Leo XIII on the inerrancy of scripture (from Providentissimus Deus) [ecum.]

PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

To Our Venerable Brethren, All Patriarchs, Primates,
Archbishops, and Bishops of the Catholic World, in Grace
and Communion with the Apostolic See.

17. To prove, to expound, to illustrate Catholic Doctrine by the legitimate and skilful interpretation of the Bible, is much; but there is a second part of the subject of equal importance and equal difficulty - the maintenance in the strongest possible way of its full authority. This cannot be done completely or satisfactorily except by means of the living and proper magisterium of the Church. The Church, "by reason of her wonderful propagation, her distinguished sanctity and inexhaustible fecundity in good, her Catholic unity, and her unshaken stability, is herself a great and perpetual motive of credibility, and an unassailable testimony to her own Divine mission."(45) But since the divine and infallible magisterium of the Church rests also on the authority of Holy Scripture, the first thing to be done is to vindicate the trustworthiness of the sacred records at least as human documents, from which can be clearly proved, as from primitive and authentic testimony, the Divinity and the mission of Christ our Lord, the institution of a hierarchical Church and the primacy of Peter and his successors. It is most desirable, therefore, that there should be numerous members of the clergy well prepared to enter upon a contest of this nature, and to repulse hostile assaults, chiefly trusting in that armour of God recommended by the Apostle,(46) but also not unaccustomed to modern methods of attack. This is beautifully alluded to by St. John Chrysostom, when describing the duties of priests: "We must use every endeavour that the 'Word of God may dwell in us abundantly'(47) and not merely for one kind of fight must we be prepared-for the contest is many-sided and the enemy is of every sort; and they do not all use the same weapons nor make their onset in the same way. Wherefore it is needful that the man who has to contend against all should be acquainted with the engines and the arts of all-that he should be at once archer and slinger, commandant and officer, general and private soldier, foot-soldier and horseman, skilled in sea-fight and in siege; for unless he knows every trick and turn of war, the devil is well able, if only a single door be left open, to get in his fierce bands and carry off the sheep."(48) The sophisms of the enemy and his manifold arts of attack we have already touched upon. Let us now say a word of advice on the means of defence. The first means is the study of the Oriental languages and of the art of criticism. These two acquirements are in these days held in high estimation, and therefore the clergy, by making themselves more or less fully acquainted with them as time and place may demand, will the better be able to discharge their office with becoming credit; for they must make themselves "all to all,"(49) always "ready to satisfy every one that asketh them a reason for the hope that is in them."(50) Hence it is most proper that Professors of Sacred Scripture and theologians should master those tongues in which the sacred Books were originally written; and it would be well that Church students also should cultivate them, more especially those who aspire to academic degrees. And endeavours should be made to establish in all academic institutions - as has already been laudably done in many - chairs of the other ancient languages, especially the Semitic, and of subjects connected therewith, for the benefit principally of those who are intended to profess sacred literature. These latter, with a similar object in view, should make themselves well and thoroughly acquainted with the art of true criticism. There has arisen, to the great detriment of religion, an inept method, dignified by the name of the "higher criticism," which pretends to judge of the origin, integrity and authority of each Book from internal indications alone. It is clear, on the other hand, that in historical questions, such as the origin and the handing down of writings, the witness of history is of primary importance, and that historical investigation should be made with the utmost care; and that in this matter internal evidence is seldom of great value, except as confirmation. To look upon it in any other light will be to open the door to many evil consequences. It will make the enemies of religion much more bold and confident in attacking and mangling the Sacred Books; and this vaunted "higher criticism" will resolve itself into the reflection of the bias and the prejudice of the critics. It will not throw on the Scripture the light which is sought, or prove of any advantage to doctrine; it will only give rise to disagreement and dissension, those sure notes of error, which the critics in question so plentifully exhibit in their own persons; and seeing that most of them are tainted with false philosophy and rationalism, it must lead to the elimination from the sacred writings of all prophecy and miracle, and of everything else that is outside the natural order.

