The intent of a book?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montie_Claunch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Montie_Claunch

Guest
On a diffrent Thread it was said, “If the author had intended to write a history book, this might have been an issue. But the story given in Tobit is an episode of family history. By all indications, the author seems to be writing about an event that really happened. He gives a family tree, and many details are quite precise regarding geography and historical chronology. But it is also possible that some passages are fictitious, with the writer’s purpose being more to teach on spiritual and moral issues, not history.”

How would one, just by looking at it, tell if a book was meant to be a historical book or meant to teach on an issue? Thanks and God bless.
 
Montie Claunch:
On a diffrent Thread it was said, “If the author had intended to write a history book, this might have been an issue. But the story given in Tobit is an episode of family history. By all indications, the author seems to be writing about an event that really happened. He gives a family tree, and many details are quite precise regarding geography and historical chronology. But it is also possible that some passages are fictitious, with the writer’s purpose being more to teach on spiritual and moral issues, not history.”

How would one, just by looking at it, tell if a book was meant to be a historical book or meant to teach on an issue? Thanks and God bless.
Click to expand...
This article may lend some insight:

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0307bt.asp

There are other such articles in the archives of This Rock magazine that you might find by searching for the name of the book and “historical”, “parable”, “literal” and so on.
 
It can be both.

In Jud. ch 13, 1 Macc. 7, and 2 Macc 15, it relates a story of the head of the general of the opposing army is cut off, brought back to Jerusalem, and placed on a parapet of the Temple. Judith is believed to be an allegorical telling of a real battle of the Maccabees.

Likewise in Tobit 1:21, there are parallel passages in Is. 37:38, 2 Kgs. 19:37, and 2 Chr. 32:21. While the details in Tobit are not historically accurate, there is an historical context.
 
The Church professes that the Bible is not intended to be historically or scientifically accurate. It is morally, spiritually, and salvifically inerrant though.
 
40.png
awalt:
The Church professes that the Bible is not intended to be historically or scientifically accurate. It is morally, spiritually, and salvifically inerrant though.
Click to expand...
Where does the Church teach this?
 
I didn’t say what I really meant - to be specific, I should have said "The Bible is not making scientific (historical) assertions and we will draw erroneous conclusions if we treat the text as though it were.

References:

Dei Verbum 11
CCC 337,283
“The Accuracy of Scripture”, Dec. 2005 This Rock
 
Here’s a real simple way - Read the introduction page(s) to each book. It, most times, will give you the author, the dates the book is believed to be written and the circumstances that prompted it writing. That gives you a framework with which to read the book.
 
40.png
awalt:
I didn’t say what I really meant - to be specific, I should have said "The Bible is not making scientific (historical) assertions and we will draw erroneous conclusions if we treat the text as though it were.

References:

Dei Verbum 11
CCC 337,283
“The Accuracy of Scripture”, Dec. 2005 This Rock
Click to expand...
I think the Church is pretty clear that there are no errors in scripture but that doesn’t rule out that the writers of scripture could have used metaphors or allegory.
 
Bigdawg, I don’t think that is true. Read Dei Verbum, written by Pope Paul VI in 1965.

Here is one excerpt that’s relevant:
Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.

The bolded part is key, and is the basis for why the Church says there can be error in non-spiritual issues. This has been expanded by the Church. God’s truth, what he intended to communicate - not every word of the Bible, like Fundamentalists believe. That literal interpretation is not Catholic teaching, and is not supported anywhere in the CCC or supporting documents.

Here’s another excerpt from Dei Verbum:

However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

That’s legal-speak for “there could be errors in what they say, but it’s not relevant to the truth God intended to convey. Don’t sweat the little details that are irrelevant.”

Again, so if there is an error in something scientific, historical, geographic etc., this is not relevant to the message God wanted conveyed.

I am taking a theology course where we are studying this. As an interesting footnote, the professor showed us a New American Bible, with impramateur, where the story of Jonah and the Whale was commented on as a “story”. His point is that the Bible is inerrant in the TRUTH, but may not be FACTUAL (ie every little detail is correct). In the story of Jonah, we reviewed what are the spiritual truths God wanted conveyed through that story. He gave us some examples, and then made the point that “99% of all theologians would conclude that the story of Jonah and the whale did not happen that way.” That doesn’t mean there wasn’t a story…

Truth vs. Factual made a lot of sense to me. And if you have time, read Dei Verbum, it has a lot of other really good stuff about the revelation of the Bible (it’s basic topic). Hope this helps.
 
Awalt,
Having read your post I think they are well thought out and written and I say this not just because I agree with you, which I do.

Perhaps in your studies, and for everyone else participating in this thread, a look at the development of the history of modern scriptural studies in the 20th century especially as presented in such encyclical letters beginning with Leo XIII through the encyclical many scritpure scholars consider to be the real liberation of Catholic Biblical Scholarship, “Divino Afflante” of Pius XII. Also there is the works of Pope John XXIII and finally Dei Verbum itself.
 
