The Bible is Not Just a Book, It is a Library. And this is Key to Interpreting Scripture

Fr. Robert Barron is famous for the insight that the Bible is not a Book, it is a library of many books from different periods and using different genres. Christians sometimes get asked, “Do you read the Bible literally?” But this is like asking, “Do you read the Library literally?” Well, of course that would depend on what section I was in. If I were in the science section I might read rather literally and technically. But if I were in the poetry section I would read rather differently with an openness to allegory, hyperbole, and the like. Other interpretive modes would be operative in the history section, the computer and technical manual section, the science fiction section, philosophy, religion and so forth. When walking into a library we have enough sophistication to make distinctions as to the genre of a book, its historical period, its purpose and so forth.

In reading Scripture we need a similar sophistication. Some of the Bible is straight forward history. But other sections are poetry, saga, Biography or exhortation. Still other sections use literary techniques such as parables, analogy, simile, metaphor, hyperbole, and expressions of the day.

In order to understand and sort all this out, some knowledge of the period when the text was written is helpful. Knowing something of the people involved and their circumstances is also essential. This is the kind of sophistication we bring to any other ancient writing we might encounter.

But one of the problems many bring to scripture is the tendency to read it in a crudely literalistic and mechanistic manner that does not respect the genre and purpose of a particular part of the Bible. To be sure there are passages we do read and understand in a literalistic manner. For example, “this is my Body.” Further we accept that the Scriptures record the things that Jesus actually said and did. But where many get lost is by taking literally what are figures of speech. Now we use figures of speech all the time. For example, We might say “It’s raining cats and dogs.” or “The world is turned upside-down.” Now we know what these expressions mean and that we do not mean them in a literalistic way. And so, we need some sophistication when we read in scripture that we are to gouge our our eye, or cut off our hand. When we are told not to cast our pearls before swine, nor give what is holy to dogs. When we are told by Jesus that we must love him and hate our father and mother, son and daughter, even our very self. These were expressions of the day which have a true meaning but which require a little sophistication to properly understand.

Again, the Bible is a library, not a book and we need to take heed of what “section” we are in. That said, The Scriptures have within them an internal unity where all the many individual books announce God’s plan and sets forth the ultimate destiny of man which is caught up in God’s redeeming love.

The Catechism gives some rules when it comes to interpreting Scripture:

  1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover. (CCC # 112) It is for this reason that we read the Old Testament in light of the New. For ultimately, everything there points to Christ, and to the life of Grace he would bring forth.
  2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture. (CCC # 113). Scripture emerges from and is a part of the living Tradition of the Church. Hence it must be understood within that context.
  3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith. By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation. (CCC # 114). For the truths of faith must be held in a balance. When we allow one truth to eclipse others this is heresy. Further, one text of the Scripture does not the whole bible make. Texts have to be understood with the balance of the whole, and of the faith in general. There is a danger in “proof-texting” because it often removes a certain passage from the whole of Scripture which can help to balance and nuance it. Further, proof-texting may also take a text out of the wider context of the faith as a whole which may also help to balance and nuance it.
  4. According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church. (CCC # 115)
  5. The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.” (CCC # 116) Be careful here, “literal does not mean “literalistic” but, rather, what is the literary meaning of a text. That is, “What is the text actually saying.”
  6. The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs. (CCC # 117) Scripture is always more than historical occurrences. It is also about you spiritual journey and mine. Scripture is not spectator sport. You and I are in the story. I am Peter, Mary, Pilate, Joseph and so forth. The events and words of scripture transcend time and have spiritual meaning now as well. The crossing of the Red Sea was more than an historical event. It is baptism, it is salvation. And so forth.
  7. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism. The word allegory comes from the Greek  allēgoría,  meaning to speak so as to imply something other. In other words, the events and deeds of the Bible point beyond themselves to something greater and other.
  8. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.
  9. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem. Another example might be that the journey of the Jewish people for forty years in the desert is a sign of our pilgrimage trough the desert of this life to the Promised Land of Heaven.
  10. A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith; The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.

