Why the footnotes in most Bibles stink
John, a cradle Catholic, has lukewarmly practiced his faith for his whole life. However, he has begun to realize that there is more to this life than earthly things, and so he begins to re-engage in his practice of Catholicism. Perhaps he begins to watch EWTN or read a Scott Hahn book or listen to a talk by Patrick Madrid. His enthusiasm for the Church and our Lord increases and he goes out and buys a Catholic Bible so that he can draw closer to Christ in the Sacred Scriptures. He knows reading the Bible regularly is important, but because he has no real biblical training, he depends on the footnotes of his Bible to help him to understand what it means.
But then he notices that the footnotes constantly question the veracity of biblical accounts, imply that certain Catholic beliefs are not really biblical, and in general do everything they can to question the inerrancy of the Bible. At this point, John doesn’t know who to trust or what to make of the Bible.
How often has this scene, or something quite like it, played out in the past few decades?
Why is it that the footnotes in most Catholic Bibles are so bad? Instead of bolstering our love for the Scriptures, they seem to want to denigrate it. There are a variety of reasons, but I think much of the problem lies in two fundamental presuppositions most Scripture scholars (who write the footnotes) have, presuppositions that are founded on Enlightenment thinking and are rarely questioned:
1) Religious thought develops in a strictly linear fashion
One of the basic assumptions of Enlightenment thinking is that everything develops – biological life, political thought – and that this development always goes from simple to more complex. This is one of the reasons so many moderns arrogantly look down on previous generations – we are clearly more developed in every way than our forefathers, so we have little to learn from them. This strict development is also assumed for religious thought – what men and women believe today is necessarily more advanced than what they believed centuries ago.
This idea impacts biblical studies in that it is assumed that any text that appears to be more simple MUST chronologically precede a text that is more advanced. Thus the Gospel of Mark MUST come before any other Gospel, because it is supposedly more “simple”. But more importantly, this means that Paul’s writings, which came over 20 years after the death of Christ, MUST involve some advancement from the original teachings of Jesus.
But there is no evidence that religious thought develops in a strictly linear fashion, from simple to more complex. In fact, the history of religious thought shows that it is dominated by certain bright lights which are far ahead of their times and which takes many years – even decades and centuries – to process. For example, the writings of St. Paul are far more advanced than those of St. Clement of Rome, who lived after Paul, and the writings of St. John are far more advanced than those of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who lived after the beloved disciple. The same could be said in comparing Paul, Augustine and Aquinas – in different ways each of the three is more advanced than the other two – there is no strict line which advances from Paul to Augustine to Aquinas.
And of course Jesus is the brightest light of them all. Instead of seeing later religious thinkers as more advanced than Jesus, we should instead realize that he was way ahead of his time, and future thinkers had to digest what he preached and that this takes centuries (and actually will never end).
2) There is a fundamental disconnect between an event and its later presentation
Rudolf Bultmann was one of the most influential biblical scholars of the early 20th century. One of his main assumptions, which was based on Enlightenment thinking, was that historical events had to be separated from their later written presentation. Thus the event of Christ healing a sick person is fundamentally different from Matthew or Mark or Luke or John writing about it. In other words, we can’t trust that the written presentation really reflects what actually happened.
Furthermore, there is a disconnect between the written presentation and later interpretation. So the Church’s interpretation of a passage is not directly linked to the written word, but is instead something that must be disconnected from it and studied in isolation from the text itself.
This leads to setting up the Scripture scholar as the final arbiter of “what really happened”. Only they can discover what in a text is later embellishment or interpretation and what reflects the actual historical event. For some scholars, this means that we can never know what really happened, but for others it allows them to make the biblical text a playground in which they dissect the text so that it says what they want it to say.
The problem with both of these presuppositions is that they neglect the role of the Holy Spirit. As Catholics, we believe that our understanding of doctrine does develop over time, but this development is not some linear, mathematical process which is simply guided by human reason. The Holy Spirit guides the Church throughout time, and He at times inspires certain men or women with insights which defy a simple linear development. So the whole idea of “simple to complex” is not applicable to the development of Christian doctrine.
