Biblical Literalism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YHWH_Christ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

YHWH_Christ

Guest
I found this excellent description of how the ancient authors of the Bible viewed their work and want to see what you guys think:
Our modern understanding of genres and functions of texts is fundamentally different from ancient understanding. The question of the extent to which ancient authors and readers understood texts as “literal-historical” or “allegorical” or “metaphorical” etc. or intended such a particular understanding is actually anachronistic.

For the very context of the distinction between “literal-historical” or “allegorical”, “metaphorical” etc. is based on the assumption that ancient authors and readers made the same clear distinction like we people of the 21st century and distinguish between “fantasy” and “myth” on the one hand and “presentation of provable facts” on the other. This kind of distinction is rather simplistic and does not really do justice to the ancient context and the ancient way of dealing with text, since the latter was much more diverse and complex than this distinction allows us to recognize.

Many phenomena, such as the distinction of Greek philosophy into myth and logos or the rationalist criticism of religion by Xenophanes, are not symptoms of a comprehensive paradigm shift and are only apparently similar to modern rationalism and the criticism of religion of the Enlightenment and the “invention of science” by Francis Bacon.

To put it in a nutshell: the idea of “historical facts” in distinction to “mythicizing fiction” is not an ancient idea, at least not in the Middle East at this time, where Genesis and other later biblical texts were written. Above all, the underlying modern idea that “historical facts” enjoy a higher degree of authority - or are only relevant at all - than “mythicizing fiction”, without any antique parallel, is the same.

A sign for the ancient handling of “facts” and “myths” and “theology” is for example that there are two complementary and partly contradictory creation accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, just as there are four complementary and partly contradictory gospels - and they all have the same authority.

The question of a factual historical 6-day creation or a factual historical flood has a completely different relevance for the ancient people than for the people of the 20th and 21st centuries. In short: the ancient people were not particularly interested in these questions.

One can only speculate how they would have reacted if they had had the scientific knowledge we have today. We know, however, that the spherical shape of the earth, which was widely known in antiquity, was almost unanimously recognized by the Greek and Latin Church Fathers,*) although they had to limit that the spherical shape of the earth contradicted the idea of a disc shape in the biblical scriptures. However, this accepted contradiction did not lead to a changed reception of biblical scriptures, nor did it lead to an explicit search for further errors from a scientific point of view. Both could coexist without friction.
Click to expand...
 
YHWH_Christ said:
The question of the extent to which ancient authors and readers understood texts as “literal-historical” or “allegorical” or “metaphorical” etc. or intended such a particular understanding is actually anachronistic.
Click to expand...
I think this is not false, if we are clear about what we mean by allegorical. The Church Fathers practiced allegorical reading of the OT – meaning, they looked at it as prefiguring the NT, showing “types” of Christ.

In the (francophone) field of NT studies, there was much debate, a decade or so ago, about what “historicity” meant in Antiquity. The classical writer Lucian of Samosata (125-180) wrote a book titled How to Write History, where he basically says that “true” and “likely” are the same thing, and that the key to write about historical event is to present a likely way of how they could have unfolded, to place likely words in historical figures’ mouths. There was a lot of wondering going on about NT texts seen in this light. But the problem with Lucian is that he tends to write tongue in cheek, so it’s difficult to know whether or not we have to take this seriously.
 
While I’ve had a couple of classes on Scripture, I’m certainly not a PhD, but elements of what you posted seem out of alignment with Catholic teaching.
The main issue is identifying parts of Scripture as “contradictory.” I think its acceptable to say “seemingly contradictory” or “apparent contradictions”, but to say there are unqualified contradictions is an issue.

I think an easier way to think about it is this: “The books of the bible are true for what they are asserting to be true.” I have also seen the term “literary truth” used instead of “literal truth”.
Also, depending on the genre, some books are intending to communicate literal history, while others might be prophetic, or allegorical, or possibly epic poetry (like many consider Genesis to be).
 
OddBird said:
I think this is not false, if we are clear about what we mean by allegorical. The Church Fathers practiced allegorical reading of the OT – meaning, they looked at it as prefiguring the NT, showing “types” of Christ.
Click to expand...
He’s not saying the texts weren’t read allegorically, they certainly were, what he is saying is that our modern notions about there being an unequivocal allegorical meaning or literal meaning to the text are false. When the Church Father’s read the OT allegorically they read it in light of Christ and a single passage could have various allegorical meanings, there wasn’t an end all be all.
 
