Do Catholics believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible?

[aspirant]

So the Catholic Church has always taught that literal sense of a text is that meaning which the author intends to communicate, and that every passage of scripture has a literal sense. The Church encourages that this literal sense is something biblical interpreters must carefully discern; it may not be immediately obvious. Textual criticism, literary criticism, and linguistic knowledge are important aids. Sometimes the writers are referring to historical events, sometimes not. Sometimes they are using figurative language, sometimes not. What the biblical authors intend to communicate is true and free of error, whether or not that truth refers to historical fact.

“To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to ‘literary forms.’ 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. 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.” (Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation)

This is not a new, “modern” idea in the Church. Far from it. If you read St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas, you will find that they also teach that the literal sense of scripture is what the biblical writers actually intended to communicate, even when they used figurative language or nonhistorical genres to communicate it.

St. Augustine wrote in Christian Doctrine, for example, “Whoever takes another meaning out of Scripture than the writer intended, goes astray…” Whatever we may now think of Augustine’s particular interpretations here or there, his concern was to arrive at the meaning the author intended.

In the first section of his Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas talks about many possible levels of meaning in scripture (literal and spiritual senses), because God has the power “to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves.” In other words, not only may God’s words have meaning, but the people, events, etc., that the words represent may also have meanings. In explaining the different senses of scripture, Thomas defines the literal sense thus: “[the] first signification, whereby words signify things, belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal… the literal sense is that which the author intends… The ‘parabolical sense’ is contained in the literal, for by words things are signified properly and figuratively. Nor is the figure itself, but that which is figured, the literal sense. When Scripture speaks of God’s arm, the literal sense is not that God has such a member, but only what is signified by this member, namely operative power. Hence it is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Scripture.”

Even many Protestant writers, like Tyndale, have taught the same as the Catholic Church regarding what the “literal sense” means: “the scripture uses proverbs, similitudes, riddles, or allegories, as all other speeches do; but that which the proverb, similitude, riddle or allegory signifieth, is ever the literal sense, which thou must seek out diligently.”

So in answer to the question posed by the subject of this thread, YES, Catholics do believe that the literal sense of scripture is something to be eagerly sought. The literal sense of scripture, that which the biblical writers actually intended to communicate, is inspired by God and inerrant. It is the foundation of authentic biblical understanding; authentic spiritual senses of scripture (typological, moral, anagogical) must be rooted in the literal sense and cannot contradict it.

Whether the literal sense of scripture refers to historical events depends on which passage is being considered. Some biblical texts make historical assertions while others may not. When the author intends to relate history (for example, Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate), the history is true. When the author does not intend to relate history (Judith, for example, is generally regarded as a novel), he is still speaking truly, but the truths are not historical.

The Church does not have an “official” position on the literal historicity of these or any other Bible stories.

The Catholic Church does take an official position on the historicity of some Bible stories.

 

[Abu]

Very well constructed, aspirant, and this is where the form critics often meet their waterloo.

 

[kepha1]

2 Tim 3
14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, (TRADITION) knowing from whom you learned it (MAGISTERIUM)
15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings (SCRIPTURE) which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

The Bible on St. Paul’s list comes in third, not first. He actually gives here the traditional Catholic teaching on the three sources of sound teaching.

In verse 15 he goes into an excursus on the Bible. This brief excursus emphasizes the value of the Bible and recommends a fourfold method of exegesis. This verse was used in the pre-Deformation Church as a proof text for the Quadriga which was the standard Catholic approach to the Bible. The Quadriga method used the following four categories:

Literal/Literary (teaching) - the text as it is written
Analogical (reproof) - matters of faith
Anagogical (correction) - matters of hope/prophecy
Moral (training in righteousness) - matters of charity

2 Tim 3:16
Literal/Literary (teaching) - the text as it is written
Analogical (reproof) - matters of faith
Anagogical (correction) - matters of hope/prophecy
Moral (training in righteousness) - matters of charity

Martin Luther adopted an overly literal method of biblical exegesis, and was rejected by his contemporaries for igoring 2 Tim 3:16!

Will ironies ever cease?

 

[awatkins69]

The Bible is INERRANT. However, some parts of the Holy Bible are not meant to be a scientific or historical record. Holy Writ can be interpreted in many senses. This is why we have the Church.

Good read:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

 

[Mailman]

Hi. We covered “The Bible” in my last RCIA class and the speaker mentioned Jonah & the big fish as an example of how God deals with disobedience. He also mentioned Noah & the ark. Question: Does the Catholic Church teach that those were historical events that actually happened or does the church view some Bible stories as just “stories?”

