Biblical Scholarship

[patg]

If Scripture can contain fictional passages and fictional books, which books and passages are fictional?

A little literary and historical analysis usually clears it up but sometimes we just don’t know.

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.

That is untrue - the chruch and its scripture scholars have been studying the bible for centuries. There have been numerous recent documents which are guides for doing just this - Dei Verbum, Divino Afflante Spiritu, The Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels, etc.

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

Why would you disregard the figurative meaning if that is the essence of the passage?

What is the meaning of a verse that is said to be fictional?

The meaning is the truth of revelation being taught. Why is fiction not a valid vehicle for revelation?

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?

Saying something is fictional does not comment on the truth or falsehood of the truth being presented.

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.

I’m not sure we should do this in this thread, but here are 2 quick ones.

• In the OT, the story of Jonah and the story of the couple in the garden teach great truths and yet are accepted as fiction/myth/legend by many readers.
• The birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are classic examples of the ancient Infancy Narrative, well known to be fictional. The term Infancy Narrative is even a standard literary form (unless you believe that Alexander the Great was also God on earth).

Please remember - the Church is just fine with us believing either way about these stories (or even somewhere in the middle). There is no dogma of Jonah in a fish and there is no doctrine of the Magi whcih must be believed to avoid eternal torture.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

Try reading:

• The Early History of Israel - by Roland de Vaux O.P. (ET in two vols., 1978)

It should give you a good deal of the sort of thing you ask for, down to the period of the Judges, or c. 1100.

Needless to say, it has all the ecclesiastical permissions any Catholic could insist on. These permissions mean, not that the censor agrees with everything in books given them, but that that the books given them contain nothing unorthodox. So books by Catholics who adopt historico-critical principles which have such permissions can be read without any fears that they are unorthodox.

Historical accuracy lies not in the text, but in the interpretation - a book not intended to be historical should not be judged as though it were meant to be. What looks like a mis-statement of historical fact, may often be something else. Priests are doing no more than they should when they point this out. The Church does after all claim to care about truth - & if it is true that what looks like an historical text is no such thing, it is a deception & a lie to leave people under the mistaken impression that a non-historical text is an historical text. There should be no place among Christians for lies of any kind, because they are damnable & wicked, & those who love and make lies are outside the New Jerusalem (see Rev. 22).

Hope that helps

 

[Ron_Conte]

In the OT, the story of Jonah and the story of the couple in the garden teach great truths and yet are accepted as fiction/myth/legend by many readers.

The birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are classic examples of the ancient Infancy Narrative, well known to be fictional. The term Infancy Narrative is even a standard literary form (unless you believe that Alexander the Great was also God on earth).

When I refer to the literal level of meaning, I am including figures. The terminology is somewhat unfortunate, but the literal level of meaning (despite the term) includes both what people usually call literal, as well as figures. So a parable would be figurative on the literal level of meaning.

There are literary genres in Scripture. But it is absurd to jump from the sole assertion that a passage is a particular genre to the conclusion that it is fiction, and that therefore its plain assertions are not to be believed. Once we begin this approach, we end with the final absurdity that the details of the Passion and Crucifixion are not true, or that the Resurrection is not true, or that the details about the early Church in Acts are not true.

I pose the following questions to those who think that the Bible contains fiction:

Did the human race begin with two persons, a man and a woman?
Did Abraham exist, and are the stories about him historical truths?
Did Saul, David, and Solomon exist, and are the stories about them historical truths?
Is the story about the annunciation to Zechariah historical truth?
Did an Angel appear to the Virgin Mary and speak to her?
Did the Magi visit the Christ Child?
Did Mary go to visit Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist?
Did Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem because of a census?
Was Jesus born in Bethlehem?
Did Herod the great attempt to kill the Christ Child by killing the holy innocents?
Which portions of the Infancy narratives are fiction and which are historical fact?

 

[Crumpy]

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!

Shalom! Way back in 1993, the Pontifical Biblical Commission issued a document called something like The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (available in the document library on the EWTN website) and the PBC said that they were open to Jewish commentary on scripture. Overall, they said the Church does not subscribe to any one single approach to scripture. So, we don’t need to give Jewish commentary the old heave-ho just yet.

