M
Matthias123
Guest
I wanted to create this thread to discuss the place of “Noah’s Ark” in Catholic intellectual thought. Obviously since the 18th century the belief that a flood covered the entire planet has been abandoned.
According to the 1913 catholic encyclopaedia, there was a theological debate on whether the flood was anthropologically universal, that was settled y the fact that this teaching was a teaching of the Church through the Church Fathers.
Although as far as I know, this is not a De Fide or a Fides ecclesiastica teaching. Therefore not infallible.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_dogma#Theological_certainties
However I have been thinking and researching for the last few days, and I think there is enough evidence now to abandon the anthropological universality of the flood.
newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm
First off, the reason hey came to such a conclusion in the encyclopaedia is that there was no proof by science that refuted the anthropological universality of the flood. But doing some research, I think there is enough scientific evidence to abandon such an opinion. The best evidence against it is the records of human migration due to Mitochondrial DNA.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map-of-human-migrations.jpg
As you can see in order for a local flood to have killed most humans on earth it would have to have occurred at around 130,000 BC. That would be a date too early for oral tradition to pass down to the generations who wrote the deluge epics. Therefore the numerous deluge myths would not be able to be used as supporting evidence, as they must have had a different cause.
The only possible scenario I could think of, is that while the human race where migrating out of Africa, there was a massive deluge that caused the destruction of the human race except Noah and his household. The best supporting evidence of this is that fact there is a genetic bottleneck around this time. However aside from a few extreme models, the bottleneck limits the human race to about 1000 breeding pairs. There is a current theory that this was caused by the explosion of the toba super volcano. To say the least we can wait and see how this pans out.
Also the Ark would not be able to arrive in Armenia, however, I think this is perfectly fine because the bible says Mountains of Ararat which could be symbolic.
However it is evident that the inspired writer was, under the inspiration of almighty God, paraphrased much of the Noah story from the Epic of Gilgamesh. I think a good question would be to ask, why did the Holy Ghost (name removed by moderator)ire him to do this?
What is interesting is that most deluge myths are extremely similar to the Noah’s Ark story. Not t all of them where in contact with the people of Israel or with the Babylonians. So I think we need to examine why they are so similar. At first glance I would say there was a historical nucleus that caused these stories to be passed down as oral history, however I doubt anything can be passed down orally over 118,000 years with any accuracy whatsoever (Like I said above.) So right now I am filled with more questions then answers.
Is it possible that the Holy Spirit wanted to convey pure theological truth by motivating the inspired writer to draw upon what the author knew – the various deluge epics of the surrounding region, to convey strictly theological truth – more specifically the foreshadowing of the baptism of the human race? However this gets tricky because that would seem to suggest that Noah is not a real person, which would means there was no covenant with Noah. What is next, saying Abraham is not a real person? I don’t think an allegorical position on the Noah’s Ark story is heresy, but I do think this might have some consequences later down the line when you get to stories about Abraham and Isaac.
However, I don’t even think the anthropological universality is even the consensus now. I mean, the 1913 encyclopaedia suggest that the best idea of the location of hell is under the earth. Nobody today I think would hold such an opinion. So obviously the information in that encyclopaedia needs to be taken as it is, the theological position during the pontificate of Pope Saint Pius X.
I think I have a deep dark fear that the magesterium of the Church will require us to believe something that will be completely fallacious, and will turn us into fools like the fundamentalists. Although even if this did happen I would confess it as truth as the magesterium says, but I would not be very pleased. Although this has never happened in the past, I doubt it will happen in the future, it is just a fear, because I take such joy in the fact that the Catholic faith is the most reasonable and logical thing I have ever seen in my life. In contrast it makes the atheists look like they are speaking baby talk. I also have a fear that we are looking for turth in genesis when it should be preaching truth to us – although I attibute this to my own ignorance.
According to the 1913 catholic encyclopaedia, there was a theological debate on whether the flood was anthropologically universal, that was settled y the fact that this teaching was a teaching of the Church through the Church Fathers.
Although as far as I know, this is not a De Fide or a Fides ecclesiastica teaching. Therefore not infallible.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_dogma#Theological_certainties
However I have been thinking and researching for the last few days, and I think there is enough evidence now to abandon the anthropological universality of the flood.
newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm
First off, the reason hey came to such a conclusion in the encyclopaedia is that there was no proof by science that refuted the anthropological universality of the flood. But doing some research, I think there is enough scientific evidence to abandon such an opinion. The best evidence against it is the records of human migration due to Mitochondrial DNA.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map-of-human-migrations.jpg
As you can see in order for a local flood to have killed most humans on earth it would have to have occurred at around 130,000 BC. That would be a date too early for oral tradition to pass down to the generations who wrote the deluge epics. Therefore the numerous deluge myths would not be able to be used as supporting evidence, as they must have had a different cause.
The only possible scenario I could think of, is that while the human race where migrating out of Africa, there was a massive deluge that caused the destruction of the human race except Noah and his household. The best supporting evidence of this is that fact there is a genetic bottleneck around this time. However aside from a few extreme models, the bottleneck limits the human race to about 1000 breeding pairs. There is a current theory that this was caused by the explosion of the toba super volcano. To say the least we can wait and see how this pans out.
Also the Ark would not be able to arrive in Armenia, however, I think this is perfectly fine because the bible says Mountains of Ararat which could be symbolic.
However it is evident that the inspired writer was, under the inspiration of almighty God, paraphrased much of the Noah story from the Epic of Gilgamesh. I think a good question would be to ask, why did the Holy Ghost (name removed by moderator)ire him to do this?
What is interesting is that most deluge myths are extremely similar to the Noah’s Ark story. Not t all of them where in contact with the people of Israel or with the Babylonians. So I think we need to examine why they are so similar. At first glance I would say there was a historical nucleus that caused these stories to be passed down as oral history, however I doubt anything can be passed down orally over 118,000 years with any accuracy whatsoever (Like I said above.) So right now I am filled with more questions then answers.
Is it possible that the Holy Spirit wanted to convey pure theological truth by motivating the inspired writer to draw upon what the author knew – the various deluge epics of the surrounding region, to convey strictly theological truth – more specifically the foreshadowing of the baptism of the human race? However this gets tricky because that would seem to suggest that Noah is not a real person, which would means there was no covenant with Noah. What is next, saying Abraham is not a real person? I don’t think an allegorical position on the Noah’s Ark story is heresy, but I do think this might have some consequences later down the line when you get to stories about Abraham and Isaac.
However, I don’t even think the anthropological universality is even the consensus now. I mean, the 1913 encyclopaedia suggest that the best idea of the location of hell is under the earth. Nobody today I think would hold such an opinion. So obviously the information in that encyclopaedia needs to be taken as it is, the theological position during the pontificate of Pope Saint Pius X.
I think I have a deep dark fear that the magesterium of the Church will require us to believe something that will be completely fallacious, and will turn us into fools like the fundamentalists. Although even if this did happen I would confess it as truth as the magesterium says, but I would not be very pleased. Although this has never happened in the past, I doubt it will happen in the future, it is just a fear, because I take such joy in the fact that the Catholic faith is the most reasonable and logical thing I have ever seen in my life. In contrast it makes the atheists look like they are speaking baby talk. I also have a fear that we are looking for turth in genesis when it should be preaching truth to us – although I attibute this to my own ignorance.
