Biblical Scholarship

[DeannaMarie]

As a Sponsor, I attended RCIA classes this past year. The pastor/presenter questioned the historical accuracy of Scripture, Old and New Testaments. He appeared to use the historical critical method of scriptural interpretation apart from the Tradition of the Church. Could anyone suggest a scholary work or works in which the historical critical method is used within the Tradition of the Church? I am interested in learning about the scientific evidence that supports the history presented in Scripture.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

As a Sponsor, I attended RCIA classes this past year. The pastor/presenter questioned the historical accuracy of Scripture, Old and New Testaments. He appeared to use the historical critical method of scriptural interpretation apart from the Tradition of the Church. Could anyone suggest a scholary work or works in which the historical critical method is used within the Tradition of the Church? I am interested in learning about the scientific evidence that supports the history presented in Scripture.

Hi.

Archaeologically, the Bible “bats a 1000” in the accuracy department, so far. See past issues of Bible Archaeology Review, a magazine.

In some other areas, it does poorly. Frazer and Gaster both found enormous quantities of myth sharing by the Bible with other cultures. See Frazer, “Folklore in the Old Terstament”; Gaster, “Myth, Legend and Cusom in the Old Testament.” It seems innately unlikely that the whole ancient world made the Hebrews’ stories their own.

However, I am a devout Catholic and a believer in the infallibility of Scripture.

How is this possible?

The Bible is not really intended to teach history, but rather faith and morals.

Faith and morals are mostly taught in the Old Testament through typological word pictures. For example, dear friend, please turn to Exodus 17:8-13. Why is that war story there? To teach us history?

No. Moses on the top *roshe *or “head”] of the hill arms high, holding his wooden staff, with a man at his left and a man at his right, so that the power of God issues forth and enables God’s people to defeat their enemies, is a picture of Christ with His hands spread against horizontal wood, between the Good Thief and Bad Thief, on the hill called Skull Place.

See? It does not even matter if it is historically accurate!

 

[diggerdomer]

As a Sponsor, I attended RCIA classes this past year. The pastor/presenter questioned the historical accuracy of Scripture, Old and New Testaments. He appeared to use the historical critical method of scriptural interpretation apart from the Tradition of the Church. Could anyone suggest a scholary work or works in which the historical critical method is used within the Tradition of the Church? I am interested in learning about the scientific evidence that supports the history presented in Scripture.

You can refer to the Catechism, and to the writings of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and to any Biblical Commentary (20th century or later) that has Catholics as authors/editors.

 

[richardeekw]

As a Sponsor, I attended RCIA classes this past year. The pastor/presenter questioned the historical accuracy of Scripture, Old and New Testaments. He appeared to use the historical critical method of scriptural interpretation apart from the Tradition of the Church. Could anyone suggest a scholary work or works in which the historical critical method is used within the Tradition of the Church? I am interested in learning about the scientific evidence that supports the history presented in Scripture.

Historical Critical Analysis as a tool is useful; but it has its limitations.

I advocate all to read **JESUS OF NAZXARETH by Pope Benedict XVI **in which he clearly supports and is thankful for all such Schorlarly works on Sacred Scriptures and reminds everyone of its limitations and a Canonical and an Inspired Word of God which can and continues to be interpreted by the “People of God”.

Let this be your first study text to explore before going further…
Try to understanding the mind of this Theologian Par Excellence and he help us appreciate the Scholarly writings on Sacred Scriptures and its limitations in the attempts of some scholars to “tear apart the Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith”.

The Church itself interpretes Scriptures
“What is the Text telling us” – **The Literal sense **(using various disciplines)

• Here’s where we use the various Scholarlarly tools into understanding the culture and livestyles of the time of the OT writings and the 1st Century Jews, including the various nuances of the original languages etc…

The **3 “Spiritual” senses **
(a) Allegorical sense – How does this relate to Jesus Christ (Faith)
(b) Moral sense – How does this text fit my own spiritual growth. (Charity)
(c) Anagogical sense – How does this text relate to the Future (Hope)

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Bible is not really intended to teach history, but rather faith and morals.
…
See? It does not even matter if it is historically accurate!

“Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text…” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 21)

“…they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 22).

Pope Pius X published a Syllabus of Errors, in which he condemned the idea that “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.” (Pope Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, n. 11).

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Hi, Ron.

Intentional fictionalization is not error. It is fiction.

By construing Scripture to be a history book, dear friend, you are functionally implicitly requiring God to write the way Ron Conte demands that He write.

 

[manualman]

Hi.

In some other areas, it does poorly. Frazer and Gaster both found enormous quantities of myth sharing by the Bible with other cultures. See Frazer, “Folklore in the Old Terstament”; Gaster, “Myth, Legend and Cusom in the Old Testament.” It seems innately unlikely that the whole ancient world made the Hebrews’ stories their own.

…

Faith and morals are mostly taught in the Old Testament through typological word pictures. For example, dear friend, please turn to Exodus 17:8-13. Why is that war story there? To teach us history?

No. Moses on the top *roshe *or “head”] of the hill arms high, holding his wooden staff, with a man at his left and a man at his right, so that the power of God issues forth and enables God’s people to defeat their enemies, is a picture of Christ with His hands spread against horizontal wood, between the Good Thief and Bad Thief, on the hill called Skull Place.

See? It does not even matter if it is historically accurate!

Wow, I keep coming across your posts - and having comments!

First bolded point. I have heard this argument from secularists and don’t get it at all. The argument seems to presuppose that ALL religious stories were at some point fabricated from thin air. From that presumption, it WOULD seem odd that there are so many similarities. But what if the oldest of the OT stories ACTUALLY happened in a substantially similar way to how Scripture tells of it. Would it STILL be surprising that other cultures retained that oral history and passed it down in a similar way? Why do modern people always presume that preservation of historical accounts is unique to the modern age. We write it down, they used elaborate storytelling. Just different approaches. If all of the known civilization was wiped out by a great flood at some point, why WOULDN’T all cultures have a traditional tale about it? True, it doesn’t matter if the entire earth was technically underwater or not, but it’s my understanding that the catholic faith believes that this is not just made-up fairy tale. There WAS a catastrophic flood that wiped out civilization and God preserved Noah and his family from it by forewarning him.

Second bolded point: It DOES matter. Scripture is surely no modern history textbook with precision dates and names and places. Rather it is a narrative form of storytelling that IS real in substance, if not the irrelevent nitpicks so beloved by too many of my school teachers. Genesis 1 is a REAL description of creation. It says nothing about the scientific details (we learn those faster than we can handle them anyways), but is a poetic description of what happened. A beautiful one too.

 

[patg]

“Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text…” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 21)

“…they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 22).

Pope Pius X published a Syllabus of Errors, in which he condemned the idea that “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.” (Pope Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, n. 11).

There is no oppositional relationship between fiction and divine inspiration (or freedom from error). Saying something is fiction descibes the genre of the writing - it does not comment on the truth being taught. The same is true of myth, legend, poetry, allegory, etc.

None of the statements you quoted restrict scriptural writing to literalistic non-fiction. The inspired record of salvation history we have uses diverse literary forms as mechanisms of revelation. Church documents clearly affirm this and nowhere is God restricted from inspiring the teaching of truth through fiction.

 

[richardeekw]

Hi.

Archaeologically, the Bible “bats a 1000” in the accuracy department, so far. See past issues of Bible Archaeology Review, a magazine.

Bear in mind also that “Sciences” including “Archeologicy” may have limitations.

In some other areas, it does poorly. Frazer and Gaster both found enormous quantities of myth sharing by the Bible with other cultures. See Frazer, “Folklore in the Old Terstament”; Gaster, “Myth, Legend and Cusom in the Old Testament.” It seems innately unlikely that the whole ancient world made the Hebrews’ stories their own.

