Literal versus figurative stories in Bible

[TMC]

I have to disagree. This is exactly in accordance with absolute inerrancy. As I noted in my post, even the testimonies of several completely honest and accurate witnesses to an event often requires some effort to collaborate.

I’m sorry, but that makes no sense to me. You are agreeing that the Gospels report the same events differently because each evangelist has a different view of what happened. That may mean each is honest, but it is the opposite of absolute inerrancy.

 

[William_Scott]

I’m sorry, but that makes no sense to me. You are agreeing that the Gospels report the same events differently because each evangelist has a different view of what happened. That may mean each is honest, but it is the opposite of absolute inerrancy.

We’ll have to agree to disagree TMC. What matters for inerrancy is that there is no error in what is communicated. Complete accuracy does not entail an exhaustive recounting nor wooden recitation of every possible jot and tittle of “facts” relating to the event. Further, the traditional doctrine of inerrancy agrees with the use of approximations and generalizations in the Scriptural author’s truthful recounting of actions and statements reported.

Here’s what the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (the most well known Protestant statement on the matter) states:

We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of His penman’s milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.

So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

 

[William_Scott]

Augustine states likewise in his Gospel Harmony, where he interprets, for instance, the parallel passages relating to Jairus according to the traditional doctrine of inerrancy:

1. At the same time, however, there remains the fact that Matthew represents the ruler of the synagogue to have spoken to the Lord of his daughter, not merely as one likely to die, or as dying, or as on the very point of expiring, but as even then dead; while these other two evangelists report her as now near unto death, but not yet really dead, and keep so strictly to that version of the circumstances, that they tell us how the persons came at a later stage with the intelligence of her actual death, and with the message that for this reason the Master ought not now to trouble Himself by coming, with the purpose of laying His hand upon her, and so preventing her from dying — the matter not being put as if He was one possessed of ability to raise the once dead to life. It becomes necessary for us, therefore, to investigate this fact lest it may seem to exhibit any contradiction between the accounts. And the way to explain it is to suppose that, by reason of brevity in the narrative, Matthew has preferred to express it as if the Lord had been really asked to do what it is clear He did actually do, namely, raise the dead to life. For what Matthew directs our attention to, is not the mere words spoken by the father about his daughter, but what is of more importance, his mind and purpose. Thus he has given words calculated to represent the father’s real thoughts. For he had so thoroughly despaired of his child’s case, that not believing that she whom he had just left dying, could possibly now be found yet in life, his thought rather was that she might be made alive again. Accordingly two of the evangelists have introduced the words which were literally spoken by Jairus. But Matthew has exhibited rather what the man secretly wished and thought. Thus both petitions were really addressed to the Lord; namely, either that He should restore the dying damsel, or that, if she was already dead, He might raise her to life again. But as it was Matthew’s object to tell the whole story in short compass, he has represented the father as directly expressing in his request what, it is certain, had been his own real wish, and what Christ actually did. It is true, indeed, that if those two evangelists, or one of them, had told us that the father himself spoke the words which the parties who came from his house uttered — namely, that Jesus should not now trouble Himself, because the damsel had died — then the words which Matthew has put into his mouth would not be in harmony with his thoughts. But, as the case really stands, it is not said that he gave his consent to the parties who brought that report, and who bade the Master no more think of coming now…[Continued]

 

[William_Scott]

[Augustine Quote Continued]

67. Seeing, then, that the case stands thus, from these varied and yet not inconsistent modes of statement adopted by the evangelists, we evidently learn a lesson of the utmost utility, and of great necessity, — namely, that in any man’s words the thing which we ought narrowly to regard is only the writer’s thought which was meant to be expressed, and to which the words ought to be subservient; and further, that we should not suppose one to be giving an incorrect statement, if he happens to convey in different words what the person really meant whose words he fails to reproduce literally. And we ought not to let the wretched cavillers at words fancy that truth must be tied somehow or other to the jots and tittles of letters; whereas the fact is, that not in the matter of words only, but equally in all other methods by which sentiments are indicated, the sentiment itself, and nothing else, is what ought to be looked at.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1602228.htm

 

[TMC]

We’ll have to agree to disagree TMC. What matters for inerrancy is that there is no error in what is communicated.

Perhaps we are not agreeing on what inerrancy means. Usually when I hear someone say “absolute inerrancy” I take that to mean “absolute literal factual inerrancy” - which is a relatively recent Protestant concept sometimes called “fundamentalism.” You seem to be supporting the idea that Scripture is inerrant in communicating what was meant to be communicated, which is often separate and apart from the facts. That is a more Catholic concept.

