Literal versus figurative stories in Bible

[William_Scott]

Why did you leave out st John Paul II, who quoted them approvingly?

Well, even St. Paul could quote from pagan poets without agreeing with all the nonsense they believed. Besides, St. John Paul II wasn’t perfect (I’m a Protestant, what do you expect me to say? ).

My only point was that the subject of “myth” has been written about extensively, and is not some “unwritten rule of twisted doublespeak belief.” It is easy to find out about it if you care to learn, instead of seeking hidden conspiracies. If you do not care to study them, I am ok with that. Just do not imply shadowy motives to them because you choose to ignore them.

I’m familiar with the beliefs and arguments of higher critics. I can’t choose to ignore them, their subtle and open attacks on God’s own Words recorded in Holy Writ is one of the greatest blasphemies to occur in human history. It’s a crime that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

A living faith by which we are made partakers in salvation rests on God’s revelation in Holy Writ–as St. Aquinas says, “our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books” (see longer quote below). An attack on the Scripture is an attack not only on the God who spoke these words, but on the countless eternal souls who must “live by every word that proceeds out the mouth of God”.

St. Aquinas:

Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): “Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning.”
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm

I’m out for the time being, thanks everyone for the discussion.

 

[William_Scott]

p.s. I did want to add that I’m familiar with the qualified uses of the term “myth” in 20th century literature. However, what each one of the authors favorably cited in John Paul II’s footnote on “myth” (and all those cited in your post) have in common is a sad embrace of the grave errors of higher criticism.

 

[Dovekin]

I’m familiar with the beliefs and arguments of higher critics. I can’t choose to ignore them, their subtle and open attacks on God’s own Words recorded in Holy Writ is one of the greatest blasphemies to occur in human history. It’s a crime that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

And totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Again, I do not mind if you do not read modern authors. I do mind if you just repeat old accusations without seeing if they still apply.

some today, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings, and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error…

today some are presumptive enough to question seriously whether theology and theological methods, such as with the approval of ecclesiastical authority are found in our schools, should not only be perfected, but also completely reformed, in order to promote the more efficacious propagation of the kingdom of Christ everywhere throughout the world among men of every culture and religious opinion.

Who today would “try to withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority”? People who have been spinning theories of how the Church has been infiltrated by anti Christian forces seem like they fit this description.

Who today wants “to question seriously whether theology and theological methods, such as with the approval of ecclesiastical authority are found in our schools”? Historical criticism is taught “with the approval of ecclesiastical authority.” I don’t really object to perfecting or reforming, but the author does not look kindly on those who criticize what the Church has authorized. (I am guessing the author is Pius X, but ?)

Anyway, why are you posting quotes that condemn your position? Do you think we should accept those who lead the Church? Or be suspicious of them?

 

[Dovekin]

p.s. I did want to add that I’m familiar with the qualified uses of the term “myth” in 20th century literature. However, what each one of the authors favorably cited in John Paul II’s footnote on “myth” (and all those cited in your post) have in common is a sad embrace of the grave errors of higher criticism.

As is St John Paul II by that standard.

 

[edwest211]

Theologians have the grave duty to follow Church instruction as opposed to desiring novelty. Too many post here in an attempt to confuse the faithful. That quote was from Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII.

 

[Tolle_Lege]

The error of limited inerrancy is very alive and well these days.

 

[William_Scott]

Again, I do not mind if you do not read modern authors. I do mind if you just repeat old accusations without seeing if they still apply.

These are very dated “modern” authors now, basically theological has-beens. The old, long debunked 19th and early 20th century myths of higher criticism (along with the rehashed versions of these myths promoted by late to the party Roman Catholics like Brown) is getting very hoary-headed at this point. Also, the accusations I’m making apply to the varying shades of higher criticism from the 19th century through the present day–from the most radical adherents (e.g. Episcopalian Bishop Spong and the vague pantheistic “deity” who permeates his higher critical universe), to the softer, gentler adherents, who only cast aspersions on the veracity of every passage of Scripture they disagree with.

 

[Tolle_Lege]

(along with the rehashed versions of these myths promoted by late to the party Roman Catholics like Brown)

It was quite clear that Brown “believed” in miracles and the supernatural in a very “wink wink, nudge nudge” kind of way.

