Excellent response.  I, personally, totally agree with you.

The reader who you are writing to would do well to read Professor Peter Kreeft’s book “The Philosophy of Tolkien: The Worldview Behind the Lord of the Rings” (Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2005) Lord of the Rings, in my view, is one of the greatest “inspired” works of fiction out there, written by the very Catholic J.R.R. Tolkien.  I quote from Kreeft’s book—“Philosophy seeks truth, literature shows truth.” Regarding the Bible, Kreeft calls it “primarily literature” and states that “God must have known that literature is a more effective teacher than philosophy…
Literature incarnates philosophy.”

It is more accurate to say the bible is the inspired word of God, not just a work of fiction. Anyone can read Tobit or other scriptures and interpret it his own way. However, the Holy See’s intepretation is the only authentic one, and Benedict has reminded the world of this several times in the media. Here, then, is the correct way to understand Tobit. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud20010725en.html

I didn’t say the Bible is a work of fiction.  I said it contains works of fiction.  It also contains chronicles and eyewitness accounts of historic events (the gospels chief among them).  In fact, it contains many genres of literature.

For many people, the writer of the letter seemingly included, it is extraordinarily difficult to hold in balance the tension between the idea of imaginative scripture and faith.  Some people, I don’t know if the letter writer is one of these, do not possess the imagination or the sophistication necessary to understand that something can be true without being literally true.  It also can simply be a matter of lack of education.

Marks writes from the viewpoint of historical/critical analysis of scripture.  This point of view is very difficult for some, but it should be pointed out that Pope Benedict himself does not read the Bible the Old Testament as an historical account. 

The problem is that many scholars have abandoned “kneeling” theology and in its place have put a theology that is based upon scientism, the view that the our current scientific worldview is superior to all other worldviews, in is the only authentic worldview. 

But the bible is literature, whether historically accurate or otherwise, and can never be accurately viewed through a scientific prism.  Without accompanying faith, it simply becomes and interesting epic.

I would recommend that everyone read IN THE BEGINNING: A CATHOLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CREATION AND THE FALL, by Pope Benedict (as Joseph Ratzinger).  He exposits quite well the idea that faith is not dependent on the “trueness” of scripture, and that science can speak to faith.  The reason this is pertinent to the ongoing discussion is because historical/critical analysis takes a scientific position on the reading of scripture.

Sadly, to many people the word “fiction” just means a made-up story. The ancient world had its own literary genres, and many people reading the Bible get hung up trying to fit theirs into ours—just as some people really do lose their faith because the Gospels don’t line up in every particular as they expect today’s news stories to do. This is silly because a) the ancient world did not write news stories, and b) today’s new stories don’t line up in every particular either. If the word “fiction” makes you think of John Grisham or Harlequin romances, don’t despair. Understand that Christ made all things holy! EVERYTHING in the world can be used by God. Many stories, novels, songs, and music can communicate God’s truth, and God can even inspire the author for such a work to communicate a lot more than that and become Scripture. It doesn’t happen very often; in all of history only a handful of such works have been Scripture. But then again, in all of history only a handful of ANY kind of works have been Scripture. If poems can be Scripture, historical accounts can be Scripture, letters can be Scripture, and dull lists, laws, and genealogies can be the inspired Word of God, I don’t see the problem with Job or Tobit.

The early poetic Hebrew texts are masterpieces of spiritual force - and don’t feel bad if you feel strongly one way or the other on the way that force speaks to you - you’re in good company* : St. Augustine and St. Jerome spent a decade quarreling and quibbling over Job:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Jerome_in_His_Study_(Dürer)#Jonah_and_the_gourd_vine
___
* on good company - that’s the reason the pneumatology of the ecclessial communion must ALWAYS exceed two hearts (the dualism of Aesop’s pine tree/gourd vine) and encompass a third dimension, all the other hearts in time and space who hold or ever held in the past the same Truth.
 
* on good company #2 - I don’t blog myself, instead I use Wikipedia as a kind of depot to store - so long as uncontested edits redact my bon mots into oblivion - gems and nuggets like these. Consider that Aesop—the Ethiopian, or Moor, ie arabian, from 1001 Arabian Nights fame, -narrator-captive framing cf Potiphar’s wife treatment of Joseph antecedent by a millenia or more—collected and published his tropes or memes way AFTER the historical events of Job, the mysterious fact remains what came first? Did pagans share amusing folktales, documenting them in catalogs some of which found their way into sacred scripture, or did God’s Chosen People maintain their unique oral history and some of it spill over into the culture? Ponder… ponder…

oops moderator pls check - my comment held perhaps because too wordy or wikipedia linkage? One of my favorite fables in the bible is Jotham’s fable - our sanctuary has a large rose window in the shape of the crown of thorns over the altar, and I call to mind the metaphysics of Jotham’s natural law lesson every time I see it there. Each of us has a defination end, or purpose, that God had in mind when he created us (before I formed you in the womb, I know you) one an olive, one a pine, one a vine, another a bramble each necessary to the playing out of the mysterious Divine Plan. Honesty in awe of the truth is all that we need to worry about, and keep our consciences well formed in seeking to reflect His Light into the dark places. Then we can relax and not get our knickers in a twist, just Being catholic and enjoying as Mark would say!

Regarding the idea of taking Scripture “literally,” there is this observation from Father Ray Brown, which he explores in the Jerome (and New Jerome) Biblical Commentary: that the true “literal” sense of Scripture is that which the author directly intended, insofar as that can be determined.

So in the case of Revelation, it seems very clear the author intended readers to recognize the form and style in which it was written, and when reading it, to apply the same sort of conventions they would have brought to any other apocalyptic literature which was far more familiar to the folks on AD 100 than to us.

Let me give a contemporary example. The admirable C.S. Lewis wrote a wonderful book, “The Screwtape Letters.” It has been widely read and frequently imitated. It purports to be a series of letters between a senior demon and a junior one. It is both humorous and insightful. And over the years, various authors have paid homage to it by publishing their own “____ Letters.” No one with any sense in our time would ignore the obvious and treat them as a world-shaking discovery of supernatural secrets, exchanged between real demons.

Fast-forward 2,000 years, and a very different culture prevails, while ours is forgotten and perhaps only bits and pieces of what we labored to produce has survived. Someone discovers a copy of “The Screwtape Letters,” and then there is a debate between whether they are actual correspondence—or a clever author’s way to present his points.

According to Father Ray Brown, the true “literal” interpretation of “The Screwtape Letters” is to read them as C.S. Lewis intended.

I understand that many (even most?) do not use the term “literal” that way; however, it does solve some problems. When we use “literal” in a less well informed way, we end up having to say we don’t take Scripture “literally,” which sounds a lot like saying, we don’t take it seriously.

Gail Finke is right. Our own Lord used brief pieces of fiction called parables to teach. Should we remove them from the Gospels? EVERYTHING in the bible was put their for theological reasons. Many are hisorical, but some are song books, some are books of maxims and proverbs. Some are law books, explaining the duties of OT priest and alot of the NT is made up of letters, others are, quite possibly, fiction. If you want to believe that Psamls was historical, go ahead, but I’m not sure what historical event it was talking about because it’s just full of David’s songs and hymns praising God. Yeah, his act of praise happened in history but I wouldn’t call it hisorical because it wasn’t written for that purpose. The Gospels cover historical events, and with alot more accuracy than alot of other documents from those time. But they aren’t historical either, They are thological. Personally, I think Job and Tobit happened. But I doubt it was written for the purpose of recording their events.

Mark, you are a work of fiction. THERE IS NOT ONE PIECE OF FICTION (or MYTH) IN HOLY SCRIPTURE, this is only in the minds of “modern scholars” that drives Pope Benedict crazy. Jesus DOES have a have a sword coming out of His Mouth, no it it not made of man-made materials or even made in China; it is the Spiritual Sword and our salvation is so important, which is why Jesus tells us to cut off your right hand if it will lead you to hell. You need to find Matthew 16:23 and not just read it, but, study and mediate upon it and try to understand just what Jesus (The Word) is trying to convey to all of us. I quit reading your stuff a long time ago and it was the heading that caught my attention. For Catholics, there is no dispute and as for Mr. Kreeft and his lack of understanding of God’s Holy Word; no one should even read his novels, the Church has many great Saints and books that will give us the truth.  +JMJ+

Re: Jerome, my “held” post references his dispute with St Augustine>
Any chance it’ll be freed from the malebolge?

I believe Tobit was historical too. I don’t just think its an inspired word of God. I think it actually happened, and so did the book of Job.

Do I believe that a sword will come out of Jesus mouth in revelation? Yes.

Our faith, in the Church, in the Popes and in Jesus transcends what we know BEYOND science and anything which does not meet the metaphysical world.

I believe in demons too. I believe in Archangels. I believe in the existence of evil spirits and sorcery at work. I believe all of it. and I have a two graduate degrees to back up my credential as a non-crazy human being.

Why oh why have we lost faith in the blessed Lord?

“THERE IS NOT ONE PIECE OF FICTION (or MYTH) IN HOLY SCRIPTURE, this is only in the minds of “modern scholars” that drives Pope Benedict crazy.”

Um, from the Pontifical Biblical Commission document, with Joseph Ratzinge’s signature on it:

the need to make the biblical message something real for today is ever more obvious. This requires that exegetes take into consideration the reasonable demands of educated and cultured persons of our time, clearly distinguishing for their benefit what in the Bible is to be regarded as secondary detail conditioned by a particular age, what must be interpreted as the language of myth and what is to be regarded as the true historical and inspired meaning. The biblical writings were not composed in modern language nor in the style of the 20th century. The forms of expression and literary genres employed in the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek text must be made meaningful to men and women of today, who otherwise would be tempted to lose all interest in the Bible or else to interpret it in a simplistic way that is literalist or simply fanciful.”

