Scripture: What's myth and what's history?

[cassini]

Pete. The question of the ‘infallibility’ of the 1616 decree only came up when Catholic apologists - believing that heliocentricism was proven - needed some excuse to deem the decree null and void. You see never in the history of the Church was such a decree ‘proven’ to be in error. The consequences of this were catastrophic for Catholicism. Rather than follow the advice of St Thomas Aquinas - that any proposition offered that opposes a defined matter of faith must be examined and on doing so will be found to have been premature - the Copernicans decided to attack the decree itself. They thought that if they declared it ‘non-infallible’ then all would be well. In other words, they had to concede to the anti-Catholic idea that the Church could define false doctrines, define false heresies, could accuse Galileo falsely, could declare such heretics excommunicated etc., and still claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost.The sad part is that this nonsense went to the top, the papacy itself.

Providentissimus Deus is a post Galileo case encyclical on the Scriptures. It had to cater to this gross error and does so without mentioning names. Every so-called scriptural scholar reading this encyclical will read it and comment that it ‘reflects’ Galileo’s exegesis and hermeneutics. I say Pope Leo XIII copied Galileo’s exegesis. This encyclical can mean anything - all things to all men, so is useless as a teacher.

What matters is not if the Church’s 1616 decree was infallible - which I believe it was, infallible in an ‘immutable’ way, but if it was true, or better, is believed to be true or not. This is a matter of faith not a matter of science, does the Church define and declare fasehoods or not. I say it does not, cannot. Only when one HAS such a faith can they BEGIN to understand one of Satan’s greatest Illusions over the combined intelligence of the human race.

 

[patg]

I don’t think we’ve discussed anything except the Nativity accounts. You must be thinking of someone else.

I didn’t mean us personally, I was referring to the endless discussions here between all of “us”.

Let’s look at Jonah.

I’m assuming that you do not believe that he was in the belly of a great fish, but do you believe that Jonah was a prophet who preached repentance at Nineveh?

He was a prophet sent by God, yes.

 

[patg]

Wait, people think the infancy narratives are mostly fictional?

Yes. Many believe that they teach deep truths about Jesus using both Jewish midrash and the classical literary form known as an Infancy Narrative (both of which are mostly fiction with some historical core). The church has not declared that we must believe a specific interpretation for any particular part of these stories. You are free to believe in the history as you see fit, as long as the meaning is understood. There is no doctrine of the wise men, of the stable, of shepherds in the field, or of a flight into Egypt.

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Jesus believed that Jonah was swallowed by a great fish.

Is He wrong? Is he manipulating His hearers?

:ehh:

 

[cassini]

Yes Catholic johnny, jesus did speak of Jonah in the belly of a whale LITERALLY. If He was speaking metaphorically or by symbol, or by allegory, then we could all take His three days in the grave before the resurrection metaphorically or symbolically.
This is why certain passages of the Scriptures MUST be taken literally or we have a make-it-up-as-you-go-Catholicism.
Furthermore, the same applies to Noah’s ark and a universal flood. If god could preserve jonah in the whale, then he could fit in and preserve enough land creatures in that arc to populate the world accordingly. If the flood was not universal then the ark, when saving the then human race of four couples through the one entrance in its side, could not represent Christ’s saving of the human race through the wound in His side gushing forth ALL his bodily fluids prior to His Death. If the flood was local, then the ark could not represent Christ saving the WHOLE human race but only a few locals. The whole theology of the ark would be worthless and fraudulent.

 

[patg]

Jesus believed that Jonah was swallowed by a great fish.

Is He wrong? Is he manipulating His hearers?

:ehh:

Jesus references the story the same as any Jewish teacher would but there is no indication he understood it to be literal history. It is quite clearly a fictional narrative used as a vehicle for revelation.

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Yes Catholic johnny, Jesus did speak of Jonah in the belly of a whale LITERALLY. If He was speaking metaphorically or by symbol, or by allegory, then we could all take His three days in the grave before the resurrection metaphorically or symbolically.
This is why certain passages of the Scriptures MUST be taken literally or we have a make-it-up-as-you-go-Catholicism.
Furthermore, the same applies to Noah’s ark and a universal flood. If God could preserve Jonah in the whale, then he could fit in and preserve enough land creatures in that arc to populate the world accordingly. If the flood was not universal then the ark, when saving the then human race of four couples through the one entrance in its side, could not represent Christ’s saving of the human race through the wound in His side gushing forth ALL his bodily fluids prior to His Death. If the flood was local, then the ark could not represent Christ saving the WHOLE human race but only a few locals. The whole theology of the ark would be worthless and fraudulent.

