Bethlehem vs. Nazareth

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It does seem to fit that description.

Pascendi- doctrine of the modernists
"The Modernists have no hesitation in affirming generally that these books, and especially the Pentateuch and the first three Gospels, have been gradually formed from a primitive brief narration, by additions, by interpolations of theological or allegorical interpretations, or parts introduced only for the purpose of joining different passages together. This means, to put it briefly and clearly, that in the Sacred Books we must admit a vital evolution, springing from and corresponding with the evolution of faith.

That last sentence is impossible to discuss, as it is not clear what is intended by the Pope.​

FWIW - what is so dreadful in the notion of an evolution of ideas ? Surely it’s not implied that that the command of Samuel in 1 Samuel 15 to slaughter every last Amalekite is from the same spirit as that of the Saviour Who prayed “Father, forgive them; they do not know what they are doing” ?

The traces of this evolution, they tell us, are so visible in the books that one might almost write a history of it. Indeed, this history they actually do write,

To the great gain of us who come after. If the great critics of the past had not done their work, their successors would have to.​

and with such an easy assurance that one might believe them to have seen with their own eyes the writers at work through the ages amplifying the Sacred Books. To aid them in this they call to their assistance that branch of criticism which they call textual, and labor to show that such a fact or such a phrase is not in its right place, adducing other arguments of the same kind.

Holy Scripture is full of marvels, & nothing can be unimportant that helps us to understand more clearly what the Author of these holy books is saying to us. So it is entirely right that those to whom He has granted the ability & talent to do so should study the detail of the texts & correct erroneous readings. To do so is an excellent service to the Church.​

It is not unknown for the Church to condemn those whose work it later values. It’s just a great shame that the work of these men should be so indiscriminately & ignorantly condemned - but it’s not unusual. When Saints have suffered even worse things, it’s quite unsurprising that a Pope should over-react. What is more surprising is that a document not written with today’s issues in mind should be treated as though it were timelessly true.

They seem, in fact, to have constructed for themselves certain types of narration and discourses, upon which they base their assured verdict as to whether a thing is or is not out of place. Let him who can judge how far they are qualified in this way to make such distinctions. To hear them descant of their works on the Sacred Books, in which they have been able to discover so much that is defective, one would imagine that before them nobody ever even turned over the pages of Scripture.

“Defective” in what respect ? Again, the remark is so vague it can’t be usefully discussed. ​

The truth is that a whole multitude of Doctors, far superior to them in genius, in erudition, in sanctity, have sifted the Sacred Books in every way, and so far from finding in them anything blameworthy have thanked God more and more heartily the more deeply they have gone into them, for His divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men.

Holiness cannot however substitute for intellectual equipment. It is merely a fact that exegetes since 1850 are able to make use of a lot of info which was simply not available to earlier Christian generations.​

Pascal was not hounded for having a fuller understanding of maths than his mediaeval predecessors - so why is it objectionable that modern scholars use equipment that their forebears lacked ? Surely, if something is turned up that can cast light on the Biblical text, we can’t just ignore it - not even if it was unavailable in the past.

That X is recognised as a saint, does not imply that his scholarship is faultless. Whether X is holy is not an issue when his work is peer-reviewed. Pere Lagrange may be a Saint - even if he is, his holiness doesn’t put him beyond criticism. The Pope’s remark is fallacious.

For his contemporaries, Thomas of Aquino was not the Angel of the Schools: he was just another Aristotelian, holding what were deemed as dubious philosophical positions; that’s why two bishops condemned them. How dare this nobody differ from St. Augustine ? Yet he did - as did St. Augustine: so past opinions are not automatically infallible or even valuable. They must be judged according to appropriate criteria.

The Pope’s ideas are unhistorical, & are not validated by being Papal. Illogic remains illogic even when committed by a Pope who is a Saint.

 

[RomanRevert]

Where is this from, who wrote it, why should we believe them, why is it more important than existing documents, exactly what does it clear up, where does it say we have a defective translation of Dei Verbum, why do so many Catholic experts seem to disagree (surely they can read the original instead of the pesky translation)…?

It also skips over the issue of exactly what it is that is innerrantly inspired - the oral or the written word, the Hebrew or Greek words, the originals (which we don’t have), the copies, the translated copies, which translated copies???

Here is the link to the forum posting:
ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum7&recnu=3&number=523970

+JMJ+

 

[patg]

Thus it is sensible to support the general historicity of the gospels, whilst having some doubts about the infancy narratives. Doubts, I must stress, are not a polite way of saying “it didn’t happen”. They mean, “there is some doubt as to what exactly happened”.

There is also the question of exactly what does the term “Innerrant” mean.

