Tuesday, June 2, 2015
Wikipedia pages on sin and other topics
Fundamentalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Fundamentalism (disambiguation).
Fundamentalism has been defined by George Marsden as the demand for a strict adherence to certain theological doctrines, in reaction against Modernist theology.[1] The term was originally coined by its supporters to describe what they claimed were five specific classic theological beliefs of Christianity, and that developed into a Christian fundamentalist movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century.[2]
The term usually has a religious connotation indicating unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs,[3] but fundamentalism has come to be applied to a broad tendency among certain groups, mainly, although not exclusively, in religion. This tendency is most often characterized by a markedly strict literalism as applied to certain specific scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies, and a strong sense of the importance of maintaining ingroup and outgroup distinctions,[4][5][6][7] leading to an emphasis on purity and the desire to return to a previous ideal from which it is believed that members have begun to stray. Rejection of diversity of opinion as applied to these established "fundamentals" and their accepted interpretation within the group is often the result of this tendency.[8]
Fundamentalism is sometimes used as a pejorative term, particularly when combined with other epithets (as in the phrase "right-wing fundamentalists").[9][10]
Contents [hide]
1 Christian
2 Jewish
3 Islamic
4 Hindu
5 Buddhist
6 Non-religious 6.1 Atheist
7 Criticism
8 Controversy
9 See also
10 Citations and footnotes
11 References
12 External links
Christian[edit]
Main article: Christian fundamentalism
See also: Evangelicalism
Fundamentalism as a movement arose in the United States, starting among conservative Presbyterian theologians at Princeton Theological Seminary in the late 19th century. It soon spread to conservatives among the Baptists and other denominations around 1910 to 1920. The movement's purpose was to reaffirm key theological tenets and defend them against the challenges of liberal theology and higher criticism.[11]
The term "fundamentalism" has its roots in the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897), which defined those tenets it considered fundamental to Christian belief. The term was popularized by the The Fundamentals, a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 and funded by the brothers Milton and Lyman Stewart. This series of essays came to be representative of the "Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy", which appeared late in the 19th century within some Protestant denominations in the United States, and continued in earnest through the 1920s. The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals":[12]
Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
Virgin birth of Jesus
Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
Bodily resurrection of Jesus
Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus
By the late 1910s, theological conservatives rallying around the Five Fundamentals came to be known as "fundamentalists". They reject the existence of commonalities with theologically related religious traditions, such as the grouping of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism into one Abrahamic family of religions.[5] In contrast, Evangelical groups, while they typically agree on the theology "fundamentals" as expressed in The Fundamentals, often are willing to participate in events with religious groups who do not hold to the essential doctrines.[13]
Jewish[edit]
Main article: Jewish fundamentalism
The term Jewish fundamentalism has been used to characterize militant religious Zionism, and both Ashkenazi and Sephardic versions of Haredi Judaism.[14]
Ian S Lustik has characterized Jewish fundamentalism as "an ultranationalist, eschatologically based, irredentist ideology", and Gush Emunim as the "dynamism that underlay the shift toward fundamentalism"[15]
Islamic[edit]
Main article: Islamic fundamentalism
The Shia and Sunni religious conflicts since the 7th century created an opening for radical ideologues, such as Ali Shariati (1933–77), to merge social revolution with Islamic fundamentalism, as exemplified by the Iranian Revolution in 1979.[16] Islamic fundamentalism has appeared in many countries;[17] the Wahhabi version is promoted worldwide and financed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan.[18][19]
The Iran hostage crisis of 1979–80 marked a major turning point in the use of the term "fundamentalism". The media, in an attempt to explain the ideology of Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian Revolution to a Western audience described it as a "fundamentalist version of Islam" by way of analogy to the Christian fundamentalist movement in the U.S. Thus was born the term "Islamic fundamentalist", which would come to be one of the most common usages of the term in the following years.[20]
Hindu[edit]
See also: Hindutva, Ayodhya dispute and Gujarat_Riots
Scholars identify several politically active Hindu movements (including the RSS, BJP and VHP) as part of the "Hindu fundamentalist family."[21]
A recent[when?] phenomenon in India has been the rise of Hindu fundamentalism, which has led to political mobilization against Muslims.[21][22][23]
Buddhist[edit]
See also: Buddhism and violence
In the most recent[when?] instances, Buddhist fundamentalism has also targeted other religious and ethnic groups, such as that in Burma. As a Buddhist dominated nation, Burma has seen recent tensions between Muslim minorities and the Buddhist majority, especially during the 2013 Burma anti-Muslim riots, alleged[by whom?] to have been instigated by hardliner groups such as the 969 Movement.[24]
There are historic and contemporary examples of Buddhist fundamentalism in each of the three main branches of Buddhism: Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana. In Japan, a prominent example has been the practice of shakubuku among some members of the Nichiren sect—a method of proselytizing involving strident condemnation other sects as deficient or evil. Similarly, some members of the New Kadampa Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism and the Western Shugden Society have appropriated the controversial and fiercely sectarian[clarification needed] protector deity Dorje Shugden as a symbol of maintaining the purity of the Gelugpa sect from contamination by teachings from other sects, condemning the Dalai Lama's eclectic approach (see Dorje Shugden controversy).[25]
Non-religious[edit]
"Fundamentalist" has been used pejoratively to refer to philosophies perceived as literal-minded or carrying a pretense of being the sole source of objective truth, regardless of whether it is usually called a religion. For instance, the Archbishop of Wales has criticized "atheistic fundamentalism" broadly[26][27][28] and said "Any kind of fundamentalism, be it Biblical, atheistic or Islamic, is dangerous".[29] He also said, "the new fundamentalism of our age ... leads to the language of expulsion and exclusivity, of extremism and polarisation, and the claim that, because God is on our side, he is not on yours."[30]
In The New Inquisition, Robert Anton Wilson lampoons the members of skeptical organizations such as the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal as fundamentalist materialists, alleging that they dogmatically dismiss any evidence that conflicts with materialism as hallucination or fraud.[31]
In France, the imposition of restrictions on the wearing of headscarves in state-run schools has been labeled "secular fundamentalism".[32][33] In the United States, private or cultural intolerance of women wearing the hijab (Islamic headcovering) and political activism by Muslims also has been labeled "secular fundamentalism" by some Muslims in the U.S.[34]
The term "fundamentalism" is sometimes applied to signify a counter-cultural fidelity to a principle or set of principles, as in the pejorative term "market fundamentalism", used to imply exaggerated religious-like faith in the ability of unfettered laissez-faire or free market economic views or policies to solve economic and social problems. According to economist John Quiggin, the standard features of "economic fundamentalist rhetoric" are "dogmatic" assertions and the claim that anyone who holds contrary views is not a real economist. Retired professor in religious studies Roderick Hindery lists positive qualities attributed to political, economic, or other forms of cultural fundamentalism, including "vitality, enthusiasm, willingness to back up words with actions, and the avoidance of facile compromise," as well as negative aspects, such as psychological attitudes[which?], occasionally elitist and pessimistic perspectives, and, in some cases, literalism.[35]
Atheist[edit]
See also: Criticism of atheism
In December 2007, the Archbishop of Wales Barry Morgan criticized what he referred to as "atheistic fundamentalism", claiming that it advocated that religion has no substance and "that faith has no value and is superstitious nonsense."[27][28] He claimed it led to situations such as councils calling Christmas "Winterval", schools refusing to put on nativity plays and crosses removed from chapels. Others have countered that some of these attacks on Christmas are urban myths, not all schools do nativity plays because they choose to perform other traditional plays like A Christmas Carol or the The Snow Queen and, because of rising tensions between various religions, opening up public spaces to alternate displays than the Nativity scene is an attempt to keep government religion neutral.[36]
Criticism[edit]
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2008)
Many criticisms of fundamentalist positions have been offered. One of the most common is that some claims made by a fundamentalist group cannot be proven, and are irrational, demonstrably false, or contrary to scientific evidence. Some[which?] of these criticisms were famously asserted by Clarence Darrow in the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Sociologist of religion Tex Sample asserts that it is a mistake to refer to a Muslim, Jewish, or Christian fundamentalist. Rather, a fundamentalist's fundamentalism is their primary concern, over and above other denominational or faith considerations.[37]
A criticism by Elliot N. Dorff:
In order to carry out the fundamentalist program in practice, one would need a perfect understanding of the ancient language of the original text, if indeed the true text can be discerned from among variants. Furthermore, human beings are the ones who transmit this understanding between generations. Even if one wanted to follow the literal word of God, the need for people first to understand that word necessitates human interpretation. Through that process human fallibility is inextricably mixed into the very meaning of the divine word. As a result, it is impossible to follow the indisputable word of God; one can only achieve a human understanding of God's will.[38]
Howard Thurman was interviewed in the late 1970s for a BBC feature on religion. He told the interviewer:
I say that creeds, dogmas, and theologies are inventions of the mind. It is the nature of the mind to make sense out of experience, to reduce the conglomerates of experience to units of comprehension which we call principles, or ideologies, or concepts. Religious experience is dynamic, fluid, effervescent, yeasty. But the mind can't handle these so it has to imprison religious experience in some way, get it bottled up. Then, when the experience quiets down, the mind draws a bead on it and extracts concepts, notions, dogmas, so that religious experience can make sense to the mind. Meanwhile religious experience goes on experiencing, so that by the time I get my dogma stated so that I can think about it, the religious experience becomes an object of thought.[39]
Albert Camus opposed both Nazi fascism and Stalinist communism, leading to a split with Jean-Paul Sartre. In the Myth of Sisyphus he developed the concept of philosophical suicide, which he defined as any ideological system or belief that claims to bridge what he saw as a conflict between man's yearning for absolute unity and the inherent irrational nature of the universe.[citation needed]
Influential criticisms of fundamentalism include James Barr's books on Christian fundamentalism and Bassam Tibi's analysis of Islamic fundamentalism.
Political usage of the term "fundamentalism" has also been criticized. "Fundamentalism" has been used by political groups to attack their opponents, using the term flexibly depending on their political interests. According to Judith Nagata, a professor of Asia Research Institute in the National University of Singapore, "The Afghan mujahiddin, locked in combat with the Soviet enemy in the 1980s, could be praised as "freedom fighters" by their American backers at the time, while the present Taliban, viewed, among other things, as protectors of American enemy Osama bin Laden, are unequivocally 'fundamentalist'.[40]
A study at the University of Edinburgh found that of its six measured dimensions of religiousity, "lower intelligence is most associated with higher levels of fundamentalism."[41]
Controversy[edit]
[hide]This section has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This section does not cite any references or sources. (November 2014)
This section may be confusing or unclear to readers. (November 2014)
This section needs additional citations for verification. (January 2009)
The Associated Press' AP Stylebook recommends that the term fundamentalist not be used for any group that does not apply the term to itself. Many scholars have adopted a similar position.[42] Other scholars, however, use the term in the broader descriptive sense to refer to various groups in various religious traditions including those groups that would object to being classified as fundamentalists, such as in The Fundamentalism Project.[43]
Christian fundamentalists, who generally consider the term to be pejorative when used to refer to themselves, often object to the placement of themselves and Islamist groups into a single category since they believe that the fundamentals of Christianity are different from the fundamentals of Islam. They feel that characteristics based on the new definition are wrongly projected back onto Christian fundamentalists by their critics.
Many Muslims[who?] object to the use of the term when referring to Islamist groups, and oppose being placed in the same category as Christian fundamentalists, whom they see as theologically incomplete. Unlike Christian fundamentalist groups, Islamist groups do not use the term fundamentalist to refer to themselves. Shia groups which are often considered fundamentalist in the West are generally not described that way in the Islamic world.
See also[edit]
Portal icon conservatism portal
Traditionalist Catholic
Fundie
Historical-grammatical method
Ideology
Importance of religion by country
Independent Fundamental Baptist
Integrism
Indoctrination
Islamism
Jack Chick
Jesus Camp (documentary)
Pentecostalism
Sectarianism
Seventh-day Adventism
Fundamentalism (sculpture)
Sola scriptura
Citations and footnotes[edit]
1.Jump up ^ George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, (1980) pp 4-5 Over 1400 scholarly books have cited Marsden's work, according to Google Scholar.
2.Jump up ^ Buescher, John. "A History of Fundamentalism", Teachinghistory.org. Retrieved August 15, 2011.
3.Jump up ^ Nagata, Judith (Jun 2001). "Beyond Theology: Toward an Anthropology of "Fundamentalism"". American Anthropologist 103 (2).
4.Jump up ^ Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2(2), 113-133. doi: 10.1207/s15327582ijpr0202_5
5.^ Jump up to: a b Kunst, J., Thomsen, L., Sam, D. (2014). Late Abrahamic reunion? Religious fundamentalism negatively predicts dual Abrahamic group categorization among Muslims and Christians. European Journal of Social Psychology, https://www.academia.edu/6436421/Late_Abrahamic_reunion_Religious_fundamentalism_negatively_predicts_dual_Abrahamic_group_categorization_among_Muslims_and_Christians
6.Jump up ^ Kunst, J. R., & Thomsen, L. (2014). Prodigal sons: Dual Abrahamic categorization mediates the detrimental effects of religious fundamentalism on Christian-Muslim relations. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. doi: 10.1080/10508619.2014.93796 https://www.academia.edu/7455300/Prodigal_sons_Dual_Abrahamic_categorization_mediates_the_detrimental_effects_of_religious_fundamentalism_on_Christian-Muslim_relations
7.Jump up ^ Hunsberger, B. (1995). Religion and prejudice: The role of religious fundamentalism, quest, and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Social Issues, 51(2), 113-129. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01326.x
8.Jump up ^ https://www.ntpu.edu.tw/social/upload/P_1020081127150648.pdf
9.Jump up ^ Harris, Harriet (2008). Fundamentalism and Evangelicals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-953253-2. OCLC 182663241.
10.Jump up ^ Boer, Roland (2005). "Fundamentalism" (PDF). In Tony Bennett, Lawrence Grossberg, Meaghan Morris and Raymonnd Williams. New keywords: a revised vocabulary of culture and society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing. pp. 134–137. ISBN 0-631-22568-4. OCLC 230674627 57357498. Retrieved July 27, 2008.
11.Jump up ^ Mark A. Noll, A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada (1992) pp 376-86
12.Jump up ^ George M. Marsden, "Fundamentalism and American Culture", (1980) p. 117
13.Jump up ^ Carpenter, Revive us Again (1997) p 200
14.Jump up ^ Encyclopædia Britannica: Jewish fundamentalism in Israel
15.Jump up ^ Ian S. Lustik. "Israel's Dangerous Fundamentalists". pp. 118–139. ISSN 0015-7228. Archived from the original on 2009-10-25. Retrieved November 4, 2013. "Foreign Policy Number 68 Fall 1987"
16.Jump up ^ William E. Griffith, "The Revival of Islamic Fundamentalism: The Case of Iran", International Security, June 1979, Vol. 4 Issue 1, pp 132-138 in JSTOR
17.Jump up ^ Lawrence Davidson, Islamic Fundamentalism (Greenwood, 2003)
18.Jump up ^ Natana DeLong-Bas, Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad (Oxford University Press, 2008)
19.Jump up ^ Lindijer, Koert (24 August 2013). "How Islam from the north spreads once more into the Sahel". The Africanists. Retrieved 24 November 2014. "Hundreds of years later, Islam again comes to the Sahel, this time with an unstoppable mission mentality and the way paved by money from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan. Foreigners, and also Malians who received scholarships to study in Saudi Arabia, introduce this strict form of Islam, and condemn the sufi’s [sic]."[verification needed]
20.Jump up ^ "Google News Search: Chart shows spikes in '79 (Iran hostage crisis), after 9/11 and in '92 and '93 (Algerian elections, PLO).". Retrieved December 9, 2008.[original research?]
21.^ Jump up to: a b Brekke (1991). Fundamentalism: Prophecy and Protest in an Age of Globalization. Cambridge University Press. p. 127.
22.Jump up ^ Ajay K. Mehra (2013). Emerging Trends in Indian Politics: The Fifteenth General Election. Routledge. p. 1.
23.Jump up ^ James Peoples; Garrick Bailey (2008). Cengage Advantage Books: Humanity: An Introduction to Cultural Anthropology. Cengage Learning. p. 371.
24.Jump up ^ KYAW ZWA MOE (March 30, 2013). "Root Out the Source of Meikhtila Unrest". Retrieved November 4, 2013.
25.Jump up ^ http://info-buddhism.com/new_kadampa_tradition.html
26.Jump up ^ Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath, The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK), February 15, 2007, ISBN 978-0-281-05927-0
27.^ Jump up to: a b Yr Eglwys yng Nghymru | The Church in Wales
28.^ Jump up to: a b "'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears". BBC News. December 22, 2007. Retrieved May 3, 2010.
29.Jump up ^ "Archbishop of Wales fears the rise of "Atheistic Fundamentalism"". Archived from the original on 2007-12-27. Retrieved November 4, 2013.
30.Jump up ^ "Atheistic fundamentalism" fears". BBC News. 22 December 2007. Retrieved November 4, 2013.
31.Jump up ^ Pope Robert Anton Wilson, The New Inquisition: Irrational Rationalism and the Citadel of Science. 1986. 240 pages. ISBN 1-56184-002-5
32.Jump up ^ "Secular fundamentalism", International Herald Tribune, December 19, 2003
33.Jump up ^ "Headscarf ban sparks new protests," BBC News, January 17, 2004
34.Jump up ^ Ayesha Ahmad, "Muslim Activists Reject Secular Fundamentalism", originally published at IslamOnline, April 22, 1999. See also Minaret of Freedom 5th Annual Dinner, Edited Transcript, Minaret of Freedom Institute website.
35.Jump up ^ Hindery, Roderick (2008). "Comparative Ethics, Ideologies, and Critical Thought"
36.Jump up ^ Toynbee, Polly (December 21, 2007). "Sorry to disappoint, but it's nonsense to suggest we want to ban Christmas". The Guardian (London). Retrieved May 3, 2010.
37.Jump up ^ Tex Sample. Public Lecture, Faith and Reason Conference, San Antonio, TX. 2006.
38.Jump up ^ Dorff, Elliot N. and Rosett, Arthur, A Living Tree; The Roots and Growth of Jewish Law, SUNY Press, 1988.
39.Jump up ^ "An Interview With Howard Thurman and Ronald Eyre", Theology Today, Volume 38, Issue 2 (July 1981).
40.Jump up ^ Nagata, Judith. 2001. Toward an Anthropology of "Fundamentalism." Toronto: Blackwell Publishing, p.9.
41.Jump up ^ Gary J. Lewis, Stuart J. Ritchie, Timothy C. Bates (2011-09-03). "The relationship between intelligence and multiple domains of religious belief: Evidence from a large adult US sample" (PDF).
42.Jump up ^ "Can anyone define 'fundamentalist'?", Terry Mattingly, Ventura County Star, May 12, 2011. Retrieved August 6, 2011.
43.Jump up ^ See, for example, Marty, M. and Appleby, R.S. eds. (1993). Fundamentalisms and the State: Remaking Polities, Economies, and Militance. John H. Garvey, Timur Kuran, and David C. Rapoport, associate editors, Vol 3, The Fundamentalism Project. University of Chicago Press.
References[edit]
Appleby, R. Scott, Gabriel Abraham Almond, and Emmanuel Sivan (2003). Strong Religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-01497-5
Armstrong, Karen (2001). The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-39169-1
Brasher, Brenda E. (2001). The Encyclopedia of Fundamentalism. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-92244-5
Caplan, Lionel. (1987). "Studies in Religious Fundamentalism". London: The MacMillan Press Ltd.
Dorff, Elliot N. and Rosett, Arthur, A Living Tree; The Roots and Growth of Jewish Law, SUNY Press, 1988.
Keating, Karl (1988). Catholicism and Fundamentalism. San Francisco: Ignatius. ISBN 0-89870-177-5
Gorenberg, Gershom. (2000). The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount. New York: The Free Press.
Hindery, Roderick. 2001. Indoctrination and Self-deception or Free and Critical Thought? Mellen Press: aspects of fundamentalism, pp. 69–74.
Lawrence, Bruce B. Defenders of God: The Fundamentalist Revolt against the Modern Age. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989.
Marsden; George M. (1980). Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925 Oxford University Press.
Marty, Martin E. and R. Scott Appleby (eds.). The Fundamentalism Project. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (1991). Volume 1: Fundamentalisms Observed. ISBN 0-226-50878-1
(1993). Volume 2: Fundamentalisms and Society. ISBN 0-226-50880-3
(1993). Volume 3: Fundamentalisms and the State. ISBN 0-226-50883-8
(1994). Volume 4: Accounting for Fundamentalisms. ISBN 0-226-50885-4
(1995). Volume 5: Fundamentalisms Comprehended. ISBN 0-226-50887-0
Noll, Mark A. A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.
Ruthven, Malise (2005). "Fundamentalism: The Search for Meaning". Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-280606-8
Torrey, R.A. (ed.). (1909). The Fundamentals. Los Angeles: The Bible Institute of Los Angeles (B.I.O.L.A. now Biola University). ISBN 0-8010-1264-3
"Religious movements: fundamentalist." In Goldstein, Norm (Ed.) (2003). The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law 2003 (38th ed.), p. 218. New York: The Associated Press. ISBN 0-917360-22-2.
External links[edit]
Look up fundamentalism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
The Sword of the Lord: The Roots of Fundamentalism in an American Family, book by Andrew Himes
Can Anyone Define Fundamentalist? Article by Terry Mattingly via Scripps Howard News Service
Fundamentalism on In Our Time at the BBC. (listen now)
Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and Atheist Fundamentalism by Simon Watson, published in Anthropoetics XV,2 Spring 2010
Shared Insights: Women's Rights Activists Define Religious Fundamentalisms
The Appeal-and Peril-of Fundamentalism by Dr. Bert B. Beach
The Fundamentals not complete at 2011-07-26.
The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth Online version of "The Fundamentals", not complete at 2011-07-26.
Thoughts on "Religious Fundamentalism" Identity
International Coalition Against Political Islam
Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA)
No to Political Islam
Psychological Issues of Former Members of Restrictive Religious Groups by Jim Moyers
Q & A on Islamic Fundamentalism
www.blessedquietness.com a conservative Christian website, maintained by Steve van Natten
Women Against Fundamentalism (UK)
The Rise of Religious Violence
Yahya Abdul Rahman's Take On Fundamentalists And Fundamentalism
Roots of Fundamentalism Traced to 16th Century Bible Translations, Harvard University, November 7, 2007.
The Fundamentalist Distortion of the Islamic Message by Syed Manzar Abbas Saidi, published in Athena Intelligence Journal
Fundamentalism linked to intimate partner violence
Evangelicalism – Fundamentalism; What Is The Difference?
Admiel Kosman, Between Orthodox Judaism and nihilism: Reflections on the recently published writings of the late Rabbi Shimon Gershon Rosenberg, Haaretz, Aug.17, 2012.
See also: List of new religious movements
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Philosophy of religion
Portal
Category
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Philosophy
Categories: Religious fundamentalism
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Alemannisch
العربية
Aragonés
Asturianu
Azərbaycanca
বাংলা
Bân-lâm-gú
Башҡортса
Беларуская
Беларуская (тарашкевіца)
Български
Bosanski
Català
Čeština
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Emiliàn e rumagnòl
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Fiji Hindi
Français
Frysk
Gaeilge
Galego
한국어
Hrvatski
Ilokano
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Íslenska
Italiano
עברית
ქართული
Қазақша
Kiswahili
Latina
Latviešu
Lietuvių
Magyar
മലയാളം
Bahasa Melayu
Mirandés
Nederlands
नेपाल भाषा
日本語
Нохчийн
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Occitan
Oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча
پنجابی
پښتو
Piemontèis
Polski
Português
Română
Русиньскый
Русский
Саха тыла
Scots
Sicilianu
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
کوردیی ناوەندی
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
தமிழ்
ไทย
Türkçe
Українська
اردو
Vahcuengh
Tiếng Việt
Võro
Winaray
ייִדיש
粵語
Žemaitėška
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 20 May 2015, at 03:41.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Fundamentalism (disambiguation).
Fundamentalism has been defined by George Marsden as the demand for a strict adherence to certain theological doctrines, in reaction against Modernist theology.[1] The term was originally coined by its supporters to describe what they claimed were five specific classic theological beliefs of Christianity, and that developed into a Christian fundamentalist movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century.[2]
The term usually has a religious connotation indicating unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs,[3] but fundamentalism has come to be applied to a broad tendency among certain groups, mainly, although not exclusively, in religion. This tendency is most often characterized by a markedly strict literalism as applied to certain specific scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies, and a strong sense of the importance of maintaining ingroup and outgroup distinctions,[4][5][6][7] leading to an emphasis on purity and the desire to return to a previous ideal from which it is believed that members have begun to stray. Rejection of diversity of opinion as applied to these established "fundamentals" and their accepted interpretation within the group is often the result of this tendency.[8]
Fundamentalism is sometimes used as a pejorative term, particularly when combined with other epithets (as in the phrase "right-wing fundamentalists").[9][10]
Contents [hide]
1 Christian
2 Jewish
3 Islamic
4 Hindu
5 Buddhist
6 Non-religious 6.1 Atheist
7 Criticism
8 Controversy
9 See also
10 Citations and footnotes
11 References
12 External links
Christian[edit]
Main article: Christian fundamentalism
See also: Evangelicalism
Fundamentalism as a movement arose in the United States, starting among conservative Presbyterian theologians at Princeton Theological Seminary in the late 19th century. It soon spread to conservatives among the Baptists and other denominations around 1910 to 1920. The movement's purpose was to reaffirm key theological tenets and defend them against the challenges of liberal theology and higher criticism.[11]
The term "fundamentalism" has its roots in the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897), which defined those tenets it considered fundamental to Christian belief. The term was popularized by the The Fundamentals, a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 and funded by the brothers Milton and Lyman Stewart. This series of essays came to be representative of the "Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy", which appeared late in the 19th century within some Protestant denominations in the United States, and continued in earnest through the 1920s. The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals":[12]
Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
Virgin birth of Jesus
Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
Bodily resurrection of Jesus
Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus
By the late 1910s, theological conservatives rallying around the Five Fundamentals came to be known as "fundamentalists". They reject the existence of commonalities with theologically related religious traditions, such as the grouping of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism into one Abrahamic family of religions.[5] In contrast, Evangelical groups, while they typically agree on the theology "fundamentals" as expressed in The Fundamentals, often are willing to participate in events with religious groups who do not hold to the essential doctrines.[13]
Jewish[edit]
Main article: Jewish fundamentalism
The term Jewish fundamentalism has been used to characterize militant religious Zionism, and both Ashkenazi and Sephardic versions of Haredi Judaism.[14]
Ian S Lustik has characterized Jewish fundamentalism as "an ultranationalist, eschatologically based, irredentist ideology", and Gush Emunim as the "dynamism that underlay the shift toward fundamentalism"[15]
Islamic[edit]
Main article: Islamic fundamentalism
The Shia and Sunni religious conflicts since the 7th century created an opening for radical ideologues, such as Ali Shariati (1933–77), to merge social revolution with Islamic fundamentalism, as exemplified by the Iranian Revolution in 1979.[16] Islamic fundamentalism has appeared in many countries;[17] the Wahhabi version is promoted worldwide and financed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan.[18][19]
The Iran hostage crisis of 1979–80 marked a major turning point in the use of the term "fundamentalism". The media, in an attempt to explain the ideology of Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian Revolution to a Western audience described it as a "fundamentalist version of Islam" by way of analogy to the Christian fundamentalist movement in the U.S. Thus was born the term "Islamic fundamentalist", which would come to be one of the most common usages of the term in the following years.[20]
Hindu[edit]
See also: Hindutva, Ayodhya dispute and Gujarat_Riots
Scholars identify several politically active Hindu movements (including the RSS, BJP and VHP) as part of the "Hindu fundamentalist family."[21]
A recent[when?] phenomenon in India has been the rise of Hindu fundamentalism, which has led to political mobilization against Muslims.[21][22][23]
Buddhist[edit]
See also: Buddhism and violence
In the most recent[when?] instances, Buddhist fundamentalism has also targeted other religious and ethnic groups, such as that in Burma. As a Buddhist dominated nation, Burma has seen recent tensions between Muslim minorities and the Buddhist majority, especially during the 2013 Burma anti-Muslim riots, alleged[by whom?] to have been instigated by hardliner groups such as the 969 Movement.[24]
There are historic and contemporary examples of Buddhist fundamentalism in each of the three main branches of Buddhism: Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana. In Japan, a prominent example has been the practice of shakubuku among some members of the Nichiren sect—a method of proselytizing involving strident condemnation other sects as deficient or evil. Similarly, some members of the New Kadampa Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism and the Western Shugden Society have appropriated the controversial and fiercely sectarian[clarification needed] protector deity Dorje Shugden as a symbol of maintaining the purity of the Gelugpa sect from contamination by teachings from other sects, condemning the Dalai Lama's eclectic approach (see Dorje Shugden controversy).[25]
Non-religious[edit]
"Fundamentalist" has been used pejoratively to refer to philosophies perceived as literal-minded or carrying a pretense of being the sole source of objective truth, regardless of whether it is usually called a religion. For instance, the Archbishop of Wales has criticized "atheistic fundamentalism" broadly[26][27][28] and said "Any kind of fundamentalism, be it Biblical, atheistic or Islamic, is dangerous".[29] He also said, "the new fundamentalism of our age ... leads to the language of expulsion and exclusivity, of extremism and polarisation, and the claim that, because God is on our side, he is not on yours."[30]
In The New Inquisition, Robert Anton Wilson lampoons the members of skeptical organizations such as the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal as fundamentalist materialists, alleging that they dogmatically dismiss any evidence that conflicts with materialism as hallucination or fraud.[31]
In France, the imposition of restrictions on the wearing of headscarves in state-run schools has been labeled "secular fundamentalism".[32][33] In the United States, private or cultural intolerance of women wearing the hijab (Islamic headcovering) and political activism by Muslims also has been labeled "secular fundamentalism" by some Muslims in the U.S.[34]
The term "fundamentalism" is sometimes applied to signify a counter-cultural fidelity to a principle or set of principles, as in the pejorative term "market fundamentalism", used to imply exaggerated religious-like faith in the ability of unfettered laissez-faire or free market economic views or policies to solve economic and social problems. According to economist John Quiggin, the standard features of "economic fundamentalist rhetoric" are "dogmatic" assertions and the claim that anyone who holds contrary views is not a real economist. Retired professor in religious studies Roderick Hindery lists positive qualities attributed to political, economic, or other forms of cultural fundamentalism, including "vitality, enthusiasm, willingness to back up words with actions, and the avoidance of facile compromise," as well as negative aspects, such as psychological attitudes[which?], occasionally elitist and pessimistic perspectives, and, in some cases, literalism.[35]
Atheist[edit]
See also: Criticism of atheism
In December 2007, the Archbishop of Wales Barry Morgan criticized what he referred to as "atheistic fundamentalism", claiming that it advocated that religion has no substance and "that faith has no value and is superstitious nonsense."[27][28] He claimed it led to situations such as councils calling Christmas "Winterval", schools refusing to put on nativity plays and crosses removed from chapels. Others have countered that some of these attacks on Christmas are urban myths, not all schools do nativity plays because they choose to perform other traditional plays like A Christmas Carol or the The Snow Queen and, because of rising tensions between various religions, opening up public spaces to alternate displays than the Nativity scene is an attempt to keep government religion neutral.[36]
Criticism[edit]
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2008)
Many criticisms of fundamentalist positions have been offered. One of the most common is that some claims made by a fundamentalist group cannot be proven, and are irrational, demonstrably false, or contrary to scientific evidence. Some[which?] of these criticisms were famously asserted by Clarence Darrow in the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Sociologist of religion Tex Sample asserts that it is a mistake to refer to a Muslim, Jewish, or Christian fundamentalist. Rather, a fundamentalist's fundamentalism is their primary concern, over and above other denominational or faith considerations.[37]
A criticism by Elliot N. Dorff:
In order to carry out the fundamentalist program in practice, one would need a perfect understanding of the ancient language of the original text, if indeed the true text can be discerned from among variants. Furthermore, human beings are the ones who transmit this understanding between generations. Even if one wanted to follow the literal word of God, the need for people first to understand that word necessitates human interpretation. Through that process human fallibility is inextricably mixed into the very meaning of the divine word. As a result, it is impossible to follow the indisputable word of God; one can only achieve a human understanding of God's will.[38]
Howard Thurman was interviewed in the late 1970s for a BBC feature on religion. He told the interviewer:
I say that creeds, dogmas, and theologies are inventions of the mind. It is the nature of the mind to make sense out of experience, to reduce the conglomerates of experience to units of comprehension which we call principles, or ideologies, or concepts. Religious experience is dynamic, fluid, effervescent, yeasty. But the mind can't handle these so it has to imprison religious experience in some way, get it bottled up. Then, when the experience quiets down, the mind draws a bead on it and extracts concepts, notions, dogmas, so that religious experience can make sense to the mind. Meanwhile religious experience goes on experiencing, so that by the time I get my dogma stated so that I can think about it, the religious experience becomes an object of thought.[39]
Albert Camus opposed both Nazi fascism and Stalinist communism, leading to a split with Jean-Paul Sartre. In the Myth of Sisyphus he developed the concept of philosophical suicide, which he defined as any ideological system or belief that claims to bridge what he saw as a conflict between man's yearning for absolute unity and the inherent irrational nature of the universe.[citation needed]
Influential criticisms of fundamentalism include James Barr's books on Christian fundamentalism and Bassam Tibi's analysis of Islamic fundamentalism.
Political usage of the term "fundamentalism" has also been criticized. "Fundamentalism" has been used by political groups to attack their opponents, using the term flexibly depending on their political interests. According to Judith Nagata, a professor of Asia Research Institute in the National University of Singapore, "The Afghan mujahiddin, locked in combat with the Soviet enemy in the 1980s, could be praised as "freedom fighters" by their American backers at the time, while the present Taliban, viewed, among other things, as protectors of American enemy Osama bin Laden, are unequivocally 'fundamentalist'.[40]
A study at the University of Edinburgh found that of its six measured dimensions of religiousity, "lower intelligence is most associated with higher levels of fundamentalism."[41]
Controversy[edit]
[hide]This section has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This section does not cite any references or sources. (November 2014)
This section may be confusing or unclear to readers. (November 2014)
This section needs additional citations for verification. (January 2009)
The Associated Press' AP Stylebook recommends that the term fundamentalist not be used for any group that does not apply the term to itself. Many scholars have adopted a similar position.[42] Other scholars, however, use the term in the broader descriptive sense to refer to various groups in various religious traditions including those groups that would object to being classified as fundamentalists, such as in The Fundamentalism Project.[43]
Christian fundamentalists, who generally consider the term to be pejorative when used to refer to themselves, often object to the placement of themselves and Islamist groups into a single category since they believe that the fundamentals of Christianity are different from the fundamentals of Islam. They feel that characteristics based on the new definition are wrongly projected back onto Christian fundamentalists by their critics.
Many Muslims[who?] object to the use of the term when referring to Islamist groups, and oppose being placed in the same category as Christian fundamentalists, whom they see as theologically incomplete. Unlike Christian fundamentalist groups, Islamist groups do not use the term fundamentalist to refer to themselves. Shia groups which are often considered fundamentalist in the West are generally not described that way in the Islamic world.
See also[edit]
Portal icon conservatism portal
Traditionalist Catholic
Fundie
Historical-grammatical method
Ideology
Importance of religion by country
Independent Fundamental Baptist
Integrism
Indoctrination
Islamism
Jack Chick
Jesus Camp (documentary)
Pentecostalism
Sectarianism
Seventh-day Adventism
Fundamentalism (sculpture)
Sola scriptura
Citations and footnotes[edit]
1.Jump up ^ George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, (1980) pp 4-5 Over 1400 scholarly books have cited Marsden's work, according to Google Scholar.
2.Jump up ^ Buescher, John. "A History of Fundamentalism", Teachinghistory.org. Retrieved August 15, 2011.
3.Jump up ^ Nagata, Judith (Jun 2001). "Beyond Theology: Toward an Anthropology of "Fundamentalism"". American Anthropologist 103 (2).
4.Jump up ^ Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2(2), 113-133. doi: 10.1207/s15327582ijpr0202_5
5.^ Jump up to: a b Kunst, J., Thomsen, L., Sam, D. (2014). Late Abrahamic reunion? Religious fundamentalism negatively predicts dual Abrahamic group categorization among Muslims and Christians. European Journal of Social Psychology, https://www.academia.edu/6436421/Late_Abrahamic_reunion_Religious_fundamentalism_negatively_predicts_dual_Abrahamic_group_categorization_among_Muslims_and_Christians
6.Jump up ^ Kunst, J. R., & Thomsen, L. (2014). Prodigal sons: Dual Abrahamic categorization mediates the detrimental effects of religious fundamentalism on Christian-Muslim relations. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. doi: 10.1080/10508619.2014.93796 https://www.academia.edu/7455300/Prodigal_sons_Dual_Abrahamic_categorization_mediates_the_detrimental_effects_of_religious_fundamentalism_on_Christian-Muslim_relations
7.Jump up ^ Hunsberger, B. (1995). Religion and prejudice: The role of religious fundamentalism, quest, and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Social Issues, 51(2), 113-129. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01326.x
8.Jump up ^ https://www.ntpu.edu.tw/social/upload/P_1020081127150648.pdf
9.Jump up ^ Harris, Harriet (2008). Fundamentalism and Evangelicals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-953253-2. OCLC 182663241.
10.Jump up ^ Boer, Roland (2005). "Fundamentalism" (PDF). In Tony Bennett, Lawrence Grossberg, Meaghan Morris and Raymonnd Williams. New keywords: a revised vocabulary of culture and society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing. pp. 134–137. ISBN 0-631-22568-4. OCLC 230674627 57357498. Retrieved July 27, 2008.
11.Jump up ^ Mark A. Noll, A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada (1992) pp 376-86
12.Jump up ^ George M. Marsden, "Fundamentalism and American Culture", (1980) p. 117
13.Jump up ^ Carpenter, Revive us Again (1997) p 200
14.Jump up ^ Encyclopædia Britannica: Jewish fundamentalism in Israel
15.Jump up ^ Ian S. Lustik. "Israel's Dangerous Fundamentalists". pp. 118–139. ISSN 0015-7228. Archived from the original on 2009-10-25. Retrieved November 4, 2013. "Foreign Policy Number 68 Fall 1987"
16.Jump up ^ William E. Griffith, "The Revival of Islamic Fundamentalism: The Case of Iran", International Security, June 1979, Vol. 4 Issue 1, pp 132-138 in JSTOR
17.Jump up ^ Lawrence Davidson, Islamic Fundamentalism (Greenwood, 2003)
18.Jump up ^ Natana DeLong-Bas, Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad (Oxford University Press, 2008)
19.Jump up ^ Lindijer, Koert (24 August 2013). "How Islam from the north spreads once more into the Sahel". The Africanists. Retrieved 24 November 2014. "Hundreds of years later, Islam again comes to the Sahel, this time with an unstoppable mission mentality and the way paved by money from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan. Foreigners, and also Malians who received scholarships to study in Saudi Arabia, introduce this strict form of Islam, and condemn the sufi’s [sic]."[verification needed]
20.Jump up ^ "Google News Search: Chart shows spikes in '79 (Iran hostage crisis), after 9/11 and in '92 and '93 (Algerian elections, PLO).". Retrieved December 9, 2008.[original research?]
21.^ Jump up to: a b Brekke (1991). Fundamentalism: Prophecy and Protest in an Age of Globalization. Cambridge University Press. p. 127.
22.Jump up ^ Ajay K. Mehra (2013). Emerging Trends in Indian Politics: The Fifteenth General Election. Routledge. p. 1.
23.Jump up ^ James Peoples; Garrick Bailey (2008). Cengage Advantage Books: Humanity: An Introduction to Cultural Anthropology. Cengage Learning. p. 371.
24.Jump up ^ KYAW ZWA MOE (March 30, 2013). "Root Out the Source of Meikhtila Unrest". Retrieved November 4, 2013.
25.Jump up ^ http://info-buddhism.com/new_kadampa_tradition.html
26.Jump up ^ Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath, The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK), February 15, 2007, ISBN 978-0-281-05927-0
27.^ Jump up to: a b Yr Eglwys yng Nghymru | The Church in Wales
28.^ Jump up to: a b "'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears". BBC News. December 22, 2007. Retrieved May 3, 2010.
29.Jump up ^ "Archbishop of Wales fears the rise of "Atheistic Fundamentalism"". Archived from the original on 2007-12-27. Retrieved November 4, 2013.
30.Jump up ^ "Atheistic fundamentalism" fears". BBC News. 22 December 2007. Retrieved November 4, 2013.
31.Jump up ^ Pope Robert Anton Wilson, The New Inquisition: Irrational Rationalism and the Citadel of Science. 1986. 240 pages. ISBN 1-56184-002-5
32.Jump up ^ "Secular fundamentalism", International Herald Tribune, December 19, 2003
33.Jump up ^ "Headscarf ban sparks new protests," BBC News, January 17, 2004
34.Jump up ^ Ayesha Ahmad, "Muslim Activists Reject Secular Fundamentalism", originally published at IslamOnline, April 22, 1999. See also Minaret of Freedom 5th Annual Dinner, Edited Transcript, Minaret of Freedom Institute website.
35.Jump up ^ Hindery, Roderick (2008). "Comparative Ethics, Ideologies, and Critical Thought"
36.Jump up ^ Toynbee, Polly (December 21, 2007). "Sorry to disappoint, but it's nonsense to suggest we want to ban Christmas". The Guardian (London). Retrieved May 3, 2010.
37.Jump up ^ Tex Sample. Public Lecture, Faith and Reason Conference, San Antonio, TX. 2006.
38.Jump up ^ Dorff, Elliot N. and Rosett, Arthur, A Living Tree; The Roots and Growth of Jewish Law, SUNY Press, 1988.
39.Jump up ^ "An Interview With Howard Thurman and Ronald Eyre", Theology Today, Volume 38, Issue 2 (July 1981).
40.Jump up ^ Nagata, Judith. 2001. Toward an Anthropology of "Fundamentalism." Toronto: Blackwell Publishing, p.9.
41.Jump up ^ Gary J. Lewis, Stuart J. Ritchie, Timothy C. Bates (2011-09-03). "The relationship between intelligence and multiple domains of religious belief: Evidence from a large adult US sample" (PDF).
42.Jump up ^ "Can anyone define 'fundamentalist'?", Terry Mattingly, Ventura County Star, May 12, 2011. Retrieved August 6, 2011.
43.Jump up ^ See, for example, Marty, M. and Appleby, R.S. eds. (1993). Fundamentalisms and the State: Remaking Polities, Economies, and Militance. John H. Garvey, Timur Kuran, and David C. Rapoport, associate editors, Vol 3, The Fundamentalism Project. University of Chicago Press.
References[edit]
Appleby, R. Scott, Gabriel Abraham Almond, and Emmanuel Sivan (2003). Strong Religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-01497-5
Armstrong, Karen (2001). The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-39169-1
Brasher, Brenda E. (2001). The Encyclopedia of Fundamentalism. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-92244-5
Caplan, Lionel. (1987). "Studies in Religious Fundamentalism". London: The MacMillan Press Ltd.
Dorff, Elliot N. and Rosett, Arthur, A Living Tree; The Roots and Growth of Jewish Law, SUNY Press, 1988.
Keating, Karl (1988). Catholicism and Fundamentalism. San Francisco: Ignatius. ISBN 0-89870-177-5
Gorenberg, Gershom. (2000). The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount. New York: The Free Press.
Hindery, Roderick. 2001. Indoctrination and Self-deception or Free and Critical Thought? Mellen Press: aspects of fundamentalism, pp. 69–74.
Lawrence, Bruce B. Defenders of God: The Fundamentalist Revolt against the Modern Age. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989.
Marsden; George M. (1980). Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925 Oxford University Press.
Marty, Martin E. and R. Scott Appleby (eds.). The Fundamentalism Project. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (1991). Volume 1: Fundamentalisms Observed. ISBN 0-226-50878-1
(1993). Volume 2: Fundamentalisms and Society. ISBN 0-226-50880-3
(1993). Volume 3: Fundamentalisms and the State. ISBN 0-226-50883-8
(1994). Volume 4: Accounting for Fundamentalisms. ISBN 0-226-50885-4
(1995). Volume 5: Fundamentalisms Comprehended. ISBN 0-226-50887-0
Noll, Mark A. A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.
Ruthven, Malise (2005). "Fundamentalism: The Search for Meaning". Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-280606-8
Torrey, R.A. (ed.). (1909). The Fundamentals. Los Angeles: The Bible Institute of Los Angeles (B.I.O.L.A. now Biola University). ISBN 0-8010-1264-3
"Religious movements: fundamentalist." In Goldstein, Norm (Ed.) (2003). The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law 2003 (38th ed.), p. 218. New York: The Associated Press. ISBN 0-917360-22-2.
External links[edit]
Look up fundamentalism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
The Sword of the Lord: The Roots of Fundamentalism in an American Family, book by Andrew Himes
Can Anyone Define Fundamentalist? Article by Terry Mattingly via Scripps Howard News Service
Fundamentalism on In Our Time at the BBC. (listen now)
Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and Atheist Fundamentalism by Simon Watson, published in Anthropoetics XV,2 Spring 2010
Shared Insights: Women's Rights Activists Define Religious Fundamentalisms
The Appeal-and Peril-of Fundamentalism by Dr. Bert B. Beach
The Fundamentals not complete at 2011-07-26.
The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth Online version of "The Fundamentals", not complete at 2011-07-26.
Thoughts on "Religious Fundamentalism" Identity
International Coalition Against Political Islam
Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA)
No to Political Islam
Psychological Issues of Former Members of Restrictive Religious Groups by Jim Moyers
Q & A on Islamic Fundamentalism
www.blessedquietness.com a conservative Christian website, maintained by Steve van Natten
Women Against Fundamentalism (UK)
The Rise of Religious Violence
Yahya Abdul Rahman's Take On Fundamentalists And Fundamentalism
Roots of Fundamentalism Traced to 16th Century Bible Translations, Harvard University, November 7, 2007.
The Fundamentalist Distortion of the Islamic Message by Syed Manzar Abbas Saidi, published in Athena Intelligence Journal
Fundamentalism linked to intimate partner violence
Evangelicalism – Fundamentalism; What Is The Difference?
Admiel Kosman, Between Orthodox Judaism and nihilism: Reflections on the recently published writings of the late Rabbi Shimon Gershon Rosenberg, Haaretz, Aug.17, 2012.
See also: List of new religious movements
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Philosophy of religion
Portal
Category
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Philosophy
Categories: Religious fundamentalism
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Alemannisch
العربية
Aragonés
Asturianu
Azərbaycanca
বাংলা
Bân-lâm-gú
Башҡортса
Беларуская
Беларуская (тарашкевіца)
Български
Bosanski
Català
Čeština
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Emiliàn e rumagnòl
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Fiji Hindi
Français
Frysk
Gaeilge
Galego
한국어
Hrvatski
Ilokano
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Íslenska
Italiano
עברית
ქართული
Қазақша
Kiswahili
Latina
Latviešu
Lietuvių
Magyar
മലയാളം
Bahasa Melayu
Mirandés
Nederlands
नेपाल भाषा
日本語
Нохчийн
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Occitan
Oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча
پنجابی
پښتو
Piemontèis
Polski
Português
Română
Русиньскый
Русский
Саха тыла
Scots
Sicilianu
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
کوردیی ناوەندی
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
தமிழ்
ไทย
Türkçe
Українська
اردو
Vahcuengh
Tiếng Việt
Võro
Winaray
ייִדיש
粵語
Žemaitėška
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 20 May 2015, at 03:41.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism
Fanaticism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Fanatic" and "Fanatical" redirect here. For other uses, see Fanaticism (disambiguation).
The Fanatics of Tangier by Eugène Delacroix, Minneapolis Institute of Arts
Fanaticism is a belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal or with an obsessive enthusiasm. Philosopher George Santayana defines fanaticism as "redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim".[1] The fanatic displays very strict standards and little tolerance for contrary ideas or opinions.
In his book Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk, Neil Postman states that "the key to all fanatical beliefs is that they are self-confirming....(some beliefs are) fanatical not because they are 'false', but because they are expressed in such a way that they can never be shown to be false."[2]
The behavior of a fan with overwhelming enthusiasm for a given subject is differentiated from the behavior of a fanatic by the fanatic's violation of prevailing social norms. Though the fan's behavior may be judged as odd or eccentric, it does not violate such norms.[3] A fanatic differs from a crank, in that a crank is defined as a person who holds a position or opinion which is so far from the norm as to appear ludicrous and/or probably wrong, such as a belief in a Flat Earth. In contrast, the subject of the fanatic's obsession may be "normal", such as an interest in religion or politics, except that the scale of the person's involvement, devotion, or obsession with the activity or cause is abnormal or disproportionate.
Contents [hide]
1 Categories
2 See also
3 References
4 Further reading
Categories[edit]
Consumer fanaticism - the level of involvement or interest one has in the liking of a particular person, group, trend, artwork or idea[citation needed]
Emotional fanaticism[citation needed] Limerence - Obsessive and addictive psychological tendencies towards the object of an individual's affections[citation needed]
Ethnic or racial supremacist fanaticism[citation needed]
Nationalistic or patriotic fanaticism[citation needed]
Political, ideological fanaticism[citation needed]
Leisure fanaticism - high levels of intensity, enthusiasm, commitment and zeal shown for a particular leisure activity[citation needed]
Religious fanaticism - considered by some to be the most extreme form of religious fundamentalism. Entail promoting religious views[citation needed] Anti-Religious fanaticism - sometimes considered part of religious fanaticism[citation needed]
Sports fanaticism - high levels of intensity surrounding sporting events. This is either done based on the belief that extreme fanaticism can alter games for one's favorite team (Ex: Knight Krew),[4] or because the person uses sports activities as an ultra-masculine "proving ground" for brawls, as in the case of football hooliganism.
See also[edit]
Look up fanaticism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Antifanaticism: A Tale of the South
Enthusiasm
Extremism
Fanboy
Fixation (psychology)
Obsession (psychology)
Zealotry
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Santayana, George (1905). Life of Reason: Reason in Common Sense. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons) 13.
2.Jump up ^ Postman, Neil (1976). "Fanaticism". Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk. pp. 104–112. ISBN 0-440-01554-5.
3.Jump up ^ Thorne, Scott; Bruner, Gordon C. (2006). "An exploratory investigation of the characteristics of consumer fanaticism". Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 9 (1): 51–72. doi:10.1108/13522750610640558. ISSN 1352-2752.
4.Jump up ^ Mackellar, J. (2006). "Fans, fanatics or just good fun - travel behaviours of the leisure fanatic". Journal of Vacation Marketing 12 (3): 195–217. doi:10.1177/1356766706064622.
Further reading[edit]
Haynal, A., Molnar, M. and de Puymege, G. Fanaticism. A Historical and Psychoanalytical Study. Schoken Books. New York, 1987
Rudin, J.Fanaticism. A psychological Analysis. University of Notre Dame Press. London, 1969.
Collins, Jack. "Real Times". University of Santa Barbara. California. 1993.
Беляев, И.А. Религиозный фанатизм как иллюзорная компенсация недостаточности духовно-душевных составляющих целостного мироотношения / И.А. Беляев // Вестник Челябинской государственной академии культуры и искусств. — 2011. — № 4 (28).— С. 68-71.
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Emotions (list)
Plutchik-wheel.svg
Categories: Emotion
Abnormal psychology
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Български
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Français
Galego
한국어
Հայերեն
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
ქართული
Қазақша
Lietuvių
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
Norsk bokmål
Oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Slovenčina
Српски / srpski
Suomi
Svenska
தமிழ்
Тоҷикӣ
Türkçe
Українська
Edit links
This page was last modified on 6 April 2015, at 19:56.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanaticism
Fanaticism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Fanatic" and "Fanatical" redirect here. For other uses, see Fanaticism (disambiguation).
The Fanatics of Tangier by Eugène Delacroix, Minneapolis Institute of Arts
Fanaticism is a belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal or with an obsessive enthusiasm. Philosopher George Santayana defines fanaticism as "redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim".[1] The fanatic displays very strict standards and little tolerance for contrary ideas or opinions.
In his book Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk, Neil Postman states that "the key to all fanatical beliefs is that they are self-confirming....(some beliefs are) fanatical not because they are 'false', but because they are expressed in such a way that they can never be shown to be false."[2]
The behavior of a fan with overwhelming enthusiasm for a given subject is differentiated from the behavior of a fanatic by the fanatic's violation of prevailing social norms. Though the fan's behavior may be judged as odd or eccentric, it does not violate such norms.[3] A fanatic differs from a crank, in that a crank is defined as a person who holds a position or opinion which is so far from the norm as to appear ludicrous and/or probably wrong, such as a belief in a Flat Earth. In contrast, the subject of the fanatic's obsession may be "normal", such as an interest in religion or politics, except that the scale of the person's involvement, devotion, or obsession with the activity or cause is abnormal or disproportionate.
Contents [hide]
1 Categories
2 See also
3 References
4 Further reading
Categories[edit]
Consumer fanaticism - the level of involvement or interest one has in the liking of a particular person, group, trend, artwork or idea[citation needed]
Emotional fanaticism[citation needed] Limerence - Obsessive and addictive psychological tendencies towards the object of an individual's affections[citation needed]
Ethnic or racial supremacist fanaticism[citation needed]
Nationalistic or patriotic fanaticism[citation needed]
Political, ideological fanaticism[citation needed]
Leisure fanaticism - high levels of intensity, enthusiasm, commitment and zeal shown for a particular leisure activity[citation needed]
Religious fanaticism - considered by some to be the most extreme form of religious fundamentalism. Entail promoting religious views[citation needed] Anti-Religious fanaticism - sometimes considered part of religious fanaticism[citation needed]
Sports fanaticism - high levels of intensity surrounding sporting events. This is either done based on the belief that extreme fanaticism can alter games for one's favorite team (Ex: Knight Krew),[4] or because the person uses sports activities as an ultra-masculine "proving ground" for brawls, as in the case of football hooliganism.
See also[edit]
Look up fanaticism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Antifanaticism: A Tale of the South
Enthusiasm
Extremism
Fanboy
Fixation (psychology)
Obsession (psychology)
Zealotry
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Santayana, George (1905). Life of Reason: Reason in Common Sense. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons) 13.
2.Jump up ^ Postman, Neil (1976). "Fanaticism". Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk. pp. 104–112. ISBN 0-440-01554-5.
3.Jump up ^ Thorne, Scott; Bruner, Gordon C. (2006). "An exploratory investigation of the characteristics of consumer fanaticism". Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 9 (1): 51–72. doi:10.1108/13522750610640558. ISSN 1352-2752.
4.Jump up ^ Mackellar, J. (2006). "Fans, fanatics or just good fun - travel behaviours of the leisure fanatic". Journal of Vacation Marketing 12 (3): 195–217. doi:10.1177/1356766706064622.
Further reading[edit]
Haynal, A., Molnar, M. and de Puymege, G. Fanaticism. A Historical and Psychoanalytical Study. Schoken Books. New York, 1987
Rudin, J.Fanaticism. A psychological Analysis. University of Notre Dame Press. London, 1969.
Collins, Jack. "Real Times". University of Santa Barbara. California. 1993.
Беляев, И.А. Религиозный фанатизм как иллюзорная компенсация недостаточности духовно-душевных составляющих целостного мироотношения / И.А. Беляев // Вестник Челябинской государственной академии культуры и искусств. — 2011. — № 4 (28).— С. 68-71.
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Emotions (list)
Plutchik-wheel.svg
Categories: Emotion
Abnormal psychology
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Български
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Français
Galego
한국어
Հայերեն
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
ქართული
Қазақша
Lietuvių
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
Norsk bokmål
Oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Slovenčina
Српски / srpski
Suomi
Svenska
தமிழ்
Тоҷикӣ
Türkçe
Українська
Edit links
This page was last modified on 6 April 2015, at 19:56.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanaticism
Toleration
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Religious tolerance)
Jump to: navigation, search
"Tolerate" redirects here. For other uses, see Tolerance.
[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This article possibly contains original research. (May 2011)
Globe icon
The examples and perspective in this article or section might have an extensive bias or disproportional coverage towards one or more specific regions. (May 2011)
Part of a series on
Discrimination
General forms[show]
Specific forms
Social[show]
Manifestations[show]
Policies[show]
Other forms[show]
Countermeasures[show]
Related topics[show]
Portal icon Discrimination portal
v ·
t ·
e
Sculpture Für Toleranz ("for tolerance") by Volkmar Kühn, Gera, Germany
The cross of the war memorial and the Menorah for Jewish people coexist in Oxford.
Minerva as a symbol of enlightened wisdom protects the believers of all religions (Daniel Chodowiecki, 1791)
Toleration is "the practice of deliberately allowing or permitting a thing of which one disapproves. One can meaningfully speak of tolerating—i.e., of allowing or permitting—only if one is in a position to disallow." It has also been defined as "to bear or endure" or "to nourish, sustain or preserve." Toleration may signify "no more than forbearance and the permission given by the adherents of a dominant religion for other religions to exist, even though the latter are looked on with disapproval as inferior, mistaken, or harmful."[1]
There is only one verb 'to tolerate' and one adjective 'tolerant,' but the two nouns 'tolerance' and 'toleration' have evolved slightly different meanings. Tolerance is an attitude of mind that implies non-judgmental acceptance of different lifestyles or beliefs,[2] whereas toleration implies putting up with something that one disapproves of.[3]
Historically, most incidents and writings pertaining to toleration involve the status of minority and dissenting viewpoints in relation to a dominant state religion. In the twentieth century and after, analysis of the doctrine of toleration has been expanded to include political and ethnic groups, homosexuals and other minorities, and human rights embodies the principle of legally enforced toleration.
Contents [hide]
1 Etymology
2 In antiquity
3 Biblical sources of toleration
4 In the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance 4.1 Tolerance of the Jews
4.2 Vladimiri
4.3 Erasmus
4.4 More
4.5 Castellio
4.6 Bodin
4.7 Montaigne
4.8 Edict of Torda
4.9 Maximilian II
4.10 The Warsaw Confederation
4.11 Edict of Nantes
5 In the Enlightenment 5.1 Milton
5.2 Rudolph II
5.3 In the American colonies
5.4 Spinoza
5.5 Locke
5.6 Bayle
5.7 Act of Toleration
5.8 Voltaire
5.9 Lessing
5.10 Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen
5.11 The First Amendment to the United States Constitution
6 In the nineteenth century 6.1 Roman Catholic Relief Act
6.2 Mill
6.3 Renan
7 In the twentieth century
8 In other religions 8.1 Hindu religion
8.2 Islam
8.3 Buddhism
9 Modern analyses and critiques of toleration 9.1 Modern definition
9.2 Toleration of homosexuality
9.3 Tolerating the intolerant
9.4 Other criticisms and issues
10 See also
11 References
12 Further reading
13 External links
Etymology[edit]
The word tolerance was first used in the 15th century.[4]
The word is derived from endurance and fortitude, used in the 14th century. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word was first used to describe having permission from authorities in the 1530s.[5]
In antiquity[edit]
As reported in the Old Testament, the Persian king Cyrus the Great was believed to have released the Jews from captivity in 539–530 BC, and permitted their return to their homeland.[6]
The Hellenistic city of Alexandria, founded 331 BC, contained a large Jewish community which lived in peace with equivalently sized Greek and Egyptian populations. According to Michael Walzer, the city provided "a useful example of what we might think of as the imperial version of multiculturalism."[7]
The Roman Empire encouraged conquered peoples to continue worshipping their own gods. "An important part of Roman propaganda was its invitation to the gods of conquered territories to enjoy the benefits of worship within the imperium."[8] Christians were singled out for persecution because of their own rejection of Roman pantheism and refusal to honor the emperor as a god.[9] In 311 AD, Roman Emperor Galerius issued a general edict of toleration of Christianity, in his own name and in those of Licinius and Constantine I (who converted to Christianity the following year).[10]
Biblical sources of toleration[edit]
In the Old Testament, the books of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy make similar statements about the treatment of strangers. For example, Exodus 22:21 says: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt".These texts are frequently used in sermons to plead for compassion and tolerance of those who are different from us and less powerful.[11] Julia Kristeva elucidated a philosophy of political and religious toleration based on all of our mutual identities as strangers.[12]
The New Testament Parable of the Tares, which speaks of the difficulty of distinguishing wheat from weeds before harvest time, has also been invoked in support of religious toleration. In his "Letter to Bishop Roger of Chalons", Bishop Wazo of Liege (c. 985–1048 AD) relied on the parable[13] to argue that "the church should let dissent grow with orthodoxy until the Lord comes to separate and judge them".[14]
Roger Williams, a Baptist theologian and founder of Rhode Island, used this parable to support government toleration of all of the "weeds" (heretics) in the world, because civil persecution often inadvertently hurts the "wheat" (believers) too. Instead, Williams believed it was God's duty to judge in the end, not man's. This parable lent further support to Williams' Biblical philosophy of a wall of separation between church and state as described in his 1644 book, The Bloody Tenent of Persecution.[15]
In the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance[edit]
In the Middle Ages, there were instances of toleration of particular groups. The Latin concept tolerantia was a "highly-developed political and judicial concept in mediaeval scholastic theology and canon law."[16] Tolerantia was used to "denote the self-restraint of a civil power in the face of" outsiders, like infidels, Muslims or Jews, but also in the face of social groups like prostitutes and lepers.[16] Later theologians belonging or reacting to the Protestant Reformation began discussion of the circumstances under which dissenting religious thought should be permitted. Toleration "as a government-sanctioned practice" in Christian countries, "the sense on which most discussion of the phenomenon relies—is not attested before the sixteenth century".[17]
Tolerance of the Jews[edit]
In Poland in 1264, the Statute of Kalisz was issued, guaranteeing freedom of religion for the Jews in the country.
In 1348, Pope Clement VI (1291–1352) issued a bull pleading with Catholics not to murder Jews, whom they blamed for the Black Death. He noted that Jews died of the plague like anyone else, and that the disease also flourished in areas where there were no Jews. Christians who blamed and killed Jews had been "seduced by that liar, the Devil". He took Jews under his personal protection at Avignon, but his calls for other clergy to do so failed to be heeded.[18]
Johann Reuchlin (1455–1522) was a German humanist and a scholar of Greek and Hebrew who opposed efforts by Johannes Pfefferkorn, backed by the Dominicans of Cologne, to confiscate all religious texts from the Jews as a first step towards their forcible conversion to the Catholic religion.[19]
Despite occasional spontaneous episodes of pogroms and killings, as during the Black Death, Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was a relatively tolerant home for the Jews in the medieval period. In 1264, the Statute of Kalisz guaranteed safety, personal liberties, freedom of religion, trade, and travel to Jews. By the mid-16th century, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was home to 80% of the world's Jewish population. Jewish worship was officially recognized, with a Chief Rabbi originally appointed by the monarch. Jewish property ownership was also protected for much of the period, and Jews entered into business partnerships with members of the nobility.[20]
Vladimiri[edit]
Paulus Vladimiri (ca. 1370–1435) was a Polish scholar and rector who at the Council of Constance in 1414, presented a thesis, Tractatus de potestate papae et imperatoris respectu infidelium (Treatise on the Power of the Pope and the Emperor Respecting Infidels). In it he argued that pagan and Christian nations could coexist in peace and criticized the Teutonic Order for its wars of conquest of native non-Christian peoples in Prussia and Lithuania. Vladimiri strongly supported the idea of conciliarism and pioneered the notion of peaceful coexistence among nations – a forerunner of modern theories of human rights. Throughout his political, diplomatic and university career, he expressed the view that a world guided by the principles of peace and mutual respect among nations was possible and that pagan nations had a right to peace and to possession of their own lands.
Erasmus[edit]
Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (1466–1536), was a Dutch Renaissance humanist and Catholic whose works laid a foundation for religious toleration. For example, in De libero arbitrio, opposing certain views of Martin Luther, Erasmus noted that religious disputants should be temperate in their language, "because in this way the truth, which is often lost amidst too much wrangling may be more surely perceived." Gary Remer writes, "Like Cicero, Erasmus concludes that truth is furthered by a more harmonious relationship between interlocutors."[21] Although Erasmus did not oppose the punishment of heretics, in individual cases he generally argued for moderation and against the death penalty. He wrote, "It is better to cure a sick man than to kill him."[22]
More[edit]
Saint Thomas More (1478–1535), Catholic Lord Chancellor of King Henry VIII and author, described a world of almost complete religious toleration in Utopia (1516), in which the Utopians "can hold various religious beliefs without persecution from the authorities."[23] However, More's work is subject to various interpretations, and it is not clear that he felt that earthly society should be conducted the same way as in Utopia. Thus, in his three years as Lord Chancellor, More actively approved of the persecution of those who sought to undermine the Catholic faith in England.[24]
Castellio[edit]
Sebastian Castellio (1515–1563) was a French Protestant theologian who in 1554 published under a pseudonym the pamphlet Whether heretics should be persecuted (De haereticis, an sint persequendi) criticizing John Calvin's execution of Michael Servetus: "When Servetus fought with reasons and writings, he should have been repulsed by reasons and writings." Castellio concluded: "We can live together peacefully only when we control our intolerance. Even though there will always be differences of opinion from time to time, we can at any rate come to general understandings, can love one another, and can enter the bonds of peace, pending the day when we shall attain unity of faith."[25] Castellio is remembered for the often quoted statement, "To kill a man is not to protect a doctrine, but it is to kill a man.[26]
Bodin[edit]
Jean Bodin (1530–1596) was a French Catholic jurist and political philosopher. His Latin work Colloquium heptaplomeres de rerum sublimium arcanis abditis ("The Colloqium of the Seven") portrays a conversation about the nature of truth between seven cultivated men from diverse religious or philosophical backgrounds: a natural philosopher, a Calvinist, a Muslim, a Roman Catholic, a Lutheran, a Jew, and a skeptic. All agree to live in mutual respect and tolerance.
Montaigne[edit]
Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592), French Catholic essayist and statesman, moderated between the Catholic and Protestant sides in the Wars of Religion. Montaigne's theory of skepticism led to the conclusion that we cannot precipitously decide the error of other's views. Montaigne wrote in his famous "Essais": "It is putting a very high value on one's conjectures, to have a man roasted alive because of them...To kill people, there must be sharp and brilliant clarity."[27]
Edict of Torda[edit]
In 1568, King John II Sigismund of Hungary, encouraged by his Unitarian Minister Francis David (Dávid Ferenc), issued the Edict of Torda decreeing religious toleration.
Maximilian II[edit]
In 1571, Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian II granted religious toleration to the nobles of Lower Austria, their families and workers.[28]
The Warsaw Confederation[edit]
Original act of the Warsaw Confederation 1573. The beginning of religious freedom in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth has a long tradition of religious freedom. The right to worship freely was a basic right given to all inhabitants of the Commonwealth throughout the 15th and early 16th century, however, complete freedom of religion was officially recognized in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1573 during the Warsaw Confederation. the Commonwealth kept religious freedom laws during an era when religious persecution was an everyday occurrence in the rest of Europe.[29]
The Warsaw Confederation of 1573 was a private compact signed by representatives of all the major religions in Polish and Lithuanian society, in which they pledged each other mutual support and tolerance. The confederation was incorporated into the Henrican articles, which constituted a virtual Polish–Lithuanian constitution.
