(This is the first entry in my triptych on Christian fundamentalism, and all three of them ought to be kept as one item, and eventually posted together. The first entry is Christian Fundamentalism And The Parables Of Jesus. The second entry is Predestination And Grace. And the third entry is Saint Augustine And Christian Fundamentalism. Also see the parallel of this entry under the title On Bible Interpretations in the Philosophy section.)
Christian Fundamentalism means the literal acceptance of the Bible, particularly, the fundamentalists say, of the story of Creation. A natural question arises, why is the story of Creation singled out as a particular case in point, rather than arguing over the literalness criterion of the Bible as a whole, or not at all?
Today’s answer, more political than logical or theological, is the existence of the theory of Evolution, and the simplistic urge, on the fundamentalists’ part to suppress it by appealing to the highest authority, which in this case is getting too close to blasphemy. A literal interpretation of the Creation Story, which, again, has to be literal across the board, to be consistent in-itself, makes no sense at all, taking into account its heavy use of anthropomorphic imagery for God’s actions, the use of the word firmament for the sky, that can only be interpreted poetically (I am discussing the Bible in the King James Version, of course, which also has been divinely inspired, according to the English-speaking theologians), and a hundred other things, all pointing to the impossibility of the literal acceptance.
This is yet another logical objection to Christian Fundamentalism. Why can anyone, without a revelation, just on their personal authority, be allowed to pick and choose what is to be accepted literally, and what not, for any reason whatsoever?
Let us now attend to the authority of Jesus:
"And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given… Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." (Matthew, 13:10-11,13.)
The Bible being the Word of God, and Jesus being God to every Christian, here is a convincing argument for favoring the parabolic interpretation of The Book For All, not as a matter of choice, but as a matter of principle. How else, rather than allegorically, would our Christian Fundamentalists understand something like this sentence: "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." (John, 7:38.)
And then, of course, if the King James translation of the Bible is the Word of God, as far as the English text goes, then what about all other English translations, which demonstrably differ from the classic in the literal meaning of the words. Are they, too, "words of God"?
So, here, finally, comes my key point: God is a transcendent and unknowable Spirit, speaking to us in ways that cannot be captured in conventional letters, or words, contained in a dictionary, or even sentences, all of which are humanly finite, linguistically constrained, and if misused, subject to literal misinterpretation. The only way to understand God’s message is metaphorically, quidquid latet, apparebit. “And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.” (Daniel 12:9.)
“A word to the wise” cannot be understood literally, that is, with the help of a dictionary. The whole Bible is necessarily an allegory.
Christian Fundamentalism means the literal acceptance of the Bible, particularly, the fundamentalists say, of the story of Creation. A natural question arises, why is the story of Creation singled out as a particular case in point, rather than arguing over the literalness criterion of the Bible as a whole, or not at all?
Today’s answer, more political than logical or theological, is the existence of the theory of Evolution, and the simplistic urge, on the fundamentalists’ part to suppress it by appealing to the highest authority, which in this case is getting too close to blasphemy. A literal interpretation of the Creation Story, which, again, has to be literal across the board, to be consistent in-itself, makes no sense at all, taking into account its heavy use of anthropomorphic imagery for God’s actions, the use of the word firmament for the sky, that can only be interpreted poetically (I am discussing the Bible in the King James Version, of course, which also has been divinely inspired, according to the English-speaking theologians), and a hundred other things, all pointing to the impossibility of the literal acceptance.
This is yet another logical objection to Christian Fundamentalism. Why can anyone, without a revelation, just on their personal authority, be allowed to pick and choose what is to be accepted literally, and what not, for any reason whatsoever?
Let us now attend to the authority of Jesus:
"And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given… Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." (Matthew, 13:10-11,13.)
The Bible being the Word of God, and Jesus being God to every Christian, here is a convincing argument for favoring the parabolic interpretation of The Book For All, not as a matter of choice, but as a matter of principle. How else, rather than allegorically, would our Christian Fundamentalists understand something like this sentence: "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." (John, 7:38.)
And then, of course, if the King James translation of the Bible is the Word of God, as far as the English text goes, then what about all other English translations, which demonstrably differ from the classic in the literal meaning of the words. Are they, too, "words of God"?
So, here, finally, comes my key point: God is a transcendent and unknowable Spirit, speaking to us in ways that cannot be captured in conventional letters, or words, contained in a dictionary, or even sentences, all of which are humanly finite, linguistically constrained, and if misused, subject to literal misinterpretation. The only way to understand God’s message is metaphorically, quidquid latet, apparebit. “And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.” (Daniel 12:9.)
“A word to the wise” cannot be understood literally, that is, with the help of a dictionary. The whole Bible is necessarily an allegory.
No comments:
Post a Comment