Scholar Says: “Don’t Take The Bible Literally”

[Wesrock]

And as Gorgias explained earlier, the Alexandrian school looked for allegory in everything, whereas the school of Antioch was far more literal in the modern sense. But the author of this document didn’t believe the gospel narrative was made up.

 

[Hope1960]

That’s not what Houghton was saying.

What IS he saying, then?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

That’s not what Houghton was saying.

What IS he saying, then?

“This author shows that a fundamentalist-plain-text approach to scripture reading, which is a recent trend, is inconsistent with the way the esrly Church approached scripture.”

 

[Wesrock]

Gorgias provides a link to the actual translated text. Take a look. The commentator looks for all kinds of deeper meaninga for John wearing a hairshirt and what it represents, but it doesn’t mean he denies John actually wore a hairshirt. He believes in Mary’s perpetual Virginity. He believes in a historical Jesus. He just believes historical events played out and have been recapped in such a way that there are additional layers of meaning to be teased out. There are any number of ways an event can be phrased, but it’s being phrased in “this” way to emphasize “that” meaning.

And, this isn’t from the text, but Jesus, as a wandering preacher, probably gave the same “sermon” multiple times, repeated the same parables for multiple audiences. So is the account of any such one we find in scripture the first time he gave it? The second? The tenth? It’s probably a synopsis of these sermons in general. The synoptic gospels don’t even follow a strict chronology in the way they were ordered. It doesn’t mean Jesus never gave these sermons.

 

[bobperk]

Hope, I pray for you. I have read enough of your thread and you ALWAYS do this . . . you read something that some skeptical secular scholar wrote and you keep asking people to debunk it. There are always going to be Biblical scholars who doubt the Scriptures or tell people to read them a certain way. They are not going to go away.

If you want to read about the historical accuracy of Scripture, I suggest the following Catholic writers: Scott Hahn, Brant Pitre, Lydia McGrew, John Bergsma, Michael Barber, Curtis Mitch, Pope Benedict. On the Protestant side, Darrell Bock, Ben Witherington III, NT Wright, Daniel Wallace, Craig Keener, Craig Blomberg, and Craig Evans just to name a few.

 

[Hope1960]

Gorgias provides a link to the actual translated text. Take a look.

Ok, thats waaaaaay over my head.

 

[runningdude]

First, understand that the Telegraph seems to have butchered the story beyond recognition.

The context of the story is that a modern scholar, Dr. Houghton, translated a fourth century theologian’s essay about the Gospel of Matthew and its relationship to Luke and John.

The actual quote is: “But for people teaching the Bible in the fourth century, it’s not the literal meaning which is important, it’s how it’s read allegorically.” Dr. Houghton is claiming that the theologian he translated had an allegorical interpretation!

Based on the evidence in the article, Dr. Houghton never said “Don’t take the bible literally” - that is the Telegraph characterizing Dr. Houghton’s remarks. It is an utter nonsensical characterization, as Dr. Houghton only said that a particular historical figure did not take the gospels “literally”.

 

[Gorgias]

Ok, thats waaaaaay over my head.

Alright. Let’s simplify it, then.

The Church teaches that there are two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual. The literal sense is what the human author intended. The spiritual sense allows for a meaning beyond the literal sense.

Now, there are a few types of spiritual senses. One of them is the ‘allegorical’. By this, we mean that we see elements of Christ’s life in a wide variety of Scriptural events.

The Church teaches that it’s possible for a passage of Scripture to have both an interpretation of the literal sense and interpretations according to spiritual senses. The author whom you brought to our attention in this thread is claiming that, if there’s an interpretation according to a spiritual sense, then that’s proof that early scholars did not seek interpretations according to the literal sense.

SImply put, this scholar is mistaken.

Does that help?

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Can we call @crm-brother in

 

[Start]

A good example might be the wedding of Cana. From an allegorical sense it shows how Jesus is able to transform us into some amazing, like how water which is tasteless and colorless turns to a vibrant win that is sweet.

 

[Hope1960]

Can we call @crm-brother in

I sent him an invite.

 

[Hope1960]

Alright. Let’s simplify it, then.

The Church teaches that there are two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual. The literal sense is what the human author intended. The spiritual sense allows for a meaning beyond the literal sense.

Now, there are a few types of spiritual senses. One of them is the ‘allegorical’. By this, we mean that we see elements of Christ’s life in a wide variety of Scriptural events.

The Church teaches that it’s possible for a passage of Scripture to have both an interpretation of the literal sense and interpretations according to spiritual senses. The author whom you brought to our attention in this thread is claiming that, if there’s an interpretation according to a spiritual sense, then that’s proof that early scholars did not seek interpretations according to the literal sense.

SImply put, this scholar is mistaken.

Does that help?

So, in a nutshell, the writing Dr. Houghton translated from Fortunatianus of Aquileia says/means that the Gospels are true history or not?

 

[Wesrock]

Gorgias:

Alright. Let’s simplify it, then.

The Church teaches that there are two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual. The literal sense is what the human author intended. The spiritual sense allows for a meaning beyond the literal sense.

Now, there are a few types of spiritual senses. One of them is the ‘allegorical’. By this, we mean that we see elements of Christ’s life in a wide variety of Scriptural events.