18. In the second place, we have to contend against those who, making an evil use of physical science, minutely scrutinize the Sacred Book in order to detect the writers in a mistake, and to take occasion to vilify its contents. Attacks of this kind, bearing as they do on matters of sensible experience, are peculiarly dangerous to the masses, and also to the young who are beginning their literary studies; for the young, if they lose their reverence for the Holy Scripture on one or more points, are easily led to give up believing in it altogether. It need not be pointed out how the nature of science, just as it is so admirably adapted to show forth the glory of the Great Creator, provided it be taught as it should be, so if it be perversely imparted to the youthful intelligence, it may prove most fatal in destroying the principles of true philosophy and in the corruption of morality. Hence to the Professor of Sacred Scripture a knowledge of natural science will be of very great assistance in detecting such attacks on the Sacred Books, and in refuting them. There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, "not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known as known."(51) If dissension should arise between them, here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: "Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so."(52) To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

19. The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith-what they are unanimous in. For "in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,"(55) according to the saying of St. Thomas. And in another place he says most admirably: "When philosophers are agreed upon a point, and it is not contrary to our faith, it is safer, in my opinion, neither to lay down such a point as a dogma of faith, even though it is perhaps so presented by the philosophers, nor to reject it as against faith, lest we thus give to the wise of this world an occasion of despising our faith."(56) The Catholic interpreter, although he should show that those facts of natural science which investigators affirm to be now quite certain are not contrary to the Scripture rightly explained, must nevertheless always bear in mind, that much which has been held and proved as certain has afterwards been called in question and rejected. And if writers on physics travel outside the boundaries of their own branch, and carry their erroneous teaching into the domain of philosophy, let them be handed over to philosophers for

20. The principles here laid down will apply cognate sciences, and especially to History. It is a lamentable fact that there are many who with great labour carry out and publish investigations on the monuments of antiquity, the manners and institutions of nations and other illustrative subjects, and whose chief purpose in all this is too often to find mistakes in the sacred writings and so to shake and weaken their authority. Some of these writers display not only extreme hostility, but the greatest unfairness; in their eyes a profane book or ancient document is accepted without hesitation, whilst the Scripture, if they only find in it a suspicion of error, is set down with the slightest possible discussion as quite untrustworthy. It is true, no doubt, that copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible; this question, when it arises, should be carefully considered on its merits, and the fact not too easily admitted, but only in those passages where the proof is clear. It may also happen that the sense of a passage remains ambiguous, and in this case good hermeneutical methods will greatly assist in clearing up the obscurity. But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. These are the words of the last: "The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author."(57) Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write-He was so present to them-that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture. Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers. "Therefore," says St. Augustine, "since they wrote the things which He showed and uttered to them, it cannot be pretended that He is not the writer; for His members executed what their Head dictated."(58) And St. Gregory the Great thus pronounces: "Most superfluous it is to inquire who wrote these things-we loyally believe the Holy Ghost to be the Author of the book. He wrote it Who dictated it for writing; He wrote it Who inspired its execution. "(59)

21. It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error. And so emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error, that they laboured earnestly, with no less skill than reverence, to reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at variance - the very passages which in great measure have been taken up by the "higher criticism;" for they were unanimous in laying it down, that those writings, in their entirety and in all their parts were equally from the afflatus of Almighty God, and that God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true. The words of St. Augustine to St. Jerome may sum up what they taught: "On my part I confess to your charity that it is only to those Books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have learned to pay such honour and reverence as to believe most firmly that none of their writers has fallen into any error. And if in these Books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand."(60)

22. But to undertake fully and perfectly, and with all the weapons of the best science, the defence of the Holy Bible is far more than can be looked for from the exertions of commentators and theologians alone. It is an enterprise in which we have a right to expect the co-operation of all those Catholics who have acquired reputation in any branch of learning whatever. As in the past, so at the present time, the Church is never without the graceful support of her accomplished children; may their services to the Faith grow and increase! For there is nothing which We believe to be more needful than that truth should find defenders more powerful and more numerous than the enemies it has to face; nor is there anything which is better calculated to impress the masses with respect for truth than to see it boldly proclaimed by learned and distinguished men. Moreover, the bitter tongues of objectors will be silenced, or at least they will not dare to insist so shamelessly that faith is the enemy of science, when they see that scientific men of eminence in their profession show towards faith the most marked honour and respect. Seeing, then, that those can do so much for the advantage of religion on whom the goodness of Almighty God has bestowed, together with the grace of the faith, great natural talent, let such men, in this bitter conflict of which the Holy Scripture is the object, select each of them the branch of study most suitable to his circumstances, and endeavour to excel therein, and thus be prepared to repulse with credit and distinction the assaults on the Word of God. And it is Our pleasing duty to give deserved praise to a work which certain Catholics have taken up-that is to say, the formation of societies and the contribution of considerable sums of money, for the purpose of supplying studious and learned men with every kind of help and assistance in carrying out complete studies. Truly an excellent fashion of investing money, and well-suited to the times in which we live! The less hope of public patronage there is for Catholic study, the more ready and the more abundant should be the liberality of private persons-those to whom God has given riches thus willingly making use of their means to safeguard the treasure of His revealed doctrine.