Likewise, the Catechism says:

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

I’m not sure, given your highly figurative reading of Revelation, what you are upset about, JMJ.  You seem to get figurative and fictional language just fine.  Yet you also seem very afraid of them.  I think you need to clear your mind of the notion that a fictional story is not a true story.

The Bible is not a work of history or a biography, it is inspired word that is written to give a meaning to the reader.  One could never read the entire Bible and keep all the parts if viewed literally, you would end up throwing must of the writings away.  They are written for a desired (inspired) intent.  Reading the Bible should bring you to a closer relationship with God, reading it literally will not get you very far.  Reach down to the very meaning, unpack the stories and find the meaning, the more you dig the more you will find.  Please do not read the Bible literally, grow in Christ by digging deep into the Scripture.

I suggest those leaving reactive comments here first go and read Pope Benedict XVI’s recent Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini On the Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html

Graham:

You are entitled to your opinion about Tobit.  You are not entitled to drag the comments far afield into a laundry list of your personal theological opinions about everything under the sun.  Please stick to the subject.

I do read Tobit as probably factual in many of its details as well as inspired (even if later ‘reformers’ who were not inspired took it out of the canon of scripture).  I also suspect some of Jesus’ parables may have been based on actual happenings, such as the good Samaritan, the woman who sweeps her house looking for a coin, even the prodigal son.  Tobit is one of my favorite books of the bible.

Mark, I just wanted to say kudo’s to you for replying to your reader in what I thought was a very charitable fashion. I had always read Tobit as a historical account, but it doesn’t bother me to look at it as a work of fiction. I remember when I learned that Job wasn’t a factual account and I was heart broken. Unfortunately I didn’t have anyone around to really explain to me that something doesn’t have to be empirically factual in order to be true. I love being Catholic.

I love Tobit!  I think that maybe arguing over whether it happened, happened as recorded, or didn’t happen at all is silly.  Personally, I think it happened, for the simple reason that it did happen…..in 2004, when I met my husband. It was very interesting to go back and read Tobit after the wedding (I hadn’t read it in years!) And to see OUR story in the Bible.  Almost down to the last detail.  That’s what we need to remember: that these aren’t written to be read like a text book or novel, (although some would be great novels, but to be LIVED.

There is a middle possibility, one that accords with the Jewish context in which Tobit, Job and the story of Jonah, was written. The rabbis sometimes used midrash, an interpretive story to explain God’s teaching. The starting point could be an actual historical incident, the unknown details of which are filled-in to create the story, and the moral of which is that which the historical characters and the circumstances they faced convey. Like the New Testament example of Lazarus and the Rich Man which Jesus used, you can argue endlessly about whether such individuals actually existed or whether He created it from scratch to make the points it makes. I personally lean toward an historical core in all these examples, because non-fiction teaches so much better and more forcefully than fiction.

Bruce:

I think that’s a very sound argument and very possible. It would make a lot of sense regarding the Prophet Jonah, for example.

The story of Jonah is sadly misunderstood precisely because folks get bogged down on whether certain details are factual. For example, the tiresome debate over whether a man could be swallowed by a whale and survive three days inside the whale, etc.

Nevermind that the text doesn’t refer to a “whale” but a fish. Are there even whales in the Mediterranean? I have no idea! I don’t care, because I don’t think the author of Jonah cared.

Folks miss the obvious here: read the Book of Jonah (even in English) closely, and you’ll see the repeated emphasis on, and contrast between bigness and smallness. The enormously large city, the big fish, the big storm, the exaggerated penitence to the point of comedy—they even clothed the animals in sackcloth and ashes!—and then the smallness of the plant over which Jonah doted, and the smallness of his vision, versus the grandness of God’s. It’s as obvious as can be.

None of that means Jonah didn’t exist, or that he may not have gone to Nineveh to preach. It’s rather like when people ask about Cain’s wife; my answer is, “it doesn’t matter; clearly the author of Genesis didn’t think it mattered, or else he’d have spelled it out.”

Similarly, when people read Jonah, and wonder about historicity, or about the big fish, the plant, or other details—did they happen that way?—the right answer, in my opinion is, “it doesn’t matter! Isn’t it clear enough what the Book of Jonah is aiming to teach?” It’s actually brilliant—because then we readers become just like Jonah in the story—we become obsessed with a small vision, missing what really counts.

Obviously someone wrote the Book of Jonah, and we might as well call him Jonah; and our Lord referred to Jonah, and his time in the belly of the fish. So your proposal is a very appealing way to approach these details—even though it would not really cause any problems if we held that the story of Jonah was not factual.

JMJ:

Do you seriously want to maintain that there are no fictional stories in the Bible? What about the speech of Jotham, recorded in Judges, chapter 9, verses 7-16? Or will you maintain that trees at some point actually did what Jotham described? Is it not far more reasonable to say that Jotham’s story was meant as a parable, and no one need be scandalized that his story of trees seeking a king never actually happened?

Does it really lessen the force of the parable of the Prodigal Son if that story was just that—a story—told not necessarily about a specific family?

JMJ:

Or, I might cite the parable the prophet Nathan told to King David about the man who stole the neighbor’s lamb; and when the king was filled with wrath and called for punishment, Nathan dramatically replied, “Thou art the man!”

Will you maintain that Nathan was reminding the king of his own bad behavior, regarding a lamb, that the king had forgotten? Is it not, on the contrary, clearly the case that the story of the lamb is a fiction, intended to be understood as such, and aimed at making clear to David (and to the reader of the book of 2 Samuel) the evil of his actions?

I think you will find that your claim there are no pieces of fiction in the Bible is going to tie you up in knots…wholly unnecessarily.

Could you please enumerate the other historical and geographical errors you find in Judith and Tobit (others as well if you wish)?  The only one you list is Tobit having a nephew named Ahiqar - his nephew could have been named for the semitic figure of which you speak, so that one does not persuade me. 

The problem with calling these fictional stories or parables is that they are not written as parables.  As you note, parables are written in universal terms about “a man with two sons” or “a rich man” and “a poor man” or “a Samaritan”, etc.  They do not speak of specific people with specific names living in a specific place at a specific time as both Judith and Tobit (and Job and Jonah, etc.) do.  So, please could you convey the other questionable passages you find?  Thank you.

There are so many things that we should discuss to enhance our faith why go into this subject.  I believe Tobit is true, you don’t.  So drop the subject and quit trying to prove you are right. Both sides.

Georgia, why should people not be allowed to discuss different books of scripture?  If we lived as you suggest, the world would be a lonely, boring place.  Also, Mark—and those who agree with him—never claimed that Tobit is not true, but that it’s not fact.  There is a difference there, friend.

Georgia:

I don’t see anyone here saying Tobit is not true. Can you point to the person who you claim says that?

We all agree, it appears, Tobit is the inspired Word of God.

The question is, what sort of literature did God inspire the author of Tobit to write?

And why shouldn’t we spend time reflecting on Scripture, and also studying the way in which God, in his providence, caused the sacred texts to come about?

Do you object to the existence of the Pontifical Bible Commission, which spends lots of time on questions like this, and others more obscure than this?

Do you object to the document, Dei Verbum, adopted by the Second Vatican Council; or the works of other popes delving into questions like this?

Would it not be unwise to send the message that there are subjects—related to Scripture of all things—that we don’t want to discuss? How the unbelievers would ridicule that!

Georgia:

I believe Tobit is true too.  I just don’t think it’s history.  Understanding the sort of literature one is reading is the duty of every Catholic who is trying to read the Bible.  That’s why we discuss it here.

Call me old fashioned, but I take both Job and Tobit as having actually happened. Which is funny, because I’m less inclined to take, say, the first 8 chapters of Genesis as having actually literally happened. At any rate, I think you are in the right, although I do have sympathy for how your critic feels about the situation.

On the one hand, while I believe it to be the inspired Word of God I do not believe Tobit is history.

On the other hand, I DO take care to wear a cap with a visor for my eyes before napping under a tree.

Mark, Your clarity is breathtaking on the subject of the interpretation of Scripture. A am amazed by the volume of commentary and the high quality of most of it. I would like to share an interpretation that I have not found confirmed in any commentary. I see a coming-of-age sexuality issue as a sub-theme in the book of Tobit. When the fish attacks the feet of Tobit, I assume that the fish represents the chaotic forces of nature and that the term feet is a euphemism for genitals, as it is in other Old Testament books. Both Tobit and Sarah have to overcome the potential chaos of their sexuality in order to find fulfillment as members of God’s People. We also have to do the same.

Screwtape and Wormwood must be jumping up and down giving each other high fives (or in their case, low fives, since The Enemy is on high).  God’s Word does not need to be nit picked.  We, of the current age, who know SO MUCH, should realize that Scripture was NOT written JUST FOR US.  An eternal God would only inspire a work that was meant for all people of all time.  The way we understand writing today is not the same as people of past ages necessarily understand writing, nor are the effective writing conventions the same.  The thing that IS the same and which pervades all of scripture is the message that God loves us and will go through Hell, as Jesus did, to bring us to Himself.  It is fine to examine scripture, and there has been a tremendous amount of examination done, just to arrive at the present canon of the Bible. But it serves no purpose either to Roman Catholics, of which I am gratefully and humbly one, or to our Separated Brethren, to quibble to the point of blinding ourselves to the central message which God is constantly trying to send to us.  Let us not be a stiff necked people.  Be blessed

“I think you need to clear your mind of the notion that a fictional story is not a true story.” - M.S.

