What the Pontifical Biblical Commission said, in total, about Fundamentalism is here:
F. Fundamentalist Interpretation
Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being the word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all its details. But by "literal interpretation" it understands a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development. It is opposed, therefore, to the use of the historical-critical method, as indeed to the use of any other scientific method for the interpretation of Scripture.
The fundamentalist interpretation had its origin at the time of the Reformation, arising out of a concern for fidelity to the literal meaning of Scripture. After the century of the Enlightenment it emerged in Protestantism as a bulwark against liberal exegesis.
The actual term <fundamentalist> is connected directly with the American Biblical Congress held at Niagara, N.Y., in 1895. At this meeting, conservative Protestant exegetes defined "five points of fundamentalism": the verbal inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Christ, his virginal birth, the doctrine of vicarious expiation and the bodily resurrection at the time of the second coming of Christ. As the fundamentalist way of reading the Bible spread to other parts of the world, it gave rise to other ways of interpretation, equally "literalist," in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America. As the 20th century comes to an end, this kind of interpretation is winning more and more adherents, in religious groups and sects, as also among Catholics.
Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible, the inerrancy of the word of God and other biblical truths included in its five fundamental points. But its way of presenting these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of this approach might say. For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.
The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources. For this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods. It pays no attention to the literary forms and to the human ways of thinking to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical situations.
Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth. It often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.
Fundamentalism often shows a tendency to ignore or to deny the problems presented by the biblical text in its original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek form. It is often narrowly bound to one fixed translation, whether old or present-day. By the same token it fails to take account of the "re-readings" (<re-lectures>) of certain texts which are found within the Bible itself.
In what concerns the Gospels, fundamentalism does not take into account the development of the Gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus). At the same time fundamentalism neglects an important fact: The way in which the first Christian communities themselves understood the impact produced by Jesus of Nazareth and his message. But it is precisely there that we find a witness to the apostolic origin of the Christian faith and its direct expression. Fundamentalism thus misrepresents the call voiced by the Gospel itself.
Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. It accepts the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith. Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices—racism, for example—quite contrary to the Christian Gospel.
Finally, in its attachment to the principle "Scripture alone," fundamentalism separates the interpretation of the Bible from the tradition, which, guided by the Spirit, has authentically developed in union with Scripture in the heart of the community of faith. It fails to realize that the New Testament took form within the Christian church and that it is the Holy Scripture of this church, the existence of which preceded the composition of the texts. Because of this, fundamentalism is often anti-church, it considers of little importance the creeds, the doctrines and liturgical practices which have become part of church tradition, as well as the teaching function of the church itself. It presents itself as a form of private interpretation which does not acknowledge that the church is founded on the Bible and draws its life and inspiration from Scripture.
The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.
This is not to say that the PBC quote, in full, is any more complimentary, but, at least it lays out the objections in an appropriate context.
Likewise, the quote from Neilos. Taken utterly out of context. The full quote is:
The story of Ish-bosheth also teaches us not to be over-anxious about bodily things, and not to rely on the senses to protect us. He was a king who went to rest in his chamber, leaving a woman as door-keeper. When the men of Rechab came, they found her dozing off as she was winnowing wheat; so, escaping her notice, they slipped in and slew Ish-bosheth while he was asleep (cf. 2 Sam. 4:5-8). Now when bodily concerns predominate, everything in man is asleep: th eintellect, the soul and the senses. For teh woman at the door winnowing wheat indicates the state of one whose reason is closely absorbed in physical things and trying with persistent efforts to purify them. It is clear that this story in Scripture should not be taken literally. For how could a king have a woman as door-keeper, when he ought properly to be guarded by a troop of soldiers, and to have round him a large body of attendants? Or how could he be so poor as to use her to winnow the wheat? But improbable details are often included in a story because of the deeper truths they signify. Thus the intellect in each of us resides within like a king, while the reason acts as door-keeper of the senses. When the reason occupies itself with bodily things – and to winnow wheat is something bodily – he enemy without difficulty slips past unnoticed and slays the intellect. This is why Abraham did not entrust the guarding of the door to a woman, knowing that the senses are easily deceived; for they take pleasure in the sight of sensory things, and so divide the intellect and persuade it to share in the sensual delights, although this is clearly dangerous. But Abraham himself sat by the door (cf. Gen 18:1), allowing free entry to divine thoughts, while barring the way to worldly cares.
And why bother quoting this monk anyway in an article about exegesis? Especially when the monk was writing about developing as an aesthetic!
A far better method for the author to use would have been to make the assertions about the defects in Fundamentalist exegesis and then to take an example of it and demonstrate why the technique is flawed.
But, as with many intellectuals, it sounds like a typical liberal telling us plebes why we should leave it to them. (thus producing modernism which is only now ripping apart the Church)
Ahh catholics .. so much fun ...
The "naively literalist" straw man is used to attack any historical accuracy in the Bible. I have actually read Catholics invoking the "if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out" as an excuse to condemn "Fundamentalism" when there isn't a Fundamentalist Protestant in the world who subscribes to this "naively literalist" interpretation. It's just an excuse to turn the first eleven chapters of the Torah into mythology.