23. In order that all these endeavours and exertions may really prove advantageous to the cause of the Bible, let scholars keep steadfastly to the principles which We have in this Letter laid down. Let them loyally hold that God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures - and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself; and if no such mistake can be detected, we must then suspend judgment for the time being. There have been objections without number perseveringly directed against the Scripture for many a long year, which have been proved to be futile and are now never heard of; and not unfrequently interpretations have been placed on certain passages of Scripture (not belonging to the rule of faith or morals) which have been rectified by more careful investigations. As time goes on, mistaken views die and disappear; but "truth remaineth and groweth stronger for ever and ever."(61) Wherefore, as no one should be so presumptuous as to think that he understands the whole of the Scripture, in which St. Augustine himself confessed that there was more that he did not know, than that he knew,(62) so, if he should come upon anything that seems incapable of solution, he must take to heart the cautious rule of the same holy Doctor: "It is better even to be oppressed by unknown but useful signs, than to interpret them uselessly and thus to throw off the yoke only to be caught in the trap of error. "(63)

24. Such, Venerable Brethren, are the admonitions and the instructions which, by the help of God, We have thought it well, at the present moment, to offer to you on the study of Holy Scripture. It will now be your province to see that what we have said be observed and put in practice with all due reverence and exactness; that so, we may prove our gratitude to God for the communication to man of the Words of his Wisdom, and that all the good results so much to be desired may be realized, especially as they affect the training of the students of the Church, which is our own great solicitude and the Church's hope. Exert yourselves with willing alacrity, and use your authority and your persuasion in order that these studies may be held in just regard and may flourish, in Seminaries and in the educational Institutions which are under your jurisdiction. Let them flourish in completeness and in happy success, under the direction of the Church, in accordance with the salutary teaching and example of the Holy Fathers and the laudable traditions of antiquity; and, as time goes on, let them be widened and extended as the interests and glory of truth may require - the interest of that Catholic Truth which comes from above, the never-failing source of man's salvation. Finally, We admonish with paternal love all students and ministers of the Church always to approach the Sacred Writings with reverence and piety; for it is impossible to attain to the profitable understanding thereof unless the arrogance of "earthly" science be laid aside, and there be excited in the heart the holy desire for that wisdom "which is from above." In this way the intelligence which is once admitted to these sacred studies, and thereby illuminated and strengthened, will acquire a marvellous facility in detecting and avoiding the fallacies of human science, and in gathering and using for eternal salvation all that is valuable and precious; whilst at the same time the heart will grow warm, and will strive with ardent longing to advance in virtue and in divine love. "Blessed are they who examine His testimonies; they shall seek Him with their whole heart. "(64)

25. And now, filled with hope in the divine assistance, and trusting to your pastoral solicitude - as a pledge of heavenly grace and a sign of Out special goodwill - to you all, and to the Clergy and the whole flock entrusted to you, We lovingly impart in Our Lord the Apostolic Benediction.

Given at St. Peter's, at Rome, the 18th day of November, 1893, the eighteenth year of Our Pontificate.

FK: For the purposes of it being taught, the fact that the Bible was not in an organized and printed form for a few hundred years is irrelevant. Its contents were taught from the beginning

How do you know that?

The alternative is to believe that the Apostles taught what they wrote, then everyone immediately following them taught something very different until 300 years later when your men arrived and set everything straight. That doesn't make any sense.

That would leave nine others who have written nothing. It is only our guess what they taught, but we do know that Christianity was a heterodox movement, consisting of a wide range of beliefs and practices, with only Christ's name in common (not much different than today).