Edict of Nantes[edit]
The Edict of Nantes, issued on April 13, 1598, by Henry IV of France, granted Protestants – notably Calvinist Huguenots – substantial rights in a nation where Catholicism was the state religion. The main concern was civil unity;[30] The Edict separated civil law from religious rights, treated non-Catholics as more than mere schismatics and heretics for the first time, and opened a path for secularism and tolerance. In offering general freedom of conscience to individuals, the edict offered many specific concessions to the Protestants, such as amnesty and the reinstatement of their civil rights, including the right to work in any field or for the State, and to bring grievances directly to the king. The edict marked the end of the religious wars in France that tore apart the population during the second half of the 16th century.
The Edict of Nantes was revoked in 1685 by King Louis XIV with the Edict of Fontainebleau, leading to renewed persecution of Protestants in France. Although strict enforcement of the revocation was relaxed during the reign of Louis XV, it was not until 102 years later, in 1787, when Louis XVI signed the Edict of Versailles – known as the Edict of Tolerance – that civil status and rights to form congregations by Protestants were restored.[31]
In the Enlightenment[edit]
Beginning in the Enlightenment commencing in the 1600s, politicians and commentators began formulating theories of religious toleration and basing legal codes on the concept. A distinction began to develop between civil tolerance, concerned with "the policy of the state towards religious dissent".,[32] and ecclesiastical tolerance, concerned with the degree of diversity tolerated within a particular church.[33]
Milton[edit]
John Milton (1608–1674), English Protestant poet and essayist, called in the Aeropagitica for "the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties" (applied however, only to the conflicting Protestant sects, and not to atheists, Jews, Moslems or even Catholics). "Milton argued for disestablishment as the only effective way of achieving broad toleration. Rather than force a man's conscience, government should recognize the persuasive force of the gospel."[34]
Rudolph II[edit]
In 1609, Rudolph II decreed religious toleration in Bohemia.[35]
In the American colonies[edit]
The Maryland Toleration Act, passed in 1649.
In 1636, Roger Williams and companions at the foundation of Rhode Island entered into a compact binding themselves "to be obedient to the majority only in civil things". Lucian Johnston writes, "Williams' intention was to grant an infinitely greater religious liberty than then existed anywhere in the world outside of the Colony of Maryland". In 1663, Charles II granted the colony a charter guaranteeing complete religious toleration.[36]
In 1649 Maryland passed the Maryland Toleration Act, also known as the Act Concerning Religion, a law mandating religious tolerance for Trinitarian Christians only (excluding Nontrinitarian faiths). Passed on September 21, 1649 by the assembly of the Maryland colony, it was the first law requiring religious tolerance in the British North American colonies. The Calvert family sought enactment of the law to protect Catholic settlers and some of the other religions that did not conform to the dominant Anglicanism of Britain and her colonies.
In 1657, New Amsterdam granted religious toleration to Jews.[37]
Spinoza[edit]
Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) was a Dutch Jewish philosopher. He published the Theological-Political Treatise anonymously in 1670, arguing (according to the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) that "the freedom to philosophize can not only be granted without injury to piety and the peace of the Commonwealth, but that the peace of the Commonwealth and Piety are endangered by the suppression of this freedom", and defending, "as a political ideal, the tolerant, secular, and democratic polity". After interpreting certain Biblical texts, Spinoza opted for tolerance and freedom of thought in his conclusion that "every person is in duty bound to adapt these religious dogmas to his own understanding and to interpret them for himself in whatever way makes him feel that he can the more readily accept them with full confidence and conviction."[38]
Locke[edit]
English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) published A Letter Concerning Toleration in 1689. Locke's work appeared amidst a fear that Catholicism might be taking over England, and responds to the problem of religion and government by proposing religious toleration as the answer. Unlike Thomas Hobbes, who saw uniformity of religion as the key to a well-functioning civil society, Locke argued that more religious groups actually prevent civil unrest. In his opinion, civil unrest results from confrontations caused by any magistrate's attempt to prevent different religions from being practiced, rather than tolerating their proliferation. However, Locke denies religious tolerance for Catholics, for political reasons, and also for atheists because 'Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist'. A passage Locke later added to the Essay concerning Human Understanding, questioned whether atheism was necessarily inimical to political obedience.
Bayle[edit]
Pierre Bayle (1647–1706) was a French Protestant scholar and philosopher who went into exile in Holland. In his "Dictionnaire historique and critique" and "Commentaire Philosophique" he advanced arguments for religious toleration (though, like some others of his time, he was not anxious to extend the same protection to Catholics he would to differing Protestant sects). Among his arguments were that every church believes it is the right one so "a heretical church would be in a position to persecute the true church". Bayle wrote that "the erroneous conscience procures for error the same rights and privileges that the orthodox conscience procures for truth."[39]
Bayle was repelled by the use of scripture to justify coercion and violence: "One must transcribe almost the whole New Testament to collect all the Proofs it affords us of that Gentleness and Long-suffering, which constitute the distinguishing and essential Character of the Gospel." He did not regard toleration as a danger to the state, but to the contrary: "If the Multiplicity of Religions prejudices the State, it proceeds from their not bearing with one another but on the contrary endeavoring each to crush and destroy the other by methods of Persecution. In a word, all the Mischief arises not from Toleration, but from the want of it."[40]
Act of Toleration[edit]
The Act of Toleration, adopted by the British Parliament in 1689, allowed freedom of worship to Nonconformists who had pledged to the oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy and rejected transubstantiation. The Nonconformists were Protestants who dissented from the Church of England such as Baptists and Congregationalists. They were allowed their own places of worship and their own teachers, if they accepted certain oaths of allegiance.
The Act did not apply to Catholics and non-trinitarians and continued the existing social and political disabilities for Dissenters, including their exclusion from political office and also from universities.
Voltaire[edit]
François-Marie Arouet, the French writer, historian and philosopher known as Voltaire (1694–1778) published his "Treatise on Toleration" in 1763. In it he attacked religious views, but also said, "It does not require great art, or magnificently trained eloquence, to prove that Christians should tolerate each other. I, however, am going further: I say that we should regard all men as our brothers. What? The Turk my brother? The Chinaman my brother? The Jew? The Siam? Yes, without doubt; are we not all children of the same father and creatures of the same God?"[41] On the other hand, Voltaire in his writings on religion was spiteful and intolerant of the practice of the Christian religion, and rabbi Joseph Telushkin has claimed that the most significant of Enlightenment hostility against Judaism was found in Voltaire.[42]
Lessing[edit]
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729–1781), German dramatist and philosopher, trusted in a "Christianity of Reason", in which human reason (initiated by criticism and dissent) would develop, even without help by divine revelation. His plays about Jewish characters and themes, such as "Die Juden" and "Nathan der Weise", "have usually been considered impressive pleas for social and religious toleration".[43] The latter work contains the famous parable of the three rings, in which three sons represent the three Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Each son believes he has the one true ring passed down by their father, but judgment on which is correct is reserved to God.[44]
Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen[edit]
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789), adopted by the National Constituent Assembly during the French Revolution, states in Article 10: "No-one shall be interfered with for his opinions, even religious ones, provided that their practice doesn't disturb public order as established by the law." ("Nul ne doit être inquiété pour ses opinions, mêmes religieuses, pourvu que leur manifestation ne trouble pas l'ordre public établi par la loi.")[45]
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution[edit]
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified along with the rest of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791, included the following words:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
In 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in which he said: "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."[46]
In the nineteenth century[edit]
The process of legislating religious toleration went forward, while philosophers continued to discuss the underlying rationale.
Roman Catholic Relief Act[edit]
The Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 adopted by the Parliament in 1829 repealed the last of the criminal laws (TEST ACTS) aimed at Catholic citizens of Great Britain.
Mill[edit]
John Stuart Mill's arguments in "On Liberty" (1859) in support of the freedom of speech were phrased to include a defense of religious toleration:
Let the opinions impugned be the belief of God and in a future state, or any of the commonly received doctrines of morality... But I must be permitted to observe that it is not the feeling sure of a doctrine (be it what it may) which I call an assumption of infallibility. It is the undertaking to decide that question for others, without allowing them to hear what can be said on the contrary side. And I denounce and reprobate this pretension not the less if it is put forth on the side of my most solemn convictions.[47]
Renan[edit]
In his 1882 essay "What is a Nation?", French historian and philosopher Ernest Renan proposed a definition of nationhood based on "a spiritual principle" involving shared memories, rather than a common religious, racial or linguistic heritage. Thus members of any religious group could participate fully in the life of the nation. ""You can be French, English, German, yet Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or practicing no religion".[48]
In the twentieth century[edit]
In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance[49]
Even though not formally legally binding, the Declaration has been adopted in or influenced many national constitutions since 1948. It also serves as the foundation for a growing number of international treaties and national laws and international, regional, national and sub-national institutions protecting and promoting human rights including the freedom of religion.
In 1965, The Roman Catholic Church Vatican II Council issued the decree Dignitatis humanae (Religious Freedom) that states that all people must have the right to religious freedom.[50]
In 1986, the first World Day of Prayer for Peace was held in Assisi. Representatives of one hundred and twenty different religions came together for prayer to their God or gods.[51]
In 1988, in the spirit of Glasnost, Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev promised increased religious toleration.[52]
In other religions[edit]
Other major world religions also have texts or practices supporting the idea of religious toleration.
Hindu religion[edit]
The Rigveda says Ekam Sath Viprah Bahudha Vadanti which translates to "The truth is One, but sages call it by different Names".[53] Consistent with this tradition, India chose to be a secular country even though it was divided partitioning on religious lines. Whatever intolerance, Hindu scholars displayed towards other religions was subtle and symbolic and most likely was done to present a superior argument in defence of their own faith. Traditionally, Hindus showed their intolerance by withdrawing and avoiding contact with those whom they held in contempt, instead of using violence and aggression to strike fear in their hearts. Hinduism is perhaps the only religion in the world which showed remarkable tolerance towards other religions in difficult times and under testing conditions. Even Buddhism, which spread in India mostly through negative campaigns against Hinduism, cannot claim that credit. Criticizing other religions and showing them in poor light to attract converts to its own fold was never an approved practice in Hinduism.[54]
Pluralism and tolerance of diversity are built into Hindu theology India's long history is a testimony to its tolerance of religious diversity. Christianity came to India with St. Thomas in the first century A.D., long before it became popular in the West. Judaism came to India after the Jewish temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. and the Jews were expelled from their homeland. In a recent book titled "Who are the Jews of India?" (University of California Press, 2000), author Nathan Katz observes that India is the only country where the Jews were not persecuted. The Indian chapter is one of the happiest of the Jewish Diaspora. Both Christians and Jews have existed in a predominant Hindu India for centuries without being persecuted. Zoroastrians from Persia (present day Iran) entered India in the 7th century to flee Islamic conquest. They are known as Parsis in India. The Parsis are an affluent community in the city of Mumbai without a sense of having been persecuted through the centuries. Among the richest business families in India are the Parsis; for example, the Tata family controls a huge industrial empire in various parts of the country. Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the powerful Prime Minister of India (1966–77; 1980–84), was married to Feroz Gandhi, a Parsi (no relation to Mahatma Gandhi). [55]
Islam[edit]
See also: Al-Baqara 256
The name ‘the Tolerant (al-Ḥalīm)’ is one of the names of Allāh.[citation needed]
Circa 622, Muhammed established the Constitution of Medina, which incorporated religious freedom for Christians and Jews.[citation needed]
Certain verses of the Qu'ran were interpreted to create a specially tolerated status for People of the Book, Jewish and Christian believers in the Old and New Testaments considered to have been a basis for Islamic religion:
Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.[56]
Under Islamic law, Jews and Christians were considered dhimmis, a legal status inferior to that of a Muslim but superior to that of other non-Muslims.
Jewish communities in the Ottoman Empire held a protected status and continued to practice their own religion, as did Christians. Yitzhak Sarfati, born in Germany, became the Chief Rabbi of Edirne and wrote a letter inviting European Jews to settle in the Ottoman Empire, in which he asked:: "Is it not better for you to live under Muslims than under Christians?".[57] Sultan Beyazid II (1481–1512), issued a formal invitation to the Jews expelled from Catholic Spain and Portugal, leading to a wave of Jewish immigration.
According to Michael Walzer:
The established religion of the [Ottoman] empire was Islam, but three other religious communities—Greek Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, and Jewish—were permitted to form autonomous organizations. These three were equal among themselves, without regard to their relative numerical strength. They were subject to the same restrictions vis-à-vis Muslims—with regard to dress, proselytizing, and intermarriage, for example—and were allowed the same legal control over their own members.[58]
Buddhism[edit]
Although the Buddha preached that "the path to the supreme goal of the holy life is made known only in his own teaching", according to Bhikkhu Boddhi, Buddhists have nevertheless shown significant tolerance for other religions: "Buddhist tolerance springs from the recognition that the dispositions and spiritual needs of human beings are too vastly diverse to be encompassed by any single teaching, and thus that these needs will naturally find expression in a wide variety of religious forms."[59] James Freeman Clarke said in Ten Great Religions (1871): "The Buddhists have founded no Inquisition; they have combined the zeal which converted kingdoms with a toleration almost inexplicable to our Western experience."[60]
The Edicts of Ashoka issued by King Ashoka the Great (269–231 BCE), a Buddhist, declared ethnic and religious tolerance. His Edict XII, engraved in stone, stated: "The faiths of others all deserve to be honored for one reason or another. By honoring them, one exalts one's own faith and at the same time performs a service to the faith of others."[61]
However, Buddhism has also had controversies regarding toleration. See Dorje Shugden Controversy. In addition, the question of possible intolerance among Buddhists in Sri Lanka and Myanmar has been raised by Paul Fuller.[62]
Modern analyses and critiques of toleration[edit]
Contemporary commentators have highlighted situations in which toleration conflicts with widely held moral standards, national law, the principles of national identity, or other strongly held goals. Michael Walzer notes that the British in India tolerated the Hindu practice of suttee (ritual burning of a widow) until 1829. On the other hand, the United States declined to tolerate the Mormon practice of polygamy.[63] The French head scarf controversy represents a conflict between religious practice and the French secular ideal.[64] Toleration of the Romani people in European countries is a continuing issue.[65]
Modern definition[edit]
Historian Alexandra Walsham notes that the modern understanding of the word "toleration" may be very different from its historic meaning.[66] Toleration in modern parlance has been analyzed as a component of a liberal or libertarian view of human rights. Hans Oberdiek writes, "As long as no one is harmed or no one's fundamental rights are violated, the state should keep hands off, tolerating what those controlling the state find disgusting, deplorable or even debased. This for a long time has been the most prevalent defense of toleration by liberals... It is found, for example, in the writings of American philosophers John Rawls, Robert Nozick, Ronald Dworkin, Brian Barry, and a Canadian, Will Kymlicka, among others."[67]
Isaiah Berlin attributes to Herbert Butterfield the notion that "toleration... implies a certain disrespect. I tolerate your absurd beliefs and your foolish acts, though I know them to be absurd and foolish. Mill would, I think, have agreed."[68]
John Gray states that "When we tolerate a practice, a belief or a character trait, we let something be that we judge to be undesirable, false or at least inferior; our toleration expresses the conviction that, despite its badness, the object of toleration should be left alone."[69] However, according to Gray, "new liberalism—the liberalism of Rawls, Dworkin, Ackerman and suchlike" seems to imply that "it is wrong for government to discriminate in favour of, or against, any form of life animated by a definite conception of the good."[70]
John Rawls' "theory of 'political liberalism' conceives of toleration as a pragmatic response to the fact of diversity." Diverse groups learn to tolerate one another by developing "what Rawls calls 'overlapping consensus': individuals and groups with diverse metaphysical views or 'comprehensive schemes' will find reasons to agree about certain principles of justice that will include principles of toleration."[71]
Herbert Marcuse wrote "Repressive Tolerance" in 1965 where he argued that the "pure tolerance" that permits all favors totalitarianism, democracy, and tyranny of the majority, and insisted the "repressive tolerance" against them.
Toleration of homosexuality[edit]
As a result of his public debate with Baron Devlin on the role of the criminal law in enforcing moral norms, British legal philosopher H. L. A. Hart wrote Law, Liberty and Morality (1963) and The Morality of the Criminal Law (1965). His work on the relationship between law and morality had a significant effect on the laws of Great Britain, helping bring about the decriminalization of homosexuality. But it was Jeremy Bentham that defended the rights for homosexuality with his essay "Offence against One's Self"[72] but could not be published until in 1978.
Tolerating the intolerant[edit]
Main article: Paradox of tolerance
Walzer, Karl Popper[73] and John Rawls[74] have discussed the paradox of tolerating intolerance. Walzer asks "Should we tolerate the intolerant?" He notes that most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects.[75] Rawls argues that an intolerant sect should be tolerated in a tolerant society unless the sect directly threatens the security of other members of the society. He links this principle to the stability of a tolerant society, in which members of an intolerant sect in a tolerant society will, over time, acquire the tolerance of the wider society.
Other criticisms and issues[edit]
Toleration has been described as undermining itself via moral relativism: "either the claim self-referentially undermines itself or it provides us with no compelling reason to believe it. If we are skeptical about knowledge, then we have no way of knowing that toleration is good."[76]
Ronald Dworkin argues that in exchange for toleration, minorities must bear with the criticisms and insults which are part of the freedom of speech in an otherwise tolerant society.[77] Dworkin has also questioned whether the United States is a "tolerant secular" nation, or is re-characterizing itself as a "tolerant religious" nation, based on the increasing re-introduction of religious themes into conservative politics. Dworkin concludes that "the tolerant secular model is preferable, although he invited people to use the concept of personal responsibility to argue in favor of the tolerant religious model."[78]
In The End of Faith, Sam Harris asserts that society should be unwilling to tolerate unjustified religious beliefs about morality, spirituality, politics, and the origin of humanity, especially beliefs which promote violence.
See also[edit]
Anekantavada
Christian debate on persecution and toleration
International Day for Tolerance
Islam and other religions
Multifaith space
Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Religious discrimination
Religious intolerance
Religious liberty
Religious persecution
Religious pluralism
Repressive Tolerance
Secular state
Separation of church and state
Status of religious freedom by country
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Perez Zagorin, How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West (Princeton: Princeton University Press 2003) ISBN 0-691-09270-2 , pp. 5–6, quoting D.D. Raphael et al.
2.Jump up ^ "Tolerance". Merriam Webster. Retrieved 2012-03-07.
3.Jump up ^ "Toleration". Merriam Webster. Retrieved 2012-03-07.
4.Jump up ^ "Tolerance". Merriam Webster. Retrieved 2012-04-07.
5.Jump up ^ "Tolerance". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 2012-04-07.
6.Jump up ^ "Book of Ezra | King James Bible". Kingjamesbibletrust.org. Retrieved March 21, 201. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)1
7.Jump up ^ Walzer, Michael (1997). On Toleration. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 17. ISBN 0-300-07600-2.
8.Jump up ^ Witte, John Jr. and Johan D. van de Vyver, Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective (The Hague: Kluwer 1996) p. 74 ISBN 90-411-0176-4
9.Jump up ^ Logan, Donald F., A history of the church in the Middle Ages (New York:Routledge, 2002) ISBN 0-415-13289-4, p. 8
10.Jump up ^ "Valerius Maximianus Galerius", Karl Hoeber, Catholic Encyclopedia 1909 Ed, retrieved 1 June 2007.
11.Jump up ^ February 5, 2008 posting by Rabbi David Kominsky ...For You Were Strangers in the Land of Egypt. Accessed January 25, 2011
12.Jump up ^ Walzer, Michael On Toleration (New Haven: Yale University Press 1997) pp. 80–81
13.Jump up ^ Richard Landes (2000). "The Birth of Heresy: A Millennial Phenomenon". Journal of Religious History 24 (1): 26–43. doi:10.1111/1467-9809.00099.
14.Jump up ^ Jeffrey Burton Russell, Dissent and Order in the Middle Ages: The Search for Legitimate Authority (New York: Twayne Publishers 1992), p. 23
15.Jump up ^ James P. Byrd (2002). The challenges of Roger Williams: religious liberty, violent persecution, and the Bible. Mercer University Press. ISBN 978-0-86554-771-1. Retrieved 15 June 2011.
16.^ Jump up to: a b Walsham 2006: 234.
17.Jump up ^ Drake, H. A. (November 1996). "Lambs into Lions: Explaining Early Christian Intolerance". Past & Present 153: 3–36. doi:10.1093/past/153.1.3. JSTOR 651134.
18.Jump up ^ Tuchman, Barbara, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century (New York: Alfred A. Knopf 1978), p. 113
19.Jump up ^ Rummel, Erika, "The case against Johann Reuchlin" (pp. iv–xv) University of Toronto Press, 2002 ISBN 0-8020-8484-2, ISBN 978-0-8020-8484-2.
20.Jump up ^ Poland. Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved on 2011-06-15.
21.Jump up ^ Remer, Gary, Humanism and the Rhetoric of Toleration (University Park: University of Pennsylvania Press 1996) p. 95 ISBN 0-271-02811-4
22.Jump up ^ James Anthony Froude; Desiderius Erasmus (1894). Life and letters of Erasmus: lectures delivered at Oxford 1893-4. Longmans, Green. pp. 359–. Retrieved 15 June 2011.
23.Jump up ^ Marius, Richard Thomas More: a biography (Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University press, 1999) p. 175 ISBN 0-674-88525-2
24.Jump up ^ Marius, Richard Thomas More: a biography (Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University press, 1999) p. 386 ISBN 0-674-88525-2
25.Jump up ^ Zweig, Stefan (1951). Erasmus; The Right to Heresy: Castellio against Calvin. London: Cassell. p. 312. OCLC 24340377.
26.Jump up ^ Sebastian Castellio, Contra libellum, # 77, Vaticanus.
27.Jump up ^ E.M. Curley, "Skepticism and Toleration: the Case of Montaigne", Accessed February 27, 2011
28.Jump up ^ Grossman, Walter (1979). "Toleration—Exercitium Religionis Privatum". Journal of the History of Ideas 40 (1): 129–34. doi:10.2307/2709265. JSTOR 2709265.
29.Jump up ^ Zamoyski, Adam. The Polish Way. New York: Hippocrene Books, 1987
30.Jump up ^ In 1898 the tricentennial celebrated the Edict as the foundation of the coming Age of Toleration; the 1998 anniversary, by contrast, was commemorated with a book of essays under the evocatively ambivalent title, Coexister dans l'intolérance (Michel Grandjean and Bernard Roussel, editors, Geneva, 1998).
31.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia of the Age of Political Ideals, Edict of Versailles (1787), downloaded 29 January 2012
32.Jump up ^ John Coffey, Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England, 1558–1689. Longman Publishing Group (2000). ISBN 0-582-30465-2. p. 11
33.Jump up ^ Coffey, p. 12
34.Jump up ^ Hunter, William Bridges A Milton Encyclopedia, Volume 8(East Brunswick, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1980) pp. 71, 72 ISBN 0-8387-1841-8
35.Jump up ^ "Rudolph II", Encyclopædia Britannica 15 Edition, retrieved 1 June 2007.
36.Jump up ^ Johnston, Lucian, Religious Liberty in Maryland and Rhode Island (Brooklyn: International Catholic Truth Society, 1903), p. 30, 38
37.Jump up ^ Hasia R. Diner, The Jews of the United States, 1654 to 2000, 2004, University of California Press, ISBN 0-520-24848-1, pp. 13–15
38.Jump up ^ "Barcuch Spinoza", revised June 2008, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Accessed February 25, 2011
39.Jump up ^ "Pierre Bayle", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, updated August 19, 2008. Accessed March 6, 2011
40.Jump up ^ Joseph LoConte, "The Golden Rule of Toleration". Accessed March 6, 2011
41.Jump up ^ Voltaire A Treatise on Toleration (1763)
42.Jump up ^ Prager, D; Telushkin, J. Why the Jews?: The Reason for Antisemitism. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983. page 128-9.
43.Jump up ^ R. Robertson, (1998). "'Dies Hohe Lied der Duldung'? The Ambiguities of Toleration in Lessing's Die Juden and Nathan der Weise". The Modern language Review 93 (1): 105–120. doi:10.2307/3733627. JSTOR 3733627.
44.Jump up ^ Dirk Martin Grube, "Gotthold Ephraim Lessing's Ring Parable: An Enlightenment Voice on Religious Tolerance", in Boeve, Lieven, Faith in the Enlightenment? The critique of the Enlightenment revisited (New York:Rodopi 2006) p. 39ff ISBN 978-90-420-2067-2
45.Jump up ^ "Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen de 1789". Accessed March 22, 2011
46.Jump up ^ Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) – Library of Congress Information Bulletin. Loc.gov. Retrieved on 2011-06-15.
47.Jump up ^ John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) “On Liberty” 1859. ed. Gertrude Himmelfarb, UK: Penguin, 1985, pp.83–84
48.Jump up ^ Ernest Renan, "Qu'est-ce qu'une nation?", conference faite en Sorbonne, le 11 Mars 1882. Accessed January 13, 2011
49.Jump up ^ "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights", United Nations 1948, retrieved 1 June 2007.
50.Jump up ^ Dignitatis humanae, Decree on Religious Freedom, 1965, retrieved 1 June 2007.
51.Jump up ^ "ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES AND ECCLESIAL COMMUNITIES AND OF THE WORLD RELIGIONS" (1986) retrieved 1 June 2007.
52.Jump up ^ "Russia", Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved on 2011-06-15.
53.Jump up ^ "Hinduism – a general introduction". Religioustolerance.org. Retrieved 2012-06-21.
54.Jump up ^ "evidence of tolerance". Jayaram V/Aniket Patil. Retrieved 2014-08-17.
55.Jump up ^ "RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE AND HINDUISM" (PDF). Dr. M. Lal Goel/Aniket. Retrieved 2014-08-17.
56.Jump up ^ Quran 2:62
57.Jump up ^ B. Lewis, "The Jews of Islam", New York (1984), pp. 135–136
58.Jump up ^ Michael Walzer, On Toleration (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997) ISBN 0300076002 p. 17
59.Jump up ^ Bhikkhu Bodhi, "Tolerance and Diversity". Access to Insight, 5 June 2010. Accessed March 6, 2011
60.Jump up ^ Tweed, Thomas, The American Encounter with Buddhism, 1844–1912 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 2000) p. 101 ISBN 0-8078-4906-5
61.Jump up ^ Kristin Scheible, "Towards a Buddhist Policy of Tolerance: the case of King Ashoka" in Neusner, Jacob, ed. Religious Tolerance in World Religions (West Conshohocken, PA, Templeton Foundation Prsss 2008) p. 323
62.Jump up ^ http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2146000,00.html
63.Jump up ^ Michael Walzer, On Toleration, (New Haven: Yale University Press 1997) p. 61 ISBN 0-300-07600-2
64.Jump up ^ John Bowen, "Muslims and Citizens", The Boston Review February–March 2004. Accessed January 25, 2011
65.Jump up ^ "Romanies: A long road", The Economist September 16, 2010. Accessed March 22, 2011
66.Jump up ^ Alexandra Walsham, Charitable Hatred: Tolerance and Intolerance in England, 1500–1700. Manchester University Press (2006) ISBN 0-7190-5239-4 p. 233.
67.Jump up ^ Oberdiek, Hans, Tolerance: between forebearance and acceptance (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2001) p. vi ISBN 0-8476-8785-6
68.Jump up ^ Isaiah Berlin, "Four Essays on Liberty," London, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1969, p.184.
69.Jump up ^ John Gray, "Enlightenment's Wake," London and New York: Routledge, p.19.
70.Jump up ^ Gray (1995), p.20.
71.Jump up ^ "Toleration", The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Accessed March 21, 2011
72.Jump up ^ "Offence against One's Self". Columbia.edu. 2010-06-11. Retrieved 2012-06-21.
73.Jump up ^ Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 1, Notes to the Chapters: Ch. 7, Note 4.
74.Jump up ^ John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 216.
75.Jump up ^ Michael Walzer, On Toleration, (New Haven: Yale University Press 1997) pp. 80-81 ISBN 0-300-07600-2
76.Jump up ^ "Toleration", The Internet encyclopedia of Philosophy, Accessed March 21, 2011
77.Jump up ^ Ronald Dworkin, "Even bigots and Holocaust deniers must have their say", The Guardian, February 14, 2006. retrieved March 21, 2011
78.Jump up ^ "Dworkin Explores Secular, Religious Models for Society", Virginia Law School News and Events, April 18, 2008. accessed March 21, 2011
Further reading[edit]
Barzilai, Gad (2007). Law and Religion. Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-2494-3.
Beneke, Chris (September 2006). Beyond Toleration: The Religious Origins of American Pluralism. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 0-19-530555-8.
Coffey, John (2000). Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England, 1558–1689. Longman Publishing Group. ISBN 0-582-30465-2.
Curry, Thomas J. (1989-12-19). Church and State in America to the Passage of the First Amendment. Oxford University Press; Reprint edition (December 19, 1989). ISBN 0-19-505181-5.
Grell, Ole Peter, and Roy Porter, ed. (2000). Toleration in Enlightenment Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-65196-7.
Hamilton, Marci A. (2005-06-17). God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law. Edward R. Becker (Foreword). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-85304-4.
Hanson, Charles P. (1998). Necessary Virtue: The Pragmatic Origins of Religious Liberty in New England. University Press of Virginia. ISBN 0-8139-1794-8.
Kaplan, Benjamin J. (2007). Divided by Faith: Religious Conflict and the Practice of Toleration in Early Modern Europe. Belknap Press. ISBN 0-674-02430-3.
Laursen, John Christian and Nederman, Cary, ed. (December 1997). Beyond the Persecuting Society: Religious Toleration Before the Enlightenment. University of Pennsylvania Press (December 1997). ISBN 0-8122-3331-X.
Murphy, Andrew R. (July 2001). Conscience and Community: Revisiting Toleration and Religious Dissent in Early Modern England and America. Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0-271-02105-5.
Oberdiek, Hans (2001). Tolerance: between forebearance and acceptance. Rowman and Littlefield. ISBN 0-8476-8785-6.
Tønder, Lars (September 2013). Tolerance: A Sensorial Orientation to Politics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199315802.
Walsham, Alexandra (September 2006). Charitable Hatred: Tolerance and Intolerance in England, 1500–1700. Manchester University Press. ISBN 0-7190-5239-4.
Zagorin, Perez (2003). How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-12142-7.
External links[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Tolerance.
Wikiquote has quotations related to: Toleration
Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: God and Religious Toleration
Religion and Foreign Policy Initiative, Council on Foreign Relations
Background to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Text of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Jehovah's witnesses: European Court of Human rights, Freedom of Religion, Speech, and Association in Europe
"Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance". Various information on sensible religious topics. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance.
Religious Tolerance at DMOZ
History of Religious Tolerance
Outline for a Discussion on Toleration (Karen Barkey)
The Foundation against Intolerance of Religious Minorities
Teaching Tolerance
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Religion
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Christianity and politics
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Discrimination
Category
Portal
Authority control
GND: 4060355-6 ·
NDL: 00565000
Categories: Religion and politics
Secularism
Human rights by issue
Dutch Golden Age
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
العربية
বাংলা
Български
Bosanski
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Español
Esperanto
فارسی
Français
Galego
한국어
Հայերեն
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
עברית
ქართული
Қазақша
Latina
Lietuvių
Magyar
مصرى
Mirandés
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
Türkçe
Українська
Tiếng Việt
West-Vlams
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 24 May 2015, at 15:19.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toleration
Toleration
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Religious tolerance)
Jump to: navigation, search
"Tolerate" redirects here. For other uses, see Tolerance.
[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This article possibly contains original research. (May 2011)
Globe icon
The examples and perspective in this article or section might have an extensive bias or disproportional coverage towards one or more specific regions. (May 2011)
Part of a series on
Discrimination
General forms[show]
Specific forms
Social[show]
Manifestations[show]
Policies[show]
Other forms[show]
Countermeasures[show]
Related topics[show]
Portal icon Discrimination portal
v ·
t ·
e
Sculpture Für Toleranz ("for tolerance") by Volkmar Kühn, Gera, Germany
The cross of the war memorial and the Menorah for Jewish people coexist in Oxford.
Minerva as a symbol of enlightened wisdom protects the believers of all religions (Daniel Chodowiecki, 1791)
Toleration is "the practice of deliberately allowing or permitting a thing of which one disapproves. One can meaningfully speak of tolerating—i.e., of allowing or permitting—only if one is in a position to disallow." It has also been defined as "to bear or endure" or "to nourish, sustain or preserve." Toleration may signify "no more than forbearance and the permission given by the adherents of a dominant religion for other religions to exist, even though the latter are looked on with disapproval as inferior, mistaken, or harmful."[1]
There is only one verb 'to tolerate' and one adjective 'tolerant,' but the two nouns 'tolerance' and 'toleration' have evolved slightly different meanings. Tolerance is an attitude of mind that implies non-judgmental acceptance of different lifestyles or beliefs,[2] whereas toleration implies putting up with something that one disapproves of.[3]
Historically, most incidents and writings pertaining to toleration involve the status of minority and dissenting viewpoints in relation to a dominant state religion. In the twentieth century and after, analysis of the doctrine of toleration has been expanded to include political and ethnic groups, homosexuals and other minorities, and human rights embodies the principle of legally enforced toleration.
Contents [hide]
1 Etymology
2 In antiquity
3 Biblical sources of toleration
4 In the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance 4.1 Tolerance of the Jews
4.2 Vladimiri
4.3 Erasmus
4.4 More
4.5 Castellio
4.6 Bodin
4.7 Montaigne
4.8 Edict of Torda
4.9 Maximilian II
4.10 The Warsaw Confederation
4.11 Edict of Nantes
5 In the Enlightenment 5.1 Milton
5.2 Rudolph II
5.3 In the American colonies
5.4 Spinoza
5.5 Locke
5.6 Bayle
5.7 Act of Toleration
5.8 Voltaire
5.9 Lessing
5.10 Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen
5.11 The First Amendment to the United States Constitution
6 In the nineteenth century 6.1 Roman Catholic Relief Act
6.2 Mill
6.3 Renan
7 In the twentieth century
8 In other religions 8.1 Hindu religion
8.2 Islam
8.3 Buddhism
9 Modern analyses and critiques of toleration 9.1 Modern definition
9.2 Toleration of homosexuality
9.3 Tolerating the intolerant
9.4 Other criticisms and issues
10 See also
11 References
12 Further reading
13 External links
Etymology[edit]
The word tolerance was first used in the 15th century.[4]
The word is derived from endurance and fortitude, used in the 14th century. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word was first used to describe having permission from authorities in the 1530s.[5]
In antiquity[edit]
As reported in the Old Testament, the Persian king Cyrus the Great was believed to have released the Jews from captivity in 539–530 BC, and permitted their return to their homeland.[6]
The Hellenistic city of Alexandria, founded 331 BC, contained a large Jewish community which lived in peace with equivalently sized Greek and Egyptian populations. According to Michael Walzer, the city provided "a useful example of what we might think of as the imperial version of multiculturalism."[7]
The Roman Empire encouraged conquered peoples to continue worshipping their own gods. "An important part of Roman propaganda was its invitation to the gods of conquered territories to enjoy the benefits of worship within the imperium."[8] Christians were singled out for persecution because of their own rejection of Roman pantheism and refusal to honor the emperor as a god.[9] In 311 AD, Roman Emperor Galerius issued a general edict of toleration of Christianity, in his own name and in those of Licinius and Constantine I (who converted to Christianity the following year).[10]
Biblical sources of toleration[edit]
In the Old Testament, the books of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy make similar statements about the treatment of strangers. For example, Exodus 22:21 says: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt".These texts are frequently used in sermons to plead for compassion and tolerance of those who are different from us and less powerful.[11] Julia Kristeva elucidated a philosophy of political and religious toleration based on all of our mutual identities as strangers.[12]
The New Testament Parable of the Tares, which speaks of the difficulty of distinguishing wheat from weeds before harvest time, has also been invoked in support of religious toleration. In his "Letter to Bishop Roger of Chalons", Bishop Wazo of Liege (c. 985–1048 AD) relied on the parable[13] to argue that "the church should let dissent grow with orthodoxy until the Lord comes to separate and judge them".[14]
Roger Williams, a Baptist theologian and founder of Rhode Island, used this parable to support government toleration of all of the "weeds" (heretics) in the world, because civil persecution often inadvertently hurts the "wheat" (believers) too. Instead, Williams believed it was God's duty to judge in the end, not man's. This parable lent further support to Williams' Biblical philosophy of a wall of separation between church and state as described in his 1644 book, The Bloody Tenent of Persecution.[15]
In the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance[edit]
In the Middle Ages, there were instances of toleration of particular groups. The Latin concept tolerantia was a "highly-developed political and judicial concept in mediaeval scholastic theology and canon law."[16] Tolerantia was used to "denote the self-restraint of a civil power in the face of" outsiders, like infidels, Muslims or Jews, but also in the face of social groups like prostitutes and lepers.[16] Later theologians belonging or reacting to the Protestant Reformation began discussion of the circumstances under which dissenting religious thought should be permitted. Toleration "as a government-sanctioned practice" in Christian countries, "the sense on which most discussion of the phenomenon relies—is not attested before the sixteenth century".[17]
Tolerance of the Jews[edit]
In Poland in 1264, the Statute of Kalisz was issued, guaranteeing freedom of religion for the Jews in the country.
In 1348, Pope Clement VI (1291–1352) issued a bull pleading with Catholics not to murder Jews, whom they blamed for the Black Death. He noted that Jews died of the plague like anyone else, and that the disease also flourished in areas where there were no Jews. Christians who blamed and killed Jews had been "seduced by that liar, the Devil". He took Jews under his personal protection at Avignon, but his calls for other clergy to do so failed to be heeded.[18]
Johann Reuchlin (1455–1522) was a German humanist and a scholar of Greek and Hebrew who opposed efforts by Johannes Pfefferkorn, backed by the Dominicans of Cologne, to confiscate all religious texts from the Jews as a first step towards their forcible conversion to the Catholic religion.[19]
Despite occasional spontaneous episodes of pogroms and killings, as during the Black Death, Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was a relatively tolerant home for the Jews in the medieval period. In 1264, the Statute of Kalisz guaranteed safety, personal liberties, freedom of religion, trade, and travel to Jews. By the mid-16th century, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was home to 80% of the world's Jewish population. Jewish worship was officially recognized, with a Chief Rabbi originally appointed by the monarch. Jewish property ownership was also protected for much of the period, and Jews entered into business partnerships with members of the nobility.[20]
Vladimiri[edit]
Paulus Vladimiri (ca. 1370–1435) was a Polish scholar and rector who at the Council of Constance in 1414, presented a thesis, Tractatus de potestate papae et imperatoris respectu infidelium (Treatise on the Power of the Pope and the Emperor Respecting Infidels). In it he argued that pagan and Christian nations could coexist in peace and criticized the Teutonic Order for its wars of conquest of native non-Christian peoples in Prussia and Lithuania. Vladimiri strongly supported the idea of conciliarism and pioneered the notion of peaceful coexistence among nations – a forerunner of modern theories of human rights. Throughout his political, diplomatic and university career, he expressed the view that a world guided by the principles of peace and mutual respect among nations was possible and that pagan nations had a right to peace and to possession of their own lands.
Erasmus[edit]
Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (1466–1536), was a Dutch Renaissance humanist and Catholic whose works laid a foundation for religious toleration. For example, in De libero arbitrio, opposing certain views of Martin Luther, Erasmus noted that religious disputants should be temperate in their language, "because in this way the truth, which is often lost amidst too much wrangling may be more surely perceived." Gary Remer writes, "Like Cicero, Erasmus concludes that truth is furthered by a more harmonious relationship between interlocutors."[21] Although Erasmus did not oppose the punishment of heretics, in individual cases he generally argued for moderation and against the death penalty. He wrote, "It is better to cure a sick man than to kill him."[22]
More[edit]
Saint Thomas More (1478–1535), Catholic Lord Chancellor of King Henry VIII and author, described a world of almost complete religious toleration in Utopia (1516), in which the Utopians "can hold various religious beliefs without persecution from the authorities."[23] However, More's work is subject to various interpretations, and it is not clear that he felt that earthly society should be conducted the same way as in Utopia. Thus, in his three years as Lord Chancellor, More actively approved of the persecution of those who sought to undermine the Catholic faith in England.[24]
Castellio[edit]
Sebastian Castellio (1515–1563) was a French Protestant theologian who in 1554 published under a pseudonym the pamphlet Whether heretics should be persecuted (De haereticis, an sint persequendi) criticizing John Calvin's execution of Michael Servetus: "When Servetus fought with reasons and writings, he should have been repulsed by reasons and writings." Castellio concluded: "We can live together peacefully only when we control our intolerance. Even though there will always be differences of opinion from time to time, we can at any rate come to general understandings, can love one another, and can enter the bonds of peace, pending the day when we shall attain unity of faith."[25] Castellio is remembered for the often quoted statement, "To kill a man is not to protect a doctrine, but it is to kill a man.[26]
Bodin[edit]
Jean Bodin (1530–1596) was a French Catholic jurist and political philosopher. His Latin work Colloquium heptaplomeres de rerum sublimium arcanis abditis ("The Colloqium of the Seven") portrays a conversation about the nature of truth between seven cultivated men from diverse religious or philosophical backgrounds: a natural philosopher, a Calvinist, a Muslim, a Roman Catholic, a Lutheran, a Jew, and a skeptic. All agree to live in mutual respect and tolerance.
Montaigne[edit]
Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592), French Catholic essayist and statesman, moderated between the Catholic and Protestant sides in the Wars of Religion. Montaigne's theory of skepticism led to the conclusion that we cannot precipitously decide the error of other's views. Montaigne wrote in his famous "Essais": "It is putting a very high value on one's conjectures, to have a man roasted alive because of them...To kill people, there must be sharp and brilliant clarity."[27]
Edict of Torda[edit]
In 1568, King John II Sigismund of Hungary, encouraged by his Unitarian Minister Francis David (Dávid Ferenc), issued the Edict of Torda decreeing religious toleration.
Maximilian II[edit]
In 1571, Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian II granted religious toleration to the nobles of Lower Austria, their families and workers.[28]
The Warsaw Confederation[edit]
Original act of the Warsaw Confederation 1573. The beginning of religious freedom in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth has a long tradition of religious freedom. The right to worship freely was a basic right given to all inhabitants of the Commonwealth throughout the 15th and early 16th century, however, complete freedom of religion was officially recognized in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1573 during the Warsaw Confederation. the Commonwealth kept religious freedom laws during an era when religious persecution was an everyday occurrence in the rest of Europe.[29]
The Warsaw Confederation of 1573 was a private compact signed by representatives of all the major religions in Polish and Lithuanian society, in which they pledged each other mutual support and tolerance. The confederation was incorporated into the Henrican articles, which constituted a virtual Polish–Lithuanian constitution.
Edict of Nantes[edit]
The Edict of Nantes, issued on April 13, 1598, by Henry IV of France, granted Protestants – notably Calvinist Huguenots – substantial rights in a nation where Catholicism was the state religion. The main concern was civil unity;[30] The Edict separated civil law from religious rights, treated non-Catholics as more than mere schismatics and heretics for the first time, and opened a path for secularism and tolerance. In offering general freedom of conscience to individuals, the edict offered many specific concessions to the Protestants, such as amnesty and the reinstatement of their civil rights, including the right to work in any field or for the State, and to bring grievances directly to the king. The edict marked the end of the religious wars in France that tore apart the population during the second half of the 16th century.
The Edict of Nantes was revoked in 1685 by King Louis XIV with the Edict of Fontainebleau, leading to renewed persecution of Protestants in France. Although strict enforcement of the revocation was relaxed during the reign of Louis XV, it was not until 102 years later, in 1787, when Louis XVI signed the Edict of Versailles – known as the Edict of Tolerance – that civil status and rights to form congregations by Protestants were restored.[31]
In the Enlightenment[edit]
Beginning in the Enlightenment commencing in the 1600s, politicians and commentators began formulating theories of religious toleration and basing legal codes on the concept. A distinction began to develop between civil tolerance, concerned with "the policy of the state towards religious dissent".,[32] and ecclesiastical tolerance, concerned with the degree of diversity tolerated within a particular church.[33]
Milton[edit]
John Milton (1608–1674), English Protestant poet and essayist, called in the Aeropagitica for "the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties" (applied however, only to the conflicting Protestant sects, and not to atheists, Jews, Moslems or even Catholics). "Milton argued for disestablishment as the only effective way of achieving broad toleration. Rather than force a man's conscience, government should recognize the persuasive force of the gospel."[34]
Rudolph II[edit]
In 1609, Rudolph II decreed religious toleration in Bohemia.[35]
In the American colonies[edit]
The Maryland Toleration Act, passed in 1649.
In 1636, Roger Williams and companions at the foundation of Rhode Island entered into a compact binding themselves "to be obedient to the majority only in civil things". Lucian Johnston writes, "Williams' intention was to grant an infinitely greater religious liberty than then existed anywhere in the world outside of the Colony of Maryland". In 1663, Charles II granted the colony a charter guaranteeing complete religious toleration.[36]
In 1649 Maryland passed the Maryland Toleration Act, also known as the Act Concerning Religion, a law mandating religious tolerance for Trinitarian Christians only (excluding Nontrinitarian faiths). Passed on September 21, 1649 by the assembly of the Maryland colony, it was the first law requiring religious tolerance in the British North American colonies. The Calvert family sought enactment of the law to protect Catholic settlers and some of the other religions that did not conform to the dominant Anglicanism of Britain and her colonies.
In 1657, New Amsterdam granted religious toleration to Jews.[37]
Spinoza[edit]
Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) was a Dutch Jewish philosopher. He published the Theological-Political Treatise anonymously in 1670, arguing (according to the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) that "the freedom to philosophize can not only be granted without injury to piety and the peace of the Commonwealth, but that the peace of the Commonwealth and Piety are endangered by the suppression of this freedom", and defending, "as a political ideal, the tolerant, secular, and democratic polity". After interpreting certain Biblical texts, Spinoza opted for tolerance and freedom of thought in his conclusion that "every person is in duty bound to adapt these religious dogmas to his own understanding and to interpret them for himself in whatever way makes him feel that he can the more readily accept them with full confidence and conviction."[38]
Locke[edit]
English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) published A Letter Concerning Toleration in 1689. Locke's work appeared amidst a fear that Catholicism might be taking over England, and responds to the problem of religion and government by proposing religious toleration as the answer. Unlike Thomas Hobbes, who saw uniformity of religion as the key to a well-functioning civil society, Locke argued that more religious groups actually prevent civil unrest. In his opinion, civil unrest results from confrontations caused by any magistrate's attempt to prevent different religions from being practiced, rather than tolerating their proliferation. However, Locke denies religious tolerance for Catholics, for political reasons, and also for atheists because 'Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist'. A passage Locke later added to the Essay concerning Human Understanding, questioned whether atheism was necessarily inimical to political obedience.
Bayle[edit]
Pierre Bayle (1647–1706) was a French Protestant scholar and philosopher who went into exile in Holland. In his "Dictionnaire historique and critique" and "Commentaire Philosophique" he advanced arguments for religious toleration (though, like some others of his time, he was not anxious to extend the same protection to Catholics he would to differing Protestant sects). Among his arguments were that every church believes it is the right one so "a heretical church would be in a position to persecute the true church". Bayle wrote that "the erroneous conscience procures for error the same rights and privileges that the orthodox conscience procures for truth."[39]
Bayle was repelled by the use of scripture to justify coercion and violence: "One must transcribe almost the whole New Testament to collect all the Proofs it affords us of that Gentleness and Long-suffering, which constitute the distinguishing and essential Character of the Gospel." He did not regard toleration as a danger to the state, but to the contrary: "If the Multiplicity of Religions prejudices the State, it proceeds from their not bearing with one another but on the contrary endeavoring each to crush and destroy the other by methods of Persecution. In a word, all the Mischief arises not from Toleration, but from the want of it."[40]
Act of Toleration[edit]
The Act of Toleration, adopted by the British Parliament in 1689, allowed freedom of worship to Nonconformists who had pledged to the oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy and rejected transubstantiation. The Nonconformists were Protestants who dissented from the Church of England such as Baptists and Congregationalists. They were allowed their own places of worship and their own teachers, if they accepted certain oaths of allegiance.
The Act did not apply to Catholics and non-trinitarians and continued the existing social and political disabilities for Dissenters, including their exclusion from political office and also from universities.
Voltaire[edit]
François-Marie Arouet, the French writer, historian and philosopher known as Voltaire (1694–1778) published his "Treatise on Toleration" in 1763. In it he attacked religious views, but also said, "It does not require great art, or magnificently trained eloquence, to prove that Christians should tolerate each other. I, however, am going further: I say that we should regard all men as our brothers. What? The Turk my brother? The Chinaman my brother? The Jew? The Siam? Yes, without doubt; are we not all children of the same father and creatures of the same God?"[41] On the other hand, Voltaire in his writings on religion was spiteful and intolerant of the practice of the Christian religion, and rabbi Joseph Telushkin has claimed that the most significant of Enlightenment hostility against Judaism was found in Voltaire.[42]
Lessing[edit]
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729–1781), German dramatist and philosopher, trusted in a "Christianity of Reason", in which human reason (initiated by criticism and dissent) would develop, even without help by divine revelation. His plays about Jewish characters and themes, such as "Die Juden" and "Nathan der Weise", "have usually been considered impressive pleas for social and religious toleration".[43] The latter work contains the famous parable of the three rings, in which three sons represent the three Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Each son believes he has the one true ring passed down by their father, but judgment on which is correct is reserved to God.[44]
Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen[edit]
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789), adopted by the National Constituent Assembly during the French Revolution, states in Article 10: "No-one shall be interfered with for his opinions, even religious ones, provided that their practice doesn't disturb public order as established by the law." ("Nul ne doit être inquiété pour ses opinions, mêmes religieuses, pourvu que leur manifestation ne trouble pas l'ordre public établi par la loi.")[45]
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution[edit]
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified along with the rest of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791, included the following words:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
In 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in which he said: "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."[46]
In the nineteenth century[edit]
The process of legislating religious toleration went forward, while philosophers continued to discuss the underlying rationale.
Roman Catholic Relief Act[edit]
The Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 adopted by the Parliament in 1829 repealed the last of the criminal laws (TEST ACTS) aimed at Catholic citizens of Great Britain.
Mill[edit]
John Stuart Mill's arguments in "On Liberty" (1859) in support of the freedom of speech were phrased to include a defense of religious toleration:
Let the opinions impugned be the belief of God and in a future state, or any of the commonly received doctrines of morality... But I must be permitted to observe that it is not the feeling sure of a doctrine (be it what it may) which I call an assumption of infallibility. It is the undertaking to decide that question for others, without allowing them to hear what can be said on the contrary side. And I denounce and reprobate this pretension not the less if it is put forth on the side of my most solemn convictions.[47]
Renan[edit]
In his 1882 essay "What is a Nation?", French historian and philosopher Ernest Renan proposed a definition of nationhood based on "a spiritual principle" involving shared memories, rather than a common religious, racial or linguistic heritage. Thus members of any religious group could participate fully in the life of the nation. ""You can be French, English, German, yet Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or practicing no religion".[48]
In the twentieth century[edit]
In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance[49]
Even though not formally legally binding, the Declaration has been adopted in or influenced many national constitutions since 1948. It also serves as the foundation for a growing number of international treaties and national laws and international, regional, national and sub-national institutions protecting and promoting human rights including the freedom of religion.
In 1965, The Roman Catholic Church Vatican II Council issued the decree Dignitatis humanae (Religious Freedom) that states that all people must have the right to religious freedom.[50]
In 1986, the first World Day of Prayer for Peace was held in Assisi. Representatives of one hundred and twenty different religions came together for prayer to their God or gods.[51]
In 1988, in the spirit of Glasnost, Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev promised increased religious toleration.[52]
In other religions[edit]
Other major world religions also have texts or practices supporting the idea of religious toleration.
Hindu religion[edit]
The Rigveda says Ekam Sath Viprah Bahudha Vadanti which translates to "The truth is One, but sages call it by different Names".[53] Consistent with this tradition, India chose to be a secular country even though it was divided partitioning on religious lines. Whatever intolerance, Hindu scholars displayed towards other religions was subtle and symbolic and most likely was done to present a superior argument in defence of their own faith. Traditionally, Hindus showed their intolerance by withdrawing and avoiding contact with those whom they held in contempt, instead of using violence and aggression to strike fear in their hearts. Hinduism is perhaps the only religion in the world which showed remarkable tolerance towards other religions in difficult times and under testing conditions. Even Buddhism, which spread in India mostly through negative campaigns against Hinduism, cannot claim that credit. Criticizing other religions and showing them in poor light to attract converts to its own fold was never an approved practice in Hinduism.[54]
Pluralism and tolerance of diversity are built into Hindu theology India's long history is a testimony to its tolerance of religious diversity. Christianity came to India with St. Thomas in the first century A.D., long before it became popular in the West. Judaism came to India after the Jewish temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. and the Jews were expelled from their homeland. In a recent book titled "Who are the Jews of India?" (University of California Press, 2000), author Nathan Katz observes that India is the only country where the Jews were not persecuted. The Indian chapter is one of the happiest of the Jewish Diaspora. Both Christians and Jews have existed in a predominant Hindu India for centuries without being persecuted. Zoroastrians from Persia (present day Iran) entered India in the 7th century to flee Islamic conquest. They are known as Parsis in India. The Parsis are an affluent community in the city of Mumbai without a sense of having been persecuted through the centuries. Among the richest business families in India are the Parsis; for example, the Tata family controls a huge industrial empire in various parts of the country. Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the powerful Prime Minister of India (1966–77; 1980–84), was married to Feroz Gandhi, a Parsi (no relation to Mahatma Gandhi). [55]
Islam[edit]
See also: Al-Baqara 256
The name ‘the Tolerant (al-Ḥalīm)’ is one of the names of Allāh.[citation needed]
Circa 622, Muhammed established the Constitution of Medina, which incorporated religious freedom for Christians and Jews.[citation needed]
Certain verses of the Qu'ran were interpreted to create a specially tolerated status for People of the Book, Jewish and Christian believers in the Old and New Testaments considered to have been a basis for Islamic religion:
Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.[56]
Under Islamic law, Jews and Christians were considered dhimmis, a legal status inferior to that of a Muslim but superior to that of other non-Muslims.
Jewish communities in the Ottoman Empire held a protected status and continued to practice their own religion, as did Christians. Yitzhak Sarfati, born in Germany, became the Chief Rabbi of Edirne and wrote a letter inviting European Jews to settle in the Ottoman Empire, in which he asked:: "Is it not better for you to live under Muslims than under Christians?".[57] Sultan Beyazid II (1481–1512), issued a formal invitation to the Jews expelled from Catholic Spain and Portugal, leading to a wave of Jewish immigration.
According to Michael Walzer:
The established religion of the [Ottoman] empire was Islam, but three other religious communities—Greek Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, and Jewish—were permitted to form autonomous organizations. These three were equal among themselves, without regard to their relative numerical strength. They were subject to the same restrictions vis-à-vis Muslims—with regard to dress, proselytizing, and intermarriage, for example—and were allowed the same legal control over their own members.[58]
Buddhism[edit]
Although the Buddha preached that "the path to the supreme goal of the holy life is made known only in his own teaching", according to Bhikkhu Boddhi, Buddhists have nevertheless shown significant tolerance for other religions: "Buddhist tolerance springs from the recognition that the dispositions and spiritual needs of human beings are too vastly diverse to be encompassed by any single teaching, and thus that these needs will naturally find expression in a wide variety of religious forms."[59] James Freeman Clarke said in Ten Great Religions (1871): "The Buddhists have founded no Inquisition; they have combined the zeal which converted kingdoms with a toleration almost inexplicable to our Western experience."[60]
The Edicts of Ashoka issued by King Ashoka the Great (269–231 BCE), a Buddhist, declared ethnic and religious tolerance. His Edict XII, engraved in stone, stated: "The faiths of others all deserve to be honored for one reason or another. By honoring them, one exalts one's own faith and at the same time performs a service to the faith of others."[61]
However, Buddhism has also had controversies regarding toleration. See Dorje Shugden Controversy. In addition, the question of possible intolerance among Buddhists in Sri Lanka and Myanmar has been raised by Paul Fuller.[62]
Modern analyses and critiques of toleration[edit]
Contemporary commentators have highlighted situations in which toleration conflicts with widely held moral standards, national law, the principles of national identity, or other strongly held goals. Michael Walzer notes that the British in India tolerated the Hindu practice of suttee (ritual burning of a widow) until 1829. On the other hand, the United States declined to tolerate the Mormon practice of polygamy.[63] The French head scarf controversy represents a conflict between religious practice and the French secular ideal.[64] Toleration of the Romani people in European countries is a continuing issue.[65]
Modern definition[edit]
Historian Alexandra Walsham notes that the modern understanding of the word "toleration" may be very different from its historic meaning.[66] Toleration in modern parlance has been analyzed as a component of a liberal or libertarian view of human rights. Hans Oberdiek writes, "As long as no one is harmed or no one's fundamental rights are violated, the state should keep hands off, tolerating what those controlling the state find disgusting, deplorable or even debased. This for a long time has been the most prevalent defense of toleration by liberals... It is found, for example, in the writings of American philosophers John Rawls, Robert Nozick, Ronald Dworkin, Brian Barry, and a Canadian, Will Kymlicka, among others."[67]
Isaiah Berlin attributes to Herbert Butterfield the notion that "toleration... implies a certain disrespect. I tolerate your absurd beliefs and your foolish acts, though I know them to be absurd and foolish. Mill would, I think, have agreed."[68]
John Gray states that "When we tolerate a practice, a belief or a character trait, we let something be that we judge to be undesirable, false or at least inferior; our toleration expresses the conviction that, despite its badness, the object of toleration should be left alone."[69] However, according to Gray, "new liberalism—the liberalism of Rawls, Dworkin, Ackerman and suchlike" seems to imply that "it is wrong for government to discriminate in favour of, or against, any form of life animated by a definite conception of the good."[70]
John Rawls' "theory of 'political liberalism' conceives of toleration as a pragmatic response to the fact of diversity." Diverse groups learn to tolerate one another by developing "what Rawls calls 'overlapping consensus': individuals and groups with diverse metaphysical views or 'comprehensive schemes' will find reasons to agree about certain principles of justice that will include principles of toleration."[71]
Herbert Marcuse wrote "Repressive Tolerance" in 1965 where he argued that the "pure tolerance" that permits all favors totalitarianism, democracy, and tyranny of the majority, and insisted the "repressive tolerance" against them.
Toleration of homosexuality[edit]
As a result of his public debate with Baron Devlin on the role of the criminal law in enforcing moral norms, British legal philosopher H. L. A. Hart wrote Law, Liberty and Morality (1963) and The Morality of the Criminal Law (1965). His work on the relationship between law and morality had a significant effect on the laws of Great Britain, helping bring about the decriminalization of homosexuality. But it was Jeremy Bentham that defended the rights for homosexuality with his essay "Offence against One's Self"[72] but could not be published until in 1978.
Tolerating the intolerant[edit]
Main article: Paradox of tolerance
Walzer, Karl Popper[73] and John Rawls[74] have discussed the paradox of tolerating intolerance. Walzer asks "Should we tolerate the intolerant?" He notes that most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects.[75] Rawls argues that an intolerant sect should be tolerated in a tolerant society unless the sect directly threatens the security of other members of the society. He links this principle to the stability of a tolerant society, in which members of an intolerant sect in a tolerant society will, over time, acquire the tolerance of the wider society.
Other criticisms and issues[edit]
Toleration has been described as undermining itself via moral relativism: "either the claim self-referentially undermines itself or it provides us with no compelling reason to believe it. If we are skeptical about knowledge, then we have no way of knowing that toleration is good."[76]
Ronald Dworkin argues that in exchange for toleration, minorities must bear with the criticisms and insults which are part of the freedom of speech in an otherwise tolerant society.[77] Dworkin has also questioned whether the United States is a "tolerant secular" nation, or is re-characterizing itself as a "tolerant religious" nation, based on the increasing re-introduction of religious themes into conservative politics. Dworkin concludes that "the tolerant secular model is preferable, although he invited people to use the concept of personal responsibility to argue in favor of the tolerant religious model."[78]
In The End of Faith, Sam Harris asserts that society should be unwilling to tolerate unjustified religious beliefs about morality, spirituality, politics, and the origin of humanity, especially beliefs which promote violence.
See also[edit]
Anekantavada
Christian debate on persecution and toleration
International Day for Tolerance
Islam and other religions
Multifaith space
Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Religious discrimination
Religious intolerance
Religious liberty
Religious persecution
Religious pluralism
Repressive Tolerance
Secular state
Separation of church and state
Status of religious freedom by country
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Perez Zagorin, How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West (Princeton: Princeton University Press 2003) ISBN 0-691-09270-2 , pp. 5–6, quoting D.D. Raphael et al.
2.Jump up ^ "Tolerance". Merriam Webster. Retrieved 2012-03-07.
3.Jump up ^ "Toleration". Merriam Webster. Retrieved 2012-03-07.
4.Jump up ^ "Tolerance". Merriam Webster. Retrieved 2012-04-07.
5.Jump up ^ "Tolerance". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 2012-04-07.
6.Jump up ^ "Book of Ezra | King James Bible". Kingjamesbibletrust.org. Retrieved March 21, 201. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)1
7.Jump up ^ Walzer, Michael (1997). On Toleration. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 17. ISBN 0-300-07600-2.
8.Jump up ^ Witte, John Jr. and Johan D. van de Vyver, Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective (The Hague: Kluwer 1996) p. 74 ISBN 90-411-0176-4
9.Jump up ^ Logan, Donald F., A history of the church in the Middle Ages (New York:Routledge, 2002) ISBN 0-415-13289-4, p. 8
10.Jump up ^ "Valerius Maximianus Galerius", Karl Hoeber, Catholic Encyclopedia 1909 Ed, retrieved 1 June 2007.
11.Jump up ^ February 5, 2008 posting by Rabbi David Kominsky ...For You Were Strangers in the Land of Egypt. Accessed January 25, 2011
12.Jump up ^ Walzer, Michael On Toleration (New Haven: Yale University Press 1997) pp. 80–81
13.Jump up ^ Richard Landes (2000). "The Birth of Heresy: A Millennial Phenomenon". Journal of Religious History 24 (1): 26–43. doi:10.1111/1467-9809.00099.
14.Jump up ^ Jeffrey Burton Russell, Dissent and Order in the Middle Ages: The Search for Legitimate Authority (New York: Twayne Publishers 1992), p. 23
15.Jump up ^ James P. Byrd (2002). The challenges of Roger Williams: religious liberty, violent persecution, and the Bible. Mercer University Press. ISBN 978-0-86554-771-1. Retrieved 15 June 2011.
16.^ Jump up to: a b Walsham 2006: 234.
17.Jump up ^ Drake, H. A. (November 1996). "Lambs into Lions: Explaining Early Christian Intolerance". Past & Present 153: 3–36. doi:10.1093/past/153.1.3. JSTOR 651134.
18.Jump up ^ Tuchman, Barbara, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century (New York: Alfred A. Knopf 1978), p. 113
19.Jump up ^ Rummel, Erika, "The case against Johann Reuchlin" (pp. iv–xv) University of Toronto Press, 2002 ISBN 0-8020-8484-2, ISBN 978-0-8020-8484-2.
20.Jump up ^ Poland. Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved on 2011-06-15.
21.Jump up ^ Remer, Gary, Humanism and the Rhetoric of Toleration (University Park: University of Pennsylvania Press 1996) p. 95 ISBN 0-271-02811-4
22.Jump up ^ James Anthony Froude; Desiderius Erasmus (1894). Life and letters of Erasmus: lectures delivered at Oxford 1893-4. Longmans, Green. pp. 359–. Retrieved 15 June 2011.
23.Jump up ^ Marius, Richard Thomas More: a biography (Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University press, 1999) p. 175 ISBN 0-674-88525-2
24.Jump up ^ Marius, Richard Thomas More: a biography (Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University press, 1999) p. 386 ISBN 0-674-88525-2
25.Jump up ^ Zweig, Stefan (1951). Erasmus; The Right to Heresy: Castellio against Calvin. London: Cassell. p. 312. OCLC 24340377.
26.Jump up ^ Sebastian Castellio, Contra libellum, # 77, Vaticanus.
27.Jump up ^ E.M. Curley, "Skepticism and Toleration: the Case of Montaigne", Accessed February 27, 2011
28.Jump up ^ Grossman, Walter (1979). "Toleration—Exercitium Religionis Privatum". Journal of the History of Ideas 40 (1): 129–34. doi:10.2307/2709265. JSTOR 2709265.
29.Jump up ^ Zamoyski, Adam. The Polish Way. New York: Hippocrene Books, 1987
30.Jump up ^ In 1898 the tricentennial celebrated the Edict as the foundation of the coming Age of Toleration; the 1998 anniversary, by contrast, was commemorated with a book of essays under the evocatively ambivalent title, Coexister dans l'intolérance (Michel Grandjean and Bernard Roussel, editors, Geneva, 1998).
31.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia of the Age of Political Ideals, Edict of Versailles (1787), downloaded 29 January 2012
32.Jump up ^ John Coffey, Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England, 1558–1689. Longman Publishing Group (2000). ISBN 0-582-30465-2. p. 11
33.Jump up ^ Coffey, p. 12
34.Jump up ^ Hunter, William Bridges A Milton Encyclopedia, Volume 8(East Brunswick, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1980) pp. 71, 72 ISBN 0-8387-1841-8
35.Jump up ^ "Rudolph II", Encyclopædia Britannica 15 Edition, retrieved 1 June 2007.
36.Jump up ^ Johnston, Lucian, Religious Liberty in Maryland and Rhode Island (Brooklyn: International Catholic Truth Society, 1903), p. 30, 38
37.Jump up ^ Hasia R. Diner, The Jews of the United States, 1654 to 2000, 2004, University of California Press, ISBN 0-520-24848-1, pp. 13–15
38.Jump up ^ "Barcuch Spinoza", revised June 2008, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Accessed February 25, 2011
39.Jump up ^ "Pierre Bayle", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, updated August 19, 2008. Accessed March 6, 2011
40.Jump up ^ Joseph LoConte, "The Golden Rule of Toleration". Accessed March 6, 2011
41.Jump up ^ Voltaire A Treatise on Toleration (1763)
42.Jump up ^ Prager, D; Telushkin, J. Why the Jews?: The Reason for Antisemitism. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983. page 128-9.
43.Jump up ^ R. Robertson, (1998). "'Dies Hohe Lied der Duldung'? The Ambiguities of Toleration in Lessing's Die Juden and Nathan der Weise". The Modern language Review 93 (1): 105–120. doi:10.2307/3733627. JSTOR 3733627.
44.Jump up ^ Dirk Martin Grube, "Gotthold Ephraim Lessing's Ring Parable: An Enlightenment Voice on Religious Tolerance", in Boeve, Lieven, Faith in the Enlightenment? The critique of the Enlightenment revisited (New York:Rodopi 2006) p. 39ff ISBN 978-90-420-2067-2
45.Jump up ^ "Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen de 1789". Accessed March 22, 2011
46.Jump up ^ Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) – Library of Congress Information Bulletin. Loc.gov. Retrieved on 2011-06-15.
47.Jump up ^ John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) “On Liberty” 1859. ed. Gertrude Himmelfarb, UK: Penguin, 1985, pp.83–84
48.Jump up ^ Ernest Renan, "Qu'est-ce qu'une nation?", conference faite en Sorbonne, le 11 Mars 1882. Accessed January 13, 2011
49.Jump up ^ "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights", United Nations 1948, retrieved 1 June 2007.
50.Jump up ^ Dignitatis humanae, Decree on Religious Freedom, 1965, retrieved 1 June 2007.
