"Factual" = "True"?

[patrick457]

This is a question I’ve been meaning to ask for awhile now.

The Japanese Catholic writer Shusaku Endo closed his retelling of/reflections on the Jesus story, entitled simply A Life of Jesus (イエスの生涯), with the words (Richard J. Schuhert’s translation):

Many readers, on reaching the end of this book, will feel disturbed about why I have omitted (albeit reluctantly) many Gospel scenes and passages familiar to everyone. For example, I did not mention the nativity of Jesus in Bethlehem, nor did I discourse on the date of his birth.
Whether or not it was in Bethlehem that Jesus was born is dubious. First of all, the oldest of the Gospels, that of Mark, says nothing about it, and Matthew and Luke alone relate the story. Many scholars think that the Bethlehem nativity stories in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are compositions based on words from the Old Testament book of Micah:

But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah,
who are too little to be among the clans of Judah,

From you shall come forth for me
one who is to be ruler in Israel.

In the opinion of certain scholars, Bethlehem in the minds of the evangelists was the promised birthplace of the Messiah, and so they wrote of Jesus that he was born there.
All the same, and I have said it again and again, my own position remains what I have already set forth in drawing a distinction between a fact and a truth in the Bible. In this case too, the Bethlehem nativity might not be a fact, but for me it is the truth. Why is it true? Because in the long course of human history there have been innumerable human hearts that have ached with need for the little town of Bethlehem. Because in their hearts Bethlehem has continued to be revered as the purest and the most innocent place on God’s earth. Because on Christmas night untold numbers of children have thought about Bethlehem, and the memory remains somewhere in their hearts for the rest of their lives. As all mankind has craved for the reality of Bethlehem, so also did tge authors of the New Testament crave it. The birth of Jesus in Bethlehem may not have been a fact for them, but it was truth for their souls. As for us, when we read the New Testament we cannot bring ourselves to deny what many present-day commentators have denied–that what night not be an historical fact can still be truth for our souls. The important point about my own position is that, even if I failed to include the story of Bethlehem in this book, I do recognize the truth of Bethlehem; it is an integral part of that true world in which the souls of human beings have craved.​

Now I don’t really agree with all that Endo opines here, but he does for me bring up a really interesting question: is ‘fact’ automatically equivalent with ‘truth’? Does truth have to be ‘factual’ in order to be true? Could ‘fact’ and ‘truth’ ever conflict with one another? Can we say that something is not ‘factual’ yet is, in some way, ‘true’? And (especially) how will this influence our reading of biblical stories?

 

[TypesAndShadows]

Surely we can all agree that things can be True, contain Truth, and yet not be factual? The classic example is parables.

When Jesus tells the parable of the unscrupulous judge in Luke 18, is his account factual? Was there really “a judge in a certain town” who said to himself “Maybe I have neither fear of God nor respect for man, but since she keeps pestering me I must give this widow her rights, or she will persist in coming and worry me to death.”? It is, of course, possible that Jesus in fact knew of such a convenient judge, but the truth of the parable does not depend on whether it is factual. Nor does the truth of the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, which follows it, depend on whether it is factual.

Nor does the truth of the admonition to tend to the log in your own eye (Matthew 7) depend on whether it is physically possible to fit a log in your eye. That one isn’t even a parable, and yet we can clearly see that Jesus speaks Truth without being factual.

 

[andremiguel]

This is a question I’ve been meaning to ask for awhile now.

The Japanese Catholic writer Shusaku Endo closed his retelling of/reflections on the Jesus story, entitled simply A Life of Jesus (イエスの生涯), with the words (Richard J. Schuhert’s translation):

Many readers, on reaching the end of this book, will feel disturbed about why I have omitted (albeit reluctantly) many Gospel scenes and passages familiar to everyone. For example, I did not mention the nativity of Jesus in Bethlehem, nor did I discourse on the date of his birth.
Whether or not it was in Bethlehem that Jesus was born is dubious. First of all, the oldest of the Gospels, that of Mark, says nothing about it, and Matthew and Luke alone relate the story. Many scholars think that the Bethlehem nativity stories in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are compositions based on words from the Old Testament book of Micah:

But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah,
who are too little to be among the clans of Judah,

From you shall come forth for me
one who is to be ruler in Israel.