 

[TMC]

Is this still a Catholic forum? Its hard to tell given all the bashing being done of Catholic scholars and theologians. Not to mention calling clergymen and Church officials heretics and fraudsters. Its shocking the way this forum has deteriorated. You used to be able to have a real conversation about Catholic biblical scholarship here.

 

[TK421]

Not believing in a literal global flood (for example) doesn’t mean that Noah and his wife and his family weren’t real people who are part of the Mysticial Body of Saints. It just means the events of their lives recorded in Genesis aren’t necessarily all literally true. Like how the legends of King Arthur are based on a real person who existed and who may have been a pious king but he didn’t actually have a magic sword, etc.

 

[edwest211]

And here we have a good example of what Pope Pius XII was warning everyone about.

 

[William_Scott]

Not believing in a literal global flood (for example) doesn’t mean that Noah and his wife and his family weren’t real people who are part of the Mysticial Body of Saints. It just means the events of their lives recorded in Genesis aren’t necessarily all literally true. Like how the legends of King Arthur are based on a real person who existed and who may have been a pious king but he didn’t actually have a magic sword, etc.

Denying the literal truth of an assertion of historical fact in Scripture is calling Scripture false (and by extension calling God, Scripture’s author, a liar). St. Aquinas notes the necessity of affirming the literal truth of even seemingly inconsequential historic facts presented in Scripture:

“A thing is of faith, indirectly, if the denial of it involves as a consequence something against faith; as for instance if anyone said that Samuel was not the son of Elcana, for it follows that the divine Scripture would be false.”
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1032.htm

And as St. Aquinas states above, this denial of the literal truth of any historic facts presented in Scripture is ultimately against faith itself (which comes by hearing (and believing) the Word–Romans 10:17 “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God”).

Further, denying the trustworthiness of God’s Word in one place, necessarily calls into question the trustworthiness of any portion of God’s Word–as St. Augustine says (particularly addressing alleged intentional misstatements in Scripture, but his warning clearly applies to any assertion of falsehood in Scripture):

For it seems to me that most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books…For if you once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement as made in the way of duty, there will not be left a single sentence of those books which, if appearing to any one difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away, as a statement in which, intentionally, and under a sense of duty, the author declared what was not true.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102028.htm

When we don’t affirm the literal truth of those passages of Scripture that assert historic facts, we stand as judge over God’s Word (and thus over the God who spoke it)–foolishly judging His thoughts and words–rather than submitting ourselves in faith to His judgment on all things. St. Augustine notes that the person who alleges falsehood in Scripture has “set up his own feelings above that truth. For, truly, when he pronounces anything to be untrue, he demands that he be believed in preference, and endeavours to shake our confidence in the authority of the divine Scriptures.”
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102028.htm

p.s. I ended up having a little bit of additional time available to post this evening. However, that time has come to an end. Have a good evening and a great week all.

 

[TK421]

That is proof texting to shape a narrative to fit a personal liking. St Augustine and company did not hold to a strict literalist interpretation of Scripture and he even said of such concerning the book of Genesis. Non-literal =/= false.

Contemporaries would fit Scripture to personal likings in order to avoid certain doctrines that were/are unpopular: basically anything related to marriage has been unpopular since forever.

 

[William_Scott]

Hello TK421 you caught me with your post prior to my signing out for the week.

That is proof texting to shape a narrative to fit a personal liking. St Augustine and company did not hold to a strict literalist interpretation of Scripture and he even said of such concerning the book of Genesis. Non-literal =/= false.

This is incorrect TK421, St. Augustine explicitly affirmed the literal truth of all Genesis (without excluding the additional spiritual/figurative meanings that are found throughout the historic narratives of Scripture, as shown by St. Paul–see Galatians 4:21-31). Please see the post from earlier in this thread that discussed the literal “young-earth” position of St. Augustine on Genesis (link below)

Literal versus figurative stories in Bible Sacred Scripture

Great question. Finding where this mystical line is crossed in the narrative of Genesis is akin to the futile effort to find the mythical point at which life in the womb becomes a “person” (which is only necessitated by unwillingness to accept the obvious, i.e. he or she is a person from the beginning/conception). The only reasonable, straightforward approach, and the one taken by virtually all Church theologians for the first 1800 years of the Church**, is a literal interpretation from Genesi…

 

[William_Scott]

People fit Scripture to personal likings in order to avoid certain doctrines that were/are unpopular: basically anything related to marriage has been unpopular since forever.