I just don’t know how to reply to this except with an exasperated inability to understand this oxymoron.

Moby Dick is a true story, but it is not a factual story.  The characters of Ishmael, Ahab, Starbuck, Stubb, Queequeg and the great white whale are not real life creatures, but what they have to SAY to us about the nature of the world and the nature of man IS true.  How much MORE true, then, is holy scripture because it IS divinely inspired.  Whether the story of Tobit represents actual events upon the earth does not determine if the story is true.  And understanding this idea is the key to being able to hold in balance the great tensions presented to us in the bible without abandoning our faith.  It is simply a sad fact that many people (including many who go to seminary) lose their faith upon learning the findings of historical critical analysis of scripture. This is why it is SO important, as Benedict and other great faithfilled theologians have pointed out, that we approach the bible on our knees. The Pope does not reject historical critical analysis of scripture.  It is part of the language of his profession.  His faith and our faith should not, and in the end cannot, depend on the historical accuracy of the Old Testament.

If Tobit is a work of “fiction, then why would the writings be considered for the first reading, included in Mass liturgy for Catholic weddings?  There were several selections from Tobit we could have used for our wedding. I find it hard to believe “fiction” would be included in Mass.

Oh my, Moby Dick is a novel.  A novel is a fictitious prose narrative of book length that represents a character and action with some degree of realism.  Hardly a “true story”.

I would simply like to point out that the book of Tobit has traditionally been interpreted as history by Catholics. As the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it in its article on Tobias ( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14749c.htm ), “Until recently there never was question among Catholics in regard to the historicity of Tobias. It was among the historical books of the Old Testament, the Fathers had always referred to both elder and younger Tobias and to the other personages of the narratives as to facts and not to fancies. The stories of almsgiving, burial of the dead, angelophany, exorcism, marriage of Sara with Tobias the younger, cure of the elder Tobias — all these incidents were taken for granted as fact-narrative; nor was there ever any question of likening them to the tales of ‘The Arabian Nights’ and the ‘Fables of Aesop.’ Jahn, “Introductio in libros sacros”, 2nd ed. (Vienna, 1814), 452, gives the stock objections to the historicity of Tobias, and suggests that either the entire composition is a parable to teach that the prayers of the upright are heard or at most only the main outline is fact-narrative. His book was put on the Index (26 Aug., 1822).”

I am not saying that the Church cannot revise its interpretation of a sacred Book. What I am saying is: if we are revising our interpretation of the book of Tobit, let’s be up-front about it. Let’s admit that we’re going against a firm but not binding tradition.

Perhaps someone can email me personally the historical problems with Tobit and Judith (and others)?  It is difficult to know what we are talking about without examples.  (As mentioned Ahiqar could have been named for Ahiqar.)  I have found that most claims of historicity are founded on a lack of faith - e.g. Jonah couldn’t have been in the belly of a fish for three days.  This is no claim to ahistoricity; only lack of faith that God can do anything, certainly this.  I do not see how Jesus could compare himself to a fictional character (Jonah), or say to the people around him that the Ninevites will rise on the last day and judge them for their lack of faith.  One should also note that Jonah is spoken of in the same breath as Solomon as well as Jesus, two historical figures, though that seems in doubt in the minds of some… Could it have been the breakdown in belief in history in other places that leads to people questioning the historicity of Jesus (and in his resurrection particularly)?  Could it not be a source of the crisis of faith upon the Church today?  Again, could someone please email me the specific instances that lead one to declare these books are not historical?  Thank you.  jameshkurt@gmail.com God Bless!

@Mr. Patton, As you will notice, I did not say that Moby Dick is a true story.  What I said is that it is a story that shows us truths about human nature.  There is a distinct difference between the two things, but those who cannot see that difference also cannot handle the idea that Tobit might not be a historically factual story.

Mark, thanks for posting your well reasoned, patient and gracious correction of the numerous errors in the reader’s letter. Clearly the reader’s heart is to follow hard after God and to be faithful to the Church Christ instituted however their approach to this end is rife with the kind of error common among Protestant Biblical Fundamentalists. I had hoped to leave such behind when I resigned my ordination of nearly two decades to enter the Catholic Church. I was naive.

In their zeal the fundamentalist misses the important difference between understanding the Bible has a literal meaning and taking the Bible literally or even more precisely, taking the entire Bible in a literalistic way. It’s the difference between understanding the sacred scriptures with both faith-and-reason and taking the Bible with a blind faith that excludes the proper sense of meaning. It is the latter that I’ve been sadly surprised to find within the Catholic Church but I have since learned how very wrong I was.

As is consistent with Biblical fundamentalism there so often goes along with it a kind of absolutism that kills faith at least as much as it enables and that is given to a rash judgmentalism (critical spirit and condemning attitude) such as we see here in the reader’s response.  This is not the kind of spirit the Bible encourages, literally.

Biblical fundamentalism combined with the additional error of “sola scriptura”, the Bible-alone, is what leads to the many disparate interpretations of the Bible’s content, how it should be believed and lived that has resulted in the literally (wink) hundreds of Protestant sects that disagree with each other fundamentally (wink) enough to break away and create their own denomination suited to what they believe the Bible says literally. Catholic Bible fundamentalists may want find warning in such an approach lest they fall into what could be in actual fact heresy.

And with this I close (sorry, I was once a preacher) (double wink) it was a properly literal understanding of John 6 and the Bread of Heaven discourse that played a significant part in my family’s conversion. The magnificent irony of this is almost more than I can ponder.

The baroque Bavarian image “Maria Knotenlöserin” features probably the tiniest treatment of the old testament tale, see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Untier_of_Knots

Regarding Jonah specifically, the Catholic Encyclopedia says the following:

“[Jesus’ mention of Jonah] is deemed by Catholics to remove all doubt as to the fact of the story of Jonah. The Jews asked a “sign” — a miracle to prove the Messiahship of Jesus. He made answer that no “sign” would be given them other than the “sign of Jonah the Prophet. For as the Jonah was in the whale’s belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. The men of Ninive shall rise in judgment with this generation and shall condemn it: because they did penance at the preaching of Jonah. And behold a greater than Jonah here” (Matthew 12:40-1; 16:4; Luke 11:29-32). The Jews asked for a real miracle; Christ would have deceived them had He presented a mere fancy.”

Personally, I can see no way around this point. It’s not just that Jesus mentioned Jonah, but the context in which he mentioned him, and the way in which he talks about the converts of Ninevah still existing now. Allowances for poetic license granted, this nevertheless appears to demand that the story has a genuinely historical core. It would take, I believe, a nearly Herculean degree of rationalization to conclude that Jesus isn’t affirming the basic historicity of the story’s outline here. And the interpretive license you’d have to adopt to do so would make it nearly impossible to conclude that Jesus taught anything authoritatively at all, it seems to me.

Sadly, the number of disparate Protestant denominations does not number in the hundreds.  The number is actually somewhere around 47,000 thousand.  You were not naive in coming into the Church founded by Jesus.  You just didn’t take into account, that anywhere human beings are, both rationality and irrationality coexist.  This is exactly why the oft unjustly maligned Magisterium is such a vital part of The Church.  One should always look carefully at what Jesus said, “And the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”  He never asserts or even mentions that the Gates would not win any battles.  We are called the Church militant for a reason.  There is a war going on down here.  And in every war, battles are constantly being won and lost by either side.  This war is no different.  The big difference is that we already know the final outcome, an outcome which it seems the adversary refuses to accept.  Hold fast to the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus in the Eucharist and you will find the most potent weapon there is.  Keep on fighting, my sister, and be blessed

Regarding Jonah specifically, the Catholic Encyclopedia says the following:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08497b.htm
“[Jesus’ authority] is deemed by Catholics to remove all doubt as to the fact of the story of Jonah. The Jews asked a “sign” — a miracle to prove the Messiahship of Jesus. He made answer that no “sign” would be given them other than the “sign of Jonah the Prophet. For as the Jonah was in the whale’s belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. The men of Ninive shall rise in judgment with this generation and shall condemn it: because they did penance at the preaching of Jonah. And behold a greater than Jonah here” (Matthew 12:40-1; 16:4; Luke 11:29-32). The Jews asked for a real miracle; Christ would have deceived them had He presented a mere fancy.”

Personally, I can see no way around this point. It’s not just that Jesus mentioned Jonah, but the context in which he mentioned him, and the way in which he talks about the converts of Ninevah still existing now. Allowances for poetic license granted, this nevertheless appears to demand that the story has a genuinely historical core. It would take, I believe, a nearly Herculean degree of rationalization to conclude that Jesus isn’t affirming the basic historicity of the story’s outline here. And the interpretive license you’d have to adopt to do so would make it nearly impossible to conclude that Jesus taught anything authoritatively at all, it seems to me.

Sorry Mark, but fiction is fiction and the Bible is truth. Pope Benedict doesn’t call Adam and Eve or any part of Genesis as a myth, but as two very real people that caused us a lot of problems. Basically, you are calling God a liar as in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Can’t get any clearer to me than that. The only fear that I have is to lose my soul which is why I stick to the Saints and the Church and not to those that like to ramble on and on.  +JMJ+

For those who can read Latin as well as the Vatican latinist Fr. Reginald Foster here’s a fantastic resource from the Polish arm of his Carmelite order for your edification this Lent:

http://books.google.com/books?id=fXETAAAAQAAJ

Mithologica sacro-profana
seu florilegium fabularum in classes, et locos morales digestum:
locis, sententiis, historiis, tum profanis, cum sacris, ex puris fontibus scripturae, illustratum

[Myths sacred and profane - a florilegium* of fables classified by moral topics, places, ideas, stories, first and digested using firstly using profane sources then sacred ones from pure sources of Scripture, illustrated]

penned in 1666, but not yet in English as far as I can ascertain (I wrote the Carmelites in Torun, Poland, waiting an answer back, n.b. a florilegium is compilation of excerpts from other writings, Latin flos ‘flower’ and legere ‘to gather’ compare ‘spiritual bouguet’ literally a gathering of flowers, or collection of fine extracts from the body of a larger work. It was adapted from the Greek anthologia (?????????) “anthology”, with the same etymological meaning)

H/T http://aesopus.pbworks.com/w/page/1472084/irenaeus

JMJ, follow in Blessed Karol Wojtyla’s footsteps, please do… Polish Carmelites it would appear are the experts on the Bible and fable, see my link.