IF the story of Jonah and the big fish is not an historical event, THEN Jesus Christ is a fraud and we are all lost.

If you will notice, Jesus said He would give only one sign – PROOF – of His Messiahship. He said: “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign; and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights” (Matt. 12:39-40).

If we say the story of Jonah and the fish is fiction, we deny Jesus is the Messiah because His proof to His Messiahship rests on the truthfulness, or historicity, of Jonah’s story.

But why is it so hard to believe in the story of the prophet Jonah? One Catholic CAF member (grandfather) puts it this way: “What is more difficult to believe that a person was swallowed by a giant beast and vomited up alive, or a person was murdered and buried for three days and returned to life?”

As for Noah and the ark, don’t Catholics swear by the story of Enoch and his “assumption” into heaven? If Enoch’s story is historical, then Noah’s story has to be historical as well. Here’s why.

In the faith chapter of the book of Hebrews, Paul cites Noah and Enoch, among other “elders,” as examples of real faith (Heb. 11:2). In verse 5 Paul says that, “By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death” because “before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.” The reason why God was pleased with Enoch was because, “Enoch walked with God” (Gen. 5:24). That is, he obeyed God’s instructions and commandments; He was righteous. Enoch’s righteousness by faith pleased God that He translated him.

Now, Noah also “walked with God” (Gen. 6:9). He, too, obeyed God’s instructions and commandments by faith, that’s why his story is included by Paul in his faith lesson. Noah, like Enoch, “became heir of the righteousness which is by faith” (Heb. 11:7).

But what was the one righteous deed of Noah which Paul says is an example of real faith? Listen. “By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not yet seen… prepared an ark to the saving of his house…” (Heb. 11:7). It was the building of the ark! Noah built the ark in spite of the absurdity of it all. He built the ark by faith. God, through the apostle Paul, gave that one deed of Noah as an example of what real faith is all about!

Can we still doubt Noah’s story actually happened? If Noah’s story is a myth, then the faith God requires from us to be saved must be a myth as well; it is impossible to have such a kind of faith. But God is true and His Word is truth. We can have such a faith for Noah’s story actually happened.

If we can believe that Enoch was “assumed” into heaven, why can’t we believe that Noah built the ark? But, really, what is more difficult to believe, that a man did not experience death and was whisked into the heavens body and all, or that a man built an ark big enough to house hundreds of animals and used this to survive a catastrophic, worldwide flood lasting 40 days?

 

[crazzeto]

Hi. We covered “The Bible” in my last RCIA class and the speaker mentioned Jonah & the big fish as an example of how God deals with disobedience. He also mentioned Noah & the ark. Question: Does the Catholic Church teach that those were historical events that actually happened or does the church view some Bible stories as just “stories?”

It does not endores a literalistic interpretation of the bible, one can not merely read the words on the page, then say “that’s what it says, that’s what it means”. This method of reading the bible does not account for the culture in which the passages were written, and their significance in that day. With out this, on can not hope to determain what it means for us today.

The Church does teach a literal interpretation of the bible, that is one needs to understand what the author of a passage was literally trying to say. I would refer you to the senses of scripture, from the CCC (below). With regard to Noah, you may choose to not believe these events ever happend if that’s the best you can muster… It would be incorrect for someone who holds this view, to assert this as a doctrinal truth. Personally I believe Jonah probably happend, I believe that Naoh happend, the parting of the Red Sea happend etc.

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt2.shtml#art3

The senses of Scripture

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."83

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.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84

1. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction."85

1. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118
A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87

119
"It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89

 

[patg]

IF the story of Jonah and the big fish is not an historical event, THEN Jesus Christ is a fraud and we are all lost.

If you will notice, Jesus said He would give only one sign – PROOF – of His Messiahship. He said: “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign; and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights” (Matt. 12:39-40).

This is totally incorrect since it says that no one can reference a fictional story as an example of anything. Jesus does not say anything about the story being a historical event, he merely refers to the story as an example. If I tell my child that they must love their enemies just like the good samaritan did, I am referring to a fictional parable told as a teaching tool by Jesus, I AM NOT saying that the story in the parable was a historical event.

If we say the story of Jonah and the fish is fiction, we deny Jesus is the Messiah because His proof to His Messiahship rests on the truthfulness, or historicity, of Jonah’s story.

No, it does not and the church does not teach this.

But why is it so hard to believe in the story of the prophet Jonah? One Catholic CAF member (grandfather) puts it this way: “What is more difficult to believe that a person was swallowed by a giant beast and vomited up alive, or a person was murdered and buried for three days and returned to life?”

