Are we obliged to teach Biblical history?

[fakename]

Is it necessary to teach what happened in the Bible as history -for surely it happened and as such, it is history? Or can you omit biblical things in teaching history?

 

[Hastrman]

Is it necessary to teach what happened in the Bible as history -for surely it happened and as such, it is history? Or can you omit biblical things in teaching history?

Depends, some things in the Bible aren’t intended as history—Job and Jonah, for instance, are both allegory. But Exodus is history, as is a large chunk of the various Prophets, and as are the Gospels and Acts (well, the Gospels are more like memoirs, almost).

And we don’t have to necessarily take everything in the Old Testament as literal truth, there may be some errors—the Egyptians don’t mention losing anything like as many men as Exodus says they did (and a Pharaoh dying on an expedition like that would be noticed), and by all archaeological accounts Jericho never had a wall. A lot of it was written down hundreds of years after it happened, for instance when Abraham was alive Ur was not the city of the Chaldeans, but of the Sumerians.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Is it necessary to teach what happened in the Bible as history -for surely it happened and as such, it is history? Or can you omit biblical things in teaching history?

I cannot understand in which context are you using the word “teach”.
Much of the old Testament is Historical.
The Pentateuch is problematic.
But, even if not historic, the midrash (tales with a morale) belong to western Culture and should be taught. Everybody must know the story ofAdam and Eve the Tower of Babel, the Flood, Noah (the UNations have got the dove with an olive branch, sign of Peace, it is taken from the Flood Midrash, though it its not historical), Moses, the story of Joseph of Egypt that inspired the opera of Loyd Weber Joseph and the Amzaing Technicolor dreamcoat, a supert musical,

History isnot only made of facts but of dreams of people who dreamt of reaching impossible goals.

 

[fakename]

I cannot understand in which context are you using the word “teach”.
Much of the old Testament is Historical.
The Pentateuch is problematic.
But, even if not historic, the midrash (tales with a morale) belong to western Culture and should be taught. Everybody must know the story ofAdam and Eve the Tower of Babel, the Flood, Noah (the UNations have got the dove with an olive branch, sign of Peace, it is taken from the Flood Midrash, though it its not historical), Moses, the story of Joseph of Egypt that inspired the opera of Loyd Weber Joseph and the Amzaing Technicolor dreamcoat, a supert musical,

History isnot only made of facts but of dreams of people who dreamt of reaching impossible goals.

Let me rephrase then: If you tell other people about what happened in the past, should you be obliged to talk about biblical events (since not everyone believes in the Bible)?

 

[Hastrman]

Let me rephrase then: If you tell other people about what happened in the past, should you be obliged to talk about biblical events (since not everyone believes in the Bible)?

My Ancient Near East class in college had a Biblical history unit; it’s sorta important to the two biggest religions on Earth, plus the one that influenced both (Judaism isn’t very big, but it’s pretty influential).

 

[fakename]

My Ancient Near East class in college had a Biblical history unit; it’s sorta important to the two biggest religions on Earth, plus the one that influenced both (Judaism isn’t very big, but it’s pretty influential).

Well did they assert that Adam and Eve existed historically? Or that there was a flood that almost killed everyone? That’s what I mean, are we obliged to teach this as a part of history?

 

[Hastrman]

Well did they assert that Adam and Eve existed historically? Or that there was a flood that almost killed everyone? That’s what I mean, are we obliged to teach this as a part of history?

Hmmm. No.

You’re not even obliged to believe there was a flood that almost killed everybody, as a Catholic—if it was what scholars think it was, it is sufficient that it merely almost killed everybody in the late Stone Age near East.

And the only thing about Adam and Eve that we’re required to believe is that we inherit our sinful nature from the first humans, due to their sin. How, precisely, that works out, is another question.

 

[fakename]

Hmmm. No.

You’re not even obliged to believe there was a flood that almost killed everybody, as a Catholic—if it was what scholars think it was, it is sufficient that it merely almost killed everybody in the late Stone Age near East.

And the only thing about Adam and Eve that we’re required to believe is that we inherit our sinful nature from the first humans, due to their sin. How, precisely, that works out, is another question.

I’m quite sure though that we are required to believe in an Adam and Eve as well as a flood and the existence of the serpent, the garden, etc. Though I’m pretty sure no one has required a belief in the longevity of the ancients, though I am sympathetic to such a view. I think that Humani Generis, and the Sources on Catholic Dogma, support my view -which is the Church’s view too.

But even w/o believing what I say, If I was right, would I be obliged to teach the Bible?

 

[Hastrman]

I’m quite sure though that we are required to believe in an Adam and Eve as well as a flood and the existence of the serpent, the garden, etc. Though I’m pretty sure no one has required a belief in the longevity of the ancients, though I am sympathetic to such a view. I think that Humani Generis, and the Sources on Catholic Dogma, support my view -which is the Church’s view too.

But even w/o believing what I say, If I was right, would I be obliged to teach the Bible?

As long as you believe that Original Sin came about by the action of our first parents, you may believe anything you like about whether there actually was a garden, a serpent, a tree, or anything else.

 

[fakename]

As long as you believe that Original Sin came about by the action of our first parents, you may believe anything you like about whether there actually was a garden, a serpent, a tree, or anything else.

I still think the garden has to be believed but I did check and you are right about Adam and Eve and the possibility of it being symbolic.

However, I was also told by a priest that since the biblical history is true, then it must be taught if you are examining a time period that includes it; if you want to teach all the true events of that period.

I suppose that like all other truths, it doesn’t have to be taught if you need to focus on some other event, topic. But everything being equal, it ought to be taught.

 

[Will_S]

On the contrary, the existence of a single pair of first parents (Adam & Eve) is an authentic doctrine of The Church, as Pope Pius XII said in Humani Generis #37:

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

 

[Hastrman]

On the contrary, the existence of a single pair of first parents (Adam & Eve) is an authentic doctrine of The Church, as Pope Pius XII said in Humani Generis #37:

Yeah, it’s the garden/tree/fruit/serpent part that we’re allowed to treat as symbolic.