Is Judith a Parable?

[icamhif]

Why is that the default?

Given that thee are great difficulties attending the claim that the text is historically accurate, why not start from the other end? Why not hold off on claims of historicity unless there are clear reasons to make such claims?

Because no one would say that the whole book of Luke is a parable just because Luke said that Jesus was born near the time of Quirinius’s census (which doesn’t match Jewish historian Josephus’s dating of the census). I strongly believe that Scripture is inerrant in all facts (doctrine and history), even if historians may argue to the contrary.

 

[icamhif]

But would you consider Esther or the Song of Songs inspired if you were taking them similarly, on their own? It’s not fair to take the 66-book canon on trust and then take each other book separately. You do this only because of the authority of the Christian community that has delivered the faith to you.

You have a point. I will think about that.

 

[Contarini]

Because no one would say that the whole book of Luke is a parable just because Luke said that Jesus was born near the time of Quirinius’s census (which doesn’t match Jewish historian Josephus’s dating of the census). I strongly believe that Scripture is inerrant in all facts (doctrine and history), even if historians may argue to the contrary.

Well, I’m a historian. It makes things complicated

Catholic teaching on inerrancy is confusing to me. The phrase “everything asserted by the human authors is asserted by the Holy Spirit” is a hard one to swallow. I don’t have a problem accepting that all Scripture is inspired and is free from error in the sense affirmed by the Holy Spirit, but I have trouble identifying that sense at all points with the sense asserted by the human authors. And how do we determine that, anyway? Ironically, this approach puts the faith at the mercy of historians. If “what the human authors assert” is interpreted as “what the Church discerns that they assert” then it’s easier to accept–and I think that probably is a legitimate interpretation.

But the thing is that the vast majority of Catholic scholars (and I’m not talking about open dissenters here) don’t seem to bother about this. That’s what’s confusing. When I listen to folks on this forum and dwell on the phrase “whatever the human authors assert” it sounds as if I’m being asked to affirm what I would call the “Princeton” doctrine of inerrancy in a Protestant context, something I have refused to do (by not applying for jobs at evangelical schools that required such a subscription). But that doesn’t seem to describe how the doctrine of Scripture actually functions in Catholicism.

Edwin

 

[icamhif]

Well, I’m a historian. It makes things complicated

Catholic teaching on inerrancy is confusing to me. The phrase “everything asserted by the human authors is asserted by the Holy Spirit” is a hard one to swallow. I don’t have a problem accepting that all Scripture is inspired and is free from error in the sense affirmed by the Holy Spirit, but I have trouble identifying that sense at all points with the sense asserted by the human authors. And how do we determine that, anyway? Ironically, this approach puts the faith at the mercy of historians. If “what the human authors assert” is interpreted as “what the Church discerns that they assert” then it’s easier to accept–and I think that probably is a legitimate interpretation.

But the thing is that the vast majority of Catholic scholars (and I’m not talking about open dissenters here) don’t seem to bother about this. That’s what’s confusing. When I listen to folks on this forum and dwell on the phrase “whatever the human authors assert” it sounds as if I’m being asked to affirm what I would call the “Princeton” doctrine of inerrancy in a Protestant context, something I have refused to do (by not applying for jobs at evangelical schools that required such a subscription). But that doesn’t seem to describe how the doctrine of Scripture actually functions in Catholicism.

Edwin

Oh…I feel awkward now…my apologies if what I said offended you.
Thanks, you have given me a good insight of your perspective (and perhaps that of most Catholic historians).

 

[Contarini]

Oh…I feel awkward now…my apologies if what I said offended you.
Thanks, you have given me a good insight of your perspective (and perhaps that of most Catholic historians).

You didn’t offend me at all. Why on earth would I be offended?

Also, I am not as yet Catholic. That’s why this is an issue that bugs me a bit. Among Episcopalians, my view of Scripture is pretty conservative (in fact some Episcopalians would pretty much consider me a fundamentalist). Among evangelicals–at least among the students I used to teach, and the people who make hiring decisions at some evangelical institutions–my view is disturbingly liberal. Among Catholics, it seems that the majority of Catholic scholars and theologians (even pretty conservative ones like Fr. Robert Barron, or for that matter Pope Emeritus Benedict) have a view of Scripture that is pretty similar to mine (or much more liberal, in some cases). But then we have folks on this forum whose views are the same as those of the conservative evangelicals I know I don’t agree with, and there is that phrase “whatever is asserted by the human authors is asserted by the Holy Spirit” which sounds like what I’d call the “Princeton” view. My position has been that Scripture is inerrant in the sense intended by the Holy Spirit, but that this may not be the same as the sense intended by the human author. But I realized last night in the course of this discussion that I hadn’t taken seriously enough that phrase from Dei Verbum, which seems to endorse something like the “Princeton” view.

