Another Reflection On Why The Whole Bible Cannot Be Taken As Literal
One of the reasons why Christians cannot assume all texts of Scripture are to be followed according to their literal face value is that we can find examples where verses, taken that way, would end up in conflict with one another. Perhaps no better example can be found than a text from the Torah, where the literal meaning should not give us any difficulty in interpreting:
“You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain” (Deut. 25:4 RSV). Here, we see the law is concerned about what happens to an ox — it needs to be fed when it is out doing work. God’s law seems to have placed within Jewish thinking a sense of compassion for their animals. It was making sure that beasts of burden, such as oxen, would not be over used and abused. An ox needs food if it is to work properly, and if it is hungry, it needs to be able to eat. Muzzling the ox might try to prevent eating on the job, but it will only cause undue pressure and stress on the animal. And, as we know from the New Testament, the Jews would understand this and similar passages of Scripture, and develop them so as to end up believing that the Sabbath did not prohibit them from doing work to save the life of their animals. Jesus affirmed this development of Jewish tradition and used it to explain why he was also free to do the “work” of healing on the Sabbath: “And he said to them, ‘Which of you, having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well, will not immediately pull him out on a sabbath day?’” (Luke 14:5 RSV).
This should all be very clear. On the literal face value, no one should have any problems figuring out the command in Deuteronomy. Yet, as many authors remind us, even those who are more literally minded when dealing with Scripture: “we do not limit our attention to the bare letter of Scripture but also scrutinize the sense.”[1] And this text is one which we find should not be taken literally. Why ever not, you might ask? Because of what Paul says:
“For it is written in the law of Moses, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain.’ Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of a share in the crop” (1Cor 9:9- 10 RSV)
If we follow the simple, literal words of Paul, we must understand the simple, literal words of Deut. 25:4 have no validity. He says God is not showing any concern for oxen, and that it was “entirely” meant for “our sake.” It is not that he finds a principle in the text and applies it to his ministry, it is that he finds a principle while denying any value being given to the oxen at all.[2] If we follow Paul literally, we must come to conclude this passage cannot be taken on its simple, literal level.[3] If not this passage, where the literal meaning of the text should not lead to any controversy, then clearly those passages of Scripture which might should at least be considered as potentially non-literal as well. Clearly, Paul is telling us that Scripture is not so easy to interpret, and we must be careful and not assume its implications, even if the implications seem obvious when we first read it. Thus, not only does Paul affirm the use of allegorical interpretation, he also affirms that we do not have to accept a literal meaning for all texts in Scripture. No wonder this was a favorite passage of many early Christian writers as they were confronted with moral difficulties in the Old Testament, for they saw their way out was pre-affirmed by Scripture itself.
[1] Theodoret of Cyrus, The Questions on the Octateuch Volume I: On Genesis and Exodus. trans. Robert C. Hill (Washington, DC: The CUA Press, 2007), 267. Theodoret, who generally takes such a literal approach to Scripture that he thinks Genesis talks about a wind moving over the waters of the Earth, and not the Holy Spirit, nonetheless is willing to warn his readers that we must be careful in reading the text. He denies anthropomorphism for God, and has harsh words for those who would attribute human qualities to the divinity: “These simpletons fail to understand that the Lord God, when speaking to humans through humans, adjusts his language to the limitations of the listeners,” ibid., 51. While he uses this to dismiss some abhorrent qualities to God, he is pointing out, like Origen before him, that there will be times when we must follow a non-literal reading of the text, that we must follow those qualities which we know the divinity possesses and to interpret the Scripture in the light of such qualities — not contrary to them.
[2] James Gaffney thinks this hindered Christian appreciation of animals and their rights through the centuries: “Perhaps the severest blow dealt by the Bible to religiously grounded concerns for animals is the almost flippant way that St Paul disposes of the literal meaning of that Deuteronomical text…,” James Gaffney, “Can Catholic Morality Make Room for Animals,” in Animals on the Agenda. ed. Andrew Linzey and Dorothy Yamamoto (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1998), 102. While this is probably correct, we must also remember Paul did not say God is not concerned with animals, just that in the giving of this command he was not concerned with oxen but a principle for us which could be found via the text.
[3] Thus, St John Chrysostom says, “And on what account hath he mentioned this, having the example of the priests? Wishing to establish it far beyond what the case required. Further, lest any should say, ‘And what have we to do with the saying about the oxen?’ he works it out more exactly, saying, ‘Is it for the oxen that God careth;’ Doth God then, tell me, take no care for oxen? Well, He doth take care of them, but not so as to make a law concerning such a thing as this. So that had he not been hinting at something important, training the Jews to mercy in the case of the brutes, and through these, discoursing with them of the teachers also; he would not have taken so much interest as even to make a law to forbid the muzzling of oxen.” St John Chrysostom, Homilies on First Corinthians XXI.9 in NPNF1(12), 121.
Comments are closed.
Dt 25:4 is very similar to 14:21 – “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” (RSV).
You seem to conclude that, in their literal context, these laws are given purely for the sake of the animal, as you say, to prevent “undue pressure and stress on the animal.” But in Scripture, animals are frequently regarded as figures for men (e.g. Ps 22:21, Is 11:6, Ez 23:20, Acts 10:9-16). Animal and man both are “living creatures” made from the “dust of the earth” (Gn 2:7, 2:19). Thus we see shepherding of animals presented as a preparation and prelude to the shepherding of men (e.g. Joseph, Moses, David). This indeed is known even to reason: The way we treat animals will reflect the way we treat one another. Delighting in inflicting pain upon animals is a sign of a sociopath. “It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly” (CCC 2418).