In the opinion of certain scholars, Bethlehem in the minds of the evangelists was the promised birthplace of the Messiah, and so they wrote of Jesus that he was born there.
All the same, and I have said it again and again, my own position remains what I have already set forth in drawing a distinction between a fact and a truth in the Bible. In this case too, the Bethlehem nativity might not be a fact, but for me it is the truth. Why is it true? Because in the long course of human history there have been innumerable human hearts that have ached with need for the little town of Bethlehem. Because in their hearts Bethlehem has continued to be revered as the purest and the most innocent place on God’s earth. Because on Christmas night untold numbers of children have thought about Bethlehem, and the memory remains somewhere in their hearts for the rest of their lives. As all mankind has craved for the reality of Bethlehem, so also did tge authors of the New Testament crave it. The birth of Jesus in Bethlehem may not have been a fact for them, but it was truth for their souls. As for us, when we read the New Testament we cannot bring ourselves to deny what many present-day commentators have denied–that what night not be an historical fact can still be truth for our souls. The important point about my own position is that, even if I failed to include the story of Bethlehem in this book, I do recognize the truth of Bethlehem; it is an integral part of that true world in which the souls of human beings have craved.​

Now I don’t really agree with all that Endo opines here, but he does for me bring up a really interesting question: is ‘fact’ automatically equivalent with ‘truth’? Does truth have to be ‘factual’ in order to be true? Could ‘fact’ and ‘truth’ ever conflict with one another? Can we say that something is not ‘factual’ yet is, in some way, ‘true’? And (especially) how will this influence our reading of biblical stories?

Plenty of facts that are not true: the sun going round the Earth, mirages, the movement of planets that sometimes go front and then back, millions of it.

Others tales are not fact but are true. Do we care whether the Good Samaritan existed, or the leper and the rich or all the parables of Jesus. What is the need to know that they existed ? Of course they did not exist but they are teachings more real than real things.

On ordinary terms: do you know that something that does not exist, Mickey Mouse, gives more jobs in the USA than General Motors? Now, Mickey Mouse is real or not real, a fact or not a fact? The Disney jobs are facts, real, feed people and families !!!

Sendo is falling into a raw mousetrap. The discussion of what is a “fact” is much more complex than his primitive thought shows. Even for non-religious data.

That wall is red, right? How come if “red” does not exist, it is not a fact?

 

[meltzerboy]

This is a question I’ve been meaning to ask for awhile now.

The Japanese Catholic writer Shusaku Endo closed his retelling of/reflections on the Jesus story, entitled simply A Life of Jesus (イエスの生涯), with the words (Richard J. Schuhert’s translation):

Many readers, on reaching the end of this book, will feel disturbed about why I have omitted (albeit reluctantly) many Gospel scenes and passages familiar to everyone. For example, I did not mention the nativity of Jesus in Bethlehem, nor did I discourse on the date of his birth.
Whether or not it was in Bethlehem that Jesus was born is dubious. First of all, the oldest of the Gospels, that of Mark, says nothing about it, and Matthew and Luke alone relate the story. Many scholars think that the Bethlehem nativity stories in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are compositions based on words from the Old Testament book of Micah:

But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah,
who are too little to be among the clans of Judah,

From you shall come forth for me
one who is to be ruler in Israel.

In the opinion of certain scholars, Bethlehem in the minds of the evangelists was the promised birthplace of the Messiah, and so they wrote of Jesus that he was born there.
All the same, and I have said it again and again, my own position remains what I have already set forth in drawing a distinction between a fact and a truth in the Bible. In this case too, the Bethlehem nativity might not be a fact, but for me it is the truth. Why is it true? Because in the long course of human history there have been innumerable human hearts that have ached with need for the little town of Bethlehem. Because in their hearts Bethlehem has continued to be revered as the purest and the most innocent place on God’s earth. Because on Christmas night untold numbers of children have thought about Bethlehem, and the memory remains somewhere in their hearts for the rest of their lives. As all mankind has craved for the reality of Bethlehem, so also did tge authors of the New Testament crave it. The birth of Jesus in Bethlehem may not have been a fact for them, but it was truth for their souls. As for us, when we read the New Testament we cannot bring ourselves to deny what many present-day commentators have denied–that what night not be an historical fact can still be truth for our souls. The important point about my own position is that, even if I failed to include the story of Bethlehem in this book, I do recognize the truth of Bethlehem; it is an integral part of that true world in which the souls of human beings have craved.​

Now I don’t really agree with all that Endo opines here, but he does for me bring up a really interesting question: is ‘fact’ automatically equivalent with ‘truth’? Does truth have to be ‘factual’ in order to be true? Could ‘fact’ and ‘truth’ ever conflict with one another? Can we say that something is not ‘factual’ yet is, in some way, ‘true’? And (especially) how will this influence our reading of biblical stories?