For sure, I read these various Rabbis names which are so interesting, Rashi, Rambam, Rashbam, and what not. And, I surely don’t know about them to a great extent.

Further, Jewish commentary does have its built-in limitations, lacking in Christian faith as it does. But, one thing I get out of it, is that they are very much closer to discussing the various words and phrases in the text, because of their committed study of Biblical Hebrew. Second, For what it’s worth, I like to at least look at their spin on various things. It’s remarkable about how they can just-about-get-it (something) and then fall away from seeing what is really there, in the scripture.

You’re saying, stay away from Jewish commentary. A couple weeks ago, a guy (who knows just about everything, you know, because his brother is a priest) even told me not to bother with the Old Testament.

I don’t read the OT as it being “Jewish” because “Jewish” is a tradition of men. I look at it as being early-Catholic, because that is what God intended it. And, I read scripture with faith. I don’t have to worry about it much, because MY Catholic Church put the OT in the Catholic Bible. It’s got to be there for a reason, a good reason, not the least of which it is considered to be the inspired word of God.

 

[diggerdomer]

When I refer to the literal level of meaning, I am including figures. The terminology is somewhat unfortunate, but the literal level of meaning (despite the term) includes both what people usually call literal, as well as figures. So a parable would be figurative on the literal level of meaning.

There are literary genres in Scripture. But it is absurd to jump from the sole assertion that a passage is a particular genre to the conclusion that it is fiction, and that therefore its plain assertions are not to be believed. Once we begin this approach, we end with the final absurdity that the details of the Passion and Crucifixion are not true, or that the Resurrection is not true, or that the details about the early Church in Acts are not true.

I pose the following questions to those who think that the Bible contains fiction:

Did the human race begin with two persons, a man and a woman?
Did Abraham exist, and are the stories about him historical truths?
Did Saul, David, and Solomon exist, and are the stories about them historical truths?
Is the story about the annunciation to Zechariah historical truth?
Did an Angel appear to the Virgin Mary and speak to her?
Did the Magi visit the Christ Child?
Did Mary go to visit Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist?
Did Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem because of a census?
Was Jesus born in Bethlehem?
Did Herod the great attempt to kill the Christ Child by killing the holy innocents?
Which portions of the Infancy narratives are fiction and which are historical fact?

As I referred to previously, can you please clarify for us exactly what you mean by “fiction”?

 

[KyivAndrew]

Shalom! Way back in 1993, the Pontifical Biblical Commission issued a document called something like The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (available in the document library on the EWTN website) and the PBC said that they were open to Jewish commentary on scripture. Overall, they said the Church does not subscribe to any one single approach to scripture. So, we don’t need to give Jewish commentary the old heave-ho just yet.

For sure, I read these various Rabbis names which are so interesting, Rashi, Rambam, Rashbam, and what not. And, I surely don’t know about them to a great extent.

Further, Jewish commentary does have its built-in limitations, lacking in Christian faith as it does. But, one thing I get out of it, is that they are very much closer to discussing the various words and phrases in the text, because of their committed study of Biblical Hebrew. Second, For what it’s worth, I like to at least look at their spin on various things. It’s remarkable about how they can just-about-get-it (something) and then fall away from seeing what is really there, in the scripture.

You’re saying, stay away from Jewish commentary. A couple weeks ago, a guy (who knows just about everything, you know, because his brother is a priest) even told me not to bother with the Old Testament.

I don’t read the OT as it being “Jewish” because “Jewish” is a tradition of men. I look at it as being early-Catholic, because that is what God intended it. And, I read scripture with faith. I don’t have to worry about it much, because MY Catholic Church put the OT in the Catholic Bible. It’s got to be there for a reason, a good reason, not the least of which it is considered to be the inspired word of God.

Shalom back to you Crumpy from one Catholic to another. I hope we don’t get in trouble from the OP for not sticking to the question but taking this small tangent and then gone.

