Literal versus figurative stories in Bible

[William_Scott]

[Continued]
p.s. Reginald H. Fuller, upon reviewing Brown’s The Birth of the Messiah in 1978 stated “It is ironic that just at a time when the limitations of the historical critical method are being discovered in Protestantism, Roman Catholic scholars should be bent on pursuing that method so relentlessly.”

Library : Higher Criticism Has Gone Bankrupt | Catholic Culture

p.p.s. While I have harsh and “judgmental” words for the terrible error of higher criticism and those who teach it, I don’t intend by this to place myself (or those who defend the truth in this matter) on any comparative pedestal of saintliness. My only hope in life and death is Christ revealed in Scripture and His infinite merits alone. As St. Anselm says:

Come, then, while life remains in you. In his death alone place your whole trust; in nothing else place any trust;….with this alone cover yourself wholly; and if the Lord your God wills to judge you, say: Lord, between your judgment and me I present the death of our Lord Jesus Christ; in no other way can I contend with you. And if he shall say that you are a sinner, say: Lord, I interpose the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between my sins and you. If he should say that you deserve condemnation, say: Lord, I set the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between my evil deserts and you, and his merits I offer for those which I ought to have and have not. If he says that he is angry with you, say: Lord, I oppose the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between your wrath and me. And when you have completed this, say again: Lord, I set the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and you.

Have a good week.

 

[Dovekin]

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"

Brown, in this quote, is taking an agnostic approach, that we cannot know from scripture alone. He is not constructing an “historical Jesus” in the way that you and others have, which is why I call your comments a misrepresentation. The texts of the predictions show signs of development that should preclude identifying them as verbatim quotes, though they might be.

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.

I understand your position. I consider it a misrepresentation. I do not think your remarks simplify anything; they make the discussion unmanageable. Sometimes we can use Newtonian physics, but in other situations we rely on quantum mechanics. Newton is much simpler to use, but it can be wrong.

 

[Dovekin]

In the early 1980s, the era from which this article by Fr Long comes, I tried to follow Pope John Paul II’s weekly audiences on the theology of the body. I did not have a regular source I could turn to, so sometimes I picked up newspapers or magazines to fill in until I could get to a library.

One day I picked up a copy of The Wanderer, a conservative that usually printed the text of the Pope’s Wednesday discourse. In this particular issue, there was an article like Fr Long’s, condemning “higher criticism.” The particular focus was the documentary theory of the Pentateuch, that identifies several sources that are combined in these first 5 books of the Bible. Much like Fr Long, the article declared no Catholic could believe anyone other than Moses wrote the Torah.

Right next to the article was the text of the Pope’s Wednesday audience, wherein he talked about the creation accounts from the Yahwist and Elohist authors in Genesis. No Catholic, except the Pope?

That attitude is called “more Catholic than the Pope.” People arrogate to themselves the power to identify Catholics, and their criteria exclude the Pope. I rarely find such writings credible. So Fr Long’s bluster about historical criticism starts out with a few marks against it for me. His credibility did not increase as I read the article, but went down considerably. 40 years later, I do not think it adds much to the discussion.

 

[Tolle_Lege]

Brown, in this quote, is taking an agnostic approach, that we cannot know from scripture alone.

And you don’t see it as a problem that a priest elevated to such stature by the Church as a Biblical scholar was “agnostic” about what was written about Jesus?

Statements like this are passive-aggressive attacks on the faith, simultaneously doubting the Word of God, casting doubt upon our Lord’s ability to foretell his future, turning the holy evangelists into fiction writers, and creating a “Jesus of faith” along with a “historical Jesus” who was just a regular preacher.

One thing I will give credit to Brown and others like him for is the ability to sugarcoat their wording in order to sound faithful, while at the same time showing their lack of supernatural faith.

 

[goout]

The title of the thread presents a false dichotomy.
There is no “versus” between literal and figurative, or between literal and spiritual senses.

 

[Dovekin]

And you don’t see it as a problem that a priest elevated to such stature by the Church as a Biblical scholar was “agnostic” about what was written about Jesus?

I do not, because are knowledge of Jesus is always mediated through the Church. We cannot simply take a gospel story and treat is as historically accurate account of events. We read the gospels in the context of the Church, where the predictions are like the preaching of the early Church. Taking them out of that context can falsify them, make them into something they are not.

It is precisely because of his faith that Brown objects to any claims to know more about Jesus than we possibly can imo. People who read the Bible as just a series of facts miss out on the faith that is offered to us through it.