The literal meaning of laws such as Dt 14:21 or 25:4 is thus distinct from but consistent with the allegorical/moral meaning interpreted by St. Paul in 1 Cor 9:8. Although the literal meaning of these laws is not an allegory for the right of apostles to reap material benefits, the meaning is nevertheless “for our sake”: “All the commandments which I command you this day you shall be careful to do, that you may live and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the Lord swore to give your fathers” (Deuteronomy 8:1, RSV).
“But in Scripture, animals are frequently regarded as figures for men.” Two things, certain places it is clear such typology is intended. However, with the law, this is not the case, indeed, this is why the law was seen as necessary to be followed according to the letter for centuries, and the Jews believed this was literal and followed it to the letter. The point is, yes, indeed, you can start saying “but it is a figure.” Right. Welcome to the world where the simple letter is no longer always valid.
Henry,
The question is whether regulations such as Dt 14:21 or 25:4 are given for the sake of animals or for the sake of men. Deuteronomy 8:1 and many similar passages throughout the book answers the question by telling us that ALL the commandments in Deuteronomy are given for the sake of men (i.e. so that the Israelites may take possession and live long in the land).
Henry, you told us that we must choose between the literal meaning (“for animals”) and the spiritual meaning (“for men”) – that we couldn’t have both – but this isn’t true because the literal meaning is “for men.”
It isn’t for the sake of the ox or the kid that Israelites were commanded to show them respect – to save these animals from “stress” – but for the sake of Israelites, to teach them a religious respect for the integrity of creation. Therefore, we do not need to abandon the literal sense of these laws by claiming that the Israelites really could have boiled kids in their mother’s milk or muzzled the oxen while they tread the grain. We can certainly claim that these laws have been abolished in Christ, but we cannot claim that they were never enjoined!
Henry,
I can’t tell whether you acknowledge and agree with the Church’s distinction between “literal” (which must always be followed) and “literalist” (which need not always be followed).
By “literalist” the Church means an interpretation that takes no account of the historical origin and development of the text and understands the words by their superficial meaning.
By “literal” the Church means the precise meaning of texts as produced by their authors.
“The literal sense is not to be confused with the ‘literalist’ sense to which fundamentalists are attached. It is not sufficient to translate a text or word in order to obtain its literal sense. one must understand the text according to the literary conventions of the time. When a text is metaphorical, its literal sense is not that which flows immediately from a word-to-word translation (e.g. ‘Let your loins be girt’: Lk 12:35), but that which corresponds to the metaphorical use of these terms (‘Be ready for action’)….
“The literal sense of Scripture is that which has been expressly directed byy the inspired human authors. Since it is the fruit of inspiration, this sense is also intended by God, as principal author. One arrives at this sense by means of a careful analysis of the text, within its literary and historical context. The principle task of exegesis is to carry out this analysis, making use of the resources of literary and historical research, with a view to defining the literal sense of the biblical texts with the greatest possible accuracy” (PBC, Interpretation of the Bible in the Church).
The literal meaning is not always simple. Indeed, when we consider the differences between the world of the biblical writers and our own world, we ought to expect the literal meaning to be rarely simple.
Certainly, the literal sense of passage such as Dt 14:21 or 25:4 is a direct enjoinder on how and how not to treat an animal in a given situation. But since this enjoinder was given not for the animals sake but for man’s (Dt 8:1), it does not follow that we must choose between 1 Cor 9:9-10 and Dt 25:4.
I see more equivocations and false representations of Biblical and ecclesial documents all so some people can present a genocidal monster as God. As people have already explained, equivocation is going on. Thus, some passages, the clear meaning of the letter, which would have no difficulty being accept, side by side with other interpretations, is said not to be the “intent.” It’s funny how we are told multiple intentions can be found – but not here, when there is no problem with the most extreme “by the letter” approach. However, in other passages, especially those which support intrinsic evils like genocide (and abortion, since children in the womb would be killed), the “intent” is said to be “the plain, simple reading, after all, that’s the literal meaning.” We are told other interpretations can be accepted, side by side, but the “letter” has to be accepted, because “that’s the intent” and “that’s what the Church teaches.” No it does not! The fast and loose way evil is supported is easily discerned.
I think Carl is onto something here:
Apply that analysis to the literal meaning of 1Sam15 and the alleged divine command to do genocide.
God Bless
And the can of worms continues to produce worms in abundance.
May I suggest a bottom line? Are there things asserted in Scripture–ideas, norms, commandments said to be from God, instructions to Christians from St. Paul or others, and so on–that we may actually be so presumptuous as to disagree with? Could something be in there which is on one level just wrong, while this fact does not disturb the notion of inspiration in the broad sense?
Yes and yes, in my opinion. As individuals we judge Scripture as a whole–as we judge the whole Christian faith–when we decide to belive and accept the Scriptures and the faith. We cannot help but judge of parts of Scripture and struggle with its meaning and interpretation when problematical texts arise. We cannot suspend our consciences and our minds when we read Scripture.
We avoid the vertigo of questioning everything by not being mindlessly sceptical in the first place and by using as our standard of judgment always our Lord Jesus Christ, and by giving deference to the authority of our Church in leading us to the truth to be found in Scripture.
The trouble with the Vox Nova resolution of some here is that you would have to remove half of the Old Testament to purge it of the violence that you do not like. Long passages that are about peace hinge on an ensuing peace being the very results of violence (just as China had peace from the Japanese who massacred women and children there and who planned to enslave China but were defeated by the US though the US should have done it otherwise than with the bombs involved).
