Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Comments on When did the doctrine of Biblical literalism originate?

Parent

When did the doctrine of Biblical literalism originate?

+6
−1

The doctrine that the Christian Bible is literally true in every respect is not as old as Christianity. If nothing else, there wasn't a settled Biblical canon until late in the 4th century. Through the Middle Ages, books weren't widely available, and most people got their doctrine from the Bible as interpreted by the Catholic Church.

Luther rejected church authority and raised the standard of "sola scriptura." This wasn't necessarily literalism, though. Luther's point was that Christian truth had to be derived from the Bible or it wasn't completely authoritative, and that the ability to do this wasn't limited to an ecclesiastical elite. He was addressing Catholic doctrines that aren't directly based on Biblical text. The focus was on doctrine more than fact. Would Luther have insisted, for instance, that the Book of Job was a factual, fully accurate account of what happened to someone named Job, or would he have conceded that it might have been intended as instructive fiction? I don't know.

Some argue that true Biblical literalism didn't arise until the 19th century. In this view, it arose as a reaction against science, insisting that the world was created in six days and no more than a few thousand years ago. However, Bishop Ussher made his famous creation-date calculation in the 17th century, and it required taking a great deal of the Bible literally.

At what time period, then, should we place the origin of the doctrine that the Christian Bible is literally true throughout?

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

I thought I was lobbing an easy one here, but no one's taken it up, and I'm no closer in my research ... (1 comment)
Post
+2
−2

Here's the best answer I've come up with: Biblical literalism originates with Luther's "sola scriptura" doctrine. Others may have tightened what parts they believe are factual vs. which are simply inspirational; as I mentioned in a comment, no one takes the 23rd Psalm as a presentation of facts, so it's a matter of degree.

Luther's key point was that the Bible is not merely inspired by God, but authorized in every detail. He said of the Bible, "The Holy Spirit is the author of this book" and "Let the man who would hear God speak read holy scripture." The Catholic concept of the Bible, as I understand it, is that its text is divinely inspired, but it isn't the literal "word of God."

In the "sola scriptura" view, the original texts of the Bible may contain figurative language, to be recognized as such by reason, but it cannot contain any errors of doctrine or fact. I don't know whether the Catholic Church allows the possibility of factual errors in the Bible, but it's less insistent on Biblical infallibility on issues of fact, as opposed to doctrine. (For example, "Methuselah lived over 900 years" is a factual, not a doctrinal, assertion.)

Conclusion: Biblical literalism is an elaboration of "sola scriptura," and as such traces its origin to Luther.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

Notes on the Catholic Position (1 comment)
Notes on the Catholic Position
elemtilas‭ wrote over 1 year ago

Furthermore, the Catholic position is that we read the Bible is several different ways (generally four) and only the first of those is the literal. That just tells you the basic story, like Moses making a bronze snake on a rod to cure people of snake bites. Take that too literally and you'll have a church dancing around a snake god. There are also allegorical, moral, and anagogical readings.

Catholics allow for "factual" errors in that we don't regard the Bible to be a science book or a history book. We don't take the creation myths literally; we'd say they factually inconsistent with what we know of cosmology. But we'd also say that Genesis isn't a scientific text book. It has other more important purposes. As far as Methuselah goes, yeah, probably didn't live 900 years, but that's not actually what's important!