Amen to that. However, two wrongs don’t make a right. The ignoring or twisting of Scripture, for instance, by those who affirm its literal inerrancy doesn’t justify the rejection/twisting of Scripture by others via higher critical methods. It only highlights how important it is for us to respect every jot and tittle of God’s Word.

 

[Dovekin]

The old, long debunked 19th and early 20th century myths of higher criticism (along with the rehashed versions of these myths promoted by late to the party Roman Catholics like Brown) is getting very hoary-headed at this point.

As are the attacks on them. It is like listening to people argue about whether candles or oil lamps are better. Neither bears much relationship to the electricity most people use for lighting. Asserting an LED is like a candle does not make the discussion relevant; equating Brown with higher criticism is not much better.

Also, the accusations I’m making apply to the varying shades of higher criticism from the 19th century through the present day–from the most radical adherents (e.g. Episcopalian Bishop Spong and the vague pantheistic “deity” who permeates his higher critical universe), to the softer, gentler adherents, who only cast aspersions on the veracity of every passage of Scripture they disagree with.

How convincing! You say they apply, so they do. I should make arguments like that more often.

The accusations you are making do not apply to anyone who has ever been on the Pontifical Biblical Commission since Vatocan 2.
I am sure you are convinced by this reasoning, even though I do not have your talent for insulting and misrepresenting scholars.

 

[William_Scott]

The accusations you are making do not apply to anyone who has ever been on the Pontifical Biblical Commission since Vatocan 2.

My accusations certainly apply to those who have been members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission since Vatican 2. As you know, Raymond Brown was appointed to the Committee in 1972 and 1996. This is the Raymond Brown who notes in his book “The Virginal Conception & Bodily Resurrection of Jesus” such profound truths as the following:
“the fact that according to the Synoptic (first three) Gospels Jesus predicted his crucifixion and resurrection three times and in increasing detail does not necessarily mean that the historical Jesus had such exact knowledge of his future” (VCBR, p. 17).

Of course, the above is an example of Brown’s classic higher critical distinction between the Jesus of the Gospels (here the “Synoptic Gospels Jesus”, elsewhere the Johannine Jesus) and the undoucumented but real “historical Jesus” that Brown and a few other really discerning fellows have come to know and love.

Brown made countless wise statements like this during his lifetime, reflecting the keen insights that only a devoted higher critic can have regarding the reliability of Scripture, e.g. how he believes the infant narrative in the Gospel of Matthew “is redolent of the folkloric and imaginative”(VCBR, p. 54).

In fact, I doubt Brown and his fellow higher critical scholars ever met a Scriptural passage they couldn’t second-guess. It sure is comforting to know that Brown and his friends care enough to give us a glimpse of (or profound guesswork regarding) the real Jesus and the real Gospel events hidden among those unreliable scraps of Biblical narrative.

I am sure you are convinced by this reasoning, even though I do not have your talent for insulting and misrepresenting scholars.

Insulting the foolishness of those (like higher critical scholars) who deny the reliability of God’s Words has a long and winsome history, e.g. mockery of the false prophets by Elijah. That said, I think I’ve been quite restrained in expressing my thoughts about these guys and their debunked but imaginative ideas. Also, I am not aware that I have misrepresented Brown or any other scholar in this thread.

I’m probably out again for at least a week or so. Have a good weekend all.

 

[Tolle_Lege]

Brown, along with many others in the historical-critical camp, quite simply have no supernatural faith. They make up this category of a “true myth,” where they claim (I guess they built a time machine?) things like the Virgin Birth or Massacre of the Innocents never happened, but are somehow “still true” in order to “communicate a truth of the faith,” always massaging their disbelief to try and make it sound faithful.

The intercession of St. Jerome is needed to resurrect the Pontifical Biblical Commission as a Magisterial arm of the Vatican, filled with orthodox, believing scholars. Then Brown’s works and the NAB footnotes should immediately be categorized as forbidden books. Many - many - souls would be saved by condemning these attacks on the faith.

 

[Dovekin]

The accusations you are making do not apply to anyone who has ever been on the Pontifical Biblical Commission since Vatocan 2.

But I clearly asserted they do not, using your brilliant way of arguing. If my assertions can be denied, yours can be as well.