It seems awful when Judith kills Holofernes but if anyone here dies late in life from end stage renal failure, they will have had a far more painful death than Holofernes. So do not judge by appearances in this area either. Those dying of throat cancer or ephesema from smoking probably have a more painful death than anyone in the Bible. Judith in the Book of Judith is a reluctant killer but must save her people from the Assyrian sacking of their town and we see that in her prayer but her victim’s suffering is way less than from a disease or renal failure.
Here is Judith and she is acting against her inclinations as one can see in her prayer:
Judith 13: 6
She went to the bedpost near the head of Holofernes, and taking his sword from it,
7
drew close to the bed, grasped the hair of his head, and said, “Strengthen me this day, O God of Israel!”
8
Then with all her might she struck him twice in the neck and cut off his head.
9
She rolled his body off the bed and took the canopy from its supports.
_________________________________________________
Samuel was not the only prophet who killed as he killed the man who Saul would not kill as ordered by God. Elijah, the most awesome figure of a prophet in the OT, also killed as Samuel did.
I Kings 18:
22
So Elijah said to the people, “I am the only surviving prophet of the LORD, and there are four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal…..
40
Then Elijah said to them, “Seize the prophets of Baal. Let none of them escape!” They were seized, and Elijah had them brought down to the brook Kishon and there he slit their throats.
________________________________________________
Again prior to grace, drastic steps had to be taken in the Elijah case to fend the Jews away from Baal worship and the human sacrifice it entailed in the context of blasphemy and idolatry on top of that.
Bill
This is not exactly the case. The resolution is that there can be indeed much which is history in the text, and the history is used for something beyond the history itself (the typological/spiritual sense). The difficulty is not that there is much killing, much violence — that seems likely in history. The problem is the interpretation of that as meaning as this is what God desires. We can believe that people thought it was what God desired — but that is a quite different takes. This, of course, is also something we find in many other expositions of Scripture. There is a reason why it is “the letter which kills.” The letter of the law, if enforced, doesn’t lead to what God wants — the whole exposition on this, if taken literally, leads away from an over-literal approach. The problem is that this is ignored in those who demand more of Scripture than Scripture itself indicates.
What God desires according to Aquinas in the sense that you are using desires, refers to His “antecedent” will which is constantly beneficent as in “He desires that all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth”. But Aquinas then noted that “the antecedent will of God does not always take place”. And then Aquinas explained that God’s will is not antecedent so often but consequent upon what men do. And it is His consequent will that is taking place when Elijah slits 450 throats of Baal prophets.
God desired and would have had it that Baal worship did not exists and that no throats had to be slit antecedently… but consequent to there being Baal worship, God willed for Elijah to do what he did to those men who were born free to learn of the real God from nature as Romans 1 says at length in all such cases.
Bill
Again, Scripture in other places is clear “not by the letter,” and we cannot just assume the “plain reading” of the text is what is intended by God. Again, voluntarism which says “God commands intrinsic evils, and it’s ok” is not acceptable. The fact that people think “God is only limited to calling people to kill” is rather odd. I continue to follow the Church and point out that any interpretation of the “face value” leads to error (God changes his mind, God has body parts, God commands evil) must be rejected.
Henry
Simply be ready if some person should one day need you to defend their life that is being taken by someone right there on the street. Be ready if necessary to act like Judith who obviously was going against the whole nurturing part of her. I saved a person who was being murdered one night. Do not think it will never happen to you. That is up to God. And phoning police will help but may not be enough or allowed by context as the speed of something proceeds.
Henry,
Equivocation is the misleading use of a term that has more than one meaning or sense by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time.
I believe this is precisely what you are doing with the term “literal.” The Church distinguishes between 1) the legitimate “literal sense”: “the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation” (CCC 116) and 2) an illegitimate fundamentalist “literal sense,” which it calls “literalism”: “The literal sense is not to be confused with the ‘literalist sense to which fundamentalists are attached…One must understand the text according to the literary conventions of the time” (Interpretation of the Bible in the Church).
The “face value” or “plain reading” is often but not always the “literal sense” of a text. It is not the “plain reading” but the “literal sense” (as put forward by the Church in CCC 116) which is, in the words of Cardinal Ratzinger and the Pontifical Biblical Commission, “the fruit of inspiration” and “intended by God as principal author” (Interpretation of the Bible in the Church).
The Second Vatican Council says exactly the same thing: “Seeing that, in Sacred Scripture, God speaks through men in human fashion, it follows that the interpreter of sacred Scriptures, if he is to ascertain what God has wished to communicate to us, would carefully search out the meaning which the sacred writers really had in mind” (Dei Verbum 12).
The “for the sake of the animal, not for the sake of man” theory of Deuteronomy 25:4 prescinds from the literary conventions and historical context of the Book of Deuteronomy, just as does your theory of the charam. You are interpreting the charam not in light of ANY LITERARY OR HISTORICAL EVIDENCE but only in light of your own post-modern philosophical presuppositions about genocide, intrinsic evil and divine goodness.
Let’s take a look at your examples of where you seem to think the literal meaning of the Old Testament is wrong:
“God changes his mind” – this mistaken appearance is caused by the difficulty in translating the Hebrew “nacham.” The same term used in Genesis 6:6 – the Lord was “sorry” he had made man – is used in Genesis 5:29, where Lamech “Called his name Noah (Noch, spelled nun heht), saying, ‘Out of the ground which the Lord has cursed this one shall bring us relief (nacham, spelled nun heht mem) from our work and from the toil of our hands.” The same term appears again in Genesis 24:67: “Then Isaac brought her into the tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her. So Isaac was comforted (nacham) after his mother’s death” (all RSV).