Furthermore, the Holy Spirit inspires the presentation of the events as found in the Sacred Scriptures and then later guides the Church in her interpretation of those writings. When Matthew was writing about the events of Jesus’ life in his Gospel, he was assisted by the Holy Spirit so that those events were accurately depicted (even if theologically presented). Likewise, when the Church reads Matthew’s Gospel and interprets it, the Holy Spirit ensures that the Magisterium does not err in its official interpretation.
Unfortunately, most Bible editors – and especially editors of Catholic Bibles – do not recognize the powerful role of the Holy Spirit but instead make false presuppositions which influence their understanding of the Sacred Text. If you want to see how a scholar approaches the Scriptures without these false presuppositions, and within the mind of the Church, there is no better place to start than Pope Benedict’s Jesus of Nazareth series.
There are some great Bibles that do not engage in this very common error.
Allow me to suggest that the best are the Douay-Rheim and Challoner footnotes. Also the commentaries by Fr. Haydock are excellent.
The Navarre Bible generally quotes saints and Church Councils not to explain away passages but to bring them alive, expound them, and apply them! Also recommend this series as well.
If “John” our cradle Catholic “notices that the footnotes constantly question the veracity of biblical accounts, imply that certain Catholic beliefs are not really biblical, and in general do everything they can to question the inerrancy of the Bible”, then he probably was not reading the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible. Probably the best use of footnotes to promote faith and understanding I have ever seen.
I think your larger point is a good one. Scholars should be more sensitive in their use of footnotes when dealing with scripture, and certain comments that may be appropriate in a journal or some other text are inappropriate in the Bible. At the same time, folks need to spend a little time shopping for the right Bible – it takes a little work, but the results are well worth the effort.
Good topic, Eric (new to the blog – looks good!).
I have studied this topic since my reversion/conversion some 12 plus years ago.
To say the least it has been distressing to read much of what has been passed off as “scholarship” in the last 40-50 years. (see Pope Benedict’s foreward in the first volume of “Jesus of Nazareth”)
I highly recommend an excellent book by Msgr. George Kelly, “The New Biblical Theorists” – published back in the early 80′s by Servant Press for you, Eric.
Msgr. Kelly delves into some of the questionable exegesis of one well known Scripture scholar.
It is a rare book (hardcover), but you can find them in “good condition” in the 15-20 dollar range.
http://www.amazon.com/New-Biblical-Theorists-George-Kelly/dp/0892831669/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301070257&sr=1-1-spell
God love you and keep up the good work!
Catechist Kevin
If “John”, who is just learning about the faith and already questions the footnotes, he should immediately discard the N.A.B. and go ahead and purchase the recommendations that have preceded this comment.
I myself use several sources such as the Navarre and Scott Hahn’s series. Both of which are excellent starting points for amateur Bible readers!
I personally recommend the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSV CE) Bible or the Douay-Rheim Bible (if you want a more direct and accurate translation).
I would highly recommend St. Jerome’s commentaries. I don’t know how many have been translated to English (for certain, Matthew has), but look for his commentaries as translated by Dr. Thomas Scheck.
You can’t go wrong with St. Jerome!
NO! No no NO!!!
The footnotes are fine – and GREAT even! And they would be great even if they were a million times more contradictory to Catholic teaching. As a Church of the truth, the Church is not and should not fear or censor the scholastic interpretations of its scripture! I can’t even imagine the loss of credibility the Church would face if it omitted its current footnotes!
Let me be clear on a few points:
FIRST – The scripture is a result of Church teaching, not the source of it. The teachings that proceed the scripture are kept by the Church and taught by the Church. And the scripture is an attempt to record those teachings and their justifications, sometimes in very subtle ways which are well-revealed by scholarly analysis. Haven’t you ever heard your priest refer to those controversial footnotes in his homily?
SECOND – We maintain that the scripture is divinely inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit. This means that the scripture contains the messages God intended it to contain. But, He didn’t dictate it! He didn’t tell the authors which verb would translate the best into English 1500 years later or which idioms Americans would best be able into 21st idioms. We need the footnotes to guide us and keep us from making foolish assumptions and interpretations!
