Is the Bible complete historical; if not, then what isn't necessary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Epistemes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Epistemes

Guest
Hello,

Is there anything in the Bible which can or should be considered as unhistorical, as never truly happening?

For instance, I have read some accounts that the story of Jonah and the whale is not a true historical event, but rather a parable. I have also heard that Genesis 1 should not be interpreted literally, as constituting Creation within a matter of 24-hour days, sunrise to sunset.

What, then, about some of the conflicting events in the Gospels, such as the infancy narratives? Are we bound by church teaching to accept the infancy narratives in their whole entirety or just the fundamental, essential aspects such as the annunciation, the providential divine preparation, conception without a human father, etc.?

There are many historians who see some inconsistencies and anachronisms in the biblical text. As someone who enjoys history and studied it in college, I can respect this position, but I am also left wondering, “If there is a God, as I believe, then aren’t all these events, as written, truly possible,” and, “Isn’t it possible that the public historical record is wrong, whereas the Bible is right?”

I will not lie: acknowledging that certain things as written in the Bible might not have truly happened leaves me feeling a little empty. I understand that we should always approach Scripture with discretion, but going back to the infancy narratives, there’s something about believing that the magi and sheperds really visited the Christ child that fills me with hope! To think they might be folkloric insertions does not destroy my faith, but it seems to weaken my reading of the text. It makes me wonder, “What else must I be suspicious of?”

Thanks.
 
In RCIA we learned that we have freedom to interpret passages in Scripture that reflect known Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek idiom, but the gist of each passage is accurate literally, useful theologically and excellent poetically as we can see for ourselves.
So numbers, being sometimes coded forms of names, can mean literal quanitities and countings or people, for example. If your name in Hebrew had the double meaning of “39”, and you were in Scripture somewhere, and it said, “People ran down to the village with news, 39 with children,” that might mean there wre 39 with kids and some without, or it mght mean five people, including you, who are known as 39, ran down there and you had your kids with you. This is a problem in our culture but it wasn’t one in the context where it was written. To become a piilar of salt had no fewer than four usages in ancient Hebrew: To turn into an actual pillar of salt, to be encrusted with salts (volcanic ash), to be stymied by regret and reluctance, or grief perhaps, and to become sterile. How to interpret it? In a way that all the possible meanings accommodate: Lot’s wife stopped becasue of mixed feelings or sorrow over the loss of her home, the volcanic ash custed on her as it did hundreds of corpses preserved in the Jordan Valley today, and if she lived, she never had any more kids, whereas if she died, she was either dessicated byt he ash and suffocated, or actually supernaturally turned to a salt pile. But morally, it means don’t stop to hold on to things God has told you you must leave behind you, and theologically, it means God knows what you’re doing and thinking, he’s not remote or unconcerned.
To be swallowed by a great fish is an expression that means “to be extremely ashamed and ready to apologize”, IIRC, but sharks do sometimes spit people out alive, too, and there are sharks in that part of the world. So it could be either or both, but the point is God didn’t let him get out of his responsibility. God catches people one way or another and leads them back where they belong.
The NT is far more literal because it was written in a far more literal-minded society. Two Gospel authors were eyewitnesses and two were historians addressing a Gentile readership who expected histories to be straightforward, not poetic and full of old sayings or expressions. But no writing is totally literal, due to the nature of language. Almost every word in English, for example, once meant something else. So no one actually knows just how much is literal, but the Gospels and Acts are the most literal, and are probably about as much so as any modern newspaper article here.
 
The Bible is neither complete history or science. It’s beautiful, divinely inspired religious literature. In many respects, however, it’s the only ‘history’ we have of Jesus. The Bible is a complicated issue in Christianity, which is why any theology that simplifies it into a textbook is drastically wrong-headed.
 
Epistemes said:
Hello,

Is there anything in the Bible which can or should be considered as unhistorical, as never truly happening?
Click to expand...
I am not a Catholic so you may not want my opinion, but I believe that the Bible is historically accurate. I don’t understand people who believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ but find it difficult to believe that Jonah was in the whale for three days.

The Lord Jesus said, “For as Jonas was in the whale’s belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.”
 
Epistemes said:
Hello,

Is there anything in the Bible which can or should be considered as unhistorical, as never truly happening?