The church does not teach that this story must be dogmatically believed and if one analyzes the form of the story, one can clearly see many clues that it is totally fictional.

As for Noah and the ark, don’t Catholics swear by the story of Enoch and his “assumption” into heaven?

No, I never met one who did.

 

[edwest2]

This is totally incorrect since it says that no one can reference a fictional story as an example of anything. Jesus does not say anything about the story being a historical event, he merely refers to the story as an example. If I tell my child that they must love their enemies just like the good samaritan did, I am referring to a fictional parable told as a teaching tool by Jesus, I AM NOT saying that the story in the parable was a historical event.

No, it does not and the church does not teach this.

The church does not teach that this story must be dogmatically believed and if one analyzes the form of the story, one can clearly see many clues that it is totally fictional.

No, I never met one who did.

Totally fictional? I was taught a literal Noah and a literal Ark. God gave Noah detailed construction plans. There was nothing symbolic about it. Recently, people have built scale models of the Ark and found it very seaworthy.

Jesus said that Moses wrote concerning Him.

I see too many posts here trying to disprove the work of God or selectively believing parts of the Bible but not other parts. Jesus also refers to the days of Noe (Noah).

Peace,
Ed

 

[patg]

Totally fictional? I was taught a literal Noah and a literal Ark.

That doesn’t make it dogma.

God gave Noah detailed construction plans. There was nothing symbolic about it. Recently, people have built scale models of the Ark and found it very seaworthy.

Jesus said that Moses wrote concerning Him.

I see too many posts here trying to disprove the work of God or selectively believing parts of the Bible but not other parts. Jesus also refers to the days of Noe (Noah).

I didn’t write any comments about Noah…I focused solely on Jonah and Enoch

 

[Abu]

As the assumptions of Fr Brown and his followers rely on errors in the Sacred Scriptures, assumptions condemned by Christ’s Church, it is wise to avoid such assumptions as we have seen, and to gain information from reliable sources. EWTN’s “previously asked questions” is a very good source and it is easy to check there.

*Living Tradition *is another excellent site at:
rtforum.org/lt/index.html

Free From All Error, Fr William G Most, 1985, Prow Books, 1985 is very helpful in understanding the errors of the form critics and in understanding what the Church teaches.

Now see:
ewtn.com/vexperts/results.asp?Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2009&Author=&Keyword=Enoch&pgnu=1&groupnum=0

On Enoch (EWTN)
Answer by Fr. John Echert on 8-12-2004:
We know from the biblical texts and ancient tradition that Enoch and Elijah were preserved from death; the overwhelming view of the Church Fathers is that these two will return prior to the return of Christ and preach His coming. As to their present abode, the Fathers are inclined to the view that they are in Paradise, which is not necessarily Heaven, but more along the lines of the Paradise lost by Adam and Eve. Furthermore, only Mary has been assumed in her Glorified Body and Soul of the Resurrection; so even if Elijah and Enoch are in some level of Heaven–almost certainly not its highest level–they do not enjoy glorified bodies. In fact, if these are the two witnesses of the Apocalypse, they will be put to death, then raised back to life.
Father Echert

Answer by Fr. John Echert on 20-2-2008:
These two figures of the Old Testament which you note–Enoch and Elijah–are presented as not having died but having been taken from the face of the Earth. We should take this literally, as has been the tradition of interpretation. In the case of Elijah, we know that he will return and prepare for the Second Coming of the Lord, as did John the Baptist for the First Coming of the Lord. We speculate that Enoch may do the same, and these two may be the witnesses of Revelation 10, which tells of two witnesses who preach Christ, are put to death, and rise three days later. It would make sense that the two saints of the Old Testament who did not die would be candidates for these two preachers of the end times. We do not assume that Enoch and Elijah are in the full presence of God now, as are Mary and Jesus, but perhaps in a lower level of Heaven or Paradise, wherever that may be.
Father Echert

 

[Mailman]

This is totally incorrect since it says that no one can reference a fictional story as an example of anything. Jesus does not say anything about the story being a historical event, he merely refers to the story as an example. If I tell my child that they must love their enemies just like the good samaritan did, I am referring to a fictional parable told as a teaching tool by Jesus, I AM NOT saying that the story in the parable was a historical event.

Jesus did not reference the story of Jonah as an example of something. Jesus referenced the story of Jonah to PROVE something.

Jesus did not use the story of Jonah as a teaching tool when He referred to it, that is, He did not use it to illustrate a moral attitude or a religious principle. Rather, Jesus used the story of Jonah to cite an incident there that would similarly happen to Him – “For as Jonas was… so shall the Son of man be….” If Jonah’s story didn’t actually happen because it is just so incredible to be true, how could similar, more incredible events, prove to be true as well? A proof based on fiction would have to be fiction too!