Or as another fine Carmelite saint—St Theresa of Avila—put it:
“Dios escribe derecho con renglones torcidos”
(God writes straight with crooked lines)

Its ALL God’s works, myriad murky myths may not reveal the pure unadulterated radiance of Truth that the evangelists were privileged to be witness to, but all those folks who passed on pearls of ‘folk’ wisdom because they intimated the value therein were honoring a modest magisterium of humble origins, do not scoff at the tenacity of the reverberations of that echo - their outlines can be discerned in texts of Buddhist and Hindu tradition - but bear in mind the historical events that frame Tobit, Job, Joseph & Potiphar’s wife, all PREDATE ie are ANTECEDENT to Buddha and greco-avestan Hindu sources. Our history is more ancient, their provenenance can be traced back in time to ours!!!

Don’t lets allow anyone to get exasperated here, as another fine Carmelite saint—St Theresa of Avila—would put it:
“Dios escribe derecho con renglones torcidos”
(God writes straight with crooked lines)

Mark, you wrote, “Catholics who take Jesus literally about cutting off hands, gouging out eyes and dealing with other body parts that are occasions of sin are called “heretics” or perhaps “mentally ill”, not good Catholics.”
I beg to differ.  I’ve read some pretty good commentary (even from Catholic sources) on Matthew 18:6-9 that seem to suggest that maybe we should take this literally.  Verse 9 reads, “And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into fiery Gehenna.”  Sounds pretty harsh, until you look at that second word - “if”.  Your eye NEVER causes you to sin - your heart does.  Your eye doesn’t cause you to lust or envy, your heart does.  But IF your eye had that much power as to cause you to remain separated from God, then you’d be nuts to keep it.  One of the main points of Lent is to learn self mastery - control over things like our eyes and hands.  Thinking that your eyes and hands control YOU - that would be “mentally ill”.  So, call me a heretic, but I have to say that when Jesus says that I should separate myself from things that would keep me from Him, I take that literally!

Other than that - great post!  :)
John

@Mike Russel, I sincerely thank you for your encouragement though I believe you may have mistaken my comment about my naivety as discouragement. I am not discouraged and am in full agreement with the teaching Authority of the Catholic Church and with the centrality of the source and summit of our faith. Certainly I would not have willingly surrendered my ordination were it otherwise. However, I was indeed naive in thinking Biblical fundamentalism the sole reserve of Protestants. That was my main comment above that and thank God for the Roman Catholic Church as She encourages sound doctrine through faith and reason as given to the faithful by that living Magesterium. No, I am not discouraged.

Now, I don’t want to hijack Mark’s thread and take it away from the central discussion but I must respond to your (I understand well intended) assertion that there are 47,000 Protestant denominations. Simply put, there are not anywhere near that number. I wish there were not a single one but there are not anything near 47,000 and I believe it is not helpful in our witness to Protestants, to anyone, to perpetuate the claim lest our other determinations on faith and truth be also held questionable.

The grossly inflated numbers of 20,000 or 33,000 or 47,000 unique Protestant denominations first came into popular play with an article by David Barrett in the 2001 edition of the *World Christian Encyclopedia* in which denomination is defined as “an organized aggregate of worship centers or congregations of similar ecclesiastical tradition within a specific country.” It is worth noting that by use of that definition Barrett includes (note that is he *includes*) “242” “Roman Catholic” “denominations”. You can see at least one if not two immediate problems. Further, the “Orthodox” are counted in that same 33,000+ denominations as having “781” denominations itself, a figure I am certain Orthodox Christians would contest. Further Barrett’s numbers include those groups which Catholics and Protestants themselves would define as a Cult such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons). Barrett includes among the 242 Roman Catholic denominations each individual rite and or jurisdiction by single ethnic group. We know this is not the way the Catholic Church understands Herself yet Barrett’s miscalculation and misunderstanding are included in his list of denominations.

Ironic then that in the claim of anywhere from 20,00 to 47,000 (factoring for denomination inflation, I suppose) is used by any Catholic to show the divisive nature of Protestantism includes his/her own Church. A double error. You can see how the snowball of “popular truth”, “urban legend” or “folk-truth” is perpetuated.

Mike, my point is not to contest your sincerity or our mutually shared love and reverence for the Church and, again I thank you for your encouragement (though I am not discouraged) but my point is to say that spreading nonfactual information is not helpful in witnessing to the truth.

By the way, I am a brother in our Lord Jesus not a sister ;-). Owen is a male name.

[Attempting a re-post as the message board thought my comment might be sp-m]

@Mike Russel, I sincerely thank you for your encouragement though I believe you may have mistaken my comment about my naivety as discouragement. I am not discouraged and am in full agreement with the teaching Authority of the Catholic Church and with the centrality of the source and summit of our faith. Certainly I would not have willingly surrendered my ordination were it otherwise. However, I was indeed naive in thinking Biblical fundamentalism the sole reserve of Protestants. That was my main comment above that and thank God for the Roman Catholic Church as She encourages sound doctrine through faith and reason as given to the faithful by that living Magesterium. No, I am not discouraged.

Now, I don’t want to hijack Mark’s thread and take it away from the central discussion but I must respond to your (I understand well intended) assertion that there are 47,000 Protestant denominations. Simply put, there are not anywhere near that number. I wish there were not a single one but there are not anything near 47,000 and I believe it is not helpful in our witness to Protestants, to anyone, to perpetuate the claim lest our other determinations on faith and truth be also held questionable.

The grossly inflated numbers of 20,000 or 33,000 or 47,000 unique Protestant denominations first came into popular play with an article by David Barrett in the 2001 edition of the *World Christian Encyclopedia* in which denomination is defined as “an organized aggregate of worship centers or congregations of similar ecclesiastical tradition within a specific country.” It is worth noting that by use of that definition Barrett includes (note that is he *includes*) ‘‘242’’ ‘‘Roman Catholic denominations’‘. You can see at least one if not two immediate problems. Further, the ‘‘Orthodox’’ are counted in that same 33,000+ denominations as having “781” denominations itself, a figure I am certain Orthodox Christians would contest. Further Barrett’s numbers include those groups which Catholics and Protestants themselves would define as a Cult such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons). Barrett includes among the 242 Roman Catholic denominations each individual rite and or jurisdiction by single ethnic group. We know this is not the way the Catholic Church understands Herself yet Barrett’s miscalculation and misunderstanding are included in his list of denominations.

Ironic then that in the claim of anywhere from 20,00 to 47,000 (factoring for denomination inflation, I suppose) is used by any Catholic to show the divisive nature of Protestantism includes his/her own Church. A double error. You can see how the snowball of ‘‘popular truth’‘, ‘‘urban legend’’ or ‘‘folk-truth’’ is perpetuated.

Mike, my point is not to contest your sincerity or our mutually shared love and reverence for the Church and, again I thank you for your encouragement (though I am not discouraged) but my point is to say that spreading nonfactual information is not helpful in witnessing to the truth.

By the way, I am a brother in our Lord Jesus not a sister ;-). Owen is a male name.

I feel so bad for Christians like your reader whose zeal for our Lord is hampered by a propensity to equate literal interpretation with orthodoxy. In addition to your book, Mark, there are a number of other good books on the topic by authors like Patrick Madrid and Scott Hahn, just to name two, that could help them understand the difference.

Dear Moderator - perhaps my use of quotation marks is what was making my comment appear as spam? At any rate, I will try one more time. Thanks.
-
@Mike Russel, I thank you for your encouragement though I believe you may have mistaken my comment about my naivety for discouragement. Indeed, I am not discouraged and do understand I am happily in full in agreement with the teaching Authority of the Catholic Church and with the centrality of the source and summit of our faith.
Now, I don’t want to hijack Mark’s thread and take it away from the central discussion but I must respond to the assertion that there are 47,000 Protestant denominations.
I wish there were not one but there are not anything near 47,000 and I believe it is not helpful in our witness to Protestants to perpetuate such a claim lest our other, more important, declarations of what is true fall into question as well.
The grossly inflated numbers of 20,000 or 33,000 or 47,000 unique Protestant denominations first came into popular play with an article by David Barrett in the 2001 edition of the ‘World Christian Encyclopedia’ in which denomination is defined as ‘‘an organized aggregate of worship centers or congregations of similar ecclesiastical tradition within a specific country’’ and it is worth noting, in which Barrett includes ‘‘242’’ ‘‘Roman Catholic’’ ‘‘denominations’‘.  You can see a problem right there, I imagine. The ‘‘Orthodox’’ are counted as having ‘‘781’’ denominations a figure I am certain Orthodox Christians would contest. Further the numbers include those groups which Catholics and the majority of Protestants themselves would define as a Cult such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons). Barrett includes among the 242 Roman Catholic denominations each individual rite and or jurisdiction by of a single ethnic group. We know this is not the way the Catholic Church understands Herself yet Barrett’s miscalculation and misunderstanding are included even in his original claim of 20,000 denominations.
Ironic then that in the claim of anywhere from 20,00 to 47,000 (factoring for denomination inflation, I suppose) used by a Catholic to show the divisive nature of Protestantism includes his/her own Church. A double error. You can see how the snowball of ‘‘popular truth’’ ‘‘urban legend’’ or ‘‘folk-truth’’ is perpetuated. My point is not to contest your sincerity Mike and again I thank you for your encouragement (though I am not discouraged) but only to say that spreading unfactual information is not helpful in witnessing to the truth.
By the way, I am a brother in our Lord Jesus not a sister (smile). Owen is a male name.