THIRD – Again, we maintain that the scripture is divinely inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit. No TRUTH that can be extracted from the scripture is detrimental, whether that truth comes from Church teaching, secular scholars, or otherwise. The Church is here to learn and teach the truth. Hence, it is only appropriate that our bibles contain footnotes from the most up-to-date research, however questionable it is …
FOURTH – The footnotes are not necessarily hard truths. Some of them are pretty solid: such as describing how we should interpret the word “mammon” or saying that “love” in this case really meant more like such and such in Greek. And yet, the speculations are usually quite clearly labeled. Such as some scholars believe that, given the phrasing here, Jesus may not have actually been walking ON the water, but along the seashore. This is a speculation; but it could be true — and it shouldn’t matter. It won’t likely change the Churches teaching, which often treats the reality of an event as secondary to the associated truth. Furthermore, if the Church is the Church of truth, it will be open to learning the what really happened!
FIFTH – Very little of the scripture is intended to be accurate historical record. And since the biblical authors had the advantage of knowing what actually happened when correlating the teachings with the events for themselves, it is only fitting that we do what it necessary to attempt to reconstruct an accurate image of those events for ourselves. And you cannot do that by censoring opinions that seem to discredit your beliefs!
Again, the Church is about truth. And you don’t arrive at truth by stifling scholarship, even if the scholarship seems crappy at the time. Exploring trending interpretations and ideas is perfectly acceptable and GOOD. The hard historical facts are often secondary the the teachings. Truth is truth, regardless of who says it — And yes, the scripture was inspired and contains truth, but it was not dictated!
Lastly, remember that even Satan has quoted scripture. The real moral implications for any Catholic must ALWAYS come from Church-informed personal reflection. The scripture, with or without footnotes, is NOT sufficient — however inspired by God it may be!
Thank you, Jon, and I concur with what you said. Catholic Bibles have a Nihil Obstat, granted by a bishop or his delegate, which assures Catholics that there is nothing in the book that would be damaging to faith or morals. It also has an Imprimatur granted by a bishop that allows the book to be printed. I have always checked for those, and then I don’t worry. If I find something questionable, I just ask a priest or someone else who is knowledgeable about the issue.
Converting to Catholicism means leaving fundamentalisms of all kinds behind. The Bible is a complicated library of ancient literature that speaks to people of all ages, always more clearly with the help of solid scholarship. Fear of scholarship is hardly a sign of Catholic faith–think “faith in search of understanding.” There’s a deeper problem if the best of Catholic scriptural scholarship shakes one’s faith. I am glad that you are now Catholic, and I think it’s pretty arrogant and ignorant for you to be so dismissive of contemporary Catholic biblical exegesis.
Jon has hit the nail right on the head. Too many people denigrate the work of Catholic biblical scholars because they do not agree with their antiquated preconceptions. So often on blogs on articles I have read in ADVENT there are references to St. Augustine, medieval writers but never to the modern biblical scholars. SHAME !
I like the Douay-Rheims with commentar by Fr. Geo. Leo Haydock. The commentary compiled by Fr. Haydock are voluminous and solid. The text itself follows the Vulgate very closely. So you get two plusses for the price of one! The prose is pretty stiff but I would have stiff and accurate than something questionable.
Overcriticism is a problem not only with the modern editions of the Bible. I tried to read from a 1960s edition of Butler’s “Lives of the Saints” to my child and I found myself constantly having to skipped remarks such as “There is no proof that this saint has really existed” (I’m paraphrasing). Stephen of Byzantium has famously said that the myth is what never was but what always is, and this is a crucial component of every religion. Without it, we just practice academic discourse and social service.
[...] the footnotes. Eric Sammons has a thing or two to say about that in an excellent blog post titled “Why Footnotes In Most Bibles Stink.” I agree with his second reason more than his first. Check it out and let’s get a [...]
Pingback by Footnotes In The Bible: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly « St Francis Men of Emmaus — March 26, 2011 @ 10:47 amI can’t believe that people are actually supporting what Jon wrote. Did you read it?
I’m sorry, but if footnotes contradict Church doctrine, then they are bad, bad, bad.