The Holy Spirit was either with them or He wasn't. But if we even suppose for a minute that Apostles didn't have it right, then how can one stake his claim to Apostolic succession?

There is no "gap" between the OT and NT (aside from 400 years). They describe the same God.

Paul specifically told the Bereans to compare the NT God he was telling them about to the OT God in scriptures to make sure they were the same

First there is no mention that Paul told them to check the scriptures. Second, it is reasonable to assume that only the rabbis did. Third, it says that "any believed" which also means that many didn't. And the scripture could not be the reason, both believers and nonbelievers consulted the scriptures. Fourth, what Paul was telling them was that, based on the Old Testament Jesus was the Christ. Fifth, and most importantly, if that were the case, then we wouldn't need the New Testament at all! We could just use the Old Testament and be "Christians!" And, sixth, last but not least, Paul really does not treat Jesus as God but as someone God raised, someone lesser than the Father, the only God as far as Paul is concerned.

If you want to say that Orthodox theology did not come along for a few hundred years that is fine, but the OT and NT God being one is not something that had to be invented

Christian theology was like a puzzle made up of many unrelated pieces, like someone cutting out desired words from the New York Times and making up a paragraph and then claiming that the paragraph is from the NYT! Well, the words are but the paragraph isn't!

I certainly can't argue that this is a view out there. I have read many posts consistent with it. But if the Church gave itself the authority, then what would be the problem with saying that it is a man-made faith?

The faith is not man-made if it was given by Jesus. The authority, on the other, hand is a different thing. But that's the whole point I was making: there is no divine authority unless men conveniently proclaim it to be divine authority! The Bible is valid only because we agree that it is valid, and the Koran is valid for the Muzzies only because they agree that ti is valid. Neither has any seal of authenticity or intrinsic authority. All the authority comes from man's willingness to believe it has.

I'm sure there are many examples of that across Christianity, but a true believer would have no use in comparing himself to anyone else

The very concept of being the "elect" or "chosen" is a testament that believers hold themselves higher than the rest. In Judaism and Islam that is much more pronounced and sometimes carried into the extreme. In Christianity it takes on a life of its own, not necessarily less extreme at times, but always veiled in some imaginary humility which is rather transparent.

To your 55, 56, 57.

Hinduism and Zoroastrianism beat us hands down

I am not aware of any historical evidence in Hinduism and the rest. They have legends told as legends, and they have moral and philosophical teachings told as such. We have a human chain. Besides, indeed I am not a Christian merely because I believe certain miracles took place, but also because the Christian religion makes logical and moral sense, and the miracles fit in the Christian worldview. It is a productive system of thought. It is possible for other people to think something similar about other religions and derive some benefit from that; that doesn't make me wrong.

that [Christ makes a reference to Jonah's story] doesn't prove that Jonah story actually happened

Sure it does. The alternative is that Jesus implied that his death and resurrection is likewise a legend that did not happen, or that Jesus while being God believed a falsehood.

If in your imagination you believe that you can actually fly who am I to say you can't fly in your imagination?

Yes, if I have a private revelation, for example, of Mary, as some people get, you don't have to share im my belief. The revelation of Christ, however, was public: His teaching, miracles, trial, death, and resurrection were all public events. It is true that some miracles of the Bible are possibly literary devices of some kind or are legendary, and it is possible to retain one's Christian faith while disputing the factual nature of those. As far as I know, the Church does not teach that every miraculous event in the Bible is a historical fact. However, we have enough miracles a disbelief in which excommunicates: the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection and ascention, the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and some others. It becomes a strange, quite a bit schizophrenic personal theology to separate the minor miracles from these and proclaim them all fiction.

Who actually saw Christ resurrect?

They saw Christ die, and then they saw him walk, talk, fish, eat, touched His wounds, etc. Again, theories exist that explain it away, but direct evidence is that the death and resurrection did happen.

Christian theology was like a puzzle made up of many unrelated pieces

Eh, no. You are, of course, correct that the Church produced the New Testament scripture as a colossal feat of writing, selecting, editing, and philosophizing that spanned centuries. But it doesn't follow that the process was not inspired and even divinely dictated, or that the original pieces were not saying what they say now as a part of the whole.