**Historically Frazer and Gassler were NOT there.
The Bible, inspired by God, written in human language does have limitations when we try to express the INEXPRESSIBLE and to comprehend the. Even Culture and languages evolves and changes over time. INCOMPREHENSIBLE.**R

oman Catholics are fortunate in that we have the Magisterium, early church Fathers and centuries or research to correctly interprete what the Sacred Texts Means.

eGenesis 1-11 is history, in the Literal sense (i.e. when correctly interpreted).
-Figurative language may have been used to convey the historical truths.
• Pope Pius XII
• Pope John Paul II (It’s proper or allowable that Genesis 1-3 use Mythical figures and charged them with true meaning.)- “Mythical” Language = Human Language used to express express the “Inexpressible”.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Wow, I keep coming across your posts - and having comments!

First bolded point. I have heard this argument from secularists and don’t get it at all. The argument seems to presuppose that ALL religious stories were at some point fabricated from thin air. From that presumption, it WOULD seem odd that there are so many similarities. But what if the oldest of the OT stories ACTUALLY happened in a substantially similar way to how Scripture tells of it. Would it STILL be surprising that other cultures retained that oral history and passed it down in a similar way? Why do modern people always presume that preservation of historical accounts is unique to the modern age. We write it down, they used elaborate storytelling. Just different approaches. If all of the known civilization was wiped out by a great flood at some point, why WOULDN’T all cultures have a traditional tale about it? True, it doesn’t matter if the entire earth was technically underwater or not, but it’s my understanding that the catholic faith believes that this is not just made-up fairy tale. There WAS a catastrophic flood that wiped out civilization and God preserved Noah and his family from it by forewarning him.

Second bolded point: It DOES matter. Scripture is surely no modern history textbook with precision dates and names and places. Rather it is a narrative form of storytelling that IS real in substance, if not the irrelevent nitpicks so beloved by too many of my school teachers. Genesis 1 is a REAL description of creation. It says nothing about the scientific details (we learn those faster than we can handle them anyways), but is a poetic description of what happened. A beautiful one too.

Re “The argument seems to presuppose that ALL religious stories were at some point fabricated from thin air.”

The answer to this observation is a tautology: “It’s non-fiction where the writer intended non-fiction.” The trick is to find it.

Note that, in the example I gave, the stoy of Moses versus Amalek, the important non-fiction component was the foreshadowed thing, Christ on the cross at Skull Place between two men, a future event. It really isn’t important if Moses did what he did.

Re “But what if the oldest of the OT stories ACTUALLY happened in a substantially similar way to how Scripture tells of it.” It doesn’t matter that much. The foreshadowing of the non-fictional future thing within the events is hugely more important.

Re “Why do modern people always presume that preservation of historical accounts is unique to the modern age.” Even the historical parts of the Bible are not written the way we viewed history. Internal contradictions which fundamentalists (and I am not saying that you are a fundamentalist) spend volumes trying to convince themselves to be non-existent strongly suggest that ancient “histories” were about as loose as today’s historical fictions.

Re “True, it doesn’t matter if the entire earth was technically underwater or not, but it’s my understanding that the catholic faith believes that this is not just made-up fairy tale. There WAS a catastrophic flood that wiped out civilization and God preserved Noah and his family from it by forewarning him.” I happen to believe that there was a flood and an ark. But, the truth of the historical component is irrelevant. What is relevant is the “picture” symbolically portrayed by the flood story, which is amazing.

If your concerns about this story are chiefly, “It’s non-fiction! It’s non-fiction!,” then you have missed the point of the story.

Re your second point, the truth is that I don’t believe that one of the inspired writers, the one referred to as “the Final Redactor” or “R Source,” the one who pulled Genesis together in its final form, even cared about creation. I think that he was accutely aware that the Genesis 1 creation account and Genesis 2-3 creation account were essentially wildly divergent, and that he was trying to teach other things.