51.Jump up ^ "ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES AND ECCLESIAL COMMUNITIES AND OF THE WORLD RELIGIONS" (1986) retrieved 1 June 2007.
52.Jump up ^ "Russia", Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved on 2011-06-15.
53.Jump up ^ "Hinduism – a general introduction". Religioustolerance.org. Retrieved 2012-06-21.
54.Jump up ^ "evidence of tolerance". Jayaram V/Aniket Patil. Retrieved 2014-08-17.
55.Jump up ^ "RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE AND HINDUISM" (PDF). Dr. M. Lal Goel/Aniket. Retrieved 2014-08-17.
56.Jump up ^ Quran 2:62
57.Jump up ^ B. Lewis, "The Jews of Islam", New York (1984), pp. 135–136
58.Jump up ^ Michael Walzer, On Toleration (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997) ISBN 0300076002 p. 17
59.Jump up ^ Bhikkhu Bodhi, "Tolerance and Diversity". Access to Insight, 5 June 2010. Accessed March 6, 2011
60.Jump up ^ Tweed, Thomas, The American Encounter with Buddhism, 1844–1912 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 2000) p. 101 ISBN 0-8078-4906-5
61.Jump up ^ Kristin Scheible, "Towards a Buddhist Policy of Tolerance: the case of King Ashoka" in Neusner, Jacob, ed. Religious Tolerance in World Religions (West Conshohocken, PA, Templeton Foundation Prsss 2008) p. 323
62.Jump up ^ http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2146000,00.html
63.Jump up ^ Michael Walzer, On Toleration, (New Haven: Yale University Press 1997) p. 61 ISBN 0-300-07600-2
64.Jump up ^ John Bowen, "Muslims and Citizens", The Boston Review February–March 2004. Accessed January 25, 2011
65.Jump up ^ "Romanies: A long road", The Economist September 16, 2010. Accessed March 22, 2011
66.Jump up ^ Alexandra Walsham, Charitable Hatred: Tolerance and Intolerance in England, 1500–1700. Manchester University Press (2006) ISBN 0-7190-5239-4 p. 233.
67.Jump up ^ Oberdiek, Hans, Tolerance: between forebearance and acceptance (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2001) p. vi ISBN 0-8476-8785-6
68.Jump up ^ Isaiah Berlin, "Four Essays on Liberty," London, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1969, p.184.
69.Jump up ^ John Gray, "Enlightenment's Wake," London and New York: Routledge, p.19.
70.Jump up ^ Gray (1995), p.20.
71.Jump up ^ "Toleration", The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Accessed March 21, 2011
72.Jump up ^ "Offence against One's Self". Columbia.edu. 2010-06-11. Retrieved 2012-06-21.
73.Jump up ^ Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 1, Notes to the Chapters: Ch. 7, Note 4.
74.Jump up ^ John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 216.
75.Jump up ^ Michael Walzer, On Toleration, (New Haven: Yale University Press 1997) pp. 80-81 ISBN 0-300-07600-2
76.Jump up ^ "Toleration", The Internet encyclopedia of Philosophy, Accessed March 21, 2011
77.Jump up ^ Ronald Dworkin, "Even bigots and Holocaust deniers must have their say", The Guardian, February 14, 2006. retrieved March 21, 2011
78.Jump up ^ "Dworkin Explores Secular, Religious Models for Society", Virginia Law School News and Events, April 18, 2008. accessed March 21, 2011
Further reading[edit]
Barzilai, Gad (2007). Law and Religion. Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-2494-3.
Beneke, Chris (September 2006). Beyond Toleration: The Religious Origins of American Pluralism. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 0-19-530555-8.
Coffey, John (2000). Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England, 1558–1689. Longman Publishing Group. ISBN 0-582-30465-2.
Curry, Thomas J. (1989-12-19). Church and State in America to the Passage of the First Amendment. Oxford University Press; Reprint edition (December 19, 1989). ISBN 0-19-505181-5.
Grell, Ole Peter, and Roy Porter, ed. (2000). Toleration in Enlightenment Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-65196-7.
Hamilton, Marci A. (2005-06-17). God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law. Edward R. Becker (Foreword). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-85304-4.
Hanson, Charles P. (1998). Necessary Virtue: The Pragmatic Origins of Religious Liberty in New England. University Press of Virginia. ISBN 0-8139-1794-8.
Kaplan, Benjamin J. (2007). Divided by Faith: Religious Conflict and the Practice of Toleration in Early Modern Europe. Belknap Press. ISBN 0-674-02430-3.
Laursen, John Christian and Nederman, Cary, ed. (December 1997). Beyond the Persecuting Society: Religious Toleration Before the Enlightenment. University of Pennsylvania Press (December 1997). ISBN 0-8122-3331-X.
Murphy, Andrew R. (July 2001). Conscience and Community: Revisiting Toleration and Religious Dissent in Early Modern England and America. Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0-271-02105-5.
Oberdiek, Hans (2001). Tolerance: between forebearance and acceptance. Rowman and Littlefield. ISBN 0-8476-8785-6.
Tønder, Lars (September 2013). Tolerance: A Sensorial Orientation to Politics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199315802.
Walsham, Alexandra (September 2006). Charitable Hatred: Tolerance and Intolerance in England, 1500–1700. Manchester University Press. ISBN 0-7190-5239-4.
Zagorin, Perez (2003). How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-12142-7.
External links[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Tolerance.
Wikiquote has quotations related to: Toleration
Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: God and Religious Toleration
Religion and Foreign Policy Initiative, Council on Foreign Relations
Background to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Text of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Jehovah's witnesses: European Court of Human rights, Freedom of Religion, Speech, and Association in Europe
"Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance". Various information on sensible religious topics. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance.
Religious Tolerance at DMOZ
History of Religious Tolerance
Outline for a Discussion on Toleration (Karen Barkey)
The Foundation against Intolerance of Religious Minorities
Teaching Tolerance
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Religion
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Christianity and politics
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Discrimination
Category
Portal
Authority control
GND: 4060355-6 ·
NDL: 00565000
Categories: Religion and politics
Secularism
Human rights by issue
Dutch Golden Age
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
العربية
বাংলা
Български
Bosanski
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Español
Esperanto
فارسی
Français
Galego
한국어
Հայերեն
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
עברית
ქართული
Қазақша
Latina
Lietuvių
Magyar
مصرى
Mirandés
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
Türkçe
Українська
Tiếng Việt
West-Vlams
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 24 May 2015, at 15:19.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toleration
Ecumenism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Brother Roger, Swiss Christian leader and monastic, who founded the ecumenical Taizé Community, and was its first prior until his murder in 2005.
Ecumenism is any interdenominational initiative aimed at greater cooperation among Christian churches.
Contents [hide]
1 Seeking a single Church
2 Christian ecumenism and interfaith pluralism
3 Ecumenical movement
4 Three approaches to Christian unity 4.1 Roman Catholicism
4.2 Orthodoxy
4.3 Anglicanism and Protestantism
5 Contemporary developments 5.1 Catholic-Orthodox dialogue
5.2 Issues within Protestantism
6 Opposition 6.1 Opposition from some Methodists
6.2 Opposition from some Lutherans
6.3 Opposition from some Orthodox Christians
7 Popular culture
8 Ecumenical organizations
9 See also
10 References
11 Bibliography
12 Further reading
13 External links
Seeking a single Church[edit]
Ecumenism is the idea of a Christian unity in the literal meaning: that there should be a single Church. Ecumenism is separate and distinct from nondenominational Christianity, which seeks no common organizing principle.
This specific sense of the word contrasts with interfaith dialogue or interfaith pluralism aimed at unity or cooperation among diverse religions and referring to a worldwide "religious unity" by the advocacy of a greater sense of shared spirituality.
The word is derived from Greek οἰκουμένη (oikoumene), which means "the whole inhabited world", and was historically used with specific reference to the Roman Empire. The ecumenical vision comprises both the search for the visible unity of the Church (Ephesians 4:3) and the "whole inhabited earth" (Matthew 24:14) as the concern of all Christians.
In Christianity the qualification ecumenical is originally (and still) used in terms such as "Ecumenical council" and "Ecumenical patriarch" in the meaning of pertaining to the totality of the larger Church (such as the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church) rather than being restricted to one of its constituent churches or dioceses. Used in this original sense, the term carries no connotation of re-uniting the historically separated Christian denominations.
Christian ecumenism and interfaith pluralism[edit]
The Christian Flag, which was designed to represent Christianity, aims at "the recovery in thought, in action, and in organization, of the true unity between the Church's mission to the world (its apostolate) and the Church's obligation to be one".[1] Thus, ecumenism is the promotion of unity or cooperation between distinct sects or denominations of Christianity.
Ecumenism is distinguished from and should not be misused to mean interfaith pluralism. The interfaith movement strives for greater mutual respect, toleration, and co-operation among the world religions. Interfaith dialogue between representatives of diverse faiths does not necessarily intend reconciling their adherents into full, organic unity with one another, but simply to promote better relations.
For some Catholics it may, but not always, have the goal of reconciling all who profess Christian faith to bring them into a single, visible organization, i.e. through union with the Roman Catholic Church.
For some Protestants, spiritual unity, and often unity on the church's teachings on central issues, suffices. According to Lutheran theologian Edmund Schlink, most important in Christian ecumenism is that people focus primarily on Christ, not on separate church organizations. In Schlink's book Ökumenische Dogmatik (1983), he says Christians who see the risen Christ at work in the lives of various Christians or in diverse churches realize that the unity of Christ's church has never been lost,[2] but has instead been distorted and obscured by different historical experiences and by spiritual myopia.
Both are overcome in renewed faith in Christ. Included in that is responding to his admonition (John 17; Philippians 2) to be one in him and love one another as a witness to the world. The result of mutual recognition would be a discernible worldwide fellowship, organized in a historically new way.[3]
An example of ecumenism is the invention of and growing usage of the Christian Flag, which was designed to represent all of Christendom.[4] The flag has a white field, with a red Latin cross inside a blue canton.[4]
Ecumenical movement[edit]
One understanding of the ecumenical movement is that it came from the Roman Catholic Church's attempts to reconcile with Christians who had become separated over theological issues.[5] Others see the 1910 World Missionary Conference as the birthplace of the ecumenical movement.[6] Others yet point to the 1920 encyclical of the Eastern Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Germanos of Constantinople "To the Churches of Christ Everywhere" that suggested a "fellowship of churches" similar to the League of Nations.[7]
Nathan Söderblom, Archbishop of Uppsala, the head of the Lutheran church in Sweden, is known as the architect of the ecumenical movement of the twentieth century. During the First World War, he called on all Christian leaders to work for peace and justice. His leadership of the Christian "Life and Work" movement in the 1920s has led him to be recognised as one of the principal founders of the ecumenical movement. His was instrumental in chairing the World Conference of Life and Work in Stockholm, in 1925. At the Stockholm Conference in 1925, the culminating event in Söderblom's ecumenical work, the Anglican, Protestant, and Orthodox Christians were all present and participating, with the exception of the Catholic Church, much regretted absence. He was a close friend of the English ecumenist George Bell. In 1930 was one of the recipients of the Nobel Prize, Nobel Peace Prize laureate, for the:Cooperation between Christian Church Communities Brings Peace and the first clergyman to receive this prize.[8][9]
After World War I, which had brought much devastation to many people, the church became a source of hope to those in need. In 1948 the first meeting of the World Council of Churches took place. Despite the fact that the meeting had been postponed due to World War II, the council took place in Amsterdam with the theme of "Man’s Disorder and God’s Design".[5] The focus of the church and the council following the gathering was on the damage created by the Second World War. The council and the movement went forward to continue the efforts of unifying the church globally around the idea of helping all those in need, whether it be a physical, emotional, or spiritual need. The movement led to an understanding amongst the churches that, despite difference, they could join together to be an element of great change in the world. To be an agent of hope and peace amongst the chaos and destruction that humans seem to create. More importantly the council and the movement lead to not only ecumenism but to the forming of councils amongst the denominations that connected churches across continental lines.[5]
Today, the World Council of Churches sees its role as sharing "the legacy of the one ecumenical movement and the responsibility to keep it alive" and acting "as a trustee for the inner coherence of the movement".[10]
Three approaches to Christian unity[edit]
Christian denominations
in English-speaking countries
International Associations[show]
Australia[show]
Canada[show]
United Kingdom[show]
United States[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Part of a series on
Christianity
Jesus depicted as the Good Shepherd
Jesus ·
Christ
[hide]
Jesus in Christianity ·
Virgin birth ·
Ministry ·
Crucifixion ·
Resurrection
Bible ·
Foundations
[hide]
Old Testament ·
New Testament ·
Gospel ·
Canon ·
Books ·
Church ·
Creed ·
New Covenant
Theology[hide]
God ·
Trinity (Father ·
Son ·
Holy Spirit)
Apologetics ·
Baptism ·
Catholicism ·
Christology ·
History of theology ·
Mission ·
Salvation
History ·
Tradition
[hide]
Mary ·
Apostles ·
Peter ·
Paul ·
Fathers ·
Early Christianity ·
Constantine ·
Councils ·
Augustine ·
East–West Schism ·
Crusades ·
Aquinas ·
Reformation ·
Luther
Related topics[hide]
Art ·
Holidays (list) ·
Criticism ·
Ecumenism ·
Liturgy ·
Music ·
Other religions ·
Prayer ·
Sermon ·
Symbolism
Denominations ·
Groups
[hide]
Western
Adventist ·
Anabaptist ·
Anglican ·
Baptist ·
Calvinist ·
Catholic ·
Evangelical ·
Lutheran ·
Methodist ·
Protestant ·
Pentecostal
Eastern
Eastern Orthodox ·
Eastern Catholic ·
Oriental Orthodox ·
Assyrian
Nontrinitarian
Jehovah's Witness ·
Latter Day Saint ·
Oneness Pentecostal
Christian cross Christianity portal
v ·
t ·
e
For a significant part of the Christian world, one of the highest goals to be sought is the reconciliation of the various denominations by overcoming the historical divisions within Christianity. Even where there is broad agreement upon this goal, approaches to ecumenism vary. Generally, Protestants see fulfillment of the goal of ecumenism as consisting in general agreements on teachings about central issues of faith, with mutual pastoral accountability between the diverse churches regarding the teachings of salvation.
For Catholics and Orthodox on the other hand, the true unity of Christendom is treated in accordance with their more sacramental understanding of the Body of Christ; this ecclesiastical matter for them is closely linked to key theological issues (e.g. regarding the Eucharist and the historical Episcopate), and requires full dogmatic assent to the pastoral authority of the Church for full communion to be considered viable and valid. Thus, there are different answers even to the question of the church, which finally is the goal of the ecumenist movement itself. However, the desire of unity is expressed by many denominations, generally that all who profess faith in Christ in sincerity, would be more fully cooperative and supportive of one another.
For the Catholic and Orthodox churches, the process of approaching one another is formally split in two successive stages: the "dialogue of love" and the "dialogue of truth". To the former belong the mutual revocation in 1965 of the anathemas of 1054 (see below Contemporary developments), returning the relics of Sabbas the Sanctified (a common saint) to Mar Saba in the same year, and the first visit of a Pope to an Orthodox country in a millennium (Pope John Paul II accepting the invitation of the Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church, Teoctist, in 1999), among others. The later one, involving effective theological engagement on matters of dogma, is only just commencing.
Christian ecumenism can be described in terms of the three largest divisions of Christianity: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant. While this underemphasizes the complexity of these divisions, it is a useful model.
Roman Catholicism[edit]
Main article: Catholic Church and ecumenism
The Roman Catholic Church has always considered it a duty of the highest rank to seek full unity with estranged communions of fellow-Christians and, at the same time, to reject what it sees as a false union that would mean being unfaithful to or glossing over the teaching of sacred scripture and tradition.
Before the Second Vatican Council, the main stress was laid on this second aspect, as exemplified in canon 1258 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law:
1.It is illicit for the faithful to assist at or participate in any way in non-Catholic religious functions.
2.For a serious reason requiring, in case of doubt, the Bishop's approval, passive or merely material presence at non-Catholic funerals, weddings and similar occasions because of holding a civil office or as a courtesy can be tolerated, provided there is no danger of perversion or scandal.
The 1983 Code of Canon Law has no corresponding canon. It absolutely forbids Roman Catholic priests to concelebrate the Eucharist with members of communities which are not in full communion (canon 908), but allows, in certain circumstances and under certain conditions, other sharing in the sacraments. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, 102[11] states: "Christians may be encouraged to share in spiritual activities and resources, i.e., to share that spiritual heritage they have in common in a manner and to a degree appropriate to their present divided state."
Pope John XXIII, who convoked the council that brought this change of emphasis about, said that the council's aim was to seek renewal of the church itself, which would serve, for those separated from the See of Rome, as a "gentle invitation to seek and find that unity for which Jesus Christ prayed so ardently to his heavenly Father".[12]
Some elements of the Roman Catholic perspective on ecumenism are illustrated in the following quotations from the council's decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio of 21 November 1964, and Pope John Paul II's encyclical, Ut Unum Sint of 25 May 1995.
Every renewal of the Church is essentially grounded in an increase of fidelity to her own calling. Undoubtedly this is the basis of the movement toward unity ... There can be no ecumenism worthy of the name without a change of heart. For it is from renewal of the inner life of our minds, from self-denial and an unstinted love that desires of unity take their rise and develop in a mature way. We should therefore pray to the Holy Spirit for the grace to be genuinely self-denying, humble. gentle in the service of others, and to have an attitude of brotherly generosity towards them. ... The words of St. John hold good about sins against unity: "If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us". So we humbly beg pardon of God and of our separated brethren, just as we forgive them that trespass against us.[13]
Christians cannot underestimate the burden of long-standing misgivings inherited from the past, and of mutual misunderstandings and prejudices. Complacency, indifference and insufficient knowledge of one another often make this situation worse. Consequently, the commitment to ecumenism must be based upon the conversion of hearts and upon prayer, which will also lead to the necessary purification of past memories. With the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Lord's disciples, inspired by love, by the power of the truth and by a sincere desire for mutual forgiveness and reconciliation, are called to re-examine together their painful past and the hurt which that past regrettably continues to provoke even today.[14]
In ecumenical dialogue, Catholic theologians standing fast by the teaching of the Church and investigating the divine mysteries with the separated brethren must proceed with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility. When comparing doctrines with one another, they should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists a "hierarchy" of truths, since they vary in their relation to the fundamental Christian faith. Thus the way will be opened by which through fraternal rivalry all will be stirred to a deeper understanding and a clearer presentation of the unfathomable riches of Christ.[15]
The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, "the way, and the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth?...Even so, doctrine needs to be presented in a way that makes it understandable to those for whom God himself intends it.[16]
When the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion have been gradually overcome, all Christians will at last, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, be gathered into the one and only Church in that unity which Christ bestowed on his Church from the beginning. We believe that this unity subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.[17]
While some Eastern Orthodox churches commonly baptize converts from the Roman Catholic Church, thereby refusing to recognize the baptism that the converts have previously received, the Roman Catholic Church has always accepted the validity of all the sacraments administered by the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches.
The Roman Catholic Church likewise has very seldom applied the terms "heterodox" or "heretic" to the Eastern Orthodox churches or its members, though there are clear differences in doctrine, notably about the authority of the Pope, Purgatory, and the filioque clause. More often, the term "separated" or "schismatic" has been applied to the state of the Eastern Orthodox churches.
Orthodoxy[edit]
The consecration of The Rt. Rev Weller as an Anglican bishop at the Cathedral of St. Paul the Apostle in the Protestant Episcopal Diocese of Fond du Lac, with the Rt. Rev. Anthony Kozlowski of the Polish National Catholic Church and the Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow (along with his chaplains Fr. John Kochurov, and Fr. Sebastian Dabovich) of the Russian Orthodox Church present
The Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox churches are two distinct bodies of local churches. The churches within each body share full communion, although there is not official communion between the two bodies. Both consider themselves to be the original church, from which the West was divided in the 5th and 11th centuries, respectively (after the 3rd and 7th Ecumenical councils).
Many theologians of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxies engage in theological dialogue with each other and with some of the Western churches, though short of full communion. The Eastern Orthodox have participated in the ecumenical movement, with students active in the World Student Christian Federation since the late 19th century. Most Eastern Orthodox[18] and all Oriental Orthodox churches[19] are members of the World Council of Churches. Kallistos of Diokleia, a bishop of the Eastern Orthodox Church has stated that ecumenism "is important for Orthodoxy: it has helped to force the various Orthodox Churches out of their comparative isolation, making them meet one another and enter into a living contact with non-Orthodox Christians."[20]
Historically, the relationship between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Anglican Communion has been congenial, with the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1922 recognising Anglican orders as valid. He wrote: "That the orthodox theologians who have scientifically examined the question have almost unanimously come to the same conclusions and have declared themselves as accepting the validity of Anglican Orders."[21] Moreover, some Eastern Orthodox bishops have assisted in the ordination of Anglican bishops; for example, in 1870, the Most Reverend Alexander Lycurgus, the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Syra and Tinos, was one of the bishops who consecrated Henry MacKenzie as the Suffragan Bishop of Nottingham.[22] From 1910-1911, the era before World War I, Raphael of Brooklyn, an Eastern Orthodox bishop, "sanctioned an interchange of ministrations with the Episcopalians in places where members of one or the other communion are without clergy of their own."[23] Bishop Raphael stated that in places "where there is no resident Orthodox Priest", an Anglican (Episcopalian) priest could administer Marriage, Holy Baptism, and the Blessed Sacrament to an Orthodox layperson.[24] In 1912, however, Bishop Raphael ended the intercommunion after becoming uncomfortable with the fact that the Anglican Communion contained different churchmanships within Her, e.g. High Church, Evangelical, etc.[23] However, after WWI, the Fellowship of Saint Alban and Saint Sergius was organized in 1927, which much like the Anglican and Eastern Churches Association worked on ecumenism between the two Churches; both of these organisations continue their task today.[25]
In accordance with the Soviet anti-religious legislation under the state atheism of the Soviet Union, several Russian Orthodox churches and seminaries were closed.[26][27] With ecumenical aid from the Methodist Church, two Russian Orthodox seminaries were reopened; leaders of the Orthodox Church thankfully stated that "The services rendered by the American Methodists and other Christian friends will go down in history of the Orthodox Church as one of its brightest pages in that dark and trying time of the church. Our church will never forget the Samaritan service which your whole Church unselfishly rendered us. May this be the beginning of closer friendship for our Churches and nations.[28]
Anglicanism and Protestantism[edit]
For more details on the on-going dialogue between the Anglican Communion and the wider Church, see Anglican communion and ecumenism.
The members of the Anglican Communion have generally embraced the Ecumenical Movement, actively participating in such organizations as the World Council of Churches and the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Most provinces holding membership in the Anglican Communion have special departments devoted to ecumenical relations; however, the influence of Liberal Christianity has in recent years caused tension within the communion, causing some to question the direction ecumenism has taken them.
Each member church of the Anglican Communion makes its own decisions with regard to intercommunion. Many of them are currently out of communion with other provinces of the Anglican Communion. The 1958 Lambeth Conference recommended "that where between two Churches not of the same denominational or confessional family, there is unrestricted communio in sacris, including mutual recognition and acceptance of ministries, the appropriate term to use is 'full communion', and that where varying degrees of relation other than 'full communion' are established by agreement between two such churches the appropriate term is 'intercommunion'."
Full communion has been established between Provinces of the Anglican Communion and these Churches:
Old Catholic Churches of Europe
Philippine Independent Church
Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Malabar
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Moravian Church in America, Northern and Southern Provinces
The Episcopal Church is currently engaged in dialogue with the following religious bodies:
Churches Uniting in Christ (CUIC)
Eastern Orthodox Church
Roman Catholic Church
Presbyterian Church USA
United Methodist Church
Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Province of America
Worldwide, an estimated forty million Anglicans belong to churches that do not participate in the Anglican Communion[citation needed], a particular organization limited to one province per country. In these Anglican churches, there is strong opposition to the ecumenical movement and to membership in such bodies as the World and National Councils of Churches. Most of these churches are associated with the Continuing Anglican movement or the movement for Anglican realignment. While ecumenicalism in general is opposed, certain Anglican church bodies that are not members of the Anglican Communion—the Free Church of England and the Church of England in South Africa, for example—have fostered close and cooperative relations with other evangelical (if non-Anglican) churches, on an individual basis.
This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2009)
Nicolaus Ludwig, Count von Zinzendorf, (1700–1760) the renewer of the Unitas Fratrum / Moravian Church in the 18th century, was the first person to use the word "ecumenical" in this sense. His pioneering efforts to unite all Christians, regardless of denominational labels, into a "Church of God in the Spirit"—notably among German immigrants in Pennsylvania—were misunderstood by his contemporaries and 200 years before the world was ready for them.
The contemporary ecumenical movement for Protestants is often said to have started with the 1910 Edinburgh Missionary Conference. However this conference would not have been possible without the pioneering ecumenical work of the Christian youth movements: the Young Men's Christian Association (founded 1844), the Young Women's Christian Association (founded 1855), the World Student Christian Federation (founded 1895), and the Federal Council of Churches (founded 1908), predecessor to today's National Council of Churches USA.
Led by Methodist layman John R. Mott (former YMCA staff and in 1910 the General Secretary of WSCF), the World Mission conference marked the largest Protestant gathering to that time, with the express purposes of working across denominational lines for the sake of world missions. After the First World War further developments were the "Faith and Order" movement led by Charles Henry Brent, and the "Life and Work" movement led by Nathan Soderblom. In the 1930s, the tradition of an annual World Communion Sunday to celebrate ecumenical ties was established in the Presbyterian Church and was subsequently adopted by several other denominations.
Eventually, formal organizations were formed, including the World Council of Churches in 1948, the National Council of Churches in the USA in 1950, and Churches Uniting in Christ in 2002. These groups are moderate to liberal, theologically speaking, as Protestants are generally more liberal and less traditional than Anglicans, Orthodox, and Roman Catholics.
Protestants are now involved in a variety of ecumenical groups, working in some cases toward organic denominational unity and in other cases for cooperative purposes alone. Because of the wide spectrum of Protestant denominations and perspectives, full cooperation has been difficult at times. Edmund Schlink's Ökumenische Dogmatik 1983, 1997 proposes a way through these problems to mutual recognition and renewed church unity.
In 1999, the representatives of Lutheran World Federation and Roman Catholic Church signed The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, resolving the conflict over the nature of Justification which was at the root of the Protestant Reformation, although some conservative Lutherans did not agree to this resolution. On July 18, 2006 Delegates to the World Methodist Conference voted unanimously to adopt the Joint Declaration.[29][30]
Contemporary developments[edit]
Ecumenical worship service at the monastery of Taizé.
Catholic-Orthodox dialogue[edit]
The mutual anathemas (excommunications) of 1054, marking the Great Schism between Western (Catholic) and Eastern (Orthodox) branches of Christianity, a process spanning several centuries, were revoked in 1965 by the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. The Roman Catholic Church does not regard Orthodox Christians as excommunicated, since they personally have no responsibility for the separation of their churches. In fact, Catholic rules admit the Orthodox to communion and the other sacraments in situations where the individuals are in danger of death or no Orthodox churches exist to serve the needs of their faithful. However, Orthodox churches still generally regard Roman Catholics as excluded from the sacraments and some may even not regard Catholic sacraments such as baptism and ordination as valid.
In November 2006, Pope Benedict XVI traveled to Istanbul at the invitation of Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople and participated in the feast day services of St. Andrew the First Apostle, the patron saint of the Church of Constantinople. The Ecumenical Patriarch and Pope Benedict had another historic meeting in Ravenna, Italy in 2007. The Declaration of Ravenna marked a significant rapprochement between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox positions. The declaration recognized the bishop of Rome as the Protos, or first among equals of the Patriarchs. This acceptance and the entire agreement was hotly contested by the Russian Orthodox Church. The signing of the declaration highlighted the pre-existing tensions between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Moscow Patriarchate. Besides their theological concerns, the Russian Orthodox have continuing concerns over the question of the Eastern Catholic Churches that operate in what they regard as Orthodox territory. This question has been exacerbated by disputes over churches and other property that the Communist authorities once assigned to the Orthodox Church but whose restoration these Churches have obtained from the present authorities.
A major obstacle to improved relations between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches has been the insertion of the Latin term filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed in the 8th and 11th centuries.[31] This obstacle has now been effectively resolved. The Roman Catholic Church now recognizes that the Creed, as confessed at the First Council of Constantinople, did not add "and the Son", when it spoke of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father. When quoting the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, as in the 6 August 2000 document Dominus Iesus, it does not include filioque.[32] It views as complementary the Eastern-tradition expression "who proceeds from the Father" (profession of which it sees as affirming that he comes from the Father through the Son) and the Western-tradition expression "who proceeds from the Father and the Son", with the Eastern tradition expressing firstly the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit, and the Western tradition giving expression firstly to the consubstantial communion between Father and Son; and it believes that, provided this legitimate complementarity does not become rigid, it does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.[33]
Continuing dialogues at both international and national level continue between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, but major future developments will probably have to await the outcome of the 2016 Ecumenical Council of the Orthodox Church.
Issues within Protestantism[edit]
Contemporary developments in mainline Protestant churches have dealt a serious blow to ecumenism. The decision by the U.S. Episcopal Church to ordain Gene Robinson, an openly gay, non-celibate priest who advocates same-sex blessings, as bishop led the Russian Orthodox Church to suspend its cooperation with the Episcopal Church. Likewise, when the Church of Sweden decided to bless same-sex marriages, the Russian Patriarchate severed all relations with the Church, noting that "Approving the shameful practice of same-sex marriages is a serious blow to the entire system of European spiritual and moral values influenced by Christianity."[34]
Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev commented that the inter-Christian community is "bursting at the seams". He sees the great dividing line—or "abyss"—not so much between old churches and church families as between "traditionalists" and "liberals", the latter now dominating Protestantism, and predicted that other Northern Protestant Churches will follow suit and this means that the "ecumenical ship" will sink, for with the liberalism that is materializing in European Protestant churches, there is no longer anything to talk about.[35]
Organizations such as the World Council of Churches, the National Council of Churches USA, Churches Uniting in Christ, Pentecostal Charismatic Peace Fellowship and Christian Churches Together continue to encourage ecumenical cooperation among Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and, at times, Roman Catholics. There are universities such as the University of Bonn in Germany that offer degree courses in "Ecumenical Studies" in which theologians of various denominations teach their respective traditions and, at the same time, seek for common ground between these traditions.
Influenced by the ecumenical movement, the "scandal of separation" and local developments, a number of United and uniting churches have formed; there are also a range of mutual recognition strategies being practiced where formal union is not feasible. An increasing trend has been the sharing of church buildings by two or more denominations, either holding separate services or a single service with elements of all traditions.
Opposition[edit]
Opposition from some Methodists[edit]
There are some in The United Methodist Church who oppose the forms of ecumenism which are "not grounded in the doctrines of the Church" due to the fear of doctrinal compromise.[36] For example, an article published in Catalyst Online: Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives for United Methodist Seminarians stated that false ecumenism might result in the "blurring of theological and confessional differences in the interests of unity".[37]
Opposition from some Lutherans[edit]
The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS) bars its clergy from worshiping with other faiths, holding "that church fellowship or merger between church bodies in doctrinal disagreement with one another is not in keeping with what the Bible teaches about church fellowship".[38] In practice of this: a Connecticut LCMS pastor was asked to apologize by the President of the denomination, and did so, for participating in an interfaith prayer vigil for the 26 children and adults killed at a Newtown elementary school, and a LCMS pastor in New York was suspended for praying at an interfaith vigil in 2001, 12 days after the September 11 attacks.[39]
Opposition from some Orthodox Christians[edit]
See also: Sobornost
Practically, "the whole of Eastern Orthodoxy holds membership in the World Council of Churches."[40] Ecumenical Patriarch Germanus V of Constantinople's 1920 letter "'To all the Churches of Christ, wherever they may be', urging closer co-operation among separated Christians, and suggesting a 'League of Churches', parallel to the newly founded League of Nations" was a inspiration for the founding of the World Council of Churches; as such "Constantinople, along with several of the other Orthodox Churches, was represented at the Faith and Order Conferences at Lausanne in 1927 and at Edinburgh in 1937. The Ecumenical Patriarchate also participated in the first Assembly of the WCC at Amsterdam in 1948, and has been a consistent supporter of the work of the WCC ever since."[41]
However, there exists a small group of Orthodox Christians who are vehemently opposed to ecumenism with other Christian denominations. They view ecumenism, as well as interfaith dialog, as being potentially pernicious to Orthodox Church Tradition; a "weakening" of Orthodoxy itself.[42] In the Eastern Orthodox world, the monastic community of Mount Athos, arguably the most important center of Orthodox spirituality, has voiced its concerns regarding the ecumenist movement and opposition to the participation of the Orthodox Church.[43] They regard modern ecumenism as compromising essential doctrinal stands in order to accommodate other Christians, and object to the emphasis on dialogue leading to intercommunion rather than conversion on the part of participants in ecumenical initiatives. Greek Old Calendarists also claim that the teachings of the Seven Ecumenical Councils forbid changing the church calendar through abandonment of the Julian calendar.[citation needed] The Inter-Orthodox Theological Conference entitled "Ecumenism: Origins, Expectations, Disenchantment",[44] organized in September 2004 by the Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki has drawn negative conclusions on ecumenism.
Popular culture[edit]
The word ecumenical arises in the Father Ted episode Tentacles of Doom, in which Father Ted sets out to train the drunken and bad-tempered Father Jack to say two all-encompassing phrases in response to questions from three visiting bishops, namely "Yes" and "that would be an ecumenical matter".[45]
In the strategy game Europa Universalis III, the player can select "Ecumenism" as a National Idea. This increases tolerance of "heretical religions" (i.e. religions that are related to but not part of the state's religion) within the player's country.
Ecumenical organizations[edit]
Action of Churches Together in Scotland
Anglican and Eastern Churches Association
American Clergy Leadership Conference (ACLC)
Bose Monastic Community
Byzantine Discalced Carmelites
Campus Crusade for Christ
Canadian Council of Churches
Christian Churches Together in the USA
Churches Together in Britain and Ireland
Churches Together in England
Churches Uniting in Christ
Conference of European Churches
Ecumenical Free Catholic Communion
Ecumenical Gospel Mission of India
Ecumenical Institute for Study and Dialogue
Edinburgh Churches Together
Fellowship of Saint Alban and Saint Sergius
Franciscan Hermitage of Campello, Italy
Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity (HSA-UWC/Unification Church/Unification Movement)
International Circle of Faith
Iona Community
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.
New Monasticism related Communities
Pentecostal Charismatic Peace Fellowship
People of Praise
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
Prairie Centre for Ecumenism
Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center
Society of Ordained Scientists
Student Christian Movement (Britain)
Taizé Community
World Alliance of Reformed Churches
World Council of Churches
World Student Christian Federation
See also[edit]
Accord Coalition, uniting the religious & non-religious concerned about religious inclusivity in education (England and Wales)
Anonymous Christian
Ecumenical council
Inclusivism
Invisible church
One true church
One true faith
Postmodern Christianity
Religious pluralism
Socratic questioning
Syncretism
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ "The Calling of the Church to Mission and to Unity," Theology Today, vol. 9, no. 1 (April 1952): 15.
2.Jump up ^ Edmund Schlink, Ökumenische Dogmatik (1983), pp. 694–701; also his "Report," Dialog 1963, 2:4, 328.
3.Jump up ^ Edmund Schlink, Ökumenische Dogmatik (1983), pp. 707–708; also Skibbe, A Quiet Reformer 1999, 122–4; Schlink, The Vision of the Pope 2001.
4.^ Jump up to: a b "The Christian Flag". Prayer Foundation. Retrieved 2007-10-18. "The flag's most conspicuous symbol is the Christian cross, the most universal symbol for Christianity. The red color represents the blood of Christ and brings to mind his crucifixion. Christians believe that Jesus Christ's death and resurrection is the means God uses to save believers from their sins. The cross and blood have been used since earliest Christianity to symbolize salvation through Jesus; in the words of the Apostle Paul, "And having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself;"—Colossians 1:20. The white field draws on symbolism throughout the Bible equating white clothes with purity and forgiveness. People who have been "washed white as snow" in the Bible have been cleansed from their sins (Isaiah 1:18; Psalm 51:2). In conventional vexillology (the study of flags, their history and symbolism), a white flag is linked to surrender, a reference to the Biblical description Jesus' non-violence and surrender to God's will. The symbolism behind the blue canton has been interpreted to represent Heaven, truth, or the Christian ritual of Baptism in water."
5.^ Jump up to: a b c Howard C. Kee et al., Christianity: a Social and Cultural History, 2nd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ.: Prentice Hall, 1998), 379–81.
6.Jump up ^ Latourette, Kenneth Scott. "Ecumenical Bearings of the Missionary Movement and the International Missionary Council." In "A History of the Ecumenical Movement 1517-1948", edited by Ruth Rouse and Stephen Charles Neill, 353-73, 401-02. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1954.
7.Jump up ^ Grdzelidze, Tamara. "Ecumenism, Orthodoxy and" In "The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity", edited by John Anthony McGuckin , 208-15. Wiley Blackwell, 2011.
8.Jump up ^ "Nathan Söderblom, Nobel Prize Winner". /www.nobelprize.org. Retrieved 2015.
9.Jump up ^ "nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1930/soderblom-facts". www.nobelprize.org. Retrieved 2015.
10.Jump up ^ "The WCC and the ecumenical movement". oikoumene.org. Retrieved 2014-02-11.
11.Jump up ^ Directory For The Application Of Principles And Norms On Ecumenism
12.Jump up ^ Encyclical Ad Petri cathedram
13.Jump up ^ Unitatis Redintegratio 6–7
14.Jump up ^ Encyclical Ut unum sint, 2[www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html]
15.Jump up ^ Unitatis Redintegratio, 11[www.vatican.va/.../ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html]
16.Jump up ^ Encyclical Ut unum sint, 18-19[www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html]
17.Jump up ^ Unitatis Redintegratio, 4[www.vatican.va/.../ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html]
18.Jump up ^ "Orthodox churches (Eastern)". oikoumene.org. Retrieved 2014-02-11.
19.Jump up ^ "Orthodox churches (Oriental)". oikoumene.org. Retrieved 2014-02-11.
20.Jump up ^ Ware, Kallistos (28 April 1993). The Orthodox Church. Penguin Adult. p. 322. ISBN 9780140146561.
21.Jump up ^ The Ecumenical Patriarch on Anglican Orders
22.Jump up ^ Redmile, Robert David (1 September 2006). The Apostolic Succession and the Catholic Episcopate in the Christian Episcopal Church of Canada. p. 239. ISBN 9781600345173. "In 1870, the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Syra and Tinos, the Most Reverend Alexander Lycurgus, paid a visit to the British Isles. During his time in England, Archbishop Lycurgus was invited by the Lord Bishop of London, John Jackson, to join with him in consecrating Henry MacKenzie as the Suffragan Bishop of Nottingham. Archbishop Lycurgus agreed to assist, and on 2 February 1870, he joined in the laying on of hands with the Bishop of London at the consecration of Bishop MacKenzie. Thus the Apostolic Succession in the Greek Orthodox Church was passed on to the Bishops of the Anglican Communion, and through them to the Christian Episcopal Churches in the United States of America and the Dominion of Canada."
23.^ Jump up to: a b Herbermann, Charles (1912). The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work of Reference on the Constitution, Doctrine, Discipline, and History of the Catholic Church. Robert Appleton. p. 149. "This A.E.O.C.U. is particularly active in the United States, where the existence side by side of Westerns and Easterns offers special facilities for mutual intercourse. It is due mainly to its instances that the orthodox Bishop Raphael of Brooklyn recently sanctioned an interchange of ministrations with the Episcopalians in places where members of one or the other communion are without clergy of their own-a practice which, as coming from the Orthodox side, seemed strange, but was presumably justified by the "principle of economy" which some Orthodox theologians unaccountably advocate (see Reunion Magazine, Sept., 1910)."
24.Jump up ^ Journal of the Proceedings of the One Hundred and Ninth Annual Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church. The Rumford Press. 1910. p. 411. Retrieved 15 April 2014. "Inasmuch as there is a variance between your and our Churches in these matters, I suggest that, before any marriage Service is performed for Syrians desiring the services of the Protestant Episcopal Clergy, where there is no Orthodox Priest, that the Syrians shall first procure a license from me, their Bishop, giving them permission, and that, where there is a resident Orthodox Priest, that, the Episcopal Clergy may advise them to have such Service performed by him. Again, in the case of Holy Baptism, that, where there is no resident Orthodox Priest, that the Orthodox law in reference to the administration of the Sacrament be observed, namely immersion three times, with the advice to the parents and witnesses that, as soon as possible, the child shall be taken to an Orthodox Priest to receive Chrismation, which is absolutely binding according to the Law of the Orthodox Church. Furthermore, when an Orthodox Layman is dying, if he confesses his sins, and professes that he is dying in the full communion of the Orthodox Faith, as expressed in the Orthodox version of the Nicene Creed, and the other requirements of the said Church, and desires the Blessed Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, at the hands of an Episcopal Clergyman, permission is hereby given to administer to him this Blessed Sacrament, and to be buried according to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Episcopal Church. But, it is recommended that, if an Orthodox Service Book can be procured, that the Sacraments and Rites be performed as set forth in that Book. And now I pray God that He may hasten the time when the Spiritual Heads of the National Churches, of both yours and ours, may take our places in cementing the Union between the Anglican and Orthodox Churches, which we have so humbly begun; then there will be no need of suggestions, such as I have made, as to how, or by whom, Services shall be performed; and, instead of praying that we "all may be one" we shall known that we are one in Christ's Love and Faith. RAPHAEL, Bishop of Brooklyn."
25.Jump up ^ Church Quarterly Review. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. January–March 1964. "In 1927, the "Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius" was founded, becoming, like the "Anglican and Eastern Church Association", one of the chief focal points of these contacts."
26.Jump up ^ Greeley, Andrew M. Religion in Europe at the End of the Second Millennium: A Sociological Profile. Transaction Publishers. p. 89. ISBN 9781412832984. "Seminaries were closed, churches turned into museums or centers for atheist propaganda, the clergy rigidly controlled, the bishops appointed by the state."
27.Jump up ^ Gerhard Simon (1974). Church, State, and Opposition in the U.S.S.R. University of California Press. "On the other hand the Communist Party has never made any secret of the fact, either before or after 1917, that it regards 'militant atheism' as an integral part of its ideology and will regard 'religion as by no means a private matter'. It therefore uses 'the means of ideological influence to educate people in the spirit of scientific materialism and to overcome religious prejudices..' Thus it is the goal of the C.P.S.U. and thereby also of the Soviet state, for which it is after all the 'guiding cell', gradually to liquidate the religious communities."
28.Jump up ^ Rev. Thomas Hoffmann; William Alex Pridemore. "Esau’s Birthright and Jacob’s Pottage: A Brief Look at Orthodox-Methodist Ecumenism in Twentieth-Century Russia" (PDF). Demokratizatsiya. Retrieved 19 October 2009. "The Methodists continued their ecumenical commitments, now with the OC. This involved a continuance of financial assistance from European and American resources, enough to reopen two OC seminaries in Russia (where all had been previously closed). OC leaders wrote in two unsolicited statements: The services rendered... by the American Methodists and other Christian friends will go down in history of the Orthodox Church as one of its brightest pages in that dark and trying time of the church.... Our Church will never forget the Samaritan service which... your whole Church unselfishly rendered us. May this be the beginning of closer friendship for our churches and nations. (as quoted in Malone 1995, 50-51)"
29.Jump up ^ "News Archives". UMC.org. July 20, 2006. Retrieved 10 October 2013.
30.Jump up ^ "CNS STORY: Methodists adopt Catholic-Lutheran declaration on justification". Catholicnews.com. July 24, 2006. Retrieved 10 October 2013.
31.Jump up ^ "Cathecism of the Catholic Church, 247". Vatican.va. Retrieved 2013-04-25.
32.Jump up ^ "Dominus Iesus". Vatican.va. Retrieved 2013-04-25.
33.Jump up ^ "Article 1 of the Treaty of Brest". Ewtn.com. Retrieved 2013-04-25.
34.Jump up ^ Russian Orthodox Church condemns Lutheran gay weddings Pravda, 30 December 2005. Accessed 24 March 2009.
35.Jump up ^ Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: Will the Ecumenical Ship Sink? The Official Website of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. Accessed 24 March 2009.
36.Jump up ^ William J. Abraham (2012). "United Methodist Evangelicals and Ecumenism" (PDF). Southern Methodist University. Retrieved 11 November 2012.
37.Jump up ^ Randall Balmer (1998). "The Future of American Protestantism". Catalyst Online: Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives for United Methodist Seminarians. Retrieved 11 November 2012.[dead link]
38.Jump up ^ "A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod" (PDF). Concordia Publishing House. 2009. Retrieved 7 February 2013.
39.Jump up ^ "Pastor apologizes for role in prayer vigil after Connecticut massacre". Reuters. 2013. Retrieved 7 February 2013.[dead link]
40.Jump up ^ Fey, Harold C. (1 December 2009). A History of the Ecumenical Movement, Volume 2: 1948-1968. Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 304. ISBN 9781606089101. "With the exception of the Orthodox Church of Albania the whole of Eastern Orthodoxy holds membership in the World Council of Churches."
41.Jump up ^ Ware, Kallistos (29 April 1993). The Orthodox Church. Penguin Adult. p. 322. ISBN 9780140146561. "From the beginning of the twentieth century the Ecumenical Patriarchate has shown a special concern for Christian reconciliation. At his accession in 1902, Patriarch Joachim III sent an encyclical letter to all the autocephalous Orthodox Churches, asking in particular for their opinion on relations with other Christian bodies. In January 1920 the Ecumenical Patriarchate followed this up with a bold and prophetic letter addressed 'To all the Churches of Christ, wherever they may be', urging closer co-operation among separated Christians, and suggesting a 'League of Churches', parallel to the newly founded League of Nations. Many of the ideas in this letter anticipate subsequent developments in the WCC. Constantinople, along with several of the other Orthodox Churches, was represented at the Faith and Order Conferences at Lausanne in 1927 and at Edinburgh in 1937. The Ecumenical Patriarchate also participated in the first Assembly of the WCC at Amsterdam in 1948, and has been a consistent supporter of the work of the WCC ever since."
42.Jump up ^ Patrick Barnes. "Ecumenism Awareness Introduction". Orthodox Christian Information Center. Retrieved 2008-12-30.
43.Jump up ^ The Theological Committee of the Sacred Community of Mount Athos (2007-02-18). "Memorandum on the Participation of the Orthodox Church in the World Council of Churches". orthodoxinfo.com. Retrieved 2008-11-01.
44.Jump up ^ "Conclusions of the Inter-Orthodox Theological Conference "Ecumenism: Origins Expectations Disenchantment"". orthodox.info. Retrieved 2008-11-03.
45.Jump up ^ "Father Ted" Tentacles of Doom (TV Episode 1996) - Quotes - IMDb
Bibliography[edit]
Borkowski, James D. "Middle East Ecumenism from an Anglican Perspective" Cloverdale Books (2007) ISBN 978-1-929569-23-6 [1]
Chandler, Andrew. Archbishop Fisher, 1945–1961: Church, State and World, chap. 6. The Archbishops of Canterbury Series. Farnham, U.K., and Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate, 2012.
Hedegard, David. Ecumenism and the Bible. Amsterdam: International Council of Christian Churches, 1954.
Hein, David. "The Episcopal Church and the Ecumenical Movement, 1937–1997: Presbyterians, Lutherans, and the Future." Anglican and Episcopal History 66 (1997): 4–29.
Hein, David. "Radical Ecumenism." Sewanee Theological Review 51 (June 2008): 314–328. Proposes that mainline Protestants, such as Episcopalians, have much to learn from heirs of the Radical Reformation, including the Amish.
A History of the Ecumenical Movement 1517-1948, edited by Ruth Rouse and Stephen Charles Neill (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954).
The Ecumenical Advance: A History of the Ecumenical Movement, volume 2, 1948-1968, edited by Harold E. Fey (London: S.P.C.K., 1970).
A History of the Ecumenical Movement, volume 3, 1968-2000, edited by John Briggs, Mercy Amba Oduyoye and Georges Tsetsis (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 2004).
Kasper, Walter, That They May All Be One: The Call to Unity Today (London: Burns & Oates, 2004).
Kasper, Walter, Harvesting the Fruits: Aspects of Christian Faith in Ecumenical Dialogue (New York: Continuum, 2009).
Mackay, John A., Ecumenics: The Science of the Church Universal (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc: 1964).
Mastrantonis, George. "Augsburg and Constantinople : The Correspondence between the Tübingen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople on the Augsburg Confession." Holy Cross Orthodox Press (1982), reprinted (2005). ISBN 0-916586-82-0
Metzger, John Mackay, The Hand and the Road: The Life and Times of John A. Mackay (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010).
Ut Unum Sint ("That they may be one"), an encyclical by Pope John Paul II of May 25, 1995 on commitment to ecumenism.
Unitatis Redintegratio ("Restoration of Unity"), Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism, promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964.
Visser ’t Hooft, Willem Adolf, "Appendix I: The Word ‘Ecumenical’ – Its History and Use," in A History of the Ecumenical Movement 1517-1948, edited by Ruth Rouse and Stephen Charles Neill (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954), 735-740.
Weigel, Gustave, S.J., A Catholic Primer on the Ecumenical Movement (Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1957).
McSorley, Harry J., C. S. P., Luther: Right or Wrong? An Ecumenical-Theological Study of Luther's Major Work, The Bondage of the Will, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Augsburg Publishing House, 1968. [2] Originally published under the German title: Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen: nach seiner Hauptschrift De servo arbitrio im Lichte der biblischen und kirchlichen Tradition [3] in: Beiträge zur ökumenischen Theologie, Band II, hrsg. (herausgegeben i.e. editor), H.ie%22&dq=%22Beitr%C3%A4ge+zur+%C3%B6kumenischen+Theologie%22&hl=en&ei=3hwRTc2SIYP78Aaemvi7Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA]
Antonio Calisi, L'Ecumenismo, il Rinnovamento Carismatico Cattolico e la Comunità di Gesù, Bari Chàrisma Edizioni, 2015. ISBN 9788890855948.
Further reading[edit]
Amess, Robert. One in the Truth?: the Cancer of Division in the Evangelical Church. Eastbourne, Eng.: Kingsway Publications, 1988. N.B.: Primarily concerns the quest for unity among evangelical Protestant denominations. ISBN 0-86065-439-7
Bray, Gerald L. Sacraments & Ministry in Ecumenical Perspective, in series, Latimer Studies, 18. Oxford, Eng.: Latimer House, 1984. ISBN 0-946307-17-2
Episcopal Church (U.S.A.). Ecumenical Relations Office. About the Concordat: 28 Questions about the Agreement between the Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Church of America [i.e. the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America]. Cincinnati, Ohio: Forward Movement Publications, [1997?]. 43 p. Without ISBN
Florovsky, Georges Vasilievich, et al. La Sainte église universelle: confrontation oécuménique, in series, Cahiers théologiques de l'Actualité protestante, hors série, 4. Neuchâtel, Switzerland: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1948.
Headlam, Arthur Cayley, Bp. Christian Unity. London: Student Christian Movement Press, 1930. 157 p. N.B.: This study's orientation is Anglican (Church of England).
Mascall, Eric Lionel. The Recovery of Unity: a Theological Approach. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1958.
Waddams, Herbert. The Church and Man's Struggle for Unity, in series and subseries, Blandford History Series: Problems of History. London: Blandford Press, 1968. xii, 268 p., b&w ill. N.B.: An account of ecumenical problems and strivings within the entire history of Christianity.
External links[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Ecumenism.
Ecumenism at DMOZ
The Unity of All Christians New Testament perspective
Christian Mysticism is unity with all
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Religion
Categories: Christian ecumenism
Interfaith
Religious pluralism
Christian terminology
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
العربية
Български
Bosanski
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
Français
한국어
Հայերեն
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Italiano
Қазақша
Kiswahili
Latina
Latviešu
Lietuvių
Magyar
മലയാളം
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Piemontèis
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Shqip
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
தமிழ்
Türkçe
Українська
Tiếng Việt
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 23 May 2015, at 02:34.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenism#Christian_ecumenism_and_interfaith_pluralism
Ecumenism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Brother Roger, Swiss Christian leader and monastic, who founded the ecumenical Taizé Community, and was its first prior until his murder in 2005.
Ecumenism is any interdenominational initiative aimed at greater cooperation among Christian churches.
Contents [hide]
1 Seeking a single Church
2 Christian ecumenism and interfaith pluralism
3 Ecumenical movement
4 Three approaches to Christian unity 4.1 Roman Catholicism
4.2 Orthodoxy
4.3 Anglicanism and Protestantism
5 Contemporary developments 5.1 Catholic-Orthodox dialogue
5.2 Issues within Protestantism
6 Opposition 6.1 Opposition from some Methodists
6.2 Opposition from some Lutherans
6.3 Opposition from some Orthodox Christians
7 Popular culture
8 Ecumenical organizations
9 See also
10 References
11 Bibliography
12 Further reading
13 External links
Seeking a single Church[edit]
Ecumenism is the idea of a Christian unity in the literal meaning: that there should be a single Church. Ecumenism is separate and distinct from nondenominational Christianity, which seeks no common organizing principle.
This specific sense of the word contrasts with interfaith dialogue or interfaith pluralism aimed at unity or cooperation among diverse religions and referring to a worldwide "religious unity" by the advocacy of a greater sense of shared spirituality.
The word is derived from Greek οἰκουμένη (oikoumene), which means "the whole inhabited world", and was historically used with specific reference to the Roman Empire. The ecumenical vision comprises both the search for the visible unity of the Church (Ephesians 4:3) and the "whole inhabited earth" (Matthew 24:14) as the concern of all Christians.
In Christianity the qualification ecumenical is originally (and still) used in terms such as "Ecumenical council" and "Ecumenical patriarch" in the meaning of pertaining to the totality of the larger Church (such as the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church) rather than being restricted to one of its constituent churches or dioceses. Used in this original sense, the term carries no connotation of re-uniting the historically separated Christian denominations.
Christian ecumenism and interfaith pluralism[edit]
The Christian Flag, which was designed to represent Christianity, aims at "the recovery in thought, in action, and in organization, of the true unity between the Church's mission to the world (its apostolate) and the Church's obligation to be one".[1] Thus, ecumenism is the promotion of unity or cooperation between distinct sects or denominations of Christianity.
Ecumenism is distinguished from and should not be misused to mean interfaith pluralism. The interfaith movement strives for greater mutual respect, toleration, and co-operation among the world religions. Interfaith dialogue between representatives of diverse faiths does not necessarily intend reconciling their adherents into full, organic unity with one another, but simply to promote better relations.
For some Catholics it may, but not always, have the goal of reconciling all who profess Christian faith to bring them into a single, visible organization, i.e. through union with the Roman Catholic Church.
For some Protestants, spiritual unity, and often unity on the church's teachings on central issues, suffices. According to Lutheran theologian Edmund Schlink, most important in Christian ecumenism is that people focus primarily on Christ, not on separate church organizations. In Schlink's book Ökumenische Dogmatik (1983), he says Christians who see the risen Christ at work in the lives of various Christians or in diverse churches realize that the unity of Christ's church has never been lost,[2] but has instead been distorted and obscured by different historical experiences and by spiritual myopia.
Both are overcome in renewed faith in Christ. Included in that is responding to his admonition (John 17; Philippians 2) to be one in him and love one another as a witness to the world. The result of mutual recognition would be a discernible worldwide fellowship, organized in a historically new way.[3]
An example of ecumenism is the invention of and growing usage of the Christian Flag, which was designed to represent all of Christendom.[4] The flag has a white field, with a red Latin cross inside a blue canton.[4]
Ecumenical movement[edit]
One understanding of the ecumenical movement is that it came from the Roman Catholic Church's attempts to reconcile with Christians who had become separated over theological issues.[5] Others see the 1910 World Missionary Conference as the birthplace of the ecumenical movement.[6] Others yet point to the 1920 encyclical of the Eastern Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Germanos of Constantinople "To the Churches of Christ Everywhere" that suggested a "fellowship of churches" similar to the League of Nations.[7]
Nathan Söderblom, Archbishop of Uppsala, the head of the Lutheran church in Sweden, is known as the architect of the ecumenical movement of the twentieth century. During the First World War, he called on all Christian leaders to work for peace and justice. His leadership of the Christian "Life and Work" movement in the 1920s has led him to be recognised as one of the principal founders of the ecumenical movement. His was instrumental in chairing the World Conference of Life and Work in Stockholm, in 1925. At the Stockholm Conference in 1925, the culminating event in Söderblom's ecumenical work, the Anglican, Protestant, and Orthodox Christians were all present and participating, with the exception of the Catholic Church, much regretted absence. He was a close friend of the English ecumenist George Bell. In 1930 was one of the recipients of the Nobel Prize, Nobel Peace Prize laureate, for the:Cooperation between Christian Church Communities Brings Peace and the first clergyman to receive this prize.[8][9]
After World War I, which had brought much devastation to many people, the church became a source of hope to those in need. In 1948 the first meeting of the World Council of Churches took place. Despite the fact that the meeting had been postponed due to World War II, the council took place in Amsterdam with the theme of "Man’s Disorder and God’s Design".[5] The focus of the church and the council following the gathering was on the damage created by the Second World War. The council and the movement went forward to continue the efforts of unifying the church globally around the idea of helping all those in need, whether it be a physical, emotional, or spiritual need. The movement led to an understanding amongst the churches that, despite difference, they could join together to be an element of great change in the world. To be an agent of hope and peace amongst the chaos and destruction that humans seem to create. More importantly the council and the movement lead to not only ecumenism but to the forming of councils amongst the denominations that connected churches across continental lines.[5]
Today, the World Council of Churches sees its role as sharing "the legacy of the one ecumenical movement and the responsibility to keep it alive" and acting "as a trustee for the inner coherence of the movement".[10]
Three approaches to Christian unity[edit]
Christian denominations
in English-speaking countries
International Associations[show]
Australia[show]
Canada[show]
United Kingdom[show]
United States[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Part of a series on
Christianity
Jesus depicted as the Good Shepherd
Jesus ·
Christ
[hide]
Jesus in Christianity ·
Virgin birth ·
Ministry ·
Crucifixion ·
Resurrection
Bible ·
Foundations
[hide]
Old Testament ·
New Testament ·
Gospel ·
Canon ·
Books ·
Church ·
Creed ·
New Covenant
Theology[hide]
God ·
Trinity (Father ·
Son ·
Holy Spirit)
Apologetics ·
Baptism ·
Catholicism ·
Christology ·
History of theology ·
Mission ·
Salvation
History ·
Tradition
[hide]
Mary ·
Apostles ·
Peter ·
Paul ·
Fathers ·
Early Christianity ·
Constantine ·
Councils ·
Augustine ·
East–West Schism ·
Crusades ·
Aquinas ·
Reformation ·
Luther
Related topics[hide]
Art ·
Holidays (list) ·
Criticism ·
Ecumenism ·
Liturgy ·
Music ·
Other religions ·
Prayer ·
Sermon ·
Symbolism
Denominations ·
Groups
[hide]
Western
Adventist ·
Anabaptist ·
Anglican ·
Baptist ·
Calvinist ·
Catholic ·
Evangelical ·
Lutheran ·
Methodist ·
Protestant ·
Pentecostal
Eastern
Eastern Orthodox ·
Eastern Catholic ·
Oriental Orthodox ·
Assyrian
Nontrinitarian
Jehovah's Witness ·
Latter Day Saint ·
Oneness Pentecostal
Christian cross Christianity portal
v ·
t ·
e
For a significant part of the Christian world, one of the highest goals to be sought is the reconciliation of the various denominations by overcoming the historical divisions within Christianity. Even where there is broad agreement upon this goal, approaches to ecumenism vary. Generally, Protestants see fulfillment of the goal of ecumenism as consisting in general agreements on teachings about central issues of faith, with mutual pastoral accountability between the diverse churches regarding the teachings of salvation.
For Catholics and Orthodox on the other hand, the true unity of Christendom is treated in accordance with their more sacramental understanding of the Body of Christ; this ecclesiastical matter for them is closely linked to key theological issues (e.g. regarding the Eucharist and the historical Episcopate), and requires full dogmatic assent to the pastoral authority of the Church for full communion to be considered viable and valid. Thus, there are different answers even to the question of the church, which finally is the goal of the ecumenist movement itself. However, the desire of unity is expressed by many denominations, generally that all who profess faith in Christ in sincerity, would be more fully cooperative and supportive of one another.
For the Catholic and Orthodox churches, the process of approaching one another is formally split in two successive stages: the "dialogue of love" and the "dialogue of truth". To the former belong the mutual revocation in 1965 of the anathemas of 1054 (see below Contemporary developments), returning the relics of Sabbas the Sanctified (a common saint) to Mar Saba in the same year, and the first visit of a Pope to an Orthodox country in a millennium (Pope John Paul II accepting the invitation of the Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church, Teoctist, in 1999), among others. The later one, involving effective theological engagement on matters of dogma, is only just commencing.
Christian ecumenism can be described in terms of the three largest divisions of Christianity: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant. While this underemphasizes the complexity of these divisions, it is a useful model.
Roman Catholicism[edit]
Main article: Catholic Church and ecumenism
The Roman Catholic Church has always considered it a duty of the highest rank to seek full unity with estranged communions of fellow-Christians and, at the same time, to reject what it sees as a false union that would mean being unfaithful to or glossing over the teaching of sacred scripture and tradition.
Before the Second Vatican Council, the main stress was laid on this second aspect, as exemplified in canon 1258 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law:
1.It is illicit for the faithful to assist at or participate in any way in non-Catholic religious functions.
2.For a serious reason requiring, in case of doubt, the Bishop's approval, passive or merely material presence at non-Catholic funerals, weddings and similar occasions because of holding a civil office or as a courtesy can be tolerated, provided there is no danger of perversion or scandal.
The 1983 Code of Canon Law has no corresponding canon. It absolutely forbids Roman Catholic priests to concelebrate the Eucharist with members of communities which are not in full communion (canon 908), but allows, in certain circumstances and under certain conditions, other sharing in the sacraments. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, 102[11] states: "Christians may be encouraged to share in spiritual activities and resources, i.e., to share that spiritual heritage they have in common in a manner and to a degree appropriate to their present divided state."
Pope John XXIII, who convoked the council that brought this change of emphasis about, said that the council's aim was to seek renewal of the church itself, which would serve, for those separated from the See of Rome, as a "gentle invitation to seek and find that unity for which Jesus Christ prayed so ardently to his heavenly Father".[12]
Some elements of the Roman Catholic perspective on ecumenism are illustrated in the following quotations from the council's decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio of 21 November 1964, and Pope John Paul II's encyclical, Ut Unum Sint of 25 May 1995.
Every renewal of the Church is essentially grounded in an increase of fidelity to her own calling. Undoubtedly this is the basis of the movement toward unity ... There can be no ecumenism worthy of the name without a change of heart. For it is from renewal of the inner life of our minds, from self-denial and an unstinted love that desires of unity take their rise and develop in a mature way. We should therefore pray to the Holy Spirit for the grace to be genuinely self-denying, humble. gentle in the service of others, and to have an attitude of brotherly generosity towards them. ... The words of St. John hold good about sins against unity: "If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us". So we humbly beg pardon of God and of our separated brethren, just as we forgive them that trespass against us.[13]
Christians cannot underestimate the burden of long-standing misgivings inherited from the past, and of mutual misunderstandings and prejudices. Complacency, indifference and insufficient knowledge of one another often make this situation worse. Consequently, the commitment to ecumenism must be based upon the conversion of hearts and upon prayer, which will also lead to the necessary purification of past memories. With the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Lord's disciples, inspired by love, by the power of the truth and by a sincere desire for mutual forgiveness and reconciliation, are called to re-examine together their painful past and the hurt which that past regrettably continues to provoke even today.[14]
In ecumenical dialogue, Catholic theologians standing fast by the teaching of the Church and investigating the divine mysteries with the separated brethren must proceed with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility. When comparing doctrines with one another, they should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists a "hierarchy" of truths, since they vary in their relation to the fundamental Christian faith. Thus the way will be opened by which through fraternal rivalry all will be stirred to a deeper understanding and a clearer presentation of the unfathomable riches of Christ.[15]
The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, "the way, and the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth?...Even so, doctrine needs to be presented in a way that makes it understandable to those for whom God himself intends it.[16]
When the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion have been gradually overcome, all Christians will at last, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, be gathered into the one and only Church in that unity which Christ bestowed on his Church from the beginning. We believe that this unity subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.[17]
While some Eastern Orthodox churches commonly baptize converts from the Roman Catholic Church, thereby refusing to recognize the baptism that the converts have previously received, the Roman Catholic Church has always accepted the validity of all the sacraments administered by the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches.
The Roman Catholic Church likewise has very seldom applied the terms "heterodox" or "heretic" to the Eastern Orthodox churches or its members, though there are clear differences in doctrine, notably about the authority of the Pope, Purgatory, and the filioque clause. More often, the term "separated" or "schismatic" has been applied to the state of the Eastern Orthodox churches.
Orthodoxy[edit]
The consecration of The Rt. Rev Weller as an Anglican bishop at the Cathedral of St. Paul the Apostle in the Protestant Episcopal Diocese of Fond du Lac, with the Rt. Rev. Anthony Kozlowski of the Polish National Catholic Church and the Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow (along with his chaplains Fr. John Kochurov, and Fr. Sebastian Dabovich) of the Russian Orthodox Church present
The Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox churches are two distinct bodies of local churches. The churches within each body share full communion, although there is not official communion between the two bodies. Both consider themselves to be the original church, from which the West was divided in the 5th and 11th centuries, respectively (after the 3rd and 7th Ecumenical councils).
Many theologians of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxies engage in theological dialogue with each other and with some of the Western churches, though short of full communion. The Eastern Orthodox have participated in the ecumenical movement, with students active in the World Student Christian Federation since the late 19th century. Most Eastern Orthodox[18] and all Oriental Orthodox churches[19] are members of the World Council of Churches. Kallistos of Diokleia, a bishop of the Eastern Orthodox Church has stated that ecumenism "is important for Orthodoxy: it has helped to force the various Orthodox Churches out of their comparative isolation, making them meet one another and enter into a living contact with non-Orthodox Christians."[20]
Historically, the relationship between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Anglican Communion has been congenial, with the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1922 recognising Anglican orders as valid. He wrote: "That the orthodox theologians who have scientifically examined the question have almost unanimously come to the same conclusions and have declared themselves as accepting the validity of Anglican Orders."[21] Moreover, some Eastern Orthodox bishops have assisted in the ordination of Anglican bishops; for example, in 1870, the Most Reverend Alexander Lycurgus, the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Syra and Tinos, was one of the bishops who consecrated Henry MacKenzie as the Suffragan Bishop of Nottingham.[22] From 1910-1911, the era before World War I, Raphael of Brooklyn, an Eastern Orthodox bishop, "sanctioned an interchange of ministrations with the Episcopalians in places where members of one or the other communion are without clergy of their own."[23] Bishop Raphael stated that in places "where there is no resident Orthodox Priest", an Anglican (Episcopalian) priest could administer Marriage, Holy Baptism, and the Blessed Sacrament to an Orthodox layperson.[24] In 1912, however, Bishop Raphael ended the intercommunion after becoming uncomfortable with the fact that the Anglican Communion contained different churchmanships within Her, e.g. High Church, Evangelical, etc.[23] However, after WWI, the Fellowship of Saint Alban and Saint Sergius was organized in 1927, which much like the Anglican and Eastern Churches Association worked on ecumenism between the two Churches; both of these organisations continue their task today.[25]
In accordance with the Soviet anti-religious legislation under the state atheism of the Soviet Union, several Russian Orthodox churches and seminaries were closed.[26][27] With ecumenical aid from the Methodist Church, two Russian Orthodox seminaries were reopened; leaders of the Orthodox Church thankfully stated that "The services rendered by the American Methodists and other Christian friends will go down in history of the Orthodox Church as one of its brightest pages in that dark and trying time of the church. Our church will never forget the Samaritan service which your whole Church unselfishly rendered us. May this be the beginning of closer friendship for our Churches and nations.[28]
Anglicanism and Protestantism[edit]
For more details on the on-going dialogue between the Anglican Communion and the wider Church, see Anglican communion and ecumenism.