For instance, I have read some accounts that the story of Jonah and the whale is not a true historical event, but rather a parable. I have also heard that Genesis 1 should not be interpreted literally, as constituting Creation within a matter of 24-hour days, sunrise to sunset.

What, then, about some of the conflicting events in the Gospels, such as the infancy narratives? Are we bound by church teaching to accept the infancy narratives in their whole entirety or just the fundamental, essential aspects such as the annunciation, the providential divine preparation, conception without a human father, etc.?

There are many historians who see some inconsistencies and anachronisms in the biblical text. As someone who enjoys history and studied it in college, I can respect this position, but I am also left wondering, “If there is a God, as I believe, then aren’t all these events, as written, truly possible,” and, “Isn’t it possible that the public historical record is wrong, whereas the Bible is right?”

I will not lie: acknowledging that certain things as written in the Bible might not have truly happened leaves me feeling a little empty. I understand that we should always approach Scripture with discretion, but going back to the infancy narratives, there’s something about believing that the magi and sheperds really visited the Christ child that fills me with hope! To think they might be folkloric insertions does not destroy my faith, but it seems to weaken my reading of the text. It makes me wonder, “What else must I be suspicious of?”

Thanks.
Click to expand...
The main problem with your post is the title. Nothing in the Bible is unnecessary. Why assume that the Bible’s purpose is only to give us history?

You’re right that one must be careful not to “dehistoricize” too much. This is where one must interpret Scripture with discernment, and that’s why we need to interpret with the Church and not on our own. If we go too far, the Church will correct us. (And yes, for that Episcopalians such as myself have to look to Rome, since our own Communion probably isn’t going to do it.)

To me it seems pretty clear that St. Luke meant to write history. It’s not so clear to me that St. Matthew did. And once I got past my knee-jerk fear of interpreting anything in the Bible as fiction, it became pretty clear to me that Jonah, Job, and Esther look like works of fiction. (It’s easier for someone brought up Protestant like myself to see this with regard to Judith and Tobit–and then you look at Esther and it becomes clear that it’s the same sort of narrative.) Daniel is trickier because it also looks like a work of fiction in many ways, but the prophetic content makes me pause a little before jumping to that conclusion.

Edwin
 
notacat said:
I am not a Catholic so you may not want my opinion, but I believe that the Bible is historically accurate. I don’t understand people who believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ but find it difficult to believe that Jonah was in the whale for three days.

The Lord Jesus said, “For as Jonas was in the whale’s belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.”
Click to expand...
doesn’t it actually just say a big fish? 🙂

SD
 
You can interpret the Bible in two different ways. The literal sense or the literalist sense. As Catholics we use the literal interpretation:
CCC #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.” *

For example in Genesis 1:1-2:2 vs. Genesis 2:4-22. In the Catholic, literal, interpretation neither of these stories are intended to be a chronological account. They are complimentary, not contradictory. We do not know the exact details nor timing of creation. I was not the intent of the human author to write a scientific treatise.

Literalist interpretation takes the exact meaning of the words without consideration of popular cultural meaning or the meaning that the author intended to convey. For example, It’s raining cats & dogs does not mean that cats and dogs are actually falling from the sky.
 
ziapueblo said:
You can interpret the Bible in two different ways. The literal sense or the literalist sense. As Catholics we use the literal interpretation:
CCC #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.” *

For example in Genesis 1:1-2:2 vs. Genesis 2:4-22. In the Catholic, literal, interpretation neither of these stories are intended to be a chronological account. They are complimentary, not contradictory. We do not know the exact details nor timing of creation. I was not the intent of the human author to write a scientific treatise.
Click to expand...
That’s interesting. Do you also use Scripture to interpret Scripture?

For example: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it. (Exo 20:11 DRB)

And also: But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. (Mar 10:6 DRB)
 
notacat said:
That’s interesting. Do you also use Scripture to interpret Scripture?
Click to expand...
I may be wrong since I am no theologian 🙂 maybe some of my fellow Catholics can help me out with this answer.

