S
suupah
Guest
Was old testament scripture taken literally by the early christians or did they view them the same way as we do today?
- Status
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I have no idea really, but I would assume that they did. They inhabited a different world than we do, Magic and other supernatural events made more sense to them than to us I think. When you don’t know much if anything about science, or the or the world outside your environs, I think you likely assign such “unknowables” to God or supernatural explanations.
Epilepsy was long thought to be a “divine” illness for instance. If you remember as I do reading as a kid about people going to these far outreach areas of the world and finding natives who had never seen anyone outside their tribes, some “humorous” things occurred. Taking pictures was “stealing the soul” to them, and they were deathly afraid of cameras.
As the Church teaches, knowledge and understanding build on the knowledge of the past. That is what dogma is really about. The Church continuously gains a deeper and fuller understanding of Scripture as She seeks God’s continuing revelation.
P
Pax
Guest
There are two basic senses of Scripture and they are the literal and the spiritual. Scripture can also be read in the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. You can look up what all this means in the Catechism and this will give you a good start in answering your question.
That having been said, I would point out that scripture was first and foremost looked at in the literal sense by those living at the time of Jesus and before. Likewise, we also look at the literal meaning first. That is to say, we first look to see what it is that the sacred author meant and intended by what was written. A “literalist” view differs from this because it attempts to take every single iota of scripture exactly as the words are written without much consideration for the intent, idioms, and poetic aspects of the inspired texts.
The apocalyptic writings of the OT clearly give an example of where the prophets used, almost exclusively, symbolic language to describe real events. The important thing is to be able to read and understand scripture in the genre in which it is written. Likewise, language translations often lose some of the depth and breadth of the originals. Studying scripture is a wonderful thing. It reveals much about the intended message while avoiding the pitfals of a literalist view. The literalist view is different from the literal meaning and neither we or our forefathers in faith would read the scriptures in a literalist sense, but would instead look for its literal meaning and then the spiritual senses of scripture that flow from the inspired words.
I hope this helps.
That having been said, I would point out that scripture was first and foremost looked at in the literal sense by those living at the time of Jesus and before. Likewise, we also look at the literal meaning first. That is to say, we first look to see what it is that the sacred author meant and intended by what was written. A “literalist” view differs from this because it attempts to take every single iota of scripture exactly as the words are written without much consideration for the intent, idioms, and poetic aspects of the inspired texts.
The apocalyptic writings of the OT clearly give an example of where the prophets used, almost exclusively, symbolic language to describe real events. The important thing is to be able to read and understand scripture in the genre in which it is written. Likewise, language translations often lose some of the depth and breadth of the originals. Studying scripture is a wonderful thing. It reveals much about the intended message while avoiding the pitfals of a literalist view. The literalist view is different from the literal meaning and neither we or our forefathers in faith would read the scriptures in a literalist sense, but would instead look for its literal meaning and then the spiritual senses of scripture that flow from the inspired words.
I hope this helps.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
That is not one question, but two (at least) 
- No - they did not see the Bible in quite the same way as any of us. Like everything else in human life, the interpretation of the Bible has a history, & a very varied one.
- Did they take it literally ? It depends what you mean by “literally”. Taking the Bible “literally” is an unfortunate choice of words, as it treats different types of meaning as though they were one.
Further “evidence” that the Lord is a lion:
- Aslan is a lion; Aslan is a representation of the Lord; therefore…
- Rev. 5
Is He a lion ? No. The word “lion” in English, like the Hebrew & Greek words, does refer to a feline carnivore with those characteristics. Although the word refers to that animal, the use of the word does not; words can be used in an extended sense - not in their proper sense alone. They can also be used in their proper sense, but in a figurative manner.
The prophet is using the figure called metaphor, or “transference” - this metaphor “transfers” qualities from an earthly lion to the God of Israel to describe Him in a more vivid manner; as lions would have been familiar to the prophet’s hearers, while God was not, since He is not an earthly being.
God is said to be “enthroned”, not because He occupies space in a chair, but because earthly kings have thrones, & He is God Most High, to Whom all things are subject. Kings have subjects - so He is described as King - so He is said to have a throne. The metaphor is used in order to convey His greatness & glory - not to limit Him. The “dictionary sense” of the word “enthroned” is the same in passages about God as about any earthly king,in the Bible or not - what differs, is the significatio: that is, the meaning to which the use of the word in its “dictionary sense” is pointing. The “dictionary sense” of the word is present for the sake of a meaning beyond itself - & that meaning is the significatio. The thing signified, is the proper meaning of the word - & there can be no understanding of Scripture, unless the proper sense of a text is found out. (This is one reason why philosophy is absolutely essential to theology).