The members of the Anglican Communion have generally embraced the Ecumenical Movement, actively participating in such organizations as the World Council of Churches and the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Most provinces holding membership in the Anglican Communion have special departments devoted to ecumenical relations; however, the influence of Liberal Christianity has in recent years caused tension within the communion, causing some to question the direction ecumenism has taken them.
Each member church of the Anglican Communion makes its own decisions with regard to intercommunion. Many of them are currently out of communion with other provinces of the Anglican Communion. The 1958 Lambeth Conference recommended "that where between two Churches not of the same denominational or confessional family, there is unrestricted communio in sacris, including mutual recognition and acceptance of ministries, the appropriate term to use is 'full communion', and that where varying degrees of relation other than 'full communion' are established by agreement between two such churches the appropriate term is 'intercommunion'."
Full communion has been established between Provinces of the Anglican Communion and these Churches:
Old Catholic Churches of Europe
Philippine Independent Church
Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Malabar
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Moravian Church in America, Northern and Southern Provinces
The Episcopal Church is currently engaged in dialogue with the following religious bodies:
Churches Uniting in Christ (CUIC)
Eastern Orthodox Church
Roman Catholic Church
Presbyterian Church USA
United Methodist Church
Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Province of America
Worldwide, an estimated forty million Anglicans belong to churches that do not participate in the Anglican Communion[citation needed], a particular organization limited to one province per country. In these Anglican churches, there is strong opposition to the ecumenical movement and to membership in such bodies as the World and National Councils of Churches. Most of these churches are associated with the Continuing Anglican movement or the movement for Anglican realignment. While ecumenicalism in general is opposed, certain Anglican church bodies that are not members of the Anglican Communion—the Free Church of England and the Church of England in South Africa, for example—have fostered close and cooperative relations with other evangelical (if non-Anglican) churches, on an individual basis.
This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2009)
Nicolaus Ludwig, Count von Zinzendorf, (1700–1760) the renewer of the Unitas Fratrum / Moravian Church in the 18th century, was the first person to use the word "ecumenical" in this sense. His pioneering efforts to unite all Christians, regardless of denominational labels, into a "Church of God in the Spirit"—notably among German immigrants in Pennsylvania—were misunderstood by his contemporaries and 200 years before the world was ready for them.
The contemporary ecumenical movement for Protestants is often said to have started with the 1910 Edinburgh Missionary Conference. However this conference would not have been possible without the pioneering ecumenical work of the Christian youth movements: the Young Men's Christian Association (founded 1844), the Young Women's Christian Association (founded 1855), the World Student Christian Federation (founded 1895), and the Federal Council of Churches (founded 1908), predecessor to today's National Council of Churches USA.
Led by Methodist layman John R. Mott (former YMCA staff and in 1910 the General Secretary of WSCF), the World Mission conference marked the largest Protestant gathering to that time, with the express purposes of working across denominational lines for the sake of world missions. After the First World War further developments were the "Faith and Order" movement led by Charles Henry Brent, and the "Life and Work" movement led by Nathan Soderblom. In the 1930s, the tradition of an annual World Communion Sunday to celebrate ecumenical ties was established in the Presbyterian Church and was subsequently adopted by several other denominations.
Eventually, formal organizations were formed, including the World Council of Churches in 1948, the National Council of Churches in the USA in 1950, and Churches Uniting in Christ in 2002. These groups are moderate to liberal, theologically speaking, as Protestants are generally more liberal and less traditional than Anglicans, Orthodox, and Roman Catholics.
Protestants are now involved in a variety of ecumenical groups, working in some cases toward organic denominational unity and in other cases for cooperative purposes alone. Because of the wide spectrum of Protestant denominations and perspectives, full cooperation has been difficult at times. Edmund Schlink's Ökumenische Dogmatik 1983, 1997 proposes a way through these problems to mutual recognition and renewed church unity.
In 1999, the representatives of Lutheran World Federation and Roman Catholic Church signed The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, resolving the conflict over the nature of Justification which was at the root of the Protestant Reformation, although some conservative Lutherans did not agree to this resolution. On July 18, 2006 Delegates to the World Methodist Conference voted unanimously to adopt the Joint Declaration.[29][30]
Contemporary developments[edit]
Ecumenical worship service at the monastery of Taizé.
Catholic-Orthodox dialogue[edit]
The mutual anathemas (excommunications) of 1054, marking the Great Schism between Western (Catholic) and Eastern (Orthodox) branches of Christianity, a process spanning several centuries, were revoked in 1965 by the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. The Roman Catholic Church does not regard Orthodox Christians as excommunicated, since they personally have no responsibility for the separation of their churches. In fact, Catholic rules admit the Orthodox to communion and the other sacraments in situations where the individuals are in danger of death or no Orthodox churches exist to serve the needs of their faithful. However, Orthodox churches still generally regard Roman Catholics as excluded from the sacraments and some may even not regard Catholic sacraments such as baptism and ordination as valid.
In November 2006, Pope Benedict XVI traveled to Istanbul at the invitation of Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople and participated in the feast day services of St. Andrew the First Apostle, the patron saint of the Church of Constantinople. The Ecumenical Patriarch and Pope Benedict had another historic meeting in Ravenna, Italy in 2007. The Declaration of Ravenna marked a significant rapprochement between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox positions. The declaration recognized the bishop of Rome as the Protos, or first among equals of the Patriarchs. This acceptance and the entire agreement was hotly contested by the Russian Orthodox Church. The signing of the declaration highlighted the pre-existing tensions between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Moscow Patriarchate. Besides their theological concerns, the Russian Orthodox have continuing concerns over the question of the Eastern Catholic Churches that operate in what they regard as Orthodox territory. This question has been exacerbated by disputes over churches and other property that the Communist authorities once assigned to the Orthodox Church but whose restoration these Churches have obtained from the present authorities.
A major obstacle to improved relations between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches has been the insertion of the Latin term filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed in the 8th and 11th centuries.[31] This obstacle has now been effectively resolved. The Roman Catholic Church now recognizes that the Creed, as confessed at the First Council of Constantinople, did not add "and the Son", when it spoke of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father. When quoting the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, as in the 6 August 2000 document Dominus Iesus, it does not include filioque.[32] It views as complementary the Eastern-tradition expression "who proceeds from the Father" (profession of which it sees as affirming that he comes from the Father through the Son) and the Western-tradition expression "who proceeds from the Father and the Son", with the Eastern tradition expressing firstly the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit, and the Western tradition giving expression firstly to the consubstantial communion between Father and Son; and it believes that, provided this legitimate complementarity does not become rigid, it does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.[33]
Continuing dialogues at both international and national level continue between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, but major future developments will probably have to await the outcome of the 2016 Ecumenical Council of the Orthodox Church.
Issues within Protestantism[edit]
Contemporary developments in mainline Protestant churches have dealt a serious blow to ecumenism. The decision by the U.S. Episcopal Church to ordain Gene Robinson, an openly gay, non-celibate priest who advocates same-sex blessings, as bishop led the Russian Orthodox Church to suspend its cooperation with the Episcopal Church. Likewise, when the Church of Sweden decided to bless same-sex marriages, the Russian Patriarchate severed all relations with the Church, noting that "Approving the shameful practice of same-sex marriages is a serious blow to the entire system of European spiritual and moral values influenced by Christianity."[34]
Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev commented that the inter-Christian community is "bursting at the seams". He sees the great dividing line—or "abyss"—not so much between old churches and church families as between "traditionalists" and "liberals", the latter now dominating Protestantism, and predicted that other Northern Protestant Churches will follow suit and this means that the "ecumenical ship" will sink, for with the liberalism that is materializing in European Protestant churches, there is no longer anything to talk about.[35]
Organizations such as the World Council of Churches, the National Council of Churches USA, Churches Uniting in Christ, Pentecostal Charismatic Peace Fellowship and Christian Churches Together continue to encourage ecumenical cooperation among Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and, at times, Roman Catholics. There are universities such as the University of Bonn in Germany that offer degree courses in "Ecumenical Studies" in which theologians of various denominations teach their respective traditions and, at the same time, seek for common ground between these traditions.
Influenced by the ecumenical movement, the "scandal of separation" and local developments, a number of United and uniting churches have formed; there are also a range of mutual recognition strategies being practiced where formal union is not feasible. An increasing trend has been the sharing of church buildings by two or more denominations, either holding separate services or a single service with elements of all traditions.
Opposition[edit]
Opposition from some Methodists[edit]
There are some in The United Methodist Church who oppose the forms of ecumenism which are "not grounded in the doctrines of the Church" due to the fear of doctrinal compromise.[36] For example, an article published in Catalyst Online: Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives for United Methodist Seminarians stated that false ecumenism might result in the "blurring of theological and confessional differences in the interests of unity".[37]
Opposition from some Lutherans[edit]
The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS) bars its clergy from worshiping with other faiths, holding "that church fellowship or merger between church bodies in doctrinal disagreement with one another is not in keeping with what the Bible teaches about church fellowship".[38] In practice of this: a Connecticut LCMS pastor was asked to apologize by the President of the denomination, and did so, for participating in an interfaith prayer vigil for the 26 children and adults killed at a Newtown elementary school, and a LCMS pastor in New York was suspended for praying at an interfaith vigil in 2001, 12 days after the September 11 attacks.[39]
Opposition from some Orthodox Christians[edit]
See also: Sobornost
Practically, "the whole of Eastern Orthodoxy holds membership in the World Council of Churches."[40] Ecumenical Patriarch Germanus V of Constantinople's 1920 letter "'To all the Churches of Christ, wherever they may be', urging closer co-operation among separated Christians, and suggesting a 'League of Churches', parallel to the newly founded League of Nations" was a inspiration for the founding of the World Council of Churches; as such "Constantinople, along with several of the other Orthodox Churches, was represented at the Faith and Order Conferences at Lausanne in 1927 and at Edinburgh in 1937. The Ecumenical Patriarchate also participated in the first Assembly of the WCC at Amsterdam in 1948, and has been a consistent supporter of the work of the WCC ever since."[41]
However, there exists a small group of Orthodox Christians who are vehemently opposed to ecumenism with other Christian denominations. They view ecumenism, as well as interfaith dialog, as being potentially pernicious to Orthodox Church Tradition; a "weakening" of Orthodoxy itself.[42] In the Eastern Orthodox world, the monastic community of Mount Athos, arguably the most important center of Orthodox spirituality, has voiced its concerns regarding the ecumenist movement and opposition to the participation of the Orthodox Church.[43] They regard modern ecumenism as compromising essential doctrinal stands in order to accommodate other Christians, and object to the emphasis on dialogue leading to intercommunion rather than conversion on the part of participants in ecumenical initiatives. Greek Old Calendarists also claim that the teachings of the Seven Ecumenical Councils forbid changing the church calendar through abandonment of the Julian calendar.[citation needed] The Inter-Orthodox Theological Conference entitled "Ecumenism: Origins, Expectations, Disenchantment",[44] organized in September 2004 by the Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki has drawn negative conclusions on ecumenism.
Popular culture[edit]
The word ecumenical arises in the Father Ted episode Tentacles of Doom, in which Father Ted sets out to train the drunken and bad-tempered Father Jack to say two all-encompassing phrases in response to questions from three visiting bishops, namely "Yes" and "that would be an ecumenical matter".[45]
In the strategy game Europa Universalis III, the player can select "Ecumenism" as a National Idea. This increases tolerance of "heretical religions" (i.e. religions that are related to but not part of the state's religion) within the player's country.
Ecumenical organizations[edit]
Action of Churches Together in Scotland
Anglican and Eastern Churches Association
American Clergy Leadership Conference (ACLC)
Bose Monastic Community
Byzantine Discalced Carmelites
Campus Crusade for Christ
Canadian Council of Churches
Christian Churches Together in the USA
Churches Together in Britain and Ireland
Churches Together in England
Churches Uniting in Christ
Conference of European Churches
Ecumenical Free Catholic Communion
Ecumenical Gospel Mission of India
Ecumenical Institute for Study and Dialogue
Edinburgh Churches Together
Fellowship of Saint Alban and Saint Sergius
Franciscan Hermitage of Campello, Italy
Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity (HSA-UWC/Unification Church/Unification Movement)
International Circle of Faith
Iona Community
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.
New Monasticism related Communities
Pentecostal Charismatic Peace Fellowship
People of Praise
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
Prairie Centre for Ecumenism
Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center
Society of Ordained Scientists
Student Christian Movement (Britain)
Taizé Community
World Alliance of Reformed Churches
World Council of Churches
World Student Christian Federation
See also[edit]
Accord Coalition, uniting the religious & non-religious concerned about religious inclusivity in education (England and Wales)
Anonymous Christian
Ecumenical council
Inclusivism
Invisible church
One true church
One true faith
Postmodern Christianity
Religious pluralism
Socratic questioning
Syncretism
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ "The Calling of the Church to Mission and to Unity," Theology Today, vol. 9, no. 1 (April 1952): 15.
2.Jump up ^ Edmund Schlink, Ökumenische Dogmatik (1983), pp. 694–701; also his "Report," Dialog 1963, 2:4, 328.
3.Jump up ^ Edmund Schlink, Ökumenische Dogmatik (1983), pp. 707–708; also Skibbe, A Quiet Reformer 1999, 122–4; Schlink, The Vision of the Pope 2001.
4.^ Jump up to: a b "The Christian Flag". Prayer Foundation. Retrieved 2007-10-18. "The flag's most conspicuous symbol is the Christian cross, the most universal symbol for Christianity. The red color represents the blood of Christ and brings to mind his crucifixion. Christians believe that Jesus Christ's death and resurrection is the means God uses to save believers from their sins. The cross and blood have been used since earliest Christianity to symbolize salvation through Jesus; in the words of the Apostle Paul, "And having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself;"—Colossians 1:20. The white field draws on symbolism throughout the Bible equating white clothes with purity and forgiveness. People who have been "washed white as snow" in the Bible have been cleansed from their sins (Isaiah 1:18; Psalm 51:2). In conventional vexillology (the study of flags, their history and symbolism), a white flag is linked to surrender, a reference to the Biblical description Jesus' non-violence and surrender to God's will. The symbolism behind the blue canton has been interpreted to represent Heaven, truth, or the Christian ritual of Baptism in water."
5.^ Jump up to: a b c Howard C. Kee et al., Christianity: a Social and Cultural History, 2nd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ.: Prentice Hall, 1998), 379–81.
6.Jump up ^ Latourette, Kenneth Scott. "Ecumenical Bearings of the Missionary Movement and the International Missionary Council." In "A History of the Ecumenical Movement 1517-1948", edited by Ruth Rouse and Stephen Charles Neill, 353-73, 401-02. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1954.
7.Jump up ^ Grdzelidze, Tamara. "Ecumenism, Orthodoxy and" In "The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity", edited by John Anthony McGuckin , 208-15. Wiley Blackwell, 2011.
8.Jump up ^ "Nathan Söderblom, Nobel Prize Winner". /www.nobelprize.org. Retrieved 2015.
9.Jump up ^ "nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1930/soderblom-facts". www.nobelprize.org. Retrieved 2015.
10.Jump up ^ "The WCC and the ecumenical movement". oikoumene.org. Retrieved 2014-02-11.
11.Jump up ^ Directory For The Application Of Principles And Norms On Ecumenism
12.Jump up ^ Encyclical Ad Petri cathedram
13.Jump up ^ Unitatis Redintegratio 6–7
14.Jump up ^ Encyclical Ut unum sint, 2[www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html]
15.Jump up ^ Unitatis Redintegratio, 11[www.vatican.va/.../ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html]
16.Jump up ^ Encyclical Ut unum sint, 18-19[www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html]
17.Jump up ^ Unitatis Redintegratio, 4[www.vatican.va/.../ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html]
18.Jump up ^ "Orthodox churches (Eastern)". oikoumene.org. Retrieved 2014-02-11.
19.Jump up ^ "Orthodox churches (Oriental)". oikoumene.org. Retrieved 2014-02-11.
20.Jump up ^ Ware, Kallistos (28 April 1993). The Orthodox Church. Penguin Adult. p. 322. ISBN 9780140146561.
21.Jump up ^ The Ecumenical Patriarch on Anglican Orders
22.Jump up ^ Redmile, Robert David (1 September 2006). The Apostolic Succession and the Catholic Episcopate in the Christian Episcopal Church of Canada. p. 239. ISBN 9781600345173. "In 1870, the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Syra and Tinos, the Most Reverend Alexander Lycurgus, paid a visit to the British Isles. During his time in England, Archbishop Lycurgus was invited by the Lord Bishop of London, John Jackson, to join with him in consecrating Henry MacKenzie as the Suffragan Bishop of Nottingham. Archbishop Lycurgus agreed to assist, and on 2 February 1870, he joined in the laying on of hands with the Bishop of London at the consecration of Bishop MacKenzie. Thus the Apostolic Succession in the Greek Orthodox Church was passed on to the Bishops of the Anglican Communion, and through them to the Christian Episcopal Churches in the United States of America and the Dominion of Canada."
23.^ Jump up to: a b Herbermann, Charles (1912). The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work of Reference on the Constitution, Doctrine, Discipline, and History of the Catholic Church. Robert Appleton. p. 149. "This A.E.O.C.U. is particularly active in the United States, where the existence side by side of Westerns and Easterns offers special facilities for mutual intercourse. It is due mainly to its instances that the orthodox Bishop Raphael of Brooklyn recently sanctioned an interchange of ministrations with the Episcopalians in places where members of one or the other communion are without clergy of their own-a practice which, as coming from the Orthodox side, seemed strange, but was presumably justified by the "principle of economy" which some Orthodox theologians unaccountably advocate (see Reunion Magazine, Sept., 1910)."
24.Jump up ^ Journal of the Proceedings of the One Hundred and Ninth Annual Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church. The Rumford Press. 1910. p. 411. Retrieved 15 April 2014. "Inasmuch as there is a variance between your and our Churches in these matters, I suggest that, before any marriage Service is performed for Syrians desiring the services of the Protestant Episcopal Clergy, where there is no Orthodox Priest, that the Syrians shall first procure a license from me, their Bishop, giving them permission, and that, where there is a resident Orthodox Priest, that, the Episcopal Clergy may advise them to have such Service performed by him. Again, in the case of Holy Baptism, that, where there is no resident Orthodox Priest, that the Orthodox law in reference to the administration of the Sacrament be observed, namely immersion three times, with the advice to the parents and witnesses that, as soon as possible, the child shall be taken to an Orthodox Priest to receive Chrismation, which is absolutely binding according to the Law of the Orthodox Church. Furthermore, when an Orthodox Layman is dying, if he confesses his sins, and professes that he is dying in the full communion of the Orthodox Faith, as expressed in the Orthodox version of the Nicene Creed, and the other requirements of the said Church, and desires the Blessed Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, at the hands of an Episcopal Clergyman, permission is hereby given to administer to him this Blessed Sacrament, and to be buried according to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Episcopal Church. But, it is recommended that, if an Orthodox Service Book can be procured, that the Sacraments and Rites be performed as set forth in that Book. And now I pray God that He may hasten the time when the Spiritual Heads of the National Churches, of both yours and ours, may take our places in cementing the Union between the Anglican and Orthodox Churches, which we have so humbly begun; then there will be no need of suggestions, such as I have made, as to how, or by whom, Services shall be performed; and, instead of praying that we "all may be one" we shall known that we are one in Christ's Love and Faith. RAPHAEL, Bishop of Brooklyn."
25.Jump up ^ Church Quarterly Review. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. January–March 1964. "In 1927, the "Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius" was founded, becoming, like the "Anglican and Eastern Church Association", one of the chief focal points of these contacts."
26.Jump up ^ Greeley, Andrew M. Religion in Europe at the End of the Second Millennium: A Sociological Profile. Transaction Publishers. p. 89. ISBN 9781412832984. "Seminaries were closed, churches turned into museums or centers for atheist propaganda, the clergy rigidly controlled, the bishops appointed by the state."
27.Jump up ^ Gerhard Simon (1974). Church, State, and Opposition in the U.S.S.R. University of California Press. "On the other hand the Communist Party has never made any secret of the fact, either before or after 1917, that it regards 'militant atheism' as an integral part of its ideology and will regard 'religion as by no means a private matter'. It therefore uses 'the means of ideological influence to educate people in the spirit of scientific materialism and to overcome religious prejudices..' Thus it is the goal of the C.P.S.U. and thereby also of the Soviet state, for which it is after all the 'guiding cell', gradually to liquidate the religious communities."
28.Jump up ^ Rev. Thomas Hoffmann; William Alex Pridemore. "Esau’s Birthright and Jacob’s Pottage: A Brief Look at Orthodox-Methodist Ecumenism in Twentieth-Century Russia" (PDF). Demokratizatsiya. Retrieved 19 October 2009. "The Methodists continued their ecumenical commitments, now with the OC. This involved a continuance of financial assistance from European and American resources, enough to reopen two OC seminaries in Russia (where all had been previously closed). OC leaders wrote in two unsolicited statements: The services rendered... by the American Methodists and other Christian friends will go down in history of the Orthodox Church as one of its brightest pages in that dark and trying time of the church.... Our Church will never forget the Samaritan service which... your whole Church unselfishly rendered us. May this be the beginning of closer friendship for our churches and nations. (as quoted in Malone 1995, 50-51)"
29.Jump up ^ "News Archives". UMC.org. July 20, 2006. Retrieved 10 October 2013.
30.Jump up ^ "CNS STORY: Methodists adopt Catholic-Lutheran declaration on justification". Catholicnews.com. July 24, 2006. Retrieved 10 October 2013.
31.Jump up ^ "Cathecism of the Catholic Church, 247". Vatican.va. Retrieved 2013-04-25.
32.Jump up ^ "Dominus Iesus". Vatican.va. Retrieved 2013-04-25.
33.Jump up ^ "Article 1 of the Treaty of Brest". Ewtn.com. Retrieved 2013-04-25.
34.Jump up ^ Russian Orthodox Church condemns Lutheran gay weddings Pravda, 30 December 2005. Accessed 24 March 2009.
35.Jump up ^ Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: Will the Ecumenical Ship Sink? The Official Website of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. Accessed 24 March 2009.
36.Jump up ^ William J. Abraham (2012). "United Methodist Evangelicals and Ecumenism" (PDF). Southern Methodist University. Retrieved 11 November 2012.
37.Jump up ^ Randall Balmer (1998). "The Future of American Protestantism". Catalyst Online: Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives for United Methodist Seminarians. Retrieved 11 November 2012.[dead link]
38.Jump up ^ "A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod" (PDF). Concordia Publishing House. 2009. Retrieved 7 February 2013.
39.Jump up ^ "Pastor apologizes for role in prayer vigil after Connecticut massacre". Reuters. 2013. Retrieved 7 February 2013.[dead link]
40.Jump up ^ Fey, Harold C. (1 December 2009). A History of the Ecumenical Movement, Volume 2: 1948-1968. Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 304. ISBN 9781606089101. "With the exception of the Orthodox Church of Albania the whole of Eastern Orthodoxy holds membership in the World Council of Churches."
41.Jump up ^ Ware, Kallistos (29 April 1993). The Orthodox Church. Penguin Adult. p. 322. ISBN 9780140146561. "From the beginning of the twentieth century the Ecumenical Patriarchate has shown a special concern for Christian reconciliation. At his accession in 1902, Patriarch Joachim III sent an encyclical letter to all the autocephalous Orthodox Churches, asking in particular for their opinion on relations with other Christian bodies. In January 1920 the Ecumenical Patriarchate followed this up with a bold and prophetic letter addressed 'To all the Churches of Christ, wherever they may be', urging closer co-operation among separated Christians, and suggesting a 'League of Churches', parallel to the newly founded League of Nations. Many of the ideas in this letter anticipate subsequent developments in the WCC. Constantinople, along with several of the other Orthodox Churches, was represented at the Faith and Order Conferences at Lausanne in 1927 and at Edinburgh in 1937. The Ecumenical Patriarchate also participated in the first Assembly of the WCC at Amsterdam in 1948, and has been a consistent supporter of the work of the WCC ever since."
42.Jump up ^ Patrick Barnes. "Ecumenism Awareness Introduction". Orthodox Christian Information Center. Retrieved 2008-12-30.
43.Jump up ^ The Theological Committee of the Sacred Community of Mount Athos (2007-02-18). "Memorandum on the Participation of the Orthodox Church in the World Council of Churches". orthodoxinfo.com. Retrieved 2008-11-01.
44.Jump up ^ "Conclusions of the Inter-Orthodox Theological Conference "Ecumenism: Origins Expectations Disenchantment"". orthodox.info. Retrieved 2008-11-03.
45.Jump up ^ "Father Ted" Tentacles of Doom (TV Episode 1996) - Quotes - IMDb
Bibliography[edit]
Borkowski, James D. "Middle East Ecumenism from an Anglican Perspective" Cloverdale Books (2007) ISBN 978-1-929569-23-6 [1]
Chandler, Andrew. Archbishop Fisher, 1945–1961: Church, State and World, chap. 6. The Archbishops of Canterbury Series. Farnham, U.K., and Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate, 2012.
Hedegard, David. Ecumenism and the Bible. Amsterdam: International Council of Christian Churches, 1954.
Hein, David. "The Episcopal Church and the Ecumenical Movement, 1937–1997: Presbyterians, Lutherans, and the Future." Anglican and Episcopal History 66 (1997): 4–29.
Hein, David. "Radical Ecumenism." Sewanee Theological Review 51 (June 2008): 314–328. Proposes that mainline Protestants, such as Episcopalians, have much to learn from heirs of the Radical Reformation, including the Amish.
A History of the Ecumenical Movement 1517-1948, edited by Ruth Rouse and Stephen Charles Neill (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954).
The Ecumenical Advance: A History of the Ecumenical Movement, volume 2, 1948-1968, edited by Harold E. Fey (London: S.P.C.K., 1970).
A History of the Ecumenical Movement, volume 3, 1968-2000, edited by John Briggs, Mercy Amba Oduyoye and Georges Tsetsis (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 2004).
Kasper, Walter, That They May All Be One: The Call to Unity Today (London: Burns & Oates, 2004).
Kasper, Walter, Harvesting the Fruits: Aspects of Christian Faith in Ecumenical Dialogue (New York: Continuum, 2009).
Mackay, John A., Ecumenics: The Science of the Church Universal (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc: 1964).
Mastrantonis, George. "Augsburg and Constantinople : The Correspondence between the Tübingen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople on the Augsburg Confession." Holy Cross Orthodox Press (1982), reprinted (2005). ISBN 0-916586-82-0
Metzger, John Mackay, The Hand and the Road: The Life and Times of John A. Mackay (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010).
Ut Unum Sint ("That they may be one"), an encyclical by Pope John Paul II of May 25, 1995 on commitment to ecumenism.
Unitatis Redintegratio ("Restoration of Unity"), Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism, promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964.
Visser ’t Hooft, Willem Adolf, "Appendix I: The Word ‘Ecumenical’ – Its History and Use," in A History of the Ecumenical Movement 1517-1948, edited by Ruth Rouse and Stephen Charles Neill (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954), 735-740.
Weigel, Gustave, S.J., A Catholic Primer on the Ecumenical Movement (Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1957).
McSorley, Harry J., C. S. P., Luther: Right or Wrong? An Ecumenical-Theological Study of Luther's Major Work, The Bondage of the Will, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Augsburg Publishing House, 1968. [2] Originally published under the German title: Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen: nach seiner Hauptschrift De servo arbitrio im Lichte der biblischen und kirchlichen Tradition [3] in: Beiträge zur ökumenischen Theologie, Band II, hrsg. (herausgegeben i.e. editor), H.ie%22&dq=%22Beitr%C3%A4ge+zur+%C3%B6kumenischen+Theologie%22&hl=en&ei=3hwRTc2SIYP78Aaemvi7Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA]
Antonio Calisi, L'Ecumenismo, il Rinnovamento Carismatico Cattolico e la Comunità di Gesù, Bari Chàrisma Edizioni, 2015. ISBN 9788890855948.
Further reading[edit]
Amess, Robert. One in the Truth?: the Cancer of Division in the Evangelical Church. Eastbourne, Eng.: Kingsway Publications, 1988. N.B.: Primarily concerns the quest for unity among evangelical Protestant denominations. ISBN 0-86065-439-7
Bray, Gerald L. Sacraments & Ministry in Ecumenical Perspective, in series, Latimer Studies, 18. Oxford, Eng.: Latimer House, 1984. ISBN 0-946307-17-2
Episcopal Church (U.S.A.). Ecumenical Relations Office. About the Concordat: 28 Questions about the Agreement between the Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Church of America [i.e. the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America]. Cincinnati, Ohio: Forward Movement Publications, [1997?]. 43 p. Without ISBN
Florovsky, Georges Vasilievich, et al. La Sainte église universelle: confrontation oécuménique, in series, Cahiers théologiques de l'Actualité protestante, hors série, 4. Neuchâtel, Switzerland: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1948.
Headlam, Arthur Cayley, Bp. Christian Unity. London: Student Christian Movement Press, 1930. 157 p. N.B.: This study's orientation is Anglican (Church of England).
Mascall, Eric Lionel. The Recovery of Unity: a Theological Approach. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1958.
Waddams, Herbert. The Church and Man's Struggle for Unity, in series and subseries, Blandford History Series: Problems of History. London: Blandford Press, 1968. xii, 268 p., b&w ill. N.B.: An account of ecumenical problems and strivings within the entire history of Christianity.
External links[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Ecumenism.
Ecumenism at DMOZ
The Unity of All Christians New Testament perspective
Christian Mysticism is unity with all
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Religion
Categories: Christian ecumenism
Interfaith
Religious pluralism
Christian terminology
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
العربية
Български
Bosanski
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
Français
한국어
Հայերեն
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Italiano
Қазақша
Kiswahili
Latina
Latviešu
Lietuvių
Magyar
മലയാളം
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Piemontèis
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Shqip
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
தமிழ்
Türkçe
Українська
Tiếng Việt
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 23 May 2015, at 02:34.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenism#Christian_ecumenism_and_interfaith_pluralism
Religious pluralism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about religious pluralism. For other uses of the term, see Pluralism (disambiguation).
Catholic church, Mosque and Serbian Orthodox Church in Bosanska Krupa
Religious pluralism is an attitude or policy regarding the diversity of religious belief systems co-existing in society. It can indicate one or more of the following:
As the name of the worldview according to which one's religion is not the sole and exclusive source of truth, and thus the acknowledgement that at least some truths and true values exist in other religions.
As acceptance of the concept that two or more religions with mutually exclusive truth claims are equally valid. This may be considered a form of either toleration (a concept that arose as a result of the European wars of religion) or moral relativism.
The understanding that the exclusive claims of different religions turn out, upon closer examination, to be variations of universal truths that have been taught since time immemorial. This is called Perennialism (based on the concept of philosophia perennis) or Traditionalism.
Sometimes as a synonym for ecumenism, i.e., the promotion of some level of unity, co-operation, and improved understanding between different religions or different denominations within a single religion.
As term for the condition of harmonious co-existence between adherents of different religions or religious denominations.
As a social norm and not merely a synonym for religious diversity.[1]
Contents [hide]
1 Definition and scope
2 History
3 Buddhism
4 Classical Greek and Roman paganism
5 Christianity 5.1 Classical Christian views
5.2 Modern Christian views
6 Hinduism
7 Islam 7.1 Acceptability of religious pluralism in Islam
7.2 Unacceptability of religious pluralism in Islam
7.3 In modern practice
7.4 Sufism
7.5 Ahmadiyya
7.6 Bahá'í Faith
8 Jainism
9 Judaism
10 Sikhism
11 Religious pluralism and human service professions
12 See also
13 References 13.1 Works cited
14 Further reading
15 External links 15.1 Buddhism
15.2 Christianity
15.3 Hinduism
15.4 Islam
15.5 Judaism
Definition and scope[edit]
Temple of All Religions in Kazan, Russia
Congress of Parliament of the World's Religions, Chicago, 1893
Main article: Religious tolerance
Religious pluralism, to paraphrase the title of a recent academic work, goes beyond mere toleration. Chris Beneke, in Beyond Toleration: The Religious Origins of American Pluralism, explains the difference between religious tolerance and religious pluralism by pointing to the situation in the late 18th century United States. By the 1730s, in most colonies religious minorities had obtained what contemporaries called religious toleration:[2] "The policy of toleration relieved religious minorities of some physical punishments and some financial burdens, but it did not make them free from the indignities of prejudice and exclusion. Nor did it make them equal. Those 'tolerated' could still be barred from civil offices, military positions, and university posts."[2] In short, religious toleration is only the absence of religious persecution, and does not necessarily preclude religious discrimination. However, in the following decades something extraordinary happened in the Thirteen Colonies, at least if one views the events from "a late eighteenth-century perspective".[3] Gradually the colonial governments expanded the policy of religious toleration, but then, between the 1760s and the 1780s, they replaced it with "something that is usually called religious liberty".[2] Mark Silka, in "Defining Religious Pluralism in America: A Regional Analysis", states that Religious pluralism "enables a country made up of people of different faiths to exist without sectarian warfare or the persecution of religious minorities. Understood differently in different times and places, it is a cultural construct that embodies some shared conception of how a country's various religious communities relate to each other and to the larger nation whole." [1]
Religious pluralism can be defined as "respecting the otherness of others". Freedom of religion encompasses all religions acting within the law in a particular region. Exclusivist religions teach that theirs is the only way to salvation and to religious truth, and some of them would even argue that it is necessary to suppress the falsehoods taught by other religions. Some Protestant sects argue fiercely against Roman Catholicism, and fundamentalist Christians of all kinds teach that religious practices like those of paganism and witchcraft are pernicious. This was a common historical attitude prior to the Enlightenment, and has appeared as governmental policy into the present day under systems like Afghanistan's Taliban regime, which destroyed the ancient Buddhas of Bamyan.
Giving one religion or denomination special rights that are denied to others can weaken religious pluralism. This situation was observed in Europe through the Lateran Treaty and Church of England. In modern era, many Islamic countries have laws that criminalize the act of leaving Islam to someone born in Muslim family, forbid entry to non-Muslims into Mosques, and forbid construction of Church, Synagogue or Temples inside their countries.[4]
Relativism, the belief that all religions are equal in their value and that none of the religions give access to absolute truth, is an extreme form of inclusivism.[5] Likewise, syncretism, the attempt to take over creeds of practices from other religions or even to blend practices or creeds from different religions into one new faith is an extreme form of inter-religious dialogue. Syncretism must not be confused with ecumenism, the attempt to bring closer and eventually reunite different denominations of one religion that have a common origin but were separated by a schism.
History[edit]
Main article: History of religious pluralism
Cultural and religious pluralism has a long history and development that reaches from antiquity to contemporary trends in post-modernity.
Feuerbauch and Ernst Troeltsch concluded that Asian religious traditions, in particular Hinduism and Buddhism were earliest proponents of religious pluralism and granting of freedom to the individual to choose the faith and develop a personal religious construct within it.[6][7] Jainism, another ancient Indian religion, as well as Daoism have also always been inclusively flexible and have long favored religious pluralism for those who disagree with their religious viewpoints.[6] The Age of Enlightenment in Europe triggered a sweeping transformation about religion, segregation of state and religion, with rising acceptance of religious pluralism. These pluralist trends in Western thought, particularly since the 18th century, brought mainstream Christianity and Judaism closer to the Asian traditions of philosophical pluralism, states Chad Meister.[6]
Buddhism[edit]
The earliest reference to Buddhist views on religious pluralism in a political sense is found in the Edicts of Emperor Ashoka:
All religions should reside everywhere, for all of them desire self-control and purity of heart. Rock Edict Nb7 (S. Dhammika)
Contact (between religions) is good. One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, desires that all should be well-learned in the good doctrines of other religions. Rock Edict Nb12 (S. Dhammika)
When asked, "Don’t all religions teach the same thing? Is it possible to unify them?" the Dalai Lama said:[8]
People from different traditions should keep their own, rather than change. However, some Tibetan may prefer Islam, so he can follow it. Some Spanish prefer Buddhism; so follow it. But think about it carefully. Don’t do it for fashion. Some people start Christian, follow Islam, then Buddhism, then nothing.
In the United States I have seen people who embrace Buddhism and change their clothes! Like the New Age. They take something Hindu, something Buddhist, something, something… That is not healthy.
For individual practitioners, having one truth, one religion, is very important. Several truths, several religions, is contradictory.
I am Buddhist. Therefore, Buddhism is the only truth for me, the only religion. To my Christian friend, Christianity is the only truth, the only religion. To my Muslim friend, [Islam] is the only truth, the only religion. In the meantime, I respect and admire my Christian friend and my Muslim friend. If by unifying you mean mixing, that is impossible; useless.
Classical Greek and Roman paganism[edit]
See also: Syncretism
Ancient Greeks employed Interpretatio Graeca whereby the gods of other religions were equated with those of their own pantheon. The Romans easily accomplished this task by subsuming the entire set of gods from other faiths into their own religion. This was done on rare occasion by adding a new god to their own pantheon; on most occasions they identified another religion's gods with their own.
Because divinity was the basis for the mandate of the state, atheism was considered a capital crime in both ancient Greece and Rome.[citation needed] This was further solidified as the status quo following the installation of the Roman imperial cult of deification of sitting emperors, and Roman pluralism was not officially extended to Christianity until the Edict of Milan in 313 CE.
Christianity[edit]
Main article: Christianity and other religions
See also: Ecumenism
Some Christians[9] have argued that religious pluralism is an invalid or self-contradictory concept. Maximal forms of religious pluralism claim that all religions are equally true, or that one religion can be true for some and another for others. Some Christians hold this idea to be logically impossible from the Principle of contradiction.[10]
Other Christians have held that there can be truth value and salvific value in other faith traditions. John Macquarrie, described in the Handbook of Anglican Theologians (1998) as "unquestionably Anglicanism's most distinguished systematic theologian in the second half of the twentieth century",[11] wrote that "there should be an end to proselytizing but that equally there should be no syncretism of the kind typified by the Baha'i movement" (p. 2[12]). In discussing 9 founders of major faith traditions (Moses, Zoroaster, Lao-zu, Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, Krishna, Jesus, and Muhammad), which he called "mediators between the human and the divine", Macquarrie wrote that:
I do not deny for a moment that the truth of God has reached others through other channels - indeed, I hope and pray that it has. So while I have a special attachment to one mediator, I have respect for them all. (p. 12[12])
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also teaches a form of religious pluralism, that there is at least some truth in almost all religions and philosophies.[13]
Classical Christian views[edit]
Before the Great Schism, mainstream Christianity confessed "one holy catholic and apostolic church", in the words of the Nicene Creed. Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Episcopalians and most Protestant Christian denominations still maintain this belief.
Church unity was something very visible and tangible, and schism was just as serious an offense as heresy. Following the Great Schism, Roman Catholicism sees and recognizes the Orthodox Sacraments as valid. Eastern Orthodoxy does not have the concept of "validity" when applied to Sacraments, but it considers the form of Roman Catholic Sacraments to be acceptable, if still devoid of actual spiritual content. Both generally regard each other as "heterodox" and "schismatic", while continuing to recognize each other as Christian. (See ecumenicism).
Modern Christian views[edit]
Some Protestants hold that only believers who believe in certain fundamental doctrines know the true pathway to salvation. The core of this doctrine is that Jesus Christ was a perfect man, is the Son of God and that he died and rose again for the wrongdoing of those who will accept the gift of salvation. They continue to believe in "one" church, believing in fundamental issues there is unity and non-fundamental issues there is liberty. Some evangelicals are doubtful if Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy are still valid manifestations of the Church and usually reject religious (typically restorationist) movements rooted in 19th century American Christianity, such as Mormonism, Christian Science, or Jehovah's Witnesses as not distinctly Christian. See here
Hinduism[edit]
See also: Hinduism and other religions
Hinduism is naturally pluralistic. A well-known Rig Vedic hymn says: "Truth is One, though the sages know it variously" (Ékam sat vipra bahudā vadanti).[14] Similarly, in the Bhagavad Gītā (4:11), God, manifesting as an incarnation, states: "As people approach me, so I receive them. All paths lead to me" (ye yathā māṃ prapadyante tāṃs tathāiva bhajāmyaham mama vartmānuvartante manuṣyāḥ pārtha sarvaśaḥ).[15] The Hindu religion has no theological difficulties in accepting degrees of truth in other religions. Hinduism emphasizes that everyone actually worships the same God, whether one knows it or not.[16] Just as Hindus worshiping Ganesh is seen as valid by those worshiping Vishnu, so someone worshiping Jesus or Allah is accepted. Many foreign deities become assimilated into Hinduism, and some Hindus may sometimes offer prayers to Jesus along with their traditional forms of God.
Islam[edit]
Unbalanced scales.svg
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (March 2015)
Main article: Islam and other religions
Religious pluralism is a controversial subject in Islam. The primary sources that guide Islam, namely Quran and Hadiths, offer contradictory positions on religious pluralism.[17][18] Some verses support religious pluralism, while others discourage it. The acceptability of religious pluralism within Islam remains a topic of active debate.
Acceptability of religious pluralism in Islam[edit]
In several Surah, Quran asks Muslims to remain steadfast with Islam, and not yield to the vain desires of other religions and unbelievers. These verses have been interpreted to imply pluralism in religions. For example, Surah Al-Ma'idah verses 47 through 49 state:
Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah hath revealed, they are no better than those who rebel. To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but His plan is to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute; And this (He commands): Judge thou between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they beguile thee from any of that (teaching) which Allah hath sent down to thee. And if they turn away, be assured that for some of their crime it is Allah's purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious. (Quran 5:47–49)
Surah Al-Ankabut verse 45 through 47 state:
Recite what is sent of the Book by inspiration to thee, and establish regular Prayer: for Prayer restrains from shameful and unjust deeds; and remembrance of Allah is the greatest thing in life without doubt. And Allah knows the deeds that ye do. And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better than mere disputation, unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow in Islam." And thus it is that We have sent down the Book to thee. So the People of the Book believe therein, as also do some of these pagan Arabs: and none but Unbelievers reject our signs. (Quran 29:45–47)
Surah Al-E-Imran verses 62 through 66 state:
This is the true account: There is no god except Allah; and Allah-He is indeed the Exalted in Power, the Wise. But if they turn back, Allah hath full knowledge of those who do mischief. Say: "O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah." If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we at least are Muslims bowing to Allah's Will. Ye People of the Book! Why dispute ye about Abraham, when the Law and the Gospel Were not revealed Till after him? Have ye no understanding? Ah! Ye are those who fell to disputing even in matters of which ye had some knowledge! but why dispute ye in matters of which ye have no knowledge? It is Allah Who knows, and ye who know not! (Quran 3:62–66)
Surah Al-Kafiroon verse 1 through 6 state:
Say : O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine. (Quran 109:1–6)
Unacceptability of religious pluralism in Islam[edit]
In several Surah, the Quran asks Muslims to persecute the unbelievers: Christians, Jews, pagans (idol worshippers, polytheists), apostates and those who reject Islam. These verses have been interpreted to imply that Islam rejects religious pluralism. For example, Surah Al-Tawba verse 1 through 5 commands the Muslim to slay the pagans (with verse 9.5 called the 'sword verse' in scholarly literature,[18]):
A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:- Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him. And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (Quran 9:1–5)
In Surah Al-Tawba, verse 29 demands Muslims to fight all those who do not believe in Islam, including Christians and Jews (People of the Book), until they pay the Jizya, a discriminatory tax, with willing submission.
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Quran 9:29)
In Surah Al-Nisa, verse 89 demands Muslims to slay the apostates.
They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they: But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah from what is forbidden. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. (Quran 4:89)
In Surah Al-Bayyina verses 6 through 7 calls People of the Book and Polytheists who reject truth revealed by Islam, the worst of creatures:
Those who reject Truth [Islam], among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein for aye. They are the worst of creatures. Those who have faith and do righteous deeds - they are the best of creatures. (Quran 98:6–7)
In modern practice[edit]
Religious pluralism is a contested issue in modern Islamic countries. Twenty three (23) Islamic countries have laws, as of 2014, which make it a crime, punishable with death penalty or prison, for a Muslim, by birth or conversion, to leave Islam or convert to another religion.[19][20][21] In Muslim countries such as Algeria, it is illegal to preach, persuade or attempt to convert a Muslim to another religion.[22] Saudi Arabia and several Islamic nations have strict laws against the construction of Christian Church, Jewish Synagogue, Hindu Temple and Buddhist Stupa anywhere inside the country, by anyone including minorities working there.[4] Brunei in southeast Asia adopted Sharia law in 2013 that prescribes a death penalty for any Muslim who converts from Islam to another religion.[19] Other Islamic scholars state Sharia does not allow non-Muslim minorities to enjoy religious freedoms in a Muslim-majority nation.[23][24]
Sufism[edit]
The Sufis were practitioners of the esoteric mystic traditions within an Islam at a certain point. Sufism is defined by the Sufi master or Pir (Sufism) or fakeer or Wali in the language of the people by dancing and singing and incorporating various philosophies, theologies, ideologies and religions together (e.g., Christiainity, Judaism, Paganism, Platonism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism and so forth with time). Famous Sufi masters are Rumi, Shadhili, Sheikh Farid, Bulleh Shah, Shah Hussain, Shams Tabrizi, Waris Shah, Ghazali, Mian Mir, Attar of Nishapur, Amir Khusrow, Salim Chishti. See many more famous Sufis at the List of Sufis. The Sufis were considered by many to have divine revelations with messages of peace, tolerance, equality, pluarism, love for all and hate for no one, humanitarians, philosophers, psychologists and much more. Many had the teaching if you want to change the world, change yourself and you will change the whole world. The views of the Sufi poets, philosophers and theologians have inspired multiple forms of modern day academia as well as philosophers of other religions. See also Blind men and an elephant.
Persian poet Rumi says:
I looked for God. I went to a temple, and I didn't find him there. Then I went to a church, and I didn't find him there. And then I went to a mosque, and I didn't find him there. And then finally I looked in my heart, and there he was.
Rumi also says:
How many paths are there to God? There are as many paths to God as there are souls on the Earth.
Rumi also says:
A true Lover doesn't follow any one religion, be sure of that. Since in the religion of Love, there is no irreverence or faith. When in Love, body, mind, heart and soul don't even exist. Become this, fall in Love, and you will not be separated again.
The Sufi platform was considered by exoteric dogmatic Muslims as a trojan horse ideology executing doctrine of deception (see Taqiyya) to convert others while others considered it outright heresy, blasphemy, innovation (biddah), kuffar, apostasy, haram. Many Sufis have gone under persecutions and executions for apostasy and treason charges at which point many tended to have supernatural events taking place similar to Jesus crucifixion. For example, many Sufis throughout their lives display religious healing, miracles and supernatural events which seem as if God has connected with the Sufis similar to the Vedic and Buddhist enlightenment. For more details see Fana (Sufism), Baqaa, Yaqeen, Kashf, Manzil, Haqiqa, Sufi metaphysics, Sufi philosophy.
Ahmadiyya[edit]
See also: Prophethood (Ahmadiyya)
Ahmadis recognize many founders of world religions to be from God, who all brought teaching and guidance from God to all peoples. According to the Ahmadiyya understanding of the Quran, every nation in the history of mankind has been sent a prophet, as the Quran states: And there is a guide for every people. Though the Quran mentions only 24 prophets, the founder of Islam, Muhammad states that the world has seen 124,000 prophets. Thus other than the prophets mentioned in the Quran, Ahmadis, with support from theological study also recognize Buddha, Krishna, founders of Chinese religions to be divinely appointed individuals.
The Second Khalifatul Maish of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community writes: "According to this teaching there has not been a single people at any time in history or anywhere in the world who have not had a warner from God, a teacher, a prophet. According to the Quran there have been prophets at all times and in all countries. India, China, Russia, Afghanistan, parts of Africa, Europe, America—all had prophets according to the theory of divine guidance taught by the Quran. When, therefore, Muslims hear about prophets of other peoples or other countries, they do not deny them. They do not brand them as liars. Muslims believe that other peoples have had their teachers. If other peoples have had prophets, books, and laws, these constitute no difficulty for Islam."[25]
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community wrote in his book A Message of Peace: "Our God has never discriminated between one people and another. This is illustrated by the fact that all the potentials and capabilities (Prophets) which have been granted to the Aryans (Hindus) have also been granted to the races inhabiting Arabia, Persia, Syria, China, Japan, Europe and America." [26]
Bahá'í Faith[edit]
Main article: Bahá'í Faith and the unity of religion
Bahá'u'lláh, founder of Bahá'í Faith, a religion that developed in Persia, though not a sect of Islam,[27] urged the elimination of religious intolerance. He taught that God is one, and has manifested himself to humanity through several historic messengers. Bahá'u'lláh taught that Bahá'ís must associate with peoples of all religions, showing the love of God in relations with them, whether this is reciprocated or not.
Bahá'í's refer to the concept of Progressive revelation, which means that God's will is revealed to mankind progressively as mankind matures and is better able to comprehend the purpose of God in creating humanity. In this view, God's word is revealed through a series of messengers: Abraham, Krishna, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, and Bahá'u'lláh (the founder of the Bahá'í Faith) among them. In the Kitáb-i-Íqán (Book of Certitude), Bahá'u'lláh explains that messengers of God have a twofold station, one of divinity and one of an individual. According to Bahá'í writings, there will not be another messenger for many hundreds of years. There is also a respect for the religious traditions of the native peoples of the planet who may have little other than oral traditions as a record of their religious figures.
Jainism[edit]
Main article: Anekantavada
Anekāntavāda, the principle of relative pluralism, is one of the basic principles of Jainism. In this view, the truth or the reality is perceived differently from different points of view, and no single point of view is the complete truth.[28][29] Jain doctrine states that an object has infinite modes of existence and qualities and they cannot be completely perceived in all its aspects and manifestations, due to inherent limitations of the humans. Only the Kevalins—the omniscient beings—can comprehend the object in all its aspects and manifestations, and all others are capable of knowing only a part of it.[30] Consequently, no one view can claim to represent the absolute truth. Jains compare all attempts to proclaim absolute truth with andhgajnyaya or the "maxim of the blind men and elephant", wherein all the blind men claimed to explain the true appearance of the elephant, but could only partly succeed due to their narrow perspective.[31]
Judaism[edit]
Main article: Jewish views on religious pluralism
The Mosaic law categorically warns the Jews to refrain from polytheism. First and the second commandment, you shall not have another God except me, worship your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Throughout the Hebrew Bible the sovereignty of Yahweh as the only God is the key pillar of a chosen community of Israel.
Sikhism[edit]
The Sikh Gurus (religious leaders) have propagated the message of "many paths" leading to the one God and ultimate salvation for all souls who treading on the path of righteousness. They have supported the view that proponents of all faiths, by doing good and virtuous deeds and by remembering the Lord, can certainly achieve salvation. Sikhs are told to accept all leading faiths as possible vehicles for attaining spiritual enlightenment, provided the faithful study, ponder and practice the teachings of their prophets and leaders. Sikhism had many interactions with Sufism as well as Hinduism, influenced them and was influenced by them. See Islam and Sikhism and Hinduism and Sikhism.
The holy book of the Sikhs (the Sri Guru Granth Sahib) says:
Do not say that the Vedas and the Koran (semitic books i.e. Bible, Torah and Q'uran) are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false. (Guru Granth Sahib page 1350)[32]
As well as:
Some call the Lord "Ram, Ram", and some "Khuda". Some serve Him as "Gusain", others as "Allah". He is the Cause of causes, and Generous. He showers His Grace and Mercy upon us. Some pilgrims bathe at sacred shrines, others go on Hajj to Mecca. Some do devotional worship, whilst others bow their heads in prayer. Some read the Vedas, and some the Koran. Some wear blue robes, and some wear white. Some call themselves Muslim, and some call themselves Hindu. Some yearn for paradise, and others long for heaven. Says Nanak, one who realizes the Hukam of God's Will, knows the secrets of his Lord Master. (Sri Guru Granth Sahib Page:885)[33]
One who recognizes that all spiritual paths lead to the One shall be emancipated. One who speaks lies shall fall into hell and burn. In all the world, the most blessed and sanctified are those who remain absorbed in Truth. (SGGS Ang 142)[34]
The seconds, minutes, and hours, days, weeks and months and various seasons originate from One Sun; O nanak, in just the same way, the many forms originate from the Creator. (Guru Granth Sahib page 12,13)
The Guru Granth Sahib also says that Bhagat Namdev and Bhagat Kabir, who were both believed to be Hindus, both attained salvation though they were born before Sikhism took root and were clearly not Sikhs. This highlights and reinforces the Guru's saying that "peoples of other faiths" can join with God as true and also at the same time signify that Sikhism is not the exclusive path for liberation.
Additionally the Guru Granth Sahib says:
First, Allah (God) created the Light; then, by His Creative Power, He made all mortal beings. From the One Light, the entire universe welled up. So who is good, and who is bad? ||1|| [35]
Again, the Guru Granth Sahib Ji provides this verse:
Naam Dayv the printer, and Kabeer the weaver, obtained salvation through the Perfect Guru. Those who know God and recognize His Shabad ("word") lose their ego and class consciousness. (Guru Granth Sahib page 67)[36]
Most of the 15 Sikh Bhagats who are mentioned in their holy book were non-Sikhs and belonged to Hindu and Muslim faiths, which were the most prevalent religions of this region.
The pluralistic dialogue of Sikhism began with the founder of Sikhism Guru Nanak after becoming enlightened saying the words Na koi hindu na koi musalman - "There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim". He recognised that religious labels held no value and it is the deeds of human that will be judged in the hereafter what we call ourselves religiously holds no value.
Sikhs have been considered eager exponents of interfaith dialogue and will not only accept the right of others to practice their faith but have in the past fought and laid down their lives to protect this right for others. See the sacrifice of the ninth Sikh Guru, Guru Tegh Bahadar who on the final desperate and heart-rending pleas of the Kashmiri Pandit, agreed to put up a fight for their right to practice their religion. He was executed so another religion besides his own could have the freedom to practice their religion against the tyrannic Moghul empire that were forcing people to accept Islam.
Religious pluralism and human service professions[edit]
The concept of religious pluralism is also relevant to human service professions, such as psychology and social work, as well as medicine and nursing, in which trained professionals may interact with clients from diverse faith traditions.[37][38][39] For example, psychologist Kenneth Pargament[37] has described four possible stances toward client religious and spiritual beliefs, which he called rejectionist, exclusivist, constructivist, and pluralist. Unlike the constructivist stance, the pluralist stance:
...recognizes the existence of a religious or spiritual absolute reality but allows for multiple interpretations and paths toward it. In contrast to the exclusivist who maintains that there is a single path "up the mountain of God," the pluralist recognizes many paths as valid. Although both the exclusivist and the pluralist may agree on the existence of religious or spiritual reality, the pluralist recognizes that this reality is expressed in different cultures and by different people in different ways. Because humans are mortal and limited, a single human religious system cannot encompass all of the religious or spiritual absolute reality.... (p. 167[38])
Importantly, "the pluralistic therapist can hold personal religious beliefs while appreciating those of a client with different religious beliefs. The pluralist recognizes that religious value differences can and will exist between counselors and clients without adversely affecting therapy" (p. 168).[38] The stances implied by these four helping orientations on several key issues, such as "should religious issues be discussed in counseling?", have also been presented in tabular form (p. 362, Table 12.1).[37]
The profession of chaplaincy, a religious profession, must also deal with issues of pluralism and the relevance of a pluralistic stance. For example, Friberg (2001) argues: "With growing populations of immigrants and adherents of religions not previously seen in significant numbers in North America, spiritual care must take religion and diversity seriously. Utmost respect for the residents' spiritual and religious histories and orientations is imperative" (p. 182).[39]
See also[edit]
See also: Category:Catholic ecumenical and interfaith relations.
Comparative religion
Freedom of religion
Global Centre for Pluralism
Indifferentism
Interreligious organization
Institute for Interreligious Dialogue
Multifaith space
Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
Progressive Christianity
Projects working for peace among Israelis and Arabs
Unitarian Universalism
United Religions Initiative
Universalism
World Council of Churches
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b Silk, Mark (July 2007), Defining Religious Pluralism in America: A Regional Analysis 612, pp. 64–81
2.^ Jump up to: a b c Beneke 2006: 6.
3.Jump up ^ Beneke 2006: 5.
4.^ Jump up to: a b Chad Meister (2010), The Oxford Handbook of Religious Diversity, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0195340136, pp 32-57
5.Jump up ^ http://carm.org/what-relativism
6.^ Jump up to: a b c Chad Meister (2010), The Oxford Handbook of Religious Diversity, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0195340136, pp 62-72
7.Jump up ^ Roof & McKinney (1985), Denominational America and the new religious pluralism, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 480(1), pp. 24-38
8.Jump up ^ Dalai Lama Asks West Not to Turn Buddhism Into a "Fashion", Zenit, 2003-10-08, retrieved 2009-06-18.
9.Jump up ^ Why Jesus? Article stating that Jesus is the saviour and not Mohammed or Buddha—see second part of this article.
10.Jump up ^ Defending Salvation Through Christ Alone By Jason Carlson, Christian Ministries International
11.Jump up ^ p. 168, Timothy Bradshaw (1998), "John Macquarrie," in: Alister E. McGrath (ed). The SPCK Handbook of Anglican Theologians (pp. 167-168). London: SPCK. ISBN 978-0-281-05145-8
12.^ Jump up to: a b John Macquarrie (1996). Mediators between human and divine: From Moses to Muhammad. New York: Continuum. ISBN 0-8264-1170-3
13.Jump up ^ Gerald E. Jones (October 1977). "Respect for Other People’s Beliefs". Ensign. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
14.Jump up ^ Rig Veda 1.164.46
15.Jump up ^ Page 194 in Eknath Easwaran (2008). Timeless wisdom: Passages for meditation from the world's saints & sages (see article). Tomales, CA: Nilgiri Press. ISBN 1-58638-027-3. Similar to Eknath Easwaran (2007). The Bhagavad Gita, 2nd ed. Tomales, CA: Nilgiri Press, p. 117. ISBN 1586380192 (which substitutes "they" for "people"). Transliteration from Winthrop Sargeant (1984). The Bhagavad Gita. Albany: State University of New York Press, p. 211. ISBN 0-87395-831-4, which translates the same passage as "They who, in whatever way, take refuge in Me, them I reward."
16.Jump up ^ See Swami Bhaskarananda, Essentials of Hinduism (Viveka Press 2002) ISBN 1-884852-04-1
17.Jump up ^ Cole & Hammond (1974), Religious pluralism, legal development, and societal complexity: rudimentary forms of civil religion, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 177-189
18.^ Jump up to: a b Michael Bonner (2008), Jihad in Islamic History: Doctrines and Practice, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-0691138381, pp. 23-31
19.^ Jump up to: a b Laws Criminalizing Apostasy in Selected Jurisdictions Library of Congress, US Government (May 2014)
20.Jump up ^ Laws Criminalizing Apostasy Library of Congress (2014)
21.Jump up ^ Doi, Abdur Rahman (1984), Shari`a: The Islamic Law; Taha Publishers; London UK
22.Jump up ^ Law No. 02-06 (bis), al Jarida al Rasmiyya, vol.12, 1 March 2006
23.Jump up ^ Mawdudi, S. Abul `Ala (1982), The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islamic State, Islamic Publications, LTD. Lahore, Pakistan
24.Jump up ^ Abdullah, Najih Ibrahim Bin (1988), The Ordinances of the People of the Covenant and the Minorities in an Islamic State, Balagh Magazine, Cairo, Egypt, Volume 944, May 29, 1988; Also see June 5 1988 article by the same author
25.Jump up ^ "Introduction to the Study of the Holy Qur’an" by Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad. Part 2, Argument 4 Section labeled “A Grand Conception”
26.Jump up ^ "A Message of Peace" by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, pg. 6)
27.Jump up ^ Islam and the Baha'i Faith
28.Jump up ^ Dundas (2002) p.231
29.Jump up ^ Koller, John M. (July, 2000) pp.400-7
30.Jump up ^ Jaini, Padmanabh (1998) p.91
31.Jump up ^ Hughes, Marilynn (2005) p.590-1
32.Jump up ^ Sriganth.org Guru Granth Sahib page 1350
33.Jump up ^ "sggs ram khudha people pray to there god". sggs ram khudha people pray to there god. Retrieved 4 September 2011.
34.Jump up ^ "pluarism in sggs". pluarism in sggs. Retrieved 4 September 2011.
35.Jump up ^ "aval allah". aval allah.
36.Jump up ^ Srigranth.org Guru Granth Sahib page 67
37.^ Jump up to: a b c Kenneth I. Pargament (1997). The psychology of religion and coping: Theory, research, practice. New York: Guilford. ISBN 978-1-57230-664-6
38.^ Jump up to: a b c Brian J. Zinnbauer & Kenneth I. Pargament (2000). Working with the sacred: Four approaches to religious and spiritual issues in counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, v78 n2, pp162-171. ISSN 0748-9633
39.^ Jump up to: a b Nils Friberg (2001). The role of the chaplain in spiritual care. In David O. Moberg, Aging and spirituality: spiritual dimensions of aging theory, research (p. 177-190). Routledge. ISBN 978-0-7890-0939-5 (NB: The quotation is discussing residents in nursing homes)
Works cited[edit]
Beneke, Chris (2006) Beyond Toleration: The Religious Origins of American Pluralism (New York: Oxford University Press).
Eck, Diane (2001) A New Religious America: How a "Christian Country" Has Become the World's Most Religiously Diverse Nation (San Francisco: Harper).
Emet Ve-Emunah: Statement of Principles of Conservative Judaism, Robert Gordis et al., Jewish Theological Seminary and the Rabbinical Assembly, 1988.
Ashk Dahlén, Sirat al-mustaqim: One or Many? Religious Pluralism Among Muslim Intellectuals in Iran in The Blackwell Companion to Contemporary Islamic Thought, ed. Ibrahim Abu-Rabi, Oxford, 2006.
Ground Rules for a Christian-Jewish Dialogue in The Root and the Branch, Robert Gordis, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1962
Hutchison, William R. (2003) Religious Pluralism in America: The Contentious History of a Founding Ideal (New Haven: Yale University Press).
Kalmin, Richard (1994), Christians and Heretics in Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 87(2), p. 155-169.
Toward a Theological Encounter: Jewish Understandings of Christiantiy Ed. Leon Klenicki, Paulist Press / Stimulus, 1991
Momen, M. (1997). A Short Introduction to the Bahá'í Faith. Oxford, UK: One World Publications. ISBN 1-85168-209-0.
Monecal, Maria Rosa (2002),The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews, and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company)
People of God, Peoples of God Ed. Hans Ucko, WCC Publications, 1996
Kenneth Einar Himma, “Finding a High Road: The Moral Case for Salvific Pluralism,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, vol. 52, no. 1 (August 2002), 1-33
Further reading[edit]
Ankerl, Guy (2000) [2000]. Global communication without universal civilization. INU societal research. Vol.1: Coexisting contemporary civilizations : Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, and Western. Geneva: INU Press. ISBN 2-88155-004-5.
Albanese, Catherine, America: Religions and Religion. Belmont: WADSWORTH PUBLISHING, 1998, ISBN 0-534-50457-4
External links[edit]
Wikiversity has learning materials about Religious Toleration
Global Centre for Pluralism
Council on Foreign Relations Religion and Foreign Policy Initiative
The Pluralism Project: Researching Religious Diversity in the United States
A New Religious America: Managing Religious Diversity in a Democracy: Challenges and Prospects for the 21st Century by Diana Eck, retrieved 2009-07-16.
The Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue
Elijah Interfaith Institute: Inter Religious Dialogue
Buddhism[edit]
Standing Up for the Middle Way: A Buddhist Perspective on Religious Freedom
Christianity[edit]
Nostra Aetate: Declaration on the Relation of the Catholic Church to Non-Christian Religions
World Council of Churches Bibliography of Works on Religious Pluralism
Hinduism[edit]
Big Picture TV Video of Ela Gandhi, granddaughter of Mahatma Gandhi, talking about religious pluralism
Islam[edit]
Islam and Religious Pluralism by Ayatullah Murtadha Mutahhari
Spiritual Education Lesson Plans for Children dead link
Judaism[edit]
The imperative of Religious Pluralism: A Conservative Jewish View
Darbu Emet: A Jewish Statement About Christianity
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Religious pluralism
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Religion
Dharma Wheel.svgBuddhism portal
P christianity.svgChristianity portal
Om.svgHinduism portal
Allah-green.svgIslam portal
Star of David.svgJudaism portal
Authority control
NDL: 01151885
Categories: Religious pluralism
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Afrikaans
العربية
Čeština
Español
فارسی
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
Bahasa Melayu
日本語
Português
Русский
Slovenščina
Suomi
Edit links
This page was last modified on 1 June 2015, at 01:05.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_pluralism
Religious pluralism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about religious pluralism. For other uses of the term, see Pluralism (disambiguation).
Catholic church, Mosque and Serbian Orthodox Church in Bosanska Krupa
Religious pluralism is an attitude or policy regarding the diversity of religious belief systems co-existing in society. It can indicate one or more of the following:
As the name of the worldview according to which one's religion is not the sole and exclusive source of truth, and thus the acknowledgement that at least some truths and true values exist in other religions.
As acceptance of the concept that two or more religions with mutually exclusive truth claims are equally valid. This may be considered a form of either toleration (a concept that arose as a result of the European wars of religion) or moral relativism.
The understanding that the exclusive claims of different religions turn out, upon closer examination, to be variations of universal truths that have been taught since time immemorial. This is called Perennialism (based on the concept of philosophia perennis) or Traditionalism.
Sometimes as a synonym for ecumenism, i.e., the promotion of some level of unity, co-operation, and improved understanding between different religions or different denominations within a single religion.
As term for the condition of harmonious co-existence between adherents of different religions or religious denominations.