The Church interprets the Scriptures. I guess Scripture can be used to interpret Scripture in the spiritual sense Sense (CCC #115-119). 1st there is the allegorical sense which refers to Jesus Christ. For example, crossing the Red Sea with 1 Corinthians and Abraham and Isaac with God’s sacrifice of His Son. Then there is the moral sense. This is how we apply scripture to our daily walk with Jesus. For example the 10 Commandments. Finally, the anagogical sense. This is concerned with our ultimate destiny. Judge not, lest ye be judged (Matthew 7:1)

I hope I was able to answer your question. If not, please reply.

God bless,
ZP
 
This thread is being addressed in several different ways, which is interesting.

My own understanding of , let’s say, the first 13 chapters of genesis is deepening, I think.

Look at Gen 1:1 and you realize that this is not a history book or a science book, but a theology book.

When you read these chapters and all the footnotes about the merging of middle eastern creation stories, it can be misleading.

Where I’ve developed with all this is to keep in mind that the Church says these writings are inspired. Leo XIII in his great encyclical Providentissimus Deus pointed out that scripture is DIFFERENT from all other human literature in that it is inspired.

So, even when you talk about scripture being “fiction” you are subtly arguing against the canonicity of scripture, that is, that it is inspired, by saying that you’re comparing it to human literature called fiction.

By the way, paragraph 390 of the CCC discusses Genesis, and you should glance at that for yourself.
 
ziapueblo said:
I guess Scripture can be used to interpret Scripture in the spiritual sense Sense (CCC #115-119)…For example, crossing the Red Sea with 1 Corinthians and Abraham and Isaac with God’s sacrifice of His Son.
Click to expand...
Of course I agree there is the spiritual sense to all Scripture. I guess my question is: Do you believe the crossing of the Red Sea and the sparing of Isaac were real events?
 
Crumpy said:
Look at Gen 1:1 and you realize that this is not a history book or a science book, but a theology book.
Click to expand...
I would be interested to know why you think that Gen 1:1 shows that the Bible is not history?
Crumpy said:
By the way, paragraph 390 of the CCC discusses Genesis, and you should glance at that for yourself.
Click to expand...
390 (CCC) “*The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents”

I looked up “primeval” in the dictionary. The American Heritage says, " Belonging to the first or earliest age or ages; original or ancient: a primeval forest."

*So is 390 not affirming that this was a real event that took place in a time past?
 
The individual Christian needs more than the Bible to sustain him. He needs the Catholic Church.
 
notacat said:
I would be interested to know why you think that Gen 1:1 shows that the Bible is not history?

390 (CCC) “*The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents”

I looked up “primeval” in the dictionary. The American Heritage says, " Belonging to the first or earliest age or ages; original or ancient: a primeval forest."

*So is 390 not affirming that this was a real event that took place in a time past?
Click to expand...
I didn’t say it wasn’t history, I pointed you to the comment given by the CCC. Benedict XVI wrote a book called In the Beginning which is a reconstruction of several homilies or talks he gave on the subject. And, I believe it is none less than himself that says these parts of Genesis are not all history.

Personally, I am annoyed by the question altogether whether these chapters of Genesis or the bible as a whole is history. That is a problem for those who do not have faith.
 
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](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/116.htm’)😉 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](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/117.htm’)😉 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
  2. 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
  3. 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](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/119.htm’);)** "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement 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
 
buffalo said:
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89
Click to expand...
I think it’s interesting that you quote the Catechism to back up a point.

I would have used this:
"No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. (Joh 6:44 NAS77)

While several people have quoted from the Catechism to show me how it says Scripture is to be interpreted, no one has answered the question as to whether an event such as the sparing of Isaac was a real event.:confused:
 
Crumpy said:
Personally, I am annoyed by the question altogether whether these chapters of Genesis or the bible as a whole is history. That is a problem for those who do not have faith.
Click to expand...
I certainly didn’t mean to annoy you. I thought your first post was so interesting that I didn’t think you would mind the questions.

I did not say that I had any trouble with those chapters in Genesis:)

I am having trouble finding someone who will say they think those chapters are, or are not, historically accurate.
 
The Bible was never intended to be a history book.

Everything in it is necessary to our salvation, including the parables, the myths, the fables, and the poetry.

We don’t read the Bible to learn about history; we read the Bible to learn about our relationship with God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top