The meaning of the term is rather derived from and bound up with the sound one makes when making it, a kind of exasperated groan. When God looks at what has become of man in Genesis 6:6 or looks at what has become of Saul in 1 Samuel 15:11, he isn’t wishing he had the whole matter to do over again. He is “groaning” at their disobedience and “consoling himself” in his decision to enact just punishments. “Nacham” is not an activity of the mind but of one’s heart and spirit. Just say the word outloud, remembering that “ch” is heht, which makes a gutteral noice in the back of your throat like when a Scot says “loch,” and I think you will actually see what I mean about the connection between the sound and meaning of the word.
“God has body parts” – It is obvious that these body parts do not signify materiality but the operation associated with the body part. A right hand (e.g. Ex 15:6) signifies power and agility. “Dexterity” is actually derived from the Latin word for the right hand (dextera). The “face” (e.g. Ex 33:11) signifies familiarity and intimacy. The “back side” (e.g. Ex 33:23) signifies unseen mystery.
The literal meaning of these passages is figurative figurative or metaphorical, a closely-related example of the following principle: “When a text is metaphorical, its literal sense is not that which flows immediately from a word-to-word translation, but that which corresponds to the metaphorical use of these terms” (Interpretation of the Bible in the Church).
“God commands evil” – This appearance is the result of readers mistaking good things for evil things. Commanding the indiscriminate slaughter of every living inhabitant of certain Canaanite cities was required for the fulfillment of God’s covenant. Therefore what might otherwise appear evil is actually good when correctly understood. Scripture tells us that this and all of God’s commandments are good (Dt 10:13, Ps 119:39, Rm 7:12).
Just a question since I’ve come late to this conversation… as one who teaches Sacred Scripture for a living, has anyone writing comments here ever read all of the Church’s Scripture Documents in their entirety?
The Church is pretty clear on what is to be taken literally and what is not to be taken literally.
I’m not trying to be an elitist in saying all of this, but there are over 800 pages of documents that address these very questions… yet I don’t see most of them quoted here…
David
David,
You mean like where Leo XIII writes in PD (which in other areas (like way below) really was improved on by Pius XII and Vatican II): “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;(40) a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.”
You are not going to say that Leo XIII was against the wars of the OT are you..even the dooms?
You would have to provide passages to that effect.
John Paul II is the inception of dismissing violence in the OT as not of God but of men (John Paul II who failed in security matters himself as to defending our boys against abuse…having roughly the same stats in his first ten years as the ten years that preceded his accession)…he attributes the violence of the OT generally to men not God in section 40 of Evangelium Vitae (even the death penalty) unless you can show such dismissal in an earlier Pope in a passage I don’t have knowledge of and after Constantine and after the canon that admitted Romans 13:4.
I’m an antiquarian who read the entire Bible, most of Augustine, all of the Summa T wherein Aquinas does not find it necessary to depart from the literalness of the dooms as per Leo and Augustine’s remarks.
I read parts of each of the papal documents and didn’t find them that interesting compared to Augustine and that is why I left each of them unread as to the whole…probably reading half to 3/4 out of politeness (though no one was around watching until you arrived). You do that don’t you David; when a writer seems to be saying the tautalogical after a while, you do not read the whole text to the end?
Leo XIII for example accepted scribal errors but not others and cites Augustine to the effect of there being no errors in the Bible (footnote 58 De consensu Evangel. 1. I, c. 35.) and the full Augustine said no such thing in toto when dealing with that issue in his Harmony of the Bible. Augustine noted therein that there are surface discrepancies as in the case of John the Baptist in one place saying that he was not worthy to carry the sandals of Christ and in another place saying that he was not worthy to loose the thongs of the sandals. So I lost confidence in Leo telling the truth at that point…something he also did in his two letters on the Church and slavery wherein in both, he left out the place of late 15th century Popes in inaugurating slavery throughout Latin America…and he left that out while writing to the Bishops of Brazil of all things.
Bill… there were also 1000 of pages written after Leo… in fact the 1993 document on the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church overturns previous things that were once accepted by the Church. Benedicts hands are all over that document. You’ve got to read the Scripture Documents backwards… from the latest to the earliest… much has changed since Leo…
David
David
You have way more trust in Benedict and John Paul II in issues of severity wherein I have no trust in them. Both expressed the view that Judas is not certainly in hell whose opposite view Augustine and Chrysostom held clearly…as did Christ unless His words are meaningless and life is a jesus seminar that never ends.
Thus the two Popes followed Rahner (who I love) and Van Balthsar who said the same thing implicitly about Judas. Modern Catholics can’t handle severity. Their hermeneutic will be very much that of people here at Vox Nova. Why would I read them knowing that.
Aquinas saw the necessity of ruling out wrath and hatred within God and saw those biblical passages as anthropopathisms and I agree with Him since there is no change in the perfect Joy within God nor is their change in His being love and there would be change if He really had wrath or hatred. But Aquinas did not see anthropopathisms in the commanded violence within the OT because he saw God as willing evils like physical evils in war…not for themselves but willing them consequent to willing a just universe.