If I say it is “raining cats and dogs” and it is raining very hard,

• This is an innerrant statement in our culture
• It is accepted without question as symbolically describing a hard rain
• No one today says I am lying
• It is not literally true and yet no one questions its truth
• I am using a fictional statement which is accepted in our culture as absolute innerrant truth as a true way of describing what is going on with the weather.
  Now we read the Infancy Narratives and even though we KNOW that there are similar stories written about other great leaders in the ancient cultures, we know that this was a common literary form in the ancient world not meant to be literally true, and we don’t believe any of those stories are literally true, we instantly forget everything we know about symbolic innerancy in our culture and demand that these bible stories MUST be literally true. This is where Dei Verbum comes in because it stresses that we must consider things like this and use them to enhance our understanding and interpretation.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

There is also the question of exactly what does the term “Innerrant” mean.

If I say it is “raining cats and dogs” and it is raining very hard,

• This is an innerrant statement in our culture
• It is accepted without question as symbolically describing a hard rain
• No one today says I am lying
• It is not literally true and yet no one questions its truth
• I am using a fictional statement which is accepted in our culture as absolute innerrant truth as a true way of describing what is going on with the weather.
  Now we read the Infancy Narratives and even though we KNOW that there are similar stories written about other great leaders in the ancient cultures, we know that this was a common literary form in the ancient world not meant to be literally true, and we don’t believe any of those stories are literally true, we instantly forget everything we know about symbolic innerancy in our culture and demand that these bible stories MUST be literally true. This is where Dei Verbum comes in because it stresses that we must consider things like this and use them to enhance our understanding and interpretation.

It doesn’t stop there - for, how inerrant is inerrant ?​

Take the Greek of Revelation. It contains errors of grammar. So, if the book is inspired, inspiration does not exclude error all error. So if inspiration is compatible with linguistic error - why is it incompatible with errors in historical content ? It can’t be because historical errors change meaning - for so do linguistic errors.

ISTM that this concern that the Infancy Narratives should be historical is based on the desire that the interpretations of the past should not be overthrown; & that in turn, on a fear that if they are, the Faith will fall to pieces.

No-one has said this. It is no more than a guess; all one is claiming for this guess is that, if it is at all true, it would go a considerable way to explaining the strength of the rejection of these more recent methods of understanding the Bible.

 

[patg]

It doesn’t stop there - for, how inerrant is inerrant ?​

Take the Greek of Revelation. It contains errors of grammar. So, if the book is inspired, inspiration does not exclude error all error. So if inspiration is compatible with linguistic error - why is it incompatible with errors in historical content ? It can’t be because historical errors change meaning - for so do linguistic errors.

And which translation is innerrant, which sources from which that translation was constructed are innerrant, and how do we know? We have no original copy of any gospel - why, if innerrancy is so important, didn’t God think to inspire someone to preserve one?

The original copies of all the written sources have completely disappeared**. **The oldest fragment of any portion of the New Testament dates from the 2nd century, 100 years after Jesus’ death. The next oldest fragments (of Matthew, Luke, John, and Thomas) date to about 200. The first complete copy of the Greek New Testament (Codex Sinaiticus) is from the 4th century. Thus, three centuries separate Jesus from the earliest complete surviving copies of the gospels. None of the bibles we use are from a single or original source - they are formed from about 5000 Greek manuscripts that contain all or parts of the new testament. Sort of makes you wonder just what is inspired?

 

[KephasAugustine]

\ Sort of makes you wonder just what is inspired?

No, it sure doesn’t…the Church teaches that it’s all inspired. So that’s what I believe.

 

[patg]

No, it sure doesn’t…the Church teaches that it’s all inspired.

I wish that cleared things up…

 

[Jerry-Jet]

All you historical criticism liberal who don’t really believe in anything answer me this: hopw does one distinguish between a literary form and a fabricated story.

A fabricated story could be set as a literary form and done for a good noble reason.

But guess what–that would be the work of man and wouldn’t be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t “Make the bible up” regardless of what form it is written in!

And if you can’t grasp the distinction I am making it is because you are part of the problem!

But it’s not a new problem.

Throughout the history of the Catholic Church from the time of Jesus there have always been people who just plain old couldn’t believe in the Entirety of the Fullness of Truth!

They were big into “Literary Forms” and the “Historical Critical method” of interpetation of the scriptures even when the disicples were still alive!

We don’t see many of them as martyrs, though.

Their explanation: “Well Jesus didn’t Literally mean that we should give our life up to save it–that was just a Literary device”.

Those same people who refused martyrdom died with that same amount of faith!

Remember this: People who are big believers in literary devices and small believers in plain spoken literal truth will get their just reward.

Do you want to be one of them?