I have the Douay Rheims with Fr. Haydocks commentary, the Navarre Bible, the Navarre Expanded New Testament, and the Ignatius Study Bible (New Testament) RSV 2nd CE that I use for deep study because the commentary in them is extraordinary. I especially like the commentary in the Ignatius Study Bible by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch, but I would be hard pressed to pick one over any of the others because there are good points about each. That being said, the commentary in the New American Bible leaves a lot to be desired, and in many cases does not follow the traditional Catholic interpretation of some of the texts.
Wow, Eric!
You seem to have touched a nerve.
Wonder, however, do those above who support “contemporary” Biblical scholarship include such scholarship that says:
———————————————————-
+ Jesus didn’t know He was God?
+ Jesus didn’t really perform any miracles – those “miracles” in the Gospels can be explained scientifically
+ Jesus did not teach about sexuality
+ We do not know who wrote the Gospels
+ Genesis chapters 1-11 are mythical – those events did not happen at all – they are legends
+ Jesus did not institute the ministerial priesthood – it developed later via the laity
—————————————————————
All of the above statements made by “contemporary” Biblical scholarship are contrary to what the Magisterium of the Church teaches.
Certainly, Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes encourages scholars to push the envelope of Divine Revelation so that the Church can have a better understanding of Revelation.
However, this “pushing the envelope” has been given limits by the Magisterium, too (see Dei Verbum 10-12) – and *this* was the point of Benedict’s foreword in his firsst volume of “Jesus of Nazareth.”
The sole authority of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God – either in its oral or written form – is the Magisterium of the Church. Period. (see CCC 85)
Keep up the good work, Eric. Do not let the modernists sway you!
Catechist Kevin
I have been on this for the past few years. Yes Andre you are correct the statement made by Jon was off the mark to say the least. Ruth Ann I am sorry to say just because there is a Nihil Obstat or Imprimatur in a Bible does not mean that the footnotes are not heretical. For example Matthew 21:7 the footnotes said that Matthew MISUNDERSTOOD(erred) the OT prohpecy. Pope Leo XIII wrote in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus in chapters 20/21 . “But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred”…..”It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error.” I have written Bishops, Priests and even the publisher of the NAB to remove this and other heretical footnotes, but to no avail. I will continue to fight the good fight as it sounds like many of you are as well. Your Brother In Christ
Forgot to mention that the footnotes I am speaking of on Matthew 21:7 are from the NAB
Jason,
Kudos to you, sir!
Check out the footnote for Matthew chapter 13:18-23 from the NAB (“The Explanation of the Parable of the Sower”):
—————————————————————
The second sentence says, “The second and third types particularly are explained in such a way as to support the view held by many scholars that the explanation derives not from Jesus but from early Christian reflection upon apostasy from the faith that was the consequence of persecution and worldliness respectively. Others, however, hold that the explanation may come basically from Jesus even though it was developed in the light of later Christian experience.”
—————————————————————
Okay then – here is what the Fathers of the Second Vatican council said about the four gospels:
—————————————————————
“Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1). Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. (from DV 19)
—————————————————————
Trust the Magisterium folks, not footnotes from questionable scholars – or Nihil Obstadts/Imprimaturs from certain bishops.
Acting alone – they are not the Magisterium.
Catechist Kevin
The reason the footnotes are so bad is that those who write them have no faith. Simple as that.
Hi Eric, it is sad to note that what you have done in leaving the protestant faith to join the catholic church is like the saying “from bad to worse.” or “from the frying pan to the fire.” Of course i respect your opinion. It’s your soul. I just want to inform you that Protestantism and Catholicism are essentially the same. In the bible there is a “harlot” mentioned and “harlot daughters.” What do you think are its fulfillment? Well, its the the Catholic Church and the protestant churches. If you, and your readers want to know the specifics of this statement and really interested in the salvation of your soul try asking questions here: http://thelionsthought.blogspot.com/.
You can’t ask questions in your own blog, can you? Just want to be of help.