 

[KyivAndrew]

As a Sponsor, I attended RCIA classes this past year. The pastor/presenter questioned the historical accuracy of Scripture, Old and New Testaments. He appeared to use the historical critical method of scriptural interpretation apart from the Tradition of the Church. Could anyone suggest a scholary work or works in which the historical critical method is used within the Tradition of the Church? I am interested in learning about the scientific evidence that supports the history presented in Scripture.

Hello, I believe the most esteemed “Centrist” Roman Catholic Work on the New Testament would be the late Father Raymond E. Brown’s Introduction to the New Testament, pretty lengthy but provides good interpretation of each book in depth (please note: I have not read it in full).
If anyone falls back on the Jesus Seminar, a good traditional rebuttal would come from Luke Timothy Johnson The Real Jesus.
Questions about the veracity of the Resurrection are worthily defended by an Anglican bishop, in my limited reading, Tom Wright’s The Resurrection of Our Lord, a work praised by such notable Catholic luminaries as the late Father Neuhaus of First Things fame. N.T. Wright, I believe, also has a handy website where you can read shortened essays of themes in his books.
I found a good pictoral, generic but well-argued case for the “evidence” as you say in support of the New Testament is Ian Wilson’s Jesus: The Evidence
I’m not sure if this is what you were looking for, but God Bless.

 

[RobbyS]

Hi.

Archaeologically, the Bible “bats a 1000” in the accuracy department, so far. See past issues of Bible Archaeology Review, a magazine.

In some other areas, it does poorly. Frazer and Gaster both found enormous quantities of myth sharing by the Bible with other cultures. See Frazer, “Folklore in the Old Terstament”; Gaster, “Myth, Legend and Cusom in the Old Testament.” It seems innately unlikely that the whole ancient world made the Hebrews’ stories their own.

However, I am a devout Catholic and a believer in the infallibility of Scripture.

How is this possible?

The Bible is not really intended to teach history, but rather faith and morals.

Faith and morals are mostly taught in the Old Testament through typological word pictures. For example, dear friend, please turn to Exodus 17:8-13. Why is that war story there? To teach us history?

No. Moses on the top *roshe *or “head”] of the hill arms high, holding his wooden staff, with a man at his left and a man at his right, so that the power of God issues forth and enables God’s people to defeat their enemies, is a picture of Christ with His hands spread against horizontal wood, between the Good Thief and Bad Thief, on the hill called Skull Place.

See? It does not even matter if it is historically accurate!

However, we musy not fall into the trap of thinking that “history” is an empirical science. In a way it is more like an anthology of stories narrated by a single person. Biography has been described as “instant” myth, for it tells us far about the subject than we can possibly know. A monograph may contain a very large number of facts that support a “story-line.” But inevitably there is an element of fiction in any historical piece.

 

[Crumpy]

I’ve been reading and commenting here (in many threads) about my recent reading of Jewish commentaries on the Hebrew Scripture (Old Testament).

The commentaries are fully modern, with an appreciation of what modern types of “criticism” has to offer, just as the Catholic Church looks over the whole field of study, in the same way. Neither subscribes to any single approach to analyzing scripture.

I like the Jewish commentaries, because they are so fussy about the literal sense, to begin with. Oh, they are anti-Christian, to be sure, make no mistake. But, I find them very authoritative, logical, and generally helpful, to help me understand what is being said, and to understand how the audience of listeners and believers would have “taken” and understood the texts.

Like the Catholic Church, the modern Jewish scholars believe that there is no endpoint for studying scripture, that there will always be a reason to look at scripture afresh and to look for new meaning.

As an example, the creation account makes more sense to me from a literary standpoint, than from an astrophysical point of view. The “point” of chapter one of Genesis is to establish that God is the creator and judge of the universe. These scholars point out carefully how the text we have presupposes knowledge of many things that are just mentioned without any explanation. The readers/listeners would have already known about the tree of life, cherubim, the flaming sword, and the importance of couching an important event like creation in terms of a 7-day unit of time – and how these elements distinguish the Jewish monotheistic faith.

We stumble by our own mental roadblocks by getting hung up on our conception of what a seven-day creation means versus what the Genesis account is actually referring to.

