Originally posted by SwissGambit
The biblical literalist is stuck defending the rash actions of the OT God, who on several occasions ordered his chosen people to commit genocide, and on other occasions directly carried it out by his own hand. This begs the question: Is it consistent for a "just, loving and merciful" God to order thousands of people, some of whom are innocent children, t ...[text shortened]... fe, especially if the population of other civilizations is far greater than that of the Xites.
The biblical literalist is stuck defending...
This is, of course, the crux of the whole thing. Biblical literalism/historicism and inerrantism are
very late notions in Christianity. Not that the early church folks did not view some events as historical—but they also used allegorical and typological exegesis from the beginning, as well as symbolical and metaphorical readings. Early Christian exegesis often quite closely resembled traditional Jewish midrash (St. Gregory of Nyssa’s
The Life of Moses is a classic example)—with the addition of Hellenistic philosophical sensitivities. This applied to the NT texts as well as the Hebrew Scriptures.
Jaroslav Pelikan, in his
The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 1, notes the following:
“There was
no early Christian who simultaneously acknowledged the doctrinal authority of the Old Testament and interpreted it literally.” (p. 81)
“Clearly it is an anachronism to superimpose upon the discussions of the second and third centuries categories derived from the controversies over the relation of Scripture and tradition in the sixteenth century, for ‘in the ante-Nicene Church...there was no notion of
sola Scriptura, but neither was there a doctrine of
traditio sola’.” (p.115)
There was no notion of
sola scriptura until Luther in the 16th century. Biblical inerrancy developed after that, partly in response to critical forms of exegesis developing especially in the 19th century (historical criticism, form criticism, literary criticism, etc.).
Outside various evangelical and fundamentalist Protestant churches, all of these various exegetical tools are used today—both those of the early church and more modern historical-critical approaches—for example, in the Orthodox churches, Catholicism and the more traditional Protestant churches.
Not that the early church interpreters of Biblical texts were monolithic in their approaches. Pelikan notes that, even among those whose views came to be considered orthodox, the early church was characterized by a kind of “pluralistic orthodoxy.” One does not have to spend much time reading “the Church fathers” to see this. Just one example—
Origen (185-254 C.E.), “the most powerful mind of early Christianity,” is still highly regarded today for his views on exegesis. “He himself is an inspired interpreter of Scripture, and if his thought had to be corrected on other points, it remains fully and directly nourishing in this field.”* (Quotes from Olivier Clement,
The Roots of Christian Mysticism.
“He was constantly fascinated by etymology and figures of speech, often using the identification of metaphor or hyperbole as a reason for pointing out that the words of Scripture could not be taken literally—for that just produced impossibilities...” (Frances Young, “The Interpretation of Scripture,” in
The First Christian Theologians: An Introduction to Theology in the Early Church, edited by G.R. Evans.)
“For the modern reader, one of the paradoxes of Origen is that he both holds to a robust doctrine of biblical inspiration and completely refuses to understand this as guaranteeing the historical accuracy of the text...” (Rowan Williams, “Origen,” in
The First Christian Theologians.)
A quote from Origen—
“If you try to reduce the divine meaning to the purely external signification of the words, the Word [
Logos] will have no reason to come down to you. It will return to its secret dwelling, which is contemplation that is worthy of it. For it has wings, this divine meaning, given by it to the Holy Spirit who is its guide... But to be unwilling ever to rise above the letter, never to give up feeding on the literal sense, is the mark of a life of falsehood.” (
Commentary on Proverbs)
Origen spoke of a three-tired reading of the Biblical texts, using the metaphor of an almond—
“The first aspect, that of the letter, is bitter enough. It prescribes circumcision of the flesh, regulates sacrifices and all that is meant by the ‘letter that kills.’ Reject all that as bitter rind of the almond. In the second stage you will reach the defenses of the shell, the moral teaching, the obligation of self-control. These things are needed to protect what is kept inside. But they have to be broken [through], and assuredly there will be found enclosed and hidden beneath these wrappings the mysteries of God’s wisdom and knowledge that restore and nourish the souls of the saints. This three-fold mystery is to be seen throughout all Scripture.” (
Homilies on Numbers)
* A number of Origen’s theological views were condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553, at least as they were articulated by certain of his followers.
26 May '07 17:071 edit
Can genocide ever be morally right?
Back to Top