Here are a couple of very good videos that make rather plain the Catholic approach to Biblical interpretation. The first  video is from Fr. Robert Barron and details two key Catholic interpretive principles: the importance of Genre and that Jesus Christ is the interpretive key to to understanding the whole Bible.The second video is from John Martignoni and is a very brief description of the Literal vs. Literalist interpretation.

41 Replies to “The Bible is Not Just a Book, It is a Library. And this is Key to Interpreting Scripture”

  1. I don’t like the library analogy. I prefer the doctrine that the Bible has a spiritual and literal interpretation.

    1. Nick:

      When I drive down the street to my local library, my library IS a library whether I like it or not – it’s not a gasoline station, it’s not a newsstand, it’s not a post office, and it’s not a hospital. The “library” is NOT an “analogy” or a “doctrine” to be believed or not as one SEES fit. It IS a reality, it IS a library. The first five books of the old covenant were written at a certain time in history, the wisdom writings at another, the psalms are a collection of 150 “praise and worship” songs collected over a vast range of time by various “composers”. Certainly, the new covenant scriptures, although written within a relatively tight time line (between 50 to 100 AD) were written by no less than eight authors ( the Matthean, Markan, Lucan, and Johannine traditions, Peter, John, Paul, James, etc) and certainly were written approximately 1000 years after the Torah. The Bible IS a library (collection of books). It seems like a “book” with a literal and spiritual interpretation to us because all the work of composing, collecting, and discerning whether it is to be included in the canon (both old and new covenants) was although recognized around 400 AD wasn’t formally defined until the council of Trent in 1560’s AD. Nearly five hundred years of a complete canon has conditioned us to SEE it as a monolithic book when in reality it is a collection of 73 books – a library.

    2. Yes, I agree with Michael here in that its sort of unusual to be against an analogy that is so plainly obvious. Is there something in particular that bothers you, Nick, about the the image?

      1. Yes. The Church teaches that the Bible is a single book.

        This analogy goes against that teaching.

        I prefer the safety of orthodoxy than chance heresy.

        1. Nick, using the heresy word is way over the top. I understand your concern. To see how your concern might be put more charitably see Christopher’s comment below.

          1. My apologies. I’m not saying the analogy is heresy. I’m saying, I don’t want to chance heresy.

      2. but the unity of the whole that is the Bible distinguishes it from another library of random books. The Bible is also a whole, a unity, and in this sense can be seen as one book that has different parts. One sees in the Bible an order from creation to end of the world, the history of creation. So I don’t think it’s wrong to see the Bible as One book with many and diverse parts.

  2. Clear as mud. Keeping all that in mind it is no wonder in older times the Church didn’t exactly encourage the common laity to read the Bible. I do however, but almost never without the trusty footnotes in my Fr. Haydock Douay – Rheims. That is especially true in much of St. Paul. I smile when I hear about those neighborhood scripture studies and wonder how much heresy is being spread. Not a charitable thought I know, but from some of the folks I know who take part, I fear true.

    1. Sounds like you don’t like the nuance of the Catholic view. 🙂 Granted its harder to inculcate, but given our rich tradition, there is just more to consider than merely the “plain meaning” of the text. For it sometimes happens that the “plain meaning” isn’t so plain, given cultural and historical, doctrinal and contextual concerns. Rather than the mud image, I prefer to see it as a diamond image wherein one turns the diamond and sees many different facets.

      1. I have to admit that I am not equipped to get any more out of it than the plain meaning, that is why I use the Bible I do. The prose is akward but the comments help me understand. For more understanding that that I have to rely on sermons, Papal messages, etc. I would never trust myself.

  3. Thank you for an excellent post on how to read the Bible. It is certainly important to consider not only the different senses of Scripture, but also the historical and literary context of each of the different parts of the Bible. Indeed, not only does the Bible as a whole contain different literary forms; so, too, do individual ‘books’ of the Bible. Thus one might find a single book containing history, moral exhortations, parables, poetry and other literary forms.