I suppose the bottom line, as I said in my earlier post, is that for Catholics the “assertions” of the human authors are themselves discerned with the aid of tradition and the Holy Spirit. The problem I have with the “Princeton” view is that it forces us to engage in speculative and sometimes very strained historical interpretations in order to persuade ourselves that what the original author intended is not in error.

Anyway, you certainly didn’t offend me. I’m just trying to work through whether the view I’ve come to is orthodox from a Catholic perspective, or not. I have no desire to contradict the Church, to which I hope to be united soon.

Edwin

 

[kingston1]

Seems that Judith is not to be taken literally from a historical perspective but that it is a story used to show how God works in our lives through us or an edifying work, e.g. midrash. My reference to my NAB was not the foot notes but the first section called “how to read your bible” but does not say specifically that Judith was midrash. The opening section of the chapter of Judith stated very simply as said before to paraphrase “don’t try to look at Judith from a literal historical perspective or you will be frustrated.” Therefore, the OP original question on whether this is a parable is on track although the use of the word “parable” is not completely accurate but the fact is we shouldn’t read it literally. A point I take great pride in knowing that Catholics are not bound by a literal historical reading of the bible in many cases. We can see through radio isotope measuring for example there are radio active materials with a half life that would show us evidence the universe is billions of years old, not a literal seven days. Much of the bible is edifying stories meant to teach us the overall plan for salvation through first the example of the Jews and then the fulfillment through Jesus, not a history book, not a science book but a revelation of what is important to know about God’s salvation for us. Yes/No?

 

[JamesTheJust]

Seems that Judith is not to be taken literally from a historical perspective but that it is a story used to show how God works in our lives through us or an edifying work, e.g. midrash. My reference to my NAB was not the foot notes but the first section called “how to read your bible” but does not say specifically that Judith was midrash. The opening section of the chapter of Judith stated very simply as said before to paraphrase “don’t try to look at Judith from a literal historical perspective or you will be frustrated.” Therefore, the OP original question on whether this is a parable is on track although the use of the word “parable” is not completely accurate but the fact is we shouldn’t read it literally. A point I take great pride in knowing that Catholics are not bound by a literal historical reading of the bible in many cases. We can see through radio isotope measuring for example there are radio active materials with a half life that would show us evidence the universe is billions of years old, not a literal seven days. Much of the bible is edifying stories meant to teach us the overall plan for salvation through first the example of the Jews and then the fulfillment through Jesus, not a history book, not a science book but a revelation of what is important to know about God’s salvation for us. Yes/No?

As others have pointed out, it is not just the NAB that asserts the non-historicity of Judith. However, I would advise you, if you are going to use the NAB as your main Bible, to avoid reading all of the texts that’s not part of the biblical translation.

 

[The_Serpent]

There is historical evidence for Nebuchadnezzar ruling over Syria. In Book 10 chapter 6 of “The Antiquities of the Jews” by Josephus he states that; Nebuchadnezzar fought with King Neco of Egypt for control of Syria. Neco lost and the Babylonian ruler claimed Syria as far as Pelusium. He also was taking tribute from Israel!

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Also, I am not as yet Catholic. That’s why this is an issue that bugs me a bit. Among Episcopalians, my view of Scripture is pretty conservative (in fact some Episcopalians would pretty much consider me a fundamentalist). Among evangelicals–at least among the students I used to teach, and the people who make hiring decisions at some evangelical institutions–my view is disturbingly liberal. Among Catholics, it seems that the majority of Catholic scholars and theologians (even pretty conservative ones like Fr. Robert Barron, or for that matter Pope Emeritus Benedict) have a view of Scripture that is pretty similar to mine (or much more liberal, in some cases). But then we have folks on this forum whose views are the same as those of the conservative evangelicals I know I don’t agree with, and there is that phrase “whatever is asserted by the human authors is asserted by the Holy Spirit” which sounds like what I’d call the “Princeton” view. My position has been that Scripture is inerrant in the sense intended by the Holy Spirit, but that this may not be the same as the sense intended by the human author. But I realized last night in the course of this discussion that I hadn’t taken seriously enough that phrase from Dei Verbum, which seems to endorse something like the “Princeton” view.