Yep I do have more trust in the 1993 Documents, Dei Verbum, etc. than in Trent. Personally… I feel like I’m in pretty good company…
So we’ll have to agree to disagree…
D
I guess my ultimate question for Bill is this, “What do you have against the Vicar of Christ’s” interpretation of the biblical text? Don’t we owe Rome some loyalty as Catholics? Moreover, what would you have me do as a Catholic Bible teacher? Tell students, “O… you’re hierarchy got it all wrong!” and just tell them to dump everything written since and including Vatican II? I’m a Catholic! I can’t do that… besides, when you teach Scripture at most Catholic Universities you pledge to teach the Bible as a Catholic faithful to the Church’s teachings–including the Scripture documents.
I should also add that the main reason I converted to Catholicism in graduate school had to do with reading the Church’s Scripture Documents. It always amazes me how so many Catholics don’t realize the gift that’s been given them by God and the Church.
As far as Aquinas goes, he didn’t have the tools available to him that we now have. He’d no idea that the Dead Sea Scrolls existed, nor did he have any coherent knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic. It’s daunting to think about it, but in some respects we’re some of the luckiest people in the world because as N. T. Wright once said, “We know more about the biblical world today than did those who lived in it.” (This sentiment has also been echoed by classicists).
Perhaps it’s elitist… I don’t know… but in graduate school I took languages like Coptic, MIddle Egyptian, Ugaritic and Syriac that St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. Aquinas had never heard of. I hate to say it, but we do know more now than they once did about the social world of the Bible, Hebrew grammar, and Greek syntax… not to mentions all the cognate languages we now know, which help us better understand what God was saying through human authors. It doesn’t mean that their witness isn’t valuable, but the approach of Catholicism is to take the best of the old with the best of the new. Otherwise, we’re just Protestant fundamentalists or evangelicals. Trust me… I know… because I was a Protestant evangelical and ordained in the Church of England.
In fact, one of the most amazing things I hear from Protestant biblical scholars is, “Wow! You Catholics have got it made! You can really work with the text, but you can also remain faithful to God!” That’s not something a lot of people can say. And we should be grateful for how we’re given the freedom to explore the Bible’s riches as Catholics. Moreover, Catholic biblical scholars have presented a real witness at the Society of Biblical Literature, etc. by showing how they can remain faithful yet ask the really tough questions that need to be asked of the Bible.
You might enjoy taking one of the online classes at Notre Dame or the University of Dayton that go through the Scriptural Documents and address the issues that you’re curious about. Just food for thought…
BTW… my first exposure to biblical criticism came from an orthodox Jew in my undergraduate days at U of Cincy and Hebrew Union College (a Jewish rabbinical school). I’ll never forget Rabbi Balaban and Dr. Kraut telling me that to have a “real relationship with the Torah you’ve got to wrestle with it!” They told me that sometimes this means “yelling at God and yelling at the text!” In my ignorant Christian piety I thought they were being heretical, but I’ve come to see their point: Most of us don’t have a living relationship with the text…
David
David,
I have read all the Church’s documents on Scripture in their entirety. I have never once read the Church advise me as to what is not to be taken literally. Rather, the Church tells us “The literal sense of Scripture is that which has been expressed directly by the inspired human authors. Since it is the fruit of inspiration, this sense is intended by God, as principal author” (Interpretation of the Bible in the Chruch: The Literal Sense).
The 1993 PBC document is what I just quoted. I am a big fan of that document and I must object when you say that it “overturns previous things that were once accepted by the Church.” You are completely misrepresenting the authority and contents of this wonderful document.
Carl
I will always remember the moment, over 30 years ago, when I was reading Saint Mark by D. E. Nineham, a volume in the Pelican New Testament Commentaries, and got to Mark 2:23-24:
When I read the first line of the commentary, it made me laugh out loud. It said, “It is idle to ask what the Pharisees were doing in the middle of a cornfield on a sabbath day.” The question — and so many others like it — had never occurred to me! This was my first encounter with modern Biblical criticism and exegesis. The commentary continued:
drd
I told you already I don’t trust these last men-Popes in security/violence questions (unless using infallibility which is separate from their character) who failed to protect children for the last 40 years from being oralled and French kissed by priests. They are not the ones to ask about security related Biblical issues. Read Evangelium Vitae on the death penalty. It would not reach a 2.0 in any school you attended if it were submitted anonymously. Check a list of the most dangerous countries by murder rate; 10 of the top 20 are Catholic. Do you go to a carpenter seeking advice on plumbing? Japan—death penalty for homocide—4th safest country as to murder rate. I know…it doesn’t explain Catholic Guatemala.
It seems to me that the overall point about David the Bible teacher’s contribution is that theology makes progress just like secular science makes progress, and the new knowledge then gets evaluated and sometimes adopted by the Church as developments of its teaching.
Jesus was a human being who walked this earth–not just a figure in a written text (even an inspired and immensely valuable text), which text does not exhaust his meaning. Jesus is an historical phenomenon, whom his followers have been faithfully trying to understand since he left them standing looking up at the sky (and a big question we have always had to wrestle with is Jesus’ relationship to the OT). The New Testament represents a coalescence of that understanding which cannot be superseded or improved upon–thank God we have it!–and yet we should not be locked in to some static interpretation of the NT or the whole of Scripture.
Moreover, taking this view does not lead us into the Jesus Seminar and eternal perdition. The mistake of the Jesus Seminar is that it worships at the altar of methodological skepticism. They are Biblical literalists in their own way, taking the view that this or that really happened in just this way as reported in the text, or it did not, and if not, throw it in the dust bin. As the example of David Nickol points up, something reported about Jesus, though not historically accurate (literally true) can be a completely accurate representation of what Jesus taught as the earliest Christians came to understand Jesus and his teaching.