There has always been the Sacred Deposit of faith that Christ left with the disciples. This gave them an internal compass: an ability to sort out the stories, reminiscences, parables, moral teaching into those that rang true and those that did not ring true. Some hypotheses, -- for example that Jesus was a ghost and not man, or that the Old Testament God was hostile to Jesus Jewish God -- were tested and found wanting. The Orthodox sense was always there; this is why St. Irenaeus may not have the entirety of the Christian theology, but those things he writes about a modern orthodox theologian could write. The councils confirmed what the Church already believed.

Neither do I dispute that (1) some biblical stories are allegorical, and all have an allegorical, didactic, spiritual or mystical component alongside the factual; (2) we don't always know for sure which are and which aren't; and (3) we are free to make up our mind about those miracles that are not dogmatically proclaimed such as the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, etc.

The Jonah's story in particular is a good candidate to be taken factually as well as allegorically, because of the way Jesus builds a parallel from it to Himself.

The alternative, if not absurd, is at least illogical. Did the Fathers devote any particular attention to this story in light of Mt 12:40f? I ask because not the least of them, St. John The Chrysostom most emphatically denies the allegorical reading:

For as Jonas, says He, was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 22:40 [sic]) Thus, He said not indeed openly that He should rise again, since they would have even laughed Him to scorn, but He intimated it in such manner, that they might believe Him to have foreknown it. For as to their being aware of it, they say to Pilate, That deceiver said, these are their words, while He was yet alive, After three days I will rise again; and yet we know His disciples were ignorant of this; even as they had been beforehand more void of understanding than these: wherefore also these became self-condemned.
But see how exactly He expresses it, even though in a dark saying. For He said not, In the earth, but, In the heart of the earth; that He might designate His very sepulchre, and that no one might suspect a mere semblance. And for this intent too did He allow three days, that the fact of His death might be believed. For not by the cross only does He make it certain, and by the sight of all men, but also by the time of those days. For to the resurrection indeed all succeeding time was to bear witness; but the cross, unless it had at the time many signs bearing witness to it, would have been disbelieved; and with this disbelief would have gone utter disbelief of the resurrection also. Therefore He calls it also a sign. But had He not been crucified, the sign would not have been given. For this cause too He brings forward the type, that the truth may be believed. For tell me, was Jonah in the whale's belly a mere appearance? Nay, you can not say so. Therefore neither was Christ in the heart of the earth such. For surely the type is not in truth, and the truth in mere appearance. For this cause we every where show forth His death, both in the mysteries, and in baptism, and in all the rest. Therefore Paul also cries with a clear voice, God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Whence it is clear, that they who are diseased in Marcion's way are children of the devil, blotting out these truths, to avoid the annulling whereof Christ did so many things, while to have them annulled the devil took such manifold pains: I mean, His cross and His passion.
Homily 43 on Matthew

FK: Do you really think that the theology of the Bible was unknown UNTIL the Bible was formally put together?

Pretty much so, FK, with only a few decades separating the two events. The Creed was finalized at the First Council of Constantinople (Second Ecumenical Council), only about a decade before the canonization of the Bible in the west.

But I thought that you all use circa 33 A.D. as the starting point of your particular church. Wouldn't that mean that everyone had it wrong for 300+ years? Wouldn't that also mean that either the Apostles were teaching different things or that they were terrible teachers? :)

Moreover, extant Bibles dating from circa middle of the 4th century contain books that are no longer considered canonical. Any copies of the New Testament books prior to the Nicene Council are mysteriously missing (presumably destroyed by the Church), but fragments and indirect evidence shows that the post-Nicene sources have been heavily redacted to more closely reflect the new trinitarian dogma of the Church.

Do you infer from that that the original manuscripts were altered to match a man-made theology? If so, then the Bible would really be of no spiritual value. It would be no better than, say, Dianetics. :)

+Maximos the Confessor, in “Various Texts on Theology, the Divine Economy and Virtue and Vice” goes to great lengths to explain the allegories in the Book of Jonah.