Yes, my interest was peaked by friendship with Jews who in University all of the sudden started joining the ultra-Orthodox leaving their Reform roots. Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament felt for me like discovering a big thick side branch on a tree with which we shared a common root before we went our separate ways two thousand years ago and it was fascinating looking at how it had progressed in its teachings. I’d chance on Jewish religious television shows and see former Straussian political philosophy teachers of mine debating Maimonedes with a rabbi. But once you enter into commentary on the OT using the Zohar and Kabbalah and belief in reincarnation and Schneerson as the new messiah, well it’s baffling and interesting, much because of the fact that this appears to be the fastest growing segment among Judaism in the world right now - the Orthodox.

Anyway, I’m out of here quick so OP and others get back to matter at hand.

God Bless.

 

[Ron_Conte]

It is foolish to assume that whenever there is an apparent contradiction, then Scripture must be inaccurate, unreliable, not historically true, merely a fictional teaching story, or in any way false.

St. Justin Martyr: But I shall not venture to suppose or to say such a thing [that the Scriptures err]; and if a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind is brought forward, and if there be a pretext [for saying] that it is contrary [to some other] since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself.

St. Augustine: I think it is extremely dangerous to admit that anything in the Sacred Books should be a lie… If we once admit in that supreme authority even one polite lie, there will be nothing left of those books, because, whenever anyone finds something difficult to practice or hard to believe, he will follow this most dangerous precedent and explain it as the idea or practice of a lying author.

**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.

They heard the voice in the sense of hearing a sound, but they did not hear the voice in the sense of understanding the words. Similarly with the sight as with the sound, they say the light, but not the person. In other words, they heard and saw something, but could not discern what it was.

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.

He bought the land in the sense that, after he flung the money in the Temple, the priests decided that they could not use it (since it was blood money), and so they bought a field with it. In effect, he bought a parcel of land with the wages of his sin.

Concerning his death, Judas hung himself, but since it was the Passover, no one would dare to touch the dead body of someone who sinned by committing suicide, and so it hung there for so long that the body decayed and the abdomen burst open, and the body fell from where it had been hung.

Notice how easily such apparent contradictions can be answered.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

It is foolish to assume that whenever there is an apparent contradiction, then Scripture must be inaccurate, unreliable, not historically true, merely a fictional teaching story, or in any way false.

St. Justin Martyr: But I shall not venture to suppose or to say such a thing [that the Scriptures err]; and if a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind is brought forward, and if there be a pretext [for saying] that it is contrary [to some other] since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself.

St. Augustine: I think it is extremely dangerous to admit that anything in the Sacred Books should be a lie… If we once admit in that supreme authority even one polite lie, there will be nothing left of those books, because, whenever anyone finds something difficult to practice or hard to believe, he will follow this most dangerous precedent and explain it as the idea or practice of a lying author.

They heard the voice in the sense of hearing a sound, but they did not hear the voice in the sense of understanding the words. Similarly with the sight as with the sound, they say the light, but not the person. In other words, they heard and saw something, but could not discern what it was.

He bought the land in the sense that, after he flung the money in the Temple, the priests decided that they could not use it (since it was blood money), and so they bought a field with it. In effect, he bought a parcel of land with the wages of his sin.

Concerning his death, Judas hung himself, but since it was the Passover, no one would dare to touch the dead body of someone who sinned by committing suicide, and so it hung there for so long that the body decayed and the abdomen burst open, and the body fell from where it had been hung.

Notice how easily such apparent contradictions can be answered.

This is what I mean by “gymnastics.” There are HUNDREDS of these, Ron. They go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

The truth is that they don’t matter, simply because the Bible was not inspired to teach good history.

Here, let me throw some more at you. I’ll keep doing it until that is all you end up doing for a living.

Which tree is “in the middle of the garden”?

**9 Out of the ground the LORD God made various trees grow that were delightful to look at and good for food, with the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. Genesis 2:9. ** Here it is The Tree of Life.

1 Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the animals that the LORD God had made. The serpent asked the woman, “Did God really tell you not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?”
2 The woman answered the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden;
3 it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die.’” Genesis 3:1-3. Here it is The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Note that both the narrator in 2:9 and Eve in 3:3 use the tree’s middleness to identify it – to distinguish it from other trees.

Clearly we have a pure contradiction. Which is true?

Here is another, out of Jesus’ own mouth…

Humanity can be divided into three groups: (1) WITH Christ; (2) NEITHER; (3) AGAINST Christ.