 

[Tolle_Lege]

I do not, because are knowledge of Jesus is always mediated through the Church. We cannot simply take a gospel story and treat is as historically accurate account of events. We read the gospels in the context of the Church

The Church quite plainly believes that Jesus foretold his death, 643 Given all these testimonies, Christ’s Resurrection cannot be interpreted as something outside the physical order, and it is impossible not to acknowledge it as an historical fact. It is clear from the facts that the disciples’ faith was drastically put to the test by their master’s Passion and death on the cross, which he had foretold. The shock provoked by the Passion was so great that at least some of the disciples did not at once believe in the news of the Resurrection. Far from showing us a community seized by a mystical exaltation, the Gospels present us with disciples demoralized (“looking sad”) and frightened. For they had not believed the holy women returning from the tomb and had regarded their words as an “idle tale”. When Jesus reveals himself to the Eleven on Easter evening, “he upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen.”

It is precisely because of his faith that Brown objects to any claims to know more about Jesus than we possibly can imo.

The plain sense of reading these passages is that Jesus foretold His death. There is absolutely zero evidence that these were prophecies after the fact; the only “evidence” is these scholars’ lack of supernatural faith. They don’t believe in prophecies.

We can go back and forth forever and won’t agree with each other. Combing through the Gospels and cherry-picking passages that seem unreasonable is a demonstration of lacking supernatural faith.

 

[goout]

To be honest, Jesus foretelling his death does not have to be a supernatural feat.
For instance, I can tell you now that I will suffer for may faith (you too) and that is prophecy. It will happen, and we are not required to invoke supernatural power for that prophecy. Christ lived such a radically counter-cultural life that it was probably apparent to him that he was on the wrong side of the ledger. The Gospels speak about Christ being in peril from the authorities. So yea, anyone paying attention could probably see that he was in danger.

The difference is, the disciples wanted to avoid that danger while Christ willingly walked into it. So he goes about telling them “this is who I am, this is why I came, and I am going to live that mission to the fullest no matter the danger”. The cross.

Prophecy is not merely the foretelling of the future. It looks at current events as they are, and speaks the word of God into them for the exhortation and edification of the people.

In any case what Jesus knew and when he knew it are mysteries that draw us.

 

[edwest211]

You’ve identified a very real problem from the ‘symbolic school’ of thought which is at variance with what the Church tells us.

“22. To return, however, to the new opinions mentioned above, a number of things are proposed or suggested by some even against the divine authorship of Sacred Scripture. For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council’s definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters. They even wrongly speak of a human sense of the Scriptures, beneath which a divine sense, which they say is the only infallible meaning, lies hidden. In interpreting Scripture, they will take no account of the analogy of faith and the Tradition of the Church. Thus they judge the doctrine of the Fathers and of the Teaching Church by the norm of Holy Scripture, interpreted by the purely human reason of exegetes, instead of explaining Holy Scripture according to the mind of the Church which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth.”

Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII

 

[Dovekin]

“Thus they judge the doctrine of the Fathers and of the Teaching Church by the norm of Holy Scripture, interpreted by the purely human reason of exegetes, instead of explaining Holy Scripture according to the mind of the Church which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth.”

Yes, there are a lot of people who neglect the history and context of the scriptures and offer their own “plain sense” of what the scripture means in place of what the Church teaches.

 

[Lost4words]

I dont believe that the Bible can be taken in an 100% literal way.

Look at Revelation for example. You cant take a lot of that as literal.

 

[goout]

The bible is 100% literal. The bible is a collection of literature, correct? It is a collection of books of various genres. The text must be respected as it is written, no matter what the genre is.
From that literal sense flows everything else. The Church clearly teaches this, and yet the word “literal” is the source of great confusion.

Literal and literalism are not the same thing.
A text can be poetic metaphor, and it still has a primary literal sense.
I hope that makes sense.

 

[TMC]

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.

Based on your many complaints about the Church’s scholars and scholarship, its seems that the real issue here is that you disagree with the Church’s interpretation of Scripture, or at least with the Church’s methods of interpreting Scripture. Would you say that is accurate? If not, how do you square your position with the fact that every Pope in my lifetime (and I am not a young man) appears to agree with Church scholars such as Fr. Brown, and disagree with your position?

 

[Tolle_Lege]

Based on your many complaints about the Church’s scholars and scholarship, its seems that the real issue here is that you disagree with the Church’s interpretation of Scripture, or at least with the Church’s methods of interpreting Scripture. Would you say that is accurate?

This isn’t really “the Church’s” “interpretation” of Scripture. It’s an American English edition of the Bible with footnotes patched together by some 1960s and 1970s scholars. Does “the Church” use these footnotes to form teachings? Thank God the answer is “no,” otherwise we’d have no supernatural religion left.

 

[TMC]

This isn’t really “the Church’s” “interpretation” of Scripture. It’s an American English edition of the Bible with footnotes patched together by some 1960s and 1970s scholars. Does “the Church” use these footnotes to form teachings? Thank God the answer is “no,” otherwise we’d have no supernatural religion left.

