Bible not true?

[yinekka]

I am a catechist and I am becoming reluctant to tell the children anything from the bible because the children ask if what I am telling is true and almost every day I read of Catholic biblical scholars or theologians who come out in print denying what I was taught as true e.g. the infancy narratives aren’t true, Christ didn’t know He was God, James was Jesus’ blood brother etc. Is there any definitive Magisterial teaching which tells us the truth of the events in the bible?

 

[Pentecost2005]

Read the Catechism, sections 100-141 (about 8 pages).

 

[Topher]

yinekka:

I am a catechist and I am becoming reluctant to tell the children anything from the bible because the children ask if what I am telling is true and almost every day I read of Catholic biblical scholars or theologians who come out in print denying what I was taught as true e.g. the infancy narratives aren’t true, Christ didn’t know He was God, James was Jesus’ blood brother etc. Is there any definitive Magisterial teaching which tells us the truth of the events in the bible?

Read Dei Verbum from Vatican II. It points out in clear language that the stuff taught in the bible is true and that it is historically acurate.

 

[patg]

yinekka:

I am a catechist and I am becoming reluctant to tell the children anything from the bible because the children ask if what I am telling is true and almost every day I read of Catholic biblical scholars or theologians who come out in print denying what I was taught as true e.g. the infancy narratives aren’t true, Christ didn’t know He was God, James was Jesus’ blood brother etc. Is there any definitive Magisterial teaching which tells us the truth of the events in the bible?

Read Dei Verbum from Vatican II. It points out in clear language that the stuff taught in the bible is “true” but that it is** not** necessarily historically acurate.

And I quote: "For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture."

and:* “For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.”*****

---

That is definitely not saying that the bible is a history book, nor does it require you to believe it is.

 

[mspencer]

I am puzzled sometimes why those who speak about whether the Bible is historical in the discussions here that have dealt with this here don’t seem aware of the words in the Second Vaticon Council’s document on divine revelation that the Gospels are historical and true. The exact quote for this is in section 19 of Dei Verbum: “Holy mother church has firmly and constantly held, and continues to hold and unhesitatingly assert, that the four gospels are historical docucments and faithfully communicate what Jesus, the Son of God, during his life among men and women, actually did and taught for their eternal salavation, until the day when he was taken up.”
I also keep in mind Saint Augustine’s remark that the opening chapters of Genesis speak poetically about the origin of things and as in this instance the literary form of a passage can be important in understanding it. Still, as in the case of the Gospels, some parts of the Bible are historical.

 

[mercygate]

yinekka:

I am a catechist and I am becoming reluctant to tell the children anything from the bible because the children ask if what I am telling is true and almost every day I read of Catholic biblical scholars or theologians who come out in print denying what I was taught as true e.g. the infancy narratives aren’t true, Christ didn’t know He was God, James was Jesus’ blood brother etc. Is there any definitive Magisterial teaching which tells us the truth of the events in the bible?

How you present this will depend on how old your kids are.

 

[mspencer]

I am puzzled sometimes why those who speak about whether the Bible is historical in the discussions here that have dealt with this here don’t seem aware of the words in the Second Vaticon Council’s document on divine revelation that the Gospels are historical and true. The exact quote for this is in section 19 of Dei Verbum: “Holy mother church has firmly and constantly held, and continues to hold and unhesitatingly assert, that the four gospels are historical docucments and faithfully communicate what Jesus, the Son of God, during his life among men and women, actually did and taught for their eternal salavation, until the day when he was taken up.”
I also keep in mind Saint Augustine’s remark that the opening chapters of Genesis speak poetically about the origin of things and as in this instance the literary form of a passage can be important in understanding it. Still, as in the case of the Gospels, some parts of the Bible are historical.

 

[Aaron_I]

“Holy mother church has firmly and constantly held, and continues to hold and unhesitatingly assert, that the four gospels are historical docucments and faithfully communicate what Jesus, the Son of God, during his life among men and women, actually did and taught for their eternal salavation, until the day when he was taken up.”