    However, it can sometimes be misleading to suggest that the Bible is “not a book, but a library.” Yes, the library is a collection of writings composed by different people over the course of hundreds of years. But the human authors, though real authors, are nonetheless not the primary Author. God is really the Author of Sacred Scripture. The reason for the unity of Scripture is precisely because they have been written through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

    Thanks again for an excellent article.

    1. that all we need to do is urstndeand from our perspective the metaphors that arise from these wonderful tales. For instance, he says this concerning the stories about Jesus Christ’s birth:He writes, “Though not literally true, they can be really true; though not factually true, they can be actually true. The stories of Jesus’ birth are myths in this sense. Along with most mainline scholars, I do not think these stories report what happened. The virginal conception, the star, the wise men, the birth in Bethlehem where there was no room in the inn, and so forth are not facts of history. But I think these stories are powerfully true…The stories of Jesus’ death and resurrection contain a mixture of historical memory and mythical narration.” (The God We Never Knew, pp 101-02)Borg’s metaphorical approach, while embracing the heart of hermenutics (the search for meaning for our time and experience) finds meaning not in the historicity of the events recorded but in our ability to create metaphors from the stories. In other words, God is not revealing his redemptive plan in actual historical events, he is revealing timeless truths in the metaphors we derive from the stories. That’s two different kinds of approaches to the Bible. NT Wright is absolutely correct in pointing out the inherent flaws of a hermeneutic that doesn’t take the historicity of the texts as a primary consideration in our interpretation. Bell thinks he can do biblical interpretation Borg’s way and NT Wright’s way. I’m saying that this is really not possible, for they are two different paths. I prefer to Marcus Borg’s approach!

  4. Thank you for this excellent post, Monsignor. Two other great reference points for reading and understanding the Bible are: (1) your blog post from December 2009, “Rediscovering the Plot of Sacred Scripture”,; and (2) the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology (Dr. Scott Hahn) By the way, in your “Rediscovering …” blog post, you mentioned your move toward a revamped youth religious ed program. I’d love to know what you’ve done in that regard. God Bless — Jim Mazzarelli

  5. Dear Msgr. Pope,
    I am wondering if you could recommend a Scripture commentary for those of us who would like to read Scripture in the manner you outlined above. Most sincere Catholics who would love to read Scripture in this manner have no idea where to find the guidance to do so. I can go online and research a sermon by the Church Fathers on a particular passage, or find an explanation that you have written. However, I am wondering if there is an online site; or for those who do not have access to a computer, a volume or volumes, that would analyze the Scriptures for us. Some Bibles have notes but those notes are inadequate for an in-depth analysis.
    Thank you.

      1. By the way, as for in-depth, I cannot say the two books I mentioned are that in-depth but they balance alot of the sources and point to areas for further study.

  6. Msgr. Pope,
    I like what you are attempting to do here. I want to take issue with Father Baron and the other video. I have been Catholic officially for 6 years I spent 38 as a fundamentalist that went to Baptist churches. Not only does Fr. Baron misrepresent the fundamentalist view but he has done more damage to the union of the Body of Christ. What a fundamentalist wants is the truth. What they see in the Catholic Church is lies. Look at the pro choice politicians receiving communion. Look at the Catholic schools promoting sexual deviancy. Look at the unbelievable ignorance of Catholics about the Word of God. Now, Father Baron, who is clear to say that he is in line with the authority of the Church, not some liberal politician, college Jesuit, or cradle Catholic, says that the Jonah story is myth. That is what he said in the video even though I believe he would have to admit that it could be literal. As far as I know every Father of the Church I have ever read or saint I have read took it literally. None of them were literalist.

    Absolutely no fundamentalist that I know would cut is hand off or pluck his eye out after sinning, but they get the seriousness of sin and Christ’s point even to it being literal if necessary. No fundamentalist accepts Christ’s words literally in John 6. This blanket statement about fundamentalists is just wrong from both videos.