The Jewish commentaries lack the Christological point of view. But, I heard someone recently,probably on EWTN, maybe on the History Channel, who cautioned against interpreting every verse in scripture as directly pointing to Jesus Christ. I’ll reserve judgment on that,of course, but it may be a stretch to force ourselves to prematurely interpret every verse in that way without a very good reason to do it.

Suffice it to say that both Jews and Catholics approach the Bible with an attitude of faith. And, the Church commends both the Old and New Testaments to us, as inspired.

I’m constantly and continually impressed that the Bible itself draws us into it, just by the very fact of all the puzzles and mysteries, as well as the central truths, that it puts before us.

 

[KyivAndrew]

I’ve been reading and commenting here (in many threads) about my recent reading of Jewish commentaries on the Hebrew Scripture (Old Testament).

The commentaries are fully modern, with an appreciation of what modern types of “criticism” has to offer, just as the Catholic Church looks over the whole field of study, in the same way. Neither subscribes to any single approach to analyzing scripture.

I like the Jewish commentaries, because they are so fussy about the literal sense, to begin with. Oh, they are anti-Christian, to be sure, make no mistake. But, I find them very authoritative, logical, and generally helpful, to help me understand what is being said, and to understand how the audience of listeners and believers would have “taken” and understood the texts.

Like the Catholic Church, the modern Jewish scholars believe that there is no endpoint for studying scripture, that there will always be a reason to look at scripture afresh and to look for new meaning.

As an example, the creation account makes more sense to me from a literary standpoint, than from an astrophysical point of view. The “point” of chapter one of Genesis is to establish that God is the creator and judge of the universe. These scholars point out carefully how the text we have presupposes knowledge of many things that are just mentioned without any explanation. The readers/listeners would have already known about the tree of life, cherubim, the flaming sword, and the importance of couching an important event like creation in terms of a 7-day unit of time – and how these elements distinguish the Jewish monotheistic faith.

We stumble by our own mental roadblocks by getting hung up on our conception of what a seven-day creation means versus what the Genesis account is actually referring to.

The Jewish commentaries lack the Christological point of view. But, I heard someone recently,probably on EWTN, maybe on the History Channel, who cautioned against interpreting every verse in scripture as directly pointing to Jesus Christ. I’ll reserve judgment on that,of course, but it may be a stretch to force ourselves to prematurely interpret every verse in that way without a very good reason to do it.

Suffice it to say that both Jews and Catholics approach the Bible with an attitude of faith. And, the Church commends both the Old and New Testaments to us, as inspired.

I’m constantly and continually impressed that the Bible itself draws us into it, just by the very fact of all the puzzles and mysteries, as well as the central truths, that it puts before us.

Never mind just the Jewish Commentary. There is much division within Jewish commentators on interpreting the Old Testament. On one side, so to speak, are the followers of Maimonides, the Rambam I believe, who always attempted his commentaries to stress the rational as opposed to more mystical interpretations of Judaism. On the other side was the great Jewish commentator Nahmanides who was more open to mystical interpretations. The medieval French rabbi Rashi also had his own unique take on every word in the Tanakh.
And let’s not forget the modern-day Lubavitchers with their comments stressing secret kabbalistic knowledge, above the primary reading of the Bible. No simple choice there either.
God Bless!

 

[DeannaMarie]

The Bible is not really intended to teach history, but rather faith and morals.

Although the Bible is not a book of history, but a book of faith, it does not follow that the Bible does not contain history. This would only be true if you could provide evidence that a book of faith by its nature does not contain history.

It does not even matter if it is historically accurate!

*Exodus 17:8-13. Moses on the top *roshe or “head”] of the hill arms high, holding his wooden staff, with a man at his left and a man at his right, so that the power of God issues forth and enables God’s people to defeat their enemies, is a picture of Christ with His hands spread against horizontal wood, between the Good Thief and Bad Thief, on the hill called Skull Place.