Of course, the above is an example of Brown’s classic higher critical distinction between the Jesus of the Gospels (here the “Synoptic Gospels Jesus”, elsewhere the Johannine Jesus) and the undoucumented but real “historical Jesus” that Brown and a few other really discerning fellows have come to know and love.

This is a misrepresentation of Brown. His remarks on the Synoptic gospels are in contrast to John’s gospel, not in contrast to the “undocumented but real “historical Jesus.” The latter is probably your creation, or whoever gave you this argument if it is not your own. The idea is more like his critics than it is like Brown. He rarely spent much time on “the historical Jesus.”

Brown made countless wise statements like this during his lifetime, reflecting the keen insights that only a devoted higher critic can have regarding the reliability of Scripture, e.g. how he believes the infant narrative in the Gospel of Matthew “is redolent of the folkloric and imaginative”(VCBR, p. 54).

This is less serious, but still a misrepresentation. It fails to recognize the difference between “the higher criticism” and modern historical criticism. Your tone also misrepresents the difference between the infancy narrative and the rest of the gospel. Can you tell the difference between Matthew’s infancy narrative and the rest of his gospel? How would you characterize that difference?

These are just examples of how you misrepresent Brown imo. You may disagree, but you will at least be better informed about what I am refferring to.

Brown, along with many others in the historical-critical camp, quite simply have no supernatural faith.

How would you know? Because his knowledge and experience of the supernatural differs from yours?

The intercession of St. Jerome is needed to resurrect the Pontifical Biblical Commission as a Magisterial arm of the Vatican, filled with orthodox, believing scholars. Then Brown’s works and the NAB footnotes should immediately be categorized as forbidden books. Many - many - souls would be saved by condemning these attacks on the faith.

Raymond Brown was an orthodox, believing scholar, as his terms on the PBC attest. The books that would be condemned in your scenario are those that attack historical criticism, especially those that use those attacks to undermine faith in the hierarchy. Many could be saved by condemning those attacks.

 

[William_Scott]

Hello Dovekin, I’ve made time for one more reply before I sign off.

This is a misrepresentation of Brown. His remarks on the Synoptic gospels are in contrast to John’s gospel, not in contrast to the “undocumented but real “historical Jesus.” The latter is probably your creation, or whoever gave you this argument if it is not your own. The idea is more like his critics than it is like Brown. He rarely spent much time on “the historical Jesus.”

Please re-read the quote: “the fact that according to the Synoptic (first three) Gospels Jesus predicted his crucifixion and resurrection three times and in increasing detail does not necessarily mean that the historical Jesus had such exact knowledge of his future". Every time Brown says, implies or speculates in his works that Jesus said, did or was something other than what every jot and tittle of Scripture proclaims of Him, he has to that same degree concocted and given preferential treatment to his own “historical Jesus” over the Christ (Who alone can save) revealed in the everlasting Words of Scripture.

The fact that Brown didn’t go as far as many of the Protestant higher critics in creating a “historical Jesus” contra Scripture, doesn’t remove the anti-Scriptural folly of what he did say on the matter.

This is less serious, but still a misrepresentation. It fails to recognize the difference between “the higher criticism” and modern historical criticism. Your tone also misrepresents the difference between the infancy narrative and the rest of the gospel. Can you tell the difference between Matthew’s infancy narrative and the rest of his gospel? How would you characterize that difference?

These are just examples of how you misrepresent Brown imo. You may disagree, but you will at least be better informed about what I am refferring to.

Higher criticism and modern historical criticism are largely overlapping (and the terms are often used in a synonymous manner), so I’ll stick with the term “higher criticism” for simplicity sake in this thread. As for the alleged difference between the infant narrative of Matthew and the rest of his Gospel (and other weak arguments of Brown), this is largely a retread of debunked higher critical theories from the 1800s and early 1900s. Time constraints prevent me from repeating in this thread the dismantling of these higher critical myths that have occurred over the past century+.

A good place to start for those who are interested, however, is Gresham Machen’s preliminary review of the matter in 1905:

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ptr/04-1_birth-2_machen.pdf

Machen’s later full treatment on the matter is found in his work “The Virgin Birth of Christ” (1924). Of course, countless other scholars have addressed the foolishness of higher criticism on the birth of Christ. While there have been variants in the higher critical speculations since early 20th century, the substantive issues are effectively the same.