**30 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. Matthew 12:30. ** That means that those in Group #2, the “NEITHER-ites,” are AGAINST Christ, because they aren’t WITH Christ.

**40 For whoever is not against us is for us. Mark 9:40. ** That means that those in Group #2, the “NEITHER-ites,” are WITH Christ, because they aren’t AGAINST Christ.

Which is true?

Gymnastics time!!!

The answer is, relax. The Bible is not reliable history.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

In truth, if one views the Bible as a “divinely inspired history book,” the Bible requires such a huge amount of explanation to explain obvious contradictions that the Bible’s “historical” component must lie OUTSIDE the Bible, not IN it!!!

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Insisting that the Bible is the “world’s most accurate history book” (the implication of the Fundamentalists when they say that the Bible is inspired in the historical sense, too) only injures The Faith.

 

[DeannaMarie]

Hello Peter,

Name calling (Bible “jot-and-tittlists”) is at best bad form and at worst uncharitable. Are you aware that these Bible “jot-and-tittlists” are the Staff of Catholic Answers? When citing a work, please provide more specific citations. The New Testament Committee is too vague for me to research.

Let me be clear–the Bible is not a history book. It is a book that contains history, literature, etc; all of which is reliable. As the Church teaches, “For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts (emphasis mine), on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”

History is an event in space and time. Scripture contains many such events. For example, creation, the birth of Jesus, and the death of Paul are all events in space and time, and are all recorded in the Bible. (Please note that in this argument, I am not making any claim to the reliability of the details of that history presented in the Bible.) Let’s look at the Conversion of Paul. There are actually three accounts of the Conversion of Paul in the Acts of the Apostles (9:3-19, 22:5-16, 26:10-18), and all three are different. However, all three describe one event in space and time (the Conversion of Paul). That event in space and time is history.

As a Catholic, I have at my disposal faith and reason. I am allowed to study Scripture within the Tradition of the Church using genuine biblical scholarship so as better to understand the Catholic Faith presented therein. I am not insisting that the Bible is the "world’s most accurate history book". My argument is that Scripture contains history, and that that history is accurate based on the Catholic Church’s teaching that *“The inspired books teach the truth.” *(see CCC 105-108) What I believe *injures the Faith *is not genuine biblical scholarship used within the Tradition of the Church, but faulty biblical scholarship used outside the Tradition of the Church.

I agree that the two citations you posted about Paul’s companions (Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9) are a perfect contradiction, IF you read the passages literally. The Catholic Church recognizes a literal sense in Scripture, but this is not the same as reading the Bible literally. I would refer you to the book, Making Senses Out of Scripture by Mark Shea.

Our fellow Catholic, Ron, provided a very clear explanation for the apparent contradiction in the accounts of Paul’s Conversion. I will only point out that this explanation can be found in The Navarre Bible The Acts of the Apostles (which is sold at Catholic Answers), page 231, “As far as Paul’s companions were concerned, we know that they saw the light (Acts 22:9) but did not see anyone (Acts 9:7): they did not see the glorified Jesus; they heard a voice (Acts9:7) but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to Paul (Acts 22:9), that is, did not understand what the voice said.” However, your response to Ron suggests to me that you do not consider this a valid explanation, but only “mental gymnastics.”

Furthermore, the Catholic Church does not argue that an infallible Church follows from the two passages that you cited, or from the Conversion of Paul. When interpreting Scripture, we must “be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture.”” (see CCC 109-114)

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Hi, Deanna.

Here is another historical inaccuracy in Scripture…

Who bought Joseph’s grave in Shechem from Hamor?

Jacob? Joshua 24:32.

Abraham? Acts 7:16.

Which is correct?

Here is another. Which is correct?

2 Samuel 21:19: Elhanan, son of Jair, killed Goliath of Gath.

1 Samuel 17:4-51: David, son of Jesse, killed Goliath of Gath.

I apologize for the term “jot-and-tittlists.” What happens to me is this: Our Catholic Faith is a wonderful, wonderful gift. I love it. But, Satan is winning the battle in our world, right now. Joining that battle on the side of Christianity without doing the work which that involves, and standing-up and being counted by shouting, “EVERY JOT AND TITTLE OF SCRIPTURE IS ACCURATE HISTORY!!!” when it clearly is not, and that is easily proven to be false, is like grabbing the steering wheel of the family car when one doesn’t know how to drive, and crashing it.

