PoMo Musings: “Biblical Literalism”
Aphorisms, Religion February 23rd, 2009Here are two simple examples of why Biblical Literalism is slightly insane.
1) The Book of Genesis includes two completely different accounts of creation – thus a literal interpretation requires one to be abandoned – thus negating literalism.
2) The Gospels of Matthew and Mark relate the same story concerning the Jewish customs for divorce. One Gospel (Matthew) has Jesus uphold it (though differentiating between circumstantial permissibility and wholesale approval) and in another (Mark) he completely rejects it – thus a literal interpretation requires us to ignore one or other of the evangelists – thus negating literalism.
For the Postmodern reader of scripture the abandonment of literalism is not a problem. In fact it presents the reader with an existential choice – Jesus’s parables often end in a question to the listener – “What would you do in this situation?”
Much of Jesus’s ethical teachings orientate around the concept of “right-mindedness” rather than a strict adherence to a legalistic “right actions”.
For this Postmodern reader the fact that Gospel accounts vary and report the same story from different angles or even from contradictory ones adds to the narrative a hint of authenticity. Much like when reporting a motor accident the insurance company will take the accounts of as many witnesses as possible (aware of and indeed perhaps hoping for a subjective account – in order to give as broad a picture as possible) so too the New Testament accounts have the ring of subjective authenticity to them.
Perhaps most critical of all though for the Postmodern reader and indeed for any Christian – the trouble with Literalism is fundamentally laid bare in the Ten Commandments.
If we take the Bible to be literally the Word of God – including or ignoring its inconsistencies or contradictions – then we grant to it (as Creationists do) the power of objective and absolute infallibility. And surely the more closely we look at the human elements in the texts and the more we learn and can infer about the authors who contributed to it we should be concerned that any absolute literalism in biblical interpretation is in breach of the 2nd commandment that warns against idolatry. If we grant the text of the book absolute power and unquestionable authority – then surely this is a direct challenge to the authority that Christians attribute to God – and that would be idolatrous.
And this surely must be the most unpalatable contradiction of all in the worldview of Biblical Literalism.
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:06 pm
One could also posit carefully – that Quranic literalism (which is more prevalent and problematic for the Quran is declared to be the “recitation” to Muhammed of the “Word of God” from the Archangel Gabriel) sits uncomfortably with the prohibitions on Idolatry and the customs of Iconoclasm that for example forbid Muslims from creating images of the Prophet Muhammed or of Allah.
Literalism when it becomes a fetish (as in a recent case that held that because the Quran contained the actual “Word of God” the book must be treated in Libraries with the utmost respect – positioning them on the highest shelves etc.) surely also becomes an idolatry.