Probably the single most important aspect of The Fundamentals was the intense emphasis on the literal interpretation of Scripture. This had a lot to do with the rise of higher criticism in the 19th century, which the fundamentalists reacted to. Almost all of Volume 1 of The Fundamentals is devoted to essays concerning literal interpretation.
I should caution the reader that the views of the early fundamentalists were somewhat incomplete. Remember that they were writing at the turn of the 20th century. Very little was understood about the context of the Old Testament in particular, and even the New Testament was a bit obscure. Palestine and the Middle East were in Ottoman hands and archaeology had not developed many of the tools used to illuminate historical context. Much of the debate about the Bible was based on purely academic observations from both the literalists and the proponents of higher criticism.
Today’s literal interpretation of Scripture does not and should not look like the literal interpretation of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The resources available to the interpreter today are vast. We often have more data and analysis at our finger tips than whole university staffs had a century ago. We are able to lean on archaeological discoveries, manuscript analysis and contextual information that illuminate even the most obscure passages.
With all of that said, what were the main tenants of literalism in The Fundamentals? That is more difficult to answer than you might think. For the most part, The Fundamentals focused on the rejection of higher criticism and not on the exposition of a competing view. The authors assumed that the reader would know what literal interpretation meant. Here are the tenants of literal interpretation as I saw them in The Fundamentals.
- The Church requires the infallible revelation of God. As James Orr wrote, “There is no disguising the fact that…there is much uneasy and distrustful feeling about the Holy Scriptures.” The writers then set about allaying the uneasiness of the Church and confirming that the Bible was indeed the Word of God. They felt, right or wrong, that criticism of the Bible tore at the belief of inspiration. In Orr’s case, he went about his proof by arguing that there is a necessity of an inspired canon and then shows a need for said canon, followed by proofs that the Bible meets the needs.
- The Bible internally states that it is inspired. G. Osborne Troop, George Robinson, Dyson Hague and James Orr all wrote articles dealing with the internal cohesion of the Biblical books. Given the time and resources, the writers probably would have analyzed every book of the Bible, but they seem to have contented themselves with writing about the Pentateuch.
- Archaeology and history confirm the inspiration of Scripture. M. G. Kyle and George Frederick Wright both wrote articles in The Fundamentals arguing that archaeology supports the Biblical claims. Their arguments became the basis of many of the archaeological proofs still presented today.
The question before the modern literalist is whether we can confirm these statements, knowing what we know about the historicity of the Bible. In general, I think we can reaffirm these statements but they do require some clarification.
- Infallibility now must be understood to include the transmission of the Bible in cultural context. As an example, the Book of Job may not be, as Orr would have argued, a historical document. It is inspired, but it is a morality play of sorts, a work of poetry meant to convey ideas and not historical personages. The same would apply to the possibility of having two distinct creation epics in Genesis 1-2 or the seeming contradictions of the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. This is not compromising literalism but understanding it better.
- The internal statements of Scripture still support the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. There is no denying that Jesus believed in a divinely inspired canon and that his belief was confirmed by the apostles. But this inspiration does not have precedents outside of the Scriptures. Human history does not hold that there must be an inspired book. It is the testimony of the Bible itself, which is circular by nature. The Bible claims inspiration but to embrace the Bible’s claims, the reader must already believe it is inspired. We must concede this as a point of faith rather than to try to rationalize it.
- Archaeology has indeed confirmed Scripture in the abstract but rarely in the details. We have competing records of events and timetables that are out of sync. Archaeology is not a discipline that proves the Bible, only one that confirms the plausibility of its records. Archaeology is not an exact science and should not be treated as such. It is very much subject to something akin to the Heisenberg principle – the state of the observer will often dictate what is observed.
In short, historical literalism can still be espoused based on the same observations. All of the modern scholarship of the texts has certainly shed light on the process of the transmission of Scripture, but it has not weakened the internal testimony of the Scriptures and if anything, it has confirmed the plausibility of the Bible’s accuracy. I should however contend that the Bible’s accuracy cuts both ways. It accurately preserves the words of the original authors, but it also accurately preserves them as the original authors wrote and the original audiences read. This means that Bible does not conform to our modern perception of accuracy. It reports things as they were recorded and not in the modern sense of accurate reporting.