So, I editorialize, because I love the Church, and I want the fundamentalists to stop supplanting work with grandiose assumptions and declarations not based on work, easily disproven, which only hurt the reputation of the Church.

I apologize for calling nobody in particular a “jot-and-tittlist.”

But will the people here who have injured the Church by saying “I AM CATHOLIC” and then stubbornly insist that the Bible is “accurate history” WITHOUT ACTUALLY CHECKING apologize to the Catholics here for giving those who hate the Church an opportunity to laugh at the Church?

I doubt that the Staff of Catholic Answers would number themselves among those who maintain that the Bible is accurate history down to the “jot-and-tittle.”

Would you?

Re-read the examples I give above, in this post.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Another assumption made by those who insist that the Bible is inspired to be history is that they only need to explain-away express contradictions in the Bible.

In reality, if the Bible can’t accurately establish whether Abraham or Jacob purchased the grave from Hamor, or whether David or Elhanan killed Goliath, how many claims of historical fact in the Bible not expressly contradicted are simply flat-out wrong?

 

[patg]

There are literary genres in Scripture. But it is absurd to jump from the sole assertion that a passage is a particular genre to the conclusion that it is fiction, and that therefore its plain assertions are not to be believed.

I haven’t done that. It is absurd to think that a fictional story can’t be a vehicle for teaching truths about revelation. The authors of scripture wrote the same way all authors have ever written and sometimes they create a story to express an insprired truth when there isn’t a convenient “real” story. Sometimes a created account functions as a much better teaching tool because you aren’t constrained by fitting something that happened into your teaching.

…, we end with the final absurdity that the details of the Passion and Crucifixion are not true, or that the Resurrection is not true, or that the details about the early Church in Acts are not true.

These are matters of faith and are not based on standard historical analysis. There is so little “historic” evidence that we could never rely on that.

I pose the following questions to those who think that the Bible contains fiction:

Did the human race begin with two persons, a man and a woman?
Did Abraham exist, and are the stories about him historical truths?
Did Saul, David, and Solomon exist, and are the stories about them historical truths?
Is the story about the annunciation to Zechariah historical truth?
Did an Angel appear to the Virgin Mary and speak to her?
Did the Magi visit the Christ Child?
Did Mary go to visit Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist?
Did Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem because of a census?
Was Jesus born in Bethlehem?
Did Herod the great attempt to kill the Christ Child by killing the holy innocents?
Which portions of the Infancy narratives are fiction and which are historical fact?

What exactly is your question? None of these events are supported by any historical research and analysis - there just isn’t any evidence for most of them. Just what sort of historical evidence do you find for the annunciation to Zechariah or Jesus being born in Bethlehem? There is none that a historian would accept. You can believe these events happened as described if you choose to but there is no evidence for them outside of the bible. You might label them as “historical” because you believe them but there is nothing here that meets the academic standards of “historicity”.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Did the human race begin with two persons, a man and a woman? You did not ask the controversial, embarrassing questions, here. Did the first human pair have navels? Did their children marry each other?

I think that probably some kind of amended form of monogenesis occurred. They were both the children of a common ancestor several generations back. God, in his wisdom, knowing that they would meet, infused the two first humans, very distant cousins with a common ancestor, with souls shortly before they met.

I think that God took a similar approach with their children. Their children met distant cousins from the troupe – hominids who shared a common ancestor in the somewhat-remote past – who were infused with souls before the meeting. In this fashion, we don’t play that stupid game by making groundless assuptions about a right to violate the incest taboo, female sexuality within the troupe remains sacred, and no one engages in beastiality by having sex with a homnid unifused with a soul.

So, yes, they had belly buttons; no they didn’t marry brothers and sisters; but, yes, they were monogenetic, anyway; but no, there was no bestiality with hominids uninfused with a soul.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Did Abraham exist, and are the stories about him historical truths?

The name “Abraham” pops up on the Ebla tablets. Not bad. There is some doubt respecting whether that is the same man. I think that I remember reading that the time frame is off.

Are the stories about Abraham true as written, down to the jot and tittle? Eh. There is some reason to doubt. It doesn’t matter. Why not?