I notice also that the Vatican implicitly endorses historical criticism. No wonder the Catholic Church is in such a mess. Has it ever thanked Lutheranism for inventing this mode of interpretation which is now necessary in order to be a "good Catholic?"
From what I understand, there is here and there a Catholic or two who rejects higher criticism. Are they "Fundamentalist Protestants who don't know it?"
The fundamentalist interpretation had its origin at the time of the Reformation, arising out of a concern for fidelity to the literal meaning of Scripture.
This is untrue. All the traditional sefarim of the Chakhamim accept the historicity of the entire Torah. It contains no "mythology" and was in its entirety written by G-d. I recommend Rabbi Rotenberg's History of the Eternal Nation, wherein the reader may learn such juicy tidbits as that the confusion of tongues at Babel happened 340 years after the Flood and that Noach died when Abraham was 58 years old.
If, on the other hand, by "fundamentalist interpretation" one means "sola scriptura" (a position I reject), then even that (though in error) is older than the Reformation. Both the Tzadduqqim and the Qara'im (who both pre-existed Protestantism) claimed the legitimacy of that position.
After the century of the Enlightenment it emerged in Protestantism as a bulwark against liberal exegesis.
So how's that liberal exegesis workin' out for ya', Catholic Church? I'm sure it has nothing to do with the crisis in your church today and that eventually it will be restored to its immemorial position as doctrinally orthodox and higher critical--NOT!!!
Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible, the inerrancy of the word of God and other biblical truths included in its five fundamental points. But its way of presenting these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of this approach might say. For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.
Ah yes, that critical research! So just which "church father" was it who taught that the Flood was cribbed from the Epic of Gilgamesh?
The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation,
Translation: The stupid rednecks don't realize that the Bible evolved over eons and eons from pagan myths and that the early parts contain all sorts of awful things (like the extermination of the Canaanites) that "we now know" G-d would "never" command. The entire Bible is time-conditioned and full of primitive assumptions and errors until one arrives at "the new testament."
As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources. For this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods. It pays no attention to the literary forms and to the human ways of thinking to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical situations.
The stupid fundies don't realize that the Biblical writers were stone-age savages.
Fundamentalism often shows a tendency to ignore or to deny the problems presented by the biblical text in its original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek form. It is often narrowly bound to one fixed translation, whether old or present-day. By the same token it fails to take account of the "re-readings" () of certain texts which are found within the Bible itself.
Ie, the primitive Biblical writers wrote one thing, and more "enlightened" Biblical writers wrote a different version later (JEPD). Have these four theoretical hagiographers been canonized yet, or had they not yet fully evolved from apes?
In what concerns the Gospels, fundamentalism does not take into account the development of the Gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus). At the same time fundamentalism neglects an important fact: The way in which the first Christian communities themselves understood the impact produced by Jesus of Nazareth and his message. But it is precisely there that we find a witness to the apostolic origin of the Christian faith and its direct expression. Fundamentalism thus misrepresents the call voiced by the Gospel itself.
Well now, isn't this interesting? Apparently the "new testament" is no better than the "old" in that it also contains silly stuff that more "primitive" writers "thought" G-d taught. Well, you'll get no argument from me if you want to tear the "nt" to shreds. Be my guest. Though I fail to understand why you still adhere to such a pathetic, mistake-filled religion.
Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view.
Unlike the Catholic Church with its pedophile priests and pro-abortion politicians! No wonder the Church can't discipline these people--it would be as "narrow" as the rednecks!
Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices—racism, for example—quite contrary to the Christian Gospel.
"Gasp! Biblical literalism supports the claims of Zionist chr*st-killers! The racist/imperialist State of Israel must give way to the People's Republic of Palestine and the masses of rewolutionary Arab pipples!"
The fundamentalist approach is dangerous
To the Catholic Church, which is why the Church is more hostile to Jonah's Great Fish than it is to Barack Obama.
Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.
And this is the "conservative" Catholic position (as opposed to the Big Bad Liberal who wrote the article NYer posted?). Please, markomalley. There is absolutely no difference between the two.
Every single time I think maybe you people have mellowed you prove me wrong. Your Church is up to its neck in scandal and infamy and you people are still attacking Biblical inerrancy and insisting the foundational documents of your religion are primitive myths? That's just plain sick.
I don't care what your Nazarene prophet promised Peter, any religion that feels compelled to attack its own foundational beliefs (because "those awful people" who plunk banjos and eat possum share them) is doomed to collapse into ruins, and all the rosaries and all the "holy spirits" in the world can't stop it.
How can you even have an intelligent conversation with someone who insists they have "the truth," that their Church is invincible, but that their foundational stories are time-conditioned mythology? Sheesh.
I'll try to remember to give up all hope for you people.
Of course this is all bunk but what's interesting is that the author went against the grain and did not capitalize the little c in the word church...And we all know that you guys always write (C)hurch...
A whole lotta deception here because it makes the erroneous claim that the fundamentalists do not acknowledge that the church is founded on the Bible when in fact, it is YOUR 'Church' that fundamentalists claim is not found in scripture, execpt in the Pharaisical, or Pagan sense...
The church is the biblical and fundamentalist Christian church...The 'Church' is your religion's traditional concoction...