Literal Sense of Scripture

[algran]

If Catholics are free to believe that Creation took six days or a period of many years, then where is the Church’s certainty on the matter? In other biblical events, such as Sun stopping in Joshua, Jonah swallowed by a big fish, Walls of Jericho tumbling down, etc., how are we Catholics to understand the meaning of these events if they are metaphorical? I have a Catholic friend(whose wife of 38 years is an ardent Fundamentalist and truly an inspiration to him), who can’t understand how the Church can be ambiguous on certain biblical events, such as those mentioned above. Please provide me with a scholarly answer to this problem. Thank you.

Art Granville
Hemet, CA

 

[BayCityRickL]

I think there’s a lot of conflict in the Church over these matters. I know what you mean.

The usual “line” about those things is that the writers “never intended” their writings to be understood in the modern historical sense. Such a statement also distances God from involvement in the writings of scripture, such that the implicit assumption is that the writings themselves are predominantly the work of men.

Of course, I personally cannot cast these matters in exactly that form. Throughout time, we will still have the biblical writings describing creation, the flood of Noah, the walls of Jericho, etc. Our vision is somewhat limited, as if we required substantial correction with lenses, because we do not study scripture in the original languages. The vast majority of us require the aid of translators, and their ability to render the “literal sense” as you say.

I think we do ourselves great harm to distance ourselves from the literal sense of scripture. The Pontifical Biblical Commission issued a document on the interpretation of scripture around 1993 to explain what the Church should use for understanding scripture. I think you can get that on the EWTN website.

I’d highly recommend a very readable book by the Yale historian Jaroslav Pelikan that came out this year, on the ‘history of scripture throughout the ages’ titled “Whose Bible Is It?” This will unwrap to a certain degree how different religions (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) handle the scriptures.

This book does a great job of explaining how the Jewish scriptures were written in such a way as to preserve an oral tradition that was required to understand the writings. For example, the emphasis in Genesis 1 on the ‘word’ of God.

The matter that I am struggling with is akin to your question in this thread. Is the Catechism of the Catholic Church definitive in capturing, to the extent that it has a biblical perspective, not only the literal but all the sense of scripture? The answer I’ve been getting – even from a bishop – is, don’t take the Bible literally and don’t even bother with the Catechism. How do you like that?

 

[Crumpy]

Does anyone know of an official explanation of the Church’s meaning of the literal sense of scripture?

Is this referring to the straight-up literal expression in scripture? or is it more than that, i.e. the meaning of some scripture, when we also take in consideration, let’s say, “the point” that the writer was driving at? As a simple example, “I’m so hungry I could eat a horse” doesn’t mean literally that I want to eat a horse, but it “means” that I feel really hungry…it’s beyond the literal words used.

I’m surprised that this thread didn’t have more discussion since the OP.

 

[DCD]

Does anyone know of an official explanation of the Church’s meaning of the literal sense of scripture?

Is this referring to the straight-up literal expression in scripture? or is it more than that, i.e. the meaning of some scripture, when we also take in consideration, let’s say, “the point” that the writer was driving at? As a simple example, “I’m so hungry I could eat a horse” doesn’t mean literally that I want to eat a horse, but it “means” that I feel really hungry…it’s beyond the literal words used.

I’m surprised that this thread didn’t have more discussion since the OP.

Literal sense- Is the message the author was trying to convey at that time.

Peace,
David

 

[DCD]

I think there’s a lot of conflict in the Church over these matters. I know what you mean.

The usual “line” about those things is that the writers “never intended” their writings to be understood in the modern historical sense. Such a statement also distances God from involvement in the writings of scripture, such that the implicit assumption is that the writings themselves are predominantly the work of men.

Of course, I personally cannot cast these matters in exactly that form. Throughout time, we will still have the biblical writings describing creation, the flood of Noah, the walls of Jericho, etc. Our vision is somewhat limited, as if we required substantial correction with lenses, because we do not study scripture in the original languages. The vast majority of us require the aid of translators, and their ability to render the “literal sense” as you say.

I think we do ourselves great harm to distance ourselves from the literal sense of scripture. The Pontifical Biblical Commission issued a document on the interpretation of scripture around 1993 to explain what the Church should use for understanding scripture. I think you can get that on the EWTN website.

I’d highly recommend a very readable book by the Yale historian Jaroslav Pelikan that came out this year, on the ‘history of scripture throughout the ages’ titled “Whose Bible Is It?” This will unwrap to a certain degree how different religions (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) handle the scriptures.

This book does a great job of explaining how the Jewish scriptures were written in such a way as to preserve an oral tradition that was required to understand the writings. For example, the emphasis in Genesis 1 on the ‘word’ of God.

The matter that I am struggling with is akin to your question in this thread. Is the Catechism of the Catholic Church definitive in capturing, to the extent that it has a biblical perspective, not only the literal but all the sense of scripture? The answer I’ve been getting – even from a bishop – is, don’t take the Bible literally and don’t even bother with the Catechism. How do you like that?

The Church does not distance herself from the literal sense of scripture. In fact The Church teaches us to get the literal sense first and then we can move on to allegorical, moral, and anagogical.

The literal sense of Genesis for instance is not the six day creation account. Yes that is in the text however if a faithful reader is getting that as the main thrust of Genesis, boy oh boy do we have some problems. The literal sense of Genesis given by the author inspired by the Holy Ghost is not worried about how the universe was created in six days he has a much more profound Truth to communicate to the reader.

Peace,
David

 

[fellowChristian]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

CHAPTER TWO
GOD COMES TO MEET MAN

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt2.htm#113

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

**
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 **
"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

 

[Verbum]

Hi Algran,

The literal sense of Scripture is what it actually meant to those first hearing it. As a matter of fact, it is often the most difficult to understand, because it implies understanding the historial, social, religious environment in which the holy text developped. It implies understanding the literary genres extent at the time it was written. For a century now, the popes have encouraged scholars to work on all these aspects. It’s an ongoing process.

Pius XII, in his encyclical, Divino Afflante Splritu, put it this way :

1. Let those who cultivate biblical studies turn their
   attention with all due diligence towards this point and let them neglect none of those discoveries, whether in the domain of archaeology or in ancient history or literature, which serve to make better known the mentality of the ancient writers, as well as their manner and art of reasoning, narrating and writing. In this connection Catholic laymen should consider that they will not only further profane science, but moreover will render a conspicuous service to the Christian cause if they devote themselves with all due diligence and application to the exploration and investigation of the monuments of antiquity and contribute, according to their abilities, to the solution of questions hitherto obscure.

Meantime, we must remember that the Bible was written not to instruct us in science and history but to lead us to salvation. In that context, does it really matter is the story of Jonah is to be taken literally? Should we not concentrate on what Jesus wished to remind us of, when he spoke of it, namely His,.and our, resurrection?

To quote Pius XII once more :

1. Whosoever considers the immense labors undertaken by Catholic exegetes during well nigh two thousand years, so that the word of God, imparted to men through the Sacred Letters, might daily be more deeply and fully understood and more intensely loved, will easily be convinced that it is the serious duty of the faithful, and especially of priests, to make free and holy use of this treasure, accumulated throughout so many centuries by the greatest intellects. For the Sacred Books were not given by God to men to satisfy their curiosity or to provide them with material for study and research, but, as the Apostle observes, in order that these Divine Oracles might “instruct us to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus” and “that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.”

If you wish to read the encyclical, you will find it by clicking

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html

Verbum