Allow me to answer a question with a question: Why are those stories there? What do they mean? Anything? Or are they just historical facts to Ron Conte?

If anyone insisting that the jot and tittles are accurate does not know what they mean, then they may as well know nothing.

Why insist, “The stories about Abraham are historical truths!!!,” if you haven’t got the vaguest idea – not the slightest – why the details are there?

Why did Abraham and God do a dance between animals cut in half, to affirm the covenant, for example? Why be circumcized?

Both rituals foreshadow Christ.

So, it doesn’t really matter if the incidents actually occurred. What does matter is that Christ is foreshadowed.

 

[grannymh]

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!

IMHO there are some confusing typological word pictures with Old Testament descriptions in the above. I would think that you would prefer to use other examples like the Deposit of Faith.

Pardon me. I am interested. What is your interpretation of Christ on the Cross – not the “picture” but the reality.

With all your interest in myth sharing, it reminds me of the Jesus Seminar of years ago. I lost touch so I don’t know the current name. One last thing. Infallibility is a word associated with the teachings of the current Roman Catholic Church.

Blessings,
granny

Bible means: basic instructions before leaving earth

 

[Peter_Dawson]

IMHO there are some confusing typological word pictures with Old Testament descriptions in the above. I would think that you would prefer to use other examples like the Deposit of Faith.

Pardon me. I am interested. What is your interpretation of Christ on the Cross – not the “picture” but the reality.

With all your interest in myth sharing, it reminds me of the Jesus Seminar of years ago. I lost touch so I don’t know the current name. One last thing. Infallibility is a word associated with the teachings of the current Roman Catholic Church.

Blessings,
granny

Bible means: basic instructions before leaving earth

Hi, granny. Some interpretation may be appropriate, but not much. The ultimate simple truth is that God’s Own perfect justice demands that there be no “pennies from Heaven,” no “free rides.” So, God’s Own perfect justice demanded that grace needed for salvation, the Final Ingredient of mankind, be paid for. God the Son said, “I will.” God the Father said, “I lovingly accept your loving gift, and lovingly offer you to suffer and die.” And so Christ was born, to suffer and die horribly. Something like that, I think, happened.

You can see grace in the form of “the Final Ingredient” typified – that is, symbolized – when the blood and water come flowing out of Christ’s side. Just as Eve, representing mankind, was drawn out of the side of Adam, who symbolized Christ according to Paul’s unquestionable inspired declaration at Roman’s 5:14, the waters of salvation coming out of Christ’s side on the cross, activated by the sacrificial blood of Christ, followed Eve out of the side of Christ. The Final Ingredient followed Eve out of Christ. Okay?

 

[DeannaMarie]

Peter, you can continue to boldly proclaim, “The Bible is not a reliable history book!” I will not be surprised when someone points out the perfect contradictions of the faith in passages such as Rom 2:6 and Eph 2:8-9, dismisses your explanation of the faith as “mental gymnastics”, and then triumphantly proclaims, “See! The Bible is not a reliable book on faith and morals, either!”

To All, Private interpretation of Scripture renders mutiple interpretations of Scripture. We need an Authority who can provide a proper interpretation of Scripture. With St. Augustine, I proudly profess “But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.” (see CCC 85, 100, 119). Is there anyone else who reads and studies Scripture within the Tradition of the Catholic Church?

Thank you to all for the book suggestions. I now have much reading to do.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Peter, you can continue to boldly proclaim, “The Bible is not a reliable history book!” I will not be surprised when someone points out the perfect contradictions of the faith in passages such as Rom 2:6 and Eph 2:8-9, dismisses your explanation of the faith as “mental gymnastics”, and then triumphantly proclaims, “See! The Bible is not a reliable book on faith and morals, either!”

To All, Private interpretation of Scripture renders mutiple interpretations of Scripture. We need an Authority who can provide a proper interpretation of Scripture. With St. Augustine, I proudly profess “But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.” (see CCC 85, 100, 119). Is there anyone else who reads and studies Scripture within the Tradition of the Catholic Church?

Thank you to all for the book suggestions. I now have much reading to do.

I’m sorry, Deanna, but it’s simply not “the perfect history book.”