To Jason
Read the footnotes on 21:2, 21:4-5 as well as 21:7 and you will get the full picture. Jesus did not ride on two animals! There are errors and contradictions in the Bible. The Second Vatican Council did not take up inerrancy after a Cardinal said he could point out 72 errors in the Bible. So you cannot hold that every single line in the bible is without any error or contradiction. I am tired of reading comments by people who are ignorant of the original Hebrew or Greek texts and any understanding of the context of the world of the ancient mid-east. And then presume to read the text in English and ignore the work of competent Catholic Biblical scholars. Stop denigrating them and disparaging their work. Grow up! Adam, Eve, Methuselah and Noah were not historical individuals; Moses did not write the first five books of the bible (as a turn of the 20th century statement ot the Biblical Commission said.) The purpose of the bible is NOT to teach science or history, but to communicate religious truth – sometimes through legend, fable, or stories.
Flamen says: “There are errors and contradictions in the Bible”
Kevin replies: Where does the Magisterium teach this, Flamen? I ask this with all Christian charity and respect.
We must ask if the Church teaches this because, as she says, she is the sole interpreter of the word of God (see CCC 85).
Pope Pius XII said in Humani Generis:
For, together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church. But if the Church does exercise this function of teaching, as she often has through the centuries, either in the ordinary or in the extraordinary way, it is clear how false is a procedure which would attempt to explain what is clear by means of what is obscure. (from HG 21)
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Flamen says: “The Second Vatican Council did not take up inerrancy after a Cardinal said he could point out 72 errors in the Bible.”
Kevin replies: I ask you with all charity – this proves what? A Cardinal believed that there were errors? Could he not have been influenced by certain Biblical scholars with a particular agenda?
It is true that the Church (Magisterium) exhorts scholars and theologians to “push the envelope” of their studies to help her to better understand Divine Revelation (as she did in the Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes, p. 63) – however, the Church also has given limits to their exegesis (see V2’s Dei Verbum 10-12).
The complete inerrancy of Sacred Scripture had already been dealt with via the papal encyclicals Providentissimus Deus, Spiritus Paraclitus and Divino Afflante Spiritu (that’s Popes Leo XIII, Benedict XV and Pius XII respectively – men who knew their Hebrew and Greek) in the six plus decades before Vatican II. That a Cardinal said that he could point to 72 errors in the Bible may be a fact (i.e. his opinion) – but it does not prove that Holy Mother Church changed her teaching that this was so.
What the aforementioned popes said:
Pope Leo XIII said: But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. As to the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it–this system cannot be tolerated. (from PD20)
Leo XIII, again: It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration or make God the author of such error. And so emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error, that they labored earnestly, with no less skill than reverence, to reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at variance–the very passages which in great measure have been taken up by the “higher criticism”; for they were unanimous in laying it down that those writings, in their entirety and in all their parts were equally from the AFFLATUS of Almighty God, and that God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true. (from PD 21)
Pope Benedict XV said: Some even maintain that these views do not conflict with what our predecessor [Leo XIII] laid down since—so they claim–he said that the sacred writers spoke in accordance with the external– and thus deceptive–appearance of things in nature. But the Pontiff’s own words show that this is a rash and false deduction. For sound philosophy teaches that the senses can never be deceived as regards their own proper and immediate object. Therefore, from the merely external appearance of things–of which, of course, we have always to take account as Leo Xlll, following in the footsteps of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, most wisely remarks–we can never conclude that there is any error in Sacred Scripture. (SP 20)
Pius XII: Finally it is absolutely wrong and forbidden “either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred,” since divine inspiration “not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church.” (from DAS 3)
Pius XII, again: This teaching, [the complete inerrancy of the Bible] which Our Predecessor Leo XIII set forth with such solemnity, We also proclaim with Our authority and We urge all to adhere to it religiously. No less earnestly do We inculcate obedience at the present day to the counsels and exhortations which he, in his day, so wisely enjoined. (from DAS 4)
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Flamen says: “Stop denigrating them and disparaging their work.”