Nice work! Amen!

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Jesus references the story the same as any Jewish teacher would but there is no indication he understood it to be literal history. It is quite clearly a fictional narrative used as a vehicle for revelation.

patg,
You are perilously close to blasphemy. This is not an issue up for grabs. Christ, His Apostles, the Fathers and Doctors, and the Teaching Authority of the Church have spoken.

You are out on a limb here, and you cannot find firm support for your position from within the Teaching Office of the Holy Mother Church.

 

[TMC]

Jesus believed that Jonah was swallowed by a great fish.
QUOTE]

How do you know this? I asked towards the begginnig of this thread for any authority for the proposition that Jesus believed in the literal historical inerrancy of Scripture and have seen none.

People often make references to iconic stories or characters to make a point or to incorporate a theme – that says nothing about whether the story or character referenced was literally true.
Catholic Johnny;4492104:

patg,
You are perilously close to blasphemy. This is not an issue up for grabs. Christ, His Apostles, the Fathers and Doctors, and the Teaching Authority of the Church have spoken.

You are out on a limb here, and you cannot find firm support for your position from within the Teaching Office of the Holy Mother Church.

The teaching authority of the Church is on the other side of this. Others have posted what the Church teaches about Scriptural interpretation, and its not the fundamentalist line that you are setting out. Do you reject Dei Verbum and the teaching of the Magisterium on this point?

 

[Pete_Holter]

I didn’t mean us personally, I was referring to the endless discussions here between all of “us”.

Oh, sorry.

He was a prophet sent by God, yes.

Let’s start with Augustine’s approach…

Keeping in mind “the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine – not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires” – and his admonishment from The Literal Meaning of Genesis as quoted earlier by Julia, “Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion,” let us see how he handles the episode…

“Either all the miracles wrought by divine power may be treated as incredible, or there is no reason why the story of this miracle should not be believed. The resurrection of Christ Himself upon the third day would not be believed by us, if the Christian faith was afraid to encounter Pagan ridicule. Since, however, our friend did not on this ground ask whether it is to be believed that Lazarus was raised on the fourth day, or that Christ rose on the third day, I am much surprised that he reckoned what was done with Jonah to be incredible; unless, perchance, he thinks it easier for a dead man to be raised in life from his sepulchre, than for a living man to be kept in life in the spacious belly of a sea monster.

…] If, therefore, these objectors refuse to believe any narrative of a divine miracle, …] Be it so, then; let them laugh at our Scriptures; let them laugh as much as they can, when they see themselves daily becoming fewer in number, while some are removed by death, and others by their embracing the Christian faith, and when all those things are being fulfilled which were predicted by the prophets who long ago laughed at them, and said that they would fight and bark against the truth in vain, and would gradually come over to our side …].

It is neither unreasonable nor unprofitable to inquire what these miracles signify, so that, after their significance has been explained, men may believe not only that they really occurred, but also that they have been recorded, because of their possessing symbolic meaning. Let him, therefore, who proposes to inquire why the prophet Jonah was three days in the capacious belly of a sea monster, begin by dismissing doubts as to the fact itself; for this did actually occur, and did not occur in vain. For if figures which are expressed in words only, and not in actions, aid our faith, how much more should our faith be helped by figures expressed not only in words, but also in actions! Now men are wont to speak by words; but divine power speaks by actions as well as by words. And as words which are new or somewhat unfamiliar lend brilliancy to a human discourse when they are scattered through it in a moderate and judicious manner, so the eloquence of divine revelation receives, so to speak, additional lustre from actions which are at once marvellous in themselves and skilfully designed to impart spiritual instruction.

…]

Let us therefore acknowledge this symbol of Christ; and because of the salvation of God, let us bear patiently the reproaches of men.

…]

I have answered to the best of my power the questions proposed; but let him who proposed them become now a Christian at once …] But to think of finishing all such questions as those concerning …] Jonah, before he becomes a Christian, is to betray great unmindfulness of man’s limited capacities, and of the shortness of the life which remains to him (Letter 102, To Deogratias).

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Catholic Johnny;4491235:

Jesus believed that Jonah was swallowed by a great fish.
QUOTE]

How do you know this? I asked towards the begginnig of this thread for any authority for the proposition that Jesus believed in the literal historical inerrancy of Scripture and have seen none.