    It is sad that good Catholics like Fr. Baron and the other apologist are so afraid of a literal 6 day creation that they are standing in line with the wrong people. It is like Catholic women in Turkey demanding to be allowed to wear short skirts and tank tops. You have to ask, what are you doing? Let’s take the scripture literally and spiritually, both/and like Catholics have always done. Let’s submit to what the CCC says which you quoted. Let’s obey the truth that is obvious, submit to authority of the Church when She speaks, but stop standing in line with the Darwinists and the Global warming communists who don’t have the slightest regard for truth.

    Catholics may not like the fundamentalists but they better get used to them because a greater percentage of them will be in heaven than the majority of Catholics I have met. Mortal sin abounds and the confessionals are empty for the most part.

    Of course this whole discussion depends on one’s definition of a fundamentalist. I’m using the one that means a person that would die for the fundamentals of the faith, the essentials. Really, Catholics should be fundamentalists and all fundamentalists should be Catholic. The term is not used as much today, because most Protestants are relativists now and want to avoid dogma. As for me, I’ll stand by the obvious literally interpretation, like Jonah actually being swallowed by a whale, until the Church tells me that I need to do otherwise. Fr. Baron can feel free to speculate but he can’t totally reject the simple man’s understanding of God’s Word about Jonah, Job, Noah, Enoch, Adam, etc, because we have the Holy Spirit who leads in all truth.

    This library analogy has some use but the fact remains that when a letter was written as a letter it is a letter and when a book was written as a book it is a book, even though it also fits into a grander spiritual context than the literal.

    1. I think I understand your concern here. There is a kind of “shorthand” at works when the term fundamentalist is used. As you point out, no one reads the cut off the hand stuff literally. Further, Evangelicals do not take passages like, “This in my Body” literally whereas Catholics DO. So it’s not so much a question of literal or not, but what passages do you take literally and which not. In addition terms like fundamentalist and Protestant are broad generalizations since there is a great variety of interpretation even within those categories.

      Perhaps the greatest general divide comes when we look at the Books of Genesis and Revelation. It would seem that most Evangelicals take Revelation a lot more literally than Catholics. For example the popular “Left Behind” series applies a much more literalistic interpretation than most Catholic Commentators who see more figurative notions and prophetic language at work, and emphasize a more 1st Century fulfillment than and end of the world scenario. Hence the question of Genre and purpose are debated here between Catholics and Evangelicals. Is the book of Revelation a tour guide to the last days, essentially, or is it a book of Glory that, using prophetic and apocryphal imagery and analogy, sets forth the great victory of Jesus Christ? Further, what is the historical context of the book. Is it the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD or is it such future end of the world scenario? And yet again, what role does the obvious liturgical vision of the Book play?

      As for Genesis, here too, while Catholics are free to hold a literal six day creation scenario most Catholic Scholars do not. There are, of course TWO accounts of creation in Genesis. The first in Chapter 1 is the well known six-day account followed by Sabbath. That account culminates with the creation of Man on the sixth day. The second account in Genesis 2 begins with the creation of Man, then the garden, then the animals and so forth. So, if we’re going Literal here, which one is it?

      I think these are the areas of greatest difference and the debate over texts like these are what generate the “literal” vs non-literal shorthand. But, as you point out, it is a lot more complicated than a five minute video, or a somewhat brief blog post can cover. Shorthand is great, but it is dangerously close to short-changing if one is not aware of the shorthand being used and in agreement with what is being held equal.

      1. I think I understand what you are saying, but when Catholic scholars start trying to cast doubts on Sodom’s destruction or the flood that killed everyone but Noah and literally covered the earth they are doing serious damage and need confronted. Christ mentions these things in Luke 17. They should consider the first verses about leading others astray. Frankly, as a protestant having studied Genesis for years, I have never encountered irreconcilable differences or real contradictions in the creation accounts. True, protestants explain away many real contradictions like “faith alone” but it comes down to interpretation and authority as should everything else. I am VERY concerned about the way “Evolution Theology” [to perhaps coin a term] has crept into the thinking of even brilliant Catholics like Fr. Baron. I have read other posts he has done on creation and evolution. The idea that no death occured before the fall is a MAJOR difficulty to evolution theology and a lot of hand waiving goes on by “scholars” to show how death could had been before the fall. It is an undeniable fact that death and evolution go hand in hand. I have never read anything by any saint or pope to argue for any belief other than a 6 day creation, only that we don’t know definitely at this time.