Kevin Replies: I do not recall Jason naming any Scripture scholar names – however, even our current Pope has called into question certain “scholars” and their work – without naming names, of course:
“Soloviev’s portrayal of the Antichrist forcefully expresses his skepticism regarding a certain type of scholarly exegesis current at the time. This is not a rejection of scholarly biblical interpretation as such, but an eminently salutary and necessary warning against its possible aberrations. The fact is that scriptural exegesis can become a tool of the Antichrist. Soloviev is not the first person to tell us that; it is the deeper point of the temptation story itself. The alleged findings of scholarly exegesis have been used to put together the most dreadful books that destroy the figure of Jesus and dismantle the faith.” (Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, vol. 1, p. 35)
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Flamen says: “Adam, Eve, Methuselah and Noah were not historical individuals;”
Kevin Replies: Where does the Church teach this, Flamen? Consider the following from the Pontifical Biblical Commission (pay attention to numbers 1-3)
Concerning the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis
June 30, 1909 (AAS 1 [1909] 567ff; EB 332ff; Dz 2121ff)
I: Do the various exegetical systems excogitated and defended under the guise of science to exclude the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis rest on a solid foundation? Answer: In the negative.
II: Notwithstanding the historical character and form of Genesis, the special connection of the first three chapters with one another and with the following chapters, the manifold testimonies of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testaments, the almost unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers and the traditional view which the people of Israel also has handed on and the Church has always held, may it be taught that: the aforesaid three chapters of Genesis Contain not accounts of actual events, accounts, that is, which correspond to objective reality and historical truth, but, either fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and accommodated by the sacred writer to monotheistic doctrine after the expurgation of any polytheistic error; or allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality proposed under the form of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or finally legends in part historical and in part fictitious freely composed with a view to instruction and edification? Answer: In the negative to both parts.
III: In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer? Answer: In the negative.
IV: In the interpretation of those passages in these chapters which the Fathers and Doctors understood in different manners without proposing anything certain and definite, is it lawful, without prejudice to the judgement of the Church and with attention to the analogy of faith, to follow and defend the opinion that commends itself to each one? Answer: In the affirmative.
V: Must each and every word and phrase occurring in the aforesaid chapters always and necessarily be understood in its literal sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate from it, even when it appears obvious that the diction is employed in an applied sense, either metaphorical or anthropomorphical, and either reason forbids the retention or necessity imposes the abandonment of the literal sense? Answer: In the negative.
VI: Provided that the literal and historical sense is presupposed, may certain passages in the same chapters, in the light of the example of the holy Fathers and of the Church itself, be wisely and profitably interpreted in an allegorical and prophetic sense? Answer: In the affirmative.
VII: As it was not the mind of the sacred author in the composition of the first chapter of Genesis to give scientific teaching about the internal Constitution of visible things and the entire order of creation, but rather to communicate to his people a popular notion in accord with the current speech of the time and suited to the understanding and capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific language be always meticulously sought for in the interpretation of these matters? Answer: In the negative.
VIII : In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes? Answer: In the affirmative.
—————————————————————
Flamen says: “Moses did not write the first five books of the bible (as a turn of the 20th century statement ot the Biblical Commission said.)”
Kevin replies: Again, I ask you with all charity, where does the Church teach this?
Quoting the Pontifical Biblical Commission on 27 June, 1906, – it answered a series of questions concerning this subject in the following way:
(1) The arguments accumulated by the critics to impugn the Mosaic authenticity of the sacred books designated by the name Pentateuch are not of such weight as to give us the right, after setting aside numerous passages of both Testaments taken collectively, the continuous consensus of the Jewish people, the constant tradition of the Church, and internal indications derived from the text itself, to maintain that these books have not Moses as their author, but are compiled from sources for the greatest part later than the Mosaic age.
(2) The Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch does not necessarily require such a redaction of the whole work as to render it absolutely imperative to maintain that Moses wrote all and everything with his own hand or dictated it to his secretaries; the hypothesis of those can be admitted who believe that he entrusted the composition of the work itself, conceived by him under the influence of Divine inspiration, to others, but in such a way that they were to express faithfully his own thoughts, were to write nothing against his will, were to omit nothing; and that finally the work thus produced should be approved by the same Moses, its principal and inspired author, and published under his name.
(3) It may be granted without prejudice to the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch, that Moses employed sources in the production of his work, i.e., written documents or oral traditions, from which he may have drawn a number of things in accordance with the end he had in view and under the influence of Divine inspiration, and inserted them in his work either literally or according to their sense, in an abbreviated or amplified form.