 

[patg]

All you historical criticism liberal who don’t really believe in anything answer me this: hopw does one distinguish between a literary form and a fabricated story.

A fabricated story could be set as a literary form and done for a good noble reason.

But guess what–that would be the work of man and wouldn’t be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t “Make the bible up” regardless of what form it is written in!

And if you can’t grasp the distinction I am making it is because you are part of the problem!

But it’s not a new problem.

Throughout the history of the Catholic Church from the time of Jesus there have always been people who just plain old couldn’t believe in the Entirety of the Fullness of Truth!

They were big into “Literary Forms” and the “Historical Critical method” of interpetation of the scriptures even when the disicples were still alive!

We don’t see many of them as martyrs, though.

Their explanation: “Well Jesus didn’t Literally mean that we should give our life up to save it–that was just a Literary device”.

Those same people who refused martyrdom died with that same amount of faith!

Remember this: People who are big believers in literary devices and small believers in plain spoken literal truth will get their just reward.

Do you want to be one of them?

Yes, and I am glad the Church agrees with me.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

All you historical criticism liberal who don’t really believe in anything answer me this: hopw does one distinguish between a literary form and a fabricated story.

“X doesn’t really believe anything” certainly doesn’t describe any critic I’ve ever read or come across. Historical criticism is entirely compatible with faith in Christ as Lord & God - one requires the grace of faith, the other does not.​

As for the question: “Experience”, is probably the shortest answer. That, & investigation of the details of the text. How does one know that a sentence in English is not written in Spanish ? By comparison, & observation of the features of the two. As for texts - the same answer. It would be difficult to explain swimming to someone who knows nothing of water, buoyancy, & so on; the only way to know what swimming is like in practice, is to do it. Otherwise it is going to sound laborious, artificial, & rather pointless. There is no substitute for experience.

A fabricated story could be set as a literary form and done for a good noble reason.

But guess what–that would be the work of man and wouldn’t be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Why must that be so ?​

Are the parables accounts of actual events ?

The Holy Spirit doesn’t “Make the bible up” regardless of what form it is written in!

And if you can’t grasp the distinction I am making it is because you are part of the problem!

I’m not sure I do. What problem ? And what’s this about “[m]aking the Bible up ?” That has nothing to do with critical scholarship - I think we are talking at cross-purposes ​

But it’s not a new problem.

Throughout the history of the Catholic Church from the time of Jesus there have always been people who just plain old couldn’t believe in the Entirety of the Fullness of Truth!

They were big into “Literary Forms” and the “Historical Critical method” of interpetation of the scriptures even when the disicples were still alive!

It’s a modern method, so I doubt that ​

Even if you were right - how is the making of these distinctions incompatible with faith in Christ - isn’t a letter different from a parable ? Is a hymn of praise the same sort of text as a confession of sin ? Genesis 1 is not a parable, neither is Isaiah 7 an apocalypse - these distinctions are not imposed on the text, but come from it.

We don’t see many of them as martyrs, though.

Neither was St. Athanasius - what of it ?​

Their explanation: “Well Jesus didn’t Literally mean that we should give our life up to save it–that was just a Literary device”.

Those same people who refused martyrdom died with that same amount of faith!

I hope that you can support these statements.​

When it rains, do domesticated mammals fall miaowing & barking from the clouds ? I don’t think so

Remember this: People who are big believers in literary devices and small believers in plain spoken literal truth will get their just reward.

Do you want to be one of them?

That is a false & needless distinction - saying that the books use literary devices is not the same as saying they are untrue.​

Truths can be expressed in a great variety of ways - such as metaphor. If we are to consider true only that which is “plain” “literal”, we must suppose that God has:

• nostrils
• a net
• a sword
• an eye
• a hand

• & that

• Jerusalem is at the centre of the world
• which has four corners
• & that the netherworld is below the ground

• & also that

• the mountains skipped
• & the trees danced
• & (IIRC) the sea was afraid
• the trees can talk
• the trees intended to elect a king
• Assyria is a tree
• Jesus has vine-branches growing from him
• Jesus has a mane
• God is a roaring lion
• • & also a fire
    For the “plain” “literal” text says all these things & many others of the same kind. All these absurdities & falsehoods come, not from the books, but from failing to read the books as though they were written by intelligent human beings who made use of literary genres, figures of speech, & other means of adorning their message. Why should they not ?

 

[JMMK]

I just fail to see why the author of Luke’s gospel would stretch the story to fit an angle of the prophesy of Micah, that didn’t directly refer to the Messiah, and use a census that if it happened would be within the living memory of the people being taught this. It lacks any sort of sense that this would be a literary device to entice others to believe.

I fail to see the motive.

BTW, there are 14 nativity scenes in the Vatican City, only one of which is Joseph’s dream from Matthew.