Yes, I just read them. Your description of these passages is correct: he explains the allegories (typos, ellipses mine):

St. Maximos the confessor
Various texts on theology
"The clefts of the mountains are the counsels of the evil spirits ... the lowe depth of the earth are [ignorance of] divine knowledge... the abyss [is] evil disposition
"The king represents the Natural Law. The throne is an impassionate disposition, etc.
"The spirit of scorching heat signifies not only trials and tempptations but also that abandonment by God which deprived the Jews of the gifts of grace.
"The scripture represents Jonah as grieving on account of the booth and the gourd - that is to say, on account of the flesh and the pleasure of the flesh -- and it represents God as caring for Nineveh...

Nowhere does St. Maximos offers the opinion that all that this book is, is allegory. The patristics, as we know, are filled with such mystical exegesis: the two fishes are the two books of the Bible, the five loaves are (I forget what), the initially imperfect vision of the blind man in Mark 8 is his weak faith, etc. The allegorical explanation never supplants the factual reading, it supplements it. St. Maximos's passages are no exception.

Searching the Philokalia further, however, I found this beautiful text:

St. Theogonosos
On the Practive of the Virtues
Once more I shall tell you dsomethign strange at which you are not to be startled. A mystery is accomplished secretly between the soul and God in the higher reaches of perfect purity, love and faith. When a man is completely reconciled to God he is united with Him through unceasing prayer and contemplation. Such was Elijah's state when he closed the heavens, causign a drought (cf. 1 Kgs. 17:1), and burnt the sacrifice with fire from heaven (cf. 1 Kgs. 18:26-38), In such state Moses divided the sea (cf. Exod. 14:21) and defeated Amalek by stretching of his arms (cf. Exod. 17:11-13). In such a state Jonah was saved from the whale and from the deep (cf. Jonah 2:1-10). for the person found worthy of this mystery compels outr most compassionate God to do whatever he wants. Even when still in the flesh, he has passed beyond the limits of corruption and mortality, and he awaits death as if it were an everyday sleep that peasurably brings him to the fulfillment of his hopes.

Not a trace of doubt inthe factuality of the miracles here. They are, quite simply, attributes of sanctity. And whom do we get sanctity from? The Old Testament is all about Jesus. It is not optional and not fables.

P, Leo XIII had some of those odd Marian notions which have caused so much heartburn over the past 100 years, especially that Co-Redemptrix idea. His concept of Panagia as a mediatrix of grace is particularly dangerous as it sets her up as a sort of gatekeeper between humanity and the grace of God which falls on the people like rain on the earth. His beliefs in this area are far outside the consensus patrum and, fankly, smack of a sort of extreme religious enthusiasm.

I'm not certain about the Co-Redemptrix concept, but on the Mediatrix concept and on his Marian devotion in general, Pope Leo XIII was influenced by St. Louis de Montfort, a French priest who lived in the late 17th and early 18th centuries (he beatified him). He sought to preach missions throughout France, but like many orthodox believers of this period of time, he was persecuted by many of the bishops of that time, and was restricted to preaching in Brittany and the Vendee. Interesting enough, those two regions in France were the only two to resist the violent secularization of the French Revolution, which took place seven decades after his death (though with limited success, since the Revolutionaries more or less committed genocide against the devout Catholics there). Go figure.

That's not what the Bible says. It says the Bereans "received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so." (Act 17:11) There are a couple of things that seem to stand out here.

First there is no mention that Paul told them to check the scriptures. Second, it is reasonable to assume that only the rabbis did.

On the first count we have this a few verses earlier:

Acts 17:1-4 : 1 When they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. 2 As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ," he said.

Paul's habit was to reason from the scriptures. It is reasonably inferrable that Paul approved of what the Bereans did and even invited them to. It would not make sense if he didn't since he was reasoning from the scriptures to proclaim Christ. On the second count it is unknowable if only rabbis made the comparisons. We aren't told. What difference would that make anyway?

Third, it says that "[m]any believed" which also means that many didn't. And the scripture could not be the reason, both believers and nonbelievers consulted the scriptures.

It is the Holy Spirit who opens eyes and ears to accept the Scriptures. The fact that non-believers read the scriptures is irrelevant to the factual truth of them.

Fourth, what Paul was telling them was that, based on the Old Testament Jesus was the Christ.

Paul preached Christ crucified and raised from the dead, and he used the OT to back him up. I'm sure there were plenty of Jews (and Gentiles) who were surprised at this.