Of course. Even those who hold the historical-critical method of Scripture do not deny the historical truth of the NT. After all, it is the fulfillment of God’s revelation. What is doubted are some truths of the OT. For example, Joseph was sold by his brothers to Ishmaelites. The next verse he is taken out of the well by some Midianite traders. Another: Gen 1 has animals created before man while Gen 2 has it the other way around.

If anyone is interested in learning more about the historical-critical method (If you’re not, feel free to take the Bible as literal as your want), it was described in a 1994 document THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH I would like to stress that if it makes you uncomfortable, then don’t use it. But I find that it allows a fuller sense of Scripture to be observed.

 

[John-the-Seeker]

Is the Bible true or not?

If this helps someone, Praise God! If not, Praise God, for He will send another messenger.

As a person, unknown to me, was quoted, (I believe.), as saying,“Be careful how you live, you might be the only Bible some people will ever get to know.”

 

[trogiah]

yinekka:

I am a catechist and I am becoming reluctant to tell the children anything from the bible because the children ask if what I am telling is true and almost every day I read of Catholic biblical scholars or theologians who come out in print denying what I was taught as true e.g. the infancy narratives aren’t true, Christ didn’t know He was God, James was Jesus’ blood brother etc. Is there any definitive Magisterial teaching which tells us the truth of the events in the bible?

Even young children can be taught and can understand that the “truth” that is contained in the Bible must be studied and understood and that it is possible to misinterpret or to simply miss the point.

for example, A person asked Jesus a very important question to try and understand the commandment “love your neighbor as yourself” The question asked was “Who is my neighbor?” Jesus answered by making up a story about a traveler and a robber and a Samaritan.

Now a person who is really stuck on being literal might say that Jesus answered the question with a lie. There was never really any traveler that was beaten and robbed and passed by a priest and a levite and (somebody else I can’t remember) and then helped by a Samaritan. The whole story is a fabrication.

And yet most people understand what it means.

All of scripture must be understood, not simply accepted “literally” because the literal meaning of some scripture is not at all obvious. Thats ok I think. There are basic points that guide us that we can be sure of. The ten commandments for example and the example of Jesus himself.

The important “truth” of the bible is the guidance it gives us to live our lives, not the scientific, historical accuracy of births, deaths, and when things were made. There is a wealth of such guidance in the Bible. Find it yourself and then you will be more able to share it with others, children or grownups.

peace
-Jim

 

[TOME]

Trogiah,
Your response to yinekka was one of the better responses of this often asked question. Thanks!

 

[mspencer]

The story of the good Samaritan is a good example of a passage where it is important to know its literary form. And it true that it is very important to know the meaning of what is taught in the Bible. Still, the question about whether the Gospels are historical or not is a serious matter, and it can even trouble people’s faith. I would think that this matter is a reason why the Second Vatican Council came out in Dei Verbum to say directly that the Gospels are historical and faithfully communicate what Jesus did and taught.

trogiah:

Even young children can be taught and can understand that the “truth” that is contained in the Bible must be studied and understood and that it is possible to misinterpret or to simply miss the point.

for example, A person asked Jesus a very important question to try and understand the commandment “love your neighbor as yourself” The question asked was “Who is my neighbor?” Jesus answered by making up a story about a traveler and a robber and a Samaritan.

Now a person who is really stuck on being literal might say that Jesus answered the question with a lie. There was never really any traveler that was beaten and robbed and passed by a priest and a levite and (somebody else I can’t remember) and then helped by a Samaritan. The whole story is a fabrication.

And yet most people understand what it means.

All of scripture must be understood, not simply accepted “literally” because the literal meaning of some scripture is not at all obvious. Thats ok I think. There are basic points that guide us that we can be sure of. The ten commandments for example and the example of Jesus himself.