It’s like this: How would you react if Jesus had appeared on earth today instead of some 2,000 years ago and starts telling people that the only proof He will show to the world that He is the promised Messiah is the sign of Santa Claus [now, that’s a fictional character] – that as Santa Claus had Rudolf the red-nosed reindeer to guide his sleigh, so shall the Son of man have the reddest, shiniest-nosed reindeer to guide His chariots? Do you think anybody would believe Him outside of little children?

Mailman: But why is it so hard to believe in the story of the prophet Jonah? One Catholic CAF member (grandfather) puts it this way: “What is more difficult to believe that a person was swallowed by a giant beast and vomited up alive, or a person was murdered and buried for three days and returned to life?”
patg: The church does not teach that this story must be dogmatically believed and if one analyzes the form of the story, one can clearly see many clues that it is totally fictional.

Many clues? In other words, you are not absolutely sure that it’s fictional, right? In short, you do not know the truth. But here’s what Jesus said some 2,000 years ago: “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into ALL TRUTH…” (John 16:13). Are you saying that “Spirit of truth” has not yet come?

Mailman: As for Noah and the ark, don’t Catholics swear by the story of Enoch and his “assumption” into heaven?
patg: No, I never met one who did.

Never? That’s strange, because I never met one who did not, except you, of course.

 

[patg]

Jesus did not reference the story of Jonah as an example of something. Jesus referenced the story of Jonah to PROVE something.

No, he just compared what he was going to do to the example of Jonah.

“For as Jonah remained in the belly of the sea-monster for three days and three nights, so will the Son of man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.”

Jesus did not use the story of Jonah as a teaching tool when He referred to it, that is, He did not use it to illustrate a moral attitude or a religious principle.

Yes, he just referred to it as an example without any historical reference.

Rather, Jesus used the story of Jonah to cite an incident there that would similarly happen to Him – “For as Jonas was… so shall the Son of man be….” If Jonah’s story didn’t actually happen because it is just so incredible to be true, how could similar, more incredible events, prove to be true as well?

Well, because Jesus is God I guess. And because we are required to believe in the more incredible events, not in the fictional story of Jonah.

A proof based on fiction would have to be fiction too!

There is no reason to believe it a “proof” of anything - I can say:

“For as the good samaritan helped his enemy, so will I help those who are my enemy.”

This “proves” nothing - I am just referring to an example.

The book of Jonah is a work of didactic fiction - a story which attempts to teach something using a fictional story from the author’s imagination. the author of Jonah wants to teach his audience exactly the same thing that Jesus taught his followers: “Love your enemies”. This is a teaching which, at the time this book was written, was bound to meet with intense opposition. Instead of using a debate to teach as the author of Job did, the author of Jonah chose didactic fiction. In this genre he could use humor, parody, and irony to teach his audience a lesson that was very difficult for them to accept: God loves other nations too, and so must we.

The three days in the fish is NOT the point of the story; it is actually not even a significant detail - it is just a small part of the plot.

It’s like this: How would you react if Jesus had appeared on earth today instead of some 2,000 years ago and starts telling people that the only proof He will show to the world that He is the promised Messiah is the sign of Santa Claus [now, that’s a fictional character] – that as Santa Claus had Rudolf the red-nosed reindeer to guide his sleigh, so shall the Son of man have the reddest, shiniest-nosed reindeer to guide His chariots? Do you think anybody would believe Him outside of little children?

No, and they shouldn’t. His actually rising from the dead is the proof of everything, not any referral to any ancient story.

Many clues? In other words, you are not absolutely sure that it’s fictional, right? In short, you do not know the truth. But here’s what Jesus said some 2,000 years ago: “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into ALL TRUTH…” (John 16:13). Are you saying that “Spirit of truth” has not yet come?

I never said it wasn’t the “truth”. I merely said that the literary form of the story is clearly that of a fictional account. The clues in the story tell us that. There are no clues or evidence that is is to be taken literally.

Never? That’s strange, because I never met one who did not, except you, of course.

Sounds like a poll is needed!

 

[aspirant]

A proof based on fiction would have to be fiction too!

Jesus doesn’t refer to the story of Jonah as “proof” of anything. He compares what will happen to him in the future with what happened to the prophet in the book of Jonah. It’s what happens to Jesus that will be a sign.