Precisely David Raber… that’s my point exactly and the point of all of the Scripture Documents. We don’t know everything right now… the Church is… dare I say it… evolving… and over time we learn more and more about the mysteries of God. Again, we live in extraordinary times when we’ve been blessed with more knowledge about the time of Jesus than any other generation can imagine. It’s our job to use this information to better understand the Bible and understand God.
Actually… what leads to the Jesus Seminar is a group of scholars–capitalists–that decided… Hey, we can make a lot of money off of some rather interesting theories that scholars have known for years. We’ll put those theories in glossy print books and sell them for $35 each at Barnes & Noble. And then we’ll make a movie or two about our theories.
Not everyone on the seminar agreed. In fact one of my doctoral committee members was on the Jesus Seminar until it became… well… motivated less by scholarship and more by money.
David Wheeler Reed,
If you have not already done so, I strongly suggest reading the writings of St. Vincent de Lerins and J.H. Newman’s “Essay on the Development of Doctrine.”
There is nothing remarkable about claiming that the Church and Catholic theology evolve. It’s historically uncontestable. What is not obvious at all and highly contestable, however, is that there is any contradiction between earlier and later stages in this evolution.
I have a masters degree in theology, teach Scripture for a living, and I know a good amount of Hebrew, Greek and Latin (which is extremely important not so much for understanding Scripture in its connection with the doctrinal and documentary traditions of the Catholic Church).
I remain terribly curious to know what exactly in the 1993 PBC you think is inconsistent with or “overturned” previous positions of the Church. It certainly addresses a great number of things previously not addressed, but what exactly has changed?
Carl
PS. I’m still reveling in the idea of a pontifical commission overturning dogma! Talk about your Little Engine That Could!
I doubt Carl that we’ll agree on this… but the 1993 document did say that passages of scripture such as those about slavery and genocide cannot be taken as valid anymore. (Did I really say it overturned dogma? I don’t think so). And, the 1993 document is quite clear that biblical scholars are to be historians and exegetes… not theologians. There’s a huge confusion about this in the Catholic world. Theologians seem to think they’ve the right to trump biblical scholarship when the 1993 document is clear that historical biblical interpretation is to help theologians refine their positions. In fact, if you’ll recall, biblical historians aren’t even supposed to act in the capacity of theologians nor are we to give political critiques of texts. We are supposed to provide our historical data to theologians and ethicists to better help them implement Catholic theology in every day lives.
What’s changed? Well… the fact that we can’t use certain Scriptures anymore to justify slavery… or genocide… And, the Catechism is clear that when tensions arise in the text of Scripture we are to go to the Gospels to solve those tensions. Our own liturgy clearly shows this. The Gospel is treated differently than any other part of Scripture. But… back on slavery and genocide, to say that one can no longer use Joshua to justify genocide or use any of the passages in the OT or NT to justify slavery, means that the Pontifical Commission is judging passages of Scripture that were once thought valid in the history of the Catholic Church.
I think what scares most people about the 1993 document is that it advocates historical criticism as the first place where Catholic biblical scholars — not theologians — should start. That doesn’t mean that we end with historical criticism, but it’s very clear that this is where we start. This is why scholars like Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, and Jerome Murphy – O’Connor are classic examples of what Catholic Biblical scholarship is supposed to look like. The Sacra Pagina series is also a model for this. Yes, we can end with theological comments, but that’s not where we start. We start with historical criticism.
What terrifies me in Catholic biblical scholarship is that most theologians read the Bible through the lens of canonical criticism or narrative criticism. That’s fine, but that is not where the biblical scholar is supposed to start. Moreover, systematic theologians often parade in the churches as if they’re biblical scholars. These are two different functions. If you look at any reputable Catholic University’s PhD program in Sacred Scripture–even at the Gregorian–you’ll find that biblical training (especially at the PhD level) is very different from that of theology, because advanced biblical work means becoming a historian, who is also conversant in the classical world or in the world of the Ancient Near East, or in the world of Second Temple Judaism.
I also wish that systematic theologians in the Catholic Church would be honest that they are theologians and not biblical historians. These are two different fields. Most systematic theologians are enthralled by Dei Verbum, but that isn’t the whole story when it comes to how to interpret the Bible in the Church.
Moreover, theologians and biblical historians are supposed work together, but they often do not. (My own personal opinion is that theologians seem to have very little use for biblical scholars because they don’t like it when our history shows that Augustine or Aquinas got something wrong). You call yourself a theologian, which I view very differently from one who works as a historian. One isn’t better than the other, but people need to be honest when they are reading the Bible theologically versus reading it historically. In the parishes this is really “SCREWING THE LAYITY UP!” this bothers me because an Aquinas scholars can show up and say this passage is about this… while a biblical scholar can show up and say… no that’s not quite the case. If we don’t follow what these documents are telling us… we ultimately end up hurting the laity, which I consider an massive, intellectual crime!
There’s an excellent little book by Daniel Harrington about all of this. In that book Harrington explains how Catholic Biblical scholarship is very different from giving a sermon or talking about morality.
Again, I think most Catholics are actually… well… terrified at just how liberal Catholic Biblical scholarship is allowed to be. For me, that’s the beauty of it… In my opinion those like Scott Hahn and others who’ve opted for a purely theological and non-historical reading of the Scriptures are just being Protestants. A lot of evangelical Protestant scholarship has now rejected historical criticism and opted for a “theology-only” reading of a text. That’s fine at a theological level, but that’s not where the Catholic biblical scholar is supposed to start–again, we’re historians.
