Scripture and Historical Truth

[Ron_Conte]

*That *is an untenable opinion. And, once again, you are mistakenly equating the truth/falsehood of writing with the literary form (i.e. fiction). You are also mistakenly mixing the words “some historical events” with the word “fictional” as if you know they are “historical”.

How do* you* know that Alexander the Great wasn’t the child of a God? His Infancy Narrative certainly reads like a historical event with the same components as that of Jesus.

Whether the events in a story actually occured is quite often not relevant to the truth of the message being expressed (which is one of the reasons the church only requires belief in the literal nature of a small handful of stories). If you are concerned about whether the depicted events occured, there are many ways to analyze the information in an attempt to determine the literary form. Scripture scholars have worked on this for centuries and there are classes and books which can help you.

The stories about Alexander the great are not Sacred Scripture. Sacred Scripture is a unique set of writings written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The infancy narratives are not figures, and so they must be literally true.

St. Thomas taught that there are two levels of meaning to Scripture the literal/figurative level and the spiritual level. But since the spiritual is based on the litera/figurative, nothing false can every underlie the literal/figurative level. The truths of the spiritual level of meaning cannot be based on falsehoods or fiction, regardless of the literal genre of the passage.

I cite the magisterial teachings of several Popes.
Which Pope taught what you are saying? None.

I cite the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Which Saint taught was you are saying? None.

There are various literary forms in Scripture, but the term literary form is not synonymous with fiction. The poems of the Psalms recount the history of salvation and even predict its future, referring poetically (using figures) to historical events and to the future events of Christ’s life. The Song of Songs is about the historical event of Solomon taking a bride. The historical books of the Old Testament recount the history of the kings of Israel. The book of Exodus recounts the history of the Israelites being freed from slavery. Sometimes the literary form is in fact an historical account. But even when the form is poetic, the assertions presented by the figures are not mere fiction, otherwise, the Faith would be based on fiction.

God is so powerful that He can teach spiritual truths (on the spiritual level of meaning) by means of real historical events that were arranged in their proper order by His grace and providence.

St Thomas: “I answer that, The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification. Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it.”
Summa Theologica, I, 1, 10.

 

[patg]

The stories about Alexander the great are not Sacred Scripture.

Only because they weren’t included in the bible - NOT because the stories are any different and *NOT *because the meaning of the stories is any different.

Sacred Scripture is a unique set of writings written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Yes. that is a teaching of the faith.

The infancy narratives are not figures, and so they must be literally true.

You have no basis for presenting that this mere opinion is a dogmatic teaching. Show us the teaching that states that any writing with “figures” (I guess you mean references to real people) must be dogmatically believed to be literally true. Are Jesus teaching stories literally true? You might also address why Raymond Brown, John Meier, the pontifical biblical commission, and Margaret Ralph haven’t been excommunicated for heresy. There is no teaching that states you must only consider the literal meaning.

St. Thomas taught that there are two levels of meaning to Scripture the literal/figurative level and the spiritual level. But since the spiritual is based on the litera/figurative, nothing false can every underlie the literal/figurative level. The truths of the spiritual level of meaning cannot be based on falsehoods or fiction, regardless of the literal genre of the passage.

I’m sure he taught very well based on the knowledge and scholarship of his time. Thankfully, because of the work of centuries of scholars we have moved on.

I cite the magisterial teachings of several Popes.

Not one of which denied the use of fiction as a vehicle for revelation. And not one who said we are required to believe there is nothing in the bible that can be interpreted as fiction if it caontains any reference to the real world or real people.

Which Pope taught what you are saying? None.

Which one denied it?

I cite the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Which Saint taught was you are saying? None.

He is entitled to his opinion, just as you and I are.

Sometimes the literary form is in fact an historical account.

That is something we can agree on. And numeroius church documents state that we should consider the literal nature of the text BUT none of them say we must stop there as our *only *consideration.

But even when the form is poetic, the assertions presented by the figures are not mere fiction, otherwise, the Faith would be based on fiction.

That is another unsupportable opinion. Faith is based on the truth being taught, regardless of the literary form. Did Jesus do most of his teaching with fictional stories? I believe so. And why do you say “mere fiction”? Fiction is no less a teaching tool than literalistic writing.

