Biblical Exegesis vs. Biblical Literalism
(aka “historicism” or “fundamentalism”)

Exegetical approach
Fundamentalist approach
a methodical, scholarly, analytical reading an “off the cuff,” historicist, and literalistic reading
basic assumption: the Bible must be understood through the same methods as we understand other ancient texts basic assumption: the Bible must be treated as categorically different than other ancient texts because it is inspired by God.
This stance invites dialogue with persons of different faiths (or no faith) This confessional stance permits no dialogue with “outsiders”
Like every other form of human discourse, the Bible has different levels of meaning, i.e., the “three worlds of the text”—behind, within, and before the text. The Bible is unlike any form of human discourse because it is the revealed Word(s) of God.
The Bible is a collection of ancient texts from different times, places, and authors The Bible is one book, by one (Divine) author whose message is eternal
Divine inspiration means the Bible was authored by human agents under the influence of the Holy Spirit Divine inspiration means the Bible was authored by God via human agents
Inspiration works with and through the limits of human reason, culture and experience Inspiration supplants human reason and free will so that human culture has no effect on the result
The Bible has different kinds of texts and they must be interpreted differently depending upon their individual genres, language, etc. Everything the Bible includes must be read at face value and as if it were historical fact ("it happened just like it says")
Jesus Christ is the Word of God; the Bible attests to this the Divine Word and puts the prayerful reader in contact with God/JC The Bible is the Word of God, verbatim; essentially this means that it is "the WORDS of God."
The initial object of exegesis is to discern the meaning of a text for its original, historical audience. The object of a fundamentalist reading is to discover what is the message of this text for me today?
This original meaning must be interpreted for each new audience in order to be applied to today. There is one correct meaning for the text, i.e., the meaning to me today; that is what it has “always” meant.
Use tools of scholarly analysis, historical data, etc. No tools are needed; what it means to me today is what it means, period.
Key question: what can we know about who wrote this text, who received it, what it meant to them? No questions. Knowledge of the human author(s) and the history of the text are irrelevant.
Subsidiary question: what occasioned this text and how does that shape its content? No questions. God wanted to tell us something; that is what “occasioned” the Bible.
Knowing what it meant to the original audience, what is the message of this particular text for this specific community of believers? God wrote the Bible not for ancient people but for me. After reading this passage, what does God want me, personally, to believe and/or do?

Other resources concerning how biblical fundamentalism compares with Catholic approaches to the Scriptures:
Catholicism and Fundamentalism
Pastoral Statement for Catholics on Biblical Fundamentalism