Finally, I would like to add, I don’t really care if people opt for theological perspectives or narrative perspectives on the text. Just be honest that this isn’t want the Pontifical Biblical Commission has told biblical scholars to do. I’m often told by people on VN that don’t like what I’ve got to say, “You can disagree with the Church’s documents but don’t distort them!” I think the same applies here. People may not like what the Scripture Documents are telling us, but we should at least be honest about what they say, especially before we pull some saint out in order to trump those Documents.
David
PS. What I’m still reveling about is that I’m being questioned for actually being obedient to the Pontifical Biblical Commission. At least I’m in good company with Ratzinger, who’s hands are all over the 1993 document. Then again, it will never cease to amaze me that here at VN obeying official Catholic documents is… well… kind of adiaphora. It’s just… well… whatever works for you…
David,
I agree with what you have to say here, with only a few other words. Just as a Biblical Scholar can and will end up suggesting theological responses to their research, a systematic theologian of course has to address Scripture and will end up suggesting interpretations of it. Both need to look at what each have to say, and comment, explaining where there is agreement, where there is not, and why not. It should be done in a respectful way. I know I am not a Biblical Scholar, though I do read commentaries (ancient and modern), and I find Biblical Scholarship interesting to say the least (and I have various ideas of historical reconstruction through Scripture, but I realize they are the ideas of someone whose expertise is not there). There’s nothing wrong with the cross-over discussion, it is just people in all sides need to be humble while doing it, and realize their limitations. The historical question is related to but quite different from the theological question. There is too much to do for one person.
Correction: Latin is extremely important not so much for understanding Scripture IN ITSELF BUT in its connection with the doctrinal and documentary traditions of the Catholic Church.
Three rather important missing words!
Henry… I totally agree with you… but I don’t think this is how it always works. Yes, it would be asinine of me to think that my historical interpretation is not theological. That’s impossible just as it would be impossible for a systematic theologian to ignore the Bible. What I think Catholic biblical scholarship is trying to get at is a community of scholars working together. For instance, a post was recently put up at VN about Romans 13:1-7. Most of the discussions about it had to do with theological interpretations of the text. There were few–if any–questions about how this text could be interpreted from the perspective of a biblical historian, such as mentioned to rhetorical phenomenon in Greek literature of an antilogical-ginomai. Now… after pointing that out, I think it would be prudent for Catholic theologians to then help me understand as a historian how this works in the bigger picture of Catholic theology.
What I think Carl and others are missing here is the community aspect of scholarship and that theologians need to ask biblical critics more about what a historical critical interpretation of a text looks like. Just as biblical scholars need to go and ask theologians, “How does what I’ve discovered fit into the larger plan of Catholic theology?”
You understand this… but I don’t think many people do…
David
PS (Henry)… humility is a big part of it. It’s too bad scholars don’t pay attention to what Aristotle had to say about hubris. I’ll be the first to admit that my expertise is not in systematic theology. Any biblical scholar worth their salt would have to admit that they don’t have the time to study everything in Church History nor in Theology. I just wish more people would admit that they don’t understand everything about the Bible or about the cultures and history that surround it. Like you said… we’ve got to work together…
I frequently ask systematic theologians at UD how something I’ve come up with or that I’m working on fits into Catholic history or theology. Unfortunately, it doesn’t always work the other way…
But one colleague of mine has started to ask me things like, “So… am I even correct in interpreting Daniel this way?” So some progress is being made…
David
David,
One of the things I appreciated with my study is that I have had courses which were geared towards the interaction between Biblical and Patristic Scholars — one course was co-taught by the then Dean, Fr. Moloney, and a Swedish Lay Theologian, Gösta Hallonsten (his expertise was in Patristics, Ecumenical Theology, and Systematics). The only problem is it was a seminar, and geared toward people writing papers for the class, but it did get the commentary of both. I think more classes should follow this example, and help bring theologians together.
Agreed Henry… agreed…
A lot of the biblical scholars at CUA know how to do this… Raymond Collins, Frank Matera… etc.
To me these are people who’ve really figured out how to balance history and theology.
David
I do think my odd history of coursework in Biblical studies have also helped me be more open. I started with an undergrad at IU, where the professor had just finished his doctorate under EP Sanders, and Luke Johnson had just left the school but his footprint for the class was what controlled how the course was taught. Then during my MA studies, I had some interesting courses — one was a very good class on the Torah by Sarah Melcher, and then I had one other class required at the time with Dewey; the latter was to me an overly simplistic class, but it showed me the full extent of scholarship via the Jesus Seminar (and I got a few good things from it, even if I found most of it poor history). Then at CUA, though I didn’t take specific classes, I had a few like the one co-taught by Moloney which still connected to Biblical thought, and helped round off with what I thought was the best of modern scholarship.
David Wheeler Reed,
We seem to agree far more than you suspect.
The question is not whether the passages of Scripture about slavery and genocide are valid ANYMORE, but whether they were EVER valid. There are different ways to explain the modern invalidity of such passages. The 1993 PBC document points to a “progress in moral understanding and sensitivity.” St. Thomas says, “The judicial precepts did not bind forever but were annulled by the coming of Christ” (S.T. I-II, 104, 3). Regardless, the point is not that these positions (slavery, genocide) never had validity, but that they do not continue to have validity.