God is so powerful that He can teach spiritual truths (on the spiritual level of meaning) by means of real historical events that were arranged in their proper order by His grace and providence.

Sure He can. Now you need to explain why you are limiting God to only doing that and why you are restricting the authors to translating their inspiration into teachings using only a single form.

 

[Ron_Conte]

“But although these words of our predecessor leave no room for doubt or dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church - nay, what is a peculiar sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning - who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church’s teaching on this point.” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 18 )

 

[diggerdomer]

"St. Jerome’s teaching on this point serves to confirm and illustrate what our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, declared to be the ancient and traditional belief of the Church touching the absolute immunity of Scripture from error: So far is it from being the case that error can be compatible with inspiration, that, on the contrary, it not only of its very nature precludes the presence of error, but as necessarily excludes it and forbids it as God, the Supreme Truth, necessarily cannot be the Author of error. " (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 16)

“But although these words of our predecessor leave no room for doubt or dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church - nay, what is a peculiar sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning - who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church’s teaching on this point.” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 18 )

“…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.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 22).

“But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred… For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.” (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

The absolute immunity from error of Scripture is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, which has been solemnly defined. The rejection of this teaching has been already often condemned. Therefore, obstinate doubt or outright rejection of this teaching is material heresy.

Certainly, there is still room for interpretation, for deciding whether a passage is to be understood literally or figuratively. However, this first level of meaning, by which the text is true either literally or figuratively, must always be true.

St. Thomas Aquinas: Hence it is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.

By literal sense is understood the literal or figurative meaning of the text.

You seem to keep ignoring things people bring up from Church teaching such as the Catechism para 107 “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

If you’re going to claim to be presenting the tradition of the Church, why do you omit the last 50 years or so? Vatican II (Devi Verbum, the Catechism, the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s Instructions on the Historical Truth of the Gospels and on the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.… all are part of Tradition and can’t be dismissed. If you’re not going to consider those sources you’re incompletely witnessing to and understanding what the Church teaches.

And, as the passage from the Catechism indicates, the “error-free” reading of Scripture is only taught by the Church to necessarily include “that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.” The Church does not require that Scripture is error free regarding geography, cosmology, archaeology, biology, and so on, unless those fields impinge on matters of faith (e.g. how old the earth is is not a matter of faith; God as creator is…Genesis has teachings on both but both need not be literally understood as true for authentic faith).

Or do you understand that paragraph differently?

 

[David_Zampino]

You seem to keep ignoring things people bring up from Church teaching such as the Catechism para 107 “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

If you’re going to claim to be presenting the tradition of the Church, why do you omit the last 50 years or so? Vatican II (Devi Verbum, the Catechism, the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s Instructions on the Historical Truth of the Gospels and on the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.… all are part of Tradition and can’t be dismissed. If you’re not going to consider those sources you’re incompletely witnessing to and understanding what the Church teaches.

And, as the passage from the Catechism indicates, the “error-free” reading of Scripture is only taught by the Church to necessarily include “that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.” The Church does not require that Scripture is error free regarding geography, cosmology, archaeology, biology, and so on, unless those fields impinge on matters of faith (e.g. how old the earth is is not a matter of faith; God as creator is…Genesis has teachings on both but both need not be literally understood as true for authentic faith).

Or do you understand that paragraph differently?

Diggerdomer,

You beat me to the punch! Both Dei Verbum and the *Catechism *are quite clear on this subject. One passage from Dei Verbum which particularly struck me was this:

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.

I’ll admit that most would consider me pretty conservative when teaching, exegeting and interpreting Sacred Scripture, and in some respects, I am. But hyper-literalism is a very dangerous way of trying to interpret Scripture – whether the literalist is Protestant OR Catholic. Further, hyper-literalism is merely the flip-side of liberal deconstructionism. Both serve to try to put our omnipotent and transcendent God into a box – a box whose walls are human pride.