My friend, are you a Christian? How dare you doubt the Apostolic witness unless you are wholly captive to another spirit, the spirit of this age which is not subject to the Holy Spirit? The brazenness, audacity and frontal assault of these so-called believers should rouse in us all an examination of conscience - whom are they seeking to please with these arguments? God, whose ways are not our ways? Or men, who appeal to human rationalism as the final arbiter of what is ultimately true or untrue?

 

[TMC]

Yes. Many believe that they teach deep truths about Jesus using both Jewish midrash and the classical literary form known as an Infancy Narrative (both of which are mostly fiction with some historical core). The church has not declared that we must believe a specific interpretation for any particular part of these stories. You are free to believe in the history as you see fit, as long as the meaning is understood. There is no doctrine of the wise men, of the stable, of shepherds in the field, or of a flight into Egypt.

The birth narratives are an excellent example for this discussion. The narratives are absolutely true in that they teach the important truth that Jesus is the Light, the Word, God made flesh. The details of his birth vary from Gospel to Gospel.

Mark and John give no details at all.

Matthew says that Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem, Jesus was born there, and they fled to Egypt around two years later, when warned by an angel. Upon returning from Egypt they found Judea inhospitable, so they settled instead in a town in Galilee, Nazareth.

Luke says the Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, travelled to Bethlehem for the census, and Jesus was born there. They took Jesus to Jerusalem when He was about a month old, and then returned to Nazareth.

Both narratives are true in that they the express the truth that Jesus was the fulfillment of the line of David, and was born of God. The details of where the Holy Family went and when are irreconcilably different, but that does not change the truth of the Gospels.

 

[mpartyka]

When popes contradict one another, as they have with their different OPINIONS on the subjects under discussion, which one are we of the flock to believe? Your thinking is Catholics should follow the one in office. Well mine is follow the one that FIRST laid down the law, for the rest are lawbreakers.

Cassini,

You might be interested in a thread I started a while back called “Pope Leo the Great on the Immaculate Conception”.

–Mike

P.S.: I’m enjoying this thread immensely. Still only read halfway through it, though. I’ll pitch in my 2 cents once I’m caught up.

 

[mpartyka]

Probably my favorite quote from the whole thread (so far):

“Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis).”

–Mike

 

[TMC]

My friend, are you a Christian? How dare you doubt the Apostolic witness unless you are wholly captive to another spirit, the spirit of this age which is not subject to the Holy Spirit? The brazenness, audacity and frontal assault of these so-called believers should rouse in us all an examination of conscience - whom are they seeking to please with these arguments? God, whose ways are not our ways? Or men, who appeal to human rationalism as the final arbiter of what is ultimately true or untrue?

I did not question the Apostolic witness. I asked where in Scripiture or the teaching of the Church it says the Jesus believed in the literal historical accuracy of Scripture. I have yet to hear an answer to that question.

I am not rejecting the truth of the Jonah account. It could be true as all things are possible with God. But whether it is literally true has nothing to do with the truth of Christ’s death and resurrection. Jesus’ reference to Jonah does not establish that He believed it to be true, either.

Most Christians believe, and the Catholic Church teaches, that parts of Scripture are presented as allegory, not as history. We also know that there are historical and scientific discrepencies in Scripture. Neither diminishes the truth of Scripture.

 

[StAnastasia]

Most Christians believe, and the Catholic Church teaches, that parts of Scripture are presented as allegory, not as history. We also know that there are historical and scientific discrepencies in Scripture. Neither diminishes the truth of Scripture.

Correct. In the Roman Catholic seminaries in which I have taught since 1998, I have not encountered a single biblical scholar who would, for example, interpret literally the story of the sun standing still at Joshua’s command.

StAnastasia

 

[patg]

Let’s start with Augustine’s approach…

This is an interesting approach but it concentrates totally on whether this event was a believeable miracle or not and totally ignores the concept of analyzing the story itself for clues as to what literary form the author was using and what message is being conveyed. The logic that “God can do anything and miracles should never be ruled out” may be true BUT it is way too restrictive in allowing one to analyze and find the author’s meaning in a story. It effectively destroys the author’s ability and right to craft a fictional account as a vehicle of revelation. Most stories contain literary clues as to the type of writing and this story is one of the prime examples of fictional revelation. Whether the miracle could have occurred or not is not at all germaine to the meaning of the story.