As a social norm and not merely a synonym for religious diversity.[1]
Contents [hide]
1 Definition and scope
2 History
3 Buddhism
4 Classical Greek and Roman paganism
5 Christianity 5.1 Classical Christian views
5.2 Modern Christian views
6 Hinduism
7 Islam 7.1 Acceptability of religious pluralism in Islam
7.2 Unacceptability of religious pluralism in Islam
7.3 In modern practice
7.4 Sufism
7.5 Ahmadiyya
7.6 Bahá'í Faith
8 Jainism
9 Judaism
10 Sikhism
11 Religious pluralism and human service professions
12 See also
13 References 13.1 Works cited
14 Further reading
15 External links 15.1 Buddhism
15.2 Christianity
15.3 Hinduism
15.4 Islam
15.5 Judaism
Definition and scope[edit]
Temple of All Religions in Kazan, Russia
Congress of Parliament of the World's Religions, Chicago, 1893
Main article: Religious tolerance
Religious pluralism, to paraphrase the title of a recent academic work, goes beyond mere toleration. Chris Beneke, in Beyond Toleration: The Religious Origins of American Pluralism, explains the difference between religious tolerance and religious pluralism by pointing to the situation in the late 18th century United States. By the 1730s, in most colonies religious minorities had obtained what contemporaries called religious toleration:[2] "The policy of toleration relieved religious minorities of some physical punishments and some financial burdens, but it did not make them free from the indignities of prejudice and exclusion. Nor did it make them equal. Those 'tolerated' could still be barred from civil offices, military positions, and university posts."[2] In short, religious toleration is only the absence of religious persecution, and does not necessarily preclude religious discrimination. However, in the following decades something extraordinary happened in the Thirteen Colonies, at least if one views the events from "a late eighteenth-century perspective".[3] Gradually the colonial governments expanded the policy of religious toleration, but then, between the 1760s and the 1780s, they replaced it with "something that is usually called religious liberty".[2] Mark Silka, in "Defining Religious Pluralism in America: A Regional Analysis", states that Religious pluralism "enables a country made up of people of different faiths to exist without sectarian warfare or the persecution of religious minorities. Understood differently in different times and places, it is a cultural construct that embodies some shared conception of how a country's various religious communities relate to each other and to the larger nation whole." [1]
Religious pluralism can be defined as "respecting the otherness of others". Freedom of religion encompasses all religions acting within the law in a particular region. Exclusivist religions teach that theirs is the only way to salvation and to religious truth, and some of them would even argue that it is necessary to suppress the falsehoods taught by other religions. Some Protestant sects argue fiercely against Roman Catholicism, and fundamentalist Christians of all kinds teach that religious practices like those of paganism and witchcraft are pernicious. This was a common historical attitude prior to the Enlightenment, and has appeared as governmental policy into the present day under systems like Afghanistan's Taliban regime, which destroyed the ancient Buddhas of Bamyan.
Giving one religion or denomination special rights that are denied to others can weaken religious pluralism. This situation was observed in Europe through the Lateran Treaty and Church of England. In modern era, many Islamic countries have laws that criminalize the act of leaving Islam to someone born in Muslim family, forbid entry to non-Muslims into Mosques, and forbid construction of Church, Synagogue or Temples inside their countries.[4]
Relativism, the belief that all religions are equal in their value and that none of the religions give access to absolute truth, is an extreme form of inclusivism.[5] Likewise, syncretism, the attempt to take over creeds of practices from other religions or even to blend practices or creeds from different religions into one new faith is an extreme form of inter-religious dialogue. Syncretism must not be confused with ecumenism, the attempt to bring closer and eventually reunite different denominations of one religion that have a common origin but were separated by a schism.
History[edit]
Main article: History of religious pluralism
Cultural and religious pluralism has a long history and development that reaches from antiquity to contemporary trends in post-modernity.
Feuerbauch and Ernst Troeltsch concluded that Asian religious traditions, in particular Hinduism and Buddhism were earliest proponents of religious pluralism and granting of freedom to the individual to choose the faith and develop a personal religious construct within it.[6][7] Jainism, another ancient Indian religion, as well as Daoism have also always been inclusively flexible and have long favored religious pluralism for those who disagree with their religious viewpoints.[6] The Age of Enlightenment in Europe triggered a sweeping transformation about religion, segregation of state and religion, with rising acceptance of religious pluralism. These pluralist trends in Western thought, particularly since the 18th century, brought mainstream Christianity and Judaism closer to the Asian traditions of philosophical pluralism, states Chad Meister.[6]
Buddhism[edit]
The earliest reference to Buddhist views on religious pluralism in a political sense is found in the Edicts of Emperor Ashoka:
All religions should reside everywhere, for all of them desire self-control and purity of heart. Rock Edict Nb7 (S. Dhammika)
Contact (between religions) is good. One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, desires that all should be well-learned in the good doctrines of other religions. Rock Edict Nb12 (S. Dhammika)
When asked, "Don’t all religions teach the same thing? Is it possible to unify them?" the Dalai Lama said:[8]
People from different traditions should keep their own, rather than change. However, some Tibetan may prefer Islam, so he can follow it. Some Spanish prefer Buddhism; so follow it. But think about it carefully. Don’t do it for fashion. Some people start Christian, follow Islam, then Buddhism, then nothing.
In the United States I have seen people who embrace Buddhism and change their clothes! Like the New Age. They take something Hindu, something Buddhist, something, something… That is not healthy.
For individual practitioners, having one truth, one religion, is very important. Several truths, several religions, is contradictory.
I am Buddhist. Therefore, Buddhism is the only truth for me, the only religion. To my Christian friend, Christianity is the only truth, the only religion. To my Muslim friend, [Islam] is the only truth, the only religion. In the meantime, I respect and admire my Christian friend and my Muslim friend. If by unifying you mean mixing, that is impossible; useless.
Classical Greek and Roman paganism[edit]
See also: Syncretism
Ancient Greeks employed Interpretatio Graeca whereby the gods of other religions were equated with those of their own pantheon. The Romans easily accomplished this task by subsuming the entire set of gods from other faiths into their own religion. This was done on rare occasion by adding a new god to their own pantheon; on most occasions they identified another religion's gods with their own.
Because divinity was the basis for the mandate of the state, atheism was considered a capital crime in both ancient Greece and Rome.[citation needed] This was further solidified as the status quo following the installation of the Roman imperial cult of deification of sitting emperors, and Roman pluralism was not officially extended to Christianity until the Edict of Milan in 313 CE.
Christianity[edit]
Main article: Christianity and other religions
See also: Ecumenism
Some Christians[9] have argued that religious pluralism is an invalid or self-contradictory concept. Maximal forms of religious pluralism claim that all religions are equally true, or that one religion can be true for some and another for others. Some Christians hold this idea to be logically impossible from the Principle of contradiction.[10]
Other Christians have held that there can be truth value and salvific value in other faith traditions. John Macquarrie, described in the Handbook of Anglican Theologians (1998) as "unquestionably Anglicanism's most distinguished systematic theologian in the second half of the twentieth century",[11] wrote that "there should be an end to proselytizing but that equally there should be no syncretism of the kind typified by the Baha'i movement" (p. 2[12]). In discussing 9 founders of major faith traditions (Moses, Zoroaster, Lao-zu, Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, Krishna, Jesus, and Muhammad), which he called "mediators between the human and the divine", Macquarrie wrote that:
I do not deny for a moment that the truth of God has reached others through other channels - indeed, I hope and pray that it has. So while I have a special attachment to one mediator, I have respect for them all. (p. 12[12])
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also teaches a form of religious pluralism, that there is at least some truth in almost all religions and philosophies.[13]
Classical Christian views[edit]
Before the Great Schism, mainstream Christianity confessed "one holy catholic and apostolic church", in the words of the Nicene Creed. Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Episcopalians and most Protestant Christian denominations still maintain this belief.
Church unity was something very visible and tangible, and schism was just as serious an offense as heresy. Following the Great Schism, Roman Catholicism sees and recognizes the Orthodox Sacraments as valid. Eastern Orthodoxy does not have the concept of "validity" when applied to Sacraments, but it considers the form of Roman Catholic Sacraments to be acceptable, if still devoid of actual spiritual content. Both generally regard each other as "heterodox" and "schismatic", while continuing to recognize each other as Christian. (See ecumenicism).
Modern Christian views[edit]
Some Protestants hold that only believers who believe in certain fundamental doctrines know the true pathway to salvation. The core of this doctrine is that Jesus Christ was a perfect man, is the Son of God and that he died and rose again for the wrongdoing of those who will accept the gift of salvation. They continue to believe in "one" church, believing in fundamental issues there is unity and non-fundamental issues there is liberty. Some evangelicals are doubtful if Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy are still valid manifestations of the Church and usually reject religious (typically restorationist) movements rooted in 19th century American Christianity, such as Mormonism, Christian Science, or Jehovah's Witnesses as not distinctly Christian. See here
Hinduism[edit]
See also: Hinduism and other religions
Hinduism is naturally pluralistic. A well-known Rig Vedic hymn says: "Truth is One, though the sages know it variously" (Ékam sat vipra bahudā vadanti).[14] Similarly, in the Bhagavad Gītā (4:11), God, manifesting as an incarnation, states: "As people approach me, so I receive them. All paths lead to me" (ye yathā māṃ prapadyante tāṃs tathāiva bhajāmyaham mama vartmānuvartante manuṣyāḥ pārtha sarvaśaḥ).[15] The Hindu religion has no theological difficulties in accepting degrees of truth in other religions. Hinduism emphasizes that everyone actually worships the same God, whether one knows it or not.[16] Just as Hindus worshiping Ganesh is seen as valid by those worshiping Vishnu, so someone worshiping Jesus or Allah is accepted. Many foreign deities become assimilated into Hinduism, and some Hindus may sometimes offer prayers to Jesus along with their traditional forms of God.
Islam[edit]
Unbalanced scales.svg
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (March 2015)
Main article: Islam and other religions
Religious pluralism is a controversial subject in Islam. The primary sources that guide Islam, namely Quran and Hadiths, offer contradictory positions on religious pluralism.[17][18] Some verses support religious pluralism, while others discourage it. The acceptability of religious pluralism within Islam remains a topic of active debate.
Acceptability of religious pluralism in Islam[edit]
In several Surah, Quran asks Muslims to remain steadfast with Islam, and not yield to the vain desires of other religions and unbelievers. These verses have been interpreted to imply pluralism in religions. For example, Surah Al-Ma'idah verses 47 through 49 state:
Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah hath revealed, they are no better than those who rebel. To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but His plan is to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute; And this (He commands): Judge thou between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they beguile thee from any of that (teaching) which Allah hath sent down to thee. And if they turn away, be assured that for some of their crime it is Allah's purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious. (Quran 5:47–49)
Surah Al-Ankabut verse 45 through 47 state:
Recite what is sent of the Book by inspiration to thee, and establish regular Prayer: for Prayer restrains from shameful and unjust deeds; and remembrance of Allah is the greatest thing in life without doubt. And Allah knows the deeds that ye do. And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better than mere disputation, unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow in Islam." And thus it is that We have sent down the Book to thee. So the People of the Book believe therein, as also do some of these pagan Arabs: and none but Unbelievers reject our signs. (Quran 29:45–47)
Surah Al-E-Imran verses 62 through 66 state:
This is the true account: There is no god except Allah; and Allah-He is indeed the Exalted in Power, the Wise. But if they turn back, Allah hath full knowledge of those who do mischief. Say: "O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah." If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we at least are Muslims bowing to Allah's Will. Ye People of the Book! Why dispute ye about Abraham, when the Law and the Gospel Were not revealed Till after him? Have ye no understanding? Ah! Ye are those who fell to disputing even in matters of which ye had some knowledge! but why dispute ye in matters of which ye have no knowledge? It is Allah Who knows, and ye who know not! (Quran 3:62–66)
Surah Al-Kafiroon verse 1 through 6 state:
Say : O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine. (Quran 109:1–6)
Unacceptability of religious pluralism in Islam[edit]
In several Surah, the Quran asks Muslims to persecute the unbelievers: Christians, Jews, pagans (idol worshippers, polytheists), apostates and those who reject Islam. These verses have been interpreted to imply that Islam rejects religious pluralism. For example, Surah Al-Tawba verse 1 through 5 commands the Muslim to slay the pagans (with verse 9.5 called the 'sword verse' in scholarly literature,[18]):
A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:- Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him. And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (Quran 9:1–5)
In Surah Al-Tawba, verse 29 demands Muslims to fight all those who do not believe in Islam, including Christians and Jews (People of the Book), until they pay the Jizya, a discriminatory tax, with willing submission.
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Quran 9:29)
In Surah Al-Nisa, verse 89 demands Muslims to slay the apostates.
They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they: But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah from what is forbidden. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. (Quran 4:89)
In Surah Al-Bayyina verses 6 through 7 calls People of the Book and Polytheists who reject truth revealed by Islam, the worst of creatures:
Those who reject Truth [Islam], among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein for aye. They are the worst of creatures. Those who have faith and do righteous deeds - they are the best of creatures. (Quran 98:6–7)
In modern practice[edit]
Religious pluralism is a contested issue in modern Islamic countries. Twenty three (23) Islamic countries have laws, as of 2014, which make it a crime, punishable with death penalty or prison, for a Muslim, by birth or conversion, to leave Islam or convert to another religion.[19][20][21] In Muslim countries such as Algeria, it is illegal to preach, persuade or attempt to convert a Muslim to another religion.[22] Saudi Arabia and several Islamic nations have strict laws against the construction of Christian Church, Jewish Synagogue, Hindu Temple and Buddhist Stupa anywhere inside the country, by anyone including minorities working there.[4] Brunei in southeast Asia adopted Sharia law in 2013 that prescribes a death penalty for any Muslim who converts from Islam to another religion.[19] Other Islamic scholars state Sharia does not allow non-Muslim minorities to enjoy religious freedoms in a Muslim-majority nation.[23][24]
Sufism[edit]
The Sufis were practitioners of the esoteric mystic traditions within an Islam at a certain point. Sufism is defined by the Sufi master or Pir (Sufism) or fakeer or Wali in the language of the people by dancing and singing and incorporating various philosophies, theologies, ideologies and religions together (e.g., Christiainity, Judaism, Paganism, Platonism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism and so forth with time). Famous Sufi masters are Rumi, Shadhili, Sheikh Farid, Bulleh Shah, Shah Hussain, Shams Tabrizi, Waris Shah, Ghazali, Mian Mir, Attar of Nishapur, Amir Khusrow, Salim Chishti. See many more famous Sufis at the List of Sufis. The Sufis were considered by many to have divine revelations with messages of peace, tolerance, equality, pluarism, love for all and hate for no one, humanitarians, philosophers, psychologists and much more. Many had the teaching if you want to change the world, change yourself and you will change the whole world. The views of the Sufi poets, philosophers and theologians have inspired multiple forms of modern day academia as well as philosophers of other religions. See also Blind men and an elephant.
Persian poet Rumi says:
I looked for God. I went to a temple, and I didn't find him there. Then I went to a church, and I didn't find him there. And then I went to a mosque, and I didn't find him there. And then finally I looked in my heart, and there he was.
Rumi also says:
How many paths are there to God? There are as many paths to God as there are souls on the Earth.
Rumi also says:
A true Lover doesn't follow any one religion, be sure of that. Since in the religion of Love, there is no irreverence or faith. When in Love, body, mind, heart and soul don't even exist. Become this, fall in Love, and you will not be separated again.
The Sufi platform was considered by exoteric dogmatic Muslims as a trojan horse ideology executing doctrine of deception (see Taqiyya) to convert others while others considered it outright heresy, blasphemy, innovation (biddah), kuffar, apostasy, haram. Many Sufis have gone under persecutions and executions for apostasy and treason charges at which point many tended to have supernatural events taking place similar to Jesus crucifixion. For example, many Sufis throughout their lives display religious healing, miracles and supernatural events which seem as if God has connected with the Sufis similar to the Vedic and Buddhist enlightenment. For more details see Fana (Sufism), Baqaa, Yaqeen, Kashf, Manzil, Haqiqa, Sufi metaphysics, Sufi philosophy.
Ahmadiyya[edit]
See also: Prophethood (Ahmadiyya)
Ahmadis recognize many founders of world religions to be from God, who all brought teaching and guidance from God to all peoples. According to the Ahmadiyya understanding of the Quran, every nation in the history of mankind has been sent a prophet, as the Quran states: And there is a guide for every people. Though the Quran mentions only 24 prophets, the founder of Islam, Muhammad states that the world has seen 124,000 prophets. Thus other than the prophets mentioned in the Quran, Ahmadis, with support from theological study also recognize Buddha, Krishna, founders of Chinese religions to be divinely appointed individuals.
The Second Khalifatul Maish of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community writes: "According to this teaching there has not been a single people at any time in history or anywhere in the world who have not had a warner from God, a teacher, a prophet. According to the Quran there have been prophets at all times and in all countries. India, China, Russia, Afghanistan, parts of Africa, Europe, America—all had prophets according to the theory of divine guidance taught by the Quran. When, therefore, Muslims hear about prophets of other peoples or other countries, they do not deny them. They do not brand them as liars. Muslims believe that other peoples have had their teachers. If other peoples have had prophets, books, and laws, these constitute no difficulty for Islam."[25]
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community wrote in his book A Message of Peace: "Our God has never discriminated between one people and another. This is illustrated by the fact that all the potentials and capabilities (Prophets) which have been granted to the Aryans (Hindus) have also been granted to the races inhabiting Arabia, Persia, Syria, China, Japan, Europe and America." [26]
Bahá'í Faith[edit]
Main article: Bahá'í Faith and the unity of religion
Bahá'u'lláh, founder of Bahá'í Faith, a religion that developed in Persia, though not a sect of Islam,[27] urged the elimination of religious intolerance. He taught that God is one, and has manifested himself to humanity through several historic messengers. Bahá'u'lláh taught that Bahá'ís must associate with peoples of all religions, showing the love of God in relations with them, whether this is reciprocated or not.
Bahá'í's refer to the concept of Progressive revelation, which means that God's will is revealed to mankind progressively as mankind matures and is better able to comprehend the purpose of God in creating humanity. In this view, God's word is revealed through a series of messengers: Abraham, Krishna, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, and Bahá'u'lláh (the founder of the Bahá'í Faith) among them. In the Kitáb-i-Íqán (Book of Certitude), Bahá'u'lláh explains that messengers of God have a twofold station, one of divinity and one of an individual. According to Bahá'í writings, there will not be another messenger for many hundreds of years. There is also a respect for the religious traditions of the native peoples of the planet who may have little other than oral traditions as a record of their religious figures.
Jainism[edit]
Main article: Anekantavada
Anekāntavāda, the principle of relative pluralism, is one of the basic principles of Jainism. In this view, the truth or the reality is perceived differently from different points of view, and no single point of view is the complete truth.[28][29] Jain doctrine states that an object has infinite modes of existence and qualities and they cannot be completely perceived in all its aspects and manifestations, due to inherent limitations of the humans. Only the Kevalins—the omniscient beings—can comprehend the object in all its aspects and manifestations, and all others are capable of knowing only a part of it.[30] Consequently, no one view can claim to represent the absolute truth. Jains compare all attempts to proclaim absolute truth with andhgajnyaya or the "maxim of the blind men and elephant", wherein all the blind men claimed to explain the true appearance of the elephant, but could only partly succeed due to their narrow perspective.[31]
Judaism[edit]
Main article: Jewish views on religious pluralism
The Mosaic law categorically warns the Jews to refrain from polytheism. First and the second commandment, you shall not have another God except me, worship your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Throughout the Hebrew Bible the sovereignty of Yahweh as the only God is the key pillar of a chosen community of Israel.
Sikhism[edit]
The Sikh Gurus (religious leaders) have propagated the message of "many paths" leading to the one God and ultimate salvation for all souls who treading on the path of righteousness. They have supported the view that proponents of all faiths, by doing good and virtuous deeds and by remembering the Lord, can certainly achieve salvation. Sikhs are told to accept all leading faiths as possible vehicles for attaining spiritual enlightenment, provided the faithful study, ponder and practice the teachings of their prophets and leaders. Sikhism had many interactions with Sufism as well as Hinduism, influenced them and was influenced by them. See Islam and Sikhism and Hinduism and Sikhism.
The holy book of the Sikhs (the Sri Guru Granth Sahib) says:
Do not say that the Vedas and the Koran (semitic books i.e. Bible, Torah and Q'uran) are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false. (Guru Granth Sahib page 1350)[32]
As well as:
Some call the Lord "Ram, Ram", and some "Khuda". Some serve Him as "Gusain", others as "Allah". He is the Cause of causes, and Generous. He showers His Grace and Mercy upon us. Some pilgrims bathe at sacred shrines, others go on Hajj to Mecca. Some do devotional worship, whilst others bow their heads in prayer. Some read the Vedas, and some the Koran. Some wear blue robes, and some wear white. Some call themselves Muslim, and some call themselves Hindu. Some yearn for paradise, and others long for heaven. Says Nanak, one who realizes the Hukam of God's Will, knows the secrets of his Lord Master. (Sri Guru Granth Sahib Page:885)[33]
One who recognizes that all spiritual paths lead to the One shall be emancipated. One who speaks lies shall fall into hell and burn. In all the world, the most blessed and sanctified are those who remain absorbed in Truth. (SGGS Ang 142)[34]
The seconds, minutes, and hours, days, weeks and months and various seasons originate from One Sun; O nanak, in just the same way, the many forms originate from the Creator. (Guru Granth Sahib page 12,13)
The Guru Granth Sahib also says that Bhagat Namdev and Bhagat Kabir, who were both believed to be Hindus, both attained salvation though they were born before Sikhism took root and were clearly not Sikhs. This highlights and reinforces the Guru's saying that "peoples of other faiths" can join with God as true and also at the same time signify that Sikhism is not the exclusive path for liberation.
Additionally the Guru Granth Sahib says:
First, Allah (God) created the Light; then, by His Creative Power, He made all mortal beings. From the One Light, the entire universe welled up. So who is good, and who is bad? ||1|| [35]
Again, the Guru Granth Sahib Ji provides this verse:
Naam Dayv the printer, and Kabeer the weaver, obtained salvation through the Perfect Guru. Those who know God and recognize His Shabad ("word") lose their ego and class consciousness. (Guru Granth Sahib page 67)[36]
Most of the 15 Sikh Bhagats who are mentioned in their holy book were non-Sikhs and belonged to Hindu and Muslim faiths, which were the most prevalent religions of this region.
The pluralistic dialogue of Sikhism began with the founder of Sikhism Guru Nanak after becoming enlightened saying the words Na koi hindu na koi musalman - "There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim". He recognised that religious labels held no value and it is the deeds of human that will be judged in the hereafter what we call ourselves religiously holds no value.
Sikhs have been considered eager exponents of interfaith dialogue and will not only accept the right of others to practice their faith but have in the past fought and laid down their lives to protect this right for others. See the sacrifice of the ninth Sikh Guru, Guru Tegh Bahadar who on the final desperate and heart-rending pleas of the Kashmiri Pandit, agreed to put up a fight for their right to practice their religion. He was executed so another religion besides his own could have the freedom to practice their religion against the tyrannic Moghul empire that were forcing people to accept Islam.
Religious pluralism and human service professions[edit]
The concept of religious pluralism is also relevant to human service professions, such as psychology and social work, as well as medicine and nursing, in which trained professionals may interact with clients from diverse faith traditions.[37][38][39] For example, psychologist Kenneth Pargament[37] has described four possible stances toward client religious and spiritual beliefs, which he called rejectionist, exclusivist, constructivist, and pluralist. Unlike the constructivist stance, the pluralist stance:
...recognizes the existence of a religious or spiritual absolute reality but allows for multiple interpretations and paths toward it. In contrast to the exclusivist who maintains that there is a single path "up the mountain of God," the pluralist recognizes many paths as valid. Although both the exclusivist and the pluralist may agree on the existence of religious or spiritual reality, the pluralist recognizes that this reality is expressed in different cultures and by different people in different ways. Because humans are mortal and limited, a single human religious system cannot encompass all of the religious or spiritual absolute reality.... (p. 167[38])
Importantly, "the pluralistic therapist can hold personal religious beliefs while appreciating those of a client with different religious beliefs. The pluralist recognizes that religious value differences can and will exist between counselors and clients without adversely affecting therapy" (p. 168).[38] The stances implied by these four helping orientations on several key issues, such as "should religious issues be discussed in counseling?", have also been presented in tabular form (p. 362, Table 12.1).[37]
The profession of chaplaincy, a religious profession, must also deal with issues of pluralism and the relevance of a pluralistic stance. For example, Friberg (2001) argues: "With growing populations of immigrants and adherents of religions not previously seen in significant numbers in North America, spiritual care must take religion and diversity seriously. Utmost respect for the residents' spiritual and religious histories and orientations is imperative" (p. 182).[39]
See also[edit]
See also: Category:Catholic ecumenical and interfaith relations.
Comparative religion
Freedom of religion
Global Centre for Pluralism
Indifferentism
Interreligious organization
Institute for Interreligious Dialogue
Multifaith space
Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
Progressive Christianity
Projects working for peace among Israelis and Arabs
Unitarian Universalism
United Religions Initiative
Universalism
World Council of Churches
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b Silk, Mark (July 2007), Defining Religious Pluralism in America: A Regional Analysis 612, pp. 64–81
2.^ Jump up to: a b c Beneke 2006: 6.
3.Jump up ^ Beneke 2006: 5.
4.^ Jump up to: a b Chad Meister (2010), The Oxford Handbook of Religious Diversity, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0195340136, pp 32-57
5.Jump up ^ http://carm.org/what-relativism
6.^ Jump up to: a b c Chad Meister (2010), The Oxford Handbook of Religious Diversity, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0195340136, pp 62-72
7.Jump up ^ Roof & McKinney (1985), Denominational America and the new religious pluralism, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 480(1), pp. 24-38
8.Jump up ^ Dalai Lama Asks West Not to Turn Buddhism Into a "Fashion", Zenit, 2003-10-08, retrieved 2009-06-18.
9.Jump up ^ Why Jesus? Article stating that Jesus is the saviour and not Mohammed or Buddha—see second part of this article.
10.Jump up ^ Defending Salvation Through Christ Alone By Jason Carlson, Christian Ministries International
11.Jump up ^ p. 168, Timothy Bradshaw (1998), "John Macquarrie," in: Alister E. McGrath (ed). The SPCK Handbook of Anglican Theologians (pp. 167-168). London: SPCK. ISBN 978-0-281-05145-8
12.^ Jump up to: a b John Macquarrie (1996). Mediators between human and divine: From Moses to Muhammad. New York: Continuum. ISBN 0-8264-1170-3
13.Jump up ^ Gerald E. Jones (October 1977). "Respect for Other People’s Beliefs". Ensign. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
14.Jump up ^ Rig Veda 1.164.46
15.Jump up ^ Page 194 in Eknath Easwaran (2008). Timeless wisdom: Passages for meditation from the world's saints & sages (see article). Tomales, CA: Nilgiri Press. ISBN 1-58638-027-3. Similar to Eknath Easwaran (2007). The Bhagavad Gita, 2nd ed. Tomales, CA: Nilgiri Press, p. 117. ISBN 1586380192 (which substitutes "they" for "people"). Transliteration from Winthrop Sargeant (1984). The Bhagavad Gita. Albany: State University of New York Press, p. 211. ISBN 0-87395-831-4, which translates the same passage as "They who, in whatever way, take refuge in Me, them I reward."
16.Jump up ^ See Swami Bhaskarananda, Essentials of Hinduism (Viveka Press 2002) ISBN 1-884852-04-1
17.Jump up ^ Cole & Hammond (1974), Religious pluralism, legal development, and societal complexity: rudimentary forms of civil religion, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 177-189
18.^ Jump up to: a b Michael Bonner (2008), Jihad in Islamic History: Doctrines and Practice, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-0691138381, pp. 23-31
19.^ Jump up to: a b Laws Criminalizing Apostasy in Selected Jurisdictions Library of Congress, US Government (May 2014)
20.Jump up ^ Laws Criminalizing Apostasy Library of Congress (2014)
21.Jump up ^ Doi, Abdur Rahman (1984), Shari`a: The Islamic Law; Taha Publishers; London UK
22.Jump up ^ Law No. 02-06 (bis), al Jarida al Rasmiyya, vol.12, 1 March 2006
23.Jump up ^ Mawdudi, S. Abul `Ala (1982), The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islamic State, Islamic Publications, LTD. Lahore, Pakistan
24.Jump up ^ Abdullah, Najih Ibrahim Bin (1988), The Ordinances of the People of the Covenant and the Minorities in an Islamic State, Balagh Magazine, Cairo, Egypt, Volume 944, May 29, 1988; Also see June 5 1988 article by the same author
25.Jump up ^ "Introduction to the Study of the Holy Qur’an" by Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad. Part 2, Argument 4 Section labeled “A Grand Conception”
26.Jump up ^ "A Message of Peace" by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, pg. 6)
27.Jump up ^ Islam and the Baha'i Faith
28.Jump up ^ Dundas (2002) p.231
29.Jump up ^ Koller, John M. (July, 2000) pp.400-7
30.Jump up ^ Jaini, Padmanabh (1998) p.91
31.Jump up ^ Hughes, Marilynn (2005) p.590-1
32.Jump up ^ Sriganth.org Guru Granth Sahib page 1350
33.Jump up ^ "sggs ram khudha people pray to there god". sggs ram khudha people pray to there god. Retrieved 4 September 2011.
34.Jump up ^ "pluarism in sggs". pluarism in sggs. Retrieved 4 September 2011.
35.Jump up ^ "aval allah". aval allah.
36.Jump up ^ Srigranth.org Guru Granth Sahib page 67
37.^ Jump up to: a b c Kenneth I. Pargament (1997). The psychology of religion and coping: Theory, research, practice. New York: Guilford. ISBN 978-1-57230-664-6
38.^ Jump up to: a b c Brian J. Zinnbauer & Kenneth I. Pargament (2000). Working with the sacred: Four approaches to religious and spiritual issues in counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, v78 n2, pp162-171. ISSN 0748-9633
39.^ Jump up to: a b Nils Friberg (2001). The role of the chaplain in spiritual care. In David O. Moberg, Aging and spirituality: spiritual dimensions of aging theory, research (p. 177-190). Routledge. ISBN 978-0-7890-0939-5 (NB: The quotation is discussing residents in nursing homes)
Works cited[edit]
Beneke, Chris (2006) Beyond Toleration: The Religious Origins of American Pluralism (New York: Oxford University Press).
Eck, Diane (2001) A New Religious America: How a "Christian Country" Has Become the World's Most Religiously Diverse Nation (San Francisco: Harper).
Emet Ve-Emunah: Statement of Principles of Conservative Judaism, Robert Gordis et al., Jewish Theological Seminary and the Rabbinical Assembly, 1988.
Ashk Dahlén, Sirat al-mustaqim: One or Many? Religious Pluralism Among Muslim Intellectuals in Iran in The Blackwell Companion to Contemporary Islamic Thought, ed. Ibrahim Abu-Rabi, Oxford, 2006.
Ground Rules for a Christian-Jewish Dialogue in The Root and the Branch, Robert Gordis, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1962
Hutchison, William R. (2003) Religious Pluralism in America: The Contentious History of a Founding Ideal (New Haven: Yale University Press).
Kalmin, Richard (1994), Christians and Heretics in Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 87(2), p. 155-169.
Toward a Theological Encounter: Jewish Understandings of Christiantiy Ed. Leon Klenicki, Paulist Press / Stimulus, 1991
Momen, M. (1997). A Short Introduction to the Bahá'í Faith. Oxford, UK: One World Publications. ISBN 1-85168-209-0.
Monecal, Maria Rosa (2002),The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews, and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company)
People of God, Peoples of God Ed. Hans Ucko, WCC Publications, 1996
Kenneth Einar Himma, “Finding a High Road: The Moral Case for Salvific Pluralism,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, vol. 52, no. 1 (August 2002), 1-33
Further reading[edit]
Ankerl, Guy (2000) [2000]. Global communication without universal civilization. INU societal research. Vol.1: Coexisting contemporary civilizations : Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, and Western. Geneva: INU Press. ISBN 2-88155-004-5.
Albanese, Catherine, America: Religions and Religion. Belmont: WADSWORTH PUBLISHING, 1998, ISBN 0-534-50457-4
External links[edit]
Wikiversity has learning materials about Religious Toleration
Global Centre for Pluralism
Council on Foreign Relations Religion and Foreign Policy Initiative
The Pluralism Project: Researching Religious Diversity in the United States
A New Religious America: Managing Religious Diversity in a Democracy: Challenges and Prospects for the 21st Century by Diana Eck, retrieved 2009-07-16.
The Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue
Elijah Interfaith Institute: Inter Religious Dialogue
Buddhism[edit]
Standing Up for the Middle Way: A Buddhist Perspective on Religious Freedom
Christianity[edit]
Nostra Aetate: Declaration on the Relation of the Catholic Church to Non-Christian Religions
World Council of Churches Bibliography of Works on Religious Pluralism
Hinduism[edit]
Big Picture TV Video of Ela Gandhi, granddaughter of Mahatma Gandhi, talking about religious pluralism
Islam[edit]
Islam and Religious Pluralism by Ayatullah Murtadha Mutahhari
Spiritual Education Lesson Plans for Children dead link
Judaism[edit]
The imperative of Religious Pluralism: A Conservative Jewish View
Darbu Emet: A Jewish Statement About Christianity
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Religious pluralism
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Religion
Dharma Wheel.svgBuddhism portal
P christianity.svgChristianity portal
Om.svgHinduism portal
Allah-green.svgIslam portal
Star of David.svgJudaism portal
Authority control
NDL: 01151885
Categories: Religious pluralism
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Afrikaans
العربية
Čeština
Español
فارسی
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
Bahasa Melayu
日本語
Português
Русский
Slovenščina
Suomi
Edit links
This page was last modified on 1 June 2015, at 01:05.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_pluralism
Historicity of the Bible
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from History and the Bible)
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of a serieson the
Bible
The Malmesbury Bible
Canonsand books
[show]
Authorshipand development
[show]
Translationsand manuscripts
[show]
Biblical studies[show]
Interpretation[show]
Perspectives[show]
Wikipedia book Bible book Portal iconBible portal
v·
t·
e
The historicity of the Bibleis the question of its "acceptability as a history," in the phrase of Thomas L. Thompson, a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1]This can be extended to the question of the Christian New Testamentas an accurate record of the historical Jesusand the Apostolic Age.
Many fields of study compare the Bibleand history, ranging from archeologyand astronomyto linguisticsand comparative literature. Scholars also examine the historical context of Bible passages, the importance ascribed to events by the authors, and the contrast between the descriptions of these events and historical evidence.
Archaeological discoveriesin the nineteenth and twentieth century have supported some of the Old Testament's historical narratives and refuted some of the others.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
Contents [hide]
1Materials and methods1.1Manuscripts and canons
1.2Texts1.2.1Hebrew Bible
1.2.2New Testament
1.3Extra-biblical sources
1.4Writing and reading history
2Challenges to historicity2.1The Hebrew Bible2.1.1Genesis: Literal vs. Symbolic Interpretation
2.1.2Authorship of the Torah
2.1.3Historicity of Events in Ancient Israel and Judah
2.2New Testament2.2.1Historicity of Jesus
2.2.2Historicity of the Gospels
2.2.3Historicity of the Acts
3Schools of archaeological and historical thought3.1Overview of academic views
3.2Maximalist – Minimalist dichotomy
3.3Biblical minimalism
3.4Biblical maximalism
3.5Decreasing conflict between the maximalist and minimalist schools
4See also
5Notes
6References
7External links
Materials and methods[edit]
Manuscripts and canons[edit]
The Bible exists in multiple manuscripts, none of them autographs, and multiple canons, none of which completely agree on which books have sufficient authority to be included or their order (see Books of the Bible).
To determine the accuracy of a copied manuscript, textual criticsscrutinize the way the transcripts have passed through history to their extant forms. The higher the volume of the earliest texts (and their parallels to each other), the greater the textual reliability and the less chance that the transcript's content has been changed over the years. Multiple copies may also be grouped into text types (see New Testament text types), with some types judged closer to the hypothetical original than others. Differences often extend beyond minor variations and may involve, for instance, interpolation of material central to issues of historicity and doctrine, such as the ending of Mark 16.
The books comprising the Hebrew Bibleand the Old Testament(the two are almost, but not exactly, the same) were written largely in Biblical Hebrew, with a few exceptions in Biblical Aramaic. Today it exists in several traditions, including the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint47 books (a Greek translation widely used in the period from the 3rd century BCE to roughly the 5th century CE, and still regarded as authoritative by the Orthodox Christian churches), the Samaritan Torah, the Westminstercontaining the modern 39 books, and others. Variations between these traditions are useful for reconstructing the most likely original text, and for tracing the intellectual histories of various Jewish and Christian communities. The very oldest fragment resembling part of the text of the Hebrew Bible so far discovered is a small silver amulet, dating from approximately 600 BCE, and containing a version of the Priestly Blessing("May God make his face to shine upon you...").
According to the dominant theory called Greek primacy, the New Testamentwas originally written in Greek, of which 5,650 handwritten copies have survived in Greek, over 10,000 in Latin. When other languages are included, the total of ancient copies approaches 25,000. The next ancient text to come close to rivaling that number is Homer's Iliad, which is thought to have survived in 643 ancient copies.[9]Recognizing this, F. E. Petersremarked that "on the basis of manuscript tradition alone, the works that make up the Christians' New Testament texts were the most frequently copied and widely circulated [surviving] books of antiquity".[citation needed](This may be due to their preservation, popularity, and distribution brought about by the ease of seaborne travel and the many roads constructed during the time of the Roman Empire). When a comparison is made between the seven major critical editionsof the Greek NT verse-by-verse – namely Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, Von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Bover, and Nestle-Aland – 62.9% of verses are variant free.[10]
A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was first asserted by Irenaeus, c. 180.[11]The many other gospelsthat then existed were eventually deemed non-canonical (see Biblical canon) and suppressed. In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testamentcanon,[12]and he used the phrase "being canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[13]The Council of Romein 382 under the authority of Pope Damasus Iissued an identical canon,[12]and his decision to commission the Latin Vulgateedition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[14]See Development of the New Testament canonfor details.
Texts[edit]
Hebrew Bible[edit]
The Hebrew Bible is not a single book but rather a collection of texts, most of them anonymous, and most of them the product of more or less extensive editing prior to reaching their modern form. These texts are in many different genres, but three distinct blocks approximating modern narrative history can be made out.
Torah: Genesisto Deuteronomy
God creates the world; the world God creates is good, but it becomes thoroughly corrupted by man's decision to sin. God destroys all but the eight remaining righteous people in a delugeand shortens man's lifespan significantly. God selects Abrahamto inherit the land of Canaan. The children of Israel, Abraham's grandson, go into Egypt, where their descendants are enslaved. The Israelites are led out of Egypt by Moses(Exodus) and receive the laws of God, who renews the promise of the land of Canaan.
Deuteronomic history: Joshuato 2 Kings
The Israelitesconquer the land of Canaan under Joshua, successor to Moses. Under the Judgesthey live in a state of constant conflict and insecurity, until the prophet Samuelanoints Saulas king over them. Saul proves unworthy, and God selects Davidas his successor. Under David the Israelites are united and conquer their enemies, and under Solomonhis son they live in peace and prosperity. But the kingdom is divided under Solomon's successors, Israel in the north and Judahin the south, and the kings of Israel fall away from God and eventually the people of the north are taken into captivity by outsiders. Judah, unlike Israel, has some kings who follow God, but many do not, and eventually it too is taken into captivity, and the Templeof God built by Solomon is destroyed.
Chronicler's history: Chroniclesand Ezra/Nehemiah
(Chronicles begins by reprising the history of the Torah and the Deuteronomistic history, with some differences over details. It introduces new material following its account of the fall of Jerusalem, the event which concludes the Deuteronomic history). The Babylonians, who had destroyed the Temple and taken the people into captivity, are themselves defeated by the Persians under their king Cyrus. Cyrus permits the exiles to return to Jerusalem. The Temple is rebuilt, and the Laws of Moses are read to the people.
Other
(Several other books of the Hebrew Bible are set in a historical context or otherwise give information which can be regarded as historical, although these books do not present themselves as histories).
The prophets Amosand Hoseawrite of events during the 8th century kingdom of Israel; the prophet Jeremiahwrites of events preceding and following the fall of Judah; Ezekielwrites of events during and preceding the exile in Babylon; and other prophets similarly touch on various periods, usually those in which they write.
Several books are included in some canons but not in others. Among these, Maccabeesis a purely historical work of events in the 2nd century BCE. Others are not historical in orientation but are set in historical contexts or reprise earlier histories, such as Enoch, an apocalyptic work of the 2nd century BCE.
New Testament[edit]
While the authorship of some of the Pauline epistlesis largely undisputed, there is no scholarly consensus on the authors of the other books of the New Testament, which most modern scholars acknowledge as pseudonymous autographs[15][16]written more than a generation after the events they describe.
Gospels/Acts
Jesusis born to Josephand Mary; he is baptised by John the Baptistand begins a preaching and healing missionin Galilee; he comes up to Jerusalemto celebrate Passover, is arrested, tried, condemned, and crucified. He is raised from the dead by God, appears before his followers, issuing the Great Commission, and ascends to Heaven, to sitat the Right Hand of God, with a promise to return. The followers of Jesus, who had been fearful following the Crucifixion, are encouraged by Jesus' resurrection and continue to practice and to preach his teachings. The Apostle Paulpreaches throughout the eastern Mediterranean, is arrested, and appeals. He is sent to Romefor trial, and the narrative breaks off.
Epistles/Revelation
The epistles (literally "letters") are largely concerned with theology, but the theological arguments they present form a "history of theology". Revelation deals with the last judgementand the end of the world.
Extra-biblical sources[edit]
Prior to the 19th century, textual analysis of the Bible itself was the only tool available to extract and evaluate whatever historical data it contained. The past two hundred years, however, have seen a proliferation of new sources of data and analytical tools, including:
Other Near Eastern texts, documents and inscriptions[17]
The material remains recovered throughout the Near East by archaeological excavation, analysed by ever more sophisticated technical and statistical apparatus[18]
Historical geography, demography, soil science, technology studies, and comparative linguistics[19]
Anthropological and sociological modelling
The Apocrypha, or non-canonical texts
Writing and reading history[edit]
W.F. Albright, the doyen of biblical archaeology, in 1957
The meaning of the term "history" is itself dependent on social and historical context. Paula McNutt, for instance, notes that the Old Testament narratives "do not record 'history' in the sense that history is understood in the twentieth century... The past, for biblical writers as well as for twentieth-century readers of the Bible, has meaning only when it is considered in light of the present, and perhaps an idealized future." (p. 4, emphasis added)[20]
Biblical history has also diversified its focus during the modern era. The project of biblical archaeologyassociated with W.F. Albright, which sought to validate the historicity of the events narrated in the Bible through the ancient texts and material remains of the Near East,[21]has a more specific focus compared to the more expansive view of history described by archaeologist William Dever. In discussing the role of his discipline in interpreting the biblical record, Dever has pointed to multiple histories within the Bible, including the history of theology (the relationship between God and believers), political history (usually the account of "Great Men"), narrative history (the chronology of events), intellectual history (ideas and their development, context and evolution), socio-cultural history (institutions, including their social underpinnings in family, clan, tribe and social class and the state), cultural history (overall cultural evolution, demography, socio-economic and political structure and ethnicity), technological history (the techniques by which humans adapt to, exploit and make use of the resources of their environment), natural history (how humans discover and adapt to the ecological facts of their natural environment), and material history (artefacts as correlates of changes in human behaviour).[22]
A special challenge for assessing the historicity of the Bible is sharply differing perspectives on the relationship between narrative history and theological meaning. Supporters of biblical literalism"deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood."[23]But prominent scholars have expressed diametrically opposing views: "[T]he stories about the promise given to the patriarchs in Genesis are not historical, nor do they intend to be historical; they are rather historically determined expressions about Israel and Israel's relationship to its God, given in forms legitimate to their time, and their truth lies not in their facticity, nor in the historicity, but their ability to express the reality that Israel experienced."[24]
Challenges to historicity[edit]
The Hebrew Bible[edit]
Genesis: Literal vs. Symbolic Interpretation[edit]
The Garden of Eden: from history to mythology. By Lucas Cranach der Ältere(1472–1553)
There had always been a critical tradition dating back to at least St Augustine of Hippo(354–430), with interpretations "plainly at variance with what are commonly perceived in evangelicalismas traditional views of Genesis."[25]The Jewish tradition has also maintained a critical thread in its approach to biblical primeval history. The influential medieval philosopher Maimonidesmaintained a skeptical ambiguity towards creation ex nihiloand considered the stories about Adammore as "philosophical anthropology, rather than as historical stories whose protagonist is the 'first man'."[26]Greek philosophers Aristotle,[27]Critolaus[28]and Proclus[29]held that the world was eternal.
The birth of geologywas marked by the publication of James Hutton's Theory of the Earthin 1788. This marked the intellectual revolution that would dethrone Genesis as the ultimate authority on primeval earth and prehistory. The first casualty was the Creation story itself, and by the early 19th century "no responsible scientist contended for the literal credibility of the Mosaic account of creation." (p. 224)[30]The battle between uniformitarianismand catastrophismkept the Flood alive in the emerging discipline, until Adam Sedgwick, the president of the Geological Society, publicly recanted his previous support in his 1831 presidential address:
We ought indeed to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of the former world entombed in those deposits.[31]
All of which left the "first man" and his putative descendants in the awkward position of being stripped of all historical context until Charles Darwinnaturalized the Garden of Eden with the publication of The Origin of Speciesin 1859. Public acceptance of this scientific revolution was, and remains, uneven but the mainstream scholarly community soon arrived at a consensus, which holds today, that Genesis 1–11 is a highly schematic literary work representing theology/symbolic mythologyrather than history.[32]
Authorship of the Torah[edit]
A central pillar of the Bible's historical authority was the tradition that it had been composed by the principal actors or eyewitnesses to the events described – the Pentateuch was the work of Moses, Joshua was by Joshua, and so on. But the Protestant Reformationhad brought the actual texts to a much wider audience, which combined with the growing climate of intellectual ferment in the 17th century that was the start of the Age of Enlightenmentthrew a harsh sceptical spotlight on these traditional claims. In Protestant England the philosopher Thomas Hobbesin his major work Leviathan(1651) denied Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and identified Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles as having been written long after the events they purported to describe. His conclusions rested on internal textual evidence, but in an argument that resonates with modern debates, he noted: "Who were the original writers of the several Books of Holy Scripture, has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other History, (which is the only proof of matter of fact)."[33]
Title page of Simon's Critical history, 1682.
The Jewish philosopher and pantheist Baruch Spinozaechoed Hobbes's doubts about the provenance of the historical books in his A Theologico-Political Treatise(published in 1670),[34]and elaborated on the suggestion that the final redaction of these texts was post-exilic under the auspices of Ezra (Chapter IX). He had earlier been effectively excommunicated by the rabbinical council of Amsterdamfor his perceived heresies. The French priest Richard Simonbrought these critical perspectives to the Catholictradition in 1678, observing "the most part of the Holy Scriptures that are come to us, are but Abridgments and as Summaries of ancient Acts which were kept in the Registries of the Hebrews," in what was probably the first work of biblical textual criticism in the modern sense.[35]
In response Jean Astruc, applying source criticismmethods common in the analysis of classical secular texts to the Pentateuch, believed he could detect four different manuscript traditions, which he claimed Moses himself had redacted. (p. 62–64)[32]His 1753 book initiated the school known as higher criticismthat culminated in Julius Wellhausenformalising the documentary hypothesisin the 1870s,[36]which in various modified forms still dominates understanding of the composition of the historical narratives.
By the end of the 19th century the scholarly consensus was that the Pentateuch was the work of many authors writing from 1000 BCE (the time of David) to 500 BCE (the time of Ezra) and redacted c.450, and as a consequence whatever history it contained was more often polemical than strictly factual – a conclusion reinforced by the then fresh scientific refutations of what were at the time widely classed as biblical mythologies, as discussed above.
In the following decades Hermann Gunkeldrew attention to the mythic aspects of the Pentateuch, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Nothand the tradition historyschool argued that although its core traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense. Though doubts have been cast on the historiographic reconstructions of this school (particularly the notion of oral traditions as a primary ancient source), much of its critique of biblical historicity found wide acceptance. Gunkel's observation that
if, however, we consider figures like Abraham, Issac, and Jacob to be actual persons with no original mythic foundations, that does not at all mean that they are historical figures ... For even if, as may well be assumed, there was once a man call 'Abraham,' everyone who knows the history of legends is sure that the legend is in no position at the distance of so many centuries to preserve a picture of the personal piety of Abraham. The 'religion of Abraham' is, in reality, the religion of the legend narrators which they attribute to Abraham[37]
has in various forms become a commonplace of contemporary criticism.[38]
Historicity of Events in Ancient Israel and Judah[edit]
In the United States the biblical archaeologymovement, under the influence of Albright, counter-attacked, arguing that the broad outline within the framing narratives was also true, so that while scholars could not realistically expect to prove or disprove individual episodes from the life of Abraham and the other patriarchs, these were real individuals who could be placed in a context proven from the archaeological record. But as more discoveries were made, and anticipated finds failed to materialise, it became apparent that archaeology did not in fact support the claims made by Albright and his followers. Today, only a minority of scholars continue to work within this framework, mainly for reasons of religious conviction.[39]William Dever stated in 1993 that "[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology'."[40]
The scholarly history of the Deuteronomic historyparallels that of the Pentateuch: the European tradition historyschool argued that the narrative was untrustworthy and could not be used to construct a narrative history; the American Albright school asserted that it could when tested against the archaeological record; and modern archaeological techniques proved crucial in deciding the issue. The test case was the book of Joshua and its account of a rapid, destructive conquest of the Canaanite cities: but by the 1960s it had become clear that the archaeological record did not, in fact, support the account of the conquest given in Joshua: the cities which the Bible records as having been destroyed by the Israelites were either uninhabited at the time, or, if destroyed, were destroyed at widely different times, not in one brief period.[citation needed]The most high-profile example was the "fall of Jericho."
John Garstang, who excavated in the 1930s, announced that he had found fallen walls dating to the time of the biblical Battle of Jericho.[41]However, Garstang later revised the destruction to a much earlier period.[41]Kathleen Kenyondated the destruction of the walled city to the middle of the 16th century (c.1550 BC), too early to match the usual dating of the Exodus to Pharaoh Ramses, on the basis of her excavations in the early 1950s.[42]The same conclusion, based on an analysis of all the excavation findings, was reached by Piotr Bienkowski.[43]
Thomas L. Thompson, a leading minimalistscholar for example has written
"There is no evidence of a United Monarchy, no evidence of a capital in Jerusalem or of any coherent, unified political force that dominated western Palestine, let alone an empire of the size the legends describe. We do not have evidence for the existence of kings named Saul, David or Solomon; nor do we have evidence for any temple at Jerusalem in this early period. What we do know of Israel and Judah of the tenth century does not allow us to interpret this lack of evidence as a gap in our knowledge and information about the past, a result merely of the accidental nature of archeology. There is neither room nor context, no artifact or archive that points to such historical realities in Palestine's tenth century. One cannot speak historically of a state without a population. Nor can one speak of a capital without a town. Stories are not enough."
These views are contentious with regard to modern evidence, see Archeology of Israel
Proponents of this theory also point to the fact that the division of the land into two entities, centered at Jerusalemand Shechem, goes back to the Egyptian rule of Israel in the New Kingdom. Solomon's empire is said to have stretched from the Euphratesin the north to the Red Seain the south; it would have required a large commitment of men and arms and a high level of organization to conquer, subdue, and govern this area. But there is little archaeological evidence of Jerusalem being a sufficiently large city in the 10th century BCE, and Judahseems to be sparsely settled in that time period. Since Jerusalem has been destroyed and then subsequently rebuilt approximately 15 to 20 times since the time of David and Solomon, some argue much of the evidence could easily have been eliminated.
None of the conquests of David nor Solomon are mentioned in contemporary histories. Culturally, the Bronze Age collapseis otherwise a period of general cultural impoverishment of the whole Levantine region, making it difficult to consider the existence of any large territorial unit such as the Davidic kingdom, whose cultural features rather seem to resemble the later kingdom of Hezekiahor Josiahthan the political and economic conditions of the 11th century. The biblical account makes no claim that Israel directly governed the areas included in their empires which are portrayed instead as tributaries.[citation needed]However, since the discovery of an inscription dating to the 9th or 8th century BCE on the Tel Dan Steleunearthed in the north of Israel, which may refer to the "house of David" as a monarchic dynast,[44]the debate has continued.[45]This is still disputed. There is a debate as to whether the united monarchy, the empire of King Solomon, and the rebellion of Jeroboamever existed, or whether they are a late fabrication. The Mesha Stele, dated to c. 840 BCE, translated by most scholars as a reference to the House of David, and mentions events and names found in Kings.[46]
There is a problem with the sources for this period of history (the United Monarchy). There are no contemporary independent documents other than the accounts of the Books of Samuel, which exhibits too many anachronismsto have been a contemporary account. For example there is mention of later armor (1 Samuel 17:4–7, 38–39; 25:13), use of camels(1 Samuel 30:17), and cavalry (as distinct from chariotry) (1 Samuel 13:5, 2 Samuel 1:6), iron picks and axes (as though they were common, (2 Samuel 12:31), sophisticated siege techniques (2 Samuel 20:15). There is a gargantuan troop (2 Samuel 17:1), a battle with 20,000 casualties (2 Samuel 18:7), and a reference to Kushite paramilitary and servants, clearly giving evidence of a date in which Kushiteswere common, after the 26th Dynasty of Egypt, the period of the last quarter of the 8th century BCE.[47]The historicity of the entire Book of Samuel is dubious, and many scholars regard it as legendary in origin, particularly given the lack of evidence for the battles described involving the destruction of the Canaanitepeoples (most scholars believe that the Israelites entered the land peacefully, as an offshoot from the Canaanites). The dramatization of real or legendary battles was common in the Ancient Near East, in this context it served to glorify Israel's national god.
New Testament[edit]
Historicity of Jesus[edit]
Main article: Historicity of Jesus
The historicity of some NT teachings of Jesus is also currently debated among biblical scholars. The "quest for the historical Jesus" began as early as the 18th century, and has continued to this day. The most notable recent scholarship came in the 1980s and 1990s with the work of J. D. Crossan,[48]James D. G. Dunn,[49]John P. Meier,[50]E. P. Sanders[51]and N. T. Wright[52]being the most widely read and discussed. The earliest New Testament texts which refer to Jesus, Paul's letters, are usually dated in the 50s CE. Since Paul records very little of Jesus' life and activities, these are of little help in determining facts about the life of Jesus, although they may contain references to information given to Paul from the eyewitnesses of Jesus.[53]
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrollshas shed light into the context of 1st century Judea, noting the diversity of Jewish belief as well as shared expectations and teachings. For example the expectation of the coming messiah, the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mountand much else of the early Christian movement are found to have existed within apocalyptic Judaism of the period.[54]This has had the effect of centering Early Christianitymuch more within its Jewish roots than was previously the case. It is now recognised that Rabbinical Judaismand Early Christianityare only two of the many strands which survived until the Jewish revoltof 66 to 70 CE,[55][56]see also Split of early Christianity and Judaism.
Almost all historical critics agree that a historical figure named Jesus taught throughout the Galilean countryside c. 30 CE, was believed by his followers to have performed supernatural acts, and was sentenced to death by the Romans, possibly for insurrection.[57]
The absence of evidence of Jesus' life before his meeting with John the Baptisthas led to many speculations. It would seem that part of the explanation may lie in the early conflict between Paul and the DesposyniEbionim, led by James the Just, supposedly the brother of Jesus, that led to Gospel passages critical of Jesus' family.[58]
Historicity of the Gospels[edit]
Main article: Historical reliability of the Gospels
Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospelaccounts were written between 70 and 100 or 110 CE,[16]four to eight decades after the crucifixion, although based on earlier traditions and texts, such as "Q", Logiaor sayings gospels, the passion account or other earlier literature (See List of Gospels). Some scholars argue that these accounts were compiled by witnesses[59][60]although this view is disputed by other scholars.[61]There are also secular references to Jesus, although they are few and quite late.
Many scholars have pointed out, that the Gospel of Markshows signs of a lack of knowledge of geographical, political and religious matters in Judea in the time of Jesus. Thus, today the most common opinion is, that the author is unknown and both geographically and historically at a distance to the narrated events[62][63][64][65]although opinion varies and scholars such as Craig Blombergaccept the more traditional view.[66]The use of expressions that may be described as awkward and rustic cause the Gospel of Mark to appear somewhat unlettered or even crude.[67]This may be attributed to the influence that Saint Peter, a fisherman, is suggested to have on the writing of Mark.[68]It is commonly thought that the writers of the Gospel of Matthewand Gospel of Lukeused Mark as a source, with changes and improvement to peculiarities and crudities in Mark.[67]
Historicity of the Acts[edit]
The historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles, the primary sourcefor the Apostolic Age, is a major issue for biblical scholars and historians of Early Christianity. Some scholars view the work as being inaccurate and in conflict with the Pauline epistles. Acts portrays Paul as more in line with Jewish Christianity, while the Pauline epistles record more conflict, such as the Incident at Antioch, see also Paul the Apostle and Judaism.
Schools of archaeological and historical thought[edit]
Overview of academic views[edit]
An educated reading of the biblical text requires knowledge of when it was written, by whom, and for what purpose. For example, many academics would agree that the Pentateuchwas in existence some time shortly after the 6th century BCE, but they disagree about when it was written. Proposed dates vary from the 15th century BCE to the 6th century BCE. One popular hypothesis points to the reign of Josiah(7th century BCE). In this hypothesis, the events of, for example, Exoduswould have happened centuries before they were finally edited. This topic is expanded upon in dating the Bible.
An important point to keep in mind is the documentary hypothesis, which using the biblical evidence itself, claims to demonstrate that our current version was based on older written sources that were lost. Although it has been modified heavily over the years, most scholars accept some form of this hypothesis. There have also been and are a number of scholars who reject it, for example EgyptologistKenneth Kitchen[69]and Old Testament scholarWalter Kaiser, Jr.,[70]as well as the late R. N. Whybray, Umberto Cassuto, O. T. Allisand Gleason Archer.
Maximalist – Minimalist dichotomy[edit]
The major split of biblical Scholarship into two opposing schools is strongly disapproved by non-fundamentalist biblical scholars, as being an attempt by so-called "conservative" Christians to portray the field as a bipolar argument, of which only one side is correct.[71]
Recently the difference between the Maximalist and Minimalist has reduced, however a new school started with a work, "The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel" by Israel Finkelstein, Amihai Mazar, and Brian B. Schmidt.[72]This school argues that post-processual archaeology enables us to recognize the existence of a middle ground between Minimalism and Maximalism, and that both these extremes need to be rejected. Archaeology offers both confirmation of parts of the biblical record and also poses challenges to the interpretations made by some. The careful examination of the evidence demonstrates that the historical accuracy of the first part of the Old Testament is greatest during the reign of Josiah. Some feel that the accuracy diminishes, the further backwards one proceeds from this date. This they claim would confirm that a major redaction of the texts seems to have occurred at about that date.
Biblical minimalism[edit]
Main article: Biblical minimalism
The viewpoint sometimes called Biblical minimalism generally hold that the Bible is principally a theologicaland apologeticwork, and all stories within it are of an aetiologicalcharacter. The early stories are held to have a historical basis that was reconstructed centuries later, and the stories possess at most only a few tiny fragments of genuine historical memory—which by their definition are only those points which are supported by archaeological discoveries. In this view, all of the stories about the biblical patriarchs are fictional, and the patriarchs mere legendary eponyms to describe later historical realities. Further, biblical minimalists hold that the twelve tribes of Israel were a later construction, the stories of King David and King Saul were modeled upon later Irano-Hellenistic examples, and that there is no archaeological evidence that the united kingdom of Israel, which the Bible says that David and Solomon ruled over an empire from the Euphrates to Eilath, ever existed.
"It is hard to pinpoint when the movement started but 1968 seems to be a reasonable date. During this year, two prize winning essays were written in Copenhagen; one by Niels Peter Lemche, the other by Heike Friis, which advocated a complete rethinking of the way we approach the Bible and attempt to draw historical conclusions from it"[73]
In published books, one of the early advocates of the current school of thought known as biblical minimalism is Giovanni Garbini, Storia e ideologia nell'Israele antico(1986), translated into English as History and Ideology in Ancient Israel(1988). In his footsteps followed Thomas L. Thompsonwith his lengthy Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written & Archaeological Sources(1992) and, building explicitly on Thompson's book, P. R. Davies' shorter work, In Search of 'Ancient Israel'(1992). In the latter, Davies finds historical Israel only in archaeological remains, biblical Israel only in Scripture, and recent reconstructions of "ancient Israel" to be an unacceptable amalgam of the two. Thompson and Davies see the entire Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) as the imaginative creation of a small community of Jews at Jerusalem during the period which the Bible assigns to after the return from the Babylonian exile, from 539 BCE onward. Niels Peter Lemche, Thompson's fellow faculty member at the University of Copenhagen, also followed with several titles that show Thompson's influence, including The Israelites in history and tradition(1998). The presence of both Thompson and Lemche at the same institution has led to the use of the term "Copenhagen school". The effect of biblical minimalism from 1992 onward was debate with more than two points of view[74][75]
Biblical maximalism[edit]
There is no scholarly controversy on the historicity of the events recounted after the Babylonian captivityin the 6th century BCE, but there is great controversy concerning earlier data. The positions of "maximalists" vs. "minimalists" refer primarily to the monarchy period, spanning the 10th to 7th centuries BCE. The maximalist position holds that the accounts of the United Monarchy and the early kings of Israel, king Davidand king Saul, are to be taken as largely historical.[76]
Decreasing conflict between the maximalist and minimalist schools[edit]
In 2001, Israel Finkelsteinand Neil Asher Silbermanpublished the book The Bible Unearthed. Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Textswhich advocated a view midway toward biblical minimalism and caused an uproar among many conservatives. In the 25th anniversary issue of Biblical Archeological Review(March/April 2001 edition), editor Hershel Shanksquoted several biblical scholars who insisted that minimalism was dying,[77]although leading minimalists deny this and a claim has been made "We are all minimalists now".[78]
Apart from the well-funded (and fundamentalist) “biblical archaeologists,” we are in fact nearly all “minimalists” now.[3]
—Philip Davies, "Beyond Labels: What Comes Next?"
The fact is that we are all minimalists -- at least, when it comes to the patriarchal period and the settlement. When I began my PhD studies more than three decades ago in the USA, the 'substantial historicity' of the patriarchs was widely accepted as was the unified conquest of the land. These days it is quite difficult to find anyone who takes this view.
In fact, until recently I could find no 'maximalist' history of Israel since Wellhausen. ... In fact, though, 'maximalist' has been widely defined as someone who accepts the biblical text unless it can be proven wrong. If so, very few are willing to operate like this, not even John Bright (1980) whose history is not a maximalist one according to the definition just given.
—Lester L. Grabbe, "Some Recent Issues in the Study of the History of Israel"
In 2003, Kenneth Kitchen, a scholar who adopts a more maximalist point of view, authored the book On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Kitchen advocated the reliability of many (though not all) parts of the Torah and in no uncertain terms criticizes the work of Finkelstein and Silberman, to which Finkelstein has since responded.
Jennifer Wallace describes archaeologist Israel Finkelstein's view in her article Shifting Ground in the Holy Land,appearing in Smithsonian Magazine, May 2006:
He [Finkelstein] cites the fact – now accepted by most archaeologists – that many of the cities Joshuais supposed to have sacked in the late 13th century B.C. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazorwas destroyed in the middle of that century, Aiwas abandoned before 2000 B.C. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 B.C. Now controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the Jerichosite consists of crumbling pits and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless digging.
However, despite problems with the archaeological record, some maximalists place Joshua in the mid second millennium, at about the time the Egyptian Empire came to rule over Canaan, and not the 13th century as Finkelstein or Kitchen claim, and view the destruction layers of the period as corroboration of the biblical account. The destruction of Hazor in the mid-13th century is seen as corroboration of the biblical account of the later destruction carried out by Deborah and Barak as recorded in the Book of Judges. The location that Finkelstein refers to as "Ai" is generally dismissed as the location of the biblical Ai, since it was destroyed and buried in the 3rd millennium. The prominent site has been known by that name since at least Hellenistic times, if not before. Minimalists all hold that dating these events as contemporary are etiologicalexplanations written centuries after the events they claim to report.
For the united monarchyboth Finkelstein and Silberman do accept that David and Solomon were really existing persons (no kings but bandit leaders or hill country chieftains)[79][80]from Judah about the 10th century BCE[81]- they do not assume that there was such a thing as united monarchywith a capital in Jerusalem.
The Bible reports that Jehoshaphat, a contemporary of Ahab, offered manpower and horses for the northern kingdom's wars against the Arameans. He strengthened his relationship with the northern kingdom by arranging a diplomatic marriage: the Israelite princess Athaliah, sister or daughter of King Ahab, married Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat (2 Kings 8:18). The house of David in Jerusalem was now directly linked to (and apparently dominated by) the Israelite royalty of Samaria. In fact, we might suggest that this represented the north's takeover by marriage of Judah. Thus in the ninth century BCE—nearly a century after the presumed time of David—we can finally point to the historical existence of a great united monarchy of Israel, stretching from Dan in the north to Beer-sheba in the south, with significant conquered territories in Syria and Transjordan. But this united monarchy—a real united monarchy—was ruled by the Omrides, not the Davidides, and its capital was Samaria, not Jerusalem.[4]
—Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, David and Solomon. In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition.
Others such as David Ussishkinargue that those who follow the biblical depiction of a united monarchydo so on the basis of limited evidence while hoping to uncover real archaeological proof in the future.[82]Gunnar Lehmann suggests that there is still a possibility that David and Solomon were able to become local chieftains of some importance and claims that Jerusalem at the time was at best a small town in a sparsely populated area in which alliances of tribal kinship groups formed the basis of society. He goes on further to claim that it was at best a small regional centre, one of three to four in the territory of Judah and neither David nor Solomon had the manpower or the requisite social/political/administrative structure to rule the kind of empire described in the Bible.[83]
These views are strongly criticized by William G. Dever,[84]Helga Weippert, Amihai Mazarand Amnon Ben-Tor.
André Lemairestates in Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple[85]that the principal points of the biblical tradition with Solomon as generally trustworthy, as does Kenneth Kitchen, who argue that Solomon ruled over a comparatively wealthy "mini-empire", rather than a small city-state.
Recently Finkelstein has joined with the more conservative Amihai Mazar, to explore the areas of agreement and disagreement and there are signs the intensity of the debate between the so-called minimalist and maximalist scholars is diminishing.[72]This view is also taken by Richard S. Hess,[86]which shows there is in fact a plurality of views between maximalists and minimalists. Jack Cargill[87]has shown that popular textbooks not only fail to give readers the up to date archaeological evidence, but that they also fail to correctly represent the diversity of views present on the subject. And Megan Bishop Moore and Brad E. Kelle provide an overview of the respective evolving approaches and attendant controversies, especially during the period from the mid-1980s through 2011, in their book Biblical History and Israel's Past.
See also[edit]
Abraham#Historicity and origins
Authorship of the Bible
Biblical archaeology school
Biblical criticism
Biblical inerrancy
Biblical literalism
Book of Daniel#Composition
Book of Esther#Historicity
Book of Joshua#Genre (historicity)
Rudolf Bultmann
Census of Quirinius
Chronology of Jesus
Crucifixion darkness
Dating the Bible
David#Historicity
Development of the New Testament canon
Documentary hypothesis
The Exodus#Historicity
Ezra#Academic view
Flood geology
Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles
Historicity of Jesus
Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)#History
List of artifacts in biblical archaeology
Massacre of the Innocents#Historicity
Moses#Historicity
Sanhedrin trial of Jesus
Science and the Bible
Theudas
Notes[edit]
1.Jump up ^Thompson 2014, p. 164.
2.Jump up ^Peter Enns, 3 Things I Would Like to See Evangelical Leaders Stop Saying about Biblical Scholarship, January 10, 2013. Quote: "Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the world of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we find in the Bible. But the archaeological record has not been friendly for one vital issue, Israel's origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites. The strong consensus is that there is at best sparse indirect evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest there is considerable evidence against it."
3.^ Jump up to: abPhilip Davies "Beyond Labels: What Comes Next?"