If anything, literalism has become more flexible in the 21st century. We understand oral history, textual composition and transmission, genre and contextual study much better than we did when The Fundamentals were written. The arguments for literal interpretation are strengthened because the Bible is not required to conform to modern tests of accuracy but can show its age. What was taken to be the Bible’s inferiority in the 19th century has become its greatest testament of superiority. It has not been tainted by realignment over the ages but has actually remained in essentially its ancient states. The very things that were once criticized are now its greatest strengths.
JasonS
September 26, 2009
Erik,
In the same vein, I think you could expand this to show how extreme fundamentalism does the same thing that the skeptic does…interprets with a wooden literalism that ignores literary features and context so that the meaning of the text is truly passed over and ignored. That is why many skeptics don’t believe the Bible. They approach it with a wooden literalism and come away thinking it teaches a flat, square earth, or something of the sort.
Extreme fundamentalism errors in another fashion. Often, though they claim to interpret literally, they allegorize and spiritualize. Take Larry Brown’s sermon “Go Forward” (http://biblepreaching.com/browngoforward_mp3.html) for an example. The text, context, and purpose of the text were essentially ignored to get to the point that we must make progress. Who cares what it meant to Israel? What does it mean to us today? That is what seems to be the attitude.
Thanks for another well-written article.
fundyreformed
September 26, 2009
I tend to agree with you Erik. We have to be careful when it comes to inerrancy, but we do have to go with the genre-specific intent of Scripture as being inerrant. Not just our modern understanding of what we think Scripture “literally” means.
I think a hyper literalism clouds a more robust view of how the Bible teaches thematically. Biblical theology has much to offer in terms of seeing beyond a super literal view of Scripture. Having the lens of Christ and allowing the NT to influence how you view the OT is really important. Not to mention it is the historic Reformed approach to Scripture.
Erik
September 27, 2009
I think there is also something to be said for seeing the Christian Testament through the lens of the Hebrew one. Christian thinking was primarily Jewish at first and evolved over time. Thus, I tend to think that the best way to read the New Testament is as a refinement of the Hebrew Scriptures and not as a correction or a replacement.
True literalism has to admit that our reconciliations, harmonies and interpretations of the Scriptures in the church are somewhat wanting. It is not literal to continue to accept interpretations from the medieval or renaissance church without testing them against the body of knowledge we now have at hand.
In many ways, James Orr was probably one of the better literalist of the early 20th century. He attempted to absorb all this new information into his hermeneutic. The result, of course, was ISBE – no slouch of a contribution.
But the common laziness of most preachers today is to either accept the theories of those who find the information (not always the best idea) or to ignore new input and continue an interpretational paradigm that is dated. Both are, in my opinion, motivated by fear.
JasonS
September 28, 2009
OT and NT. I tend to look at the NT as fulfillment of the OT.
When I say that, I mean that it is not a correction or replacement, but then essence of what the OT was speaking of.
At the same time, I think that could be articulated much better. Jesus stated that the OT spoke of Him. The NT shows us how the OT did that.
Just read Sat. a statement that says, “The literal sense is the literary sense.” I like that.
Erik
September 28, 2009
Fulfillment, refinement – essentially the same thing. I tend not to use the term ‘fulfillment’ only because it has a sense that the effect of the Hebrew Scriptures has ended and only the New Testament has influence now. Protestant theology has backed away from this sentiment now, but it used to be quite prevalent.
Jesus really ‘fulfilled’ Torah two ways – he taught a better way to observe Torah, but he also brought the satisfaction of the demands of Torah in his flesh…I am not certain that Jesus’ earliest followers grasped this, and Hebrews shows the transition and tension between these two ideas.
JasonS
September 28, 2009
Erik,
Makes sense to me. I wonder if you might consider something in that line for your next post…whenever that may be…no rush.
Thanks for this post, by the way. While wanting to help others with this blog, it is helping me by my learning from you all.
John D. Chitty
March 14, 2011
I’m developing a pet theory that part of the hyper-literalism emphasis nowadays descends in part from the influence of Seventh Day Adventism as well as Darby. Cases in point: Scientific creationism and Dispensationalism.
