Literal versus figurative stories in Bible

[CatholicCnvt]

Hi, I’m a Catholic convert of 5 years and up until recently believed that all the stories in the Bible were literal.
I’m told that the story of creation is figurative. Does this mean that Noah and Abraham were’t real people? If this is true, where in the Bible do the stories become literal?
Please excuse my ignorance. I was not raised Christian.

 

[otrrl]

the Bible is neither strictly a science book or a history book. We cannot impose 21st century ideas on what was written centuries ago. Opinions vary because history was not written down for a long time but passed by word of mouth. If there was an ark that was built by a man named Noah, undoubtedly the wood would have later been recycled for other purposes.

As a believer, I read the Bible from the first page as revealing truths that God has inspired to be written. Those pages are studied intently for their exact meaning. There are different types of writing in the Bible (“genres”) such as prose, poetry, fable, prayer, sermons, songs, and so on.

The footnotes in a study Bible may not be exhaustive to answer every question you have. There is a study group at the Vatican called the Pontifical Biblical Commission which writes papers from time to time on various questions. On the reading of the Bible, it recommends reading the Bible alongside a Catholic commentary.

Personal opinion: I think every Catholic should read the entire Bible. This will prepare you for the selections of scripture that are used at Mass and be useful for understanding the teachings of the Church and to live our lives in holiness.

 

[bobperk]

Noah and Abraham most certainly were real, as evidenced by Jesus and the apostles speaking of them in those terms, not to mention the various Catechism references which quite plainly state that those men existed and communicated with God.

Some of the Genesis 1-11 Creation narrative can be interpreted figuratively, but a truth, but we are not required to take a figurative view. The Church allows both literal and figurative interpretations.

 

[otjm]

The Church holds there were two original human beings, and does not get into a whole lot beyond that. We need to keep in mind that science is of limited scope when it comes to going back in time to the origin of Man; whether the two original parents’ ancestors were apes or ape related is essentially irrelevant two the two’s interaction with God.

Ah - Noah. I got into it a bit with someone over the issue; and my take is - what difference does it make whether someone can actually trace his lineage back to Adam, or whether there may have been skips over one or even multiple ancestors? Does it make the story of Noah theologically different, given one side or the other of the accuracy (or lack thereof) of every last individual being named?

People take the story to say the whole world was completely flooded; again, as otrrl was pointing out, no one back then had any inkling that history as we understand the term today had any meaning or content; That was not why it was repeated from generation to generation.

A couple of points. The oldest writing seems to go back to Mesopotamia, about 3,400 B.C. There are earlier scripts, all undeciphered, going back to about 5,500 B.C. which may qualify as writing, or proto writing, or something else.

There is evidence throughout the world of large areas being flooded well prior to that, coinciding with the last great ice age. time wise they go back to about 11,000 B.C. For example, there is evidence in the US of the Bonneville and Missoula floods. there is evidence also in Asia and south from there.

There is a particularly similar tale in the Gilgamesh, which to a certain extent seems to parallel some aspects of the Noah flood.

so were there massive floods over then-known areas? That appears definite. However, they appear to have occurred long, long prior to any written stories of it.

Again, does it matter? The story of Noah is about God and man’s relationship with God, with theological reflection on covenant. Does it matter ultimately whether or not we meet Noah in the afterlife? No, what matters is that we make it to the afterlife, after following Christ.

There certainly is information if one chooses to dig deeply enough as to what did or did not actually occur; but unless there are multiple records of a particular incident, we may only have the account found in the Old Testament. (continued)

 

[otjm]

(Continued) And that may not be as unreliable as some have proposed; archaeology periodically confirms places, etc. noted in the OT, at times with somewhat surprising accuracy. But one cannot necessarily go from that to leap to the point of saying that all of it is accurate as 21st century people understand that term. In other words, I don’t put anything into the “recent creation” context that gets bandied about, most often with people who try to take the Bible as literalists.

The Catholic Church approaches Scripture from a contextualist point of view, which often leaves the specific details of a story unanswered. Again, focus on what the relationship is between Man and God, and avoid going down the literalist path.

And as to the comment that Noah most certainly was real because Christ spoke of him: Christ also spoke of a number of individuals (the owner of the vineyard comes immediately to mind); that does not mean Christ was speaking of a specific individual. He may have been, or he may have not been; but in speaking of Noah, Christ was not saying that Noah existed any more than if your parents told you a story about Hansel and Gretel. Maybe that story goes back (with details subsequently embellished) to two real kids. That is not the point; and Christ mentioning Noah doesn’t have to do with proof that Noah existed.

Maybe he (Noah) did. Or maybe he didn’t. Christ was not giving a history lesson; he was giving a theological lesson.

The point I am trying to make about Noah is that, if you look at the actual evidence of floods and of writing, there was a gap of maybe 5,000 to 7 or 8.000 years between. The theological truth of the story is the same whether Noah is an amalgam of a number of individuals, perhaps living at different times and all surviving one or more floods, or if there was some guy back when building a big boat (What’s a cubit? Anyone old enough to remember that one?).