Your question for Ron was a good one, and one I hope he answers. What about Vatican II? What about the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

 

[Pete_Holter]

You seem to keep ignoring things people bring up from Church teaching such as the Catechism para 107 “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

If you’re going to claim to be presenting the tradition of the Church, why do you omit the last 50 years or so? Vatican II (Devi Verbum, the Catechism, the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s Instructions on the Historical Truth of the Gospels and on the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.… all are part of Tradition and can’t be dismissed. If you’re not going to consider those sources you’re incompletely witnessing to and understanding what the Church teaches.

And, as the passage from the Catechism indicates, the “error-free” reading of Scripture is only taught by the Church to necessarily include “that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.” The Church does not require that Scripture is error free regarding geography, cosmology, archaeology, biology, and so on, unless those fields impinge on matters of faith (e.g. how old the earth is is not a matter of faith; God as creator is…Genesis has teachings on both but both need not be literally understood as true for authentic faith).

Or do you understand that paragraph differently?

Hi diggerdomer!

It might help to know two things.

1.) An earlier draft of Dei Verbum had it worded “salvific truth,” but this wording was rejected because it implied a limitation to the scope of inerrancy. You can read about this here.

2.) The Instrumentum Laboris for last year’s Synod of Bishops tried to place the word “only” in front of the disputed phrase from Dei Verbum, and this was likewise rejected. I had a thread about this issue last year: Biblical Inerrancy.

You can check out this thread for an interpretation of this paragraph from the catechism, which is itself quoting Dei Verbum. Perhaps post 189 and 190 will be most helpful for you.

I won’t be posting anymore to this thread at this time. I will only be posting to the thread just referenced. May God bless you!

With the love of Christ,
Pete

 

[diggerdomer]

Hi diggerdomer!

It might help to know two things.

1.) An earlier draft of Dei Verbum had it worded “salvific truth,” but this wording was rejected because it implied a limitation to the scope of inerrancy. You can read about this here.

2.) The Instrumentum Laboris for last year’s Synod of Bishops tried to place the word “only” in front of the disputed phrase from Dei Verbum, and this was likewise rejected. I had a thread about this issue last year: Biblical Inerrancy.

You can check out this thread for an interpretation of this paragraph from the catechism, which is itself quoting Dei Verbum. Perhaps post 189 and 190 will be most helpful for you.

I won’t be posting anymore to this thread at this time. I will only be posting to the thread just referenced. May God bless you!

With the love of Christ,
Pete

Thanks…I think…unless this is a “hit and run” and you’re not going to respond.

Do any of the links you post contradict the Church teaching I referred to? I assume not, in which case we must agree.

Thanks again.

 

[DeannaMarie]

The Bible & the Church together make Him responsible for all we do, the evil no less than the good.

And sometimes, this results in finding that what it’s saying is not what traditional interptetations say it says.

Please provide a reference for your first claim above so that iI can research this.

Please provide evidence that a modern interpretation is better than a traditional one.

 

[DeannaMarie]

Again, I ask that you provide a reference for this claim.

 

[RobbyS]

Don Conte: "It is material heresy to claim that Sacred Scripture contains errors. "

I don’t disagree with this.

Oddly – no joke or exaggeration at all!!! – it is YOU who disagrees with this, when you insist that an expression of the error-free-ness is that the Bible is a perfect history book.

Pay close attention:

If one way in which the Bible “contains no error” is that it reflects history discussed by itself perfectly, then explain this:

(A) 2 Samuel 21:19: Elhanan, son of Jair, killed Goliath of Gath.

(B) 1 Samuel 17:4-51: David, son of Jesse, killed Goliath of Gath.

If the Bible was not intended to teach perfect history, then you are not looking at an error by the Holy Spirit. You instead are looking at accurately-copied error by a royal biographer.

If someone like you insists that the Bible is the perfect history book because of the inspiration of the Spirit – and that seems to be your position – then you are maintaining that the two cited items, which contradict themselves, are inspired history.

Who, under these circumstances, is contradicting the Magisterium?

Who is guilty of “heresy”?

Does it make you feel good to call someone else a “heretic”?

Why not, gentle friend, withhold judgment, and love, and listen?

All here know what you are going to do, now: You are going to do one of the “dances” that are “danced” to try to square the dozens of contradictions with the radical position that the Bible is functionally the world’s finest history book, because it is “perfect.”

Pick one:

(A) Two “Goliaths.”