While I do understand that not all scripture is to be understood as historical in nature. I would ask that those more scolarly than I have a little more respect for, or sensitvity to those who are not. I say this because of a class I was taking for my catechist certificate, where the instructor had given the example of John at the foot of the cross and said that John was not the Beloved Disciple. That it was possibly Peter or Mary Magdalene. I was shocked and a little upset. He went on to say that we don’t know for sure. I had heard whole homilies and seen art depicting John as the Beloved Disciple and when I asked how does this effect the tradition he had no answer. It sometimes seems that theologians look for things that contradict tradition just to be the one to contradict the tradition which can cause confusion for the rest of us.

@Julie, agreed. Sadly, judging by the comments, the original Reader is not alone. There is another title worth mentioning along with Madrid and Hahn which is Peter kreeft’s ‘‘How to Read the Bible.’’ As well the Ignatius Study Bible, gen.ed. Scott Hahn, would also well serve the Reader and others.

P.S. I hope my response to Mike Russell will eventually show up. Mike, I am not discouraged though I thank you for your encouragement. I was naive but that does not equal discouragement (smile). I tried in my previous comment held as possible spam (why, I don’t know) to detail how the claim of 47,000 Protestant denominations is grossly inflated, based on a document that has an essential misunderstanding of the term ‘denomination’ (which ironically includes 247 Roman Catholic denominations) and why the perpetuation of such a non-fact is actually a hindrance to our witness for Christ and his Church.

Our Hebrew forefathers embellished their ancient canon, adding apocrypha, way before Our Lord was ever a twinkle in his mother’s eye, see Susanna and the Elders

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/4jY66b8hQumUbeudll4R_w

in the—lucky for some—therteenth chapter of the book of Daniel. Unluckily for others if your book of Daniel ends at Chapter 12, you’re probably reading a Protestant Bible.

http://www.usccb.org/bible/daniel/13/

from the BBC Radio podcast “Innocence must be protected. The Lothair crystal is one of the first European images of the notion of the Rule of Law” Wise words for those voting in the primaries this SuperTuesday. I’m off to say a Rosary on their behalf

Weird, my comment related to the conversation at hand in this thread gets held for moderation as possible spam while a comment on something totally unrelated, the American primaries, gets posted. Is the Moderator in the house?

Thanks for the heads up on the “47,000” issue. I would be interested in seeing on how this number was determined.  You are absolutely right in saying that “perpetuation of such a non-fact is a hindrance”.  To carry that thought further, perpetuation of theological non fact, period, poses just such a hindrance, which is why proper catechesis is especially important to modern Catholics, who are inundated with all kinds of “data”, which so often proves to be unsubstantiated at best or completely fabricated at worst.  Glad you are not discouraged.  Be blessed

@Mike I tried to outline it but the comment kept bouncing as spam. I’ll try again in a moment. P.S. Owen is a male name and sure enough I am a guy. :-)

@Mike, The grossly inflated numbers of 20,000 or 33,000 or 47,000 unique Protestant denominations first came into popular play with an article by David Barrett in the 2001 edition of the ‘World Christian Encyclopedia’ in which denomination is defined as ‘‘an organized aggregate of worship centers or congregations of similar ecclesiastical tradition within a specific country’’ and it is worth noting, in which Barrett includes ‘‘242’’ ‘‘Roman Catholic’’ ‘‘denominations’‘.  You can see a problem right there, I imagine. The ‘‘Orthodox’’ are counted as having ‘‘781’’ denominations a figure I am certain Orthodox Christians would contest. Further the numbers include those groups which Catholics and the majority of Protestants themselves would define as a Cult such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons). Barrett includes among the 242 Roman Catholic denominations each individual rite and or jurisdiction by of a single ethnic group. We know this is not the way the Catholic Church understands Herself yet Barrett’s miscalculation and misunderstanding are included even in his original claim of 20,000 denominations.
Ironic then that in the claim of anywhere from 20,00 to 47,000 (factoring for denomination inflation, I suppose) used by a Catholic to show the divisive nature of Protestantism includes his/her own Church. A double error. You can see how the snowball of ‘‘popular truth’’ ‘‘urban legend’’ or ‘‘folk-truth’’ is perpetuated.

@Mike, the grossly inflated numbers of 20,000 or 33,000 or 47,000 unique Protestant denominations first came into popular play with an article by David Barrett in the 2001 edition of the “World Christian Encyclopedia” in which denomination is defined as “an organized aggregate of worship centers or congregations of similar ecclesiastical tradition within a specific country.”
It’s worth noting that in this same tally Barrett includes “242 Roman Catholic denominations.’  You can see two problems right there, I imagine. The ‘‘Orthodox’’ are counted as having 781 denominations, a figure I am certain Orthodox Christians would contest. Further the numbers include those groups which Catholics and the majority of Protestants themselves would define as non-Christian such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons). Barrett includes among the 242 Roman Catholic denominations each individual rite and or jurisdiction by single ethnic group. We know this is not the way the Catholic Church understands Herself yet Barrett’s miscalculation and misunderstanding are included in his original claim of 20,000 denominations.
Ironic then that in the claim of anywhere from 20,00 to 47,000 (factoring for denomination inflation, I suppose) should be used by any Catholic to show the divisive nature of Protestantism as the figure includes his/her own Church. A double error. You can see how the snowball of popular-truth, urban-legend’ or folk-truth is perpetuated.

“Unrelated” - only for those who have no eyes to see or ears to hear… mysteries of agonies in gardens, trees and their allegorical meanings, torture and power and its uses…

@Clare Krishan, whoa, easy on the accusations. I was taking a more direct approach to the argument at hand in this thread. No offence was intended. I follow that the Lothair Crystal depicts Susannah and the Elders and as the account of Susannah has been raised in connection with the discussion at hand there is a connection in so far as that goes. But even had I not, not all participants on this world wide website are American for whom the American primaries are of understandable importance. I haven’t made the connection you’ve made. There is no reason from that to make a blanket accusation about who does or does not have spiritual insight.

@Mike, I’ve tried again to post that explanation for you, adjusting what I thought may be triggering the Hold for Moderation. Beats me. Very sorry.

@Mike -trying again, hope this goes through- The grossly inflated numbers of 20,000 or 33,000 or 47,000 unique Protestant denominations first came into popular play with an article by David Barrett in the 2001 edition of the _World Christian Encyclopedia_ in which denomination is defined as _an organized aggregate of worship centers or congregations of similar ecclesiastical tradition within a specific country_. It is worth noting Barrett’s 33,000+ includes his _242 Roman Catholic denominations_.  You can see two problems right there, I imagine. The _Orthodox_ are counted as having _781_ denominations, a figure I am certain Orthodox Christians would contest. Further the numbers include those groups which both Catholics and Protestants define non-Chistian at the very least such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons). Barrett includes among the _242 Roman Catholic denominations_ each individual rite and or jurisdiction by single ethnic group. We know this is not the way the Catholic Church understands Herself.
Ironic then that in the claim of anywhere from 20,00 to 47,000 (factoring for denomination inflation, I suppose) would be used by any Catholic to show the divisive nature of Protestantism as it includes his/her own Church. A double error. You can see how the snowball of popular-truth, urban-legend or folk-truth is perpetuated. My point is not to contest your sincerity Mike and again I thank you for your encouragement (though I am not discouraged) but only to say that spreading unfactual information is not helpful in witnessing to the truth.

Fair enough Owen, I’m a British Catholic legal alien US resident, subject to the laws Americans vote for… my property, wealth, income destrained NOT via levied taxes but via judicial mandate, to pay for abortion, sterilization and contraceptives of my neighbors against my will. Susanna and Theutberga had similar problems, IMHO. So glad God saw fit to keep a record of such testimony in sacred writ, even if it came handed down to us apocraphally via Persia (present day Iran), agreed?

“This is a remarkable ecumenical moment. It may bear fruit such as we cannot imagine. Please pray for that! Consider who is lining up together:

These are mighty forces who have centuries, if not millenia, of distrust and hurt to overcome. But it is so often true that, if you want to bring squabbling folks together, present them with a common enemy. The enemy has just done that.

JMJ says: Pope Benedict doesn’t call Adam and Eve or any part of Genesis as a myth, but as two very real people that caused us a lot of problems.

Read Pope Benedict’s book IN THE BEGINNING…: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall, published by Eerdsman in 1995.

I will quote from it, p. 14. “...the people of Israel experienced what creation was.  Implicit here is the fact that the classic creation account is not the only creation account of sacred Scripture.  Immediately after it there follows another one, composed earlier and containing other imagery.  In the Psalms there are still others, and there the movement to clarify the faith concerning creation is carried further: In its conflict with Hellenistic civilization, Wisdom literature reworks the theme without sticking to the old images such as the seven days. Thus we can see how the bible itself constantly readapts its images to a continually developing way of thinking, how it changes time and again in order to bear witness, time and again, to the one thing that has come to it, in truth, from God’s Word, which is the message of his creating act. In the bible itself, the images are free, and they correct themselves ongoingly.  In this way they show, by means of a gradual and interactive process, that they are only images, which reveal something deeper and greater.”

