion, and people's perception of religion generally, that I will outline below...