(4) The substantial Mosaic authenticity and integrity of the Pentateuch remains intact if it be granted that in the long course of centuries the work has suffered several modifications, as; post-Mosaic additions either appended by an inspired author or inserted into the text as glosses and explanations; the translation of certain words and forms out of an antiquated language into the recent form of speech; finally, wrong readings due to the fault of transcribers, which one may investigate and pass sentence on according to the laws of criticism.
On a side note, the PBC used to be an arm of the Magisterium of the Church – after Vatican II this is no longer the case. So the teachings of the PBC must be held by Catholics:
The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its new form after the Second Vatican Council, is not an organ of the teaching office, but rather a commission of scholars who, in their scientific and ecclesial responsibility as believing exegetes, take positions on important problems of Scriptural interpretation and know that for this task they enjoy the confidence of the teaching office. (from Preface, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission, Rome, April 15, 1993, italics added – “teaching office” meaning the Magisterium of the Church)
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Flamen says: “The purpose of the bible is NOT to teach science or history, but to communicate religious truth – sometimes through legend, fable, or stories.”
Kevin Replies: Yes, but the Bible does have science and history within its pages, yes? Legends, fables, and stories (or we should say those type of literary genres) *point to* historical events and historical people who actually lived – Adam, Eve, Noah – but those events may not have happened exactly the way we see them in Genesis.
Again, quoting Pope Pius XII from Humani Generis:
When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. (HG 37)
This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. (from HG 38)
Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers. (HG 39, italics added)
God bless you, Flamen.
Catechist Kevin
Kevin
Biblical scholarship has come a long way since 1908. When you want to know about brain surgery, do you rely on the science of a hundred years ago? I realize that most of the conservative comments have no use for biblical scholarship, but I will present this for your information.
“For almost two millennia the Pentateuch was attributed to Moses as author by both Jewish and Christian tradition. Although significant questions about his authorship were raised at points along the way, it was not until the 18th cent. that the question was seriously broached. Today it is a commonplace that he did not write the Pentateuch, but as we shall see the formation of these books is still shrouded in mystery. Certain obvious facts suggest that Mosaic authorship is not the right fix. Moses’ death is recorded in Deut. 34. Various formulas suggest a time after the Mosaic period. … One of the striking features which early on prompted the investigation of the books was the alternation of the sacred name Yahweh with the generic name for divinity, Elohim. This indication of differences is relatively superficial; it has to be supported by some consistent factors that explain the formation of the Torah. It was when the divine names came to be associated with characteristic vocabulary, narrative styles and content… that J (for Yahweh) and E (for Elohist) began to emerge as plausible sources in the actual text. Another telling argument was the recognition of doublets (the same event related twice), such as the call of Moses (Exod 3,6) or the endangerment of the ancestress (Gen 12,9-13:1, 20:1-18; 26:1-17). The complexity of the Torah called for the recognition of various trends within it.”
You should read the entire section “(II) Authorship” in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary p. 4. “Gen the first book of the Pentateuch, a five-section compilation of diverse traditions of varied age, given its final editing the 6th cent. BC.” Ibid. p. 8. (Emphasis mine)
The italics in the last quote did not appear which I had for emphasis nor the underlining of the title of the book The New Jerome Biblical Commentary.
Acting like a couple of extremist fools, you are. Neither scholastic extremism nor “Biblical extremism” (for lack of a better phrase) have a place in the Church!
… For Roman Catholics, inerrancy is understood as a consequence of biblical inspiration; it has to do more with the truth of the Bible as a whole than with any theory of verbal inerrancy. Vatican II says that “the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation” (Dei Verbum 11). What is important is the qualification of “that truth” with “for the sake of our salvation.” — http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.shtml
And so I repeat, the Catholic Church is not shaken by new information. On the contrary, as protectors of the truth, we encourage and welcome new information, refraining from both extreme obstinateness and submissiveness! It is our goal to take a level-headed approach to all new information and theory. There is no truth that does not enhance our current understanding of the truth!
Letting scholars rip into our scripture, theorize, and offer their insights serves to help the faithful. Either their theories are true, adding to and glorify the truth, or they’re not necessary true, inspiring us to seek that which is necessarily and wholly true. Real truth is always true, regardless of the historical details. Real, full truth is transcendent, and everything in our Catholic practice is a shadow of that truth, revealed fully only in death.