George McReady Price wrote “The New Geology” as an amateur geologist to explain the fossil record by the flood of Noah, which, according to BioLogos (I’m no evolutionist, but I did peak over there one day), he was doing so in order to give scientific backing to a series of visions regarding the creation and the flood by none other than Ellen G. White herself. True geologists discredited his work, and Henry Morris regurgitated it in the sixties in “The Genesis Flood,” with little to no citation of Price’s work. From this comes the Creation Science movement and an overemphasis on the six 24 hour day model of interpretation of Genesis 1, which has virtually become a new fundamental of the faith among many today.
Another notable example of influence on fundamentalism from SDA pseudo-scholarship is the more familiar story of David Otis Fuller’s inclusion of SDA Benjamin G. Wilkinson’s essay, “Our Authorized Bible Vindicated” in Which Bible? This helped radicalize KJV onlyism but isn’t part of my pet theory regarding hyper-literalism.
Then, of course, there’s Darby, whose dispensationalist system of interpretation and it’s rivalry with covenant theology and it’s appropriate useage of the analogy of faith and Christocentric interpretation of the Old Testament, in the tradition of the apostles themselves, morphed “literalism” into standing against figurative interpretations as much as one can get away with it.
I know my little theory may lack nuance, but it’s working for me so far.
Philip D
March 16, 2011
John, it seems to me that you give up too much if you don’t take the first part of Genesis at face value. It’s not just a matter of “are the days literal 24 hour days”. What about the order of things created? The Bible says the earth was created first, but naturalistic science says the universe was created first, dinosaurs before birds, etc.. The Bible says there was no death before Adam sinned in the garden, but naturalistic science says that there has been death, disease, and suffering for millions of years. Just glancing at the essay from Biologos, I think their claims that YEC is based on SDA scholarship in the same way modern-day KJVO’ism is are very weak. It reminds me of the popular trend nowadays to say that Christianity is based on other Near East religions because they share some similar concepts.
John D. Chitty
March 21, 2011
To be honest, I’m a seeker in this matter. I’m still trying to explore the boundaries of this new-found emphasis on the literary aspect of literal interpretation of Scripture. I must admit that such an origin for the scientific creationism movement undermines its credibility, but I personally would prefer to find in the end that what we have here is a chapter of historical narrative written in a stylized, literary form for whatever reason, that, in other words presents the literal(-istic) truth in a literary form.
Once I become convinced how to prove this, I will stand with you unapologetically in defense of 6 solar day creation, but until then, I’m going to be cautious to not make the same mistake the Catholics did in response to Galileo over heliocentricity. They thought the literal interpretation of Scripture forced them to stand for the doctrine of geocentricity, but science helped them learn how to read Scripture more closely and literarily. This may be the case in this case as well. If not, then to God be the glory. As for now, I consider myself an agnostic on what the Bible means by what it says in terms of the creation account, but I will die on the hill of a historical Adam.
Erik
March 21, 2011
Shouldn’t the question not be whether we “give up too much” but rather that we read it as it was meant to be read? When a particular reading of the Scriptures becomes inextricably bonded to a theological idea, I question that idea.
If there is not a historical Adam, does it change the reality of sin? If Adam is simply a representation of the reality of the sin nature, does it alter in anyway our need for a Savior? I would say no.
If the creation epic of Genesis 1-2 is poetic representation meant to convey the centrality of man in God’s economy instead of a historical/scientific document, does it change the sovereignty of God? Is it inherent in reading it as poetry instead of science that we somehow demote God or nullify our need for salvation? I would say no.
In other considerations, does treating Genesis 1-2 as scientific in anyway strengthen our argument for God’s sovereignty? Does the presence of a historical Adam – if such a person could be historically verifiable – somehow alter the existence of sin? Again, I would say no.
When we allow a theological framework to dictate the way we interpret Scripture, we walk a thin line. It is better that the interpretation of Scripture dictate our theological framework.
Just my two cents.
Philip D
March 26, 2011
Does the historicity of Adam effect the reality of sin or our need for a Savior? I agree, “no”. However, I do think it effects our message if we say (as Biologos does) that Adam was never an actual historical figure. We’re trying to communicate the message of Jesus. We get this from the Bible. In the very same part of the Bible that we learn of Jesus, we also see a genealogy that goes from Joseph back to Adam (Luke 3). What do we tell people, then? This part of Luke is in error, but this part about Jesus over here a few chapters away being God, dying, and coming back to life (also, by the way, not an acceptable thing in the eyes of naturalism) is true? In other words, I know you dislike the phrase, but “we give up too much” (of the foundation of our message).