What does matter is that Scripture is interpreted correctly. In regards to interpretation of Scripture, the Catholic Church teaches that the spiritual senses (allegorical, moral, and anagogical) are all based on the literal sense, all of which are subject to the judgment of the Church. (CCC 115-119) Regarding Exodus 17:8-13, the allegorical sense is presented above, but this does not exclude the need for or importance of the literal sense. Therefore, it is important to know the literal sense of this passage before looking into the allegorical sense.

The Catholic Faith is based on faith and reason, so we have nothing to fear from genuine biblical scholarship. The Catholic Church boldly proclaims that “there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. . . methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God.” (CCC 159)

The April 2005 issue of The Rock has a cover story titled “What is Biblical Criticism–and Should We Trust It?” by Fr. Peter Funk, O.S.B. The conclusion, “A Catholic perspective can help point the way back to a living faith that incorporates the findings of scholarship into traditional doctrine more profoundly expressed. By demonstrating that faith is not contradicted by reason or history, we will be able to preach the good news more effectively to those who have wandered into darkness.”

Furthermore, The Essential Catholic Survival Guide by the Staff of Catholic Answers presents an interesting argument in Ch. 6 “Proving Inspiration”. On page 68, “On the first level we [Catholics] argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history [emphasis mine]. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired.”

So, I repeat my request for information about works that use the historical critical method within the Tradition of the Church.

 

[Chrysostom324]

Hello, I am relatively new to the board. Upon the stimulation of some extremely anti-Catholic historical fiction, I decided to investigate religion. I am in high school and a cradle Catholic. I expected to discover that the Catholic religion is completely vindicated by the Bible and history. It is not. Neither is Protestantism. The Catholic Church has to engage in historical gymnastics to defend some of the Marian dogmas, and other ideals (Purgatory, praying to saints, Mary) are not defined either biblically or by COMPLETE patristic consensus. Most of the reason I am Catholic is because I believe we are totally right on the three most important issues: justification, authority (mostly right on this one: apostolic succession, tradition yes, papacy-maybe), and most importantly the eucharist. However, the original poster and everybody else here needs to understand that the reason why we accept doctrines like the Immaculate Conception, is because the only criterion we need to support an idea is the Church. It is the repository of truth and as such, is the body of Christ, in my opinion, not always right, but the only sure path to salvation. I am sure I will catch some reprisal as the apostate on the board, but I suppose that is fair.

jk

 

[Ron_Conte]

If Scripture can contain fictional passages and fictional books, which books and passages are fictional? Should the Magisterium go through each and every verse and label it as fiction or non-fiction? But in 2000 years the Church has not seen fit to do so.

Or are we free to disregard any and all passages at their literal/figurative level of meaning on the claim that it is fiction?

What is the meaning of a verse that is said to be fictional? Is there a truth being presented by the supposed fictional statement, but not on the spiritual level of meaning? Or is the only truth of a supposed fictional vese on the spiritual level of meaning?

Please give an example of one fictional verse or passage from the OT,
and one from the Gospels, so that we can discuss this further.

There are two main levels of meaning of Scripture:

1. literal (which includes figures) i.e. the literal/figurative, in which the words of Scripture refer to things
2. spiritual, in which those things refer to other things.

CCC:
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. the profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.” (Quote is from St. Thomas)
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

Since the spiritual is based on the literal, if the literal level is fiction, then the spiritual level of meaning is not based on realities and events. If the literal level of meaning is not true, then how can the spiritual level of meaning be true? The profound truths of Sacred Scripture are not based on fiction, but on truths expressed literally/figuratively.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Hi, Deanna.

You say…

Furthermore, The Essential Catholic Survival Guide by the Staff of Catholic Answers presents an interesting argument in Ch. 6 “Proving Inspiration”. On page 68, "On the first level we [Catholics] argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history [emphasis mine]. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired."