(B) “Goliath of Gath” represents members of a family, not individuals.

(C) ONE of them represents a member of the family, not Goliath.

(D) Ehanan is another name for David, and Jair is another name for “Jesse.”

(E) David was placed under Elhanan.

(F) Elhanan was placed under David.

(G) Copyist’s error.

This is what happened when I asked about the error in Genesis about the “tree in the middle of the garden.” One verse in your “perfect history book” says that the Tree of Life was in the middle of the Garden. The other verse says that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was in the middle of the Garden. One member chose this dance: Two trees in the middle. Another member chose this dance: One tree, two names. A rabbi I know tried this approach: The second tree was a hedge around the first, so that they formed a kind of bullseye in the middle of the garden.

Maybe it was just an error in the telling of the story. Maybe it was two different stories jammed together by the Final Redactor.

The point is, the “perfect history” concept is what creates the problem.

Well, I agree that we cannot be put into the position of saying that the Holy Ghost guided the hand of each copyist.

 

[DeannaMarie]

Whether the events in a story actually occured is quite often not relevant to the truth of the message being expressed (which is one of the reasons the church only requires belief in the literal nature of a small handful of stories).

Please provide a reference to support your claim about the Church.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Truth is not built on lies–either something is true or it isn’t.

Catholics believe God’s word.

Like the Eucharist–that is a “hard saying” for some.

 

[DeannaMarie]

And, as the passage from the Catechism indicates, the “error-free” reading of Scripture is only taught by the Church to necessarily include “that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.” The Church does not require that Scripture is error free regarding geography, cosmology, archaeology, biology, and so on, unless those fields impinge on matters of faith (e.g. how old the earth is is not a matter of faith; God as creator is…Genesis has teachings on both but both need not be literally understood as true for authentic faith).

Or do you understand that paragraph differently?

You are mistaken about the meaning of the words “for the sake of our salvation”. Please read “Is Everything in the Bible True?” in This Rock Vol 19, No 5 May-June 2008 (available on the Catholic Answers website for free). This is a well reasoned and well documented argument against the use of this passage to limit the inerrancy of Scripture.

I would love to know what you think.

 

[DeannaMarie]

Hello!

I have been reading the posts, but am having difficulty understanding the argument of the “Scripture Errs” position. Will someone please state the argument in simple terms?

I am unable to substantiate claims that are made without reference to their source. Please, please, please provide adequate citations.

I suggest to all two articles from This Rock, “Is Everything in the Bible True?” (May-June 2008), and “What is Biblical Criticism–and Should We Trust It?” (November 2005). Both of these are available on the Catholic Answers website for free. I would love to know what you think.

 

[diggerdomer]

You are mistaken about the meaning of the words “for the sake of our salvation”. Please read “Is Everything in the Bible True?” in This Rock Vol 19, No 5 May-June 2008 (available on the Catholic Answers website for free). This is a well reasoned and well documented argument against the use of this passage to limit the inerrancy of Scripture.

I would love to know what you think.

I think I’ll stick with the Catechism, teaching of Vatican II (Dei Verbum), and similar Magisterial teaching (e.g. Pontifical Biblical Commission).

I think Fr. Most is entitled to his opinion, as are all Scripture scholars, but it’s up to the Church to teach what is binding and not…and Fr. Most’s interpretation is not.

 

[patg]

“But although these words of our predecessor leave no room for doubt or dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church - nay, what is a peculiar sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning - who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church’s teaching on this point.” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 18 )

This statement refers to the paragraph above it which discusses the unerring truth of inspiration.

• It has nothing to do with whether or not the results of that inspiration caused the writer to express the unerring truths in the genre of fiction, poetry, legend, myth, or any other form.
• It has *nothing *to with denying fiction to be a valid vehicle for revelation.

I don’t understand why you continue to imply that non-literalistic genres are incapable of expressing “unerring truth”, even though Jesus used them in his teachings. You have not referenced a single quote which denies this.

I recommend you read Biblical Fundamentalism, What Every Catholic Should Know by Ronald Witherup S.S. (a Catholic scholar with some serious credentials). Fr. Witherup discusses all these issues of inerrancy, inspiration, and truth, under the nihil obstat and imprimatur.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Please, dear friend, explain this next challenge.