Jesus’ reference to Jonah does not tell us whether the book of Jonah is about historical events, either in whole or in part. If someone says “I’m planning to turn in the application, but the process will be like walking through Mordor,” it’s not a commentary on whether the Lord of the Rings is history.

It’s like this: How would you react if Jesus had appeared on earth today instead of some 2,000 years ago and starts telling people that the only proof He will show to the world that He is the promised Messiah is the sign of Santa Claus [now, that’s a fictional character] – that as Santa Claus had Rudolf the red-nosed reindeer to guide his sleigh, so shall the Son of man have the reddest, shiniest-nosed reindeer to guide His chariots?

If Jesus really does have a red and shiny-nosed reindeer to guide his chariots in this hypothetical scenario, it would be irrelevant to Jesus’ point whether the story of Rudolph was historical, fictional, or both. The real point is that we’re familiar with the reference, and when Jesus’ reindeer appears we will recognize it as he referred to it.

 

[aspirant]

There is no reason to believe it a “proof” of anything - I can say:

“For as the good samaritan helped his enemy, so will I help those who are my enemy.”

This “proves” nothing - I am just referring to an example.

Exactly. And reference to the example is not a commentary on whether the story to which you are referring is historical.

 

[Mailman]

No, he just compared what he was going to do to the example of Jonah.

“For as Jonah remained in the belly of the sea-monster for three days and three nights, so will the Son of man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.”

Couldn’t you just say, “Jesus compared what was going to happen to Him to what happened to Jonah”? You clearly want to retain the word “example” to be consistent with what you originally said. But as you can see you created an unintelligible statement, or at the very least, a poorly constructed one.

But why did Jesus make the comparison? Wasn’t this in response to a request from the Pharisees for a “sign from heaven”? And why did the Pharisees want to see a sign? Obviously, they wanted to see some sign because the sign would serve as PROOF that Jesus was really who He claimed to be – the promised Messiah.

Yes, he just referred to it as an example without any historical reference.

It was not referred to as an example. It was referred to because a similar event will happen and this will prove that He is the Messiah. If the event that was referred to did not actually happen, how could a similar future event turn out to be true?

Well, because Jesus is God I guess. And because we are required to believe in the more incredible events, not in the fictional story of Jonah.

Well now, you believe it can happen to Jesus because Jesus is God but it cannot happen to Jonah because Jonah is a mere man. Let me ask you this: Do you believe that you can be resurrected back to life after your death?

There is no reason to believe it a “proof” of anything - I can say:

“For as the good samaritan helped his enemy, so will I help those who are my enemy.”

This “proves” nothing - I am just referring to an example.

Do you deny that Jesus’ statement was made in response to the Pharisees’ request that Jesus give them a sign TO PROVE that He is the Messiah?

The book of Jonah is a work of didactic fiction - a story which attempts to teach something using a fictional story from the author’s imagination. the author of Jonah wants to teach his audience exactly the same thing that Jesus taught his followers: “Love your enemies”. This is a teaching which, at the time this book was written, was bound to meet with intense opposition. Instead of using a debate to teach as the author of Job did, the author of Jonah chose didactic fiction. In this genre he could use humor, parody, and irony to teach his audience a lesson that was very difficult for them to accept: God loves other nations too, and so must we.

God indeed have some unrestrained imagination. Lest you forget, God is the real of author of the book of Jonah.

Have you ever wondered why God, as powerful as He is, could not just make the story of Jonah happen so that Jesus, later on, would not have to refer to some fictional story?

The three days in the fish is NOT the point of the story; it is actually not even a significant detail - it is just a small part of the plot.

Really? Why then did Jesus point to it as His ONLY sign to prove to the world that He is the Messiah?

In your haste to dismiss this incredible story of Jonah as mere fiction, you missed the significance of this one statement of Jesus: “The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas [is] here” (Matt. 12:40).

If you still didn’t get the point, it’s this: If the story of Jonah is fiction, then there is no “men of Nineveh” that “shall rise in judgment with this generation” and Jesus had to be a liar and fraud.

No, and they shouldn’t. His actually rising from the dead is the proof of everything, not any referral to any ancient story.

But Jesus DID refer to this ancient story. Are you saying that He did not or He shouldn’t have? It was Jesus Himself who said His proof was the “sign of Jonah.” That “sign” according to Him was the fact that Jonah was in the fish’s belly 3 days and 3 nights. You can read it again and tell me that isn’t so.

I never said it wasn’t the “truth”. I merely said that the literary form of the story is clearly that of a fictional account. The clues in the story tell us that. There are no clues or evidence that is is to be taken literally.

Ok, then, are you ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the story of Jonah is fictional?