4.^ Jump up to: abFinkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (2006). "3. Murder, Lust, and Betrayal". David and Solomon. In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition. New York: Free Press. p. 103. ISBN 978-0-7432-4363-6. Retrieved December 24,2010.
5.Jump up ^"The mainstream view of critical biblical scholarship accepts that Genesis-Joshua (perhaps Judges) is substantially devoid of reliable history and that it was in the Persian period that the bulk of Hebrew Bible literature was either composed or achieved its canonical shape." —Philip Davies, Minimalism, "Ancient Israel," and Anti-Semitism
6.Jump up ^"He cites the fact—now accepted by most archaeologists—that many of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the late 13th century b.c. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed in the middle of that century, and Ai was abandoned before 2000 b.c. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 b.c. Now controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the Jericho site consists of crumbling pits and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless digging." —Jennifer Wallace, "Shifting Ground in the Holy Land", Smithsonian Magazine, May 2006
7.Jump up ^"So although much of the archaeological evidence demonstrates that the Hebrew Bible cannot in most cases be taken literally, many of the people, places and things probably did exist at some time or another." —Jonathan Michael Golden, Ancient Canaan and Israel: new perspectives, Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 275
8.Jump up ^Lester L. Grabbe, Some Recent Issues in the Study of the History of Israel, Proceedings of the British Academy, October 2007
9.Jump up ^Komoszewski, J. Ed; Wallace, Daniel J. (2006). Reinventing Jesus: What the Da Vinci Code and Other Novel Speculations Don't Tell You. Grand Rapids, Mich: Kregel Publications. p. 70. ISBN 0-8254-2982-X.
10.Jump up ^Aland, Barbara; Aland, Kurt (1995). The text of the New Testament: an introduction to the critical editions and to the theory and practice of modern textual criticism. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans. p. 29. ISBN 0-8028-4098-1.
11.Jump up ^Ferguson, Everett (2002). "Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon". In Sanders, James; McDonald, Lee Martin. The Canon Debate. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers. p. 301. ISBN 1-56563-517-5.
12.^ Jump up to: abLindberg, Carter (2006). A Brief History of Christianity. Blackwell Publishing. p. 15. ISBN 1-4051-1078-3.
13.Jump up ^Brakke, David (1994). "Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth Century Egypt: Athanasius of Alexandria's Thirty Ninth Festal Letter". Harvard Theological Review87: 395–419.
14.Jump up ^Bruce, F. F. (1988). The canon of scripture. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press. p. 225. ISBN 0-8308-1258-X.
15.Jump up ^Ehrman, Bart (2011). "Forged: Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are", Harper One, ISBN 0062012614
16.^ Jump up to: abMack, Burton (1996), "Who Wrote the New Testament?: The Making of the Christian Myth", Harper One, ISBN 0060655186
17.Jump up ^The most recent and most complete anthology of ancient Near Eastern texts, all translated into English, is The Context of Scripture(3 vols.; ed. William W. Hallo. assoc. ed. K. Lawson Younger, Jr.; Leiden: Brill, 1997-2002). Its worthy predecessor, which is still useful but lacks many texts discovered since the mid-20th century, is Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament(ed. James B. Pritchard; 3rd ed. with supplement; Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1969). The two preeminent anthologies of inscriptions of ancient Israel and its immediate neighbors such as Aram (ancient Syria), Ammon, Edom, Moab, Phoenicia, and Philistia (not Egypt or Mesopotamia) are: 1) Shmuel Ahituv, ed., Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical Period(Jerusalem: Carta, 2008) and 2) Nahman Avigad and Benjamin Sass, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals(Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1997). This last book has been criticized for mixing seals and seal impressions of known authenticity with unreliable seals and seal impressions of unknown origin, which could be forgeries. In general, if a known place of excavation by an archaeological team is mentioned, the discoveries should be considered reliable; otherwise not.
18.Jump up ^The most extensive summary, site by site, is The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land(4 vols. plus supplementary vol. 5; ed. Ephraim Stern; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993-2008). A two-volume series which gives period-by-period coverage of archaeological discoveries and their significance is 1) Amihay Mazar, Archaeological of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E.(New York: Doubleday, 1990) and 2) Ephraim Stern, Archaeological of the Land of the Bible, Volume II: the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods, 732-332 B.C.E.(New York: Doubleday, 2001)
19.Jump up ^In historical geography, the preeminent book in English is Anson F. Rainey and R. Steven Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Carta's Atlas of the Biblical World(Jerusalem: Carta, 2006).
20.Jump up ^McNutt, Paula M. (1999). Reconstructing the society of ancient Israel. London: SPCK. ISBN 0-281-05259-X.
21.Jump up ^Albright, William Foxwell (1985). Archaeology of Palestine. Peter Smith Pub Inc. p. 128. ISBN 0-8446-0003-2. "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details of the Bible as a source of history."
22.Jump up ^Dever, William G. (2008), "Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel" (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company)
23.Jump up ^Henry, Carl Ferdinand Howard (1999) [1979]. "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy". God, Revelation and Authority4. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books. pp. 211–219. ISBN 1-58134-056-7.
24.Jump up ^Thompson, Thomas (2002) [1974]. The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham. Valley Forge, Pa: Trinity Press International. ISBN 1-56338-389-6.
25.Jump up ^Young, Davis A (March 1988). "The contemporary relevance of Augustine's view of Creation". Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith40(1): 42–45. "But someone may ask: 'Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like a skin?' Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false.... But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions"
26.Jump up ^Klein-Braslavy, Sara (1986). "The Creation of the world and Maimonides' interpretation of Gen. i–v". In Pines, S.; Yovel, Y. Maimonides and Philosophy (International Archives of the History of Ideas / Archives internationales d'histoire des idées). Berlin: Springer. pp. 65–78. ISBN 90-247-3439-8.
27.Jump up ^PhysicsI, 7
28.Jump up ^Tiziano Dorandi, Chapter 2: Chronology, in Algra et al. (1999) The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, page 50. Cambridge
29.Jump up ^Lang, Helen, "Introduction", p.2 in Proclus (2001). On the Eternity of the World. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-22554-6.
30.Jump up ^Gillispie, Charles Coulston (1996) [1951]. Genesis and geology: a study in the relations of scientific thought, natural theology, and social opinion in Great Britain, 1790–1850. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-34481-2.
31.Jump up ^Quoted in Gillispie, Charles Coulston (1996) [1951]. Genesis and geology: a study in the relations of scientific thought, natural theology, and social opinion in Great Britain, 1790–1850. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. pp. 142–143. ISBN 0-674-34481-2.
32.^ Jump up to: abWenham, Gordon J. (2003). "Genesis 1–11". Exploring the Old Testament: A Guide to the Pentateuch. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-2551-7.
33.Jump up ^Hobbes, Thomas (1651). "Chapter XXXIII. Of the number, antiquity, scope, authority and interpreters of the books of Holy Scripture". Leviathan. Green Dragon in St. Paul's Churchyard: Andrew Crooke.
34.Jump up ^Spinoza, Baruch (1670). "Chapter VIII. Of the authorship of the Pentateuch and the other historical books of the Old Testament". A Theologico-Political Treatise (Part II).
35.Jump up ^Simon, Richard (1682). A critical history of the Old Testament(PDF). London: Walter Davis. p. 21.
36.Jump up ^Wellhausen, Julius (1885). Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black.
37.Jump up ^Gunkel, Hermann (1997) [1901]. Biddle, Mark E. tr, ed. Genesis. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press. p. lxviii. ISBN 0-86554-517-0.
38.Jump up ^"[F]or not only has "archaeology" not proven a single event of the patriarchal tradition to be historical, it has not shown any of the traditions to be likely ... it must be concluded that any such historicity as is commonly spoken of in both scholarly and popular works about the patriarchs of Genesis is hardly possible and totally improbable." Thompson, op cit, p. 328
39.Jump up ^Mazar, Amihay (1992). Archaeology of the land of the Bible, 10,000-586 BCE. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-42590-2.
40.Jump up ^Dever, William (March 1993). "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?". The Biblical Archaeologist(The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 56, No. 1) 56(1): 25–35. doi:10.2307/3210358. JSTOR 3210358.
41.^ Jump up to: abThomas A. Holland (1997). "Jericho". In Eric M. Meyers. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Oxford University Press. pp. 220–224.
42.Jump up ^Kathleen M. Kenyon (1957). Digging up Jericho: The Results of the Jericho Excavations, 1952-1956. New York: Praeger. p. 229.
43.Jump up ^Piotr Bienkowski (1986). Jericho in the Late Bronze Age. Warminster. pp. 120–125.
44.Jump up ^Schniedewind WM (1996). "Tel Dan Stela: New Light on Aramaic and Jehu's Revolt". Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research302: 75–90. doi:10.2307/1357129. JSTOR 1357129.
45.Jump up ^Dever, William G. (2002), What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, ISBN 080282126X
46.Jump up ^LeMaire, André. "House of David Restored in Moabite Inscription", Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 1994.
47.Jump up ^Redford, Donald B. (1992). Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in ancient times. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. p. 305. ISBN 0-691-00086-7.
48.Jump up ^Crossan, J. D. "The Historical Jesus: A Mediterranean Jewish Peasant," HarperOne, 1993, ISBN 0060616296
49.Jump up ^James D. G. Dunn, "Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, Vol. 1, Eerdmans, 2003"
50.Jump up ^John P. Meier, "A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 3 vols., the most recent volume from Yale University Press, 2001"
51.Jump up ^Sanders, E.P. "The Historical Figure of Jesus," Penguin, 1996, ISBN 0141928220
52.Jump up ^Wright, N.T. "Jesus and the Victory of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God", Vol. 2, Augsburg Fortress Press, 1997, ISBN 0800626826
53.Jump up ^John P. Meier, A Marginal JewVolume I, Doubleday, 1991.
54.Jump up ^The Dead Sea scrolls and Christian origins, Joseph Fitzmyer, pp. 28ff
55.Jump up ^Bernstein, Richard (April 1, 1998). "BOOKS OF THE TIMES; Looking for Jesus and Jews in the Dead Sea Scrolls". The New York Times. Retrieved May 25,2010.
56.Jump up ^Shanks, Hershel "Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reader From the Biblical Archaeology Review", archive.org
57.Jump up ^Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew, Vol. II, Doubleday, 1994, ISBN 0300140339
58.Jump up ^EBIONISM; EBIONITES in the Bible Encyclopedia - ISBE (Bible History Online). Bible-history.com. Retrieved on 2012-09-11.
59.Jump up ^Bauckham, Richard "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses,"Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2006, ISBN 0802831621
60.Jump up ^Byrskog, Samuel "Story as History, History as Story,"Mohr Siebeck, 2000, ISBN 3161473051
61.Jump up ^Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? A Debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts, March 28, 2006
62.Jump up ^Analecta Romana Instituti Danici, Danske selskab, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1998.
63.Jump up ^Nineham, Dennis, Saint Mark, Westminster Press, 1978, ISBN 0664213448, p 193
64.Jump up ^Bart Ehrman, The New Testament. A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, p. 74 ISBN 0195154622
65.Jump up ^McDonald, Lee Martin and Porter, Stanley. Early Christianity and its Sacred Literature, Hendrickson Publishers, 2000, p. 286 ISBN 1565632664
66.Jump up ^Strobel, Lee. ”The Case for Christ”. 1998. Chapter one, an interview with Blomberg, ISBN 0310209307
67.^ Jump up to: abText-critical methodology and the pre-Caesarean text: Codex W in the Gospel,Larry W. Hurtado, p. 25
68.Jump up ^"biblical literature."Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 02 Nov. 2010 .
69.Jump up ^Kitchen, K. A. (2003). On the reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans. ISBN 0-8028-4960-1.
70.Jump up ^"Exploding the J.E.D.P. Theory - The Documentary Hypothesis". jashow.org.
71.Jump up ^Spong, John Shelby (1992) "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" (Harper)
72.^ Jump up to: abFinkelstein, Israel; Mazar, Amihai and Schmidt, Brian (2007). The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel. Society of Biblical Lit. ISBN 978-1-58983-277-0.
73.Jump up ^George Athas, 'Minimalism': The Copenhagen School of Thought in Biblical Studies, edited transcript of lecture, 3rd ed., University of Sydney, April 29, 1999.
74.Jump up ^Mykytiuk, Lawrence J. (2010). "Strengthening Biblical Historicity vis-à-vis Minimalism, 1992–2008, Part 1: Introducing a Bibliographic Essay in Five Parts". Journal of Religious and Theological Information9(3–4): 76. doi:10.1080/10477845.2010.526920.
75.Jump up ^Brettler, Marc Z. (2003). "The Copenhagen School: The Historiographical Issues". AJS Review27: 1–21. doi:10.1017/S0364009403000011. JSTOR 4131767.Mykytiuk, Lawrence J. (2012). "Strengthening Biblical Historicity vis-à-vis Minimalism, 1992–2008 and Beyond, Part 2.1: The Literature of Perspective, Critique, and Methodology, First Half". Journal of Religious and Theological Information11(3–4): 101–137, in which the relevant section is "Toward a Balanced View of Minimalism: A Summary of Published Critiques"; the Official version of record is available at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10477845.2012.673111?journalCode=wrti20#.UjVAiNI6Pgc. Author's Accepted Draft if freely available at http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/lib_fsdocs/52/.
76.Jump up ^"Maximalists and Minimalists", Livius.org.
77.Jump up ^Jack Cargill Ancient Israel in Western Civ Textbooks. Quoting Amy Dockster Marcus about the minimalists: "The bottom line is that when it comes to the big picture, they are often right. Many of their ideas, once considered far-fetched, are now solidly mainstream concepts."
78.Jump up ^American Journal of Theology & Philosophy Vol. 14, No.1 January, 1993
79.Jump up ^David and SolomonBeschrijving. Bol.com
80.Jump up ^Richard N. Ostling Was King David legend or fiction?The Associated Press
81.Jump up ^David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition pp20
82.Jump up ^Ussishkin, David, "Solomon's Jerusalem: The Texts and the Facts on the Ground" in Vaughn Andrew G. and Killebrew, Ann E. eds. (2003), "Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period" (SBL Symposium Series 18; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature)
83.Jump up ^Lehrmann, Gunnar, "The United Monarchy in the Countryside: Jerusalem, Judah, and the Shephelah during the Tenth Century BCE", in Vaughn Andrew G. and Killebrew, Ann E. eds. (2003), "Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period" (SBL Symposium Series 18; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature)
84.Jump up ^Dever 2001, p. 160
85.Jump up ^Shanks, Hershel (1999). Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple, Pearson, p. 113 ISBN 0130853631
86.Jump up ^Hess, Richard S. (2007) "Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey", Baker Academic, ISBN 0801027179
87.Jump up ^"Jack Cargill - Ancient Israel in Western Civ Textbooks - The History Teacher, 34.3". Retrieved 5 October2014.
References[edit]
Banks, Diane (2006). Writing The History Of Israel. Continuum International Publishing Group.
Brettler, Mark Zvi (2005). How to Read the Bible. Jewish Publication Society.
Davies, Philip R. (1995). In Search of 'Ancient Israel'. Continuum International Publishing Group.
Davies, Philip R. (n.d.). Minimalism, 'Ancient Israel', and Anti-Semitism. The Bible and Interpretation.
Davies, Philip R., Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures, 1998.
Davies, Philip R. (2008). Memories of Ancient Israel. Westminster John Knox Press.
Dever, William G.(2012). The Lives of Ordinary People in Ancient Israel. Eerdmans.
Finkelstein, Israel; Mazar, Amihay; Schmidt, Brian B. (2007). The Quest for the Historical Israel. Society of Biblical Literature.
Finkelstein, Israel, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, 1988
Garbini, Giovanni, History and Ideology in Ancient Israel, 1988 (trans from Italian).
Halpern, Baruch, "Erasing History: The Minimalist Assault on Ancient Israel", Bible Review, December 1995, p26 - 35, 47.
Lemche, Niels Peter, Early Israel, 1985.
Lemche, Niels Peter (1998). The Israelites in History and Tradition. Westminster John Knox Press.
Moore, Megan Bishop; Kelle, Brad E. (2011). Biblical History and Israel's Past. Eerdmans.
Provan, Iain W., "Ideologies, Literary and Critical Reflections on Recent Writing on the History of Israel", Journal of Biblical Literature114/4 (1995), p585-606. (a critique of the Copenhagen School of Thought - with responses by Davies (above) and Thompson (below))
Thompson, Thomas L. (1992). Early History of the Israelite People. Brill.
Thompson, Thomas L., "A Neo-Albrightean School in History and Biblical Scholarship?" Journal of Biblical Literature114/4 (1995), p683-698. (a response to the article by Iain W. Provan - above)
Thompson, Thomas L. (1999). The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology And The Myth Of Israel. Basic Book.
Thompson, Thomas L. (n.d.). A view from Copenhagen: Israel and the History of Palestine. The Bible and Interpretation.
Van Seters, John, Abraham in History and Tradition, 1975.
Whitelam, Keith W. (1996). The Invention of Ancient Israel. Routledge.
Barenboim, Peter. "Biblical Roots of Separation of Powers", Moscow : Letny Sad, 2005, ISBN 5-94381-123-0, http://lccn.loc.gov/2006400578
Biran, Avraham. "'David' Found at Dan." Biblical Archaeology Review20:2 (1994): 26–39.
Brettler, Marc Z., “The Copenhagen School: The Historiographical Issues,” AJS Review27 (2003): 1–21.
Coogan, Michael D. "Canaanites: Who Were They and Where Did They Live?" Bible Review9:3 (1993): 44ff.
Davies, Philip R. 1992, 2nd edition 1995, reprinted 2004.In Search of 'Ancient Israel'. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Dawood, N.J. 1978. Tales from the Arabian Nights, Doubleday, A delightful children's version translated from the original Arabic.
Dever, William G. What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2001
Finkelstein, Israel and Silberman, Neil A. 2001 The Bible Unearthed. New York: Simon and Schuster
Garbini, Giovanni. 1988. History and Ideology in Ancient Israel. Translated by John Bowden from the original Italian edition. New York: Crossroad.
Harpur, Tom. 2004. "The Pagan Christ. Recovering the Lost Light" Thomas Allen Publishers, Toronto.
Kitchen, Kenneth A. 2003 On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Koehler; Dr. Ralph D. Christian Bible History. ISBN 1-4208-1242-4.
Larsson, G. 2007. "The Chronological System of the Old Testament". Peter Lang GmbH.
Lemche, Niels P. 1998. The Israelites in History and TraditionLondon : SPCK ; Louisville, Ky. : Westminster John Knox Press.
Mazar, Amihai. 1992. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000–586 B.C.E.New York: Doubleday.
Miller, J. Maxwell, and John Haralson Hayes, "A history of ancient Israel and Judah" (Westminster John Knox Press, 1986)
Moore, Megan Bishop and Brad E. Kelle, Biblical History and Israel's Past, 2011.
Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies. Manchester U. Press, 1975.
Mykytiuk, Lawrence J. 2010. "Strengthening Biblical Historicity vis-à-vis Minimalism, 1992–2008, Part 1: Introducing a Bibliographic Essay in Five Parts,” Journal of Religious and Theological Information9/3–4: 71-83.
Na'aman, Nadav. 1996 ."The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalem's Political Position in the Tenth Century B.C.E." BASOR. 304: 17–27.
Na'aman, Nadav. 1997 "Cow Town or Royal Capital: Evidence for Iron Age Jerusalem." Biblical Archaeology Review. 23, no. 4: 43–47, 67.
Noth, Martin, "Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien", 1943; English translation as "The Deuteronomistic History", Sheffield, 1981, and "The Chronicler's History", Sheffield, 1987.
Shanks, Hershel. 1995. Jerusalem: An Archaeological Biography. New York: Random House.
Shanks, Hershel. 1997 "Face to Face: Biblical Minimalists Meet Their Challengers." Biblical Archaeology Review. 23, no. 4: 26–42, 66.
Smith, Mark S. The Early History of God, Eerdmans, 2002 (1st edition 1990)
Steiner, Margareet and Jane Cahill. "David's Jerusalem: Fiction or Reality?" Biblical Archaeology Review24:4 (1998): 25–33, 62–63; 34–41, 63. This article presents a debate between a Biblical minimalist and a Biblical maximalist.
Thompson, Thomas L. (2014). Biblical Narrative and Palestine's History: Changing Perspectives 2. Routledge.
________. The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past. London.
________. 1992. The Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and Archaeological Sources. Leiden and New York: Brill.
Yamauchi, Edwin, The Stones and the Scriptures. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1972.
External links[edit]
'Minimalism' – The Copenhagen School of Thought in Biblical Studies
Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliableby Gary Habermas
Biblical Archaeology Society: examines discoveries and controversies about historical veracity of the Bible
Livius.org: Maximalism and minimalism
Notes on minimalism by George Athas
[hide]
v·
t·
e
The Bible and history
General studies
Biblical criticism·
Biblical studies·
History of ancient Israel and Judah·
The Bible and history·
Quest for the historical Jesus·
Jesus Christ in comparative mythology
Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg
Historicity
Biblical archaeology·
Historicity of Jesus·
Historicity of the Bible·
Historical reliability of the Gospels·
List of artifacts in biblical archaeology·
List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources·
List of burial places of biblical figures·
List of Hebrew Bible manuscripts·
List of New Testament papyri·
List of New Testament uncials·
Historical Jesus
Criticism
Criticism of the Bible·
Christ myth theory
Bible Portal
Categories: Ancient Jewish history
Biblical criticism
Historicity of religion
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Čeština
Español
Italiano
Português
Slovenčina
Suomi
Svenska
Türkçe
Edit links
This page was last modified on 30 May 2015, at 04:18.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Useand Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
Historicity of the Bible
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from History and the Bible)
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of a serieson the
Bible
The Malmesbury Bible
Canonsand books
[show]
Authorshipand development
[show]
Translationsand manuscripts
[show]
Biblical studies[show]
Interpretation[show]
Perspectives[show]
Wikipedia book Bible book Portal iconBible portal
v·
t·
e
The historicity of the Bibleis the question of its "acceptability as a history," in the phrase of Thomas L. Thompson, a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1]This can be extended to the question of the Christian New Testamentas an accurate record of the historical Jesusand the Apostolic Age.
Many fields of study compare the Bibleand history, ranging from archeologyand astronomyto linguisticsand comparative literature. Scholars also examine the historical context of Bible passages, the importance ascribed to events by the authors, and the contrast between the descriptions of these events and historical evidence.
Archaeological discoveriesin the nineteenth and twentieth century have supported some of the Old Testament's historical narratives and refuted some of the others.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
Contents [hide]
1Materials and methods1.1Manuscripts and canons
1.2Texts1.2.1Hebrew Bible
1.2.2New Testament
1.3Extra-biblical sources
1.4Writing and reading history
2Challenges to historicity2.1The Hebrew Bible2.1.1Genesis: Literal vs. Symbolic Interpretation
2.1.2Authorship of the Torah
2.1.3Historicity of Events in Ancient Israel and Judah
2.2New Testament2.2.1Historicity of Jesus
2.2.2Historicity of the Gospels
2.2.3Historicity of the Acts
3Schools of archaeological and historical thought3.1Overview of academic views
3.2Maximalist – Minimalist dichotomy
3.3Biblical minimalism
3.4Biblical maximalism
3.5Decreasing conflict between the maximalist and minimalist schools
4See also
5Notes
6References
7External links
Materials and methods[edit]
Manuscripts and canons[edit]
The Bible exists in multiple manuscripts, none of them autographs, and multiple canons, none of which completely agree on which books have sufficient authority to be included or their order (see Books of the Bible).
To determine the accuracy of a copied manuscript, textual criticsscrutinize the way the transcripts have passed through history to their extant forms. The higher the volume of the earliest texts (and their parallels to each other), the greater the textual reliability and the less chance that the transcript's content has been changed over the years. Multiple copies may also be grouped into text types (see New Testament text types), with some types judged closer to the hypothetical original than others. Differences often extend beyond minor variations and may involve, for instance, interpolation of material central to issues of historicity and doctrine, such as the ending of Mark 16.
The books comprising the Hebrew Bibleand the Old Testament(the two are almost, but not exactly, the same) were written largely in Biblical Hebrew, with a few exceptions in Biblical Aramaic. Today it exists in several traditions, including the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint47 books (a Greek translation widely used in the period from the 3rd century BCE to roughly the 5th century CE, and still regarded as authoritative by the Orthodox Christian churches), the Samaritan Torah, the Westminstercontaining the modern 39 books, and others. Variations between these traditions are useful for reconstructing the most likely original text, and for tracing the intellectual histories of various Jewish and Christian communities. The very oldest fragment resembling part of the text of the Hebrew Bible so far discovered is a small silver amulet, dating from approximately 600 BCE, and containing a version of the Priestly Blessing("May God make his face to shine upon you...").
According to the dominant theory called Greek primacy, the New Testamentwas originally written in Greek, of which 5,650 handwritten copies have survived in Greek, over 10,000 in Latin. When other languages are included, the total of ancient copies approaches 25,000. The next ancient text to come close to rivaling that number is Homer's Iliad, which is thought to have survived in 643 ancient copies.[9]Recognizing this, F. E. Petersremarked that "on the basis of manuscript tradition alone, the works that make up the Christians' New Testament texts were the most frequently copied and widely circulated [surviving] books of antiquity".[citation needed](This may be due to their preservation, popularity, and distribution brought about by the ease of seaborne travel and the many roads constructed during the time of the Roman Empire). When a comparison is made between the seven major critical editionsof the Greek NT verse-by-verse – namely Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, Von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Bover, and Nestle-Aland – 62.9% of verses are variant free.[10]
A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was first asserted by Irenaeus, c. 180.[11]The many other gospelsthat then existed were eventually deemed non-canonical (see Biblical canon) and suppressed. In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testamentcanon,[12]and he used the phrase "being canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[13]The Council of Romein 382 under the authority of Pope Damasus Iissued an identical canon,[12]and his decision to commission the Latin Vulgateedition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[14]See Development of the New Testament canonfor details.
Texts[edit]
Hebrew Bible[edit]
The Hebrew Bible is not a single book but rather a collection of texts, most of them anonymous, and most of them the product of more or less extensive editing prior to reaching their modern form. These texts are in many different genres, but three distinct blocks approximating modern narrative history can be made out.
Torah: Genesisto Deuteronomy
God creates the world; the world God creates is good, but it becomes thoroughly corrupted by man's decision to sin. God destroys all but the eight remaining righteous people in a delugeand shortens man's lifespan significantly. God selects Abrahamto inherit the land of Canaan. The children of Israel, Abraham's grandson, go into Egypt, where their descendants are enslaved. The Israelites are led out of Egypt by Moses(Exodus) and receive the laws of God, who renews the promise of the land of Canaan.
Deuteronomic history: Joshuato 2 Kings
The Israelitesconquer the land of Canaan under Joshua, successor to Moses. Under the Judgesthey live in a state of constant conflict and insecurity, until the prophet Samuelanoints Saulas king over them. Saul proves unworthy, and God selects Davidas his successor. Under David the Israelites are united and conquer their enemies, and under Solomonhis son they live in peace and prosperity. But the kingdom is divided under Solomon's successors, Israel in the north and Judahin the south, and the kings of Israel fall away from God and eventually the people of the north are taken into captivity by outsiders. Judah, unlike Israel, has some kings who follow God, but many do not, and eventually it too is taken into captivity, and the Templeof God built by Solomon is destroyed.
Chronicler's history: Chroniclesand Ezra/Nehemiah
(Chronicles begins by reprising the history of the Torah and the Deuteronomistic history, with some differences over details. It introduces new material following its account of the fall of Jerusalem, the event which concludes the Deuteronomic history). The Babylonians, who had destroyed the Temple and taken the people into captivity, are themselves defeated by the Persians under their king Cyrus. Cyrus permits the exiles to return to Jerusalem. The Temple is rebuilt, and the Laws of Moses are read to the people.
Other
(Several other books of the Hebrew Bible are set in a historical context or otherwise give information which can be regarded as historical, although these books do not present themselves as histories).
The prophets Amosand Hoseawrite of events during the 8th century kingdom of Israel; the prophet Jeremiahwrites of events preceding and following the fall of Judah; Ezekielwrites of events during and preceding the exile in Babylon; and other prophets similarly touch on various periods, usually those in which they write.
Several books are included in some canons but not in others. Among these, Maccabeesis a purely historical work of events in the 2nd century BCE. Others are not historical in orientation but are set in historical contexts or reprise earlier histories, such as Enoch, an apocalyptic work of the 2nd century BCE.
New Testament[edit]
While the authorship of some of the Pauline epistlesis largely undisputed, there is no scholarly consensus on the authors of the other books of the New Testament, which most modern scholars acknowledge as pseudonymous autographs[15][16]written more than a generation after the events they describe.
Gospels/Acts
Jesusis born to Josephand Mary; he is baptised by John the Baptistand begins a preaching and healing missionin Galilee; he comes up to Jerusalemto celebrate Passover, is arrested, tried, condemned, and crucified. He is raised from the dead by God, appears before his followers, issuing the Great Commission, and ascends to Heaven, to sitat the Right Hand of God, with a promise to return. The followers of Jesus, who had been fearful following the Crucifixion, are encouraged by Jesus' resurrection and continue to practice and to preach his teachings. The Apostle Paulpreaches throughout the eastern Mediterranean, is arrested, and appeals. He is sent to Romefor trial, and the narrative breaks off.
Epistles/Revelation
The epistles (literally "letters") are largely concerned with theology, but the theological arguments they present form a "history of theology". Revelation deals with the last judgementand the end of the world.
Extra-biblical sources[edit]
Prior to the 19th century, textual analysis of the Bible itself was the only tool available to extract and evaluate whatever historical data it contained. The past two hundred years, however, have seen a proliferation of new sources of data and analytical tools, including:
Other Near Eastern texts, documents and inscriptions[17]
The material remains recovered throughout the Near East by archaeological excavation, analysed by ever more sophisticated technical and statistical apparatus[18]
Historical geography, demography, soil science, technology studies, and comparative linguistics[19]
Anthropological and sociological modelling
The Apocrypha, or non-canonical texts
Writing and reading history[edit]
W.F. Albright, the doyen of biblical archaeology, in 1957
The meaning of the term "history" is itself dependent on social and historical context. Paula McNutt, for instance, notes that the Old Testament narratives "do not record 'history' in the sense that history is understood in the twentieth century... The past, for biblical writers as well as for twentieth-century readers of the Bible, has meaning only when it is considered in light of the present, and perhaps an idealized future." (p. 4, emphasis added)[20]
Biblical history has also diversified its focus during the modern era. The project of biblical archaeologyassociated with W.F. Albright, which sought to validate the historicity of the events narrated in the Bible through the ancient texts and material remains of the Near East,[21]has a more specific focus compared to the more expansive view of history described by archaeologist William Dever. In discussing the role of his discipline in interpreting the biblical record, Dever has pointed to multiple histories within the Bible, including the history of theology (the relationship between God and believers), political history (usually the account of "Great Men"), narrative history (the chronology of events), intellectual history (ideas and their development, context and evolution), socio-cultural history (institutions, including their social underpinnings in family, clan, tribe and social class and the state), cultural history (overall cultural evolution, demography, socio-economic and political structure and ethnicity), technological history (the techniques by which humans adapt to, exploit and make use of the resources of their environment), natural history (how humans discover and adapt to the ecological facts of their natural environment), and material history (artefacts as correlates of changes in human behaviour).[22]
A special challenge for assessing the historicity of the Bible is sharply differing perspectives on the relationship between narrative history and theological meaning. Supporters of biblical literalism"deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood."[23]But prominent scholars have expressed diametrically opposing views: "[T]he stories about the promise given to the patriarchs in Genesis are not historical, nor do they intend to be historical; they are rather historically determined expressions about Israel and Israel's relationship to its God, given in forms legitimate to their time, and their truth lies not in their facticity, nor in the historicity, but their ability to express the reality that Israel experienced."[24]
Challenges to historicity[edit]
The Hebrew Bible[edit]
Genesis: Literal vs. Symbolic Interpretation[edit]
The Garden of Eden: from history to mythology. By Lucas Cranach der Ältere(1472–1553)
There had always been a critical tradition dating back to at least St Augustine of Hippo(354–430), with interpretations "plainly at variance with what are commonly perceived in evangelicalismas traditional views of Genesis."[25]The Jewish tradition has also maintained a critical thread in its approach to biblical primeval history. The influential medieval philosopher Maimonidesmaintained a skeptical ambiguity towards creation ex nihiloand considered the stories about Adammore as "philosophical anthropology, rather than as historical stories whose protagonist is the 'first man'."[26]Greek philosophers Aristotle,[27]Critolaus[28]and Proclus[29]held that the world was eternal.
The birth of geologywas marked by the publication of James Hutton's Theory of the Earthin 1788. This marked the intellectual revolution that would dethrone Genesis as the ultimate authority on primeval earth and prehistory. The first casualty was the Creation story itself, and by the early 19th century "no responsible scientist contended for the literal credibility of the Mosaic account of creation." (p. 224)[30]The battle between uniformitarianismand catastrophismkept the Flood alive in the emerging discipline, until Adam Sedgwick, the president of the Geological Society, publicly recanted his previous support in his 1831 presidential address:
We ought indeed to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of the former world entombed in those deposits.[31]
All of which left the "first man" and his putative descendants in the awkward position of being stripped of all historical context until Charles Darwinnaturalized the Garden of Eden with the publication of The Origin of Speciesin 1859. Public acceptance of this scientific revolution was, and remains, uneven but the mainstream scholarly community soon arrived at a consensus, which holds today, that Genesis 1–11 is a highly schematic literary work representing theology/symbolic mythologyrather than history.[32]
Authorship of the Torah[edit]
A central pillar of the Bible's historical authority was the tradition that it had been composed by the principal actors or eyewitnesses to the events described – the Pentateuch was the work of Moses, Joshua was by Joshua, and so on. But the Protestant Reformationhad brought the actual texts to a much wider audience, which combined with the growing climate of intellectual ferment in the 17th century that was the start of the Age of Enlightenmentthrew a harsh sceptical spotlight on these traditional claims. In Protestant England the philosopher Thomas Hobbesin his major work Leviathan(1651) denied Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and identified Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles as having been written long after the events they purported to describe. His conclusions rested on internal textual evidence, but in an argument that resonates with modern debates, he noted: "Who were the original writers of the several Books of Holy Scripture, has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other History, (which is the only proof of matter of fact)."[33]
Title page of Simon's Critical history, 1682.
The Jewish philosopher and pantheist Baruch Spinozaechoed Hobbes's doubts about the provenance of the historical books in his A Theologico-Political Treatise(published in 1670),[34]and elaborated on the suggestion that the final redaction of these texts was post-exilic under the auspices of Ezra (Chapter IX). He had earlier been effectively excommunicated by the rabbinical council of Amsterdamfor his perceived heresies. The French priest Richard Simonbrought these critical perspectives to the Catholictradition in 1678, observing "the most part of the Holy Scriptures that are come to us, are but Abridgments and as Summaries of ancient Acts which were kept in the Registries of the Hebrews," in what was probably the first work of biblical textual criticism in the modern sense.[35]
In response Jean Astruc, applying source criticismmethods common in the analysis of classical secular texts to the Pentateuch, believed he could detect four different manuscript traditions, which he claimed Moses himself had redacted. (p. 62–64)[32]His 1753 book initiated the school known as higher criticismthat culminated in Julius Wellhausenformalising the documentary hypothesisin the 1870s,[36]which in various modified forms still dominates understanding of the composition of the historical narratives.
By the end of the 19th century the scholarly consensus was that the Pentateuch was the work of many authors writing from 1000 BCE (the time of David) to 500 BCE (the time of Ezra) and redacted c.450, and as a consequence whatever history it contained was more often polemical than strictly factual – a conclusion reinforced by the then fresh scientific refutations of what were at the time widely classed as biblical mythologies, as discussed above.
In the following decades Hermann Gunkeldrew attention to the mythic aspects of the Pentateuch, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Nothand the tradition historyschool argued that although its core traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense. Though doubts have been cast on the historiographic reconstructions of this school (particularly the notion of oral traditions as a primary ancient source), much of its critique of biblical historicity found wide acceptance. Gunkel's observation that
if, however, we consider figures like Abraham, Issac, and Jacob to be actual persons with no original mythic foundations, that does not at all mean that they are historical figures ... For even if, as may well be assumed, there was once a man call 'Abraham,' everyone who knows the history of legends is sure that the legend is in no position at the distance of so many centuries to preserve a picture of the personal piety of Abraham. The 'religion of Abraham' is, in reality, the religion of the legend narrators which they attribute to Abraham[37]
has in various forms become a commonplace of contemporary criticism.[38]
Historicity of Events in Ancient Israel and Judah[edit]
In the United States the biblical archaeologymovement, under the influence of Albright, counter-attacked, arguing that the broad outline within the framing narratives was also true, so that while scholars could not realistically expect to prove or disprove individual episodes from the life of Abraham and the other patriarchs, these were real individuals who could be placed in a context proven from the archaeological record. But as more discoveries were made, and anticipated finds failed to materialise, it became apparent that archaeology did not in fact support the claims made by Albright and his followers. Today, only a minority of scholars continue to work within this framework, mainly for reasons of religious conviction.[39]William Dever stated in 1993 that "[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology'."[40]
The scholarly history of the Deuteronomic historyparallels that of the Pentateuch: the European tradition historyschool argued that the narrative was untrustworthy and could not be used to construct a narrative history; the American Albright school asserted that it could when tested against the archaeological record; and modern archaeological techniques proved crucial in deciding the issue. The test case was the book of Joshua and its account of a rapid, destructive conquest of the Canaanite cities: but by the 1960s it had become clear that the archaeological record did not, in fact, support the account of the conquest given in Joshua: the cities which the Bible records as having been destroyed by the Israelites were either uninhabited at the time, or, if destroyed, were destroyed at widely different times, not in one brief period.[citation needed]The most high-profile example was the "fall of Jericho."
John Garstang, who excavated in the 1930s, announced that he had found fallen walls dating to the time of the biblical Battle of Jericho.[41]However, Garstang later revised the destruction to a much earlier period.[41]Kathleen Kenyondated the destruction of the walled city to the middle of the 16th century (c.1550 BC), too early to match the usual dating of the Exodus to Pharaoh Ramses, on the basis of her excavations in the early 1950s.[42]The same conclusion, based on an analysis of all the excavation findings, was reached by Piotr Bienkowski.[43]
Thomas L. Thompson, a leading minimalistscholar for example has written
"There is no evidence of a United Monarchy, no evidence of a capital in Jerusalem or of any coherent, unified political force that dominated western Palestine, let alone an empire of the size the legends describe. We do not have evidence for the existence of kings named Saul, David or Solomon; nor do we have evidence for any temple at Jerusalem in this early period. What we do know of Israel and Judah of the tenth century does not allow us to interpret this lack of evidence as a gap in our knowledge and information about the past, a result merely of the accidental nature of archeology. There is neither room nor context, no artifact or archive that points to such historical realities in Palestine's tenth century. One cannot speak historically of a state without a population. Nor can one speak of a capital without a town. Stories are not enough."
These views are contentious with regard to modern evidence, see Archeology of Israel
Proponents of this theory also point to the fact that the division of the land into two entities, centered at Jerusalemand Shechem, goes back to the Egyptian rule of Israel in the New Kingdom. Solomon's empire is said to have stretched from the Euphratesin the north to the Red Seain the south; it would have required a large commitment of men and arms and a high level of organization to conquer, subdue, and govern this area. But there is little archaeological evidence of Jerusalem being a sufficiently large city in the 10th century BCE, and Judahseems to be sparsely settled in that time period. Since Jerusalem has been destroyed and then subsequently rebuilt approximately 15 to 20 times since the time of David and Solomon, some argue much of the evidence could easily have been eliminated.
None of the conquests of David nor Solomon are mentioned in contemporary histories. Culturally, the Bronze Age collapseis otherwise a period of general cultural impoverishment of the whole Levantine region, making it difficult to consider the existence of any large territorial unit such as the Davidic kingdom, whose cultural features rather seem to resemble the later kingdom of Hezekiahor Josiahthan the political and economic conditions of the 11th century. The biblical account makes no claim that Israel directly governed the areas included in their empires which are portrayed instead as tributaries.[citation needed]However, since the discovery of an inscription dating to the 9th or 8th century BCE on the Tel Dan Steleunearthed in the north of Israel, which may refer to the "house of David" as a monarchic dynast,[44]the debate has continued.[45]This is still disputed. There is a debate as to whether the united monarchy, the empire of King Solomon, and the rebellion of Jeroboamever existed, or whether they are a late fabrication. The Mesha Stele, dated to c. 840 BCE, translated by most scholars as a reference to the House of David, and mentions events and names found in Kings.[46]
There is a problem with the sources for this period of history (the United Monarchy). There are no contemporary independent documents other than the accounts of the Books of Samuel, which exhibits too many anachronismsto have been a contemporary account. For example there is mention of later armor (1 Samuel 17:4–7, 38–39; 25:13), use of camels(1 Samuel 30:17), and cavalry (as distinct from chariotry) (1 Samuel 13:5, 2 Samuel 1:6), iron picks and axes (as though they were common, (2 Samuel 12:31), sophisticated siege techniques (2 Samuel 20:15). There is a gargantuan troop (2 Samuel 17:1), a battle with 20,000 casualties (2 Samuel 18:7), and a reference to Kushite paramilitary and servants, clearly giving evidence of a date in which Kushiteswere common, after the 26th Dynasty of Egypt, the period of the last quarter of the 8th century BCE.[47]The historicity of the entire Book of Samuel is dubious, and many scholars regard it as legendary in origin, particularly given the lack of evidence for the battles described involving the destruction of the Canaanitepeoples (most scholars believe that the Israelites entered the land peacefully, as an offshoot from the Canaanites). The dramatization of real or legendary battles was common in the Ancient Near East, in this context it served to glorify Israel's national god.
New Testament[edit]
Historicity of Jesus[edit]
Main article: Historicity of Jesus
The historicity of some NT teachings of Jesus is also currently debated among biblical scholars. The "quest for the historical Jesus" began as early as the 18th century, and has continued to this day. The most notable recent scholarship came in the 1980s and 1990s with the work of J. D. Crossan,[48]James D. G. Dunn,[49]John P. Meier,[50]E. P. Sanders[51]and N. T. Wright[52]being the most widely read and discussed. The earliest New Testament texts which refer to Jesus, Paul's letters, are usually dated in the 50s CE. Since Paul records very little of Jesus' life and activities, these are of little help in determining facts about the life of Jesus, although they may contain references to information given to Paul from the eyewitnesses of Jesus.[53]
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrollshas shed light into the context of 1st century Judea, noting the diversity of Jewish belief as well as shared expectations and teachings. For example the expectation of the coming messiah, the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mountand much else of the early Christian movement are found to have existed within apocalyptic Judaism of the period.[54]This has had the effect of centering Early Christianitymuch more within its Jewish roots than was previously the case. It is now recognised that Rabbinical Judaismand Early Christianityare only two of the many strands which survived until the Jewish revoltof 66 to 70 CE,[55][56]see also Split of early Christianity and Judaism.
Almost all historical critics agree that a historical figure named Jesus taught throughout the Galilean countryside c. 30 CE, was believed by his followers to have performed supernatural acts, and was sentenced to death by the Romans, possibly for insurrection.[57]
The absence of evidence of Jesus' life before his meeting with John the Baptisthas led to many speculations. It would seem that part of the explanation may lie in the early conflict between Paul and the DesposyniEbionim, led by James the Just, supposedly the brother of Jesus, that led to Gospel passages critical of Jesus' family.[58]
Historicity of the Gospels[edit]
Main article: Historical reliability of the Gospels
Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospelaccounts were written between 70 and 100 or 110 CE,[16]four to eight decades after the crucifixion, although based on earlier traditions and texts, such as "Q", Logiaor sayings gospels, the passion account or other earlier literature (See List of Gospels). Some scholars argue that these accounts were compiled by witnesses[59][60]although this view is disputed by other scholars.[61]There are also secular references to Jesus, although they are few and quite late.
Many scholars have pointed out, that the Gospel of Markshows signs of a lack of knowledge of geographical, political and religious matters in Judea in the time of Jesus. Thus, today the most common opinion is, that the author is unknown and both geographically and historically at a distance to the narrated events[62][63][64][65]although opinion varies and scholars such as Craig Blombergaccept the more traditional view.[66]The use of expressions that may be described as awkward and rustic cause the Gospel of Mark to appear somewhat unlettered or even crude.[67]This may be attributed to the influence that Saint Peter, a fisherman, is suggested to have on the writing of Mark.[68]It is commonly thought that the writers of the Gospel of Matthewand Gospel of Lukeused Mark as a source, with changes and improvement to peculiarities and crudities in Mark.[67]
Historicity of the Acts[edit]
The historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles, the primary sourcefor the Apostolic Age, is a major issue for biblical scholars and historians of Early Christianity. Some scholars view the work as being inaccurate and in conflict with the Pauline epistles. Acts portrays Paul as more in line with Jewish Christianity, while the Pauline epistles record more conflict, such as the Incident at Antioch, see also Paul the Apostle and Judaism.
Schools of archaeological and historical thought[edit]
Overview of academic views[edit]
An educated reading of the biblical text requires knowledge of when it was written, by whom, and for what purpose. For example, many academics would agree that the Pentateuchwas in existence some time shortly after the 6th century BCE, but they disagree about when it was written. Proposed dates vary from the 15th century BCE to the 6th century BCE. One popular hypothesis points to the reign of Josiah(7th century BCE). In this hypothesis, the events of, for example, Exoduswould have happened centuries before they were finally edited. This topic is expanded upon in dating the Bible.
An important point to keep in mind is the documentary hypothesis, which using the biblical evidence itself, claims to demonstrate that our current version was based on older written sources that were lost. Although it has been modified heavily over the years, most scholars accept some form of this hypothesis. There have also been and are a number of scholars who reject it, for example EgyptologistKenneth Kitchen[69]and Old Testament scholarWalter Kaiser, Jr.,[70]as well as the late R. N. Whybray, Umberto Cassuto, O. T. Allisand Gleason Archer.
Maximalist – Minimalist dichotomy[edit]
The major split of biblical Scholarship into two opposing schools is strongly disapproved by non-fundamentalist biblical scholars, as being an attempt by so-called "conservative" Christians to portray the field as a bipolar argument, of which only one side is correct.[71]
Recently the difference between the Maximalist and Minimalist has reduced, however a new school started with a work, "The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel" by Israel Finkelstein, Amihai Mazar, and Brian B. Schmidt.[72]This school argues that post-processual archaeology enables us to recognize the existence of a middle ground between Minimalism and Maximalism, and that both these extremes need to be rejected. Archaeology offers both confirmation of parts of the biblical record and also poses challenges to the interpretations made by some. The careful examination of the evidence demonstrates that the historical accuracy of the first part of the Old Testament is greatest during the reign of Josiah. Some feel that the accuracy diminishes, the further backwards one proceeds from this date. This they claim would confirm that a major redaction of the texts seems to have occurred at about that date.
Biblical minimalism[edit]
Main article: Biblical minimalism
The viewpoint sometimes called Biblical minimalism generally hold that the Bible is principally a theologicaland apologeticwork, and all stories within it are of an aetiologicalcharacter. The early stories are held to have a historical basis that was reconstructed centuries later, and the stories possess at most only a few tiny fragments of genuine historical memory—which by their definition are only those points which are supported by archaeological discoveries. In this view, all of the stories about the biblical patriarchs are fictional, and the patriarchs mere legendary eponyms to describe later historical realities. Further, biblical minimalists hold that the twelve tribes of Israel were a later construction, the stories of King David and King Saul were modeled upon later Irano-Hellenistic examples, and that there is no archaeological evidence that the united kingdom of Israel, which the Bible says that David and Solomon ruled over an empire from the Euphrates to Eilath, ever existed.
"It is hard to pinpoint when the movement started but 1968 seems to be a reasonable date. During this year, two prize winning essays were written in Copenhagen; one by Niels Peter Lemche, the other by Heike Friis, which advocated a complete rethinking of the way we approach the Bible and attempt to draw historical conclusions from it"[73]
In published books, one of the early advocates of the current school of thought known as biblical minimalism is Giovanni Garbini, Storia e ideologia nell'Israele antico(1986), translated into English as History and Ideology in Ancient Israel(1988). In his footsteps followed Thomas L. Thompsonwith his lengthy Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written & Archaeological Sources(1992) and, building explicitly on Thompson's book, P. R. Davies' shorter work, In Search of 'Ancient Israel'(1992). In the latter, Davies finds historical Israel only in archaeological remains, biblical Israel only in Scripture, and recent reconstructions of "ancient Israel" to be an unacceptable amalgam of the two. Thompson and Davies see the entire Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) as the imaginative creation of a small community of Jews at Jerusalem during the period which the Bible assigns to after the return from the Babylonian exile, from 539 BCE onward. Niels Peter Lemche, Thompson's fellow faculty member at the University of Copenhagen, also followed with several titles that show Thompson's influence, including The Israelites in history and tradition(1998). The presence of both Thompson and Lemche at the same institution has led to the use of the term "Copenhagen school". The effect of biblical minimalism from 1992 onward was debate with more than two points of view[74][75]
Biblical maximalism[edit]
There is no scholarly controversy on the historicity of the events recounted after the Babylonian captivityin the 6th century BCE, but there is great controversy concerning earlier data. The positions of "maximalists" vs. "minimalists" refer primarily to the monarchy period, spanning the 10th to 7th centuries BCE. The maximalist position holds that the accounts of the United Monarchy and the early kings of Israel, king Davidand king Saul, are to be taken as largely historical.[76]
Decreasing conflict between the maximalist and minimalist schools[edit]
In 2001, Israel Finkelsteinand Neil Asher Silbermanpublished the book The Bible Unearthed. Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Textswhich advocated a view midway toward biblical minimalism and caused an uproar among many conservatives. In the 25th anniversary issue of Biblical Archeological Review(March/April 2001 edition), editor Hershel Shanksquoted several biblical scholars who insisted that minimalism was dying,[77]although leading minimalists deny this and a claim has been made "We are all minimalists now".[78]
Apart from the well-funded (and fundamentalist) “biblical archaeologists,” we are in fact nearly all “minimalists” now.[3]
—Philip Davies, "Beyond Labels: What Comes Next?"
The fact is that we are all minimalists -- at least, when it comes to the patriarchal period and the settlement. When I began my PhD studies more than three decades ago in the USA, the 'substantial historicity' of the patriarchs was widely accepted as was the unified conquest of the land. These days it is quite difficult to find anyone who takes this view.
In fact, until recently I could find no 'maximalist' history of Israel since Wellhausen. ... In fact, though, 'maximalist' has been widely defined as someone who accepts the biblical text unless it can be proven wrong. If so, very few are willing to operate like this, not even John Bright (1980) whose history is not a maximalist one according to the definition just given.
—Lester L. Grabbe, "Some Recent Issues in the Study of the History of Israel"
In 2003, Kenneth Kitchen, a scholar who adopts a more maximalist point of view, authored the book On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Kitchen advocated the reliability of many (though not all) parts of the Torah and in no uncertain terms criticizes the work of Finkelstein and Silberman, to which Finkelstein has since responded.
Jennifer Wallace describes archaeologist Israel Finkelstein's view in her article Shifting Ground in the Holy Land,appearing in Smithsonian Magazine, May 2006:
He [Finkelstein] cites the fact – now accepted by most archaeologists – that many of the cities Joshuais supposed to have sacked in the late 13th century B.C. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazorwas destroyed in the middle of that century, Aiwas abandoned before 2000 B.C. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 B.C. Now controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the Jerichosite consists of crumbling pits and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless digging.
However, despite problems with the archaeological record, some maximalists place Joshua in the mid second millennium, at about the time the Egyptian Empire came to rule over Canaan, and not the 13th century as Finkelstein or Kitchen claim, and view the destruction layers of the period as corroboration of the biblical account. The destruction of Hazor in the mid-13th century is seen as corroboration of the biblical account of the later destruction carried out by Deborah and Barak as recorded in the Book of Judges. The location that Finkelstein refers to as "Ai" is generally dismissed as the location of the biblical Ai, since it was destroyed and buried in the 3rd millennium. The prominent site has been known by that name since at least Hellenistic times, if not before. Minimalists all hold that dating these events as contemporary are etiologicalexplanations written centuries after the events they claim to report.
For the united monarchyboth Finkelstein and Silberman do accept that David and Solomon were really existing persons (no kings but bandit leaders or hill country chieftains)[79][80]from Judah about the 10th century BCE[81]- they do not assume that there was such a thing as united monarchywith a capital in Jerusalem.
The Bible reports that Jehoshaphat, a contemporary of Ahab, offered manpower and horses for the northern kingdom's wars against the Arameans. He strengthened his relationship with the northern kingdom by arranging a diplomatic marriage: the Israelite princess Athaliah, sister or daughter of King Ahab, married Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat (2 Kings 8:18). The house of David in Jerusalem was now directly linked to (and apparently dominated by) the Israelite royalty of Samaria. In fact, we might suggest that this represented the north's takeover by marriage of Judah. Thus in the ninth century BCE—nearly a century after the presumed time of David—we can finally point to the historical existence of a great united monarchy of Israel, stretching from Dan in the north to Beer-sheba in the south, with significant conquered territories in Syria and Transjordan. But this united monarchy—a real united monarchy—was ruled by the Omrides, not the Davidides, and its capital was Samaria, not Jerusalem.[4]
—Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, David and Solomon. In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition.
Others such as David Ussishkinargue that those who follow the biblical depiction of a united monarchydo so on the basis of limited evidence while hoping to uncover real archaeological proof in the future.[82]Gunnar Lehmann suggests that there is still a possibility that David and Solomon were able to become local chieftains of some importance and claims that Jerusalem at the time was at best a small town in a sparsely populated area in which alliances of tribal kinship groups formed the basis of society. He goes on further to claim that it was at best a small regional centre, one of three to four in the territory of Judah and neither David nor Solomon had the manpower or the requisite social/political/administrative structure to rule the kind of empire described in the Bible.[83]
These views are strongly criticized by William G. Dever,[84]Helga Weippert, Amihai Mazarand Amnon Ben-Tor.
André Lemairestates in Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple[85]that the principal points of the biblical tradition with Solomon as generally trustworthy, as does Kenneth Kitchen, who argue that Solomon ruled over a comparatively wealthy "mini-empire", rather than a small city-state.
Recently Finkelstein has joined with the more conservative Amihai Mazar, to explore the areas of agreement and disagreement and there are signs the intensity of the debate between the so-called minimalist and maximalist scholars is diminishing.[72]This view is also taken by Richard S. Hess,[86]which shows there is in fact a plurality of views between maximalists and minimalists. Jack Cargill[87]has shown that popular textbooks not only fail to give readers the up to date archaeological evidence, but that they also fail to correctly represent the diversity of views present on the subject. And Megan Bishop Moore and Brad E. Kelle provide an overview of the respective evolving approaches and attendant controversies, especially during the period from the mid-1980s through 2011, in their book Biblical History and Israel's Past.
See also[edit]
Abraham#Historicity and origins
Authorship of the Bible
Biblical archaeology school
Biblical criticism
Biblical inerrancy
Biblical literalism
Book of Daniel#Composition
Book of Esther#Historicity
Book of Joshua#Genre (historicity)
Rudolf Bultmann
Census of Quirinius
Chronology of Jesus
Crucifixion darkness
Dating the Bible
David#Historicity
Development of the New Testament canon
Documentary hypothesis
The Exodus#Historicity
Ezra#Academic view
Flood geology
Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles
Historicity of Jesus
Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)#History
List of artifacts in biblical archaeology
Massacre of the Innocents#Historicity
Moses#Historicity
Sanhedrin trial of Jesus
Science and the Bible
Theudas
Notes[edit]
1.Jump up ^Thompson 2014, p. 164.
2.Jump up ^Peter Enns, 3 Things I Would Like to See Evangelical Leaders Stop Saying about Biblical Scholarship, January 10, 2013. Quote: "Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the world of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we find in the Bible. But the archaeological record has not been friendly for one vital issue, Israel's origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites. The strong consensus is that there is at best sparse indirect evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest there is considerable evidence against it."
3.^ Jump up to: abPhilip Davies "Beyond Labels: What Comes Next?"
4.^ Jump up to: abFinkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (2006). "3. Murder, Lust, and Betrayal". David and Solomon. In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition. New York: Free Press. p. 103. ISBN 978-0-7432-4363-6. Retrieved December 24,2010.
5.Jump up ^"The mainstream view of critical biblical scholarship accepts that Genesis-Joshua (perhaps Judges) is substantially devoid of reliable history and that it was in the Persian period that the bulk of Hebrew Bible literature was either composed or achieved its canonical shape." —Philip Davies, Minimalism, "Ancient Israel," and Anti-Semitism
6.Jump up ^"He cites the fact—now accepted by most archaeologists—that many of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the late 13th century b.c. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed in the middle of that century, and Ai was abandoned before 2000 b.c. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 b.c. Now controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the Jericho site consists of crumbling pits and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless digging." —Jennifer Wallace, "Shifting Ground in the Holy Land", Smithsonian Magazine, May 2006
7.Jump up ^"So although much of the archaeological evidence demonstrates that the Hebrew Bible cannot in most cases be taken literally, many of the people, places and things probably did exist at some time or another." —Jonathan Michael Golden, Ancient Canaan and Israel: new perspectives, Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 275
8.Jump up ^Lester L. Grabbe, Some Recent Issues in the Study of the History of Israel, Proceedings of the British Academy, October 2007
9.Jump up ^Komoszewski, J. Ed; Wallace, Daniel J. (2006). Reinventing Jesus: What the Da Vinci Code and Other Novel Speculations Don't Tell You. Grand Rapids, Mich: Kregel Publications. p. 70. ISBN 0-8254-2982-X.
10.Jump up ^Aland, Barbara; Aland, Kurt (1995). The text of the New Testament: an introduction to the critical editions and to the theory and practice of modern textual criticism. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans. p. 29. ISBN 0-8028-4098-1.
11.Jump up ^Ferguson, Everett (2002). "Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon". In Sanders, James; McDonald, Lee Martin. The Canon Debate. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers. p. 301. ISBN 1-56563-517-5.
12.^ Jump up to: abLindberg, Carter (2006). A Brief History of Christianity. Blackwell Publishing. p. 15. ISBN 1-4051-1078-3.
13.Jump up ^Brakke, David (1994). "Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth Century Egypt: Athanasius of Alexandria's Thirty Ninth Festal Letter". Harvard Theological Review87: 395–419.
14.Jump up ^Bruce, F. F. (1988). The canon of scripture. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press. p. 225. ISBN 0-8308-1258-X.
15.Jump up ^Ehrman, Bart (2011). "Forged: Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are", Harper One, ISBN 0062012614
16.^ Jump up to: abMack, Burton (1996), "Who Wrote the New Testament?: The Making of the Christian Myth", Harper One, ISBN 0060655186
17.Jump up ^The most recent and most complete anthology of ancient Near Eastern texts, all translated into English, is The Context of Scripture(3 vols.; ed. William W. Hallo. assoc. ed. K. Lawson Younger, Jr.; Leiden: Brill, 1997-2002). Its worthy predecessor, which is still useful but lacks many texts discovered since the mid-20th century, is Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament(ed. James B. Pritchard; 3rd ed. with supplement; Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1969). The two preeminent anthologies of inscriptions of ancient Israel and its immediate neighbors such as Aram (ancient Syria), Ammon, Edom, Moab, Phoenicia, and Philistia (not Egypt or Mesopotamia) are: 1) Shmuel Ahituv, ed., Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical Period(Jerusalem: Carta, 2008) and 2) Nahman Avigad and Benjamin Sass, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals(Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1997). This last book has been criticized for mixing seals and seal impressions of known authenticity with unreliable seals and seal impressions of unknown origin, which could be forgeries. In general, if a known place of excavation by an archaeological team is mentioned, the discoveries should be considered reliable; otherwise not.
18.Jump up ^The most extensive summary, site by site, is The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land(4 vols. plus supplementary vol. 5; ed. Ephraim Stern; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993-2008). A two-volume series which gives period-by-period coverage of archaeological discoveries and their significance is 1) Amihay Mazar, Archaeological of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E.(New York: Doubleday, 1990) and 2) Ephraim Stern, Archaeological of the Land of the Bible, Volume II: the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods, 732-332 B.C.E.(New York: Doubleday, 2001)
19.Jump up ^In historical geography, the preeminent book in English is Anson F. Rainey and R. Steven Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Carta's Atlas of the Biblical World(Jerusalem: Carta, 2006).
20.Jump up ^McNutt, Paula M. (1999). Reconstructing the society of ancient Israel. London: SPCK. ISBN 0-281-05259-X.
21.Jump up ^Albright, William Foxwell (1985). Archaeology of Palestine. Peter Smith Pub Inc. p. 128. ISBN 0-8446-0003-2. "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details of the Bible as a source of history."
22.Jump up ^Dever, William G. (2008), "Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel" (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company)
23.Jump up ^Henry, Carl Ferdinand Howard (1999) [1979]. "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy". God, Revelation and Authority4. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books. pp. 211–219. ISBN 1-58134-056-7.
24.Jump up ^Thompson, Thomas (2002) [1974]. The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham. Valley Forge, Pa: Trinity Press International. ISBN 1-56338-389-6.
25.Jump up ^Young, Davis A (March 1988). "The contemporary relevance of Augustine's view of Creation". Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith40(1): 42–45. "But someone may ask: 'Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like a skin?' Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false.... But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions"
26.Jump up ^Klein-Braslavy, Sara (1986). "The Creation of the world and Maimonides' interpretation of Gen. i–v". In Pines, S.; Yovel, Y. Maimonides and Philosophy (International Archives of the History of Ideas / Archives internationales d'histoire des idées). Berlin: Springer. pp. 65–78. ISBN 90-247-3439-8.
27.Jump up ^PhysicsI, 7
28.Jump up ^Tiziano Dorandi, Chapter 2: Chronology, in Algra et al. (1999) The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, page 50. Cambridge
29.Jump up ^Lang, Helen, "Introduction", p.2 in Proclus (2001). On the Eternity of the World. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-22554-6.
30.Jump up ^Gillispie, Charles Coulston (1996) [1951]. Genesis and geology: a study in the relations of scientific thought, natural theology, and social opinion in Great Britain, 1790–1850. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-34481-2.
31.Jump up ^Quoted in Gillispie, Charles Coulston (1996) [1951]. Genesis and geology: a study in the relations of scientific thought, natural theology, and social opinion in Great Britain, 1790–1850. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. pp. 142–143. ISBN 0-674-34481-2.
32.^ Jump up to: abWenham, Gordon J. (2003). "Genesis 1–11". Exploring the Old Testament: A Guide to the Pentateuch. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-2551-7.
33.Jump up ^Hobbes, Thomas (1651). "Chapter XXXIII. Of the number, antiquity, scope, authority and interpreters of the books of Holy Scripture". Leviathan. Green Dragon in St. Paul's Churchyard: Andrew Crooke.
34.Jump up ^Spinoza, Baruch (1670). "Chapter VIII. Of the authorship of the Pentateuch and the other historical books of the Old Testament". A Theologico-Political Treatise (Part II).
35.Jump up ^Simon, Richard (1682). A critical history of the Old Testament(PDF). London: Walter Davis. p. 21.
36.Jump up ^Wellhausen, Julius (1885). Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black.
37.Jump up ^Gunkel, Hermann (1997) [1901]. Biddle, Mark E. tr, ed. Genesis. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press. p. lxviii. ISBN 0-86554-517-0.
38.Jump up ^"[F]or not only has "archaeology" not proven a single event of the patriarchal tradition to be historical, it has not shown any of the traditions to be likely ... it must be concluded that any such historicity as is commonly spoken of in both scholarly and popular works about the patriarchs of Genesis is hardly possible and totally improbable." Thompson, op cit, p. 328
39.Jump up ^Mazar, Amihay (1992). Archaeology of the land of the Bible, 10,000-586 BCE. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-42590-2.
40.Jump up ^Dever, William (March 1993). "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?". The Biblical Archaeologist(The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 56, No. 1) 56(1): 25–35. doi:10.2307/3210358. JSTOR 3210358.
41.^ Jump up to: abThomas A. Holland (1997). "Jericho". In Eric M. Meyers. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Oxford University Press. pp. 220–224.
42.Jump up ^Kathleen M. Kenyon (1957). Digging up Jericho: The Results of the Jericho Excavations, 1952-1956. New York: Praeger. p. 229.
43.Jump up ^Piotr Bienkowski (1986). Jericho in the Late Bronze Age. Warminster. pp. 120–125.
44.Jump up ^Schniedewind WM (1996). "Tel Dan Stela: New Light on Aramaic and Jehu's Revolt". Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research302: 75–90. doi:10.2307/1357129. JSTOR 1357129.
45.Jump up ^Dever, William G. (2002), What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, ISBN 080282126X
46.Jump up ^LeMaire, André. "House of David Restored in Moabite Inscription", Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 1994.
47.Jump up ^Redford, Donald B. (1992). Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in ancient times. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. p. 305. ISBN 0-691-00086-7.
48.Jump up ^Crossan, J. D. "The Historical Jesus: A Mediterranean Jewish Peasant," HarperOne, 1993, ISBN 0060616296
49.Jump up ^James D. G. Dunn, "Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, Vol. 1, Eerdmans, 2003"
50.Jump up ^John P. Meier, "A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 3 vols., the most recent volume from Yale University Press, 2001"
51.Jump up ^Sanders, E.P. "The Historical Figure of Jesus," Penguin, 1996, ISBN 0141928220
52.Jump up ^Wright, N.T. "Jesus and the Victory of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God", Vol. 2, Augsburg Fortress Press, 1997, ISBN 0800626826
53.Jump up ^John P. Meier, A Marginal JewVolume I, Doubleday, 1991.
54.Jump up ^The Dead Sea scrolls and Christian origins, Joseph Fitzmyer, pp. 28ff
55.Jump up ^Bernstein, Richard (April 1, 1998). "BOOKS OF THE TIMES; Looking for Jesus and Jews in the Dead Sea Scrolls". The New York Times. Retrieved May 25,2010.
56.Jump up ^Shanks, Hershel "Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reader From the Biblical Archaeology Review", archive.org
57.Jump up ^Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew, Vol. II, Doubleday, 1994, ISBN 0300140339
58.Jump up ^EBIONISM; EBIONITES in the Bible Encyclopedia - ISBE (Bible History Online). Bible-history.com. Retrieved on 2012-09-11.
59.Jump up ^Bauckham, Richard "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses,"Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2006, ISBN 0802831621
60.Jump up ^Byrskog, Samuel "Story as History, History as Story,"Mohr Siebeck, 2000, ISBN 3161473051
61.Jump up ^Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? A Debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts, March 28, 2006
62.Jump up ^Analecta Romana Instituti Danici, Danske selskab, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1998.
63.Jump up ^Nineham, Dennis, Saint Mark, Westminster Press, 1978, ISBN 0664213448, p 193
64.Jump up ^Bart Ehrman, The New Testament. A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, p. 74 ISBN 0195154622
65.Jump up ^McDonald, Lee Martin and Porter, Stanley. Early Christianity and its Sacred Literature, Hendrickson Publishers, 2000, p. 286 ISBN 1565632664
66.Jump up ^Strobel, Lee. ”The Case for Christ”. 1998. Chapter one, an interview with Blomberg, ISBN 0310209307
67.^ Jump up to: abText-critical methodology and the pre-Caesarean text: Codex W in the Gospel,Larry W. Hurtado, p. 25
68.Jump up ^"biblical literature."Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 02 Nov. 2010 .