 

[ralfyman]

This might help:

The Limits of Scripture Interpretation | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Hello, I’ll try to answer your questions.

Hi, I’m a Catholic convert of 5 years and up until recently believed that all the stories in the Bible were literal.

You are not alone. A lot of cradle Catholics in my day (I was born around the time of Vatican II) were raised to think of all the stories in the Bible as literal also, and then had to face this issue when we got to about high school age and some religion teacher started covering the “creation narratives”.

As an initial matter, please understand that it is permissible for you as a Catholic to continue to take the Bible literally, and there are other Catholics out there who do so. It is also permissible for Catholics to understand some parts of the Bible figuratively. What is important in either case is that you understand the basic theme/ message that each part of the Bible is trying to get across regarding man’s relationship to God.

I’m told that the story of creation is figurative.

This is one popular Catholic interpretation which, as stated above, you’re free to accept or reject.

Does this mean that Noah and Abraham were’t real people? If this is true,…

Noah and Abraham were real people. Jesus referred to them both when teaching. Jesus would not have relied on fictional people to make his points.
One is however permitted to believe that while a real Noah and a real Abraham did exist, their activities might not have been exactly as specified in Genesis. To give one example, perhaps Noah was not 500 years old when he became a father, but rather a younger, more normal age like 20 years old, and the 500 years had some symbolic or literary meaning.

where in the Bible do the stories become literal?

This is the type of question that Catholic Biblical scholars frequently debate, based on things like historical evidence. I think rather than us trying to answer it, you would do well to read some Catholic Bible commentaries - and remember that there are multiple Catholic Bible commentaries approved by the Church, but no one single commentary out of the group approved by the Church is held up by the Church as THE authoritative one. The commentary would give you a sense of how Catholics interpret the Bible and why the same story might be in the Bible three times but written in a slightly different way each time.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

And as to the comment that Noah most certainly was real because Christ spoke of him: Christ also spoke of a number of individuals (the owner of the vineyard comes immediately to mind); that does not mean Christ was speaking of a specific individual. He may have been, or he may have not been; but in speaking of Noah, Christ was not saying that Noah existed any more than if your parents told you a story about Hansel and Gretel. Maybe that story goes back (with details subsequently embellished) to two real kids. That is not the point; and Christ mentioning Noah doesn’t have to do with proof that Noah existed.

Maybe he (Noah) did. Or maybe he didn’t. Christ was not giving a history lesson; he was giving a theological lesson.

You are incorrect here. While it’s true that Jesus sometimes used parables, in other words made-up stories, to instruct people, he did not refer to Noah and Abraham in the context of a parable. He referred to them as the Jewish patriarchs they were, and the Catholic Church continues to recognize them as patriarchs, as shown in the Catechism.

Catechism sections CCC 56-61 in the section on the Profession of Faith describes God’s covenants with Noah and Abraham - God would not be making a covenant with a fictional person - and further states at CCC 61,

61 The patriarchs, prophets and certain other Old Testament figures have been and always will be honored as saints in all the Church’s liturgical traditions.

The Church does not honor fictional saints, and has gone so far as to remove saints who did not have enough evidence supporting their existence from its canon in recent years.

Noah and Abraham are patriarchs and saints. It is the Church’s position that they did exist.

An additional article on this topic from National Catholic Register:

New Testament Evidence for Noah’s Existence| National Catholic Register

 

[Gorgias]

Noah and Abraham were real people. Jesus referred to them both when teaching. Jesus would not have relied on fictional people to make his points.

I agree with your first two sentences. Your last one, though…?

Didn’t Jesus “rely on fictional people to make his points” when he taught in parables? You’re not saying that you think that the prodigal son, the good samaritan, Lazarus the beggar, the woman who searches for her lost coin, and many others are literally “real people”, do you?

While it’s true that Jesus sometimes used parables, in other words made-up stories, to instruct people, he did not refer to Noah and Abraham in the context of a parable.

True. But he does refer to people – sometimes by name – in the context of the stories he told!

So, although I agree that we can agree on the historicity of Noah and Abraham, I think we have to reconsider the notion that Jesus only talked about real people in his teachings…

 

[TMC]

Noah and Abraham were real people. Jesus referred to them both when teaching. Jesus would not have relied on fictional people to make his points.

While I agree with most of your post, I don’t agree with this bit. I don’t think Catholics are required to believe that Noah and Abraham were real people, although I admit to not being certain about that point. But it is certainly true that Jesus often used stories about fictional people to make points, and there is no reason to think that Jesus would not have used Noah as a literary figure to make a point, just as you or I may use Hamlet or Romeo to make a point, even though we know they were not real people.

EDIT - sorry, just saw that @Gorgias made a similar point. I think our positions are different, however, so I will let my post stand.

 

[Gorgias]

EDIT - sorry, just saw that @Gorgias made a similar point.

Great minds…

I think our positions are different, however, so I will let my post stand.

I hold to your position with respect to the possibility of purely literal figures elsewhere in the Bible, though: Job comes to mind immediately, in that respect…

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I don’t think Catholics are required to believe that Noah and Abraham were real people, although I admit to not being certain about that point.

I think you’re in direct conflict with the Catechism (and not just some “moral teaching” section, but the Profession of Faith section, which is where these people are discussed in the Catechism) if you don’t think they’re real people. See what I posted above, also the article I posted.

It makes no sense to think that God would make a covenant with a person who doesn’t exist, or that the Jewish people would make up a story about God making a covenant with some fictional patriarch. It defies logic, honestly.

Believe what you want, you’re the one who will need to account to God for your unbelief in His patriarchs in the end.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I agree with your first two sentences. Your last one, though…?

Didn’t Jesus “rely on fictional people to make his points” when he taught in parables? You’re not saying that you think that the prodigal son, the good samaritan, Lazarus the beggar, the woman who searches for her lost coin, and many others are literally “real people”, do you?

You are correct and I should have been more clear that Jesus would not have relied on fictional people to make the specific points that he was making when he brought up the Jewish patriarchs. As I discussed in my second post, he wasn’t speaking in the context of a parable, but in terms of the Jewish history, which of course he and every other Jewish person regarded as real.

 

[TMC]

I think you’re in direct conflict with the Catechism (and not just some “moral teaching” section, but the Profession of Faith section, which is where these people are discussed in the Catechism) if you don’t think they’re real people. See what I posted above, also the article I posted.

It makes no sense to think that God would make a covenant with a person who doesn’t exist, or that the Jewish people would make up a story about God making a covenant with some fictional patriarch. It defies logic, honestly.

Believe what you want, you’re the one who will need to account to God for your unbelief in His patriarchs in the end.

Not sure what you mean by me being in conflict with the Church. If you mean that I am incorrect and that Catholics must believe in Noah and Abraham as actual, literal, historical figures, you may be right about that. I am not 100% convinced that the discussion of Noah and Abraham in the Catechism is dispositive, but on balance you are probably correct as to Abraham, and likely Noah as well. As to whether I believe in the historicity of those two people, I have not actually addressed that issue.

As to what the authors of Genesis may have “made up,” I don’t think that the fact that some parts of Genesis are not historical means that they are made up, or illogical. I think that most Catholic scholars would agree that the creation accounts are not historical, but they are also not made up.

Either way, I agree that I am free to believe what I want, understanding that I am responsible for that belief. That is, of course, true for all of us, regardless of who we are and what we believe.

 

[CatholicCnvt]

Thank you. Do you have any commentary in mind?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’m sure everyone will start throwing out their own favorites here.

The NABRE commentary that is part of the USCCB edition is heavily slanted towards modern “non-literal” post-VII interpretation of the Bible. It’s not highly regarded on this forum and I personally find it a bit annoying, so I would say either don’t use that one, or use it only in conjunction with a second commentary.

I would suggest maybe Haydock as that’s the one I usually use when I am tired of reading the USCCB notes.

 

[Dovekin]

I will give you the opposite advice. NABRE will give you a clear perspective, approved by the US bishops. Using an older commentary like Haydock will just heighten your confusion about literal and figurative language.

 

[TMC]

The NABRE commentary that is part of the USCCB edition is heavily slanted towards modern “non-literal” post-VII interpretation of the Bible. It’s not highly regarded on this forum and I personally find it a bit annoying, so I would say either don’t use that one, or use it only in conjunction with a second commentary.

I will give you the opposite advice. NABRE will give you a clear perspective, approved by the US bishops. Using an older commentary like Haydock will just heighten your confusion about literal and figurative language.

I have a different issue with the NABRE notes - they are too short. Its hard to give good commentary in a sentence or two. I would get a good long form work on biblical studies. I like Father Ray Brown, although many here dislike him for the same reasons they dislike the NABRE. Brown is Catholic, highly respected and orthodox. For those that can’t abide his approach, I would still recommend getting a long form true work on biblical scholarship. Understanding the various approaches to biblical interpretation is very valuable, and there are respected works out there from various perspectives. They tend to be expensive, but you can always go to any good library. Once you have put in the work, the comments will make more sense (whether you agree with them or not).

EDIT - the “will make more sense” part is NOT aimed at any particular poster - I would not presume to know what anyone’s level of study is. My point is that for those new to biblical interpretation, getting a foundation is important.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

An additional concern here in my opinion is the OP is used to taking the Bible literally and may not have anyone handy to guide him through his exposure to the more “modern” interpretations like NABRE. I would not want to raise a huge number of questions in the mind of a person who isn’t used to navigating such waters.

OP, you also might want to read some of Scott Hahn, like “A Father Who Keeps His Promises”, to get an idea of the themes Catholics find important, usually more important than details like whether Sennacherib was actually the son of Salmaneser and so forth.

 

[bobperk]

This is the type of question that Catholic Biblical scholars frequently debate, based on things like historical evidence.

Quite fortunately, we are blessed these days with several competent, orthodox Catholic Biblical scholars such as Brant Pitre, John Bergsma, Mary Healy, Scott Hahn, Curtis Mitch, Michael Barber and others, just to name a few.

Hopefully gone forever are the days of skeptical, denigrating Biblical scholarship masquerading as “high criticism.”