Sounds like a poll is needed!

Here’s one from a church (your church) authority.

“We know from the biblical texts and ancient tradition that Enoch and Elijah were preserved from death; the overwhelming view of the Church Fathers is that these two will return prior to the return of Christ and preach His coming. As to their present abode, the Fathers are inclined to the view that they are in Paradise…”

That’s from Abu’s post # 30. How could Enoch “return prior to the return of Christ” if he is only a fictional character? How could Enoch be in Paradise if he is not a real person?

Then, you have this more direct statement: “These two figures of the Old Testament which you note–Enoch and Elijah–are presented as not having died but having been taken from the face of the Earth. We should take this literally, as has been the tradition of interpretation.”

I can make a search of all the threads here about Enoch and Elijah and post the links if you want me to. Or, yes, why not start a poll?

 

[aspirant]

Couldn’t you just say, “Jesus compared what was going to happen to Him to what happened to Jonah”?

Yes. And it doesn’t make any difference, for the purpose of that comparison, whether Jonah is about historical events or not.

If the event that was referred to did not actually happen, how could a similar future event turn out to be true?

Easily. If someone kills his father now, someone could draw parallels between the factual patricide and the fictional patricide in The Brothers Karamazov. Such a comparison would not mean that neither event is historical.

Lest you forget, God is the real of author of the book of Jonah.

There’s more than one real author of Jonah, one divine and at least one human.

Have you ever wondered why God, as powerful as He is, could not just make the story of Jonah happen so that Jesus, later on, would not have to refer to some fictional story?

He could do that, and he could just as easily inspire a fictional story to which Jesus could refer. Neither reading is problematic to Jesus’ point.

The real point is that Jesus’ audience is familiar with what happens in the book of Jonah, regardless whether it’s historical, and when Jesus rises they will be able to recognize it as he referred to it.

If the story of Jonah is fiction, then there is no “men of Nineveh” that “shall rise in judgment with this generation”

This does not follow, because there are many forms of fiction. Some works of fiction incorporate historical elements.

Consider the Chronicles of Narnia. As I said before, I have no reason to believe that the Pevensie family ever existed in history. But the historical setting and framework of their story did occur in history. Many children from London and other cities were moved to the country during the war, like the Pevensie children, to protect them from bombing raids. If I were to say that the German bombers will someday have to answer for indiscriminate violence that caused families to be thus separated, I am not thereby claiming that the Pevensie children are historical figures.

The characters in Uncle Tom’s Cabin are also fictional, but the historical setting is very real, and we still live with its consequences. If I was talking about the cruelty of some of the slave owners in Stowe’s book, then said that slaves would someday rise up to judge their masters, it would not be a claim that Stowe’s particular characters are not fictional.

Similarly, Jonah could be a work of historical fiction. People of Nineveh may have repented sin at some point in history. Perhaps because of the preaching of a prophet named Jonah. It does not necessarily follow from this that every detail of the book is historical. There could be historical Ninevites who will rise to judge even if there was never a castor bean plant.

It was Jesus Himself who said His proof was the “sign of Jonah.” That “sign” according to Him was the fact that Jonah was in the fish’s belly 3 days and 3 nights.

No. It’s what happens to Jesus that will be a sign. He compares what will happen to him in the future with what happened to the prophet in the book of Jonah.

Here’s one from a church (your church) authority… That’s from Abu’s post # 30.

None of the posters here is, to our knowledge, a bishop. Posts here are not magisterial teaching.

 

[Mailman]

Mailman: If the story of Jonah is fiction, then there is no “men of Nineveh” that “shall rise in judgment with this generation”

aspirant: This does not follow, because there are many forms of fiction. Some works of fiction incorporate historical elements. …

Similarly, Jonah could be a work of historical fiction. People of Nineveh may have repented sin at some point in history. Perhaps because of the preaching of a prophet named Jonah. It does not necessarily follow from this that every detail of the book is historical. There could be historical Ninevites who will rise to judge even if there was never a castor bean plant.

Three questions:

1. These Ninevites whom Jesus said repented of sin, were these historical people?
2. Was there a real prophet named Jonah who preached to these Ninevites which caused them to repent of their sin?
3. Will there be Ninevites who will rise in judgment?

Since I doubt if I can get a straight yes or no answer on those three questions, let me also ask you this:

1. What stories in the Bible (Genesis to Revelation) are you absolutely certain are historical?

No. It’s what happens to Jesus that will be a sign. He compares what will happen to him in the future with what happened to the prophet in the book of Jonah.