69.Jump up ^Kitchen, K. A. (2003). On the reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans. ISBN 0-8028-4960-1.
70.Jump up ^"Exploding the J.E.D.P. Theory - The Documentary Hypothesis". jashow.org.
71.Jump up ^Spong, John Shelby (1992) "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" (Harper)
72.^ Jump up to: abFinkelstein, Israel; Mazar, Amihai and Schmidt, Brian (2007). The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel. Society of Biblical Lit. ISBN 978-1-58983-277-0.
73.Jump up ^George Athas, 'Minimalism': The Copenhagen School of Thought in Biblical Studies, edited transcript of lecture, 3rd ed., University of Sydney, April 29, 1999.
74.Jump up ^Mykytiuk, Lawrence J. (2010). "Strengthening Biblical Historicity vis-à-vis Minimalism, 1992–2008, Part 1: Introducing a Bibliographic Essay in Five Parts". Journal of Religious and Theological Information9(3–4): 76. doi:10.1080/10477845.2010.526920.
75.Jump up ^Brettler, Marc Z. (2003). "The Copenhagen School: The Historiographical Issues". AJS Review27: 1–21. doi:10.1017/S0364009403000011. JSTOR 4131767.Mykytiuk, Lawrence J. (2012). "Strengthening Biblical Historicity vis-à-vis Minimalism, 1992–2008 and Beyond, Part 2.1: The Literature of Perspective, Critique, and Methodology, First Half". Journal of Religious and Theological Information11(3–4): 101–137, in which the relevant section is "Toward a Balanced View of Minimalism: A Summary of Published Critiques"; the Official version of record is available at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10477845.2012.673111?journalCode=wrti20#.UjVAiNI6Pgc. Author's Accepted Draft if freely available at http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/lib_fsdocs/52/.
76.Jump up ^"Maximalists and Minimalists", Livius.org.
77.Jump up ^Jack Cargill Ancient Israel in Western Civ Textbooks. Quoting Amy Dockster Marcus about the minimalists: "The bottom line is that when it comes to the big picture, they are often right. Many of their ideas, once considered far-fetched, are now solidly mainstream concepts."
78.Jump up ^American Journal of Theology & Philosophy Vol. 14, No.1 January, 1993
79.Jump up ^David and SolomonBeschrijving. Bol.com
80.Jump up ^Richard N. Ostling Was King David legend or fiction?The Associated Press
81.Jump up ^David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition pp20
82.Jump up ^Ussishkin, David, "Solomon's Jerusalem: The Texts and the Facts on the Ground" in Vaughn Andrew G. and Killebrew, Ann E. eds. (2003), "Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period" (SBL Symposium Series 18; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature)
83.Jump up ^Lehrmann, Gunnar, "The United Monarchy in the Countryside: Jerusalem, Judah, and the Shephelah during the Tenth Century BCE", in Vaughn Andrew G. and Killebrew, Ann E. eds. (2003), "Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period" (SBL Symposium Series 18; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature)
84.Jump up ^Dever 2001, p. 160
85.Jump up ^Shanks, Hershel (1999). Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple, Pearson, p. 113 ISBN 0130853631
86.Jump up ^Hess, Richard S. (2007) "Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey", Baker Academic, ISBN 0801027179
87.Jump up ^"Jack Cargill - Ancient Israel in Western Civ Textbooks - The History Teacher, 34.3". Retrieved 5 October2014.
References[edit]
Banks, Diane (2006). Writing The History Of Israel. Continuum International Publishing Group.
Brettler, Mark Zvi (2005). How to Read the Bible. Jewish Publication Society.
Davies, Philip R. (1995). In Search of 'Ancient Israel'. Continuum International Publishing Group.
Davies, Philip R. (n.d.). Minimalism, 'Ancient Israel', and Anti-Semitism. The Bible and Interpretation.
Davies, Philip R., Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures, 1998.
Davies, Philip R. (2008). Memories of Ancient Israel. Westminster John Knox Press.
Dever, William G.(2012). The Lives of Ordinary People in Ancient Israel. Eerdmans.
Finkelstein, Israel; Mazar, Amihay; Schmidt, Brian B. (2007). The Quest for the Historical Israel. Society of Biblical Literature.
Finkelstein, Israel, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, 1988
Garbini, Giovanni, History and Ideology in Ancient Israel, 1988 (trans from Italian).
Halpern, Baruch, "Erasing History: The Minimalist Assault on Ancient Israel", Bible Review, December 1995, p26 - 35, 47.
Lemche, Niels Peter, Early Israel, 1985.
Lemche, Niels Peter (1998). The Israelites in History and Tradition. Westminster John Knox Press.
Moore, Megan Bishop; Kelle, Brad E. (2011). Biblical History and Israel's Past. Eerdmans.
Provan, Iain W., "Ideologies, Literary and Critical Reflections on Recent Writing on the History of Israel", Journal of Biblical Literature114/4 (1995), p585-606. (a critique of the Copenhagen School of Thought - with responses by Davies (above) and Thompson (below))
Thompson, Thomas L. (1992). Early History of the Israelite People. Brill.
Thompson, Thomas L., "A Neo-Albrightean School in History and Biblical Scholarship?" Journal of Biblical Literature114/4 (1995), p683-698. (a response to the article by Iain W. Provan - above)
Thompson, Thomas L. (1999). The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology And The Myth Of Israel. Basic Book.
Thompson, Thomas L. (n.d.). A view from Copenhagen: Israel and the History of Palestine. The Bible and Interpretation.
Van Seters, John, Abraham in History and Tradition, 1975.
Whitelam, Keith W. (1996). The Invention of Ancient Israel. Routledge.
Barenboim, Peter. "Biblical Roots of Separation of Powers", Moscow : Letny Sad, 2005, ISBN 5-94381-123-0, http://lccn.loc.gov/2006400578
Biran, Avraham. "'David' Found at Dan." Biblical Archaeology Review20:2 (1994): 26–39.
Brettler, Marc Z., “The Copenhagen School: The Historiographical Issues,” AJS Review27 (2003): 1–21.
Coogan, Michael D. "Canaanites: Who Were They and Where Did They Live?" Bible Review9:3 (1993): 44ff.
Davies, Philip R. 1992, 2nd edition 1995, reprinted 2004.In Search of 'Ancient Israel'. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Dawood, N.J. 1978. Tales from the Arabian Nights, Doubleday, A delightful children's version translated from the original Arabic.
Dever, William G. What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2001
Finkelstein, Israel and Silberman, Neil A. 2001 The Bible Unearthed. New York: Simon and Schuster
Garbini, Giovanni. 1988. History and Ideology in Ancient Israel. Translated by John Bowden from the original Italian edition. New York: Crossroad.
Harpur, Tom. 2004. "The Pagan Christ. Recovering the Lost Light" Thomas Allen Publishers, Toronto.
Kitchen, Kenneth A. 2003 On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Koehler; Dr. Ralph D. Christian Bible History. ISBN 1-4208-1242-4.
Larsson, G. 2007. "The Chronological System of the Old Testament". Peter Lang GmbH.
Lemche, Niels P. 1998. The Israelites in History and TraditionLondon : SPCK ; Louisville, Ky. : Westminster John Knox Press.
Mazar, Amihai. 1992. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000–586 B.C.E.New York: Doubleday.
Miller, J. Maxwell, and John Haralson Hayes, "A history of ancient Israel and Judah" (Westminster John Knox Press, 1986)
Moore, Megan Bishop and Brad E. Kelle, Biblical History and Israel's Past, 2011.
Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies. Manchester U. Press, 1975.
Mykytiuk, Lawrence J. 2010. "Strengthening Biblical Historicity vis-à-vis Minimalism, 1992–2008, Part 1: Introducing a Bibliographic Essay in Five Parts,” Journal of Religious and Theological Information9/3–4: 71-83.
Na'aman, Nadav. 1996 ."The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalem's Political Position in the Tenth Century B.C.E." BASOR. 304: 17–27.
Na'aman, Nadav. 1997 "Cow Town or Royal Capital: Evidence for Iron Age Jerusalem." Biblical Archaeology Review. 23, no. 4: 43–47, 67.
Noth, Martin, "Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien", 1943; English translation as "The Deuteronomistic History", Sheffield, 1981, and "The Chronicler's History", Sheffield, 1987.
Shanks, Hershel. 1995. Jerusalem: An Archaeological Biography. New York: Random House.
Shanks, Hershel. 1997 "Face to Face: Biblical Minimalists Meet Their Challengers." Biblical Archaeology Review. 23, no. 4: 26–42, 66.
Smith, Mark S. The Early History of God, Eerdmans, 2002 (1st edition 1990)
Steiner, Margareet and Jane Cahill. "David's Jerusalem: Fiction or Reality?" Biblical Archaeology Review24:4 (1998): 25–33, 62–63; 34–41, 63. This article presents a debate between a Biblical minimalist and a Biblical maximalist.
Thompson, Thomas L. (2014). Biblical Narrative and Palestine's History: Changing Perspectives 2. Routledge.
________. The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past. London.
________. 1992. The Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and Archaeological Sources. Leiden and New York: Brill.
Yamauchi, Edwin, The Stones and the Scriptures. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1972.
External links[edit]
'Minimalism' – The Copenhagen School of Thought in Biblical Studies
Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliableby Gary Habermas
Biblical Archaeology Society: examines discoveries and controversies about historical veracity of the Bible
Livius.org: Maximalism and minimalism
Notes on minimalism by George Athas
[hide]
v·
t·
e
The Bible and history
General studies
Biblical criticism·
Biblical studies·
History of ancient Israel and Judah·
The Bible and history·
Quest for the historical Jesus·
Jesus Christ in comparative mythology
Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg
Historicity
Biblical archaeology·
Historicity of Jesus·
Historicity of the Bible·
Historical reliability of the Gospels·
List of artifacts in biblical archaeology·
List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources·
List of burial places of biblical figures·
List of Hebrew Bible manuscripts·
List of New Testament papyri·
List of New Testament uncials·
Historical Jesus
Criticism
Criticism of the Bible·
Christ myth theory
Bible Portal
Categories: Ancient Jewish history
Biblical criticism
Historicity of religion
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Čeština
Español
Italiano
Português
Slovenčina
Suomi
Svenska
Türkçe
Edit links
This page was last modified on 30 May 2015, at 04:18.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Useand Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
Original sin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Original Sin (disambiguation).
It has been suggested that ancestral sin be merged into this article. (Discuss) Proposed since January 2015.
Depiction of the sin of Adam and Eve by Jan Brueghel the Elder and Pieter Paul Rubens
See also: Fate of the unlearned
Original sin, also called ancestral sin,[1] is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man,[2] stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden. This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.[3]
The concept of original sin was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in his controversy with certain dualist Gnostics. Other church fathers such as Augustine also developed the doctrine,[2] seeing it as based on the New Testament teaching of Paul the Apostle (Romans 5:12–21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22) and the Old Testament verse of Psalm 51:5.[4][5][6][7][8] Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose and Ambrosiaster considered that humanity shares in Adam's sin, transmitted by human generation. Augustine's formulation of original sin was popular among Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, who equated original sin with concupiscence, affirming that it persisted even after baptism and completely destroyed freedom.[2] The Jansenist movement, which the Catholic Church declared to be heretical, also maintained that original sin destroyed freedom of will.[9]
Jewish theologians are divided in regard to the cause of what is called "original sin". Some teach that it was due to Adam's yielding to temptation in eating of the forbidden fruit and has been inherited by his descendants; the majority, however, do not hold Adam responsible for the sins of humanity,[10] teaching that, in Genesis 8:21 and 6:5-8, God recognized that Adam's sins are his alone. However, Adam is recognized by some as having brought death into the world by his disobedience. Because of his sin, his descendants will live a mortal life, which will end in death of their bodies.[11] The doctrine of "inherited sin" is not found in most of mainstream Judaism. Although some in Orthodox Judaism place blame on Adam for overall corruption of the world, and though there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon humanity on account of Adam's sin, that is not the dominant view in most of Judaism today. Modern Judaism generally teaches that humans are born sin-free and untainted, and choose to sin later and bring suffering to themselves.[12][13] The concept of inherited sin is also not found in any real form in Islam.[14][15] Some interpretations of original sin are rejected by other Christian theologies.
Contents [hide]
1 History of the doctrine 1.1 Augustine
1.2 Cassian
1.3 Church reaction
1.4 Protestant reformation
1.5 Council of Trent
2 Denominational views 2.1 Roman Catholicism
2.2 Eastern Orthodoxy
2.3 Classical Anglicanism
2.4 Methodism
2.5 Seventh-day Adventism
2.6 Jehovah's Witnesses
2.7 Mormonism
2.8 Swedenborgianism
3 Islam
4 Criticism
5 See also
6 References
7 Bibliography
8 External links
History of the doctrine[edit]
Michelangelo's painting of the sin of Adam and Eve from the Sistine Chapel ceiling
The formalized doctrine of original sin was first developed in the 2nd-century by Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons, in his struggle against Gnosticism.[2] Irenaeus contrasted their doctrine with the view that the Fall was a step in the wrong direction by Adam, with whom, Irenaeus believed, his descendants had some solidarity or identity.[16] Irenaeus believed that Adam's sin had grave consequences for humanity, that it is the source of human sinfulness, mortality and enslavement to sin, and that all human beings participate in his sin and share his guilt.[17]
The Greek Fathers emphasized the cosmic dimension of the Fall, namely that since Adam human beings are born into a fallen world, but held fast to belief that man, though fallen, is free.[2] They thus did not teach that human beings are deprived of free will and involved in total depravity, which is one understanding of original sin.[18][19] During this period the doctrines of human depravity and the inherently sinful nature of human flesh were taught by Gnostics, and orthodox Christian writers took great pains to counter them.[20][21] Christian Apologists insisted that God's future judgment of humanity implied humanity must have the ability to live righteously.[22][23]
Augustine[edit]
Augustine of Hippo wrote that original sin is transmitted by concupiscence and enfeebles freedom of the will without destroying it.[2]
Augustine of Hippo (354–430) taught that Adam's sin[24] is transmitted by concupiscence, or "hurtful desire",[25][26] resulting in humanity becoming a massa damnata (mass of perdition, condemned crowd), with much enfeebled, though not destroyed, freedom of will.[2] When Adam sinned, human nature was thenceforth transformed. Adam and Eve, via sexual reproduction, recreated human nature. Their descendants now live in sin, in the form of concupiscence, a term Augustine used in a metaphysical, not a psychological sense.[27] Augustine insisted that concupiscence was not a being but a bad quality, the privation of good or a wound.[28] He admitted that sexual concupiscence (libido) might have been present in the perfect human nature in paradise, and that only later it became disobedient to human will as a result of the first couple's disobedience to God's will in the original sin.[29] In Augustine's view (termed "Realism"), all of humanity was really present in Adam when he sinned, and therefore all have sinned. Original sin, according to Augustine, consists of the guilt of Adam which all humans inherit. As sinners, humans are utterly depraved in nature, lack the freedom to do good, and cannot respond to the will of God without divine grace. Grace is irresistible, results in conversion, and leads to perseverance.[30]
Augustine articulated his explanation in reaction to Pelagianism, which insisted that humans have of themselves, without the necessary help of God's grace, the ability to lead a morally good life, and thus denied both the importance of baptism and the teaching that God is the giver of all that is good. Pelagius claimed that the influence of Adam on other humans was merely that of bad example. Augustine held that the effects of Adam's sin are transmitted to his descendants not by example but by the very fact of generation from that ancestor. A wounded nature comes to the soul and body of the new person from his/her parents, who experience libido (or concupiscence). Augustine's view was that human procreation was the way the transmission was being effected. He did not blame, however, the sexual passion itself, but the spiritual concupiscence present in human nature, soul and body, even after baptismal regeneration.[31] Christian parents transmit their wounded nature to children, because they give them birth, not the "re-birth".[32] Augustine used Ciceronian Stoic concept of passions, to interpret St. Paul's doctrine of universal sin and redemption. In that view, also sexual desire itself as well as other bodily passions were consequence of the original sin, in which pure affections were wounded by vice and became disobedient to human reason and will. As long as they carry a threat to the dominion of reason over the soul they constitute moral evil, but since they do not presuppose consent, one cannot call them sins. Humanity will be liberated from passions, and pure affections will be restored only when all sin has been washed away and ended, that is in the resurrection of the dead.[33][34]
Augustine believed that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell. He concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin.[35][36] The Latin Church Fathers who followed Augustine adopted his position, which became a point of reference for Latin theologians in the Middle Ages.[37] In the later medieval period, some theologians continued to hold Augustine's view, others held that unbaptized infants suffered no pain at all: unaware of being deprived of the beatific vision, they enjoyed a state of natural, not supernatural happiness. Starting around 1300, unbaptized infants were often said to inhabit the "limbo of infants".[38] The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261 declares: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,'[39] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism." But the theory of Limbo, while it "never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium ... remains ... a possible theological hypothesis".[40]
Cassian[edit]
In the works of John Cassian (ca. 360 – 435), Conference XIII recounts how the wise monk Chaeremon, of whom he is writing, responded to puzzlement caused by his own statement that "man even though he strive with all his might for a good result, yet cannot become master of what is good unless he has acquired it simply by the gift of Divine bounty and not by the efforts of his own toil" (chapter 1). In chapter 11, Cassian presents Chaeremon as speaking of the cases of Paul the persecutor and Matthew the publican as difficulties for those who say "the beginning of free will is in our own power", and the cases of Zaccheus and the good thief on the cross as difficulties for those who say "the beginning of our free will is always due to the inspiration of the grace of God", and as concluding: "These two then; viz., the grace of God and free will seem opposed to each other, but really are in harmony, and we gather from the system of goodness that we ought to have both alike, lest if we withdraw one of them from man, we may seem to have broken the rule of the Church's faith: for when God sees us inclined to will what is good, He meets, guides, and strengthens us: for 'At the voice of thy cry, as soon as He shall hear, He will answer thee'; and: 'Call upon Me', He says, 'in the day of tribulation and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify Me'. And again, if He finds that we are unwilling or have grown cold, He stirs our hearts with salutary exhortations, by which a good will is either renewed or formed in us."[41]
Cassian did not accept the idea of total depravity, on which Martin Luther was to insist.[42] He taught that human nature is fallen or depraved, but not totally. Augustine Casiday states that, at the same time, Cassian "baldly asserts that God's grace, not human free will, is responsible for 'everything which pertains to salvation' – even faith."[43] Cassian pointed out that people still have moral freedom and one has the option to choose to follow God. Colm Luibhéid says that, according to Cassian, there are cases where the soul makes the first little turn,[44] but in Cassian's view, according to Casiday, any sparks of goodwill that may exist, not directly caused by God, are totally inadequate and only direct divine intervention ensures spiritual progress.[45] and Lauren Pristas says that "for Cassian, salvation is, from beginning to end, the effect of God's grace."[46]
Church reaction[edit]
Opposition to Augustine's ideas about original sin, which he had developed in reaction to Pelagianism, arose rapidly.[47] After a long and bitter struggle the general principles of Augustine's teaching were confirmed within Western Christianity by many councils, especially the Second Council of Orange in 529.[2] However, while the Church condemned Pelagius, it did not endorse Augustine entirely[48] and, while Augustine's authority was accepted, he was interpreted in the light of writers such as Cassian.[49] Some of the followers of Augustine identified original sin with concupiscence[50] in the psychological sense, but this identification was challenged by the 11th-century Saint Anselm of Canterbury, who defined original sin as "privation of the righteousness that every man ought to possess", thus separating it from concupiscence. In the 12th century the identification of original sin with concupiscence was supported by Peter Lombard and others, but was rejected by the leading theologians in the next century, chief of whom was Thomas Aquinas. He distinguished the supernatural gifts of Adam before the Fall from what was merely natural, and said that it was the former that were lost, privileges that enabled man to keep his inferior powers in submission to reason and directed to his supernatural end. Even after the fall, man thus kept his natural abilities of reason, will and passions. Rigorous Augustine-inspired views persisted among the Franciscans, though the most prominent Franciscan theologians, such as Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, eliminated the element of concupiscence.
Protestant reformation[edit]
Martin Luther (1483–1546) asserted that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. The second article in Lutheranism's Augsburg Confession presents its doctrine of original sin in summary form:
It is also taught among us that since the fall of Adam all men who are born according to the course of nature are conceived and born in sin. That is, all men are full of evil lust and inclinations from their mothers' wombs and are unable by nature to have true fear of God and true faith in God. Moreover, this inborn sickness and hereditary sin is truly sin and condemns to the eternal wrath of God all those who are not born again through Baptism and the Holy Spirit. Rejected in this connection are the Pelagians and others who deny that original sin is sin, for they hold that natural man is made righteous by his own powers, thus disparaging the sufferings and merit of Christ.[51]
Luther, however, also agreed with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (that Mary was conceived free from original sin) by saying:
[Mary] is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.[52]
Protestant Reformer John Calvin (1509–1564) developed a systematic theology of Augustinian Protestantism by interpretation of Augustine of Hippo's notion of original sin. Calvin believed that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. This inherently sinful nature (the basis for the Calvinistic doctrine of "total depravity") results in a complete alienation from God and the total inability of humans to achieve reconciliation with God based on their own abilities. Not only do individuals inherit a sinful nature due to Adam's fall, but since he was the federal head and representative of the human race, all whom he represented inherit the guilt of his sin by imputation. Redemption by Jesus Christ is the only remedy.
John Calvin defined original sin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion as follows:
Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God's wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls "works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19). And that is properly what Paul often calls sin. The works that come forth from it – such as adulteries, fornications, thefts, hatreds, murders, carousings – he accordingly calls "fruits of sin" (Gal 5:19–21), although they are also commonly called "sins" in Scripture, and even by Paul himself.[53]
Council of Trent[edit]
The Council of Trent (1545–1563), while not pronouncing on points disputed among Catholic theologians, condemned the teaching that in baptism the whole of what belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but is only cancelled or not imputed, and declared the concupiscence that remains after baptism not truly and properly "sin" in the baptized, but only to be called sin in the sense that it is of sin and inclines to sin.[54]
In 1567, soon after the close of the Council of Trent, Pope Pius V went beyond Trent by sanctioning Aquinas's distinction between nature and supernature in Adam's state before the Fall, condemned the identification of original sin with concupiscence, and approved the view that the unbaptized could have right use of will.[2]
Denominational views[edit]
Illuminated parchment, Spain, circa AD 950–955, depicting the Fall of Man, cause of original sin
Roman Catholicism[edit]
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans.
Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".
As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence").[55]
The Catholic Church teaches that every human person born on this earth is made in the image of God.[56][57] Within man "is both the powerful surge toward the good because we are made in the image of God, and the darker impulses toward evil because of the effects of Original Sin."[58] Furthermore, it explicitly denies that we inherit guilt from anyone, maintaining that instead we inherit our fallen nature. In this it differs from the Calvinism/Protestant position that each person actually inherits Adam's guilt, and teaches instead that "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants ... but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man".[59] "In other words, human beings do not bear any 'original guilt' from Adam and Eve's particular sin."[60]
The Church has always held baptism to be "for the remission of sins", and, as mentioned in Catechism of the Catholic Church, 403, infants too have traditionally been baptized, though not guilty of any actual personal sin. The sin that through baptism was remitted for them could only be original sin, with which they were connected by the very fact of being a human. The first comprehensive theological explanation of this practice of baptizing infants, guilty of no actual personal sin, was given by Saint Augustine of Hippo, not all of whose ideas on original sin have been adopted by the Catholic Church. Indeed the Church has condemned the interpretation of some of his ideas by certain leaders of the Protestant Reformation.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that in "yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state ... original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed"—a state and not an act" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 404). This "state of deprivation of the original holiness and justice ... transmitted to the descendants of Adam along with human nature" (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 76) involves no personal responsibility or personal guilt on their part (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405). Personal responsibility and guilt were Adam's, who because of his sin, was unable to pass on to his descendants a human nature with the holiness with which it would otherwise have been endowed, in this way implicating them in his sin. The doctrine of original sin thus does not impute the sin of the father to his children, but merely states that they inherit from him a "human nature deprived of original holiness and justice", which is "transmitted by propagation to all mankind".[61]
In the theology of the Catholic Church, original sin is regarded as the general condition of sinfulness, that is (the absence of holiness and perfect charity) into which humans are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. This teaching explicitly states that "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants".[59] In other words, human beings do not bear any "original guilt" from Adam's particular sin, which is his alone. The prevailing view, also held in Eastern Orthodoxy, is that human beings bear no guilt for the sin of Adam. The Catholic Church teaches: "By our first parents' sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free."[62]
The Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is that Mary was conceived free from original sin: "the most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin."[63] The doctrine sees her as an exception to the general rule that human beings are not immune from the reality of original sin.
Eastern Orthodoxy[edit]
The Eastern Orthodox's version of original sin is the view that sin originates with the Devil, "for the devil sinneth from the beginning. (1 John iii. 8)".[64] They acknowledge that the introduction of ancestral sin[65][better source needed] into the human race affected the subsequent environment for humanity (see also traducianism). However, they never accepted Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt.[66][better source needed]
Orthodox Churches accept the teachings of John Cassian, as do Catholic Churches eastern and western,[42] in rejecting the doctrine of Total Depravity, by teaching that human nature is "fallen", that is, depraved, but not totally. Augustine Casiday states that Cassian "baldly asserts that God's grace, not human free will, is responsible for 'everything which pertains to salvation' – even faith."[43] Cassian points out that people still have moral freedom and one has the option to choose to follow God. Colm Luibhéid says that, according to Cassian, there are cases where the soul makes the first little turn,[44] while Augustine Casiday says that, in Cassian's view, any sparks of goodwill that may exist, not directly caused by God, are totally inadequate and only direct divine intervention ensures spiritual progress.[45] and Lauren Pristas says that "for Cassian, salvation is, from beginning to end, the effect of God's grace."[46]
Eastern Orthodoxy accepts the doctrine of ancestral sin: "Original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin."[67] "As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream, so from a father infected with sin, and consequently mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected like him with sin, and like him mortal."[68]
The Orthodox Church in America makes clear the distinction between "fallen nature" and "fallen man" and this is affirmed in the early teaching of the Church whose role it is to act as the catalyst that leads to true or inner redemption. Every human person born on this earth bears the image of God undistorted within themselves.[69] In the Orthodox Christian understanding, they explicitly deny that humanity inherited guilt from anyone. Rather, they maintain that we inherit our fallen nature. While humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death."[70]
On whether Mary actually ever sinned, or was stained by original sin, the view of the Eastern Orthodox Church varies, though there is general agreement that she was cleansed from sin at the Annunciation.[71][72]
Classical Anglicanism[edit]
The original formularies of the Church of England also continue in the Reformation understanding of Original Sin. In the Thirty-Nine Articles, Article IX "Of Original or Birth-sin" states:
Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in the Greek, Φρονεμα σαρκος, which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh, is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.[73]
However, more recent doctrinal statements (e.g. the 1938 report Doctrine in the Church of England) permit a greater variety of understandings of this doctrine. The 1938 report summarizes:
Man is by nature capable of communion with God, and only through such communion can he become what he was created to be. "Original sin" stands for the fact that from a time apparently prior to any responsible act of choice man is lacking in this communion, and if left to his own resources and to the influence of his natural environment cannot attain to his destiny as a child of God.[74]
Methodism[edit]
The Methodist Church upholds Article VII in the Articles of Religion in the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church:
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually.[75]
Seventh-day Adventism[edit]
Seventh-day Adventists believe that humans are inherently sinful due to the fall of Adam,[76] but they do not totally accept the Augustinian/Calvinistic understanding of original sin, taught in terms of original guilt, but hold more to what could be termed the "total depravity" tradition.[77] Seventh-day Adventists have historically preached a doctrine of inherited weakness, but not a doctrine of inherited guilt.[78] According to Augustine and Calvin, humanity inherits not only Adam's depraved nature but also the actual guilt of his transgression, and Adventists look more toward the Wesleyan model.[79]
In part, the Adventist position on original sin reads:
The nature of the penalty for original sin, i.e., Adam's sin, is to be seen as literal, physical, temporal, or actual death – the opposite of life, i.e., the cessation of being. By no stretch of the scriptural facts can death be spiritualised as depravity. God did not punish Adam by making him a sinner. That was Adam’s own doing. All die the first death because of Adam’s sin regardless of their moral character – children included.[79]
Early Adventists Pioneers (such as George Storrs and Uriah Smith) tended to de-emphasise the morally corrupt nature inherited from Adam, while stressing the importance of actual, personal sins committed by the individual. They thought of the "sinful nature" in terms of physical mortality rather than moral depravity.[79] Traditionally, Adventists look at sin in terms of willful transgressions, and that Christ triumphed over sin. Adventism believes that Christ is both our Substitute and our Example.[80] They base their belief on texts such as "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4)[81]
Though believing in the concept of inherited sin from Adam, there is no dogmatic Adventist position on original sin. Related articles dealing with the subject are publicly available on the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s official website on theological doctrine, the Biblical Research Institute.[82]
Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]
According to Jehovah's Witnesses, all humans are born sinners and inherit sin, corruption, and death from Adam. They believe Adam was originally created perfect and sinless, but with free will; the Devil, who was originally a perfect angel, but later developed feelings of pride and self-importance, seduced Eve, and then through her, persuaded Adam to disobey God, and to obey the Devil instead, rebelling against God's sovereignty, making themselves sinners and transmitting a sinful nature to their offspring.[83][84] Instead of destroying the Devil right away, as well as destroying the disobedient couple, God decided to test the loyalty of the rest of humankind, and to prove to that man cannot be independent of God successfully, that man is lost without God's laws and standards, and can never bring peace to the earth, and that Satan was a deceiver, murderer, and liar.[85]
Witnesses believe that all men possess "inherited sin" from the "one man" Adam, and that man is born corrupt, and dies because of inherited sin and imperfection, that inherited sin is the reason and cause for sickness and suffering, made worse by the Devil's wicked influence. They believe Jesus is the "second Adam", being the sinless Son of God and the Messiah, and that he came to undo Adamic sin; and that salvation and everlasting life can only be obtained through faith and obedience to the second Adam.[83][84][85][86][87][88] They believe that "sin" is "missing the mark" of God's standard of perfection, and that everyone is born a sinner, due to being the offspring of sinner Adam.[89]
Mormonism[edit]
The Book of Mormon, a text sacred to Mormonism, contains an original sin doctrine in which humanity inherited a fallen and depraved nature from Adam.[90] Young children, however, are thought to be held innocent until an age of accountability.[91] As Mormon doctrines developed, founder Joseph Smith ultimately taught that humans had an essentially godlike nature, and were not only holy in a premortal state, but could progress eternally to become like God.[92] He wrote as an Article of Faith, "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."[93] Later Mormons took this creed as a rejection of the doctrine of original sin and any notion of inherited sinfulness.[92] Thus, while modern Mormons will agree that the fall of Adam brought consequences to the world, including the possibility of sin, they generally reject the idea that any culpability is automatically transmitted to Adam and Eve's offspring.[94]
Swedenborgianism[edit]
In Swedenborgianism, exegesis of the first 11 chapters of Genesis from The First Church, has a view that Adam is not an individual person. Rather, he is a symbolic representation of the "Most Ancient Church", having a more direct contact with heaven than all other successive churches.[95] Swedenborg's view of original sin is referred to as hereditary evil, which passes from generation to generation.[96] It cannot be completely abolished by an individual man, but can be tempered when someone reforms their own life,[97] and are thus held accountable only for their own sins.[98]
Islam[edit]
The concept of original sin is not recognized in Islam. Muslims believe that Adam and Eve were forgiven by God, and use the following Koranic suras to support this belief:
"O Adam, dwell with your wife in the Garden and enjoy as you wish but approach not this tree or you run into harm and transgression. Then Satan whispered to them in order to reveal to them their shame that was hidden from them and he said: 'Your Lord only forbade you this tree lest you become angels or such beings as live forever.' And he swore to them both that he was their sincere adviser. So by deceit he brought them to their fall: when they tasted the tree their shame became manifest to them and they began to sew together the leaves of the Garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them: 'Did I not forbid you that tree and tell you that Satan was your avowed enemy?'" Sūrat al-Aʻrāf:19–22.
"They said: 'Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves souls. If You forgive us not and bestow not upon us Your mercy, we shall certainly be of the losers' " Surat al-Aʻraf :23
".. Thus did Adam disobey his Lord, so he went astray. Then his Lord chose him, and turned to him with forgiveness, and gave him guidance." Surat Ṭā Hāʼ:121–122
"(ِAllah SWT) said: 'Get down (from the Garden), one of you an enemy to the other [i.e. Adam, Eve, and Satan]. On earth will be a dwelling-place for you and an enjoyment – for a short time'. He (God) said: 'Therein you shall live, and therein you shall die, and from it you shall be brought out [i.e. resurrected].' " Surat al-Aʻraf:24–25.
"That no burdened person (with sins) shall bear the burden (sins) of another. And that man can have nothing but what he does (of good and bad). And that his deeds will be seen, Then he will be recompensed with a full and the best [fair] recompense." Surat an-Najm:38–41
Criticism[edit]
Historian Robin Lane Fox argues that the foundation of the doctrine of original sin, that was accepted by the Church, was based on a mis-translation of Paul the Apostle's Epistle to the Romans (Romans 5:12–21) by Augustine, in his "On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin".[99]
In an 8-page contribution, I.J.J. Spangenberg has stated:
Darwin,[100][101] did not set out to undermine the grand narrative of Christianity, but his theory of evolution through natural selection led to conclusions that were diametrically opposite to those that Christians traditionally believed and proclaimed. The research carried out under the paradigm of evolution brought to light that Augustine's convictions on "original sin" and death could no longer be held. However, conservative theologians and church members are reluctant to acknowledge this (Bowler 2007:225).[102] Nevertheless, a change in traditional theology is a prerequisite for any meaningful dialogue between religion and science.[103]
That what Spangenberg calls "traditional theology" is not the only accepted contemporary theology is evident from the writings of Reinhold Niebuhr[104] and others reviewed in Jerry D. Korsmeyer's Evolution and Eden[105] and Tatha Wiley's Original Sin: Origins, Developments, Contemporary Meanings,[106] and from the fact that, with regard to official Catholic Church doctrine on original sin, the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church "explicitly acknowledges that the account of the fall in Genesis 2 and 3 uses figurative language".[107] Difficulty for what Spangenberg calls the dialogue between religion and science arises, in the view of Korsmeyer, from a confrontation between a few popularizers of scientific knowledge and "religious fundamentalists who consider that their religious knowledge includes scientific conclusions drawn from the Bible".[108]
See also[edit]
Portal icon Christianity portal
Portal icon Religion portal
Actual sin
Ancestral sin
Christian views on sin
Deadly sin
Divine grace
Eternal sin (aka unforgivable or unpardonable sin)
Fall of man
Hamartiology
Immaculate Conception
Incurvatus in se
Internal sin
Justification (theology)
Mortal sin
Pandora's box
Prevenient grace
Sin
The Antichrist (book)
Theodicy and the Bible#The Fall and freedom of the will
Total depravity
Venial sin
Problem of evil
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Examples: Alexander Golitzin, On the Mystical Life by Saint Symeon (St Vladimir's Seminary Press 1995 ISBN 978-0-88141-144-7), p.119
Adam L. Tate, Conservatism and Southern Intellectuals, 1789–1861 (University of Missouri Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-8262-1567-3), p. 190
Marcelle Bartolo-Abel, God's Gift to Humanity (Apostolate–The Divine Heart 2011 ISBN 978-0-9833480-1-6), p. 32
Ann Hassan, Annotations to Geoffrey Hill's Speech! Speech! (Punctum Books 2012 ISBN 978-1-4681-2984-7, p. 62
2.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i ODCC 2005, p. Original sin.
3.Jump up ^ Brodd, Jefferey (2003). World Religions. Winona, MN: Saint Mary's Press. ISBN 978-0-88489-725-5.
4.Jump up ^ Peter Nathan - The Original View of Original Sin - Retrieved 14 October 2013.
5.Jump up ^ Phil Porvaznik - Original Sin Explained and Defended Evangelical Catholic Apologetics - Retrieved 14 October 2013.
6.Jump up ^ Preamble and Articles of Faith - V. Sin, Original and Personal - Church of the Nazarene. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
7.Jump up ^ Are Babies Born with Sin? - Topical Bible Studies. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
8.Jump up ^ Original Sin - Psalm 51:5 - Catholic News Agency. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
9.Jump up ^ "Jansenius and Jansenism" in The Catholic Encyclopedia
10.Jump up ^ SIN: – Jewish Encyclopedia. Retrieved 12 July 2013.
11.Jump up ^ Shaul Magid (2008). From Metaphysics to Midrash: Myth, History, and the Interpretation of Scripture in Lurianic Kabbala. Indiana University Press. p. 238. Retrieved 9 February 2014.
12.Jump up ^ Judaism’s Rejection Of Original Sin – Kolatch, Alfred J., The Jewish Book of Why/The Second Jewish Book of Why. NY: Jonathan David Publishers, 1989.
13.Jump up ^ Judaism's Rejection Of Original Sin While there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon humanity on account of Adam's sin, the dominant view was that man sins because he is not a perfect being, and not, as Christianity teaches, because he is inherently sinful.
14.Jump up ^ http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/beliefs/human.htm/
15.Jump up ^ http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/beliefs/human.htm
16.Jump up ^ J. N. D. Kelly Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1978) p. 171, referred to in Daniel L. Akin, A Theology for the Church, p. 433
17.Jump up ^ Daniel L. Akin, A Theology for the Church (B&H Publishing 2007 ISBN 978-0-8054-2640-3), p. 433
18.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), pp. 255 & 258. ISBN 978-1-4563-8980-2
19.Jump up ^ H. E. W. Turner, The Patristic Doctrine of the Redemption: A Study of the Development of Doctrine During the First Five Centuries (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004) p. 71
20.Jump up ^ Bernhard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1966), p. 104
21.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), p. 258. ISBN 978-1-4563-8980-2
22.Jump up ^ Arthur C. McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought: Volume 1, Early and Eastern (New York; London: C. Scribner's sons, 1932), p. 101
23.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), pp. 258–259. ISBN 978-1-4563-8980-2
24.Jump up ^ Augustine taught that Adam's sin was both an act of foolishness (insipientia) and of pride and disobedience to God of Adam and Eve. He thought it was a most subtle job to discern what came first: self-centeredness or failure in seeing truth. Augustine wrote to Julian of Eclanum: Sed si disputatione subtilissima et elimatissima opus est, ut sciamus utrum primos homines insipientia superbos, an insipientes superbia fecerit (Contra Julianum, V, 4.18; PL 44, 795). This particular sin would not have taken place if Satan had not sown into their senses "the root of evil" (radix Mali): Nisi radicem mali humanus tunc reciperet sensus (Contra Julianum, I, 9.42; PL 44, 670)
25.Jump up ^ ORIGINAL SIN- Biblical Apologetic Studies - Retrieved 17 May 2014. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) taught that Adam's sin is transmitted by concupiscence, or "hurtful desire", sexual desire and all sensual feelings resulting in humanity becoming a massa damnata (mass of perdition, condemned crowd), with much enfeebled, though not destroyed, freedom of will.
26.Jump up ^ William Nicholson - A Plain But Full Exposition of the Catechism of the Church of England... (Google eBook) page 118. Retrieved 17 May 2014.
27.Jump up ^ Thomas Aquinas explained Augustine's doctrine pointing out that the libido (concupiscence), which makes the original sin pass from parents to children, is not a libido actualis, i.e. sexual lust, but libido habitualis, i.e. a wound of the whole of human nature: Libido quae transmittit peccatum originale in prolem, non est libido actualis, quia dato quod virtute divina concederetur alicui quod nullam inordinatam libidinem in actu generationis sentiret, adhuc transmitteret in prolem originale peccatum. Sed libido illa est intelligenda habitualiter, secundum quod appetitus sensitivus non continetur sub ratione vinculo originalis iustitiae. Et talis libido in omnibus est aequalis (STh Iª–IIae q. 82 a. 4 ad 3).
28.Jump up ^ Non substantialiter manere concupiscentiam, sicut corpus aliquod aut spiritum; sed esse affectionem quamdam malae qualitatis, sicut est languor. (De nuptiis et concupiscentia, I, 25. 28; PL 44, 430; cf. Contra Julianum, VI, 18.53; PL 44, 854; ibid. VI, 19.58; PL 44, 857; ibid., II, 10.33; PL 44, 697; Contra Secundinum Manichaeum, 15; PL 42, 590.
29.Jump up ^ Augustine wrote to Julian of Eclanum: Quis enim negat futurum fuisse concubitum, etiamsi peccatum non praecessisset? Sed futurus fuerat, sicut aliis membris, ita etiam genitalibus voluntate motis, non libidine concitatis; aut certe etiam ipsa libidine – ut non vos de illa nimium contristemus – non qualis nunc est, sed ad nutum voluntarium serviente (Contra Julianum, IV. 11. 57; PL 44, 766). See also his late work: Contra secundam Iuliani responsionem imperfectum opus, II, 42; PL 45,1160; ibid. II, 45; PL 45,1161; ibid., VI, 22; PL 45, 1550–1551. Cf.Schmitt, É. (1983). Le mariage chrétien dans l'oeuvre de Saint Augustin. Une théologie baptismale de la vie conjugale. Études Augustiniennes. Paris. p. 104.
30.Jump up ^ Justo L. Gonzalez (1970–1975). A History of Christian Thought: Volume 2 (From Augustine to the eve of the Reformation). Abingdon Press.
31.Jump up ^ Sexual desire is, according to bishop of Hippo, only one – though the strongest – of many physical realisations of that spiritual libido: Cum igitur sint multarum libidines rerum, tamen, cum libido dicitur neque cuius rei libido sit additur, non fere assolet animo occurrere nisi illa, qua obscenae partes corporis excitantur. Haec autem sibi non solum totum corpus nec solum extrinsecus, verum etiam intrinsecus vindicat totumque commovet hominem animi simul affectu cum carnis appetitu coniuncto atque permixto, ut ea voluptas sequatur, qua maior in corporis voluptatibus nulla est; ita ut momento ipso temporis, quo ad eius pervenitur extremum, paene omnis acies et quasi vigilia cogitationis obruatur. (De civitate Dei, XIV, 16; CCL 48, 438–439 [1–10]). See also: Schmitt, É. (1983). Le mariage chrétien dans l'oeuvre de Saint Augustin. Une théologie baptismale de la vie conjugale. Études Augustiniennes. Paris. p. 97.. See also Augustine's: De continentia, 8.21; PL 40, 363; Contra Iulianum VI, 19.60; PL 44, 859; ibid. IV, 14.65, z.2, s. 62; PL 44, 770; De Trinitate, XII, 9. 14; CCL 50, 368 [verse: IX 1–8]; De Genesi contra Manicheos, II, 9.12, s. 60 ; CSEL 91, 133 [v. 31–35]).
32.Jump up ^ Regeneratus quippe non regenerat filios carnis, sed generat; ac per hoc in eos non quod regeneratus, sed quod generatus est, trajicit. (De gratia Christi et de peccato originali, II, 40.45; CSEL 42, 202[23–25]; PL 44, 407.
33.Jump up ^ Cf. De civitate Dei, ch. IX and XIV; On the Gospel of John, LX (Christ's feelings at the death of Lazarus, Jn 11)
34.Jump up ^ J. Brachtendorf (1997). "Cicero and Augustine on the Passions". p. 307. hdl:2042/23075.
35.Jump up ^ "Infernum", literally "underworld," later identified as limbo.
36.Jump up ^ "Limbo: Past Catholic statements on the fate of unbaptized infants, etc. who have died"[1]
37.Jump up ^ Study by International Theological Commission (19 January 2007), The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, 19–21
38.Jump up ^ Study by International Theological Commission (19 January 2007), The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, 22–25
39.Jump up ^ Mark 10:14; cf. 1 Tim 2:4
40.Jump up ^ Study by International Theological Commission (19 January 2007), The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, secondary preliminary paragraph; cf. paragraph 41.
41.Jump up ^ Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part II/Conference XIII/Chapter 11 s:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part II/Conference XIII/Chapter 11
42.^ Jump up to: a b Geoffrey Rudolph Elton, Reformation Europe (Wiley-Blackwell 1999 ISBN 978-0-631-21384-0), p. 136
43.^ Jump up to: a b Augustine Casiday, Tradition and Theology in St John Cassian (Oxford University Press 2007 ISBN 0-19-929718-5), p. 103
44.^ Jump up to: a b Conferences By John Cassian, Colm Luibhéid
45.^ Jump up to: a b STUDIA HISTORIAE ECCLESIASTICAE May/Mei 2009 Volume XXXV No/Nr 1
46.^ Jump up to: a b Lauren Pristas, The Theological Anthropology of John Cassian
47.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), pp. 284–285. ISBN 978-1-4563-8980-2
48.Jump up ^ Edwin Zackrison, In the Loins of Adam (iUniverse 2004 ISBN 9780595307166), p. 73
49.Jump up ^ Justo L. González, A History of Christian Thought (Abingdon Press 2010 ISBN 9781426721915), vol. 2, p. 58
50.Jump up ^ In Catholic theology, the meaning of the word "concupiscence" is the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. The apostle St Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the 'flesh' against the 'spirit' Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man's moral faculties and, without being in itself an offence, inclines man to commit sins" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2515).
51.Jump up ^ Theodore G. Tappert, The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 29.
52.Jump up ^ Luther's Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968
53.Jump up ^ John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.1.8, LCC, 2 vols., trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 251 (page 217 of CCEL edition). Cf. Institutes of the Christian Religion at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library
54.Jump up ^ Decree 5 concerning original sin
55.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 416–418
56.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 357
57.Jump up ^ Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, Man the Image of God
58.Jump up ^ United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, "Made in the Image of God"
59.^ Jump up to: a b Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405
60.Jump up ^ What the Catholic Church Teaches about Original Sin
61.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church 404
62.Jump up ^ Item 407 in section 1.2.1.7. Emphasis added.
63.Jump up ^ Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854) quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church, 491 [2]
64.Jump up ^ Catechism of St. Philaret, questions 157
65.Jump up ^ The term "ancestral sin" is also used, as in Greek προπατορικὴ ἁμαρτία (e.g. Πόλεμος και φτώχεια – η ορθόδοξη άποψη, Η νηστεία της Σαρακοστής, Πώς στράφηκε ο Λούθηρος κατά του Μοναχισμού – του Γεωργίου Φλωρόφσκυ) or προπατορικὸ ἁμάρτημα (e.g., Απαντήσεις σε ερωτήματα δογματικά – Ανδρέα Θεοδώρου, εκδ. Αποστολικής Διακονίας, 1997, σελ. 156–161, Θεοτόκος και προπατορικό αμάρτημα)
66.Jump up ^ stmaryorthodoxchurch.org
67.Jump up ^ Holy Trinity Romanian Orthodox Church: Original Sin and Its Consequences
68.Jump up ^ The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church, 168
69.Jump up ^ Glory to God for all things [3]./
70.Jump up ^ Fr. John Matusiak, http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=4&SID=3
71.Jump up ^ Mother Mary and Ware, Kallistos, "The Festal Menaion", p. 47. St. Tikhon's Seminary Press, 1998.
72.Jump up ^ Laurent Cleenewerck, His Broken Body (Euclid University Press 2007 ISBN 978-0-61518361-9), p. 410[self-published source]
73.Jump up ^ Articles of Religion - Anglicans Online.
74.Jump up ^ Doctrine in the Church of England, 1938, London: SPCK; p. 64
75.Jump up ^ The United Methodist Church: The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church – Article V—Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation
76.Jump up ^ The SDA Bible Commentary, vol.5, p.1131.
77.Jump up ^ http://www.bibelschule.info/streaming/Woodrow-W.-Whidden---Adventist-Theology---The-Wesleyan-Connection_23617.pdf
78.Jump up ^ E. G. White, Signs of the Times, August 29, 1892
79.^ Jump up to: a b c Gerhard Pfandl. "Some thoughts on Original Sin" (PDF). Biblical Research Institute
80.Jump up ^ Christ's Human Nature
81.Jump up ^ Questions on Doctrines Documents via Andrews University
82.Jump up ^ adventistbiblicalresearch.org
83.^ Jump up to: a b Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom. Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. 1993. pp. 144–145.
84.^ Jump up to: a b What Does the Bible Really Teach?. Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. 2005. p. 32.
85.^ Jump up to: a b "The Watchtower 1973, page 724" – "Declaration and resolution", The Watchtower, December 1, 1973, page 724.
86.Jump up ^ Penton, M.J. (1997). Apocalypse Delayed. University of Toronto Press. pp. 26–29. ISBN 9780802079732.
87.Jump up ^ "Angels—How They Affect Us". The Watchtower: 7. January 15, 2006.
88.Jump up ^ ADAM – jw.org. Retrieved 10 January 2013.
89.Jump up ^ Adam’s Sin – The Time for True Submission to God – jw.org. Retrieved 10 January 2013.
90.Jump up ^ Alexander, Thomas G. (1989), Bergera, Gary James, ed., Line Upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine, Salt Lake City: Signature Books, pp. 55–56.
91.Jump up ^ Id.
92.^ Jump up to: a b Alexander, p. 64.
93.Jump up ^ Articles of Faith 1:2
94.Jump up ^ Merrill, Byron R. (1992). "Original sin". In Ludlow, Daniel H. Encyclopedia of Mormonism. New York: Macmillan Publishing. pp. 1052–1053. ISBN 0-02-879602-0. OCLC 24502140.
95.Jump up ^ Swedenborg 1749–56, p. 410: [url=http://books.google.com/books?id=U3tQJ9j_1ToC&pg=PR3&lpg=PR3&dq=Arcana+Coelestia+john+f+potts&source=bl&ots=kiaZ2hbwTG&sig=P-jzl0rzPlua-881yeIcjKLo2ZY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hW0yUKu6A6OSiAKtmoDgAw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ancient%20church%20adam&f=false n. 1101–1150].
96.Jump up ^ Swedenborg 1749–56, p. 96, n. 313: "But as to hereditary evil, the case is this. Everyone who commits actual sin thereby induces on himself a nature, and the evil from it is implanted in his children, and becomes hereditary. It thus descends from every parent, from the father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and their ancestors in succession, and is thus multiplied and augmented in each descending posterity, remaining with each person, and being increased in each by his actual sins, and never being dissipated so as to become harmless except in those who are being regenerated by the Lord. Every attentive observer may see evidence of this truth in the fact that the evil inclinations of parents remain visibly in their children, so that one family, and even an entire race, may be thereby distinguished from every other.".
97.Jump up ^ Swedenborg 1749-56, p. 229, n.719:"There are evils in man which must be dispersed while he is being regenerated, that is, which must be loosened and attempered by goods; for no actual and hereditary evil in man can be so dispersed as to be abolished. It still remains implanted; and can only be so far loosened and attempered by goods from the Lord that it does not injure, and does not appear, which is an arcanum hitherto unknown. Actual evils are those which are loosened and attempered, and not hereditary evils; which also is a thing unknown.".
98.Jump up ^ Swedenborg 1749-56, p. 336, n.966: "It is to be observed that in the other life no one undergoes any punishment and torture on account of his hereditary evil, but only on account of the actual evils which he himself has committed.".
99.Jump up ^ Fox, Robin Lane (2006). The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible. London: Penguin. ISBN 9780141022963.
100.Jump up ^ C. Darwin and A. R. Wallace, 1858, "On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection", Read at the Linnean Society of London on 1 July 1858 by J. J. Bennett, and published in Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 3, (20 August 1858), 46–50.
101.Jump up ^ C. Darwin, 1859, On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, published by John Murray, London.
102.Jump up ^ P J Bowler, 2007, Monkey Trials and Gorilla Sermons: Evolution and Christianity from Darwin to Intelligent Design, Harvard University Press, London; see page 225.
103.Jump up ^ I J J Spangenberg, 2013, "On the origin of death: Paul and Augustine meet Charles Darwin", HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 69(1), Art. #1992, 8 pages. doi:10.4102/ hts.v69i1.1992; see page 7.
104.Jump up ^ Langdon Gilkey, Langdon Brown Gilkey. On Niehbuhr (University of Chicago Press 2002 ISBN 978-0-22629342-4), p. 93
105.Jump up ^ Jerry D. Korsmeyer Evolution and Eden (Paulist Press 1998) ISBN 978-0-8091-3815-9
106.Jump up ^ Tatha Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, Contemporary Meanings (Paulist Press 2002 ISBN 978-0-8091-4128-9)
107.Jump up ^ John Redford, What Is Catholicism (Our Sunday Visitor 1999 ISBN 978-0-87973587-6), p. 55
108.Jump up ^ Jerry D. Korsmeyer, Evolution and Eden, p. 73
Bibliography[edit]
Brachtendorf, J. (1997). "Cicero and Augustine on the Passions" (PDF). Revue des Etudes Augustiniennes (Paris: Institut d'études augustiniennes) 43: 289–308.
Catechism, U.S. Catholic Church (2003). Catechism of the Catholic Church : with modifications from the Editio Typica. (2nd ed.). New York: Doubleday. ISBN 9780385508193.
Kelly, J.N.D. (2000). Early Christian doctrines (5th rev. ed.). London: Continuum. ISBN 9780826452528.
ODCC, ed. by Frank Leslie Cross; Elizabeth A. Livingstone (2005). "Original sin". The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd rev. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780192802903.
Swedenborg, Emanuel; Trans. by John F. Potts (1749–56). Arcana Coelestia, Vol. 1 of 8 (2008 Reprint ed.). Forgotten Books. ISBN 9781606201077.
Trapè, Agostino (1987). S. Agostino, introduzione alla dottrina della grazia. Collana di Studi Agostiniani 4. I - Natura e Grazia. Roma: Nuova Biblioteca agostiniana. p. 422. ISBN 88-311-3402-7.
Turner, H.E.W. The patristic doctrine of redemption : a study of the development of doctrine during the first five centuries / by H.E.W. Turner. (2004 Reprint ed.). Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock Publishers. ISBN 9781592449309.
Wallace, A.J.; R. D. Rusk (2010). Moral transformation : the original Christian paradigm of salvation. New Zealand: Bridgehead Publishing. ISBN 9781456389802.
Woo, B. Hoon (2014). "Is God the Author of Sin?—Jonathan Edwards’s Theodicy". Puritan Reformed Journal 6 (1): 98–123.
External links[edit]
Wikiquote has quotations related to: Original sin
Article "Original Sin" in Catholic Encyclopedia
The Book of Concord The Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Article II: Of Original Sin; from an early Protestant perspective, part of the Augsburg Confession.
Original Sin According To St. Paul by John S. Romanides
Ancestral Versus Original Sin by Father Antony Hughes, St. Mary Antiochian Orthodox Church, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Original Sin by Michael Bremmer
CatholicismCouncil of Trent (June 17, 1546). "Canones et Decreta Dogmatica Concilii Tridentini: Fifth Session, Decree concerning Original Sin". at www.ccel.org. Retrieved 1 November 2013.
[hide]
v ·
t ·
e
Hamartiology
Adam ·
Evil ·
The Fall ·
Original sin ·
Christian views on sin ·
Imputation of sin ·
Other views on sin ·
Supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism ·
Theodicy ·
Total depravity
See also Apologetics ·
Soteriology ·
Demonology
Categories: Christian philosophy
Christian hamartiology
Systematic theology
Adam and Eve
Christian terminology
Sin
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
العربية
Azərbaycanca
Български
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
فارسی
Français
Galego
한국어
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Íslenska
Italiano
עברית
Kiswahili
Latina
Latviešu
Magyar
മലയാളം
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
ไทย
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 2 June 2015, at 23:51.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
Original sin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Original Sin (disambiguation).
It has been suggested that ancestral sin be merged into this article. (Discuss) Proposed since January 2015.
Depiction of the sin of Adam and Eve by Jan Brueghel the Elder and Pieter Paul Rubens
See also: Fate of the unlearned
Original sin, also called ancestral sin,[1] is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man,[2] stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden. This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.[3]
The concept of original sin was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in his controversy with certain dualist Gnostics. Other church fathers such as Augustine also developed the doctrine,[2] seeing it as based on the New Testament teaching of Paul the Apostle (Romans 5:12–21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22) and the Old Testament verse of Psalm 51:5.[4][5][6][7][8] Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose and Ambrosiaster considered that humanity shares in Adam's sin, transmitted by human generation. Augustine's formulation of original sin was popular among Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, who equated original sin with concupiscence, affirming that it persisted even after baptism and completely destroyed freedom.[2] The Jansenist movement, which the Catholic Church declared to be heretical, also maintained that original sin destroyed freedom of will.[9]
Jewish theologians are divided in regard to the cause of what is called "original sin". Some teach that it was due to Adam's yielding to temptation in eating of the forbidden fruit and has been inherited by his descendants; the majority, however, do not hold Adam responsible for the sins of humanity,[10] teaching that, in Genesis 8:21 and 6:5-8, God recognized that Adam's sins are his alone. However, Adam is recognized by some as having brought death into the world by his disobedience. Because of his sin, his descendants will live a mortal life, which will end in death of their bodies.[11] The doctrine of "inherited sin" is not found in most of mainstream Judaism. Although some in Orthodox Judaism place blame on Adam for overall corruption of the world, and though there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon humanity on account of Adam's sin, that is not the dominant view in most of Judaism today. Modern Judaism generally teaches that humans are born sin-free and untainted, and choose to sin later and bring suffering to themselves.[12][13] The concept of inherited sin is also not found in any real form in Islam.[14][15] Some interpretations of original sin are rejected by other Christian theologies.
Contents [hide]
1 History of the doctrine 1.1 Augustine
1.2 Cassian
1.3 Church reaction
1.4 Protestant reformation
1.5 Council of Trent
2 Denominational views 2.1 Roman Catholicism
2.2 Eastern Orthodoxy
2.3 Classical Anglicanism
2.4 Methodism
2.5 Seventh-day Adventism
2.6 Jehovah's Witnesses
2.7 Mormonism
2.8 Swedenborgianism
3 Islam
4 Criticism
5 See also
6 References
7 Bibliography
8 External links
History of the doctrine[edit]
Michelangelo's painting of the sin of Adam and Eve from the Sistine Chapel ceiling
The formalized doctrine of original sin was first developed in the 2nd-century by Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons, in his struggle against Gnosticism.[2] Irenaeus contrasted their doctrine with the view that the Fall was a step in the wrong direction by Adam, with whom, Irenaeus believed, his descendants had some solidarity or identity.[16] Irenaeus believed that Adam's sin had grave consequences for humanity, that it is the source of human sinfulness, mortality and enslavement to sin, and that all human beings participate in his sin and share his guilt.[17]
The Greek Fathers emphasized the cosmic dimension of the Fall, namely that since Adam human beings are born into a fallen world, but held fast to belief that man, though fallen, is free.[2] They thus did not teach that human beings are deprived of free will and involved in total depravity, which is one understanding of original sin.[18][19] During this period the doctrines of human depravity and the inherently sinful nature of human flesh were taught by Gnostics, and orthodox Christian writers took great pains to counter them.[20][21] Christian Apologists insisted that God's future judgment of humanity implied humanity must have the ability to live righteously.[22][23]
Augustine[edit]
Augustine of Hippo wrote that original sin is transmitted by concupiscence and enfeebles freedom of the will without destroying it.[2]
Augustine of Hippo (354–430) taught that Adam's sin[24] is transmitted by concupiscence, or "hurtful desire",[25][26] resulting in humanity becoming a massa damnata (mass of perdition, condemned crowd), with much enfeebled, though not destroyed, freedom of will.[2] When Adam sinned, human nature was thenceforth transformed. Adam and Eve, via sexual reproduction, recreated human nature. Their descendants now live in sin, in the form of concupiscence, a term Augustine used in a metaphysical, not a psychological sense.[27] Augustine insisted that concupiscence was not a being but a bad quality, the privation of good or a wound.[28] He admitted that sexual concupiscence (libido) might have been present in the perfect human nature in paradise, and that only later it became disobedient to human will as a result of the first couple's disobedience to God's will in the original sin.[29] In Augustine's view (termed "Realism"), all of humanity was really present in Adam when he sinned, and therefore all have sinned. Original sin, according to Augustine, consists of the guilt of Adam which all humans inherit. As sinners, humans are utterly depraved in nature, lack the freedom to do good, and cannot respond to the will of God without divine grace. Grace is irresistible, results in conversion, and leads to perseverance.[30]
Augustine articulated his explanation in reaction to Pelagianism, which insisted that humans have of themselves, without the necessary help of God's grace, the ability to lead a morally good life, and thus denied both the importance of baptism and the teaching that God is the giver of all that is good. Pelagius claimed that the influence of Adam on other humans was merely that of bad example. Augustine held that the effects of Adam's sin are transmitted to his descendants not by example but by the very fact of generation from that ancestor. A wounded nature comes to the soul and body of the new person from his/her parents, who experience libido (or concupiscence). Augustine's view was that human procreation was the way the transmission was being effected. He did not blame, however, the sexual passion itself, but the spiritual concupiscence present in human nature, soul and body, even after baptismal regeneration.[31] Christian parents transmit their wounded nature to children, because they give them birth, not the "re-birth".[32] Augustine used Ciceronian Stoic concept of passions, to interpret St. Paul's doctrine of universal sin and redemption. In that view, also sexual desire itself as well as other bodily passions were consequence of the original sin, in which pure affections were wounded by vice and became disobedient to human reason and will. As long as they carry a threat to the dominion of reason over the soul they constitute moral evil, but since they do not presuppose consent, one cannot call them sins. Humanity will be liberated from passions, and pure affections will be restored only when all sin has been washed away and ended, that is in the resurrection of the dead.[33][34]
Augustine believed that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell. He concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin.[35][36] The Latin Church Fathers who followed Augustine adopted his position, which became a point of reference for Latin theologians in the Middle Ages.[37] In the later medieval period, some theologians continued to hold Augustine's view, others held that unbaptized infants suffered no pain at all: unaware of being deprived of the beatific vision, they enjoyed a state of natural, not supernatural happiness. Starting around 1300, unbaptized infants were often said to inhabit the "limbo of infants".[38] The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261 declares: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,'[39] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism." But the theory of Limbo, while it "never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium ... remains ... a possible theological hypothesis".[40]
Cassian[edit]
In the works of John Cassian (ca. 360 – 435), Conference XIII recounts how the wise monk Chaeremon, of whom he is writing, responded to puzzlement caused by his own statement that "man even though he strive with all his might for a good result, yet cannot become master of what is good unless he has acquired it simply by the gift of Divine bounty and not by the efforts of his own toil" (chapter 1). In chapter 11, Cassian presents Chaeremon as speaking of the cases of Paul the persecutor and Matthew the publican as difficulties for those who say "the beginning of free will is in our own power", and the cases of Zaccheus and the good thief on the cross as difficulties for those who say "the beginning of our free will is always due to the inspiration of the grace of God", and as concluding: "These two then; viz., the grace of God and free will seem opposed to each other, but really are in harmony, and we gather from the system of goodness that we ought to have both alike, lest if we withdraw one of them from man, we may seem to have broken the rule of the Church's faith: for when God sees us inclined to will what is good, He meets, guides, and strengthens us: for 'At the voice of thy cry, as soon as He shall hear, He will answer thee'; and: 'Call upon Me', He says, 'in the day of tribulation and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify Me'. And again, if He finds that we are unwilling or have grown cold, He stirs our hearts with salutary exhortations, by which a good will is either renewed or formed in us."[41]
Cassian did not accept the idea of total depravity, on which Martin Luther was to insist.[42] He taught that human nature is fallen or depraved, but not totally. Augustine Casiday states that, at the same time, Cassian "baldly asserts that God's grace, not human free will, is responsible for 'everything which pertains to salvation' – even faith."[43] Cassian pointed out that people still have moral freedom and one has the option to choose to follow God. Colm Luibhéid says that, according to Cassian, there are cases where the soul makes the first little turn,[44] but in Cassian's view, according to Casiday, any sparks of goodwill that may exist, not directly caused by God, are totally inadequate and only direct divine intervention ensures spiritual progress.[45] and Lauren Pristas says that "for Cassian, salvation is, from beginning to end, the effect of God's grace."[46]
Church reaction[edit]
Opposition to Augustine's ideas about original sin, which he had developed in reaction to Pelagianism, arose rapidly.[47] After a long and bitter struggle the general principles of Augustine's teaching were confirmed within Western Christianity by many councils, especially the Second Council of Orange in 529.[2] However, while the Church condemned Pelagius, it did not endorse Augustine entirely[48] and, while Augustine's authority was accepted, he was interpreted in the light of writers such as Cassian.[49] Some of the followers of Augustine identified original sin with concupiscence[50] in the psychological sense, but this identification was challenged by the 11th-century Saint Anselm of Canterbury, who defined original sin as "privation of the righteousness that every man ought to possess", thus separating it from concupiscence. In the 12th century the identification of original sin with concupiscence was supported by Peter Lombard and others, but was rejected by the leading theologians in the next century, chief of whom was Thomas Aquinas. He distinguished the supernatural gifts of Adam before the Fall from what was merely natural, and said that it was the former that were lost, privileges that enabled man to keep his inferior powers in submission to reason and directed to his supernatural end. Even after the fall, man thus kept his natural abilities of reason, will and passions. Rigorous Augustine-inspired views persisted among the Franciscans, though the most prominent Franciscan theologians, such as Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, eliminated the element of concupiscence.
Protestant reformation[edit]
Martin Luther (1483–1546) asserted that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. The second article in Lutheranism's Augsburg Confession presents its doctrine of original sin in summary form:
It is also taught among us that since the fall of Adam all men who are born according to the course of nature are conceived and born in sin. That is, all men are full of evil lust and inclinations from their mothers' wombs and are unable by nature to have true fear of God and true faith in God. Moreover, this inborn sickness and hereditary sin is truly sin and condemns to the eternal wrath of God all those who are not born again through Baptism and the Holy Spirit. Rejected in this connection are the Pelagians and others who deny that original sin is sin, for they hold that natural man is made righteous by his own powers, thus disparaging the sufferings and merit of Christ.[51]
Luther, however, also agreed with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (that Mary was conceived free from original sin) by saying:
[Mary] is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.[52]
Protestant Reformer John Calvin (1509–1564) developed a systematic theology of Augustinian Protestantism by interpretation of Augustine of Hippo's notion of original sin. Calvin believed that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. This inherently sinful nature (the basis for the Calvinistic doctrine of "total depravity") results in a complete alienation from God and the total inability of humans to achieve reconciliation with God based on their own abilities. Not only do individuals inherit a sinful nature due to Adam's fall, but since he was the federal head and representative of the human race, all whom he represented inherit the guilt of his sin by imputation. Redemption by Jesus Christ is the only remedy.
John Calvin defined original sin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion as follows:
Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God's wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls "works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19). And that is properly what Paul often calls sin. The works that come forth from it – such as adulteries, fornications, thefts, hatreds, murders, carousings – he accordingly calls "fruits of sin" (Gal 5:19–21), although they are also commonly called "sins" in Scripture, and even by Paul himself.[53]
Council of Trent[edit]
The Council of Trent (1545–1563), while not pronouncing on points disputed among Catholic theologians, condemned the teaching that in baptism the whole of what belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but is only cancelled or not imputed, and declared the concupiscence that remains after baptism not truly and properly "sin" in the baptized, but only to be called sin in the sense that it is of sin and inclines to sin.[54]
In 1567, soon after the close of the Council of Trent, Pope Pius V went beyond Trent by sanctioning Aquinas's distinction between nature and supernature in Adam's state before the Fall, condemned the identification of original sin with concupiscence, and approved the view that the unbaptized could have right use of will.[2]
Denominational views[edit]
Illuminated parchment, Spain, circa AD 950–955, depicting the Fall of Man, cause of original sin
Roman Catholicism[edit]
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans.
Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".
As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence").[55]
The Catholic Church teaches that every human person born on this earth is made in the image of God.[56][57] Within man "is both the powerful surge toward the good because we are made in the image of God, and the darker impulses toward evil because of the effects of Original Sin."[58] Furthermore, it explicitly denies that we inherit guilt from anyone, maintaining that instead we inherit our fallen nature. In this it differs from the Calvinism/Protestant position that each person actually inherits Adam's guilt, and teaches instead that "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants ... but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man".[59] "In other words, human beings do not bear any 'original guilt' from Adam and Eve's particular sin."[60]
The Church has always held baptism to be "for the remission of sins", and, as mentioned in Catechism of the Catholic Church, 403, infants too have traditionally been baptized, though not guilty of any actual personal sin. The sin that through baptism was remitted for them could only be original sin, with which they were connected by the very fact of being a human. The first comprehensive theological explanation of this practice of baptizing infants, guilty of no actual personal sin, was given by Saint Augustine of Hippo, not all of whose ideas on original sin have been adopted by the Catholic Church. Indeed the Church has condemned the interpretation of some of his ideas by certain leaders of the Protestant Reformation.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that in "yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state ... original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed"—a state and not an act" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 404). This "state of deprivation of the original holiness and justice ... transmitted to the descendants of Adam along with human nature" (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 76) involves no personal responsibility or personal guilt on their part (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405). Personal responsibility and guilt were Adam's, who because of his sin, was unable to pass on to his descendants a human nature with the holiness with which it would otherwise have been endowed, in this way implicating them in his sin. The doctrine of original sin thus does not impute the sin of the father to his children, but merely states that they inherit from him a "human nature deprived of original holiness and justice", which is "transmitted by propagation to all mankind".[61]
In the theology of the Catholic Church, original sin is regarded as the general condition of sinfulness, that is (the absence of holiness and perfect charity) into which humans are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. This teaching explicitly states that "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants".[59] In other words, human beings do not bear any "original guilt" from Adam's particular sin, which is his alone. The prevailing view, also held in Eastern Orthodoxy, is that human beings bear no guilt for the sin of Adam. The Catholic Church teaches: "By our first parents' sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free."[62]
The Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is that Mary was conceived free from original sin: "the most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin."[63] The doctrine sees her as an exception to the general rule that human beings are not immune from the reality of original sin.
Eastern Orthodoxy[edit]
The Eastern Orthodox's version of original sin is the view that sin originates with the Devil, "for the devil sinneth from the beginning. (1 John iii. 8)".[64] They acknowledge that the introduction of ancestral sin[65][better source needed] into the human race affected the subsequent environment for humanity (see also traducianism). However, they never accepted Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt.[66][better source needed]
Orthodox Churches accept the teachings of John Cassian, as do Catholic Churches eastern and western,[42] in rejecting the doctrine of Total Depravity, by teaching that human nature is "fallen", that is, depraved, but not totally. Augustine Casiday states that Cassian "baldly asserts that God's grace, not human free will, is responsible for 'everything which pertains to salvation' – even faith."[43] Cassian points out that people still have moral freedom and one has the option to choose to follow God. Colm Luibhéid says that, according to Cassian, there are cases where the soul makes the first little turn,[44] while Augustine Casiday says that, in Cassian's view, any sparks of goodwill that may exist, not directly caused by God, are totally inadequate and only direct divine intervention ensures spiritual progress.[45] and Lauren Pristas says that "for Cassian, salvation is, from beginning to end, the effect of God's grace."[46]
Eastern Orthodoxy accepts the doctrine of ancestral sin: "Original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin."[67] "As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream, so from a father infected with sin, and consequently mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected like him with sin, and like him mortal."[68]
The Orthodox Church in America makes clear the distinction between "fallen nature" and "fallen man" and this is affirmed in the early teaching of the Church whose role it is to act as the catalyst that leads to true or inner redemption. Every human person born on this earth bears the image of God undistorted within themselves.[69] In the Orthodox Christian understanding, they explicitly deny that humanity inherited guilt from anyone. Rather, they maintain that we inherit our fallen nature. While humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death."[70]
On whether Mary actually ever sinned, or was stained by original sin, the view of the Eastern Orthodox Church varies, though there is general agreement that she was cleansed from sin at the Annunciation.[71][72]
Classical Anglicanism[edit]
The original formularies of the Church of England also continue in the Reformation understanding of Original Sin. In the Thirty-Nine Articles, Article IX "Of Original or Birth-sin" states:
Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in the Greek, Φρονεμα σαρκος, which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh, is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.[73]
However, more recent doctrinal statements (e.g. the 1938 report Doctrine in the Church of England) permit a greater variety of understandings of this doctrine. The 1938 report summarizes:
Man is by nature capable of communion with God, and only through such communion can he become what he was created to be. "Original sin" stands for the fact that from a time apparently prior to any responsible act of choice man is lacking in this communion, and if left to his own resources and to the influence of his natural environment cannot attain to his destiny as a child of God.[74]
Methodism[edit]
The Methodist Church upholds Article VII in the Articles of Religion in the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church:
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually.[75]
Seventh-day Adventism[edit]
Seventh-day Adventists believe that humans are inherently sinful due to the fall of Adam,[76] but they do not totally accept the Augustinian/Calvinistic understanding of original sin, taught in terms of original guilt, but hold more to what could be termed the "total depravity" tradition.[77] Seventh-day Adventists have historically preached a doctrine of inherited weakness, but not a doctrine of inherited guilt.[78] According to Augustine and Calvin, humanity inherits not only Adam's depraved nature but also the actual guilt of his transgression, and Adventists look more toward the Wesleyan model.[79]
In part, the Adventist position on original sin reads:
The nature of the penalty for original sin, i.e., Adam's sin, is to be seen as literal, physical, temporal, or actual death – the opposite of life, i.e., the cessation of being. By no stretch of the scriptural facts can death be spiritualised as depravity. God did not punish Adam by making him a sinner. That was Adam’s own doing. All die the first death because of Adam’s sin regardless of their moral character – children included.[79]
Early Adventists Pioneers (such as George Storrs and Uriah Smith) tended to de-emphasise the morally corrupt nature inherited from Adam, while stressing the importance of actual, personal sins committed by the individual. They thought of the "sinful nature" in terms of physical mortality rather than moral depravity.[79] Traditionally, Adventists look at sin in terms of willful transgressions, and that Christ triumphed over sin. Adventism believes that Christ is both our Substitute and our Example.[80] They base their belief on texts such as "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4)[81]
Though believing in the concept of inherited sin from Adam, there is no dogmatic Adventist position on original sin. Related articles dealing with the subject are publicly available on the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s official website on theological doctrine, the Biblical Research Institute.[82]
Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]
According to Jehovah's Witnesses, all humans are born sinners and inherit sin, corruption, and death from Adam. They believe Adam was originally created perfect and sinless, but with free will; the Devil, who was originally a perfect angel, but later developed feelings of pride and self-importance, seduced Eve, and then through her, persuaded Adam to disobey God, and to obey the Devil instead, rebelling against God's sovereignty, making themselves sinners and transmitting a sinful nature to their offspring.[83][84] Instead of destroying the Devil right away, as well as destroying the disobedient couple, God decided to test the loyalty of the rest of humankind, and to prove to that man cannot be independent of God successfully, that man is lost without God's laws and standards, and can never bring peace to the earth, and that Satan was a deceiver, murderer, and liar.[85]
Witnesses believe that all men possess "inherited sin" from the "one man" Adam, and that man is born corrupt, and dies because of inherited sin and imperfection, that inherited sin is the reason and cause for sickness and suffering, made worse by the Devil's wicked influence. They believe Jesus is the "second Adam", being the sinless Son of God and the Messiah, and that he came to undo Adamic sin; and that salvation and everlasting life can only be obtained through faith and obedience to the second Adam.[83][84][85][86][87][88] They believe that "sin" is "missing the mark" of God's standard of perfection, and that everyone is born a sinner, due to being the offspring of sinner Adam.[89]
Mormonism[edit]
The Book of Mormon, a text sacred to Mormonism, contains an original sin doctrine in which humanity inherited a fallen and depraved nature from Adam.[90] Young children, however, are thought to be held innocent until an age of accountability.[91] As Mormon doctrines developed, founder Joseph Smith ultimately taught that humans had an essentially godlike nature, and were not only holy in a premortal state, but could progress eternally to become like God.[92] He wrote as an Article of Faith, "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."[93] Later Mormons took this creed as a rejection of the doctrine of original sin and any notion of inherited sinfulness.[92] Thus, while modern Mormons will agree that the fall of Adam brought consequences to the world, including the possibility of sin, they generally reject the idea that any culpability is automatically transmitted to Adam and Eve's offspring.[94]
Swedenborgianism[edit]
In Swedenborgianism, exegesis of the first 11 chapters of Genesis from The First Church, has a view that Adam is not an individual person. Rather, he is a symbolic representation of the "Most Ancient Church", having a more direct contact with heaven than all other successive churches.[95] Swedenborg's view of original sin is referred to as hereditary evil, which passes from generation to generation.[96] It cannot be completely abolished by an individual man, but can be tempered when someone reforms their own life,[97] and are thus held accountable only for their own sins.[98]
Islam[edit]
The concept of original sin is not recognized in Islam. Muslims believe that Adam and Eve were forgiven by God, and use the following Koranic suras to support this belief:
"O Adam, dwell with your wife in the Garden and enjoy as you wish but approach not this tree or you run into harm and transgression. Then Satan whispered to them in order to reveal to them their shame that was hidden from them and he said: 'Your Lord only forbade you this tree lest you become angels or such beings as live forever.' And he swore to them both that he was their sincere adviser. So by deceit he brought them to their fall: when they tasted the tree their shame became manifest to them and they began to sew together the leaves of the Garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them: 'Did I not forbid you that tree and tell you that Satan was your avowed enemy?'" Sūrat al-Aʻrāf:19–22.
"They said: 'Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves souls. If You forgive us not and bestow not upon us Your mercy, we shall certainly be of the losers' " Surat al-Aʻraf :23
".. Thus did Adam disobey his Lord, so he went astray. Then his Lord chose him, and turned to him with forgiveness, and gave him guidance." Surat Ṭā Hāʼ:121–122
"(ِAllah SWT) said: 'Get down (from the Garden), one of you an enemy to the other [i.e. Adam, Eve, and Satan]. On earth will be a dwelling-place for you and an enjoyment – for a short time'. He (God) said: 'Therein you shall live, and therein you shall die, and from it you shall be brought out [i.e. resurrected].' " Surat al-Aʻraf:24–25.
"That no burdened person (with sins) shall bear the burden (sins) of another. And that man can have nothing but what he does (of good and bad). And that his deeds will be seen, Then he will be recompensed with a full and the best [fair] recompense." Surat an-Najm:38–41
Criticism[edit]
Historian Robin Lane Fox argues that the foundation of the doctrine of original sin, that was accepted by the Church, was based on a mis-translation of Paul the Apostle's Epistle to the Romans (Romans 5:12–21) by Augustine, in his "On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin".[99]
In an 8-page contribution, I.J.J. Spangenberg has stated:
Darwin,[100][101] did not set out to undermine the grand narrative of Christianity, but his theory of evolution through natural selection led to conclusions that were diametrically opposite to those that Christians traditionally believed and proclaimed. The research carried out under the paradigm of evolution brought to light that Augustine's convictions on "original sin" and death could no longer be held. However, conservative theologians and church members are reluctant to acknowledge this (Bowler 2007:225).[102] Nevertheless, a change in traditional theology is a prerequisite for any meaningful dialogue between religion and science.[103]
That what Spangenberg calls "traditional theology" is not the only accepted contemporary theology is evident from the writings of Reinhold Niebuhr[104] and others reviewed in Jerry D. Korsmeyer's Evolution and Eden[105] and Tatha Wiley's Original Sin: Origins, Developments, Contemporary Meanings,[106] and from the fact that, with regard to official Catholic Church doctrine on original sin, the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church "explicitly acknowledges that the account of the fall in Genesis 2 and 3 uses figurative language".[107] Difficulty for what Spangenberg calls the dialogue between religion and science arises, in the view of Korsmeyer, from a confrontation between a few popularizers of scientific knowledge and "religious fundamentalists who consider that their religious knowledge includes scientific conclusions drawn from the Bible".[108]
See also[edit]
Portal icon Christianity portal
Portal icon Religion portal
Actual sin
Ancestral sin
Christian views on sin
Deadly sin
Divine grace
Eternal sin (aka unforgivable or unpardonable sin)
Fall of man
Hamartiology
Immaculate Conception
Incurvatus in se
Internal sin
Justification (theology)
Mortal sin
Pandora's box
Prevenient grace
Sin
The Antichrist (book)
Theodicy and the Bible#The Fall and freedom of the will
Total depravity
Venial sin
Problem of evil
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Examples: Alexander Golitzin, On the Mystical Life by Saint Symeon (St Vladimir's Seminary Press 1995 ISBN 978-0-88141-144-7), p.119
Adam L. Tate, Conservatism and Southern Intellectuals, 1789–1861 (University of Missouri Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-8262-1567-3), p. 190
Marcelle Bartolo-Abel, God's Gift to Humanity (Apostolate–The Divine Heart 2011 ISBN 978-0-9833480-1-6), p. 32
Ann Hassan, Annotations to Geoffrey Hill's Speech! Speech! (Punctum Books 2012 ISBN 978-1-4681-2984-7, p. 62
2.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i ODCC 2005, p. Original sin.
3.Jump up ^ Brodd, Jefferey (2003). World Religions. Winona, MN: Saint Mary's Press. ISBN 978-0-88489-725-5.
4.Jump up ^ Peter Nathan - The Original View of Original Sin - Retrieved 14 October 2013.
5.Jump up ^ Phil Porvaznik - Original Sin Explained and Defended Evangelical Catholic Apologetics - Retrieved 14 October 2013.
6.Jump up ^ Preamble and Articles of Faith - V. Sin, Original and Personal - Church of the Nazarene. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
7.Jump up ^ Are Babies Born with Sin? - Topical Bible Studies. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
8.Jump up ^ Original Sin - Psalm 51:5 - Catholic News Agency. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
9.Jump up ^ "Jansenius and Jansenism" in The Catholic Encyclopedia
10.Jump up ^ SIN: – Jewish Encyclopedia. Retrieved 12 July 2013.
11.Jump up ^ Shaul Magid (2008). From Metaphysics to Midrash: Myth, History, and the Interpretation of Scripture in Lurianic Kabbala. Indiana University Press. p. 238. Retrieved 9 February 2014.
12.Jump up ^ Judaism’s Rejection Of Original Sin – Kolatch, Alfred J., The Jewish Book of Why/The Second Jewish Book of Why. NY: Jonathan David Publishers, 1989.
13.Jump up ^ Judaism's Rejection Of Original Sin While there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon humanity on account of Adam's sin, the dominant view was that man sins because he is not a perfect being, and not, as Christianity teaches, because he is inherently sinful.
14.Jump up ^ http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/beliefs/human.htm/
15.Jump up ^ http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/beliefs/human.htm
16.Jump up ^ J. N. D. Kelly Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1978) p. 171, referred to in Daniel L. Akin, A Theology for the Church, p. 433
17.Jump up ^ Daniel L. Akin, A Theology for the Church (B&H Publishing 2007 ISBN 978-0-8054-2640-3), p. 433
18.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), pp. 255 & 258. ISBN 978-1-4563-8980-2
19.Jump up ^ H. E. W. Turner, The Patristic Doctrine of the Redemption: A Study of the Development of Doctrine During the First Five Centuries (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004) p. 71
20.Jump up ^ Bernhard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1966), p. 104
21.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), p. 258. ISBN 978-1-4563-8980-2
22.Jump up ^ Arthur C. McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought: Volume 1, Early and Eastern (New York; London: C. Scribner's sons, 1932), p. 101
23.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), pp. 258–259. ISBN 978-1-4563-8980-2
24.Jump up ^ Augustine taught that Adam's sin was both an act of foolishness (insipientia) and of pride and disobedience to God of Adam and Eve. He thought it was a most subtle job to discern what came first: self-centeredness or failure in seeing truth. Augustine wrote to Julian of Eclanum: Sed si disputatione subtilissima et elimatissima opus est, ut sciamus utrum primos homines insipientia superbos, an insipientes superbia fecerit (Contra Julianum, V, 4.18; PL 44, 795). This particular sin would not have taken place if Satan had not sown into their senses "the root of evil" (radix Mali): Nisi radicem mali humanus tunc reciperet sensus (Contra Julianum, I, 9.42; PL 44, 670)
25.Jump up ^ ORIGINAL SIN- Biblical Apologetic Studies - Retrieved 17 May 2014. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) taught that Adam's sin is transmitted by concupiscence, or "hurtful desire", sexual desire and all sensual feelings resulting in humanity becoming a massa damnata (mass of perdition, condemned crowd), with much enfeebled, though not destroyed, freedom of will.
26.Jump up ^ William Nicholson - A Plain But Full Exposition of the Catechism of the Church of England... (Google eBook) page 118. Retrieved 17 May 2014.
27.Jump up ^ Thomas Aquinas explained Augustine's doctrine pointing out that the libido (concupiscence), which makes the original sin pass from parents to children, is not a libido actualis, i.e. sexual lust, but libido habitualis, i.e. a wound of the whole of human nature: Libido quae transmittit peccatum originale in prolem, non est libido actualis, quia dato quod virtute divina concederetur alicui quod nullam inordinatam libidinem in actu generationis sentiret, adhuc transmitteret in prolem originale peccatum. Sed libido illa est intelligenda habitualiter, secundum quod appetitus sensitivus non continetur sub ratione vinculo originalis iustitiae. Et talis libido in omnibus est aequalis (STh Iª–IIae q. 82 a. 4 ad 3).
28.Jump up ^ Non substantialiter manere concupiscentiam, sicut corpus aliquod aut spiritum; sed esse affectionem quamdam malae qualitatis, sicut est languor. (De nuptiis et concupiscentia, I, 25. 28; PL 44, 430; cf. Contra Julianum, VI, 18.53; PL 44, 854; ibid. VI, 19.58; PL 44, 857; ibid., II, 10.33; PL 44, 697; Contra Secundinum Manichaeum, 15; PL 42, 590.
29.Jump up ^ Augustine wrote to Julian of Eclanum: Quis enim negat futurum fuisse concubitum, etiamsi peccatum non praecessisset? Sed futurus fuerat, sicut aliis membris, ita etiam genitalibus voluntate motis, non libidine concitatis; aut certe etiam ipsa libidine – ut non vos de illa nimium contristemus – non qualis nunc est, sed ad nutum voluntarium serviente (Contra Julianum, IV. 11. 57; PL 44, 766). See also his late work: Contra secundam Iuliani responsionem imperfectum opus, II, 42; PL 45,1160; ibid. II, 45; PL 45,1161; ibid., VI, 22; PL 45, 1550–1551. Cf.Schmitt, É. (1983). Le mariage chrétien dans l'oeuvre de Saint Augustin. Une théologie baptismale de la vie conjugale. Études Augustiniennes. Paris. p. 104.
30.Jump up ^ Justo L. Gonzalez (1970–1975). A History of Christian Thought: Volume 2 (From Augustine to the eve of the Reformation). Abingdon Press.
31.Jump up ^ Sexual desire is, according to bishop of Hippo, only one – though the strongest – of many physical realisations of that spiritual libido: Cum igitur sint multarum libidines rerum, tamen, cum libido dicitur neque cuius rei libido sit additur, non fere assolet animo occurrere nisi illa, qua obscenae partes corporis excitantur. Haec autem sibi non solum totum corpus nec solum extrinsecus, verum etiam intrinsecus vindicat totumque commovet hominem animi simul affectu cum carnis appetitu coniuncto atque permixto, ut ea voluptas sequatur, qua maior in corporis voluptatibus nulla est; ita ut momento ipso temporis, quo ad eius pervenitur extremum, paene omnis acies et quasi vigilia cogitationis obruatur. (De civitate Dei, XIV, 16; CCL 48, 438–439 [1–10]). See also: Schmitt, É. (1983). Le mariage chrétien dans l'oeuvre de Saint Augustin. Une théologie baptismale de la vie conjugale. Études Augustiniennes. Paris. p. 97.. See also Augustine's: De continentia, 8.21; PL 40, 363; Contra Iulianum VI, 19.60; PL 44, 859; ibid. IV, 14.65, z.2, s. 62; PL 44, 770; De Trinitate, XII, 9. 14; CCL 50, 368 [verse: IX 1–8]; De Genesi contra Manicheos, II, 9.12, s. 60 ; CSEL 91, 133 [v. 31–35]).
32.Jump up ^ Regeneratus quippe non regenerat filios carnis, sed generat; ac per hoc in eos non quod regeneratus, sed quod generatus est, trajicit. (De gratia Christi et de peccato originali, II, 40.45; CSEL 42, 202[23–25]; PL 44, 407.
33.Jump up ^ Cf. De civitate Dei, ch. IX and XIV; On the Gospel of John, LX (Christ's feelings at the death of Lazarus, Jn 11)
34.Jump up ^ J. Brachtendorf (1997). "Cicero and Augustine on the Passions". p. 307. hdl:2042/23075.
35.Jump up ^ "Infernum", literally "underworld," later identified as limbo.
36.Jump up ^ "Limbo: Past Catholic statements on the fate of unbaptized infants, etc. who have died"[1]
37.Jump up ^ Study by International Theological Commission (19 January 2007), The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, 19–21
38.Jump up ^ Study by International Theological Commission (19 January 2007), The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, 22–25
39.Jump up ^ Mark 10:14; cf. 1 Tim 2:4
40.Jump up ^ Study by International Theological Commission (19 January 2007), The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, secondary preliminary paragraph; cf. paragraph 41.
41.Jump up ^ Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part II/Conference XIII/Chapter 11 s:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part II/Conference XIII/Chapter 11
42.^ Jump up to: a b Geoffrey Rudolph Elton, Reformation Europe (Wiley-Blackwell 1999 ISBN 978-0-631-21384-0), p. 136
43.^ Jump up to: a b Augustine Casiday, Tradition and Theology in St John Cassian (Oxford University Press 2007 ISBN 0-19-929718-5), p. 103
44.^ Jump up to: a b Conferences By John Cassian, Colm Luibhéid
45.^ Jump up to: a b STUDIA HISTORIAE ECCLESIASTICAE May/Mei 2009 Volume XXXV No/Nr 1
46.^ Jump up to: a b Lauren Pristas, The Theological Anthropology of John Cassian
47.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), pp. 284–285. ISBN 978-1-4563-8980-2
48.Jump up ^ Edwin Zackrison, In the Loins of Adam (iUniverse 2004 ISBN 9780595307166), p. 73
49.Jump up ^ Justo L. González, A History of Christian Thought (Abingdon Press 2010 ISBN 9781426721915), vol. 2, p. 58
50.Jump up ^ In Catholic theology, the meaning of the word "concupiscence" is the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. The apostle St Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the 'flesh' against the 'spirit' Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man's moral faculties and, without being in itself an offence, inclines man to commit sins" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2515).
51.Jump up ^ Theodore G. Tappert, The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 29.
52.Jump up ^ Luther's Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968
53.Jump up ^ John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.1.8, LCC, 2 vols., trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 251 (page 217 of CCEL edition). Cf. Institutes of the Christian Religion at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library
54.Jump up ^ Decree 5 concerning original sin
55.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 416–418
56.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 357
57.Jump up ^ Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, Man the Image of God
58.Jump up ^ United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, "Made in the Image of God"
59.^ Jump up to: a b Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405
60.Jump up ^ What the Catholic Church Teaches about Original Sin
61.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church 404
62.Jump up ^ Item 407 in section 1.2.1.7. Emphasis added.
63.Jump up ^ Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854) quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church, 491 [2]
64.Jump up ^ Catechism of St. Philaret, questions 157
65.Jump up ^ The term "ancestral sin" is also used, as in Greek προπατορικὴ ἁμαρτία (e.g. Πόλεμος και φτώχεια – η ορθόδοξη άποψη, Η νηστεία της Σαρακοστής, Πώς στράφηκε ο Λούθηρος κατά του Μοναχισμού – του Γεωργίου Φλωρόφσκυ) or προπατορικὸ ἁμάρτημα (e.g., Απαντήσεις σε ερωτήματα δογματικά – Ανδρέα Θεοδώρου, εκδ. Αποστολικής Διακονίας, 1997, σελ. 156–161, Θεοτόκος και προπατορικό αμάρτημα)
66.Jump up ^ stmaryorthodoxchurch.org
67.Jump up ^ Holy Trinity Romanian Orthodox Church: Original Sin and Its Consequences
68.Jump up ^ The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church, 168
69.Jump up ^ Glory to God for all things [3]./
70.Jump up ^ Fr. John Matusiak, http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=4&SID=3
71.Jump up ^ Mother Mary and Ware, Kallistos, "The Festal Menaion", p. 47. St. Tikhon's Seminary Press, 1998.
72.Jump up ^ Laurent Cleenewerck, His Broken Body (Euclid University Press 2007 ISBN 978-0-61518361-9), p. 410[self-published source]
73.Jump up ^ Articles of Religion - Anglicans Online.
74.Jump up ^ Doctrine in the Church of England, 1938, London: SPCK; p. 64
75.Jump up ^ The United Methodist Church: The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church – Article V—Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation
76.Jump up ^ The SDA Bible Commentary, vol.5, p.1131.
77.Jump up ^ http://www.bibelschule.info/streaming/Woodrow-W.-Whidden---Adventist-Theology---The-Wesleyan-Connection_23617.pdf
78.Jump up ^ E. G. White, Signs of the Times, August 29, 1892
79.^ Jump up to: a b c Gerhard Pfandl. "Some thoughts on Original Sin" (PDF). Biblical Research Institute
80.Jump up ^ Christ's Human Nature
81.Jump up ^ Questions on Doctrines Documents via Andrews University
82.Jump up ^ adventistbiblicalresearch.org
83.^ Jump up to: a b Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom. Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. 1993. pp. 144–145.
84.^ Jump up to: a b What Does the Bible Really Teach?. Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. 2005. p. 32.
85.^ Jump up to: a b "The Watchtower 1973, page 724" – "Declaration and resolution", The Watchtower, December 1, 1973, page 724.
86.Jump up ^ Penton, M.J. (1997). Apocalypse Delayed. University of Toronto Press. pp. 26–29. ISBN 9780802079732.
87.Jump up ^ "Angels—How They Affect Us". The Watchtower: 7. January 15, 2006.
88.Jump up ^ ADAM – jw.org. Retrieved 10 January 2013.
89.Jump up ^ Adam’s Sin – The Time for True Submission to God – jw.org. Retrieved 10 January 2013.
90.Jump up ^ Alexander, Thomas G. (1989), Bergera, Gary James, ed., Line Upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine, Salt Lake City: Signature Books, pp. 55–56.
91.Jump up ^ Id.
92.^ Jump up to: a b Alexander, p. 64.
93.Jump up ^ Articles of Faith 1:2
94.Jump up ^ Merrill, Byron R. (1992). "Original sin". In Ludlow, Daniel H. Encyclopedia of Mormonism. New York: Macmillan Publishing. pp. 1052–1053. ISBN 0-02-879602-0. OCLC 24502140.
95.Jump up ^ Swedenborg 1749–56, p. 410: [url=http://books.google.com/books?id=U3tQJ9j_1ToC&pg=PR3&lpg=PR3&dq=Arcana+Coelestia+john+f+potts&source=bl&ots=kiaZ2hbwTG&sig=P-jzl0rzPlua-881yeIcjKLo2ZY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hW0yUKu6A6OSiAKtmoDgAw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ancient%20church%20adam&f=false n. 1101–1150].
96.Jump up ^ Swedenborg 1749–56, p. 96, n. 313: "But as to hereditary evil, the case is this. Everyone who commits actual sin thereby induces on himself a nature, and the evil from it is implanted in his children, and becomes hereditary. It thus descends from every parent, from the father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and their ancestors in succession, and is thus multiplied and augmented in each descending posterity, remaining with each person, and being increased in each by his actual sins, and never being dissipated so as to become harmless except in those who are being regenerated by the Lord. Every attentive observer may see evidence of this truth in the fact that the evil inclinations of parents remain visibly in their children, so that one family, and even an entire race, may be thereby distinguished from every other.".
97.Jump up ^ Swedenborg 1749-56, p. 229, n.719:"There are evils in man which must be dispersed while he is being regenerated, that is, which must be loosened and attempered by goods; for no actual and hereditary evil in man can be so dispersed as to be abolished. It still remains implanted; and can only be so far loosened and attempered by goods from the Lord that it does not injure, and does not appear, which is an arcanum hitherto unknown. Actual evils are those which are loosened and attempered, and not hereditary evils; which also is a thing unknown.".
98.Jump up ^ Swedenborg 1749-56, p. 336, n.966: "It is to be observed that in the other life no one undergoes any punishment and torture on account of his hereditary evil, but only on account of the actual evils which he himself has committed.".
99.Jump up ^ Fox, Robin Lane (2006). The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible. London: Penguin. ISBN 9780141022963.
100.Jump up ^ C. Darwin and A. R. Wallace, 1858, "On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection", Read at the Linnean Society of London on 1 July 1858 by J. J. Bennett, and published in Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 3, (20 August 1858), 46–50.
101.Jump up ^ C. Darwin, 1859, On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, published by John Murray, London.
102.Jump up ^ P J Bowler, 2007, Monkey Trials and Gorilla Sermons: Evolution and Christianity from Darwin to Intelligent Design, Harvard University Press, London; see page 225.
103.Jump up ^ I J J Spangenberg, 2013, "On the origin of death: Paul and Augustine meet Charles Darwin", HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 69(1), Art. #1992, 8 pages. doi:10.4102/ hts.v69i1.1992; see page 7.
104.Jump up ^ Langdon Gilkey, Langdon Brown Gilkey. On Niehbuhr (University of Chicago Press 2002 ISBN 978-0-22629342-4), p. 93
105.Jump up ^ Jerry D. Korsmeyer Evolution and Eden (Paulist Press 1998) ISBN 978-0-8091-3815-9
106.Jump up ^ Tatha Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, Contemporary Meanings (Paulist Press 2002 ISBN 978-0-8091-4128-9)
107.Jump up ^ John Redford, What Is Catholicism (Our Sunday Visitor 1999 ISBN 978-0-87973587-6), p. 55
108.Jump up ^ Jerry D. Korsmeyer, Evolution and Eden, p. 73
Bibliography[edit]
Brachtendorf, J. (1997). "Cicero and Augustine on the Passions" (PDF). Revue des Etudes Augustiniennes (Paris: Institut d'études augustiniennes) 43: 289–308.
Catechism, U.S. Catholic Church (2003). Catechism of the Catholic Church : with modifications from the Editio Typica. (2nd ed.). New York: Doubleday. ISBN 9780385508193.
Kelly, J.N.D. (2000). Early Christian doctrines (5th rev. ed.). London: Continuum. ISBN 9780826452528.
ODCC, ed. by Frank Leslie Cross; Elizabeth A. Livingstone (2005). "Original sin". The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd rev. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780192802903.
Swedenborg, Emanuel; Trans. by John F. Potts (1749–56). Arcana Coelestia, Vol. 1 of 8 (2008 Reprint ed.). Forgotten Books. ISBN 9781606201077.
Trapè, Agostino (1987). S. Agostino, introduzione alla dottrina della grazia. Collana di Studi Agostiniani 4. I - Natura e Grazia. Roma: Nuova Biblioteca agostiniana. p. 422. ISBN 88-311-3402-7.
Turner, H.E.W. The patristic doctrine of redemption : a study of the development of doctrine during the first five centuries / by H.E.W. Turner. (2004 Reprint ed.). Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock Publishers. ISBN 9781592449309.
Wallace, A.J.; R. D. Rusk (2010). Moral transformation : the original Christian paradigm of salvation. New Zealand: Bridgehead Publishing. ISBN 9781456389802.
Woo, B. Hoon (2014). "Is God the Author of Sin?—Jonathan Edwards’s Theodicy". Puritan Reformed Journal 6 (1): 98–123.
External links[edit]
Wikiquote has quotations related to: Original sin
Article "Original Sin" in Catholic Encyclopedia
The Book of Concord The Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Article II: Of Original Sin; from an early Protestant perspective, part of the Augsburg Confession.
Original Sin According To St. Paul by John S. Romanides
Ancestral Versus Original Sin by Father Antony Hughes, St. Mary Antiochian Orthodox Church, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Original Sin by Michael Bremmer
CatholicismCouncil of Trent (June 17, 1546). "Canones et Decreta Dogmatica Concilii Tridentini: Fifth Session, Decree concerning Original Sin". at www.ccel.org. Retrieved 1 November 2013.
[hide]
v ·
t ·
e
Hamartiology
Adam ·
Evil ·
The Fall ·
Original sin ·
Christian views on sin ·
Imputation of sin ·
Other views on sin ·
Supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism ·
Theodicy ·
Total depravity
See also Apologetics ·
Soteriology ·
Demonology
Categories: Christian philosophy
Christian hamartiology
Systematic theology
Adam and Eve
Christian terminology
Sin
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
العربية
Azərbaycanca
Български
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
فارسی
Français
Galego
한국어
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Íslenska
Italiano
עברית
Kiswahili
Latina
Latviešu
Magyar
മലയാളം
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
ไทย
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 2 June 2015, at 23:51.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
Sin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is about religion. "Sinful", "Sinner", and "Sinners" redirect here. For the trigonometric function commonly written as sin, see Sine. For other uses, see Sin (disambiguation), Sinful (disambiguation), Sinner (disambiguation), and Sinners (disambiguation).
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2012)
A Sistine Chapel fresco depicts the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden for their sin of eating from the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
In a religious context, sin is the act of violating God's will.[1][2][3][4] Sin can also be viewed as anything that violates the ideal relationship between an individual and God; or as any diversion from the ideal order for human living. To sin has been defined as "to miss the mark".[5]
Sins fall in a spectrum from minor errors to deadly misdeeds. The Catholic Church regards the least corrupt sins as venial sins—which are part of human living and carry immediate consequences on earth, and, if unrepented for, more painful purgation, assuming the person is destined to heaven, as it is written in the formation letter "Purgatory", "most of the early Fathers of the Church speak of a cleansing fire, though we cannot tell whether this means actual or spiritual fire." [6] Conversely, sins of great evil are mortal sins—which bring the consequence of hell if they are not addressed either through an act of perfect contrition or going to confession about them.
Sins of careless living are considered [7] destructive and lead to greater sins. Another concept of sin deals with things that exist on Earth but not in Heaven. Food, for example, while a necessary good for the (health of the temporal) body, is not of (eternal) transcendental living and so, because the human being's fixation upon the temporal and its deceitful pleasures distracts and diverts human beings from righteousness, accordingly its excessive savouring is considered a sin.
Many Christians also categorize sin as an inevitable act that was passed down from generation to generation by the common ancestor, Adam.[8] Believers in this doctrine of original sin hold that like a disease, sin is the curse that poisons the heart of every human thereafter; that human nature is weakened by original sin, and is therefore inclined to sin. Romans 3:22-24 states: "Even the justice of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe in him: for there is no distinction: / For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God. / Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption, that is in Christ Jesus,".[9]
Contents [hide]
1 Etymology
2 Religions 2.1 Bahá'í
2.2 Buddhism
2.3 Christianity
2.4 Hinduism
2.5 Islam
2.6 Judaism
2.7 Shinto
3 See also
4 Notes and references
5 Bibliography
6 External links
Etymology[edit]
The word derives from "Old English syn(n), for original *sunjō... The stem may be related to that of Latin sons, sont-is guilty. In Old English there are examples of the original general sense, ‘offence, wrong-doing, misdeed'".[10] The Biblical terms translated from New Testament Greek (αμαρτία - amartia) and from Hebrew as "sin" or "syn" originate in archery and literally refer to missing the "gold" at the centre of a target, but hitting the target, i.e. error.[11] (Archers call not hitting the target at all a "miss".)
Religions[edit]
Bahá'í[edit]
Main article: Bahá'í views on sin
In the Bahá'í Faith, humans are considered naturally good (perfect), fundamentally spiritual beings. Human beings were created because of God's immeasurable love. However, the Bahá'í teachings compare the human heart to a mirror, which, if turned away from the light of the sun (i.e. God), is incapable of receiving God's love.
Buddhism[edit]
Main article: Buddhist views on sin
Buddhism does not recognize the idea behind sin, but believes in the principle of karma, whereby suffering is the inevitable consequence of greed, anger, and delusion (known as the Three poisons).[12] While there is no direct Buddhist equivalent of the Abrahamic concept of sin, wrongdoing is recognized in Buddhism. The concept of Buddhist ethics is consequentialist in nature and is not based upon duty towards any deity. Karma is the direct result of the intention. Action is secondary. Karma whether good or bad is performed with Mind, Body and words would bring pleasant or unpleasant results. Defilement in mind cause the Karma and Karma defiles the being. One needs to purify his being with Four Satipatthanas to free oneself from the vicious circle. The purification reduces suffering and in the end one reaches Nibbana, the ultimate purification. An enlightened being is free of all the suffering and karmas. He would never be born again.
Christianity[edit]
Main articles: Hamartiology and Christian views on sin
See also: Christian views on the Old Covenant and Seven deadly sins
In the Old Testament, some sins were punishable by death in different forms, while most sins are forgiven by burnt offerings. Christians consider the Old Covenant to be fulfilled by the Gospel.
In the New Testament however, the forgiveness of sin is effected through repentance which involves confessing the sin. Sin is forgiven, when the sinner acknowledges, confesses, and repents for his sin.[13] The unregenerate man is expected to confess his sins to God through repentance in order to be restored to right relationship with God. The unregenerate man has never before been in a favorable relationship with God. When, as a part of his salvation, he is forgiven, he enters into a union with God which abides forever.[14] In the Epistle to the Romans 6:23, it is mentioned that "the wages of sin is death", which is commonly interpreted as, if one does not repent for his sins, such person will not merit salvation. [15]
In Western Christianity, sin is believed to alienate the sinner from God even though He has extreme love for mankind. It has damaged and completely severed the relationship of humanity to God. That relationship can only be restored through acceptance of Jesus Christ and his death on the cross as a satisfactory sacrifice for the sins of humanity. Humanity was destined for life with God when Adam disobeyed God. The Bible in John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting."
In Eastern Christianity, sin is viewed in terms of its effects on relationships, both among people and between people and God. Sin is seen as the refusal to follow God's plan and the desire to be "like God" (Genesis 3:5) and thus in direct opposition to God's will (see the account of Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis).
Original sin is a Western concept that states that sin entered the human world through Adam and Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden and that human beings have since lived with the consequences of this first sin.[16]
The snake who seduced Eve to eat of the fruit was punished by having it and its kind being made to crawl on the ground and God set an enmity between them and Eve's descendants (Genesis 3:14-15). Eve was punished by the pangs of childbirth and the sorrow of bringing about life that would eventually age, sicken and die (Genesis 3:16). The second part of the curse about being subordinate to Adam originates from her creation from one of Adam's ribs to be his helper (Genesis 2:18-25); the curse now clarifies that she must now obey her husband and desire only him. Adam was punished by having to work endlessly to feed himself and his family. The land would bring forth both thistles and thorns to be cleared and herbs and grain to be planted, nurtured, and harvested. The second part of the curse about his mortality is from his origin as red clay - he is from the land and he and his descendants would return to it when buried after death. When Adam's son Cain slew his brother Abel, he introduced murder into the world (Genesis 4:8-10). For his punishment, God banished him as a fugitive, but first marked him with a sign that would protect him and his descendants from harm (Genesis 4:11-16).
One concept of sin deals with things that exist on Earth, but not in Heaven. Food, for example, while a necessary good for the (health of the temporal) body, is not of (eternal) transcendental living and therefore its excessive savoring is considered a sin.[17] The unforgivable sin (or eternal sin) is a sin that can never be forgiven; Matthew 12:30-32 : " 30 He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth. 31 And Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come."
In Catholic Christianity sins are classified into grave sins called mortal sins and less serious sins called venial sin. Mortal sins cause one to lose salvation unless the sinner repents and venial sins require some sort of penance either on Earth or in Purgatory.[18]
Jesus was said to have paid double for the complete mass of sins past, present, and to come in future. Even inevitable sin from our weakness has already been cleansed.
The Lamb of God was and is God Himself and therefore sinless. In the Old Testament, Leviticus 16:21 states that ‘the laying on of hands’ was the action that the High Priest Aaron was ordered to do yearly by God to take sins of Israel's nation onto a spotless young lamb.
Hinduism[edit]
In Hinduism, the term sin (pāpa in Sanskrit) is often used to describe actions that create negative karma by violating moral and ethical codes, which automatically brings negative consequences. This is similar to Abrahamic sin in the sense that pāpa is considered a crime against the laws of God, which is known as (1) Dharma, or moral order, and (2) one's own self, but another term apradha is used for grave offences.
Islam[edit]
Main article: Islamic views on sin
Muslims see sin (dhanb, thanb ذنب) as anything that goes against the commands of God (Allah). Islam teaches that sin is an act and not a state of being. The Qur'an teaches that "the soul is certainly prone to evil, unless the Lord does bestow His Mercy" and that even the prophets do not absolve themselves of the blame.[Quran 12:53] It is believed that Iblis (Devil) has a significant role in tempting humankind towards sin. Sin is also defined in the hadith, a collection of Muhammad's sayings. It is reported by An-Nawwas bin Sam'an:
"The Prophet (Muhammad) said, "Piety is good manner, and sin is that which creates doubt and you do not like people to know it.""
— [Muslim]
Wabisah bin Ma’bad reported:
“I went to Messenger of Allah (SAWS) and he asked me: “Have you come to inquire about piety?” I replied in the affirmative. Then he said: “Ask your heart regarding it. Piety is that which contents the soul and comforts the heart, and sin is that which causes doubts and perturbs the heart, even if people pronounce it lawful and give you verdicts on such matters again and again.”
—[Ahmad and Ad-Darmi]]
In Sunan al-Tirmidhi, a Hadith is narrated:
Allah's apostle said, "Every son of Adam sins, the best of the sinners are those who repent."
—Sunan al-Tirmidhi,Hadith no. 2499
In Sahih Muslim, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari and Abu Huraira narrated:
Allah's apostle said," By Him in Whose Hand is my life, if you were not to commit sin, Allah would sweep you out of existence and He would replace (you by) those people who would commit sin and seek forgiveness from Allah, and He would have pardoned them."
—Sahih Muslim, 37:6621
In Islam, there are several gradations of sin:
sayyia, khatia: mistakes (Suras 7:168; 17:31; 40:45; 47:19 48:2)
itada, junah, dhanb: immorality (Suras 2:190,229; 17:17 33:55)
haraam: transgressions (Suras 5:4; 6:146)
ithm, dhulam, fujur, su, fasad, fisk, kufr: wickedness and depravity (Suras 2:99, 205; 4:50, 112, 123, 136; 12:79; 38:62; 82:14)
shirk: ascribing a partner to God; idolatry and polytheism (Sura 4:48)
One may sincerely repent to God for the wrongs committed and seek forgiveness, as stated in the Quran, "Our Lord! Forgive us our sins, remove from us our iniquities, and take to Yourself our souls in the company of the righteous." (Al-Imran.193/ 3.193).
"Say O my slaves who have transgressed against their own souls despair not of the mercy of God, verily He forgives all sins, verily He is the oft-forgiving, most merciful."
— Qur'an, Az-Zumar)
Judaism[edit]
Main articles: Jewish views on sin and Golden mean (philosophy) § Judaism
Judaism regards the violation of any of the 613 commandments as a sin. Judaism teaches that to sin is natural thing because there is no man that is perfect and everyone has an inclination to do evil "from his youth".(Genesis 8:21). The main thing is to try your best.[19] Sin furthermore has many classifications and degrees. Some sins are punishable with death by the court, others with death by heaven, others with lashes, and others without such punishment, but no sins with willful intent go without consequence. Unintentional violations of the mitzvot are not considered as sins, since no one can be punished for something he did not know was wrong. "Sins by error" are considered as less severe sins. When the Temple yet stood in Jerusalem, people would offer sacrifices for their misdeeds. The atoning aspect of Karbanot is carefully circumscribed. For the most part, Karbanot only expiate such "sins by error", that is, sins committed because a person forgot that this thing was a sin. No atonement is needed for violations committed under duress or through lack of knowledge, and for the most part, Karbanot cannot atone for a malicious, deliberate sin. In addition, Karbanot have no expiating effect unless the person making the offering sincerely repents his or her actions before making the offering, and makes restitution to any person who was harmed by the violation.[20][21]
All willful sin has consequence. The completely righteous suffer for their sins (by humiliation, poverty and suffering that God sends them) in this world and receive their reward in the world to come. Ihe in between (not complete righteous or complete wicked), repent their sins after death and thereafter join the righteous. And the complete wicked cannot correct their sins in this world and hence do not suffer them here, but after death. The very evil do not repent even at the gates of hell. Such people prosper in this world to receive their reward for any good deed, but cannot be cleansed by and hence cannot leave Gehinnom, because they do not or cannot repent. This world can therefore seem unjust where the righteous suffer, while the wicked prosper. Many great thinkers have contemplated this, but God's justice is long, precise and just.[21] [22]
Shinto[edit]
Evil deeds fall into two categories in Shinto: amatsu tsumi, "the most pernicious crimes of all", and kunitsu tsumi, "more commonly called misdemeanors".[23]
See also[edit]
Wikiquote has quotations related to: Sin
Actual sin
Asceticism
Devil
Fall of Man
Hamartia
Hedonism
Internal sin
Morality
Mortal sin
Original sin
Religious law
Seven deadly sins
Sin-offering
Taboo
Total depravity
Venial sin
Notes and references[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Action and Person: Conscience in Late Scholasticism and the Young Luther Michael G. Baylor - 1977, "defined sin, in an objective sense, as contempt of god" page 27
2.Jump up ^ The Theology of the Oral Torah: Revealing the Justice of God Jacob Neusner - 1999, Page 523
3.Jump up ^ The fall to violence: original sin in relational theology Marjorie Suchocki - 1994 Page 29
4.Jump up ^ Five Views on Sanctification - page 188, Melvin Easterday Dieter, Stanley N. Gundry - 1996 "The other is 'deliberate violation of God's known will"
5.Jump up ^ Augustine eventually (after the Pelagian controversy) defined sin as a hardened heart, a loss of love for God, a disposition of the heart to depart from God because of inordinate self-love (see Augustine On Grace and Free Will in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, trans. P. Holmes, vol. 5, 30-31 [14-15]).
6.Jump up ^ [1][dead link]
7.Jump up ^ "Holy Spirit Interactive: The Seven Deadly Sins - The List". Retrieved 1 March 2015.
8.Jump up ^ "CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin". Retrieved 1 March 2015.
9.Jump up ^ Holy Bible, Douay-Rheims Version, Romans 3:22-24
10.Jump up ^ "Oxford English Dictionary". Oed.com. Retrieved 2013-09-16.
11.Jump up ^ Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. Vintage Books: New York, 1989. p. 123.
12.Jump up ^ Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism, Soka Gakkai, "Three Poisons": "Greed, anger, and foolishness. The fundamental evils inherent in life that give rise to human suffering."
13.Jump up ^ Schmaus, Michael (1975). Dogma: The Church as Sacrament. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. p. 220,222. ISBN 0-7425-3203-8. Retrieved April 11, 2015.
14.Jump up ^ Willmington, H.L. (1981). Willmington's Guide to the Bible. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. p. 725. ISBN 0-8423-8804-4.
15.Jump up ^ "Romans 6:23". Biblehub. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
16.Jump up ^ "Catholic Encyclopedia: Original Sin". Newadvent.org. 1911-02-01. Retrieved 2013-09-16.
17.Jump up ^ Hanegraaff, Hank. The Bible Answer Book pp. 18-21. ISBN 0-8499-9544-2
18.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 1472. The Vatican.
19.Jump up ^ "Maimonides on Life - Torah.org". Retrieved 1 March 2015.
20.Jump up ^ "Sacrifices and Offerings (Karbanot) - Jewish Virtual Library". Retrieved 1 March 2015.
21.^ Jump up to: a b Rabbi Michael Skobac. "Leviticus 17:11". Retrieved 1 March 2015.
22.Jump up ^ "Reward and Punishment". Retrieved 1 March 2015.
23.Jump up ^ The Essence of Shinto: The Spiritual Heart of Japan by Motohisa Yamakage
Bibliography[edit]
Fredriksen, Paula. Sin: The Early History of an Idea. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. ISBN 978-0-691-12890-0.
Granoff; P E ; Shinohara, Koichi; eds. (2012), Sins and Sinners: Perspectives from Asian Religions. Brill. ISBN 9004229469.
Hein, David. "Regrets Only: A Theology of Remorse." The Anglican 33, no. 4 (October 2004): 5–6.
Lewis, C.S. "Miserable Offenders": an Interpretation of [sinfulness and] Prayer Book Language [about it], in series, The Advent Papers. Cincinnati, Ohio: Forward Movement Publications, [196-].
Pieper, Josef. The Concept of Sin. Edward T. Oakes SJ (translation from German). South Bend, Indiana: St. Augustine's Press, 2001. ISBN 1-890318-08-6
Schumacher, Meinolf. Sündenschmutz und Herzensreinheit: Studien zur Metaphorik der Sünde in lateinischer und deutscher Literatur des Mittelalters. Munich: Fink, 1996.
External links[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Sins.
Look up sin in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
The Different Kinds of Sins (Catholic)
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Hamartiology
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Theology
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Seven Deadly Sins
Categories: Christian hamartiology
Christian philosophy
Crimes in religion
Religious belief and doctrine
Sin
Religious terminology
Vices
Crime
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Acèh
العربية
Aymar aru
Azərbaycanca
বাংলা
Беларуская
Български
Brezhoneg
Буряад
Català
Čeština
ChiShona
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Français
Gàidhlig
Galego
한국어
Հայերեն
हिन्दी
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Italiano
עברית
ಕನ್ನಡ
Kiswahili
Кыргызча
Latina
Latviešu
Lietuvių
Limburgs
Magyar
മലയാളം
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
नेपाल भाषा
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Polski
Português
Română
Runa Simi
Русский
Саха тыла
Shqip
Sicilianu
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
தமிழ்
Татарча/tatarça
ไทย
Türkçe
Українська
Tiếng Việt
ייִדיש
Žemaitėška
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 30 May 2015, at 02:54.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin
Sin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is about religion. "Sinful", "Sinner", and "Sinners" redirect here. For the trigonometric function commonly written as sin, see Sine. For other uses, see Sin (disambiguation), Sinful (disambiguation), Sinner (disambiguation), and Sinners (disambiguation).
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2012)
A Sistine Chapel fresco depicts the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden for their sin of eating from the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
In a religious context, sin is the act of violating God's will.[1][2][3][4] Sin can also be viewed as anything that violates the ideal relationship between an individual and God; or as any diversion from the ideal order for human living. To sin has been defined as "to miss the mark".[5]
Sins fall in a spectrum from minor errors to deadly misdeeds. The Catholic Church regards the least corrupt sins as venial sins—which are part of human living and carry immediate consequences on earth, and, if unrepented for, more painful purgation, assuming the person is destined to heaven, as it is written in the formation letter "Purgatory", "most of the early Fathers of the Church speak of a cleansing fire, though we cannot tell whether this means actual or spiritual fire." [6] Conversely, sins of great evil are mortal sins—which bring the consequence of hell if they are not addressed either through an act of perfect contrition or going to confession about them.
Sins of careless living are considered [7] destructive and lead to greater sins. Another concept of sin deals with things that exist on Earth but not in Heaven. Food, for example, while a necessary good for the (health of the temporal) body, is not of (eternal) transcendental living and so, because the human being's fixation upon the temporal and its deceitful pleasures distracts and diverts human beings from righteousness, accordingly its excessive savouring is considered a sin.
Many Christians also categorize sin as an inevitable act that was passed down from generation to generation by the common ancestor, Adam.[8] Believers in this doctrine of original sin hold that like a disease, sin is the curse that poisons the heart of every human thereafter; that human nature is weakened by original sin, and is therefore inclined to sin. Romans 3:22-24 states: "Even the justice of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe in him: for there is no distinction: / For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God. / Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption, that is in Christ Jesus,".[9]
Contents [hide]
1 Etymology
2 Religions 2.1 Bahá'í
2.2 Buddhism
2.3 Christianity
2.4 Hinduism
2.5 Islam
2.6 Judaism
2.7 Shinto
3 See also
4 Notes and references
5 Bibliography
6 External links
Etymology[edit]
The word derives from "Old English syn(n), for original *sunjō... The stem may be related to that of Latin sons, sont-is guilty. In Old English there are examples of the original general sense, ‘offence, wrong-doing, misdeed'".[10] The Biblical terms translated from New Testament Greek (αμαρτία - amartia) and from Hebrew as "sin" or "syn" originate in archery and literally refer to missing the "gold" at the centre of a target, but hitting the target, i.e. error.[11] (Archers call not hitting the target at all a "miss".)
Religions[edit]
Bahá'í[edit]
Main article: Bahá'í views on sin
In the Bahá'í Faith, humans are considered naturally good (perfect), fundamentally spiritual beings. Human beings were created because of God's immeasurable love. However, the Bahá'í teachings compare the human heart to a mirror, which, if turned away from the light of the sun (i.e. God), is incapable of receiving God's love.
Buddhism[edit]
Main article: Buddhist views on sin
Buddhism does not recognize the idea behind sin, but believes in the principle of karma, whereby suffering is the inevitable consequence of greed, anger, and delusion (known as the Three poisons).[12] While there is no direct Buddhist equivalent of the Abrahamic concept of sin, wrongdoing is recognized in Buddhism. The concept of Buddhist ethics is consequentialist in nature and is not based upon duty towards any deity. Karma is the direct result of the intention. Action is secondary. Karma whether good or bad is performed with Mind, Body and words would bring pleasant or unpleasant results. Defilement in mind cause the Karma and Karma defiles the being. One needs to purify his being with Four Satipatthanas to free oneself from the vicious circle. The purification reduces suffering and in the end one reaches Nibbana, the ultimate purification. An enlightened being is free of all the suffering and karmas. He would never be born again.
Christianity[edit]
Main articles: Hamartiology and Christian views on sin
See also: Christian views on the Old Covenant and Seven deadly sins
In the Old Testament, some sins were punishable by death in different forms, while most sins are forgiven by burnt offerings. Christians consider the Old Covenant to be fulfilled by the Gospel.
In the New Testament however, the forgiveness of sin is effected through repentance which involves confessing the sin. Sin is forgiven, when the sinner acknowledges, confesses, and repents for his sin.[13] The unregenerate man is expected to confess his sins to God through repentance in order to be restored to right relationship with God. The unregenerate man has never before been in a favorable relationship with God. When, as a part of his salvation, he is forgiven, he enters into a union with God which abides forever.[14] In the Epistle to the Romans 6:23, it is mentioned that "the wages of sin is death", which is commonly interpreted as, if one does not repent for his sins, such person will not merit salvation. [15]
In Western Christianity, sin is believed to alienate the sinner from God even though He has extreme love for mankind. It has damaged and completely severed the relationship of humanity to God. That relationship can only be restored through acceptance of Jesus Christ and his death on the cross as a satisfactory sacrifice for the sins of humanity. Humanity was destined for life with God when Adam disobeyed God. The Bible in John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting."
In Eastern Christianity, sin is viewed in terms of its effects on relationships, both among people and between people and God. Sin is seen as the refusal to follow God's plan and the desire to be "like God" (Genesis 3:5) and thus in direct opposition to God's will (see the account of Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis).
Original sin is a Western concept that states that sin entered the human world through Adam and Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden and that human beings have since lived with the consequences of this first sin.[16]
The snake who seduced Eve to eat of the fruit was punished by having it and its kind being made to crawl on the ground and God set an enmity between them and Eve's descendants (Genesis 3:14-15). Eve was punished by the pangs of childbirth and the sorrow of bringing about life that would eventually age, sicken and die (Genesis 3:16). The second part of the curse about being subordinate to Adam originates from her creation from one of Adam's ribs to be his helper (Genesis 2:18-25); the curse now clarifies that she must now obey her husband and desire only him. Adam was punished by having to work endlessly to feed himself and his family. The land would bring forth both thistles and thorns to be cleared and herbs and grain to be planted, nurtured, and harvested. The second part of the curse about his mortality is from his origin as red clay - he is from the land and he and his descendants would return to it when buried after death. When Adam's son Cain slew his brother Abel, he introduced murder into the world (Genesis 4:8-10). For his punishment, God banished him as a fugitive, but first marked him with a sign that would protect him and his descendants from harm (Genesis 4:11-16).
One concept of sin deals with things that exist on Earth, but not in Heaven. Food, for example, while a necessary good for the (health of the temporal) body, is not of (eternal) transcendental living and therefore its excessive savoring is considered a sin.[17] The unforgivable sin (or eternal sin) is a sin that can never be forgiven; Matthew 12:30-32 : " 30 He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth. 31 And Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come."
In Catholic Christianity sins are classified into grave sins called mortal sins and less serious sins called venial sin. Mortal sins cause one to lose salvation unless the sinner repents and venial sins require some sort of penance either on Earth or in Purgatory.[18]
Jesus was said to have paid double for the complete mass of sins past, present, and to come in future. Even inevitable sin from our weakness has already been cleansed.
The Lamb of God was and is God Himself and therefore sinless. In the Old Testament, Leviticus 16:21 states that ‘the laying on of hands’ was the action that the High Priest Aaron was ordered to do yearly by God to take sins of Israel's nation onto a spotless young lamb.
Hinduism[edit]
In Hinduism, the term sin (pāpa in Sanskrit) is often used to describe actions that create negative karma by violating moral and ethical codes, which automatically brings negative consequences. This is similar to Abrahamic sin in the sense that pāpa is considered a crime against the laws of God, which is known as (1) Dharma, or moral order, and (2) one's own self, but another term apradha is used for grave offences.
Islam[edit]
Main article: Islamic views on sin
Muslims see sin (dhanb, thanb ذنب) as anything that goes against the commands of God (Allah). Islam teaches that sin is an act and not a state of being. The Qur'an teaches that "the soul is certainly prone to evil, unless the Lord does bestow His Mercy" and that even the prophets do not absolve themselves of the blame.[Quran 12:53] It is believed that Iblis (Devil) has a significant role in tempting humankind towards sin. Sin is also defined in the hadith, a collection of Muhammad's sayings. It is reported by An-Nawwas bin Sam'an:
"The Prophet (Muhammad) said, "Piety is good manner, and sin is that which creates doubt and you do not like people to know it.""
— [Muslim]
Wabisah bin Ma’bad reported:
“I went to Messenger of Allah (SAWS) and he asked me: “Have you come to inquire about piety?” I replied in the affirmative. Then he said: “Ask your heart regarding it. Piety is that which contents the soul and comforts the heart, and sin is that which causes doubts and perturbs the heart, even if people pronounce it lawful and give you verdicts on such matters again and again.”
—[Ahmad and Ad-Darmi]]
In Sunan al-Tirmidhi, a Hadith is narrated:
Allah's apostle said, "Every son of Adam sins, the best of the sinners are those who repent."
—Sunan al-Tirmidhi,Hadith no. 2499
In Sahih Muslim, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari and Abu Huraira narrated:
Allah's apostle said," By Him in Whose Hand is my life, if you were not to commit sin, Allah would sweep you out of existence and He would replace (you by) those people who would commit sin and seek forgiveness from Allah, and He would have pardoned them."
—Sahih Muslim, 37:6621
In Islam, there are several gradations of sin:
sayyia, khatia: mistakes (Suras 7:168; 17:31; 40:45; 47:19 48:2)
itada, junah, dhanb: immorality (Suras 2:190,229; 17:17 33:55)
haraam: transgressions (Suras 5:4; 6:146)
ithm, dhulam, fujur, su, fasad, fisk, kufr: wickedness and depravity (Suras 2:99, 205; 4:50, 112, 123, 136; 12:79; 38:62; 82:14)
shirk: ascribing a partner to God; idolatry and polytheism (Sura 4:48)
One may sincerely repent to God for the wrongs committed and seek forgiveness, as stated in the Quran, "Our Lord! Forgive us our sins, remove from us our iniquities, and take to Yourself our souls in the company of the righteous." (Al-Imran.193/ 3.193).
"Say O my slaves who have transgressed against their own souls despair not of the mercy of God, verily He forgives all sins, verily He is the oft-forgiving, most merciful."
— Qur'an, Az-Zumar)
Judaism[edit]
Main articles: Jewish views on sin and Golden mean (philosophy) § Judaism
Judaism regards the violation of any of the 613 commandments as a sin. Judaism teaches that to sin is natural thing because there is no man that is perfect and everyone has an inclination to do evil "from his youth".(Genesis 8:21). The main thing is to try your best.[19] Sin furthermore has many classifications and degrees. Some sins are punishable with death by the court, others with death by heaven, others with lashes, and others without such punishment, but no sins with willful intent go without consequence. Unintentional violations of the mitzvot are not considered as sins, since no one can be punished for something he did not know was wrong. "Sins by error" are considered as less severe sins. When the Temple yet stood in Jerusalem, people would offer sacrifices for their misdeeds. The atoning aspect of Karbanot is carefully circumscribed. For the most part, Karbanot only expiate such "sins by error", that is, sins committed because a person forgot that this thing was a sin. No atonement is needed for violations committed under duress or through lack of knowledge, and for the most part, Karbanot cannot atone for a malicious, deliberate sin. In addition, Karbanot have no expiating effect unless the person making the offering sincerely repents his or her actions before making the offering, and makes restitution to any person who was harmed by the violation.[20][21]
All willful sin has consequence. The completely righteous suffer for their sins (by humiliation, poverty and suffering that God sends them) in this world and receive their reward in the world to come. Ihe in between (not complete righteous or complete wicked), repent their sins after death and thereafter join the righteous. And the complete wicked cannot correct their sins in this world and hence do not suffer them here, but after death. The very evil do not repent even at the gates of hell. Such people prosper in this world to receive their reward for any good deed, but cannot be cleansed by and hence cannot leave Gehinnom, because they do not or cannot repent. This world can therefore seem unjust where the righteous suffer, while the wicked prosper. Many great thinkers have contemplated this, but God's justice is long, precise and just.[21] [22]
Shinto[edit]
Evil deeds fall into two categories in Shinto: amatsu tsumi, "the most pernicious crimes of all", and kunitsu tsumi, "more commonly called misdemeanors".[23]
See also[edit]
Wikiquote has quotations related to: Sin
Actual sin
Asceticism
Devil
Fall of Man
Hamartia
Hedonism
Internal sin
Morality
Mortal sin
Original sin
Religious law
Seven deadly sins
Sin-offering
Taboo
Total depravity
Venial sin
Notes and references[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Action and Person: Conscience in Late Scholasticism and the Young Luther Michael G. Baylor - 1977, "defined sin, in an objective sense, as contempt of god" page 27
2.Jump up ^ The Theology of the Oral Torah: Revealing the Justice of God Jacob Neusner - 1999, Page 523
3.Jump up ^ The fall to violence: original sin in relational theology Marjorie Suchocki - 1994 Page 29
4.Jump up ^ Five Views on Sanctification - page 188, Melvin Easterday Dieter, Stanley N. Gundry - 1996 "The other is 'deliberate violation of God's known will"
5.Jump up ^ Augustine eventually (after the Pelagian controversy) defined sin as a hardened heart, a loss of love for God, a disposition of the heart to depart from God because of inordinate self-love (see Augustine On Grace and Free Will in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, trans. P. Holmes, vol. 5, 30-31 [14-15]).
6.Jump up ^ [1][dead link]
7.Jump up ^ "Holy Spirit Interactive: The Seven Deadly Sins - The List". Retrieved 1 March 2015.
8.Jump up ^ "CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin". Retrieved 1 March 2015.
9.Jump up ^ Holy Bible, Douay-Rheims Version, Romans 3:22-24
10.Jump up ^ "Oxford English Dictionary". Oed.com. Retrieved 2013-09-16.
11.Jump up ^ Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. Vintage Books: New York, 1989. p. 123.
12.Jump up ^ Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism, Soka Gakkai, "Three Poisons": "Greed, anger, and foolishness. The fundamental evils inherent in life that give rise to human suffering."
13.Jump up ^ Schmaus, Michael (1975). Dogma: The Church as Sacrament. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. p. 220,222. ISBN 0-7425-3203-8. Retrieved April 11, 2015.
14.Jump up ^ Willmington, H.L. (1981). Willmington's Guide to the Bible. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. p. 725. ISBN 0-8423-8804-4.
15.Jump up ^ "Romans 6:23". Biblehub. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
16.Jump up ^ "Catholic Encyclopedia: Original Sin". Newadvent.org. 1911-02-01. Retrieved 2013-09-16.
17.Jump up ^ Hanegraaff, Hank. The Bible Answer Book pp. 18-21. ISBN 0-8499-9544-2
18.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 1472. The Vatican.
19.Jump up ^ "Maimonides on Life - Torah.org". Retrieved 1 March 2015.
20.Jump up ^ "Sacrifices and Offerings (Karbanot) - Jewish Virtual Library". Retrieved 1 March 2015.
21.^ Jump up to: a b Rabbi Michael Skobac. "Leviticus 17:11". Retrieved 1 March 2015.
22.Jump up ^ "Reward and Punishment". Retrieved 1 March 2015.
23.Jump up ^ The Essence of Shinto: The Spiritual Heart of Japan by Motohisa Yamakage
Bibliography[edit]
Fredriksen, Paula. Sin: The Early History of an Idea. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. ISBN 978-0-691-12890-0.
Granoff; P E ; Shinohara, Koichi; eds. (2012), Sins and Sinners: Perspectives from Asian Religions. Brill. ISBN 9004229469.
Hein, David. "Regrets Only: A Theology of Remorse." The Anglican 33, no. 4 (October 2004): 5–6.
Lewis, C.S. "Miserable Offenders": an Interpretation of [sinfulness and] Prayer Book Language [about it], in series, The Advent Papers. Cincinnati, Ohio: Forward Movement Publications, [196-].
Pieper, Josef. The Concept of Sin. Edward T. Oakes SJ (translation from German). South Bend, Indiana: St. Augustine's Press, 2001. ISBN 1-890318-08-6
Schumacher, Meinolf. Sündenschmutz und Herzensreinheit: Studien zur Metaphorik der Sünde in lateinischer und deutscher Literatur des Mittelalters. Munich: Fink, 1996.
External links[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Sins.
Look up sin in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
The Different Kinds of Sins (Catholic)
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Hamartiology
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Theology
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Seven Deadly Sins
Categories: Christian hamartiology
Christian philosophy
Crimes in religion
Religious belief and doctrine
Sin
Religious terminology
Vices
Crime
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Acèh
العربية
Aymar aru
Azərbaycanca
বাংলা
Беларуская
Български
Brezhoneg
Буряад
Català
Čeština
ChiShona
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Français
Gàidhlig
Galego
한국어
Հայերեն
हिन्दी
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Italiano
עברית
ಕನ್ನಡ
Kiswahili
Кыргызча
Latina
Latviešu
Lietuvių
Limburgs
Magyar
മലയാളം
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
नेपाल भाषा
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Polski
Português
Română
Runa Simi
Русский
Саха тыла
Shqip
Sicilianu
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
தமிழ்
Татарча/tatarça
ไทย
Türkçe
Українська
Tiếng Việt
ייִדיש
Žemaitėška
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 30 May 2015, at 02:54.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment