Book of Judith
#1
Is the book of Judith fact or fiction? What’s the Traditional teaching on this? I’m not at all interested in secular scholarship’s never-ending war trying to convince Christians their Faith is a fairy tale. So this is really just a yes or no question. Does Sacred Tradition teach us that the Book of Judith is a true story?
Reply
#2
The traditional view is that it is a narrative of facts.

For more on this view, some difficulties associated with it (and how they are approached) and other views that don't make it total fiction, see this article from the old Catholic Encyclopedia.  Just scroll down to the subtitle "Historicity."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08554a.htm
[Image: catherinesiena-1.jpg]
[-] The following 1 user Likes SaintSebastian's post:
  • Some Guy
Reply
#3
Thank you! Deeply appreciated.
Reply
#4
Quote:Is the book of Judith fact or fiction? What’s the Traditional teaching on this? I’m not at all interested in secular fast essay scholarship’s never-ending war trying to convince Christians their Faith is a fairy tale. So this is really just a yes or no question. Does Sacred Tradition teach us that the Book of Judith is a true story?


It's rather an ancient form of the historical fiction. But I was told that it has historical errors as well. And here's the thread that I found on Catholic forum - https://forums.catholic.com/t/book-of-ju...s/433257/9
Reply
#5
(08-16-2018, 08:56 AM)Some Guy Wrote: Is the book of Judith fact or fiction? What’s the Traditional teaching on this? I’m not at all interested in secular scholarship’s never-ending war trying to convince Christians their Faith is a fairy tale. So this is really just a yes or no question. Does Sacred Tradition teach us that the Book of Judith is a true story?

I haven't looked into Judith so I can't give a real answer, but I'd call to issue your question or at least how it's worded. 

Remember that there are many genres used in Scripture and just because they do not line up with our understanding of history writing doesn't mean the entire book is fiction. It seems like you're presenting a dichotomy that says either the events played out 100% exactly as written or the whole thing is a useless fabrication.
"If your heart comes to feel a natural hatred for sin, it has defeated the causes of sin and freed itself from them. Keep hell’s torments in mind; but know that your Helper is at hand. Do nothing that will grieve Him, but say to Him with tears: ‘Be merciful and deliver me, O Lord, for without Thy help I cannot escape from the hands of my enemies.’ Be attentive to your heart, and He will guard you from all evil."

- St. Isaias the Solitary

"Constant action overcomes cold; being still overcomes heat. Purity
and stillness give the correct law to all under heaven."

- Tao Te Ching 45
Reply
#6
(02-15-2019, 04:54 AM)Lumuss Wrote:
Quote:Is the book of Judith fact or fiction? What’s the Traditional teaching on this? I’m not at all interested in secular fast essay scholarship’s never-ending war trying to convince Christians their Faith is a fairy tale. So this is really just a yes or no question. Does Sacred Tradition teach us that the Book of Judith is a true story?


It's rather an ancient form of the historical fiction. But I was told that it has historical errors as well. And here's the thread that I found on Catholic forum - https://forums.catholic.com/t/book-of-ju...s/433257/9

It would be heresy to claim that something recounted in Scripture is false or erroneous. This could be demonstrated by a brief argument using Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus.

Major : "The Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, so we cannot, say that it was these inspired instruments who may have fallen into error, without saying it of the primary author," which is God the Holy Spirit, but

minor : The Holy Spirit is “the Spirit of Truth” (Jn 16:13) and God “who can neither deceive, nor be deceived” (Act of Faith),

To this we could also add :
  • that the First Vatican Council condemned those who would "not accept the entire books of Sacred Scripture with all their divisions … as canonical and sacred, or denies that they have been inspired by God." 
  • Leo XIII, in PD tells us that "the books, all and entire, which the Church accepts as sacred and canonical, with all their parts, have been written at the dictation of the Holy Spirit."
  • St Pius X in Lamentabili, condemns as an heretical statement of a Modernist : "Divine inspiration does not so extend to all Sacred Scripture that it fortifies each and every part of it against all error."
  • The Pontifical Bibilcal Commission in 1915 (who at that time had Papal power to define points on Scripture) wrote : "everything a sacred writer asserts, enunciates, and suggests, must be held as having been asserted, enunciated, suggested by the Holy Spirit."

To draw a few conclusions then :
  • Inspiration extends to all facts and thoughts given in Sacred Scripture;
  • Scripture is verbally inspired : Inspiration extends to each word and phrase, to style and construction;
  • Scripture is inerrant

To the last point, we could cite :
  • John XXII, Cum inter nonnullos, (DS 930) : "It is heresy to say that Scripture contains error."
  • Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, (DS 3292) : “So far is it from the possibility of any error being present to divine inspiration, that it itself of itself not only excludes all error, but excludes it and rejects it as necessarily as it is necessary that God, the highest Truth, be the author of no error whatsoever.”
  • First Vatican Council, Dei Filius, (DS 3008) : The books of Scripture “contain revelation without error.”
  • Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, (DS 3652) : “Scripture is not able to lie, and it is wicked to say that Scripture lies, or even to admit nominal error in its words.”
  • Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, (DS 3652) : “all those have left the right path, who restrict the inerrancy of Scripture to questions of faith and morals, or admit different degrees of inspiration.”

So, Judith, as it was originally written is true, else God is a liar.

Now it is possible that a copy could contain a mistake. The Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1915 allowed this, but only if there is irrefutable evidence that such is the case. The Council of Trent assures us and demands of us to accept that the Vulgate is substantially the same as the inspired originals.

That also does not exclude that the meaning intended by God is not a strictly literal meaning. Take for instance Genesis 1, where "day" is not necessarily 24 hours, and in fact, is probably not. The question is what did the writer intend to communicate. Only the truths he intended to communicate and according to the meaning he intended are inspired.

So, applying this to Judith : when Judith claims to recounts real history, it does so without error.

It is possible, however, that in certain parts it may seem to us that the author is saying one thing, when he means another. For example if he said : "and all of Israel rejoiced" it could mean all that was present, or there might of be exceptions, since that can easily be understood as retaining the same essential meaning.

It is impossible if it says Judith took a sword and cut off the head of Holofernes, that this is some metaphor for something, since it is clear that the sacred writer is intending this meaning, and no some great metaphor. If he were, then why not equally take all of the Gospels, or even all of the Old Testament as metaphor.

Once one rejects the truth of any part of Scripture, he rejects the whole thing.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102, SeeTheLight
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)