Yes, it’s what happens to Jesus that will be a sign. Did I say it’s not? The sign of the Messiah is that He will be three days and three nights in the grave. The sign of Jonah is the same. Jonah was also in the grave (the fish’s belly) for three days and three nights.

Jesus said: “…there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas” (Matt. 12:39).

Now, what is the sign of Jonah? “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly…” (v. 40).

That is the sign of Jonah – the fact that he was three days and three nights in the fish’s belly.

Jesus compared His sign to the sign of Jonah. If the sign of Jonah is fiction, the sign of the Messiah is fiction as well.

None of the posters here is, to our knowledge, a bishop. Posts here are not magisterial teaching.

So, what is the magisterial teaching on Enoch? Do you know? Are all these I’m reading only your personal view?

 

[aspirant]

Three questions:

1. These Ninevites whom Jesus said repented of sin, were these historical people?
2. Was there a real prophet named Jonah who preached to these Ninevites which caused them to repent of their sin?
3. Will there be Ninevites who will rise in judgment?

If you’re asking for my own personal views:

1. There were historical Ninevites who repented sin.
2. There were perhaps more than one prophet named Jonah in history. I think that historical Ninevites probably were visited by one of them. And if the book of Jonah is a work of historical fiction, as many seem to think, points 1 & 2 would be its basis.
3. Yes.
   These are personal opinions; no one is required to interpret things as I do.

None of these points requires, of course, that all of the events in the book of Jonah are historical. Far from it. They may be, they may not be. There may have been a big fish and a castor bean plant in history, there may not.

And to focus on whether and to what extent the book of Jonah is historical is, sadly, to miss both the point of the book itself and one of the major reasons Jesus would want to mention it to these particular interlocutors.

1. What stories in the Bible (Genesis to Revelation) are you absolutely certain are historical?

Many of them contain or refer to historical elements, some do not. Some of them are intended to be historical by genre, many of them are not. The ancient conventions of historical writing were very different from the conventions with which we are now familiar in modern historical writing. I wouldn’t trust anyone who claimed he’d sorted all of this out personally, apart from Magisterial teaching, which is one of the reasons I think the Fundamentalist literalists are full of ****.

Yes, it’s what happens to Jesus that will be a sign.

Exactly. It’s Jesus’ burial and resurrection that are called the sign of Jonah. The book of Jonah is a common cultural reference point Jesus uses to explain how the sign will be recognized, but what happened to Jonah in the book of Jonah is not the sign. Jonah proves nothing to Jesus’ interlocutors; it is Jesus’ burial and resurrection that will be their sign.

Of course, Jesus does not merely allude to Jonah to compare his burial to Jonah’s stay in the fish. When Jesus says that the people of Nineveh will rise up to judge the Pharisees, he is also reminding them to keep the lesson of Jonah in mind. God intends to save the Gentiles too, whether the Pharisees like it or not.

The sign of the Messiah is that He will be three days and three nights in the grave.

And that’s an exaggeration, because Jesus was really in the grave for portions of three days and two nights.

The sign of Jonah is the same.

The “sign of Jonah” is a name Jesus gives to his own burial and resurrection on the basis of analogy to Jonah’s being in the belly of a fish for a similar amount of time.

Jesus compared His sign to the sign of Jonah.

No, Jesus called his own burial and resurrection the “sign of Jonah.” It’s a phrase based on common literary allusion, something his interlocutors will recognize.

If the sign of Jonah is fiction, the sign of the Messiah is fiction as well.

As has been shown many times already, this does not follow. Your reasoning is false.

 

[edwest2]

Did Jesus raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, multiply the loaves and fishes? It would be a mistake to give reason or science any credible commentary here. What would a scientist say about Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead? If a scientist was standing right next to Him, what would he tell his colleagues in the future? “But I saw this guy Jesus do it. He is the Son of God!”

“I saw His disciples handing out fish after fish and loaf after loaf and they were coming from thin air!”

“I saw the water turn into wine!”

And what do his colleagues in the future ask him? “Do you have any evidence that any of this happened?”

Right now, today, the Church is waiting for miracles to be attributed to Pope John Paul II. The Congregation for Saints’ Causes will launch an investigation. It will call in doctors and scientists and people from all relevant fields. The evidence will be challenged, and then after careful consideration, it will be presented to the Pope. It doesn’t matter if it’s many years later, and Pope John Paul II will be declared a saint.

I caution everyone to not ignore the power of God at work today.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Mailman]

If you’re asking for my own personal views:

1. There were historical Ninevites who repented sin.
2. There were perhaps more than one prophet named Jonah in history. I think that historical Ninevites probably were visited by one of them. And if the book of Jonah is a work of historical fiction, as many seem to think, points 1 & 2 would be its basis.
3. Yes.
   These are personal opinions; no one is required to interpret things as I do.