The important “truth” of the bible is the guidance it gives us to live our lives, not the scientific, historical accuracy of births, deaths, and when things were made. There is a wealth of such guidance in the Bible. Find it yourself and then you will be more

able to share it with others, children or grownups.

peace
-Jim

 

[Fidelis]

trogiah:

Even young children can be taught and can understand that the “truth” that is contained in the Bible must be studied and understood and that it is possible to misinterpret or to simply miss the point.

for example, A person asked Jesus a very important question to try and understand the commandment “love your neighbor as yourself” The question asked was “Who is my neighbor?” Jesus answered by making up a story about a traveler and a robber and a Samaritan.

Now a person who is really stuck on being literal might say that Jesus answered the question with a lie. There was never really any traveler that was beaten and robbed and passed by a priest and a levite and (somebody else I can’t remember) and then helped by a Samaritan. The whole story is a fabrication.

And yet most people understand what it means.

All of scripture must be understood, not simply accepted “literally” because the literal meaning of some scripture is not at all obvious. Thats ok I think. There are basic points that guide us that we can be sure of. The ten commandments for example and the example of Jesus himself.

The important “truth” of the bible is the guidance it gives us to live our lives, not the scientific, historical accuracy of births, deaths, and when things were made. There is a wealth of such guidance in the Bible. Find it yourself and then you will be more able to share it with others, children or grownups.

peace
-Jim

I don’t think any Catholic here is asserting that Scripture should be read or understood in a wooden, literal sense. The example of the Good Samaritan is clearly a parable and can and should be taught as such. There is a big difference between this, however, and calling into question the historicity of biblical events just for the sake of calling them into question.

For example, let’s PRESUME the slaughter of the innocents never took place. Of what value is it to present that “fact” to children or to persons reading the Bible for devotional purposes, especially when it is arguably unprovable either way? Does it help them to know God better or to be better Catholics? In fact it has the effect of sucking the life out of Scripture reading for the average Catholic so they ask themselves “Why bother?” Perhaps those who proudly embrace the various forms of historical criticism as the end all and be all of Scripture study may enjoy this approach: I say more power to 'em. The other 99% of Catholics find it spectacularly unhelpful and unedifying.

My advice is to read the Bible at face value, taking into consideration the specific genre of the book being read, the original languages, and the cultural/historical context. Read what holy men and women who have meditated on these words have to say. For example, Thomas a’ Kempis in his classic *Imitation of Christ * says:

TRUTH, not eloquence, is to be sought in reading the Holy Scriptures; and every part must be read in the spirit in which it was written. For in the Scriptures we ought to seek profit rather than polished diction.

Likewise we ought to read simple and devout books as willingly as learned and profound ones. We ought not to be swayed by the authority of the writer, whether he be a great literary light or an insignificant person, but by the love of simple truth. We ought not to ask who is speaking, but mark what is said. Men pass away, but the truth of the Lord remains forever. God speaks to us in many ways without regard for persons.

Our curiosity often impedes our reading of the Scriptures, when we wish to understand and mull over what we ought simply to read and pass by.

If you would profit from it, therefore, read with humility, simplicity, and faith, and never seek a reputation for being learned. Seek willingly and listen attentively to the words of the saints; do not be displeased with the sayings of the ancients, for they were not made without purpose.

Better to read the Bible in the humble manner that has nourished the saints for 2000 years than adopt a dry, skeptical hermenuetic of suspicion that drives the faithful away from the Bible and thus the Lord.

 

[patg]

mspencer:

I am puzzled sometimes why those who speak about whether the Bible is historical in the discussions here that have dealt with this here don’t seem aware of the words in the Second Vaticon Council’s document on divine revelation that the Gospels are historical and true. The exact quote for this is in section 19 of Dei Verbum: “Holy mother church has firmly and constantly held, and continues to hold and unhesitatingly assert, that the four gospels are historical docucments and faithfully communicate what Jesus, the Son of God, during his life among men and women, actually did and taught for their eternal salavation, until the day when he was taken up.”

This states that the four gospels are “historical documents” without defining what that means. The concept we have of what is historical and what constitutes an historical document is radically different from that of the authors. In any case, the term is not clearly defined.