Awalt,

Thank you for your post. We are probably just going to disagree but nonetheless I will attempt to show you why I think you are in error.

I’ve read Dei Verbum and I believe that you have introduced a novelty into it when you suggest that the Church now says there can be error in the scriptures. To the best of my knowledge there is no statement in all of Catholic dogma that says there is error; scientific, historical or any other type of error anywhere in scripture. Further, Dei Verbum can not be interpreted outside the teaching of the Church and as I said before I know of no official statement by the Church that says there is error in the scriptures.

I agree that everything does not have to be taken literally but Pope Leo XIII spells it out quite clearly when he states in

PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS:
“15. But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes 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”

I realize that scripture is not limited to the literal sense and can be allegorical or metaphorical but I strongly disagree that scripture contains error. As we can see we have guidelines that help us in discerning when and where to take the literal sense and when not to.

When I read the statement from Dei Verbum in question:Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledge as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.

I read that scripture is inerrant “for the sake of our salvation” not that it is only inerrant on matters that pertain to our salvation. To further illustrate that Dei Verbum is not to be interpreted in the manner that you seem to be understanding it I would like to mention that every reference cited in the footnotes of Dei Verbum 11 (namely, Trent, Leo XIII, Pius XII, Aquinas, Augustine) supports the fact that there are no errors in Scripture regardless of whether we are discussing history or science.

In closing I offer the following:

Pope Leo XIII, in Providentissimus Deus, “It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.”

Pope Leo XIII: Providentissimus Deus: “For the sacred Scripture is not like other books. Dictated by the Holy Spirit, it contains things of the deepest importance, which, in many instances, are most difficult and obscure” (I, B, 2, b). He also says: “For all the books in their entirety…with all their parts, have been written under the dictation of the Holy Spirit” (DS 3292).

Pope Leo XIII: Providentissimus Deus: “It is futile to argue that the Holy Spirit took human beings as his instruments in writing, implying that some error could slip in…For by his supernatural power he so stimulated and moved them to write, and so assisted them while they were writing, that they properly conceived in their mind, wished to write down faithfully, and expressed aptly with infallible truth all those things, and only those things, which He himself ordered; otherwise He could not Himself be the author of the whole of Sacred Scripture” (DS 3293).

Pope Pius XII, in Divino Afflante Spiritu, repeats Leo XIII decree: “It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.”
 
You see, I see those quotes as consistent - the holy scripture has not erred, because the message to communicate is truth.

I would suggest try to find any Catholic biblical scholar or clergy who specially says that Jonah’s story, Adam and Eve, some of the geographic “mistakes”, some of the scientific “mistakes” cited are 100% factual - I don’t think you will find a case.

That does not mean there is not 100% truth to those stories. That’s the point I am trying to make, and why I see both your quotes and mine as consistent. And I am not making this up and reasoning on my own, this is what the biblical experts (PhDs, Diocesan people, clergy) are teaching now.
 
40.png
awalt:
You see, I see those quotes as consistent - the holy scripture has not erred, because the message to communicate is truth.

I would suggest try to find any Catholic biblical scholar or clergy who specially says that Jonah’s story, Adam and Eve, some of the geographic “mistakes”, some of the scientific “mistakes” cited are 100% factual - I don’t think you will find a case.

That does not mean there is not 100% truth to those stories. That’s the point I am trying to make, and why I see both your quotes and mine as consistent. And I am not making this up and reasoning on my own, this is what the biblical experts (PhDs, Diocesan people, clergy) are teaching now.
Click to expand...
I am not sure how to respond.

Scripture can use allegory, for example, to make a point and that would not make the scripture “false”. I think we both agree on this point.

However, the Church has been steadfast in holding to the inerrancy of scripture and it really doesn’t matter what PhD, Diocesan staff, or cleric states otherwise. I don’t believe it is possible to correctly interpret Dei Verbum or any other Church document outside the confines of tradition. Trying to interpret Church documents outside the guidelines of tradtion is exactly what the modernists and liberals have been doing ever since Vatican II. They insist that the traditional teaching must be done away with in light of their modern “understanding” of things.

It seems to me that when one starts believeing that Church doctrine can “change” with the times one puts himself perilously close to becoming a modernist. If Church teaching isn’t steadfast, what is there to cling to?

With your above statement I am not sure how close or how far apart our views are, but it seems to me that the Church has always taught that scripture is inerrant…without any mistake whatsoever. Again this doesn’t mean that every single statement in scripture has to be taken in a literal sense.

As to your appeal to what the PhD’s, diocesan staff, and others are currently doing it really doesn’t matter to me. They either align themselves with Church teaching or they don’t. The level of their education is irrelevant when trying to discern their fidelity to the Magesterium.

If you think a Church document, other than Dei Verbum, states that the scriptures contain error I would be interested in seeing it.