 

[William_Scott]

It does? Can you provide a quote from Scripture, because I can not find this.

Good catch TMC. It would have been better for me to say that the Scripture strongly implies that God providentially and/or supernaturally intervened in bringing representatives of each kind to Noah. For instance, Genesis 6:19-20:

19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

 

[TMC]

Ahh, no better catch by you. I was focused on 6:19 “you shall bring two of every kind” suggesting God left it to Noah, and was ignoring 6:20. It doesn’t change may my mind on whether there was a historical world-wide flood, but you do make a point.

 

[William_Scott]

Perhaps we are not agreeing on what inerrancy means. Usually when I hear someone say “absolute inerrancy” I take that to mean “absolute literal factual inerrancy” - which is a relatively recent Protestant concept sometimes called “fundamentalism.” You seem to be supporting the idea that Scripture is inerrant in communicating what was meant to be communicated, which is often separate and apart from the facts. That is a more Catholic concept.

I don’t know that I’ve ever come across the ever elusive “Fundamentalist” of peoples’ imaginations and nightmares. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy that I quoted above is perhaps the penultimate conservative or “fundamentalist” Protestant statement on inerrancy.

The staunch ancient Catholic or traditional Christian approach to inerrancy, summed up nicely in the Chicago Statement, is in sharp contrast with the approach to Scripture used by liberal Protestants and the many Roman Catholics who embrace (in varying degrees) higher critical theories.

p.s. Duty calls, but, as noted above, I’ll plan on checking in on this thread in the next couple of weeks. Thanks again for the discussion and have a great week.

 

[Dovekin]

The staunch ancient Catholic or traditional Christian approach to inerrancy, summed up nicely in the Chicago Statement, is in sharp contrast with the approach to Scripture used by liberal Protestants and the many Roman Catholics who embrace (in varying degrees) higher critical theories.

I don’t know that I have ever come across any Catholics who “embrace higher critical theories.” There are people, like yourself, who accuse some Catholic scholars of embracing those theories, but they usually do that by referring to century old criticisms that do not apply to modern scholars.

OTOH, I could point you to a number of people who subscribe to the Fundamentalism defined by Curtis Lee Laws in the 1920s.

 

[TMC]

I don’t know that I have ever come across any Catholics who “embrace higher critical theories.” There are people, like yourself, who accuse some Catholic scholars of embracing those theories, but they usually do that by referring to century old criticisms that do not apply to modern scholars.

I think that depends on what is meant by “higher critical theories.” Many Catholics, including Catholic biblical scholars, do embrace the historical critical method. The issues with that method appear to be more with the way it is sometimes used, rather than with the underlying theory about whether and how it works.

 

[Gorgias]

The issues with that method appear to be more with the way it is sometimes used, rather than with the underlying theory about whether and how it works.

This!

What tends to get people agitated isn’t the historical-critical method per se, I don’t think… but rather, a personal view that is skeptical that the supernatural events depicted in the Bible could possibly have happened. So, having analyzed the Scriptural narratives, if a person concludes “well, this must be a tall tale, because these sorts of things just don’t happen”, then that conclusion isn’t coming from “the historical critical method”, but from that person’s particular worldview.

Of course, since the person utilized the historical-critical method in his analysis, people blame it rather than the scholar himself. They could just as validly blame the brand of PC the person uses in his research. (Dang those heathen iMacs! )

 

[Dovekin]

having analyzed the Scriptural narratives, if a person concludes “well, this must be a tall tale, because these sorts of things just don’t happen”, then that conclusion isn’t coming from “the historical critical method”, but from that person’s particular worldview.

Or it could come from that person’s analysis of “tall tales” and how they use hyperbole ro make a point. Jonah is about as close to a tall tale as you will find in the bible, so it has to be understood as a tall tale. “The boat was tossed by a storm, everyone running panicked trying to save it. Jonah was taking a nap.” “should I not be concerned over the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot know their right hand from their left, not to mention all the animals?”

This does not preclude using this tall tale to explain the Resurrection as like the 3 days Jesus spent in the belly of the beast. Rather, it makes it a better explanation because it is a tall tale. Mistaking it for history is the inaccuracy, that makes the supernatural into the natural. Even in our wildest dreams we cannot imagine what the Resurrection means; why would we not use those wild dreams to try to explain it?

