Please explain WHY that is not a historical statement. What exactly is necessary for a historical statement in these days of ours. Please explain what you mean by “our current definition and criteria for history.” Does this mean no one could make “historical statements” until our own time?
The problem relates to those who try to apply modern questions and standards of accuracy to biblical times. Our definition of history is not the ancient biblical author’s definition. They were not concerned as we are about bias. They were not concerned as we are about actual historical reality. They frequently use the technique of psuedo-authorship where a document was attributed to some famous person of antiquity so as to give the document greater authority (in the eyeas of the author). Two examples are ascribing the Psalms to David and all the Pauline letters to Paul.
The ancient author would not see these as “errors.” They saw them as acceptable literary devices to make a specific point for a specific purpose. As such it is facetious to hold them up to scorn JUST BECAUSE we have DIFFERENT sensibilities.
Current criteria of history requires a freedom from bias and objectivity. It requires that the claim be empirically proveable from a variety of independent sources who have no ax to grind. An example of a historical statement in the empirical modern sense of the term is “the U.S. declared its independence from Great Britain on July 4, 1776.” We have the document, it is specifically dated, we have the writings of the various participants, we have histories quoting these sources by both British and American historians. They all agree that this is a historical fact.
Jesus death for man’s sins, and His ressurection cannot be proven/disproven in this way. Therefore they are not historical statements and I argue not precise to call them such. Yes, They DID Happen (which is of course your meaning of history) but I argue it is FAITH not REASON that tells us that.
While I am specifically avoiding being categorical in my statements, I would argue that in almost every case where it is clear that the Holy Spirit is making a historical statement, i.e. stating that something actually happened as described, that statement is a matter of FAITH. It has been specifically defined as a matter of FAITH by the Church (e.g. the Virgin Birth of Jesus)
My point is that we shouldn’t even try to “prove” these things from a historical or scientific standpoint. They are not proveable in that sense.
The methodologies of modern biblical criticism can serve as a guide as to what the Holy Spirit is asserting in a passage. The Catechism declares that the Holy Spirit’s assertion is to be found in the literal meaning of the passage (this in no way denies the various spiritual meanings to be found in a passage as long as they are supported by the literal).
There are many statements that appear to us, given our modern 20th - 21st century understanding of the English language and our culture’s use of semantics (e.g. slang, - where the correct understanding of the meaning of the term depends on whether you are in tune with the current culture), that are not the same as that of the biblical author. These may or may not be assertations of historical fact in the empirical, objective, 20th century sense of the term. In many cases Archaeology confirms the historical record of the bible. In other cases, it does not and indeed, in the majority view, Archaeology contradicts the biblical narrative.
Through careful study of the literal and spiritual senses of scripture and careful study to conform our interpretation of the bible to the mind of the Church we can avoid needless and fruitless discussion with those who wish to disparage the bible to “prove” God and spiritual matters do not exist.
Corry