The faithless will loose faith on their own – they don’t need challenging footnotes to inspire their latent aversions to truth:
I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I will lay down my life for the sheep. (John 10:14-15)
And he spoke to them at length in parables, saying: “A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seed fell on the path, and birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky ground, where it had little soil. It sprang up at once because the soil was not deep, and when the sun rose it was scorched, and it withered for lack of roots. Some seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it. But some seed fell on rich soil, and produced fruit, a hundred or sixty or thirtyfold. Whoever has ears ought to hear.” (Matthew 13:3-9)
Also of note from the USCCB:
Historical/historicity: Relating to or having the character of having actually happened in space and time, as distinct from myth, fable, story, or legend. Both Catholics and Southern Baptists hold that God’s revelation takes place in history and develops through the biblical tradition. For example, both affirm the historicity of the gospel tradition but they differ about the extent to which each gospel story can be affirmed as historical.
Southern Baptists interpret as historical all biblical events which are clearly intended by the sacred authors to be taken as such.
Catholics believe that not all biblical narratives should be understood as historical, since the sacred writers also use narratives in a symbolic way to teach religious truths.
If you want a literal, strict inerrant interpretation of scripture, go be a Southern Baptist. But, if you want to remain Catholic, don’t put so much emphasis on the historical events. Our faith is pretty dependent on some events being true in some capacity. But to be quite honest, these are pretty limited, isolated incidents:
Our faith depends on Jesus, the begotten Son of God, being born of a sinless, virgin. And it depends on Him having been killed and risen from the dead. Perhaps this is a hasty estimate, but I might go so far as to say that each and every other spectacular or miraculous event in the Bible could be purely symbolic without degrading the fundamental truths maintained by the Church.
So, the only real kickers would be proof that Jesus never existed, wasn’t born to a sinless virgin, or never rose from the dead. And even in the face of such “proof”, I would still see the same transcendent truth revealed in the “narrative” that would remain. Though, the more truly historical these events are, the more weight there is behind those transcendant truths.
The point is, those who are really interested in God are interested in the truth. They’re not interested in holding fast to unfounded beliefs. They’re not interested in fancy miracles. They’re only interested in whatever brings them closer to the transcendant truth of the one true God. It’s pretty arrogant to think that we’re above the continuous questioning and refining of our beliefs.
I certainly don’t know the full truth. Do you?
I know who does, Jon.
(see 1 Tim 3:15) I follow her – the Church.
I do not seem to find anything in your post that I have any quibble with.
I thank you for your post, sir.
Flamen,
Biblical scholarship may have come a long way in 100 years – even so, the Church has never changed any of her teachings on Divine Revelation since her beginning – this would include what she has taught about Sacred Scripture. (Her understanding of Revelation can develop – never change)
She cannot change because it is the “….faith that was handed down once to the saints.” (Jude 3)
I have read at length about the NJBC. There are more than a few scholars who have problems with some of the scholarly opinions contained within.
Those scholarly opinions are just that – scholarly opinions. It is not the Magisterium.
Thank you, though, for your suggestion.
God bless you,
Kevin
Oh Jon, I can forgive your comment about calling us “extremist fools.”
I presented my case with reverence and respect (using official Magisterial documentation – not my opinions). Flamen replied likewise.
God love you both!
Catechist Kevin
Kevin, your quotation from Humani Generis raises manyin teesing questions and problems. 1. Pope John Paul II accepted the evolution of man as a fact and this would necessarily involve polygenism. It is difficult to accept one individual Adam as the source of all human life – we would be a race of congenital idiots. The question of Original Sin is difficult. There is no agreement on this. Genesis does not teach anything about a doctrine of original sin. St. Paul cannot explain it in any detail or how it is transmitted. St. Augustine, followed by St. Thomas said that it was trnsmitted by sexual intercourse. Is original sin the lack of sanctifying grace, a stain on the soul or simply a sinful condition? The story of Adam in Genesis is not literal, historical fact about an historical individual but a story by a Hebrew writer to fill in a prehistory of the world. Therefore, there will be revaluations and reinterpretations of Adam, original sin, and the transmission of original sin by the theologians of the Church.