The book of Jonah is a work of didactic fiction - a story which attempts to teach something using a fictional story from the author’s imagination. The author of Jonah wants to teach his audience exactly the same thing that Jesus taught his followers: “Love your enemies”. This is a teaching which, at the time this book was written, was bound to meet with intense opposition. Instead of using a debate to teach (as the author of Job did), the author of Jonah chose didactic fiction. In this genre he could use humor, parody, and irony to teach his audience a lesson that was very difficult for them to accept: God loves other nations too, and so must we.

The answer as to the genre of this story is clearly indicated to the reader by way of the setting, the plot, and the tone. The setting of the book is not realistic - a prophet from Israel preaching in Nineveh before the fall of the northern kingdom. The plot of the book is obviously unrealistic. The episode with the fish, the psalm from the belly of the fish, the immediate repentance of the Ninevites, and the whole episode with the castor-oil plant are perfect for a humorous fictional narrative and ludicrous for a historical narrative. And finally, the humorous tone clues us in to the fact that we are reading fiction: Jonah is not anything like the historical Jewish prophets but a parody of a historical prophet. His total lack of concern for the Ninevites, even after receiving his call, his angry and accusatory tone toward God, and his constant pettiness all make him a delightful fictional creation rather than a serious historical prophet who could only be regarded with contempt.

This is a summary of my thoughts on this - we can go into more details on the setting, plot, and tone later.

 

[patg]

patg,
You are perilously close to blasphemy. This is not an issue up for grabs. Christ, His Apostles, the Fathers and Doctors, and the Teaching Authority of the Church have spoken.

What issue would that be? Do you deny that fiction is a valid vehicle for teaching revelation? Have you read *Dei Verbum *and the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels?

You are out on a limb here, and you cannot find firm support for your position from within the Teaching Office of the Holy Mother Church.

Actually, that is exactly where I learned my position. Nothing I have said is personal opinion; it all comes from documents and recognized scholars and teachers of the church.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Jesus references the story the same as any Jewish teacher would but there is no indication he understood it to be literal history. It is quite clearly a fictional narrative used as a vehicle for revelation.

People often make references to iconic stories or characters to make a point or to incorporate a theme – that says nothing about whether the story or character referenced was literally true.

Hi Pat and TMC!

Are we agreed that Jesus took His information about Jonah from the book of the Old Testament bearing Jonah’s name? The claims that I want to address are that “there is no indication he understood it to be literal history” and “that says nothing about whether the story or character referenced was literally true.”

I hope that we can agree that Jonah’s preaching to the Ninevites and their subsequent repentance are historical as indicated by our Lord: “The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here” (Matt. 12:41). These people who repented cannot rise up at the judgment if they are only characters in a novel. Here is the problem, as I see it, for those who do not believe in the episode with the fish. Jesus indisputably treats this preaching of Jonah as a historical reality. In the very same breath, however, He says that “just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matt. 12:40). Jesus gives no indication that, while the one reference He makes is to a historical event, the other is to a work of imagination. His manner of speaking without a shift in language and His placing of the two events in immediate juxtaposition most straightforwardly suggest and reasonably necessitate that both events are understood by Him as historically based.

Another example. Are the stories of the Old Testament understood as historically true? I am not aware of any example that can be given to suggest that the narratives are not historically true. But we do have an example that can be used as a hermeneutical key to suggest that the narratives are historically true: “Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction” (1 Cor. 10:11). We can see that there is no way to understand this as referring to anything but historical events that were captured in writing for future generations. The things happened. And they were subsequently written down. One does not speak of fictional accounts in this way. What historical events do we have in this context? It sounds like the pillar of cloud by day and fire by night, the passing through the Red Sea, the manna, the water from the rock, and the twenty-four thousand who died in the plague on account of their sexual immorality. Paul also seems to be familiar with the fact that twenty-three thousand of the twenty-four thousand who died, did so in a single day; again, this suggests a certain level of historical precision. In recounting many of these events, Paul at the same time draws out their embedded spiritual significance, what was happening at a deeper level. And yet, the historicity of these events serves as the bedrock for his interpretation: “these things happened.”

May God bless you both!

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Correct. In the Roman Catholic seminaries in which I have taught since 1998, I have not encountered a single biblical scholar who would, for example, interpret literally the story of the sun standing still at Joshua’s command.

StAnastasia

This says more about the state of these seminaries than it does about Holy Scripture. Goodbye Good Men.