None of these points requires, of course, that all of the events in the book of Jonah are historical. Far from it. They may be, they may not be. There may have been a big fish and a castor bean plant in history, there may not.

So, you believe that the Ninevites were historical people and will someday rise in judgment. But do you know WHY those Ninevites will someday rise in judgment? There is only one reason given by Jesus, and it is this: “BECAUSE THEY REPENTED AT THE PREACHING OF JONAS.”

IF there was no prophet named Jonah who preached to those Ninevites, there would be no Ninevites who will someday rise in judgment. That’s what Jesus said and I hope you believe Him. THE prophet Jonah whom Jesus said preached to the Ninevites, then, cannot be anything but a historical personality. No perhapses, no probably’s, no could be’s, no maybe’s – the prophet Jonah WAS a historical person. And also notice, Jesus declared: “Behold, a greater than Jonas is here.” Could Jesus have alluded to a fictional Jonas? Impossible!

Jesus also confirmed that Jonas “WAS three days and three nights IN THE WHALE’S BELLY,” as the Scriptures recorded. Unless Jesus lied, you cannot say “there may have been a big fish.” There has to be!

And to focus on whether and to what extent the book of Jonah is historical is, sadly, to miss both the point of the book itself and one of the major reasons Jesus would want to mention it to these particular interlocutors.

Sadly, you have missed the whole point of Jonah’s story and Jesus’ reference to it as His only sign.

Many of them contain or refer to historical elements, some do not…

My question was: What stories in the Bible are you absolutely certain are historical?

In other words, can you name any story/stories in the Bible that in your view actually happened in the past.

Exactly. It’s Jesus’ burial and resurrection that are called the sign of Jonah. The book of Jonah is a common cultural reference point Jesus uses to explain how the sign will be recognized, but what happened to Jonah in the book of Jonah is not the sign. Jonah proves nothing to Jesus’ interlocutors; it is Jesus’ burial and resurrection that will be their sign.

The sign that Jesus said will prove that He is the promised Messiah is that, like the sign of the prophet Jonas, He will be EXACTLY “three days and three nights” in the rock-hewn sepulcher in “the heart of the earth.” Read His words again. It was not just Jesus’ burial and resurrection that will be the sign. It was the length of time He would repose in His grave, before being resurrected.

What happened to Jonah has EVERYTHING to do with what was to happen to Jesus. Notice the parallel: As Jonah was in the “grave” (hades, Jonah 2:2) three days and three nights, after which he was supernaturally resurrected by God by being vomited up, to become a savior to the people of Nineveh [upon proclaiming the warning to them], so was Jesus the same length of time in His grave, thereupon having being resurrected by God to become the Savior of the world. What a beautiful comparison! And this can only be fully appreciated IF Jonah’s story actually happened!

Mailman: The sign of the Messiah is that He will be three days and three nights in the grave.

aspirant: And that’s an exaggeration, because Jesus was really in the grave for portions of three days and two nights.

That’s what Satan wants you to believe, because if Jesus was really in the grave for only portions of three days and nights, He could not be the Messiah; Jesus failed in His only sign and He must be rejected as an impostor. It’s no different from how you treat Jonah’s story. Satan has caused you to scoff at Jonah’s story so people will begin to doubt Jesus’ burial and resurrection story as well – and eventually reject Him as a fraud.

Jesus does not call Satan the “father of lies” for nothing. Remember, the devil is “more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made” (Gen. 3:1). Never underestimate Satan’s powers of deception. Christ’s Revelation warns us that “…that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan,” he is the one who has “deceived the whole world…” (Rev. 12:9).

Did you notice what you just wrote? You said it is an exaggeration to say the sign of the Messiah is that He will be three days and three nights in the grave. But those words did not come from me. They came straight from Jesus’ mouth! So, you are effectively pointing to Jesus as the one being full of hyperbole. But I’m sure you did not mean to do that, and so humiliate Jesus. The devil made you do it!

The “sign of Jonah” is a name Jesus gives to his own burial and resurrection on the basis of analogy to Jonah’s being in the belly of a fish for a similar amount of time.

No, Jesus called his own burial and resurrection the “sign of Jonah.” It’s a phrase based on common literary allusion, something his interlocutors will recognize.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree on that.

Mailman:If the sign of Jonah is fiction, the sign of the Messiah is fiction as well.
aspirant: As has been shown many times already, this does not follow. Your reasoning is false.

Same here.