Most people who quote this in order to demonstrate that the church is saying “the Gospels are historical and true” seem to ignore the phrase which clearly states they are not. The words “actually did and taught for their eternal salvation” clearly allows one to consider as unhistorical those events and details which are NOT related to our eternal salvation. It also allows us to consider as unhistorical those things which Jesus did not say or do but which masquerade as history in the gospels. The story of Barrabas, for example, is described as a common custom of the Jews. There is however, no reference to this in any Jewish document (or any other artifact) and it must be a literary creation of the author, The same can be said of most of the events in the infancy narratives.

 

[TOME]

First, I would like to reiterate my compliment of trogiah’s post and add to that patg’s post as well. I find both edifying.

I am happy to see that some are finally to discover that Dei Verbum actually exist, and I would encourage all to study this important document without falling into the temptation of just reading passages and the quoting them perhaps out of context or without understanding its full meaning. This is why I found patg’s post important.

Also, I find with a certain coriousity some of the post in this thread’s references to historical criticism and hermenuetics in general. It seems that each and every one who values these tools approaches them as ends and not means. Speaking for myself, I certainlly understand them as tools in understanding our Faith better.Also, our Pope has written about the value of these tools as well as their limitations.

But these are important tools because the Church has always understood, as it is brought out in DeiVerbum, that the Gospels are first and foremost faith documents, not written histories in our modern sense. That is part of the reasoning behind the Canon of Scripture having four seperate accounts and has rejected all efforts of combining the four gospels into one as has been attempted at various times.

Also, I wonder at some of the responses criticising trogiah’s post the thought process that went into their criticism. Do those who criticize trogiah were believe these are matters to discuss with children? How many of you would discuss the spirituality of Thomas a’ Kempis with an eight year old, or for that matter someone older physically but not spiritually. It would be as foolish thing to do as to discuss historical criticism. I know when I post a response, I am doing so to a mature group ready to discuss these matters intellectually because I am communicating to people with the higher level of intellectual maturity than a child.
Just as there are limits of what a child can intellectually accept in the topic of sex, so to are there limits on what can or should be discussed concerning Scripture. I thought that was obvious.

Also, just in regards to Apologitecs, serious questions can be and have been raised about the contents of the Gospels. Our faith cannot always be proved in the scientific sense of the word, but as St Thomas Aquinas pointed out our beliefs should be based in reason. For many, lack of independent historical evidence or contratictions with in the gospels themselves are unreasonable facts that sould be explained if we are going to carry one the call to Evangelize. Yet all too often I see criticism and condenmation of the very tools which can help us in understanding and explaining these apparent short comings of scripture.

I realize that there will be some who read this post who will immediately question my Faith based on the belief, that we share, that in Scripture God’s revelation is contained therefore being the word of God cannot be wrong. My response is, again, study Dei Verbum, as oppose to reading and quoting a sentence or two (isn’t that what we criticize our protestant brethern of doing with the Bible?)

 

[trogiah]

TOME:

Trogiah,
Your response to yinekka was one of the better responses of this often asked question. Thanks!

You are welcome.

-Jim

 

[trogiah]

After reading the original post and the various comments, A scripture passage came to mind that I think has bearing.

Yinekka stated a reluctance to share the Bible with the children in the catechism class.

The passage that comes to mind is the one where Jesus’s disciples try to shoo away the children who are trying to see and hear Jesus and Jesus’s response is they should welcome the children because “The kingdom of God belongs to such as they. If a person does not accept God’s kingdom as a child then they will not enter it.”

I can’t help but think there is a great tragedy occuring if children are being denied knowledge of Jesus because of the approach some scholars take in interpreting Scripture. I would say that anyone teaching children, or adults, about Jesus and God’s kingdom should be free to use Scripture as well as any other valid resource (the Eucharist, the stained glass windows in churches that often retell stories of Jesus’s life, the lives of Saints, etc.) if using those resources will make God and God’s kingdom more accessible to the students. A good teacher should be free to make their own metaphors, their own “parables” if doing so would enlighten his or her student. The truth of those parables, just as for scripture, is not to be found in the historical accuracy of them but in whether or not they help the students to understand God’s kingdom better.