From p. 50.  “The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not, in fact, explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are.”

In this book, Pope Benedict makes QUITE clear that there is a definite distinction to be made between the form and content of the creation story.  Run don’t walk to your favorite bookseller and read this book in order to understand that the truth of the bible is NOT to be found in its historicity, but in its greater meaning given to us by God.

http://frmartinfox.blogspot.com/2012/03/this-astonishing-moment.html

Perhaps I will request one more time: I am sincere in asking for the instances in Scripture that lead one to conclude that Tobit or Judith, Jonah or Job, etc. are not historical.  I have long wanted to ask someone who believes this that question, and there seem to be a few out there now who do…

I would think there needs to be substantial reason to depart from the understanding of the Fathers of the Church and traditional teaching on this matter.  (As it is, this child must take them as written.)

I have read things even in the Navarre Bible that say, for instance, Daniel was not a historical figure because he couldn’t have lived in the Babylonian court for the entire exile, but I don’t see why a man can’t live 85 or 90 years.  There it also denies David’s authorship of Psalms at every turn, despite the PBC ruling that he must be taken as principle author.  I have only found specious and even contradictory reasoning for innovations like this and simply am begging someone out there to give me something of substance that gives purpose to departing from historical teaching (no pun intended).  I know the historical/critical method is accepted as one way of looking at Scripture and that it has its purpose, but where does its purpose begin and end.  (The Pope himself spent a good part of Jesus of Nazareth offering correctives to questionable Biblical exegesis.)

Please, one final cry, in all sincerity - please point out some incidences of ahistoricity to this poor, blind soul.

All:  For some reason, the software randomly blocks certain posts.  Nothing personal.  I just told it to publish everybody’s remarks.  Hopefully it won’t happen again.

Kurt:  I don’t have time to recapitulate their argument, so I would simply recommend you read the Jerome Commentary on Tobit.

Clare, thanks for your explanation, putting the concrete to what was the oblique for me. Now understanding your meaning I cannot agree more that we may be witnessing and give witness to a “Perfect Storm” for the greater good.

@Mike, if you scroll up you will now see that not only has one of my attempts to comment regarding the figure 47,000 been posted but through the magic of computer software (see Mark’s explanation) they are all now on record for evermore. (rolls eyes) (and thank’s Mark) (sincerely)

@Kurt, please see my post a couple above yours. 

As for your question of historicity in scripture: there are two separate accounts of the Great Flood contained in Genesis, woven together by the redactors of the bible, within the same chapters, and sometimes the same verse.  They cannot both be historically accurate. 

Part of the historical/critical analysis of scripture is what is called the Documentary Hypothesis in which it is believed that separate sources were used by the redactors of the bible in putting together the stories as they are presented to us. (Wikipedia has a decent article about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis)

Two of the sources in the Documentary Hypothesis are the Priestly Writers and the Yahwist source.  I will not go into the identification of these sources in order to keep the explanation as simple here as possible.

In the priestly source, we find a flood story in which we return to the primordial world of chaos.  God reverses his order back to chaos by releasing the waters above and below the firmament onto the earth.  It is an extraordinarily cataclysmic event, one in which destruction is immediate.

In the Yahwist source, it rains 40 days and 40 nights.  Rather than describing the flood in theological terms, the reversal of cosmic creation (the priestly writers) the Yahwist presents God using a much more natural event, rainfall, to bring about the destruction of life upon the earth.

One is not compelled to accept the documentary hypothesis, in fact, it is constantly under revision by scholars, but there does seem to be no doubt that there are multiple sources for the Old Testament that at some time in the past were woven together, sometimes with contradictory presentation of events presented right next to each other.  These contradictions were left in intentionally.

If one accepts this hypothesis, which I do, God either reversed cosmic creation, or he didn’t.  One of these accounts must be historically inaccurate.

The point is NOT which one is historically accurate (or if either is historically accurate, or if the flood ever even actually occurred, which is a whole other kettle of fish).  The point of the flood story is the destructive nature of sin and God’s redemption of humanity through Noah.

Someone could have simply told us that God redeemed his people. But the bible is not a dry book of theology, it is a beautiful narrative that tells us the epic story of God’s relationship with his people, and THROUGH those stories we gain understanding of who we are in this world, who God is, and what He is calling us to do.

It doesn’t matter whether it rained, or didn’t rain, or whether God reversed creation or didn’t reverse creation.  The truth of the Flood Story is NOT in the accuracy of the details, but in the theology which it embraces, the TRUTH that God is giving to us.

I hope this was in some way helpful.  There is a decent article on the Book of Job at wikipedia which presents some of the prominent ideas of its sources.

Sorry about that Owen, I thought that the post was from Clare, and you are obviously unClare, lol.  Thanks much for that elucidation, and the next time I hear someone mention that “fact”, I will certainly correct it.  I did not take offense, since I am open to learning, which is why I have found this blog quite interesting. In my journey through life, I have found that the beginning of wisdom is the realization of just how much we don’t know.  In regard to the current discussion of Tobit, we find that in any philosophical or theological discussion, we will always find strict constructionists as well as loose constructionists.  The trick is to find the actual truth that is presented, or as is said in the acting community, to find the writer’s, or in this case The Writer’s Voice.  Be blessed

RE: Historicity of Jonah…

I don’t know if Jonah actually existed but I assume he did. That he existed—and presumably authored the book ascribed him—doesn’t mean he didn’t then tell a tale that was meant to be understood as humorous—and also profound—and was meant to be taken as a kind of parable.

While it’s certainly possible the story of Jonah was straight history, and it may indeed be true that the author intended that, it seems a stretch to maintain that. Did the animals wear sackcloth and ashes? Did no one actually take any water for 40 days?

Now, someone made the argument that our Lord’s reference to Jonah removes all doubt about the historicity of the book. I don’t see that at all.

I have given homilies in which I have referenced famous characters in literature or movies, such as Frodo, Scrooge, etc. If I said, “just as even Frodo succumbed, so none of us can take it for granted we’ll stand strong without the help of Providence”—would that mean the story of Frodo was historical? Would it even mean I thought so? No. It would mean that I took it for granted that my audience knew who Frodo was, and the work I was referencing, and thus I had no need to say whether Frodo was a fictional character or not.

Now, before someone blows a gasket, I am not saying Jonah is a work of fiction or that Jonah didn’t exist; I’m simply refuting the claim that Jesus’ citation of Jonah settles the matter. It does not.

JMJ:

I’m going to ask again: if you claim there simply is NO fiction in the Bible, then do you hold that Judges 9:7-16—in which various trees go seeking a king among their ranks—actually happened? Trees went and asked other trees to be their king?

Why tie yourself up in knots with claims that cannot seriously be defended?

Why is it so awful to say that sometimes, the people in the Bible would use stories to teach truth, and whether they described real people, or events, is not important? Is the parable of the Good Samaritan less valuable if it wasn’t a historical fact that a certain man was set upon by thieves, etc., on the road to Jericho?

Now, someone made the argument that our Lord’s reference to Jonah removes all doubt about the historicity of the book. I don’t see that at all.</i>

It’s not just that Jesus mentioned Jonah. He mentioned Jonah and told the Jews that the events of Jonah’s story would be the only sign they would receive, and told them that the repentant Ninevites would judge the present generation, and said that he himself is greater than Jonah. It takes serious contortion to square this with the idea that there was no Jonah, that the events didn’t happen, and that there were no repentant Ninevites. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but doing so appears to raise serious questions of whether we can ever safely interpret Jesus as teaching anything he appears to be teaching.

<i>Did the animals wear sackcloth and ashes? Did no one actually take any water for 40 days?<i>

I doubt it, but the text doesn’t say that happened. The book mentions that the destruction of the city was due to take place in 40 days, and the king puts out a decree telling people to fast and put sackloth (not ashes) on themselves and their animals, but it doesn’t say that every single person followed that decree to the letter, nonstop with no exceptions, for a full 40 days, nor does the decree state that they have to. It seems pretty likely to me that the king exaggerated the decree in any event to stress the seriousness of the situation, and that we’re looking at a second-hand paraphrase of it rather than the actual text in any event.

Incidentally, I’m with you on the subject of fiction and figurative language in the Bible in general, but it seems pretty much impossible to me to take a completely fictional approach in this particular case while doing any sort of justice to it.

The Deuce:

Good points!

The reference to the repentant Ninevites is good to recall; I’d forgotten about that, even though I read that Gospel at Mass recently!

Lizzie: It is nice to say that it doesn’t matter if it rained or not, the truth is all that matters - but that is not the question here.  The question is on what foundation historicity is questioned.  I was not really asking about Genesis, but I do not see the contradiction in Flood stories you mention here.  Is it 7:11 you are referring to?  If so, why can’t the deep burst forth AND the rains fall?  What is the problem there?  (I also note that a cavalier attitude toward history and changing traditional interpretation does particular harm to simpler souls who do not have the sophistication you possess - when they hear contradictions from what hey have always been taught, it breeds doubt… and can cause them to leave off practice of the faith.  This is perhaps the main reason I would be certain about the doubts being raised about the historicity of the Bible, although just not seeing it despite reading the Bible cover to cover nine times is a close second.)

Fr. Martin:  What is humorous about a threat from God that your town will suffer destruction like Sodom and Gomorrah?  And what would be too extreme a penitence to avoid it?  (Not to be flippant, but it is the only contemporary comparison I can make - were you laughing on 9/11?)  Also. I myself am not claiming there is no fiction in the Bible - i am saying that fiction is fiction and history history; unless it is obvious someone is telling a story - like the examples you mention about the parables - then one probably should go along with what was the accepted teaching of the Church for centuries.