Christians today all too often seem to have far less awareness of the literary features of the Bible than the Fathers, who were usually well-read enough to be aware of the different ways in which words function. The Scholastic theologians devoted a good deal of attention to linguistic analysis.
Hope that helps
S
Steve40
Guest
The literal sense of Sacred Scripture is the first sense. Pope Leo XIII quoting St. Augustine said to hold to the literal and obvious meaning of Sacred Scripture unless by necessity you must depart from it.
So the answer is yes they did then and they still do now both in Heaven and on earth.
S
suupah
Guest
So let me ask this…
In the days of the apostles when the creation account was read, was it taken literally as a seven day account or did they understand it in another way such as the one we as Catholics do today?
In the days of the apostles when the creation account was read, was it taken literally as a seven day account or did they understand it in another way such as the one we as Catholics do today?
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Please define what you mean by literal? As some one nicely put it…Its raining cats and dogs…does that mean its raining, or that cats and dogs are falling from the sky. So are you literal meaning literal meaning as in raining, or literalism inj that the words mean what they say…so cats and dogs are falling?
People spend their entire working lives studying these things and you by steve40 fiat declare the answer…lol…too funny.
You really think they are reading scripture in heaven? I’d of thought they might know what it means there.
What way to Catholics understand it? Most Catholics agree that its an allegorical story not meant as a scientific explanation of how the universe and earth were created. Some here have accepted the Protestant fundamentalist view that the story is inerrent and actually true exactly as portrayed.
As several has stated here, its highly unlikely the earliest church would have had any basis for not taking the stories at face value. They have no idea about physics, biochemistry, astronomy in anything but the most primative sense, etc.
A
Athanasiy
Guest
I think that the early church is the embryo of christianity.
The early church was not acomplished in its understanding.
F
Fidelis
Guest
Reading the New Testament and most of the Early Church Fathers, whenever they refer to people, places and events in the Old Testament, they often simply speak of them as happening in a literal sense. An example of this is when Jesus started out a teaching with “And just as Jonah was in the belly of a fish for three days…” He doesn’t modify, qualify, or downplay it, he just states it simply as part of the larger lesson he is teaching.
As a result, the early Church usually did not apply all the modern analytical baggage to their reading of Scripture that we do when we start asking “Well, what is the acheological and outside documentary evidence for this event?” or “How does this miracle or event square up with science?” These kind of things are, of course, helpful to us in their own way, but it was not of primary importance to them like is is to a lot of us. They seemed to be mostly interested in taking the passage or story as it was presented and deriving a message from it which they and their listeners could benefit spiritually. Arguably, this is a spiritually healthy and maturely Christian way to read Scripture.
A good rule of history is not to apply our Post-Enlightenment modern standards to ancient people. What is important to us (to the point of obssession sometimes) was not necessarily important to them.
As a result, the early Church usually did not apply all the modern analytical baggage to their reading of Scripture that we do when we start asking “Well, what is the acheological and outside documentary evidence for this event?” or “How does this miracle or event square up with science?” These kind of things are, of course, helpful to us in their own way, but it was not of primary importance to them like is is to a lot of us. They seemed to be mostly interested in taking the passage or story as it was presented and deriving a message from it which they and their listeners could benefit spiritually. Arguably, this is a spiritually healthy and maturely Christian way to read Scripture.
A good rule of history is not to apply our Post-Enlightenment modern standards to ancient people. What is important to us (to the point of obssession sometimes) was not necessarily important to them.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
You might wanna have a look at this.
Literal Interpretation
Literal Interpretation
D
drafdog
Guest
Being closer to the sources of scripture and being products of the same culture as that which produced the scriptures, they probably had a much better understanding of scripture than we have today. Bear in mind that these writings are the product of a nation of poets and story tellers. They were not historians as we understand that word, nor were they scientists. The understanding of the stories as having a lesson is far more important than exact historical accuracy. Remember that Jesus told parables which a short fictional tales which are told to illustrate a moral or a lesson. All talk of God is of necessity allegorical since language itself is allegorical and never exact as we modern people might like it to be.
Scripture, limited as it is by the medium, is allegorical and not “literal” and was understood by the early Christians be be just that. The fact that the stories are based on historical events does not change their basic form.
Matthew
Scripture, limited as it is by the medium, is allegorical and not “literal” and was understood by the early Christians be be just that. The fact that the stories are based on historical events does not change their basic form.
Matthew
I
inthecloud
Guest
Well, the Early Christians accepted the Tolemaic view of the world despite the conflict with the view of Genesis that was based on the Babylonian model.
So that is a early example of modifiying the literal meaning of Scripture when having a colision with science.
So that is a early example of modifiying the literal meaning of Scripture when having a colision with science.
- Status