I believe that many of the Bible’s teachings, based on allegory, metaphor, parable, poetry, and so on, may not be literal fact, but still contain within them the essence of truth. I would even go so far as to say that if truth were based only on fact, it would diminish its essence.

BTW, Patrick, I’m glad to see you’ve decided to remain on CAF. And that’s the truth!

 

[patrick457]

Thanks for the comments. Actually, what I’m trying to ask (this is an honest question, BTW) is something like:

Is it necessary for biblical accounts to be ‘factual’ in order for them to be ‘true’ or contain ‘truth’? I’ll bring up two examples here: Genesis and the gospels, with a focus on the latter.

For example, many of us are of the opinion that the events recorded in the gospels are ‘factual’, with the automatic assumption that because they are ‘factual’ they are ‘true’ (note the distinction). As we know, there are some folks out there who attack the ‘factuality’ of the gospels, intending to attack their ‘truthfulness’. This is the question: in this case, is fact equals truth? I could imagine some folks saying (like Endo), “Oh, Jesus being born in Bethlehem isn’t really factual, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t true,” or, “Genesis isn’t literal fact, but it is the truth.” Just how correct would they be? I’m guessing there is a distinction between both statements, correct?

I’d like to hear everyone’s opinion in this regard. Thanks in advance.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Thanks for the comments. Actually, what I’m trying to ask (this is an honest question, BTW) is something like:

Is it necessary for biblical accounts to be ‘factual’ in order for them to be ‘true’ or contain ‘truth’? I’ll bring up two examples here: Genesis and the gospels, with a focus on the latter.

For example, many of us are of the opinion that the events recorded in the gospels are ‘factual’, with the automatic assumption that because they are ‘factual’ they are ‘true’ (note the distinction). As we know, there are some folks out there who attack the ‘factuality’ of the gospels, intending to attack their ‘truthfulness’. This is the question: in this case, is fact equals truth? I could imagine some folks saying (like Endo), “Oh, Jesus being born in Bethlehem isn’t really factual, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t true,” or, “Genesis isn’t literal fact, but it is the truth.” Just how correct would they be? I’m guessing there is a distinction between both statements, correct?

I’d like to hear everyone’s opinion in this regard. Thanks in advance.

From a legal and investigative standpoint:

A fact can be true and false. LOL so much for ambiguity.

The fact is )) that a lie when proven to be a lie becomes a fact.

A fact is something that has been determined to be an actual overt act and/or matter that has been corroborated. Therefore, it becomes a fact.

With all the CSI, NCIS, etc etc… investigative, evidence recovery shows and stories fact has been identified with truth.

A truth that has not been proven for all legal and investigative means is not a fact. However, where there is a “silence” and/or absence of the contrary (How can you prove a negative - comes to mind), you can look at the totality of circumstances and make an intelligent conclusion. That however is still not a fact.

Outside the realms of Science and Laws it is too hard for our secular infused minds to grasp as fact what our Faith knows to be true.

After all, Faith is

[bibledrb]Hebrews 11:1[/bibledrb]



Peace,

Jose

 

[clmowry]

Are you perhaps asking about “Factual” when you mean “Literal”? (Maybe that’s a distinction without a difference?)

If is “factual” that God created all that is seen and unseen. The biblical account of creation is not, however, necessarily to be taken as a “literal” discription of how this was accomplished.

Chuck

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Thanks for the comments. Actually, what I’m trying to ask (this is an honest question, BTW) is something like:

Is it necessary for biblical accounts to be ‘factual’ in order for them to be ‘true’ or contain ‘truth’? I’ll bring up two examples here: Genesis and the gospels, with a focus on the latter.