Mr. Shea: All I am asking for is a few examples chapter and verse where I can see in Tobit and Judith especially that these are clearly not historical.  (Again, all you mention in the article is Ahiqar’s name.)

Mark,

I’m re-reading your book:  “Making Senses Out of Scripture: Reading the Bible as the First Christians Did” as part of my assigned reading in my Hermeneutics class at the Augustine Institute.  It is excellent!  I really appreciate your sense of humor and your approach.  I urge everyone that seems to be struggling to grasp what you are trying say in this article to read your book.

God Bless You!

Mr. Kurt:

The threat of Nineveh being destroyed is not humorous. But animals in sackcloth seems humorous to me. Not to you?

Then there is the whole thing of Jonah fighting God and all the travails that ensue. Then there is the fact that the pagans on the boat are more attentive to God than the prophet. Then the fish, which brings Jonah where he was supposed to go.

Then when the people repent, Jonah complains—this is just what I knew you’d do, God!

Then there’s Jonah sitting on the hill, waiting for the fire and brimstone, and he’s mad it doesn’t happen.

Then there’s the whole business about the stupid little plant that Jonah is sad about.

None of this strikes you as the least bit humorous?

Not really.  Primarily because of the seriousness of the situation; all is influenced by this.  But as for particulars, Jonah does not want to go to call Ninevah to repentance because Ninevah is the enemy of the Jews - so he tries to avoid the call of the Lord.  Running to get away.  (As we often do from God.)  I find the pagans faith an indictment of Jonah’s lack thereof and a heartening reminder that all souls may be saved.  (It is not the only time pagans show more reverence and awe for the God of Heaven and earth than His Chosen.)  The fish doesn’t bring Jonah where he is supposed to go, just spews him out onto shore - he must then heed the call of the LORD and go to Ninevah.  Jonah’s complaining is not surprising because of what is noted above.  But a serious lesson is being taught here - that all are God’s children.  Jonah must learn this and the Jews in general must learn this.  It is not an easy lesson.  The plant relieves Jonah from the beating sun - not a negligible blessing.  That he quickly forgets the blessing when the plant leaves is a profound lesson for us all and how we treat God and his gifts to us.

But, again, especially the seriousness of the situation - and if you will, by extension, the jeopardy in which we all find our souls - does not incline me to laughter, but to examination of conscience.  God Bless!

I’m still hoping for a verse or two giving reason for question… not sure why this should be so difficult…

My fear is that what we have is people who are all too often inclined to hold theories of scholars as Bible Truth and the Bible itself as something less.  And i am afraid they are accepted without question - ironically suffering from the same incredulity re work of scholars as fundamentalists would be guilty of re the Bible.  I also fear this may be complemented by limited actual reading of the Bible (secondary sources conversing with secondary sources without regard for the primary source).  One reason I tend to believe the Fathers of the Church more than our current scholars is that they lived and breathed the Word of God, “meditating on it day and night” as it were.  I simply don’t see that today for the most part.  (I am not necessarily speaking of Mr. Shea here, whose writing I have generally found very edifying.)  It seems to me that there is a lack of the wisdom of God and without this light one can see nothing, especially when reading the Bible. It makes even for poor scholarship.
So, I am naturally inclined to, say, believe Pope St. Clement when he says (in Office of Readings for Ash Wednesday): “If we review the various ages of history, we will see the Lord has offered the opportunity of repentance to any who were willing to turn to Him…  Noah…  Jonah told the Ninevites they were going to be destroyed, but when they repented, their prayers gained God’s forgiveness for their sins, and they were saved, though they were not of God’s people,” than I am someone who tells me a man can’t live in the belly of a fish for three days.  What else is there that modern scholarship has to offer us that Clement could not have known?
Again, I don’t require an entire treatise in this case - I’m trying to keep particularly to the subject at hand (i.e. Tobit, Judith).

(Mr. Shea, perhaps I should note that on EWTN’s own website there is a document calling into question the Jerome commentary;  aside from compelling examples of very dubious scholarship, there was also the remarkable revelation that the same persons who worked on the commentary are the ones who gave it its imprimatur.)

Mr. Kurt:

Well, then it just goes to show how much diversity there can be in the interpretation of Scripture. I think the humor is there, and if we were in person, it would be a lot easier to make my case; but that doesn’t mean you’d have to agree.

As to sticking with “official” teaching of the Church on these subjects…there is rather less of that than some may suppose.

So in the case of Jonah, I’m pretty confident official Church teaching does not address the subject of how historical the book may be, or the genre of literature—meaning, official Church teaching would not prevent someone from holding to the theory that the book of Jonah is intended as a kind of parable, as opposed to history.

Now, of course, someone can look at the writings of popes, saints, and church fathers, and say, isn’t that official teaching? It depends. The citation from Pope Clement would certainly be an authoritative interpretation of Jonah, but not a definitive one, because I think you’d be hard-pressed to show—based on that excerpt—that Pope Clement intended his words to restrict options for Biblical interpretation, as opposed merely to offering his own interpretation. Popes have been commenting on Scriptures for a long time—their homilies on the Scriptures do not represent defining the one and only interpretation of a text, let alone represent a definitive answer to questions about author or setting of the text.

While the Church has certainly defined many dogmatic questions, she has offered far less definition in matters of Scriptural interpretation, preferring to allow fairly wide liberty. There are boundaries, but they are designed to prevent anything contradicting the Church’s teachings, or calling into question the Scriptures themselves.

So, for example, in the Gospel of John, Thomas says, “My Lord and My God!” I think it’s pretty clear that he’s referring to Jesus as such, and I wouldn’t want to argue the contrary. I don’t know that anyone does—but who knows? A scholar who chose to argue—let us imagine—a contrary position would be free to do so, provided he wasn’t denying the divinity of Christ; and he might well say that: “in denying the usual interpretation of this verse, I’m not denying the dogma that it’s usually associated with.”

All that is meant to explain what I mean when I say there’s relatively less “official” or “definitive” teaching from the Church on a lot of Scripture questions.

About the Jerome/New Jerome Biblical Commentary. I refer to it and use it, but I wouldn’t agree with everything it says or contains. I don’t know about the imprimatur question you raised, but my reasons for using it is simply this: it’s the work of some outstanding scholars, even if I don’t agree with them on many things (which I don’t).

As far as the questions of error or confusion arising from the texts of Tobit and Judith—I can’t really address that, I’m sorry. As Mr. Shea pointed out, these matters are explored in the NJBC.

I think, even if one is unpersuaded by the arguments made about errors—i.e., they might easily be explained without denying historicity—there’s still wisdom in avoiding taking a position that ties one up into knots.  When JMJ, above, for example, insists there is *no* fiction in the Bible, I keep asking, does that mean the parable of the trees seeking a king describes actual trees, talking about a king? I doubt that JMJ meant that; meaning JMJ would, in fact, allow for some material in the Bible to be such that it was never meant to be taken as describing actual events. When the Church has, in the last century, addressed this issue—e.g., Pope Pius XII or the Second Vatican Council—she was careful not to make claims like that, which can easily become embarrassments.

Mr. Kurt:

Well, then it just goes to show how much diversity there can be in the interpretation of Scripture. I think the humor is there, and if we were in person, it would be a lot easier to make my case; but that doesn’t mean you’d have to agree.

As to sticking with “official” teaching of the Church on these subjects…there is rather less of that than some may suppose.

So in the case of Jonah, I’m pretty confident official Church teaching does not address the subject of how historical the book may be, or the genre of literature—meaning, official Church teaching would not prevent someone from holding to the theory that the book of Jonah is intended as a kind of parable, as opposed to history.

Mr. Kurt:

Now, of course, someone can look at the writings of popes, saints, and church fathers, and say, isn’t that official teaching? It depends. The citation from Pope Clement would certainly be an authoritative interpretation of Jonah, but not a definitive one, because I think you’d be hard-pressed to show—based on that excerpt—that Pope Clement intended his words to restrict options for Biblical interpretation, as opposed merely to offering his own interpretation. Popes have been commenting on Scriptures for a long time—their homilies on the Scriptures do not represent defining the one and only interpretation of a text, let alone represent a definitive answer to questions about author or setting of the text.

While the Church has certainly defined many dogmatic questions, she has offered far less definition in matters of Scriptural interpretation, preferring to allow fairly wide liberty. There are boundaries, but they are designed to prevent anything contradicting the Church’s teachings, or calling into question the Scriptures themselves.

So, for example, in the Gospel of John, Thomas says, “My Lord and My God!” I think it’s pretty clear that he’s referring to Jesus as such, and I wouldn’t want to argue the contrary. I don’t know that anyone does—but who knows? A scholar who chose to argue—let us imagine—a contrary position would be free to do so, provided he wasn’t denying the divinity of Christ; and he might well say that: “in denying the usual interpretation of this verse, I’m not denying the dogma that it’s usually associated with.”

All that is meant to explain what I mean when I say there’s relatively less “official” or “definitive” teaching from the Church on a lot of Scripture questions.

Mr. Kurt:

About the Jerome/New Jerome Biblical Commentary. I refer to it and use it, but I wouldn’t agree with everything it says or contains. I don’t know about the imprimatur question you raised, but my reasons for using it is simply this: it’s the work of some outstanding scholars, even if I don’t agree with them on many things (which I don’t).

As far as the questions of error or confusion arising from the texts of Tobit and Judith—I can’t really address that, I’m sorry. As Mr. Shea pointed out, these matters are explored in the NJBC.