Fifth, and most importantly, if that were the case, then we wouldn't need the New Testament at all! We could just use the Old Testament and be "Christians!"

The NT explains the New Covenant as is needed. The OT was sufficient for faith, as evidenced by the OT righteous. Both the NT and OT are needed for Christianity.

And, sixth, last but not least, Paul really does not treat Jesus as God but as someone God raised, someone lesser than the Father, the only God as far as Paul is concerned.

I could not possibly disagree more. If what you say is true, wouldn't all the Apostolic successors of Paul have to wiped from the rolls? :) Or, did those who came hundreds of years later know what Paul meant in his writings better than he did? It would seem that would have to be the claim.

“He rose again in accordance with the Scripture” doesn’t quite leave much room to “in accordance with the legendary and purely allegorical content of the Scriptures”, does it?

Symbol of Faith

requirement

But that's not what the Bible says because the credal statement is a paraphrase from 1 Cor 15:4, which reads somewhat differently. I am not sure why the Church chose to change from Paul's ἐγείρω to ἀνάστασις, but the difference between the active (he rose) perfect tense of the Creed and the passive one (Christ was raised by God [sic]) tense of 1 Cor 15:4 reflects, in my opinion, a significant yet subtle alteration of the scirpture.

I would say it is rather characeristic of the conceptual theological difference that resulted in the span of nearly 300 years between Paul's idea of Christ, and the evolving theology of the Church.

The other issue, of course, is the κατὰ τὰς γραφάς (referring, no doubt to Isaiah 53 [LXX]], which is urse disputed by some (mostly Jewish) scholars as being prophetic of Jesus.

Of course the τῇ τριτῇ ἡμέρᾳ part is not a "prophesy" of any scriptures but a ex post facto statement found in the New Testament.

I am not aware of any historical evidence in Hinduism and the rest

I hate to tell you, but aside from historical names and places to which the stories have been attached, historical Judaism is in the same boat. There is evidence of Judaism as a historical fact, but not of its myths and legends, just as there is evidence of Christianity, but there is no evidence of anything else except from sources with a vested interest. The "historicity" of Biblical events is a matter of belief and not of fact. There is no solid evidence of any Jews being in Egypt, Exodus, Slaughter of the Innocents, extra biblical accounts of crucifixion, or resurrection etc. (and no, Jospehus' much plagiarized account is not "evidence")

They have legends told as legends...We have a human chain

We also have legends and we have a human chain but with a twist. The Gospels are unsigned. The apostolic authorship of the Gospels is an afterthought made late in the 2nd century. We have facts embellished with unsupported claims.

Besides, indeed I am not a Christian merely because I believe certain miracles took place, but also because the Christian religion makes logical and moral sense, and the miracles fit in the Christian worldview

Christianity makes a lot of moral sense. It teaches that it is better to coexist in love than in hate. It also has a (Platonic) human role model we should strive to imitate, thereby becoming better human beings. We all know that love feels good and hate feels bad. So, there is an element even of Pavlovian stimulus-response behavior present.
There is an element of psychological conditioning in it: behavior that results in rewards tends to be repeated. In other words, it becomes a habit. The world is generally better off if it is producing and benefiting rather than destroying and hurting.
But, other religions make moral sense as well, even if they lack in a viisble, humanly cocneivable role model. They all aim at some sort of "love" condition, peace and satisfaction. Some are more altruistic then others, but the elements are all there. Late (Post-Babylonian, messianic) Judaism and Islam have escatholigical and soteriological beliefs, but so does Zoroastrianism, form which Judaism acquired its messianic beliefs along with the introduction of dualism.
Buddhism leads to eventual nirvana. Ancient Egyptian religions had soteriological overtones as well. The mechanisms and different, but the end result is the same.

It is a productive system of thought

So are other religions, Alex. Hinduism is the oldest written religion, older than the Ten Commandments. Which religion is not productive? Islamic philosophy and science was very advanced at one time.

It is possible for other people to think something similar about other religions and derive some benefit from that; that doesn't make me wrong

Beliefs are not wrong. But they are beliefs, not facts. They become wrong when they become the measure of reality, of worse, become the reality. Hope is not a guarantee.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.