“Every scribe who is learned in the reign of God is like the head of the household who can bring from his store room both the old and the new.”

Yinekka, good luck with your classes

peace

-Jim

 

[yinekka]

Thank you all for your very insiteful posts, especially Fidelis and Trogiah. I have just started being a catechist and want to be a true witness of the Faith for the children. Please pray for me.

Fidelis, your website looks very interesting. When I get some time I will be visiting.

Trogiah, I went to your website and read; St. Lawrence Parish was one of the first parishes in Western Washington to go from having Mass every weekend to having scripture-communion services on a regular basis Do you mean that you don’t have Mass every Sunday at your parish?

 

[trogiah]

yinekka:

Trogiah, I went to your website and read; St. Lawrence Parish was one of the first parishes in Western Washington to go from having Mass every weekend to having scripture-communion services on a regular basis Do you mean that you don’t have Mass every Sunday at your parish?

I no longer attend that parish but while I was there and I believe still today they had a schedule that alternated , one weekend there would be a scripture-communion service on Saturday and mass on Sunday, then the next weekend there would be a mass on Saturday and a scripture communion service on Sunday. St Lawrence shares a priest with another parish that was close enough to travel overnight but not close enough for one priest to say mass in both places on the same day.

For quite some time it seemed to work very well, I know some would struggle with the idea of not having mass celebrated more consitently but it seemed to be not so bad for most people. As a lay presider I had the chance to offer reading reflections (as are posted on the website) and I grew much because of that chance.

Good luck in your teaching

peace

-Jim

 

[marymol]

Aaron I.:

Of course. Even those who hold the historical-critical method of Scripture do not deny the historical truth of the NT. After all, it is the fulfillment of God’s revelation. What is doubted are some truths of the OT. For example, Joseph was sold by his brothers to Ishmaelites. The next verse he is taken out of the well by some Midianite traders. Another: Gen 1 has animals created before man while Gen 2 has it the other way around.

One of the fascinating things about The Living Word seem to be - when there is apparent contradiction, it invites us to ponder more and often , that sudden burst of joy - ha ! this is probably what happened …
To me these are like the hide and seek little treasures The Father has buried in the Word , ? ( or hanged on The Tree of Life ) to make it more fun - for example we read the same passage and all of sudden, something jumps at you …Now as to the need to read with the mind of the writer , and to whom he intended it - well as far as I am concerned it , Papa meant it all for ME…Me …Me… ( well, in other words , the verses can talk to us , even if we may not know the exact background… .true , that can help, esp. in scolarly situations , yet can it also create a vague gulf - like this was REALLY meant for someone else …)
Now on the above two things you quote - Gen 2 -8 - The Lord God had planted a paradise …wherin He placed man verse 9 - The Lord God brought forth of the ground all manner of trees - this does not contradict the earlier verse ; it is either embellishing the earlier account of creation esp. with emphasis on The Garden, for His son Adam (even if new trees were made - in the sight of the son , it does not contradict the earlier account of the craetion of trees for the whole earth … or here is the setting of the stage to show us the importance of what is to ensue - The Tree of life and of the knowledge of good And evil …( see our grandparents had to get only one word wrong ! ) how the tree would play critical roles - Noah building The Ark, The Cross!
Now as to the Midianites/ Ishmaelites- the brothers talked about selling Joseph to Ishmaelites ;could they be also a common term to include Midianite s…or did the Midianites come in later and rescue him, for whatever reason ,esp. if the earlier intended ‘sale’ did not go through - like in the case of the origin of Ishmaelites …( well, the wife of Moses ,who got the Israelites out of the well of slavery many years later was of Midianite origin… the Ishmaelites , interestingly, related to the Egyptian woman Hagar , wife of Abraham , now coming to help Jacob’s son…
Hoping for this Thanksgiving , many of us could dwell on these family jewels and thus help to spare reopen many an old wound