        Again, of course, because the devil is a lier and loves to confuse, we have to define terms. I am talking about macro-evolution, darwinism, etc. NOT the obvious micro-evolution, adaptation, etc. As for the time and how we measure time, how old a star actually is, and how old was a mature tree if created in one day, or a mature man for that matter, it is a different discussion.

  7. Excellent post – love reading Msgr. Pope’s insights, and thanks for the additional links/info provided by other commenters

  8. I can’t recommend this specifically as I haven’t used it or been involved, but has anyone heard or used ‘The Bible Timeline’ or the ‘Great Adventure Bible Study’ by Jeff Cavins, published by Ascension Press? I saw this on EWTN recently, it was a little like a half hour infomercial more or less. There are also some YouTube videos on it. Jeff Cavins is a catholic convert of a similar calibar as the Hahn’s and others, so I suspect it may be worthwhile. Can anyone recommend it or know more about it?

  9. The scriptures mean what they say. People who dont like what scriptures say always use words like”interpretation” and “context”. Then add more smoke with lots of talk, like above. The bible says do not bow to graven images, it means not to bow to graven images. No fancy talk can make that go away. Thanks for your time

    1. Well I think the scriptures mean what they say, any reading of this blog will show that I take the testimony of Scripture seriously. The point is of course to determine what they actually say. Your dismissal of context and interpretation is neither charitably nor intelligently made since to say there is no interpretation is, of course, an interpretation. Interpretation is something you simply can’t escape. The question comes down to who is the final and definitive interpreter. I say the Church’s magisterium, how say you?

    2. ***Well I think the scriptures mean what they say, any reading of this blog will show that I take the testimony of Scripture seriously. The point is of course to determine what they actually say. Your dismissal of context and interpretation is neither charitably nor intelligently made since to say there is no interpretation is, of course, an interpretation. Interpretation is something you simply can’t escape. The question comes down to who is the final and definitive interpreter. I say the Church’s magisterium, how say you?

  10. The Bible is one book with one principal author and it is all about one subject, Jesus the Messiah. It is to be read one way, spiritually (allegorical exegesis) and lived that one way, the way of loving one another.

  11. If you do not like that, do not read 134-137 in the Catachism.

    1. I guess you don’t like analogy? I think you might recall that “analogy” indicates likeness not “is-ness” some of the more oppositional remarks on this post come down to, I think, a misunderstanding of analogy (a common problem today in a polemical age). The point of this post is not a dogmatic, all or nothing, point, it is just an analogy: “The Bible is like a library.” But all analogies limp because we are saying what something is like, not what it is. I think it is alright for you and others to say the analogy has problems but the rather stern tone of the rejections indicates to me that there is a misunderstanding of the nature of analogy which is a mere assertion of likeness not an attempt to over-throw doctrine. I think Christopher, in this comment thread has the right tone by indicating his reservations while at the same time indicating an understanding of the point that has been made by the analogy. This is to appreciate the role of analogy wherein likeness elicits a notion of similitude but also points to dis-similitude.

  12. Okay Monsignor Pope, help me out because I am going to try out Fr. Barron’s Irenaeus scripture key approach on the command to slay Amalekite infants. Let’s start with the New Advent Encyclopedia: “Amalec, the first of nations, thy latter end shall be destruction,'” a prophecy (whatever be its date) which shows at least that Amalec once held an important place among the Semitic tribes or nations surrounding Israel (Numbers 24). The fulfillment of this prophecy is enjoined upon the Israelites by Moses in a farewell discourse as a sacred duty. “When they shall have established peace with all other people, then shall they blot out the remembrance of Amalec from under heaven: see thou forget it not” (Deuteronomy 25:19). And if this seem an inhuman command, let us remember the prevailing sentiment that the Amalecites were “inhuman and barbarous; a people with such evil customs deserves no mercy”; for it is a question of national life or death. It is plain, however, that we are far from the Sermon on the Mount.”