I think, even if one is unpersuaded by the arguments made about errors—i.e., they might easily be explained without denying historicity—there’s still wisdom in avoiding taking a position that ties one up into knots.  When JMJ, above, for example, insists there is *no* fiction in the Bible, I keep asking, does that mean the parable of the trees seeking a king describes actual trees, talking about a king? I doubt that JMJ meant that; meaning JMJ would, in fact, allow for some material in the Bible to be such that it was never meant to be taken as describing actual events. When the Church has, in the last century, addressed this issue—e.g., Pope Pius XII or the Second Vatican Council—she was careful not to make claims like that, which can easily become embarrassments.

Mr. Kurt:

I posted a comment about Jonah that disappeared, it may yet appear; I’m reluctant to redo it and then have a duplicate. If it doesn’t show up, sorry about that…

Fr. Martin, thanks for your response.  i do realize the Church leaves open a lot for interpretation (I think it would be a good idea for her to consider being a little more specific as to what is what and how it should be taken, but I accept things as they are.)  I just don’t see basis for the claims to doubt/question historicity and was trying to get a specific example in this case… but it doesn’t seem forthcoming - i think this blog is between you and i alone at this point!
As for Jonah, it seemed you were beginning to understand my inability to see Jonah as other than historical when you realized Jesus said the Ninevites would rise and judge on the last day… but I guess not.
Peace of Christ!

Mr. Kurt:

Well, I’ve said all along I presume Jonah is historical, but I also thought the story might be told with some liberty. I see no conflict with that and the Gospel passage you cited.

As far as an example of a reason to doubt historicity—as far as Jonah, I would cite what I think is the way the story is told that it’s meant to be understood as having details of exaggeration or hyperbole. Not so much as evidence that there was no Jonah, but that the story is not to be taken as straight history.

As far as the textual evidence that supports claims about Tobit—well, that isn’t my forte, so I have to refer you, as our host did, to articles that have been written on it.

@Robert Jones, while I catch the meaning of your slight on the words of Fr. Martin Fox it’s worth noting that generally science is increasingly tending to prove not the ignorance of the people which some in the Church use to cause scandal among the faithful(that is clearly your point in the slight) but rather science increasingly supports the veracity of Sacred Scripture and of the same as it is taught by Church’s understanding. In the context of this thread the most relevant science would be that of archaeology. Finds of the past century have greatly aided and supported what the Church has always taught regarding its interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures. The opening chapters of book 1 in the “A History of Christendom”, “The Founding of Christiendom” by Warren H. Carroll present a lively account of many discoveries which hold for the historical accuracy of the Bible in many accounts while at the same time clarifying what has indeed been myth or story without damage to truth or that which is historically accurate. The affirms faith rather than detracts. It can be that fact sometimes puts the lie to certain things previously accepted as true by popular piety and that popular piety has ported on or templated over the scriptures but such is not necessary to our salvation and we are not required to believe it. So, it’s a good and holy thing when fact and truth can be distinguished from myth and story even when the latter may have been the divinely ordained mode for the former.

Father, I was thinking of another line re Jonah you may have overlooked since it wasn’t from the gospel used recently.  Jesus also said that as Jonah was three days in the belly of the fish so will the Son of man be three days in the belly of the earth.  Not sure if Jonah’s being swallowed by the fish was a detail you thought might be fictional, but it would seem to me hard to hold to that with such a direct comparison.  God Bless!
Also, I was wondering if the Persians may have worshipped cows; this would make their covering them in sackcloth a poignant recognition of the one, true God.  Either way, cattle (and other animals) and humans were much closer in the ancient world, much more sort of part of the family, if you will (I think particularly now of Nathan’s parable to David about the poor man who kept his sheep close to him, even as a “daughter”.)  Perhaps this thought might make cows covered by sackcloth more realistic a thing.  (I hate to try to ruin your good laugh… maybe i should try to pass along a joke or two to show I’m not a complete spoilsport… there’s probably none you haven’t heard though.)

“as Jonah was three days in the belly of the fish so will the Son of man be three days in the belly of the earth…” [if fictional] “it would seem to me hard to hold to that with such a direct comparison. “

Why? I’m not holding out for fictional but why if would this be hard to square with Jesus’ words if it was fictional? Jesus himself was one who used /told parables, pure story, to make profound, actual-factual spiritual applications. St. Paul on Mars Hill uses the words or a poet to draw his listeners from the Unknown god to the true God.

Not intending to be contrary. I simply do not see how there is any problem squaring what may be fiction with factual spiritual truth.

It would seem to serve in inclining one to think of Jesus as fictional.

@James Kurt, if you are responding to my comment I disagree. Are you inclined to believe Jesus is fictional because he himself used parables? I gather not. Even the simplest mind (that is not a slight) mind can make a sensible, reasonable step from this is fiction expressing a truth to this is a truth applied from a fiction. My children, when very young, were able to do this without detriment to their faith in the present day.

Father (are you a convert from the Anglican or Lutheran church or still a priest in one of these…?), it took a while (I am quite simple - that is a fact, not a slight - and I try to keep it that way), but I think I understood your statement (“this is a truth applied from a fiction”).  It just doesn’t make sense to me that Jesus would speak in these terms (would apply fiction to truth) about such a weighty matter… especially with the support of what has been the traditional int. and with the fact that Solomon (another historical person) is mentioned in the same breath.  Can you think of any other place in Scripture where Jesus makes such a direct comparison of Himself with a fictional character?  Nothing like it comes to my mind.

James, if you are addressing me, as I am a convert and as I am the one who used the phrase “this is a truth applied from a fiction” then know that I am not a priest. You address your comment to “Father” so not knowing who you want to have reply to you, I’ll leave it there until you say.

The Navarre Bible commentary on Tobit says that its the Greek version of Tobit that is considered canonical. Can someone help me with this? Which Greek version? Has the New Vulgate been changed to reflect a Greek version?

The book of Tobit is canonical. It was a part of the translation in the Greek of the Hebrew bible, the portion we call the “Old Testament”. Tobit, along with the six other books removed during the Protestant Reformation has always been consider canonical by the Church. These 7 books are called by the Catholic Church deuterocanonical: deutero (from a second) canonical (canon). The first 39 books of we Christians call the “Old Testament” were written in Hebrew prior to 586BC (the Baylonian Captivity), much earlier than Tobit and the other six deuterocanonical books which were written in Greek and were included in the Septuagint, 250-150BC.
The original Vulgate (the Latin version of the text) by St. Jerome and the New (1979) Vulgate differ, to the best of my knowledge, only the latter’s application of modern text-critical techniques to the text.

Thanks Owen. The Navarre Commentary doesn’t offer a footnote to the matter, but admits that all three Greek versions that have come down to us do not reflect the version of Tobit used for the official, canonical version. Yet still it says that the Greek is the canonical version (page 299 Chronicles- Maccabees)and was wondering in what way the Greek was authoritative. I have understood that the book comes down to us in many forms, and that Aramaic may indeed have been the original language it was written in.

Qwen, I’m sorry.  I hadn’t realized the last couple of posts were from you - I thought I was still talking with Fr. Martin.  So, yes, I was reacting to your post.

Not sure if anyone is still out there… but I checked my notes on the Navarre commentary (don’t have Jerome) re Tobit and Judith.  Not sure if the problems addressed below would be things that would make one question historicity or not… or if the answers to them are sufficient to allay questions…  but I’ll copy the notes here (2 on Tobit, 1 on Judith) for what it’s worth :
TOBIT
p. 328 – 1st column: commentary states it would take Raphael 20 days to travel 225 miles by camel (which would be about 11¼  miles per day).  How is this calculation made?  I am told a camel can travel 25 miles per hour, 40 at maximum speed.  That would be under 10 hours (perhaps as few as 6), without taking into account the fact that an archangel is the principal traveler.  So the trip could be made in a day, as the text implies…  unless Raphael is able only to travel a half hour a day?  (How our tendency to doubt the Word of God blinds us
even to simple facts!)

p. 335 – commentary states Tobit’s canticle “is not in line with the historical context” because it “implies Jerusalem has been destroyed and the Jews are captive in Babylon” (emphasis added).  From verse 9 on (the commentator’s focus), the verb used is “will” – i.e. future tense.  Specifically, verse 9 states: “O Jerusalem, the holy city, / he will afflict you for the deeds of your sons, / but again he will show mercy to the sons of righteous.”  This line sets the tone for the rest of the canticle.  Tobit, whose eyes have just been opened to gaze upon the archangel of the LORD, speaks a canticle that is a prophecy of the future, not a statement of the present.

JUDITH
p. 356 – “4:6. There is no geographical evidence that Bethulia existed.”  Nor is there
evidence it did not.  Is our first inclination to doubt the Word of God, or believe it?

How to understand Tobit?
This book is revelated! In a family history (about 500 a.c) is interlaced,
in a symbolic language, the plan divine with the mankind. This scripture is
a revelation. For example: “Sarah* means - this scripture(Tobit), which was impossible
to uncover(unclothe) for the scribes. - See scriptures archangel Raphael (by Helen Möller, book 9 I, in German language “Geheimnis des Buches Tobias”.

Hansruedi Pfister
Frauenfelderstrasse 3
8555 Müllheim Switzerland

“The truth of the Flood Story is NOT in the accuracy of the details, but in the theology which it embraces, the TRUTH that God is giving to us.”

Lizzie, your sophistication flies in the face of several papal encyclicals you really ought to cite and repudiate if you want to give the Magisterium its due, given they are only just 100+ years old.

Oh a wise guy, huh?  You know what we do with wise guys?