The Church teaches that it’s possible for a passage of Scripture to have both an interpretation of the literal sense and interpretations according to spiritual senses. The author whom you brought to our attention in this thread is claiming that, if there’s an interpretation according to a spiritual sense, then that’s proof that early scholars did not seek interpretations according to the literal sense.

SImply put, this scholar is mistaken.

Does that help?

So, in a nutshell, the writing Dr. Houghton translated from Fortunatianus of Aquileia says/means that the Gospels are true history or not?

Yes, the 4th century commentator still believes it’s true history.

 

[goout]

steve-b:

Scripture is written in many writing styles. Some not all is meant to be literal.

The crux of the Gospels are supposed to be literal.

Both of you. The Church makes a distinction between the literal sense of scripture and literalism, which can also be called literalist fundamentalism.

Those are two different things. The primary sense of all scripture is the literal. The bible has literal integrity and sense that must be the basis for interpretation. And from there we have senses.
The CCC deals with this effectively.

Literalist fundamentalism treats the bible as a science or history textbook in modern journalistic fashion.
For example, a fundamentalist would (should if they are to be consistent) insist that a hammered metal dome covers the skies, because it says so in Genesis.

 

[Gorgias]

So, in a nutshell, the writing Dr. Houghton translated from Fortunatianus of Aquileia says/means that the Gospels are true history or not?

No, that writing does not speak to the question of whether the Gospels are historical. Fortinatianus is merely pointing out that there is allegorical meaning to be found in the Gospels, also.

 

[goout]

The Church teaches that it’s possible for a passage of Scripture to have both an interpretation of the literal sense and interpretations according to spiritual senses.

for the sake of clarity:
It’s not just possible to have both senses, the primary sense of all scripture is the literal. Interpretation of scripture begins with the literal sense.

It’s important to emphasize this fine point because many people cannot make this distinction.
They incorrectly believe “literal” and “spiritual” are mutually exclusive, not understanding the terms with the mind of the Church.
And the primary error of fundamentalists is to equate “literal” with “factual” in a journalistic sense ( or to put it in the vernacular, they’ve been watching too much CNN).

 

[Genesis315]

So a random bishop in the fourth-century provides an allegorical commentary on portions of the Gospels and therefore we should make a blanket hermeutical assumption about the entire canon of Scripture.

 

[CRM_Brother]

Hello All,
Thanks for sending me an invite on this one. I hope I can help shed some clarity.

First off the bat, I think it is important to note that this article is about a finding made at a non-Catholic university and seems to be specifically addressing fundamentalist literalism, not necessarily the Catholic view of the literal sense of Scripture. In addition to this, the translator seems to be jumping to conclusions, basing all ancient exegesis on a single work. He very conspicuously ignores the Greek exegesis being done by eastern fathers. This is just the first full work of Latin exegesis found.

Yes, there is the literal and spiritual sense of Scripture. There is also the historical, prophetic, poetic, and a list of other senses we could get into (see St. Bonaventure for a good grasp of the scope of Biblical interpretation).

I think one of the binds we are getting into during this discussion is we are forgetting stylistic or genre interpretation. The format in which the book is written determines a good deal how the literal sense of the Scripture is meant to be viewed.

Despite only a handful of decades separating the writing of the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John, the genre in which they were written are very different. The article alludes to this fact when it states that most of the Gospels are written with symbolism in mind. This is true. These are the Synoptics. Symbolism is an inherent part of their genre and as such is meant to complement the literal meaning by expanding on the spiritual meaning of the events.

 

[CRM_Brother]

The genre in which the Synoptics were written is meant to be more episodic, moving progressively through the life of Christ’s ministry. When it was written, it was obvious by the genre in which it was written that it wasn’t meant to be an exact history as we view history today. The events did happen. I don’t dispute that, but it was evident that they were arranged out of chronological order to complement the conveying of Christ’s message of salvation. Minute details were added like two lepers being healed instead of one or the route Jesus took to emphasize the message the human author was attempting to convey. For the genre, the literal sense was to interpret the meaning of an event through the added symbolism.

John’s Gospel is different. He was writing to believers who had fallen, or were being tempted to fall into a specific heresy of the time: that Christ was not flesh and blood but rather an illusion to make man accept the divine Person of the Son as one of them. In this, Christ did not suffer or die, as he wasn’t flesh and blood to begin with. In response to this, John leaves out much of the symbolism of the Synoptics geared toward conversion. Those he is writing to already know of Christ’s life. His events are more historical in the sense that they seem not to have been distorted (to our modern eye) through much added symbolism, but the events are still somewhat episodic. They are grouped together to emphasize theological truths in opposition to the heresy (for the love of me, I can’t remember the name). They can’t be considered literal in the sense that ‘this happened and then this happened’ but they appear to be more literal in the details of the event than the Synoptics.

Both the Synoptics and John are interpreted in the literal sense according to their genre, but that literal sense is different for each.

Hope this helped.

 

[Hope1960]

Both the Synoptics and John are interpreted in the literal sense according to their genre, but that literal sense is different for each.

Hope this helped.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, but what I’m getting at is this:

1. are the events in the Gospels an historical fact, and,
2. did Fortunatianus of Aquileia think the Gospels are an historical fact or made up stories?