    So with respect to Amalec, “we are far” from Christ’s Sermon” but our understanding of God has evolved with the “New Israel.” Nevertheless, we are committed to Fr. Barron’s Irenaeus scripture key approach to interpret the Old Covenant in light of the New, so we go to Luke 19:27 instead of the Sermon on Mount and quote the Lord “Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me” to explain that God may in fact permit the exacting of vengeance (it is His, isn’t) against the wicked in this life so as to expedite their passage to Hell in the next (even for infants who happen to be cursed by the sins of their Amalekite fathers). How did I do? Did I show Marcion or what?

  13. What was it that Origen said? If you eat a food that is supposed to improve your eyesight, the results will not occur overnight. Little by little, improvement will happen. He also said that the same thing is true of reading the Bible. The more you read it, the closer you get to seeing clearly. An over-simplification, for sure, but continued study of Scripture and the Fathers and the Popes and the Saints and the more recent theologians will bring more and more light, and with more light we see better.

  14. I have noticed that some of the commentators in this thread have taken to asserting that the analogy of the Bible as a library are moving toward the notion that this is somehow to violate doctrinal teaching. I think this objection is extreme and fails to appreciate the role of analogy in discussions.

    “Analogy” indicates likeness not “is-ness.” The misunderstanding of analogy is a common problem today in a polemical age wherein subtlety and similarities are set aside as we move increasingly to the opposite poles. The point of this post is not a dogmatic, “all or nothing,” point, it is just an analogy: “The Bible is like a library.” But all analogies limp because we are saying what something is like, not what it is.

    I think it is alright for commentators to say the analogy has problems but the rather stern tone of some of the rejections indicates to me that there is a misunderstanding of the nature of analogy which is a mere assertion of likeness not an attempt to over-throw doctrine.

    I think Christopher, in this comment thread has the right tone by indicating his reservations while at the same time indicating an understanding of the point that has been made by the analogy. This is to appreciate the role of analogy wherein likeness elicits a notion of similitude but also points to dissimilitude. Analogies are “like” that, that’s what they do. They’re great conversation starters and indicate not polar opposition but how even different things share similarities.

  15. Your presentation is perfect – couldn’t be better. I admire your patience in replying to comments. I fear that the disparagement of contemporary Biblical scholarship has led to some of the very fundamentalistic and antiquated comments you have received. Stay the course and fight the good fight.

  16. For all those confused by this issue and in reading Scripture itself there are a plentitude of resources given by the Church including Catholic Catechism.

    “Dei Verbum”, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation ( His Holiness Paul VI – 1965)

    “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church from the Pontifical Biblical Commission” (an address of of His Holiness John Paul II – 1993)

    “Verbum Domini” a Post Synodal Apostolic Exhortation of Holy Father Benedict XVI (2010)

    Pope Benedict XVI is renowned as a brilliant Scripture scholar-theologian-writer. Any of his books, sermons, etc. are immensely helpful in better understanding of Scripture. And he is infinitely clarity and wisdom.Why shop around when one can learn from the best.

    All these are available online and I believe those other than the CCC are available on the Vatican website.

  17. I would like to mention that is an excellent source for understanding specific passages in scripture. And much of what is in EWTN are excellent sources; for example, Catholic Answers, the Marcus Grodi’s, the Journey Home, and anything featuring Scott Hahn or Fr.Mitch Pachwa.

  18. Thanks for some other excellent article. The place else could anybody get that type of info in such a perfect means of writing? I have a presentation subsequent week, and I’m at the search for such info.

  19. The notion the bible is not a book but a library of books is this regarded as doctrine and historical or its Robert Barron’s opinion?

    If Adam and Eve are allegorical then why isn’t Jesus?

Comments are closed.