I suppose the bottom line, as I said in my earlier post, is that for Catholics the “assertions” of the human authors are themselves discerned with the aid of tradition and the Holy Spirit. The problem I have with the “Princeton” view is that it forces us to engage in speculative and sometimes very strained historical interpretations in order to persuade ourselves that what the original author intended is not in error.

Have you read Leo XIII’s encyclical Providentissimus Deus? It sheds further light on the sense in which Dei Verbum is to be interpreted.

1. The principles here laid down will apply cognate sciences, and especially to History. It is a lamentable fact that there are many who with great labour carry out and publish investigations on the monuments of antiquity, the manners and institutions of nations and other illustrative subjects, and whose chief purpose in all this is too often to find mistakes in the sacred writings and so to shake and weaken their authority. Some of these writers display not only extreme hostility, but the greatest unfairness; in their eyes a profane book or ancient document is accepted without hesitation, whilst the Scripture, if they only find in it a suspicion of error, is set down with the slightest possible discussion as quite untrustworthy. It is true, no doubt, that copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible; this question, when it arises, should be carefully considered on its merits, and the fact not too easily admitted, but only in those passages where the proof is clear. It may also happen that the sense of a passage remains ambiguous, and in this case good hermeneutical methods will greatly assist in clearing up the obscurity. But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. These are the words of the last: “The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author.”(57) Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write-He was so present to them-that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture. Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers. “Therefore,” says St. Augustine, “since they wrote the things which He showed and uttered to them, it cannot be pretended that He is not the writer; for His members executed what their Head dictated.”(58) And St. Gregory the Great thus pronounces: "Most superfluous it is to inquire who wrote these things-we loyally believe the Holy Ghost to be the Author of the book. He wrote it Who dictated it for writing; He wrote it Who inspired its execution. "(59)

 

[Contarini]

There is historical evidence for Nebuchadnezzar ruling over Syria. In Book 10 chapter 6 of “The Antiquities of the Jews” by Josephus he states that; Nebuchadnezzar fought with King Neco of Egypt for control of Syria. Neco lost and the Babylonian ruler claimed Syria as far as Pelusium. He also was taking tribute from Israel!

Judith talks about Assyria, not Syria. It seems pretty clear that the book was written by someone far removed from the time of both empires, for whom the distinction was no longer important.

While we’re on the subject, we also have Daniel’s claim that Darius the Mede was the conqueror of Babylon, which seems pretty clearly a confusion with a later Persian ruler. Conservative scholars argue that the Darius mentioned by Daniel may be some other figure by the same name, who was serving under Cyrus. Maybe, but it’s not very plausible by any normal historical method. And that’s the problem I have with inerrancy. It requires these endless scrambles and suppositions and desperate moves. It goes against a historian’s instincts at every turn.

Yes, I’m aware of PD. I am not sure that it is infallible, though. The claim that we shouldn’t consider the purpose for which God inspired Scripture in deciding what inerrancy means is pretty hard to swallow.

Edwin

 

[The_Serpent]

Judith talks about Assyria, not Syria. It seems pretty clear that the book was written by someone far removed from the time of both empires, for whom the distinction was no longer important.

While we’re on the subject, we also have Daniel’s claim that Darius the Mede was the conqueror of Babylon, which seems pretty clearly a confusion with a later Persian ruler. Conservative scholars argue that the Darius mentioned by Daniel may be some other figure by the same name, who was serving under Cyrus. Maybe, but it’s not very plausible by any normal historical method. And that’s the problem I have with inerrancy. It requires these endless scrambles and suppositions and desperate moves. It goes against a historian’s instincts at every turn.

Yes, I’m aware of PD. I am not sure that it is infallible, though. The claim that we shouldn’t consider the purpose for which God inspired Scripture in deciding what inerrancy means is pretty hard to swallow.

Edwin

In regards to Darius, Josephus has him as well! In Antiquities 10.11.4 {248} he says Darius, son of Astyages; was a kinsman to Cyrus. And was the one that took Babylon, and carried of Daniel to Media.

 

[kingston1]

As others have pointed out, it is not just the NAB that asserts the non-historicity of Judith. However, I would advise you, if you are going to use the NAB as your main Bible, to avoid reading all of the texts that’s not part of the biblical translation.

LOL. thx

 

[Contarini]

In regards to Darius, Josephus has him as well! In Antiquities 10.11.4 {248} he says Darius, son of Astyages; was a kinsman to Cyrus. And was the one that took Babylon, and carried of Daniel to Media.

That’s probably not an independent testimony, though. Obviously Josephus had read Daniel. But it’s a good point anyway–thanks!

Edwin