Again, it’s not the job of the biblical scholar to tell us about what weight or non-weight any passage has TODAY. It’s his job to tell us what the passage meant in its original historical context. When the Jerome Biblical Commentary says, “The charam is the outgrowth of obedience to God,” Brown, Fitzmyer and Murphy are not telling us that we need to go out and kill somebody to prove we are obedient to God! They are telling us about what the charam meant in the context of 1 Samuel 15 back in the days when the text was written.
I think you will agree that there is no textual reason – no reason drawn from biblical scholarship – for supposing that God did not command the “charam” (i.e. the genocidal slaughter of seven Canaanite nations). To make such a claim, we must exercise our own modern philosophical and theological presuppositions in a way that does direct violence to the historical and literary meaning of the text. You know as well as I the weight of the Hebrew phrase, “tsavah Yahveh Elohiym” (Dt 20:17). This is not a phrase that the original human writer would use lightly or that his audience would understand lightly.
What you’ve written in a rather circumlocutious way is actually my precise problem with Kyle’s position: He’s pretty much saying that we can pitch historical criticism when its results contradict what we want the Bible to mean.
My problem with Henry is more a question of systematic theology: What is the value of the literal sense? Is it necessary to maintain the divine truth and inspiration of the literal sense in each and every circumstance? Biblical scholars (qua biblical scholars) can’t really answer these questions; they can only help us understand what the literal sense is or is not. If a biblical scholar is telling us whether or how we must accept or reject the literal sense, he has ceased to act in the capacity of a biblical scholar and is now engaging in an activity of systematic theology.
David,
Rest assured that I am not “missing the community aspect of scholarship.” Vague appeals to historical criticism and the need to resist fundamentalism do not justify the claim that God didn’t really command the Israelites to “utterly destroy” the inhabitants (men, women, children and beasts) of Canaanite cities. In the literary and historical context of the book of Deuteronomy – speaking now purely from the standpoint of biblical scholarship – the charam is presented as necessary to the fulfillment of God’s covenant to bring the children of Israel into the “erets dabar.”
Dueteronomy 7:6-11 expressly places the charam in the context of Yahveh’s “ahabah” (love) and “shebuwah” (oath) to the fathers:
“Know therefore that the Lord your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant (beriyt) and merciful love (hesed) with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations, and repays to their face those who hate him, by destroying them; he will not be slack with him who hates him, he will repay him to his face” (7:9-10).
In the Old Testament, the members of nations (even infants) are generally treated as though they are members of the same moral subject. The Moabites and Ammonites bear in themselves the guilt of the sin of Lot and his daughters, just as Canaanites are cursed for Ham’s sin against Noah.
We have remarkable stories of gentiles such as Ruth the Moabitess or Uriah the Hittite who repent of their gentile ways and conform to a Jewish way of life, but there is no implication that they were innocent from birth.
These facts are inconvenient to us today. We would much rather maintain that babies are intrinsically innocent because they have not committed any personal sin. But this simply was not the view of the biblical writers.
David,
Maintaining that God did not order the dooms means one should logically remove Wisdom chapter 12 from the Bible since that gives the additional reason at length that God first punished them “bit by bit that they may have space for repentance” and only after that brought on the dooms…remove it and most of chapter 12 if you and the document are really sure of yourselves though I won’t stand near you as you do :).
Read Ott/ Intro to Fundamentals of the Catholic Faith online/ section 8 last paragraph which notes that infallibility is never exercised by the Vatican Congregations. Read John Henry Newman who saw virtually the entire magisterium being Arian during the 4th century with rare exceptions like St. Athnasius….book is “On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine”….as it turned out the laity held up the true dogma for that century…not the Vatican.
Bill I’d prefer to read more modern things… and no… I don’t take the whole Bible literally… so it does seem pointless to continue this discussion doesn’t it? You’re not going to convince me nor am I you… so let’s save some energy… same goes with Carl…
David Wheeler-Reed,
Not to interrupt your spectacular cop out, but what – if anything – do you disagree with in what I wrote? If you have a good argument, I am perfectly willing to change my mind.
In saying that “you don’t take the whole bible literally,” you are making a MONUMENTAL concession, namely, that our interpretation of Scripture passes muster with the historical critical methods. You do not disagree with our BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP but with our insistence that, in the words of YOUR 1993 PBC document and the precious fingerprints of Cardinal Ratzinger: “The literal sense of Scripture is that which has been expressed directly by the inspired human authors. Since it is the fruit of inspiration, this sense is also intended by God, as principal author.”
Your disagreement isn’t with “Carl” or “Bill Bannon,” but with the faith of the Catholic Church as regards the inspiration and truth of Sacred Scripture. The Catholic Church NEVER says that “the whole Bible cannot be taken literally,” but on the contrary, says,
“In sacris vero libris conficiendis Deus homines elegit, quos facultatibus ac viribus suis utentes adhibuit, ut Ipso in illis et per illos agente, ea omnia eaque sola, quae Ipse vellet, ut veri auctores scripto traderent” (DV 11),
and,
“ergo omne id, quod auctores inspirati seu hagiographi asserunt, retineri debeat assertum a Spiritu Sancto” (DV 11),
and,
“Cum autem Deus in Sacra Scriptura per homines more hominum locutus sit, interpres Sacrae Scripturae, ut perspiciat, quid Ipse nobiscum communicare voluerit, attente investigare debet, quid hagiographi reapse significare intenderint et eorum verbis manifestare Deo placuerit” (DV 12).
In saying that “not everything in the Bible can be taken according to the precise meaning of the text as produced by their authors,” you are not making a statement of biblical scholarship but a theological statement that contradicts Catholic doctrine.