When he speaks of contradictions he isn’t speaking about doctrine or morality.
 
Yes, that’s what I meant too. The meaning of “allegorical” reading has evolved.

In the Antiquity and Middle Ages, there were the famous “four levels” of reading a biblical text – literal, moral, allegorical, anagogical. So there was early on a consciousness that a text can have more that one meaning, and that indeed, exploring its polysemy is useful for spiritual growth.
 
Last edited:
Yes I don’t disagree with you there. But the authors of the text didn’t even have those kinds of distinctions in mind, these weren’t even issues for them, they didn’t even exist in their specific historical context. There was no “literal” or “allegorical” etc. meaning they had in mind. They were writing down their ancient traditions. A literal or allegorical meaning didn’t matter.
 
Last edited:
The question of whether things like the great flood were literal fact or allegory did have some relevance in the ancient world, though, as in the case of St Jacob of Nisibis. St Jacob went to look for Noah’s Ark in response to disbelief in it, and found relics from the ark.
 
I don’t know. It think it is Richard Bauckham, for example, who speculates that John’s gospel was written by John as the end of his life as a highly spiritualized and allegorised account of events he had spent a lifetime meditating about.

And the question of historicity and its meaning isn’t absurd for writers like Luke, who preface their work with saying they made an inquiry into the events : but what did that mean ? Did that mean that Luke tried to make an historical account in the way we understand it now, or in Lucian of Samosata’s way (if Lucian is to be taken seriously), going for “likely” rather than “exact” ?

ETA: I personally think we should not take Lucian seriously, but the question still deserves asking.
 
Last edited:
YHWH_Christ said:
When he speaks of contradictions he isn’t speaking about doctrine or morality.
Click to expand...
“The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that “the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.” In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical “not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.” When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus , published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.” Divino Afflante Spiritu, Pope Pius XII.

I don’t find contradictions so much as methods of writing. The Pentateuch often seems to paint a picture and then go into the details of said picture, for instance.

But I am just a layman.
 
Last edited:
Biblical inerrancy of Scripture is not limited to doctrine and morals, but to all things asserted by the sacred writers to be true. This extends to historical facts asserted by the writers.
 
If you don’t mind me asking, what faith tradition do you belong to?

Or perhaps, a better way of asking my question: “what is your source of authority to say biblical inerrancy extends only to doctrine and morals?”
 
Last edited:
Well, the source wasn’t really the Council of Trent but rather His Holiness Pope Pius XII, successor of the Prince of the Apostles.
But, why not? Trent is a valid Council. Perhaps you are an Eastern and thus do not pay too much attention to “Western Councils”?

Regardless, we do have to try to get at what the author means to say, which sometimes may not be wholly literal. The Bible has multiple senses and multiple ways to correctly interpret it, yet the literal is the most basic sense (if we divide it into nice little categories).

Edit: I see you are Eastern Orthodox. Well, allow me to say I do not think Biblical inerrancy is well-defined in this group. But, people have varying opinions on Biblical inerrancy, such as that it is only for Faith and Morals, or that it is totally correct in everything it says due to being Inspired. And some may deny inerrancy altogether. At least we should agree to the amazing and great reverence given to the inspired Word and the great pains we should take to understand this most precious gift.
 
Last edited:
KMC said:
Biblical inerrancy of Scripture is not limited to doctrine and morals, but to all things asserted by the sacred writers to be true. This extends to historical facts asserted by the writers.
Click to expand...
As Pius XII goes on to say, this does not extend to historical facts that “they did not intend to teach”:
The first and greatest care of Leo XIII was to set forth the teaching on the truth of the Sacred Books and to defend it from attack. Hence with grave words did he proclaim that there is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, speaking of things of the physical order “went by what sensibly appeared” as the Angelic Doctor says, speaking either “in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science.” For “the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately - the words are St. Augustine’s - the Holy Spirit, Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things - that is the essential nature of the things of the universe - things in no way profitable to salvation”; which principle “will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to history,” that is, by refuting, "in a somewhat similar way the fallacies of the adversaries and defending the historical truth of Sacred Scripture from their attacks.”
Pius XII. Divino Afflante Spiritu 3
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top