In Acts 5:35-39, Gamaliel, who taught Paul, gives a speech. The speech is basically impossible. Gamaliel states that the revolt of Theudas – which actually occurred around 46 A.D., occurred BEFORE the revolt of Judas the Galilean, which happened around 7 A.D.

That would be like President Truman telling Congress that the Korean War occurred BEFORE World War I.

I have read that non-fundamentalist Bible commentators by-and-large also agree that Gamaliel would have given his speech around 35 A.D., about 10 years before Theudas’ revolt, so that his speech refers to something that had not even occurred yet as a past event. But, I have not personally researched the second point.

Biblical fundamentalist who waste their time trying to defend that the Bible is a perfect history book make up other “Judas the Galileans” of which there is zero historical evidence – zero – to explain Gamaliel’s speech.

And, of course, the proponents of the perfect history concept don’t try to explain this one, because they realize that they are in a hopeless shooting gallery where their concept has no future.

The Bible is inspired, but not to be perfect history.

 

[DeannaMarie]

And, of course, the proponents of the perfect history concept don’t try to explain this one, because they realize that they are in a hopeless shooting gallery where their concept has no future.

The Bible is inspired, but not to be perfect history.

Please provide a well reasoned and well documented argument for your claim that Scripture is inerrant only in matters of faith and morals. Provide references from the Catholic Church to support your premises. I am a Catholic faithful to the Magisterial Teaching of the Church, and accept without qualification the Authority of the Church. It is useless to argue a point about Church Teaching without providing references from the Church.

 

[diggerdomer]

Please provide a well reasoned and well documented argument for your claim that Scripture is inerrant only in matters of faith and morals. Provide references from the Catholic Church to support your premises. I am a Catholic faithful to the Magisterial Teaching of the Church, and accept without qualification the Authority of the Church. It is useless to argue a point about Church Teaching without providing references from the Church.

You ask questions of others but don’t seem to respond to those asked of you, DeannaMarie.

Can you answer me this:

Which did God create first, birds or humans?

Genesis 1 gives one answer, Genesis 2 gives the opposite answer.

Are both accounts true, or only one, or neither?

Thank you.

 

[DeannaMarie]

You ask questions of others but don’t seem to respond to those asked of you, DeannaMarie.

Can you answer me this:

Which did God create first, birds or humans?

Genesis 1 gives one answer, Genesis 2 gives the opposite answer.

Are both accounts true, or only one, or neither?

Thank you.

Quite the contrary, on the thread “Biblical Scholarship”, I provided an interpretation of PeterDawson’s first challenge regarding Paul’s companions in Acts 9:7 and 22:9 from the Navarre Bible Acts of the Apostles. This interpretation is consistent with the Tradition of the Church, but was rejected as “mental gymnastics”. Furthermore, I pointed out that the contradiction was a result of reading the passages from a literalistic or fundamentalist approach, which by the way was not denied. I do not have the time (with nine children) to provide interpretations for a multitude of Scriptural passages, only to have them rejected as “mental gymnastics”. There are a number of solidly Catholic commentaries you may use if you want a proper interpretation. Perhaps you could ask the apologists from Catholic Answers for suggestions.

I suggest again that you read the article I cited in a previous post, “Is Everything in the Bible True?”. This article was not written by Fr. William Most, but by Karlo Broussard. Mr. Broussard does quote Fr. Most from his book Catholic Apologetics Today: Answers to Modern Critics. Fr. Most has also written another book on Scripture titled, Free from All Error. Neither the article nor the book are op-ed pieces. Interpretation is the key to Dei Verbum (and the phrase you quoted in particular). The question is whose interpretation most accurately reflects the Teaching of the Catholic Church. Is it Mr. Broussard (or Fr. Most’s ) interpretation, or is it your interpretation? Mr. Broussard (and Fr. Most) present a well reasoned and well documented argument that Dei Verbum is not a break from Sacred Tradition and does not limit the inerrancy of Scripture. It is not sufficient to make an assertion without providing evidence which supports it. It is now your burden to provide a well reasoned and well documented argument that Dei Verbum is a break from Sacred Tradition and does limit the inerrancy of Scripture.