Bible “jot-and-tittlists” usually end up engaging in mental gymnastics defending an indefensible position. The Bible is not a very reliable history book. For example, compare Acts 9:7…

**7 The men who were traveling with [Paul at the time the light from God made Paul fall to the ground] stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one.

…with Acts 22:9…

**9 My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me.

That appears to be a perfect contradiction.

Which is right? Or is it Gymnastics Time?

Here’s another, really obvious one…

Judas’ death in Matthew 27:5…

**5 Flinging the money into the temple, he departed and went off and hanged himself. **

Judas’ death in Acts 1:18…

18 He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out.

So, in one, Judas gets rid of the money and hangs himself. In the other he keeps the money, spends it on land, and falls and dies on it. In their footnotes, the New Tesatament Committee agrees that this is a contradiction.

Which is right? Or is it Gymnastics Time?

If we base the judgment that the Magisterium is infallible on the historicity of those verses, we would have to agree that the Magisterium is not infallible, wouldn’t we?

I believe that the Bible is not a very reliable history book, but I believe that the Church is an inspired teacher.

 

[patg]

So, I repeat my request for information about works that use the historical critical method within the Tradition of the Church.

For this particular topic I highly recommend:

The multi-volume series ***A Marginal Jew: Rethinking The Historical Jesus ***by John P. Meier S.S. (imprimatur and nihil obstat). I believe Fr. Meier’s series is up to four volumes now and represents a serious analysis of history and the gospels based on current biblical scholarship. Fr. Meier has some very serious credentials.

For a less “technical” analysis, you should consider the book used as a textbook for many adult scripture classes: And God Said What?: An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms by Margaret Nutting Ralph. Available as an inexpensive paperback.

All the above are currently in print.

You should also look at the Instruction on the Historical Truth Of the Gospels by the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI. This is available online.

Other classics include*** The Birth of the Messiah*** by Raymsnd Brown if you can find it.

 

[diggerdomer]

If Scripture can contain fictional passages and fictional books, which books and passages are fictional? Should the Magisterium go through each and every verse and label it as fiction or non-fiction? But in 2000 years the Church has not seen fit to do so.

Or are we free to disregard any and all passages at their literal/figurative level of meaning on the claim that it is fiction?

What is the meaning of a verse that is said to be fictional? Is there a truth being presented by the supposed fictional statement, but not on the spiritual level of meaning? Or is the only truth of a supposed fictional vese on the spiritual level of meaning?

Please give an example of one fictional verse or passage from the OT,
and one from the Gospels, so that we can discuss this further.

There are two main levels of meaning of Scripture:

1. literal (which includes figures) i.e. the literal/figurative, in which the words of Scripture refer to things
2. spiritual, in which those things refer to other things.

CCC:
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. the profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.” (Quote is from St. Thomas)
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

Since the spiritual is based on the literal, if the literal level is fiction, then the spiritual level of meaning is not based on realities and events. If the literal level of meaning is not true, then how can the spiritual level of meaning be true? The profound truths of Sacred Scripture are not based on fiction, but on truths expressed literally/figuratively.

I think it would help to distinguish how one uses the word “fiction”–it can be used to mean “not true” and it can be used to denote a certain literary genre.

Everything in the Bible is true. Some of it is fiction. Like the parables Jesus used.

The “literal” sense is not the same as interpreting something “literally” (as we typically use the word, I think).

For instance, I’ve told my kids a million times to brush their teeth. The “literal” sense means understanding the words and their meanings, yes of course, but also the fact that there’s exaggeration/hyperbole in a phrase like that as used in our contemporary society. Understanding the “literal” sense would mean interpreting it as saying that I’ve told them a lot of times, so many times that it’s driving me up a wall (not literally, of course…). But it would not necessitate interpreting it to mean exactly 1,000,000 times.

Reading it “literally” would mean interpreting it to mean I told them exactly 1,000,000 times, not one time more, not one time less. And we could calculate how much of my life would have spent that way by figuring out how much time it takes to say that sentence and multiplying it by a million. And then we’d know I’m lying unless we can figure out how to drive a car up a wall.