For example, many of us are of the opinion that the events recorded in the gospels are ‘factual’, with the automatic assumption that because they are ‘factual’ they are ‘true’ (note the distinction). As we know, there are some folks out there who attack the ‘factuality’ of the gospels, intending to attack their ‘truthfulness’. This is the question: in this case, is fact equals truth? I could imagine some folks saying (like Endo), “Oh, Jesus being born in Bethlehem isn’t really factual, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t true,” or, “Genesis isn’t literal fact, but it is the truth.” Just how correct would they be? I’m guessing there is a distinction between both statements, correct?

I’d like to hear everyone’s opinion in this regard. Thanks in advance.

I think since the Enlightenment, truth has come to be equated with that which is verifiable in a scientific or historical sense (sort of applying a “Wittgensteinian” test to your question). Much–maybe all–religious truth lies outside of what is verifiable using the methods of the way we understand science or history today.

 

[HisIsTheCrown]

This is a question I’ve been meaning to ask for awhile now.

The Japanese Catholic writer Shusaku Endo closed his retelling of/reflections on the Jesus story, entitled simply A Life of Jesus (イエスの生涯), with the words (Richard J. Schuhert’s translation):

Many readers, on reaching the end of this book, will feel disturbed about why I have omitted (albeit reluctantly) many Gospel scenes and passages familiar to everyone. For example, I did not mention the nativity of Jesus in Bethlehem, nor did I discourse on the date of his birth.
Whether or not it was in Bethlehem that Jesus was born is dubious. First of all, the oldest of the Gospels, that of Mark, says nothing about it, and Matthew and Luke alone relate the story. Many scholars think that the Bethlehem nativity stories in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are compositions based on words from the Old Testament book of Micah:

But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah,
who are too little to be among the clans of Judah,

From you shall come forth for me
one who is to be ruler in Israel.

In the opinion of certain scholars, Bethlehem in the minds of the evangelists was the promised birthplace of the Messiah, and so they wrote of Jesus that he was born there.
All the same, and I have said it again and again, my own position remains what I have already set forth in drawing a distinction between a fact and a truth in the Bible. In this case too, the Bethlehem nativity might not be a fact, but for me it is the truth. Why is it true? Because in the long course of human history there have been innumerable human hearts that have ached with need for the little town of Bethlehem. Because in their hearts Bethlehem has continued to be revered as the purest and the most innocent place on God’s earth. Because on Christmas night untold numbers of children have thought about Bethlehem, and the memory remains somewhere in their hearts for the rest of their lives. As all mankind has craved for the reality of Bethlehem, so also did tge authors of the New Testament crave it. The birth of Jesus in Bethlehem may not have been a fact for them, but it was truth for their souls. As for us, when we read the New Testament we cannot bring ourselves to deny what many present-day commentators have denied–that what night not be an historical fact can still be truth for our souls. The important point about my own position is that, even if I failed to include the story of Bethlehem in this book, I do recognize the truth of Bethlehem; it is an integral part of that true world in which the souls of human beings have craved.​

Now I don’t really agree with all that Endo opines here, but he does for me bring up a really interesting question: is ‘fact’ automatically equivalent with ‘truth’? Does truth have to be ‘factual’ in order to be true? Could ‘fact’ and ‘truth’ ever conflict with one another? Can we say that something is not ‘factual’ yet is, in some way, ‘true’? And (especially) how will this influence our reading of biblical stories?

I think that Endo is being very Japanese, very nice in the interpretation of truth regarding Bethleem. He says that it is true because it live in the heart of men.
True? NO. Wrong.
The truth of the Bible and of the Gospels if of a different level and nature. It is the truth of Faith, not the sentimentality of Christmas.
The Gospel writers were trying to convey a message and not necessarily the message has got to be accurate historically not does it matter.
Th Prodigal Son is a fact? The question is silly on the point of view of Faith. It does not matter at all whether the Prodigal Son existed or not. The point is the message that Christ was conveying.
Now, may we say that everything in the Gospel is not fact really happening historically. No, there must be Christ born, Christ died, Christ resurrected from the dead, Christ creating the Eucharist, Christ making miracles. If these were not historically facts, our Faith would be empty. Of course, many historians contest these facts, the truth about these facts.It is their business. We Christians believe in those and History has proven that our Faith is not in vain. 2 billion people believin on a Carpenter who proclaimed himself Son of God, who died and ressurrected cannot go untrue.