You didn’t actually address my point. The Church has certainly approved, and praised (if not formally adopted) the very interpretations and interpretation methodologies that you find so offensive. You accuse those that use these interpretations and methodologies of being Godless, but you know that at least the last four Popes have done so. So it follows that you must disagree with the Church’s scriptural interpretations. Moreover, it suggests that you believe the Church (or at least its leadership) is Godless. If that is not correct, what am I missing?

 

[Tolle_Lege]

You didn’t actually address my point. The Church has certainly approved, and praised (if not formally adopted) the very interpretations and interpretation methodologies that you find so offensive. You accuse those that use these interpretations and methodologies of being Godless, but you know that at least the last four Popes have done so. So it follows that you must disagree with the Church’s scriptural interpretations. Moreover, it suggests that you believe the Church (or at least its leadership) is Godless. If that is not correct, what am I missing?

Approving the method of interpretation is one thing; but it’s supposed to be a measured approach to Scripture, not all “historical critical” and “well, if Josephus didn’t write about it, it must not have happened.” Pope Benedict’s “Jesus of Nazareth” series is a good example of a fairly measured approach.

Can you honestly say that the NAB footnotes are spiritually uplifting, especially now compared to much better options like the Ignatius Study Bible series?

It’s quite an extrapolation to say I claim the Church is “godless.” I didn’t say that anywhere. I think that many of the NAB footnote authors and clergy who approved it didn’t have a supernatural view of Scripture. It’s not a huge assumption to make when you read the footnotes. If a non-believer read the NAB footnotes, I wouldn’t be surprised if they thought we didn’t believe in an actual divine connection to the Bible.

These notes are decades old at this point. They’re stale. There are much better Bible options for Catholics these days. The NAB is not one of them, in my opinion.

 

[TMC]

Approving the method of interpretation is one thing; but it’s supposed to be a measured approach to Scripture, not all “historical critical” and “well, if Josephus didn’t write about it, it must not have happened.” Pope Benedict’s “Jesus of Nazareth” series is a good example of a fairly measured approach.

Can you honestly say that the NAB footnotes are spiritually uplifting, especially now compared to much better options like the Ignatius Study Bible series?

It’s quite an extrapolation to say I claim the Church is “godless.” I didn’t say that anywhere. I think that many of the NAB footnote authors and clergy who approved it didn’t have a supernatural view of Scripture. It’s not a huge assumption to make when you read the footnotes. If a non-believer read the NAB footnotes, I wouldn’t be surprised if they thought we didn’t believe in an actual divine connection to the Bible.

These notes are decades old at this point. They’re stale. There are much better Bible options for Catholics these days. The NAB is not one of them, in my opinion.

Yes, I find the NAB footnotes helpful, both spiritually and otherwise. As to Godless, what you said is that this type of interpretation denies the existence of the supernatural - which is by definition Godless. If you want to walk that accusation back, that is fine with me.

 

[Tolle_Lege]

As to Godless, what you said is that this type of interpretation denies the existence of the supernatural - which is by definition Godless.

The footnotes speak for themselves. I can spend all day copying them here but a few will do:

• Concerning the plagues upon Egypt in Exodus chapter 7: “Although most of these disasters, known traditionally as the “ten plagues of Egypt,” could be interpreted as naturally occurring phenomena, they are clearly represented by the biblical authors as extraordinary events indicative of God’s intervention on behalf of Israel and as occurring exactly according to Moses’ commands.” Here, the footnote claims the plagues upon Egypt could all just be naturally occurring, yet they are “represented” as “extraordinary events.” In other words, the authors (who these authors are, they don’t know!) kind of just polished these stories up to make them look like they were divine in origin.
• 1 Samuel 10:6 (Samuel speaking to Saul) reads, “The spirit of the Lord will rush upon you, and you will join them in their prophetic ecstasy and will become a changed man.”

Surely this is a pretty clear statement that the Holy Spirit will aid Saul in prophesying. Nope! The footnote reads, “Prophetic ecstasy: a condition of religious enthusiasm often induced by communal rituals of music and dancing.” Ah, of course! Forget the Holy Spirit - Saul was caught up in music and dancing like some college kid on spring break.

• One need only read through the NAB footnotes of St. Matthew’s and St. Luke’s beginning chapters to realize that the NAB contributors basically assume that the stories are all made up. There’s no other way to say it. No use in typing them all out here.
• Not to mention denial of traditional authorship of most books of the Bible, claims that aren’t as clear cut and certain as they appear in the NAB. For a fair assessment and evaluation of authorship, the Ignatius Study Bible blows the NAB away. Not even close.

And finally,

If you want to walk that accusation back, that is fine with me.

No thanks. I appreciate the offer though.

 

[TMC]

No thanks. I appreciate the offer though.

OK, so we are left with your personal interpretation that the Church’s view of scripture is Godless. Good to know.

 

[Tolle_Lege]

Church’s view of scripture

So the Church’s only view of Scripture is based on the 1970s NAB footnotes?