The conclusion that it is a tall tale may indeed be a result of literary criticism, not some theological peculiarity of the reader. Or it may be as you say. Only by adopting critical standards will we be able to tell.

 

[edwest211]

More false speculation. God is real. Jesus rose bodily from the dead. He raised the dead, cleansed the lepers and gave sight to the blind.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Fr. Raymond Brown took broad and disjointed license with “Dei Verbum” to make their case that apparently Scripture was inerrant only in certain areas and only for the sake of our salvation. This error of limited inerrancy is not only never supported in formal Church teachings prior to Vatican II, but it is not supported by “Dei Verbum” either. “Dei Verbum” begins by saying it follows in the footsteps of the Council of Trent and Vatican I, so it is very difficult to claim that it intends to break with previous Church teachings.

Yes, I admire Fr. Brown and his work. And it IS supported by Dei Verbum, which the catechism paraphrases. “…for the sake of salvation.” Descriptive details in no way affect our salvation, so there is no reason to accept them as inerrant. Probably the best example is the Resurrection story, which is in every Gospel, but with totally different details. But the essence of the stories, which they all agree on, is that Christ rose from the dead. Who arrived at the tomb first, who they met, etc. are just details that don’t matter. As Garry Wills says about the different details in the Resurrection stories, “Who cares?” Exactly.

As for the footsteps of Trent and Vatican I, times change, and interpretations change. I suspect that the people who say we should follow Trent on Biblical interpretation are also the same people who completely disavow Trent when it comes to abortion: “We now know through science that…etc.” Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. Consistency, please.

Hopefully you do not doubt the historical supernatural miracles of Jesus.

I have an open mind, but again only two miracles require belief from a Catholic: the incarnation and the resurrection. Beyond that, it’s up to you.

The Gospels were written intended as historical biographies of our Lord,

Yes, in 1st century AD terms, not “historical” in 21st century terms.

This despite the claims of some fairly recent scholars who see the Gospels more as “theological reflections,” in other words fictionalized accounts of Jesus’s life to create a “Jesus of faith” separate from the “historical Jesus.”

Well, John certainly contains a lot of “theological reflections.” Fictionalized accounts, I agree, goes too far. It’s reasonable to believe that the authors (whoever they were) were doing their best to give an accurate account in terms of their own cultural view. They were not intentionally writing fiction. And I agree, I don’t see the point of separating an “historical Jesus” from a “Jesus of faith.”

 

[Erikaspirit16]

part 2–

Now, it couldn’t be any clearer that “Dei Verbum” asserts the miracles of Jesus as they are written.

It’s clear that a literal view of the miracles is what the Church has traditionally believed. But again, belief in them is optional.

I’m really not sure what the use is of twisting these stories around to the point of saying that a mute person got so excited to see Jesus that he started talking.

I’m simply pointing out there is another way to interpret the miracles. One the one hand, you have people like yourself who say they are literally true. On the other extreme, you have people who deny they happened at all. But you can also make an argument that the miracles happened, but perhaps in a way the people at the time did not understand. Thus my analogy of iPhones, etc. If I went back in time with an operating iPhone, I would be seen as a miracle worker or magician. Likewise, people at the time didn’t understand the nuances of schizophrenia. It’s possible they interpreted schizophrenia as “demons.” But my point is that–nevertheless–it would still be a miracle to cure schizophrenia! I think you missed that point.

Your most confusing statement in your reply is, “Are you telling God what He can and cannot do?” But that is exactly what you’re doing! The Bible states one thing, yet certain scholars think they know better and claim well, no, God actually did this.

I’ll try not to be confusing. God is God. Isaiah 52: 8-9. His ways are not our ways, etc. I think (you may believe differently) that our experience of nature shows that God works indirectly. Of course he can work directly as well, although we have little evidence of that. In light of that, it’s reasonable to believe, for example, that God worked indirectly through evolution to create man as he is today rather than creating man in his present form by some direct action (“poof…”) in the past. That contradicts all scientific evidence.

It is quite clear that a flood occurred, otherwise it makes no sense for it to be such a prominent connection in the New Testament, nor for a merely “symbolic” flood story to somehow prefigure the actual sacrament of Baptism with water.

Sorry, that doesn’t necessarily follow. Water is highly symbolic, not just in Christianity, in a lot of religions. Ask a Hindu about the Ganges. Certainly we know from scientific evidence that there were floods in the past. In fact, we know the sea levels have risen about 650 feet above the previous Ice Age levels. But a flood that destroyed the entire world? No scientific evidence for that one. And there’s no religious reason to think that’s literally true. God saw mankind was committing sins, he punished them. That’s the essence of the story–or perhaps a better interpretation might be “Don’t sin. God will punish you.”

 

[edwest211]

There was a global flood.

 

[Dovekin]

Did you get wet?

 

[Gorgias]

Jonah is about as close to a tall tale as you will find in the bible, so it has to be understood as a tall tale.

Ahh, but that would be based on your perspective of whether a man can be swallowed by a great fish, and then later be saved and “brought back to life.” If your worldview says, “nah, that can never happen,” then you’ll conclude “tall tale.” If your worldview says, “the God who made the universe ex nihilo could definitely make that happen”, then you’ll have room to conclude “not tall tale.” And, all of this happens independently of what you think about literary forms of ‘tall tales’ and ‘didactic narrative’ and how they might utilize ‘hyperbole’ to make their point.

 

[Dovekin]

Ahh, but that would be based on your perspective of whether a man can be swallowed by a great fish, and then later be saved and “brought back to life.”

Why do you make his claim? It is a “tall tale” because of its persistent use of exaggeration and the way the exaggerations are often punctured by other facts. “Man and beast alike must be covered with sackcloth and call loudly to God.” The size of the fish is just one exaggerated element among many, and is not what makes it a tall tale. (Though “fish stories” are among the most common tall tales.)

If you read Jonah as factual reporting, you are not taking it literally. You are getting something out of it that the author did not intend. It does not matter what you believe about being swallowed by fish. What matters is that God is merciful. Even in the most exaggerated, wild conditions you can imagine, God cares. Even if you do not want mercy, God is merciful.

Understanding literary forms is essential to understanding how people communicate. Mistaking a tall tale for journalism is not an affirmation of the supernatural, but a parody of it. It is closer to superstition than it is to faith.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

believing every jot and tittle of Scripture is trustworthy in what it records and asserts doesn’t require twisting oneself and logic into pretzels.

Really? You can believe every jot and tittle of Scripture without twisting yourself into a pretzel? We’ll see…

Any account of multiple witnesses to an event, even when each of those witnesses is completely honest and accurate, will require some degree of effort to collaborate.

I agree completely about the witnesses. But then, if you believe in the “absolute accuracy” of the Gospels, you immediately run into problems. For example, the incident of Paul on the road to Damascus. Same book, Acts. Same author, Luke. And yet two accounts: one says the bystanders didn’t see any light, but heard the voice. The other account says the opposite: they saw the light, but didn’t hear the voice. Is it ‘Blessed be the poor’ or ‘Blessed be the poor in spirit’? That’s a tough one since it is a difference in meaning, not just just a detail. And on and on. I suppose it depends on what you mean by ‘absolute accuracy’, but clearly (to me anyway) that doesn’t mean word-for-word literal truth.

The Scripture simply asserts that representatives of each kind (e.g. only two representatives of the dog/wolf kind) were brought on to the Ark. There is no evidence that it would be impossible for representatives of each created land-dwelling “kind” to fit on the Ark. Rather, it appears there would be plenty of room given the dimensions of the Ark, with some room to spare.

OK–you want to talk about twisting yourself into a pretzel? That’s a great example. So, OK, we’re going to ignore science and fossils and evolution and somehow assume that two ‘dogs’ or two…but how do they get from two ‘representatives of each kind’ to the variety we see within species today? And if you’re talking separate species, we’re into the millions of animals. And “plenty of room”? I’m sorry, that’s just not possible. I won’t even talk about specialized diets, nor will I bring up insects, etc. etc. etc.

As to collecting kangaroos from Australia, that assumes the land masses and animal distribution in Noah’s day matched that of our own. The fact that Scriptures specifies that the highest mountains of the antediluvian world were covered by 15 cubits of water necessitates a world where the oceans were much shallower and the mountains were much smaller than they are at the present day.

OK, this is totally non-scientific. It’s goes WAY beyond that. When are you saying the flood took place? 200+ million year ago? Modern man dates from about 200,000 years ago. And either you’re claiming that the flood covered Mt. Everest at almost 30,000 feet, or you’re saying Mt. Everest (or any equivalent tall mountain) didn’t exist then. And if Mt. Everest didn’t exist, neither did mankind.