Thanks for your reponse,

BD
 
It sounds like we are probably going to disagree because you are discounting the authority of Dei Verbum which is an Apostolic Constitution. The Church does not say EVERYTHING in the Bible is inerrant - it says only those things that God intends to say are inerrant. Read the document carefully, please.

As for Dei Verbum, please check out the definition of an Apostolic Constitution. It is even higher in authority than an Encyclical Letter. It is not independent of the Magisterium’s deposit of faith, it is very much part of it. Here is one definition of it:

*Document of the highest authority, issued by the Pope, or by a Church Council with the Pope’s approval. Apostolic constitutions today have the authority of the ancient apostolic constitutions, a collection of laws from the late fourth century, which included 85 canons attributed to the Apostles dealing with ordinations, official responsibilities, and the moral behavior of bishops and priests. They eventually became the basis for canon law in the West.

When used to proclaim a Church dogma, called a Dogmatic Constitution. When used for pastoral teaching, called a Pastoral Constitution.

Vatican documents include, in descending order of formal authority: apostolic constitution, encyclical letter, encyclical epistle, apostolic exhortation, apostolic letter, letter and message.
*
 
40.png
awalt:
It sounds like we are probably going to disagree because you are discounting the authority of Dei Verbum which is an Apostolic Constitution. The Church does not say EVERYTHING in the Bible is inerrant - it says only those things that God intends to say are inerrant. Read the document carefully, please.

As for Dei Verbum, please check out the definition of an Apostolic Constitution. It is even higher in authority than an Encyclical Letter. It is not independent of the Magisterium’s deposit of faith, it is very much part of it. Here is one definition of it:

Document of the highest authority, issued by the Pope, or by a Church Council with the Pope’s approval. Apostolic constitutions today have the authority of the ancient apostolic constitutions, a collection of laws from the late fourth century, which included 85 canons attributed to the Apostles dealing with ordinations, official responsibilities, and the moral behavior of bishops and priests. They eventually became the basis for canon law in the West.

When used to proclaim a Church dogma, called a Dogmatic Constitution. When used for pastoral teaching, called a Pastoral Constitution.

*Vatican documents include, in descending order of formal authority: apostolic constitution, encyclical letter, encyclical epistle, apostolic exhortation, apostolic letter, letter and message. *
Click to expand...
Well…at least we agree that we disagree.

Concerning Dei Verbum, you and I read the same statement and come to two different conclusions which I doubt either one of us will abandon.

That said, I would be interested in seeing if there are any other documents from a Pope or a council that state, implicitly or explicitly, that the scriptures contain error.

Thanks again for your response.
 
One point of clarification - I am not communicating my opinion, I am communicating Church opinion - I don’t think you can discover any authoritative document that says every literal word of the Bible is true.

That said, there is at least one other papal document I know of – Pope Pius XII wrote an encyclical in 1943 called Divino Afflante Spiritu. He said among other things, that there are statements in the Bible that are purely figurative, illustrative and must be understood as figures of speech.

St. Augustine also taught this. He said that the parables of our Lord are not necessarily taken from actual events, though in many cases it is quite probably that they were.

You are free of course to make your own opinions and judgments as to what these papal documents say, but I could ask you to show any Catholic authoritative document that says that every detail int he Bible is accurate - it does not exist. That is a fundamentalist view of the Bible. If you get a chance, ask your bishop to discuss these documents with you, to understand what the Church is teaching. We should listen to the Church, not just decide on our own what they mean irrespective of the Church. That’s the slippery slope our Protestant brothers and sisters went down.

God bless.
 
Here is another good article for you, and the various ways the Bible can be interpreted. It is on EWTN’s web site. One important sentence in it:

*“When it is a question of a story, the literal sense does not necessarily imply belief that the facts recounted actually took place, for a story need not belong to the genre of history but be instead a work of imaginative fiction.”

*ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM

There seem to be quite a number of other things on the Internet on this topic. I came across a story about the Bishops of England from last fall, outlining yet another document released by the Church. In summary:
*
The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true. *NI_MPU(‘middle’);*The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible. *

*“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in *The Gift of Scripture. (timesonline.co.uk/article/0,13509-1811332,00.html
**)
**

That document is online, it’s ony about 60 pages. Article 13 or so has the best parts you will be interested in. Here’s an excerpt that states as specifically as possisible what I have been trying to say:

It is important to note this teaching of the Second Vatican Council that the truth of Scripture is to be found in all that is written down ‘for the sake of our salvation’. We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters. We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision.

catholic-ew.org.uk/publications/Gift%20of%20Scripture%20text.pdf

This document is released by the bishops, built on Dei Verbum, which is Dogma from Vatican II. This is the teaching of the Church. The fact people haven’t understood it and we have all gotten the wrong idea doesn’t make it true. I have been learning all this in the past year also!

I hope this helps - God bless you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top